168 replies to this topic

[thejohnnygold]

True, he is 28...but that is due to his service in the Air Force.  This article acknowledges he won't ever be Brook Lopez on offense, but he can be a solid defensive player.

 

I'm not saying we HAVE to get him, but as a third big with some upside it's an option.  Besides, you know he would be signing a "Morey" contract that has everything in the Rockets' favor.  Not much risk at all.

 

I know most disagree, but I still like the plan of developing Greg Smith.

[BenQueens]

I know most disagree, but I still like the plan of developing Greg Smith.

 

I'm not one of them: If we have Smith as a 4/5 guy who is 3rd deep or a situational matchup, I think that's smart money.

[rockets best fan]

I'm not one of them: If we have Smith as a 4/5 guy who is 3rd deep or a situational matchup, I think that's smart money.

I both agree and disagree...............I agree with how you think he should be used, but I disagree that we should stop trying to develop him. he may turn out to be much better than you assume

[Buckko]

I both agree and disagree...............I agree with how you think he should be used, but I disagree that we should stop trying to develop him. he may turn out to be much better than you assume

Agreed, smith is still very solid and large along with being very athletic. We would have more upside to keep him. Not to mention we have Mchale and Hakeem to train our bigs. 

[Mario Peña]

Looks like Camby has passed the physical with Rockets' team doctors. I guess Morey could sign him within the next few days.


http://www.rotoworld...e=211838&spln=1

[BenQueens]

I both agree and disagree...............I agree with how you think he should be used, but I disagree that we should stop trying to develop him. he may turn out to be much better than you assume

 

I should have been clearer: I don't think we should stop developing him. I don't even know what "stop trying to develop him" would mean if he's on the active roster. But I expect him to be the third option at both the 4 and the 5 unless Camby is signed. If Camby *is* signed, I don't know where he fits on the roster.

[Buckko]

I should have been clearer: I don't think we should stop developing him. I don't even know what "stop trying to develop him" would mean if he's on the active roster. But I expect him to be the third option at both the 4 and the 5 unless Camby is signed. If Camby *is* signed, I don't know where he fits on the roster.

Camby is just for a veteran big man presence. Maybe show some young bigs on how to rebound and rim protection but he would be at the very end of the bench, probably in reserves. 

[BenQueens]

Camby is just for a veteran big man presence. Maybe show some young bigs on how to rebound and rim protection but he would be at the very end of the bench, probably in reserves. 

 

We can have 20 contracts in the offseason; when the season starts we can have 13 active players, 2 inactive players, and we can have rights to 3 players that were cut in the preseason but signed with our NBADL team. I didn't think we had any room left, but I also have to keep having to type it out to keep track. I guess our roster look like this if we sign Camby (must not forget Casspi this time...):

1. Lin
2. Harden
3. Parsons
4. Jones
5. Howard
6. Beverley
7. Garcia
8. Casspi
9. Motiejunas
10. Asik
11. Smith
12. Williams
13. Canaan
14. Camby? (Inactive)
15. ??? (Inactive)
16. Covington ("cut" to Vipers)
17. Young ("cut" to Vipers)
18. Henriquez ("cut" to Vipers)

That could technically work, but I don't think they'll want Camby on the IR- they'll want a young player under contract to get some burn with the Vipers, right? Will they put Smith on the IR? It's going to make for an interesting training camp.

[hizzobbes]

What about Aaron Brooks? 

Wouldn't the safe bet say that Canaan would be inactive and playing down in the D-League? I don't think it can be accurately judged since we won't get a feel for his NBA game until training camp but we usually don't hesitate to send the kids down to RGV. 

 

Regardless, to the point of this thread, I see no disadvantage to having Camby providing a veteran presence and taking up one of our roster spots, be it inactive or end of the bench. 

[CC.]

The Bulls have interest in Camby, they offered him a minimum contract. Then again I'm also reading the Rockets are the front-runners in getting him, as he's searching for a contender.

 

http://www.suntimes....rcus-camby.html

 

This was on 07/23 though, days ago

Edited by CC., 27 July 2013 - 02:06 AM.

[rockets best fan]

We can have 20 contracts in the offseason; when the season starts we can have 13 active players, 2 inactive players, and we can have rights to 3 players that were cut in the preseason but signed with our NBADL team. I didn't think we had any room left, but I also have to keep having to type it out to keep track. I guess our roster look like this if we sign Camby (must not forget Casspi this time...):

1. Lin
2. Harden
3. Parsons
4. Jones
5. Howard
6. Beverley
7. Garcia
8. Casspi
9. Motiejunas
10. Asik
11. Smith
12. Williams
13. Canaan
14. Camby? (Inactive)
15. ??? (Inactive)
16. Covington ("cut" to Vipers)
17. Young ("cut" to Vipers)
18. Henriquez ("cut" to Vipers)

That could technically work, but I don't think they'll want Camby on the IR- they'll want a young player under contract to get some burn with the Vipers, right? Will they put Smith on the IR? It's going to make for an interesting training camp.

this is incorrect. show me where you found the rule we can control players in the d-league who are not part of the NBA 15 man roster. we can control 3 players in the d-league, but they have to be part of the 15 man main NBA roster otherwise they can be called up by any NBA team.

[hizzobbes]

this is incorrect. show me where you found the rule we can control players in the d-league who are not part of the NBA 15 man roster. we can control 3 players in the d-league, but they have to be part of the 15 man main NBA roster otherwise they can be called up by any NBA team.

 

Here's the rule:
 

NBA Camp Allocations: In accordance with the NBA, the NBA Development League will implement a rule change with regard to how D-League rosters are assembled. Beginning this season, up to three players CUT from the roster of an NBA team before the D-League Draft will be allocated to that team's D-League affiliate provided they sign the standard D-League contract.

This rule replaces the previous allocation rule, where players of local significance would be allocated to D-League teams, a rule that was designed to help with marketing but didn't increase the team's bond with the NBA like the new allocation system.

 

In conjunction with this rule:

 

NBA Assignments: NBA teams can assign players who are rookies or in their second season to their D-League affiliate. Players can stay with the D-League affiliate for as long as the NBA team wishes, and be recalled back to the NBA at any time.

NBA teams can call up players as many times as they choose. Starting in 2012–13, there will be no limit to the number of times an NBA player with two years or less experience can be assigned to the D-League. Since the 2011–12 season, veteran NBA players (three-plus years of NBA experience) can be assigned with their consent. An NBA player will continue to be paid his NBA salary and will continue to be included on his NBA team's roster on the inactive list while playing in the D-League.

 

 

In layman's terms, you can CUT up to three players with 0-2 years experience and assign them to your D-League team. 

 

Now show me the rule that you think contradicts this.

[BenQueens]

What about Aaron Brooks? 

Wouldn't the safe bet say that Canaan would be inactive and playing down in the D-League? I don't think it can be accurately judged since we won't get a feel for his NBA game until training camp but we usually don't hesitate to send the kids down to RGV. 
 
Regardless, to the point of this thread, I see no disadvantage to having Camby providing a veteran presence and taking up one of our roster spots, be it inactive or end of the bench.

One day, I'm going to get the damned roster down without forgetting someone. Yes, Brooks should be the third PG, and Canaan should be Inactive Reserve. The only reason I think it's relevant is to see what the positional distribution of the 15 spots are, especially if developing Smith means looking for his minutes in more than one position.

[hizzobbes]

One day, I'm going to get the damned roster down without forgetting someone. Yes, Brooks should be the third PG, and Canaan should be Inactive Reserve. The only reason I think it's relevant is to see what the positional distribution of the 15 spots are, especially if developing Smith means looking for his minutes in more than one position.

 

Lol yeah I keep it on an excel spreadsheet with the salaries so I can keep it all in order in my head.

 

Smith has said that he'd prefer to play the 4 and is gunning for that starting spot. I don't think that's happening but it's possible he'll see more minutes as a backup PF than a backup C. For the sake of this thread, I don't really see Camby impeding the possible progress of Smith... Between Dwight and Asik there wont be many center minutes for anyone else. 

 

[rockets best fan]

Here's the rule:
 

 

In conjunction with this rule:

 

 

 

In layman's terms, you can CUT up to three players with 0-2 years experience and assign them to your D-League team. 

 

Now show me the rule that you think contradicts this.

http://www.cbafaq.co...larycap.htm#Q77

this rule contradicts what you are talking about. look at question #77 and #79

Edited by rockets best fan, 28 July 2013 - 01:52 AM.

[rockets best fan]

if that didn't clear it up for you enough try question #63

[rockets best fan]

the NBADL does not work like leaving players overseas. when a player is drafted and left overseas he never actually signs a contract with that team thereby allowing that team to hold his rights exclusively. a team has no rights to one of it's waived players whether they join that teams d-league affiliate or not. any player on any d-league roster who is not part of the 15 man  roster of a NBA team can be called up by any other team in the league. the Rockets have 17 players on the team......whichever two they waive their d-league affiliate( the Vipers) will have the right of first refusal to sign that player to their roster over other NBADL teams. any other view or opinion of this rule is incorrect

[Cooper]

So basically they cut them and if another team tries to sign them the team that cut them has a chance sign the cut player first.

[rockets best fan]

So basically they cut them and if another team tries to sign them the team that cut them has a chance sign the cut player first.

NO......if they cut them they give up all rights to said player.........on the other hand their d-league affiliate will have the right of first refusal over other NBADL clubs, but not over NBA teams that want to sign said player

[hizzobbes]

I wrote a little review of all this NBA and/or D-League rights debate in the Henriquez thread so we should probably get back to talking about Camby here. 

 

I like the idea of going for Camby even if it means we have to cut one of our non guaranteed guys. It's undeniable that a team needs a veteran presence and it doesn't get more veteran than Camby. I know that it would be nice to have a young guy developing with that spot but there simply wouldn't be minutes for him anyways and there are lots of guys developing down in the D-League if need be. We've still got a really young team that needs a bit of leadership. 

 

I think the question isn't should we sign Camby... it's who should we cut for him? There are a few non guaranteed contracts and small guaranteed contracts on our roster and I don't think we can say who should go until everyone gets to camp and plays together... It's unlikely that any of these rookies outperform the older guys on our roster (Smith, Williams, Brooks) but it is possible.