Oh, nooooo, Mr. Bill. Do we really need an old player who will be found drunk in the Med Center fountain with a stripper?
Can someone explain to me why if all these trades for Marc are on the table, they wouldn't have already done one of them? They let him know that they didn't want him. He had trade value - why wouldn't they work something out with another team before now? And now they are going trade him and wait 90 days to complete the verbal agreement?
There's a couple of problems with this sign and trade scenario: First of all, Jackson will be a BYC player, regardless of whether or not he is signed using an exception. The only requirement for determining his BYC status is the following. CBA Article VII, Section 8, part 4: (i) For purposes of the Assigned Player Exception, a player shall be subject to a Base Year Compensation in the event that the Team Salary of the player’s Team is at or above the Salary Cap and the player: (A)is a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent or Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent who, in accordance with Section 6(b) above, enters into a new Player Contract with his prior Team that provides for a <b>Salary for the first Season of such new Contract greater than 120% of the Salary for the last Season of the player’s immediately prior Contract</b>; Golden State is definitely over the cap. Jackson made $316,969 last year, so if he was signed for more than $380,362, then he's a BYC player. Also, if Golden State uses is Right Of First Refusal (ROFR), then they can't trade Jackson for a year without his consent. Here's the actual verbage from the NBA CBA. CBA Article XI, Section 6, item f: (f) <b>After exercising its Right of First Refusal as described in this Section 6, the ROFR Team may not trade the Restricted Free Agent for one (1) year, without the player’s consent </b>. Even with the player’s consent, for one (1) year, neither the ROFR Team exercising its Right of First Refusal nor any other Team may trade the player to the Team whose Offer Sheet was matched.
Thanks for the clarification Aelliott. That would mean that Golden State couldn't trade him until the start of training camp next year. They're bluffing, if they're threatening to sign him, unless they intend to keep him & trade one of Fortson/Foyle/Dampier instead. I'd just call their bluff. Does anyone know, if any part of the 6 year offer is guaranteed? If the Rockets have guaranteed 3 or more years of it, then there is no way that I can see GS matching it. That move would go against everything they've been trying to do so far, by reducing salary to avoid the potential luxury tax.
This might not be a bluff though, because MJ has shown <b>more</b> than a strong desire to get out of Golden State, so the Warriors know they will have his consent to trade him if they match our offer. We might still have to make a deal here.
I'm pretty sure the whole contract is guaranteed. Guaranteed deals are the general rule, rather than the exception, in the NBA.
Sorry, but you've made a mistake here. Jackson isn't a "Qualifying Veteran Free Agent or Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agent," as the paragraph you quoted states. He's a Non-Qualifying Veteran Free Agent (in other words, he doesn't "qualify" for Bird rights or early-Bird rights). OK, so he can't be traded to the Rockets for 1 year. But why wouldn't he consent to a trade elsewhere, if the alternative was staying with the Warriors (whom he supposedly doesn't want to play for?).
The only problem that I can see with this is, GS would have to find a team that would be willing to trade a player or players with expiring contracts for Jackson/Sura or Mills (as gswinsider has suggested to reduce their actual cap space). With Sura, that'd be about $8.1-8.2 million in expiring contracts to achieve the above mentioned goal & even more with Mills in the mix.I would think that'd be highly unlikely, but anything's possible. If the intent of matching our offer would be to trade him for an expiring contract & a #1 pick, then we should be able to do that. Personally, I'd have no problem with trading Walt for Sura, but I have to agree with some of the other posters, in that Walt's expiring contract & 40% 3 point shooting would be worth more than a backup player that has a track record of injuries. I agree that GS giving us a #1 pick would be too steep a price for GS to pay, but if GS were to throw in a future second rounder, that might do it. My gut feeling is that GS is more desperate to decrease salary than the Rockets are to sign Jackson. Given the opinions that I've stated above, I'd probably call GS's bluff. Because, if the offer is guaranteed, then GS has to feel really confident that they'll be able to move Jackson for an expiring contract & with everyone in the league knowing that Jackson is so unhappy & almost demanding a trade, you can rest assured that they'll try to screw GS over. After all it is a business. As a side bar to this whole Jackson situation. I can't help but wonder, if the way GS has dealt with Jackson throughout these negotiations, if it won't have a negative impact on their future dealings with FA's.
Because if the Rockets call the Warriors bluff and decides to pull out of this deal, then the Warriors would be stuck with his contract for the next 6 years. It'll be tough enough for the Warriors to trade his contract let alone find someone who is capable of taking him off their hands without giving the Warriors a player that adds to their payroll. In the end, they would add Jackson to their payroll, and have to trade him for someone that adds to their payroll instead of letting him walk and keeping the payroll as is. The way I see it, if the Warriors decide to screw the Rockets and match their offer, the Warriors are stuck with Jackson's contract with little hope of trading for someone with an expiring contract, while the Rockets might be able to deal for Jahidi White, and would also have a medical exemption to use, maybe on Anthony Mason.
<i>OK, so he can't be traded to the Rockets for 1 year. But why wouldn't he consent to a trad elsewhere, if the alternative was staying with the Warriors (whom he supposedly doesn't want to play for?).</i> Oh, he'd probably eventually conset to a trade, but then GS is taking a chance of a luxury tax hit and they'd have zero leverage in trading Jackson. According to RealGM, GS's payroll is currently around $56M. That's already over the expected threshold for the luxury tax ($54M or $55M). Now you give Jackson a $3.25M contract on top of that? Even if Jackson would consent to a trade, the Warriors will have to take back around $2.7M in salary. That would also mean that they'd have to pay and additional $2.7M in luxury tax. Lastly, they'd also wouldn't be eligible to get their share of the luxury tax paid by other owners. So, realistically, matching Jackson's offer will cost the Warriors, $2.7M in salary, and additional $2.7M in luxury tax and the loss of any revenue from the luxury tax of other owners. That seems like an awful high price to pay for a guy that everyone knows doesn't want to be on your team. Why pay all of that money, when you'll only be able to get back around $3.5M in trade value and other teams will only be making you lowball offers anyway?
Whoa there, partner -- to get that $56M figure, you're including the unrenounced value of four FAs who won't be back (including Adam Keefe at the bargain price of $6.78M ) and two exceptions the Warriors haven't used. The real payroll is just over $43M, and matching the offer to Jackson would bring it to $46-47M ... still well below the luxury tax. The tricky part would come next summer, if Larry Hughes has a strong season and is signed to a near-maximum contract. Depending on how much the cap/luxury tax levels increase, the Warriors might have to dump a medium-sized salary (Jackson, Sura, Mills, or Foyle) to avoid the tax -- and obviously there's no guarantee that they can do that.
If you're CD, none of these trade scenarios make sense. Assume that St. Jean matches our offer. Clearly he then has to trade Jackson and trade him for a soon to disappear salary, ie Walt Williams. Why would CD give up Williams now to take on Sure or Mills? Hell, let them match the offer and then we'll offer Williams for Jackson. It's not like the Warriors are looking to get a good player for Jackson. If they sign, him they'll only be looking for a salary dump in return. What better deal are they going to get than Walt at that point?
aelliott, the luxury tax talk is premature. The early projections are that the escrow tax (paid for by the players--10% of their salary) will cover any BRI shortfall, meaning the luxury tax will not kick in. Much of this is based on TV revenue projections, but Larry is saying early estimates are looking good for the owners. <a href="http://www.realgm.com/src_gm_articles.php?artid=luxury_tax">This is a piece Larry contributed to.</a> We can simplify this for sake of brevity and say that the owners' revenue is growing faster than overall salaries....as long as that happens, no one gets slapped with a luxury taxed. The luxury tax is a limited robbin hood rule. It only applies in bad times, but ceases when times are good.
Granted the Warriors could sign Jackson and be under the luxury tax, but all it does is put Jackson in the same category as Sura and Mills, a bothersome contract that the Warriors are desperately trying to move. Unless the injury bug comes biting, the only reason the Warriors would want to add a 24 million contract over 6 years to their bench is to screw over the Rockets. Jackson wouldn't be able to prove himself, thus nobody would be in a hurry to take a chance on him. If teams were afraid to make an offer for Jackson now, why would they be willing to take a chance on him at 4 million dollars a year, when he's buried on the bench for the next 2 or 3 months?
CP/Swopa, The potential for the luxury tax is all that matters. Teams simply aren't going to take the chance of putting themselves in a position to possibly end up paying the tax. That's been demonstrated many time this off-season. That's why a guy like Anthony Mason is still unsigned. The luxury tax has changed the the free agency and trade market. Teams aren't going to take on any contract that puts them at risk of the luxury tax. Because of that, it's harder to make trades and much more difficult to dump salary. If the signing of Damon Jones means that Moochie has priced himself out of Houston, then I'm sure the Rockets would be more than willing to send him to GS in a trade. I just don't think that it makes much sense from a GS perspective.
I can see a reason why it might make sense with the Warriors getting Mooch, I'm sure Swopa would know, how much money does Blaylock make and how much is left on his contract? If Hughes is going to play some point, maybe they decide to give up a veteran like Blaylock, and try to get a cheap, young, quality back-up PG who isn't going to challenge Hughes for the starting position, or is going to get upset with lower minutes and a lesser role.
<i>I can see a reason why it might make sense with the Warriors getting Mooch, I'm sure Swopa would know, how much money does Blaylock make and how much is left on his contract? If Hughes is going to play some point, maybe they decide to give up a veteran like Blaylock, and try to get a cheap, young, quality back-up PG who isn't going to challenge Hughes for the starting position, or is going to get upset with lower minutes and a lesser role.</i> If Moochie has already turned down a 4yr/$12M deal, then he's NOT cheap for a backup PG.
