Bill Simmons NBA playoffs mailbag: Very Interesting Trade scenario for the Rox

Reposting this from the vulture thread because it seems appropriate here:

The Hornets are in serious trouble, perhaps even enough to move Chris Paul. They already had to borrow money from the league this year...an estimated 13-20 million dollars. An operating loss, coupled with a humilating playoff display, add in the lingering effects of the hurricane is a recipe for disaster. But things will get better for them right? WRONG!

They had a team salary this year of $67,043,811 for 15 players.
Next year thier projected salary is $75,667,605 for only 10 players!
In 2011, they have $66,482,147 projected for only 8 players!!!

So you have this "buisness" who is already in the red by atleast 15 million, possibly more I dont know, increasing thier costs by a minimum of another 8 million dollars.

Check out this snippet:

"The New Orleans Hornets are going to be in a very rough financial situation next season due to the poor economy. Their salary cap is expected to drop to $57 million next season, and the luxury tax threshold is predicted to be set at $68 million. Every dollar that the Hornets spend over that number will penalize the organization."

Here is another good article:
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/02/16/...l-10-nba-teams/

The amount of money they stand to lose next year is staggering. Trust me they will be desperate to give away Chandler or Peja and if no one will just take them, then they are going to have to move Paul as an incentive because they just dont have any other assets. This team has been horribly mismanaged and cannot continue to operate as it.

If the economy doesn't drastically improve and my math is correct:

8 million increase in salary for 2009-2010 for LESS players
15 million current operating loss (as surmized from emergency loans needed, possibly more)
7 million luxuary tax penalty
_____
30 million dollars in losses for the Hornets next year for a team already borrowing money this year.

So for those saying that NO would never give away Paul think again! It is very likey unless they can find some suckers to take Chandler or Peja that they will have to throw in thier only valuable asset and the Rockets can offer a very respectable package.

But again, Peja and Chandler are liabilites and not assets to a team so please don't try and pencil them in as positives. This is a trade I might give up Battier for, maybe even Scola, but never both and certainly NOT all four of our extremely valubale role players (Brooks, Landry, Scola, Battier)

McGrady (huge expiring)
+
Cook or Barry (both expiring, they can have both or neither I dont care)
+
Landry and Brooks (Essentially the value we are sending back to them)
+
Battier (maybe Battier if we got Posey back, but never Scola)

FOR

Chris Paul
+
Chandler and Peja (two extremely long bad contracts for washed up player)

 

Are we talking CP3? You have a chance to get him without giving up Yao, then you say "No"?

Since NO has West, we could manage to keep either Landry or Scola to make the deal. With CP3, this team will be good for the next ten years, otherwise, I do not know what kind of team would be after Yao left the floor.

From the business point, it makes more more sense too, the team would draw more tickets since we do not the team will become worse after the tread, and plus that Les always likes a big time player.

 

Our best defensive player is 31 year old, and he relies on his foot speed so much. Have you forgot how Battier struggled earlier the season with his defense because he didn't have the same speed after surgery?


"Upcoming PG"? AB's stock is high now, and he's still at least 5 times worse than CP3, who is even YOUNGER than him.

 

I'd rather package Tmac, Yao, Lowry for CP and Chandler and a first rounder.

Imagine this line up.

Chandler,
Scola
Battier
Artest
Paul

Wow. I can smell the ring..

 

.

People just want what we don't have. We have a damn solid team and I don't want to gut the roster for a gamble. I don't feel like we'd be making progress.

People are worried about not being able to keep Landry and Brooks - that's fine, but you don't give them away now. Chandler and Peja are a terrible return on anything, much less some young studs.

 

Correction: "since I do not think that the team will become worse after the tread"

 

Losing by 40 is embarrassing enough. Do I want to watch my team lose by 58?

 

that's exactly the reason (or price) for us to get Paul.

It is like we traded away our stinking Rafer for Lowery and Cook's horrible contracts......Cook is the most terrible return ever, but we happily took it.

 

That's the most important thing I have read in the thread. As much as we don't want to admit, our franchises future is tied into a fragile superstar. If Yao can't stay healthy then we are screwed. It's HARD to get another superstar on your team.

I can understand how folks think that package may seem like a lot, but in reality...it isn't. Exactly what do y'all think it takes to land a top 5 NBA player in his prime, especially a PG (i.e. one that has the rock all the time)? Granted, if NO is in enough trouble as to where they have to trade Paul then we may be able to get him for less.....but giving up a bunch of role players (none who is even at an all-star level) for a franchise player not even in his prime is a steal....and something that never happens.

 

It's amazing to see how Rockets role players and bench players getting so overrated just because two great games against Lakers.

 

Who cares. As long as there is a better chance to get Championships, lose 70 in one game is fine for me.

 

I'd do this if we could keep Landry or Scola or get a serviceable 4.

 

Al Jefferson is much better than AB+ Landry combined, yet Celtics trade him to get KG, and they got paid off.

Chris Paul has more trade value than KG.

 

I understand what you're saying - but we just finished showing the world that you need a team to be successful, not a single player. CP3 and Yao will just be an upgraded TMac and Yao. What you really need is an ever improving cohesive group of guys that run 10 deep, willing to do anything on the court for each other.

With our current team, that's what you have... Peja and Chandler would ruin that. Particularly Peja. I'd rather either take my chances with TMac and the current team or take my chances trading him for a Redd/Johnson/any other swingman who doesn't require the significant disruption of role players. This team is poised to run again next season so I'd stay on the conservative side.

 

Yeah but we'd be basically trading roster for roster. We'd be getting that team that just got whooped. Closer to a championship? They didn't fare too well this season.

And I beg to differ. If your team loses by 40, that's bad enough. Losing by 58...that says something entirely different. 58 points...almost 20 points more than 40. Where 20 points is considered a blowout on it's own. You lost by THREE times that amount. I don't know man. Maybe that's just me I guess, heh.

 

Fair point. What I'm saying is sometimes it's not about the value of what you're getting in return but the value of what you already got. I don't see why we shouldn't just stick to our guns, with the exception of adding some frontcourt height.

 

You're right, what we had in the playoff was a solid team. But what i'm giving away were not part that nucleus team.

 

I'm going at this with two big assumptions:

1. Les is going to hold onto Yao
2. Yao is going to do what's necessary for longer seasons (different workouts, losing weight, no summer games, etc...)

So you could be right, but, as with anything Rockets, I'm just crossing my fingers.

 

Actually I guess that was a 'my bad' moment. I actually took your post as a joke since you were suggesting trading Yao.

I don't think that would make the trade financially feasible and I don't think Les/Morey are going to send Yao anywhere.

 

It's not roster for roster. It's a superstar +r ole players for role players.

Losing by 58 only says the team gave up in that game. It could be players problem, it could be coaches problem, etc. Many time a little change can make it all turned around. Rockets lost by 40, what happened next game? They won by double digits.

58 and 40 are the same, doesn't mean anything in a long run.

Our team had quite a few terrible losses, blew out by Rapters, Redd/Bogut -less Bucks etc. Do you give up the players just because of those terrible lossees? Of course you don't, becuase you konw they have the talent to bounce back.

when you trade, it's all about talent and how to improve the team , not about the score in one particular game.