There are some poker games in which you can buy a card to make your hand better; if you play which philosophy do you follow? The one where you stand pat and hope you have the best cards, or do you assume that even though you have a good hand you give up a solid card to take a chance on buying a card that may give get you the nut (sure winner)? That's what we're faced with here. We have a great hand; I think it would be the equivalent to a J hi flush. If we give up Bonzi or Luther that could put in jeopardy our winning hand because essentially we would be trading a heart to get a higher one, and in a 5 card game that's pretty risky. The two pair philosophy is a better one to deal with because we can keep a pretty good hand, lose a card and though the odds are slightly worse we could add a card that would give us a full house which is a virtually unbeatable hand. Using this coffee induced analogy we've played good cards all season, never having our best hand but playing the cards that we have to the best of our ability. We play our hands really aggressive at the beginning of the games usually causing teams to fold at the end based on what they've seen. Mike James is a queen of hearts, which is probably the best we can hope to pull from the deck. He could make our hand better but not significantly better given the flush. I say don't give up good cards for him. But if he can be had with us keeping a great hand (2 pair) he could give us the full house. Say yes to M. James but only if he doesn't destroy the hand that we've spent all this time building. Now, shuffle up and deal!
So you wouldn't get James because we might have to take on Griffin? Maybe we shouldn't give up Rodrick Rhodes either. Seriously, if we could get James for Sura+Lucas and then move Tsack for Griffin, you wouldn't do it? All because of Griffin? Hell, we could just waive him! Pick up someone like Loren Woods from the D-league to fill Tsack's bench warming spot.
Jake Tsakalidis? I totally forgot about him. Yes, I would do the trade you suggested.......Jake T, for EG.....and Sura & JL3 for James. But would the Wolves go for it? What possible reason would they have for doing this deal? Sura's & Tsack (love that name) expiring contracts.....is that enough? The deal you suggested does not hurt the chemistry of the core group of players, but you have to wonder how Rafer would take it....M James is arguably a better player than Rafer........is Rafer's ego that fragile? DD
To make The Queen of Hearts work (because of his conract) he would have to play out as the Ace of Clubs.
Computer translation: Mike James is a queen. He has heart, which is the best we can hope for, since he's not playing with a full deck. Better give him the flush.
I don't think Mike is a better fit than Rafer.....Rafer is a nice fit for this team. Rafer has his moments, but hell; who doesn't? I do think that Mike is a perfect fit coming off the bench.......When T-mac sits, he comes in for instant offense.
Does anyone remember Mike James popping off on his way out of town last time... "I play for the name on the back of the jersey, and not the front." Talk about delusional. Its a business. Better question - If we get him, does his trade kicker come with him? How does the trade kicker work anuway? He has one, but yet he might get traded. Does he essentially have veto power over any deal?
Nope, it is a 1 time thing. The main incentive for Minny is the Rockets probably pay off the kicker amount, rid them of EG's salary and take on James contract. Minny gets no player worth at all, just salary relief and cash.
From the Wolves perspective, they do the deal to get out from under Mike James 4 year contract. Remember they already have a ton of guards on that roster. It is addition by subtraction. It allows Foye more minutes to grow as a player. It allows McCants to get more rotational minutes. Under Whittmen, Jaric is getting more minutes. Maybe T-hud can get his butt off the bench? Sura is expiring, Tsack is expiring. They get rid of 2 players with years on their contracts for expiring deals. And then they also get a "low cost" opion in JL3 as a bonus. That would be their incentive.
Oh, I get the irony believe me. I thought we should have taken a low risk try at EG when his last contract was up, and also was against just outright releasing him for nothing when the Rockets got rid of him. And, I still think he has talent but his lack of dedication and his mind not being right are huge factors. He may still turn it around, but most players like that never do.......in fact I can not think of one basketball player who had a lot of talent and was screwed in the head that turned it around and had a productive career. DD
There was a guard back in the late 1970's who played for NY Knicks, Micheal Ray Richardson, had so much talent and potential and wasted it all away on a crack pipe.
In the article, it states that the Rockets would cut him if they made the deal. So we wouldn't have to deal with Eggie. The main problem is who would we have to give up to get Mike James.......again.
Say no to Mike James even if we dont have to take on Griffin. That psycho doesn't deserve to wear a Rockets uni ever again.
I love and play a lot of poker, so that's a great analogy you got there, AB. I'm not really for trading for James, but I'd be fine with the trade if it went down. The thing is, I don't even think he'd wanna play for Houston now. He was hurt and mad when the Rockets traded him. Then, in this past offseason, he could have signed with the Rockets. We all know how that turned out. I think he has a chip against management here, so I don't know if it'd be the best idea. Also, he's had a ton of quotes that prove he's not the type of guy that the Rockets locker room is made up of. He could be very good for the Rockets possibly...
