I don't think mavs even wanted him.. they just wanted to make sure the rox didn't get him.. so I don't know why some people say its okay as long as dallas didn't get him because he's not going to add anything to what dallas already has anyway.. well it still does matter especially the draft day trade.. why would people want to see a rox game without yao and tmac and noone else exciting.. but if you think it does not matter then getting battier did nothing as well or actually hurt us..
Yes you did mention the trade kicker. ""The trade kicker is pretty close to a no trade clause. They both make it difficult to trade a player. The trade kicker in this case hurts in the pocket $$. So I don't don't know what you don't understand." was responding to the above. I don't even know why I am bothering. The trade kicker was important. He was not going to accept without it. So you have to throw it in if you want him. And the rest of my response explained why the notion that the Rockets not offering an opt out clause for the four year didn't make sense. They probably did offer it ... if what MJ said was true (that all three teams offered a four year deal).
that was just an example I was just trying to figure out why you started comparing Mike James to Beltran.. is it solely because of the trade kicker demand.. Beltran did ask significantly more money than him.. how you know.. lets say your choosing between two 32K cars.. one you want so much and the other one is okay.. but you only want to pay 30K.. the one you didn't want so much offered 30K but the one you really loved does not want to move at 32K.. so you get the 30K car.. but if the other one at least met you half way then you might have took it.. we'll never know.. just like if we could have gotten more for the 8th and gay.. but it looks like our management was too lazy or incompetent to even try..
Just to clarify, Mike James wasn't eligible to receive a no-trade clause in his contract. A "no-trade" clause can be negotiated into an individual contract if the player has been in the NBA for at least eight seasons, and has played for the team with which he is signing for at least four seasons http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#85 The trade kicker can make a trade difficult or impossible at any time during the life of the contract. Notice the two examples below from Coon's CBA FAQ. Both involve the 5th year of an $800,000 contract. For trades, trade bonuses can be a nuisance. When a team trades for a player with a trade bonus, it must count the portion of the bonus that applies to team salary in that season as incoming salary. Let's say a team wants to trade their $800,000 player for the player used in the example above, in the fifth season of that player's contract. Assuming there is no Early Termination Option or non-guaranteed season, the bonus counts $150,000 in the current season, so the trade cannot be made. The team trading the $800,000 player can accept $1,100,000 in return (see question number 68), but the player with the trade bonus counts as $1,150,000 in incoming salary. The CBA allows the player to waive part of his trade bonus, if necessary to allow a trade to fit within the 125% plus $100,000 margin. To make the above trade work, the player would need to waive $100,000 of his $300,000 trade bonus. The bonus would then be worth $200,000, and $100,000 of that would be allocated to the current season. The player would therefore count $1,100,000 as incoming salary, which exactly matches the maximum the other team can accept in return for their $800,000 player. The player is not allowed to waive more than the amount necessary to make the trade legal. Another potential difficulty is that a team trading a player with a trade bonus uses the player's pre-trade salary (without the bonus), when comparing salaries for trade. Here is another example, using the same player as before. This time, let's assume our player has an Early Termination Option following the fifth season of his contract, so if he is traded during the fifth season, the entire bonus is allocated to that season. This means that following a trade, $1,300,000 is included in his new team's team salary. Suppose a team wants to trade their $1,400,000 player for this player. The other team can accept $1,850,000 for their player, and since our player counts $1,300,000 as incoming salary, there's no problem on their end. But our player counts $1 million as outgoing salary, so the most we can accept in return is $1,350,000. This means the trade doesn't work from our end. And in this case, waiving a portion of the trade bonus will not help. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#84
I agree with those that James is not worth the kicker when not even Yao or T-Mac have one. Yes we lost Gay and Swift for Battier but we also lost Swifts contract. The Free Agent Market does not look too good this year and we still have a ways to go to be Championship material but even with James I still don't think we would have won a Championship. We need a SG but we also need a true power forward. If we can get those 2 ingredients then you have the right formula.The only problem is that theres no one out there to get
GATER, I still don't get it. The advantage of EBR is that you can offer more than anybody else, right? So if the Rockets aren't willing to offer more than anybody else, as is clear now, what makes you think that we would take advantage of the EBR to keep him had we not traded him?
Come to think of it- IF you compare Mike james to other Guards that got away with rich contracts- he sure was - in his own words a "cheap Prostitute" What a blunder! This is making the Rudy T Circus respectable!
NO MIKe. . you must allow us to screw you at any time please home baby . .i love you . . I want cheat on you again Rocket River go ahead mike go head get down
its not like were going to pay mike james the same amount of money we paid yao and tmac.. its not like yao and tmac are going to complain.. mike james may have a trade kicker but he's making only around 1/3 of what tmac and yao are making.. if he was getting a max deal and asking a trade kicker, I would say no.. but he's only getting an MLE deal.. so would you rather get some second rate FA for MLE and no trade kicker or mike james for mle plus with trade kicker?
CAROL DAWSON IS A F@#%ING IDIOT.....JAMES IS GONE, NO MORE GAURDS IN THE MARKET.......NOW HE'S GONNA OVERPAY WESLEY AND HE'S GONNA BE OUR STARTING TWO.......WE'RE GONNA GET KNOCKED OUT IN THE FIRST ROUND.......FREAKIN DONKEY
with the player option, James would start hoisting shots NOW, next season. He needs to continue his track record of scoring so that he can get that big payday. Watch him in Minny. It's perfect for him. Garnett needs a 2nd go to guy from the perimeter. James fits that to a tee. He will have the green light to shoot, and dammit he'll shoot. He'll put up some huge numbers, akin to what he did last year. People will moan and groan b/c "Oh, he would have done that here". And then, he'll opt out of Minny so fast it will make Garnett's head spin.
Akuma, No team plans to trade a new acquisition. But things don't always work out do they? The player could become a cancer to the team and What if the Rockets wanted a Al Harrington type player but couldn't be players because they wanted Mike James to be included? Remember the Rockets are not under the salary cap and don't have money to throw away. I know there are alot of what ifs in my response but the Rockets had to have weighed more complex scenarios.
uhm. . . didn't blatantly lie to him? The Rockets are quietly getting a rep of not being loyal to players esp players that are loyal to them *cough* Cuttino THE CAT Mobley *cough* Rocket River
If you fired an employee and now want to get him back, how would your package look attractive if the other company's is the same?
Difference is that when you fire an employee, you're putting him/her out of work. I don't think the analogy is the same.
YIKES! This is NOT LeBron James.......this is Mike James we are talking about. First of all....he's playing in Minny. Enjoy the futility and similar post season results as you did in Toronto Mikey. Second of all....Mike James is 32. He's no spring chicken. Why do you think he wanted a 4-5 year deal..........so he can make some good bank despite his impending drastic decline in effectiveness. Yeah, he'd be nice to have. Yeah, he'd probably score in bunches. But he's soon entering the twilight of his career. The Rockets were smart not to offer anything more than 3 years.
