<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>First McGrady takes in a Rockets game on Sunday, then Brooks reaches an agreement on Monday. Any 7-6 guys on the flight from Shangai?</p>— Jonathan Feigen (@Jonathan_Feigen) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Feigen/status/308752139956666368">March 5, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I'd like AB back for a "mending of bridges" kinda thing. Other than that, I don't see how he'd be a great fit other than just having depth more depth. You'd figure there would be other better fits for him on other teams. Though Brooks is only limited to teams that have have an open roster spot and cap space with it. Though Tony Parker is down, the Spurs have plenty backup PGS, and itd be the same kind of redudancy there with Brooks and Patty Mills and Brooks. And Brooks would never see floor time with Parker coming back. If OKC didnt bring in Derek Fisher, Brooks woulda been a decent backup fit over there. Boston coulda used Brooks but probably a full roster. Yeah I guess Brooks does makes sense on the Rockets as best available fit
TMac was an amazing player, but you do know at this stage of his career, he can't even play in D-league, right? FYI, he just managed to lose 12 straight games in China. BTW, I posted in that forgiving Tmac thread, how much talent he had and how great he started at Rockets. But let's not get carried over.
WHY do you think we gave Brooks $2.5 million for the rest of this season instead of giving him the prorated MLE? Obviously, it was the best offer he received. Cleveland had interest but they weren't willing to lump sum him. Once again, to compare an agreed to buyout based on the player knowing they are going to receive a free agent offer to make them whole for the money they are giving up in a buyout which is actually MORE than what any other team is willing to give them on the open market is in NO WAY the same thing as signing a guy for LESS than what he could get on the open market in order to pay him later. It's just the opposite. And it's what happened here. Sacramento wanted to dump Brooks. They wanted out of his guaranteed salary for next season. Petrie, Morey, and Brooks and Brooks' agent worked it out so Sacramento would get what they wanted (out of the contract) and Brooks would get what he wanted (his money) and the Rockets would get what they wanted (a nice little expiring contract that they can re-up if Brooks plays well or that they can extend and trade during the offseason. It's not the same thing as McHale and Joe Smith. Shame on you for making that comparison and blowing off what really took place here. Remember, Brooks had to go through waivers. ANY TEAM had the right to claim him and his salary for next season off waivers that had the cap space to claim him. And any team with cap space had the opportunity to offer him more than what the Rockets offered him. Everything that happened here was above board but it was agreed to at the time of the trade. What was unknown was whether another team would have claimed Brooks off waivers or offered Brooks more money. That risk was a risk Morey was happy to take. You know why? Because Morey was going to use the cap space anyways on someone. If not Brooks then someone else. And guess what? He may not be done yet. He may still use the MLE and add another contract similar to Brooks with a team option on the second year. And dont be surprised if this Brooks contract has as small guaranteed salary for 2013/14 so Morey can control that contract through the offseason. And don't be surprised if Morey signs another player to the MLE with the same condition, a small guaranteed salary for 2013. Morey wants contracts that he can control throughout the offseason, contracts that he can trade and other teams can cut for nothing or that he can cut for a little bit of nothing or that he can trade to another team with some cash and clear the contract out altogether. Morey wants the flexibility to trade for multiple superstars as well as sign multiple superstars outright. He gets that with contracts that are essentially expiring deals with small guarantees like Tyler Honeycutt has or with contracts that are non-guaranteed that he can extend sometime before June 30 if he sees the possibility of making a trade with them.
What on earth are you carrying on about? R2K knows what's what, and made that clear. You have a comprehension problem, with all due respect.
No. He's wrong on this one. The Brooks signing was part of the trade. The buyout was negotiated with the understanding that we would pick up Brooks for so much $$$. Only question was would he clear waivers or would some other team offer him more $$$ once he became a free agent. I've shown it to you enough. You should be able to see it. Sacramento wanted to dump Brooks' salary. Brooks wanted to get his salary. We wanted to get TRob and signing brooks made sense on a one-year deal that we can use as trade bait after the season or keep or simply drop. Morey was going to use his cap space on someone. Brooks simply was the opportunity that presented itself. Comprehendo? don't be surprised if he uses his MLE to add another $2.5 million pro-rated contract with a non-guaranteed second year also. He might wait until the last day of the season but dont' be surprised when he adds somebody so he'll have another non-guaranteed contract to play with this offseason.
No, R2K was exactly right. The Rockets cannot legally do what you insist they did in fact do. You're wrong. They didn't do the deal that way because while they typically take full advantage of every tiny letter of fine print in the NBA's rule book, but they do not break the rules. Ergo, it did not happen. Got it? It's OK to speculate that there was some quid pro quo, but speculation is all it is. What the Rockets did was follow the rules. AB cleared waivers, so they were able to grab him.
Yeah, no. Our offer does not reduce the amount that Sacramento owes Brooks. Anyhow, the two statements in bold conflict with each other. Sure, I guess. Sacramento is paying Brooks' salary based on their buyout. What we signed Brooks for is irrelevant to that amount. 1.) They didn't use an MLE since the Rockets are and have been under the cap. Don't tout cap knowledge you don't have, it just confuses the board. 2.) Your reasoning makes very little sense. A player with a non-guaranteed second year is useful if: a.) He is essentially an empty contract b.) He is a useful player, worth more than his salary (and thus, the non-guaranteed part isn't that important) If the reason a team wants the player is (a), then the cap space the Rockets have would do the same job. You do lose a slight benefit of being able to match salaries, but the Rockets will most certainly have cap space this summer -- any deal they would potentially do on or around draft day could be agreed to and consummated after the July Moratorium. Using this space only makes sense in limited circumstances. For example, a healthy Aaron Brooks as a backup PG is a terrific value for next year at 2-3 million, and other playoff contenders were probably willing to pay him the full MLE (which would be prorated). At the same time, if Brooks is the difference between signing a Howard/Paul or not, he can easily be cut at no cost. That's why the team option is valuable. Negotiating with a player under contract with someone else is against the rules. They had no discussion of buyout amounts.
First, see below http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q103 So, if you think such an agreement could be done, it's up to you to find a rule that permits a trade conditioned upon a player agreeing to a buyout and HOU agreeing to signing him to a particular amount under the rules, not the other way around. Second, AB's buyout most likely involved him giving up his player option or at least some future money, so it would fall under an "amendment" as set forth above. It would violate the above rule if a part if the amendment between AB and SAC is specifically conditioned upon a side agreement among SAC, HOU and AB that was also a part of a trade that HOU would supply him with alternative compensation. Third, even if there was not an explicit prohibition, there is this: Making an "under the table trade" of AB by way of a buyout that would reduce his cap hit instead of making a normal trade would most likely be a circumvention of the spirit of the rules, even if there was not a specific rule about it.
Brooks was traded to PHX for Dragic and now they're both back to their original teams. Weird. Anyway, we could use the depth.
The guy you just replied to is one of our most knowledgeable members when it comes to this stuff. If you want to argue with R2K or myself, fine, but if you're arguing with him, then your just being a stubborn goofus, with all due respect.
It's not under the table Carl. Here's how it goes. Petrie to Darryl: We will give you Trob if you give us PPat, Aldrich, and you take back Brooks. Morey to Petrie: Ok, but I don't want Brooks' contract on my books next year so here's what I can do. If you can negotiate a buyout with Brooks for $1 million, I will offer him a $2.5 million limp sum contract for this year to make up for the money he is going to lose by accepting your buyout if he clears waivers. If he is claimed off waivers then obviously you are free of his contract and don't have to give him anything. But if he clears waivers I will sign him for the $2.5 million he gave up. Also as a sign of good faith, let's include Garcia and Toney Douglas to help you offset the buyout. Petrie to Darryl: Let me talk to Brooks and his agent and see what we can come up with. Petrie to Brooks agent: Here's the deal. Wet want to move Aaron and the Rockets want him for their playoff run but they don't want his contract on the books for next season. They are willing to give him $2.5 million for this year and $2.5 million unguaranteed for next season. Would you accept a buyout of his contract for $1 million? Brooks agent: Let me talk to Aaron. I'll call you back. Brooks agent to Aaron: Here's what Sacramento wants to do........... Aaron to agent: Do it. Worst case scenario I go to another team through waivers that actually wants me and will play me. Best case scenario is I clear waivers and go to the playoffs with Houston, get some playoff money, plus get another contract for next season. I trust Darryl. If he told Petrie he'd sign me, I know he'll do it. Get it done. Get me outta Sacramento. Agent to Petrie: Get it done. Petrie to Darryl: Ok. They've agreed to a buyout if you are going to sign him. But I want $1 million to cover the buyout. Can you do that? Morey: Done. Let's call it in. That's how the deal was generally made. Nothing under the table our violating the CBA. Why did Brooks agree to give up a couple million dollars? Because he knew he wasn't going to lose a dime. C' mon guys.
and I'm not exactly clueless when it comes to CBA stuff either, I learned all I know at the knees of aaeliott, heyp, NIKE and Bima....all four guys VERY knowledgable and smart when it comes to CBA stuff. Face it bballholic....you DO NOT know as much as you think you know. You can try to hit me with a wall of text, but without the knowledge to back it up, you come off as a idiot loudmouth with reading comprehension problems. enough, Im done with you....you arent worth the time it would take for me to figger out what you are rambling on about.
