CD on 610am. Mike make less $$ but still choose Min.

I wanted to set the record straight on a few issues that have been floating around here. They are the same issues that everyone repeats over and over again in connection with Mike James. They appear in dozens of threads. And I think it's time to put a rest to most of these silly myths.

BLAME THE AGENT

Bill Duffy is Yao Ming's agent. I have trouble thinking that he would do anything to undermine his credibility with the Houston Rockets organization, particularly given the fact that he is only a part of the Team Yao machine and could be easily replaced.

TRADE KICKER IS BAD PRECEDENT

When you negotiate a contract, you need to be careful what you take off the table. A trade kicker can really add value in some cases, and it is nearsighted to refuse it based solely on precedent. This is the perfect scenario for a trade kicker for two reasons: (i) he is undervalued and (ii) the term of his contract is very short.

(i) Undervalued -- Mike James' production is worth more than the MLE. 82 games puts the value of his prior season at close to $10 million. The only reason he is not getting his fair market value is because teams have done a terrible job of managing their salary cap. So this is a way to help him capture more of this value.

(ii) Short-term -- Combined with the fact that he will likely opt out of his contract after the third year, that means we are "stuck" with him for only 3 years. It's different to have a player tied up to a max 7 year contract asking for a kicker.

Moreover, in a trade scenario, a kicker helps us to get better talent because of the need to match. If MJ's contract was for only the MLE, we would probably only get back a scrub. With the kicker, his salary is higher than the MLE and we could probably get a better player. And, if he is a complete bust, his higher salary would be more valuable to a potential trading partner trying to get under the cap.

TAX ADVANTAGE

The tax advantage is way overblown. As some of the other posters have mentioned, state income taxes are deductible against federal income taxes (so if you pay $2 million in state income taxes, your income for federal purposes is $2 million less, not a complete wash, but it mitigates the impact).

And, most states collect income taxes from athletes during away games (when A-Rod played for the Rangers, he got letters from the state tax collectors from New York for the games he played at Yankee stadium, from California for the games he played in Anaheim, from Massachusetts for the games he played at Fenway).

But the biggest reason this is a joke argument is because athletes hire estate planners and tax lawyers to help them minimize any difference. Some of the steps they take include incorporating and hiring their various family members as employees (Stephon Marbury employs his sister as his private chef, various tennis players hire their parents as their coaches, Jessica Simpson hires her dad as her manager).

The reason the Rockets and Astros might raise the tax advantage argument is because it resonates with average working people, but for professional athletes who are paid millions of dollars, it doesn't move the dial that much.

MIKE JAMES MADE THE BEST DECISION

He made the best decision for both himself and for the Rockets. He asked for stability, and he got it. He wanted a situation where he could walk like Mike James walks, and he got it.

But Rockets fans should be happy, too. Mike James probably wouldn't have been too happy as the third piece of a championship team. He wanted a bigger role. If T-Mac and Yao stay healthy, there won't be enough balls to go around. Everyone is panicking about the need for a third scorer because we just experienced a miserable season without our two primary scorers. If we have both those guys, all we need are role players. Mike James is not a role player. And if one of our two main guys went down, Mike James would not be enough to pick up the slack.

So I think this situation is completely win-win.

 

that's exactly how I feel

 

Exactly. And if Mike James' production decreases in the coming seasons (as they almost certainly will), or if he becomes inactive due to injury (not uncommon for a small guard in his 30s) then the Rockets are stuck with a $6 million dollar a year benchwarmer. That means, quite literally, that they have NO leverage and NO alternatives. Players aren't widgets-- their value can vary wildly from one year and it doesn't make sense to be locked into an aging MLE point guard based on ONE season of above average individual performance on a terrible team.

For all of you lamenting the fact that the Rockets didn't acquire Mike James-- go look at our losses to the Mavericks in the 2005 playoffs. I think you'll find his statistics when he plays as a third option are not as attractive as when he has the latitude to fire up shots at will. In fact, I remember him waving off T-Mac when Tracy was calling for the ball. THAT is just not the type of point guard I want on my team, unless his initials are A.I.

 

they gave up on Mike James so fast. They pressed the PANICK button after the lost to Dallas. Mike James played well in that series.

 

Really? Because I think this team, if Sura can play effectively this season, is basically better than the team that took the Mavericks to seven games (it probably would have been over in six if the refs hadn't taken game 5 from us) in the 2005 playoffs? Essentially the same Mavs that were up 2-0 on Miami before imploding in this years finals?

I think you underestimate a healthy Yao/T-Mac combo supported by decent role-players.

 

They do have the right, obviously, and I don't think anyone said it wasn't fair-- it just isn't something that the Rockets feel compelled to do.

Precedence can be a very effective deterrent in many types of negotiations, and I think more people underestimate its importance than overestimate it.

 

I suggest you to read more before you post. As of right now, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Really? Well then I guess neither do the paid professionals in the Rocket's front office who have been doing this for decades-- because apparently, they feel the same way I do.

Now, what do you propose I read, great condescender?

PS-Please dispense with the sage business axioms, it makes you come off as a know-it-all blowhard... unless of course that's what you're shooting for.

 

yeah baby, Houston, u deserve that. thinking of D.Anderson, S.Swift, u deserve that. See who dare to come??

 

People act like we just lost out on signing lebron james or dwayne wade. Mike James has had one good year, playing for a terrible team, in the last year of his contract. Look how many players have a great season and get awarded big contracts only to make those teams regret it. Bobby Simmons, Samuel Dalembert just to name two recent ones. Why should the Rox lock themselves into a contract and add a trade kicker for someone who is not a bonafide superstar.

We can criticize Les all we want, but if it was your 25 million dollars being paid out then maybe you wouldnt want Mike James to have all the control.

 

Oh please...
If Mike James is so good then why has he been an NBA journeyman his whole career?

 

FIND SOMEBODY BETTER THAT IS AVAILABLE.

 

Exactly..This guy is all about money. Last year was a contract year for him so he played his tail off...You have seen this time and time again..after a player gets paid and now that he has a trade kicker, i'm guessing his production will drop...his motive his money and he has it...i bet he will drop to a 13-15 pt per game scorer...not worth 24 million.....
He had one good year...the rest (including the one with the rockets), he was way below 20 pts a game...i'm acutally OK with not getting him

 

Sounds like MJ & his agent tried to play a little game with Minny, Dallas & Houston only the game wasn't chess but poker. They just kept upping the ante until someone blinked and that was McHale. James appears to have done well for himself - he got the best possible deal, he goes to a team where he'll be free to score bunches of points and he got to stick it to the team he feels slighted him. So right now, it must feel pretty to good to be Mike James. However, as the saying goes: "be very careful what you ask for - you might just get it". We'll see how good it feels for MJ come January.

Oh, and for the last time: It's ALWAYS about the money...

 

Interesting idea, but let's think about it.

- You say Mike James was undervalued and that his "production is worth more than the MLE". Ok, fair enough.

- You do realize that any team in the league that thought that Mike James was worth more than the MLE, could have tried and swung a sign and trade with Toronto? Toronto wasn't going to take garbage in a SnT, but if there was something of value offered, I'd have to believe that they would have taken it over just letting James walk for nothing. Nobody stepped up with a deal for James that was of any interest to Toronto. Teams were willing to sign him with their exception, but there wasn't a huge trade market for Mike James.

- So, now let's say we had given James everything that he wanted and in a couple of years, he's lost a step and isn't effective. We determine that he's not worth the $6M+ that we are now paying him at that point in time. So, we do as you say and try and trade him.

- With the trade kicker, James counts close to $7M in salary to the Rockets. The problem is that when Mike James was 31 and coming off his best year ever, nobody stepped up and offerered a deal that Toronto was interested in for more than the MLE. Toronto let him walk rather than accepting anything that they were offered. With that in mind, now that we're a couple of years down the road and James' performance has fallen off and he's 33, do you think that a team is now going to be willing to make you a decent deal? Why would a team offer you a good deal for a guy that is on the decline and isn't worth what he's making, if they didn't make a decent offer when he was younger and undervalued?

- If you're not going to get anything worthwhile, then your going to have to take back garbage players or bad contracts in order to trade James. The problem is that the trade kicker is going to cause you to take back even more bad contacts. So, effectively you'd be taking a guy that's underperforming for his $6M salary and your trading him for $7M in bad contracts. You're just adding an additional $1M in bad contacts, how's that a good thing?

 

I am a MJ fan, and I wish him well when he and his no trade contract are together in minnisota after KG leaves.

 

With respect to the first point, it's true that there wasn't a tremendous market for Mike James. But that does not reflect solely on him as a player. In fact, it reflects more on certain market dynamics (e.g., teams being over the salary cap, teams having other options for a lead scorer, etc.). It doesn't mean that he wasn't "worth" more. When Mark Cuban was evaluating what to offer Steve Nash in free agency a few years ago, prominent in his mind was what other teams could / would offer Nash. Same thing happened here. They could offer him less because no other team could make a better offer.

With respect to the impact of a salary kicker on his trade value, my point was that Mike James could have value as an "expiring contract" should we decide to trade him in two or three years. Keep in mind that the term of his contract was only 3 years with a player option for a 4th year. The bigger the contract, the more cap relief a potential trade partner could expect to receive. And the bigger the contract, the more likely that the player we receive in turn would be a better player.

But I am happy the trade did not happen. I think it was the best result all around.

 

Agreed that the fact that most teams were over the cap had an effect on James market value. Do you have any reason to believe that most all teams won't still be over the cap in the next couple of years?

We've been down the "expiring contact" road before and it hasn't proved to be as productive as we had anticipated.