Wiz expected to resign Gooden to minimum

[payitforward]

Wait, so he'd have to wait until his Bucks contract is up for him to start collecting money? I thought the Bucks were the ones in the hole here and that any contract Gooden signed afterwards was gravy.

My understanding is that the Bucks are on the hook for his full contract, and can deduct the value of post-amnesty contracts from what they owe during the life of the amnestied contract. Isn't that why Blatche makes public staements about why he signs for the minimum, so he can stick it to the Wizards. (That's assuming, of course, that he could sign somewhere for more.)

I wonder what happens if you are amnestied and some team wants to offer you a max contract? Wake up, all you amnesty experts! This is important!

This has been posted a few times and I used to know the exact answer but its something like this.

You get amnestied and go on waivers and if a team pays you 2, 3, 4, etc right off waivers, that comes right off the contract that was amnestied.

If you clear waivers, you are an UFA. At that point all the money comes from the other team except their is a formula something like salary - (new contract vet min/2)

65. How do released players apply to team salary? What is set-off?
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q15

The amount the original team gets to set off is limited to one-half the difference between the player's new salary and the minimum salary for a one-year veteran (if the player is a rookie, then the rookie minimum is used instead).

So if Gooden signs for vet min..

So Gooden is (6,680,000 - ($1,448,490 - $1,448,490/2)) = 6,680,000

In this case MIL is on the hook for everything and he makes 8,128,490

If he made say 3M on the open market then

(6,680,000 - ($3,000,000 - $1,448,490/2)) = 5,904,225 ( would would save use $775,775 )

And Gooden would make 9,680,000

So he is leaving about 1.5M on the table and that says the Wizards 775, 775 but he is still making 8.1M next year and if things go well, he will get another contract after this one.

Hands -- no team has any incentive to give Gooden anything but a veteran minimum offer.

For one thing, the league pays part of a veteran minimum salary -- in other words, you don't even have to pay the whole thing!

For another, if you give him more you are essentially giving the team that waived him a bunch of money. That's called p#ssing in your own bowl of soup.

What I especially love about everyone being in a hurry to knight Sir Drew is that just a few years ago, when he didn't even show up when we got him in a trade, I'm sure all the same "everyone"s were damning his name!

Drew Gooden (like all NBA players) plays basketball to make money. It's his profession. Just like an attorney, a banker, or a baker he would like to make as much $$ as he can. Especially since he's near the end of his career, and unlike an attorney he ain't going to be making these big bucks when he's in his 40s and no longer in the league.

[hands11]

Wasn't he amnestied? So it doesn't matter what the wizards pay him.

And haven't we written about this about 100 times ?

Our good friend Mr Gooden is making $6,680,000 next year plus what the Wizards pay him. Sure he could have hunted down some more cash but Gooden has honor. He is loyal to the fact that the Wizards gave him another chance when no one else would. Now next year will be a different story. Then he will only get what his contract pays him and I expect he would ask for more.

But hey. Breaking news. Worth a new thread.

I don't think there was a way for him to get more cash, was there? Not unless someone was going to pay him *more* than his Milwaukee contract.

IOW, he's doing to Milwaukee what Blatche did to the Wizards. Not sure how "honor" fits in to this scenario!

But, great to have him; it'd be hard to get more for a veteran minimum salary than we're likely to get from Drew Gooden! Keep him to 15 minutes a game, and we might get a whole good season out of him.

He can make more. And last I checked, he didn't publicly come out and say he was taking vet min to screw MIL. He was actually very gracious in saying how thankful he was the Wizards gave him a chance when no one else would.

And FYI, Dray said he is going to let teams bid on him this year so that formula will apply when someone pays Dray this year. Hopefully someone throws 4/5M plus at him. That can save Ted 1.5M or so.

Gooden would get BAE money 2M from someone and make an extra 500K, but thats splitting hairs for him at that point.

[Dat2U]

Along with declining the Booker option this is the 2nd good move of the offseason.

Ideally Gooden is your 5th big, especially with Nene's injury woes, so depth is needed. We still need another PF IMO. Hopefully we can find a significant defensive upgrade for Booker.

Poor Dat... I think you'll be seeing Trevor Booker in a Wizards uni for several years to come!

Because he started so often, his qualifying offer rose from the listed $3.4m to $4.7m (the new CBA...). The Wizards didn't want to give him almost $5m for a year, only to make him an unrestricted FA at season's end. They are working on a new multi-year contract.

Now... you may still get lucky (and the Wizards unlucky), because he is unrestricted. So, if another team offers a richer contract he may still be gone. Then we can get your "defensive upgrade," and when we're a worse team for it, I'm sure you'll find another reason. It won't be because we replaced a guy who fills the stat sheet with... who?

I think you confuse productivity with effectiveness. I don't question his productivity or ability to fill the stat sheet, I question how the team performs with him as a whole when Booker is on the court.

IMO we could acquire a "less productive" player who is a significantly better defensive player and actually be a better team for it.

[Dat2U]

Regular season stats will tell you Trevor Booker compares favorably with Taj Gibson. Real games will tell you Gibson is the much more impactful player and its not even close.

[payitforward]

And haven't we written about this about 100 times ?

Our good friend Mr Gooden is making $6,680,000 next year plus what the Wizards pay him. Sure he could have hunted down some more cash but Gooden has honor. He is loyal to the fact that the Wizards gave him another chance when no one else would. Now next year will be a different story. Then he will only get what his contract pays him and I expect he would ask for more.

But hey. Breaking news. Worth a new thread.

I don't think there was a way for him to get more cash, was there? Not unless someone was going to pay him *more* than his Milwaukee contract.

IOW, he's doing to Milwaukee what Blatche did to the Wizards. Not sure how "honor" fits in to this scenario!

But, great to have him; it'd be hard to get more for a veteran minimum salary than we're likely to get from Drew Gooden! Keep him to 15 minutes a game, and we might get a whole good season out of him.

He can make more. And last I checked, he didn't publicly come out and say he was taking vet min to screw MIL. He was actually very gracious in saying how thankful he was the Wizards gave him a chance when no one else would.

And FYI, Dray said he is going to let teams bid on him this year so that formula will apply when someone pays draft this year. Hopefully someone throws 4M plus at this. That can save Ted 1.5M or so.

No, I don't think he can make more -- but someone can quote the CBA to determine which of us is wrong.

I didn't say he was trying to screw Milwaukee. All the same, he's doing the same thing to them that Dray did to us. He's playing for the veteran minimum and collecting the remainder of his contract from his old team.

Btw, I have no problem with him doing that -- nor with Dray doing the same. A contract is a contract. They exist to be fulfilled. If Milwaukee made a bad decision to acquire him and pay what they paid, that should be their problem not his, don't you think? Ditto Dray.

[hands11]

I don't think there was a way for him to get more cash, was there? Not unless someone was going to pay him *more* than his Milwaukee contract.

IOW, he's doing to Milwaukee what Blatche did to the Wizards. Not sure how "honor" fits in to this scenario!

But, great to have him; it'd be hard to get more for a veteran minimum salary than we're likely to get from Drew Gooden! Keep him to 15 minutes a game, and we might get a whole good season out of him.

He can make more. And last I checked, he didn't publicly come out and say he was taking vet min to screw MIL. He was actually very gracious in saying how thankful he was the Wizards gave him a chance when no one else would.

And FYI, Dray said he is going to let teams bid on him this year so that formula will apply when someone pays draft this year. Hopefully someone throws 4M plus at this. That can save Ted 1.5M or so.

No, I don't think he can make more -- but someone can quote the CBA to determine which of us is wrong.

I didn't say he was trying to screw Milwaukee. All the same, he's doing the same thing to them that Dray did to us. He's playing for the veteran minimum and collecting the remainder of his contract from his old team.

Btw, I have no problem with him doing that -- nor with Dray doing the same. A contract is a contract. They exist to be fulfilled. If Milwaukee made a bad decision to acquire him and pay what they paid, that should be their problem not his, don't you think? Ditto Dray.

I already did in my original post. And provided the link to the rules. And wrote the formula.

[daSwami]

The veteran minimum was made for players like Drew Gooden, that is, guys who are past their prime, but can still contribute in a limited role.

[montestewart]

The veteran minimum was made for players like Drew Gooden, that is, guys who are past their prime, but can still contribute in a limited role.

And yet, according to the page hands linked to, he'll be making the minimum plus his amnestied salary. In theory at least, another team could have offered more and Gooden could have been paid more for the season.

Still, I doubt any team would have paid much more than the minimum, and the Wizards seem ready-made for him to show in one-year what he has left, in his attempt to try to prove he deserves another contract. I think signing with the Wizards was the smart move for him, even if other teams showed any interest (I haven't heard that any other teams have. Hi next contract probably will be just the veteran minimum, but who knows? Maybe he has a spectacular 3rd or 4th big season and gets a bunch of starts.

[verbal8]

The veteran minimum was made for players like Drew Gooden, that is, guys who are past their prime, but can still contribute in a limited role.

And yet, according to the page hands linked to, he'll be making the minimum plus his amnestied salary. In theory at least, another team could have offered more and Gooden could have been paid more for the season.

Still, I doubt any team would have paid much more than the minimum, and the Wizards seem ready-made for him to show in one-year what he has left, in his attempt to try to prove he deserves another contract. I think signing with the Wizards was the smart move for him, even if other teams showed any interest (I haven't heard that any other teams have. Hi next contract probably will be just the veteran minimum, but who knows? Maybe he has a spectacular 3rd or 4th big season and gets a bunch of starts.

One advantage of staying with the Wizards is after this season they can keep him with early bird rights for any amount up to the MLE. If he gets a raise now with another team, he only gets 1/2 of the amount and they won't have any way to increase his salary next season.

[daSwami]

The veteran minimum was made for players like Drew Gooden, that is, guys who are past their prime, but can still contribute in a limited role.

And yet, according to the page hands linked to, he'll be making the minimum plus his amnestied salary. In theory at least, another team could have offered more and Gooden could have been paid more for the season.

Still, I doubt any team would have paid much more than the minimum, and the Wizards seem ready-made for him to show in one-year what he has left, in his attempt to try to prove he deserves another contract. I think signing with the Wizards was the smart move for him, even if other teams showed any interest (I haven't heard that any other teams have. Hi next contract probably will be just the veteran minimum, but who knows? Maybe he has a spectacular 3rd or 4th big season and gets a bunch of starts.

I seriously doubt Gooden will get much more than the vet limit going forward, he'll be 34 going into the 2015-16 season. He hit the stupid-money jackpot on his last contract - it's not like he's hard up for cash.

[tontoz]

Wasn't he amnestied? So it doesn't matter what the wizards pay him.

And haven't we written about this about 100 times ?

Our good friend Mr Gooden is making $6,680,000 next year plus what the Wizards pay him. Sure he could have hunted down some more cash but Gooden has honor. He is loyal to the fact that the Wizards gave him another chance when no one else would. Now next year will be a different story. Then he will only get what his contract pays him and I expect he would ask for more.

But hey. Breaking news. Worth a new thread.

I don't think there was a way for him to get more cash, was there? Not unless someone was going to pay him *more* than his Milwaukee contract.

IOW, he's doing to Milwaukee what Blatche did to the Wizards. Not sure how "honor" fits in to this scenario!

But, great to have him; it'd be hard to get more for a veteran minimum salary than we're likely to get from Drew Gooden! Keep him to 15 minutes a game, and we might get a whole good season out of him.

After 100 times hands still doesn't get it.

Nice of the Bucks to be on the hook instead of us.

[payitforward]

Along with declining the Booker option this is the 2nd good move of the offseason.

Ideally Gooden is your 5th big, especially with Nene's injury woes, so depth is needed. We still need another PF IMO. Hopefully we can find a significant defensive upgrade for Booker.

Poor Dat... I think you'll be seeing Trevor Booker in a Wizards uni for several years to come!

Because he started so often, his qualifying offer rose from the listed $3.4m to $4.7m (the new CBA...). The Wizards didn't want to give him almost $5m for a year, only to make him an unrestricted FA at season's end. They are working on a new multi-year contract.

Now... you may still get lucky (and the Wizards unlucky), because he is unrestricted. So, if another team offers a richer contract he may still be gone. Then we can get your "defensive upgrade," and when we're a worse team for it, I'm sure you'll find another reason. It won't be because we replaced a guy who fills the stat sheet with... who?

I think you confuse productivity with effectiveness. I don't question his productivity or ability to fill the stat sheet, I question how the team performs with him as a whole when Booker is on the court.

IMO we could acquire a "less productive" player who is a significantly better defensive player and actually be a better team for it.

Meaningless statement. The relation between those numbers that "fill the stat sheet" and wins has been proven over and over. Putting "less productive" between quotation marks doesn't make it some kind of myth. The more productive your players are the more wins you get. Period.

If you acquire a less productive player you can't "actually be a better team for it." You can only be a worse team.

But... we've stomped this ground over and over, amigo. We're wasting our time and presuming on others' patience. I'm not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change the facts (i.e. my mind).

Booker is what Kevin calls him -- "a solid, productive player."

[payitforward]

Regular season stats will tell you Trevor Booker compares favorably with Taj Gibson. Real games will tell you Gibson is the much more impactful player and its not even close.

Taj Gibson will tell you that Booker was the most effective Wizard in their series -- he was quoted to that effect.

Once again, we've wound and unwound this thread way too often. If you are lucky, Booker will wind up playing somewhere else, and you won't hear much about him from me or anyone.

In the meantime, lets talk about who that less productive, more effective player is that you want. Is it Kevin Seraphin? You want to keep him?

You could answer "Jordan Hill" -- except he's not less productive; he's way more productive. If you'd like to have him, why then we have reached the promised land of mutual agreement! Lets go get that guy!

[Ruzious]

Poor Dat... I think you'll be seeing Trevor Booker in a Wizards uni for several years to come!

Because he started so often, his qualifying offer rose from the listed $3.4m to $4.7m (the new CBA...). The Wizards didn't want to give him almost $5m for a year, only to make him an unrestricted FA at season's end. They are working on a new multi-year contract.

Now... you may still get lucky (and the Wizards unlucky), because he is unrestricted. So, if another team offers a richer contract he may still be gone. Then we can get your "defensive upgrade," and when we're a worse team for it, I'm sure you'll find another reason. It won't be because we replaced a guy who fills the stat sheet with... who?

I think you confuse productivity with effectiveness. I don't question his productivity or ability to fill the stat sheet, I question how the team performs with him as a whole when Booker is on the court.

IMO we could acquire a "less productive" player who is a significantly better defensive player and actually be a better team for it.

Meaningless statement. The relation between those numbers that "fill the stat sheet" and wins has been proven over and over. Putting "less productive" between quotation marks doesn't make it some kind of myth. The more productive your players are the more wins you get. Period.

If you acquire a less productive player you can't "actually be a better team for it." You can only be a worse team.

But... we've stomped this ground over and over, amigo. We're wasting our time and presuming on others' patience. I'm not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change the facts (i.e. my mind).

Booker is what Kevin calls him -- "a solid, productive player."

A solid BACKUP. If productivity equals wins, you better include defense in productivity. And defense in the NBA does not equal blocks and steals. Booker makes guys like Taj Gibson look like stars. And that is a big problem.

[Ruzious]

Regular season stats will tell you Trevor Booker compares favorably with Taj Gibson. Real games will tell you Gibson is the much more impactful player and its not even close.

Taj Gibson will tell you that Booker was the most effective Wizard in their series -- he was quoted to that effect.

Once again, we've wound and unwound this thread way too often. If you are lucky, Booker will wind up playing somewhere else, and you won't hear much about him from me or anyone.

In the meantime, lets talk about who that less productive, more effective player is that you want. Is it Kevin Seraphin? You want to keep him?

You could answer "Jordan Hill" -- except he's not less productive; he's way more productive. If you'd like to have him, why then we have reached the promised land of mutual agreement! Lets go get that guy!

Is Jordan Hill going to cost less than the MLE? I wouldn't bet on it.

[TGW]

If Booker was half as good as PIF claims he is, it would be him getting the 60 million dollar contract...not Gortat.

I'm sorry PIF...usually I don't disagree with you, but you're flat out delusional when it comes to Booker. If he was that good, he would start over Nene unequivocally. When he was starting in place of Nene, the team was not very good.

[nuposse04]

I'd like to take a look at Ed Davis over Booker. I know what Booker brings to the table, and it isn't bad...but davis might be able to retain some defensive awareness tutelage, something Booker, unfortunately can't seem to get the hang of yet :/

[dobrojim]

did someone say earlier that Gooden is our 4th or 5th best big?

I'd put him a notch or 2 higher than that. He can probably be pretty
effective in 15-25 min a game. For one thing, he's not allergic to rebounds
like a certain french speaking player we have.

[hands11]

I think you confuse productivity with effectiveness. I don't question his productivity or ability to fill the stat sheet, I question how the team performs with him as a whole when Booker is on the court.

IMO we could acquire a "less productive" player who is a significantly better defensive player and actually be a better team for it.

Meaningless statement. The relation between those numbers that "fill the stat sheet" and wins has been proven over and over. Putting "less productive" between quotation marks doesn't make it some kind of myth. The more productive your players are the more wins you get. Period.

If you acquire a less productive player you can't "actually be a better team for it." You can only be a worse team.

But... we've stomped this ground over and over, amigo. We're wasting our time and presuming on others' patience. I'm not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change the facts (i.e. my mind).

Booker is what Kevin calls him -- "a solid, productive player."

A solid BACKUP. If productivity equals wins, you better include defense in productivity. And defense in the NBA does not equal blocks and steals. Booker makes guys like Taj Gibson look like stars. And that is a big problem.

Well here is one measure of productivity and effect. Offensive, Defensive and combined net

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_ ... position/6

Taj is listed 11th with a huge defensive effect weighting and a net positive on offense.

I would like to see Chris Anderson added, he is 10th. Again with a huge defensive weighting.

Booker is list 75th with a huge defensive weakness and a less but still negative offensive weighting.

Jordon Hill which some like is 74th but he was on a crap team so I'm sure that didn't help.

Patrick Patterson
Ryan Kelly young so his numbers can get better. Again, on the LAL so consider that in the eval.
Markieff Morris would interest me
Anthony Tolliver is 29 That not to old for a short contract.