2014 Official Suns Free Agent/Trade/Transaction Thread

Post #281 » by **bwgood77** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 5:38 am

I appreciate the long thought out post of Miyagi, but I think Frank Lee kind of hits the nail on the head. Our fans tend to overvalue our assets when it comes to this.

A deal like this COULD happen if Utah was adamantly opposed to giving Hayward the max and we gave him a verbal offer in free agency (where they said they would match it unless we come up with a S&T) and we give them something to prevent them from matching.

But you have to kind of put yourself in the shoes of Utah's ownership and management....they have a good young player, zero bad contracts past this year, so ample cap space, so WHY would they let a player like Hayward get away even if they have to overpay him?

Like I said, I think their is a possibility IF they are adamantly opposed to matching a max offer, but at best, this happens this summer and not sooner.

Edit: Also, about the Harden deal, that was forced by having max players and limited cap space. The Bledsoe deal was similar, in that they wouldn't be able to afford a Bledsoe extension anyway. This thing with Hayward isn't the same.....both OKC and LAC have two max players...Utah has none.

MrMiyagi · Post #282 » by **MrMiyagi** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 5:48 am

I just think Utah has too many holes and a one for potentially 3 swap is pretty damn good, especially if their own pick can make Hayward redundant.

Frank Lee · Post #283 » by **Frank Lee** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 5:53 am

Miyagi....Your perspective neglects to acknowledge Utah having loads and loads and LOADS of capspace. They have just over 27 mill committed next yr. OKC could have technically signed Harden, but they would have four guys consuming 90% of their budget and it would have vaulted them into the luxtax land and its substantially increasing penalties. (guess on the %). As it is now, they have 57 million going to just their starting unit. OKC essentially decided to keep and pay Ibaka rather than Harden.

Utah is not facing such a quandary.

And I believe they perfectly comfortable to pay/match a sizable amount for Heyward. They just weren't willing to give him the keys to the vault without first seeing how much they have to put in there.

I am not up to speed on this CBA and its deadline dates, but I would imagine the Jazz will be able to trade Heyward in this upcoming off season.... Seems like the Free Agent offers go out a week after the draft ????

Edit.... same page eh bwg?

Post #284 » by **bwgood77** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 5:59 am

MrMiyagi wrote:I just think Utah has too many holes and a one for potentially 3 swap is pretty damn good, especially if their own pick can make Hayward redundant.

Yeah, earlier I thought if they could get Wiggins or Parker, they wouldn't need Hayward, but then I looked at their cap situation http://data.shamsports.com/content/page ... s/jazz.jsp and they have so much cap space, their is no need to get rid of Hayward...they would need to hit the salary floor anyway. To give up on a promising player you drafted after his rookie contract only makes sense if you can't afford him, unless you are getting something great in return.

I just don't see it happening. I don't know if I think the Suns should have their two max players be Bledsoe and Hayward anyway. We'd likely end up losing Dragic if those guys get the max. Now if they both get a lot less, it wouldn't be bad, but in that case, Utah will certainly keep him.

Cutter · Post #285 » by **Cutter** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 6:14 am

Frank Lee wrote:Let me summarize ....

.....

Sorry Miyagi, but there is no fortune in that cookie.

Fo-Real · Post #286 » by **Fo-Real** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 6:44 am

Someone who might add something to an uptempo style instead of the one he is in now might be Brandon Bass. Move Frye to mostly backup C like LoscSoles has suggested... maybe even attempt to pry Green away too. Boston connect with the GM???

[YouTube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-Tl7peIHU/YouTube]

Fo-Real · Post #287 » by **Fo-Real** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 6:51 am

MrMiyagi · Post #288 » by **MrMiyagi** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 7:38 am

bwgood77 wrote:
MrMiyagi wrote:I just think Utah has too many holes and a one for potentially 3 swap is pretty damn good, especially if their own pick can make Hayward redundant.

Yeah, earlier I thought if they could get Wiggins or Parker, they wouldn't need Hayward, but then I looked at their cap situation http://data.shamsports.com/content/page ... s/jazz.jsp and they have so much cap space, their is no need to get rid of Hayward...they would need to hit the salary floor anyway. To give up on a promising player you drafted after his rookie contract only makes sense if you can't afford him, unless you are getting something great in return.

I just don't see it happening. I don't know if I think the Suns should have their two max players be Bledsoe and Hayward anyway. We'd likely end up losing Dragic if those guys get the max. Now if they both get a lot less, it wouldn't be bad, but in that case, Utah will certainly keep him.

The question I'm asking is does Utah think Hayward at around $10 mil a year worth it if you get Parker or Wiggins at whatever a rookie deal is? To me that is a no, considering they have to lock up Favors at a similar rate and that Hayward is having a down season. Do they want $20-25 mil sunk into two players who aren't doing much to win games right now? I think that they would rather spread that $10 mil over 4 players vs. 1. You have better odds and it is easier to get rid of your mistakes at $3 mil than at $10 mil. Wouldn't you rather have 4 easily moveable assets that can be combined to meet salary needs in order to build around a guy like Parker or Wiggins vs one $10 million dollar asset?

The point is they are about 3 years away from being a playoff threat if they are lucky. Hayward is 23 and can net you 3 guys just as talented and younger on cheaper deals as well as one stop gap player. He'll probably be supplanted by a more talented player in Wiggins or Parker anyways (after their game tonight, they now have the 2nd pick). It would allow more possibilities moving forward than having Hayward and Favors eat your cap space for the next 5 years. Then they have to think about resigning Burks and Kanter next year. By trading Hayward, they preserve their cap space for future seasons to build around Parker or Wiggins while acquiring young assets who could turn into quality players for them or be combined and traded for a better asset. Isn't that what rebuilding is all about, acquiring assets while preserving cap space? So it would make sense for Utah to trade Hayward, since they are rebuilding.

The Suns, on the other hand, need a 3 and have no chance at Parker or Wiggins. That's why Hayward would be worth the $10 mil a year to us.

Then again, they might decide that Favors is the one who isn't worth it and trade him instead. Since the Suns could use Hayward more than Favors, at least in my opinion, that why I'm arguing that they should trade Hayward.

Post #289 » by **bwgood77** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 7:45 am

MrMiyagi wrote:
bwgood77 wrote:
MrMiyagi wrote:I just think Utah has too many holes and a one for potentially 3 swap is pretty damn good, especially if their own pick can make Hayward redundant.

Yeah, earlier I thought if they could get Wiggins or Parker, they wouldn't need Hayward, but then I looked at their cap situation http://data.shamsports.com/content/page ... s/jazz.jsp and they have so much cap space, their is no need to get rid of Hayward...they would need to hit the salary floor anyway. To give up on a promising player you drafted after his rookie contract only makes sense if you can't afford him, unless you are getting something great in return.

I just don't see it happening. I don't know if I think the Suns should have their two max players be Bledsoe and Hayward anyway. We'd likely end up losing Dragic if those guys get the max. Now if they both get a lot less, it wouldn't be bad, but in that case, Utah will certainly keep him.

The question I'm asking is does Utah think Hayward at around $10 mil a year worth it if you get Parker or Wiggins at whatever a rookie deal is? To me that is a no, considering they have to lock up Favors at a similar rate and that Hayward is having a down season. Do they want $20-25 mil sunk into two players who aren't doing much to win games right now? I think that they would rather spread that $10 mil over 4 players vs. 1. You have better odds and it is easier to get rid of your mistakes at $3 mil than at $10 mil. Wouldn't you rather have 4 easily moveable assets that can be combined to meet salary needs in order to build around a guy like Parker or Wiggins vs one $10 million dollar asset?

The point is they are about 3 years away from being a playoff threat if they are lucky. Hayward is 23 and can net you 3 guys just as talented and younger on cheaper deals as well as one stop gap player. He'll probably be supplanted by a more talented player in Wiggins or Parker anyways (after their game tonight, they now have the 2nd pick). It would allow more possibilities moving forward than having Hayward and Favors eat your cap space for the next 5 years. Then they have to think about resigning Burks and Kanter next year. By trading Hayward, they preserve their cap space for future seasons to build around Parker or Wiggins while acquiring young assets who could turn into quality players for them or be combined and traded for a better asset. Isn't that what rebuilding is all about, acquiring assets while preserving cap space? So it would make sense for Utah to trade Hayward, since they are rebuilding.

The Suns, on the other hand, need a 3 and have no chance at Parker or Wiggins. That's why Hayward would be worth the $10 mil a year to us.

Then again, they might decide that Favors is the one who isn't worth it and trade him instead. Since the Suns could use Hayward more than Favors, at least in my opinion, that why I'm arguing that they should trade Hayward.

I had the same thoughts as you, but after looking at their cap space (I posted a link) I realized they don't need to let Hayward go. They don't have any other expensive guys. Favors is locked in at $12 million a year, and other than that, they don't have much for salaries other than Kanter, who would probably be the one they would give up on if they felt forced. But they shouldn't feel forced. Look at their cap space....it's not that they need to decide on either/or with 3 players or Hayward..they might have the best cap situation in the league...they can keep him and everyone else and be fine for awhile, even if they get Parker or Wiggins, and add a few guys.

MrMiyagi · Post #290 » by **MrMiyagi** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 8:30 am

Yes, they do not have to get rid of him, I get that. I'm saying they should because he is a redundant player on that roster if/when they get Parker or Wiggins, more so with Parker. It's kind of like the Howard-Asik situation in Houston waiting to happen. They could settle that right now by trading him for assets and be ahead of the game and that having more high talent assets on cheaper contracts are easier to move than one $10 million dollar asset.

thamadkant · Post #291 » by **thamadkant** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 8:33 am

Jazz will want to keep Hayward if they aren't getting a goo player back at a cheaper contract.

A 3-way trade is the most feasible from Jazz and Suns point of view.

The problem is they might draft a SF or a PF or even a C, they don't know....they could drop back as far as 5th or 6th and miss out entirely on the prized rookies.

INFORMER-93 · Post #292 » by **INFORMER-93** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 8:48 am

Cutter wrote:
Dragic13 wrote:Well i was thinking who knows if the Jazz even want to keep Hayward in RFA since they are tanking so hard so a few more picks a young center in Len who has potential to be better than Kanter. Hasnt Kanter been kinda sucking lately?

Why would Suns trade Len when he has played a grand total of 31 minutes in his NBA career? Why not give him time to recover from his ankle injuries and see what kind of center he can develop into?

I think the better question is: why would a team want to give up anything of value for Alex Len?

thamadkant · Post #293 » by **thamadkant** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 8:59 am

Len will not be traded bar a star coming back.

The reason being is that he is yet to play solid minutes and he was picked by McD at 5 fora reason.

He is almost completely off limits...

McD will give him a full season or three to see his potential.... I'm only worried about him staying healthy.

NaturalBuns · Post #294 » by **NaturalBuns** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 10:22 am

What about Marc Gasol if Grizz decide to blow it up this year.

He would be ideal guy to go to if the bledsoe and dragic get rattled alittle he be perfect 3rd option

nevetsov · Post #295 » by **nevetsov** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 10:48 am

NaturalBuns wrote:What about Marc Gasol if Grizz decide to blow it up this year.

He would be ideal guy to go to if the bledsoe and dragic get rattled alittle he be perfect 3rd option

Now we're talking. Best and most realistic trade idea so far.

Ring_Wanted · Post #296 » by **Ring_Wanted** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 11:22 am

I don't know if it is realistic, but I'd love to get Marc. If the FO was willing to spend the assets on a vet, he'd be one of my top choices. Way before Noah, for instance.

I think Marc still has a good four years at least in the tank, maybe more if our staff helps him take care of his body. This is an investment that would be really expensive, and wouldn't come risk free due to his contract status, but I'd go for it if the chance was there.

carey · Post #297 » by **carey** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 3:35 pm

@BillSimmons: I love the way Blake Griffin is playing lately. Wouldn't trade him for Melo. The Melo trade partner that makes the most sense - Phoenix.

Nooooooooooooo!

Bogyo · Post #298 » by **Bogyo** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 3:46 pm

carey wrote:
@BillSimmons: I love the way Blake Griffin is playing lately. Wouldn't trade him for Melo. The Melo trade partner that makes the most sense - Phoenix.

Nooooooooooooo!

Heeeellll nooooooooooo! There is not a single player that I ve seen in my 20 years of watching basketball who I hated better (well, maybe Bowen and Horry, but thats a different story).

Gorilla Warfare · Post #299 » by **Gorilla Warfare** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 4:11 pm

carey wrote:
@BillSimmons: I love the way Blake Griffin is playing lately. Wouldn't trade him for Melo. The Melo trade partner that makes the most sense - Phoenix.

Nooooooooooooo!

Simmons is only saying that because he hates the Suns and he's trying to get a rise out of the fans. Melo is not who we would go after and I am confident that McD feels the same way. McD is only looking for proven great players that are still young, like Love.

Now Griffin on the other hand, what do you guys think about him? I don't like his contract, but i'm sure he would like to play with Bledsoe again and he can run the floor and be exciting. I know there are a ton of people that don't like Blake but if he could be had for Okafors expiring and none of our core players I wouldn't be mad.

carey · Post #300 » by **carey** » Sat Jan 4, 2014 4:20 pm

Gorilla Warfare wrote: Simmons is only saying that because he hates the Suns and he's trying to get a rise out of the fans. Melo is not who we would go after and I am confident that McD feels the same way. McD is only looking for proven great players that are still young, like Love.

Now Griffin on the other hand, what do you guys think about him? I don't like his contract, but i'm sure he would like to play with Bledsoe again and he can run the floor and be exciting. I know there are a ton of people that don't like Blake but if he could be had for Okafors expiring and none of our core players I wouldn't be mad.

Simmons does not hate the Suns. He's been extremely critical of Sarver in the past, but who hasn't. Lately he's been heaping loads of praise on us, especially Hornacek.

There's less chance of attaining Griffin than Lebron James. At least he is about to be a free agent. Come on, man.