The Houston Rockets have declined forward Jae'Sean Tate's $1.8 million team option for next season

Yes, Tate has some flaws in his game...but those flaws (shooting) can always get better. Rockets need a player like Tate. I'm assuming they are trying to get him on a decent contract for future salary matching trade opportunities. In addition, there are not many teams out there with cap space...so most he can sign for is MLE?

After Eric Gordon, everyone is on rookie-scale contracts. Need more salary for matching purposes.

 

It's not that he's a black hole, it's that he's a 6'4 PF who can't shoot, can't protect the rim, is a poor rebounder, can't create his own shot, and create shots for anyone else..... and he just said that his primary focus is on passing instead of shooting because he wants to pretend he's Draymond Green.

 

He should be fine now that he can go back to his real position at the 3. Having him play power forward at 6'4" was a joke. I give him credit for not complaining about the stupid coaching. If anyone should have walked out during halftime, it should've been Tate. He showed a lot of heart.

As long as the deal is reasonable, i'm cool with it. He can be a nice role player in the future.

 

Well, he was a 6'4 PF because we didn't have any other options. With a knockdown 6'10 PF, next year's roster should be a much better fit for Tate. He's a good on-ball defender and won't have much of a size disadvantage at SF being 230.

Despite his poor perimeter shooting, he's still an efficient offensive player, he's a VERY good finisher hitting on a truly mind-blowing 70% of his shots at the rim... which accounts for 40%! of his total FGA's. To give an example of how nutty that is for a 6'4 player, last year the incredibly efficient 7'1 Gobert shot 73% at the rim.

Outside of the stats, there are some obvious intangibles our FO appreciates, Tate plays extremely hard, he brings intensity on the court, he has a good feel for the game, and by all accounts is great in the locker room.

His passing and ball-handling aren't terrible, but he turned it over too much and needs to really refine his offensive game, he also needs to tone down the needless aggression fouls on D. He has obvious flaws and limitations but I do think all in all he's a positive impact player and nothing to get upset about keeping around this franchise right now.

 

I like him for his intangibles, I don't like him for his game.

I guess i just see him as a short, unathletic SF on the court who can't shoot that thinks he's a playmaker when he's not. The issue is really that he'll kill spacing because no one needs to guard him and he brings nothing but the occasional put back or layup offensively.

Since that's all he even attempts, his numbers look decent, but he's not someone that can ever be counted on to do anything positive offensively.

I feel like the better move would be to dump Tate and start KJ Martin and give time to Eason. Tate is not a player with a future here

 

I'll repost @Codman's post. In short, this shouldn't surprise anyone.

"The good news is that the Rockets are going to be a good team sooner than later, and with some better leadership (and perhaps a better coach), they will be one of the most athletic teams we've seen in awhile. Green and Big Al are the untouchables, with Tate being right there. KPJ is arguably the best player on the roster, but he needs time to mature psychologically more than anything."

 

We need that dog until the trading deadline in February.

 

People's unreal expectations about Tate are getting to me man. Some folks really expect every player to be HOF bound and have no reference for what other teams look like, what other players average, etc.

Tate at 5-8 mil a year is a no brainer.

 

I don't agree that he's unathletic, he moves well for a 230-pound man on his frame. He isn't a vertical athlete, but he's relatively quick and powerful. I also don't agree that he can't be counted on to do anything positive offensively, he can be counted on to finish at the rim at an elite level, his handle, power and agility gets him to the rim against a fair amount of matchups, if he's surrounded by really good shooters, and is moved up to SF this becomes a greater strength.

I like KJ, and believe Eason should get his shot of course, but Tate doesn't have to project to be a long-term starter to have a future here. He can be rotation player off the bench, or he can be a 3rd stringer, if he's a positive in practice, potentially a leader in the locker room, what's the fuss? We can use a Haslem, and you never know if he might end up improving on his corner 3-ball later in his career making him a proper fit.

 

ummmm.... i dont want to pay Tate.

I'm fine with him as a $2-$3/M yr cheap backup guy off the bench... but I dont see him playing a significant role as we hopefully morph into a contender...

i view him like KMJ or Nwaba or others... placeholders... maybe guys that could play a support role with a team friendly contract...

but i dont want to be on the hook for a contract that could require assets to move down the road...

 

Tilman is all about rewarding results. He makes a positive example for all of the players who buy into the culture and represent the Rockets community. They don't have to do this, but it's the right thing to do. This will translate well into signing FA and rookies in the future and is likely a sneak peek at what we will do with Green on an extension and might do with Smith if he translates at the NBA level.

 

To me it’s all about how much the extension is. I think Tate is good for the team and believe he will improve his shooting. I agree he’s a role player that should come off the bench, so my biggest problem with our approach is that the coaching staff plays him out of position for starters minutes. They better not pay him that way too.

I agree it’s too early in the rebuild to extend role players, but I’d make an exception for Tate IF he’s being extended for role player money. If it’s a lot more than that, it’s really poor judgement.

 

That's not allowed by the CBA. While you are allowed to have salary decrease in subsequent years, the amount of the change each year has to be the same.

 

I don't like this

Edit: bobbythegeek is against it so I might listen to supporters here

 

Yes, I wanted the Rockets to pick up his player option so he could be moved as soon as Tari Eason is ready to take his place.

 

Tate gets 3 years 24?

 

That's too bad.

 

Yeah might as well. Its nit a massive contract and were not big free agent destinations right now.

 

They said that same exact **** last year and he got worst. He needs to go back to the guy who knows he's not better than he actually is. Do the little things, be the glue guy, play defense like your career depends on it like you did your first year..all will be gravy.

 

Nice of Stone to give Tate a shot at generational wealth one year earlier. Shows good will.