What's new
By:
Filters

Should we give Jeremy Evans a huge deal this summer?

Handlogten's Heros said:
I didn't read that... Sure once we've already used up our cap space we could do one of these deals. It acts as the salary match for a trade and doesn't hurt our cap.
Click to expand...

Right, and as NAOS pointed out, it could mean keeping Booker instead of using him as filler, which is why his contract was structured the way it was.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
This only happens if Utah uses up their cap space. In that scenario, this kind of a move allows us more flexibility in trade and hurts us in no way. It's actually a great idea.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's actually pretty good. My post wasn't bashing it. I was merely repeating my understanding to confirm that I understood it correctly.

Overpay Evans so his contract opens the doors for more trades. Not bad at all.
 
This is a savvy move to make if we're below the salary floor-- say we're 4 million below, and we decide to sign Jeremy to a two year 4mill/yr contract, 2nd year unguaranteed. Instead of distributing 4 mill equally across all players, we just use it to get a solid trading chip.
 
dalamon said:
This is a savvy move to make if we're below the salary floor-- say we're 4 million below, and we decide to sign Jeremy to a two year 4mill/yr contract, 2nd year unguaranteed. Instead of distributing 4 mill equally across all players, we just use it to get a solid trading chip.
Click to expand...

If we were at the salary floor though, we'd still have cap room, and the argument could be made that the money could be better spent elsewhere. In this scenario, the money being spent on Jeremy couldn't be used on a FA, so we're really not wasting money that could be better utilized.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
If we were at the salary floor though, we'd still have cap room, and the argument could be made that the money could better spent elsewhere. In this scenario, the money being spent on Jeremy couldn't be used on a FA, so we're really not wasting money that could be better utilized.
Click to expand...

But now you're asking the Millers to shell out cash on top of the salary floor for a semi-decent trading chip: a much more difficult sell than just saying "were below the floor, so you're gonna be spending this money on players anyways-- plus Jeremy is good to have around the community".
 
This would actually be a really good idea if the millers are willing to burn the dollars. Once we've used up our cap space this type if deal would not limit other small additions of the Bruce cotton variety and would allow us to take on a contract during the year if something good became available... Same during draft time although I'm not sure many teams will be looking to clear cap space as the cap goes bananas next year. Would be a tough sell to the millers though to write the checks just for the chance a deal comes along... My guess is that would stop the deal. If we are below the cap and floor then the cap space is more valuable IMO so it'd be a no go.
 
There is one other drawback that I missed earlier. Jeremy has a cap hold at 3.4 million. If we renounced it, we'd have that much more cap room to go after a FA. However, assuming we don't end up needing that, this deal is just a way to circumvent the cap and add flexibility in trade.
 
dalamon said:
But now you're asking the Millers to shell out cash on top of the salary floor for a semi-decent trading chip: a much more difficult sell than just saying "were below the floor, so you're gonna be spending this money on players anyways-- plus Jeremy is good to have around the community".
Click to expand...

Jeremy isn't really a trade chip so much as potential filler in a bigger trade. He'll be overpaid, so teams won't be trading for him as a player. The idea here is that you have to be able to send back salary in most trades, and outside of Booker, Utah has very little salary to send back(assuming we aren't trading any of our core). So basically we'd be looking for a guy with a substantial salary who someone else is looking to part ways with, and giving Jeremy an overpaid, short term contract could be the difference between a legal trade and not being able to work it out.
 
I cannot believe this has gone on for 3 pages. The answer is no. That's about it.
 
When you ask if 'we' should, do you mean the Jazz or like jazzfanz or maybe just some of us put together a pool?

Maybe we could sell raffle tickets for a chance to win a shotgun. Oops, I read the general discussion thread, a gun raffle ain't gonna fly around here. How about a raffle for a pig! Now that Enes is gone a pig can't be too controversial right?

So if we can sell 100 tickets at $10,002.38 it should be enough to pay for the pig and Jeremy.
 
Cy said:
Idk, haven't surveyed the FA market.
Click to expand...

Well, you said we could give some other player the same deal, but we can't go over the cap to sign FAs, so that's why Hedda is suggesting Jeremy. The only way this affects our pursuit of FAs is if we find someone where we are short by 3.4 million or less. In that case we could renounce Jeremy to get a little more cap room.
 
Cy said:
Also, with the cap booming won't teams be less desperate to do salary dump trades?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the possibility is still there for one more year. There are always players that teams decide to get rid of for one reason or another. For example, maybe we could gamble on someone with injury problems, kind of like what GS did to acquire Bogut. It just gives us more options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top