Cap space, Monta, and free agents
by jmaaan on Feb 3, 2009 10:30 AM PST
Email
PrintHere's the scenario, Crawford opts out next offseason. Now the W's have a choice many thought they may not have after our recent spending spree. If the W's void Monta's contract, they suddenly have $20 mil less on their payroll. They now have enough to potentially sign a legit 4, or even to trade for one and take back more contract. Could they sign Boozer? Would Philly trade Brand for the cap space, since he's not working out, and try to find a better fit for their team?
Strategically, we could actually negotiate with players or teams before voiding the contract. If no deals can get done, you don't need to void. If you have a deal in place, you could void. So, do you try to acquire a 4, knowing that you'd have to void Monta's contract to make it work?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would HATE to see us prematurely void Monta’s contract and see him turn into an all star on another team…
WARRIORS BASKETBALL!!! Patiently waiting for a title...I may be waiting for a long time...
+100000
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
Spot on....
It's about heart, It's about fight, It's about being a Warrior!
by BritWarriorGSW on Feb 3, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe, but
how long until the Warriors make the playoffs?
Nelly has wet dreams about starting Monta at center.
I dont think its as simple as deciding to void his contract.
There would be grievances and it would be a mess.
If we voided his contract because he never fully recovered and can’t play ball, thats one thing. To void his contract so we can chase Boozer and Brand, is pretty messed up. I would rather the W’s look to trade Ellis with Randolph and Bellinelli for a sign and trade of Boozer, or something aong those lines….
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Feb 3, 2009 11:21 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
+1
Exactly. I think the players association would challenge that move and cause a bunch of problems. Plus, as you pointed out, it’s just not ethical. If you are going to void the contract do it because Monta can’t recover from the injury, don’t do it because there is a hot free agent available.
Thing 2
If the Warriors try to treat Monta’s injury as a ‘get out of contract free’ card and dump him in the off season, there will be significant legal ramifications such that I’m quite convinced the league will not immediately take his salary off the books for the purposes of computing the cap. The player’s association would immediately challenge the case.
I suspect strongly that even at this point, if they tried to invalidate it that an arbiter would kick it back saying that their window for doing so closed when they started playing him again. I suspect that by season’s end Rowell’s case will be even less tenable.
by jae on Feb 3, 2009 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that it will be very interesting if they try to void. On one hand, you say the player broke the contract during the offseason. At that time, you have the right to nullify or to not. If you chose not to, they you’ve agreed de facto that the contract is still valid.
On the other hand, the W’s can argue that the contract is invalid if the player can’t continue to fulfill his obligations due to his breach. And it may take some time to determine if the player can fulfill his obligations.
I think if the W’s void, it will be of serious interest to all teams in all leagues and all players. Because it will set precedent for a teams rights. It’ll be a huge circus.
Like OM said,
the day the Warriors let Monta step back on the court is the day when I feel like the have a legitiment threat to void Monta’s contract.
It would be a huge circus, definetly not along the lines of voiding Ellis one day and offering a max deal the next.
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Feb 3, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
I’m sure the NBAPA would challenge. I think they’re challenging the W’s assertion that they still have the right to void at a later date.
I don’t think they could get away with it if Monta is back to form. But if he’s not, they need to ask how long to wait. And if there is a free agent available, is it really unethical to consider that as part of the equation?
In other words, if you think Monta is not yet back, is it unethical to consider your options when making the decision to void him? Perhaps with no great prospects, you are willing to pay Monta $11m to be 90% of the player he was before the injury. But with other prospects who can play at a higher level, maybe you’re not happy paying him $11m for 90%.
I’m not stating a preference, simply being devils advocate.
Ethics...
I think they should have made that determination before they put him back on the court with a Warriors jersey on. If they feel uncomfortable with whether or not he will be healthy enough to fulfill his contract they should have held him out until he either A) had recovered to the point that they were willing to move forward under contract, or B) had shown that he would not be able to recover to a point that management was comfortable with and at that point terminated the contract.
This is obviously a sticky situation but IMO this is not something you let develop during NBA game time. Have doctors check him out, watch him practice, test his physical ability, do whatever you need to to make that determination. Don’t just throw him out there and say if he doesn’t perform up to a level you are comfortable with that you might void his contract.
On top of that, IMO, ethically speaking any circumstances outside of the health of Monta Ellis should absolutely not come into consideration when determining whether or not to void his deal.
Thing 2
“To form” is a subjective measure, and one that his contract doesn’t mention. I think snowballs have a better shot on the beach in Maui than they’d have of invalidating it on the basis that he can play (which clearly, he can) but he doesn’t play well enough.
by jae on Feb 3, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
Its over, no matter what Rowell wants to think or say. Unless Monta get’s reinjured and a doctor finds in the summer that his ankle never healed properly and he will never be able to play in the NBA again, Rowell has no case. All he is doing is distancing himself away from the guy who is supposed to be our future and making himself look like an ass in the process.
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Feb 3, 2009 8:12 PM PST up reply actions
What all-star caliber player would come to the Dubs
if we voided Monta’s contract? If we do it at this point it will obviously be malicious, as he is clearly able to play. We are already toxic to most big-time free-agents. Voiding the contract is the worst idea I have ever heard.
Monta is the singular of Montus, of the Montai
What all-star caliber player would come to the Dubs if we voided Monta's contract?
One who cares more about money than anything else and doesn’t have a thing for mopeds?
I think you neeed to shut the hell up...
Monta is our only chance at having a real star right now.. give it a chance wait till we see what bwright can do with this click.
WHOA!
Big ups!!... to all my haaaaterrrrrss!
by ItsDatFriscoSwag415 on Feb 3, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
A good big man is always better than a good 2
2’s are easier to find and are replaceable, good Centers and PF’s are hard to find.
Hasheem "The Dream" Thabeet or Brandon Jennings. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.
Voiding the contract just to sign another player?
No decent free agent will ever sign with the Warriors again. I know it seems like everyone is interested in getting rich, but after a move like that we could offer someone a billion dollars and they would pass it up to play for the Clippers at minimum wage
we could offer someone a billion dollars and they would pass it up to play for the Clippers at minimum wage
I can guarantee you they’d take the billion dollars 9 out of 10 times. That one person who turns it down has a thing for mopeds.
You lost me the minute you brought up Elton Brand.
JHe is pas this prime and done. Whye the F would you trade for him?
by dungeness crabdribble on Feb 3, 2009 4:26 PM PST reply actions
He’s 29 and coming off an injury. Like Ellis, we’ll see how he progresses as the year goes on. I’m not suggesting we sign Brand, the question is do you void Ellis for a shot at a 4, whoever it is you happen to like and think is available.
If the Warriors continue to play Ellis to see “how he progresses” their case for invalidating his contract gets weaker and weaker.
by jae on Feb 3, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
If he continues to play as he has or improves I agree. But what if after a handful of games he needs to sit because his ankle becomes problematic? Or heaven forbid he reinjures the ankle sometime later in the season? I don’t know. It’s certainly weaker than if they just voided in the offseason. But may provide more cause for voiding this offseason.
Again, not suggesting they void Ellis. Just getting opinions.
My opinion is that if they tried, they’d fail on legal grounds. His contract specifies that his job is to be a basketball player. It doesn’t have an arbitrary level of play. He can clearly play. He’s been cleared to play by the team’s medical staff. Playing him and paying him in essence says that management again accepts that the contract is valid.
And the situation if they tried and failed would likely be a worst case scenario. Since players who retire still count against the cap even if they aren’t paid by the team and injured players still count against the cap (though sometimes an injury relief slot is created) it’s not at all implausible if they invalidated his contract that they could have a situation where they lose him as a player, don’t have to pay him, but still have the dollar value count against the cap.
by jae on Feb 3, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
Or heaven forbid he reinjures the ankle sometime later in the season?
I’m pretty sure that will work against the Warriors.
If he reinjures the ankle playing basketball, the right to void the contract pretty much goes out the window.
Even if they pull something like that, expect a situation similar to the Blazers and Darius Miles. Monta will work his ass of to come back at full strength and the whole contract will bite them in the ass.
it’s not at all implausible if they invalidated his contract that they could have a situation where they lose him as a player, don’t have to pay him, but still have the dollar value count against the cap.
Excellent, we finally found a way for Cohan and Rowell to make a bigger joke of our franchise than it already is.
We will probably need to be patient and let this season play out.
-warriorsvictim
by warriorsscore110 on Feb 3, 2009 8:16 PM PST reply actions
Crawford opts out next offseason?!
C’mon, no one really expects that’s gonna happen, do they?
It’d be like Baron opting out and leaving $17m large on the table to just walk away and sign with Brand’s Clippers – no one expected that – and it didn’t work out so well either …
so while stranger things have happened than Craw opting out, still I still think it’d be an unlikely gift
I sure hope Crawfish opts out...
as for Monta, we’ll really have to wait and see on this one IMO.
if im not mistaken the whole point of the thread
is should they void moped’s contract, if crawford opts out, not if they can void it.
sure why not, they shouldve done it in the first place anyway instead of dilly dallying and acting like little punks like they are.
basically were just going to trade monta and crawford for a superstar 4.
monta/crawford for Boozer? why not.
warriors dont fish they hunt!
by VonteegoCummings on Feb 4, 2009 12:42 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Because even in the rare event that the league will simply allow the Warriors to make an end of the decision ‘get out of Monta free’ decision, the odds of that hypothetical cap room actually attracting a player better than Monta is low. When the team was coming off a 48 win season and, though they lost Baron, seemed to be poised to stay competitive, they paid a big fee for Maggette. What exactly makes anyone think that cap room this time, with the team in shambles and a clear, very public dispute between player and management and a front office in total and complete disarray, a real quality free agent who will contribute more than Monta will decide to come here?
by jae on Feb 4, 2009 2:11 AM PST up reply actions
a free agent like boozer
who has a history of going where the cash is. “hypothetical cap room attracting a player is low” yes low, impossible? no.
warriors dont fish they hunt!
by VonteegoCummings on Feb 4, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
It’ll be interesting to see who is a player in the free agent market this offseason. Many teams are looking at 2010. On the other hand, if you have a player who can become a free agent in 2010, do you say the hell with the cap now, and try to surround him with good players in an effort to get him to re-sign?
I’m not sure who will have cap space next year, but I know Miami dows and has been rumored to be a destination for Boozer. Memphis will have space but has shown they don’t want to spend. Although adding a big time 4 would be huge for them, with their good wings and high draft pick. That’s a team that with one or two moves and a little more experience could go from worst to playoffs.
Anyway, I agree that players will go where the money is first, generally speaking. Yes, that includes possible endorsement deals too. If it’s close, then they’ll look at the situation. If no one is willing to offer Boozer the max, or very close to it, and we do, I think there’s a hell of a chance he comes here. He signed to live in Utah for goodness!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
