Question for NetIncome re Jermaine O'Neal/Nets

[FOMW]

NI, you've stated several times that you think there's at least a reasonable possibility that O'Neal will opt out of his contract this summer, which is due to pay him about $44.4M over the next two years. Is that based on some inside information to which you've gained access or is that just your hunch? And if it's a hunch, can you explain your reasoning?

He couldn't come close to getting that amount over two years from any other team, and, given his injury history, I can't imagine any team giving him more than about 3 years/$39 M. He will make significantly more money by staying put, even if a team was willing to offer a 3-4 year deal.

Of course if he just wants to win a title, and is sincere enough to forfeit the kind of money we're talking about, that's another thing. If that's the case, I don't think he would consider the Nets very high on his list. Still, if he opted out, I would support a S&T offer from the Nets of about 2 years/$24M, perhaps with a low partial guarantee on a third year. Without actually running the numbers, Nets could offer Swift/Van Horn/Marcus, which I think would get them there financially, or replace Marcus with Ager and the Dallas pick.

 

[SportsTicker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Apr 27 2008, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>NI, you've stated several times that you think there's at least a reasonable possibility that O'Neal will opt out of his contract this summer, which is due to pay him about $44.4M over the next two years. Is that based on some inside information to which you've gained access or is that just your hunch? And if it's a hunch, can you explain your reasoning?

He couldn't come close to getting that amount over two years from any other team, and, given his injury history, I can't imagine any team giving him more than about 3 years/$39 M. He will make significantly more money by staying put, even if a team was willing to offer a 3-4 year deal.

Of course if he just wants to win a title, and is sincere enough to forfeit the kind of money we're talking about, that's another thing. If that's the case, I don't think he would consider the Nets very high on his list. Still, if he opted out, I would support a S&T offer from the Nets of about 2 years/$24M, perhaps with a low partial guarantee on a third year. Without actually running the numbers, Nets could offer Swift/Van Horn/Marcus, which I think would get them there financially, or replace Marcus with Ager and the Dallas pick.</div>

I can imagine the Nets giving him $40 million over three years. They wanted him last year when they would have had to pay him $63 million over three, even though he just had knee surgery. Why wouldn't they be willing to go $40 million over three now? He would have to know that going in to the option decisions, of course.

I have no inside information but as I have said I fully expect Brand to opt out. (There I do have some inside information.) He could sign a new deal with LA or not, but he would be crazy not to opt out. For O'Neal, it's less likely, but possible. I think Marion is likely to as well. All three are 29 going on 30. Time for a long term deal, job security, NBA style...VC did it last summer. Why wouldn't those guys?

 

[FOMW]

My understanding from reading the beat writers is that the Nets' interest cooled significantly due to O'Neal's continuing knee problems THIS season. They were interested last summer but not, apparently, as they were approaching the trade deadline, knowing that O'Neal had already missed a number of games and was (at that time) not even able to practice. It's the same left knee, although I believe it was a different injury. So that's the main reason I don't think they would go 44 over 2 years (I hope they don't).

I also don't see them going 40 over three unless the third year was a team option with little or no guaranteed money for the same reason.

I see Brand's situation much differently. This was his first major injury, and he's making over 25% less than O'Neal per year. He probably isn't looking to go any higher per year, just to get at least 3 extra years (for a total of 4 guaranteed), which I think is reasonable given his history and how he looked at the end of the year when he did play. His situation, except for the injury, is much more similar to VC's than O'Neal's IMO.

If O'Neal did opt out, though, it's probably the Nets' only shot at a good, occasionally brilliant seasoned big man. Despite the knock that he relies too much on jumpers, he's an offensive juggernaut compared to the Nets' current frontline and would at least draw defenders out to 16' because of his confidence, ability to put the ball on the floor for a dribble or two, and reputation. The real import is that he's still a force defensively and would by that fact at least give the Nets a legit two-way big man. I hope he does opt out, but I don't see why he would, absent a genuine, burning desire to win a championship now.

 

[SportsTicker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Apr 28 2008, 01:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My understanding from reading the beat writers is that the Nets' interest cooled significantly due to O'Neal's continuing knee problems THIS season. They were interested last summer but not, apparently, as they were approaching the trade deadline, knowing that O'Neal had already missed a number of games and was (at that time) not even able to practice. It's the same left knee, although I believe it was a different injury. So that's the main reason I don't think they would go 44 over 2 years (I hope they don't).

I also don't see them going 40 over three unless the third year was a team option with little or no guaranteed money for the same reason.

I see Brand's situation much differently. This was his first major injury, and he's making over 25% less than O'Neal per year. He probably isn't looking to go any higher per year, just to get at least 3 extra years (for a total of 4 guaranteed), which I think is reasonable given his history and how he looked at the end of the year when he did play. His situation, except for the injury, is much more similar to VC's than O'Neal's IMO.

If O'Neal did opt out, though, it's probably the Nets' only shot at a good, occasionally brilliant seasoned big man. Despite the knock that he relies too much on jumpers, he's an offensive juggernaut compared to the Nets' current frontline and would at least draw defenders out to 16' because of his confidence, ability to put the ball on the floor for a dribble or two, and reputation. The real import is that he's still a force defensively and would by that fact at least give the Nets a legit two-way big man. I hope he does opt out, but I don't see why he would, absent a genuine, burning desire to win a championship now.</div>

There is no indication the Nets' interest has cooled. D'Alessandro has written the Nets are not that concerned with O'Neal's knee (suggesting that at one point they had access to his medical records). It's a hell of a lot easier to make a sign-and-trade for a player willing to take $14 million in his first year (what $40 million over three would work out to) than a trade for a player making $20 milliion. Ask Rod Thorn and Mark Cuban.

A sign-and-trade of Swift, Van Horn, either Marcus or Sean Williams and a pick or two for O'Neal would free up $35 million for the Pacers over the next two years, assuming KVH's buyout is around $500K. Either Williams would also have value for them. The Tinsley era is over. The Nets would still be under the luxury tax.

 

[essrog]

Sorry, I'm confused:

Why would JON opt out of a 2-year $44M deal in favor of a 3-year $40M deal? Just to make it easier for Indy to trade him?

 

[SportsTicker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (essrog @ Apr 28 2008, 07:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sorry, I'm confused:

Why would JON opt out of a 2-year $44M deal in favor of a 3-year $40M deal? Just to make it easier for Indy to trade him?</div>

$40 million, $44 million, whatever. He is owed $44.3 million. It makes it easier to trade him, gives him an extra year. It also works for Indiana since they are looking to drop payroll.

A $44.3 million contract over three years would start at roughly $13.6 million, go up to $14.8 million, then to $15.9 million.

I'm not saying do it. I am saying it's within the realm of possibility.

 

[Netted]

It would have to be sweetened beyond the $44mm he is due. No one wants to think they have to work an extra year for the same amount of money. $60mm over 4 years seems more realistic.

 

[Claud]

Even if the numbers do work, why would we want him here? Hes been injured the last 3 years and only plays 30 games in a season. I personally wouldnt want that.