GreenHat wrote:
I keep focusing on that quote because that was what you quoted.
Speaking even to the overall cap situation a 2 mil/2year deal does NOTHING to the flexibility. You keep on harping on 2014 flexibility. A rookie deal from last year would be a TEAM OPTION in 2014. You can cut the guy for FREE with no cap hit.
So by your logic, it is OK to draft a player for the sake of drafting even though you know there is a high percentage you might cut such player in 2 years because you didn't like him that much to begin with?
As I explained above, flexibility means more than just cap space. It means roster spots and assets. You are determined on trying to convince us that a draftee who now is on the roster - just to say you have a young player - does NOTHING to our flexibility but you ignore the FACTS that:
a) It takes away a valuable roster spot in a championship team. (Flexibility)
b) Eliminates a future asset since you took a player you thought you could cut two years later instead of holding a more attractive draft pick. (Flexibility)
c) Although I agree that the financial hit might not be a deal breaker to most GM's, it is still a hit and wouldn't call it "NOTHING". It is easier to spend other's people money. Remember the luxury tax implications. A 1 mil contract is worth as much as 3 mil - without looking at the real numbers - this season (Flexibility)
I hear what you are clinging to but you neglect the point of the whole discussion. ANd you have YET to give me the name of the player that was worth - to you - everything that I mentioned above.
Were you unaware that it was a team option for the third year or did you know that and you are just ignoring the fact?
I am very aware. I am just not into drafting players for the sake of drafting. As I mention before, if there was a Mario Chalmers or even a Norris Cole, you make a move. Otherwise, why draft a player when your first thought is the possibility of cutting him in 2 seasons. Not a successful strategy or way of thinking IMO.
Yes that goes to cap flexibility, cap flexibility, every kind of flexibility. Its no risk at all. If you don't want the guy after the first two years you just don't pick up the TEAM option in 2014. There is no risk at all for 2014. The risk would be we would not be able to keep Juwan Howard. You're also ignoring that you can move a guy who is an expiring 1 millionish expiring any time.
So now you agree with me? Again, give me the name of a draftee player that you would've loved to have on our roster instead of Juwan Howard.
On a side note, people need to stop undervaluing Howard's contribution to the locker room. Yes, he did not contribute on the court, we all knew he wouldn't, but his addition meant more during a tough stretch in the playoffs than a player such as Varnado or a "promising" rookie could have. Definitely not a long term solution, but a player LeBron and others respect. A player/coach per say.
If a rookie deal that low is as deadly as you seem to think we never should have drafted Cole either.
FACT: Miami did not like any of the players available in the 2012 NBA draft.
FACT: Miami LOVED Norris Cole, they traded up to get him.
Two different scenarios. You are grasping at straws now.
Again I'm not saying the trade was good or bad. I'm attacking your flexibility comment because its nonsense.
I am discussing based on facts. You seem to be discussing based on hypothetical s. Otherwise, provide the name of a 2012 draftee player as I requested several times.
It does nothing to cap flexibility, we are way over the cap now and it is a TEAM OPTION in 2014
Again, I was discussing overall flexibility. Read above.
It does nothing to roster flexibility, we were carrying Juwan last year, its an expiring deal now and its a TEAM OPTION in 2014
Only the coach and GM can truly determine that, and they seem to agree with me since they bypassed the 2012 1st round and kept two roster spots fluid throughout the season.
It does next to nothing for luxury tax flexibility, look at the difference between Moultrie's salary and a minimum contract cap hold.
Again, easier said when it is not you the one paying for salary and tax on a player you really didn't want to begin with.
The move had nothing to do with flexibility and having a 2 year deal last year for slightly more than 2 million does nothing to damage any type of flexibility.
You can see it was a good deal or a bad deal but if you are using flexibility as your reasoning then that is using faulty logic.
Wrong. Per Pat Riley:
Heat President Pat Riley said it all came down to future flexibility.
"We simply wanted to defer our pick and our asset to next year," he said, confident the pick will come available next June. "The players that we had on the board were not there at the time and we felt we had a great option, in being able to get a future first from Philly, that's lottery protected, but could be 10 picks higher than this year.
"We just felt with our roster that roster spots were very valuable."
Riley said the trade was not made with the luxury tax in mind, but rather because of future flexibility.
Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/sports/nba-draf ... z2XvG7PuAt
Riley basically says "flexibility" was the reason they moved the pick and although he did admit that the move was NOT "luxury tax driven" (not that will admit if it was but I'll take his word), he mentions "future flexibility", "roster flexibility" and "assets". Oh, and he did not like any of the players available on that draft either.
Which player did you wanted the team to draft again?
