OP, You mentioned 5 days ago that Moochie's deal had been worked out. Is there any reason why they wouldn't have closed the deal already? We're only about $350,000 under the salary cap at the present(according to RealGM), so it can't be because of cap issues. Do you have any ideas or info as to what the hold up is?
Hottoddie, Simple. We wait because with the exception then we don' t have to make a trade, presumably. Without the exception, we will have to trade for a replacement. So maybe Moochie is being asked in a trade, and we are considering it, though would rather not. Or maybe the little bit below the cap we are happens to be required to actually make a trade with Walt (or something) match salaries....ie the difference in salaries is $350,000 off, so we need that little bit to pull a trade. btw: I thought it was more than $350k...we have to assume the numbers could be off, and every $100k can make the difference in matching salaries.
Sorry for taking so long to get back here .......... - Ya'll: I placed a number of calls on the Moochie reference and have not heard anything yet. Frankly I am also dismayed that the medical exception would have any impact on that decision. Can’t understand why one has anything to do with the other. (Except: See the bottom for more on this.) - Crisp: the word “disabled” under most circumstances would mean “unable to do what most are capable of doing”. In real life (ADA) it refers to normal and expected activities of daily living. In NBA terms that may in fact refer to being able to play with minimum expected performance. I agree that the NBA league will interpret this with a wide margin of forgiveness OR specificity. The word I got earlier this summer was that meetings between the league reps and owners in separate “ad camera” sessions (some very informal) indicated that the league would tend to be more soft on this issue than previous. - I disagree that the intent was for “permanent”-type injuries of players. The history and the spirit of the ruling: Originally this clause was seen by the owners to address those injuries that “injured” the performance of a team unjustly. It may even be stated that the owners wanted to protect their franchise against their “star player” becoming severely injured and hampering financial ability to compete for that entire season. The league may in fact have seen this as a limited application and wanted to use of the exception limited to those occurrences. In the past the spirit in which it was born, and it’s historical implementation has changed. Now a franchise can see the merits of replacing a player that has been knocked out of the roster in a season-ending injury. The League is slowly coming to that same realization. The “spirit” of applying this to only “franchise-type star players” like Jordan (who was the example given in discussion phase years ago) …. Does not hold anymore. Teams have successfully argued that any player can have an impact on the success of a team. - I feel … and I am by no means an expert … that the “common ailment” label will not even come into the decision process in this …. for the simple fact the “exception” clause is based on the severity of the disability and not on the injury itself. The prognosis, as you mentioned, and not the disease process. I would also point out that although Achilles tendon injuries (strains, stretches and low grade tears) are not rare, a traumatically detached proximal and distal site injury is severe and not “common”. - Hottoddie: In regards to the use of the exception…. it might be prudent to point out that Moochies signing could be waiting for the league decision because if the disabled player exception is granted it can be combined wholly or partially in a trade. GSW and rockets may have something going. I will not risk rehashing the Mookie and Walt for Moochie and Jackson scenarios … but there is that possibility.
That's an interesting angle. I'm torn between trading Moochie for a solid front line player or keeping him. Maybe the acquistion of Jackson & a swift kick in the backside of Cato will help to solve that problem. As far as the $350k, I just rounded it off under the same assumption that you just made, of it being inaccurate. Is it Davo that has the more accurate Rocket numbers? What do his numbers indicate? It's good to see you posting again. I hadn't seen you post lately & was thinking about starting a "Where's Crispee" thread.
OP, Have you heard any whispers as to what kind of S&T possibilities Fegan might have worked out for Moochie? What's the deal with Drexler getting involved in the negotiations?
I keep reading where Mooch has signed. Last I heard he has NOT signed anything. Plan remians the same Priorities: 1. Sign Mooch. 2. Fill the holes at 4-5. Preferable to get someone who can play both spots. 3. If first cannot be done, then sign and trade to get second priority. Problems: 1. Taylor drops a shoe for the season. Priority scouting/signing on a more premiere four-five becomes paramount. 2. Mooch's signing is getting lengthy and may cost us more than the position (backup guard) calls for. May have to option out Mooch's presence. 3. Most available four/five (Marc Jackson) is entangled in a somewhat home-team restriction (right of matching or refusal). 4.Avaialble space for signing and options on signing are getting slim. Solutions: 1. If we get opportunity,sign Jackson for full asvailable ($3.25M option). 2. If we get opportunity sign Mooch for the least available, but up the years. 3. If solution one can be fulfilled but we lose solution two in the process, then sign and trade Mooch to reduce hazard. Optimum Scenarios: 1. Receive the diasabled player exception and sign Jackson to a three to four year deal with the last year team optioned. 2. Sign Mooch as proposed. 3. Sign Jackson as proposed. Sign and trade Mooch for affecting either optimum one or in conjunction with optimum one, and replacing Mooch. Candidates for Optimum Three: 1. Golden State. 2. Denver. Plans for Team Candidates: 1. Golden State - probaably will not match $3.25M/year especially if term is three years or more. Hedge bet by (a) exploring trade possibilities for avaialble spots (Walt Williams), (b)exploring sign/trade possibilities with Moochie Norris to GSW. 2. Denver - Contact Kiki and Drexler for available options.
That pretty much sums it up! The only thing I might add would be the possibility of Jackson signing with NY on their exception, and possible three way trades with them and GS.
Are you sure? Chris Sheridan, an AP basketball writer wrote this earlier today in his piece about NY getting their injury exception: Since Taylor's injury - a ruptured Achilles' tendon - happened during the summer, the Rockets will have 45 days to use their exception if the league grants it.
crispee- Here is the text, via www.nbpa.com : (3) The Exception for a Disabling Injury or Illness that occurs during the period July 1 through the immediately following November 30 shall arise on the earlier of (i) forty-five (45) days prior to the last day of the Regular Season immediately following such July 1, or (ii) the date the Team knew or reasonably should have known that the injury or illness would cause the player to miss the Season immediately following such July 1, and shall expire 45 days from the date the Exception arises. I take that as it starts when they grant us the exception. It was different for Longley because of text of part of (4) . The Exception for a Disabling Injury or Illness that occurs during the period December 1 through the immediately following June 30 shall expire on the October 1 immediately following the date on which the Exception arises. opie-Is Denver trying to get a first rounder for Cook? If we could get Cook with pick(s), would CD consider cutting Fegan loose, and telling him not to ask for his help with a sign and trade.
I know everyone is jibba-jabbering about the paperwork involved with Jackson, but should we really give him over 3 mil? I've been reading a lot of golden state fan message boards and they describe him as another Mo Taylor type player-"okay defender, subpar rebounder for his size, okay for a 17ft jumper, can be shutdown by good defenders, but is willing to get better." of course these fans are probably a little angry that he doesn't want to be a warrior anymore. Anyhow, most people say that GS will only offer around a 1mil for him, can't we offer only 2 or a little more to save on cap space instead of throwing the whole 3.25 at him?
I'm not exactly his biggest fan, but think about who they have to compare him to... Antawn Jamison and Danny Fortson. On a per minute basis he was better last year than anyone on the Rockets. M.Jackson - 12.3 Reb/48Min M.Taylor - 9.2 Reb/48Min K.Thomas - 11.0 Reb/48Min K.Cato - 10.8 Reb/48Min S.Francis - 8.3 Reb/48Min
Thanks to NIKEstrad for posting the link to the online CBA. A key passage related to the GS-Houston trades that some of us have been discussing, from Article XI, Section 6: (l) There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Team to another Team in exchange for a Team’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal, or in exchange for a Team’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent. Now, maybe you can argue that making a separate deal (such as Sura for Walt Williams) isn't a "consideration," but that argument may not hold water with other teams, or the league office.
While you are correct, the fact is that we could use a more experienced SG & Walt is redundant on our roster. That would be our argument for the Walt for Sura trade & as long as no one writes the under the table agreement down on a napkin or testifies to the deal, then it would only be speculation on the league's part.
NIKEstrad, NIKE, I read it has expiring 45 days after the exception arises, and that the exception arises the earlier of the day Mo is injury (or more generally, when a team confirms a season-ending injury) or 45 days before the season ends. Thus in our case, the day Mo is injured. Am I reading it differently than you? Yeah I saw the Oct 1st clause today as well...regarding Longley. So, what do you make of the last sentence of FAQ #47. And where in the CBA does Larry Coon come up with that anyhow? I cannot find the CBA ruling for Larry's statement that retiring for medical reason eliminates exceptions. You know what else is odd. Charles Smith gets arthritis and does not play any games in 1997, and the Spurs apply for an exception before Nov 30th, after statements in camp that he had disabling arthritis. The league does a medical exam on Dec 16th and gives them an award starting that day, expiring on the end of January (45 days from Dec 16th). The Spurs challenge the ruling saying it should expire on Oct 1st, but get ruled against. Now, where in those clauses do you see that the league can change the start date to Dec 16th instead of when the Spurs should have known (training camp)....it is an "earlier of" date ruling. The point of the ruling seems to be that you cannot wait to apply for an exception to make it more convenient for you to get an available player, meaning the clock starts clicking at the date you should have known that he was out. As for Mo', he definitely should have a count down starting on Sept 4th....do you agree? being that it is a July 1st to Nov 30th injury.
My mistake- I read "arises" as when it gets ruled, and went back and reread it. I agree that the clock is ticking, which *could* be why the league ruled on Longley first-they only have 3 days left. Could it be possible that this Knicks extension goes back into last season, and didn't "reasonably know" he'd be gone for the whole year until mid-December or later? I'm not sure on the timeline on this one. As for the Coon FAQ- My only guess is that he is referring to a misconception of some that think once a player retires, he comes off the cap.
NIKE, Yeah, you can go back into Mourning's history and see how they got ruled 45 days from Miami's first announcement yet the exception was ruled 15-20 days. It was set to expire on Oct 27th as I recall, and the Miami announcements of illness were around Sept 10-12th. I agree that #47 is about the misconception you mention, but damn that last sentence is pretty straightforward, and seems to be consistent with why NY held off the "official" retirement announcement until yesterday....rather than July when Longley supposedly first mentioned it. just way too conventient. btw: Longley played until Febuary, so he would fall on the Oct 1 expiration date.
Swopa- I just found this rather interesting twist, in this article. Here's the passage: After the three underclassmen declared for the draft, they went to Los Angeles where they trained for weeks in an informal camp organized by their agent, Dan Fagan. They spelled Fegan's name wrong, but did you know all 3 of your rookies (Richardson, Arenas, Murphy) are Fegan clients? That could make for some interesting concessions.
Nice job NIKEstrad...the plot thickens. I think though that Moochie prefers us. I mean, there is no way that he could be so arrogant to expect 3 mil a year, after most of his career playing on 10 contracts and getting cut. If you think about it, he owes us for saving his career and getting him out of the CBA and giving him a chance to shine. There is no question that Fegan is behind this delay and you can bet that the classy Rockets organization will not tolerate this. If Moochie stays, I bet they will never get another Fegan client just b/c they don't want to deal w/ his crap. Just my take on it.
