Leverage Needed

Chris Broussard wrote last week about the Atlanta Hawks lowballing Josh Smith: "Atlanta realizes Smith has no leverage (I'm told Europe is not on his radar), and while one could argue the Hawks are being smart financially, they're screwing up by creating bad blood with one of their main cogs."

In the wake of what happened with Josh Childress doesn't the clear solution here seem to be putting Europe on his radar? Smith could even choose, at the end of the day, to stay in the states for less money than what some Euro squad is offering him but if he's not happy with Atlanta's $57 million, six year deal he should see if someone is willing to pay him more. It's crazy to leave the option of Europe entirely off the table.

Comments

It seems likely that no European club would outbid the Hawks by so much that the Hawks wouldn't match. (I don't know if he's required to allow the Hawks to match an offer from another league.) Smith's and Childress's potential paychecks live in very different neighborhoods.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 29, 2008 9:36 AM

The Hawks have no right of match for Euro teams. That is why Childress was a genius. He structured it so that there would be buy outs after each year so he could come back.

The Hawks own the NBA rights to Smith and Childress for this coming year and perhaps the next (although I'm not sure about the next part). Smith could probably sign a similar deal in Europe, with the build in buyouts, and come back next year as an unrestricted free agent, making up whatever money he would lose.

Posted by Josh R. | July 29, 2008 10:11 AM

Let's not forget that there is always the sign and trade option. Rumor mill has it that my beloved(and much maligned)Dallas Mavericks are dangling Josh Howard. He makes 9.5 mil a yr for the next 3 yrs, roughly what the Hawks are willing to pay Josh Smith.

Posted by keith | July 29, 2008 10:11 AM

Let's not forget that there is always the sign and trade option. Rumor mill has it that my beloved(and much maligned)Dallas Mavericks are dangling Josh Howard. He makes 9.5 mil a yr for the next 3 yrs, roughly what the Hawks are willing to pay Josh Smith.

Posted by keith | July 29, 2008 10:14 AM

The Hawks have no right of match for Euro teams.

The Hawks don't have a "right" to match Euro teams' offers, but what I think SCMT is saying is that the Hawks would match any potential offer he'd receive from a Euro team. And I agree. (And, if the Hawks would match the Euro team's offer, Smith would choose Atlanta over Moscow or Milan.)

I think the point is that Euro teams can afford to purchase players like Childress, but not players like Josh Smith - because Childress lives in a different salary level than Smith. AFAIK, Euro teams aren't prepared to pay $12 million/year for any player, no matter how good - their salary structure and revenues just wouldn't permit it. The Childress's, Delfino's Nachbar's and Krstic's of the world are the limit of most Euro teams' salary levels. (I could be wrong about that - my knowledge of Euro basketball is slim - and there may be one or two Russian teams that can, in fact pay bigger money. But I still suspect that Josh Smith's salary demands are simply out of the Euro teams' league.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 10:58 AM

Of course there's a reason to leave the option off the table: if you don't want to live in Europe. I haven't heard Josh Smith's thoughts on the idea, but what if he wants to live and work in America? It seems like a likely enough scenario. Sure, he could still negotiate with Euro teams to bluff, but what if the Hawks call his bluff?

Posted by too many steves | July 29, 2008 11:49 AM

I believe that if/when Childress or Krstc decide to return to the NBA, the Hawks and Nets, respectively, will still hold his RFA rights. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by nbt | July 29, 2008 12:02 PM

Childress is much more worldly than Smith. I can see him having a blast playing overseas, while I could easily see Smith being miserable. They're just two completely different people.

That said, the agents for the players should have seen this coming before agreeing to the CBA. They had already been locked out for a year, why not push it? I think it probably had something to do with the fact that most of the players negotiating were at the tail end of their careers and had a lot more to lose over a lost season.

Players are huge hippocrites because for all their talk about it ALL being a business, they are so quick to get their feelings hurt when they feel they are being mistreated or not being offered what they think they are worth. Look at Brand who walked away from more money with the Clippers because they hurt his feelings! Boo hoo! I think a lot of this sentiment comes because they are being manipulated by their agents to feel this way. It makes them much more maleable.

So go ahead and lowball Smith Atlanta. Afterall, they are entitled to pay him as little as he will sign for. Pippen was unhappy with his contract with Chicago, but that didn't stop that franchise from winning six titles. The players agreed to this CBA. They shouldn't be too upset anyway if the owners take advantage of it.

Posted by bum | July 29, 2008 12:08 PM

Bum, if you believe Elton Brand left the Clippshow because he got his feeling's hurt, I've got a Bridge to sell you. That "feelings hurt" thing was just an excuse. The real reason he left the Clips is because "THEY ARE THE CLIPPERS!" Better to be anywhere else than a cursed franchise. Brand tried to leave before. Stop believing the spin and open your eyes.

As for Josh Smith, it's true, dude has no leverage, and second, he wouldn't thrive in Euro, and frankly might not get off the bench much. Guy is amazingly talented, but still don't know how to play the game. In the NBA, that can make you an All Star, but in Euro, it might not get you on the floor.

Plus, $57 mil for 6 years is NOT LOWBALLING SMITH!!!! It's just about perfect, if not excessive for a guy who is still a project. Does he really think he's a max player? Does Yglesias? PLEASE!

Posted by Smitros Smitros | July 29, 2008 12:14 PM

The Hawks only own the rights to Childress for this coming year. If he opts out of his Greek contract, which he can do at the end of the first and second years he can return to the NBA as a FA. This is where RFA have some leverage. They can sign a multiyear deal in Europe, which generally can included opt-out clauses after each year. That way they only have to play in Europe for one year, get paid more than signing a one-year qualifying offer with their current team and can return as a FA. Granted they must play in Europe for a year, but really only one year.

I think the Biedrins deal at a reported 6yrs/$63M (probably a high number including very hard to obtain bonuses) have given Smith more leverage. Hard to argue that Andris deserves that much more money than Smith.

I guess the real question for Smith would be does he lose money by a less than expected year in Europe. If he goes to Europe and play only okay, not thriving in a European system is he still able to get more than the Hawks are willing to offer as a FA when he comes back. Smith's camp is at least claiming as Childress' camp did that other teams are willing to offer more than the Hawks, but due to his RFA status won't make an offer and be financially handcuffed for 7 days while the Hawks decide to match or not. I think one could argue that even if Smith is not super successful in Europe that a team, all you need is one, would be willing to overlook it and pay him the same as if they were willing to pay him now. Also one could imagine that Smith might be willing to take $57M/6yrs from another team, but wants more money if he is going to be stuck on the Hawks. Look at Baron Davis as an example. Although he was not offered the Clips deal by the Warriors, Mullin said that he did not think Baron would have even signed with the Warriors for the same money the Clips offered him.

Posted by JK | July 29, 2008 2:22 PM

My understanding is that, so long as the Hawks and Nets continue to make the qualifying offer each year, they continue to hold Childress's and Krstic's respective restricted free agent rights as long as they are in Europe.

That's why, as a Nets fan, I support Krstic's move to Russia. I have no idea whether the guy can get back to being the 16-8 guy he was before the knee injury. He's obviously going to need time to play, and I don't know if he would get that time on the Nets, given their plethora of young bigs (Brook Lopez, Yi, Sean Williams, Josh Boone). I'd want to find out before the Nets commit to a multi-year contract. So this just gives the Nets time to get more info, while they essentially stay in the same position with respect to his NBA rights.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 3:42 PM

The Childress deal was 20 million tax free. Not sure how many European clubs can do that or just the Greek clubs or what.

But if all European clubs can, European clubs can compete money wise. One or two millions more a year tax free would effectively exceed, per year, the Hawk's offer for Smith.
The Childress deal was 20 million tax free. Not sure how many European clubs can do that or just the Greek clubs or what.

Mullin overpaid, again!

Posted by someguy | July 29, 2008 4:06 PM

Mullin overpaid? Please. The Warriors just got Biedrins for 6 years for abou the same $ that the Bucks are giving Bogut over 5 years. Biedrins is clearly better than Bogut by any measure: he's better now, he's younger, and he's more athletic with more room to improve. Beyond that, the Warriors are building their future around Monta and Biedrins, so they had to sign both guys as long as it didn't break the bank. And it didn't break the bank. The team is still under the cap, with room to sign more free agents in the future, and they have all their important young guys signed for years and years.

Posted by too many steves | July 29, 2008 4:21 PM

I was wrong there on a couple of things: Biedrins' deal is actually smaller than Bogut's by a good bit if you don't count the bonuses. And the Warriors aren't under the cap at the moment, but when it comes time to sign free agents next year, they could easily make some room. At least, Kawakami at the Mercury News says so, and he's my go-to Warriors blogger.

Posted by too many steves | July 29, 2008 4:24 PM

The Childress deal was 20 million tax free.

ESPN said $20 million after taxes, over 3 years. That's a bit more than the mid-level exception, but it certainly isn't the big money that Josh Smith and other second tier restricted free agents like Biedrnis, Okafor (who just signed with the Cats for $72 over 6 years), Iguodala and Deng want.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 4:39 PM

"My understanding is that, so long as the Hawks and Nets continue to make the qualifying offer each year, they continue to hold Childress's and Krstic's respective restricted free agent rights as long as they are in Europe."

I think that's right, but I also think that these offers count against the salary cap each year they make them, so there's some incentive not to do so.

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | July 29, 2008 5:09 PM

The Bucks way over paid. (Defense is part of the game.)

http://mindofmullin.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-mullin-overpay-again.html

On top of that you need to adjust for pace.

But still, I probably, jumped the gun a bit. Re-checking the numbers, the statement, overpaid, is a bit more problematic than I thought.

2 Million more a year would be 26 million total.

Or 8.67 million a year. At a tax rate of 30% that would be the equivalent of 11.27 million per year. Pretty darn close to 6 and 72.

The Hawks offered 9.5 million a year.

At 23 million, one more million a year, the rate would be 10 million a year.

Posted by someguy | July 29, 2008 5:16 PM

Using the awful Bogut contract as a benchmark is an indicator that you're discussing another bad contract.

Posted by Joel | July 29, 2008 5:25 PM

True, not the famous one, although that depends on their existing cap situation. If already over the cap, then an additional cap charge is not a big deal. And if they want to sign a free agent without using an exception, they can always withdraw the qualifying offer and renounce the player. AFAICT, at least!

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 5:29 PM

The hawks retain the rights of Josh Childress for up to two more years if he continues to play overseas. Beyond that, he's an unrestricted FA if he comes back.

Beyond that, Childress's game fits well with the European style: shooting, passing, not much D. Smith's on the other hand is strictly NBA: defense, shot blocking, post, dunking.

Smitros: It doesn't matter what Brand's actual reason for leaving is, it's his stated reason for leaving that's important because it's the same tired old song we hear from other players who feel they're being offered less than they're worth. Instead of saying, "Hey, I understand it's a business and the owner is just trying to save money for a) flexability to sign more players or b) to make his wallet fatter," they all cry about respect.

By the way, the warriors have been foolishly spending all their cap money like they're on shore leave. Monta Ellis I understand and I think they got Maguette for a relative bargain but over $10mil for Biedrens and Turiaf for anything. Will they be improved? yes. Does this team have any chance of being better than the Lakers now or Blazers in the future? No way. And now you've put yourself in the position where you have no flexability to get there. That Biedrens deal is Darius Miles or Marko Jaric... it's that bad!

Posted by bum | July 29, 2008 6:18 PM

Biedrins is already pretty close to being a top-10 center, depending on whether you consider Duncan, Sheed and a few other 4/5s to be centers. In 3 years Biedrins could easily be top 5. He's got a brighter future than Okafor, who's good but doesn't seem to be getting any better.

The Maggette deal might look pretty bad in a few years. But not Monta or Biedrins.

I agree that the Warriors don't have much chance of being better than the Blazers or Lakers. But those are two of the teams with the brightest futures in the league. The Warriors are setting themselves up pretty well to be one good player away from contending.

And shit, I know they're not a championship contender. As a fan, I want them to be in the playoff hunt, play an entertaining brand of basketball, and employ some guys worth rooting for. Even without Baron, they're still doing OK on those fronts, for the present and the future.

Posted by too many steves | July 29, 2008 6:35 PM

Those who said that the Hawks retain his rights are correct I was wrong on that one. In order to do so they must submit a qualifying offer each year which will count against their cap number or he becomes a FA, so it could go either way depending on whether or not the Hawks are willing to take a temporary cap hit.

It also looks like the Warriors paid Biedrins 6/54 at 9M a year each year not an average, so he won't ever be a 12M player at the end of the contract. IMO they may have overpaid by 1M a year, but really not all that much. The Maggette deal is the one that might look the worst in a few years. Resigning Biedrins and Ellis were great moves.

Agreed that the W's don't look better than the Lakers or Portland over the next two years, but really name another team that does. Maybe Boston, but then they are downhill after another two years or so. Maybe it is Warrior's fan mentality but I am happy being set-up as a top 8 NBA team.

Posted by JK | July 29, 2008 7:29 PM

Adding ... not saying a top 8 NBA team now, but in two years or so.

Posted by JK | July 29, 2008 7:35 PM

I think Baron Davis is great. I live in LA and have been watching him play for some time. However, his best days in the NBA were in Charlotte. He's still tough and entertaining, but I think he's a very inefficient offensive player, not the defensive player he once way and I think the Warriors are better without him. It's amazing when he jacks up a fallaway three with a defender in his face and makes it, but he misses a lot more and the Warriors don't need that. The Warriors are going to need a PG, and Monta Ellis is a 2, so they'll have to do something there.

When Davis left, the Warriors were left with tons of cap space which they were too eager to use. They got Maguette, Turiaf and resigned a few of their own players. They should have gotten an all-star with all that money.

Posted by bum | July 30, 2008 12:52 AM