I would think that Les has had the policy since he has first owned the team. Yet this is the first time I remember it being a big deal.
Gotta give you your props on this one. You sure nailed it. As for the notion of the Rockets actually having a decision making process, sorry, I don't think one exists over there.
The good news is that we don't ahve to sit through another season of Van Grumpy ball, we have V-Span, the savior, signed for next year, and Bonzi may come back cheap. All that, and even with Mike James we weren't getting past San Antonio this year, so...good news all around, I think?
I sincerely doubt that Leslie had such a policy until James asked for one - Les appears to change his mind on a whim about what he wants to do. PETA anyone?
You think MJ was the first player to ask for a trade kicker? It was reported that the Rockets do not give kickers as a rule. If that isn't true ok , but this is first time I have heard someone disputing it.
James is not god, but he is the difference between us and Utah. We could've been much better with MJ coming off bench. Much better. Anybody argue that? Zone or Tmac or Yao, whatever you people came up to pin the blame on. Ok, do yall agree James could be the difference over Utah. I am not talking about over the top, just over Utah. Now if you say we get rid of Jho's contract by bringing in James this year instead of last year. I say BULL to you. Howard wasnt all that bad. Remember Zboy went in hiding mode for almost the entire season because who was doing well. We needed Jho as matter of fact. Novak or Hayes couldnt man PF in NBA live for us. Battier is not a 4. Now you say JVG turned down the deal for MJ Jho swap in the middle of the season. Yeah, what else was he supposed to do. Sub himself in to play the 4 for us? Remember Yao was still out indefinitely at that point, we needed Jho's service. Bottom line is the MLE went to 3 non-rotational players, which was a total waste(well I will spare JLIII for several games). It was just pure dumb. JVG wanted MJ bad and camped out of his house midnight like a little girl stalking superstar. At the end, JVG was robbed, and Rox was robbed. There's no spinning around it.
It's also the first time we've heard of this longstanding policy - if you can think of other instances where the "trade kicker" was sought and refused accordin to this longstanding policy - you've got more info on it than me. edit: Just a little googling indicates that plenty of teams give out trade kickers - by not giveing them out but isntead offering to take them on, aren't the Rockets really shooting themselves in the foot? I need to think about this more and could use the help of a behavioral economist.
This tells you at the beginning of the season, JVG actually realizes the weakness of this team. Alas, CD does not really fix it.
Well I emailed Fran Blinebury and asked him if this was really Les A's policy and if there still is a kicker in a player's contract after a trade is made. His response was: So Mike James no longer has a trade kicker. No Rocket has had a kicker since Les A has owned them. Also, if MJ knew this then it was ridiculous to demand it.
That is not much of a response - again it doesn't show much evidence as to whether or not it's a longtime team policy. And question, what is worse for an owner - a guy with a 1 million dollar contract plus a 100k trade kicker, or a guy with a 1.1 million dollar contract? I know which one I would choose if I were an owner, and I know which one Leslie chose - and they are not the same thing. If Les were making a "policy" decision about trade kickers - in an economic sense - my impression is that he woudl take a stand against acquiring players with trade kickers - which would effecitvely render trade kickers worthless, rather than taking a stand against giving trade kickers. I am going to email tim harford, the "undercover economist" about this.
Ok, If you don't want to believe Les doesn't give trade kickers I guess you do what you gots to do. It depends how many years the contract is. The total trade kicker amount is applies to that season's team salary. So the team taking the player has to accept that. It makes a player harder to trade compared to just a higher salary with no kicker.
Among others, Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett have trade kickers. Let's say they play for the Rockets way back when their last contracts were up - does Les grant them trade kickers? Or does he cite longtime team policy against it?
I don't know. It would be interesting. Maybe only the MJs of the world would make that big of a deal about it. He claimed that it wasn't about the $, rather the job security. He didn't want to be traded again. Funny how that changed in a year, and he came willingly back to the team that he just turned down. The guy is kooky, but the Rockets could use some it on the court imo.
Let me clarify one thing that I already responded to but did not make entirely clear, My problem is that this is almost unacceptable to me in rational economic terms, which is why I just emailed that guy about it. The internal calculus, which as far as I can see it, says that James@5 m + risk < James@6m + risk simply makes zero sense to me on a rational basis. But then again I am not adding in the "less Howard", so who knows.
Ding Ding. You can't look at this trade in isolation of Howard if you are looking at it in economical terms. James @ 6 <<< James @ 5 + Juwan @ 7 Now Les didn't give the trade kicker AND saved $6mil a year. Les came out smelling sweet ...financially. The team, not so sweet.
But that's not the entire calculus - you didn't factor in the James money from lsat year which went to Wells and Span (for nothing)- nor did you amortize the final year of James deal (IIRC he's got one more year than Howard, no?)
He will make a nice expiring contract in that last year for a big trade if needed. Juwan would have continued to bog us down on both ends even worse for the next 2 years. It's a great trade.
That's true. But picking up Bonzi and Span for "nothing" is a GOOD thing if they get traded later for additional value or if next year they play really well. Generally, more assets is better than less assets. Picking up Span and Bonzi is only a bad thing if both players continue to suck and they stay here for the duration of their contract. So now, we have 3 assets on the team (James, Wells, Span) as opposed to just James if we'd have only paid James last summer. So yes, Les, might be out more in TOTAL $ but the NBA isn't judged that way. They think more in terms of ANNUAL $ since few players stay for the term on their contract anyway. So last year is water under the bridge. For THIS year, Les dumped one rotation player for another and saved $6mil.
I think the math is starting to get a little off. Had we signed James last summer to the deal: James' deal: $5,215,000 $5,632,200 $6,049,400 $6,466,600 -->$23 mill & Juwan: $6,392,100 $6,883,800 $7,375,500 -->$21 mill -->$44 mill on the books (assuming they made it through the life of both contracts) What we have is Juwan, Spanoullis, Bonzi this past year (sum total $10.3 mill) and moving forward we have James, Spanoullis, Bonzi (sum total for the length of the deals: $24.1){further assuming we option Span for yr 3 and James/Bonzi take theirs} -->$34.1 on the books Had we not made this trade, it would have been Juwan, Spanoullis, Bonzi -->$31.2 mill on the books So: compared to signing James last year and having him & Juwan (minus Bonzi and Kill Bill), this works well for us economically. The deal in and of itself cost us money if you just look at it from this point forward. Evan
