What I do know is that one team (Philadelphia) has their full MLE and plans to not use it, saying "there's nobody to use it on." It seems those teams with the MLE don't want to use it on Bonzi, because either the fear of paying luxury tax or they just don't think Bonzi is worth it. I think the market for Bonzi has truly dried up and if he doesn't want to pull a Sprewell (i.e. retire) he'll have to accept a one year deal to try to prove himself next year. But if the Rockets signed him to that sort of deal, wouldn't that be a good thing, because he'll be playing his hardest since it's another contract year?
Bonzi for the TE would be a great addition. He's a big guard that can post up and grab rebounds ( He averaged about 8 last season) and has a good outside game as well. He can also play the 3 for stretches while T-Mac is out, and he would be our third option on the court with Yao and Tracy. (13.6 in the reg. season)
I would be thrilled if the Rockets could actually pull this off, but would we still have any leverage left to sign another big man?
Who cares? I think we need another 5/4 myself, but if you can get Bonzi for that price, you jump all over it. Sactown would want a nice draft pick for the privilege of doing it. At least a #1, probably for '07, and they'd be trying to make it unprotected. Make it top 10 protected, and give us the option of the year (like our choice over a period of years, until the last year), and hell yes. Bonzi must be getting nervous.
The guy only plays hard every other game, he doesn't pass, and he's a bad in the locker room. That's why no one wants him. He'll sulk all year because he didn't get the contract he wanted. He's really not a nice person. Pass.
You'd be dumb not to make this move if it were available. At the very least, it gives you more options at the trading deadline if it turns out we really need a better PF. By the way, why does it say "big men" in the original post? Bonzi is a SG.
No, if he takes a 1 year contract he will be a good citizen and play his hardest all the time since it is a CONTRACT YEAR. You didn't hear any **** out of Bonzi last year for the same reason. He needs to be doing his best to get a nice contract, so he won't pull the crap from earlier in his career. I wouldn't bet on good behavior if he is signed to a long term contract, though.
A sign and trade deal has to be a minimum of three years. No way Bonzi does a three year deal starting at only $4.3 million, when he turned down 5 years $36 million from the Kings. He is supposedly looking for a one year deal at $3 million, and then test the free agent waters again next year. Basically, it is impossible to get Bonzi with our trade exception, straight up. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm "A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players who have been renounced, but cannot be made when the player is signed using the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual or Disabled Player exceptions. Sign-and-trade contracts must be for three years or longer, but only the first season of the contract must be guaranteed. The three year minimum (even though the last two seasons may be non-guaranteed) ensures that the new team will not acquire Bird rights to the player any sooner than if they had signed him directly, because if they want to give him a new contract using Bird rights then they have to waive him first, which resets the Bird clock." Sacramento is only about $3 million under the luxury tax, so this would also stymie a sign and trade deal. However, the Rockets would have an advantage in putting together a trade package, as they could take back a salary from Sacramento with their trade exception as a simultaneous "separate" transaction. For example, we could send Snyder, Mutombo, and Bowen, plus factor in the 25% rule, and take back Bonzi for a starting salary of about $6 million. This would put Sacramento over the cap; however, we could also take back Potapenko for $3.67 of our $4.2 million trade exception, with the net effect of Sacramento adding only about $1 million to its payroll.
Actually didn't Stromile Swift settle for less money so he could play with us, a potential title contender? We got him for MLE money, he could have gotten more with NJ, but he stayed with us....and looked stupid. If we could sign Bonzi with the TE by all means go for it. Bonzi would be a big help for our backcourt issues, I think a more pressing issue than back-up center...
I went with a wholehearted yes. If he plays like a man possessed going after rebounds like it's going out of fashion, ala 2006 playoffs, then we gotta steal. If he sucks, well, we can always trade him for size.
I don't like his attitude, and quite frankly am not a bg fan of his game either. I'll take a big pass on Bonzi.
Stro's mistake was in the summer of 2005 when he turned down $8MM/yr for 5 years from the Grizzlies. Just how much more than the MLE was NJ supposedly willing to offer him? The Nets went after Shareef, not Stro, and that didn't work out. Stro looked stupid because of how he played last season, not because he chose the Rockets.
No, he was made stupid for choosing the Rockets. They traded him back to the Grizzlies for far less than what they offered. His "stupidity" was going after glory instead of money, which made his contract ripe for the picking. The only person who's bunghole was sorer than CD on Draft Day was Stro.
I would be all for getting bonzi with the TE, but no way do I add a first rounder, especially in a strong 2007 draft. Plus there is no guarantee that Bonzi resigns with us and a #1 pick for a guy who plays one season is too much to risk. Offer the TE, and if Sac doesnt bite, then move on.
If you had read my post closely, I didn't propose using our '07 1st rounder at all, but a future pick, top ten protected, and with a period of some years before we would have to give it to Sactown. Not only that, but I would assume that it wouldn't have to be our pick, but could be a pick we aquired from another team. That kind of a deal in not uncommon, and we've done them before. It was pointed out (and I don't know if it's true, but will assume that it is for discussion) that the deal would have to be for 3 years, with the 1st year guaranteed. Could we have the 2nd year be a team option, with the 3rd a player option? Depending on how we worked it with the Kings, and what Bonzi was willing to do, a deal might be possible. Hell, it's all pure speculation about a player I assumed would be signed already with another team. It's only that he isn't, something surprising, that makes him worthy of any discussion. I don't see how getting him could do anything but help the Rocks this season, and perhaps the following one, depending on the deal. Personally, I'd jump all over it, although giving up a future protected 1st might be a steep price if it's for 1 year. Sorry, but the depth he would give us, along with Battier, causes me to salivate. I'll try to control myself, since it is very, very unlikely to happen.
I would rather have a TEAM PLAYER.....it seems like its all about BONZI and not a ring. So I will pass and once again say I would rather have McDysse as I pointed out in the trade thread.
I was just commenting on you saying Sac would want our 2007 pick and that I didnt think that was a good idea. I wouldnt include a #1 pick for any year though unless we had Bonzi signed for more then at least one year. If it was a three year deal then Im all for it, but I cant imagine Bonzi being okay with a three year deal starting at 4.2 million cuz he can only get raises up to a certain percentage which would limit the amount of money his total deal could be worth. I see him signing a one year contract and trying to get his money again next year. If we can pick him up for only one year and it doesnt cost us anything other then a free agent signing, I say do that. I agree with you about him being a big help to the rox and give us another 6'8 versatile player to go with tmac, battier, and snyder. All that being said though, you are right it probably isnt going to happen.
