Thanks for posting---that's an outstanding way to depict the upgrade.
Thanks for posting---that's an outstanding way to depict the upgrade.
Edit: That CLE deal would make no sense unless Kyrie was going to LAC. Would Kyrie for CP3 have made CLE significantly better?SAS just said CP3 wanted to go to Cleveland but they couldn't come up with a trade, Houston was his second option & that he was sick of Doc
Chris Paul is undoubtedly a better player, but I think that this version of the Cavs is better with Kyrie just based on his skill set and ability to shoulder some of the offensive load when James rests. Does that make sense?From a random Twitter account:
Edit: That CLE deal would make no sense unless Kyrie was going to LAC. Would Kyrie for CP3 have made CLE significantly better?
Apparently it's legal - https://www.thescore.com/news/1325795 - as HOU now has CP's Bird rights.From what I'm reading, it looks like Paul will opt into the last year of his deal and then sign a super-max extension with Houston for $205 million. Is that legal under the CBA and if so, can someone explain how? I know he made the All-NBA team in two of the last three years, but I wasn't sure you could still tack on five additional years.
From what I've read Chris Paul is allowed to waive the trade kicker. Seeing as how this trade won't completed until the new league year the decision probably won't be made until after Houston finishes their free agent shopping.Apparently it's legal - https://www.thescore.com/news/1325795 - as HOU now has CP's Bird rights.
Note that CP also gets a $3.6M trade kicker that I presume he wouldn't have gotten if he signed as a free agent. I wonder if people who are trying to figure out if HOU has cap room to get PG are including CP's trade kicker?
Plus, he was knee deep in negotiating all of the CBA provisions that affected him.Chris Paul is a genius.
I would think the defensive upgrade from Irving to Paul would be more significant than any loss on the offensive end. Defense is where the Cavs really fell short last year.Chris Paul is undoubtedly a better player, but I think that this version of the Cavs is better with Kyrie just based on his skill set and ability to shoulder some of the offensive load when James rests. Does that make sense?
There is a provision for players with less than 10 years of experience. They can only sign the "super max" if they are on the same team that had them during their rookie contract. However, that is even having unintended consequences as both Sacramento and Chicago reportedly moved Cousins and Butler in part because of apprehension over extending a "super max" offer.Plus, he was knee deep in negotiating all of the CBA provisions that affected him.
From a "lesson learned" standpoint, if the NBA owners are willing to put in the super-max provisions to try to keep players with their teams, maybe they should have included a clause that the supermax is only available to players who stay with their teams? A simple rule would be that a player can receive a supermax contract only for a team with whom he was playing when making one of the required criteria.
This article - https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2017/06/rockets-acquire-tim-quarterman-from-blazers.html - says that the Rockets are about $1.589MM short on salaries for the Paul trade so acquired Quarterman and Liggins for cash so they can send out more salary.The Rockets have reportedly traded for Tim Quarterman (Blazers) and De Andre Liggins (Mavericks) in the past hour (per Woj). They're busy trying to make the numbers work out for themselves.
I know you don't like Melo (understandably), but his ideal role all along has been as a 3rd player on a title contender. He can take less from NY and accept a buyout and then sign with HOU and his buddy Paul for the midcap exemption which I believe they're currently trying to open up.I am puzzled how Houston would add a third star, as they are rumored to be trying to do
(among other sources) . What assets do they have? Capela, but they need him. Some (low) firsts. Is there something material I am missing which would enable them to do this, or just wishful thinking really?
I guess Ryan Anderson and Gordon, with their own 1st, are the idea. Doesn't feel like you get close to a 'star' wtih that
I agree conceptually, and actually thought of him as well---but that'd have to be a buyout not a trade as they can never fit him within their cap at this point, right? Unless I'm missing something. Should have clarified the comment was specifically about a trade.I know you don't like Melo (understandably), but his ideal role all along has been as a 3rd player on a title contender. He can take less from NY and accept a buyout and then sign with HOU and his buddy Paul for the midcap exemption which I believe they're currently trying to open up.
Although this breaks down as an idea when you remember that Melo and D'Antoni kind of hate each other from their time in NYC, so maybe never mind.
Pritchard has his hands tied in Indiana and will only get for Paul George what the team Paul George agrees to remain with long term. If George only wants to go to Houston past this season Pritchard is really limited in what he can get in return based on the available assets that team has.I am puzzled how Houston would add a third star, as they are rumored to be trying to do
(among other sources) . What assets do they have? Capela, but they need him. Some (low) firsts. Is there something material I am missing which would enable them to do this, or just wishful thinking really?
I guess Ryan Anderson and Gordon, with their own 1st, are the idea. Doesn't feel like you get close to a 'star' wtih that
Here's some information on the Chris Paul trade. First the MICRO:
Paul's relationship with Doc Rivers started to deteriorate rapidly after the Clippers acquired Austin Rivers. Several members of the team felt Austin acted entitled because his dad was both the coach and the President of Basketball Operations. In the view of the tenured players, Austin Rivers never tried to fit in, and when players tried to address the situation with him, he still did not respond the way the core of the team wanted him to. It led to resentment within the locker room, which often played out during games. One of Paul's biggest contentions with Doc was that Paul, and other players, felt Doc treated Austin more favorably than other players. He would yell at guys for certain things during games and practices, but not get on Austin in the same manner for similar transgressions.
But what really solidified Paul's dissatisfaction with Doc was a proposed trade involving Carmelo Anthony last season. New York offered Carmelo and Sasha Vujacic to the Clippers in exchange for Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce and Austin Rivers, a deal to which Rivers ultimately said no. That event led Paul to feel that keeping his son on the roster was more important to Doc than improving the team. So, ultimately, Paul lost both trust and faith in Doc. As one league executive put it, "Chris despises Doc."
(I was also told that when Paul met with the team to inform them of his plans, Jerry West was not in attendance. It was only Doc and Lawrence Frank.)
MACRO
This move is a win-win for Chris Paul, and it was all part of a master plan. By opting into the final year of his current contract and pressuring the Clippers to trade him to Houston, Paul will be in the exact same situation next summer. He can re-sign with the Rockets for 5 years and $200+ million or sign a 4-year deal for about $150 million with another team. In addition, he will save several million dollars in state income tax.
Also, by being committed to the Rockets for only one season, it gives him a year to see if he can actually co-exist and pursue a title with James Harden. But even beyond that, this move gives Paul more flexibility to join LeBron James in 2018. If he stayed in LA or signed the max deal with the Clippers and forced them to do a sign-and-trade with the Rockets, Paul and LeBron could only join forces at one location. Now, they will have the ability to pick and choose wherever they want to go as a tandem, which could be Houston, LA {Lakers or Clippers (provided Doc is no longer with organization)}, or any other destination in-between.
so Danny trading Austin to LAC was the impetus of all this?From ESPN SportsCenter anchor Michael Eaves:
What I've copied is interesting particularly since reports at the time were that the Knicks didn't want Crawford given the length of his contract: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-knicks-dont-want-clippers-jamal-crawford-in-carmelo-anthony-deal/From ESPN SportsCenter anchor Michael Eaves:
New York offered Carmelo and Sasha Vujacic to the Clippers in exchange for Jamal Crawford, Paul Pierce and Austin Rivers, a deal to which Rivers ultimately said no. That event led Paul to feel that keeping his son on the roster was more important to Doc than improving the team. So, ultimately, Paul lost both trust and faith in Doc. As one league executive put it, "Chris despises Doc."
Except by next year them bananas may be a little mushy and overripe.Paul, Lebron, and Wade will be free agents next year and Melo might get bought out. Looks like the banana boat team will happen somewhere.
Possibly true, although each could himself be traded for something of value (a younger player or picks). Plus, what about Rozier, Yabusele, even Jackson? Along with a Boston pick, maybe the Memphis pick. Boston can provide value in a wide variety of ways, while holding on to BKN and LAL/SAC.Bradley, Crowder and Smart are nice players but they aren't very attractive to a rebuilding team like the George-less Pacers. The only real piece of value to them is the LAL/Sac pick and I'm not sure that is on the table unless he agrees to an extension....
Another thing they could do is have Bird rights kick in only if the players have been on the team for 2 seasons or morePlus, he was knee deep in negotiating all of the CBA provisions that affected him.
From a "lesson learned" standpoint, if the NBA owners are willing to put in the super-max provisions to try to keep players with their teams, maybe they should have included a clause that the supermax is only available to players who stay with their teams? A simple rule would be that a player can receive a supermax contract only for a team with whom he was playing when making one of the required criteria.
If this is true (and personally I'm very skeptical given how some of the details contradict other reports) then you have to fire Doc Rivers and dump Austin on whatever team will take him. You simply cannot operate a professional organization like this.From ESPN SportsCenter anchor Michael Eaves:
Then again maybe he turned down the deal because he would have acquired Carmelo Anthony in it.If this is true (and personally I'm very skeptical given how some of the details contradict other reports) then you have to fire Doc Rivers and dump Austin on whatever team will take him. You simply cannot operate a professional organization like this.
I don't believe this to be completely accurate. When Rivers had his breakout performances off the bench a couple years ago the ENTIRE team was genuinely ecstatic for Austin and they were ALL treating him on the sidelines like their little kid brother. Maybe stuff happened after that but this smells to me like typical shit that goes on when someone has left the building.so Danny trading Austin to LAC was the impetus of all this?
So he trades $7.4M for about what... $30-35M over the life of the extension he'll sign?Brian Windhorst @WindhorstESPN 2h2 hours ago
Chris Paul opting in instead of signing new max contract now will cost him about $11 million next season. But he has a $3.6M trade kicker.
It would mean more to me if it wasn't someone in the Rivers family saying this.
And the tax break from living in TexasSo he trades $7.4M for about what... $30-35M over the life of the extension he'll sign?
you would think teams wanting to create cap space would give up a 2nd round pick for a retiring player...wasn't Keith Van Horn that guy once upon a time?Looks like Paul Pierce got waived by the Clips as part of the roster shuffling (presumably to make a roster spot for the cap filler contracts).
I don't know how you are feeling but the Clips got a pretty decent haul for Paul. Dekker looks like he might be decent and Beverly and Lou Will are nice rotation pieces. To me, the sleeper in this deal is Harrell - from this write up you will note two things:CP must have really hated doc and Blake because yeah fresh scene and all that but no construction of the rockets is beating golden state. It's a lateral move.
As well as this:His per-36-minute stats look sparkling: 17.8 points, 7.4 rebounds and 1.4 blocks. He finished the year shooting 65.2 percent from the field, which was an increase from his rookie season.
As noted, Harrell isn't a stretch but he has some skills (he also improved his assist rate) that are valuable. If he can somehow develop a reasonable three point shot, the guy has a chance to be a very decent piece for the Clippers. I wouldn't bet on it but even as is, he will give them a banger to spell their front-court guys, whomever they may be going forward.But after Capela returned to his full workload, Harrell’s minutes plummeted. Often, he couldn’t get off the bench, racking up 15 DNPs from Jan. 27 onward. In the games he did play, he exceeded 20 minutes in a game just six times in that same timeframe, a span of 32 games. And this was with Nene playing mostly limited minutes and sitting a game during back-to-backs. Harrell also played just 21 total minutes in the Rockets’ 11 playoff games.
So what happened?
Well, it’s been rumored that Mike D’Antoni feels that Harrell isn’t a fit for his system, and his actions speak those words as well.
D’Antoni refused to play Harrell at power forward, telling the media on several occasions that he thought of Harrell strictly as a five. We don’t need to tell you that D’Antoni likes his power forwards to stretch, and although Harrell’s been working on his outside game, he’ll never be confused for Ryan Anderson.
I thought the new CBA closed the nonguaranteed contract loophole?David Aldridge @daldridgetnt 59s59 seconds ago
So (take a breath): Beverley, Williams, Dekker, Harrell, Kelly, Liggins, Quarterman & 2018 first (small protection) to Clippers for CP3.
BTW, the contracts for the last three players are non-guaranteed and are merely for cap purposes.
Bradley and Crowder presumably have some value in deadline moves as they are the sort of players contenders might want to add for the stretch run.Bradley, Crowder and Smart are nice players but they aren't very attractive to a rebuilding team like the George-less Pacers. The only real piece of value to them is the LAL/Sac pick and I'm not sure that is on the table unless he agrees to an extension. If he prefers Houston he can just say "no extension" and Indiana's hands are tied. The players and agents have the leverage in these negotiations, not the teams.