Where in this thread does Bima chime in. I'm pretty fascinated by this debate. It's like The Alamo. You're making quite a stand bballholic. I don't have enough CBA knowledge to choose sides but I know R2K, Deckard, an Carl are usually right, especially when they all agree. This doesn't mean it's impossible for you to be right, just not likely. So where does Bima see the connection?
The stand that is being taken here is that the scenario that I laid out to Carl is illegal. I simply maintain it is not illegal and have asked for proof. That's all. Just real simple. If it its illegal, I can accept it. I just want proof.
I have no idea when or if Bima will show up. Somebody stated that Bima was one of the leaders here who said what I described to Carl earlier was illegal. I don't think Bima has said that. I suspect Bima sees the viability of what I described in my post to Carl.
Just saw this "interesting debate" and wanted to chime in. Do I think that the Rockets and Kings had DISCUSSIONS that involved the Kings' possible buyout of Brooks and the Rockets' willingness to sign Brooks to a contract using their cap room this season? That is a possibility. Do I think the Rockets and Kings CONDITIONED their trade on anything to do with Aaron Brooks? No. Carl Herrera already pointed out that the "cap circumvention" and other clauses in the CBA make it so that an action does not have to be proven illegal. The league can basically call something illegal and make the teams prove that it was explicitly permissible under the CBA. FWIW (maybe not much), I actually think that basketballholic is very knowledgeable about cap issues and is not pulling this stuff out of thin air. For instance, the Room Exception is technically a form of "Mid-Level Exception" (although I wish he had been clearer so as to avoid confusion when debating with other knowledgeable posters). However, I think basketballholic has gotten so worked up about this that he's coming off as belligerent. Calm down, man.
What have I said that causes you to think I am worked up? Don't you think Morey is wise enough that if he needed to check with the league office regarding the legality of what I described happening that he would have done that? The league did not rule the trade or the buyout and signing illegal? Bima, why do you think Brooks accepted a buyout of his contract that shorted him some $2.5 million? If like to read what you think caused Brooks to do that with no guarantee that he could get that money back especially after clearing waivers, knowing that no team was willing to pick up his current contract at that time.
Maybe Sacramento told Morey they planned to waive Brooks if they got Douglas in the deal after he asked them what are they planning to do with 4 point guards. I don't see anything wrong with that.
My best guess (which is all either of us can give) is that Brooks either (a) just took it on faith that the Rockets (or another team) would have enough interest to sign him or (b) more in line with what you are saying, Brooks had some level of UNOFFICIAL assurance that he'd get a decent-enough-sized contract from Houston (or another team) before agreeing to his buyout. (FYI, we don't even know whether some or all of his player option money is still getting paid. I'll try to find out but won't hold my breath on that.) I tend to agree that there very well may be a connection between the trade deadline deal with Sacramento and the Brooks buyout/signing, or at least some nexus created by the deadline talks. Where you tend to disagree from the rest of us is on whether that connection was an explicit and official part of the trade. You seem to think that it was. Most of us disagree, with some of us citing the "cap circumvention" provision that such action COULD have been viewed as illegal. If you continue to have a problem with this differing view, then I suggest that we just agree to disagree. Otherwise, we'll just be spinning our wheels.
I agree with this. Morey is way too smart to have violated the CBA on this and conditioned the deal on the Rockets' giving Brooks a contract. You'd be giving a smoking gun to the Maloofs, who only care about money. I wouldn't trust them (or anyone else, frankly) with that kind of leverage, and neither would Morey. It would be easier to simply discuss Brooks. Maybe he was initially included, but the Rockets said "we can't take him bc he has a player option; we'd think about taking him only if he were released". The $1M was cash that basically allowed the Kings to buy out Brooks, should they so choose. Also, it's possible that it's not a coincidence that Toney Douglas was included in the trade - in addition to saving the Kings money, the Rockets suddenly deprived themselves of a point guard and guaranteed that they would be in the market for an experienced backup point guard that fits the Rockets' run and gun style, should an injury befall their other two point guards or Beverly struggle (he was the less proven of the two). From the Kings' perspective it was probably a safe assumption. However, I'm pretty sure that Morey would have been careful to act within the boundaries of the CBA and not promise anything. So I think basketballholic is onto something, but it was done in a very subtle and legal (under the CBA) way (the way basketballholic described it probably was going too far).
It has been mentioned by several prominent posters here that the nexus for the deal from Sacramento's side was saving money. I'm simply pointing out that the Brooks release and signing coincides with what other posters have surmised caused Sacramento to make this deal. They may not have done the trade without the Brooks salary dump. We, on the other hand would not have done the trade if we had to take back Brooks contract from Sacramento. And Brooks, on the third hand wouldn't agree to a buyout that shorted him $2.5 million. Your (b) response is precisely what I suggested happened and was dismissed repeatedly as illegal. Still wondering how that is belligerent yet the deluge of posts clearly stating that it was illegal with name calling aren't. : )
Just wanted to make nite if the silencing of the lambs after a somewhat acknowledgement of the possibility of accuracy from bima. I have yet to hear an argument from anyone who can prove the illegality to what bb has laid out. It was almost as if some just could admit someone else may have more knowledge.
I think there are two arguments at play: (1) Whether or not the Brooks release/signing was connected with the Thomas Robinson trade in any way; and (2) Whether or not the Brooks release/signing was both a PREREQUISITE and a BINDING AGREEMENT between the Rockets and Kings. As to Argument (1), I agree with basketballholic in that there was likely a connection there and that such release/signing may very well have been discussed at that time. Those killing him for Argument (1) should maybe make nice now. However, it is Argument (2) where the disagreement still stands. It was basketballholic's assertion that the Brooks release/signing was directly linked AND was an actual transaction entered into between the two teams; and he challenged anyone to say it was illegal. Several knowledgeable posters claimed that the CBA is specifically worded the other way around, such that teams must prove to the league that a transaction is legal in order to pass muster. And since Argument (2) was quite often linked to Argument (1), it is hard to say who agreed on only (1) but not (2). Well, other than me. In the end, it was most likely a battle of SEMANTICS. basketballholic was perhaps a little too demonstrative for some posters' liking and maybe overstepped his bounds by challenging people to prove something when it was really his own assertion that needed to be proved. Still, the guy is knowledgeable.
Are we going to parse words here and argue over SEMANTICS? What I stated and what I believe happened is that Sacramento wanted to dump Brooks' contract and Morey did not want to take his contract directly in trade because of the guaranteed salary owed to Brooks next season. It is not an actual transaction entered to when Morey tells Petrie that he will give Brooks $2.4 million guaranteed if he clears waivers. It is not an actual transaction when Petrie tells Brooks and his agent that the Rockets will give him $2.4 million this season. It is not an actual transaction when Brooks agrees to take the risk and agrees to be bought out and lose that money. There is nothing official about it. I did not state it was "BINDING". That was something that other posters came up with. But the talks and the agreements took place during the trade. And the transaction of the waiving of Brooks and signing of Brooks took place after the trade. I never stated there was a "PREREQUISITE" other than the fact that Morey did not want Brooks on the cap for next season and therefore would not trade for him or claim him on waivers. But there had to be agreement, agreement by Brooks to accept a buyout that left him short a couple million dollars, and agreement by Morey to give him that money. Otherwise, there is no way, absolutely no way, that Brooks gives up that money. The hypothetical conversation that I laid out to Carl Herrera a while back is common talks between teams front offices and their players agents. It is common. There is nothing illegal about it. What happened was several posters who did not have the forethought to make the connection between the trade and the Brooks' signing threw out the "illegal" argument. The idea that I have to prove it is "legal" is a farce. The deal happened and any rational basketball person with NBA knowledge can see the connection. Stein and others were already calling the Rockets signing of Brooks practically simultaneously with Brooks' release before he even cleared waivers. The report of him agreeing to a buyout COINCIDED with the story that he was going to sign with the Rockets. "Too demonstrative" is short for "too thorough in explaining how the deal went down and proving to you nothing illegal happened". I was asked to prove it was legal. I laid out the case. I showed you how the conversation probably generally went down during the TRob trade. I showed you how it could be done legally. "Too demonstrative"????? LOL That's hillarious. On the other hand I did ask for proof that what I laid out to Carl was illegal. What I laid out to Carl was my proof of how the transactions were accomplished legally. I did ask Carl to prove that what I laid out was illegal. All I got was the run around from other posters that I hadn't proven it was legal. And then...crickets. Nada, nothing. By the way, I do respect posters like you and Carl...and others. I specifically laid out the scenario to Carl because I respect him a lot. I really wanted to see if he could find something illegal about the way I laid out how the talks possibly went down. He didn't respond. But other knowledgeable posters but less knowledgeable than you and Carl jumped on it like it was a piece of fresh salmon. And then when you finally come to the table in the conversation you decide to parse my words and chastise me for being "worked up" and "belligerent"?? LOL Bima, who got worked up here? Who was belligerent and disrespectful? LOL P.S. "(although I wish he had been clearer so as to avoid confusion when debating with other knowledgeable posters)" Are you kidding me? Knowledgeable posters don't understand the Room MLE? After jockeying the fact that they knew the CBA? And then telling me, "To sign Lin et. al, the Rockets renounced their mid level exception. You don't know what you are talking about." C'mon Bima. You're gonna take me to task about not putting the word "Room" in a post? You've mentioned in your own posts that we had the Room MLE. All some of these guys had to do was pay attention a little closer to the guy that they think knows more than they do. They didn't even do that. LOLOLOL P.S.S. I figured I'd throw up another wall of text here just to give some of them another excuse to post something about me being "too aggressive" or a "know it all" or "belligerent", etc. Fire away
Why are you blasting me, dude? I'm the one who backed your theory! Hell, I just SAID the argument largely boiled down to semantics. Why are you throwing that back in my face? Since I did not read every single post in this damn thread, forgive me if I did not have your entire argument parsed down to every word of every post you made in here. Perhaps I was mistaken in my exact interpretation of what you were saying. If so, sorry for that. But you don't have to be a dick about it to me. Seriously, my last post above was not at all intended to be derisive to you in any way. It was merely to explain what [I thought] were the issues being argued in this thread. 95% of my post was complimentary of you; but because the other 5% either (a) was not completely accurate based on the entirety of every word in every post of this thread or (b) was not entirely kind to you, you respond with THIS??? As you say in your "P.S.S.", you have now managed to fulfill the expectations of all of your detractors. I was not one of them. P.S. If you want to be a dick to me, then don't bother constantly sending me questions and comments via Twitter. I like chatting with you, man, but not if you're going to act like this.
Goodness gracious. Now we're down to dick. Wasn't being a dick to you Bima. The whole post was written jovially. Why do you read it angrily?
