That's cute how you think you've shed some new light on the situation. Stop skimming and read. After you do that, work on remembering what you read. Then when you are sure you've got a brand new perspective, read your thoughts and think to yourself, "Is this new to this board?" When you realize you've got nothing, click 'Houston Rockets 2010: Game Action & Roster Moves'. It's worked for me for years.
Actually Yao goes down, his contract expires along with Battier and Jeffries, and then we can sign someone in the free agency of 2010. We have that FA, 3rd year Hill and the 2nd year late lottery pick ALONG with Scola, Brooks, etc. My point is not moot and it will actually be easier to reload if we don't trade for Bosh now. You can indeed build around Bosh however what are you gonna build around him? A roster of Bosh, Scola, KM, Brooks and Ariza can take you to the playoffs but you won't win. We're gonna be stuck in limbo until we trade Bosh, good enough to reach the playoffs but not enough to contend. Also what about the contract situation of Brooks? We sign Bosh, Yao, Scola, Lowry, Ariza, how much can we offer Brooks? Les might be ok with paying for the lux tax now, however what about in the future? Who says you need to wait 5 years? As early as next year Jordan Hill could break out, and the year after that our 2010 lottery pick might start contributing again. It's not like Bosh is the epitome of health, he's starting to have gimpy knees as well.
Not really, with Bosh, Brooks, Martin and Ariza we can make the playoffs, maybe even as high as the 4rth seed. Say hello to low draft picks and no rings for the next half decade.
But if we trade for Bosh... we get... Chris Bosh. Who do you think we are going to get in free agency that's better than Bosh? We have to resign Scola, Lowry and Brooks by this time... so we're not going to land a max free agent... probably not even someone for 10 million. If we plan on keeping those three players, you have to imagine that combined they will cost about 15-20 million. Combined with money we spend on picks, and free agents we sign by then... we're just not going to have enough money to make a free agent splash. Plus... who's going to be available? A few things wrong with this in my opinion: 1) You talk about being able to contend, and then later you worry that Les won't want to spend money on Lux tax. You can't contend and be conservative with money. It just doesn't happen. If he makes the trade for Bosh... he's not going to suddenly go "I don't know if I wanna give Brooks an 8-10 million dollar deal now to put us over the hump.". 2a) You play the "we can't win Bosh, Scola, KM, etc" card. First of all, I disagree, but we'll assume we can't. What line-up do you plan on aquiring that we'll be able to contend with if it's not one that is a result of trading a Hill-based package for Bosh? Because without the Bosh trade... our team is basically -Bosh and +Buddinger and +Hill and some picks. Is that team supposed to be better? By saying that this team won't be able to win, that implies that the team we would have without Bosh WOULD be able to win... and that implies that trading for Bosh makes us worse. And... you are wrong. I don't know what else to say. 2b) All this speculation is assuming Yao goes down. What if he doesn't go down? Maybe he doesn't turn back into all-star form... but what if he's just a solid starting big that can give us 30 minutes a game? Like a slightly better Ilgauskus.. I think that's a reasonable prediction. Big Z had a similar procedure done to him and he was pretty healthy afterwards. You don't think a line-up of Yao (no longer an All-star, but still solid), Bosh, Ariza, Martin and Brooks with Lowry and Scola coming off the bench can't win a title? This is the root of what's bothering me about this trade hypothetical. Chris Bosh is the sure thing. He's the known entity. We know what he can offer us. Jordan Hill has POTENTIAL, but he's far from a sure thing. Unlikely that he'll become better than Chris Bosh, but he might become just as good. Or he could become just a solid big, like another Carl Landry in terms of his effect on the game... or it's possible he might not ever improve. We don't know. You can't say for sure what he'll turn into. And you are basically saying we should avoid taking this sure thing and put all of our money on a guy that might not even become good. Don't get me wrong... I love me some Jordan Hill... but Chris Bosh is an established all-star. Jordan Hill only has potential. It really bothers me that you think that somehow trading for Bosh makes us a worse team. I don't get it.
I totally agree with your entire post. However, for the same reasonToronto wouldn't want Scola, I feel they wouldn't want Battier. Battier would be wanted by a team that he would put over the edge. Especially if he was just going to be a one year rental which would be Toronto's case. I think they would want Ariza over Battier if they were truly rebuilding. Chase, Ariza, and hill would give them 3 rotational players potentially for the next 5 years. I think they would go for that versus letting Bosh walk for nothing. We could even give them both of NY's picks in exchange for them taking Jeffries. Yao/Andersen/Draft Bosh/Scola/Hayes Battier/Draft or FA Martin/Taylor Brooks/Lowry If healthy I see a chamiponship contender in this lineup. 4 of the starters are capable of 30 any given night, and Scola and Lowry would provide the spark off the bench. looks good on paper.
We're resigning Scola and Lowry now, so they won't expire next year. Yao's contract expires in 2010 FA period. Brooks will be a FA in the 2011 FA period. Yao Ming's expiring contract costs 17.5 Million. Shane Battier's and Jeffries expiring contracts cost around 13 million. That's a lot of dough being freed up, I'm sure we could sign someone. A few things wrong with this in my opinion: Going a few million over the lux tax is one thing, spending more than 10 million over is another. Brooks contract at 8 mill actually costs 16 million over the luxury tax, or the cost of a max FA contract. If Yao goes down and we don't sign Bosh, we can sign another FA without having let go of our assets. If Yao goes down and we signed Bosh, well, Yao's expiring contract won't do us any good as we would still be just under the cap, and we're without C-Bud, Hill and the lottery pick. It's about not putting all your eggs in basket. If Yao comes back as a rich man's Big Z, then we don't need Bosh to contend. Like I said what this team needed the most was defensive presence, and Yao Ming does that just by standing in mid-court. What I'm trying to say is Bosh+Scola better than Scola+Hill+C-Bud+lottery pick+NY picks+Ny swap? That's disregarding the live bodies of Battier and Jeffries, who could still be signed for a much lower amount when their contract expires. Getting Bosh doesn't just mean getting Bosh period. Its about losing your assets and your flexibility just for one player which won't fix your roster's weaknesses and only adds to its strength. Yao, Scola, KM and Brooks already have all the firepower we need. Hill and the lottery pick on the other hand, might provide the D we lack.
The 2010 free agency starts on July 1st, and Yao is down and no we cannot sign somebody in free agency. Yao has a $17.7 mil player option for 2010-11. Even if you were right Yao, you are still wrong 2) Battier and 3) Jeffries. They don't expire in 2010. It's in 2011. It's not so easy to reload through free agent signings. Reload with what? 2 max free agents? It's not possible, when you include the salaries for all the players on the current roster, rookie salaries and NBDL. You would be left with a 1 star team, while there is still possibility for trade options with Bosh to get a 2nd star, or possibliy 3rd star.
Lets do some math. http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/09-10salaries.htm Scroll down to the Houston section and check my math for me. Right now storytellers has us at 63 million for '10-'11. The cap right now is at 58 million. We'll assume it stays the same for simplicity's sake. But that 63 million is without Scola's contract being on the books at all, and Lowry they are only counting the qualifying offer (3 million). Of course... Brooks' contract ends the following season and we plan (hopefully) on keeping him. Hayes expires also and we'll assume we don't bring him back (or bring him back for under 1 million). Those are the three players who's contracts are going to change by the '11-'12 year you take. In 2011, Yao, Jeffries, and Battier expire. Lets assume we don't resign any of them. Everyone else will cost 63 - 3 (Lowry's QO) - 2 (Brooks' current salary) - 17 (Yao) - 15 (Battier + Jeffries) = 26 million. That's a lot of money under the cap. Of course, that's everyone other than Scola, Brooks and Lowry. Guy's we definately plan on being with us in 2011. I proposed 20 million for the three of them. Brooks you would think would take nearly half of it (Turk got a long contract at about 10 per year on similar production and he's older), Scola might get about an MLE sized deal, Lowry would probably get under the MLE. So it would probably be right at 20 mil for the three of them. That puts us at 46. If we believe that the cap is at 58 million next offseason, that gives us 12 million to spend in free agency. But wait a second! I haven't finished mentioning all the expenses. What about picks? I've already included next years 14th pick in the 46 (1.5 mil), but what about the 2011 pick that we swap with NY? There's another 1-2 million down the drain. What about 2nd rounders? Combined... you have to figure the 2nd rounders we actually don't cut by then will constitute probably another million (Buddinger and Taylor were about 1.5 million combined so this is a good estimate). And are we going to try to spend money this offseason to upgrade our roster? Even if we just make another small David Andersen-esque deal... that's 2-3 million. If we guess low on all three expenses... that's 50 million. Ok... so we have 8 million dollars to spend. That's basically an MLE contract, just a hair higher actually. You could actually cut costs more by not signing our picks (or trading them away for nothing), and I think a few players like Andersen, Taylor and Buddinger have non-guaranteed deals that year if we waive them. And we obviously could just not upgrade our team for two straight off seasons to save money for this free agent we're going to spend money on, and you might actually have like 16-18 million in cap space. But then we wouldn't have like 6-7 rotation players because we've let them expire or we waived them. Long story short... we're we're not getting an all-star caliber player in free agency with our cap space. Maybe we get Landry back; he'll be a FA by then and that's probably what he'll get for a contract. But definitely not a player better than Chris Bosh. And you claim without Yao (but with Bosh), we aren't going to even be contenders, but replace Bosh with a pick or two, Buddinger, and a Carl Landry level talent and we will be? If we're playing moneyball then we're playing money ball. Don't use the "that team isn't a contender" argument because you have to spend money to make money. If we go after a Chris Bosh, we're not going to suddenly get conservative with money to sign that one last player (in this hypothetical Aaron Brooks) if resigning him puts us over the hump. Also... in the last quote you claim we have all these expirings that put us so far under the cap (even after signing Scola/Lowry/Brooks)... and then turn around and claim that signing Bosh would put us so far over the cap that we wouldn't want to sign Brooks when he becomes a free agent. I estimated the salary with out Bosh, but WITH Brooks/Scola/Lowry to be about 8 mil under the cap. Add Bosh to that... another 20 million... and we're 12 over the cap. That's barely into lux tax territory IIRC... and that's WITH Brooks already signed. There is no salary controversy if we trade for Bosh like you claim. This is assuming we let Yao go of course. If he pans out, then I don't think you can argue that is not a championship team. Do you not go 10-15 million over the lux tax for a championship team? LA, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Orlando... all of these teams have 80+ million dollar team salaries. Which is about where we would be WITH Yao resigned. That's what it takes to win a title. You can't win a title playing money-ball. Bosh would be our only Max contract. We would have Brooks, KM and Yao you imagine would be ~10 million (and worth every penny). Ariza slightly overpaid at 7 mil. Lowry and Scola off the bench at ~10 mil combined. So it's not like we're going to have 50% of our salaries tied up in 2 players like we almost had at one point with Tmac and Yao. We would be in the Lux tax for sure, but like I said... you can't contend without paying the tax. YES. You have two PF-Cs in both scenarios. The difference is that Bosh is LIGHTYEARS better than Hill right now. The picks are probably going to be late lotto picks. I don't think we can count on NY being a top 8 pick when they have as much cap space as they do (I don't think they are making the playoffs either... but then again you can't rule that out). Basically we would be trading 4 players for Bosh. And you know what? Maybe Hill turns into an All-star caliber player. Maybe one of the picks turns into an All-star. But maybe... they don't. You can't count on one of these players panning out (either the picks or Jordan Hill). You are speaking like Jordan Hill is going to turn into Chris Bosh next season and it probably isn't going to happen. Maybe he turns into a Carl Landry... but probably not a 5-10 time All-star like Bosh will be by the end of his career... dude's already made 4 ASGs. You are forgetting the lottery pick and Hill most likely will take 2-3 years to develop and by then Yao is already into his 30s. Same with Scola, except Scola looks like the type that could play the Robert Horry veteran role off the bench for years. And what's wrong with having a twin towers set up? Many teams have this setup and pull it off just fine. Yao is DEFINITELY a C, and Bosh is DEFINITELY a PF. Yao plays closer to the basket, Bosh has some post up moves but tends to play away from the basket. Both are different types of players and wouldn't clash on offense. We're back to you basically saying Hill-C-Bud and two late lotto picks being > Bosh. That's what this comes down to. I busted the "Bosh's salary would kill our cap situation", so your argument basically becomes what I just said. And I have to respectfully disagree with you there.
agentkirb87, That's a good explanation. Roslolian is just one of many posters, who like to ignore the salary cap situation for signing free agents. Bimathug has tried to clarify it in the past with T-Mac, that a expiring max contract doesn't equal cap space for a max free agent. They don't like numbers that are shown. :grin:
I respect that he at least has the ability to discuss this without making it personal. I try not to. The cap thing I think is based more on fact than opinion (how much we will realistically be under the cap if we don't sign Bosh and how much we will realistically be over if we do, even if we keep Yao as well). And then it comes down to which set of assets is better... the Hill-Budd and two picks or Bosh? That's opinion. And I respectfully disagree with his. If there was actually a cap issue in regards to Bosh... I think he would have a point. But there isn't.
To me this is the biggest problem with cynical posters. Not just in terms of free agency, but also in terms of trades(salary matching, BYC, etc.). A lot of things they bring up simply aren't feasible, even though they may look good enough on the surface. NBA teams simply have to work with way too many constraints that armchair GMs don't have to work with. Actual GMs also have to deal with the fact that owners want to make money. So it's not like a video game, where you can sim 3 horrible seasons and rebuild your team with consecutive top picks. Yeah, grumbling about the fact that Morey hasn't brought in Wade or Lebron is kind of pointless, because why would less turn us into the Nets when he can make much more money with a competitive team?
Interesting, my thoughts to your diatribe.... If Bosh decided he wants to come to Houston, it is almost imperative that Scola is part of the deal, and while he may not want to go, the $$$$ that he would make in a sign and trade will probably exceed anything he would get in Houston. IE, he might get 6 or 7 million a year if he signs with Houston, in a sign and trade he would be over $10 million because they need salaries to match and Toronto would value getting a starting caliber PF to replace the one they lost.....IMO, any Bosh trade probably includes Luis as a centerpiece. He certainly could decline, but the $$$$ would be too great, IMO. Yeah, uh, no.....that is your most reasonable trade package....and it is giving up WAY to much.... You are forgetting that Toronto has ZERO leverage here, Bosh is the one making the call here....and the Rockets know it....expect more picks and players like Luenan and Llull to be included.... Chase Budinger has a unique talent, he is a shot maker, has a high BBall IQ and is athletic, those guys are not easy to replace, and the Rockets have been looking for one for years.....he is a lot better than most people (IE you) give him credit for, and simply saying that Von Wafer replaces his production, while true.....is a real shallow look at what happens on the court. Chase has all star potential, Rick Adelman has his new Peja.....let's keep him at all costs. Hill could be traded, but PFs with his quickness and length do not fall off trees, and I think the Rockets would love to have him around for years....they will also try to hold onto him..IMO...and again...Toronto can ask for lots, but the Rockets and Bosh would hold all the power. Hey we agree, but only if Bosh wants to come here.....and we don't have to sell the farm, or rob Peter to pay Paul. So Bosh can be taught defense huh? Well so can Budinger, Hill, Brooks, Martin and anyone else..... Ultimately our defense will be as good as the 7'6" monster in the middle makes it. Everyone wants a good team, that is why we can not give up the farm to get Bosh...which by the way, is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !!!!! Ugh, really? The Cap is very important in building a good team......if you are going to give someone a MAX CONTRACT, they better be a MAX PLAYER & a MAX LEADER.... Bosh, IMO, is not it. Whew, glad I was able to set the OP straight, he was seriously off target. DD
Ok, so a lot overnight / early morning has been written: First, the 'setting things straight' part is really a reference to the ridiculous amount of people I see around the garm writing 'ZOMG PLZ DON'T TRADE SCOLA WE LUV HIM' when the likelihood of trading him is low as can be. I began my argument with talking about the sign-and-trade scenario, and while he's a nice guy and stuff, i'm pretty sure he, a South American, would not wanna go play on a 20-30 win team in Canada. Others have also talked about the BYC that hangs over his contract, making him a toxic asset in a sign-and-trade scenario. Second, to those of you who think the potential trade would be a mortgage job because of Yao's tentative presence, think about this: 1) Great teams dare to be great. They gamble. The Lakers gambled when they picked up Gasol, not knowing if he'd fit with Kobe. They gambled with Artest. The Celtics gambled 2 or 3 summers ago, and their reward is playing in June 2 out of the last 3 seasons. 2) A lot of you seem to assume that if Yao comes back mediocre, that we just let him walk in free agency. Really? Half of the **** in TC is sponsored by chinese endorsements. Half of the players are sponsored through chinese endorsements. We might try to haggle with him for a lower contract, or make him test the market to see what his true value is, but let's face it: in all likelihood, Yao is going to remain a Rocket. 3) We might be investing in Yao anyway this summer if he opts out and wants a long extension. While Morey and Co. are not talking about this publicly, I imagine they will bend to his will more than what we think he will. 4) Some other people have said this, and I find it to be 100% right: talent now > potential. Budinger may be a star. Hill may be a star. Bosh is a star. That's the difference. My point wasn't that they're not valuable role players (they certainly are), but rather, that they are replaceable through either low-market free agency, the draft, or another non-blockbuster trade. Third, I NEVER said defense doesn't matter. I said that, in the NBA, TEAM defense wins. Not one on one defense. This is just true. The L*kers D this year is incredible, and it's not because of Artest. It's because their rotations are crisp, they set strong traps, and maintain a solid presence around the rim when necessary. Defense is a 'greater than the sum of their parts' type of thing in basketball, and the teams that play the best 5-man defense win. Fourth, to answer DD [without repeating myself]. Toronto does have leverage. They can let him walk, make minor adjustments between November and February (ie trade parts for picks), and rebuild through the draft for the next 3 years. It's not like they are aching for a championship up there. So, to be sure, Toronto does have leverage because they don't have to take anything back and screw Bosh over money-wise. One of your later concerns is 'selling the farm,' but to me, if we keep our core (AB KM TA YM LS KL) then we are fine. And your trying to render the defense point non-unique isn't an offensive reason to not acquire Bosh, it's just conceding the point. I understand Yao is the locus of our defense. That's problematic. We need more length, and a solid defensive game plan would use players like Bosh (and hopefully Pryz) effectively. And to further deal with this, it's not like we couldn't try to coax Toronto to try to buy out Battier. It's happened a lot in the past (see: Ilgauskas). And to answer you (and a lot of other people here), let's do this with quotes. You said: I said: To hammer this point in since a lot of you are selective readers: IF HE DOESN'T WORK OUT HE CAN BE TRADED. And when it's not something like a sign-and-trade, we can still get A LOT back for him. It's not like he'd have a 'no-trade' clause in his contract (it would be impossible to do the sign-and-trade, then).
I think people overrate the "Bosh has all the leverage" angle. Remember, Bosh and his agent are reportedly gave a list of teams to the GM/Owner of the Raptors. There is some denying of whether or not a list has been given yet and what teams are on it, but the fact remains that this is how these things usually get done. It doesn't seem like he's going to just pick one team and play hardball, risking that extra 30 million dollars that he can only get by signing and trading with Toronto. This gives Toronto SOME of that leverage back. They aren't getting an all-star back for sure, but expirings, a young guy and a pick or two is well within reason. Especially considering we're handing them 15 million in expirings. Toronto isn't going to pay two players 15 million for a season just so they can get one first rounder. If it's a team like Miami, then it's different because they wouldn't be taking back salary. So getting back maybe a late first would probably be reasonable there. I really think people are overestimating Jordan Hill's value. His value is PURELY based on potential. And lets not forget that given all of his potential, he was still the #8th pick. It's not like we're talking about trading Tyrus Thomas the year he was drafted where people still thought he could become the next Dwight Howard.
