What happens to Beal?

[JRoy]

The outcome is predictable.

Anyone who takes a buyout should have to sit out a year.

[Village Idiot]

How about this solution? It's a two-parter since Phoenix can´t aggregate:

Phoenix trades:

Bradley Beal - trade 1
Jalen Green - trade 2
cash - maximum to Utah

Phoenix receives:

Jerami Grant- trade 1
John Collins - trade 2
Kris Murray - 1
Duop Reath -1

Phoenix saves $25.1 million in salary costs this season which according to the numbers I am seeing in Spotrac should get them out of the tax saving them almost $120 million including repeater penalties. They also rebalance their roster by trading two shooting guards for two forwards.

Portland trades:

Jerami Grant
John Collins
Kris Murray

Portland receives:

Lauri Markannen

Portland gets a better scoring SF which could be useful on such a defensive oriented line-up. They take on quite a bit of long-term salary though given Markannen´s deal vs. Grant.

Utah trades:

Lauri Markannen - deal 1
John Collins - deal 2

Utah receives:

Bradely Beal
Jalen Green
maximum cash from Phoenix

Beal has a higher salary but at half the years of Markannen. They clear up their PF to develop their prospects and get a guy in Green who will get the green light to see what he can do as the go-to guy. They end up being the team buying out Beal but given their cap sheet after this deal this should not be an issue, especially since he should get an MLE elsewhere.

[Dr Positivity]

I'd find a team to take O'Neale or Allen to make the lux tax hit lighter and stretch Beal after Sept 1st to make it only 11.4 mil a year instead of the full Lillard.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Probably question the benefits for the suns if it’s strictly ducking the tax for a single season. Stretching Beal effectively removes suns at any chance of contending in booker prime.

Hard enough to build a contender under normal rules. Doing it with dead cap is unheard of.

Stretching Beal isn’t only about ducking the tax. It’s about ducking the aprons and the restrictions they impose on teams.

All stars much less all nba players don’t get to free agency anymore. Raw cap space and operating under the actual salary cap is less beneficial than it used to be. Just look at the Nets. Having assets and tradable salary (not even necessarily expiring contracts) is the better avenue.

Suns did a great job of adding young talent that can become quality assets and they have Green, Brooks, Allen and Royce as potential tradeable salary. That said, right now they are very short on assets to carry out a big trade.

In the end, the $19M per over five years still sucks but Ishbia is clearly fine busting through aprons if he thinks he can build a contender. It will end up as +/- 10% of the cap soon. It’s not great but it’s not franchise crushing and doesn’t necessarily, in its self, kill Bookers prime.

What’s the avenue to improve the team. Don’t have assets for trades. Won’t have salary to make moves around the edges.

Booker and role players, no picks , large chunk of dead cap seems franchise killing to me.

[Texas Chuck]

Anyone who takes a buyout should have to sit out a year.

For what reason?

[JRoy]

To impose consequences upon players who sign these huge contracts with smaller markets and then flee to the glamor markets at a discount to the signing team when they get bought out.

[Texas Chuck]

To impose consequences upon players who sign these huge contracts with smaller markets and then flee to the glamor markets at a discount to the signing team when they get bought out.

Teams don't have to buy them out. They do so because they believe its in their best interest.

As in every industry the power resides primarily with the owner class not the workers, but for some reason you want to punish the workers on a mutually agreed upon buyout. I guess I just don't get it.

[Mavrelous]

To impose consequences upon players who sign these huge contracts with smaller markets and then flee to the glamor markets at a discount to the signing team when they get bought out.

Teams don't have to buy them out. They do so because they believe its in their best interest.

As in every industry the power resides primarily with the owner class not the workers, but for some reason you want to punish the workers on a mutually agreed upon buyout. I guess I just don't get it.

Yeah, that's non sensical.
In an elite talent based league , the power is in the hands of the talent, and it's very clear.
These aren't the mines, the players aren't workers.

[Texas Chuck]

To impose consequences upon players who sign these huge contracts with smaller markets and then flee to the glamor markets at a discount to the signing team when they get bought out.

Teams don't have to buy them out. They do so because they believe its in their best interest.

As in every industry the power resides primarily with the owner class not the workers, but for some reason you want to punish the workers on a mutually agreed upon buyout. I guess I just don't get it.

Yeah, that's non sensical.
In an elite talent based league , the power is in the hands of the talent, and it's very clear.
These aren't the mines, the players aren't workers.

Of course they are. Their 50% of the pie is split up 450 ways versus 30. They are served by a union.

They make more money, but they are definitely workers.

Still doesn't explain why players should have to sit out a year after a team buys them out.

[Mavrelous]

Teams don't have to buy them out. They do so because they believe its in their best interest.

As in every industry the power resides primarily with the owner class not the workers, but for some reason you want to punish the workers on a mutually agreed upon buyout. I guess I just don't get it.

Yeah, that's non sensical.
In an elite talent based league , the power is in the hands of the talent, and it's very clear.
These aren't the mines, the players aren't workers.

Of course they are. Their 50% of the pie is split up 450 ways versus 30. They are served by a union.

They make more money, but they are definitely workers.

Still doesn't explain why players should have to sit out a year after a team buys them out.

Absolutely, not advocating for forcing players to sit after buyout, but the league has come a long way, and the power has shifted long ago towards the players.
Amendments should be evaluated in how they contribute to the product, players welfare vs owners wealth shouldn't be a factor since they are both very well compensated and represented.

[Texas Chuck]

not sure why you jumped in then. Im waiting for someone to tell me why we should punish players for mutually agreed upon buyouts. I've heard plenty from those who think making a lot of money means players should have less rights. I'm not going to convince them this isn't charity but rather what the market demands and they aren't going to convince me workers should give up rights for making a market wage.

[jbk1234]

The outcome is predictable.

Anyone who takes a buyout should have to sit out a year.

The Wizards never should've given Beal that contract and the Suns never should've traded for it, especially with Beal refusing to permanently waive the NTC as part of the trade. He started his regression before either event happened.

[Mavrelous]

not sure why you jumped in then. Im waiting for someone to tell me why we should punish players for mutually agreed upon buyouts. I've heard plenty from those who think making a lot of money means players should have less rights. I'm not going to convince them this isn't charity but rather what the market demands and they aren't going to convince me workers should give up rights for making a market wage.

This bogus statement is the reason I jumped i

As in every industry the power resides primarily with the owner class not the workers, but for some reason you want to punish the workers on a mutually agreed upon buyout. I guess I just don't get it.

[schaffy]

The outcome is predictable.

Anyone who takes a buyout should have to sit out a year.

Well then you also need some corresponding action for the team that is ultimately offering it/agreeing to it. Freeze future draft picks? Cap penalties? Other ideas?

[theBigLip]

The outcome is predictable.

Anyone who takes a buyout should have to sit out a year.

Well then you also need some corresponding action for the team that is ultimately offering it/agreeing to it. Freeze future draft picks? Cap penalties? Other ideas?

Buyouts are good. It lets teams and players be more flexible.

[JRoy]

To impose consequences upon players who sign these huge contracts with smaller markets and then flee to the glamor markets at a discount to the signing team when they get bought out.

Teams don't have to buy them out. They do so because they believe its in their best interest.

As in every industry the power resides primarily with the owner class not the workers, but for some reason you want to punish the workers on a mutually agreed upon buyout. I guess I just don't get it.

Fair enough.

[JRoy]

The outcome is predictable.

Anyone who takes a buyout should have to sit out a year.

Well then you also need some corresponding action for the team that is ultimately offering it/agreeing to it. Freeze future draft picks? Cap penalties? Other ideas?

Also a good point.

I just hate seeing the same old deal; players get overpaid, get a huge contract from their team, get bought out and then sign with a contender that could never other afford their services for nothing.

[Benjammin]

Bad franchises pay for their mistakes. Good franchises benefit from them.

Sent from my MNP1095 using Tapatalk

[GatherStepGuru]

The outcome is predictable.

Anyone who takes a buyout should have to sit out a year.

Well then you also need some corresponding action for the team that is ultimately offering it/agreeing to it. Freeze future draft picks? Cap penalties? Other ideas?

Also a good point.

I just hate seeing the same old deal; players get overpaid, get a huge contract from their team, get bought out and then sign with a contender that could never other afford their services for nothing.

No one forced Phx to trade for Beal. They didn’t even give up a single first; I’m sure they felt at that time that they won. Outsiders, even myself as a WAS fan, could see how that team wouldn’t work, but again Phoenix wanted to take that risk.

Beal has no obligation to be punished for signing a 5 year deal to play basketball. Phoenix took on his deal with no real plan to make it work. Even the idea of waiving is in their favor and letting them off easy; I think they should be forced to keep him or trade him.

The NBA already artificially suppresses wages with salary caps; Players like Lebron and Steph would have made make way more in their careers if the NBA was like baseball. I’m all for players doing what’s im their best interest, because when teams are done with them, they do what’s in their best interest.

Take Isaiah Thomas for instance. He should’ve been set for life the way he breathed life back into Boston for 2 years, playing through his sisters death and a sprained hip. No one bailed him out in the aftermath. I think situations like his are always in players’ minds when they negotiate their contracts.

[Saul Goodman]

Milwaukee to me is his best chance for getting his numbers and being a hugely relied upon piece but I see the Clippers already being a foregone conclusion