First, the current cap is ~$44m. The Rockets have ~$56m committed. If you "give" Taylor's $8.5m away, you're ~$500k under the cap. You are then basically left with either $500k of cap space or an $8.5m trade exception. (You can use an exception or cap space but not both). Secondly, it just absolutely baffles me how posters continue wanting to get "cap space" when the Rockets are paying TMac max money and will be doing so for Yao within a few years. We are not going to be biggies in the FA market as long as we have McGrady and Yao. My understanding is the Rox have an option on Ward for 2005-06. Without that option, they have 8 players and $50m committed for 2005-06. Assuming the cap structure of the new CBA remains reasonably the same for 2005-06, and we "give" Taylor's 05-06 $9m away, we still have $41 committed to 7 players. That's $3m under the current cap. The current MLE is ~$5m. For anyone reading this, please do us all a favor and forget about "cap space" for about 7 years. "Cap space" is a waste of bandwidth.
Gater, Not that I'm one that mentioned cap space, but don't you think Les has a soft cap that he imposes on CD? I don't want to see the Rockets lose players like Posey because MoT is still on the roster.
GATER, thank you for that post. Moving Mo is not about gaining "cap" space to be FA players as much as getting rid of a huge contract to a player that isnt even CLOSE to playing up to his contract value. Keep this scenario in mind. If the Rockets could move Mo to the Nets for a 2nd round pick we would get back a Trade Exception worth's Mo's cap number. That's around 8M or so. In "theory" we could then over the summer go to the Grizzlies and say we will give you a 1st round pick (2006) if you sign and trade Swift to us (starting at 8M per) for our Trade Exception. The Grizzlies would look long and hard at that. It would give them a 1st round pick for really doing nothing. Stromile can walk and the Griz get NOTHING in return, but by working with us they get a 1st rounder. And then since we would have that TE equal to Mo's salary, we could offer Swift a contract staring at 8M, which is probably market value for him. Basically, we could 1) Lop off Mo's salary 2) Replace it with Swift and only lose 1st rounder for 2006 3) Still Draft someone good in the 2005 draft. 4) STILL have use of the FULL MLE this summer to add another player since we wouldnt be using it on trying to get Swift. That of course would be ideal.
The comment was intended as a criticism of making indefinite predictions about inevitible events. There will eventually be a trade made by the Houston Rockets. There will eventually be another Tsunami. Does that make me Nostradamus? (well yes actually) No, because it's not a matter of 'if' it's a matter of 'when' (or who). If someone has information they feel compelled to post as a declaration rather than a question for discussion, they should at least be a little specific as to the source or the facts. 'A source within the Rockets front office' or "I heard a guy on a cell phone at the mall say" or "The rumor I heard was was Mo Taylor for a 2005 #1 pick". If not then it's just a waste of time. The reason someone would post an 'insider rumor' is to stroke their own ego. (That's why I post offbeat humor) And hey, that's what a BBS is about, relating to others. But if you want to look cool you've got to risk taking the responsibility when your wrong. My Tsunamis reference may have been insensitive and offended some. I apologize. If it had of been more current I could have referenced a Hurricane on Galveston Island. I will lose my own house when it happens..and it eventually will.
I can't believe I read this whole thing for almost nothing, well it kept me busy for 15 minutes. Either Clutch is on vacation, or there must be some hope in our trade talks. Pugs
Taylor has been so utterly useless this season that I would jump at every opportunity to get rid of him, especially to the Nets for their trade exception. I would even give them draft picks to take him away. He’s a bad influence on the other players on the team. Every since he was demoted to the bench, he’s been phoning it in.
Gater, it's not so much about getting cap space that's really attractive in dumping Mo, but salary flexibility. Unless you're Dallas, New York, or Portland, and can afford to let big contracts rot away on the bench, it's important to cut loose the high-priced deadwood. And Les has shown in the past that he will make roster moves based solely on not overspending. The whole Posey/Rice/JJ situation comes to mind. If we had a freespending owner, the club would have resigned Posey, signed JJ, and then eat Rice's contract and let him sit on the bench without having to give up a draft pick. Or else, use Rice as fodder for a deal closer to the deadline, like possibly getting into the Rasheed sweepstakes from last year. Yes I know there were luxury tax implications that might not happen in the future (since they seem likely to drop the LT) but it's still a sure sign that Les does have a spending limit. So since ownership has taken a stance to not go overboard with team payroll, then getting rid of a big contract figure like Mo's would be a huge plus towards fiscal flexibility. This way, the team can be more aggressive in terms of using the MLE, or the trade exception, or expiring contracts in order to land players. Ideally, I'd love for them to move Mo for a 1st rounder. This gives us another TE and draft pick to work with. Like Deuce's idea of going after a sign and trade for Swift and still having the MLE avaliable to sign someone else (Bobby Simmons would be my personal choice). I wouldn't be giving Swift a starting salary of 8m though. Seems like his stock is dropping, and he could be had for a starting salary of 6-7 mill.
Gator, How about instead of referencing the salary cap when talking about dumping player salaries, we talk about getting under the Luxury Tax level. It seems like that's the only relevant number since most every team in the NBA is over the Salary Cap and Bird Rights provides enough of a loophole to pay the leagues marquee players. For the Rockets , it seems that the luxury tax is what is keeping the team from filling out a balanced competive roster and instead stocking it with over-the-hill bargain players. Of course it's not my money. (but if I had a billion dollars I would stock my toy with players I enjoyed watching) (If I had 2 billion I would have kept Steve Nash)
I don't smell a redolent whiff of Mo or Ho in this: http://www.nypost.com/sports/nets/37826.htm Golden State's acquisition of 6-11 Zarko Cabarkapa from Phoenix may eventually help the Nets deal for a big man. It's no secret the Nets sought Warrior veteran Cliff Robinson. Now with Cabarkapa, Golden State may be more inclined to deal the 6-10 Robinson, who turned 38 last month. Some see it as a Net positive, but others maintain the Warriors are intent on keeping Robinson. If anything happens, figure it's around the trading deadline. The Nets still seek size. "We're looking but don't have anything on the horizon," said team president Rod Thorn. "It's so hard to get big players. People that have them don't give them up unless they're bad contracts." Other big men the Nets have considered or pursued: Milwaukee's Joe Smith, Toronto's Donyell Marshall and New Orleans' P.J. Brown. *
Problem is MoT would get less touches in NJ than he does in H-town. I don't think he'd really prosper there either. Man, he played really well as our 6th man last year. I think he's struggling this year because of the inconsistent PT he's getting because we have too many PFs. I like MoT's game.
he took 7 shots in 22 mins the other night - I think with 35 mins as the only post option he could get 15-18 shots a night. Remember Kidd is a pass first PG, he would have RJ and VC on the wings and Mo in the post
m_cable is right on the money here. That is EXACTLY why we need to get rid of players like Mo. Les has a limit. He will spend big for big time players but when it comes time to adding "quality role players" I think he has a limit. He wont go over the LT line just to add a role player. With that limitation in mind moving a guy like Taylor gives us more wiggle room to use the MLE or add more salary just as m_cable suggested above. And the Posey example is right on the money!
The question is, is it worth GS's while to part with Cliff. He is an expiring contract after this season. NJ would have to give something up for him otherwise GS has no incentive to move him really. Same situation with Marshall. I bet GS and Toronto are asking for a 1st round pick for them. Joe Smith and PJ Brown are different though as they have years on their contract. N.O. has an incentive to move him to clear cap room. But he is productive so they would want something in return from NJ. Smith is in a similar situation. With Mo, the Rockets could pretty much give him away for FREE unlike the other teams that would want something in return. That's the advantage for NJ right now. The Rockets just want to unload and get the Trade Exception. NJ could add a player for nothing, no picks or anything really.
but if New Jersey can get nothing better with the trade exception than something we already have, why would we want it?
Simple. NJ wants somebody right now. We're talking about the Rockets using the TE next summer. Guys that are unavailable today will be available this summer. For example, Stromile Swift. He's currently playing under his qualifying offer and Memphis isn't going to trade him unless they get equal value in return. Next summer he's an unrestricted FA and can sign elsewhere for nothing. If Memphis is faced with losing him for nothing or doing a S&T and getting a first rounder in return, they'd probably do that.
IF NJ does a deal with us, my guess is it will be around the trading deadline and now now. I dont blame NJ for looking at Dale Davis, Cliff Robinson and Donyell Marshall. They all are on the last year of their deals (expiring contracts) and they all are probably better fits/players than Mo is. NJ can "rent" a player now (with their salary off the cap in the summer) to help them get into the playoffs which is what they are looking to do. So they will try to exhaust all means to get one of those players as long as they dont have to give up anything significant in return, (picks etc). It isnt worth GS or Toronto's while to just give up an expiring contract unless they get something for the effort. And I bet they are asking for a 1st rounder. And I bet NJ is loathe to give one up for a "rent a player". But as we get closer to the trading deadline and those other teams are unwilling to just give NJ an expiring contract for nothing, Mo might be their only option. Because I feel the Rockets WOULD give Mo for NOTHING. It would be a "last resort" type action for NJ in my opinion. They get talent. They dont give up anything but have to take on a longer term contract than an expiring contract. I think we shoulf all hope NJ continues to lose because as the losses mount, the more anxious they will be at making a deal.
I think we need them to stay about 9-10 in the standing... if they suck too much, then they will end up like NO and start playing for next year
Since trading MoT or Juwan for the TE or an expiring contract is probably wishful thinking, perhaps the Rockets should look at trading either or both of them for players who only have contract obligations through next year. In other words, a player like a Scott Pollard. Overpaid, but with a contract obligation expiring a year earlier than Mo T's, or three years earlier than Juwan's. The next year, the player(s) we get in return will either provide us trade bait (expiring contracts), or luxury tax flexibility in the summer of 2006 to sign a MLE player. This will be especially important with Yao's probably max contract kicking in on July 1, 2006. With a combination of expiring contracts and draft picks, maybe we could obtain next year a player like a Baron Davis from a team wanting to dump salary and start over again, kind of like Denver, Atlanta and the Clippers have done in the past. Spoon, Wesley and Ward could also be expiring contract trade bait next year.
