Was Tilman cheap for not going all in? A response.

“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”-Obi-Wan Kenobi

I’ll admit that after the trade deadline I had a negative reaction. I saw a team that ducked the tax during a Harden prime (historically great) year and worse, in my opinion, dumped a contract that would become an asset the upcoming offseason. My dreams of aggregating that contract with other salaries to acquire a star player, or even a really good player, were dashed. This is basically how I felt:


I tried to resist buying into the narrative that Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta, driven by an irrational fear of the luxury tax and the eventual repeater tax had “cheapened out” and hurt this team. But a part of me was giving in. @The Cat tried talking sense in to me, but I just flat out disagreed with him. He was probably shaking his head at me.



So, I decided to take a few days and ask if my point of view needed adjusting. I’ve come up with a retort to my own previously held opinion. What if the trade deadline this year WAS the Rockets going “all-in” on this season?

I'm going to rethink my position here and examine the possibility that I overreacted.


Let’s start with what we know.

The Rockets traded Brandon Knight (2 years/salary) and Marquess Chriss as part of a 3-team trade with the Cleveland Cavaliers and brought back Iman Shumpert and some small salaries they eventually moved in other deals (as well as dumping James Ennis) to get below the tax line. Outrage ensues.

I’m going to construct two alternative narratives in response to that outrage.

1) Iman Shumpert was an “all-in” move for this season


2) The Rockets priority wasn’t to stay under the tax this season!

Narrative 1: This one depends entirely on how you feel about Iman Shumpert. Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of his game, but obviously GM Daryl Morey and Head Coach Mike D’Antoni are. So, if we take them at their word that this is a guy they WANT, let’s realize that they gave up future assets to get him. I looked at this initially as if they dumped future assets to save tax and a byproduct of that was getting Shumpert. However, the opposite could also be true. They dumped future assets to get Shumpert and a byproduct of THAT was the opportunity to save tax.

What if they really did just target Shumpert? What if they saw acquiring him as the best move they could possibly make at this deadline because of how highly they thought of him.? After that deal came together they were then tantalizing close to the tax threshold and therefore decided they might as well move minor assets to make that happen. If you accept that Shumpert was a good get, then the cost of getting him was basically a 1st round pick. The rest of the ancillary moves are irrelevant at that point and become the right decision. If you are already at the tax line after making a win-now move, why wouldn’t you make the moves necessary to move minor pieces to save the tax all together?

Narrative 2: This is one that I really think people are overlooking and requires a little nuance. Let’s cobble together some random pieces of information for a minute to make this point:

1) Tilman Fertitta said that another team wasn’t ethical and backed out of a deal they agreed to with the Rockets
2) Multiple reports have said the Rockets believed they had a deal in place with Memphis to send Brandon Knight and a pick for Garrett Temple and JaMychal Green.
3) Getting under the tax for this season is still a tight squeeze (though I firmly believe it will happen)

Here’s what’s important. Let’s assume for a minute that we could have packaged the same contracts here, Knight AND Chriss, and traded them for Temple and Green (Keeping it simple and keeping the books clean). That deal would have brought back a combined salary of $15,666,667. Put a pin in that number. The current salary value of Iman Shumpert is $11,011,236. By turning Knight and Chriss into that smaller, $11 million salary, the Rockets got shockingly close to the luxury tax line and moved James Ennis out for nothing to get under, as long as they can successfully navigate a few more roster machinations over the next few weeks.

Here’s the kicker though. If they HAD pulled off the Temple/Green deal, which by all accounts they had agreed to, they would have been taking on more than $4 million more in salary than they did in the Shumpert deal. The team salary would have stood at $127,510,821, or $3,777,821 over the tax line. (Assuming they still dump Ennis for no salary) At that point even moving Nene’s salary of $3,651,480 in an additional salary dumping move would not have brought them below the tax. Even if they could get under due to Capela missing bonuses, they would be on an extremely thin edge against the tax while still needing to fill two roster spots (remember in this scenario we’ve swapped Shumpert for two players but have also had to clear out Nene.) This would also call into question whether they would A) want to simply salary dump Nene and B) had any assets left over to do that.

In short, if the Rockets first choice of Green/Temple had gone through INSTEAD of the Shumpert deal, it’s at least 50/50 whether there was a clear path to getting under the luxury tax this year. Would that have changed the entire narrative around how we reacted to the trade deadline? If you see Shumpert as a mediocre rotation piece you are likely to believe that they saw this as an opportunity to duck the tax first and upgrade on Ennis second. If you see Shumpert the way the coach and general manager seem to, it’s at least plausible to me to see this as a move to get a player you really wanted that also presented the then no-brainer opportunity to save the tax. Perhaps the Rockets really did go “all-in,” first by trying to trade for Temple/Green and being a tax team and then when that fell through by targeting a player in Shumpert that Morey has wanted for years with a little tax benefit thrown in.

The truth, as Obi-Wan wisely counseled, depends largely on your point of view.


I'm curious what @BimaThug thinks about the scenario where they acquire Green/Temple instead of Shumpert and it's implication on the tax this year.

I'm not taking a definitive position that this was NOT about the tax, only offering an alternate viewpoint with what I think is plausible logic.

 

Yeah, so that's a different question.

Personally I'm NOT a fan of Shumpert and don't consider him a big difference maker. I would have held onto Knight and just tried to aggregate him next year. (As I've made clear in other posts) But if Morey thinks Shumpert does increase their odds this year, isn't that even MORE of an "all-in" move for this year? Like he punted on a good chance to improve next year to make a small improvement this year.

 

I'll echo @The Cat here and say if you are going to say we cheaped out on adding players you need to give specifics.

I've been critical of the moves since the deadline. I'm not white knighting or Stanning for Tilman Fertitta (though I will Stan for you any time Morey if you read this)