from BSKball06/25-PACERS WILL DEAL-JUST NOT O'NEAL- With the Pacers frantically trying to slide into the middle of the 1st round, there is some talk ongoing between the Rockets and the Pacers regarding Austin Croshere. Last year as a free agent Croshere was very close to inking in Houston, but unresolved concerns over the arena issue, and Indiana finally agreeing to negotiate, pulled Croshere out of Houston's hands, after Croshere made several visits to NBA cities. The Pacers are looking to land in the middle of the draft and apparently have a list of players, if Houston can snare one of the players at the right spot, come August when Croshere becomes a 2nd year base year player, a deal is likely to take place. Much like the Pacers did when acquiring Jonathan Bender for Antonio Davis. The Rockets have three 1st round selections, and in a year when they are being mindful of cap position, dealing off one of the picks, or packing 2 picks together has been a theme. There is real talk that Houston is hot for Eddie Griffin, and may be maneuvering to get at him at #4 through Chicago, who secretly worked out Dasagna Diop on Saturday, a player who might be on the board at 13. If the Rocket were able to make a deal with Chicago to land Griffin, for #13 and #22 picks, then select the right player at 18 for the Pacers. They could have a strong offseason. One player the Pacers are said to have labeled off-limits is Jermaine O'Neal, saying anything involving Jermaine would be a deal breaker. The Pacers have a few areas they want to address, one of them is getting under the luxury tax threshold, something liquidating Croshere would do. ------------------ Keep Mo Ta & get Ta Mo
Wouldn't having Griffin and Croshere be a little much? They both swing between the two forward postions, and having both would put Dan Langhi back on the bench. Didn't Rudy promise Langhi more playing time next season? ------------------
So he is saying we should give up all three picks for Chicago's #4, and Indiana wants to purge Croshere's salary. This three-way would require Cato to move to Chicago while Croshere comes here, thus Chicago would be the one that would have to absorb Croshere's salary. We cannot absorb Croshere's salary in a draft day trade. It would have to be Chicago. This is how I read the blockbuster part of the deal based on trade rules and salary math: Chicago gets Cato, #13, #22 (thus buying Cato's salary outright) Houston gets the #4 and Croshere (and spends the Drew trade exception) Indiana gets #18 and purging of cap room boy, Chicago must really want Cato for that to work. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 25, 2001).]
Hey-P, don't you read these boards? OF COURSE Chicago really wants Cato-- that trade combo is mentioned every third word around here.
The part that I like is where he says "Last year as a free agent Croshere was very close to inking in Houston, but unresolved concerns over the arena issue, and Indiana finally agreeing to negotiate, pulled Croshere out of Houston's hands, after Croshere made several visits to NBA cities. Due to unresolved concerns over the arena issue? How about concerns over the fact that the Rockets didn't have any cap space and could only pay him $2.5M last year? ------------------
It is the #23 pick, not 22. damn, look at that BSKball guy making me look stupid, by playing follow the leader. ps: glad to see you talking basketball BK. At least, I think you are talking basketball.
No kidding. #13, #23, & Cato... it's not a trade, it's a mantra. ------------------ "I had mine chewed off by a boss one time." -- Behad leaves us wondering if he gets hazard pay... [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited June 25, 2001).]
heypartner-would you agree this trade could be agreed upon draft day, to go down August 1? Similar to the Bender-Davis, it would have to wait for BYC to roll over. According to RealGM, both Croshere and Cato will be 75% BYC by August 1. Cato+Walt+trade exception=11 mill out 4.5 (BYC) + 5 + 1.1826 + 15% + .1= Rockets can accept 12.38499 back Austin Croshere+Derrick McKey=11.961039 out 4.47077925 (BYC) + 6 +15% + .1= Pacers can accept 11.4707077925 back ------------------ "I think alot of people find Cato's game to be very offensive." -aelliott, comparing the offensive skills of Kelvin Cato and Michael Olowokandi
NIKE--Your trade is off-topic. This rumor is discussing Indiana's intention to purge Croshere's salary at the same time they get a middle-round pick. Where have you done that? Also, you are not even giving them a pick. I suggest you start another thread with that trade scenario.
heyparty-I forgot to mention to sprinkle in picks however you feel. They make no difference $$ wise. Then in that midst, trading for Cato would make either Cato or O'Neal expendable in a S/T for CWebb, which is the whole object of their desire in the first place. Or they could trade Cato to Chicago for nothing, and purge the salary. ------------------ "I think alot of people find Cato's game to be very offensive." -aelliott, comparing the offensive skills of Kelvin Cato and Michael Olowokandi
NIKEstraying, where does this thread say ANYTHING about Webber, except in your reply. In fact, it mentions Indiana's desire to avoid a Luxury Tax. Why do you do this? Pursue trade speculation that has nothing to do with the trade scenario mentioned. Where do you mention picks, purging salary, Chicago or Griffin? Then you try to explain how you actually are on-topic by pretty much describing my 3-way in a weird convoluted manner involves 2 trades rather than my simple 3-way. I can always count on your to complicate matters. Eliminate Webber from your second scenario, and you have described my 3-way, which utilizes all the variables provided in the top post. ...I long for your next trade scenario.
Am I the only one here who thinks Austin Croshere is grotesquely overpaid as a result of a strong performance in the 2000 NBA Finals? Troy Murphy's better and cheaper. Ditto Michael Bradley. ------------------ "Oh No..." -Bill Walton in 97 just before Stockton's buzzer beater
I don't want anything to do with Austin Croshere. I remember during that beautiful triple OT game with Indy, he was being guarded by 1 of our guards (can anyone refresh my memory on who?) and all Croshere could do was 1 basket. If he can't score on players that are at least 30 lbs lighter than him and a few inches shorter, then I don't want him on my team. Dude's a 1 hit wonder, just like Ike Austin was... ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own... [This message has been edited by Band Geek Mobster (edited June 25, 2001).]
Also, they do make a difference when you are picking for the other team, then trading the players. So, actually your salaries are off, unless you can come up with a way to trade the pick before it is converted into a player (whether the player is one you keep or not). Note: one of the main reasons teams pick first then trade is so it isn't registered as trading your 1st rounder....remember the rule about not trading consecutive 1st rounders. You see, if we trade our pick (nothing $$ wise), then that straps us and the team with whom we traded in not trading our respective 2002 1st rounders. Teams just don't do that. They trade players on draft day, not picks....thus there is a salary differential. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 25, 2001).]
Webber comes in, as that was their reason for not trading O'Neal mentioned in the top poost, which ties in a circle to adding salary. And now we come back to historical precendece. Here's a quote out of Bender's NBA.com profile- Draft rights traded by Raptors to Indiana Pacers for F/C Antonio Davis on 8/1/99. So, as you can see, draft rights CAN still be traded as long as the player isn't signed. That's what I think you're saying. If you're saying unsigned draft picks have trade value, then I direct you to the bottom of #61 of the FAQ, which states: Draft picks have zero trade value for salary matching purposes. What round are we in now? ------------------ "I think alot of people find Cato's game to be very offensive." -aelliott, comparing the offensive skills of Kelvin Cato and Michael Olowokandi
For those of you who didn't read the personal section of Croshere's NBA.com profile: "Was an all-conference volleyball player in high school." I don't want this guy anymore. On a serious note, I would want him if we don't draft a SF. He could fill our hole at SF. But if we do move up in a draft and draft a SF like Griffin, forget Croshere. I'd rather have Griffin, and we can't have both. Like RocketFan007 said, that will just be too much. They're both are going to want to start, and they both play the same position. I know one of them can swing to PF, but we're most likely going to resign Mo, or maybe webber. Having them both on our team just wouldn't work out. P.S. Has anyone seen Croshere try to spike the ball in the basket, or set up an alley oop in a peculiar position? ------------------
NIKEstrayingWayOffTopicNow, I am saying if you trade for a drafted player, signed or not, you are receiving a salary hit. Make that work in your trade, you aren't doing that now, especially considering the no trade value (that everyone has known about since the Francis trade) You are confusing trading unused future 1st rounders with trading a player's draft rights. Only unused future 1st rounders have no $$$ effect on salary. There is a difference between trade value and salary cap hit. In your words, "Do you want to go look that up"? So you want to try to make your trade work now by moving the #4 pick. And do you want to explain how Cato helps Indiana land Webber and purge Croshere's salary. ...next
Note: one of the main reasons teams pick first then trade is so it isn't registered as trading your 1st rounder....remember the rule about not trading consecutive 1st rounders. You see, if we trade our pick (nothing $$ wise), then that straps us and the team with whom we traded in not trading our respective 2002 1st rounders. Teams just don't do that. They trade players on draft day, not ....thus there is a salary differential. HP, That's not the way that rule works. Here's the explanation from the FAQ (#75): This rule applies only to future first round picks. For example, if this is the 99-00 season, then teams can trade their 2000 first round pick without regard to whether they had a 1999 pick, since their 1999 pick is no longer a future pick. But they can't trade away both their 2000 and 2001 picks, since both are future picks. Teams sometimes work around this rule by trading first round picks in alternate years. In addition, teams are required to have only a first round pick, and not necessarily their first round pick. So teams may trade away their own future picks in consecutive years if they have another team's first round pick in one of those years. So, once this draft is over, whatever we did this year will have no effect on our ability to trade next year's pick. The only way that rule would come into play would be if we had no picks in 2002 and we only had one pick in 2001. Then we wouldn't be allowed to trade the 2001 pick away. ------------------
Aelliott, We interpret this differently, apparently. Or you are thinking that I'm saying we can't trade the '01 pick since we trading Collier. That is not what I'm saying. I am making a general observation regarding why we seldom see teams trade picks before draft day. Take that Coon quote and substitite '00 for '99, and '01 for '00, and '02 for '01. This is still the '00-01 season. Thus teams are indeed wary of trading a '01 pick before it becomes a player, because that effects your ability to trade a '02 pick. Also, you are only considering the Rockets. If the Rockets trade with Chicago, they only have 1 pick in '01, right. Chicago will refrain from doing that, so they will pick for us and we will pick for them.
if you trade a pick(s) for a pick you haven't hindered your ability regardless. My understanding is that a new 2 year cycle starts as soon as the draft is over. Anyhow, if we only consider the Rockets scenario, we have 3 picks anyhow, so trading one away, no matter if aelliott's understanding or heypartner's understanding is correct. ------------ partner, If you're trying to say that the other team has to fit in the salary in the trade, as I said before, that is incorrect. If not, I have no idea what you're trying to say. If you'd like another example, in your words, historical precedence, how about last year, where Dallas traded Orlando a future pick, and cash for the draft rights for Courtney Alexander. Since Courtney Alexander was unsigned and had $0 trade value, they could do that. Quote Alexander's profile . Rights traded to Dallas Mavericks for future first-round pick and cash on 6/28/00. THAT is why most deals aren't announced until after the pick, even if they are done. As for tying the Webber-Cato-O'Neal-Croshere connection together, the whole point of the article was partly based on Indiana having the hots for Cwebb, and not parting with Jermaine. Many people on this board think we can include Cato as part of a sign and trade for Webber. Indiana could also elect to keep Cato and trade O'Neal in a sign and trade, as one of the main reasons they won't/wouldn't is their other centers are Zan Tabak. They are hoping to purge Croshere's salary, and purging either O'Neal or Cato's salary in place is equal. Why are you pursuing the off-topicness? ------------------ "I think alot of people find Cato's game to be very offensive." -aelliott, comparing the offensive skills of Kelvin Cato and Michael Olowokandi [This message has been edited by NIKEstrad (edited June 25, 2001).]
