Suns 2024-2025 Season Discussions

[AzStevenCal]

I said it was better to get rid of him in two. That's what I prefer.

I'm in favor of getting rid of him in the next year or two but not at the expense of stretching out his contract for 5 years - unless there's something in the new CBA that makes it palatable.

 

[Hoop Head]

I'm in favor of getting rid of him in the next year or two but not at the expense of stretching out his contract for 5 years - unless there's something in the new CBA that makes it palatable.

If only Ishbia could take a huge tax hit to eat it all next season. I wonder if the league would consider adopting a buyout structure like that. I'd imagine it'd have some restrictions like it doesn't create actual cap space but does remove apron or future tax restrictions. So we wouldn't be $50 under the cap if we did it but we'd shed $50 million from the 2026-27 season's total team salary.

 

[Covert Rain]

I'm in favor of getting rid of him in the next year or two but not at the expense of stretching out his contract for 5 years - unless there's something in the new CBA that makes it palatable.

I heard one of the guys do a breakdown (I missed the first couple minutes). They made it sound like the stretch option gave the Suns the most flexibility but I didn't hear the entire breakdown.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I heard one of the guys do a breakdown (I missed the first couple minutes). They made it sound like the stretch option gave the Suns the most flexibility but I didn't hear the entire breakdown.

Yeah I have to admit, though I hate the idea of stretching a big salaried player, I just don't know enough about the intracacies of the new CBA to make that call.

 

[gimpy]

Yeah I have to admit, though I hate the idea of stretching a big salaried player, I just don't know enough about the intracacies of the new CBA to make that call.

Sounds like the Suns front office doesn’t know enough, either.

 

[Yuma]

Honestly, this situation will spring a rule change of some sort if Beal refuses to leave the Suns. Even if it's outlawing the no trade clause. I honestly don't feel bad having him pull a crowder if he doesn't want to take a buy out. Then it's fair game. You offer a buy out, and they don't take, then it doesn't mean you have to play them. Only because you did offer to work with them to go somewhere else.

 

[taz02]

Yeah I have to admit, though I hate the idea of stretching a big salaried player, I just don't know enough about the intracacies of the new CBA to make that call.

well then, you have met the requirements for being the suns GM.....

 

[95pro]

NBA salary cap is 154M for 25-26, an increase of 14M. IF we waive and stretch Beal, we are virtually taking a 6M salary cap hit if you want to look at it that way? Or "freeing" up 44M (30M + 14M)? I guess it doesn't matter if we increase Bookers salary from 50M to 70M.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Honestly, this situation will spring a rule change of some sort if Beal refuses to leave the Suns.

No it won’t.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Honestly, this situation will spring a rule change of some sort if Beal refuses to leave the Suns. Even if it's outlawing the no trade clause. I honestly don't feel bad having him pull a crowder if he doesn't want to take a buy out. Then it's fair game. You offer a buy out, and they don't take, then it doesn't mean you have to play them. Only because you did offer to work with them to go somewhere else.

No it won’t. It’s not prevalent to spur a rule. It’s an outlier.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

No it won’t.

Borg

 

[Hoop Head]

Honestly, this situation will spring a rule change of some sort if Beal refuses to leave the Suns. Even if it's outlawing the no trade clause. I honestly don't feel bad having him pull a crowder if he doesn't want to take a buy out. Then it's fair game. You offer a buy out, and they don't take, then it doesn't mean you have to play them. Only because you did offer to work with them to go somewhere else.

It's a no trade clause being used exactly as intended. There's a reason there's only 2 in the league right now, Beal and LeBron. The league learned back when Carmelo Anthony nixed a few deals out of New York that NTC should be reserved for the rarest of circumstances. Washington was dumb to give Beal one but Phoenix was equally dumb when they agreed to take Beal on without forfeiting that NTC.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Borg

We’re starting to hive mind again like the old days, lately.

 

[Proximo]

Eh, $50M in cap space might not be a bad thing, especially with Beal's contract being gone the following year. Might be easier to rebuild with free agents than the draft and whatever players they can get for KD. I'd need to do some thinking on this, but I think their situation is so bad right now that $50M cap space might be more valuable than whatever they'd get in a trade. In a normal situation, I wouldn't say this, but the Suns are in a uniquely terrible situation.

Cap space only works if players want to come to the team.

Who is going to want to come to a crappy Suns team that now is identified as having a dummy for an owner. Only mercenaries out for money. You don't win with that type.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Cap space only works if players want to come to the team.

Who is going to want to come to a crappy Suns team that now is identified as having a dummy for an owner. Only mercenaries out for money. You don't win with that type.

Unless multiple players conspire to play together and there’s cap space, then it becomes a destination.

 

[Yuma]

No it won’t. It’s not prevalent to spur a rule. It’s an outlier.

I said IF Beal refuses to move. Believe me, if he won't work with the Suns, owners will take action. They won't want any players in the future to do that. They can't trust each other not to offer that to a player when trying to get one over someone else. A lot of rules are really to protect owners from each other.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Eh, $50M in cap space might not be a bad thing, especially with Beal's contract being gone the following year. Might be easier to rebuild with free agents than the draft and whatever players they can get for KD. I'd need to do some thinking on this, but I think their situation is so bad right now that $50M cap space might be more valuable than whatever they'd get in a trade. In a normal situation, I wouldn't say this, but the Suns are in a uniquely terrible situation.

At the very worst, they should be able to get expirings and picks, which is better than letting him go for nothing.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Beal is not a bad player, it's just his contract is a bad one. As player he's better than the 30mil range guys JPoole, Rozier, McColumn etc. and about the same bad contracts like PG. Roster wise, I'd see Miami be better off with Beal for Rozier and Robinson, and Hornet for Poole and fillers, provided they don't suffer much cap flexibility this way. Miami lacks scoring power, not sure how they fill that gap with their current assets.

Nobody wants Beal. He's the worst contract in the league. He's not a good player by any stretch, and his combination of not being available and half assing when he is available is incredibly toxic.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I said IF Beal refuses to move. Believe me, if he won't work with the Suns, owners will take action. They won't want any players in the future to do that. They can't trust each other not to offer that to a player when trying to get one over someone else. A lot of rules are really to protect owners from each other.

No, I could be wrong, but most likely I’m not. If this involves player contract term limitations, which it does, it would have to be negotiated in the CBA. The players union wouldn’t allow for it. But more importantly, the league would never spend valuable negotiating power on something that just isn’t a concern. The fact that one team in the entire league over years was stupid enough to include such a provision and one team, with wet behind the ears ownership, over years was stupid enough to trade for it, isn’t a big enough driver for the league to care. No way we see this come into the purview of rules.

 

[Hoop Head]

I said IF Beal refuses to move. Believe me, if he won't work with the Suns, owners will take action. They won't want any players in the future to do that. They can't trust each other not to offer that to a player when trying to get one over someone else. A lot of rules are really to protect owners from each other.

If Beal can't refuse to be moved then what is the purpose of a No Trade Clause?

 

[Yuma]

If Beal can't refuse to be moved then what is the purpose of a No Trade Clause?

The purpose is for the player to pick where he is willing to go, or to more accurately define it, to where he won't go. It's stupid for the no trade clause to be in the league anyway.

 

[Yuma]

No, I could be wrong, but most likely I’m not. If this involves player contract term limitations, which it does, it would have to be negotiated in the CBA. The players union wouldn’t allow for it. But more importantly, the league would never spend valuable negotiating power on something that just isn’t a concern. The fact that one team in the entire league over years was stupid enough to include such a provision and one team, with wet behind the ears ownership, over years was stupid enough to trade for it, isn’t a big enough driver for the league to care. No way we see this come into the purview of rules.

You may be right. In my lifetime I have seen laws passed for things that were considered one offs. You just never know what captures the attention of a group of people. In my lifetime people said free agency in the NBA would never happen. But it did.

 

[Hoop Head]

The purpose is for the player to pick where he is willing to go, or to more accurately define it, to where he won't go. It's stupid for the no trade clause to be in the league anyway.

No the purpose is in the name, to allow the player to dictate his own future. If he doesn't want to leave then he doesn't have to. We saw a situation play out in Portland with Lillard because they wouldn't move him until he gave his blessing. They waited until then to explore trade destinations. He didn't have a NTC.

Similarly, Washington wanted to rebuild but couldn't because of Beal. He finally gave them a few teams he'd be ok going to. Word was he even had Washington send Jordan Goodwin with him so his team essentially dictated the terms of the trade. No trade clauses allow the player to be the GM, essentially. Read up on Carmelo's exit from New York though and you'll see the Suns aren't in a new situation and why NTC are so rare. Even guys like Giannis or Jokic don't get them. Owners soured on them big time.

 

[Mulli]

Nobody wants Beal. He's the worst contract in the league. He's not a good player by any stretch, and his combination of not being available and half assing when he is available is incredibly toxic.

If only there was a way to have seen this all coming!

 

[Cheesebeef]

You may be right. In my lifetime I have seen laws passed for things that were considered one offs. You just never know what captures the attention of a group of people.
In my lifetime people said free agency in the NBA would never happen. But it did.

But you realize the NBA owners can’t just do this unilaterally, right? The players would have to sign off on what you’re talking about and I see no reason they’d do so.

Also, bringing up FA versus the Beal situation fails to recognize that FA effected the entire league of players and I’m pretty sure needed the courts to finally grant the players FA. What you’re talking about is the league upending contract rules because one team is stuck with a terrible contract, that they knowingly entered into.