Jalen Smith

[Hoop Head]

It makes sense, we are the one who declined his contract, I don't see why that would carry over to anyone else.

Because the contract carries over. The contract is what forbids us from offering more, or the team that has him when his deal is up. It wouldn't make sense for another team to be able to trade for him and then be able to go above and beyond. Players on rookie deals could find a way to exploit it otherwise, or their agents would.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Because the contract carries over. The contract is what forbids us from offering more, or the team that has him when his deal is up. It wouldn't make sense for another team to be able to trade for him and then be able to go above and beyond. Players on rookie deals could find a way to exploit it otherwise, or their agents would.

Man... we really kinda screwed ourselves here by not picking up that option. We don’t have his rights moving forward and by not having securing his rights, he’s not nearly as attractive as a trade chip because anyone who trades for him will be hamstrung trying to re-sign him.

I think we gotta hope he keeps working his ass off during the season, especially on his 3 ball and can come in and be a big that can really diversify the attack and add size off the bench.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Because the contract carries over. The contract is what forbids us from offering more, or the team that has him when his deal is up. It wouldn't make sense for another team to be able to trade for him and then be able to go above and beyond. Players on rookie deals could find a way to exploit it otherwise, or their agents would.

Just to be clear, are you speculating or have you verified it? Either way makes sense to me so I have no idea how it works.

 

[Hoop Head]

Just to be clear, are you speculating or have you verified it? Either way makes sense to me so I have no idea how it works.

I'm speculating but until I see something that says otherwise, I don't see how it would apply. Contract restrictions always carry over with players. It's rare for a player to have their 3rd year option declined as it is so I can't imagine this instance would be listed somewhere like the CBA FAQ.

 

[Phrazbit]

Because the contract carries over. The contract is what forbids us from offering more, or the team that has him when his deal is up. It wouldn't make sense for another team to be able to trade for him and then be able to go above and beyond. Players on rookie deals could find a way to exploit it otherwise, or their agents would.

I don’t see how the contract would carry over because it's gone, we axed it, that 3rd year does not exist. The purpose of limiting what a team can offer if they decline the deal is to keep teams from doing cap shenanigans and to prevent under the table deals like the one Carlos Boozer and Cleveland had worked out before he plunged a knife deep into their back.

I believe that it is safe to assume if we trade Smith that whoever we trade him to can sign him to whatever type of contract they can afford (but they would NOT have his Bird rights as those kick in after 3 years in the NBA). We however, as the team who declined his contract, would still be limited in what we can offer him, even if he was on someone else's roster as WE are the team who tore up his contract.

I am not a law talkin guy, but I suspect there would be legal problems if the future employer was subject to limits imposed by a previous one.

 

[Suns_fan69]

I tried to take a look in the CBA FAQ and this is the best I found (emphasis mine):

Teams have until the October 31 preceding the player's second regular season to exercise their option for the player's third season. Likewise, they have until the October 31 preceding the player's third regular season to exercise their option for the player's fourth season (see question number 57 for more information on options). If the team invokes both options (keeping the player for all four seasons) and submits a qualifying offer after the fourth season, then the player becomes a restricted free agent (see question number 42 for more information on restricted free agency). If the team declines either option, then the player enters free agency as an unrestricted free agent.

However, if the team declines either option and the player becomes a free agent, the team cannot re-sign him to a salary greater than he would have received had the team exercised its option. In other words, teams can't decline an option year in order to get around the rookie salary scale and give the player more money. This applies to all types of signings, including the Bird exception, the Mid-Level exception, and cap room.

This confirms that everybody else can offer more than what Phoenix can (which will be the same as his option pickup), but, as Hoop Head surmised, nothing about if that player is traded in his 2nd year with his 3rd year not picked up.

 

[Suns_fan69]

This tweet suggests that an acquiring team can't go over the 3rd year number as well:

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Hoop Head]

This tweet suggests that an acquiring team can't go over the 3rd year number as well:

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Thanks for finding that. I was looking but didn't think to try Twitter.

It makes sense that way though. Once a player is dealt all restrictions or benefits carry over. We're just so used to discussing benefits that the negatives don't often come up. The negatives are in fact rare though, given the circumstances.

 

[Mainstreet]

This tweet suggests that an acquiring team can't go over the 3rd year number as well:

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

I wasn't aware another team could not pay Smith more because it appeared he would become an unrestricted free agent if the third year option was not exercised.

It layman's terms, it appears Smith will become a free agent next summer but with salary limitations based upon a rookie scale contract.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I wasn't aware another team could not pay Smith more because it appeared he would become an unrestricted free agent if the third year option was not exercised.

It layman's terms, it appears Smith will become a free agent next summer but with salary limitations based upon a rookie scale contract.

Every time I think I sort of understand it, I get a little more confused. If the team we trade him to is handcuffed as we are, clearly there is little to no reason to trade for him.

But the wording of that Bobby Marks tweet isn't clear IMO. When he says "acquiring team" does he mean during the season (IOW via trade) or does that include teams that sign him as a free agent in the offseason. If those teams are also limited, we could well keep him and if not, we have close to no chance at all with him.

 

[Mainstreet]

Every time I think I sort of understand it, I get a little more confused. If the team we trade him to is handcuffed as we are, clearly there is little to no reason to trade for him.

But the wording of that Bobby Marks tweet isn't clear IMO. When he says "acquiring team" does he mean during the season (IOW via trade) or does that include teams that sign him as a free agent in the offseason. If those teams are also limited, we could well keep him and if not, we have close to no chance at all with him.

It's as clear as mud.

I thought if the Suns declined the third year option on Smith, other NBA teams could offer him more money because he would become an unrestricted free agent but Phoenix would be limited in their offer.

I'm not seeing where another team has an advantage over the Suns.

There is this additional tidbit.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[JCSunsfan]

I am only speculating here, but I would think that the rules regarding declining the 3rd year option are the same as declining the 4th year option. That has happened fairly often. This happened with Okafor in Philly. His trade value became nil because teams that traded for him would be hamstrung in resigning him. I kinda wanted the Suns to try to get Okafor at the time, but once I understood that, it made much more sense to wait for free agency.

I assume Jalen can get whatever teams want to pay him this summer.

That said, unless he continues to really produce, he is not going to get a higher offer--well maybe slightly higher. If he goes somewhere else, I don't think it will be as much about the money as it will be about getting more minutes in the rotation. If we sign Biz, have Ayton and JaVale, plus Frank and Dario, there is just not much room. For the Suns to keep Jalen, they will have to make a spot in the rotation for significant minutes.

 

[Proximo]

I think it is only us who are limitted in what we can offer him, any team that trades for him would not be limited, although, since he hasn't played 3 years they might not have bird rights.

No, it's anyone who has his rights. Nobody who trades for him will be able to offer him more than the 4.7 million.

I heard he is literally the 2nd lottery pick ever that the 3rd year option was not picked up on. This is an inexcusible blunder.

I think we have to just keep him at this point, because we have ruined his trade value anyway. He is more likely to help us for the rest of the season than anything we can get for him.

 

[Proximo]

I am only speculating here, but I would think that the rules regarding declining the 3rd year option are the same as declining the 4th year option. That has happened fairly often. This happened with Okafor in Philly. His trade value became nil because teams that traded for him would be hamstrung in resigning him. I kinda wanted the Suns to try to get Okafor at the time, but once I understood that, it made much more sense to wait for free agency.

I assume Jalen can get whatever teams want to pay him this summer.

That said, unless he continues to really produce, he is not going to get a higher offer--well maybe slightly higher. If he goes somewhere else, I don't think it will be as much about the money as it will be about getting more minutes in the rotation. If we sign Biz, have Ayton and JaVale, plus Frank and Dario, there is just not much room. For the Suns to keep Jalen, they will have to make a spot in the rotation for significant minutes.

Dario needs to go. Frank can easily go to.

If we keep Jalen he needs to play the 4.

 

[95pro]

Dario needs to go. Frank can easily go to.

If we keep Jalen he needs to play the 4.

He hasnt been good as a 4 though. He's a center, for now until he develops anything consistent outside of 15.

 

[Mainstreet]

I think Jalen will be fine as a backup 4 now that he has gained confidence and the coaching staff has gained confidence in him.

It's true he is more of a center right now but he does have some skills of a power forward such as quickness, defense, rebounding and a mid-range shot.

This should be the focus of his game right now.

Look how quickly he has developed since he has been given meaningful minutes. We are only starting to see his potential.

 

[Mainstreet]

Personally I think the Suns are better off keeping Jalen Smith with the hope of re-signing him next summer. Also we know he can contribute in specific situations.

However, if the Suns can't find playing time for him, they might talk to his agent and let him find a landing spot somewhere in the Eastern Conference. Maybe the Suns can swap players with a team in a similar situation where they have a player that is not getting playing time either that might help the team.

Think of Stix' value as a younger more affordable Thad Young.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Obviously none of us saw enough of him to form a real opinion last year, but it looks like not picking up his option was a mistake.

 

[JCSunsfan]

We pigeonhole positions too much I think. The real question is whether Jalen can play alongside DA or JaVale. If he shooting the three is a regular part of his game, I believe he can. DA is versatile enough defensively to make it work.

 

[JCSunsfan]

What is really clear to me is that if they want to keep Jalen, they have to show him a role that allows for significant minutes and contribution. If they cannot do that, the money does not matter at all. If they can, they might be able to get him to stay for the QO even if another team offers slightly more.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Obviously none of us saw enough of him to form a real opinion last year, but it looks like not picking up his option was a mistake.

On the surface it seemed like a justifiable decision at the time but I guess they should have given more consideration to the fact that bigs develop slower and that there's a good reason that NBA clubs virtually never forego the rookie extension that early.

But even though we will likely lose him for nothing, seeing him improve enough to help in the playoffs this year plus adding Biyombo (beyond the 10 day) would soften the blow a bit for me. Now we just have to lock Biyombo up on a real contract.

 

[Proximo]

What is really clear to me is that if they want to keep Jalen, they have to show him a role that allows for significant minutes and contribution. If they cannot do that, the money does not matter at all. If they can, they might be able to get him to stay for the QO even if another team offers slightly more.

It's a conundrum though, play him to many minutes and he might play well enough we have no shot keeping him for the 4.7 million.

None the less I think that is what you have to do - and at this point I think he is the 8th or 9th best player on the team, so I would make him a fixture in the second unit.

You know, I actually think it may be time to move Cam Johnson into the starting lineup, and that way we can have Crowder play the backup 3, Jalen the 4, and Mcgee the 5.

 

[95pro]

It's a conundrum though, play him to many minutes and he might play well enough we have no shot keeping him for the 4.7 million.

None the less I think that is what you have to do - and at this point I think he is the 8th or 9th best player on the team, so I would make him a fixture in the second unit.

You know, I actually think it may be time to move Cam Johnson into the starting lineup, and that way we can have Crowder play the backup 3, Jalen the 4, and Mcgee the 5.

Lack of shooting, outside of Shamet and Payne. I guess it doesn't matter since Payne is most times a blackhole.

 

[Phrazbit]

Unless he just flat out loves it here and is such a wholesome dude that he has zero hard feelings about us ripping up his deal, I don't think there is any way we can keep him. His agent will (justifiably) be telling him to go somewhere that will give him a better opportunity and/or far more money/years.

It is a bummer. I suppose less of a bummer than him being flat out unplayable.

Still... declining his option was, in my opinion, a move with virtually no potential benefit other than saving ownership a few bucks and the risks... well... we're living 'em.

 

[Chaplin]

Unless he just flat out loves it here and is such a wholesome dude that he has zero hard feelings about us ripping up his deal, I don't think there is any way we can keep him. His agent will (justifiably) be telling him to go somewhere that will give him a better opportunity and/or far more money/years.

It is a bummer. I suppose less of a bummer than him being flat out unplayable.

Still... declining his option was, in my opinion, a move with virtually no potential benefit other than saving ownership a few bucks and the risks... well... we're living 'em.

I don't think it's the whole reason, but you also have to think about the money. It's not "just" 5m per. We are going to be in the tax next summer so that 5m deal would actually be 10m. And do you honestly think anyone in the Suns organization and anyone here would want to essentially give up 10m for Jalen Smith? Especially at the time his option came due?