You are right that I shouldn't be mad and I'm not. I picked out NIKEstrad because it stood out in my mind as someone who didn't read my original post to completion before he posted. I really don't have anything against him and actually like his posts and I've even learned quite a bit from the previous posts. The problem in my mind is that members here seem to want to show each other up instead of having a discussion. I don't like it. I realize that my idea in the thread will not work now. I appreciate that people took the time to find the holes in it because now I have gained some knowledge. But I still believe my thread had some ideas in it worth thinking about. I knew nothing about the MLE and cap restrictions and I don't want to know about them because I don't find it important to my everyday life. I hope no one is offended by my personal preference. And again, I'm not mad and wasn't mad. Next Question: If we had the cap room to do so after a few trades, etc(there are ways to do that), could we sign Chandler to a deal that has a player option after the first year so that he does not get stuck with the Bulls if he doesn't want to be stuck with them? Can the deal be long term after the first year player option or do those options(team/player) need to be at the end of the contract? Disclaimer: I do not know a lot in life, period. If I am wrong about anything in the above statements it is because I really don't know that much about contract issues and trades. I do know that there are always ways of doing things if you want them bad enough. And NIKEstrad, I have nothing against you.
I know almost as little as you, but, by default, for any trade to work, it has to work under the salary cap. Whatever the Rockets send out, they get back. They may even get back more since they have a TE. Unless they trade players for other teams trade exceptions, then if they aren't under the cap now, they won't be after trades. As for the rest of your question, I have no idea...
Why would you even say that? Your thread asked if such a thing were possible. He said "no" and pointed out why (because it is impossible). So how can you accuse him (and others) of not reading?
Barring an unexpected turn of events, it's pretty safe to say we can give up all hopes of landing this guy. He's not going anywhere. I think it's no coincidence Clutch hasn't done a Potential Rocket Profile on him yet.
I did. Please see my other post and show me where exactly in your original post you "clearly stated that the numbers were not important." I'm sorry you find someone pointing out multiple logic flaws in your posts condescending. Picking out mistakes usually is. As for your new question...under the current CBA, Larry Coon lays it out pretty clear. It's possible this could change, but I haven't heard this as an issue at all. They actually closed a loophole involving options from previous CBAs with this one (see the link for a general overview). Getting cap room for the Rockets this offseason is possible, but not feasible. To get $14 mill under the cap, it would require a team under the cap to take around $20 mill of our contracts in return for nothing. Just not gonna happen.
So we might need to be 14 million dollars under the cap to have a chance at getting Chandler? He isn't worth the max type of contract. I still think there is a way to make this happen. The Bulls have to have some weakness here. They have the upper-hand, but a team can't have a complete hold on a restricted FA. Otherwise they would call it not-so-free FA or something like that. I remember when we tried to get Marc Jackson and how that worked out. After hearing all of this and remembering the MJ contract it sounds like a one year deal would be the best scenario. Don't worry about it man. I thought I was being clear when I said please let the numbers slide. The next sentence was saying that the important thing was a heavy front end contract with a player option after the first year. Your quote from Larry Coon tells me that my idea wouldn't work. So... how do you pry a restricted FA from a team that wants to keep their player? I'm not ready to admit defeat. How else will we get what we want but to continue to try.
I guess what I was saying and how people understood what I was saying are two different things(I guess I'm a poor writer). I realize that trade and free agent threads get old on this site. I was trying to figure out a way around the Bulls to get Chandler knowing that people hate these ideas. I don't believe that getting him is impossible, but I'm one of those people that don't give up easily so I want to continue to think and talk about it even if I get shot down. A lot of people write off trades as impossible as soon as they read them, but I've seen trades and transactions in the NBA that don't make a whole lot of sense to me. I think that if you want a guy you have to work at it to make it happen. Granted I'm not in the loop and don't have the ability to actually work deals, but I find it fun to talk about. It's called dreaming. Some people are too practical to think outside the box and the word impossible or some synonym of impossible gets used and the dreamer shuts up. So, if you want to help think up the possible solution to the impossible problem then I'm all ears. Next Idea: Could we give the Bulls what they want through a third party? I've read somewhere that the Grizzlies want cap room or want a MLE or something like that. The Bulls need a servicible power forward. Maybe Swift and some other players can be moved to Chicago, we give the Griz something they want and we get Chandler. Anyone know of 'some other players' Memphis could part with and 'something they want' to add to their puzzle from the Rockets might be?
And now that I reread your first post, why would you have a player option to void contract in the first year? Does that mean if, by midseason, Chandler's not getting his he can just quit and leave the team? I think the reason why most of us are torpedoing your thread is because: 1. You ask if your idea is possible and the members said no and told you why. Then you got mad. What gives? 2. I don't know the fine details of the CBA like some members here, but I do know that there's a salary cap. If you're an NBA fan, and not even a Rockets fan, you should have known this. And you should have also known that we are no where near 14 mil under the cap. It was a valiant effort, I'll give you that. But still...why give this guy 14 million dollars for ANY year? And then throw in a 'player option to void contract' too?
Chandler is a restricted FA, so the Rockets would have to sign him to an offer sheet and then Chicago would have 2 weeks to match the offer. Offer sheets must be for at least 3 years, so you Houston wouldn't be able to offer him a 1 year deal. If a team has a restricted FA that they absolutely don't want to give up, then the players only option is to accept the teams 1 year tender offer (which is required in order to make the player a restricted FA) and then play out that season and then become an unrestricted FA the next offseason. That's exactly what Olowakandi did to get away from the Clippers and what Swift did last offseason. Otherwise, if the player signs an offer sheet, then their old team can simply match. That's the very reason that alot of good free agents never get offers, teams believe that their old team will match, so they don't want to tie their cap space up for two weeks while other FAs are being signed. Chandler can play one more season in Chicago, then have total control of where he goes (like Swift). But for the upcoming season, if Chicago is willing to pay him, then he has to stay.
On the first part. Couldn't really tell if it was tongue in cheek or not. Being not so free is the very definition of restricted free agency. If you had read my post, you'd have seen the only successful formula for prying away restricted free agents to date. If a team wants to keep a player, given the contract restrictions, no contract will scare them away. Some people see several paths to the same destination. The destination is ultimately a championship, and to do that, we want to upgrade the 4 slot. While I don't understand why you'd want to jump through the hoops and offer max type money to a good not great player, I also don't think it's defeatist to recognize a spade for a spade. I think the Rockets should acquire Tim Duncan. I call Popovich, and he says either McGrady or Yao's name better come from my mouth. Should I continue my pursuit of Duncan? If I want to. Will it get anywhere? No. Tyson Chandler can't be had, but there are a lot of other, some even better options out there. Why focus on the former. which you can't control, when you can fulfill the latter, which you can control. I don't think a summer which nets us Tyson Chandler is better than a summer which nets us Abdur-Rahim, Darius Miles, and say Sprewell. We DO have assets- just not ones that can be turned into Chandler. Our assets have value to teams trying to get rid of long term contracts and bad apples (Chandler), and can coax teams into moving free agents they weren't planning to keep (SAR). For restricted free agents who are wanted back by their team and don't have horrible contracts for bench sitters, these assets do not suffice.
err that came out weird .. point is lamar odom told the clippers not to match the heat offer sheet because they wouldnt want a "disgruntled employee" on their hands. so the clippers let him walk, that being said im sure chandler doesnt have the same hatred towards the bulls so it doesnt matter.
uh, no. it's reality. if the bulls do not want to give up chandler - there is no way for us to acquire him under the current CBA - and if things are to believed from my sources, the next CBA will have similar rules regarding RFAs.
Odom signed a virtual max contract, coming off back to back injury filled years, had gone AWOL multiple times, and played for a team that hasn't come close to sniffing the salary cap in years. Odom was, is, and always will be a flake. The Clippers had limits as to what they would pay, and with Sterling, everyone knew it. Chicago isn't in that situation. Never mind the Clippers had already matched offer sheets for Brand and Maggette. Point is, the Rockets won't be able to offer Chandler a contract above MLE. If Chandler signs an MLE offer, he can be as disgruntled as he wants- Chicago would match and trade him later in the year. Believe- The first two questions are entirely dependent on the new CBA. The Rockets will not be under the cap, so all we will have are exceptions. The MLE amount is based on a formula derived primarily from the league average salary. How much the MLE is worth is dependent on how the new CBA defines it. Some rumors say the current MLE level of about $5 mill may be split into two exceptions, one worth 2/3 and the the other worth 1/3. Under the old CBA, the Rockets would also have the "million dollar exception" (actually ~1.8 mill), but it may be done away with. We'll see. If you want a rough estimate, go with $5 mill. The third answer is yes. The Rockets did it with Ward and Sura last year. You also don't have to sign a player to the entire amount of the exception.
despite your opinions on lamar odom, donald sterling has consistently low-balled the clippers -- teetering around the league MINIMUM in terms of salary. sterling had more than enough money to match the heat's offer (even after maggette and brand) and according to published reports sterling wanted to keep him. he knew it was bad business to let another star leave for nothing (fan favorite darius miles was traded for andre miller who later walked for nothing the year before) my post was in response to your claim that if a team wants to keep a restricted player, nothing will stand in their way. well the lamar odom situation shows otherwise. chicago isnt in the same situation as the clippers because tyson chandler hasnt expressed a deep hatred for the bulls' organization NOT because the owner was hesitant to spend money. so why did you reply to me? if chandler were to pull a lamar odom and sign a rockets offer for the MLE the bulls would be foolish to match it. no team wants a "disgruntled employee" on their team. chandler would just hot dog it and the bulls would end up trying to trade an under performing, malcontent of a player for lesser value than he's truly worth.
The Odom case isn't the same. The Clippers would have liked to keep Odom, but not at the price. He had too many past issues to tie up that kind of money with him. Odom got an offer above what the Clippers thought was his market value...Chandler for MLE is below market value. We can only offer the MLE. Regardless of how disgruntled Chandler is, Chicago would be idiots to not match the offer. A young guy with his potental, who's signed for that low of a salary would be a huge asset and incredibly easy to trade.
