[ClutchFans] BimaThug: Houston Rockets Salary Cap Update

This. THANK YOU, CH.

 

I agree. Maybe someone can point out a specific example from the past where the Rockets lied by choosing to get under the tax line. Personally, I think if you're going to make a serious charge like the Rockets are purposely deceiving the fans, there should be strong evidence for it. Otherwise, you come off sounding like a bitter person who has a grudge against the team.

 

Wow, really? A bitter person?

Not at all my intent.....

I am just pointing out where they say one thing year in and year out and do another.

Maybe they didn't get that superstar, maybe one wasn't available, I doubt anyone would know....

DD

 

Bitter? I don't think you're bitter, DD. I think you're more like the dog that's got the bone in his teeth and won't let go, no matter what... until he decides to.

 

OK. Your memory may be better than mine. I don't remember them ever saying they were going to pay luxury tax but instead chose at the deadline to sacrifice winning in order to get under.

 

What exactly do they say and do "year in and year out"?

As far as I can tell, they say they'd pay tax "for the right player." They typically end up dumping a player who isn't really contributing in the process of getting under the tax.

One year, it was Francis + 2nd round pick for no money returning. Another year, it was Bonzi Wells and Mike James for Bobby Jackson. Last year, getting under the tax threshhold was a "side result" of the McGrady trade (Landry was part of the "deal" it we are really talking about 2 trades here, one Landry for Martin, one McGrady for Jeffries, Hil and picks).

So, all that the history "proves", if anything, is that the Rockets didn't feel like Steve Francis, Mke James, Bonzi Wells, and Tracy McGrady (or frankly, these players earthly remains, given their level of play when they were traded and thereafter) are not the "right players" for whom to pay tax.

I don't see how they are saying "one thing" and doing "another."

Is there anything that would suggest that they have ever turned down any legitimate star trades over luxury tax? Any arguably "right player" they turned down for tax reasons being reported or even rumored?

If not, this speculation is just like saying "Maybe DD sodomizes little boys, maybe DD kills puppies. I doube anyone would now."

(And I am pretty sure someone knows even if the average fan doesnt.)

 

They gave up Steve Francis and a very high 2nd round pick and $3 million to get under the tax.....

Clearly that is not a superstar, but to say they didn't sacrifice something is just not true.

Keeping that pick would have been a better move if you are looking towards the future of the franchise and not just that one year's bottom line.

DD

 

Francis was traded in late December 2008. The Rockets, according to Marc Stein, included cash sufficient to pay remaining salary. Not sure if they paid $3 million. Doesn't sound like it from the wording.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3792265

The pick turned out to be the 36th overall.

In the 2009 draft the Rockets ended up spending $6 million cash buying the 32, 34, and 44th pick (a future 2nd rounder was given to Detroit for the 44th pick, too, I believe).

The amount of money the Rockets saved when dumping Francis likely equals to the $2.63 million tax and whatever they woudl have gotten as a tax distribution (probably totalling more than $3 million, but we can verify).

So how exactly did the trade hurt the Rockets' ability to win again?

Even if you don't buy that the tax/distribution "savings" resulting in the 3 picks, and would insist they still would have bought all 3 without the savings, do you honestly think the Rockets would have chosen to add 4 second rounders to their stable in one year? And if they really wanted to add 4 second rounders in one year, it would seem they could have just bought another 2nd rounder somewhere.

 

They bought all 3 with the monies that insurance paid for Tmac's salary, the last 2 years the franchise has probably been more profitable than at any time in history due to the insurance payments.

And they are using that to buy picks, which I admire because frankly Les could put that right back in his own pocket.

You and I are not talking the same thing.......all I am saying is that when Morey smooches up on Les's bottom by thanking him for being into the Lux tax land, don't buy it, because they always find a way to get under it.

DD

 

it's impossible to tell which players (if any) the Rockets passed on because of Lux tax issues, but I can't think of any trades they made, that harmed the team, to get under the tax. CH's analysis of the Francis trade seems to make sense even ignoring the team 'gains' made simply by removing him and his attitude from the dressing room. I can't think of a salary dump that had any significant effect on the current team or its prospects. I can't think of a player they let walk, or traded because they didn't want to pay his value.

The added twist for the Rockets is that TMac and Yao have been injured. Should they have taken on a big contract to complement them when they didn't even know what they already had (or when)?

I get what DD's saying -- that until they pay the tax you can't really say they will -- but I just don't think that you can shout "show me the money" when there possibly hasn't been an opportunity to do so that made sense.

 

The writing is on the wall, the Rockets is getting ready to dump Yao.

If I were Yao, I'd be start looking for a new employer, NOW.

 

Why is getting under the luxury tax objectionable? I still don't get the complaining about Alexander. The Rockets have pumped in a lot of money in player salary, personnel and research and development in recent years. Can you point to an instance where Morey wanted an available player but was prevented by the owner?

 

Ok, the Rockets might get a hair below the luxury tax level. Why do the clippers want a 1 year rental in Jeffries and Taylor.

I find your comparison of the OKC trade to your Clippers trade proposal very odd. They are not similiar at all. It was 2 months into the season and the Jazz were already receiving insurance checks to cover Harpring's salary. OKC doesn't even have to worry about a deductible. The cost of Harpring is $0. The Thunder needed a backup point guard.

The Clippers would have to pay $7.7 mil in salary to Jeffries and Taylor, and the only benefit is a late 1st round draft pick from the Rockets. If they were to buy a 1st round draft pick, the most it would cost is $3 mil. The $3 mil in cash consideration is not enough to cover JJ and JT's salaries(7.7 mil total). The 1st round draft pick would cost them $4.7 mil. If they bought a 1st round draft pick it would only cost them $3 mil. They pay nearly $2 mil more for a $3 mil pick. They don't need Jared Jeffries or Taylor

 

I thought the used the insurance money to cover T-Mac's worthless salary. They would have nothing left after paying T-mac for those 3 guys.

 

DD, you are WAYYY off on that statement.

There's a good chance that a good chunk (if not all) of that insurance money was offset by lower ticket sales. Individual game tickets were a lot harder to sell with no Yao and no (healthy) T-Mac. Believe it or not, lower expenses do not equal great profit if the REVENUES are also going down. Gone are the days of Hakeem, Barkley and Drexler on the marquee and endless consecutive sell-outs.

Luxury tax savings is an easy "opportunity cost" to point to in relation to buying picks. For instance, trading away an early 2009 second rounder in order to save $5-6M in salary/tax is a fairly concrete basis on which to make the decision to spend THAT money on buying another pick or two (or three).

I think the insurance money--from a purely conceptual standpoint--can be more easily viewed as an offset against declining revenues. A mitigation of those damages, if you will.

 

There is also the marketing ops lost when the team is not viewed (sic) as hot. That can be substantial. Also, TV ratings = higher ad sales per spot as well as total ads sold. There is a 'spreading' effect which can last well into the future.

Finally, who here - who anywhere but within Rocket inner sanctum - know the terms of insurance payments? There is not a black'n'white if a then b 'policy' on professional athletes.

What is profitable? Winning. Playing home games in the play-offs. Now, there is a spreading effect.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3491156
Nuggets trade Camby to Clippers for second-round pickEmail Print Comments1078 By Marc Stein
ESPN.com
Archive
LAS VEGAS -- A week ago Tuesday, Elton Brand's defection to Philadelphia decimated the Los Angeles Clippers.


One week later, Brand's old team has rebounded nicely.


The Clippers on Tuesday night swung a trade to import Denver Nuggets center Marcus Camby as their Brand replacement for the minuscule cost of giving Denver the option to swap second-round picks in 2010, capitalizing on the Nuggets' need to shed salary to create their own financial flexibility.

"We felt like we needed to shake things up and do something a little bit radical to be able to create flexibility going forward," Nuggets vice president of player personnel Rex Chapman said in a conference call.


Using the salary-cap space earmarked for re-signing Brand before his free-agent departure to the Philadelphia 76ers, L.A. was able to absorb Camby's contract ($10 million for each of the next two seasons) without surrendering anything of consequence, although Denver did create a trade exception worth $10.1 million that expires one year from Tuesday.


Marcus Camby

Center
Denver Nuggets

Profile
2008 Season Stats GM PPG RPG APG FG% FT%
79 9.1 13.1 3.3 .450 .708

The Clippers were initially expected to respond to the unraveling of their dream tag team -- Brand and Baron Davis -- by extending a lucrative offer sheet to one of four restricted free agents: Atlanta Hawks forward Josh Smith, Charlotte Bobcats forward Emeka Okafor, Chicago Bulls forward Luol Deng or Philadelphia 76ers forward Andre Iguodala. But trading for Camby so quickly enables L.A. to avoid the risky game of restricted free agency, which would afford each of those teams seven days to match any Clippers offer, potentially tying up the Clippers' resources for a week with no guarantee of landing their target.

Camby is not nearly the offensive force Brand is -- and will be 35 in March -- but he's coming off a career season in which he averaged 9.1 points, 13.1 rebounds and 3.61 blocks for the Nuggets, who won 50 games to claim the final playoff spot in the West in what was regarded as the most competitive conference race in league history.

"I think this is a very good addition for us, especially since we're getting a player who can really help us without having to give up a player in return," general manager Elgin Baylor said. "With him playing alongside [Chris] Kaman, I think we will have a pair of excellent interior defenders and that will make us a formidable team."

The Clippers, sources said, also preserved an estimated $3 million in cap space to perhaps add another rotation player to their new core, which features the homegrown Davis as their new cornerstone, second-year swingman Al Thornton, recent draftee Eric Gordon and Kaman as Camby's new frontcourt sidekick.


"I love this acquisition for the current makeup of our team," Clippers coach Mike Dunleavy said. "We are getting a consummate pro who is maybe the best team defender in the league and has 60 playoff games under his belt."


Hollinger: Deal makes sense

At first, the giveaway of Marcus Camby seems puzzling, but a deeper look shows it makes sense for the Clippers and Nuggets, writes John Hollinger. Story

Exiling Camby for essentially no return was certainly not the Nuggets' preference, but finances forced their hand. The Allen Iverson-Carmelo Anthony-Camby trio could not get out of the first round in two tries and couldn't even win a game in a humbling first-round playoff exit to the Los Angeles Lakers last season, leaving Denver convinced that it had to start drastically cutting payroll to allow for further reshaping of its roster. The Nuggets, for starters, will now have more cushion to match potential offers to restricted free agent J.R. Smith if they choose.

Chapman didn't rule out the possibility of another move being made before the start of the season.

"It's a fluid situation," he said. "Are we going to continue to look for ways to improve the team? Absolutely. We felt like the right trade came along at the right time. We felt like we needed to strike while the iron was hot. We're not going to make a bad deal … We're not satisfied with winning 50 games or getting to the playoffs. Our goal is to win a championship. We felt like we needed to shake things up and be able to have flexibility going forward to put a championship team on the court."


The Nuggets had the league's fourth-highest payroll last season and are required to pay $13,572,079 in luxury taxes by July 23. Denver's preference naturally would have been trading away Brazilian forward Nene or fellow forward Kenyon Martin, but Martin is due to earn roughly $46.5 million over the next three seasons and is the only player in the NBA to undergo microfracture surgery on both knees. Nene makes slightly less than Camby over the next two seasons but was limited to 16 games last season and underwent surgery to treat testicular cancer.



So Camby, the NBA's defensive player of the year in 2006-07, was always Denver's most likely candidate to be exiled for financial reasons in spite of his own injury history.

"Marcus has been an exceptional representative of the Nuggets both on the court and in the Denver community during his time here and we are greatly appreciative of all he has done," Mark Warkentien, the Nuggets' vice president of basketball operations, said in a statement.


Fast-spreading word of Camby's imminent departure left Nuggets coach George Karl struggling to mask his disappointment as he watched the NBA Summer League on the campus of UNLV.


"I'm not going to talk philosophically about what's going on and why we did it," Karl said. "I think all of us, Marcus and all the coaches, we're going to have to think about it a little bit. It was a situation where I know that Marcus was a big part of our success. Any time you lose a player like Marcus, you're going to have a tough time filling that void."

This is what I was refferring too. The clippers don't have to move, but because they have room, they can get something for nothing. They can get a first round pick and a young player for being involved in a salary dump. They've done it before and maybe they can do it again.

 

This comparison is even more odd. The Clippers were trading for Camby to replace Brand's loss. He was their starting PF for 2 years!

The Clippers are not looking to trade Blake Griffin this season, so they will not need Jeffries, a 1 year rental, to replace Blake Griffin.

The Clippers aren't trading Eric Gordon, this season either, so they will not need Taylor, another 1 year rental, to replace Eric Gordon.

 

I can post links without addressing any points of debate also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

They got something for nothing is the point. The same can be said by getting a irst round pick, a young player for depth, and an expiring contract. What don't you understand? When a team has capspace and teams need to dump salary,they can get a break. Why did ok city get maynor and the knick got nothing for mobley and his insurance paid contract? Maynor was a first rd pick and the knicks didn't have that to offer because hill was traded to the rockets. If you don't understand getting something for nothing because you have capspace, then i don't know what to say. Its the benefit of having a huge trade exception or capspace. Jefferson goes to Utah for basically nothing because Utah had a te from the sign and trade of boozer. The clipps could have added depth and a 1st round pick for nothing, If you were the clippers gm, why not? The team would still be under the cap and get a 1st round pick.