PDA

View Full Version : S. Jacksons contract



fwpacerfan
07-27-2004, 02:54 PM
That's not a bad contract at all, especially when Foyle is pulling down $8 mil and Brian Cardinal is pulling down about the same $'s as SJax.

Hicks
07-27-2004, 02:56 PM
Glad to hear it's not the $44mm originally thought.

blanket
07-27-2004, 03:04 PM
I commented on this news in another thread, but it's worth raising again:

If SJax essentially signed for the same amount he would make by taking the Pacers' MLE, then why didn't we just use the MLE on him and trade Harrington to Denver for draft picks? Is it because we knew we would split the MLE between Johnson and another player? Originally I assumed that we got SJax in part because we were able to offer him a bigger contract (44M) than those who could only offer the MLE, but now we can see that's not the case. Seems like we could've gotten SJax and then also gotten something more from trading Harrington...

Hicks
07-27-2004, 03:06 PM
We obviously wanted AJ back, and we had to use part of the MLE to get him. If we'd used the MLE on Jax, we would be looking for a backup PG still (no I Gill wouldn't have been signed to backup just Tinsley)

sixthman
07-27-2004, 03:07 PM
If S-Jax really signed for MLE money, is it possible the Hawks have agreed to something else down the road? Take a contract, or something like that?

fwpacerfan
07-27-2004, 03:18 PM
The sign and trade guaranteed us getting him. Without it we might not of.

Hicks
07-27-2004, 03:25 PM
I think we did it this way to save money and assure he "signed" with us, instead of taking that money from another team. I'm sure having Mike Brown here also helped Jax agree to this.

Unclebuck
07-27-2004, 03:39 PM
Who says the Nuggets wanted Al for draft picks. You cannot trade consecutive draft picks and the Nugs wanted KMart much more than AL.

blanket
07-27-2004, 03:43 PM
Who says the Nuggets wanted Al for draft picks. You cannot trade consecutive draft picks and the Nugs wanted KMart much more than AL.


I don't have the article quote, but it was mentioned on the board here a few weeks ago.

blanket
07-27-2004, 03:45 PM
The sign and trade guaranteed us getting him. Without it we might not of.

I don't see how the trade assured anything. Because SJax was a FA, it was ultimately his decision, and -- as it turns out -- it's not like the sign-and-trade enabled him to get more money from us than he could've from another team... I don't buy this explanation.

blanket
07-27-2004, 03:47 PM
We obviously wanted AJ back, and we had to use part of the MLE to get him. If we'd used the MLE on Jax, we would be looking for a backup PG still (no I Gill wouldn't have been signed to backup just Tinsley)

I can't help but think we could've both signed SJax for the MLE *and* gotten a solid backup PG and C by trading Harrington. Oh, well. DW always likes to play it safe. :p

PacerCrazy
07-27-2004, 04:51 PM
What a lot of you are forgetting is yes we HAVE the MLE but we are also one of the teams a little over the cap. We aren't a lot over the cap but we are over the cap. By signing and trading for SJAX we got exactly what we wanted without expanding the budget. You have to look at it from a $ and cents point of view as well. We might have been able to get him for the MLE BUT then we would still be way over the cap. I am guessing about 6million over instead of 1 million. As a fan I would have loved them to use the MLE instead of the sign and trade but as a Business professional I can see why they would make the decision they made.

Suaveness
07-27-2004, 04:54 PM
I'm just glad we got him for 6 million cheaper. Works for me.

blanket
07-27-2004, 05:01 PM
What a lot of you are forgetting is yes we HAVE the MLE but we are also one of the teams a little over the cap. We aren't a lot over the cap but we are over the cap. By signing and trading for SJAX we got exactly what we wanted without expanding the budget. You have to look at it from a $ and cents point of view as well. We might have been able to get him for the MLE BUT then we would still be way over the cap. I am guessing about 6million over instead of 1 million. As a fan I would have loved them to use the MLE instead of the sign and trade but as a Business professional I can see why they would make the decision they made.

That's why then trading Harrington for draft picks would've worked, because it wouldn't add to our payroll, but would give us something in addition to SJax in return. Alternatively, they could've traded Harrington for a backup PG and C, since it seems that they're going to split the MLE on these positions anyway...

Pig Nash
07-27-2004, 05:01 PM
Exactly suave.

blanket
07-27-2004, 05:02 PM
Who says the Nuggets wanted Al for draft picks. You cannot trade consecutive draft picks and the Nugs wanted KMart much more than AL.




According to the Rocky Mountain News:

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nuggets/article/0,1299,DRMN_20_3029470,00.html

"A source said Denver offered draft picks Friday for Indiana forward Al Harrington, but the Pacers instead agreed to a sign-and-trade in which Harrington will go to Atlanta for Stephen Jackson."

Unclebuck
07-27-2004, 05:14 PM
Who says the Nuggets wanted Al for draft picks. You cannot trade consecutive draft picks and the Nugs wanted KMart much more than AL.




According to the Rocky Mountain News:

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nuggets/article/0,1299,DRMN_20_3029470,00.html

"A source said Denver offered draft picks Friday for Indiana forward Al Harrington, but the Pacers instead agreed to a sign-and-trade in which Harrington will go to Atlanta for Stephen Jackson."

Well, uh, :confused::confused:

Putting my thinking cap back on, maybe the Pacers did not do this so that Kmart would go to the Nuggets. Because the Nugs could not trade draft picks for both Al and KMart

fwpacerfan
07-27-2004, 05:20 PM
Could the trade exception we got in the B. Miller deal have played a role in this in anyway? I only have a doctorate in mathematics from MIT so I'm not smart enough to understand the NBA salary cap.:laugh:

Unclebuck
07-27-2004, 05:21 PM
According to HoopsHype.com

here is the breakdown

2005 - 4.9
2006 - 5.4
2007 - 5.9
2008 - 6.4
2009 - 6.9
2010 - 7.3

ChicagoJ
07-27-2004, 06:30 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong (don't have time to look it up) but I don't think the Nuggets traded thier own pick for KMart. I think they traded picks that originally belonged to other teams.

Bball
07-27-2004, 07:27 PM
I'm just glad we got him for 6 million cheaper. Works for me.

What are you going to do with the money we saved? :P

-Bball

Pig Nash
07-27-2004, 09:22 PM
keep it! duh.

Suaveness
07-27-2004, 10:38 PM
I'm just glad we got him for 6 million cheaper. Works for me.

What are you going to do with the money we saved? :P

-Bball



Buy myself my very own Taco Bell restaurant to put next to my house

mmm.... :drool:

Lord Helmet
07-27-2004, 11:30 PM
:laugh:

sixthman
07-28-2004, 12:51 AM
Who says the Nuggets wanted Al for draft picks. You cannot trade consecutive draft picks and the Nugs wanted KMart much more than AL.



Actually a team can trade draft picks in consecutive years, as long as they still retain a first round pick. The retained pick doesn't have to be their own - can be someone else's.

In this case I think Denver before the Martin trade had six first round picks in the next two years.

Anthem
07-28-2004, 04:30 AM
In this case I think Denver before the Martin trade had six first round picks in the next two years.

Wow. That's nice work by Kiki.

I kinda assumed that they wanted Al as a backup plan for Martin, and that when the Martin trade went through, the Al trade fell through. With that many picks, though, they could do both. Although I don't think they'd have the cap room.

wintermute
07-28-2004, 09:26 AM
it was an issue i kept harping right after the trade.

the answer apparently is that keeping the mle free allowed us to re-sign aj :rolleyes:

well aj is not bad, and he was looking to cash in after his solid year. so maybe this is a valid viewpoint.

i don't think we need to look at a hypothetical denver trade to make the point that we could have gotten more for al. just imagine the transaction with atlanta - you don't think jack willing to sign with us for the mle doesn't give us tremendous leverage in dealing with atlanta? i would have thought so.

sixthman, i wouldn't trust down-the-road deals after le affaire boozer ;)