Right, if you pair Alvin Williams in a backcourt with Francis then he doesn't have to be the most pure point guard because Francis will still make his share of plays from the 2 spot. Williams would just need to take care of the ball, take good shots, and play D, all of which he is good at. I think this is definitely the veteran PG from the east they have in mind. His contract is almost identical to Mobley's contract and Cat would give Toronto another scoring option that they need.
WAIT...how are we gonna get Murphy again?!? Crawford and Marshall sounds kinda nice though. KINDA. Not that nice. All right I guess....be more specific about the proposed trade.
We don't get the 1st round plust the 2 second round picks in any scenario. The Bulls owe us a number one pick in 03 or 04 that must be their pick. The one exception is that the Bulls can protect the pick if it is a top 20 pick. In the event that we do not get the 1st round pick in 03 or 04 then and only then do we get their 2nd round pick in both 05 and 06.
How did you hear this on 610 last year when Moochie was a holdout in the summer of 2001? That's two years ago. Good memory if you are correct.
Guys Malone at 40yrs without John Stockton would flounder on the Rockets. He was a great player because of Stockton. We dont have any plays, never mind the ability to set him up for his established shots. We should not be crazy, our goal is to build a solid team that plays its own style of Team Basketball, it takes several seasons to develop the chemistry, once you have the right team players. Development would be slowed by taking on a two season high priced 40yr. old player. We should have learned from our mistake with Glen Rice and the 9mil/season.
Crash are you sure, this is not how I remember it, and it does not seem like a fair deal to the Rocks...why would Chicago ever give up a 1st if they can simply give up two seconds. I thought it was that they HAVE to give us a first and if it is not theirs, then they owe us 2 additional seconds.....where can we look it up? DD
This is a quote from real gm: When you go to real gm click on draft info and then look 'future draft picks, what goes where'.
Option clause or not, that has nothing to do with my disagreement with you, *at all.* Forget talk of a rumored 6th year option. If Moochie's not fully guaranteed, option or not, the Rockets can cut him at will for "lack of skill," although the Union would arbitrate that. With that huge assumption, your math works, in that the Rox would negotiate a settlement to avoid arbitration. In the environment that Moochie is fully guaranteed (as most young players are), then your math doesn't work (option or not) *unless Moochie agrees* to less pay. Like I've been saying, I think Moochie is fully guaranteed for several of his years. I believe you are saying the very same thing. You still haven't explained why Moochie and his agent would agree to be cut for less money than the fully-guaranteed portion of the salary. And if you are saying he has non-guaranteed years in his contract (6th yr option or not), then you are simply assuming to many things in your math.
Why most of you want to trade stars from other team? The problem with this team is that there are no enough role players. 2 all star players in any team is enough. Get whatever capable role players at positions other than 2 and 5 will solve the problem the has: Everyone is a ballhog, and everyone shot bricks one-on-one. Another problem is of couse the assistant coach problem. We want that Larry to replace this Larry.
I would take Brand for Mobley and Griffin right now! But later on, will we regret it? EG could burst on the scene like McGrady or Rashard or Jermaine Oneal! That would suck.
BTW, I don't think the deal was ever intended to give the Rockets a high or even medium pick for Bryce Drew. It was meant to give the Rockets a late 1st round pick but in the event that the Bulls continue to suck we get to early 2nd round picks instead of one late 1st round pick since Drew is clearly not worth a high 1st. Personally I like the 2 seconds since they are not guarunteed contracts and you have just as good of a chance of finding a good player at 40 as you do at 20. In most drafts the sure thing can't miss prospects are usaully gone by the 15th pick and quite often before the end of the lottery. By the time the 20th pick roles around we usually see teams going after the great athletes that under acheived or the not so great athletes over acheived or has some special characteristic like they are tall or that they can shoot the ball when open or that they can play great defense. Thats why we see players like Rod Grizzard, Quintel Woods and Gerald Wallace picked in that range. Great athletes with a lot of potential but for what ever reason did not exhibit the skill to warrrent a high first round draft pick.
The clippers have 9 free agents this year. They will not have to worry about accommodating 25 players.
i love griff, id hate to give him up. but if we are to make an aquisition though at the 4, i wouldnt mind seeing Brand, or Zach Randolf there.
terrible logic. Thats why the rockets are in the mess right now. Does summer of 2001 ring a bell Doc? Blowing 20 million in cap space just to "urgency to make playoffs". Instead of not paying taylor,rice,moochie,the rockets should have been PATIENT and waited a year or two for a better FA. Just like they should do now. Yeh,we could ship rice off for shareef or malone. But in the LONG run does that make sense? How bout just holding our chips,and in summer of 2004 sign tmac or Brand or kobe. Trade cato now for an expiring contract. cato(7mil) +rice (9mil) = 16 for tmac or kobe when tmac options out in 2004. I do know exactly what is going on behind closed doors with Les,cd,rt. They are trying at all costs to morghage the future to "sell out games" and "make playoffs".Id rather have 10 good-great years instead of putting all my eggs in one basket and trying to win the ring in just 2 years,with having to rebuild for years after that. two words you really need to remember for a lifetime--> pippen rice
hp - First - don't use "assume" as some sort of vulgarity. It was not a vulgarity when you "assumed" you would be employed for 15 to 30 years when you took out your mortgage. You based the decision to go into debt upon a degree of reasonability given what you knew to be true and guessing the rest. Second - In the absence of any authenticated information to the contrary, I am "assuming" Moochies' contract was for 6 fully guaranteed years. If you have verifiable information which is contrary to this, please provide it. Third - As mentioned previously, the reason(s) that anyone would take a lump sum amount over a future payment stream are personal and subjective. Here is the primary one. *** The Present Value of the lump sum is greater than the Future Value of that annuity (payment) stream. That PV has some discount factor similar to the Texas Lottery. IOW, why would anyone take the "Cash Value Option" if they won the Lottery? Because the discounted PV of the lump sum is greater than the payment stream. You do see the difference between a lump sum of $1m now versus $10m now versus 4 annual payments of $3.6m, $3.6m, $3.9m and $4.3m? If you don't understand this, then my explanation is a waste of time for us both.. There are at least two reasons Moochie and his agent take the lump sum over the future payments. First, that the lump sum has been discounted back at a rate lower than what can be had in the open market (the same reason someone takes the cash option in the Lottery where I recall the discount rate is 5%). IOW, if I can get more more than 5% in any other investment over the discount rate, I am better off taking the money now as it will grow to more than the payment stream. or There is a specicific personal need for that lump some to pay off some current debt which has a high annual interest rate (like an unsecured loan at 14%) or to invest in a venture that requires collateral now. These are not "assumptions"...they are reason why any fiscally knowledgeable person takes cash now over future payments.
for all the lets get Brand fans out there, we can't sign him straight (the Spurs might though) so it would have to be in a sign and trade and then his BYC contract complicates things this is what Gater said in another thread, relating to trading Steve, but the same situation applies to a re-signed Brand from Gater in (http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55313&perpage=30&pagenumber=3) One more point. The BYC classification does not make Francis untradeable...just difficult and probably requiring a 3rd team to "eat" some salary in return for something like an expiring or short contract and/or future picks. My understanding is that Steve will make around $10m in Year 1 of the extention (his BYC year). His trade value would be roughly $5m. So if the Rockets wanted to receive a non-BYC player making $10m, the Rox would have to find a 3rd under the cap team to take some Rocket player(s) worth the difference between Francis's ~$5m trade value and the ~$10M they will receive. IOW, the 3rd party team would eat enough Rockets' contract $ so that the Rox total would be within a % of what it was with Francis. As mentioned prior, the 3rd party does this for picks, expiring or short contracts. I suppose in a rare case, the 3rd party could do it just because they want a particular player. A cheap dirty example that is close $wise. Rox send Francis to NJ for Kidd. Rox send Cuttino and a 1st rounder to Denver (an under the cap team) to match salaries. Nets send Kidd to Houston (re-signed but not enough to be BYC). Denver sends a 1st rounder to NJ.
