If only the first year is guaranteed in a S&T, then what's the big deal? Is it the $1.5 million buyout he gets in year 2 if he signs outright? If so, how long does he have to remain on an NBA roster in year 2 to earn the $1.5 million if his salary is $7 million for 2012?
It's more about the length of time the Rockets could control his rights. For instance, if Dalembert has a great season this year, he will be an absolute STEAL for $6.7M next season. The Rockets wouldn't waive him in that event; they'd either keep him or trade him. Can you imagine how much money he'd lose out on if he blew up this season but was tied up for cheap for TWO more years, with very little of that guaranteed? The Dalembert contract is sort of a win-win for the Rockets (from the perspective of Dalembert being great vs. being crappy). It's not so much a win-win for Dalembert. Making the deal three years would only be worse for Dalembert. But . . . it's all a moot point now, I guess.
Yes. From a contract perspective, 2 years with the second being non-guaranteed is better for both parties. He's potentially looking at landing a bigger deal next year. And we're probably going to be looking at blowing our cap space next year (cutting him in the process) so the deal is basically 1 year 8.5 million for all intents and purposes. But from our perspective, Dalembert's deal can look great in an offseason trade. Because in the offseason you can trade him to a team and they can opt not to pay him for the full year and cut him. Now, I don't know how useful that will be seeing as we'll be under the cap next season. But my dream scenario we trade for someone like Granger or Iggy to upgrade the SF position during the season, and then in the offseason we would probably still have the room to outright sign Dwight Howard. But we could sign and trade him from the Magic and take back Turk for them.
