i don't think theres any chance they buy him out. they can just as easily just trade him to NY for expirings to get under the luxury tax threshold, so theres no motivation for that.

I really don't want to buy McGrady out for the simple reasons stated above, collecting assets. To be honest I really don't think Mac deserves to go where he wants either, so I would be disappointed if a deal is not made.

i think there's a high likelihood of something like what you mentioned happening. walsh seems resolute about not giving up douglas or hill, so you could see some sort of 3-way where the rockets would take back just expirings and an unknown young player from someone else. fans will call for morey's head, all while the team improves and keeps its flexibility.

But with the Wiz seemingly getting more offers for Butler and Jamison, the likelihood of that is dwindling. My guess is that deal Mcgrady solo (or with Cook) for a young, very unknown player (plus some expiring/short term contracts to fill) just like we did with Lowry last year. Speaking of Lowry, it's hard to believe he's only been here a year. It feels like he's been a Rocket for much longer.

one thing i left out in the piece due to space constraints is the sign&trade flexibility butler affords you. you're still close enough to the tax line that you can absorb someone like bosh in a trade in the summer, and you don't feel as bad about giving up major pieces to do it because you have butler in tow. with iguodala, you'll be too far over the tax to be willing to absorb another max guy, and with no trade at all, you probably don't feel as good about giving up multiple assets to get back one player.

with all of that said, yahoo's latest report about a possible swap between boston and washington has me concerned. unloading both jamison and butler should be the goal, so that offer really trumps ours. the only way i see the wizards taking our offer is if they have something lined up with someone else to unload jamison separately, that way not only unloading those contracts, but also getting the young assets that they wouldn't in a celtics deal.

physicsgeek – yes, that was morey who made that trade. as far as washington, i do think in their case rebuilding is necessary as they need a clean slate financially as that team is a mess. the contention is how they go about trying again AFTER the clean slate

“Yeah, I guess, but I don’t think of them as pieces – they’re people. That’s the other reason trades don’t happen that often. These are people who are part of the community, part of everything. So even though we have all those things, it’s going to take a lot for us to say, ‘Let’s break apart this really solid group.’ It’s going to have to take All-Star like talent coming our way for us to say, ‘This is something we want to break up.’ We like how our guys are growing together. We like how our guys are progressing. We think some of the guys on our team could develop into All-Star level players. So I think it’s going to take a lot and that’s why I think there’s probably not a lot that’s going to happen. It will take a lot for us to break this up.”

http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/q_with_daryl_mo…

Of course, being a GM, Morey's job is to improve the team, and he is not going to let sentimentality get in the way. What is significant about that quote is that he reject the idea of seeing players as just pieces of asset. I don't know if that is just GM talking up his prices. He did say outright that it makes pulling the trigger to trade some of our players more difficult.

And I also remember him saying that Adelman liked player stability.

thirdcoast – I think they are just waiting till the deadline for the best offer

Easy – is there a particular quote to which you are referring when you say: “A revolving door policy would greatly reduce my interest to the team success. And I suspect that Morey is inclined to that sentiment too, from what he hinted in the past.”

1. Flexibility. Overpaying pseudo-stars long term is suicidal.

2. Youth is not necessarily better. And I may add, youth is relative.

3. Chemistry does not need a long time to build. The key is not time, but temperament and compatibility.

What I don't agree:

1. The problem is the “static” foundation model. I don't think the problem is with the model. The problem is with the incompetence in talent evaluation. The high rate of failure you mentioned is not so much of the fact that they tried to build a young foundation, but the fact that they build it with the wrong players, or with the wrong contracts.

(BTW, when I say “talent” I mean not just basketball skills and physical abilities, but also include the so-called “intangibles” that are so important to success. For example, is Iverson a “star”? You have to say yes if you only look at physical talent. But is his talent conducive to winning in a team sport? That, IMO should be part of talent evaluation. Another thing in talent evaluation is compatibility. Do the talents fit well as a team?)

2. Assuming correct talent evaluation is in place (which I believe Morey has in his possession), the only thing totally unpredictable should be injuries. That's what flexibility should kick in. I think with advanced tools, the duration of the rookie contract should be enough time for a fairly accurate prediction of a player's career success barring injuries.

3. This is more about taste than absolute truth. As a fan, I want a stable team, not a revolving door team. I know different people see this differently. A lot of people (I assume you are one of them from what you wrote) care only about team success. What players make up the team are quite insignificant for them. Their emotional attachment is by and large to the team, not to the players. I recognize this and I do not object to this for other fans.

But to me personally, player stability is essential for my identity as a fan. A revolving door policy would greatly reduce my interest to the team success. And I suspect that Morey is inclined to that sentiment too, from what he hinted in the past. To me, following a team is not the same thing as playing fantasy games where everything is just a number.