Bingo, which exception is Dallas trying to use for Moochie (4.5 million)? I would love to have Webber, but I just don't see it happening. I think the Rockets are more concerned with a cheaper alternative that can grow with our young nucleous. It is very interesting the reports from ESPN insider that the Rockets have made a healthy offer to Antonio Davis. It seems to confirm, that they are looking into the future at the 4 & 5. I think Collier, will be gone if he does not impress in the summer leagues. One of the latest team reports stated that the Rockets love his outside touch, but every other part of his game is a liability. With 3 warriors on the perimiter, they need a true center to defend & rebound. I still would not be surprised to see Webber in a Rockets uniform. Rudy & Co always seem to amaze us in the offseason. ------------------
Yes there is. The Mid-Level Exception is available every year and allows you to sign one free agent at the league's average salary, which is projected to be $4.4-4.5m this summer. btw: the so-called $1m exception cannot be used two consecutive yrs.
So, as something of a summary to myself, as well as others: The question has now become, is Webber and Cato better than Mo and whatever possibilities another cap windfall will bring next season? If so, then the entire scenario and answer is reliant on exactly what the Rockets could do with that cap space next season, should we sign Mo to a multi-year deal, and Dream to a one year deal of whatever is left. The Rockets run a shrewd organization, and it is safe to say, I feel, that they can get a good deal of value next offseason, even if there is a lack of FAs to make a run after. The lopsided trade is always available, and LaFrentz, Keon Clark (who I like), and someone else that Nikestrad mentioned earlier were all excellent possibilities to fill our C spot next offseason should the Rockets pass on CWebb. It would be somewhat frustrating, because with Mo and Dream as our 4 and 5 next season, we are 2nd round exits at best (realistically), and 1st round fodder in all likelihood. This would be an improvement, but I am sure fans want to see this team skyrocket to bigger things since we have so many options this offseason. I have flip-flopped several times reading this thread, in regards to Webber...but I finished where I started, in favor of Mo, because Mo and Dream present so many more alternatives and pathways should the need arise, than signing Webber to a long term deal, maxing out cap room... I think I will stick with my sig. ------------------ Rockets need power forward. Mo near now. Go near Mo. You can Run from the bet, you can Rave at the bet...but you just can't hide.
Crash, Dennis Johnson was a guard, not center, for the Celtics. Robert Parish was the Center. ------------------
RoxBox sez: "I think webber is a good player but he is not the best player in the league and he will not bring us a championship. Usually the best players or the most clutch players in the league end up in the finals with a few exceptions." This is not really a valid point. Most of the players on your list were in the league a significant amount of time before they got to the Finals. Hakeem, Miller, & Malone were all in the league 10+ years when they got to the finals. While Shaq, Kobe and Iverson got there early, there is a significant spread over all the players you mentioned. Shaq got there faster than Jordan, does that mean Shaq a better player than Jordan? Iverson got there faster than Jordan... The fact is that there are a lot of variables that go into a Finals appearance including schedule, matchups in the playoffs, injuries, caliber of teammates etc. Hakeem is the the only player to win a ring without another superstar to help him out in the last 20 years. SO, just because Webber hasn't been to the finals is not a good way to judge his worth, or potential. Jason Kidd, KG, Ray Allen, 'Zo, and many other "superstars" have not been to the Finals, does that mean they will never GO to the Finals? NO. ------------------
OMG how did I type that crap! Little Dennis Johnson a center? thanks for catching that. I must have had too much coffee when I typed that. I will edit now ------------------
<You may be the mistaken one. We will most definitely have cap room next year if we don't land Webber. All we need to do is sign Dream to a one yr contract.> Negative. The current sitution is that the Rockets can either sign Webber with the cap space or resign a bunch of our current free agents. Either way our caproom will be gone. Essentially we have the choice of CWebb (13 mil) vs. Taylor (6 mil), Anderson (4 mil), & fill the rest with either Bullard, Moochie, Colson, et al. I doubt the Rockets will match 4.5 mil for Moochie if Dallas offers it. Nor will the Rockets resign Hakeem for significant money. The bottom line for me is if we sign Webber 1. Webber provides more than just scoring. He consistenly is one of the leaders from the PF position in assists, steals, blocks, rebounds. 2. he is a tradeable commodity still even at 13 mil. Thus we would have something of value to trade for another all-star we may like better ( say Duncan, Curry, Chandler). 3. in 6 months if we make a trade what will get us more in return Webber or Mo + Anderson? If I were a GM on another team I would want Webber. ------------------
Unless you can unload some other contracts, forget Nazr or Jackson at center for next year. If you sign Webber, you're left with around 3 mill to play with in a market where all the other teams have 4.5 mill. Who's going to win that one? Jackson's restricted anyhow. Duncan would not be in our realm of possibility, because his chance for free agency is the following year, which is when we max out the Franchise. Yes, we will have cap space next year if we resign Hakeem to a 1 year deal, Mo, and Moochie. I outlined this before in one of heypee's old threads. Hakeem+Mo+Moochie (early bird) puts you over the cap by whatever amount Moochie is, or less, depending on how much Hakeem wants. Webber will command likely 7 mill less. So instead of the 3 mill the Walt windfall would create anyhow, which would be less than the MCE anyhow, we get an extra 7 mill. So, instead of a piddly MCE, we have big ammo. Here are the numbers if you don't believe me: Francis 4.383582 Maloney 2.54375 Mobley 4.9032 Thomas 1.557683 Cato 6.6 **Moochie **Taylor Collier 1.376072 Griffin 2.16192 Langhi .605605 (unrenounced) Morris .349458 -------------------- 24.48127+ Moochie and Mo (somewhere between 7 and 11 mill?). The cap will likely go up, but that's impossible to predict. Assuming 45 mill would be reasonable, and probably conservative, considering the cap is expected to jump ~7 mill this year. Not taking Kenny's option frees up an extra 1.5 mill as well. If you substitute Cwebb for Mo, you're adding 12.6 mill, and you're at 37 mill, plus Moochie, who'll have to be around 4 mill. Total 41 mill, and you don't have more caproom than the MCE, same as any team 40 mill over the cap. ------------------ "I always thought Hakeem was the better offensive player and DRob the better defender." Spurever I think Shaq would agree
Only true if a team is already over the cap. That's why it's called an "exception". If the Rockets renounce Dream or sign him to a contract value placing the team below the estimated $42.7m cap (if they don't forget signing anyone!), then they are no longer over the cap and therefore have no exception. Contract thread NIKEstrad Forgot about Jackson being a restricted FA. If the Rockets sign Webber, the Warriors can offer Marc more $. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take! Let's go after Webber. More upside than down. ------------------ Raef to Rocks in '01-'02! [This message has been edited by GATER (edited July 06, 2001).]
Gater, I merely said a Mid-Level Exception exists, which is 100% true as of now. Also, your calculation is slightly off. We don't lose the exceptions by going below the cap; we must go below the cap by the *combined amount* of our exceptions to lose them. TheFreak, Nice running away from a discussion about your lack of GM willingness to use a cap windfall this yr or next that likely won't happen for another 10 yrs. No...just make a mockery of all Draft geeks and Free Agents dreamcasters by saying you hope no changes occur so you can laugh at us all. Oh, but don't make a mockery of your GM abilities while you are at it, that will look silly, won't it. yesh! it will
No. In order to get Webber, we must go under the cap, and in doing so we lose the 4.5 million dollar exception, which probably wouldn't be enough for Dream anyway. ------------------ EDDIE, EDDIE, EDDIE!!! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
crispee -- you are a dork. Nobody is "running away from a discussion". What, you think you're that important to me? If the discussion is fun, I'll contribute more. If it's boring, I've got other things to do. If someone asks me a sincere question and is respectful, I will respond--but if I haven't read the question yet, I can't do that, understand? When did I ever say I was against using the "windfall"? Sign Mo. Try to sign Shandon. Sign Hakeem. Sign Moochie. Sign whomever else you can sign with what's left, or save it for next year. That's using the windfall, no? Who says we are required to spend big bucks on every 9-yr bandwagoning playoff choker that comes around? Besides, I actually wanted to sign the guy before we got Griffin. Even if he is signed, I have no objection to immediately becoming one of the top 3 teams in the league. Funny. rockbox -- way to cut to the bottom line. Everyone else seems to want to ignore history. Actually, no. That's kind of the point of rockbox's list. He could've gone back another 10 years, with basically the same results.
'ignore history'? Greatness is defined after your name is on that list, not before. Malone, David Robinson, those names would merely be Chris Webber's peers were it not for the fact that their teams did succeed. Besides, after the Bad News Bear years of 94/95 how do Rockets fans make wishlists based off of some Jordan litmus test? ****, may as well not even play the games.
TheFreak, I've seen you make the "the best player always wins" argument several times, but never called you on it. First of all, it sounds like a rock-solid argument on paper. Hakeem was the best player in the league for 2 seasons, bar none. Jordan was continuously the best player in the league while he was winning those championships. Shaq has become a truly great player the last 2 seasons. But aren't all these guys considered "the best" because they led their teams to championships? Magic won 5 titles in the 80s, Larry won 3. Did they flip-flop being the best player in the NBA all those years. MJ put up great scoring numbers for years before he won his titles, but was stopped by better teams like the Pistons and the Celtics. Did he all of a sudden become better than Isiah, or was he better in 89 and 90 too but just didn't have quite enough help from his teammates? Was Barkley better than Dream in 1993 - the Rockets continually dusted the Suns those years, and CB4 was far inferior on the defensive end. If Starks had gotten his shot off in game 6 instead of getting blocked, would that have made Ewing the best player in 1994? Was Duncan head and shoulders over the other big-name players in 1999 before winning the Western Conference Finals/NBA Championship, or do we just see it that way because he got the ring? The best player is determined after the fact, through the prism of the NBA Finals. What I'm saying is that your argument has some validity, but is useless as a predictor of championships. If we get Webber and somehow find a way to make the combination work to win a title next season, then either he or Steve would be called the best player in the NBA. And really, to me it wouldn't matter which one took that honor. ------------------ I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip that I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.
First off, I don't really consider it an argument, but merely looking at history and drawing parallels between all the champions since 1980. I don't think it's useless in predicting championships. Before the season, I could've told you that either Shaq or Duncan would win the championship--no one else is in their league right now. To me there's only been 3 times since '80 where you can say, "yeah, the best player in the league probably didn't win the championship" -- '83, '89, and '90. That's 86-87% of the time that the best player has won the title. Was there ever a doubt that those guys were the two best players in the league? The point is, nobody else was close. They were almost like Jordan was in the 90s. See above re: '89 and '90. Aberrations so far. In '93, neither Barkley nor Hakeem won a title, so I don't see the relevance? I didn't say the best player wins every single game, only the championship. I don't think so. That would have cut the ratio down to 18/22 times since '80, or 82 percent. Still a high percentage. He raised his game in the post-season -- that's what made him so great. He was a monster, destroying everything in his path, particularly Shaq-Fu. The best players step it up in the playoffs, and he did that big time. So, maybe he wasn't head and shoulders over everyone during the regular season, but he showed who the best was in the playoffs--that's what the best do. I can tell you right now that won't happen.
So is your point that one of the guys in the upper, upper eschelon wins the title 87% of the time? Larry or Magic in the 80s, Shaq or Duncan in the last 3 years? Shaq really didn't dethrone Duncan as the best player in 2000, cause TD was hurt. IMO that there have been very few seasons when one absolute best player existed, as opposed to 2 or 3 guys who were equals. The individual brilliance of Michael Jordan skews the recent statistics. Well, rockbox's list mentioned the stars that went to the NBA Finals, rather than just the guys that won the whole enchilada. Maybe his view of history is different from yours? Exactly! We agree. The winners write the history books, and the losers go home. Duncan's playoff greatness, IMO, was not predictable prior to that season, or even necessarily at the end of that season, just like DRob's suckitude wasn't evident until he got his ass handed to him by Dream in 95. Likewise, isn't hard to say that Duncan is one of the greatest players in the NBA anymore, after he was so thoroughly destroyed by Shaq this season? He didn't put up anymore of a fight than Webber did. ------------------ I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip that I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.
I said: ---------------------------------------------The fact is that there are a lot of variables that go into a Finals appearance including schedule, matchups in the playoffs, injuries, caliber of teammates etc. --------------------------------------------- Freak Sez: Actually, no. That's kind of the point of rockbox's list. He could've gone back another 10 years, with basically the same results. I say: The only great players are the superstars who get to the finals? So there are only two great players a year? OK, '86 Bird would be on your list, what about Sampson? He even hit the shot to put the Rockets into the Finals, which sounds like a good pressure presence. I guess Magic wasn't a player worth acquiring that year since he didn't make the Finals? This criteria is WAY too restrictive. It is an unrealistic measure of the desirability of a player. Matchups: The Lakers had won the title the year before ('85) but got beat by the Rockets in '86. You don't think the Celtics had an easier time of it with the Rockets instead of the Lakers? You have to believe that if you think that matchups don't matter. The same in '81. Is Penny better than Webber 'cause he's been one of the two superstars on a team in the Finals? Injuries: don't matter? Just the "will to win" of the lone gun superman? I assume '89 when Magic and B Scott got HURT for the Finals, that was irrelevant. Caliber of teammates: In fact, in each case except Hakeems first final, each of the "stars" you name had a second star on the team. Who was the star on Webber's team? Even MJ had a second star. The lone superstar almost never wins, so you are making comparisons that don't fit. If you only moved to acquire Superstars who had been to the Finals, you would either NEVER sign a superstar, or only get one on his last legs. Whose gonna trade a superstar that signhandedly took their team to the Finals? NO ONE. ------------------
The best way to say it is probably that a guy who can be considered as the best player in the league usually always wins the championship. But there are usually only 2 or 3 of those guys at the max in the league. Last year there were only two, IMO. I'm talking about the guys who are just going to find a way to beat you NO MATTER WHAT. There aren't as many guys like that out there as you may think, IMO. As good as he played, Iverson is not one of those guys. Webber is not one of those guys. Grant Hill is not one of those guys. Will Francis be one of those guys??? I agree mostly, except that you make it sound like it was just coincidence that Duncan dominated and Robinson got dominated, that they were just in the right place at the right time. I think the playoffs and the regular season are two totally different ballgames, and different kinds of players excel in the playoffs. Duncan didn't do it this year, but he has proven himself, unlike many others. The whole point in bringing this up, I think, is point out that if the Rockets ever win a championship, it will most likely be because of Francis or Griffin, not Webber. crispee -- I'm not some salary cap guru. I didn't realize I had to be to have an opinion on acquiring Webber. If you say we can sign Mo, Hakeem, etc. and still have cap space next year, well that sounds good to me. I would rather wait until next year and sign a more complimentary player than sign Webber this year. HayesStreet -- of course there are many other variables that go into it, but there is one that is common throughout, and that is my argument.
I agree that in the NBA on a given year, there are probably only 2 or 3 of those guys. But I disagree about your specific examples. I think Iverson's close to being one of those guys - he's just not there yet. I'm not ready to give up on CWebb or Garnett getting there at some point, but neither is there yet. The thing is, it took Hakeem until he was almost 30 to get there. It took O'Neal many seasons. Jordan was there when he retired, but he's not going to be there when he comes back this season. Basically, I'm saying that being one of those 2 or 3 guys isn't a status that a player is born with - he can achieve money player status after several seasons in the league. Well, I wasn't trying to make it sound like it was coincidence or blind chance. Just that it is winning in the playoffs that defines a player's greatness. Generally, the elevation of a "new" guy to the upper eschelon (Steve or whoever) would only occur after he has successfully guided his team to a championship. Otherwise it would be argued that he still has something left to prove. ------------------ I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip that I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.
