Some News (and Hey Pee may be right afterall .....)

Thanks for the great info and insights, Pop.

We really do appreciate it.

Makes a lot of sense.



------------------
The world is divided into two groups of people: Those who try to divide everyone into two groups, and those who don't.

 

I've read and re-read Oli's comments.

So, if the target is Brown at #4, there must be some sense that Atl will really take Battier at #3, with Curry and Griffin going at one and two.

And if Brown is taken, the worry is the impact upon Dream and Webber.

If the folks at Rocket central are sold on Brown, then I am too. We are competing for the championship in year 2004-2010, not now. The Lakers are too strong to take down now. Until Shaq is 34, we have little chance of making it out of the West, so with a young team, we have to plan for the future.

I don't think that means giving up on playoff runs. It means grooming and making progress until that championship moment arrives.

I've personally felt that Dream is probably gone no matter what we do. And as far as Webber goes, he has to realize that we have to build for the future. I'm kind of weary of his wanting to be all things to all people and stringing so many along. He's really at his prime now, and will be past it within two years.

We won 45 games on the strength of our guards. We have that to build on.

A front court player with huge upside who is very young is just what we need.

Go Rudy.



------------------
The world is divided into two groups of people: Those who try to divide everyone into two groups, and those who don't.

 

NIKE,

The NBA Daily reports of July 1999 and August 1st do not make mention of any renouncements by Toronto, whereas Detlef Shrempf is renounced and Sac renounces 4 on Aug 1st, yet nothing about Toronto. Since Toronto had no renouncements, ALL their free agents would be a cap hit on Aug 1st when the bender deal finished.


Those are the facts to the best of the Internet's knowledge base. Now did they have a major retirement that summer, or were they simply under the cap enough to absorb Davis. More likely than your guess is that they were under the cap.

Thus, I believe given all the facts from the NBA Daily reports, the Davis/Bender trade was very simple. It was just a pure accounting issue to determine what Davis's trade value was...and thus the trade exception Indiana received...no big deal.

bottomline: Davis/Bender is not a good example to use when trying to say how a Rockets big weird dreamcasting trade using future considerations and delayed renouncements has precedence in history.

It doesn't.

If such a Joe Joe thing goes down, it will break new ground in NBA trade history.

imo, that is why Aelliott is not taking a position on this, because the CBA is not clear on whether the Joe Joe trade is legal or not. If there was a clear CBA ruling or historical precendence, I would believe Aelliott would pass that along to us.

 

Not in a salary cap sense. Since we will not be under the cap on draft day, we would have to part with equal salary to land Richmond, and Washington would have to receive equal salary back to part with Richmond. That is why the man is still on that team!!! No one will give anything for him, and no one will use cap room on him, either.

The only thing that would be costly about getting Richmond in a draft day trade is that Richmond sucks and would be a complete, utter waste of salary space. At least Cato and Walt play and have some trade value.

So, does Cato, Walt and Kenny for Richmond benefit Jordan enough to part with the #1 for our 3 picks.

Mabye it involves a 3-way where we another team gets the #1, and we get their #4 (or something), Jordan gets our picks ans something good from the #4 team....plus the ugly Richmond for Cato/Walt thing on top of it.

One thing for sure, that makes more CBA sense than Joe Joe's scenario. NIKEstrad, why can't you come up with something more legal and simple than propogating utter assumptions about the legality and likelihood of a dreamcast involving unprecedented, blockbuster future considerations. I don't understand that.

 

And THAT is simplicity. Thanks for clearing it up your use of the word "costly". Doc Rocket's cryptic messages often turn this board into a haven of reverse Ockham's Razor speculations (ie, what is the *most difficult* trade you can think of). I love Doc's stuff, and he has great fun doing it, but it propogates a lot of crap....and one could argue that it is probably meant to.

thx for speaking clearly oeilpere. And especially thanks for taking the time to answer everyone's questions once you start a scoop thread.

 

heyparty-But, what CBA rule would you be breaking if 2 teams had talks about players under contract, and reached a verbal agreement, that due to the fact players had been renounced, couldn't go down until August 1, with the assumption one team is going to be under the cap? Nothing necessarily has to be binding. The simplicity issue between a "blockbuster" and a simple 1 for 1 is present, and would make things difficult in the "trust" area, but not at all, would be any reason something "big" couldn't go down.
I have never said anything that had us significantly gaining salary could go down on draft day, and as long as only players under contract are involved, talks can get as wild as they want. I was never referring to Joe Joe's scenario.

Anywho, the scenario you mentioned is like what I said (or at least meant). I wonder if Jordan would even want Cato/Walt. Perhaps 13/18 (and 23?) for #1 and Richmond and either Vaught or Nesby, similar to the deal the Clippers and Magic made last year. If he gets rid of Richmond for nothing, I believe the Wiz would have enough to buy CWebb. We could buyout Richmond, and have enough to keep Mo around.

What would keep a deal like 13/18 for #1 going down on draft day, with a later deal of Richmond for whatever going down July 18?

Oh, and heyparty, check #29 of the FAQ: For example, in August 1999 Charles Oakley was renounced by the Toronto Raptors. Had they not renounced him, the Raptors could have re-signed Oakley for any amount up to the maximum $14 million using the Larry Bird exception. Following the renouncement, they were only allowed to give him up to the $6 million they had available under the cap.

What date was that on?

On another issue, when can renouncements begin? July 1, or July 18?

------------------
"I think alot of people find Cato's game to be very offensive." -aelliott, comparing the offensive skills of Kelvin Cato and Michael Olowokandi

[This message has been edited by NIKEstrad (edited June 23, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by NIKEstrad (edited June 23, 2001).]

 

NIKE,

For just one post, try not to look for solutions to your complicated scenario of no historical precedence. Take a second to consider that maybe I am right, that you are way too complicated. I have certainly looked long and hard for you and Joe Joe to be write. I have been posting about these scenarios for the past 2 weeks, and have been doing my research and asking for comments. I am not thinking off the cuff here and simply ways to make a crazy trade work.

I don't deny your possibility, or Joe Joe's. But when you say nothing is "binding" until the trade, that is not true!!!

What is most definitely BINDING is two teams picking players on behalf of each other. You cannot take that back if the deal goes south in August. How do we get the #4 team to draft the player we want if they don't order us to draft the player they want, much less all these promises about future orgasms of buster consummations.

That is why I am saying Joe Joe's scenario (which you keep defending) is the most complicated way possible to make oeilpere's trade work. There are simpler ways if you look for them. You are way too complicated. No GM is going to pick on behalf of another team for future considerations that might not happen...no way...no how. That is way too irresponsible of a GM.

And don't even say...well they have to stand by their word to maintain respect...that is hogwash if something better comes along like Webber saying he wants to sign with us. "Ummmmm, Jordan, I'm sorry but we have to renege in order to take Webber. Thanks for considering us. Good luck on the season. Call us if you need anything, ya hear."

to answer the last question: Oakley was renounced on August 2nd.

 

heyparty-ok, I think I gotcha. The problem isn't the picks. Teams pick for each other all the time (see Billa for Milwaukee) and I don't recall any deals falling through from that standpoint. It's the rest of this thing. The problem isn't even completely from the CBA standpoint, it's from trust that nothing would happen to blow up an agreement between June 27 and July 18.

BTW, looking back at the posts (specifically for JJ's post which you keep telling me I'm defending ) I caught this post from you "Lastly, I think it is pretty clear that talking to free agents and working out deals prior to July 15th, is ILLEGAL. Do you remember last year when it was mentioned that Mobley signed a contract with us in May?" 1st post of page 2. I direct you to FAQ 82, first paragraph-Teams may negotiate with free agents beginning July 1, and may even agree to terms, but they have to wait until the moratorium ends before signing a contract. I proved heypee wrong.

Can you link that article about Bender-Davis and the BYC complications again? I've done my own search, and all I see is "salary cap rules" as the reason. This quote from CNN/SI may be of interest-The trade was made the night of the NBA draft, June 30, when Bender was selected fifth overall, but league rules prevented it from being announced until Aug. 1. <a href=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1999/08/01/raptors_trade_ap/>Article</a>

Better yet, <a href=http://www.allsports.com/nba/news/08-01-1999.htm>this one</a>The trade could not be formally announced until the NBA set the salary cap figure for the 1999-2000 season, which will be $34 million. The deal provides the Pacers with a $4.5 million cap exception, which they may use only in a "sign-and-trade" package. I take that as meaning a deal couldn't go down because the cap was unknown, and could only be assumed that Toronto would be far enough under to absorb Davis. No? The difference though, is that even if Toronto wasn't far enough under right on Aug. 1, they would easily be under once renouncing Oakley. Doesn't help much, but would chances for two teams keeping their promise if the entire TNT crew is doing their team coverage thing talking about it?

------------------
"I think alot of people find Cato's game to be very offensive." -aelliott, comparing the offensive skills of Kelvin Cato and Michael Olowokandi

 

OK, my first time doing this, so I have no idea if I'm proceeding correctly, but please be patient...As I see it, there are a few issues surrounding the moves eluded to by the informed gentleman....
1) Although he adressed this, I'd like to stress the point that, while Brown may evolve into a 5, he's not there yet, and I hear his game's a little shy at this point (ie, perimiter), although the potential to work inside is obvious...The ramifications of this are obviuos; He's not the 5 we'd need to satisfy Webber at this point, in fact, I doubt if any HS player could be...Vets tend to look askance at rookies to begin with, and the "Show Me" stipulation would have to be higher for a HS kid...That being said, I think the Rockets have to choose the lesser promise of the present (Webber, maybe M. Jackson), or the greater possibility of the future (K. Brown, possibly Curry, though I'd much prefer Brown). I feel the two are mutually exclusive as per Webber's stated needs...
2) In relation to the insider info, if the Rockets are clearly targeting a 5, to me that reads "Curry" and no one else worthy a top 5 pick...too many questions regarding all others(ankle, etc.) I'm not sold on Curry, I think he's the biggest boom/bust guy in the draft, but if the Rockets are sold on him, I'll defer to their much greater abilities..As stated previously, I'd really rather have Brown, but he's not a 5 right now, and the Rockets wouldn't be targeting him as such...
3) I can't believe how little play the possibility of trading for LaFrentz is getting in here...To me, short of an inside dominator, he's the prototypical Rudy 5...He's compliment Webber well, should that work out,as he's leave the L-Block to C-Webb...(I apologize for that brief outburst of B-Ball Lingo, will try to avoid in future, but for the record, I blame society)...If we were to coalese the two moves (Acquire Webber AND Lafretnz) than the move up for Brown or Curry takes on more of a developmental aspect, and might be workable to their mutual satisfaction...
4) Not really crazy about Marc Jackson...Shades of Ike Austin, et al...Certainly wouldn't like to commit the long term cap space I think it's take to get him...
Ok, these are my thoughts (!?!?) at present, and I'd appreciate any response,as long as you're gentle, what with my virgin status, etc...

 

Post-Script...I can't type to save my life...Sorry for all the typos..

------------------

 

Typos we can live with! Say hello to the ENTER key; it makes new paragraphs which are easier on the eyes.

The brain can adjust to typos; the eyes aren't so nimble anymore!

------------------
"How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."

 

JAG -
Absolutely agree. IMHO the Rocks are about on par collectively with the Kings at PG, SG, SF & C. IMHO, LaFrentz is superior enough to Divac to get Webber's attention. Can this be said of anyone the Rockets might draft at Center with picks 1 thru 6?

I feel LaFrentz is enough of an upgrade that even w/o Webber he takes the Rocks to the playoffs (Raef put up 12.9 pts 7.8 rebs & 2.6 blocks - remember how well the Rocks did when a healthy Dream was putting up these numbers last season?).

I am probably in a minority, but I would forgo picks 1 thru 6 for the following team:

5) LaFrentz/Collier/FA
4) (Webber)/MoT/(KT or FA)
3) Langhi/ #23(TRock?)/Bull
2) Cat / Colson
1) Steve / Moochie

------------------
Raef to Rocks in '01-'02!

[This message has been edited by GATER (edited June 24, 2001).]

 

Sometimes the pursuit of winning an argument seems to make this BBS forget that some people are not trying to argue but to stimulate better discussions.

NIKE, I am not trying to argue. If you can believe that, maybe we can move on with discussing simple trade scenarios. I am trying to offer CBA rules and trade complications so we can discuss simpler trade scenarios rather than wack stuff.

good grief. NIKE sole reason for propogating wacky complications is to test his arguing ability???

what problem are you talking about. yes, we all know people pick for others, duh. But you are implying they will pick for each other *before* consummating a deal completely, and with very costly implications involving future considerations that may not happen.

So you are saying the #4 team would pick for us based on trust that we will give up pursuit of Webber in order to renounce Dream and use salary cap on a costly contract someone wants to purge as condition for them giving us a pick.

Look (even if it IS legal to do so), we are not promising away the Dream windfall on draft day and end our pursuit of Webber in order to move up in the draft. Have you not been following Doc's posts or oeilpere's clarification of the word "costly".

No NIKE just wants to argue.

You are talking little about trade scenarios rather just trying to pick at my discussion with Joe Joe. Would you please explain your very complicated trade once again, so we can get back on track.

well done on this insignificant correction of dates, I wrongly mentioned the end of moratorium instead of using the starting date. Point was (which you seem not to follow in your pursuit of an argument) we cannot talk to Dream or Webber to help solidify trust in draft day blockbuster, nor can we move the players until July 18th. We are agreeing here. What is your point of chasing down tidbits of miscommunication?

Oh, NIKE just wants to win an argument.

It is posted in this thread. it is from the newswires of August 1st. I posted the exact quote from the press release. This is not an article; it is the newsflash sent to journalists, as I understand the purpose of NBA Daily.

The point is that Toronto did not make a promise to renounce anyone on August 1st, nor was Davis a free agent. It was merely an accounting issue, which was likely a mix of cap calculations *and* figuring out Davis' BYC trade value based on needing a new calculation for average salary. The other point is we are agreeing on these facts. Move on to understand more of what I am saying.

You have said nothing to acknowledge the extreme complications of draft day promises to renounce players and the illegality of promising the SnT players. Nor have you acknowledged that Bender/Davis was a one for one trade, and both oeilpere and Doc's scenarios would involved upwards of 4 to 5 draft picks and 4 players. The complications are incomparable.

No instead NIKE just wants to win an argument and propogate unprecedented trade complications with questionable legality and and/or mutual GM trust to pull it off (promises of renouncements in exchange for trading picks).

NIKE, you are not trying to discuss trade scenarios with me. I'm done with this. I didn't want to argue with you on this. If your interest in the CBA is to find the most clever and complicated thing possible, then remind me not to discuss either the CBA or trades with you.

Super complicated trades of unprecedented proportions are as much silly dreamcasting in my book as Cato?Walt for the #4. I have nothing to say about such wackiness.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 24, 2001).]

 

Boy,is Heypee a tad moody today? Dont pick on nikestrad,he's not arguing, just talking about possibilities and the CBA. Dont you notice the smiles ?

Peace and love between BBS'ers

------------------
Bigamy is having one wife too many.Monogamy is the same

 

yeah yeah Rocket Guard, that's right, I am the one picking on NIKE. Although I was talking to Joe Joe, and NIKE is rehashing stuff he and I have already discussed in previous threads.

Dude won't stop arguing the possibility of inane complicated trade scenarios, just to flex his CBA knowledge, yet won't state the trade.

The word is not "tad moody". It is more "swatting a mosquito" by asking him to state his trade or quit arguing with others who don't want to argue.

 

heypissedoff-

So you are saying the #4 team would pick for us based on trust that we will give up pursuit of Webber in order to renounce Dream and use salary cap on a costly contract someone wants to purge as condition for them giving us a pick.

I'm basing things around the fact Webber has said he will decide where he's going around draft time. And I'm assuming it's not here, but Washington. The Bender-Davis thing proves deals can be agreed to go down on August 1 (July 18), would you like the lack of complexity better if it was 13/18 for 1 on draft day, with Richmond for a future pick on July 18 agreed upon. Vescey reports rumors all the time that don't even come close to working cap wise. Suppose the Rockets did 13/18, and then both sides talked about Richmond for a future pick happening on July 18, and had all the TNT people mentioning it. What are the odds either team would back out?


Look (even if it IS legal to do so), we are not promising away the Dream windfall on draft day and end our pursuit of Webber in order to move up in the draft. Have you not been following Doc's posts or oeilpere's clarification of the word "costly".

See above, Webber should know where he's going by draft time. As I've said, it's illegal for the matter to involve Dream.


well done on this insignificant correction of dates, I wrongly mentioned the end of moratorium instead of using the starting date. Point was (which you seem not to follow in your pursuit of an argument) we cannot talk to Dream or Webber to help solidify trust in draft day blockbuster, nor can we move the players until July 18th. We are agreeing here. What is your point of chasing down tidbits of miscommunication?

That piece isn't completely relevant to this discussion, but for other matters. I assume you mean we can talk starting July 1. But, that means teams could work out kinks starting July 1, when it involves free agents.


It is posted in this thread. it is from the newswires of August 1st. I posted the exact quote from the press release. This is not an article; it is the newsflash sent to journalists, as I understand the purpose of NBA Daily.

The point is that Toronto did not make a promise to renounce anyone on August 1st, nor was Davis a free agent. It was merely an accounting issue, which was likely a mix of cap calculations *and* figuring out Davis' BYC trade value based on needing a new calculation for average salary. The other point is we are agreeing on these facts. Move on to understand more of what I am saying.

I don't understand the BYC part, for two reasons.

According to my BYC understanding:
1. The salary cap does not play any role in how much BYC is.
2. Bender had a trade value of $0 (draft rights were the only thing traded), so obviously Indiana wasn't accepting too much. And Toronto was taking the whole contract, so where's the problem? Davis' contract was signed in 96 (P. Bender's site). Was BYC instituted retroactive to the current CBA?

As my quote from the link I gave seemed to imply, my guess is that a deal couldn't officially go down until it was a fact Toronto was far enough under the cap, and all estimations said they would be easily, which is why Indiana could agree.

Indiana could have backed out of that deal had they wanted. Nothing was official until August 1. Teams like to have trust in each other. Bender-Davis on draft day was basically the same as the "Stoudamire is a Rocket" trade. Not official till it actually happens. The Rockets will probably not do business with Toronto for awhile after the mishap in media.

In this particular case let's throw in some names. Obviously Washington would want to get rid of Richmond so they'd stay in my "proposed" deal and draft Curry. Even if we back out, they still have Curry. As for them drafting at 13 and 18, if you're the Rockets, would you back out of the deal after you've drafted for them say....Jamaal Tinsley (PG) and Joe Forte (SG)? Not very likely.


You have said nothing to acknowledge the extreme complications of draft day promises to renounce players and the illegality of promising the SnT players. Nor have you acknowledged that Bender/Davis was a one for one trade, and both oeilpere and Doc's scenarios would involved upwards of 4 to 5 draft picks and 4 players. The complications are incomparable.

I've said nothing of promising S/T players. And if I haven't acknowledged the complexity I will right now. No one said things would be easy. If anything the Rockets do have a knack for making large deals. Time is the only barrier. I am, of course dreamcasting. I can do that, right?

I thought I've stated my trade before, apparently not. Then I'll do it again:
1. #13, #18, KT for #1 (Curry) on draft day. (Wizards have a trade exception)
2. Conditional first rounder for Mitch Richmond on July 1, as announced on draft day.

Draft Morris at #23. Buyout Richmond, resign Mo and Mooch, and Bull (vets min. after renouncing).
Francis/Mooch
Mobley/[Langhi]
Walt/Morris/[Langhi]/[Bull]
Mo/Collier/[Bull]
Curry/Cato

If you're feeling extra spicy, trade Walt for Horry.
------------------
"I think alot of people find Cato's game to be very offensive." -aelliott, comparing the offensive skills of Kelvin Cato and Michael Olowokandi

[This message has been edited by NIKEstrad (edited June 24, 2001).]

 

OK, cool. Let's settle the Bender/Davis thingie.

BYC is important because trade value is a percentage of previous yr OR league average, which ever is greater. Leage average is incalculable on draft day.

Anyhow, that is not important to the point that the Bender/Davis trade is incomparable to promising to renounce someone. Your logical connect to the two is not consistent with what Toronto did.

The Toronto trade was going down based on a very predictable scenario regarding accounting issues and variables not controlled by either GM...there were no GM promises involved. Both sides had data concerning the salary cap and league ave pay. Both sides did not have league confirmation of those numbers, yet. And Bender was probably a pick Indiana was happy with anyhow.

Do you not see how that is a simple trade based purely on accounting issue that just hadn't been formally announced yet and NOT ON ANYMORE PLAYER MOVEMENT promising..

What you are saying is we will promise not only to renounce Hakeem but to no longer pursue Webber.

So here is NIKE's Trade

Jordan gives us his #1 for our #13 and 18 on the condition we renounce Dream and forego pursuing Webber by trading Richmond for a future pick.

The Richmond part happens on July 18 after we renounce Hakeem and must require us to forego pursuing Webber and ALL other free agents. If we later decide not to forego pursuing Webber, and renege for whatever reason, Jordan is stuck with the picks we made him pick, and the Rockets are stuck with who Jordan picked in our spots, as the trade will unravel.

Trading picks on the condition of renouncements and promising to define your free agent manuevers is UNPRECEDENTED. That has NEVER happened. The Bender/Davis issue has nothing to do with renouncements nor free agent manuevers.

The Bender/Davis issue only concerns new accounting calculation based on league wide known variable that each team CANNOT change. That is where you aren't getting it NIKE. You are comparing Bender/Davis to say that means future considerations can be anything. NO! Bender/Davis did not involve variables controlled by either GM. Further, those accounting variables were problem already know or mathematically predictable to a fair degree. Stop with Bender/Davis meaning anything goes, until something does go.

In the meantime, there are simpler trades with more precedence in history.

Do you want to talk about those, because your Richmond trade sucks for us and is too complicated to happen, imo?

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 24, 2001).]

 

You know, HeyP, the traditional way to stop arguing if you don't want to is to stop talking.

------------------
Feeling claustrophobic, like the walls are closing in.
Blood stains on my hands, and I don't know where I've been.
I'm in trouble for the things I haven't got to yet.
I'm chomping at the bit, and my palms are getting wet.
Sweating Bullets

Runnin', Ravin', Endin', Out.

 

RR,

The traditional way to stop arguing is agreeing on something and moving forward.

RR, what is the purpose of your post? Do you want to offer a trade or what?

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 24, 2001).]

 

anyone else want to paint me as being pissed off or argumentative...allow me to say...

You are OFF TOPIC.

Suggest a trade, and try to make it a legal one and one with historical precedence is if has wacked out complications.

Do oeilpere some justice rather than masturbating in delusions, and reread his clarification of "costly" before continuing insist his use of "costly" must mean we lose in the Webber sweepstakes as some show of CBA knowledge.

Come on....draft day trades are always simple. Keep it simple. Don't add unprecedented complication to something you are already basing off of third-hand knowledge.

...sigh, this is what I get for trying to offer historical and legal realism to speculation.