Thinking more, one thing Morey likes to do is acquire "assets." IE something he can trade later and get something good back. It gives him flexibility to massage the roster. So, is Posey a tradable asset esp if we sign him to a long term deal? Would there be teams out there willing to give up something to get Posey? If not, I say no to Posey.
While your statement is true ...that's not the point So what if we trade Battier this summer. Now we have only Posey. Is Posey an asset or liability (in terms of trade value) 2 years from now? Will teams be calling us saying, we want Posey? Posey is a decent FA pickup, but I just don't think he is an asset if you sign him to a long term deal.
Perhaps,but don't forget Battier is a role player and not get you anything significant by himself.In order to get something big,he will have to be packaged in a trade with most likely Luis or a re-signed Landry and a 1st round pick,maybe even more. Posey wants a 5 year full MLE which isn't good for us. He can only be useful for a couple of years for part of the MLE.
Posey is an asset if signed to a reasonable short term deal. Not if you have to pay him until age 37. He's not enough of a pro (like Bruce Bowen) to keep him self in good shape into his mid-to-late 30s.
Generally speaking you are right, as the true value to you of Posey deteriorates as he gets older. BUT, as with almost any contract, the asset value in an expiring contract is typically the fact that it is expiring. The other team doesn't want the player they are trading for, they want the contract to free up cap space for them the next offseason. So, regardless of the length of a deal for Posey, as his contract comes towards its end, it will be an asset. Like Bobby Jackson is right now.
Bobby Jackson has one year left. If we sign Posey to 5 years, we have to wait 4 years for your scenario.
and it aint wort paying Posey tens of millions of dollars just so you can have a decent defender for a couple years and an expiring contract in 4-5 years.
If you think he'll be additive to your team, then he has the value of actually being someone you want to sign. I was just pointing out, that regardless of length, every contract has a value, and the closer to expiration, the more that expiring value grows. If Posey will only sign a 5 year deal, and you are confident he'll be additive as a teammate for at least the first 3 years, on the fence about thereafter, it still may be a good contract. You're on the fence for 1 year essentially, year 4. I don't know if that's what Rockets management is thinking, just pointing it out.
lol@i posted this early yesterday morning..when Yahoo first posted this...dont know why my thread disappeared...anyway....lets just hope Spurs dont get C.Mag
If we got Posey in no way would be trade Battier. Posey would be great because then we would have much less the drop off with Tmac or Battier resting--exactly what he did for Allen/Pierce (and invaluable when Allen was injured). I would only offer Posey a 4 year MLE at the Max, and maybe only after the Landry situation gets settled. 5 years starting at say 3.3 mil would be OK to--because then we have enough to match any non-ridiculous offer to Landry.
wow you are cool - moron. no idea why anyone thinks posey would come to the rockets - not even worth discussing Landry needs to be the first concern, since that is the only real reachable improvement
Correct. So either the MLE is split (one scenario I mentied in a 5 year deal for Posey), or if we used most or all of the MLE on another player and try to get Landry done with the LLE (2 years 3.9 mil). On the other hand I would NOT use more than half of the MLE on Landry anyway. If someone offers 10 mil over 3 years, or more (years/amount), we probably shouldn't match. Overall I'd much rather have the Landry situation settled (know what we need to get him and then shop with what is left). But if we could land Pietrus or Posey, even if it puts us at risk to not being able to match Landry via anything left of the MLE (or using the LLE), probably worthwhile.
You never really know for sure if a player will be additive ...until they step on the court with your team. So to hedge your bets, you pick up players that have trade value. This way if it doesn't work out, for whatever reason, then you still have options. What if we pick up Posey and it doesn't work out because {fill in the reason here}. Will we be able to trade him next season at MLE with 4 years left and get equal value back? I think not.
Battier is more durable than Posey. He can play every game for 35 minutes. Battier's lowest career MPG for a season equals Posey's BEST MPG. So you cant just exactly pencil Posey into Battiers place taking on extended minutes. Still its intriguing enough to think about. Their last 2 seasons, Per 36 minutes, they've had about equal production. Battier has better FG%, 3pt%, and blocks. Posey has better rebounds, steals and FT%. But its a Hoopsworld rumor, so its to be discredited anyway
I doubt the rockets would sign Posey to a long term deal. The article is also incorrect in that the rockets were never very interested in Maggette.
No doubt. I'd always go shorter than longer. The question is if you can't sign anyone else and need to add to the team as we do, but Posey won't accept any less then 4 or 5 years, then do you do it? I honestly don't know. I think I would because Posey, even when older, has always had that perfect role player quality about him that screams "I'll be effective on a good team". My concern is less about whether Posey will fit or not (because if he doesn't, at worst, we are where we are right now), but more about how many years in a row we can keep using the full MLE, luxury tax, Les' pocket book, etc. I.e. - we're never really going to be under the cap to sign a big name player. IF we can keep trying to find MLE players that work every year, then sign Posey and if it doesn't work, try again next year. I don't think we can do that, though...
