Suns to Match Johnson Offer

[thegrahamcrackr]

Here it is

LAS VEGAS -- Joe Johnson's camp was informed Saturday that the Phoenix Suns intend to match Atlanta's expected five-year, $70 million offer to the restricted free agent, according to NBA front-office sources.

Word began spreading Friday at the Vegas Summer League that the Hawks have given Johnson a firm commitment that they'll sign him to a maximum offer sheet on July 22, which the league office has scheduled to be the first day free agents can sign contracts.

The Hawks' offer, sources said, is likely to be front-loaded with a payment as high as $20 million in the first year of the deal. Rules on such payments and other specifics of the deal are also on hold until July 22, when the league announces the salary-cap number for next season.

The rules on contract lengths, however, have already been finalized, and the Hawks are prevented from signing Johnson to a contract longer than five years. A maximum offer from the Suns would span six years at an estimated $90 million, matching the terms Michael Redd received from Milwaukee earlier this week, but sources say Phoenix has offered Johnson closer to $60 million over six seasons.

The Suns have maintained all season that they will match any offer Johnson gets, rating the versatile swingman as no less critical to the team's success than its three All-Stars: Amare Stoudemire, Steve Nash and Shawn Marion. Matching a five-year offer, though, is undoubtedly more palatable than paying Johnson in the Redd range for six.

Various league executives have privately questioned whether the Suns would indeed match a max offer sheet to Johnson, given owner Robert Sarver's stated aversion to letting his annual payroll stray far beyond $50 million. With Johnson earning an average annual wage of $12 million and Stoudemire soon to receive a maximum contract extension that would kick in starting with the 2006-07 season, Phoenix would be in the rare position of carrying four players who earn roughly $50 million by themselves.

Arn Tellem, Johnson's agent, met with Phoenix president Bryan Colangelo and team chairman Jerry Colangelo during the Suns' summer-league game here Saturday against the Los Angeles Clippers. All parties declined to comment.

The Hawks, sources said, are still expected to go ahead with signing Johnson to an offer sheet, hoping that the value of the contract, potential incentive clauses and the up-front payment will prompt Phoenix to change its mind.

The Hawks will also take encouragement from the new collective bargaining agreement, which lessens the risk of signing restricted free agents. Starting this offseason, teams will be given only seven days to match an offer to a restricted free agent, compared to the previous window of 15 days. Teams have been hesitant in the past to sign restricted free agents to offer sheets and then have their free-agent funds potentially tied up for 15 days.

After a breakthrough 62-win season, followed by a trip to the Western Conference finals, Phoenix went into the offseason hoping to re-sign Johnson, sign Stoudemire to the extension and add toughness. The Suns addressed the latter aim by trading swingman Quentin Richardson to the New York Knicks for power forward Kurt Thomas and then reaching a verbal agreement on the first day of the free-agent season with Utah Jazz guard Raja Bell.

The Suns are forbidden from publicly discussing the Bell deal until he officially signs July 22, but team sources have said repeatedly that Bell was targeted to back up Johnson -- not as an insurance policy in case Johnson is let go.

 

[playstation]

there you go. thankfully, our brass understands the way of the world.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Wow. $20 million in year 1......

 

[arthurracoon]

Good to hear them say that outloud.

 

[playstation]

Wow. $20 million in year 1......

which just means that in future years when Amare's extension kicks in, JJ's salary won't hit the team as hard

 

[playstation]

by the way cracker, it'd be nice to see the source.

lol. i just realized i called you cracker

 

[playstation]

oh, never mind. its on the front page of espn.com

 

[nothin' but net]

Wow. $20 million in year 1......

Is it that bad?

I am kinda new to figuring out this salary stuff, but if we pay him more before Amare's new salary kicks in, then bite the bullet now, wouldn't that give us more flexibility down the road?

If Sarver is willing to let loose next year a bit, Marion may not have to move. I don't know, but it doesn't sound all that bad to front load. All of the other contracts are causing problems down the road. It would also make him much more attractive for a trade later if things don't work out.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Is it that bad?

I am kinda new to figuring out this salary stuff, but if we pay him more before Amare's new salary kicks in, then bite the bullet now, wouldn't that give us more flexibility down the road?

If Sarver is willing to let loose next year a bit, Marion may not have to move. I don't know, but it doesn't sound all that bad to front load. All of the other contracts are causing problems down the road. It would also make him much more attractive for a trade later if things don't work out.

Front loading the contract would definitely help the Suns out in a couple years when other raises are kicking in. It will just make next season very very expensive. The payroll will be around 65-66 million as the roster currently stands (including Bell).


What I would have rather done would have been to offer Joe a 6 year, 84 million deal. That has the same average per year (14), and just adds a year. Then I would try to get him to defer 25 million of the contract (30% - the max that can be deferred). That way the year by year hit is actually less than a front loaded deal. We might also be able to get rid of a lot of the clauses Atlanta would put in there in an effort to keep us from matching. I would hate for Atl to put in a no trade clause for example.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Outstanding!

 

[playstation]

What I would have rather done would have been to offer Joe a 6 year, 84 million deal. That has the same average per year (14), and just adds a year. Then I would try to get him to defer 25 million of the contract (30% - the max that can be deferred). That way the year by year hit is actually less than a front loaded deal. We might also be able to get rid of a lot of the clauses Atlanta would put in there in an effort to keep us from matching. I would hate for Atl to put in a no trade clause for example.

good point. then again, why can't it still be done? why not just approach him with a couple mil more than what ATL would offer over 5 years even? that way you could avoid the big 1st year hit, he gets a bit more cash over the life of the deal, and ATL avoids having their cash tied up for a week.

 

[George O'Brien]

good point. then again, why can't it still be done? why not just approach him with a couple mil more than what ATL would offer over 5 years even? that way you could avoid the big 1st year hit, he gets a bit more cash over the life of the deal, and ATL avoids having their cash tied up for a week.

I would expect something along those lines will be proposed.

 

[JCSunsfan]

good point. then again, why can't it still be done? why not just approach him with a couple mil more than what ATL would offer over 5 years even? that way you could avoid the big 1st year hit, he gets a bit more cash over the life of the deal, and ATL avoids having their cash tied up for a week.

It can. JJ can't even sign a deal until the 22nd, so the Suns can counter to prevent such a signing and keep the terms more flexible.

Frontloading the contract is an interesting idea. It creates flexibility down the road, but, if Eisley's contract can be dumped with the "oops exception" the tax hit would be negligible now.

 

[JCSunsfan]

By my count, that puts us at about 58 million with nine players signed.

Nash
JJ
Marion
Amare
Kurt
Barbosa
Bell
Jim Jackson
Voshkul.

We've to to sign 5 more. Assuming we use the LLE (1.6), a couple vet mins at about 1 mil, and the rest rookie contracts at 300k, we'd add another 4 million to fill out the roster.

We might be able to trade Voshkul for a 2050 2nd rounder and save his 1.6 million plus another 1.6 in lux tax. We'd end up starting the year with a payroll right at 50 million.

This is all assuming a traditionally structured contract for JJ.

Next year, Amare's deal kicks in, but Eisley's goes off, so does Jim Jackson and Jake. I assume neither won't be resigned, or will do so for the vet min.

So we'll start with 32 million, add 13.5 for JJ and 13 for Amare, and 4.4 for Bell. We'll be at 63 million plus another 4 or so to fill in the roster.

 

[PhxGametime]

Maybe I can stop being so negative now, although last year, numerous people told ME - I was the biggest homer. It's going to be much too hard to be negative all year...

 

[sunsfn]

What I would have rather done would have been to offer Joe a 6 year, 84 million deal. That has the same average per year (14), and just adds a year. Then I would try to get him to defer 25 million of the contract (30% - the max that can be deferred). That way the year by year hit is actually less than a front loaded deal. We might also be able to get rid of a lot of the clauses Atlanta would put in there in an effort to keep us from matching. I would hate for Atl to put in a no trade clause for example.

Yes, the extra year at 14 mil should mean a lot to JJ, however the contract that Atlanta is offering (if it is max) is about 15 mil per year. The extra year at 14 mil gives JJ an extra 9 mil and saves the suns about 6 mil.

But I agree with you, that is an offer that JJ should accept from the suns.

The defer money is an excellent idea that could really help the suns and should not matter much to JJ.

When that money is deferred, when do they pay it? Starting the 7th year?


-

 

[sunsfn]

Wait, am I wrong that Atlanta can offer 15 mil to JJ.?

I forgot about the number of years in the NBA.
I think there is something about the max with the years in the league?

-

 

[Mainstreet]

I understand per Peter Vecsey (I don't have the link) that the Suns actually save approximately 15 million dollars over the life of a five year contract versus a six year contract with JJ by just letting Atlanta do the paperwork (since Atlanta can only offer him less years and lower raises). This seems to make sense if the Suns do not want to sign JJ to their max (which would be much higher).

I would think JJ might get a better offer from Phoenix if he signs with the Suns for six years with a little negotiation.

Here's the link:

http://www.nypost.com/sports/49860.htm

 

[elindholm]

Wow, the front-loading helps the Suns a lot. They're probably jumping for joy about that. No, this isn't sarcastic.

The front-loading removes one of my biggest fears about the deal, which is that the Suns would be trapped behind at least two (Marion's and Johnson's) unmoveable contracts. Unless Johnson retreats back into his shell, he'll have pretty good trade value in a couple of years, because his remaining contract will be fairly reasonable compared to the market at that time. I'm not saying that he necessarily should or will be traded at any point, but just having the option will put the Suns in a much better position.

Now the only really bad contract is Marion's, and since it has "only" four years left, it's not a complete disaster. If they have to, the Suns will be able to move Marion for some smaller bad contracts down the road, and it won't completely screw them for all eternity.

I'm very surprised the Hawks went this way. I think it's a blunder; they played right into the Suns' hands.

Of course, if it's a full $20 million next season, it will be sort of hilarious that Joe Johnson will be the second highest paid player in the entire league behind O'Neal. But if he can handle that pressure, it should be smooth sailing.

 

[Joe Mama]

What I would have rather done would have been to offer Joe a 6 year, 84 million deal. That has the same average per year (14), and just adds a year. Then I would try to get him to defer 25 million of the contract (30% - the max that can be deferred). That way the year by year hit is actually less than a front loaded deal. We might also be able to get rid of a lot of the clauses Atlanta would put in there in an effort to keep us from matching. I would hate for Atl to put in a no trade clause for example.

I actually don't think the Phoenix Suns want that extra year on the contract unless they can get it at a significant discount. The 5 year deal JJ is supposedly going to sign is supposed to total around $70 million. If they could get 6 years at $75-78 million they might take it. Hell, the Suns probably wish they only had to match a 4 year deal. It gives them more flexibility.

I'm pretty sure that no trade clauses are not allowed in NBA contracts.

Could someone please explain to me how frontloaded contracts actually works? I thought under the CBA contracts could start at 10% of the salary cap and increase at rates of 8% per year (player coming off rookie contract signed by other team). Does the front loading only count for actually paying the player, or does it also have an affect on the salary cap?. Thanks.

Joe

 

[SunsTzu]

I'm pretty sure that no trade clauses are not allowed in NBA contracts.



Joe

They arn't, but a team can add trade kickers that make it nearly impossible to trade them.

 

[Joe Mama]

They arn't, but a team can add trade kickers that make it nearly impossible to trade them.

Yes trade kickers are allowed, but they don't make it "nearly impossible" to trade the player. There have been plenty of players traded over the last several years who had trade kickers. That was also when teams had to come within 15% with the contracts. Now player contracts only have to come within 25%, so it should make it even easier to trade players who have trade kickers.

Joe Mama

 

[elindholm]

I'm pretty sure that no trade clauses are not allowed in NBA contracts.

In the old CBA they were, but only for a few players. I don't feel like looking it up on this dial-up connection, but it was something like players who had been in the league 10+ years and had been with their current teams for 5+ years. Bryant qualified last summer, and I think he does have a no-trade clause.

Does the front loading only count for actually paying the player, or does it also have an affect on the salary cap?

I think the contract applies to the cap in the same way as if it were "normal" raises, but I can't remember for sure. But the current salary is what counts for trades, which is what really matters. The Suns are going to be over the cap for the forseeable future regardless. I guess the question of how the contract is counted toward the cap could have luxury-tax implications down the road.

 

[Joe Mama]

I'm pretty sure that no trade clauses are not allowed in NBA contracts.

In the old CBA they were, but only for a few players. I don't feel like looking it up on this dial-up connection, but it was something like players who had been in the league 10+ years and had been with their current teams for 5+ years. Bryant qualified last summer, and I think he does have a no-trade clause.

If the player had to be in the league 10+ years Kobe Bryant would not have qualified. I thought I remembered that Karl Malone had a no trade clause, but I knew that they were not permitted for most players. Regardless I think it's safe to assume that JJ could not have a no trade clause in his contract.

Joe Mama

 

[elindholm]

Right, I must be wrong about Bryant. I must have him confused with some other big-name player.

But anyway, certainly you're right that we can assume Johnson doesn't have one.