The current Rockets team would be better with Iggy than Landry. Should Yao or Brand get hurt, they would STILL be better off with having the better player in Iggy. How can you say that the "cheap assets" won't be there? Those assets are 2nd round picks, something Morey collects like baseball cards each draft. Even if we're over the cap, we can sign all the 2nd round pick guys we want. Hell, we can sign anyone we draft, over the cap or not. So no, carrying 3 major contracts doesn't cripple us - we still have the draft and MLE to work from. KG/Allen/Pierce and now Rondo will all be on big contracts, but the Celtics can still bring in good FAs with their MLE and draft picks. Three max contracts on your payroll ruins your ability to spend over the MLE on free agents, that's it. You can still sign them with the MLE and draft whoever you like. Obviously there are luxury tax implications, but as you've ignored and I've said in previous post, Les has stated before he's willing to pay the tax if it's for something that makes us contenders. Make sure to fill out your Rick Adelman for coach of the year candidate. Arguing that players are crappy because their team is crappy is ignorant of all the over circumstances that are apart of that. I'll say it again: Iggy was bred for Rick Adelman's offense.
Bima, I have stated more than once that I would like to add Iggy. Reading your posts and understanding that we would probably lose Scola and Lowry is just not acceptable for me. We would be bringing in a guy in theory I believe would help, but losing two key contributors in the process. If there was anyway we could flip Dalembert for an expiring and shed a couple of non-contributors then I would be more willing to take on Iguodala's fat contract. Just not sure it makes alot of sense at the moment otherwise. So thanks for the info. There are people on here capable of learning
Cory Brewer = BimaThug Derek Fisher = DD that post = <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6lGRlKR2W7o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6lGRlKR2W7o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Trader Bonus - Kicker <i><b> 84. Can players be given a bonus when they are traded?</b> Teams are permitted to write a bonus called a "trade bonus" (sometimes referred to as a "trade kicker") into contracts. This bonus is paid to the player when he is traded, but only upon his first trade and not upon any subsequent trades (in the case of a sign-and-trade, they don't count the initial trade when the contract is signed). The trade bonus can be defined as a specific dollar amount, a specific percentage of the remaining value of the contract, or some combination (e.g., "$1 million or 10% of the remaining value of the contract, whichever is less"). In either case, the actual amount cannot exceed 15% of the remaining value of the contract. For example, suppose a player has a six-year contract that pays $1 million per year. This player also has a $500,000 trade bonus. Since the trade bonus is limited to 15% of the remaining value of the contract, the actual value of the bonus varies from year to year, as follows (the bonus pro-rates during the season, so these amounts are exact only at the start of each season):</i> Code: Year Remaining 15% of Remaining Actual Value of the Value of Value of of $500,000 Contract the Contract the Contract trade bonus 1 $6,000,000 $900,000 $500,000 2 $5,000,000 $750,000 $500,000 3 $4,000,000 $600,000 $500,000 4 $3,000,000 $450,000 $450,000 5 $2,000,000 $300,000 $300,000 6 $1,000,000 $150,000 $150,000 <i> Notes on trade bonuses: Option years are not counted when determining the remaining value of the contract, unless already exercised. ETOs are counted. Incentive compensation is not counted when determining the remaining value of the contract -- just base compensation. A trade bonus cannot cause a player's salary to exceed the maximum salary, based on his years of service, during the year of the trade (see question number 85 for more information on this). The value of a trade bonus is pro-rated during the season. In the above example, if the player is traded halfway through the fifth season, then the trade bonus would be $225,000.</i> <hr> Trade Bonuses and Salary Cap <b>85. How do trade bonuses affect the salary cap and trades? </b> <i> For the salary cap, the value of a trade bonus is applied to the team salary among the remaining years of the contract (excluding non-guaranteed years -- see question number 92, and years following an Option or ETO -- see question number 50), in proportion to the percentage of salary in each of those seasons that is guaranteed. For example, suppose the player from question number 84 is traded at the start of the fifth season of his contract. Per the chart in that question, the actual value of his trade bonus that season is $300,000. If every season of the contract is guaranteed, and there is no Early Termination Option, then $150,000 is charged to each of the final two seasons of the player's contract, so a total of $1,150,000 is included in the team salary in each of those seasons. (Note that the allocation is not proportionate to the salary, but rather to how much of the salary is guaranteed. If the player from question number 84 had a higher salary in the sixth season than in the fifth season, his bonus would still be allocated equally to those seasons. However, if the sixth season was only 50% guaranteed, then two-thirds of the bonus would be allocated to the fifth seasons, and one-third to the sixth season.) Suppose the player has an Early Termination Option following the fifth season of his contract. In this event, the entire trade bonus will be allocated to the fifth season of the contract. The player will therefore count $1,300,000 against the team salary during that season. For trades, trade bonuses can be a nuisance. When a team trades for a player with a trade bonus, it must count the portion of the bonus that applies to team salary in that season as incoming salary. Let's say a team wants to trade their $800,000 player for the player used in the example above, in the fifth season of that player's contract. Assuming there is no Early Termination Option or non-guaranteed season, the bonus counts $150,000 in the current season, so the trade cannot be made. The team trading the $800,000 player can accept $1,100,000 in return (see question number 69), but the player with the trade bonus counts as $1,150,000 in incoming salary. The CBA allows the player to waive part of his trade bonus, if necessary to allow a trade to fit within the 125% plus $100,000 margin. To make the above trade work, the player would need to waive $100,000 of his $300,000 trade bonus. The bonus would then be worth $200,000, and $100,000 of that would be allocated to the current season. The player would therefore count $1,100,000 as incoming salary, which exactly matches the maximum the other team can accept in return for their $800,000 player. The player is not allowed to waive more than the amount necessary to make the trade legal. Another potential difficulty is that a team trading a player with a trade bonus uses the player's pre-trade salary (without the bonus), when comparing salaries for trade. Here is another example, using the same player as before. This time, let's assume our player has an Early Termination Option following the fifth season of his contract, so if he is traded during the fifth season, the entire bonus is allocated to that season. This means that following a trade, $1,300,000 is included in his new team's team salary. Suppose a team wants to trade their $1,400,000 player for this player. The other team can accept $1,850,000 for their player, and since our player counts $1,300,000 as incoming salary, there's no problem on their end. But our player counts $1 million as outgoing salary, so the most we can accept in return is $1,350,000. This means the trade doesn't work from our end. And in this case, waiving a portion of the trade bonus will not help.... </i> <hr> If I am understanding the above correctly and Dalembert would have 20 million remaining on his contract when traded, it could be up to a 3 million bonus that would need to be paid. There has been some discussion here about a possible 3 team deal between Houston, Sacramento and Philadelphia. The Rockets would be regarded as the <i>Rich Cousin</i> among the teams (Kings, 76ers and Rockets) involved and the expectation could be for Houston to send 3 million to the Kings. Since Utah had to send some <i>incentive</i> to the Thunder to make the Harpring trade, the Kings could very well be looking for some <i>incentive</i> to send the expiring contract of KT to the Rockets. The minimum expectation would probably be a future second round pick. This isn't going to be an easy trade to make and it will likely take some serious <i>jawboning</i> to get all parties to do it. Finally, the Rockets should not ready a uniform for Dalembert unless Philadelphia is sending some <b>additional talent</b> on bargain contract(s) to offset upcoming Luxury Tax issues. AI doesn't count as talent on a bargain contract.
Major props to Bima for explaining in detail the ramifications that involving Brand or Dalembert would have on our cap situation for the future. Points are all well taken and likely echo Morey's thoughts regarding the matter. That said, if no better option presents itself -- what about a deal with the Knicks where were essentially break down Tracy's contract for two expirings (say Hughes + Mobley) all the while capitalizing on NY's interest in Tracy but stealing away one of their young players (Hill, Gallinari or MAYBE Chandler) to complete the deal? .....or is this type of deal where the Knicks fork over young talent dependent upon somebody taking Eddy Curry and his remaining year off their hands? We retain our flexibility to keep all our free agents, we move Tracy and we acquire a young player to show for it. No, not the All-Star type talent that everyone hopes for but it could be a better option than simply keeping him and letting him expire. Which, of course, presents my second dilemma. Is a deal like I suggested above more advantageous than keeping him for possible S&T possibilities once free agency begins? Do we stand to gain more from Tracy's exit via trade RIGHT NOW or by attempting get something to show for him this summer via free agency? I would think the former since obviously teams aren't going to shell out for what they haven't seen in two years.
I second that too! After carefully reading BimaThugs's post showing why it makes for Morey to let Tmac's contract expire, I can see why Tmac could remain a Rockets for the remainder of the season.
The problem with DM the GM being 5 moves ahead is this is not chess; there are 29 teams which are not pawns, a CBA which announces 'check-mate' etc. This doesn't question that DM the GM is not thinking of all the variables and controlling what he can but, 5 moves ahead?
A: There are no facts when people are talking trade, only opinions. B: Belittle? Seriously...come on....lol....it is an internet fan message board. Either way, the cap info is very valuable and interesting, but since Les has repeatedly said he would go over the cap for the right deal, then I assume he is telling the truth. Also, I think they would try to minimize the cap hit by having secondary or tertiary deals in place to lower their Lux tax hit. Now, does that mean I am going to take the time to figure those out? No, not intersted, that is the GM's job, mine is to be a fan, and root for them to put the best team on the floor regardless of cap. It is NOT my money after all. I personally do not care if they have to pay Lux tax for a year.....and heck, a man that can pay nearly $5 million for two 2nd round picks might be willing to eat it for a year too if it makes the team better going forward. ------------------------------------------------------------- PS. I can not see V3.0's posts, but since all he ever does on this board is comment about me, let me just say.... DD
Update on McGrady to Philadelphia. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/deep-sixer/Trading_Iguodala_.html I don't understand why Morey would be against taking Dalemberts contract if it means we get Iggy.
He's not. Dalembert is an expiring in 2010, and can be traded for more talent and another contract. This is Morey's plan, keep trading for a contract with a year left and picking up talent along with taking on that contract. I would not be a bit surprised if we landed Iggy, Dalembert, and Speights for McGrady and if this is exactly the trade that Morey is looking for. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Morey settled for Iggy, Sam, and Philly's 2nd rounder in 2010 for McGrady. Morey is not looking for cap space for 2010. He is looking for tradable assets for 2010. That includes contracts expiring in 2010 along with talent. That is why guys like Dalembert, Peja, and even Eddy Curry or Jared Jeffries are on the radar........but only if we get something else back. For instance, I can see a deal going down with New Orleans where we take back Okafor and Peja and another young talent or draft pick for McGrady. We give New Orleans cap relief and we get talent and another expiring to flip next year. Guys like Dalembert, Peja, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, etc. with contracts expiring in 2010 are definitely on the radar and Morey would be willing to take them back if the rest of the package was right. Murphy Dunleavy Brandon Rush and Indy's first and 2nd rounder for McGrady, Cook, and our first and 2nd rounders??? Those are the type of deals that make sense. Iggy and Dalembert for McGrady straight up is probably doable. But Iggy/Dalembert/and one young talent like Speights would be enough for Morey to pull the trigger.......I do believe.
morey is posturing. He is trying to get the sixers to agree to iggy + sam deal. We need a backup center there is no telling how many minutes yao will be up to playing even if he is 100% healthy next year. If morey says ok I will take sam and iggy the sixers gm will either try and tack on more bad contracts or ask for more players of value on our side. By morey playing hard to get he will end up getting what he wants and taking back less garbage or giving away more talent. When you are negotiating you never say exactly what you want because the other side will always try and low ball you. You have to ask for more then what you want so when the low ball comes your back at the level that you wanted in the first place.
There is "paying the tax", and then there's "PAYING THE TAX". Sure, Les would be willing to exceed the luxury tax threshold for the first time EVER for the right player. Iguodala may be that player. But we're talking about exceeding the tax by $15-20M. That a lot of freakin' money. My guess is that Les would be willing to exceed the tax (a) by a little for a guy like Iguodala or (b) for a lot more for a superstar like Chris Paul. Then why are you telling everyone that the Rockets need to make the Iguodala/Dalembert deal??? If you don't care to postulate on the details involved and the consequences, then just let those of us willing to do that comment. You can go back to talking about Von Wafer. :grin:
Agreed. Please show me one post where I said we should take that deal....I do want Iggy, and think they might take Dalambert as a flip to Sacremento......but not as a keeper...unless there are more deals to come. As for Von, he would instantly make this team better if he were healthy....and for a lot less money........ DD
Didn't Morey said he'll take back 1 bad long contract and 1 expiring(2011) if the right allstar comes along?
I wouldnt call Les cheap so quickly. Maybe he is willing to take a huge tax hit next year if it signifigant improves our team, which adding Iggy does imo. Its not like its is a sustained luxury tax penalty, we would get back down to a reasonable level as soon as Dally expires, especially if Yao is generous in his conteact negotiations.
The trade needs to be with Philadelphia. http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100103/SPORTS03/1030339/1002/sports
YUNGBUCK3 (Brandon Jennings) "Somebody called and told me, we should trade Mike REDD, for T MAC. THAT IS DUMB! And i delete dudes number. WATCH MIKE REDD IS BACKKKK!!" "why would we trade mike redd, Houston basically told T mAC to go home. hahaha" I think that says more about T-Mac than Michael Redd... Source:http://twitter.com/YUNGBUCK3
That money was basically the 'rebate' for NOT paying the tax the season before [plus some insurance money]
