So who are the players we should offer max deals to?

[green]

And yet, he's still a more realistic option than Butler, Middleton and Leonard.

Here is a funny tidbit. Butler is in Chicago. Leonard is in SA. I'd bet most of us wouldn't leave SA or Chi for less money to come to Utah, yet we think those two would. Middleton is in Milwaukee, so I think Utah is a better location, but we don't need Middleton. We have a player who looks to be better than Middleton under contract for about 1 million per year. So I don't see how paying Middleton max dollars when we have someone just as good already on our team for 1 million is a smart move.

 

[Stifle Tower]

And yet, he's still a more realistic option than Butler, Middleton and Leonard.

Yep. All this arguing about a max FA is just pissing in the wind. The RFA's will be matched. The UFA's aren't coming here. The Jazz are a 38 win team. And it's UTAH for freakin' sakes!

MAYBE...and I say MAYBE because it never happened with Stockton/Malone...IF the Jazz make it to 50 wins next season and show well in the playoffs, a few FA's would give Utah some consideration.

Utah has a much better chance of finding success with internal growth and making a few key trades as needed. And DL can scour the NBA and the DLeague for good-value backups like Booker, Ingles, Millsap, etc.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

1. If Utah had any chance at all to bring in Leonard, you don't turn that down because of Burks and Hood, no matter how much fans like those players. Player values are about to make a ridiculous jump, so any chance to add significant talent must be capitalized on immediately, regardless of any rotation issues, which can be worked out later.

2. Utah has no chance at Leonard, so I guess the point is moot.

Also, if we got Leonard (not possible or anything), we could play him or Hayward as the backup PF to give our wings more minutes.

 

[LogGrad98]

What about some real roster shake-ups? Think we could pry Aldridge away from Portland? How about Lopez from Brooklyn? Would you rather have Favors and Gobert or Aldridge and Gobert? I don't know, I think we might be able to play around a bit more in ways that might be interesting. I like Kawhi and think you jump on that if he shows interest, but at the same time that is our least worrisome position right now, and, while you draft for BPA and not position, free agent signings and trades are meant to shore up positional deficiencies. Unless you can luck into one of those very few generational players.

 

[jazzman22]

I like the possibility of trading for a Ty Lawson type guy... One guy that I think would be good is Kyle Lowry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vegas]

The only way I see a studly RFA like that coming to Utah is if they sign a max offer with an opt-out clause after their first year, so they can make bank with the new salary cap jump.

I'm not a CBA expert, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong with the following scenario:

Let's say Kawhi Leonard signs a max deal (25 percent of the salary cap for players of six years’ experience or less) this offseason and his team offers an opt-out clause after year 1. That puts him in the $16M per yr range (2015-16: 67.1 million) say, with annual raises of 4%.

Then, if Kawhi opts out of this summer's deal after his first year, he becomes an unrestricted free agent. With the higher cap (2016-17: 89 million), his first year salary is now $22M.

If he has another opt-out clause in the subsequent deal and exercises it with the next jump (2017-18: 108 million), all of the sudden, he's making $32M as a seven year vet making 30 percent.

Is this even possible? If so, I think the next couple of years we'll see very few long-term contracts signed by players hoping to cash in.

Maybe wait on signing big names for a couple years until the studs are are unrestricted. Then that will provide the current roster enough time to know where the biggest needs truly are.

Ding ding ding.
So Let's just put it in lay terms. They only reason somebody signs a long term max is:

• they are getting overpaid by more that 50%
• they are really conservative and want to cash in before injury takes. You could instead take insurance and still be conservative and have great pot odds..Or even better add a player option.

I can't fathom anybody is going to get a great deal like the players don't know they can make tens of millions more by negotiating shorter term deals. All of these threads are a fairy tale! We might screw somebody by offering player options like happened with Hayward, but those deals are matched and we lose Booker.

DOL know this and have tons of draft picks, especially second rounders for this reason. They also have a ton of non-guaranteed contracts to bail out teams that screw themselves by overspending before the cap jump, then realizing that resigning their own players is going to cost them way more than they thought. Only a few GMs are that dumb, but for the Brooklyns and Knicks of the NBA, there will need to be a way to dump salary and it keeps options open.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Ding ding ding.
So Let's just put it in lay terms. They only reason somebody signs a long term max is:

• they are getting overpaid by more that 50%
• they are really conservative and want to cash in before injury takes. You could instead take insurance and still be conservative and have great pot odds..Or even better add a player option.

I can't fathom anybody is going to get a great deal like the players don't know they can make tens of millions more by negotiating shorter term deals. All of these threads are a fairy tale! We might screw somebody by offering player options like happened with Hayward, but those deals are matched and we lose Booker.

DOL know this and have tons of draft picks, especially second rounders for this reason. They also have a ton of non-guaranteed contracts to bail out teams that screw themselves by overspending before the cap jump, then realizing that resigning their own players is going to cost them way more than they thought. Only a few GMs are that dumb, but for the Brooklyns and Knicks of the NBA, there will need to be a way to dump salary and it keeps options open.

Any what team is going to let a one year player "go get his" at the expense of the team?
You might have a case where players sign 2 year deals, but players around 28-30 will want security because they are competing against father time (injuries/performance drop off) and a boat load of other free agents in 2 years.

 

[Coach Ellis]

The Jazz will be able to bring in some bench help this offseason, then will have a bunch of cap space for 2016 and NO major free agents to address (unless you count Booker/Jingles) next offseason season. While most teams will be able to retain their own, the Jazz would have the luxury of hiring a (very well paid) mercenary to get up to the cap floor while they figure out how much it costs to retain Favors, Hayward and Gobert. They could grab some assets in a salary dump, but I think they're past that stage at this point.

 

[vegas]

Any what team is going to let a one year player "go get his" at the expense of the team?
You might have a case where players sign 2 year deals, but players around 28-30 will want security because they are competing against father time (injuries/performance drop off) and a boat load of other free agents in 2 years.

Yes I really totally disagree with you. If you are SA and somebody offers KL 4 yr max with PO in yr 2,3,4 you match that offer or lose him for nothing. That's what the agents are going to negotiate. There is not risk from injury, because they just opt in if they get injured. LBJ is currently on a 2 yr contract so he can get a raise when the cap spikes. He has a player option next season as well. This is a sellers market. Enough teams want these guys that only one team has to be desperate enough to sign a contract with players options. Those agents will find that team and get what they want.

The only way we pry one of these players is sign and trade, and DL has set himself up to do that if he chooses to.

 

[Coach Ellis]

It won't surprise me at all to see a bunch of RFA sign their QO this summer and gamble on getting paid big next year. Maybe not. . . but imagine Butler, Leonard, Green, Kanter, etc. all on the open market (along with the 2012 free agents) and every team having several times the cap space this summer.

 

[green]

It won't surprise me at all to see a bunch of RFA sign their QO this summer and gamble on getting paid big next year. Maybe not. . . but imagine Butler, Leonard, Green, Kanter, etc. all on the open market (along with the 2012 free agents) and every team having several times the cap space this summer.

I agree with Vegas. They won't sign QO's. They will sign deals with PO's. And the teams will love to give it to them.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I agree with Vegas. They won't sign QO's. They will sign deals with PO's. And the teams will love to give it to them.

Kanter might take QO because his agent is a once in a generation jackass.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yes I really totally disagree with you. If you are SA and somebody offers KL 4 yr max with PO in yr 2,3,4 you match that offer or lose him for nothing. That's what the agents are going to negotiate. There is not risk from injury, because they just opt in if they get injured. LBJ is currently on a 2 yr contract so he can get a raise when the cap spikes. He has a player option next season as well. This is a sellers market. Enough teams want these guys that only one team has to be desperate enough to sign a contract with players options. Those agents will find that team and get what they want.

The only way we pry one of these players is sign and trade, and DL has set himself up to do that if he chooses to.

I am unsure if you can do a 4 year max with a PO in year two... I think the PO has to be for the final year of the deal. Nevertheless you are correct with guys like butler and leanard... They should sign 3 year deals with opt outs for year 3... When the cap will be over $100M.