It's a big word meaning that you're full of ****. I really wonder what's going on with Jackson. Training camps open in 10 days, and there's no word that the Warriors have even tried to talk to him about a contract. Makes me think they don't want him back at any price ... or maybe he said some things behind the scenes back when he expected a $30M deal elsewhere (something along the lines of, "Ha ha, so long, suckers!") that they are waiting for him to apologize for.
Excellent post,Oeilpere.Thanks for all the information. I would like you or anybody else to clarify something. Do we have to sign Marc Jackson to a contract lasting at least 3 years because he is a restricted free agent? If yes, can we then sign him for 3.25million over a 3 year period if we get the medical exception? Secondly,when Mo comes back hopefully next year,will we be able to keep M.Jackson within the salary cap,or will we end up going over the luxury tax?
Ok all I have to say about the Rocket guy is that he comes to our board and then runs when Clutch returns. He tried to fill the board with "what he heard". All BS, none of it came close to being true. One small correction, Waly makes 5 million next year and not 6.
Any update on the exception, Jackson, or Moochie? I'd feel very good about this team's chances if we can lock in Jackson and Moochie. I'm also willing to take my chances on a 4-year contract starting at 3.25 mil. for Jackson. Even if he turns out not as great as expected (excepting serious injury problems), I don't think he'd be that much of a burden. Heck, we've got Kelvin Cato on our roster and I believe that the Rockets could unload him if they wanted to. Go Rockets!!!
From bskball.com: "League sources say it is doubtful, the Houston Rockets are granted an injury exception for Maurice Taylor. Taylor may have killed the chances for the extra cash, in telling reporters he thought he could return in 6 to 7 months, in time for the playoffs..." That's not good
From bskball.com: "League sources say it is doubtful, the Houston Rockets are granted an injury exception for Maurice Taylor. Taylor may have killed the chances for the extra cash, in telling reporters he thought he could return in 6 to 7 months, in time for the playoffs..." LOL The day I believe Bskball.com is the day that Cuttino leads the league in assists. He may be right, albeit for the wrong reasons.
I don't trust a thing that bskball.com says. They throw out so many "rumors" it's a joke. The pathetic thing is, if Houston doesn't get the medical exemption, they'll blame Mo. Never mind the fact that NBA actually listens to LICENSED PHYSICIANS! This is also the great site that thought the Rockets improved when Mo went down, thinks that Kenny Thomas can carry the Rockets to the playoffs, and thinks Pig Miller is an improvement over Mo, so that's all you need to know about that site.
To answer some questions: 1. We can offer Jackson all or a portion of the medical exception and we can extend it for more than this year. So the answer is yes, $3.25M a year for three years is doable. 2. We must sign him to at least three years if the route is a sign and trade, which will not happen IMHO. Signing him outright to a three year contract with two guaranteed years is also viable. Personally, if we had a chance to sign him for four years at around $3M I would take it. 3. I don't buy the argument that Jackson is "unproven". This league just drafted several Euro players (Gasol, et al ...) at a high return of $1.5 - $2 - $3 million a year in multi year contracts. These guys have NOT been PROVEN in a pro league the likes of the NBA. Marc Jackson played in the Euro league, did very well, played in the NBA last year and did very well. What does anyone want for a $2-3.5 M/year prospect? Now if Gasol does a stellar job this year, and ends up ranking second or third in the rookie race ... and if he was available( by whatever stretch of the imagination) are you telling me he would not get offered $3M/yr in a three year contract by the Rockets? No? Why .... not proven? Are you kidding me? 4. Last I heard, Jackson was waiting to hear from the Rockets. He is the number one suitor right now. 5. (a) Man I hear something different everyday about this medical exception question. But ... the word form the league is still positive. I have no idea where this negative **** comes from .... Mo Taylor feels he will be back ... duh .... give me a break. The guys that make the decision are league physicians and physiatrists. They get the reference medical files submitted by the Rockets. They study it. They may have preliminary findings, and do an more exhaustive assessments. At no time does the weight of the medical staff projections get outweighed by the robust, overconfident boasts of a very competitive (and might I add a disappointed) athlete attempting to put the best possible spin on a bad situation. 5. (b) The league has said this offseason that they will attempt to be more understanding of this rule. It was designed to help teams recover partially from an unforseeable medical injury to a player. One that would put the player in all probablity "out for the season". The question that begs to be asked: If someone like Mo Taylor (severe proximal and distal tears of the achilles tendon prior to season training camp) does not qualify for the 50% exception, what more must be done to an athlete for him to qulaify? My gut says -Yes- we will get it. My very reputable sports medicine friends say -Yes- he should get it. I have no sources at the league ... well none placed so far from the chair's seat ... that it would matter .... and so have only conjecture in the route they should take. But everything I hear is favorable. Stop all this negative ****.
The NBA should simply amend the medical exception rule with the following 2 additions: 1. If a team gets the medical exception for a player, then that player CANNOT play that season, regardless of his health. 2. The team is only allowed 2 injury slots instead of 3 (this may already be occurring) as the injured player will take up 1 slot for the entire year.
(A) When you talk of amending the present CBA you should understand that it takes considerable effort to have ALL parties agree. The players representation and the owners representation must agree on all aspects. (B) Both parties agreed that an injury to a player such that it would put him out for a considerable amount of the season could be devastating to a team ... the compromise was: 1. The team gets 50% of his salary or facsimile(average,etc..) so that the team can get a player, very likely not of the same caliber, but a "filler" to replace a crucial roster slot. That is the trade off. 2. That the fact that he was deemed unservicable to the team by league experts was sufficient to get the deferral/exception. If he came back at the end of the season ... so be it .... the team had to pay an injured player's salary AND the replacement at 50% ..... that is the trade off. 3. The risk was not that he would return early, but that the injured player may not recover by the following season. If in fact he did not fully recover ... the team could not resubmit the claim. there was a time limit to reply - use it or lose it. If they signed a contract that only covered that season(that is no extension, which is allowed), and they were still down the injured player the following season the option for a replacement could not be retroactively used or extended. A new legal (CBA sanctioned) contract would have to be done to cover a subsequent player replacement, that would NOT include any exception space. That is the trade off. Clearly these exceptions are not favorable to either side ... league owners or league players .... adding more ammendments will still not make it any more palatable for either side. I would be happy to discuss the merits of a hard cap versus soft cap though ........ or other alternmatives ....
oeilpere: Bskball.com and the Rocket Guy is stating that: "Moochie has agreed to a 6-year contract, and only awaits the league decision on Houston's injury exception to sign his contract." First let me say, I am not sure why Moochie or the Rockets would have to wait on the injury exception to ink the contract. Maybe you can clarify that. But, is any of this true? Thanks in advance. FC
Oeilpere I hear the Knicks have gotten the medical exception as well that would also make them players in the Marc Jackson sweepstakes. How committed is Jackson to the Rockets? Or for that matter how committed are the Rockets to Jackson?
I posted that bskball info purely for FYI purposes to see what you all thought about that angle. I'm suprised the Rocket staff didn't "coach" Mo's response to the press to help though...
Glyde, did the Knicks get their award for Larry Johnson. There is a lot of talk about it, but I haven't seen word. Hell, did they even apply? bobrek, I agree with oeilpere that your suggestion #1 would fix nothing. (btw: suggestion #2 is in effect already. Mo will be on the IR all season, exception or not. The only other way is to waive him.) The reason I don't think #1 changes anything is because you seem to be implying that the change would allow for the league to make an easier decision. The decision though is based purely on medical prognosis, exactly as oeilpere says. Right now, the exception is basically: <i>If league doctors determine that there is NO chance for player X to play, the team is eligible for an exception</i>. Then the league doesn't care if he actually can make it back. imo, the ramifications of your version moves the decision closer to the other end of the spectrum of medical prognosis, and says: <i>If there is a likely chance that the player will be out for the whole season, the team is eligible.</i> But, if awarded, he is eliminated from playing. The point is not one of will he play; it is purely how you award based on a spectrum of likely rehab outcomes. The league takes a easy to define legal approach for writing the CBA contract by taking away all gray areas....that is, all medical expectations must say that he won't be able to play. <b>oeilpere</b> Your analysis of the CBA is perfectly accurate. You are correct to the letter of the contract. But, are you correct to the spirit of the contract. We both agree that the contract cannot really be written more clearly, and certainly could not list types of injuries that qualify. No legal contract can be written like that. But, legal contracts are free for interpretation, and the league is indeed free to interpret this. Your interpretation is to the letter. I believe their interpretation might be centered around the name of the exception. This is a "disabled-player exception." This is not an "injured-player exception," nor a "medical exception," nor an "inactive-player" exception. Why did they call it disabled and then defined the word "injury" and "illness" in the contract. Illnesses are often referrred to as "disabling." Indeed, the ADA acts for defining disabilities refer to illnesses and injuries that are disabling. If the league is taking more of an ADA definition, they might be trying to eliminate severe (yet simple) sports injuries from the equation. They would then be looking for complex disabling/disfiguring "injuries" and degenerative "illnesses" that might possibly jeopardize the players continued ability to play at a professional level....ever again. So, obviously, they don't demand "ever again" in a legal contract, but I can easily see how the CBA contract will define an entire seaon, yet still base the spirit of the contract on "disabling" like the ADA versus unfortunate, yet common, sports injuries. So, in the ADA interpretion, it would take illness like we've seen. As for disabling injuries, they'd be looking for permanent or life-threatening stuff that will certainly knock a player out for a year, and might permanently disable him from pro ball....like Rudy getting his face smashed, Dream taking an elbow to the eye (if it were worse), and most certainly the tragic car accident injuries to Bobby Hurley. I am not trying to disagree, just explaining two interpretations. If common sports injuries are allowed, we should get the exception. If the spirit is more in line with ADA injuries, I seriously doubt we get it. btw: just so other understand that I'm not referring to a workers' comp analogy, the spirit of the ADA is not to support lame worker's comp cases, it is to protect the rights of the truly disabled who need assistance to work and get to the work place or to protect them from discrimination. In the NBA, the analogy is saying that the injury is disabling to the point of permanent loss in ability to work professionally....not from poor rehab outcomes or medical procedure, but disabling in the sense that outcomes are definitely permanent or, at best, indeterminant at time of injury, because it is a complex injury with many variables. Regardless of prognosis, Mo has a common sports injury. Is that the spirit of the exception?? That is the question. <b>btw: the clock is ticking</b> We have 45 days to use the exception upon award. However, that clock has already begun, dating to the injury day...Sept 4th.
Crispee My perspective is based on the Sean Elliot decision. The Spurs were granted the exception and Elliot came back to play the same season. It would appear that the NBA would try to be "stricter" when evaluating players. If there were the slightest chance a player could come back the leage doctors may be more inclined to deny the claim. If rules were in place to prohibit an injured player to come back for that season, then it would seem the league and their doctors would be more inclined to approve the "iffy" claims. I understand completely that both the owners and players would have to agree to change the CBA and that may not be an easy thing to do, however, I fail to see how any party is truly hurt. The one drawback to the player would be his inability to prove to himself and other teams that he is in playing shape again until the following season. It may hurt potential free agents.
FranchiseCat Bear in mind that this is the same site that 2 days earlier posted that Moochie had agreed to a 4 year contract. They also posted that Hakeem would definitely sign with the Rockets, that Taylor had torn his ACL and that the Rockets will be better without Taylor.
bobrek, imo, both Elliott and Mourning came back early against medical advice. That is the point. The medical opinion was that they shouldn't play the whole season. If he comes back early or flat out against advice, so be it. The team still gets the exception. Elliott coming back is not the issue, nor is allowing "iffy" claims a "fix." I do not believe the league is concerned that those two players came back early. My point, and oeilpere's point, and the point of the CBA is to not allow any "iffy"s from a medical prognosis. Just because Elliott/Mourning came back does not mean that the original prognosis wasn't still advise to not play the whole season. imo, you cannot write a contract of "iffy"s. Hell, if you could, what about the injury to Charles Barkley had it come before the Nov 30th deadline. Wouldn't you have loved a huge $6m exception. What about Richmond? What about Hill? What about Anfernee? Those would all be monstrous exceptions. Allowing large exceptions for "iffy" injuries where the team is willing to sit a star a season to protect their investment against reinjury hurts the teams that truly are below the salary cap. The League must protect the value of pure cap space. Iffy exception hurt the salary cap by effectively watering down the huge value of being under it. Don't you think it sucks that Toronto had an exception to lure Hakeem away. If you make Medical Exceptions more common, you basically are flooding the market with salary cap inflation, so to speak. It devalues the importance of pure cap space. imo, the League will never inflate the exception dollars as you suggest, because it theoretically increases salaries. And before anyone mentions the Luxury Tax, this is unlikely to happen this year from early calculations by Larry Coon.
