sorry i left out the info on Kidds 6 year deal with NJ. here is the details from inside hoops quoted from the Chicago Tribune. "This Kidd deal isn't looking good for the New Jersey Nets. Because of a clause in the collective-bargaining agreement that penalizes long-term contracts after a player turns 36, the maximum the Nets likely can offer Kidd is $95 million to $99 million over six years instead of the seven years usually allowable. So the Spurs will be able to offer Kidd a six-year deal worth about $93 million. And because Texas doesn't have a state income tax, Kidd could make more money from the Spurs." Chicago Tribune
So if this is true Kidd can can make $99 mil with the Nets and the Spurs can offer a strait FA contract for $93. But Kidd is still making 1 million less per year unless he and the other team agree to a S&T to say Dallas or SA (where state income taxes won't apply). Thus no matter how you slice it he still makes considerably more money in the S&T--though it look like far less than the 30 mil, only 6 like mil net to a Texas team or team in another no state income tax state. I still see the S&T happening if Kidd is going to leave--if nothing less the Nets should get nominal return like Parker or Nash. For instance Kidd should be insulted if SA doesn't agree throw in Parker via S&T so he can get his full contract amount. Again Kidd has to be darned firm (hard sell) that SA is the only place he will go (won't consider Mavs) and even then the Nets should be able to get some minimal compensation--at least either Parker or Manu.
For the purposes of tax calculations, realize that most states charge income tax to players for game checks earned in that state, so e.g, if Kidd plays a game in New Jersey, New Jersey taxes him on that income, usually by either the amount he get sper game, if the contract is set up like that, or by his income divided by 1/82, or whatever.
Right. But players face that regardless of what team they are on. Anyways, it's up to the player where they end up. The leverage that Indiana and New Jersey have because of the ability to offer the additional 7th year and the 12.5% max raises is overblown. No NBA team wants to be seen as screwing a free agent out of money simply because they opted not to re-sign. If need be the Spurs can send back a pick in a sign and trade. If not then the Spurs can offer the player an option after their 5th year. True, it wouldn't be guaranteed, but if a player did exercise that and re-signed at that date it would eliminate most of the difference between what the Spurs and the player's current team can offer.
Opting out of his contract Duncan just took a substantial long term financial hit to assure that he's on a competitive team for the foreseeable future. I have a hunch he's worked out an understanding with whoever the Spurs will sign. When you add tax advantages Kidd signing with SA is a minimal hit compared to signing on with NJ. Also some have calaculated the true hit to O'Neil is $6 rather than $20 million so I wouldn't rule him out. When it's all said and done the Spurs will be a juggernaut. Duncan opting out saved this team about $600,000 in cap space for this year. By not opting out Duncan'd be looking at a deal at $13.2795 M for 2003-04 and then a 7-year deal from 2004-05 until 2010-11 worth $134.206 M, equivalent to an 8-year, $147.485 M deal (avg = $18.4 M). Since he opted out he can sign a new deal for 7 years, $122.008 M (avg = $17.4 M). He has given up a likely guaranteed $25.5 million by dealing now, following in the tradition of Robinson in considering the team's interests his interests.
striker--a couple of points. As others have said much of the taxes are based on where the game is played, so adjustments have to be considered. Second, the player can be S&T to multiple Texas (no state income tax) teams and perhaps other states also with none (Florida?) or low taxes (AZ). For instance, even though Az has a modest state income tax--for most high end taxpayers Tx is equivalent in total state taxes because of excessive property taxes that make up for the lack of state income tax. In other words the whole issue of how state taxes may interplay in net compensation is a whole lot more complicated than just applying the state income taxes rates on the salary and coming up the a single #. Further, this doesn't even touch endorsement potential lost, for instance in leaving the NYC area, or in Oneal case become a 2nd fiddle in an even smaller market. Mrspur--another poster has suggested of the 2 prime FAs only Oneal, not Kidd, can get the full 7 year deal due to Kidd's age. If true this works for SA's favor regarding Kidd. As for the Spurs being a juggernuat. Perhaps, they already have a very fine team. But let's wait and see what happens this offseason before describing the next dynasty. I'd say right now there is still better than even odds the Lakers are favorites going into next offseason with the Spurs a close 2nd--but all offseason moves have to be made and health reports have to pan out first before much can be said either way.
kidd can have all the endorments he wants in the nyc market but he'll never get a ring there. and, it seems so me thats whats most important to him. i really dont think its about the money to him anymore, hes earned his multi-millions. and its not like nike and milk are gonna cut him off just because he moved to SA, hes got a contract with them.
I agree with you about Kidd. That said I think he would still want SA to show good faith to him and maximize his contract and facilitate a S&T for something nominal (e.g., Parker). Well he did go the EC finals twice, was two close fought games from the title the 2nd time, and has his two best teammates getting better exponentially. It is not look his chance in NJ is that bad--especially since the path to get to the finals doesn't include the Shaq, Kobes, Webbers, Dirks, KGs etc. And sure overall he would have a better chance being a highed gun and 2nd fiddle on the SA team--but I could see a lot of players thinking that is a lot less meaningful than leading your own team to a championship. Overall, I do agree their is a decent chance Kidd goes to SA, a remote chance Oneal does, and a decent chance neither does and SA scramles for the rest.
It's more likely that Claxton would end up in NJ than Parker. Claxton is from NYC and the Nets would have a starting spot for him which he is looking for. Beyond JO'Neal and Kidd I would not be surprised to see the Spurs challenge Sterling straight up on Brand. Sterling always seems to talk a good game about keeping his free agents every summer and every summer he seems to lose just about every one...with the exception of Piatkowski a few years back. There's always Payton and bigs such as Brown and Howard.
Why in the world would Kidd ask for a sign and trade when its not necessary at all? Why hurt the team you are joining for a measly extra 6 mill? Parker is a valuable asset who could extend Kidd's career and take pressure off of him. If thats not possible, I'm sure he's worth something in a trade.
Claxton isn't really an improvement over Anthony Johnson, the Nets back-up last year. I don't think the Nets would take Claxton unless it is less than a 2 mil contract for a back-up--and they would just sign him or resign AJ as a FA. If it is a S&T--Manu or Parker would go. Sterling will match Brand--I don't think there is much doubt. They can always trade him for great draft picks, cheap good players and expiring contracts [Rice and Mobley and two future #1's ] if need be next year to keep the team cheap young (rookie contract) talent coming in. Sterling will not match if contracts are over market value, Brand at the max is not over market--that means like 7+ million range for Dre, Odom or Maggette are the only current RFA contracts he won't match. Sterling isn't stupid--he just wants the best talent possible at the cheapist price, and he can screw other teams players by matching late in the game (waisting precious negotiating time and alienating other nonClip FAs who see other players being more sought after). Personally if they can't get Kidd (I think they have minimal chance at Oneal or Brand), Brad Miller and GP would be an awefully smart way to go. But it all depends on the contract size relative to how good the players are as to whether it is a good deal. Kandi or Rasha--the latter taking away from a division rival--would also be decent routes--better than Howard (not really a defensive presence or big 2--now TD would always have to guard the opponents best low post player) or Brown (pretty old--more of a 2 year stop gap than building a team for 3-4-5-6 years down the line). If I am the Spurs I go for Kidd #1 (a lot more likely from the players perspective than Oneal), Oneal #2 (if you don't get Kidd), Brad Miller #3, Kandi #4, Rasha #5, Arenas #6 (why they havn't mentioned him I have no idea) and Howard #7. After that you are talking 1) more stopgap with older players than building for the future with Brown, Malone, or GP, 2) you take a gamble and maybe overpay (9 mil) for an Odom, or 3) you likely lose in a scramble for a leading RFAs like Brand, Terry, Maggette or Hamilton. Of these Maggette is more plausible, maybe the Clips would not match a 6 or 7 million dollar starting deal if they had already had to pay a lot for Brand and Odom.
Why would SA not try to maximize Kidd's contract when he is showing such good faith to them by considering their team? He owes them nothing--it is them trying to roll out the red carper. It is not like losing Parker or Manu costs Kidd's chance at a ring much at all--the Spurs should have no trouble resigning Jackson and a back-up PG (Claxton or another). Kidd should be insulted if the Spurs don't offer at least either Parker or Manu to secure him and get him his deserved full contract.
Yeah but SA can maximize Kidd's contract by sending back a pick or two to the Nets in exchange for the Nets going along with a sign and trade. No way do the Nets want to be seen as screwing a free agent out of some money just because he didn't re-up with them. If Kidd decides on SA then I don't see the Nets refusing to take back a pick or two. I only mentioned Claxton because if Kidd comes then he's the odd man out, Claxton's from NY, and the Nets will be looking for a point. When healthy Claxton is a superior player to someone like an Anthony Johnson. I doubt that Sterling would ever commit to $90 mil for one player. It costs real $$$ to mitigate the risk of a deal like that, even if he intends to ship Brand out later next season. For Brand there is the benefit of waiting a year and becoming unrestricted versus getting paid today. Outside of the top 3 free agents this is really a buyer's market. Given the amount of cap flexibility the Spurs hae they may be able to handle waiting two weeks for Sterling to confirm that indeed he would never take on a max contract.
I think it would be viewed as the Spurs screwing a FA and Kidd by not agreeing to send Parker to the Nets. The Nets traded for Kidd, they will show him good faith and offer him 99 mil or whatever--only the Spurs can screw him out of his full money by not sending a good young prospect (Parker) who will play back-up for the elite PG in the league. That trade already is so stilted it is silly, the Spurs are the ones who look bad by further exploiting it and not making sure the guy they are trying to recruit gets all he can. I view it is very remote Sterling would not match. Brand at *any* price the NBA currently allows is a hot commodity. Like I said he could get no less than Mobley (cheap and good), Rice (expiring contract), EG (cheap with marginal production but with potential) and #1 pick for Brand. I do agree with you though if Kidd, Oneal and Brad Miller are off the table I guess it wouldn't hurt to quickly try to get a max deal to Brand and see what happens.
If I'm the Nets, I demand at least Parker. If I'm SA, I would give him to them. Kidd is that much better.
Not if SA wants to retain Parker in order to shape the supporting cast around Kidd and TD by moving him elsewhere. It's usually the free agent and his new team who are in the driver's seat. When a team has the cap flexibility to sign a player outright and especially in this case in which the difference between what NJ is willing to offer and what SA is offering is $5 mil (before tax and cost of living) NJ doesn't have the leverage to make such a demand on SA.
But this disregards Kidd has a pretty good position if he stays put and may have some pretty good other possible spots via S&T(Dallas, maybe Sac). NJ also has to save face here. Getting a 20 year old kid for a 30 year old Kidd is better than nothing. But going to your fans and saying you got the 28th, 29th pick in the draft for the elite PG in the league, very hard to swallow. Kidd (the elite PG in the league) for Parker (a young currently servicable PG with talent) is rape against the Nets, Kidd for the 29th pick is a rape against the Nets of unprecedented proportions. If you are the Nets you are probably better off working you tail off to keep Kidd and saying you lost a good fight to SA outright or work your tail off to S&T him to the Mavs for something back than even considering that proposal. Even if they get Kidd SA will still have some FA money for another big guy, and will be set at all positions. There really isn't much shaping to be done. Showing this kind of greed (balking at giving up Parker to get Kidd his full contract) certainly is not worth the potential of pissing off Kidd/his agent and their good faith in considering the Spurs this offseason. But JK and his agent do. The power in this deal all rests with him--not the Nets, not the Spurs, not anyone else. At the very least he will expect SA to do what they can so he gets his max contract. It isn't about the 5 million--it is about SA doing everything reasonable in their power to recruit him--showing him the respect of an all NBA vet player. If the Nets really think they might lose Kidd for nada but would agree to take Parker to facillitate this deal as a last resort the Spurs should run to pack Tony's bags for him and get him on a one way redeye to Newark that night.
If Kidd is as big a dick as you say he should be, i wouldnt bother signing him. you must be a nets fan making such ridiculous claims. It's called cap room. When you have it, you dont have to work sign and trades. you have the money, you call the shots. the spurs could go so many directions its not even funny. If you have 14 mill in cap space, you dont just giving away assets to "show your respect for the player you are recruiting." the spurs would probably rather just keep Parker and sign several other players than just swap Kidd for Parker. If you haven't noticed, the spurs have about 6 players under contract and they just can't give away 21 year old point guards who helped your team win a title. Some could argue that Parker is even a better fit than Kidd, seeing that he can hit the broadside of a barn with his jumpshot.
Oh really it's all about cap room? Well then why did Orlando have to give up Ben Wallace to get Grant Hill? They had plenty of cap room. Why did the Rockets get a first round pick for Hakeem Olajuwon? Hell, why did the rockets have to give up Roy Rogers to get Scottie Pippen, the rockets had Clyde Drexler's cap room? I don't ever recall a player EVER taking less money than he could get at his former team via an S&T to go to another team since the last CBA started. Why would Kidd be any different? But if it's all about cap room, name one high profile player who accepted less money to jump teams rather than doing an S&T.
Your right, why should they bother with trying to recruit this Jason Kidd fellow. In case you havn't noticed, Kidd and Oneal are/will being pursued madly by teams under the cap or via S&T--not visa versa. It is SAs job to sell Kidd on them, not Kidd's job to prove to SA what he is worth. Kidd and Oneal can make more money staying with where they are or insuring a S&T than SA or any other team can offer outright--they have the power, not teams with the cap space. How hard is this for you to see?
