Not picking on you, I know many other people hold similar views... but it's so naive. How many current Rockets do you truly think, if money were equal, would pick Houston over all other 29 teams? Personally, I'd guess maybe half. And for most NBA teams, it's far lower than that. It's a combination of guys you either draft, trade for, or sign because you happen to be offering the most money at the time that they're available. As long as they're professionals and committed to playing hard for the team that employs them, that's all that matters. (And money pretty much is equal in buyout situations, since the players are double-dipping and we're talking about one-year deals, usually prorated.)
If it could be done for 2nds I would do it I think for the reasons @The Cat has laid out. I don't think it's likely we are going to use the rest of the NT-MLE on anyone, or at least anyone better than Iggy. I don't love Iggy at this point but he'd be a valuable reserve I think.
As far as dream NT-MLE targets, I'd definitely prefer Marcus Morris to Iggy. But I'm betting whichever LA team (hopefully both) misses out on Kawhi gets him on a $12M to $15M deal within a few hours after the decision. You might could talk me into Green, but it's close.
A) Iggy isn't gone, he's property of the Memphis Grizzlies (who have no real purpose for him) B) Shump already is dumped, he's a free agent. This is about a sign-and-trade for cap maneuvering purposes.
I think the idea is ok, especially if we can't get a significant player with the MLE. And i like the idea of taking him away from the Lakers. What would make me pause here is if we would be forced to move a 1st rounder.
No. You have multiple first rounders, some cap room, and known assets that could yield results at the deadline. The wrong thing to do is limit your future maneuverability for a marginal talent in the attempt to get an immediate upgrade.
Not sure what difference it makes though. It’s been reported if he’s bought out he’s laker bound. Which means the money is equal for him since he’s getting paid regardless in a buyout situation. So his preference is to play for the lakers. Why would you hardcap yourself AND give up a pick for someone that would rather play elsewhere? Sure if we do it he’ll play and be a pro. But why do all that for someone that would rather play elsewhere? Especially since he’s expiring....
If it only costs Shump, without a doubt yes. Put iggy on nene’s maintenance plan and he’s absolutely worth a rotational spot in the playoffs. That also eliminates him from going to any of the other contenders where he’s been haunting Houston for years
What's the trade market for Iggy, really? Can the Grizz actually expect a first? I'm thinking a second at best but I may be wrong. If they're taking back a little less in salary, it should be all expirings to them. But I assume any contending team with a roughly $12-14M expiring contract that is of no use to them would be interested. If the Grizz get a first for absorbing Iggy and another for trading him, that would be a genius move.
Last I checked this team only has the opportunity to really challenge as a true contender within the next maybe 2 years. Not much more. All of that isn’t helping the rockets win now. People talk about wasting harden’s prime yet want to save future assets down the road. No thanks Are people really going to pretend iggy hasnt been a thorn on opposing teams side all these years including this past year. The rockets have never had a versatile athletic wing like him ever in any of these harden years
Did you not read my post? It's my opinion that if the money was equal, roughly half of the current Houston roster would prefer to play elsewhere. And for most NBA rosters, it's closer to 80% or 90%. Most guys are where they are because either A) they were drafted there, B) the GM traded for them, or C) the GM paid the most money when they were available. Most guys aren't on the roster they're on because they'd prefer to be there, if the money and everything else is equal.
This I would do. Crowder perfect for this team and only makes 7 million. Hope we are looking at this.
Yes I read it but it still doesn’t address why you would willfully do it. If he was under contract for 2+ years at a reasonable contract than sure. He’ll play ball just like most every other player as you said. But he expires at the end of next year. You’d give up a first AND hard cap the team for a rental? I mean iggy is great but hard capping means if another player shakes lose in the year you’re handcuffed and without a pick to boot. That just seems silly to do for iggy.
True, but I'm not in favor of giving up a 1st rounder for him, which is the only way to acquire him along with Shumpert.
