The Visionaries

[Doctor Robert]

Since we are forming societies, associations, etc. I have one that I would like to start. It is called The Visionaries. To tell you all the truth I should probably save this type of effort for some other part of my life, but for five minutes I'm sure that it won't hurt to babble publicly.

Rules for creating something according to the Visionaries:
1) Define the problem that needs to be solved. Most of the answer to a question lies in the way that it is asked.
2) Develop a stategy for approaching the problem. The stategy should be very specific and should encompass all possible existing conditions.
3) Ruthlessly pursue the solution to the problem. This means eliminating all things that are not part of the strategy.

Creation: The Rockets
Question: Hasn't been defined
Srategy: Because the Question hasn't been defined the Strategy is not clear

Please don't take this as a pessemistic post, it is just my philosophy on how things should be done. I think that you have to believe in something and go after it without compromise. If you're smart, then you will succeed.

[Barzilla]

Doctor Robert,

You are a man after my own heart. No one can succeed like Doctor Robert. Oh well, enough of that. I would like to join the visionary class, but I have a criteria I would like to add before we take on this task. Before we can ask a question we need to estabalish a goal. In order to ask a question we need to know our destination. You can't really ask 'How do we get from point A to point B' unless you know where B is. I see two goals that don't necessarily agree with each other.

1. Win as much as we can in 1999
2. Prepare as much as we can for life without Hakeem and Charles.

The problem as I see it is that we have merged these goals to the point where our overall goal is unrecognizeable. As far as our personel decisions are concerned we have tackled number goal two as much as possible. On the court we still seem to be focused on goal number one. Unfortunately, goals one and two are interfering with each other and neither is being accomplished.

The best question I can throw out (no matter how vague) is

What can we do to best accomplish our goal this season?

Of course, I can't answer that until we are clear on a goal.

[Barzilla]

While I'm on a roll allow me to throw my two cents on which goal I would choose. I think my personal goal is to see the Rockets prepare as best they can for life without Hakeem and Charles. For those who want to challenge this goal I will lay out my premises for reaching that decision

1. The Rockets do not have enough talent to win the championship this season.
2. We already know that Barkley is retiring this season and Hakeem has hinted he will retire after the next. That being the case, I don't see our talent situation greatly improving next season.

Now, here comes the obvious question. Is the goal of winning as much as we can in 1999 necessarily counter to the goal of preparing as much as we can for life without Dream and Charles?

Not necessarily, one can be a byproduct of the other, but as goals go they cannot coexist. One has to take priority over the other. Winning may come by preparing for the future or preparing for the future might come with doing all we can to win, but one must be the priority.

Question: How can we best utilize the 1999 season to prepare for life without Hakeem and Charles.

Factors

1. Hakeem and Charles are still here. How are they used?

2. Who are the future leaders of this team? How many of these guys are really part of the future and how many are just passing through?

3. How does this effect the arena situation? (sorry, had to ask)

4. What style of basketball is going to prepare us for life without Dream and Charles?

5. Is Rudy the coach to lead this new team?

Doctor Robert or any other visionaries please help out with the list of factors. I'll wait until we can agree on a question and goal before speaking of a solution.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[Doctor Robert]

AHHH, debate!

As far as the goal is concerned, I think that is just semantics. The goal you state is just my question.

AS far as the question is concerned, remember rule number one - Most of the answer to a question lies in the way that it is asked.

So my response to your post is that question (which you have already said yourself) is vague.

I am in no way qualified to ask the question because it would be a terribly long one and I really don't know enough basketball, but to illustrate the point, I will embarass myself.

What kind of plays do you run on the offense of a basketball team that has very diverse levels of athleticism between its younger and older players while the older player's experience lies in an area that is cleary not compatible with the future success of the team?

See what I mean about the question saying something about the solution. I think that the question should be brutally honest as well. The real question should be asked by Rudy and should be about four pages long. I am in no way capable of developing the strategy to approach the problem.

[Doctor Robert]

I would also like to add that the main concern of The Visionaries is the PROCESS. It is how one goes about creating something. As far as our situation goes, there is an infinite number of questions that could be asked and debated. The pertinent information to The Rockets that lies in The Visionaries rules is that a question must be asked with brutal honesty and that The Visionaries are not aware that it has been done. If it has and we are not privy to that then we believe that rules number 2 & 3 are not part of The Rockets' way of doing things.

[Barzilla]

Doctor Robert,

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You have to forgive my love of philosophy, but I am much better suited from working from the broad to the specific. You have asked a very specific question that is confusing me because I have no broad goal to reference it. Let me put this in another way. Every team must make a number of assumptions.

1. There are usually only five or six teams (tops) who can really call themselves probable contenders to make it to the Finals.
2. As the ol saying goes 'the only thing rookies will get you is fired'

Now, the Rockets are playing on these assumptions. Let me put it more brutally.

Does it make sense for this team to risk stunting the growth of its young players if we know there is virtually no chance of making it to the Finals?

So what if we can get to the second round by "blending" the talents of the old and new if it stunts the growth of the new.

So, the better question to ask is again

How do we best prepare for life after Hakeem and Charles?

That may turn out to be blending the talents of the old and new and then again maybe not

Using your original post as a monicor, a visionary is not concerned with compromise. If achieving the goal (question) of improving as much as possible means minimalizing Hakeem and Charles' role than so be it.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[Plowman]

The think the future is very bright indeed.We have a small window to make some noise right now but that is being wasted.Les should get an even better deal than the one he originally sought.Houston isn't going to let the Rockets go anywhere.The young talent on this team from positions 1-5 is pretty damn good.Stevie is a special player who,barring injury,should become one of the all time greats.Strangely enough,I believe that if Rudy survives the next two years,he will be the perfect coach for the young team.If not,bring on Zeke. HH
I'm very optimistic about the future of this team.There's just too much talent and potential salary cap space not to take care of business.

[This message has been edited by Hardwood Hammer (edited November 17, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Hardwood Hammer (edited November 17, 1999).]

[rimbaud]

Like a crack of lightning, I must end this lovefest.
Doctor Robert and Barzilla:
For all of your talk and dramatic language, you have gotten nowhere (no question, no solution, no point). Basketball is not a matter of metaphysics, it is far too mundane for that. Why try to elevate it (or yourselves) for pointless "debate?" Reality goes something like this:
Q: What is the goal of a professional basketball team?
A: To make money
Q: How does it do that?
A: Win (to sell tickets, merchandise, etc)
Wow, that is deep - let's discuss...

[Doctor Robert]

Definetly not a visionary.

There is nothing I hate worse than the belief that money means everything. I can safely say that you are completely wrong. Basketball is a professional game and decision are made with money in mind. Why would anyone be interested in basketball if the goal of it were to make money. Is your interest in basketball somehow related to the making of money? I doubt it. Money does fit into The Visionaries' rules. It would be considered part of rule number two and "existing conditions".

[rimbaud]

Did Les Alexander buy the Rockets because he "just loves that game?" No, he bought it as an investment - so he could make money. Did he want a new arena so the Rockets could have fancy new backboards? No, he wanted it to increase his pofits from luxury boxes and higher ticket prices. That is reality. Reality is not visionary, agreed. All pro sports are only about money - entertaining the masses is only the vehicle to that money.

Do I support this money-only approach? No, money is a man-made concept that now consists only of numbers in a computer - it should not control all aspects of life. I love the game for its beauty and because of personal experiences.

Unfortunately the original point of my post was lost in that you are getting nowhere because you are trying to combine two things with no interest for each other. However, you still cannot beat my money argument - now that is a good debate!

[Doctor Robert]

Actually, you are missing the point of my post.

I believe that there is a process in life (and basketball) that should be followed. Life is a series of problems. The "Visionaries" thing is simply a way of describing how I think the Rockets should go about solving their problems. There was never any attempt at making the thing more complicated than it actually is.

It isn't Incrementalism (sorry Will) or the method of changing things by making small and continuous adjustment. It isn't a method that takes the old and the new and attempts to make them co-exist. It isn't a method that attempts to emulate another model that works.

It is a method that attempts to be very specific about what is going on and to try and solve the problems with an uncompromising ruthlessness and honesty. That means aiming directly at what Rudy sees as being the successful future of the club by pushing aside all other factors including egos, money, fair-weather fans, etc.

[4chuckie]

Rim-
You are partly right. Owners make a large investment for a team, hoping to maintain it until it is time to be sold. That is where the majority of the money is made, in the sell. It is almost like a stock. Some businesses pay out dividends w/o much appreciation, while others keep the money and appreciate. Sports in general is an appreciation business. Look at the huge investment to purchase a team, there is really no way to recoup that money, without bringing in additional investors, holding onto it for a very long time or selling it.

My goal is to eventually get the Rockets back to a championship caliber. I really thought at the beginning of the season that we may be close. I now agree we are far from it.

If we do all agree that Charles/Dream aren't apart of our next championship run, I think the logical think to do is to get what ever value we can get out of them now. Problem with this is we can't do any trades to get another bad peice of the puzzle who is in a long term contract. So is it better to trade these 2 while they have some value, or hold onto them for the salary cap relief? I think it all depends on who will be available. I have heard many people mention the possibility of either Duncan or Hill. Let's be realistic Duncan won't leave (I don't think). Hill may be avaialable. He won't stay in Detroit. Would he want to return to Texas where his dad played f-ball for? I guess we would have to evaluate who may be avaialable thru free agency the next 2 years vs what someone would give us via trade.

If our goal is to get back to the next level we don't need to look back at past successes but look forward to what the future holds.

[rimbaud]

Doctor Robert:

If the purpose of the visionaries is to solve problems by being very specific, why have you never gotten very specific? That is my point - for all that has been said, nothing concrete has been offered by you for the purpose of the visionaries - other than to solve problems very ruthlessly. Without tangible paramaters, however, nothing can be argued, discussed, formed, solved, etc. That is why the purpose is lost - you never bring the focus to the tangible. Additionally, other than mentioning the Rockets, you have never related your ideas directly.

As far as the ideals of the visionaries, sure, they are sound - for thought, but not for the business of basketball (ignore money, fans, player egos? - impossible).

[Barzilla]

Rimbaud,

If you were to look up the word "visionary" in the dictionary I seriously doubt you will find the word "specific". In fact, visionaries are usually quite the opposite. Obviously, the goal of an NBA franchise is to win and be profitable. But how stupid would it look if I or anyone else came out with a topic that said, "I think the Rockets should try to win." So obviously what we are talking about is how. So far we have two schools of thought.

1. Incrementalist- Continue to make minor changes until it works.

2. Visionary- Find your destination and then set your course for it.

What this means is that we have to envision (thus the term visionary) the kind of basketball we need to be in order to accomplish every NBA team's goal.

An incrementalist would say "if we play this guy a little more, or if we run this play for that guy....."

A visionary would say "What we need is an uptempo attack featuring full court pressure and lots of movement on offense"

All organizations need both types of people. Incrementalists alone can't accomplish the goal because they don't know what the destination is. Visionaries can't because they don't know what to do to get to their destination. It must have both.

If you are looking for immediate specifics I would suggest you are probably in the wrong camp. As a visionary I cannot think of specifics until "our camp" is in agreement on the destination. But I'll tell you what I envision....

I am envisioning a team that plays a lot like the Sonics of the early 1990s. The thing that struck me about those teams is that I always hated to play them. Win or lose you knew you were in for a real battle. There are a lot of teams that are very successful that I don't feel that way about. I've never really felt that way about the Lakers, Suns, Spurs, or Trailblazers, but the Sonics inspire that in me.

What I envision for 1999 is a team that opponents dread facing because they know they are in for a war. Currently, we are probably a couple of players shy from making that kind of vision work successfully, but we have enough to beat the bad teams regularly and enough to make life for the good teams a living hell even if we do lose.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[rimbaud]

Barzilla:

My comments about specifics were derived from the parameters set by Doctor Robert (however, if it never gets to specifics, it is useless in real world applications). Now you finally bring about a goal (a style similar to the early 90's Sonics). My argument was just that being a visionary was pointless unless you brought about a goal and talked about tangibles. You have now brought us up to that point. Your goal would certainly seem feasable, as those Sonics probably had less talent than we do now. That pressing, trapping defense would work wonders as well. However, you need a stronge defensive 4 - CB is not that.
Understand I am not trying to denounce or ridicule, it is just that it took 15 posts to get someone to bring forth any kind of visionary goal.

[Barzilla]

Rimbaud,

I understand your frustration. I think Doctor Robert and I were discussing the methods of coming up with that goal. The problem with visionaries as you say as that we will argue about goals all day with little real world application. That is where the incrementalists come in. As for the subject at hand:

"The Rockets have more talent than the Sonics did."

This is a statement I can't really agree with. To measure the true talent of a team we have to measure their potential as a unit. While the sum of the Rockets parts might exceed that of the Sonics, we have the unfortunate situation of having talents that are difficult to utilize at the same time. Simply put, when we run we are going away from Barkley and Hakeem's strength. When we slow it down we are going away from Francis, Anderson, and Mobley's strength. The Sonics were built around one idea. That system had weaknesses (which we exploited sometimes) but as far unit potential the Sonics had more. As you said, the Rockets cannot utilize that system effectively until they get some additional personel (or utilize the present personel in a different way). Barkley is my main concern as well, but we also can't underestimate the liabilities that Walt Williams brings on defense as well. In a perfect world, I would like to see the Rockets with a long, ahtletic small forward who can close down the passing lanes and block an occasional shot (a la Robert Horry). Unlike Horry though, that player should have a constant motor and an ability to finish consistently on the break. Then, the middle would be filled with two solid interior defenders with shot blocking ability (Hakeem and Cato?). We may already have those in place, but I think we need an upgrade over Rogers (if he were the long athletic forward we were thinking of). Rogers is solid coming off the bench, but I'm not sold on his ability to produce consistently in 30-35 minutes. Again, Barkley's role needs to be redefined in order for this vision to work.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[Doctor Robert]

Well guys, we are off to a rough start, but I'm confident that The Visionaries can survive. After seeing the forth quarter today it just makes us stronger!

It might be frustrating not actually talking about the specifics, but you at least know what my general proposal is now. Now we can talk.

If we want to see what would happen to the Rockets as a running team, then Rudy needs to pursue it with RUTHLESSNESS! That means sitting down with his pad and pencil and calculating as best as possible exactly how many minutes (based on age and conditioning) each person on the team can run their guts out. Plan out a player rotation that works with those minute calculations and follow it no matter what. On every possible possesion that there is open floor to push the ball they should be instructed to run. If the players don't run as they are instructed then they should be taken out with the condition that they will be put back in if they run. We won't know if the plan to have a running team works until we do it for at least ONE ENTIRE GAME. After we test the strategy for four quarters we can see how it might actually come true. If we continue to compromise then what are we accomplishing?

The things we can accomplish by being RUTHLESS about a potential strategy is that we can test it to the limit. Isn't that what might tell us something about the Rockets. We may find out afterwards that we don't have enough depth to be a running team - who knows - definetly not the Rockets because they haven't tried it in a regular season game.

[Barzilla]

Doctor Robert,

Absolutely, the thing that frustrates me is that Rudy was talking about running what he calls "quick sets" in the preseason. A quick set is a basketball version of a "no huddle" offense in football. Basically what that means is that instead of attacking the basket when you don't have numbers you run a quick play that will catch the team off guard. For example, if the post makes it down the floor (ie he must hustle down there instead of waddling) then you can pass it to him in the block and he has a guarenteed one on one situation that could be a mismatch in a lot of instances. Or, you could simply stop and pop from fifteen feet, or pass to a wing to do the same. A lot of people seem to believe that running the whole game means attacking the basket on every possession. It doesn't have to be that way to have a ruthless committment to running. Come on Rudy, you talked about it in the preseason. Stop teasing us and make this vision a reality. If only for one game we can see how it works. In all likelihood we don't have the depth to win consistently at it, but gosh darn it let's make life on the rest of the NBA something other than a cakewalk. At least it would catch them offguard.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[Plowman]

This "security blanket" of our sucks big time.......It only secures losses.

[jscmedia]

I would like to have a vision of Rudy drop kicking Bryce Drew to the local YMCA. Then I would like to have another vision, only this time Rudy picks up the phone and dials, "Rent a Pointguard". He can put this on my mastercard, if he wishes. Then i would yet another vision, but a different one. It's a vision of someone jumping out of the stands and tackle him every time Charles Barkley attempts to shot a "three point shot", or as Bill Worrell mused, " A Three point shot the Old Fashioned Way".

[sir scarvajal]

The best owners don't view their team as a money making enterprise but as a hobby or even a toy (e.g., Paul Allen). Titles, not money, needs to tbe the bottom line or I don't want you to be the owner of teams I am behind.

Barzila, in your second post you identified absolutely the critical issue. Make the team better now for a legitimate shot for rings the next year or at most two, or go full throttle toward rebuilding like Orlando. This tiptoeing we have done the last few years (good enough to make the playoffs, not good enough to win in them) might fill the seats and be good for keeping the dough rolling in, but it is not acceptable to me.

[This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited November 18, 1999).]

[rimbaud]

Barzilla:

You are right about the Sonics having had better talent cohesively, I was speaking overall, on paper - as you noted. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, that does not mean much. Regardless, if the ability is there, so is the potential. Given time, I think Rogers could develop
into that rangy 3, but not anytime soon. By the way, notice that same system being utilized successfully again in Milwauke, without a strong 4 or 5, but they play well defensively.

Doctor Robert:

I do not necessarily think that the team should be run ragged, but I certainly think the coaching staff should be ruthless about keeping the style as it was in the first 3 quarters - fast break and motion with a complimentary (and secondary) post up. Every team must slow down at some point.
If Rudy needs to sit down and number crunch to determine minutes, he should reconsider Shandon Anderson. When he is in the game, he makes things happen and he is lightning quick. I fear that all Rudy sees is three point ability (or lack thereof).
So perhaps we are getting somewhere.

[Barzilla]

Rimbaud,

If we're talking about the George Karl system we have to remember that traditional posts do not fit in that running system. Defense, rebounding, and quickness is much more important in the Karl system than the old Rockets system. That's when you see an Ervin Johnson at center because of his ability to block shots and run the floor. Cato fits that mold, but Hakeem and Charles do not. What we know now is that this system doesn't work as well in the playoffs because the games tend to be more half court oriented, but we can work around that. What we also know is that the kind of defense the Sonics and Bucks play takes much more work and practice than a conventional defense (is that why the Bucks are playing so much better this season?) Therefore, if we want to be competitive in 2000-2001 it is best that we adapt to that now if we want to do it successfully next year. I think that would require playing Hakeem and Cato more together and playing Rogers more at the three. This would give Francis, Anderson, Rogers and Cato a year to know their positions in the defense while we utilize the draft to find more parts to fit the puzzle.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[CriscoKidd]

I remember Visionaries. That cartoon sucked.

And the name sounds like a glorified chess club or something.

1. get into theplayoffs.
2. strategy - win games
3. must make more baskets than the other team. Everything else is irrelevant.

Uh Huh.

[Barzilla]

Crisco,

I don't know if it makes you feel any better, but we (the visionaries) have never claimed to be anymore intelligent than anyone else (unlike some people on these boards). All we are doing is developing a different process for solving the problem. Our simple goal is championships just like everyone else. All we're asking is how do you get there? That's a simple enough question and one everyone is trying to answer. We have a different way of answering it. Here are some basic assumptions.

1. The Rockets will not win the NBA Championship this season.
2. The Rockets will not win the NBA Championship with their current system.

Therefore, for me and other visionaries the questions like "why isn't this guy playing more or why aren't we running these plays for this guy?" don't have a lot of weight. Why? We aren't going to win the title anyway.

So therefore, we have to ask ourselves what style of team we need to be to win after Hakeem and Charles retire and go ahead with that system now. Period.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[CriscoKidd]

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

I wuz just playin around wit ya'll.

Uhm ... if i wuz Rudy i would try to get the Rocks to implement the system of the team we are facin tonite .... the KINGS! At least offensively.

If our old players get tired of running and gunning - Just sub for a little while.

*Sigh* Sure would be exciting.

[Barzilla]

Well, let's take a look at our roster and see how they fit in the running and gunning system.

Guards

1. Steve Francis- Tonight's performance is an indication of two things. First, Steve Francis is the Rockets best player. Secondly, he is still going to make a lot of mistakes. That being said, he has shown so far this year that he has done far more good than bad. This is especially true in the running game.

2. Shandon Anderson- Shandon is finding his niche and it lies in slashing to the basket and playing tough defense. He isn't the all-star some people projected him to be, but he is beginning to justify the Rockets decision to make him their two guard.

3. Cattino Mobley- He is obviously better cutting to the basket and running the break than shooting from beyond the arc.

4. Bryce Drew- For those who say Maloney would be better than Drew: you definetely aren't a visionary. Can anyone honestly picture Maloney running and gunning? Drew has enough athleticism and versatility to give Francis spot rest.

Forwards

1. Walt Williams- Don't know where to go on Walt. On the one hand, he shows flashes of defense. On the other hand, he disappears for longer stretches. You would have to think he would be better in the running game.

2. Charles Barkley- Backing it in, backing it in, backing it in, backing it in, backing it in, backing it in, backing it in............

3. Carlos Rogers- This guy has been putting up some impressive numbers in small minutes. The polish isn't quite there, but he's a high energy guy you love to have in a running offense.

4. Matt Bullard- Let's see, a slow, white shooting specialist in a running offense. See Maloney.

5. Tony Massenburg- This is another questionable player. You have to like his work ethic when he's in there, but would a more athletic player with younger legs fit here?

6. Kenny Thomas- Clutch? Anyone who saw this guy in camp? What can he do? He's played what? 10 minutes total?

Centers

1. Hakeem Olajuwon- Still a quality defender even at his advanced age. Can he still run the floor and finish on the break? Can he still be productive with less looks?

2. Kelvin Cato- Constant motor can get him in foul trouble. Has shown more offense than expected. Minutes are way too low.

Where are we with this running experiment? Well lets look at the fits, maybes, and don't fits

Fits

Steve Francis
Shandon Anderson
Cattino Mobley
Carlos Rogers
Kelvin Cato

Maybes

Bryce Drew
Walt Williams
Tony Massenburg
Kenny Thomas
Hakeem Olajuwon

Don't Fits

Matt Bullard
Charles Barkley

This is a pretty significant breakdown. We know Bullard and Barkley's futures are limited. We also know that Olajuwon's future is limited. Therefore, the thing you are compelled to do is run and gun to see where the maybes fit into your longterm future. The trading deadline is in Feb. That gives you over two months to run and gun and evaluate where each player fits.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[rimbaud]

Barzilla:

Last post was good analysis, however, I will add:

Massenburg - not that old, can run and finish well, good D. He provides good energy and can be happy with getting the ball off of his own hustle - not set post ups. Remember he played well with the Grizzlies with a young team.

Williams - played an up-tempo style in Portland and was a solid role player - nothing more. With a running offense, he would be about the same. Scoring more points somewhat covers up his poor defense.

These two are fits.

Olajuwon - could be great in a running game if he accepted his role - I guess that is why he should stay in the "maybe" category. If he were to accept - he would definitely fit.

I still would vote for the old Sonics system (over the Kings) because of the defense and deeper offensive system.

[Doctor Robert]

Barzilla, good comments

I would like to know more about Kenny Thomas as well. We just haven't seen him play, yet we were told that he had a lot of potential. I would say from the little I know that he is a "maybe" and could be used in a trade to a western conferance foe in need of competant PF's.

As long as Hakeem is doing so well in steals in addition to his steady blocking and rebounding I would give him a promotion.

[Barzilla]

Doctor Robert and Rimbaud,

As I said before, will Hakeem be willing to accept less looks in the post? This team seems to be evolving ever so slowly into that running team. I haven't seen the full court or even half court pressure yet, but we are using the post less. Of course brutal honesty and dedication to a vision requires us to drop the security blanket and go full board. Also, I know we need another shooter, but what is the purpose of activating Bullard? That just gives Rudy another excuse to take minutes away from the maybes. Just a thought......

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

[Doctor Robert]

Drew played well tonight, but I don't believe that he showed anything that would remove him from the maybe list. He hit his three pointers tonight, but as usual, he didn't show much defense or ability to run the break. The great combination performance that we saw tonight from Anderson/Francis shows us the skills that we should value in our guards. Being able to make a few steals and cut to the basket seems to be paying better dividends than a pure shooter - even when he is doing his thing effectively.

Is there any way that we could trade Drew and ? for Antonio Daniels. San Antonio might like Drew's shooting?

[rimbaud]

Doctor Robert:

No way. The Spurs are still hoping Daniels will turn into the point guard of the future. Besides, they already have Drew, he just goes by Kerr in San Antonio.

[Doctor Robert]

I think that Daniels would be much better than Drew on any team, but the reason I brought it up was because he is only getting 7 minutes a game. He might as well not even play. There are a couple people that the "?" could be.