Should the Warriors waive Foyle or Fisher?

I actually think Fisher's contract is the worst because it's all 6 years guaranteed. He'll be here longer than Baron which kind of sucks. 35 years old by the time he's up... This guy better not turn into Bobby Jackson with all the injuries.

With Foyle's contract, at least it continues the cycle of getting another 10 mil player when it expires. So we could be getting a nice player from some team looking to dump salary.

 

Is there some rule regarding a straight buyout of a contract,would we have the option of just paying the last couple years of Fish's deal. The Waiver,it sounds like,is a one time thing-and we used it to wave bye to White. We don't get to waive another guy also,but buying out may serve the purpose unless it counts against the cap + tax.

Some of you guys are much too hard on Foyle. A lot of guys-including several who are mentioned in trade suggestions,have similar flaws. Swift,as an example,scores a bit more,has bad hands,does not rebound as well as foyle or play D consistantly-and he'd cost about the same. If we get the best case scenario,Biedrens,Taft and Murphy might provide us with a good C group in the future-and yet another scenario can have Foyle upgrading his overall game a few notches,and being worth the $ we will see how it comes down.

 

Too bad Finley is kind of a bad fit for the Warriors. I love his game, and wish J-Rich could develop the court vision and free throw skills of Finley. But Dallas has a bunch of offers and probably wants to ship him East.

We don't have many expiring contracts, either. Dunleavy and Cheaney are our only two expiring contracts at the moment, with Pietrus and Zabarkapa with two years each; Biedrins and Davis have three years, and after that the rest of the players are long-term (5+ years). One trade that might work technically would be Dun and Murphy for Finley, but that doesn't really work out for either team that spectacularly. Murphy has the same problems as Nowitski, and Dun would be lost in the shuffle in Dallas.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting REREM:</div><div class="quote_post">Is there some rule regarding a straight buyout of a contract,would we have the option of just paying the last couple years of Fish's deal. The Waiver,it sounds like,is a one time thing-and we used it to wave bye to White. We don't get to waive another guy also,but buying out may serve the purpose unless it counts against the cap + tax.</div>

With all contracts, to end it, both parties must agree mutually to end it. I don't think Fisher or Cohan would be happy with that.

As far as the league rules, unless a player retires, I believe, whatever buyout is paid ends up on next year's cap. So this waiver thing is a better choice. If a player retires, it ends up on the current year (depending on if they decide before a certain date).

 

I think if you give Taft a year to develop, and get his came on the right direction he would be a decent center and be able to do this things Foyle does on the court. And if that does happen then we can just toss Foyle and save some $$$$

 

I"m sure the lakers would get fisher back if he gets released because of the money problems or whatever

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">I doubt it, I think the Rockets would jump on Fisher and pay more than the Lakers would for him. I still think the Warriors should highly consider waiving Foyle or at worst Calbert Cheany and his $1.6Million.</div>

Well, we don't have to waive Cheaney, because we probably won't be affected by luxury tax next season, and his contract ends after coming season.

Here is a problem waiving/trading Foyle or Fisher (especially Foyle) for a body bag, or a stiff, who will reduce salary figures. Currently, we have a realistic chance to break 12 years of non-PO drought, and in order to do so, we need every helps we can get. Foyle is really an important part of our defense, which desperately needs an inside presence, and that's why we drafted Diogu to provide a help. When, we didn't have an inside defensive presence, things really got ugly. Giving up 50% fg was a daily routine, until Foyle started to play more effectively and average 2.5 blk per game. So, in order for our defense to play half way decent, we need Foyle, and without Foyle defending the middle, I really think making PO is a pipe dream. I really do want to dump Fisher, because $6 mils per year for back up PG is just insane, especially for a team, which will have a salary problem. However, 12 pts is 12 pts, and while he failed to run the club efficiently as a PG, he was an effective back up SG. Also, Mullin probably signed Fisher to have small Horry in PO. In ideal situation, we will let Dunleavy go or trade him, and let Pietrus take over SF position, because it would be extremely hard to keep both guys. However, there is a no sign that Mullin's never ending love toward Dunleavy has cooled down a little bit, so overpaying Dunleavy seems like our destination (which we will regret immidiately).

It will be a very hard decision for Mullin to make, and it will probably make or break Mullin's future. Unfortunately, in most cases, GMs do not disrupt the rhythm, when things go good until they see 30 ft tidal wave about to hit your ball club. And, it's certainly coming in two or three years. I can only hope that Mullin will have some sort of plan to avoid or reduce the impact...

 

Good post Kwan. Well put.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">WTWalker, I don't think it was pre-mature to bring up this topic eventhough the Warriors are not in the luxury cap threshold ... currently.

I emphasized currently, because after this season the Warriors could be over the threshold for the next 3 years if they plan on re-signing Dunleavy, Pietrus, or Biedrins. This move would give them future financial flexibility if they can unload Fisher or Foyle and avoid a higher luxury tax penalty in the near future.

Here is my idea for the Warriors to consider. It's starting to look like only a few teams will actually benefit from this rule. The Knicks, Pacers, Blazers, Mavs, 76ers, Raptors, and Lakers. These teams will all be well over the cap.

Some players rumored to be waived are Allan Houston, Michael Finley, Austin Croshere, Brian Grant and Jalen Rose.

If the Warriors can trade Fisher or Foyle for one of those players, who have hefty contracts, but expire quicker it could benefit both teams. The Warriors unload a long contract, get a servicable player in return, plus an expiring contract to trade after this year. The other team benefits because they can reduce their luxury tax even more by acquiring Foyle's or Fisher's contract.

For example, Foyle would give the Pacers $34Million in luxury tax savings, versus only $18Million from Croshere.</div>
Okay, I've been thinking a lot about this, and while initially I really loved this idea, I don't think it's actually going to work in a team's benefit.

I've actually written out a couple of really complicated posts, then had to delete them after coming to the realization that this idea won't work for a pretty simple reason...well two actually:

1) Using your Indiana trade as an example, while the Pacers would save $34 mil on paper, the extra $18.6 mil they'd save in would-be luxury tax penalties during the later years of Foyle's contract are actually moot, since there's no difference between the Pacers having amnesty from Foyle's contract and Croshere's contract being off the books from a luxury tax standpoint.

The only real savings Indiana would have is the $6.14 mil they'd save in the first two years of Foyle's contract. This is because Foyle makes $3.07 mil less over those two years than Croshere. So the Pacers would save $3.07 mil in salary to Foyle and $3.07 mil in luxury tax penalties to the league.

2) However, this $6.14 mil is less than they'd end up paying Foyle over the last two years of his contract ($18.6 mil).

So by making the trade, the Pacers would end up spending an extra $12.46 mil ($18.60 - $6.14 = $12.46) over the next 4 years than they would have if they didn't make the trade and just used the amnesty provision on Croshere. Plus they'd have a higher salary cap, but since they'll probably be over the cap anyway during the life of Foyle's contract, that doesn't really matter.

I've looked at a lot of deals, and I can't find one where the team they trade Fisher or Foyle to doesn't end up paying more in salary to Fisher or Foyle than they save in amnestisized (oh yeah big word) luxury tax costs.

For a deal to work, the Warriors would have to look for a guy who is making as close to $9.25 mil in '05/'06 (125% of what Foyle is making plus $100k, i.e. the max salary a player can make and still be traded for Foyle straight up) as possible and has three years left on his deal. That way the team would save roughly $4-5 mil a year in salary and luxury tax penalties, and over 3 years that would be enough ($4-5 mil x 3 years = $12-15 mil) to offset the $9.7 mil the team would have to pay Foyle in year 4.

The problem with that is if the Warriors find a guy with that contract it won't end until after the '07/'08 season, and by that time Pietrus and Dunleavy (if both are re-signed) would have already started the first and second year of their respective new deals, likely pushing the Warriors into luxury tax land anyway.

I dunno, it's a complicated issue and it's quite possible that I've looked at this so long I'm missing something obvious (I've really come to hate this post).

To anyone who actually finished reading this (and I'm assuming I'm only talking to Shape, Kwan, fansince75, and perhaps Zhone and Custodian...hi guys), my congratulations, I would have gotten bored and stopped awhile ago. I promise to try and say something more interesting in other threads.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">
To anyone who actually finished reading this (and I'm assuming I'm only talking to Shape, Kwan, fansince75, and perhaps Zhone and Custodian...hi guys), my congratulations, I would have gotten bored and stopped awhile ago. I promise to try and say something more interesting in other threads.</div> Do I get a medal now?

It's interesting but I can't really add anything. I'm so lost when it comes to what's the real issue here regarding the Warriors and the new CBA and what that means for the future (other than us losing talent and not being able to replace it).

At this point, there doesn't seem to be enough info resources to find out if a team can have some type of amnesty granted to them later on with contracts signed in the year prior to the new CBA, especially ones that last 6 long years (nearly as long as the new CBA - doh!).

As far as trades go, I had the same impression that Walker had that one or the other teams wouldn't really be saving all that much money each season or they would be ending up spending more overall. I just wasn't confident in my understanding to really continue the discussion that Shape started.

Also don't worry, Walker, quality over quantity right?

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Custodian's post count:
Total Posts: 4,696 (8.06 posts per day)</div>

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting custodianrules2:</div><div class="quote_post">Do I get a medal now?</div>
No, but you can have a cookie. In fact, anyone who actually reads my post and sends me a self-addressed stamped envelope may have a free cookie.

One request per household, cookies will be mailed 4-6 weeks after receipt of request.

...I got yer quality right here Custodian.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">No, but you can have a cookie. In fact, anyone who actually reads my post and sends me a self-addressed stamped envelope may have a free cookie.

One request per household, cookies will be mailed 4-6 weeks after receipt of request.

...I got yer quality right here Custodian.</div>
Glad to know somebody's got my back! Now for other business... I just need some stamps and some stationary...

 

Heya, T-Walk.

I think I follow you on the math here. There are only a few players with the contract that would fit, though. Richard Hamilton, Elton Brand, Mike Bibby, Rashard Lewis, and Derek Anderson all have contracts ending around that time for about $10 million. (Hm, a game of who doesn't fit probably makes Anderson the only real target).

It'd be still too tough to devise a trade that'd work, though.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">To anyone who actually finished reading this (and I'm assuming I'm only talking to Shape, Kwan, fansince75, and perhaps Zhone and Custodian...hi guys), my congratulations, I would have gotten bored and stopped awhile ago. I promise to try and say something more interesting in other threads.</div>

Oh, man. That was good stuff...exactly what I was talking about when I said in an earlier post it's too much math for me to do...

Here's what I think happened in the owner's meetings: the big teams said 'no F***ing lux tax any more, or we ain't signing sh*t!'

Well, David Stern would trade his first born and the draft rights to God (and right there, you got a pretty good team...I hear God has mad hops and 300 ft range on his jumper) to keep the lux tax, and the little guys like the lux tax 'cause the tax is then shared by teams under the cap (how shi**ty is that, if you keep your payroll low, ie, you suck (unless you are the Knicks) then you get a big fat bonus at the end of the year).

Well, this was all a bluff to get a little $ back, and it kinda worked. The rich guys got two things:

1. luxury tax payouts are shared evenly among ALL teams now
2. they got a one time deal to waive a big, ugly contract, and save even more money on the lux tax

But David Stern said: 'ok, but you rich dumb-sh*ts still got to eat those contracts, the player can never, ever play for you again (I exaggerate) and the contract stays on your salary cap, 'cause it's your fault the salary cap doesn't work better...and the God deal is off the table.'

What the h*ll is all this leading to?

The houston rule doesn't really have any advantages to it unless you have crappy player with a huge salary and you are over the lux tax. It's not really useful in a trade, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to waive a serviceable player 'just because.'

To make it useful, you have to:
1. save A LOT of money (I mean, Finley can still play, but $51 mil? Mike, don't let the door...)
2. save some money and waive a guy who can't play anymore (ie, you don't weaken your team or strengthen another team)

That, in it's own convoluted way, is why the W's will not be using the houston rule.