Phoenix Move Up

[NashtyNas]

is this draft even worth moving up for though? I'm not so sure any of the guys available at 6 are gonna turn out to be better than Knight already is. I think I'd rather just keep him and take my chances with 13

The cost needs to be factored in. Knight is on a max deal while the rookie would be on a 4 year rookie scale deal. The risk that he's never as good as Knight is or better is the cost for the Suns.

I would do a few of those deals, but definitely not others.

#5 and Pekovic? - Not with Pekovic, we have Chandler + Len; Bjelica + Bazz maybe?
#6 and Asik? - Not with Asik, we have Chandler + Len; Anderson S&T maybe?
#8 and Belinelli or Koufos and McLemore? - I'd do it with Belinelli + McLeMore
#9 and Ross and/or Joseph - I'd do it with Joseph, but not Ross

Boston is the most interesting but they have no interest in Knight.

[Smitty731]

My assumptions are derived from fact.

Knight's contract will be a good value post July 15 not only because lesser players will be paid more in free agency but because of the number of teams that are going to have excess cap space. That room increase will also lead to a market for Chandler.

It looks like you have a blind spot for the ramifications of the massive room increase. Or at least a lack of appreciation for it.

Each of the last two CBA negotiations bore an amnesty. Connect that with the room increase and savy general managers will see the value in taking on "bad contracts" for potential star acquisitions in the draft.

The Suns have not gone full rebuild. In point and fact they have tried to win in each of the last three seasons under McDonough. They would have finished near the back of the lottery had Bledsoe remained healthy.

From the media reports it looks like Sarver is going to give him room to assemble pieces around Booker and on Booker's time table. However, I will concede that Sarver could pull the rug out from under anyone in that organization at any time.

1. Nothing has happened, so you have no facts. Everything is speculation right now.

2. If anyone has an understanding of what is happening because of the cap increase, I'm one of them. I've been talking about it for over a year.

Regardless of the increase, Knight's contract won't be good. It is still over $12 million and going up from there. That is fine for a starter. For a backup level combo guard? Not so good. And the same for Chandler.

If anyone has a blindspot, it is you. There is general agreement that Chandler is a bad contract. There is also general agreement that Knight is a neutral contract at best.

Actually it's a fact that the cap will rise significantly. There will reportedly be upwards of $1 billion dollars in maximum possible room available.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nbas-bestworst-case-2016-17-cap-projections/

Here is another fact, just because you have talked about something for a year doesn't mean you either understand or appreciate it. There is going to be more money than talent available. On top of that, another massive jump is coming in 2017. These facts dictate a different valuation process for longterm contracts consummated pre-2016.

I'm not arguing that it is a fact that the cap will rise. What I am arguing is that you know what will happen with contracts. Several owners have suggested that they won't extend themselves very far money-wise. Now, I happen to agree with you. I think we will see salaries explode. But those are things we think. That doesn't make them facts. Yet.

And trust me, I guarantee I understand and appreciate it better than you think I do. Everyone here will vouch for that. I've been saying it, writing it, and putting it every possible way. I've written several pieces for the site saying to be prepared for what is coming, including that we all need to evaluate what makes a good contract.

As a matter of fact, I find it insulting you suggest that I don't get it. I don't think we want to go down that path. Let's skip that whole process, because I can assure you that I do get it. And my track record more than proves that.

Also, be aware that just because the cap is jumping, it doesn't take every contract signed prior to this summer off the hook. Several of them are still bad. Maybe not as bad. Maybe neutral. But they don't just jump to good all of a sudden. Especially when the players aren't remotely worth the contracts today.

[jredsaz]

If Knight's contract is a good one, Kanter's must be too, considering he's got similar to better production. Its not good.

After July15 Kanters contract will be fine. Although the deal is worth considerably more than Knights

Kanter is owed $53.6 million over the next three years. And that is only if he opts in to his final year. Knight is owed $56.5 million over the next 4 years, all fully guaranteed.

Not exactly sure how it is worth considerably more.

Beyond that, neither of them are fine or good. Both of them are neutral at best, or maybe "not as bad".

And Kanter gave 6MOY of the level production. His numbers, adjusted for playing time, were terrific. He's still a mess defensively, but he's an excellent scorer and rebounder. Knight doesn't give anything beyond backup level combo-guard production. He's not a bad player by any means, but he's not worth what he's paid. And his trade value is nil.

So the Knight contract will be more valuable because there is another guaranteed year at an affordable price. You are wrong headed in how you are looking at value moving forward.

By year Kanter makes about $4 million per, that's what I was refernecing.

[bondom34]

After July15 Kanters contract will be fine. Although the deal is worth considerably more than Knights

Kanter is owed $53.6 million over the next three years. And that is only if he opts in to his final year. Knight is owed $56.5 million over the next 4 years, all fully guaranteed.

Not exactly sure how it is worth considerably more.

Beyond that, neither of them are fine or good. Both of them are neutral at best, or maybe "not as bad".

And Kanter gave 6MOY of the level production. His numbers, adjusted for playing time, were terrific. He's still a mess defensively, but he's an excellent scorer and rebounder. Knight doesn't give anything beyond backup level combo-guard production. He's not a bad player by any means, but he's not worth what he's paid. And his trade value is nil.

So the Knight contract will be more valuable because there is another guaranteed year at an affordable price. You are wrong headed in how you are looking at value moving forward.

By year Kanter makes about $4 million per, that's what I was refernecing.

Except neither of those players are still worth those contracts.

Smitty understands it better than anyone here and insulting him by saying otherwise is really confusing considering his cap knowledge. Neither contract is good under the cap now or later, the players aren't that good.

Knight is a decent off the bench combo guard making what will be around starters level money for 4 more years, that's not a "good contract" in any sense. Maybe neutral.

[Streakers33]

No interest for the Wolves.

1. Knight isn't a good fit with Rubio or LaVine.
2. Knight isn't a good contract. He actually makes their future cap more difficult.
3. The Wolves move so far back they could potentially miss out on guys like Chriss, Skal, and Davis.

Agreed for the wolves. Would need more incentive. Like a future pick or other assets. And that is just because the wolves are in a spot where we can find a quality guy at five. Or we could trade pick or whatever. No reason for us to do anything. So bid higher. Lol

[jredsaz]

1. Nothing has happened, so you have no facts. Everything is speculation right now.

2. If anyone has an understanding of what is happening because of the cap increase, I'm one of them. I've been talking about it for over a year.

Regardless of the increase, Knight's contract won't be good. It is still over $12 million and going up from there. That is fine for a starter. For a backup level combo guard? Not so good. And the same for Chandler.

If anyone has a blindspot, it is you. There is general agreement that Chandler is a bad contract. There is also general agreement that Knight is a neutral contract at best.

Actually it's a fact that the cap will rise significantly. There will reportedly be upwards of $1 billion dollars in maximum possible room available.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nbas-bestworst-case-2016-17-cap-projections/

Here is another fact, just because you have talked about something for a year doesn't mean you either understand or appreciate it. There is going to be more money than talent available. On top of that, another massive jump is coming in 2017. These facts dictate a different valuation process for longterm contracts consummated pre-2016.

I'm not arguing that it is a fact that the cap will rise. What I am arguing is that you know what will happen with contracts. Several owners have suggested that they won't extend themselves very far money-wise. Now, I happen to agree with you. I think we will see salaries explode. But those are things we think. That doesn't make them facts. Yet.

And trust me, I guarantee I understand and appreciate it better than you think I do. Everyone here will vouch for that. I've been saying it, writing it, and putting it every possible way. I've written several pieces for the site saying to be prepared for what is coming, including that we all need to evaluate what makes a good contract.

As a matter of fact, I find it insulting you suggest that I don't get it. I don't think we want to go down that path. Let's skip that whole process, because I can assure you that I do get it. And my track record more than proves that.

Also, be aware that just because the cap is jumping, it doesn't take every contract signed prior to this summer off the hook. Several of them are still bad. Maybe not as bad. Maybe neutral. But they don't just jump to good all of a sudden. Especially when the players aren't remotely worth the contracts today.

If I am insulting you I apologize. Don't mean time do that. It is basic inflation. When money purchases less value in an economy than previously, finding cost controlled commodities is beneficial. When the purchasing power of money drops suddenly AND dramatically, cost controlled commodities become extremely valuable.

[bondom34]

Actually it's a fact that the cap will rise significantly. There will reportedly be upwards of $1 billion dollars in maximum possible room available.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nbas-bestworst-case-2016-17-cap-projections/

Here is another fact, just because you have talked about something for a year doesn't mean you either understand or appreciate it. There is going to be more money than talent available. On top of that, another massive jump is coming in 2017. These facts dictate a different valuation process for longterm contracts consummated pre-2016.

I'm not arguing that it is a fact that the cap will rise. What I am arguing is that you know what will happen with contracts. Several owners have suggested that they won't extend themselves very far money-wise. Now, I happen to agree with you. I think we will see salaries explode. But those are things we think. That doesn't make them facts. Yet.

And trust me, I guarantee I understand and appreciate it better than you think I do. Everyone here will vouch for that. I've been saying it, writing it, and putting it every possible way. I've written several pieces for the site saying to be prepared for what is coming, including that we all need to evaluate what makes a good contract.

As a matter of fact, I find it insulting you suggest that I don't get it. I don't think we want to go down that path. Let's skip that whole process, because I can assure you that I do get it. And my track record more than proves that.

Also, be aware that just because the cap is jumping, it doesn't take every contract signed prior to this summer off the hook. Several of them are still bad. Maybe not as bad. Maybe neutral. But they don't just jump to good all of a sudden. Especially when the players aren't remotely worth the contracts today.

If I am insulting you I apologize. Don't mean time do that. It is basic inflation. When money purchases less value in an economy than previously, finding cost controlled commodities is beneficial. When the purchasing power of money drops suddenly AND dramatically, cost controlled commodities become extremely valuable.

But that only works if the commodities are desired and in demand. 6th man combo guards are a dime a dozen.

[jredsaz]

I'm not arguing that it is a fact that the cap will rise. What I am arguing is that you know what will happen with contracts. Several owners have suggested that they won't extend themselves very far money-wise. Now, I happen to agree with you. I think we will see salaries explode. But those are things we think. That doesn't make them facts. Yet.

And trust me, I guarantee I understand and appreciate it better than you think I do. Everyone here will vouch for that. I've been saying it, writing it, and putting it every possible way. I've written several pieces for the site saying to be prepared for what is coming, including that we all need to evaluate what makes a good contract.

As a matter of fact, I find it insulting you suggest that I don't get it. I don't think we want to go down that path. Let's skip that whole process, because I can assure you that I do get it. And my track record more than proves that.

Also, be aware that just because the cap is jumping, it doesn't take every contract signed prior to this summer off the hook. Several of them are still bad. Maybe not as bad. Maybe neutral. But they don't just jump to good all of a sudden. Especially when the players aren't remotely worth the contracts today.

If I am insulting you I apologize. Don't mean time do that. It is basic inflation. When money purchases less value in an economy than previously, finding cost controlled commodities is beneficial. When the purchasing power of money drops suddenly AND dramatically, cost controlled commodities become extremely valuable.

But that only works if the commodities are desired and in demand. 6th man combo guards are a dime a dozen.

You're right about demand. But I don't believe players his age, skill set, and potential are a dime a dozen. He isn't a great player but he is a decent player.

[bondom34]

If I am insulting you I apologize. Don't mean time do that. It is basic inflation. When money purchases less value in an economy than previously, finding cost controlled commodities is beneficial. When the purchasing power of money drops suddenly AND dramatically, cost controlled commodities become extremely valuable.

But that only works if the commodities are desired and in demand. 6th man combo guards are a dime a dozen.

You're right about demand. But I don't believe players his age, skill set, and potential are a dime a dozen. He isn't a great player but he is a decent player.

I don't disagree, but he'd still be only a decent player making a more than decent amount of money. Same for Kanter, same for a bunch of guys signed recently.

[jredsaz]

But that only works if the commodities are desired and in demand. 6th man combo guards are a dime a dozen.

You're right about demand. But I don't believe players his age, skill set, and potential are a dime a dozen. He isn't a great player but he is a decent player.

I don't disagree, but he'd still be only a decent player making a more than decent amount of money. Same for Kanter, same for a bunch of guys signed recently.

Again, in a new economy a "decent amount" of money means something different.

Reaching the cap floor by signing mediocre and/or past-their-prime-players to expensive short term contracts is one way to go about it. So is falling under that threshold and simply overpaying the players you already have on your team. Trading for players like Knight and Kanter is a way to accomplish their goal and possibly, in a significant way, improve their team.

You assume the talent will be out their to meet the demand in free agency. I do not. Not by a long shot.

[Andre Roberstan]

Yeah, Knight's contract isn't good--that and the Chandler contract are two pretty big albatrosses for PHO right now. They're not in contention at the moment so it's not a huge issue, but it'll definitely come up some time before both contracts are up.

There are a ton of combo guards out there. It's probably the most common position in the NBA, even in terms of guys who are available from Europe and from the D-League. There's just not a lot of value to Knight unless he suddenly becomes a different player next year.

FWIW, I think Knight, Chandler and Kanter are all movable this offseason. But I don't think Knight and Kanter have more than neutral value, and Chandler's contract is an abomination.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I've heard rumblings that there might not be an amnesty clause on this CBA--backlash from bad owners/GMs getting a "get out of jail free" card and the others not being too happy with it.

[jredsaz]

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I've heard rumblings that there might not be an amnesty clause on this CBA--backlash from bad owners/GMs getting a "get out of jail free" card and the others not being too happy with it.

I disagree with your evaluation process but I've gone over that.

Do you have a reference for the above?

Generally, the we'll run organizations do not want the amnesty provision. In the past they have been out numbered. Maybe it's different this time but rumblings against amnesty were there the last negotiation too.

[Andre Roberstan]

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I've heard rumblings that there might not be an amnesty clause on this CBA--backlash from bad owners/GMs getting a "get out of jail free" card and the others not being too happy with it.

I disagree with your evaluation process but I've gone over that.

Do you have a reference for the above?

Generally, the we'll run organizations do not want the amnesty provision. In the past they have been out numbered. Maybe it's different this time but rumblings against amnesty were there the last negotiation too.

Not offhand. Nate Duncan, Eric Pincus or Zach Lowe's twitter feed--think it was a conversation between 2 of those 3. But it was probably somewhere between two weeks and a month ago.

[bondom34]

You're right about demand. But I don't believe players his age, skill set, and potential are a dime a dozen. He isn't a great player but he is a decent player.

I don't disagree, but he'd still be only a decent player making a more than decent amount of money. Same for Kanter, same for a bunch of guys signed recently.

Again, in a new economy a "decent amount" of money means something different.

Reaching the cap floor by signing mediocre and/or past-their-prime-players to expensive short term contracts is one way to go about it. So is falling under that threshold and simply overpaying the players you already have on your team. Trading for players like Knight and Kanter is a way to accomplish their goal and possibly, in a significant way, improve their team.

You assume the talent will be out their to meet the demand in free agency. I do not. Not by a long shot.

I don't either. I just assume GMs would rather not waste their own money. We saw w/ teams who struck out last year, they signed low tier guys for small short contracts instead of trading for big ones.

He's moveable ,but so is a guy like Kanter. I just don't expect any real value back.

[Texas Chuck]

Generally, the we'll run organizations do not want the amnesty provision. In the past they have been out numbered. Maybe it's different this time but rumblings against amnesty were there the last negotiation too.

Everything changed with the most recent CBA. Used to be some of the best run franchises did want it because it allowed the owners willing to spend another tool to use. Under this CBA the penalties are so harsh that we are seeing franchises that regularly paid tax avoid it completely because its no longer a smart strategy in building a team. Cleveland and OKC typically would not be major tax teams but there was a sense of "desperation" because of Lebron and Durant's situations.

Nobody on this entire board is a bigger Tyson Chandler fan than me. Nobody. But its impossible even for me to argue that's not an ugly contact. Knight's isn't terrible, but by the same token its not good. He could be moved but I wouldn't expect him to bring much in return.

[jredsaz]

I don't disagree, but he'd still be only a decent player making a more than decent amount of money. Same for Kanter, same for a bunch of guys signed recently.

Again, in a new economy a "decent amount" of money means something different.

Reaching the cap floor by signing mediocre and/or past-their-prime-players to expensive short term contracts is one way to go about it. So is falling under that threshold and simply overpaying the players you already have on your team. Trading for players like Knight and Kanter is a way to accomplish their goal and possibly, in a significant way, improve their team.

You assume the talent will be out their to meet the demand in free agency. I do not. Not by a long shot.

I don't either. I just assume GMs would rather not waste their own money. We saw w/ teams who struck out last year, they signed low tier guys for small short contracts instead of trading for big ones.

He's moveable ,but so is a guy like Kanter. I just don't expect any real value back.

The dynamics are going to shift from last year. Too much money available.

[bondom34]

Again, in a new economy a "decent amount" of money means something different.

Reaching the cap floor by signing mediocre and/or past-their-prime-players to expensive short term contracts is one way to go about it. So is falling under that threshold and simply overpaying the players you already have on your team. Trading for players like Knight and Kanter is a way to accomplish their goal and possibly, in a significant way, improve their team.

You assume the talent will be out their to meet the demand in free agency. I do not. Not by a long shot.

I don't either. I just assume GMs would rather not waste their own money. We saw w/ teams who struck out last year, they signed low tier guys for small short contracts instead of trading for big ones.

He's moveable ,but so is a guy like Kanter. I just don't expect any real value back.

The dynamics are going to shift from last year. Too much money available.

Or teams could just sign short term contracts, or trade for shorter contracts, or roll over money.

We don't know this, and if you've got a mediocre overpaid player you may be stuck.

[Texas Chuck]

Yeah I think people are way too optimistic to think that just because a mediocre player's percentage of the cap is slightly lower that all of a sudden demand will increase. Why? Just because there is more cap space to work with doesn't mean teams should spend it sub-optimally.

I mean look at Dallas who has completely bombed in free agency over and over again. Other than Wes Matthews who only happened because he and DeAndre agreed to come together to Dallas, when Dallas has whiffed on free agents they didn't panic and trade for bad contracts. They signed below market guys on shorter deals or traded for guys on short term deals.

If someone deals for Knight its not just to reach the cap floor. It would be only because they believed he could help them. Derrick Rose gets you to the cap floor and then goes away. Jose Calderon helps get you to the cap floor and then goes away. Or just give a decent vet a huge one year deal.

That said, I don't think Knight is completely without his use. If the Suns didn't expect any return on him I'd take him on Dallas. ---And yes I am freely aware the Suns aren't giving him away so relax.

[jredsaz]

Generally, the we'll run organizations do not want the amnesty provision. In the past they have been out numbered. Maybe it's different this time but rumblings against amnesty were there the last negotiation too.

Everything changed with the most recent CBA. Used to be some of the best run franchises did want it because it allowed the owners willing to spend another tool to use. Under this CBA the penalties are so harsh that we are seeing franchises that regularly paid tax avoid it completely because its no longer a smart strategy in building a team. Cleveland and OKC typically would not be major tax teams but there was a sense of "desperation" because of Lebron and Durant's situations.

Nobody on this entire board is a bigger Tyson Chandler fan than me. Nobody. But its impossible even for me to argue that's not an ugly contact. Knight's isn't terrible, but by the same token its not good. He could be moved but I wouldn't expect him to bring much in return.

Three out of four teams in the conference finals were tax paying teams including the GSW. Hard to argue it's not a "smart strategy" to run a franchise. Obviously don't be the Nets or Knicks from years past but going into the tax this year and even maybe last was a fine decision for competitive teams due to the impending cap increase. The repeater tax is less likely to hit you following this cap increase and the tax teams can reset the clock. That will also be a primary argument against the amnesty in the current CBA negotiations.

Didn't say Chandlers deal was good but it will be moveable at some point this off season if the Suns/Chandler decide that's best. Don't believe it has been moveable up to this point without attaching considerable value.

Knight/Kanter deals I have made my argument.