Rimbaud, we are on totally different pages here. So let me layout my posts - and why I posted them - and your responses to those posts. But before I do; howver, let me say that I never brought up pippin or anderson, you did in the post above and in the one before that post. I just responded to it by saying we shouldn't have given that kind of money to [them] in this case the them was anderson and pippin since that is what I assume you meant by "overpriced guard and ego-manic sf." I, in fact, said (in my first post in response to rockbox) that the rockets or more correctly Rudy T has paid through the nose for sweet-shooting small forwards, and the example I used was walt and rice. You in the next post pointed out "my mistake" (really I just don't like qualifying much) by saying we never gave up a "young stud" for those two. The reason I posted that was because I wanted to show how highly rudy t thinks of sweet-shooting small forwards. Next, I made a response post to pippendagimp, just for kicks. You didn't post a response to it. Moving on .... After that, I started another idea, but it was still related to the one in response to rockbox: the idea that in Rudy's system the power forward, on offense, and to some extent on defense as well, since we funnel players to our center, is the least important position on the team. The offense goes through our center and perimeter players, and that you can insert just about anyone in the pf spot and it will still work. Then CK called me on it, saying that thorpe, barkley and horry were good pfs. I responded by saying that barkley wasn't part of "true" rudyball. Horry played the three mostly in our championship years, (I said I thought of him as a three), and thorpe did not have to have the ball on the block; he was more of a put back scorer, and rebounder. In fact, let me take my arguement further: In our two championship runs, we had thorpe for a little over one year. We ended up trading him for who again? And also, who did we replace him with? These responses do relate to Rudy and who he values, like the first one did. I just didn't make it explict. But hey, if you want to see some random posts, read YOUR responses to my posts. Or several posts in this thread. But at any rate, yes I do understand what you are saying about off-topic, even though you DIDN'T make it explict. You instead hide what you say in implied statements; it makes you feel better I suppose to try an outwit someone. I mean what else could you have meant by: "I didn't think anyone was arguing to trade Griffin for Lewis - and the Rockets certainly do not seem to want to do it either. That is why I didn't understand your argument with bringing in the Pippin and Anderson trades - which were completely different with both players forcing our hand to a degree." The first sentence here means nothing to me. I never said trade lewis for griffin once, and the fact that you didn't think anyone was arguing that confirms that you didn't think I said that either. In addition, I never brought up pippin or anderson, you did. So how am I to take it? The only connection I see in this jibberish is NO ONE in the thread arguing Griffin/Lewis, but you brought up trades, which is completely off-topic. And as I said before, you can make a case that many in the thread are a little off-topic. Certainly, you are. You could have just said from the beginning, hey kbm, you're off-topic. You didn't, though.
kbm, This is all very odd - you seem to have been offended or something by me entering into this thread or the comments I have made - sorry, but I never intended any of it to be - I just didn't understand your original post. This: Originally posted by rockbox However, sources say the Rockets turned down such a deal because they did not want to part with Griffin. Damn Straight. No way we giving up a potential stud with a rookie contract for a overpriced sf who can't do anything but shoot jumpshots and compares himself to Kobe Bryant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ your response: Actually the Rockets have done it ... well ... not once but twice. [see: Glenn Rice and Walt Williams]. Rudy T has always had penchant for sweet shooting small fowards. For that reason--and given the fact that Lewis hasn't yet reached his prime--I have a gut-feeling that if given enough carot, Rudy T will bite. Count on it! So the post was, "no way we give up a potential stud...for an overpriced SF who only shoots jumpshots..." to which you responded that we had done it twice and could overpay for Lewis now. Thus my confusion. Of course I brought up Pippen and Anderson - you brought up Rice and Gizzard. Obviously, there is a connection. We were forced into trades by Pip and Anderson and settled on your two examples of one dimensional SF's - very different than what we have with Lewis. I just did not see the connection between your examples. Pip was overpaid (our fault) so we traded him for overpaid Williams and soon to be overpaid Cato. Not much choice. Anderson simply could have been let go, but the Rockets wanted something so got a better talent (despite being injured) and a shorter contract. I, therefore, do not see those as two good examples of the Rockets "given a carrot" or "paying through the nose" to get overpaid one-dimensional small forwards. The trades, despite their problems, were infinitely superior to keeping Pip and Anderson. You instead hide what you say in implied statements; it makes you feel better I suppose to try an outwit someone. That is asinine on multiple leveles....and I am not the one belittling the other personally. In addition, I never brought up pippin or anderson, you did. So how am I to take it? The only connection I see in this jibberish is NO ONE in the thread arguing Griffin/Lewis, but you brought up trades, which is completely off-topic. Again - Anderson and Pip were the other sides to Rice and Gizzard...I really don't see how that made my comments stupid and off topic - or how they were bringing up new trades not related. I guess I am too slow for this, since i cannot keep up. I never said trade lewis for griffin once, and the fact that you didn't think anyone was arguing that confirms that you didn't think I said that either. I know you didn't - but since your original post was quoting the person who said it would be crazy to trade Griffin for Lewis - and you said the Rocks have a history of overpaying - I thought you were implying that Griffin for Lewis would be overpaying - against which no one was arguing. This was strengthened in my mind by your SF vs. PF talk. Even if Griff and Lewis were equal, it seems you are arguing that Griff would be more valuable..and I would agree...but I think most people would. Anyway, again, I must just not be following well... Seriously, do we have some kind of history I don't know about to produce all of this hostility? Let me know so that I can remember not to ever respond to you and, thus, avoid all of this mess.
I think if its money that is keeping Rashard from signing with Houston, then we should try a sign and trade deal with the Sonics. But including Griffin would be ludicrous to me. I think the Rockets would be willing to give up a #2 and Kenny Thomas but not more. I think the Sonics would be nuts to turn that down. Best of all, it would work under the salary cap. On a side note, Ive soured on Rashard on little bit. He is very immature and Im tired of hearing him trash our organization just because we didnt draft him or were slow to meet with his agent. If he thinks an organization that has won more championships and appeared in more NBA finals than everyone but the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls is a bad organization, then go sign with the Nuggets!
Actually I do understand your confusion, but the question is how long were you confused? I said you were right, in my own angry way in the next post. I should have qualified it I guess.
Orlando was WAAAAAAAAAAY under the cap when they signed those too. They wanted to sign Duncan too. If a team is under the cap, they can sign a player for as much as they want (taking into consideration the maximum allowed for that player depending on service and how far the team is under the cap). If a team is at or over the cap, they can offer a mid level exception (4.5 million this year).
kbm, You are a genius, I am an idiot. Feel better? For the record, I was trying to show (but forgot to type it) that I had come to the wrong conclusion about a few of the issues and was just trying to trace my thought process so you would see why. Again, I am an idiot. You have and still continue to misunderstand some of my points and put words in my mouth...but who cares, you are superior in every way.
I'm sorry rimbaud. I know you are very smart, and that puts me on the defensive right away. Anyway, please feel free to criticize my ideas all you want. I never take it too personally. I want to learn something always.
I know that many of you dog Taylor, because he's not a very good rebounder & he's coming off of a major injury, but he is a really good player with a great upside. If he's fully recovered from his injury & passes all physicals that he's asked to take, I don't see any reason why a team like Seattle wouldn't be interested in acquiring him, especially after they realize that Griffin is NOT available. KT wouldn't work as far as the CBA goes. Taylor makes about $7 million a year & I could see Rashard signing for that in a heartbeat. Taylor gives Seattle a solid PF, which they are in need of, & they were really interested in him a couple of years ago. If Rashard decides that he wants to play in Houston, all he has to do is say take the S&T or lose me for nothing. He could sign a one year deal & become a FA again next year, when there will be 10-12 teams with a minimum of $7 million under the salary cap & many of them with double digit cap space. By my count, there are about 8 unrestricted FA's that would be considered better players than Rashard. That still leaves him with 2-4 teams to negotiate with. I believe that a healthy Taylor/a future conditional #1 pick for Rashard would grab Seattle's attention, if they believe they'll lose Rashard for nothing. There'd have to be a third team involved to help make the deal work, but that could be arranged. The trade would leave us with a lineup of: C: Ming/Cato/Collier PF: Griffin/KT/T-Mo SF: Rashard/Rice/Nachbar SG: Mobley/Rice/Torres PG: Francis/Moochie/Brown How's that starting 5 fer ya'?
Hey Men put it to bed WE DONT NEED LEWIS we have the team of the future RIGHT NOW no changes needed I hope they leave it just like it is again I say WE DONT NEED LEWIS WHAT SO EVER
If we traded Taylor for Lewis, we would go from being too deep at power forward to way too deep at SF. Lewis is going to be a star, but IMO Taylor is better for the Rockets in the long run. If Eddie gets in foul trouble, we have Taylor and KT or Collier. If Rice gets in foul trouble, we have Boki, T-Mo and possibly Walt Williams. If we acquire Lewis in a sign and trade, we have Eddie and K.T and perhaps Collier at PF and Lewis, Boki, Rice, T-Mo and Walt. Oh, in case you're wondering, I think Rudy will find a way to keep Walt. And, if we did trade Taylor, we could not trade K.T. under any circumstances.
I very seriously doubt we resign Walt. Our SF position is shaky as of right now. Hopefully Nachbar develops early to stabilize the position. Rice has his history of injuries, Nachbar has impressive potential but isn't proven, and Terrence Morris can't shoot. Lewis would be a great addition provided we don't give up a big piece of our puzzle. Lewis and Nachbar would be able to battle Stojakovic and Turkoglu in Sacramento for the best SF tandem in the league. The way I look at it, two heads are better than one.
Lewis becomes a base year player. That means that Seattle can only take back half of his salary. Unless we plan to pay Lewis $15 million a year, Taylor makes to much. So does Rice and out other favorite trade topic, Cato. I think KT actually works. I suspect so does Moochie. In the grand scheme of things, on a one for one trade, Seattle is not getting enough back to "give up its principal". We could include other players, but since at least one of theirs would have to be a high dollar (assuming we are trading Taylor, Rice, Cato types - or a combination of) and all of a sudden we are changing the nature of our team. Me I don't do that.
I know that Lewis becomes a BYC player, but there are several ways the deal could be worked out. For instance: Taylor makes about $7.1 million. If Seattle resigns Lewis for $8 million, then they can only take back $4 million in salaries. That means there is a $3.1 million difference. Then, if a third team with cap space or a trade exception has an interest in acquiring Booth, Seattle could send his $4.9 million salary to them & take back a player from them for about $1.8 million. That would satisfy the BYC & CBA rules. The bottom line is, it all comes down to what Lewis wants. He can make it happen, or not.
I disagree with you. However, my personal opinion aside, if you can acquire a player that is an upgrade for your team, without giving up a major piece of your nucleous, why wouldn't you do it?
If we give up Mo T for Rashard we don't have to much experience at the 4, and more of a log jam at the 3. The only trade that would make sense for the Rockets is to give up another 3. As of Terrence M. or Glen Rice; of course this would not make sense for Seattle then. So the Rockets should wrap up two players in this trade that would cover up the small forward position and the power forward. Players that come to mind are Kenny Thomas and Glen Rice. Seattle would ship over Rashard Lewis and a throw in (preferable a power forward or a shooting guard with one year left on his contract; sorry I can't name anyone I don't keep up with Seattle). This trade isn't to far fetch because Kenny and Rashard averages were pretty close, Rashard just scored two more points than Kenny; I believe. While Seattle is shipping off there starting SF they get another starter in return, and a starting power forward which they so desperately need right now. I believe that Mo T and Eddie Griffin could hold down the power forward position with out a problem; and if one of them get hurt ( God Forbid ) let Cato get in there with Ming, and see what happens. The Rockets would have improved there ball club and so would of Seattle. This is just a trade I think that could work, but I rather not have Rashard on this team for what its worth. He seems all about himself and that would hurt the team if thats the case. He seems so greedy and haven't really acomplish to much, but when a Raef L. can get the big money I guess a Rashard L. would believe he should get his big money too. Rashard most likely will sign with Seattle for 60mil. for 6yrs. Thats as good as it gets, for right now.
Even IF he was a upgrade for this team ( I dont belive he is) the money he demands is way out of kilter within this team he is not a superstar but he wants superstar money last year will be his best in the NBA next year he will not be near as good as last year and with the STUDS we have now..... that will play and more importainly FIT this team so much better than LEWIS ever could after you see BOKI play you will forget all about Lewis .....but if we can get him for the MCE {ONLY} then I say it will work but to give up even Tito for Lewis is giving up way to much for a player that is only close to being in the middle of the pack NBA player that wants max money now is just plain STUPID
The line for the third team with cap space available to complete this deal starts and ends with the Clippers. The same team that has the cheapest owner in sports, and already has too many players, especially after the draft. I don't see how any trade is possible, even if the Rockets wanted to part with Griffin. Didn't someone say Miami had around a $3.5 million trade exception? This would still probably not be enough to get a deal done.
