oeilpere: You wrote something like this in another post, making it sound as if we have to use the $4.5million exception or that it is advantageous to us to use it. It doesn't hurt us to just let it expire, and walk away with more cap space next summer... ------------------ "At least I screw sheeps..." - Corey Benjamin of the Clutch BBS. [This message has been edited by thacabbage (edited August 17, 2000).]
I have to agree with Cabbage on that point. Having cap room is good for landing free agents but it also allows us to get involved with trades. The 15% rule and maybe the base year rule would not effect us as much since we could possibly take back more salary then we give.(Nikestrad can elaborate if I am correct about that) However, if I could trade the exception and Drew for Mo, I would do it. If we do not get that deal done that I would not be disappointed. ------------------ Fuggetabout it
cabbage: Agreed, but you have to play the (limited) cards when you have them. Cap space is promising (Orlando) but their are too many variables to count on it. C. Webber may seek the peace of the East. A. Davis is probably too old to willingly risk the twilight of his career on an up & comer. Dikembe is probably the same way. Their is alot of promise in Dallas for Finley. Shandon Anderson probably expects a payoff this up coming year given his option... and he'll have to be settled or waived before a top FA can even be approached. I'd take advantage of the tools... besides, the Rockets could do alot worse than Maurice Taylor at the PF spot (Kenny "I'm an outside player" Thomas, Jason "softer than CriscoKidd's butt" Collier come to mind). How much better can they do? ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
Sorry to side-step a little, but I'm relatively new to the BBS. Who is Doc Rocket? Just curious. He seems to hold some unusual esteem among you. ------------------ "Have we not here the best cards in the game to win this easy match played for a crown?....." Bill Shakespeare
He's that guy that looks like Pee Wee Herman on the Rockets' bench. (Just guessing) ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
Doc Rocket is one of the prime sources of Rockets info here at Clutch City. ------------------ Looking for next year's Dan Langhi? Draftsource.net Sign Mo Taylor. Bench Kenny Thomas. Vote in the 64 player 1 on 1 NBA Tournament! (Championship) http://bbs.clutchplays.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000991.html
Having the exemption expire does not increase our cap space. It is a perk from the Quitten trade. By letting it expire does not mean we get the 4.5 mill added to the cap space next year. I am fairly sure about this but I have been wrong before. Either use it or lose it. It seems to me that you should try to use it. ------------------ Houston Rockets Forever!! In Rudy We Trust
mumu-Correct. But, we would still have likely 4-8 mill left even if we use the 4.5 exception. ------------------ The Serious Police are watching. Follow the rules or be assimilated. Shandon is underrated.
oeilpere, What are the options of the other 2 players you mentioned as possibilities in a potential sign and trade? Are you talking about us adding two players, such as KT and Rogers, or some combination on both sides, such as Drew/KT/Cato for Kandi/Taylor/Maggette or some such combo? I know you'd like to see Williams go, but I doubt they'd want him at his price, in leiu of their management style. Have you heard anything or have any educated opinions on who the other players could be? ------------------ the more I know, the more I know I don't know...
Having the exemption expire does not increase our cap space. The exemption expiring doesn't increase our cap space, that's true. But what he meant was is if we use the exemption to sign a player such as Taylor, then that $4.5M will count against the cap and that's $4.5M less that we will have next offseason. ------------------
Olowakandi more than likely WOULD NOT be traded with Taylor, due to the differences the 2 have (Taylor calling Kandi out). Why would the Clippers want to take some extra players? They'd have to be giving others up (I want my Maggette .....eyepop, is he available). I'd gladly give my trade exception, KT, Drew, and cash for Mo and Maggette. ------------------ The Serious Police are watching. Follow the rules or be assimilated. Shandon is underrated.
The damn Clips sure drive a hard bargain don´t they? I´m still hopeful that we´ll end up with Mo and even dump some baggage while doing it. If luck smiles upon us, maybe even steal a valuable player from them too. (like Magette or Nesby) Hey, a guy can dream, can´t he? ------------------ "Behold the coming of the Almighty"
Dennis2112: What I meant was that we end up with more cap space if we let the exception expire, rather than use the exception. Achebe: I understand all of that, but what I meant is that the way Oeilpere said, "...who would help us use the $4.5M trade exception..." it sounded like he meant we need to use the exception, or we should. I'm not talking about "if we" or "if we shouldnt" use the exception. Sorry, it's hard to explain what I'm trying to get across... NIKEstrad: Why would the Clippers give up Maggette or any other extra player of value? They don't even want to sign-trade Taylor in the first place. It would take a great deal of persuasion for them to even sign-trade Taylor, so I can't see them giving more up. That gets them nowhere. ------------------ "At least I screw sheeps..." - Corey Benjamin of the Clutch BBS. [This message has been edited by thacabbage (edited August 17, 2000).]
Oilee, Saying the Clippers are not interested in a sign-n-trade shows in-the-box-thinking. What you are missing is the 3-way deal scenarios, or hell, the 4-way deal scenarios. If we have to ship Drew as you say, that does not mean the Clippers have to get him. The clippers could be targeting someone entirely different from another team. Like Ruben Patterson for a 1st-rounder as the other piece (just as an example). The point is: the Rockets and the Clippers are key to the puzzle of any monster trades. The Clips have Mo, cap room, and their always attractive draft picks, the Rockets have a $4.5m exception and multiple picks as well. This deal could land ANYONE at ANY price in the league because of the spending money the Rockets and Clippers bring to the table. Hell people, I could see Mo to Seattle, Ruben here and multiple picks to LA resulting in more cap room for them and more picks next year. (Add trade fluff where needed.) Last night, as experimentation, we even worked out a legal deal to purge Seattle of Baker's contract as compensation for Mo, popping out an $7-8m trade exception. Trust me, salary matching is not a problem in any 3-way deal involving the Clips and Rockets! THIS IS THE POWER OF THE TRADE EXCEPTION that popeye helped me realize way back in May! As less and less teams have cap room from the closing of loop-holes, teams must seek out trade exceptions to do salary matching. If we are going to speculate....at least think BIG...it's funner that way!
I don't know anything about trade exceptions, but what good is a $7-8 mil trade ex going to do if teams aren't willing to do sign and trades with big name players? I mean Indiana couldn't use theirs and we are having a hell of a time utilizing our $4.3 mil trade ex. Also, how can LA take on the exception with them being so far under the cap? Wouldn't it have to go to Seattle in such a deal(which wouldn't benefit us)? If that is the case, they couldn't take MO and the $4.3. Like I said, I know nothing about this stuff. Can someone clarify this? ------------------ Don't you have anything better to do?
Dang! Where to begin? Playing with a new PC and the Netscape 6 and damned if I am all thumbs tonight. Cab, old friend: My point is three things - 1. they have an exception and want to use it . 2. there is a limited time to use it and it is getting shorter(they have been attempting to use it since BEFORE the draft) 3. this is the best deal out there right now If you accept the first two points the third is merely academic. et al: It never was a question of not using an available exception,with the only reason to letting it go being BECAUSE they it would cut into next years cap space. Granted, there is obvious advantages to not spending cap space, but guys, if it was a greater advantage than disadvantage in NOT USING IT then the best team every year would be the one that would spend the less money. And that never was the case (Clippers?). Les will spend money to win. He is committed. They have the exception to use if they need it. They need some spots filled. It is no big crime to let it waive, but what advantage is in that for this season? Without soundimng too critical, this board spends an inordinate amount of time worrying about the nickels and dimes of next year moves and misses (Cap Space) and miss the committment of the 2000-2001 Rockets Organization to improving this year's team. (Please don't argue that this is done at the expense of cap space next year, because every player signed through next season is at the expense of next season's cap.)
HP Sauce Almost assuredly if the Clippers are to be involved there has to be something in it for them. They are pretty satisfied right now. They are the hard sell. The stumbling block. So, just as assuredly, the likely involvement of a third party would be needed to move the proper players around to make it worth while for them.
An excellent little parable regarding the value of cap space: Remember the three-way trade in February that sent Kukoc to Philly, and Larry Hughes to the Warriors? Jerry Krause had a choice in that deal -- he could keep Hughes (and Billy Owens) himself, or ship them to Golden State for the #7 pick and John Starks' expiring contract, thereby gaining an extra $4M in cap room. Well, we all know that Krause chose the cap room -- it was vital, in his mind, that he have $20M in cap room so he could sign two top free agents to maximum contracts. So Hughes went to Oakland, where he averaged 22.6 ppg the rest of the year. But not only did he not sign two of the main free agents, he didn't sign any of them. Why not? They didn't see enough talent on the Bulls' roster, and they didn't feel $9M/year was worth pulling the wagon alone. Some of the SFs who looked at Chicago (such as Tim Thomas, and McGrady) might have taken them more seriously, though, if they had not only Brand but Hughes as up-and-coming stars, don't you think? But Krause was too much in love with that extra $4M in cap room. <u>The moral</u>: Get the talent first. Worry about cap room later. Or, as they say, "A bird in the hand... " ------------------ [This message has been edited by Swopa (edited August 17, 2000).]
RocketPimp The exception I suggested was for Seattle. I'm with Oilee. It rhymns with Heypee. The exception is GOOD. With one, you should aggressively tell teams you have great flexibility in matching salaries in trades. You ask, not many teams are willing to sign-n-trade big time player..... Pimp...willing is not it!!! They CANT! It's not that they aren't willing, it's because salaries DONT MATCH most often due to base-year compensation crap. They mostly need a 3rd team to make it work. Hell Coon's FAQ has a question titled, "Why does it seem sign-n-trades always involve a third team." The third team must have cap room or a trade exception to make the trade work. So, it is very simple. If you have cap room or a trade exception, teams often come knocking on your door to help them make trades. That is a nice position to be in! You say: hey guys, I have a trade exception to make this trade work, what do you have for me. I'll take some stiff to help you purge salary, if you give me that 1st rounder next year. Or, Mo wants too much money, Seattle you take him, and we'll take Patterson (plus matching fluff) and give the Clips one of our choice 1st rounders next year. This is why I study the CBA. So I can have more fun speculating than you....hehe.
