(Geltzeiler) Source: Tilman feverishly cutting costs in all Facets of Rockets organization

There was no reason for the guy to include the word "feverish". That word kind of taints the whole thing. It might seem trivial, but any journalist worth his salt knows what he is doing by throwing in a major descriptor like that.

 

Looking at it from another angle: our time to win it all is now, or more specifically, within the timeframe of Chris' contract. Once that contract is up, Harden's is up after that. At that point, with Harden being 34 and probably past his prime, it would make sense to hit the proverbial "reset" button.

Sure Paul might have a sharp decline anywhere between now and 2022 when his contract runs out (knocks on wood) but don't think for a minute that Harden is ignorant of this timeline.

 

You're the tard for loving the property of a guy you dislike.

Do you get pissed coz your neighbor didn't spend enough on his car?

 

Perhaps his source(s) was insistent enough that the adjective was warranted? Or that they were direct quotes? In which case he should have no problem citing specific examples to substantiate that claim. Otherwise, I think he takes a bit of a hit to his credibility.

Agree that the descriptions were needlessly, almost recklessly, incendiary.

 

I provided two examples of how avoiding the LT prevented us from fielding the best team possible long-term (re-signing Ariza and locking up House past this year)....

nevermind, you stick with your opinion and I'll do the same lol

 

yeah this really doesn't make any sense. but anyway moving on

 

I called this out in other threads, and laid out in detail why Tilman will have to reorg/recapitalize, or sell part (issue equtiy) of the team. His businesses are heavily volatile, especially in a downturn. We've had a 10+ year bull market, and there are signs of a downturn already. Especially in his hospitality/gaming businesses he is likely over leveraged and will likely see losses on that side. Owning an NBA team is a rich man's trophy, not an over levered man's income generating business. It is actually one of the worst businesses to invest in from a return standpoint, most teams are over valued, and he paid more for an NBA team than anyone ever.

 

Ariza was not worth 15million and you don't know if he even wanted to sign here, there is no way that can be looked at as a strictly cost cutting move.

I never said you were ignorant or whiny but your claim that cost cutting moves were made right and left is at least debatable, at worst a biased way of looking at them to fit your narrative.

You have no idea if we offered the MLE to a buy out candidate and were turned down yet you claim it as fact, why?

why do you ignore the fact that we had trades on the table to put us over the cap but got reneged on?

Because it does not fit your narrative?

 

actions speak louder than words...... maybe just simple smart cost savings to be as streamlined and as efficient as possible.... not a business success because he is wasteful. spend smart - long term success.

 

And you know this how?

Please quote how you know he is overly leveraged.

All of this is speculation on your part.

 

"League sources" is probably a dodge. In reporting about national security or foreign affairs, a reporter will sometimes identify a source as "Western" when the source is really American, because the source is antsy about being identifiable. If I worked for the Rockets and told this guy our owner was feverishly cutting expenses, I might refuse to be identified as a Rockets source. "League sources" might be (to me and the reporter) an acceptable compromise.

 

So in your mind there should be no thought what players are actually worth just sign them to any contract?

We are younger and better without Ariza and we still have control of House so how does that prove your point.

 

I guess this feverish cutting does not apply to the GM or Coach positions

 

Its typical in commercial real estate to stay levered. You raise X amount in equity, Y amount in debt (20/80 or 30/70 is common), it is based on a multiple of projected NOI of the property. We have had fed rate increases this year which are currently positively correlated to LIBOR which is what most banks will lend on, so variable rate properties will feel a squeeze when it comes to meeting debt service (especially if you are unable to refinance with favorable terms), especially if you've got decreased NOI. The assumption of a decreased NOI is based on the types of hospitality he is in, and the particular markets (Vegas, Louisiana) which are traditionally hit hardest in downturns, and the gaming industry as a whole has been declining (baby boomers retiring, and less guaranteed slot machine revenue) coupled with revenue being redistributed in gaming oriented cities. You typically have interest only or an amortizing loan that you refinance every 3-5 years in commercial real estate to pull out the equity, so you are highly levered at all times. He has a lot in restaurants as well, another volatile industry, and probably one of the worst to get in to in the current climate. The fact that he needed massive loans to purchase the Rockets is fact. You will not see another owner do this, other owners have deeper pockets and put up more cash, OR they raise the cash by issuing equity. He did neither, because you would have seen a group come in and it would be public (i.e. Jim Crane's group when buying the Astros through his PE group). If you don't understand any of this, I get it. It is not pure speculation, but it is based on my living and growing up in Houston and being connected to some of his industries.

 

Tilman is the owner and has the right to make whatever decision he wants.

He purchased the team with his money and assets; and will run the team as he pleases. He doesn’t owe the fans anything. Yet, he still maxed out Chris Paul and paid Capela, so to question whether he is willing to spend to win is ludicrous. If you don’t like the way he’s running the team, then maybe you should have bought the team yourself. Oh, you can’t? Then worry about what you can control. Seriously, how angry would you have been if he had low balled CP3 in the summer? At the time, none of you guys would have said “good move, let him walk if he doesn’t take a discount.”

Maybe you guys would have just built the roster a different way? Well, I doubt you guys would have had this Faried, Rivers, and House coming off the bench.

I’m sure my tenant would like a brand new bathroom, but it’s my house and I’ve got other costs to take care of.

 

This really doesn't make sense given your analogy of being a landlord with a tenant. The banks own the team, there are specific debt covenants he must meet, and a debt service he must meet. So at the end of the day, hes got someone else to answer to. He did not pay cash.

 

Just because I have a different perspective than you doesn't mean I'm peddling a narrative.

You don't need to characterize spending above the luxury tax as spending frivolously. There is a middle ground here, where we spend more money, but are somewhat judicious with that money.

Washington gave up a promising player in Oubre, and Rivers (a rotation piece for us) for Ariza. Others teams like LA were in the mix for him as well. Clearly several teams valued him at his current cap figure. If not $15 MM, what is Ariza worth? Even if we're only get $10 MM of value from him, that would help our team.

I provided quotes from Ariza that say we didn't even try to retain him at the $ amount he wanted. I think it's fair to classify not retaining him as a cost-cutting move.

The broader point about the MLE is that it is an unused asset. We could've locked up House for next year by offering him part of the MLE but we didn't. We held out House for months, trying to get him to agree to a long-term deal, so clearly we see a future for him.

So why not use the MLE to offer him such a deal? Because we didn't, we can only offer offer House $1.8 MM this offseason. Any more and we dip into the MLE, which hurts our ability to retain Faried and Rivers.

I can't comment on the reneged deals because I don't know exactly what they were and how they would've affected our salary obligations.

 

Sure! I'll take some time to respond to you.

Edmonton is indeed in Canada, home of the Edmonton Oilers. A team I've only seen once live, they were terrible back then.

The first NBA game I watched on TV was in 95' It was between the Magic and Rockets. I was 6 and my family had just immigrated to Canada.

My older brothers were all big fans of the NBA so I ofcourse tagged along to watch. Now none of them follow the sport except me.

They were all rooting for Shaq, who was a big personality at the time. Through sibling rivalry, I naturally rooted against them for the Rockets.

Good thing too, because Rockets ended up winning the series in dominating fashion, something I'll always bring up at family gatherings.

Throughout the years, I stopped following the NBA but continued to play bball growing up. I started casually following the team again once Rockets had both T-Mac and Yao. To me, those weren't good years, I only remember mostly misery from hearing someone is injured again.

I started watching very fanatically after graduating from college and started working full-time. That was the year when Morey landed Harden and Jeremy Lin (who I often dub "Jerry Lin" as an inside joke with some friends).

CF is my daily source for entertainment. I love giving hot takes here and seeing others do the same. I don't take it quite as seriously as some do here.

 

Like I said all of that is speculation on your part.

Just because a business is volatile does not mean he is currently hurting, unless you have access to his financials you are just making stuff up.

What you don't seem to understand is that everyone who buys a sports team does it with massive loans, that fact alone shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

What do you actually know about Tillman's actual financials?

Did you factor in the massive tax breaks last to your equation?

But please tell us what his projected NOI is on his properties since that seems to be relevant in this discussion.

 

And I, unfortunately, had to take a mortgage to purchase my house. While my, and every analogy, won’t make complete sense or be 100% relative, that isn’t the way to shut down my argument.