What's new
By:

Bring back Wes

Wes has been playing horrible this season. Why would we want him? He only had one good game against memphis who doesnt play defense.

He get a ton of turnovers and is a horrible 3 point shooter. Tell me why should we take him? We already ahve horrible 3 point shooters in bell and cj and they get less turnovers.
 
ncoloradojazz said:
and thats why you are not a gm cuz you would be fired quickly.You call wes athletic abilty limited, Lmao have you seen hayward that is the limitred one
Click to expand...

While I agree in principle with this post I have a hard time believing that ncoloradojazz is not roseparkjazzfan incognito.
 
DutchJazzer said:
thats whjat i hate people putting tax hit on a certain players

if at all tax hit should eb on ak or memo:P
Click to expand...
Sure, you can say the tax hit is on AK or Memo or even Deron, but at the time the Jazz had to decide on Matthews, they actually had a choice on him. On that day in July 2010, they couldn't wad up Memo's contract and throw it away.

As of July, it would have cost the Jazz $11.5M plus to match Matthews. It cost nothing to say no (except that they had to sign someone to fill that spot).
 
Kenwood said:
The Watson/Elson part isn't quite true. Watson makes $1.229M and Elson makes $1.146M, but the Jazz only pay them $854,389 each (the league pays the rest). All players with 2 years experience or more cost their teams the same $854,389, so the only way the Jazz could have saved money on those two roster spots would be to pick up rookies ($473,604) or players with 1 year experience ($762,195). Personally, I'd take Watson over a rookie/soph PG about any day given the small difference. Same probably goes for Elson, but either way, I don't think these two figure into the Matthews decision process.

The real question boils down to this: is Matthews worth $5.5 million more than Bell this year? With luxury tax penalty, Matthews would have cost the Jazz $11.5M this year (and actually more cash than that, due to upfront payments). Bell will cost them $6M including tax.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to count what would've been Matthews salary this year for the full tax hit, please don't forget to factor in the equivalent tax hit of Elson and Watson in addition to Bell. So even if the league pays for part of their salaries of a combined, post-subsidy salaries $1.7M, still add their tax hit of about $2.4M (their listed salaries) and that's $4.1M. Now add Bell's $3M x 2 = $6M and you've got $10.1M. If the Jazz did get a couple of less experienced players to around out the 12th and 13th team slots, that's $1.7M including tax. Now add Wes's $5.7M x 2 = $11.4M, that's $13.1M total.

So that's the final tally, $13.1M with Matthews and 2 scrubs vs $10.1M with Bell and 2 vet scrubs. Still more expensive but not almost double like you say. The real bottom line is with that, the Jazz would have a 24-year-old Wes coming off last season's play starting at SG instead of a 34-year-old (signed through 'til his 36), off-major-injuries Bell. All spilled milk now but the former choice would've still been that much better for the Jazz.
 
Kenwood said:
The Watson/Elson part isn't quite true. Watson makes $1.229M and Elson makes $1.146M, but the Jazz only pay them $854,389 each (the league pays the rest). All players with 2 years experience or more cost their teams the same $854,389, so the only way the Jazz could have saved money on those two roster spots would be to pick up rookies ($473,604) or players with 1 year experience ($762,195). Personally, I'd take Watson over a rookie/soph PG about any day given the small difference. Same probably goes for Elson, but either way, I don't think these two figure into the Matthews decision process.

The real question boils down to this: is Matthews worth $5.5 million more than Bell this year? With luxury tax penalty, Matthews would have cost the Jazz $11.5M this year (and actually more cash than that, due to upfront payments). Bell will cost them $6M including tax.
Click to expand...
Actually, the league reimbursement of "veteran's minimum" contracts only applies if the contract is a one-year (or less) contract. I haven't seen any definitive statement on the length of these two contracts. Elson being a one-year deal is a reasonable assumption, but I would expect Watson to be on a multi-year deal.
 
Bump.

What the hell is this "Three Goggles"? *edited by moderator*. Portland can have the Lady Gaga wannabe. This is up there with Stevenson calling himself "Mr. 50" and Scott Padget's white towel waving from so far down Houston's bench that you'd think he was part of the cheer squad.

https://network.yardbarker.com/nba/...s_three_goggles_t_shirts_are_sold_out/3917255

images
images
images
1292967384-pan-2.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we could convince Portland to take AK for Wes, the Blazers would be the laughing stock of the league and we'd be the heroes. GET IT DONE!
 
We dont need Wes or Andre. If we need to upgrade at SG we need to get a borderline all star at SG. Someone like Jason Richardson or Iguodola.
 
vj_74 said:
We dont need Wes or Andre. If we need to upgrade at SG we need to get a borderline all star at SG. Someone like Jason Richardson or Iguodola.
Click to expand...

wes tonight vs portland
28 points on 10 of 18 shooting (4 of 8 from deep)
3 rebs
5 assists
3 steals


...thats exactly what we need
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top