That sure was easy, wasn't it? Francis3: He is very raw right now, but he has a lot of physical talent. I think under the right tutelage (sp.) he can develop into a valuable player. Already in his young career, he has shown a good rebounding ability.
Cabbage, Don't get me wrong, I would love to have Candy if he is available, but I'm not sure that he is. Right now the Clippers have to look at their situation like the Rockets are: who do we keep and who do we trade. Right now I look at the big man situation a lot like our three guard situation. I think Candy has more long range potential than Skinner, so they might be more willing to trade Skinner with "trade the hotter commodity theory". I just think Candy is developing too much for them to want to give up on him. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to have him. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
cabbage: i'm not sure why 'kandi hasn't flourished playing for the clippers (he's certainly a good rebounder) but i have to wonder how long it will take for him to develop into something greater than... a good rebounder for example, you mentioned tmass, mobley and rogers in a trade; a trade of mobley & rogers seems to raise the most concern to posters, but when you compare tmass and 'kandi it gets interesting also--- career highs: tmass v. 'kandi Career Points: 34 v. 17 advantage TMass Offensive Boards: 11 v. 8 advantage TMass Defensive Boards: 13 v. 12 advantage TMass Blocks: 4 v. 6 advantage Kandi obviously, this is a bit misleading, since tmass has played in the nba for 8-9 years; however, 'kandi played for the clippers as their #1 pick... there is no reason for him to not have exceeded expectations, which he hasn't up until this point. how long will it take for him to develop? the jury's out, particularly since he's not the best player on his team (perhaps the 3rd/4th best?) right now, i'll always go w/ the berzerker mentality of a mobley or tmass, which as 2nd rounders seem to show much more gumption than 'kandi. have you ever doubted for a moment watching tmass play, that he is going to give every ounce of his soul to the rockets? as far as rogers, forget about it-- he's only limited by rudy's rotation.
The Olowokandi talk was pure speculation on my part. I would much rather make a run at some of the swing players on the block at this time.
cab, i hope you're not just doing the duck & cover to protect this trade a story about odom on nbatalk gave some insight into 'kandi's future when it talked about how sterling has made generic monetary promises to odom. add that to the notion that the clippers don't have the personnel to take 'kandi's skills from 'role player' to 'superstar' (and a certain team that thinks of itself as having all of the tools to harvest a post up player: cd, dream, etc.) and we get to see motion in action. sterling has to move 'kandi fairly soon before his value (as a #1 pick) dwindles. he's not the clipper's primary interest, and they certainly won't pay the big man his due on potential alone.
SmeggySmegg: I don't think he can or ever will consistently be able to score on everyone in the league. I was just reporting that as something I read the other day to show that people around the league feel that Mobes has talent. The Anderson vs. Mobley question has been raised in many threads. Personally, I feel much better when Anderson is in the game rather than Mobley. He is a much more productive/efficient player. If the shot isn't there, he isn't going to take it. He doesn't need the ball to score. He can go up and get his own shots - in transition, loose balls/rebounds. He is also a superior defender. Once again, don't think I don't like Mobley. I love the guy and wish we could keep him. But at this point, it would just be stupid not to trade him. One can clearly see we are in the midst of re-shaping this team, and we have so many needs and their are so many young players available on the block. What is the point of holding on to a guy who: *you already have a player who is better than him at the same position. *will probably leave after this season. UT Baller: No, I am not aware of what is being discussed. Take all of this as a I think the Rockets need to do this.. type of thing, from me. Not a the Rockets are doing this.... Sorry for any confusion. I wouldn't want nbatalk.com reporting a Olowokandi-Mobley rumor which they found off of some Rockets web site... Rocketsfan66: It is because I want to build for the future. What is the point of building around a team if you don't like the team as it is right now. Personally, when I look at our roster right now, there are only a few guys who I think will/should be on the finished product in 3 years. Does that mean I don't like the other players? No, it means that I think it would be better off if they were traded to bring in talent that fits our needs and what we are trying to do right now. Then, once you have that team set, place that roster in stone and develop chemistry with those guys for the next few years. Achebe: You are right. Olowokandi hasn't done 'jack' yet and his numbers look like crap. Still, I have seen good physical ability out of him and I think that the same staff and environment that developed Othella Harrington into a 20-10 man could do the same with O'kandi who has better athletic/physical capabilities. It would give us two defensive powers in the frontcourt in Cato and Okandi. Once again, I would look at this as one of our last resorts. I would much rather make a run at some of the swing players who are available right now.
While I generally agree with all of you, I think that if the Rockets emphasize the guard position so much, they might end up like the Nets. The Nets have a lot of talented guards and small forwards, but they have no low-post presence on offense. Consequently, the Nets need to hit all of their jump shots in order to win. They don't hit the shots, they don't win. The Rockets, on first glance, appear to be as bad an outside shooting team as the Nets. While I think that the Rockets currently focus too much on their low-post game, I think that the Rockets need to have one very good offensive post-up player. While I agree with you both that Cato and Rogers are very good role players, neither have any capability to be a dominant post-up force. Both of these guys should get the majority of their points off of offensive rebounds. Consequently, the Rockets should not count on a future with having Cato start at center and Rogers start at power forward. I would keep Cato as my center and try to trade for or draft a big power forward. Its funny, the team that I would like to see over the next couple of years is Francis PG Anderson SG Mack SF the aforementioned dominant power forward Cato C I think that Mack is a better shooter than the Wizard so that is who I would look to keep. I would trade Mobely, Rogers, and Williams for this power forward.
Tod: Rather than Mack, the small forward could be our draft pick this year..(?) I really can't think of any dominant big man scorers who we could trade for. There are defensive presences like Jerome Williams and Michael Olowokandi (both who I would give up Rogers and Mobes for), but I can't think of any offensive guys who would be that easy to trade for. Any suggestions...
Barzilla and Cab Your arguments are sound and as a coach myself I understand there is more than scoring to being a good player but the stats say our starting SG Mr Anderson is averaging 8 pts a game (mobes is at 13ppg), which in my mind is unacceptable in the NBA, well it would be unacceptable in most leagues, all in all if something good is offer I would trade either of them, but right Mobes should be starting. Smeg
Visionary detrators, My mind is ablaze with all these different arguments. First of all, let me address the two obvious points y'all made. 1. How can you form a vision when the Rockets continually wheel and deal? This is a great point, but fails to see the fact that we are fans and have no real impact on the situation. I think what everyone is doing is playing "If we were in control". We're simply doing the same thing. That being a given, I would definetely agree with your sentiments on the fact that we do need a plan. 2. Why should the Rockets seek their vision against teams who are obviously better at it? This gets to the crux of the argument of the visionaries. This team will not be built in a day or even a season. Obviously teams like Seattle, Phoenix, and Sacramento will have the upper hand when we run today. Running today though can only help us run tommorrow though. I realize the first question is a part of this one. My answer still stands. Formulate a vision first, then find the parts to make it work later. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
I think Clutch answered this best when the question was posed to him about a week ago in the 100+ thread. The Rockets need to build around a group and form a vision. They must wheel and deal to get to that select group because this core is not what we want for the future. A half-ass like Walt Williams is not what I want in the vision. Then, after they have gathered that select group that they are happy with, then you stop dealing and build chemistry around those guys. [This message has been edited by thacabbage (edited November 29, 1999).]
Cabbage, You have just hit the nail on the head of the entire visionary argument. This is where the coaching philosophy comes in. Here are a number of pointed questions (ruthless as Doctor Robert would say) to help us find our way. 1. Is the post based offense itself outdated or do we simply not have the parts to make it work? We know we don't have the parts to make it work when we see anyone and everyone throwing up bricks from beyond the arc. However, has this offense become the "run and shoot" of basketball where defenses have learned to expose its weaknesses or do we simply need different personel to execute it properly? 2. If the post offense is flawed, is Rudy capable of going in a different direction? Rudy is a fantastic coach who has helped give this city two titles. However, we have to understand that he has been in a post dominated offense for 30 years (Player, scout, assistant, head coach). With that in mind, it is easy to see why he leans towards making adjustments rather than changing styles. 3. If Rudy is incapable of changing and the system is flawed when/if do we talk about finding a replacement? I don't know on this one. This is obviously a touchy subject. How much leeway has Rudy earned? I have a feeling that if this team continues to struggle Rudy will take care of this himself. Do we do it this offseason? Next? Play it out until Rudy wants to leave? 4. Should we decide to get another coach, do we look for the "best possible candidate" or decide what style we should play based on the personel and pick a coach who specializes in that style? This is another tough question. If you are a trust the coach sort of person you would favor highering the best possible candidate. If you are a formulate the vision around the talent kind of person you will let that be your guide. 5. If you formulate the vision first then do you go ahead with roster moves before he arrives or do you let him pick his people (this is particularly important with the draft)? Another tough one, as Bill Parcell's said, "If someone asks you to cook a meal you will always feel more comfortable if they let you pick the ingredients." Of course, on the other hand, if your picking a college coach or first time coach you may not feel comfortable leaving the draft in his hands. If you can excuse my ramblings for the time being let me use an analogy to illustrate why we simply can't make the deals to bring in the players and then formulate a vision. Let's say you want to take a trip. Would you pick your mode of transportation before you decided where to go? Of course not, that would be stupid. If you wanted to go to Europe you can't take a car. If you wanted to go thirty miles away it would make no sense for you to fly. Planning the future of your franchise is a similar deal. You simply cannot make any MAJOR decisions until you answer the questions I posed above. What if you made two or three major deals and then brought in a coach with power to make personel moves? He may not like the guys you brought in. What if you made the decision to run and then decide that Mike Fratello is your man? It starts with the vision. This doesn't necessarily mean that you can't make changes before the deadline, but you have to have some idea of what your destination is so that the move will be in line with the vision. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
