Eight Players in Eight Days

I rather protect pike instead of letting him walk away. He gets paid less then 3 million dollars a year and is a shooter. He performed very poorly this year and that can be attributed to his first major ankle injury he ever suffered. Hes a proven shooter and he said himself that he never fully recovered from his injury. He is also very cheap and I wouldnt be surprised if charlotte took him, considering the need for shooters these days.

His salary doesnt even matter since we are over the cap. His presence doesnt restrict us in anyway other then he takes up a roster spot. We wont have any cap space until cato and spoon come off the books, which is the same year pikes contract ends.

 

I think Pike's role next year will be even more necessary and now he knows it and what he has to do. Next year look for more double teams. Pike aint goin nowhere unless someone wants him in a trade and I think by name alone people will be interested.

 

How much is next year's salary cap projected to be?

If we drop Mo Taylor (~~$8.5 million) or Kelvin Cato (~~$8 million) off the books, will we still be over the cap?

If not, doesn't that mean we lose our trade exception and mid level exception?

If so, then those 2 definitely need to remain on the protected list.

If not, put them both up for grabs.

 

Whether Cato is left protected or unprotected may depend on if the Rockets plan on using the trade exception to receive 7 mil. in additional salary or if they plan on using the full MLE on a player like Brent Barry or if they expect to make a trade involving Grant Hill.

I do not think Les Alexander is going to be too keen on paying a backup center, who’s role on the team will probably decrease next season, +8mil. per season in addition to all that extra salary.

 

I agree New Jack, but the beauty of the trade exceptions are that you don't have to use all of them. They do, however, give you a lot of options and flexibility.

The 7 mil exception could, for example, be used to facillitate a trade where the salaries don't match (e.g., Francis' ~$11.3 mil next year vs McGrady's ~$14.5 mil), so the Rocket's could send some money away, while taking in a little more.

The MLE exception could be used to pick up a role player that makes $2-3 mil a year (e.g., see if McDyess is willing to take a pay cut).

 

Leave Cato, Taylor, Weatherspoon unprotected.

 

The cap is defined as 48% of Basketball Related Income (BRI) so it varies yearly but seldom does it swing in the magnitude of 10%...usuallly +/- 4%. IIRC, the 2003-04 cap was ~ $43.5m so an increase of 4% means makes 2004-05 ~$45.1m.

Further, the Rockets currently have $51.5m committed for 2004-05. If either Cato or Taylor retired tomorrow, subtracting their ~$8m puts the Rox about $2m below a $45m cap. The Rox can (foolishly) renounce the MLE, the vet minimum and $2m of the Rice/Amaechi $6.99m TE to take the $2m in cap space. IOW, just falling below the cap does not automatically negate the exceptions.



For those that think CHA wouldn't take Mo Taylor and deal him, we will just have to agree to disagree. (Don't let me see any of you using him in a proposed trade ). Taylor is over-priced for what he produces, but he's a legit WC 16-5 guy when starting and a number of EC teams would love to have that kind of PF production. The Celtics are paying LaFrentz twice what Mo makes, Kurt Thomas will make $7m more than Mo over the life of his contract and is much older than Taylor, Joe Smith makes about $3m less per year than Taylor who would add some low post game to the Bucks who frequently used Kukoc at PF, Brian Grant makes $16m more than Taylor and is much higher-mileaged, Juwan Howard has similar skills and will make $5m more than Taylor over his contract....

 

Thanks Gater!

I'm no capologist, so I wasn't sure if the exceptions would be negated if we fell below the cap. Since they aren't, I see no reason to keep Taylor protected and little reason to protect Cato (he may have a little trade value).

 

Protected list:
Steve
Yao
JJ
Cat
Boki
Cato
E. Piatkowski
Padgett

Unprotected:
Mo
Spoon
A. Griffin
M. Wilks
M. Jackson

I think its essential for us to retain as much Value as we can. Granted Cato is a high-priced player to be playing out of position at power forward, BUT he is one of our best tradable assets. Teams would lovingly pay him 6 million a season for him to be their starting center, ala Phoenix, Memphis, Orlando, Seattle etc... Let's see what the market is for him; I believe we would find a nice surprise. I left both Spoon and Mo unprotected in hopes that one of the two will be picked up. If a trade isn't made for a distinguished power forward, the removal of one of the two salaries would free open a spot for us to obtain Antonio McDyess with the MLE. In a better scenario, it would be an asbolute lovely year if we were able to coerce Chris Webber from Sacramento for Kelvin Cato and Mo Taylor. Sacramento does need a center and Mo would fit in nicely into their offensive system. I don't think it's plausible but stranger things have happened. The only reason why I don't think it will occur is because of how well Brad Miller played this year, however, if I was to be in Sacramento's shoes, I'd consider that Webber wasn't at full strength this year, and Mo has far fewer years left on his contract. This will be a fun off-season.

 

What exactly does that mean?

 

A Mango sighting....



Nothing in and of itself but tied to the others players mentioned, it emphasizes that Taylor is not that expensive. Let me state it another way. There are a great number of NBA players whose total contract value exceeds Mo's $27m and they don't put up or exceed a consistent 16-5.

 

I agree with you Gater, but a consistent 16-5, the five rebounds is consistent with Mo, is not going to get us a championship at 8 million a year. There are far better values out there, even if it involves maximum money.

 

I suppose we will have to disagree.

Mo is scheduled to make nearly 8.5 mill next year- that'd be just about 1/3 of Charlotte's cap.

I don't understand your premise of comparing Mo's contract versus other contract's as far as their "life" value. That'd matter if they were planning to cut the guy as part of a deal, but if the guy can play, I'd take the extra year.

Kurt Thomas has 4 years left on his contract versus Mo's 3; what numbers are you using? Hoopshype actually has the 4 years of Kurt Thomas being roughly equal (~100K) to 3 years of MoT. I would take Thomas at 5.9 mill for next year over Taylor at 8.5 mill without a doubt.

Similarly, Howard is going to be making 5.4 mill next year. His contract has 5 years left; in your logic, that'd be equivalent to having Howard on an equal contract as Taylor (3 years), and then paying him 2.5 mill a year for his last 2 years.

Lafrentz is making all of 500K more than Mo next year; he just has a longer contract. I don't think you'll find anyone arguing he has a good contract.

I'd agree, if I were Charlotte and FORCED to take one of these guys, it'd be Taylor, but why bother taking Taylor.

But here's why I can't see Charlotte doing that- Do you pay Mo Taylor 8.5 million, or would you pay Kenyon Martin 10 million? I don't think K-Mart is a 10 million dollar player, but he's more of a 10 million dollar player than Mo is an 8.5 million dollar player. Substitute K-Mart for any other free agent if you like; perhaps Rasheed would like to go back to North Carolina, or they could roll the dice with Stromile Swift.

 

NIKE -
Where did I ever say CHA would keep Taylor? The entire premise is that they can easily trade Taylor's $8.5m contract for 2 or 3 smaller contracts. Just selecting Taylor as one their 29 possibles does not automatically add Taylor to their cap. They have to make him part of the 14 rosters spots. And since Bird Rights transfer, they could clearly, easily and surely be allowed to take Taylor as one of their final 14 roster spots and deal him with a prearranged deal. Case in point, Taylor to MIL for Jason Caffey (1 year remaining), a $1m SnT (like Daniel Santiago) and a MIL future 1st rounder works for both teams.

So what criteria do you suggest other than "life" value? In any situation where two players of relatively equal skills are being overpaid for production, the shorter-term, less valued contract is clearly more advantageous. Among many reasons is that with Bird Rights you can re-sign a player like Taylor to a smaller contract sooner.

Kurt Thomas has 5 more years to Taylor's 3 (Bender). Thomas is 4 years older than Taylor and will be 32 at the start of the 2004 season. The Knicks will paying Thomas Mo T money ($8.6m) when Thomas is 36. I doubt Thomas will be a 16-5 at the time. Another reason why I think "life" value is important.

Howard will turn 32 during the coming season while Taylor will turn 28 at the start. Your "2 seasons for $2.5m" are seasons Howard will turn 35 and 36 respectively.

For however much Taylor's next contract will be, by factoring in "life" value we have Taylor re-signing his next contract a year younger than Thomas and Howard are right now.

First, LaFrentz's "bad" contract didn't make him untradeable. And it woudn't prohibit Taylor from having trade value (again...my consistent point all along).

Secondly, LaFrentz and Taylor are roughly the same age. When Taylor is 31, his next contract is due. That same season, LaFrentz will be making $11.8m and $12.7m. Taylor will probably be making MLE $ over those 2 seasons.

Again, if you don't see the impact of using life value and age especially in this case, we will as you said "agree to disgree".

NIKE -
I'm not exactly sure what this last point is. If contract value were the only criteria, it follow that teams would protect only their cheap players and leave only big contracts unprotected. Since this statement is obviously incorrect, then there are clearly other criteria. Embedded within the other criteria are contract length and tradeability.

Again to repeat...it isn't about CHA keeping a player. It's about CHA moving a contract for cheaper, smaller and shorter contracts. And IMO "life value" will be a key evaluation criteria.

 

Even if they took back less than the 8.5 (+ or -) million and did it in smaller contracts, there would still be a hit against a small salary cap.

I thought J Caffey was released in training camp, so not sure how that trade would work.

If you think about the roster makeup of the Bucks, they have key players that are either relatively small and/or not known for being physical. My impression of the Pistons - Bucks playoff series was that the Bucks were physically overmatched and adding Mo to their roster won't solve that problem. I just don't see why the Bucks would be interested in Mo, much less give a 1st round pick for the privilege of picking up his contract.


<hr color=green>

I thought that J Howard was signed as Free Agent by Orlando, so how does a team having Bird Rights apply to a future Mo resigning scenario when he would be offered MLE money as you suggested?




<hr color=green>

Mo's stats seem similar to those of J Howard:

<a HREF="http://www.nba.com/playerfile/maurice_taylor/">Maurice Taylor</a>

<a HREF=http://www.nba.com/playerfile/juwan_howard/?nav=page">Juwan Howard</a>

Juwan was available as a Free Agent last summer for MLE type money, then what has changed that would have a team interested in <i>trading</i> for Mo this summer? Not swapping "bad" contracts, but actually sending things of value in return.

 

I guess here's the crux where we disagree.

I'm assuming you're saying (and agreeing) that guys like Jason Caffey and Daniel Santiago are not going to be contributors on the Charlotte team, and that they're just used as filler to help Charlotte acquire the future first.

Your case has Charlotte willing to eat the 7-8 million of Caffey and Santiago in order to get a future 1st rounder from Milwaukee. Teams don't pay 7-8 million for in all likelihood a mid teens first rounder. Look at Dallas a few years ago; they bought a lottery pick (#12, iirc) from Orlando for 3 million.

 

corby, he did say to protect wilks.