Dampier

[WTFsunsFTW]

Charlotte has 38 forwards on their team and Wallace is wasting away there. Take the pick away and call it a day.

[lilfishi22]

Charlotte has 38 forwards on their team and Wallace is wasting away there. Take the pick away and call it a day.

Anyone who thinks Gerald Wallace (+ Dampier on an non-guaranteed contract) could be sold for an expiring contract and EC, doesn't watch basketball.

[DRK]

Charlotte has 38 forwards on their team and Wallace is wasting away there. Take the pick away and call it a day.

Anyone who thinks Gerald Wallace (+ Dampier on an non-guaranteed contract) could be sold for an expiring contract and EC, doesn't watch basketball.

I don't think Jason Richardson is just an "expiring contract." Hey, if we could've gotten Andre Igoudala for J-Rich last February, why cant we get Gerald Wallace for Jason Richardson now?

As someone else said, Phoenix throws in a pick, and we may have a pretty fair deal in my opinion.

[lilfishi22]

I just don't get why Wallace would be the odd man out if they were to move one of their "38" forwards. He's an all-star, plays great defense and has developed into an excellent offensive player. If they were to let someone go, it'll have to be one of their other forwards. The difference between Iggy for JRich and Crash for JRich is their respective team's financial situation. Charlotte, despite having only an average roster on a relatively high payroll, have a lot of financial flexibility. Dampier is a $13m non-guaranteed contract that could be moved for nice pieces or they could not guarantee his deal. Stephen Jackson is a large salary player but he's arguably still in his prime, is a huge part of their team and is a better player than he was when he was with the Warriors. Like most of the players on that team, Jackson is very tradeable, especially to a contender. Ty Thomas, Diop and Diaw are probably the only bad deals but Diaw could be tradeable in one season. The Cats were one of the best defensive teams last season and could make playoffs again this season. If there was a bright spot in their campaign last season, which ended pretty early, it would be Wallace's all-star season.

Philly, on the other hand, while not publicly admitting it, are in desperate need of a rebuild. They have very good young pieces but have the big contracts of Iggy and Brand still in their books for another 3 seasons. Brand is basically unmoveable and while Iggy is still a very good player, the Sixers just drafted a player who has a higher ceiling and plays the same style as him, not to mention they also have the same weakness (range in their shot). Iggy is a moveable piece that they could use to help in their rebuilding. Unless they move one of those two big salary players, they would be impeding the development of their young players since those big salary players need playing time to justify their pay.

And if a team actually trades for JRich, 9 times out of 10, it would be because of his expiring deal.

[the_warden]

Frye would have only had to enter the final season of his contract (this season) in order to re-up at those terms.

If they wanted Frye on the team and were prepared to pay, they should have approached Frye with something like the above which is both beneficial for him and the team.

So the suggestion is: tell Frye to pick up his option, then we'll work out this deal?

A number of problems with that:
1. It kills his leverage. The reason we paid him $30M/5 is because the Clippers were reportedly offering $34M/5.
2. Really seems like it wouldn't be legal.

[Sun Scorched]

Frye would have only had to enter the final season of his contract (this season) in order to re-up at those terms.

If they wanted Frye on the team and were prepared to pay, they should have approached Frye with something like the above which is both beneficial for him and the team.

So the suggestion is: tell Frye to pick up his option, then we'll work out this deal?

A number of problems with that:
1. It kills his leverage. The reason we paid him $30M/5 is because the Clippers were reportedly offering $34M/5.
2. Really seems like it wouldn't be legal.

The leverage arguement is valid. My logic is based on the fact that we were clearly comforabtle offering Frye as much as we did, given how quickly we jumped up the pay scale.

It would essentially be a contract extension onto his final year. There are very creative ways to structure these types of things without the process being illegal according to the CBA. You could do things like offer Frye a signing bonus (up to 20% of his total guaranteed compensation) as soon as he signs the extension.

I'm of the opinion that there isn't enough creativity applied in these situations.

[lilfishi22]

Frye would have only had to enter the final season of his contract (this season) in order to re-up at those terms.

If they wanted Frye on the team and were prepared to pay, they should have approached Frye with something like the above which is both beneficial for him and the team.

So the suggestion is: tell Frye to pick up his option, then we'll work out this deal?

A number of problems with that:
1. It kills his leverage. The reason we paid him $30M/5 is because the Clippers were reportedly offering $34M/5.
2. Really seems like it wouldn't be legal.

The leverage arguement is valid. My logic is based on the fact that we were clearly comforabtle offering Frye as much as we did, given how quickly we jumped up the pay scale.

It would essentially be a contract extension onto his final year. There are very creative ways to structure these types of things without the process being illegal according to the CBA. You could do things like offer Frye a signing bonus (up to 20% of his total guaranteed compensation) as soon as he signs the extension.

I'm of the opinion that there isn't enough creativity applied in these situations.

Frye comes away with much less risk by taking his deal. It's true he *could* have gotten 10.5% raises if he had re-upped once we have his early Bird-rights, but there's no guarantee we'll give him the full 10.5% and he would've wasted an extra season living off a "meager" $2m salary. Also once we have his early Bird-rights, we will have more signing options open to us, like partial guarantees or a cheap buy-out. This actually gives us more leverage as we could design a contract that works better for us, where as an MLE contract is all standardised, with standardised raises and guarantees. This is guaranteed money Frye would be leaving on the table if he had accepted his player option, played one more season and risk injuries.

Would've been great if Frye accepted his PO, but it would be unwise not to test this buyer's market after coming off a career season.

[the_warden]

When I say I don't think it'd be legal, the reason I say that is we'd be telling Frye, "pick up your player option and then we'll use the bird rights to extend you." Can you do that? Seems a little too much like, for example, the Carlos Boozer situation in Cleveland (where the Cavs let Boozer opt out with caveat that they'd resign him to $60M/6 or something like that).

[Frank Lee]

I dont know about all that Frye mumbojumbo.... Have NBA-ers in the same situation done that ? Seems like everyone went traditional with the negotiations. Cant blame anyone for that. We can only speculate that Phnx tried (edited) Scorchers method... and received a simple no from the Frye side.


The 'creative contract' was Dampier's a few yrs ago. Overpaid in most opinion books, but now, arguably the tastiest trade piece out there. Did anyone notice this extremely 'Owner Friendly' clause when he was signed? Eric Dampier ... the most sought after $13 million player. Seriously, to some teams he's a 20+ million savings. Wow.

[Frank Lee]

oops

[lilfishi22]

Would've been great if we used Frye's early Bird-rights to sign him to a 5-6 year deal with the last year having few guarantees. Frye would've been a huge asset to us as a $6-7m trade chip with only $05.-1m of guarantees.