<i>He wanted to be here, we did not offer a good faith contract only a low ball tender. If we had been proactive, who knows maybe we could have got him for a really low price like 20mil over 5 or 14mil over 3. But I get the sense the vast majority of ya'll Posey-apologists would still say "let him walk" for that amount</i> That's exactly my point. He's in Memphis because nobody else would offer him that kind of money. If a contender had been willing to make him that kind of offer, then no way he ends up in Memphis. He took the best offer and nobody else was interested at that price. <i>Most of the guys were signed while those teams were building towards a champion or championship contender. Building a champion usually requires the accomulation of players years before. If you and the Rockets don't have aims of being champions by 2008 or 2009 with Yao Ming at like 27 or 28 I'd say ya'll have pretty low expectations. </i> Those teams weren't looking 6 years in the future when they gave out those contracts that you mentioned. Detroit finished with 50 wins, which was 2nd most in the east the season prior to Billups siging his deal. The Spurs won 58 games the year prior to Rose getting his new deal. The Lakers won 56 games the year prior to Horry getting his new deal. Fox signed his deal after the strike season where the Lakers were 31-19, but Fox had already spent 3 years in LA playing under value and they had posted back to back seasons of 56 and 61 wins. Those teams were all light years closer to a championship than the 43 win, 4 straight lottery team that the Rockets were last summer. Like I said before, those teams were willing to mortgage the future of their salary cap in exchange for short term success. <i>If his contract was 22.6 mil over 4 years he would actually be a positive commodity not a negative commodity (whatever the proper terms for this are). </i> If nobody but Memphis was willing to pay Posey that kind of money as a FA, then why would another team be willing to now give him that money, plus give up a player or two? <i>Star money starts at 8 to 13 million per year for 6 years, not an average of 5.6 million over 4 years. 5-6 mil is adequate veteren starter money (like the host I mentioned before who are role players but nonetheless key member sof elite teams)</i> The way players are paid in the NBA it isn't a linear scale based on ability. In the current NBA, there is almost no middle class. There are high end guys and everybody else gets what they can. That's why you see so many deals in the $4M range. It's not neccessarily fair, but teams really have no choice because the high end guys gobble up such huge chunks of the teams cap space, they can't afford to pay the average guys a whole lot. The fallout of that, is that there are always role players, average guys and veterans available on the cheap. <i>On those Lakers championship runs they were paying Horry and Fox 4-5 mil, more than what Posey will be getting when you consider salary acceleration</i> How do you figure? For the first title ('99-'00), Horry made $4.8M and Fox made $3M. For the 2nd championship, Horry made $4.8M and Fox made $3.4M. For the final title, Horry made $5.3M and Fox made $3.7M. I'm not following the "4-5 mil, more than what Posey will be getting" reference. <i>Why didn't we start with Stephen Jackson even before Pike? He is younger, does more things, etc. I would have been happy to let Posey go if we brought him in, who like Posey could be around for when Yao most needs solid role players. I can't answer why the Rockets didn't pursue him, I am guessing chemistry concerns, can you?</i> That one is pretty simple. What has JVG been saying that we need since the day he got here? Shooters. He's continually said that we need to surround Yao with shooters. Piatkowski is a shooter. That's why he was signed. Admittadly, Piatkowski hasn't shot the ball well this season, but after a 9 year career as a great shooter, I don't think that he'll lose his shooting touch for good. <i>But let us see what Stephen Jackson gets this summer despite the concerns about his team committment and work ethic--something never questioned about James Posey</i> Jackson is another good example of a role player. He fit in well and helped SA win a title. So, what did SA offer him? $10M over 4 years. He turned that down, so what was the next best offer he got? A two year deal for $4.5M, with a player option on the 2nd year. So, Jackson's market value was around $2.5M, so why is James Posey worth $6M/year? What will he get this offseason? I don't know. His best bet will be to hope that a team way under the cap, like Chicago or Denver, can't attract any free agents and is willing to overpay just to get somebody. It would be the exact same scenario that played out with Eddie Robinson. Chicago pursued every big name FA and kept getting turned down. Once they struck out on TMac, they overpaid ($6M) for Robinson, just to get somebody. <i>Return to point A (we tried to low ball in stead of being proactive and got stuck in a tough situation) and add point B--at least Posey or someone like Stephen Jackson could be around when we are actually making a run for a ring</i> Why do you think that it's a bad thing to not be locked into a role player long term for big money? I'd much rather spend a reasonable amount of money on the Jim Jackson's of the world every 3 or 4 years. We've even got the opportunity to upgrade that position, instead of staying status quo. If Posey was locked in at $6M/year, then we wouldn't be able to bring in a guy that actually deserves that type of money.
Aelliot, I am not sure what your plan is. You seem to imply not signing Posey got us closer to getting substantially under the cap (SA model?). I know you are smart enough to realize we have to get more than the MLE under to make a difference in the ability to acquire players. Matching Posey or not, assuming we resign Yao for the max (we have to) we are not in sight of this as best as I can tell until Francis is off the books (08). That is well after Posey's contract would be done just in case you wanted to go a different direction than Posey at starting SF or back-up 2/3 and Posey's current contract made the difference in cap space. That is why SA was so careful with Jackson--they actually did have an oppertunnity to have usable cap space and singing him probably costs them the ability to resign Manu--who has a higher upside and already playing equal to him last year. Resinging Posey had no such implications for the Rockets on resigning other young players with greater potential at his position, besides, unlike Posey there are team and work ethic considerations for Stephen. Also, the vast majority of the elite teams since the salary cap has been in place have accumulated the best players possible to their disposal knowing they will probably never be under the cap while their key players are there. You say Horry and Fox ruined the Lakers cap space, the Lakers would not have 3 titles without them and would not have been under the cap without them either. Sac got awefully close to a title as well and Indy and Dallas (last year) made good runs too. In SA the stars aligned so they were basically able to chuck almost everybody (or keep all contracts on the same timing) sans TD, and we don't know how that will turn out. So far both their titles came on years they were over the cap. Even off a champion year and with a full max available they didn't bring anything more than what they could have probably brought in with an MLE, as the stars (Kidd, Oneal, Brand) stayed put. Additional notes: Posey's contract is for an average of 5.6 mil for 4 years, and starts like at 4.9. Saying he costs 6 mil a year rounds up 1.4 million and kind of ignores that 6 to 7 mil in 3 or 4 years will not be too distant from 4.9 this year based on typical NBA inflation. That (NBA inflation) is why his contract is very comparable to Fox and Horry during the Lakers runs, I believe Fox had an MLE contract and Horry a little more. In relative terms (based on contracts during those years) those contracts were at least equal, Posey a little cheaper than Horry actually. Do you not think if we were willing to match Posey and use some or all of an MLE on JJ we would be bearing down a 50 win season this year and possible a 1st round home court series (with much fresher and more reasonable MPG averages for SF, CM and JJ heading into the playoffs)?--and gunning for a high 50s season next year with a legitimate chance at a title (assuming adding another piece with the MLE and modest trade if necc this offseason). There is a difference from bottom rung middle class players (1 dimensional types like Pike that do have the usefulness but also glaring weaknesses and whom if you start you are in big trouble) from more well rounded middle class ones who for the most part are serviceable starters like Posey, Christie, (younger)Fox, (younger)Horry, Harrington, PJ Brown, Billips, Williamson, Mobley, Kandi, Kurt Thomas, Kenny Thomas, Howard, DA, Nesto, Rose, Barry, etc, etc. Some of those guys are slightly overpayed, some underpaid, most are about right. Still others are payed with those contracts that are total boons (that is why I brought up Redd). Vets who make exceptional 6th men or adequate starters typically get the MLE or more (I can't think of that many stars versus role players acquired through the MLE, can you???), the cheap exceptions are those who are old (JJ), have with major health questions, or character questions (SJ). Pike wasn't a bad signing, but he didn't even start for the Clips where Posey was the 1st or 2nd best player on the Nugs (granted if he is your lead player you are in trouble) and started for the Rockets--different caliber of player who were worth different level of contracts as the market beared out. While I agree JJ starting at 2.2 is steal (an upper middle class, though old, FA), if Posey (upper middle class) at 27 isn't worth a 4 year deal starting at 4.9, Pike (lower middle class) at 32 is certainly not worth a 3 year deal starting at 2.5. But I could be wrong with my fundational assumption (getting back to my 1st paragrph). If you are saying by not matching Posey we are quite likely to be like a 8+ million under the cap after 06? (assuming the MLE will at least be 6 or 7 where you have to be 8 under to make any difference) I could see where you are coming from. I still don't like the strategy as cap space has rarely materialized into big benefits, but I could see the thinking. But I don't think w/wo Posey we will be smelling that kind of cap space with Yao and Francis (or Yao and someone we trade for using Francis), and that would mean we put profits so far ahead of acquiring players who can help us win.
<i>Aelliot, I am not sure what your plan is. You seem to imply not signing Posey got us closer to getting substantially under the cap (SA model?)</i> No, I'm not saying that not signing Posey will get us under that cap. What I'm saying is that you don't overpay players unless a) you are Paul Allen, Mark Cuban or the Knicks. b) that player could put you over the top. <i>Also, the vast majority of the elite teams since the salary cap has been in place have accumulated the best players possible to their disposal knowing they will probably never be under the cap while their key players are there.</i> That's not true. The Kings just let go of TUrkoglu and Jackson because of the cap. They miss both of those guys this season, but even the Maloof brothers aren't immune from costs. Ditto for SA. They let Jackson go rather than overpay. <i>You say Horry and Fox ruined the Lakers cap space, the Lakers would not have 3 titles without them and would not have been under the cap without them either</i> Where did I say that Horry and Fox ruined the Laker's cap space? Shaq's deal pretty much took care any cap flexibility that they had. My point of Fox and Horry was that they signed lesser deals than Posey and they were also considered final pieces to put LA over the top. <i>and kind of ignores that 6 to 7 mil in 3 or 4 years will not be too distant from 4.9 this year based on typical NBA inflation</i> $4.9M = $7M in the near future? That's a 140% increasse. How do you figure that? The current CBA fixed the salary cap at a set amount through the 2000-2001 season. After that, the amount of the salary cap is set at 55% of the leagues's Basketball Related Income. In those years, the cap has been at $42.5M ('01-'02), dropped to $40.2M ('02-03) and is now at $43.8 ('04-04). So, in the three years since the cap was tied to the BRI, the cap has gone up 3%. Based on current NBA ratings, there's very good chance that it will actually go down over the next few years. Regardless, an assumption of a 50% inflation isn't realistic. If you were basing your thinking on the fact that salaries would increase that dramatically, then I understand your logic better, but increases like that aren't likely to happen. <i> believe Fox had an MLE contract and Horry a little more. In relative terms (based on contracts during those years) those contracts were at least equal, Posey a little cheaper than Horry actually.</i> Assuming that you're talking about the last contracts signed by Fox and Horry, neither were actual MLE deals. Fox's original deal with LA was a MLE, but you need to remember that the MLE was artificially set to a fixed number through the '00-'01 season (just as the cap was). That's why in '00-01, the MLE was only $2.25M. In '01-02, the cap was tied to a percent of the BRI and the MLE jumped to $4.5M. So, when Fox originally signed with LA, he signed for around $1.5M/season and played at that level until LA got Bird rights on him. At that point in time he signed for $3M. That's a significantly better deal (for the team) than what Posey got. Horry was acquired via a trade and LA used Bird Rights to resign Horry, who was an integral part of a team that had just won 56 and 61 games the last two full seasons. <i>If you are saying by not matching Posey we are quite likely to be like a 8+ million under the cap after 06? (assuming the MLE will at least be 6 or 7 where you have to be 8 under to make any difference)</i> Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't believe that I've ever stated that the Rockets will be under the cap in the near future. As I said above, your assumption that the MLE will be 6 or 7 millions is way off. It will probably be about where it is now or maybe even a little lower. Of course, the league and the players could change all that with a new CBA, but since the league has pretty much dominated the union since the strike, I don't see that happening. My whole argument is that in today's NBA, there is a cost for overpaying players. If you do it, you'll lose roster flexibility and it will hurt you financially. That's why so many teams have gotten rid of players for strickly financial reasons. Cuban and Paul Allen don't care about those implications, they'll gladly eat millions of dollars. For most everybody else, that isn't the case. When the Maloof Brothers are worring about the cap, then you know that it's a major issue. Alexander isn't in Cuban or Allen's league financially. The only way that he's going to knowingly overpay for a guy is if it helps us win a title. Posey doesn't do that. Can he help the team? Yes, but there are always going to be guys available that are equivilent AND are better fits on the team. No way do I lock into a guy that does not fit our system for long term money. No way. It's easy to sit back and say that Les could have kept everybody because of Bird rights and the MLE, but that's just not realistic. Sure, he could have said "Screw the Luxury Tax" and spent an extra $10M to $20M or so, but he not going to do that. Outside of Portland, LA, Dallas and NY, almost nobody is going to do that. SA won't, Sacramento won't and even Portland is trying to undo all of their crazy spending. And as far as the Posey decision goes, even if he were willing to spend a ton of extra money, he's still not going to do it for a guy that doesn't give us a better shot at a title than what he can pick up in the offseason for less money.
Desert Scar, I don't have aelliot's patience to talk with you point by point. You kept bringing up things like we could have had both Posey and JJ, or that Pike plus AG is no Posey etc. These are good debatable issues. But they are not directly related to the main question: Is Posey worth the 23.5m/4yrs contract for us? The point we are trying to make you don't seem to get. Posey is a nice player. But he is nothing special. Players of his caliber are out there available every year. Only star players are hard to get. The fact that we could sign guys like JJ and Pike fairly easily shows that good role players are signed and traded easily. Every team does that regularly. Some work out well (like JJ), and some don't (like Pike) for whatever reasons. These players fit well in with some teams and not well in others. Those who don't work out well will be moved again. That doesn't mean they are bad players. What we are saying is that it is not wise to lock up large chunks of money long term for such players. We have done it in the past. Many teams did it. Those are mistakes, not good moves. In short, Posey was not going to win us a championship. Yao and Francis (or his replacement) are, together with whoever fit their games. So let it go.
Are we talking about Posey here?...........Posey?..............do you mean Posey?..............We are talking about Posey?.............Posey?..........Posey men......Posey? What are we talking about here?......Posey?Look we are talking about practice....errrh.....Posey.................... Posey is overrated........A glorified Eddie Jones (pre Miami heat).
Of course my position is yes his 4 year 22.6 million dollar contract should have been matched. Mid30s players yes (JJ/Pike), 1 dimensional players (Pike , A Griffin)--but sorry the upper middle class players in their prime are not easy to get. Go back and look a those players I listed, they either were traded for, or signed with a full MLE for the most part. What most fail to realize is matching Posey or not we are not in sight of being under the salary cap for 4 years. (I'll take aelliot's word for it if he corrects me on this point). As I said before most of the elite teams have kept their Posey quality players at MLE level money because they were over the cap anyway. There was no tangible assetts to gain by letting him go (in contrast with the Spurs who kept future cap space for Manu by not signing Jackson). Ideally, you want roster of 6-7 guys of Posey's caliber or better (Sacramento), otherwise the only hope to win a championship is to luck into a TD or Shaq or Jordan or Hakeem (though you still need some key role players, see below). If Yao is just a notch below those 4, forget it at the rate of us getting players to support him. Truth is you usually need stars plus upper quality role players--not lower quality role players. You take away Horry or Fox the Lakers don't beat Portland (1st recent run) nor do they beat Sac (3rd recent run)--take a look what happened last year with Fox injuried and Horry looking washed up. TD couldn't get by either except with DR, Elliot & Elie until last year when Jackson, Manu, Parker and Bowen got a little more consistent. Hakeem only made two NBA finals because the Rockets had so much trouble gettign the right role players around him. Teams of Hakeem, Barkley and Clyde (and later Pippen) could not bring it home because they didn't have adeqaute enough role players in some key positions. You can let it go. When people admit this was in all probability another misjudgement on the Rockets brass it (assuming building the best team is a high priority) will be time to move on. Is it a grand misjudgment? No, but an important one that leaves us an extra solid role player that will have to be filled in a few years when that MLE could have been used to address another hole in the starting lineup or provide depth. It was OK in the short run but a very shortsided long term startegy.
You keep bringing up JJ's age. Apparently you agree that JJ and Posey are comparable talent. The only significant difference is age. That is exactly my point. When we are ready to contend for championship, we can always get players like JJ through FA for less money than Posey's contract. What does it matter if he's in the 30s or in the 20s if he is contributing for a couple of championships? In fact, we can even argue that an older, more experienced player is better for championship runs than a younger player. Why do you have to keep a guy many years with big money until we contend for the title? I understand that you need good role players to win. The Lakers needed the Horrys and the Foxes to win. But if they didn't have Horry and Fox, they'd have other comparable talents to compliment Shaq and Kobe. They'd still be basically the same team. When Fox was injured, they were not as good. But injury is not the same as not having him on the roster. If they didn't have Fox on the roster, they'd pick up another comparable guy to replace him. But when he was injured, there was no replacement. We let Posey go, we picked up comparable guys to replace him. No problems. When the Lakers saw that Horry was washed up, they let him go. They pick up other guys to replace him. No problem. Again, why do you want to lock up role players long term with big money? BTW, the reason Jerry West took Posey was totally different from the reason we'd want to keep him. Posey was (and still would be had we kept him) our #4 option. We have Yao and Francis. We have Mobley when he's hot. With Memphis, however, he is their second option. Memphis only have one go to guy. We have three (OK, maybe two and a half). They need another star to compete for the title. But stars are hard to get. So West's best chance at this point is to get quantity for quality. They are stockpiling good role players. I am pretty sure West is looking to use these players to get a star. If he can trade Posey and a couple other good players to get one, he will do it in a heartbeat. For us, we are not trying to stockpile. We already have the centerpieces. What we need is to bring in players who compliment well with the centerpieces. aelliot has already done a good job in explaining why the JJ type is better complimentary than the Posey type.
<i>Mid30s players yes (JJ/Pike), 1 dimensional players (Pike , A Griffin)--but sorry the upper middle class players in their prime are not easy to get. Go back and look a those players I listed, they either were traded for, or signed with a full MLE for the most part.</i> Easy pretty much covered this one already. As long as a guy is performing at an equivilent level, then why do I care how old he is or if it's that player or if it's a different one that is doing the job for me in 3 years. All that matters is the production on the court. You're actually paying a $2.5M to $3M premium, just to insure that you have the same role player for 4 years. As long as I have an equal or better fit (which JJ is), then I could care less whether 1, 2, 3 or 4 different guys fill that role in the future. <i>but sorry the upper middle class players in their prime are not easy to get. </i> Weren't Posey and Stephen Jackson both available last summer? Won't Stephen Jackson and Turkoglu both be available this summer? That doesn't seem too hard to find those guys. <i>What most fail to realize is matching Posey or not we are not in sight of being under the salary cap for 4 years. (I'll take aelliot's word for it if he corrects me on this point). </i> For the last time, it's not about cap space. Re-read my previous post, I think I mentioned that two or three times. It's about money. Like it or not, we don't have an unlimited supply of money. Have you seen the trend in the NBA of teams letting good players go or even giving up 1st round picks to cut the payroll? The luxury tax had a huge effect on team's moves last offseason. Indiana couldn't pay Brad Miller because of the tax, Sacramento let Jackson and Turgoglu go because of the tax. Atlanta gave Glen Robinson away for nothing because of the tax. You can ignore the luxury tax, but the great majority of the teams didn't. If you assume we have a limited amount of cash to spend, then it just doesn't make sense to tie up a whole lot of long term money in a role player that can be replaced. And Posey could be replaced, in fact we did and ended up with a guy that fits our team better. <i>Truth is you usually need stars plus upper quality role players--not lower quality role players. You take away Horry or Fox the Lakers don't beat Portland (1st recent run) nor do they beat Sac (3rd recent run)--take a look what happened last year with Fox injuried and Horry looking washed up. </i> I'm assuming that if you had taken Horry and Fox away from LA, that the Lakers would have replaced them, right? So, how can you say that they wouldn't have won? Horry looked washed up? Hmm...so you're saying that the Lakers were hurt because they gave long term money to a role player? Interesting...maybe, they'd have been better off replacing Horry with an available Free Agent. The problem that I have with your argument is that it seems to have gone from "how could anybody in their right minds not sign Posey?" to now "We could have signed both Posey and JJ". That wasn't going to happen and it wasn't going to happen for financial reasons' Does that make us any different than 90% of other teams? No, that very thing has been happening throughout the league all year.
Just a couple points and I am done (out of town for 6 days anyway) I disagree here. Yao is solid at the 5 for a long time, CM and Francis look solid for a while at the 1 or 2 (or if Francis doesn't work out he can be traded to fill our 1 need or 4 need). But down the line that leaves us 2 spots to fill (JJ will be out of the league), 3 spots if you talk about having a quality 6th man, 4 spots if you talk about two quality back-ups. Not only do we have major holes to fill in the starting line-up, but quality depth. Keeping Posey would have secured the 3 spot for a long or at worst be an ace 6th man to backup but swing positions. We could keep on signing the Jim Jacksons for depth (or starting 3), and we still need to address the 4 (or 1 if we trade Francis for a 4) without much assets to get those guys. You can't use the MLE to fill 3 holes in one offseason--securing Posey at least reduces one hole down the line. Basically, and this applies to Aelliot as well, if Posey was the only guy we needed to replace we could keep getting vets like JJ I agree. But the problem is we have multiple long term holes--and that takes time to fill. Yes, yes, yes, here is where it boils down too. Some teams are using both hands (Allen, Cuban, Buss), some owners have 1 hand tied behind their back with modest salary considerations (Maloofs, Indiana guy), and we are in the club with both hands tied behind our back (if we are that worried about a 22.6/4 year deal for a starter breaking the bank when the lux tax very well might not be in place). Peachy. Glad the taxpayers built the Rockets a stadium and the Rockets have been such a profitable venture for some over the years. Really nothing more to say.
I disagree here. Yao is solid at the 5 for a long time, CM and Francis look solid for a while at the 1 or 2 (or if Francis doesn't work out he can be traded to fill our 1 need or 4 need). But down the line that leaves us 2 spots to fill (JJ will be out of the league), 3 spots if you talk about having a quality 6th man, 4 spots if you talk about two quality back-ups. Not only do we have major holes to fill in the starting line-up, but quality depth. Keeping Posey would have secured the 3 spot for a long or at worst be an ace 6th man to backup but swing positions. We could keep on signing the Jim Jacksons for depth (or starting 3), and we still need to address the 4 (or 1 if we trade Francis for a 4) without much assets to get those guys. You can't use the MLE to fill 3 holes in one offseason--securing Posey at least reduces one hole down the line. That's actually a great point...we've still got holes to fill. In fact, I don't believe that we have the core players that we need to be a contender. We need to make some moves and that is even more reason for not matching Posey. If we don't know what our core team will be in a year, then how do we know if Posey fits? Who we bring in will surely dictate the type of player that we need. That's even more reason to wait an get a lower priced guy that fits the bill, rather than locking into Posey for 4 years. What if we acquired a defensive minded, shot blocking PF? For argument's sake, let's say that we traded Francis to Detroit in a deal that included Ben Wallace. If we did that, we'd have to have shooters at the 1,2 and 3 spots. Posey would be an awful fit in that type of team. What if we dealt Francis to Seattle for Rashard and Barry? $22M for a backup isn't in our best interest. Most teams establish their core players, then fill in the role player around them. You're suggesting that we should lock up our role players before we've even set who our go to guys/star players will be. That's backwards. Get the core guys that we really believe can take us to a title and then go out and get the guys to plug in around them. <i>Yes, yes, yes, here is where it boils down too. Some teams are using both hands (Allen, Cuban, Buss), some owners have 1 hand tied behind their back with modest salary considerations (Maloofs, Indiana guy), and we are in the club with both hands tied behind our back (if we are that worried about a 22.6/4 year deal for a starter breaking the bank when the lux tax very well might not be in place). Peachy. Glad the taxpayers built the Rockets a stadium and the Rockets have been such a profitable venture for some over the years.</i> It's not a matter of Alexander not wanting to spend the money, it's just that it's not a smart investment. It doesn't help the team get closer to winning a title. Instead we would lose alot of our flexibility with our roster. If being financially responsible bothers you that much then you should become a Mav, Blazer, Knick or Laker fan, because every other team in the league has been avoiding the luxury tax just like the Rockets.
