heypartner, Aelliott is a proven veteran and to send a rookie out against him is asking quite a bit. I don't think aelliott can be taken, so my $$$$$ is on the vet. Mango ------------------ The Serious Police are watching Donate Blood
Mango, how can you measure the potential of this. He's DaFranchise. But your right. DaFranchise: Start off slow like citing the FAQ, word-for-word, in italics as the definitive word. Only later, when something like our $4.5m exception seems utterly impossible to you do you then claim the FAQ can be wrong. Oh, and never say you are wrong or ever misunderstood the CBA. Just cite another clause word-for-word, in italics. Stay away from reading between the lines; it can get you in trouble. Sort of like not wanting to drive to the basket for a slam, cause you are worried about getting blocked.
My my... sniping from the bushes today, are we heypartner . I rather enjoy having a member of our board who has completely memorized the CBA! I want to see if aelliot can recite the entire text from start to finish in person . ------------------
If you look in the archives, you'll actually find a defense of Sam Bowie-basically, his career was ruined by injury, was the substance of the defense. That could happen to Mobley just as easy as a draft pick. You have to play the percentages. With Mobley, we know we have a good, but not great, player... but at a position for which we already have a good starter. We could potentially draft a more talented player at a position that we lack strength at (having many bench players at PF does *not* constitute strength). Which is a stronger lineup? PF KMartin SF Williams C Hakeem or Cato SG Anderson PG Francis OR PF Thomas SF Williams C Hakeem or Cato SG Anderson/Mobley PG Francis I'd rather have the first line-up. I also think it's easier to get talented guards right now than big men, so Mobley is more replacable. Like, if we could sign Rashard Lewis (a 2 or 3) after trading Mobley, I'd doubt he'd be missed at all. ------------------
First off, I'd be happy to go up against aeliott any time. Second, the trade is impossible which I showed from my earlier post. If it were possible, and Mobley made it clear he wouldn't re-sign, then I would do this trade in a second. Even if Mobley said it was a 50% chance I would make the deal. A #2 overall pick is a better bet than 50%, because for every Sam Bowie there is a Steve Francis. Finally, Rashard Lewis is not an option for us as a free agent. We have no caproom and our free agent acquisitions rely on the trade exception. The Sonics also have no caproom, so they are in the same position with Lewis as we are with Mobley. Therefore they can't do a sign-and-trade, meaning we can't use our exception. If we used our middle-class exception(2+ million) on Lewis, the Sonics would be able to match our offer and keep Lewis. Rashard Lewis will not be a Rocket next season, it is mathematically impossible. ------------------
Heyparter: He seems to take thigns very literally... is that a common trait among capologists? DaFranchise: We know all of this. We're speaking of a hypothetical scenario in order to assess different peoples valuation of draft picks versus proven players. ------------------
I just skimmed over all the posts and I guess I didn't pick that up, my bad. But I did get into that some anyway. If this hypothetical trade came up, I would make it. Mobley is hardly a proven player, but he has shown the willingness to improve. However, he has also proved to be a hypocrite. Remember all that "we" crap at the all-star break, now its "Steve would understand if I wanted money." A #2 pick may be a bust, but it also has a great chance of being an impact player. Especially with the Rockets past drafting abilities(though they don't have much experience in the lottery), this trade is one I would make. I also forgot, we have Shandon Anderson to play the 2, and if we kept Mobley he would have to play the 3. PS Will I ever be able to get rid of this "capologist" lable? I don't usually take things so literally and analyze them like an "expert", I am just giving my opinion. I also am new to this board and I'm not familiar with y'all and your writin. ------------------
DaFranchise: Wear the label "capologist" with pride... I wish I knew that much . Of course, I'm too lazy to actually read the CBA ... so I'll just get along with aelliot's tidbits. ------------------
Rashard Lewis will not be a Rocket next season, it is mathematically impossible. While I agree that it's highly unlikely that Lewis will end up a Rocket (and I've posted that in a bazillion other threads), it's not mathematically impossible. Seattle could do a sign and trade where they ink Lewis to an Early Bird deal of at least 3 years in length, and then trade him to Houston. It would never happen, but it is possible. ------------------
Ah man, aelliott, you're repeating yourself. I can't get any personality out of you. Your like a machine. 1. You haven't started a thread since Feb 24th (but only to quote a newspaper) 2. No responses in the personality threads like "Who in here works for the Rocket", "Who's an addict", "What is our Geographical Make-up", "What is BBall Experience. You are an enigma. I for one have infinite respect for you (aside from your failure to give me a High Five on figuring out the $4.5m when the board was saying it was impossible). Can we get a peek or glimpse at all. Maybe you really do work for the Rockets, and don't want to slip up with showing some personality. If not, take it to the hole once, you deserve it. Here I'll start...I got into capology because when it comes to complexities that dictate so much of what we talk about, I can't bare not knowing more about the rules. I searched the internet for the CBA and ran into LCs FAQ. Was glad to share my source with cc.net and am curious how many people found it through their own searches like I did. I was somewhat disappointed there is no complete CBA text available, but was pleased that LC is so thoughtful to return emails. I learned quickly that you must read the whole FAQ before you start to cite things...and probably read it more than once. I also learned that you must read between the lines and try to absorb the spirit of the CBA negotiations to come close to fully understanding it. In that spirit, I try to put two or three clauses together in create clever deals. My favorite one is to lower team salaries by trading for vets in their last contract year and renouncing them down to $0 before the FA market begins. I also like to think I have the pithiest description of the Salary Cap rules: A team over the salary cap may not sign any new contracts without exception. How do you like that aelliot? So, tell me how you got into capology. And why you obviously feel it is important to maintain accuracy 100% of the time, even if it means not testing the boundaries of the CBA limits. I am seriously interested in knowing more about you. I was disappointing in my thread regarding my gross mistake with restricted FAs that you continued to maintain a stoic demeanor and still didn't show me any "That's OK, the CBA still sometimes confuses me" or any friendly acknowledgement. You're like one of the few cc.net-ers I don't feel like I know at all. Calling you aelliott the capologist isn't enough for me. I want MORE, man.
partner, aelliott's been giving you props as to the exception in other threads re: the 4.5M I'll let you kids figure out the rest. ------------------
heypartner, I really do want to just get to know him more. Nothing up my sleeves. You're not going to start stalking me or anything, are you? ------------------
Aelliott's profile says he's a computer developer. I would have guessed he was a lawyer. It isn't just his obsession with the Collective Bargaining Agreement either. It's his obsession with accounting for everything within the realm of the possible (e.g., the ways that Lewis could end up a Rocket, though it is unlikely). You are very much like my father-in-law in that respect, who is -- or was -- a lawyer. This tendency could be credited to the sort of thinking required by computer programming and maybe that is it. But there is one other strange factor that convinces me that Aelliott must have his training in law. We know what that is. Huh? Right. Lhutz. People have been theorizing that Lhutz was someone's alter-ego: Clutch, Kagy, someone high-profile on this board. I have concluded that it is Aelliott. Think about it. Aelliott has almost no personality on this board, while Lhutz is nothing but personality. Moreover, Lhutz is everything Aelliott is not and vice-versa. This provides for a classical Jekyll and Hyde relationship. Aelliott is obviously living out his hidden fantasies in the persona of Lhutz -- or is it the other way around? My theory is that LHutz was once a very promsing law student. He graduated from a top school and had the world before him. But a flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long. He burned out and was forced to go into a more relaxing career as Computer Developer. He changed his name to Aelliott and thought his life would start anew. But the Lhutz inside him occassionally bubbles to the surface and rebels as much as possible from the Aelliott personality that has been forced upon it -- that is the Lhutz phenomonon we can now witness. Also, like tempra paints, true colors show through from beneath and, try as he might, Aelliott still shows the practices he learned in his legal training and thus his penchant for thoroughness. Aelliott/Lhutz, there is no need to respond to this. You can pretend it is beneath your dignity to respond. But I know; and I know you know I know. ------------------
But I was trying to offend Aelliott, not the Duke! (Actually, there is one way: you spell Eliot's name wrong. He got pretty pissed the last time that happened. I wonder why?) ------------------
You know why he gets pissed when you spell his name wrong? Because the sum of the ANSI-keyboard values in the letters in aelliott and LHutz add up to be equal. aelliott must have accidentally stumbled upon this in some homemade grep program he wrote that had a bug, and thought his code was speaking to him, or something. I think JuanValdez is on to something. Way to go java man.
