phaketrash

LA can't do sign and trades since they are over the tax line

 

They can do S&T's even if they are over the apron. They just can't take back a S&T'd player because they're over.

Dwight Howard is nothing but a cancer to a team and it's organization. I want nothing to do with the world's largest crybaby.

 

I have to disagree. I think he's immature and broods, but he's also an unquestionable talent and not that bad. I don't worry too much about a bad personality when the organization/structure in place is good. Besides, winning tends to get rid of whiny personalities. They tend to manifest when you're losing and frustrated...but if we're already losing, I tend to care less about his antics haha.

I think a number of us have posted on opposing threads, so I guess it is what it is at this point.

 

Over time, there will be more pro-McHale sentiment, he just has to keep developing this team and have some playoff success within a reasonable time frame. Until then, the jury is out on McHale and those of us that enjoy having Coach McHale lead our team will just have to keep muddling through some of these head scratching threads.

 

Haha is it really HEAD scratching? I imagine it is really obvious why McHale haters dislike McHale. You might not agree -- you value a coach's x's and o's abilities less, value more the stuff he might do behind the scenes, the camaraderie he builds, etc. -- but that shouldn't make the arguments against McHale somehow non-existent. I think there are pretty obvious ones on both sides, and it just comes down to what people expect out of a coach, or rather, what coach function they place more weight on.

Confirmed. Teams above the luxury tax line "apron" ($4M over the luxury tax line) cannot receive a player in a sign & trade, starting the 2013-2014 season.

 

http://www.cbafaq.co...larycap.htm#Q23

 

So that rules a S&T w/ LAL out.

Thanks rockets best fan and you know that I respect your opinion and for all I really now you could be correct on the mental state of this years team and last years team since it is just my opinion. Of course my other two points are true that the players are different and that we have a bona fide star this year. So whatever happened last year we can agree that the players (excluding Parsons) were moved and the coach stayed. Now from that I could surmise that the front office and ownership sided with McHale which in turn served notice to any players coming to Houston that you better behave like Parsons because if you behave like Lowry you will be shipped to Siberia. Now to the topic at hand, there is no way what happened last year could happen this year given what we now know.

 

I have to disagree on that being the reason why we went through that losing stretch as well. I more fervently disagree that you can really accurately surmise anything from the movement of the players and the retention of the coach -- Morey is asset minded; the players were moved for assets. MM and 2Pat stayed, mind you. The players that were moved were moved not because they did or did not get along w/ McHale, but because a deal came up that made it too tasty for Morey to give up. KMart had to go in the Harden deal; OKC wants to compete this yr too and needed an immediate replacement off the bench. KMart was an expiring $11M contract too, so Morey was going to move him anyways, guaranteed. He could have loved McHale for all Morey cared.

 

Lowry being moved for a pick is the closest (or really the only) indication of McHale winning out over a player, and that might have less to do w/ McHale being well liked by the FO and more Lowry being sort of a b*tch lol. Having a TOR 1st pick is quite a valuable asset to have, and seeing Lowry's season this yr, maybe Morey was just prescient enough to see that he'd topped out. 

 

Dragic left because of the player option. Morey would have loved to have kept him otherwise. So really, I don't see the FO giving any message about how the players should behave, though I guess any FO would instinctively be relaying the message to any player that they should at least behave on some level. I don't see it as siding w/ or against McHale at all. They're rather independent actions that happened for other reasons. Again, only one that is slightly relevant is Lowry, but that's one player, and that one player was particularly hard to deal with. No FO puts up w/ any player that is hard to deal w/ unless that player is their star. Lowry wasn't ours (or was not going to be ours either -- not how Morey works). 

What a great feel-good win tonight!

 

I can taste the Clipper's frustrations from here lol.

Well written JG. I vacillated between agreeing and disagreeing with you throughout your whole post, but I think I agree with your conclusion. Out of the 3 players you named, I think we throw the barn at CP3 and D12. Both have a history of injuries, but they are not as troublesome as others. JSmoove I'm on the fence about, depending on a lot of other variables. Waiting till 2014 or even 2015 is otherwise okay with me.

 

Your notion that teams can be derailed if certain players get injured is of course correct, but your real point seems to me to be that we thus should not put all our eggs in one basket, unless that is a basket TOO GOOD to pass up. I agree. Besides, more depth and role players = lowering risk, and thus might get us to the same place. Excepting the aforementioned 3 players, you generally believe the benefit of getting that second 'allstar' may not be worth the risk, especially when compared to the alternative option of better role players/depth/waiting it out for a star later on. Here is where I disagree a bit. Waiting for a star later on (maybe one not as prone to injury or just plain too amazing) I agree with, but adding more depth and role players INSTEAD...I am more hesitant about. Packaging talent into one player = greater benefit, although also greater risk.

 

Also, players are not all equal when it comes to potential injuries. Some stars have a knack for never getting injured (almost), or not in a way that a team crumbles. Kobe Bryant and Lebron James easily come to mind. KD hasn't been in the league as long, but he seems similarly robust. Dwight before last summer would definitely be on this list. These are players, however, that I assume you would have (at one time or another) placed on the list with CP3 and JSmoove. A bevy of role players would not stand up to LBJ as well, one where talent is neatly packaged together in one individual who also happens to never get injured. Damn you LBJ.

 

On Bosh, I'd pay him max and think he could be the odd man out next yr. Miami trading him before the deadline would be the 'smart' move as they can't really keep all 3 together -- too prohibitively expensive, and they don't have TV deals like LAL that net them $220M lol. But they prob won't trade Bosh, even if it means he opts out and leaves in the summer, because they always have a shot at the title -- that isn't worth risking mid-season. If we can sign Bosh and NOT give up talent/assets for him, then we have a contender. Lin/Harden/Parsons/Bosh/Asik, with our current depth and bench. Maybe make a few moves to get role players that fit our needs a bit better as we're then stacked at the 4. I likey.

 

I really do hope we get CP3 now, more than D12, just because Asik > Lin. Lin is good enough that he's marketable now, esp. if coupled w/ TRob. CP3/Harden/Parsons/Millsap or someone similar/Asik with Bev/Anderson/TJones/DMo/GSmith off the bench? Get outta here! haha

Lin has made quite a jump since the beginning of the season...which is great for us! His minutes vs. the other starting PGs is 'aight'...I wonder if that will change next season or hold steady around 32?

 

I don't understand how this new CBA works with backloaded contracts, I've always thought that this was accurate http://hoopshype.com...ies/houston.htm in the sense that Asik and Lin make almost 15m in 2014/15. But there were a couple of people here who said that only 8m of that 15m counts towards the salary cap, does anyone have a link that supports this claim?

 

http://www.hoopsworl...ts-team-salary/

 

Also how espn trade machine counts it toward the cap in trades It is also discussed this way in an article I read and something that David Weiner (BimaThug over at clutchfans, who is SUPER knowledgeable about the cba) mentioned in a podcast, I believe. I start getting my sources mixed up after awhile. I hit it and quit it, unlike JG haha.

 

edit: this article offhandishly mentions it: http://hangtime.blog...r-felton-trade/

 

second edit: found it. like all cba rules, it has a funny "player name" provision: I give you the Gilbert Arenas provision!

 

http://www.cbafaq.co...larycap.htm#Q44

My goodness, y'all are being harsh. He is a good coach. He gets a lot out of his players, puts them in position to succeed, and gives them the freedom to play their game. Yes, Harden is a superstar, but he is 23 yrs old and plays on a team where just about everyone else is 24 or younger (minus Asik who is 26, delfino, brooks, and Garcia). I really don't think any other coach could get more than 45 wins out of our current team. Do you honestly think this is a 50-win team as-is with the current ages, talent, and experience level of our players? Even with Phil Jackson, I do not.

 

But what would your answer to my question have been? I will answer yours. I think our current team is NOT a 50-win team and instead a 45ish win team. That is what it will prob end up around, with or without McHale. Nothing McHale does on the court really helps our players, imo. Choosing to not run plays and defer to Morey's ideology and letting them have fun on offense is great, and it works for our current team, but any coach has the "skills" to do that. The question is do they have the temperament to do it -- that is more questionable, and part of the reason why I think McHale is fine for our team as-is. The reason why I don't think any other coach can squeeze us to 50 wins is because we just don't have the current talent to get there. It isn't a coaching thing. I also don't think ANY coach would have us a lot below 40 wins. I can't see myself agreeing with McHale being a particularly good coach, unless you're counting stuff he does behind the scenes like create camaraderie between players or build up confidence or whatever, but then none of us really knows what happens there. I can see myself agreeing though that McHale is an average-ish coach.

@Jason

 

Whoah, I think Pau would be a huge upgrade over our current 4's and nearly non-existent backup C. Dude was a top 5 PF just 2 yrs ago, and his passing skills and ability to score in the low block is still very, very impressive. Only concern here is health. If healthy, I am not worried because as pharmag noted, Gasol relies more on skill than athleticism, which esp. for a big is super awesome as they get older.

 

Instead, I think too many people wayyyy overvalue potential. There are only 2 good arguments I can see for a no Gasol move, assuming we strike out otherwise and he is healthy and cheap/available:

 

1) Take time away from DMo and TRob. This is true, but Gasol playing say 30 minutes with some time behind Asik still leaves plenty of time for DMo and TRob, esp. depending on our lineups. They get an experienced mentor. More importantly, Gasol (assuming healthy) would make us at least a 4 seed in the West and likely 2nd rounder in the playoffs. That is invaluable playoff experience that our young team may not otherwise get. For a 1 yr rental that then allows us to have max cap space for 2014 FA? Yes please over essentially letting that cap space sit there and rot (outside of signing some cheap veteran role players to 1 yr deals, as I am sure Morey will do -- but he'd do that anyways so...).

 

2) Gasol can't run with our team and thus does not fit in our system. Same can almost be said about Dwight, except Dwight has the tools to run, unlike Gasol. I don't care much for this argument because I think we will inevitably have to slow down our pace. It just doesn't work in a playoff 7 game series, or if it does, just for one series. You need a halfcourt game. Having the ability to play a halfcourt game with a great passing big down in the post...yes, I would like our team to LEARN how to do that as well, even as we keep up a brisk (albeit somewhat slower) pace and get transition points.

I'd combine what JG is saying with 2016's comment. If we got D12, I'd want to see him paired with Asik. Prob limited minutes together, but 20+ Asik gives us crazy defense all day every day. Offense...yeah, that is the issue when the two are together, but I don't like to speculate on these things -- I'd rather just see what happens. Asik's contract though is totally more valuable if shipped next season, so what I'd imagine is...give the two a run together and make a decision come the Feb. trade deadline. If it is working, great! If not, asset reload time while Asik's contract is still hot. By then, KLove and LMA may be on the market too, depending on how their teams' seasons are going...much harder to pry the two away before 2013 season even starts.

People talk about the TX state income tax a lot. I think it isn't that big of a deal. Apparently, it only applies to half the games they play anyways since the way players are payed and taxes are calculated, only the games they play in TX would get the benefit (or so I have heard). That being said, some interesting math can be done to show that it saves a small amount over the life of the contract. Not negligible, but not nearly as large as a figure such as 11% would suggest.

 

Yet I also think the usage of the $30 million more LAL can pay him is misleading. They aren't paying him $30M more. They're paying him the extra percentage from bird rights that he gets for continuing to play for them plus the money for a fifth year. All added together = $30M. You can see why this is NOT really the same as $30M more, which in the context of how it is often used, suggests as if the same deal is $30M in difference. Not the same deal. Obviously you all understand that, but I think the way it is utilized causes an incorrect perception of the amount he is actually "leaving on the table."

 

Dwight's 5th yr, if he signed with Houston, would not go away. He would still presumably sign another deal at age 32. Would it be worth what he could get from LAL, i.e., like $24M at the age of 32? Almost certainly not. But is it $0? No. More likely somewhere in the $12M-ish ballpark. Of course, he also has to discount the chance of being injured late in the 4th yr of his contract, but for it to not be double season ending and happening late in the 4th yr of the contract is a decently low chance. The EV of this is simply P probability times the L, which in this case should be the contract value he loses out on.

 

No idea what that actual figure is, but in reality, with all said and done, it is probably closer to $15M he is leaving on the table, esp. if you factor in the TX state income tax (or lack thereof).

Yeah this makes no sense, he's not a very good player. It's his 4th year in the league and he hasn't improved at all.

 

First, 2016champs, welcome to the red94 forums!

 

Second, your avatar lends a certain amount of credibility to you for obvious reasons. Every time I see you post, a part of me thinks for half a second that it is actually Morey posting, and thus the comment is probably both insightful and accurate haha. Like speaking with a British accent.

@timetodie: I had mentioned a deal for Pau centered around Lin awhile back, and it looked similar to that, except no Parsons. I walk if Parsons or Asik is included. LAL would do that deal any day with Parsons in it, but I wouldn't. I think the league and you and supersonic might be UNDERvaluing Parsons. It isn't just his skill you have to consider -- his contract matters a lot. It allows us to build a much more competitive team in 2014 (before it expires) because his contract essentially doesn't count against the cap. For what we get, at $900k, that's like filling a starting position for free. That is one of our biggest assets in making a championship caliber team.

And Granger is better than Parsons now, but not by much imo. Let's look at the stats. Granger last regular season on 62 games, 33 mpg, shot 42% on 15 FGA; 38% 3P% on 5 3PA; 87% on 5 FTA; 5 rebounds a game, almost 2 assists, half a block, 1 steal, 2 TOs, and 18.7 PPG as the primary scorer on his team.

Comparatively, Parsons this season at 36 mpg is shooting 47% on 12 FGA; 36% on 3P% on 5 3PA; 76% on 2 FTA; 6 rebounds a game; 3.6 APG; half a block, 1 steal, 2 TOs and 14.4 PPG as an option behind Harden.

I have a hard time seeing where Granger is obviously better than Parsons in such a way that it'd be any significant improvement. Given the same FGA, their PPG would be more in line. A lot of stats are a wash. Granger draws fouls better and completes them slightly better, but also rebounds worse. Factor in his recent surgery and his age (vs. Parsons), and I'm already hesitant. Remember the fact that we'd be paying $12M MORE to acquire him is just....

Maybe it is stuff he does off the ball; I don't know Granger well. I know Parsons is great off the ball, so I don't see Granger as that much better. Defense? They seem about equivalent. I hate to steal a quote from someone on clutchfans, but this Pacers fan gave a very good run down on Granger's game:

"You all know Granger is a great shooter of course. That's where he makes his money. Jump shots, three's and Granger is decent at getting to the line. Not anywhere near someone like Harden, but he's not frightened of contact like Rudy Gay for instance.

Granger can play the 4 no problem defensively but the problem is his rebounding. Granger certainly has the ability to rebound because of his strenth but like many poor rebounders he tends to ball watch while the opposing player gets position on him. It is why he can't spend any signifigant time at the four.

They could run a few lineups with him at the four but not prolonged. An example of Danny's success at the four was in a game last season versus the Knicks. The Knicks had 'Melo at the 4 and he just destroyed West all game. On the other end Carmelo had the strenth and size to handle West, so the matchup ended up being a nightmare. BY the 4th the game was over. Vogel switched Granger to the 4, and it immediately turned the game around. Granger dropped 16, defended Carmelo fine, held his own on the boards and the Pacers ended up winning the game droping 40 points in the 4th. That type of thing could work. Had it gone on the whole game tho, I think the Knicks would of found a way to crash the boards and really caused the Pacers some major problems.

Granger is a poor ball handler who likes to go right. He's sure with the ball over and will the rarely turn it over unless he gets called for an offensive foul. He likes to lead with his forearm sometimes and once smaller players are basically stiff armed in the ground officials usually call it. (you laugh but he gets away with it a lot, kind of ridiculous I think it is a foul everytime and if I was an opposing fan I'd throw a ****fit).

Granger is also a poor passer. He'll never be the guy finding the open man. However, Granger is very unselfish and likes to get other players involved. So it's strictly a problem with him being an untalented passer versus selfish.

Granger's defense is "good" in the strict sense of the word. He has very good footwork, long arms (he'll block a shot now and then) and quick hands. His speed is his biggest problem. He's probably the slowest SF in the league. His footwork allows him to compensate somewhat, but that's how you'll see him get beat. Either off crossovers, slow rotations, or slow recovery time to open shooters. His strength is his best asset as it keeps driving opponents from creating space and he rarely ever gets posted up. And when they do they're never successful.

Granger is also a good 4th quarter performer having hit big shots his entire career. He doesn't have a lot of fame for this because he just never had any business being a number one scorer. He always should have been a number two, playing off of someone more dynamic such as Harden. In Houston, you'd see him hit a lot of big shots playing off of Harden. Harden would like Granger.

Granger is no stat stuffer, just a scorer and defender. Nothing special, but a very solid asset that would make the Houston much better." --mattie

He sounds like a MUCH more expensive, older, injured version of Parsons to me lol.