RealGM

PHX trades: Bradley Beal, 2031 PHX 1st, 2026 DEN 2nd, 2031 DEN 2nd
UTA trades: John Collins, Jordan Clarkson, Johnny Juzang

Why PHX does it: break down Beal's contract into two players. Collins is a fairly okay rotation player who can start. Clarkson has had a recent good year, but last season was awful. Both have contracts that are one year shorter than Beal's. Juzang is interesting as a bench piece, he can shoot, he is cheap, and he is reasonably young. Phoenix could do a lot worse as a 9th/10th man.

Why UTA does it: Phoenix will have a horrible long-term outlook after this, the 2031 1st is likely to be very good. It works out to a 60 million dollar draft pick, though.

Why Beal does it: he's the odd man out in Phoenix, if there are chemistry issues or a scapegoat he's likely to be it, and if a team wants you out the door it is going to be an uncomfortable situation. Beal obviously could decide not to acquiesce, but if he does it is because he isn't wanted anymore. If he were to opt out of his final year Utah could agree to release him to free agency immediately, if that happens a team with the MLE is likely to sign him (imo) and then he can try to secure a larger contract in the offseason (I think he is worth more than the MLE).

I don't think Beal would agree to go to Utah.

I definitely don't think he opts out of the last year of his deal.

Pretty weird direction for Phoenix to pay a 1st to get worse on the court

The type of trade Utah should be looking for…to get a first for taking on a bad contract, but I don’t think PHX is that desperate yet?

Beal isn't waiting his NTC to go to a rebuilding team.

jbk1234 wrote:Beal isn't waiting his NTC to go to a rebuilding team.

This is really where the conversation starts and ends. Beal isn't agreeing to go to Utah, any discussion beyond that is academic.

gswhoops wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:Beal isn't waiting his NTC to go to a rebuilding team.

This is really where the conversation starts and ends. Beal isn't agreeing to go to Utah, any discussion beyond that is academic.

I actually don't think this is a given? The last year of his deal is $60 million. Let's say he opts out of the last year in return for Utah releasing him and makes the veteran minimum with any team he choses ($3.3 million) then plays enough to get an above-MLE contract (seems likely to me) for say ... $40 million over two years. That's $43.3 million over three years vs. $57 million in the final year, but you also have the interest on his earnings from the first contract, and the first year of the second contract, that likely narrow that to about a $10 million difference AND he got to choose the team he plays for.

I don't think he'd waive the NTC to go to a non-contending team, but realistically he won't be on a non-contending team. He will sign somewhere with a role for him where he wants to be (Dallas? Minnesota? Clippers?) and get a larger contract in the offseason as long as he doesn't fall off a cliff - and he was still good when he played, so I don't think that's a major risk.

So, I'll admit these are leaps of faith, that he'd waive it and be willing to opt out of that last year ... but the opportunity cost of doing so for him is most likely pretty low.

There is also another conversation of whether Utah would just release him if he didn't opt out, I'm not sure if they can turn the last year that is an option into a partial guarantee (e.g., $10 million) to not be entirely on the hook. If they can I don't think it changes the calculus much and removes most of the risk for Beal. If they can't, it's not my wallet so I'm pretty okay with paying $60 million for a first round pick

babyjax13 wrote:

gswhoops wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:Beal isn't waiting his NTC to go to a rebuilding team.

This is really where the conversation starts and ends. Beal isn't agreeing to go to Utah, any discussion beyond that is academic.

I actually don't think this is a given? The last year of his deal is $60 million. Let's say he opts out of the last year in return for Utah releasing him and makes the veteran minimum with any team he choses ($3.3 million) then plays enough to get an above-MLE contract (seems likely to me) for say ... $40 million over two years. That's $43.3 million over three years vs. $57 million in the final year, but you also have the interest on his earnings from the first contract, and the first year of the second contract, that likely narrow that to about a $10 million difference AND he got to choose the team he plays for.

I don't think he'd waive the NTC to go to a non-contending team, but realistically he won't be on a non-contending team. He will sign somewhere with a role for him where he wants to be (Dallas? Minnesota? Clippers?) and get a larger contract in the offseason as long as he doesn't fall off a cliff - and he was still good when he played, so I don't think that's a major risk.

So, I'll admit these are leaps of faith, that he'd waive it and be willing to opt out of that last year ... but the opportunity cost of doing so for him is most likely pretty low.

There is also another conversation of whether Utah would just release him if he didn't opt out, I'm not sure if they can turn the last year that is an option into a partial guarantee (e.g., $10 million) to not be entirely on the hook. If they can I don't think it changes the calculus much and removes most of the risk for Beal. If they can't, it's not my wallet so I'm pretty okay with paying $60 million for a first round pick

Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly -- you're proposing that Utah would waive him now (with 2 years left) in exchange for him waiving his PO? I don't think that's realistic for either Utah or Beal.

gswhoops wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

gswhoops wrote:This is really where the conversation starts and ends. Beal isn't agreeing to go to Utah, any discussion beyond that is academic.

I actually don't think this is a given? The last year of his deal is $60 million. Let's say he opts out of the last year in return for Utah releasing him and makes the veteran minimum with any team he choses ($3.3 million) then plays enough to get an above-MLE contract (seems likely to me) for say ... $40 million over two years. That's $43.3 million over three years vs. $57 million in the final year, but you also have the interest on his earnings from the first contract, and the first year of the second contract, that likely narrow that to about a $10 million difference AND he got to choose the team he plays for.

I don't think he'd waive the NTC to go to a non-contending team, but realistically he won't be on a non-contending team. He will sign somewhere with a role for him where he wants to be (Dallas? Minnesota? Clippers?) and get a larger contract in the offseason as long as he doesn't fall off a cliff - and he was still good when he played, so I don't think that's a major risk.

So, I'll admit these are leaps of faith, that he'd waive it and be willing to opt out of that last year ... but the opportunity cost of doing so for him is most likely pretty low.

There is also another conversation of whether Utah would just release him if he didn't opt out, I'm not sure if they can turn the last year that is an option into a partial guarantee (e.g., $10 million) to not be entirely on the hook. If they can I don't think it changes the calculus much and removes most of the risk for Beal. If they can't, it's not my wallet so I'm pretty okay with paying $60 million for a first round pick

Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly -- you're proposing that Utah would waive him now (with 2 years left) in exchange for him waiving his PO? I don't think that's realistic for either Utah or Beal.

Yes, that's my proposal. I don't really see the downside for Utah. We are tanking, Clarkson and Collins are bad money, the pick is really high upside. For Beal I can see the downside, but I also think there is a chance to recoup most of the money on the last year, especially if it is possible to partially guarantee the last year.

I was disappointed that Beal didn’t go to Bud and recommend coming off the bench when it would clearly benefit the rotation. He’s not willing to sacrifice so I’d be fine unloading that contract if he’d agree to it.

babyjax13 wrote:

gswhoops wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:I actually don't think this is a given? The last year of his deal is $60 million. Let's say he opts out of the last year in return for Utah releasing him and makes the veteran minimum with any team he choses ($3.3 million) then plays enough to get an above-MLE contract (seems likely to me) for say ... $40 million over two years. That's $43.3 million over three years vs. $57 million in the final year, but you also have the interest on his earnings from the first contract, and the first year of the second contract, that likely narrow that to about a $10 million difference AND he got to choose the team he plays for.

I don't think he'd waive the NTC to go to a non-contending team, but realistically he won't be on a non-contending team. He will sign somewhere with a role for him where he wants to be (Dallas? Minnesota? Clippers?) and get a larger contract in the offseason as long as he doesn't fall off a cliff - and he was still good when he played, so I don't think that's a major risk.

So, I'll admit these are leaps of faith, that he'd waive it and be willing to opt out of that last year ... but the opportunity cost of doing so for him is most likely pretty low.

There is also another conversation of whether Utah would just release him if he didn't opt out, I'm not sure if they can turn the last year that is an option into a partial guarantee (e.g., $10 million) to not be entirely on the hook. If they can I don't think it changes the calculus much and removes most of the risk for Beal. If they can't, it's not my wallet so I'm pretty okay with paying $60 million for a first round pick

Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly -- you're proposing that Utah would waive him now (with 2 years left) in exchange for him waiving his PO? I don't think that's realistic for either Utah or Beal.

Yes, that's my proposal. I don't really see the downside for Utah. We are tanking, Clarkson and Collins are bad money, the pick is really high upside. For Beal I can see the downside, but I also think there is a chance to recoup most of the money on the last year, especially if it is possible to partially guarantee the last year.

It's creative, I'll give you that

I suppose if Utah is really willing to eat 2 years of salary, Beal might be convinced.

This works for me.

Any trade proposal that involves Suns losing a first is a nonstarter. Yes I realize moving Beal would require it but we simply cannot afford to trade any other picks

Not to mention trade picks to get worse from a talent perspective.

Phystic wrote:Any trade proposal that involves Suns losing a first is a nonstarter. Yes I realize moving Beal would require it but we simply cannot afford to trade any other picks

Not to mention trade picks to get worse from a talent perspective.

I'm not 100% sure you get worse from a talent perspective. That's a ton of depth added.

jazzfan1971 wrote:

Phystic wrote:Any trade proposal that involves Suns losing a first is a nonstarter. Yes I realize moving Beal would require it but we simply cannot afford to trade any other picks

Not to mention trade picks to get worse from a talent perspective.

I'm not 100% sure you get worse from a talent perspective. That's a ton of depth added.

Even with Beal's fragility he is a 20/5/5 ish player on ELITE efficiency. It is a talent downgrade, though one that might be made up for just be the huge need for more depth in the frontcourt. That said, I completely appreciate not being willing to move a first from Phoenix' perspective, that is probably the right call (though may depend on the kinds of moves that do/don't become available after the trade).

I do hope, though, that this is a semi-plausible scenario for moving Beal. We do see over and over that players we think are unmovable usually aren't.

babyjax13 wrote:

jazzfan1971 wrote:

Phystic wrote:Any trade proposal that involves Suns losing a first is a nonstarter. Yes I realize moving Beal would require it but we simply cannot afford to trade any other picks

Not to mention trade picks to get worse from a talent perspective.

I'm not 100% sure you get worse from a talent perspective. That's a ton of depth added.

Even with Beal's fragility he is a 20/5/5 ish player on ELITE efficiency. It is a talent downgrade, though one that might be made up for just be the huge need for more depth in the frontcourt. That said, I completely appreciate not being willing to move a first from Phoenix' perspective, that is probably the right call (though may depend on the kinds of moves that do/don't become available after the trade).

I do hope, though, that this is a semi-plausible scenario for moving Beal. We do see over and over that players we think are unmovable usually aren't.

18.2/4.4/5

He did shoot the he'll out of the ball last year, I'll give you that.

The direction of the suns at the moment with the impetuous spending owner is improvement on court - anything else - money or future - be damned . This has them paying to be worse

jazzfan1971 wrote:

Phystic wrote:Any trade proposal that involves Suns losing a first is a nonstarter. Yes I realize moving Beal would require it but we simply cannot afford to trade any other picks

Not to mention trade picks to get worse from a talent perspective.

I'm not 100% sure you get worse from a talent perspective. That's a ton of depth added.

Ton of depth is being very generous to your side of the proposal

Clarkson will take some of Beals place. Collins may give some depth however there's clearly a reason he is being/has been moved. And the other player clearly isn't going to be in the rotation.

Beal is very clearly the better talent. You can argue that it would addition by subtraction. Which is a fair argument.

But again, anything with outgoing picks is a deal breaker just my personal opinion. Suns can't afford to give out a 1st a decade from now.

jazzfan1971 wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

jazzfan1971 wrote:
I'm not 100% sure you get worse from a talent perspective. That's a ton of depth added.

Even with Beal's fragility he is a 20/5/5 ish player on ELITE efficiency. It is a talent downgrade, though one that might be made up for just be the huge need for more depth in the frontcourt. That said, I completely appreciate not being willing to move a first from Phoenix' perspective, that is probably the right call (though may depend on the kinds of moves that do/don't become available after the trade).

I do hope, though, that this is a semi-plausible scenario for moving Beal. We do see over and over that players we think are unmovable usually aren't.

18.2/4.4/5

He did shoot the he'll out of the ball last year, I'll give you that.

His minutes were limited for part of the season, if he's playing regularly I think those scoring and assist numbers go up. His efficiency on lower volume the last two seasons has been amazing.

Phystic wrote:

jazzfan1971 wrote:

Phystic wrote:Any trade proposal that involves Suns losing a first is a nonstarter. Yes I realize moving Beal would require it but we simply cannot afford to trade any other picks

Not to mention trade picks to get worse from a talent perspective.

I'm not 100% sure you get worse from a talent perspective. That's a ton of depth added.

Ton of depth is being very generous to your side of the proposal

Clarkson will take some of Beals place. Collins may give some depth however there's clearly a reason he is being/has been moved. And the other player clearly isn't going to be in the rotation.

Beal is very clearly the better talent. You can argue that it would addition by subtraction. Which is a fair argument.

But again, anything with outgoing picks is a deal breaker just my personal opinion. Suns can't afford to give out a 1st a decade from now.

I think Juzang might be in the rotation at the expense of Clarkson. He's very plug and play, and pretty solid when given minutes.