You've gotta love trading season at clutchcity.net, especially when we are heading into the All-Star break with 5 days of nothing to do but speculate on rumors. Here's a workable trade that could actually make the whole board happy: 1. Trade Mobley for Jamie Feick (same salary), since Jayson Williams is coming back and the Nets don't need Feick as much. 2. suck the rest of the year because you lose total team chemistry by traded away Cato's favorite playing partner and replacing him with a player coming from a selfish team who was taught nothing but to rebound and stand out of Marbury's way. 3. get a high lottery pick for sucking (Martin), 4. re-sign Mobley as a free agent this summer 5. sign Feick as a bonus--premier rebounder with bird rights 6. Claim Chucky Brown off waivers--now!! So, my trade achieves: 1. Mobley "trade him" (DrofDunk/Smegg) 2. tanking (cluch/will) 3. Moving up in the draft for Martin to make Francis3 happpy 4. a bench PF/C rebounding monster in Feick (Dreamshake) 5. no big cap expenditures (ala Mo) Popeye 6. keep Walt for Walt42 7. keep Drew for BryceDrewFan 8. get Mobley back with the team next year to open arms as fans learned to miss him and saw him score 16ppg with starter minutes with Marbury just to prove something to us fans...because heypartner deserves a bullet point too!!! 9. we get Chucky Brown and heypartner becomes an honorary member of the ChuckBrownFanClub who can beat that!! So, Will the sarcastic one...how long will it take someone to miss the thread's point and tell us again that Drew and Mobley for McGrady is a better trade. hehe [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited February 10, 2000).]
I think we can all pretty much agree that if we don't make a trade sometime in the next couple of weeks, our future for the next 10 or so years is completely ruined.
Hey cool -- TheFreak is seeing the light... or was that "sarcasm" I don't see us making any deals. The Moochie Norris signing did make me re-think that, but I'm pretty sure now that was because Drew needed a breather and Francis wasn't a sure thing to go (2-13 ... ouch)
Our future is ruined for the next ten years? Are you being sarcastic? Let me respond as if you're serious. If you were being facetious... ignore this . Ruined for the next ten years? I don't think we have a single player signed past 2003.... meaning if we wanted to, we could completely redefine our roster at that point. And in a period of two or three years, a team can turn from a perennial loser to a contender. So even if our team was completely blasted right now (which I don't accept), 10 years is far too long of a time frame for recovery. Now: what's so wrong w/the team immediately? Steve Francis has incredible potential; indeed, I think he might be a Gary Payton-type player who can single-handedly carry a team. Surrounding him, we have: 1 excellent shot-blocker with a developing offensive game, 1 excellent defensive guard capable of semi-frequent offensive explosions, 1 dynamic young offensive-minded guard capable of playing good defense and creating for himself and his teammates (forget momentarily that he's an idiot), 1 decent jump shooter (no, not Bullard), 1 young power forward showing great potential, and an excellent back-up PG, and an excellent shot for a high draft pick this year. What's to worry about with that line-up? I wish the Rockets were presently a contender... but with that sort of nucleus, I'm looking forward to days to come. The next 10 years ruined? Fearless prediction: we'll be a playoff team next year, and a contender in two years (provided Francis is resigned, and a new referendum is passed).
Interesting, but there's a couple of problems here: 1. Trade Mobley for Jamie Feick (same salary), since Jayson Williams is coming back and the Nets don't need Feick as much. Feick just signed a 6 year/$15M contract.His salary is nowhere close to Mobley's. Also, it's not definite that Jayson Williams will be back this year. 3. get a high lottery pick for sucking (Martin) Even without Mobley, I doubt the Rockets would be bad enough to get a top 3 pick. 4. re-sign Mobley as a free agent this summer How do you plan to resign Mobley? We've got no cap room, plus Mobley would have to start over on his Bird Rights if he resigned with us. I guess you could sign him for an exception and then give him whatever we have left after Hakeem retires, but why use up that money to resign a guy we currently have? Feik just isn't that good. 5. sign Feick as a bonus--premier rebounder with bird rights Feick is signed for 6 years, you don't need to resign him.
Oops...I guess I forget some bullets for aelliot: addendum to the trade scenario: 1. trade Mobley for Feick since they have matching salaries right now (forget the new contract aelliot--wouldn't count yet), additions to the trade achievement: 9. in summer sign Mobley to Middle-class exception like Shandon and get 6th pick but top three lottery ball to make everything kosher with aelliot [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited February 09, 2000).]
Sorry guys....the "sarcastic, one-lining, condescending Freak" had to show his face. I'm just playing. The Moochie thing is weird, though.....if Drew was really getting tired, they could've just played Mobley at the 1 for a couple of minutes a game. I'm sure that problem will present itself somewhere down the line anyway. Not to mention we only have one game left until the All-Star break. I think they picked up Norris just in case something (a deal) happened. They probably figured he'd get snatched up by somebody else with the numbers he's been putting up, so might as well grab him while they can. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited February 09, 2000).]
heypartner, Where did you see that the new Feick contract isn't already in effect? With J Williams history of time spent on IR, Feick is cheap insurance. Cat and Marbury on the same roster? Interesting notion if you are an outside observer, probably a nightmare scenario if you are part of the Nets organization. What would be the New Jersey motivation to trade a player signed at a reasonable rate for someone who could be a free agent in a few months? Also, the Rockets could be open to some sort of collusion/tampering scenario if it went through as you posted. ------------------------------------------------------------------- TheFreak is right on why they picked up Moochie. I knew TheFreak was spoofing, just didn't read this thread in time to post before others. Mango
Mango, The Base Year Compensation calculation means only 50% of Feick's salary in a 1st contract year trade would count for salary matching purposes. The trade word work, but I wasn't serious.
heypartner, You usually do lots of legwork to come up with your posts and I didn't know that you would go to that trouble just to spoof us. I had a different perception of you. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Mango
heypartner, i likethat deal, but i think a Drew and mobley for kevin garnett would be better. Also, you didnt make all of the posters happy, what about chuckybrownsfanclub ? ------------------ "Don't they get cable in Canada ?" Keith olbermann, after watching hakeem block terry catledge's shot 5 times.
The Base Year Compensation calculation means only 50% of Feick's salary in a 1st contract year trade would count for salary matching purposes. The trade word work, but I wasn't serious. Nope, it still wouldn't work (even if you weren't serious). Feik is in the first year of a 6 year, $15M contract. He makes over $2M this year. Mobley makes around $250K. 50% of Feick's salary is still 400% of Mobley's contract. That's a deal killer right there. Point two: Feick isn't a base year player. Bird rights weren't involved in his big raise (since NJ didn't have them), so he' not a base year guy. If he were a BYC player, you'd be correct that only 50% of Feick's salary counts in a trade, but that only applies to what NJ gets in return. The team that gets the base year player (Houston) would have to be able to fit the players entire salary under the cap. So, even if Mobley did make 50% ($1M) of Feick's current salary, the Rockets would have to have $1M in cap space free in order to do the deal. [This message has been edited by aelliott (edited February 09, 2000).]
aelliot: you've got some things mixed up about the byc, but, overall, the salaries are not close enough, i concede. Package TMass with him then. So, was Feick a middle-class exception or an early bird, because you know the Nets are way over the cap? Big point that you are confusing about the BYC. A trade is a trade...you never have to be under the cap to complete a trade. You only must be within 15% of salary swapping when over the cap, and that salary measurement is BYC sometimes. Will you concede on this; i did.
Smeggy and gr8-1 I made some adjustments above to accommodates your excellent ideas. gr8-1...thank you for reminding me; I can only hope the other great one hasn't already been offended. I've been wanting to get into the club for awhile.
Big point that you are confusing about the BYC. A trade is a trade...you never have to be under the cap to complete a trade. You only must be within 15% of salary swapping when over the cap, and that salary measurement is BYC sometimes. Will you concede on this; i did. Nope, look at this example that is cited in question 62 of the FAQ: <hr> However, not all trades involving base year players require a third team. Let's say Player D plays for Washington. He earned $8 million last season and re-signed as a free agent for $10 million, so his BYC amount is $8 million (see question number 60). Washington can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $8 million in trade, or $9.3 million. Player E plays for Seattle, is not a base year player, and earns $9 million. So Seattle can take back as much as 115% plus $100,000 of $9 million, or $10.45 million. Player D and Player E can be traded for each other directly, even though Player D is a base year player. Player E's $9 million salary is less than Washington's $9.3 million maximum, and Player D's $10 million salary is less than Seattle's $10.45 million maximum. The teams have even more flexibility if one or both have a trade exception (see question number 73) or disabled player exception (see question number 16). <hr> - in that example Player D has a $10M actual salary and a BYC salary of only $8M. - Player D gets traded to Seattle. - Now check out what it says: "and Player D's $10 million salary is less than Seattle's $10.45 million maximum" Notice, that is says $10M salary, NOT $8M BYC. That's because the $8M BYC number only affects how much Washington can get in return for player. From Seattle's side, it's just like any other trade. Either a) The actual salaries that Seattle receives must be within 15% of the salaries they gave up. (That's the case in this example) or b)Seattle must be able to fit all the salaries that they receive under their cap. If the BYC players raise is more than say 25%, there's almost no way that choice "a" is possible. I hope that makes sense. [This message has been edited by aelliott (edited February 10, 2000).] [This message has been edited by aelliott (edited February 10, 2000).]
Package TMass with him then. So, was Feick a middle-class exception or an early bird, because you know the Nets are way over the cap? Feick makes over $2M/year. Adding TMass only get's you to $1.25M. You're still way short. You can throw in Drew and it should be real close. I'm not sure exactly what they used to sign Feick. He signed a pair of 10 days with the Nets last year, so it couldn't be an early Bird deal. I'm not sure that the Nets were over the cap last August (when Feick signed). Remember that was before they resigned Van Horn or traded for Marbury. It works out to about the right amount for the middle class exception, but I thought that they used their middle class exception on Scott Burrell. [This message has been edited by aelliott (edited February 10, 2000).]
