what are the suns thinking?

scotsman13

Registered User
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Posts
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
salt lake city
maybe this will give you an idea of what the suns have been thinking.

The Los Angeles Lakers have added superstar free agents Gary Payton and Karl Malone.
The Sacramento Kings have strengthened themselves up front by acquiring free agent Brad Miller in a sign-and-trade deal.

Other teams in the ever-powerful Western Conference have upgraded their talent, too.

But what about the the Suns, as the club gathers for training camp this week?

To be sure, they're viewed as a team on the rise again, thanks to a core of young talent bolstered by Amare Stoudemire, the reigning rookie of the year.
But any immediate title hopes seemed to be cut off before they could begin in this past offseason.

The reason: They had to watch this talent-grabbing party from the outside, their noses pressed against the window pane. That's the price they are paying for high-priced contracts doled out years ago, deals that haven't work out as they'd hoped.

The result is that the Suns, who once were a favorite destination for free agents, haven't signed a major free agent since landing Tony Delk in the summer of 2000.

Barring a sudden change of events, they won't be able to do so again for another three years.

Until then, the Suns say they are committed to developing their young, athletic talent base of Stephon Marbury, Shawn Marion, Stoudemire and Joe Johnson.

"Although the temptation was there" to join the talent hunt this summer, Suns president Bryan Colangelo said, "We decided to stick with the plan.

"We've got a core. It's an impressive group. They're dedicated and committed. . . . They're young, athletic and coachable."

The Suns don't have many options along these lines. The club is paying $25.2 million combined to Tom Gugliotta and Penny Hardaway this season because of long-term contracts issued in 1999. Gugliotta's deal runs out after this season, while Hardaway's has three seasons to run.

That's when the Suns finally will be liberated to pursue free agents. (Hardaway can opt out of the final two years of his contract, but repeatedly has said he will not, as he would be giving up about $30 million in guaranteed salary).

Around the NBA, the most common way to add prime talent, without giving up any in return, is to add a significant player through the "middle-class exception" to the salary cap. Such contracts start at about $4.9 million these days.

Of the NBA's 29 teams, the 26 who are above the salary cap are eligible to use all or part of this exception. According to the NBA Players' Association, 17 teams used the full exception or a portion of it this past year; eight teams, notably the Lakers — when Payton accepted what was, for him, a below-market deal — used the full exception while nine teams used a portion of it.

The Suns had to sit and watch.

That's because their committed payroll for this season — as Marion's contract extension kicks in — is about $66.7 million. As a result, they will likely pay a luxury tax payment of more than $10 million; the tax threshold — though it won't be known exactly until after the season — is estimated at just below $56 million. (For each dollar a team's payroll exceeds the threshold, a dollar of tax is assessed).

Assuming that the break-even point for NBA teams is roughly that same tax threshold, the Suns could lose in the range of $20 million in the upcoming season. Last season, a Suns official indicated that losses were in the $5 million range.

Said Colangelo, who did not mention any specific projections on losses, "The No. 1 priority of every team is to be competitive and operate with a profit.

"Operating with a profit means being under the luxury-tax threshold and being successful at the box office."

Asked about the future, Colangelo said, "On paper, we'll have flexibility in three years."

The Suns' present circumstances are a far cry from the franchise's good ol' days, when they were able to sign such established stars as Danny Ainge, Danny Manning and Clifford Robinson to deals favorable to the Suns.

Back then, salaries were smaller and an occasional mistake had more modest effects on a team's plans.

Recalls Frank Johnson, who played for the Suns in their glory days of the mid-’90s and now is the Suns' coach, "We had a stretch where people would come play for the minimum. Things were going well then.

"Things are going that way for the Lakers, now.
"We'll get to that point, where people will want to come play for us. We can become a free agent magnet again." Johnson points out the Suns could still add a significant player, if one is willing to play for the veteran's minimum of $1 million; journeyman center Scott Williams is doing that now, for the second straight season.

But when Johnson talks about the Suns' title chances, he generally talks about three years down the road. Among those who must wonder what might have been are Gugliotta and Hardaway. Their Suns' careers have been marked by injuries and inconsistent production.

Asked to assess his Suns' career, Gugliotta — who, entering his sixth year with the club, is the senior Sun — said, "What is it called? Murphy's Law?"

Yes, things have gone wrong, from a life-threatening seizure believed to have been caused by his use of a dietary supplement, a career-threatening knee injury and subsequent foot problems that Gugliotta believes were caused by compensating for the bum knee.

"It's been disappointing," he said. "When you're making the kind of money I am ($11.7 million this season as part of a six-year, $58.5 million deal), you're expected to do things."

Making Gugliotta's dilemma even more difficult is that he has always played best as a starter. But on the Suns, he will be a reserve, as Stoudemire has claimed the power forward spot.

Gugliotta's experience in the role didn't go well last season, causing him to develop all sorts of appreciation for "eighth, ninth and 10th men on their teams, who can come in three times a month and be effective.

"That's hard to do."

In the upcoming season, Gugliotta said he'd "like to play a lot with Amare," figuring his ability to hit mid-range jumpers will make it tough for big men to double-team the Suns' young phenom.

"I think I can develop the confidence to be effective," Gugliotta said. "I wouldn't say that would redeem my previous five years. But it would add a lot."

As for Hardaway, the one-time "next Michael Jordan" with the Orlando Magic got off to a slow start when he joined the Suns in the fall of ’99. But he came on strong in the playoffs that season, leading the Suns to an upset of the defending champion San Antonio Spurs.

But he suffered a knee injury during that series, one that he now says caused him to take "about 14 cortisone shots" to continue playing.

"I damaged myself" by continuing to play, he said. "That set me back."

Hardaway has since undergone three operations on his now arthritic left knee, the same one that had undergone two operations when he played in Orlando (the Suns say he was healthy when they acquired him).

Hardaway played only four games the next season, seemed relatively healthy but inconsistent in the 2001-02 season, then had a relatively solid but unspectacular showing last season. Hardaway and Gugliotta say they're now healthy and ready to go, that they've been able to concentrate on sharpening their basketball skills this summer rather than concentrating on overcoming injuries.

"When you rehab," said Hardaway, who will make $13.5 million this season, "you don't really have a chance to get better. You end up nursing yourself."

Gugliotta agreed. Talking about the switch from rehab to playing, he said, "It's hard to jump on a moving train." Last season, he acknowledged, he felt "almost overmatched, overwhelmed. I'd never felt like that in my life, at any level."

The Suns hope they can stay healthy and productive until their Suns' careers end. And when that happens, the Suns — finally — will have the flexibility to go after big-name free agents again.

BONUS SHOT: In the NBA's new two-tiered training camp system, the Suns' young players will report on Monday, then start training camp at the club's old home, Veterans Memorial Coliseum, on Tuesday. Veterans report Thursday, and the camp will shift to America West Arena.

The workouts are closed to the public. The change in the system was a concession granted to veteran players in exchange for lengthening Round 1 of the playoffs from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven format. The Suns cited the new format as a reason for abandoning Flagstaff as their training camp site, as club officials didn't want to be shuttling different sets of players to Northern Arizona.


based on this the suns are looking at loosing somewhere around 20 million. that is the 10 million they were over the cap and then matching dollar for dollar tax. so by cuting 1 million off the their saleries it saves them 2 million dollars, also there are 2 numbers here that you need to understand. the cap (43.8 or something like that) and the the tax point. the tax trashhold is the point at which you are charged a dollar for dollar tax in ever dollar that you are over the cap. so lets say that the tax treshhold is 53 million, and the suns are at 54 million. so by cutting 1 million in salery the suns can end up saving over 18.4 million dollars (saleries + taxes) by dropping that million dollars. if the suns can unload the 5 millions of knights contract that would help them out even more and maybe in make the team show a profit for the year.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,495
Reaction score
9,715
Location
L.A. area
so by cutting 1 million in salery the suns can end up saving over 18.4 million dollars (saleries + taxes) by dropping that million dollars.

Since this is clearly a typo, what did you mean to write?
 
OP
OP
S

scotsman13

Registered User
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Posts
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
salt lake city
i sorry that you didnt understand that there are 2 states of being over the cap. the normal cap which is something around 43.8 million and the tax treshhold (the point at which if you go over you are charged a dollar for dollar tax for every dollar that you are over the salery cap).

so if you are a team that is at 44 million they are only paying the 200,000 that they are over the cap. but if that team resigns its own free agent to a deal for 14 million dollars. that would raise the teams cap up to 56 million dollars. now the second cap comes into effect. this is the tax tresh hold point, if you pass this point the team will be charged a dollar for dollor tax for every dollar they spent on over the cap (the first number). so if the cap is 43.8 and the tax trest hold is 52 million the team would be charge 14.2 by the nba for going over the salery cap. and they would have also paid out that 14.2 in salery. so if that team had signed that player at 10 million and not 14 they would have been under the salery tax tresh hold meaning that that saving of 4 million dollars would having add up to a total saving of 18.2 for only cutting 4 million dollars in salery off the team.

i hope this help clear up this issue :D
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,495
Reaction score
9,715
Location
L.A. area
i sorry that you didnt understand that there are 2 states of being over the cap.

Uh, right. I accept your apology, thanks.

In case you want to clear up your own understanding, read on:

so if you are a team that is at 44 million they are only paying the 200,000 that they are over the cap.

Okay, let's first start by getting some terminology straight. If a team's player payroll is $44 million, they are paying $44 million. Whatever amount is over the salary cap makes no difference.

but if that team resigns its own free agent to a deal for 14 million dollars. that would raise the teams cap up to 56 million dollars.

No, it would raise their player payroll to $56 million. That's not a "cap."

so if the cap is 43.8 and the tax trest hold is 52 million the team would be charge 14.2 by the nba for going over the salery cap.

No. The team is charged the luxury tax only for the amount over the luxury tax threshold. If the luxury tax threshold is $52 million, and the team's player payroll is $56 million, the luxury tax charge is only $4 million. The true salary cap figure of $43.8 million does not enter into the calculation.

team had signed that player at 10 million and not 14 they would have been under the salery tax tresh hold meaning that that saving of 4 million dollars would having add up to a total saving of 18.2 for only cutting 4 million dollars in salery off the team.

Reducing salary can never result in more than double savings. If a team is over the luxury tax threshold, a $1 million reduction in player payroll results in a $2 million savings. A team is not automatically liable for an $8.2 million luxury tax charge ($52 million minus $43.8 million) the instant they step over the luxury tax line.

i hope this help clear up this issue

Yes, I trust that it will.
 
OP
OP
S

scotsman13

Registered User
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Posts
1,418
Reaction score
0
Location
salt lake city
elindholm

i beleive you are wrong. there are 2 points the salery cap and the tax thest hold. but in truth both of us more then likely have very little idea on how it works.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,495
Reaction score
9,715
Location
L.A. area
but in truth both of us more then likely have very little idea on how it works.

I have no idea how you feel comfortable drawing conclusions about what I do or do not understand.

I am no longer interested in sustaining this exchange. You may believe whatever you like.

I am reminded, however, of an animal referred to in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, reputed to be so stupid that "it believes if you can't see it, it can't see you."
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,420
Reaction score
16,938
Location
Round Rock, TX
Originally posted by elindholm


I am reminded, however, of an animal referred to in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, reputed to be so stupid that "it believes if you can't see it, it can't see you."

Ouch, cheap shot!
 

Ryanwb

ASFN IDOL
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,576
Reaction score
6
Location
Mesa
You must be registered for see images


I love reading a music teacher talk trash :biglaugh:
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,495
Reaction score
9,715
Location
L.A. area
Hey, you're the second person to post my photo for no comprehensible reason. I guess I'm inspiring a cult. (Cue spooky soundtrack.) You will alllll ... doooo .... myyyy .... biddinnngggg...

He started it. I don't like being told that I don't understand something when it's pretty obvious I do. If you want to call me an ignoramus, you'd better be able to back it up.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,420
Reaction score
16,938
Location
Round Rock, TX
Originally posted by elindholm
Hey, you're the second person to post my photo for no comprehensible reason. I guess I'm inspiring a cult. (Cue spooky soundtrack.) You will alllll ... doooo .... myyyy .... biddinnngggg...

He started it. I don't like being told that I don't understand something when it's pretty obvious I do. If you want to call me an ignoramus, you'd better be able to back it up.

Aah, I took it as he was apologizing because you asked him what he meant--as if you didn't understand what he meant to say in your quoted line.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,495
Reaction score
9,715
Location
L.A. area
Aah, I took it as he was apologizing because you asked him what he meant

It's difficult to get that from, "i beleive you are wrong ... in truth both of us more then likely have very little idea on how it works."
 

Joe Mama

Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
9,501
Reaction score
964
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Scotsman, you are wrong. Eric is correct. The salary cap has absolutely nothing to do with figuring what a team's luxury tax penalty is going to be. They are penalized dollar for dollar for the amount they are over the luxury tax limit (projected to be $54-56 million).

Eric, take it easy on him. He might have told you that you were wrong when you are not, but he wasn't unpleasant about it. He's misinformed, not stupid.

Originally posted by elindholm

but if that team resigns its own free agent to a deal for 14 million dollars. that would raise the teams cap up to 56 million dollars.

No, it would raise their player payroll to $56 million. That's not a "cap."

Actually you fools are both wrong. If the teams salary was $44 million in the re-signed a player for $14 million in the new teams salary would be $58 million. You see 44 + 14 = 58. :)

Reducing salary can never result in more than double savings. If a team is over the luxury tax threshold, a $1 million reduction in player payroll results in a $2 million savings. A team is not automatically liable for an $8.2 million luxury tax charge ($52 million minus $43.8 million) the instant they step over the luxury tax line.

Not necessarily. As I understand it if a team is over the luxury tax threshold by just $1 million and they reduce their team salary by that $1 million they could save much more than $2 million. That is because they would be one of the teams underneath the luxury tax limit making them eligible for some of that luxury tax money that needs to be distributed amongst the teams under the luxury tax. At least that's how I understand things. I'm not sure anyone really knows exactly how the luxury tax collections will be distributed.

Joe Mama
 

capologist

Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Posts
415
Reaction score
65
Originally posted by Joe Mama
I'm not sure anyone really knows exactly how the luxury tax collections will be distributed.
It’s entirely up to the Commissioner’s discretion. As far as the Collective Bargaining Agreement is concerned, David Stern could decide at the end of the season to give all the money to the team with the prettiest dancers.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,495
Reaction score
9,715
Location
L.A. area
Eric, take it easy on him.

*** chagrined ***

Sorry all.

Actually you fools are both wrong. If the teams salary was $44 million in the re-signed a player for $14 million in the new teams salary would be $58 million.

So the player was working for free before?

I just assumed that his salary in the previous year was $2 million. A new salary of $14 million means a bump of $12 million.

That is because they would be one of the teams underneath the luxury tax limit making them eligible for some of that luxury tax money that needs to be distributed amongst the teams under the luxury tax. At least that's how I understand things.

True, I swept that under the rug. I was trying to keep things simple, but technically what I said was not completely correct. On the other hand, certainly the difference is not going to be in the ballpark of $10 million.
 

Joe Mama

Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
9,501
Reaction score
964
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Originally posted by elindholm
Actually you fools are both wrong. If the teams salary was $44 million in the re-signed a player for $14 million in the new teams salary would be $58 million.

So the player was working for free before?

I just assumed that his salary in the previous year was $2 million. A new salary of $14 million means a bump of $12 million.

Who's the fool now? Me of course.

That is because they would be one of the teams underneath the luxury tax limit making them eligible for some of that luxury tax money that needs to be distributed amongst the teams under the luxury tax. At least that's how I understand things.

True, I swept that under the rug. I was trying to keep things simple, but technically what I said was not completely correct. On the other hand, certainly the difference is not going to be in the ballpark of $10 million.

I imagine that if they decided to distribute the money to the teams that did not go over the luxury tax each of those teams would receive a few million dollars.

Joe Mama
 

Latest posts

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
553,973
Posts
5,412,955
Members
6,319
Latest member
route66
Top