Mo says Houston is first option, but can't envision playing with Webber

Yes, and probably there was a reason for that .

 

No blindfold, just drunk typing glasses.


------------------
"norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."

[This message has been edited by gr8-1 (edited June 24, 2001).]

 

i say keep mo...and sign jerome williams from toronto to back him up for his lack of rebounding and defense. use them interchangably as teams present match up problems. let mo start, set a few early plays to see if he can get some early points and if his man gets the best of him defensively....send in the junkyard dog


------------------
In Tina, Janeth, Amaya and Amanda, i still believe!

Mr. 4play has spoken.

 

I like this thread

The first time I posted on this BB was to say nice things about Mo after reading too many threads about Mo bashing.

He definitely has room for improvement, but he's got so much talent. He probably won't be a superstar anytime soon, but he can reach all-star caliber one day.

BUT ... the one problem I see is if our stars (Francis, Mo, & Mobley) are all young, we're gonna need some veteran leadership. I'd like to resign Dream. Maybe another veteran with lots of playoff experience would help too.

------------------
Founding Father of the
Refs Suck Club

 

aelliott,

Can you explain to me how moving Richmond on draft day to Houston would lower Washington's salary? We have no cap space to give them on Draft Day.

 

This is an exaggeration, exemplified in Glenn Robinson's skills. Glenn is instrumental to the Buck's ability to score quickly.

There are MANY ways to attack a zone. The easiest way is to run fast plays before it sets. Given our speed, it is the Secondary fastbreak that we are set to exploit as our primary weapon against *any* zone defense made up of big men and slow shooters.

Plus, there is more than one way to start a fastbreak, the easiest way is for the primary dribbler to get the rebound and out run the defenders. The harder way is for a PF to throw an outlet pass. Fastbreak defenders are assigned to anticipating and intercepting outlets. The reason the outlet pass is exaggerated as being the key to the fastbreak is because the primary dribbler rarely is the rebounder in college. The outlet pass also is not really an individual skill as taught by coaches. It is a team play. The guards must run practiced patterns for getting open for quick (yet simple) passes. The Quarterback pass over the defense is not the way fastbreaks are taught. If you want to think in football terms, it is the curl pattern that frees the guard, or the comebacker. In both Kansas and UMass structured fastbreaks, the pass is meant to be easy. Same with Kidd and Magic as they always comeback for the ball.

The idea that a fastbreak requires passing ahead to a dribbler on the run for a layup, trailer slam, or 3ptr is a truth only in the eyes of a statistician. Statisticians do not count Secondary Breaks plays. These are quickly run plays when the layup or 3 ptr was denied, yet the defense is not set.

Secondary Breaks do not require great outlets. The require PFs like Glenn Robinson and Mo' Taylor who can pass, shoot and dribble, so the trailer can run a quick play before double teams can organize.

 

I almost think we shouldn't even really do anything other then on July 1st or the 18th say to Chris Webber "Hey you want to come or you just keep you're options open?" and then pump up Mo Taylor and have him come back hungry....I think that would due nicely at the 4 thank you.

Also if we can get Shandon to be the backup 2 and sometimes MAYBE let him run in the 3, then we will have a VERY solid bench without free agency or the draft...jesus, the 4 man deep backcourt is half the puzzle along with Mo and Kenny, with some enforcers and a starting small forward, this team is ready for battle.


------------------
-jbond77
"truth be told, my car is dead, and I'm having am radio withdrawl symptoms"

 

Can you explain to me how moving Richmond on draft day to Houston would lower Washington's salary? We have no cap space to give them on Draft Day.

HP,

Other than getting a 3rd team (with cap space) involved, they wouldn't do a deal on draft day. They'd have to agree to a deal and then select for each other. Then after July 1st, when we can renounce Hakeem, we'd be able to do a deal. Of course, that is all hypothetical because Washington would have zero incentive to do that deal.

------------------

 

Yes, and I am just now finding that promising to do such a thing qualifies as Collusion. What do you think of the definition of Collusion regarding promises on dealing with free agents before July 1st.

I believe promising another team that we will not only forego pursuing Dream but will indeed renounce his is a clear violation of the Anti-Collusion rules between two teams.

Here's the definition of Collusion.

I think this definition pretty much puts to bed any notion that we can promise another team that we will renounce Hakeem as a condition for a favorable draft day trade.

 

With Webber, Houston will be a team that can have 2 players in triple doubles night in and night out! Francis and Webber. Isn't that awesome?

However, I think keeping Mo could be as good to the team as getting Webber. Don't expect Webber to perform miracles in Houston. Granted he will have better coaches, arguably better teammates. (Do anyone really think that he will like Cato better than Divac?) With no disrespect to the city of Houston, Webber has got almost everything from Sacramento: MVP consideration and a great season. The only way he is going to be happier in Houston is going to be a ring.

On the other hand, Mo really appreciate this team. He is happy to learn from the coaches and like his teammates. He can help team chemistry. I think a happy Mo in Houston will do more for the team than a Webber who comes here just for the sake of playing in a bigger city.

------------------

 

KD Nice input, I could not agree more. KEEP a young and growing(basketball wise) MO TAY!

------------------
Keep Mo Ta & get Ta Mo

 

Aelliott,

Do you mind seconding my interpretation of the Anti-Collusion definition as regards us promising to renounce Dream as a means to lube a draft day trade? I would like cc.net to get to an agreement on this, since no other media source will say it.

thx

 

HP,

I'm not a lawyer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

To me that's just saying that teams can't conspire to restict a players options/fair market value.
That would mean that the owners can't get together and decide that nobody is going to offer Webber the max in order to drive salaries down.That's the exact type of "collusion" that the baseball owner's were busted for. Another example would be a case where I've got right of first refusal on a player and I plan to match any offer (let's say I have Bird rights). I offer you a draft pick for not making a contract offer to the player (and thereby driving up the salary for me to match).

Besides the fact that there's no explicit mention of agreeing to renounce a player, it just seems to me that the intention of those rules is to prevent teams from fixing salaries or gaining unfair advantage over a player in negotiation. The Early renouncement doesn't really help me fix salaries or gain an advantage in negotiating with a player. I think the early renouncement is probable closer to this month's case of Detroit compensating Orlando for not taking the Phoenix draft pick before 3PM on June 1st, than it is to the collusion examples in the CBA.

Regardless of whether it's covered under the meaning of Section 2, you still might be allowed to reach an agreement on a deal in principle based on the team (Houston) being able to get at least x Million under the cap on July 1st. In other words, don't directly tie it to renouncing Hakeem. I don't know if that makes a difference or not, but if you notice all of the examples in Section 2 affect a specific player.



------------------

 

Good read. You definitely are nailing the intent of that clause. It seems to be a clause pushed for by the Union.

However, I would say that promising to "renounce" and not sign a Vet is most definitely an "express" promise "not to negotiate with a Veteran". Further, by us renouncing Dream and signing Richmond, that indeed "implies" we cannot realistically negoatiate for Webber either.

In sum, a team may want us to eat salary in order to not be able to negotiate with Webber. On those conditions, it is definitely worth some value to another team to make us eat salary. This would take a serious bidder away from Webber and thus a part of his market choices. True, it won't effect his compensation, but his choice of teams, for sure.

I feel that Stern can let this go, but there are no guarantees. Plus, can't the Union force the System Arbitrator to take action without Stern. Probably if the Union does not complain, the league won't pursue it.

 

note: I'm just talking about using Draft Day picks in combination with a promise to use the Dream windfall on someone other than Webber. After draft day, the trades would be OK, just not tying them to picks.

Say, a top 7 team actually wants to pursue Webber and knock us out of the running. So they pursue a draft day trade that requires us to promise (implied promise) not to pursue Webber.

The Detroit example you use doesn't seem to regard players whatesoever.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 25, 2001).]

 

MoTay has great offensive skills and could be that 3rd nite-after-nite "go to" player needed to go deep into the playoffs. To me he has never really looked in good bball shape, he is soft. Losing those extra lbs and getting into better condition would allow him to play more productive minutes, gain quickness and be a more effective rebounder. If he stays, that should be his/team's' focus.

 

heypreciselyright!

secondary breaks require a true triple threat option to handle the ball.


you can get away with using your point guard in the scenario, but i'm with you on this one. i'd rather it be a 3 or 4 spot who is a true triple threat (shoot, pass, dribble). that player can either post or shoot the j (glenn robinson hello!).

it's funny, when you talk about mo tay, i see a cross between glenn and c webb. i just wish he would lean more towards one or the other. either lose some weight and gain some range and quickness (ala g-rob) or grow a pair of hairy ones and develop an inside presence (c-webb) on offense and defense.


as is, he's extraordinarily talented, but sitting on de-fence. if he'd just develop a consistent jump hook (l & r hand), it would be good enough for me. that could bring more balance to his game. but hey, he is only 24, and his game should still be growing.


i can't help but like the guy. if only he'd shave off that AWFUL patch-goatee.

 

I agree. Screw CWEBB. Let resign First Quarter Mo. I think we should resign him just for that. He was always getting 10-14pts in the first quarter. Big boost when the rest of the O was cold.

I am tired of these cat and mouse games and want a good young player like MoT at the 4.

3pointer , tell Mo the fans want him back the next time you run into him at subway...


------------------
Go Rockets!!!
SS