Should we give Jeremy Evans a huge deal this summer?

[Hedda Gambler]

Hopefully the Jazz FO manage to work out a deal that gives us a very good player or two this off season. When we are done with our shopping, should we give Jeremy Evans a huge deal - for example 5 million this year with 5 million unguaranteed next year? Th point is obviously to use him as a trade chip. Since we have his bird rights, we can go over the cap/more over the cap to re-sign him. We can than use our future assets and him to match salaries in a trade later on in the season.

This would cost the Jazz a lot of money, but he seems to be a very good dude and it would give us flexibility.

 

[Qman]

No. If we bring him back at all, it will be for the vet's minimum.

 

[Avery]

Evans played 7 MPG either in garbage time or at the end of the season when our core all had mysterious ailments.

You don't pay guys like that $5 million a season - you give them the vet minimum of about $1 million based on the number of years he's played. He'll gladly take it too.

 

[Hedda Gambler]

Guys, you do realize that the point here is not to pay the man what he is worth, but to find a way to circumwent the salary cap? With Evans on a Booker-like deal, we could take back 15 million in salary in a trade. If we pool the GSW and OKC picks with our own future picks, we should be able to get a pretty good player in return.

 

[The Thriller]

Guys, you do realize that the point here is not to pay the man what he is worth, but to find a way to circumwent the salary cap? With Evans on a Booker-like deal, we could take back 15 million in salary in a trade. If we pool the GSW and OKC picks with our own future picks, we should be able to get a pretty good player in return.

So overpay someone now in the hopes of dealing with some desperate team in a trade later? Interesting

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I would prefer that the Jazz overpay me for these purposes.

 

[Jazz4ever]

He is a very situational player. You can't play him against any PF with a post game he gets overpowered. He is "ok" against stretch PFs but sometimes loses his man from lack of concentration. Generally is productive when he plays though. 5/y is ridiculous, but could go 2.5/y

 

[LogGrad98]

No. If we bring him back at all, it will be for the vet's minimum.

This is the end of it, really.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Ok folks, try not to get stuck on the fact that this is overpaying for this certain player. What Hedda is talking about is giving the team more flexibility in making a trade. This only makes sense if we use up our cap space, in which case, Jeremy could be used as filler in a trade. Paying him the minimum would defeat the purpose. It's definitely a legitimate idea.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Ok folks, try not to get stuck on the fact that this is overpaying for this certain player. What Hedda is talking about is giving the team more flexibility in making a trade. This only makes sense if we use up our cap space, in which case, Jeremy could be used as filler in a trade. Paying him the minimum would defeat the purpose. It's definitely a legitimate idea.

A legitimately bad idea.

 

[NAOS]

A legitimately bad idea.

Even if that's the case, this is easily the most interesting thing written in this forum in days if not weeks.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

A legitimately bad idea.

For someone who has no understanding of the CBA and how it works, yes.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Think about Booker. He wasn't just signed as a player we like. His contract was structured in a way so that it was a trade chip. If you don't understand that, you won't get what Hedda is talking about.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

So overpay someone now in the hopes of dealing with some desperate team in a trade later? Interesting

This only happens if Utah uses up their cap space. In that scenario, this kind of a move allows us more flexibility in trade and hurts us in no way. It's actually a great idea.

 

[NAOS]

If you really like Trevor Booker, and you're hoping he survives a trade as a member of this team, then you MUST like some version of this deal, since it would greatly increase the odds that Trevor stays.

Regardless of how much you like Trevor, though, this is a well-crafted idea for how to hop the cap line. The trick is to give Jeremy just enough guaranteed money... which he and his agent will ask for because they'll know they're agreeing to being bait.

Also, any guaranteed money in this deal is effectively doubled, since I'm sure the receiving team will ask for cash to offset any guaranteed money. If the Millers are willing to pay, this idea has a lot of merit.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I'd rather overpay someone good if we were going to do that.... And only after missing out on someone we like long term in FA.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I'd rather overpay someone good if we were going to do that.... And only after missing out on someone we like long term in FA.

You're missing the point of this deal. We do this because we can go over the cap to sign Jeremy. So we only do this after we use up our cap space on someone else.

 

[JazzForLifee]

why would we waste more money when we can get him for veteran min?

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

The only real drawback here is if you have ownership who is pinching pennies, and doesn't want to take the risk of not finding a trade. If you have a team that's aggressively looking to improve through trade and is willing to risk a few million, this increases your options in who you could bring back in trade.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

You're missing the point of this deal. We do this because we can go over the cap to sign Jeremy. So we only do this after we use up our cap space on someone else.

I didn't read that... Sure once we've already used up our cap space we could do one of these deals. It acts as the salary match for a trade and doesn't hurt our cap.