Does Griffin's Suspension affect the Deadline for Extension?

I have spent a lot of time thinking this thought through (extended deadline due to suspension)... it seems counter intuitive to me, as teams could manipulate the deadline by suspending players to allow them additional time to assess whether to extend or not. I would assume that the deadline is not extended, but I'm sorry, I do not know for certain.

I'm very interested in the Rox move, and concur that the ROX have to extend him. He's checked into the hospital for Depression. How can you basically cut (by not offering the extension) a player for depression? I think there is a responsiblity to Eddie, a responsibility to the organization's reputation with the players league, to extend him.

There will be plenty of opportunities to get rid of him, whether that be through trade or through expansion. It's not risk free, but it's a hedge that Eddie does not turn into an All-Star for somewhere having received help for CLINICAL DEPRESSION.

I'm staying tuned and will be very disappointed if they mishandle this situation and do not offer Eddie the extension.

 

giddyup- The deadline doesn't change because he's suspended. We'll know today.

pariah- Not offering him an extension doesn't mean we can't resign him in the offseason, in fact, we will hold his Bird rights even if he is an unrestricted free agent. Eddie had a responsibility to the team as well; the reason he was suspended indefinitely in the first place was for missing a practice AFTER being reprimanded for missing a practice two days earlier. Several quotes have come out saying people have urged Eddie to do this for awhile- I wouldn't blame the Rockets if they didn't extend Eddie.

I think it's 50/50 right now. The Rockets' brass probably know the situation a lot better, as far as Eddie's current mental state, feelings of basketball, and possibly most importantly how the team feels about Eddie.

Eddie's value is at it's very lowest point and it's not going to get higher unless he comes back and does well (and in that case, why trade him?)- you don't extend him with the intent of trading him. That extra year wouldn't matter much to a team taking a risk on Eddie, because if he explodes, they hold on to his Bird rights even after a trade. If you're going to extend him, you do it for Eddie's future as a Rocket.

Here's another thing to consider regarding expansion- are teams allowed to protect a certain number of players, or are they required to expose a certain number of players? If it's the former, not extending Eddie would allow us to save an extra slot to protect another player while maintaining the inside track on resigning Eddie (Bird rights). If it's the latter, extending Eddie and if he becomes a lost cause, he can be exposed thus fulfilling that obligation.

 

Excellent point! I hadn't thought of that.

 

I have said it before, and it bears mentioning again.

IF, and only if, EG is receiving treatment for some kind of mental illness, depression, bipolar, social anxiety (ala Rickey Williams), etc, then the Rockets MUST extend him and do everything in their power to support him through this.


However, the whole 'EG is in the hospital' thing has been very vaguely reported, and could turn out to be a deception.

IF it turns out that he is in drug rehab, trying to dry out from cocaine or something equally nasty, then they need to just cut bait and set him loose.

I've seen what can happen to a franchise when it blindly supports a coke addict - look at what happened to Dallas in the late 80's with Roy Tarpley.

I would rather just kiss those 3 1st rounders goodbye, and say 'We goofed!' by releasing EG than see anything happen to Houston like the decade of misery that followed Dallas around after Tarpley got through with them.

 

Eddie is suspended w/o pay right? Just extend him. Worst case scenario, he remains suspended for the duration of the option year, costing us nothing.

 

I would be shocked if they don't extend him.

Unless he is really far gone, and they just want to move on....

DD

 

I second that and hadn't thought that through either.

I misunderstood and thought the Rockets lost their preemptive (Bird's rights). If we have them, having full faith in NIKEstrad's understanding of the CBA, then basically we are gambling on his market value (salary). We know the extension is around $2.3M, so by extending now, we are hedging that his value will increase and ultimately cost us more than the $2.3M.

Well, I feel more at ease now, knowing that if Eddie gets treatement and is able to perform to the best of his ability, whether extended or not, we will at least have his Bird's rights next summer and have little risk of losing him outright(in this landscape of fiscal discipline among NBA teams). Now it may cost us more (see James Posey) if someone is willing to spend more than his historical production level, but we will at least have the option to match.

I can now get back to work, avoid worrying any more about the Rockets decision, knowing that if Eddie mental issue is treated he will be a Rocket for a long time. Thanks NIKEstrad.

 

StupidMoniker- Not that simple. He's still a cap hit; if we're past lux tax zone, he's still a ~2.5 lux tax hit. And we can't hold him on the suspension list without reason- once he gets out of this, at some point he has to be reactivated. Having a guy on a 2 year suspension is unheard of. Otherwise, teams would hold guys on "suspension" lists indefinitely as injury insurance.

Here's the deal with the expansion draft. Teams can protect up to 8 players- unrestricted free agents don't have to/can't be protected.

Our roster breaks down as:
1. Francis
2. Yao
3. Mobley (probable-high value guy)
4. Jackson (probable-just signed multi-year deal)
5. Pike (probable-just signed multi-year deal)
6. Boki (probable-cheap and w/potential)

Unknown- Cato (is he truly worth his $$), Amaechi (not good contract value, but with only one year left afterwards, he's not sucking too much cap space; Yao is the only big man we'd definitely be protecting)
Likely not to be protected- Taylor ($$$/length), Moochie ($$$/length/suckage),

Don't have to be protected (UFAs): Adrian Griffin, Mike Wilks, Torraye Braggs, Scott Padgett

Two question marks are Malick Badiane and Kyle Hill- are we required to protect their rights if we want to keep them? That's something that's not too clear.

So we have 8 slots- I see 6 guys we should protect, Cato as a probable 7th. The question lies in if we want to protect either an Amaechi or Taylor, or if we'd need to protect Badiane.

If we want to protect Amaechi, Taylor, (ugh) Moochie, or will be required to protect Badiane, it may make sense to not extend Griffin, and take our chances with him as an UFA.

 

That's not a worst case scnario, it's a fantasy scenario; it's never going to happen; neither Eddie, nor the players union, nor his agent, will allow the rockets to pull a fast one by getting out of his contract scot free and going w/o payment for 2 years. He's not going to be in the hospital forever. Eventually, a month or two from now he is going to show up on the rockets doorstep, and he is going to say "pay me"

 

And Rockets will say "Are you in shape? Are you drug free? Are you coming to practice?" If the answer to any of those is "No" then they can't leave him without pay. Chris CHilds did not get paid for two years, right after he signed his contract...

 

NIKE -
I think I see where you are coming from. Great insight!

There are 8 players max which can be protected. So by not extending Griffin, he becomes unrestricted and the Rox gain an extra slot because unrestricted FA's are not part of the expansion draft. Therefore, the risk as I see becomes how much above $2.9m (the cost of the extended 2004-05 season) will Griffin cost on the open market?

Let's say in a worst case scenario, some team offers Griffin their entire MLE of $4.9m. The Rox with full Bird Rights can outbid them with a $5m offer. They have effectively paid $2.1m over the extended price.

IMO, what defines the success of taking the risk of not extending Griffin becomes - Is the protection of your 9th best player worth a possible (worst case) $2.1m additional cost to keep?

NIKE - With a 12.5% raise in Bird Rights contracts, is it possible he may even be cheaper than the extended price? 112.5% of $2.3m = $2.6m while the extended Rookie Scale for 2004 = $2.9m. Do you (or aelliott) agree?

If the above is true, I have changed my mind. The Rockets are not extending Griffin! It makes more sense to bid on him in the open market.


Here's a quote from the Charlotte Observer about FA's in the expansion draft -

"FREE AGENTS: Teams don't have to protect their unrestricted free agents. The rule is slightly different for restricted free agents, (for which a team can match any other team's contract offer).

If a restricted free agent is left unprotected, the Bobcats can draft him. However, that player would then become an unrestricted free agent - with no obligation to play for the Bobcats.

The team that lost him would be barred from re-signing him in the summer of 2004. Restricted free agents would count against the minimum 14 selections Charlotte will make in the expansion draft."

 

That we have not yet heard anything makes me think they will not extend. To extend, they must file something; to not extend, they have to just not do something. That it is already 3:30 with no extension says to me they're waiting for the option to expire.

 

That's not what happened with childs. He signed a two year deal, was suspended, played some last year, then negotiated a buyout and was waived.

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2003/0307/1519635.html

The Rockets cannot do what you guys want them to do and get away with it, not just legally (though I haven't looked) but practically. You have any idea what a bad rap that would send the current players iif management effectively held eddie's livelihood hostage for 2 years?

It is not a tenable situation.

 

NIKE -
Again from the Charlotte Observer:

"POOL OF PLAYERS: Each of the 29 existing NBA teams can protect eight veterans from the expansion draft. Any player not protected, who is under contract to an NBA team, is available to the Bobcats.

The Bobcats may not draft a player who isn't under contract to the NBA, even if an NBA team holds his draft rights."

It appears that Charlotte can't get to Badiane since he doesn't have a contract. However, if we bring Badiane in for the current season he will also be an unrestricted FA unless we give him multiple years. For only this season, we will have no Bird Rights. Better to leave him in Europe!

 

Griffin's deadline?

Isn't today (Fri the 31) the deadline for Griffin's contract to be extended?

 

yes, haven't heard any decision yet

 

Maybe this has already been reported:

610am just reported that the Rockets will not extend Eddie's contract.

 

If this is true, it makes CD look foolish. How many blunders have we had in draft picks lately? How many of our own picks have been cut by other teams lately? Collier, Langhi, Drew, Turckan, etc...

You would think that Griffin, would be worth more if he came back and played this year. Now if the Rockets want to trade him, they would be lucky to get a 2nd round pick. Forget about getting 3 first rounds back.

 

I just checked out 610's website and although they reference Thursday 10/30, they reference what I heard on the radio.

website link: http://www.sportsradio610.com/

From the SportsRadio 610 News Room...

Thursday, October 30, 2003 3:30 P.M.

. All Rockets last night at Toyota Center in their season opener. A balanced attack resulted in a 102-85 route of the Nuggets as all five starters reached double figures. Cuttino Mobley led the way with 21 while Yao Ming added 19 and Steve Francis 17. Kelvin Cato chipped in with 10 points, 13 rebounds and Mo Taylor scored 10 off the bench. A crowd of 18,189 turned out and went home happy as the Rockets reached 100 points, so everyone gets free Big Macs. Rockets host the Grizzlies tomorrow night on SportsRadio 610 beginning at 7.

. The Rockets will not be picking up the final year of Eddie Griffin's contract.