RealGM

This is a move I suggest to make a run now and to free cap room for the future*. There is talk that Aaron Brooks and Shane Battier may not be in the long term plans of Houston. I can see how both those players could be very useful this year here.

To match the salaries I see Marvin Williams and either Mo Evans or a combination of Jeff Teague and Etan Thomas. Obviously that type of package won't seal the deal. That's where the draft picks come into play. I'm suggesting the 2011 1st and 2013 1st combined with Mo Evans. If it the Teague package I would say the 2011 1st and the 2012 2nd. The picks are a big cost and could lead to bare cupboard years down the road, but we have been heading that way anyway.

The logic is that Marvin's role with this team is limited and without a new environment to jump start him he'll never get the most of his talent or approach being worth his contract. Battier slides in to replace him and while not as much side overall he's known for providing the defense and occasional 3 pointer that we hope for out of Marvin now. He's also a seasoned vet who's less likely to come up small in a pressure setting. Aaron Brooks gives a PG that while not a pass first guy that I would like would give the team another dimension and that is someone who can get to the basket when the jump shots aren't falling. Both are expiring contracts meaning that while it would most likely be a 1 time shot we'd have the flexibility to go different ways in the future.

Lineup:
Brooks/Bibby/Teague
Joe/Jamal/Jordan
Josh/Shane/Damien
Al/Josh P
Jason/Zaza/Etan

* We'd have Crawford, Battier, and Brooks all expiring, but we'd have RFA rights on Brooks and Bird rights on the others if that still exists in the new CBA. Depending on how the remainder of the season and post season goes it would dictate who we would want back and how much to offer them. We'd be at $57M in salary for 8 players prior to dealing with any of the FAs. Depending on the new CBA we may be able to retain AB and Jamal both and then try to fill the gaps inexpensively. Bibby would be expiring next year as well which might be useful in a trade for a replacement forward for a team looking to shed future commitments.

For their part Houston is taking getting 2 1sts and a former first that could very well thrive under Adelman. At worst, maybe he becomes a new Battier for the remainder of his deal. For expiring pieces that they aren't likely to keep, it's not a bad risk for them.

I'm not a huge fan of Brooks, with that said, I dont see any reason not to do this. Battier > Marvin and Brooks > Bibby.

My worry would be is that what would happen to the offense in the halfcourt with Brooks instead of Bibby? Bibby seems to be the only guy who can get these guys into any sort of offense. With Brooks and Craw it could get real sloppy. That offense would be pretty scary and the perimeter defense would be a little improved.

I'm all for it.

I think Al still starts at the 5, Josh Smith at the 4, and Shane Battier at the 3. I'd hate to move the first round picks but I like the trade overall. Are we prepared to lock Brooks up this off-season?

I want us to do what allows us to retain Jamal Crawford and to move Marvin's contract.

HMFFL wrote:I think Al still starts at the 5, Josh Smith at the 4, and Shane Battier at the 3. I'd hate to move the first round picks but I like the trade overall. Are we prepared to lock Brooks up this off-season?

I want us to do what allows us to retain Jamal Crawford and to move Marvin's contract.

I think the lineups are conditional on who we're facing. I've just got into a habit of listing the big lineup.

I think Jamal would be retained in the scenario, but not sure about Aaron Brooks. It depends how much love he gets as a RFA, what the new cba rules are, and how willing the Hawks are to spend. It could also be a sign and trade possibility to get something back. Marvin for Battier works straight up salary-wise, but I didn't feel comfortable throwing in a 1st to do that deal. The 2 first for Brooks tryout and moving Marvin's contract for a quality role playing expiring seemed reasonable.

Before Houston would entertain such an offer I think they have to fall further out of the race. While I suspect that neither player is in their long term plans, they have a more immediate goal of trying to make sure jobs are maintained. As such they are still buyers until they drop at least 3 more before the break

Another comment. I love the draft and I truly believe that I could make better picks than the Hawks front office (especially in the 2nd round). I think it is an essential way to keep a team competitive. The problem is that we've not maximized past drafts to give us young assets to use in acquiring a difference maker that way. The other way of adding on without creating a hole by losing a key player is to take on a big contract. Having said that I understand that we're not willing to go over the luxury tax threshold. That kind of kills most of the trade options that way.

That leaves picks as the only asset we have to use. When you are trying to deal an unwanted contract it is even harder. If we trade a core player (Joe, Josh, Al, or Jamal) it will limit the benefit of any trade because it creates a large hole in production and the rotation. I'm just working with what I see as available to get the best impact now and the best impact for the future. I wish it wouldn't take such a potentially large sacrifice as 2 picks, but realistically it probably will.

Note that I suggested 2 1sts + Jamal & Mo for Nash and Hill or 2 1sts + Marvin & Mo for Brooks and Battier. In my eyes the difference between Jamal and Marvin (with his contract as a negative) is equal to the difference between Nash and Brooks with Hill and Battier as expiring quality SFs that I rate as approximately equal. I just included that last bit to explain my thought processes.

I like th edeal with the Suns. You guys have made trades in the past, should be a good way to go again. Nash and Hill would really put you guys up there...

I love to do the trade, but would HOU acquiesce? Marvin locks up their SF position and considering their year, it wouldn't surprise me if they're contemplating jumping into the 'Melo sweepstakes in the off-season. Would they really give that up for Marvin? Doesn't seem likely. If this is the case though, then Brooks could prolly be had for picks/prospects, but would we then want to do it without dumping Marvin?

Catch-22 here...

theatlfan wrote:I love to do the trade, but would HOU acquiesce? Marvin locks up their SF position and considering their year, it wouldn't surprise me if they're contemplating jumping into the 'Melo sweepstakes in the off-season. Would they really give that up for Marvin? Doesn't seem likely. If this is the case though, then Brooks could prolly be had for picks/prospects, but would we then want to do it without dumping Marvin?

Catch-22 here...

I thought about a 1st for Aaron Brooks, which they might do, but I decided to propose shipping off Marvin so that we'd have cap room to possibly keep Jamal Crawford and Aaron Brooks. Without doing that I'm not sure we could keep either. I'd still do an Aaron Brooks rental for a first because I think he could add a dimension that would help us against Miami and potential help cure our achilles heel of jump shooting droughts. Not sure about matching with Boston though.

Also there will be no Melo sweepstakes in the off-season. If he gets to the off-season without signing an extension then he'll sign for the max he can in New York. The only thing that would change this is a dramatic change in the CBA that would render New York unable to make a reasonable offer. The only hope that Houston would have to sign Carmelo is to convince Denver to deal him there prior to the deadline to get his bird rights and then convince him that he should sign the extension. That's a stretch since he's publicly said he'll only sign in New York. Do they have the best offer on a rental without making their team too weak to be attractive to resign him? And do they have the balls to risk it?

Houston fan here, how about something like:

Brooks/ Jeffries for Marvin/Teague?

Allows you to clear Marvins salary, while gaining the RFA rights to Brooks.

Allows the Rockets to start Marvin at the 3 and move past the Brooks era.

I also ask this in the trade forum, but how has Bibby been doing? Obviously an Adelman player, but doesn't seem to be popular, and I'm aware there are concerns about his defense and his PER stinks. Any thoughts?

evildallas wrote:I thought about a 1st for Aaron Brooks, which they might do, but I decided to propose shipping off Marvin so that we'd have cap room to possibly keep Jamal Crawford and Aaron Brooks. Without doing that I'm not sure we could keep either. I'd still do an Aaron Brooks rental for a first because I think he could add a dimension that would help us against Miami and potential help cure our achilles heel of jump shooting droughts. Not sure about matching with Boston though.

I'd do this in a heartbeat and look to dump Marvin elsewhere. Brooks would help to combat Rondo's speed too. I'm not one that thinks that you have to cure all ills with 1 trade, and this trade really works for me. CLE has been linked to Marvin many times, and if we could pull this trade, then a Marvin + a 2nd for Parker would be ideal for me.

evildallas wrote:Also there will be no Melo sweepstakes in the off-season. If he gets to the off-season without signing an extension then he'll sign for the max he can in New York. The only thing that would change this is a dramatic change in the CBA that would render New York unable to make a reasonable offer. The only hope that Houston would have to sign Carmelo is to convince Denver to deal him there prior to the deadline to get his bird rights and then convince him that he should sign the extension. That's a stretch since he's publicly said he'll only sign in New York. Do they have the best offer on a rental without making their team too weak to be attractive to resign him? And do they have the balls to risk it?

Keep hearing conflicting rumors about 'Melo's desires. Some say NYK because his wife, but DEN insiders say that simply a team that can put together a "super friends" II type scenario would be enough (which does NYK). The "franchise player" tag being rumored in the new CBA could put all that on hold though...

Anyway, even if it isn't 'Melo, taking on Marvin's contract without giving out any future monies would still stop HOU from being able to offer the max without giving out salaries though... but it seems HOU fans are down with Marvin, so what do I know?

supertruck97 wrote:Houston fan here, how about something like:

Brooks/ Jeffries for Marvin/Teague?

Allows you to clear Marvins salary, while gaining the RFA rights to Brooks.

Allows the Rockets to start Marvin at the 3 and move past the Brooks era.

I'd think we'd want a useful expiring if we're trading out current salaries. Battier gives us another option for lineups, but Jeffries doesn't. We're trying to compete with MIA & ORL in our division, so forth BOS and CHI in the East. I could see us upping the ante with picks to ensure that Battier is in the deal instead of Jeffries, but I couldn't see us taking on Jeffries.

Sasaki wrote:I also ask this in the trade forum, but how has Bibby been doing? Obviously an Adelman player, but doesn't seem to be popular, and I'm aware there are concerns about his defense and his PER stinks. Any thoughts?

Answered in the T&T forum. Basically, Bibby is doing the things we think he can do (running the O, long range shooting) very well, but the things he can't (D) are glaring. If you want him instead of Marvin, then he could be had.

supertruck97 wrote:Houston fan here, how about something like:

Brooks/ Jeffries for Marvin/Teague?

Allows you to clear Marvins salary, while gaining the RFA rights to Brooks.

Allows the Rockets to start Marvin at the 3 and move past the Brooks era.

Personally, I'd be fine with a deal like that.