The carrot? The carrot is Hakeem, when they otherwise couldn't get him due to salary issues. Remember, Hakeem would get to pick any team he wants once he clears waivers. The deal could be arranged, as long as aelliott doesn't turn us in. I'm not talking about a major rookie or anything. Contenders have a way of unloading rookies for immediate help, this year. No?
Why do you say this? You saying he could force it by saying Francis and Cuttino are gay, Rudy drinks during the game, and he agrees with Pippen and thinks Barkley had a big ass, too. Sam, Question? Under what scenario would you release him for nothing? Would you try the trade and waive (arguably illegal) maneuver?
HP, you're not too far off from what I was thinking. Dream's got a solid, nigh-untouchable rep among the community and fan-base. As you know, he (allegedly) threatened to raise a stink when he was almost traded a couple of years ago, and the Rockets caved. Les isn't going to want the negative publicity inherent in a Rockets/Dream feud. I think if he threatened to say the wrong things if he wasn't released, the Rockets would let him go rather than poison their locker room and their public image. Heck, frame it the right way and it almost looks like a noble gesture, letting him leave so that Dream can pursue a final championship ring with a contender. Personally, I don't want to see the team release Hakeem before the offseason, gratis. I really don't want to see him re-signed to any sort of sizable contract, either. My hope was a farewell tour, parting words, maybe a front-office (VP) job for the man after he retires. But if we could pull off some sort of handshake (NOT documented) deal like you propose, I'd go for it. ------------------ "Thirty-seven?" -Randall, Clerks www.clutchtown.com [This message has been edited by SamCassell (edited January 16, 2001).]
Hey if we take this thread to 400 we're definatley going to make a blockbuster deal!!!!! ------------------ The guns are cocked and the soldiers are in place, it's time to march and let the battles decide the war.
Okay, here's my contribution. I feel better now. ------------------ "He fouled me every single time I was over the rim ... I'm going to lift weights tomorrow and get my legs stronger so next time I play him I'll put it on his head five times." - Steve Franchise
Last questions just for your personal opinion:If we can't make a trade for Dream, because of his salary, would you release him or keep him? If you release him and try the trade, what do you think Stern's penalty would be. HP, Unless we get a player that going to be in the rotation within the next couple of years, then what's the point? We won't have many roster spots available next year so why take up space with a guarenteed contract of a marginal guy when you'll possible have a big name free agent to add along with 1 to 3 draft picks? As far as possible punishments, it would most likely be lost draft picks, but I have no idea how many. But, again I'll ask, why take a risk to acquire a marginal player? ------------------
Okay, HP, I'm on the wagon now. I never thought they'd do it, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Who would have thought- cutting Hakeem? I think after releasing Hakeem, and then team X signs him, we suddenly get a nice rookie for our bench player would be waaaaay suspicious. I certainly think the Augmon thing was a 'handshake deal', but it was far easier to cover up. Tons of players involved, two others were released along with him... just not very noticeable. If, for instance, Vancouver signed Hakeem, and only weeks later we got their stud rookie for Rogers, (I know, you didn't mean a total stud rookie, but stick with me here.) that is just too obvious. Stern would be called out as a hypocrite to crush Minn but leave Van and us alone. How about this: We are owed first round picks from several teams: Vancouver, Chicago, Orlando, Detroit. They all have some rules of protection. Some of those rules allow higher picks than others. I don't know the specific protection rules, I think Davo has a resource on that. But how about this: Vancouver signs Hakeem. They get some first rounders in a major trade involving SAR. Now, before they got Hakeem, they would have given us a 20-30 first rounder. But in this situation, maybe they would consider giving us something much nicer, just beneath the rules protecting their pick? I think that would be far more crafty, and less noticeable. [This message has been edited by Nolen (edited January 16, 2001).]
Hakeem wants a trade or to be renounced! according to Fox news tonight. The secret is out. I sure will miss him. Rocks ------------------
Quick question, guys. Do you think that if Hakeem is traded, that we are going to get to see him play again? It seems quite sh!tty that he might be leaving Houston and we saw his last game played without even knowing it. We in Houston need that last game so we can all watch and collectively get something in our eyes. Man, this is depressing the hell out of me. ------------------ "Of course, everything looks bad if you remember it!" Homer Simpson
Quick question, guys. Do you think that if Hakeem is traded, that we are going to get to see him play again? It seems quite sh!tty that he might be leaving Houston and we saw his last game played without even knowing it. We in Houston need that last game so we can all watch and collectively get something in our eyes. Man, this is depressing the hell out of me. ------------------ "Of course, everything looks bad if you remember it!" Homer Simpson
Heyyyyy!!!!!!! my headline from last night made the front page!!! thanks, Clutch verse :veryhappy&blushing:
I guess what you are more concerned with is that Sterns might object to us getting anything back. Why? A one-for-one trade for an unproven player. What's the big deal? How could he ever attach that to the Hakeem waiver? HP, You're correct that I wasn't concerned about money, it was the fact that the true nature of the deal would be Hakeem and Rogers to team x for some rookie. That deal of course, wouldn't work under the cap, so you're circumventing the cap by the actions that you described. The difference between this and the Pippen deal is that there's no proof that Barkley had an agreement for future deals from the Rockets. In fact, at the time he took the deal, "everyone" said that Barkley had a handshake deal to get the max ($14M)the following season. Then in actuality, he only got $9M the following year, so he really didn't recoup the money he gave up. Also, that was before the Joe Smith precident had been set. Now days those type things are scrutinized much more than they were a couple of years ago. ------------------
