With the way Asik has been playing, I think you can get quite a lot for him to clear out enough cap for Howard. I would hate to lose Asik.... but I would love to have Howard
If we get Howard we can trade Asik and pieces for a PF. Getting Howard without giving up any assets is too good to pass up
Honestly, I don' t see Howard as a legit MAX player or one that would push us over the top so... bah.
Easy there, folks, with the criticisms of Larry Coon. If you took the time to read Coon's blog entry that Broussard is referencing, you'll see that Larry includes several bullet points as caveats to his comments about the Rockets' cap room, including his acknowledgment that the Rockets could still conceivably open up additional room to create "Dwight space", which is what I've been talking about for months now. True, Larry Coon is a Lakers fan. But I've seen enough of his commentary to know that he's relatively unbiased when it comes to his "professional" opinions of the Lakers and other teams, especially on cap matters. (clos4life, this isn't a jab at you. Just want to avoid general Larry Coon criticism that I think is really unwarranted.)
Not disagreeing at all, but when you see they talk about a player scoring X pts on Y attempts, it ignores the possessions where the player was fouled. Makes a huge difference in efficiency calcs, especially with guys like Kevin Martin and Harden. Harden's recorded attempts are 16 per game, but actually it's alot higher.
That's because the shifty-eyed b*stard never looks in to the cameras without moving his eyes back and forth to read. They do a good job of doing wide frame shots (panning the studio, etc.) and having him address other people directly to keep his eyes off the camera for too long.
The one good thing about Howard staying in LA.....they will be mediocre for a long time. Not because of Howard himself, but LA doesn't have any ability to improve their roster. Zero picks, zero cap room, and none of their pieces will get traded for legit, long term solutions. The will have to wait until 2014 FA before they are relevant in free agency, and the only guys that will be available are "past their prime" players like Pierce, Granger, and Nowitzki. My guess is they sign Nowitzki and over pay a few role players, which will solidify their mediocrity for years to come.
Lmao , so the only thing holding us back would be freedom to offer the max? I'm sure Daryl Morey would be hard pressed to find suitors for a double double machine and a legit starting PG who also hauls in ****-tons of money off the court.
The idea of Howard losing 30 mil if he chose Houston is not accurate at all. The way it is calculated is fundementally flawed --- you are comparing a 4 year deal to a 5 year deal without considering the potential(though highly likely) deal after the 4 year contract. Howard is 27 years old, 4 years later he's only 31 and I have no doubt he would get his next multi-year contract signed by then.
Pretty sure Dwight Howard, AKA the best center in the league and 3 time defensive player of the year, "fits" anywhere...
could Howard move to the PF slot? Even though I know Howard is an overall better player, I would hate to trade off Asik. Asik has done more than anyone could've hoped for at what now looks to be a relative "bargain" salary (something we don't get with Howard). On top of that, Asik is almost as good as Howard defensively and pretty much even on rebounds. That leaves Howard's scoring as his main advantage over Asik (yes, shot blocking too but Asik has the ability to shot block and is still evolving). Do the rockets need MORE scoring? Offensive prowess doesn't seem to be the rockets shortcoming so the additional scoring is a bonus, but not a must. In my mind the x factor in deciding to dump Asik for Howard are health risks. Dwight has back issues, arm issues, and other injuries that seem to come up frequently. Does having dwight for 60-70 games make the Rockets better than Asik for 80? Is the added max contract worth it? Or are the Rockets better off keeping Asik and paying near-max (or less) for a stud PF or up and comer? I'm pretty torn. The other thing that bothers me is how willing the FO is willing to trade off assets. By actually keeping talented players--especially ones that do better than expected--, we build better team cohesion and are sending the other players a message that they are wanted and will have more security...I know its a business but it would be nice to keep a core in tact that lasts more than 8 months. Just sayin'
The way I understand it, the new CBA pretty much takes all the incentive away from a team wooing a player to attempt to do it via SnT. If the money is going to be the same either way, then the only reason to SnT would be to open up cap space, and even that reason doesn't hold water when you think about it. First off, the player you trade away to get the superstar must be worth SOMETHING to the team losing its superstar, right? You can't just pick up the option on Garcia's 4th year and expect the Lakers to WANT to take back 6M in salary. Conversely, it would be extremely lazy on the Rockets' part to just trade away good, cheap, solid young talent because it would free up cap space. Why not trade them away in separate deals, like the Heat did with Michael Beasley? They didn't give Beasley away to the Raptors or Cavaliers, because they easily got more for him on the open market. Houston trading Robinson or D-Mo to the Lakers would be falling victim to a similar mistake. So pretty much it just comes down to Dwight Howard's happiness versus his $$$. We don't know how happy or unhappy he is in LA, and as their GM has shown us time and again, things can change rapidly on that high profile of a franchise. They're like the Yankees: they don't rebuild, they re-tool. So while I have to agree that I think it's highly unlikely for Dwight to leave LA, I also agree that we are the best option now if he does choose to go. First he has to decide to go though.
Only reason for anybody to acquire a player via S&T is if they otherwise can't sign him (Camby, C-Lee).
