When your entire team is role players, anyone can be moved....but I agree, we have far too much turnover in search of that one hidden gem. It is what it is I guess. DD
Landry, gone. Brooks, gone. Anderson, Jefferies, Miller. Gone, gone, gone. Rafer, gone. Vspan, gone. Artest, gone. What was the point? Point: Martin, Lowry, Scola, Lee, Dragic, D-mo. In other words, an upgrade in talent. The GM's job.
Detroit did it a few years back. Everyone of the starters should above average on offense and defense and bench should be little drop off from the starters. A good center and the Rox won't be far away from that description.
Who would you like to have back instead of the people we got for them? IMO the Rox have come a long way using assets that hardly anybody really wanted.
Everybody without a core has too much turnover. I just feel that all the posters who complain about the shuffling is being pretty silly. You only stop tinkering with the roster when you're content with what you have right? Unless you're fine with Thabeet manning the C you should be happy about the turnover.
Brooks was drafted at 26. Landry at 31. Do you know why they outperformed expectations? Yes they may have been underrated at the time, but more importantly, they were the most pro-ready players at their positions come draft time. They left at a time when they had already passed their peak. Look at Brooks' 2009-2010 year and tell me if he'll ever put up numbers like that again. He won't. Look at Landry's efficiency progression from his first three years and in the time since he's been off the Rockets. He's already past his prime. He was a guy that needed cannons for legs to jump over taller, bigger guys, grab that rebound and put back that dunk. Those skills don't translate into your late-20's and 30's. So in my mind, we made off like bandits in the Landry and Brooks trades. When you consider where they came from (late first/early second round picks), this isn't asset shuffling. This is taking a molly, putting some make-up on her, and selling her off at a prize show like some sort of purebred mare. And fyi, the guys that were worth keeping in this organization are, for the most part, still here. Scola. Lowry. Hayes. We extended those guys, and it's paid off handsomely so far. The one guy we didn't re-sign that would have helped us in his first year out was Artest, but you can all see what kind of sideshow he's been putting on since he got his ring. Guys Morey made mistakes on keeping TOO long (T-Mac, Yao, even Battier) have been well-discussed on threads like these. In Yao's case, there was no choice in the matter; we can all pretty much assume this was the case. In Tracy's case, some of the blame goes to Morey, some to T-Mac for DECLARING HE WAS GONNA GET MICROFRACTURE SURGERY RIGHT AROUND THE TIME WE WERE GONNA TRADE HIM. And then Battier...well I'll admit that it was a mistake to hold on to him for so long until dumping him for Thabeet and a pick we never saw. But I think that's not the point of the OP. I think the point is that we don't have continuity in this organization, that we need to hold onto guys like Battier LONGER. As in, go down with the ship. I don't know. I might be cold, but I'm in favor of anything that makes us better now.
Interesting posts. Is this team without a "core" and if not, who are the "core" we are building around? All the great teams had an identity. Everyone knew the names of the Showtime Lakers or their rivals, the Boston Celtics. Almost everyone can name the current Lakers or the Heat. The Mavs' core has been together for several years, but they have shuffled in and out a good number of players.
All Morey quotes? Ironically, constant change suggests that your are not making progress and that many of your decisions have been mistakes.
They have been...Ariza, Dorsey, Miller - Morey is not close to batting 1.000....he has won some and lost some, and while the players have changed the results have not. DD
Come on guys, Morey started with a dead mule and you can't expect him to trade it into a string of race horses in two years.
Funny, I think that is fair, but how long has Morey been here? Also, it really isn't all on Morey. There is a large team of people running the Rockets. And don't forget L.A.'s input. I am suspicious of "minimalism," do as little as possible, spend as little as possible and at the same time keep expectations and attendance up. Are the Rockets really committed to building a contender? If that is the plan, we don't appear to be doing the things necessary to make that happen.
Don't remember the transactions of that period, but in retrospect, whatever they were doing resulted in a championship shortly thereafter.
So Morey has 6 more years after the end of Yao just like we had 6 years to recover from Ralph. Glad to hear you feel that way.
The plan is to wait and see if these three things can happen: a) Draft a superstar at #14. b) Another team is willing to give Rockets a superstar for free. c) A superstar wants to come and play for a mediocre team. With all the talent upgrade, Rockets' record and ticket selling are going down. yeah, if only Morey had upgraded from Yao to something.... Will Morey's tiny gain in the trades ever catch up with the top freebies in the draft every year? What's the reason behind this rebuilding through the mediocrity?
It's been 2 years since both our star, aka our core, went down. Two years. Two years ago, we were a team with homecourt going into the playoffs, DESPITE our highest paid player at the time being out. We eventually took the champs to 7 games, DESPITE our second highest paid player also going down in game 3. So the realistic question, not how long he has been here, but rather how long he's had to start this thing over again, is two years. He's been here for four. "Minimalism"? So which one is it? Are they doing too little, or are they doing too much by "shuffling the deck"?
"Spend at little as possible" resulted in the 6th highest payroll in the league last season. Les Alexander need to talk to the Maloofs about what is "possible."
