The Ayton Plan

[Cheesebeef]

Yes, using Shamet, Stix and maybe another bit player or two plus 3 first round picks and a couple of pick swaps. To have a legit chance of making this happen, you just need an unhappy star interested in coming to Phoenix and a franchise thinking about rebuilding.

Lol... no. Sorry, that just not realistic in the keastyou’re not getting Ja Morant or SGA for a complete pile of crap and 1st round picks likely to be at the bottom of the first round. That is such an unlikely scenario, because it also assumes you STILL have Ayton making us a top draw right after you’ve totally pissed him off.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Who said that? I believe that's how you interpreted it but I know you questioned me before when I was clear you couldn't have 3 designated player max deals. That's league rules and not a team you mentioned was capable of avoiding that. What makes a max a designated player max is that 5th year, which I've elaborated on before and you ignored to run with this narrative that people now misunderstand the rules.

You’re making it out to be a plausible scenario that we could do that without trading away one of the MAX deal guys to make it happen. It’s spin by the Suns and the usual defenders of Sarver previously when we were awful have lined up to support it.

 

[Hoop Head]

Using WHAT to trade? Landry Shamet, Saric and Stix? Sorry, the only way a trade for one of those guys happen is IF Ayton was used to close the deal. The idea that was the reason why we didn’t want to give Ayton 5 is incredibly specious to me.

Mikal, Cam J, Shamet, picks. There are lots of ways. You don't always lose a superstar to add one. It's about having options. Would you give up our depth to replace CP3 with Shai? I would because a big 3 of Booker, Ayton, and Shai is a contender but a team without CP3 and just SGA and Booker surrounded by Mikal, Cam J, and Shamet isn't a contender.

 

[Hoop Head]

You’re making it out to be a plausible scenario that we could do that without trading away one of the MAX deal guys to make it happen. It’s spin by the Suns and the usual defenders of Sarver previously when we were awful have lined up to support it.

Look at what Paul was traded for, to Houston, OKC, and Phoenix. Look at Russell Westbrook has been dealt for. Look at what PG 13 has been traded for twice. Look at what Oladipo, a rookie max player, was dealt for out of Orlando to OKC and then to Indiana.

There are plenty of instances of max players being moved for various reasons where a star was not on the other side. Packages vary comparable to Mikal, Cam J, Shamet, picks.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Once the season starts tonight, I am not going to talk about Ayton's contract anymore. It takes the fun out of watching basketball.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Why make a formal offer of 4 years max if the other party says they won't consider it?

WHAT IS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 4 YEAR AND 5 YEAR MAX?!?

If you're comfortable with a 4 year max, it's absurd that one more year would be an absolute deal breaker, especially for a team that allegedly is trying to win a championship and retain young talent.

Keeping the powder dry for future superstars is a hilarious cop out. Some of you sound like the old Cards board members making excuses for Bidwill. (No matter how bad the owner, you'll still always find excuse makers!)

All accounts seem to indicate Ayton's team said they wouldn't consider a deal less than the full max.

Why would they? The market has been set, and there is no debate that lesser players were offered better contracts than Ayton. Sarver thought he could use his leverage to sign Ayton to a below market offer, and Ayton told him to shove it. I don't blame him.

Sarver tried to play it cute and have his cake and eat it too, and it blew up in his face.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

WHAT IS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 4 YEAR AND 5 YEAR MAX?!?

If you're comfortable with a 4 year max, it's absurd that one more year would be an absolute deal breaker, especially for a team that allegedly is trying to win a championship and retain young talent.

Keeping the powder dry for future superstars is a hilarious cop out. Some of you sound like the old Cards board members making excuses for Bidwill. (No matter how bad the owner, you'll still always find excuse makers!)


Why would they? The market has been set, and there is no debate that lesser players were offered better contracts than Ayton. Sarver thought he could use his leverage to sign Ayton to a below market offer, and Ayton told him to shove it. I don't blame him.

Sarver tried to play it cute and have his cake and eat it too, and it blew up in his face.

Flexibility. Once you have two 5 year max players you can no longer bring in a third and I am assuming they see some possible situations where such a player could become available in the next couple years.

Why cripple yourself in such a way unless you are certain that the 2nd player that you are giving that deal to can be a top two player on a championship team? Ayton certainly hasn't proven that he can be that type of player.

 

[Hoop Head]

Why would they? The market has been set, and there is no debate that lesser players were offered better contracts than Ayton. Sarver thought he could use his leverage to sign Ayton to a below market offer, and Ayton told him to shove it. I don't blame him.

Answers to everything else you've asked have been given, you can ignore them but that doesn't create answers that you will like. As to this point though the market doesn't really dictate years in a contract, it dictates money. Ayton could have received max money but he wanted 5 years and only 1 team can give that, the Suns. They chose not to. You can dislike that and so can Ayton but there are reasons for that. The market can't offer him a 5 year deal. At most he can get a 4 deal elsewhere. The Suns can still offer more money by way of larger salary increases annually and have the right to match any offer he receives next summer.

Unless he does something to change the front offices mind, they aren't giving him 5 years, even then it's not a guarantee they will. He'd need to play out his qualifying offer in the following season to leave to his preferred destination and then sign for 3 years there in hopes they'll offer a 5 year deal at that time. So it'll take 4 years for him to get a 5 year deal elsewhere, if that's what he's set on.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Flexibility. Once you have two 5 year max players you can no longer bring in a third and I am assuming they see some possible situations where such a player could become available in the next couple years.

I hope you're right, but part of me worries it's cover for a financial decision, not a basketball one.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Answers to everything else you've asked have been given, you can ignore them but that doesn't create answers that you will like.

Ha, you can call them answers if you like, some might call them excuses.

As to this point though the market doesn't really dictate years in a contract, it dictates money.

Wrong, it's both! If other lesser players get 5 years, then the expectation is set. Ayton wanted a 5 year max for that reason, you understand this, right?

The Suns can still offer more money by way of larger salary increases annually and have the right to match any offer he receives next summer.

Of course! That's their leverage, and what they tried to use to get Ayton to sign a lesser deal.

Unless he does something to change the front offices mind, they aren't giving him 5 years, even then it's not a guarantee they will. He'd need to play out his qualifying offer in the following season to leave to his preferred destination and then sign for 3 years there in hopes they'll offer a 5 year deal at that time. So it'll take 4 years for him to get a 5 year deal elsewhere, if that's what he's set on.

Yeah, and this is why Sarver has chosen to alienate a young superstar, and you among others have accepted the rationale behind it, in spite of 10+ years of mismanagement. In case you hadn't noticed, this is an all in league. If you're making decisions based on financials and not basketball, you will not win a championship.

I hope it's not a distraction, I hope it motivates Ayton and works out in the end, and I hope that we'll add another superstar down the line, but we could have saved a lot of headaches by just extending him.

I bet you won't be so understanding if this all blows up in our faces.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I hope you're right, but part of me worries it's cover for a financial decision, not a basketball one.

Well, Sarver is still the guy on top so sure, it could be nothing more than a financial override by the boss. But I doubt it.

I think he wants to win for a lot of reasons but money will always be number one for him. Winning right now is going to bring them a lot more money especially when you throw in the gambling income. Making this team irrelevant will save far less than winning can create IMO.

 

[Hoop Head]

I bet you won't be so understanding if this all blows up in our faces

My understanding won't change. Nothing really changes in that regard. I hope it works out, sure, I'm not sure why anyone who is a Suns fan would root against it. If it doesn't then that sucks, for all involved.

My emotions aren't attached to what went down. I would preferred a deal get done, like everyone else. I'll wait to get angry or upset though until there is a real reason to, like if Ayton starts loafing through the season, badmouths the team, or asks out. Until that happens, I hope we continue to move forward and Sarver and James Jones were sincere in that they're willing to retain Ayton for max money for 4 years and lock that up next summer.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I hope you're right, but part of me worries it's cover for a financial decision, not a basketball one.

I just don't see why that would be the case. It's not like we weren't well over the cap this past season. I think this has more to do with them not being certain that Ayton can be that dominant player that you want a 5 year max player to be. Therefor it could be unwise to not only tie max money up with him, but also lock up your 2nd 5 year contract as well.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I just don't see why that would be the case. It's not like we weren't well over the cap this past season. I think this has more to do with them not being certain that Ayton can be that dominant player that you want a 5 year max player to be. Therefor it could be unwise to not only tie max money up with him, but also lock up your 2nd 5 year contract as well.

I guess they've determined they're more worried about him becoming a bust then leaving. So it goes.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I guess they've determined they're more worried about him becoming a bust then leaving. So it goes.

I think they are more worried that he will be no more than an average center when Chris Paul is out of the picture.

 

[Covert Rain]

Why make a formal offer of 4 years max if the other party says they won't consider it? All accounts seem to indicate Ayton's team said they wouldn't consider a deal less than the full max. It appears they entered negotiations not willing to negotiate. It wouldn't have mattered if a 4 year deal was offered since they said from the get go they wouldn't accept it.

It's possible that's false but it makes sense. If you're speaking with your partner about going on vacation and they say they only want to go to the Bahamas and aren't willing to consider a trip anywhere else does it really matter if actually offer to take them to Hawaii? They made their intentions clear, why would they care that wasn't offered?




I'm not sure why it seems you're so hung up on the only way to add a player on a designated rookie max is by signing them ourselves. It would be by trade to replace Chris Paul, most likely. It will require flexibility to do that.

Boston couldn't make an offer for Anthony Davis 2 years ago because they already had Kyrie and Tatum on designated max deals. They had to wait until the offseason to do so when Kyrie expired because those 3 had designated max deals. They knew they were likely to lose Kyrie anyway but their hands were tied and the Lakers were capable of swinging a deal a half season before Boston could even make a legal pitch.

That is proof this happens and hurts teams. They could have built a better package around Jaylen Brown and picks but that didn't matter and had to miss out on a franchise changing big while they lost a talented yet mercurial PG for nothing in free agency, all while they were forced to watch since they couldn't act.

No, the mixed comments seem to indicate that the Suns can't get their story straight. According Ayton's side NO MAX was ever offered for any length of time. The Suns make statements contradicting themselves two sentences apart. First it was basically "we think" they wouldn't except a 5 year max indicating it was "evident". Then the next sentence 3 to 4 was on the table. The first comment matches what the Ayton camp was saying that at no time was a max of any length offered. Sprinkle in a lame excuse about rookie extension contracts and let's not forget indicating he isn't at the same tier as his peers.

It's pretty easy to see they are scrambling to control the narrative and screwing the pooch. Just about everybody across the league is blasting us.

What do you mean hung up? If you call being realist about getting your hands on another teams Rookie that is SO GOOD he deserves a rookie max contract?!!? Is it possible? Sure. So is winning the lottery. The odds are not in a favor by any stretch and to use a lottery scenario as in excuse?

Weaksauce.

Sure...if that is the definition of hung up. Make a poster and put my picture on it. I will smile for the camera.

 

[Hoop Head]

What do you mean hung up? If you call being realist about getting your hands on another teams Rookie that is SO GOOD he deserves a rookie max contract?!!? Is it possible? Sure. So is winning the lottery. The odds are not in a favor by any stretch and to use a lottery scenario as in excuse?

Weaksauce.

Sure...if that is the definition of hung up. Make a poster and put my picture on it. I will smile for the camera

You keep saying Rookie but it is not limited to an actual rookie. You keep going back to saying rookie and describing rookies. It limits acquiring a player signed to the designated max in the first 9 years in the league. A player on a designated rookie max extension. The Suns couldn't consider adding someone like SGA, Trae Young, Ja Morant, DeAaron Fox, until those players first 2 contracts have expired. That's why I used the Anthony Davis deal to show you it's not a matter of rookies but veterans who are still playing on early contracts, those signed coming off rookie extensions.

 

[Cheesebeef]

You keep saying Rookie but it is not limited to an actual rookie. You keep going back to saying rookie and describing rookies. It limits acquiring a player signing the first 9 years in the league. A player on a designated rookie max extension. The Suns couldn't consider adding someone like SGA, Trae Young, Ja Morant, DeAaron Fox, until those players first 2 contracts have expired. That's why I used the Anthony Davis deal to show you it's not a matter of rookies but veterans who are still playing on early contracts, those signed coming off rookie extensions.

Again, the idea that we’re going to not lock down our core for some miracle Dream that we could get Trey Young, Ja Morant or Fox (who doesn’t deserve Supermax anyway), without breaking up the core which is the entire reason you’d want the third piece is pretty ludicrous.

You take bird in hand, not leave it on a ledge so that maybe, in some crazy set of circumstances the young Uber superstar demands out of his team and we could get him for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Hoop Head]

Again, the idea that we’re going to not lock down our core for some miracle Dream that we could get Trey Young, Ja Morant or Fox (who doesn’t deserve Supermax anyway), without breaking up the core which is the entire reason you’d want the third piece is pretty ludicrous.

You take bird in hand, not leave it on a ledge so that maybe, in some crazy set of circumstances the young Uber superstar demands out of his team and we could get him for pennies on the dollar.

Maybe. I'm not saying it will happen. I like having the option. Ayton can earn more money overall with a 4 year max because he can sign a new deal earlier which starts at 30% of the cap since he'll have more than 6 years in the league. I'd prefer only having him locked in for 4 years to 5 because I worry about his motivation and how he'd look after Paul is gone.

He'd have the same length of deal as Mikal. It's good for one but not the other? I'd prefer Mikal for 5 years over Ayton if I had to choose. Thankfully Mikal's team didn't push for that. If he had though then we would have had to choose between the 2 of them since we already have Booker occupying one of those slots.

 

[Covert Rain]

Again, the idea that we’re going to not lock down our core for some miracle Dream that we could get Trey Young, Ja Morant or Fox (who doesn’t deserve Supermax anyway), without breaking up the core which is the entire reason you’d want the third piece is pretty ludicrous.

You take bird in hand, not leave it on a ledge so that maybe, in some crazy set of circumstances the young Uber superstar demands out of his team and we could get him for pennies on the dollar.

So much this. It's a razor thin excuse in which the Suns seem to have moved the goal post multiple times in their "explanation". I get what Hoop is saying that it's not just about rookies. Still....you have to have the assets to make a move to get said player worthy of a max. You likely would need to give up Booker or Ayton to get said player. It's a miracle scenario. It's why the excuse is such weaksauce.

 

[1Sun]

WHAT IS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 4 YEAR AND 5 YEAR MAX?!?

If you're comfortable with a 4 year max, it's absurd that one more year would be an absolute deal breaker, especially for a team that allegedly is trying to win a championship and retain young talent.

Keeping the powder dry for future superstars is a hilarious cop out. Some of you sound like the old Cards board members making excuses for Bidwill. (No matter how bad the owner, you'll still always find excuse makers!)


Why would they? The market has been set, and there is no debate that lesser players were offered better contracts than Ayton. Sarver thought he could use his leverage to sign Ayton to a below market offer, and Ayton told him to shove it. I don't blame him.

Sarver tried to play it cute and have his cake and eat it too, and it blew up in his face.

Again. He learned nothing at all from the Joe Johnson debacle.

 

[1Sun]

Well, Sarver is still the guy on top so sure, it could be nothing more than a financial override by the boss. But I doubt it.

I think he wants to win for a lot of reasons but money will always be number one for him. Winning right now is going to bring them a lot more money especially when you throw in the gambling income. Making this team irrelevant will save far less than winning can create IMO.

Sarver doesn't think that way, unfortunately. He has a long history of sacrificing long term financial gain for short term financial savings. Penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[1Sun]

My understanding won't change. Nothing really changes in that regard. I hope it works out, sure, I'm not sure why anyone who is a Suns fan would root against it. If it doesn't then that sucks, for all involved.

My emotions aren't attached to what went down. I would preferred a deal get done, like everyone else. I'll wait to get angry or upset though until there is a real reason to, like if Ayton starts loafing through the season, badmouths the team, or asks out. Until that happens, I hope we continue to move forward and Sarver and James Jones were sincere in that they're willing to retain Ayton for max money for 4 years and lock that up next summer.

He has already bad-mouthed the organization over this.

 

[Proximo]

Again. He learned nothing at all from the Joe Johnson debacle.

Well the one difference they mentioned was a 4 year does not count on that 2 rookie max thing with the CBA. Sounds like a dumb reason to me, but maybe that is actually why they didn't want to do it.

 

[1Sun]

You keep saying Rookie but it is not limited to an actual rookie. You keep going back to saying rookie and describing rookies. It limits acquiring a player signed to the designated max in the first 9 years in the league. A player on a designated rookie max extension. The Suns couldn't consider adding someone like SGA, Trae Young, Ja Morant, DeAaron Fox, until those players first 2 contracts have expired. That's why I used the Anthony Davis deal to show you it's not a matter of rookies but veterans who are still playing on early contracts, those signed coming off rookie extensions.

The Suns could add their choice of SGA, Young, Morant or Fox to Booker AND CP3, and it won't matter a darn bit if they don't have a single above-average interior player, which is where losing Ayton leaves them. They then become the Harden/Westbrook Rockets that was a year away from being the worst team in the NBA.