1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Two Superstars + Role Players v. One Superstar + Additional Stars & Role Players

Discussion in 'Houston Rockets: Game Action & Roster Moves' started by OGKashMoney, Dec 22, 2006.

  1. OGKashMoney

    OGKashMoney Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    35
    [DISCLAIMER: The only threads I have made here are for the Rox v. Clips game, but with all this nonsense about breaking up the Yao-TMac duo, I was moved to analyze some situations involving the debate over trading TMac for some quality players. I am not a fan of Yao or TMac. I am a Rocket fan, have been, and will always be regardless of the players on our roster. Its great to have talents like Yao and TMac, but if I can stick with the Rox through the SF3 years and the years of the Dream's decline, I can stick it out now!]

    First off, a lot of people have been calling for TMac's head on a platter because the team has dropped a couple of games without him in the line-up. What makes absolutely no sense is how these people fail to realize and/or accept what those loses really expose about the team. The demands shouldn't be trade TMac b/c we are 1-4 without him, the demand should be get TMac healthy. If you are 1-4 without a player, then that means that player is really important to your team, not the other way around. I don't understand how people can demand a TMac trade when we are 1-4 without him. I know he is "injury prone," has a history of back problems, etc, etc, etc, but even with TMac at 70 or 80 percent were started out 14-6. Now on to the analysis...

    Even if we trade TMac for two quality players and create a system like that of Dallas with only one superstar, the chances of winning a title do not increase. History has shown that teams with two superstars WIN MORE TITLES, even in today's NBA!

    Los Angeles Lakers: Shaq-Kobe combo; Much like the Rockets are trying to do, the Lakers surrounded their dynamic duo with important role players like Harper, Shaw, Fisher, George. The ended up winning three titles and the duo didn't have a tenth of the respect Yao and TMac do for each other.

    Opponents they beat:
    -Portland Trailblazers: Much like Dallas and Pheonix, they had one superstar (Rasheed Wallace) and surrounded him with quality players like Stoudamire, Sabonis, Wells, and O'neal (who at the time was not a superstar, and I still don't consider him a superstar).
    -Sacramento Kings: Same as above, they surrounded their superstar (Webber) with quality talent like Bibby, Christie, Davic, and others. However, like the Blazers, they lost to the duo of Shaq and Kobe.
    -Philadelphia 76ers: Surrounded their superstar (Iverson) with role players like Snow, Mutumbo, Williamson and others. They also fell to the Lakers.
    -NJ Nets: They tried a new formula by having three stars (Martin, Kidd, and Jefferson) and some role players. They also fell to the Lakers.

    San Antonio Spurs: They have been very successful the last couple of years, but they also had atleast two superstars during their title runs. First it was Duncan and Robinson, then it was Duncan and Parker (many will disagree, but when your PG is leading the league in Points in the Paint, and carries your team into the playoffs like Parker did last year, he is a little better than a star).

    Opponents they beat:
    -Dallas Mavericks: One superstar (Dirk) surrounded by losts of quality talent like Howard, Stackhouse, Terry. They have lost to the Spurs with the exception of last year, but struggled to beat an injuried Spurs team and lost to the duo of Shaq and Wade.
    -NJ Nets: Same as above.
    -Detriot Pistons: Highly debateable. One can consider Wallace and Billups their two superstars with Hamilton, Price, and B. Wallace as the supporting cast or can consider them all equal pieces. I would go with the former see how it took R. Wallace to finally get the title.

    Hope this can put an end or calm down all this nonsense about trading TMac. Yao is playing great, our role players are developing chemistry, and we are getting our injuries out early in the season. Just b/c we are losing without TMac does not mean we need to trade him. If anything, it shows how much we need him. Unless we can get Kobe, or Le Bron, or Wade, then we can't trade him. We need one of those three, and ONLY those three, b/c we need a distributor and someone who can help unload some of the scoring burden off of Yao. Losing 4 out of 5 games is not the end of the season, especially considering that we were in all those games (with the exception of the first Lakers game). We lost two games by two points, and should have won the second Lakers game. The only game we did not compete in was the first Lakers game. This shows that we have a team that can compete for a title. We just need to stick by our players and give them some time. Injuries happe, and we can't go throwing our players under the bus everytime they get injuried. If I am not mistaken, the majority of fans were ready to throw Bonzi off the team and look how the situation with him has turned. Give this team some time and see what happens. We have a special team, and lets enjoy the season.
     
  2. Skip2McGrady

    Skip2McGrady Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only thing we could get for T-Mac's contract (with chronic back spasms)is:
    Chris Webber
    Kenyon Martin
    Half of the New York roster.

    So I vote NO to trading T-Mac.

    "If you are 1-4 without a player, then that means that player is really important to your team, not the other way around"

    The other way around would be a team is important to a player...that makes no sense.

    And you consider Jefferson a star, but not Jermaine O'Neal? Please clarify on that, because I am sure I read that wrong or something.
     
  3. OGKashMoney

    OGKashMoney Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    35
    One the first point, let me rephrase "the other way around." What I meant to say is that it does not mean the player sucks. If you are 14-6 with him in the line-up and 1-4 without him, it should show that he is somewhat important to your team.

    And I believe you misread my comments on Jermaine O'neal. I said that he was not a superstar when he was in Portland coming off the bench. I did not claim that Jefferson is a superstar either. I said that he was a star in the league and an important part of NJ when they made it to the Finals. O'Neal is a star, however, in Portland, he was not the player he is today.
     
  4. Zach Kang

    Zach Kang Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with most of the article but pistons? they have no superstars...and the entire line up are superstars.
    Spurs have 3 stars. Dallas have at least 2 dirk howard or dirk terry.
    I believe it is inside out combo that really wins more titles.

    T-mac is a great play maker rightnow. we will be a 58+ win team with him. and we may enter the second round with tmac at 80%.
    My question is can we beat spurs, dallas and pistons to win a title this year?
    I have to say...Not quite there yet. Unless T-mac at 100%. however the truth is you have a player talking about retire 3 years later. i doubt 0405Tmac will ever come back again. T-mac may be on his way to become the next webber :(
     
  5. gramineousworld

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the thread. T-mac is important? utterly! everyone knows. I agree that we need another star to carry the team collectively to the champ. But be realistic pls. Will he be back? Maybe, anyway miracles do happen. But He failed to recover from the injury after half a seaon and whole summer rest, so what make you so sure he will come back one day while he's growing older. The thing scaring me is that T-mac himself is losing his patient, thats what we have to accept.

    I am not believing some teams will trade their superstars with T-mac, and I would say yao will have 3-4 years good time at most for his athlete. So what sort of team we want? A champ? yes, everybody eager for that! but pls stop talking about it. I am sick with it when we are not even a contender. So by trading T-mac for some good role players, we at least could bulid a team more competitive, which is better than just counting on the recovery of T-mac.
     
  6. brantonli24

    brantonli24 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,236
    Likes Received:
    68

    :( you can't tell from the posts lots of people are posting on this forum :(
     
  7. yaominn

    yaominn Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    a 80% tmac is extremely important to rox, but the tmac cannot play bball is usesless.

    i do not think we can/should trade tmac, i only hope he can play 25 minutes a game as a playmaker, this will also force us to find/develop a slasher guard as the second/third option.
     
  8. Verbatim

    Verbatim Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2001
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    24
    Isn't this where someone saids Hey, there is this Bonzi guy that is suppose to be OK. Now if he can only get along withe the coach and play hard....
     
  9. DallasThomas

    DallasThomas Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,358
    Likes Received:
    208
    Don't forget one of the OP's main points: a distinction between star and superstar.


    But I disagree on the Spurs and Mavs, too. I think the two of the same mold when it comes to star allocation.
     
  10. bjshot

    bjshot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4
    TOO MANY SUPERSTARS in this quote. :eek:
    only shaq, TD, AI, JKidds, Dirk were superstars at those time. Others were only stars. like kobe, obviusly he's not equal to shaq when lakers 3-ring run. That's why he was so anxious to oust shaq and prove himself.
    superstars can load the team to win. stars only have good stats.
    By the way, I think webb and starberry are the bigest losers in NBA. What's those managers thinking to give them the MAX? They are the proven losers. :eek:
     
  11. yaominn

    yaominn Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think all it matters it's 'total amount of the star powers'

    you give shaq 10, kobe 10, that laker team is 20
    you give td 10, parker 6, manu 6, spurs is 22
    you give 4 or 5 to pistons starting 5, so the total is around 20

    but it's just the first step, the foundation, on top of that, you need good system, good role players, good coach, ...

    or luck and helps from the refs (miami's case)

    yao is 9, and approaching 10, tmac is from 0 to 10, if he becomes stable around 4 or 5, we need another star at parker or billups level
     
  12. Queeni

    Queeni Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is hard to measure the power of a team by the number of superstars/stars as previous posts have pointed out. Basketball is a team sport. To win a title, I think a team should have a strong system like this:

    1. Strong inside (both offense and defense)
    2. Strong outside (both offense and defense)
    3. Strong cooperation between inside and outside (offense: pass inward/outward and penetrate inward)

    If you look at Laker, Spur, Piston, they have all of the three strong components. One team may have a little better component than others.

    For Rockets, we have:

    1. Strong inside in Yao.

    2. OK outside: good shooting in Head and Novak, but only OK overall defense: great in T-Mac but his back is unreliable, great in Battier, good in Snyder and VSpan, ok in Head, poor in others.

    3. Unreliable inside-outside collaboration: Yao's passing to shooters is good, but passing and penetrating inside is unreliable. Alson's passing inside is not as good as in last season and is currently predictable; T-Mac's passing inside is one of the best in the league, it is so creative and makes Yao score so easily, but his presence on court is unreliable; others are predictable. Talking about penetration (especially important in defense-intense playoff, remember how Wade saved Heat in the final), it is great in T-Mac (remember the dunk on Maverick) but he is "unwilling" to do that now, good in Snyder, OK in VSpan, poor in other guards (can not finish or pass).

    Therefore, T-Mac contributes significantly on outside defense and play-making (not in shooting) and on inside-outside cooperation. When he is healthy, we are close to a contender. The fact is that he is not. If we can get back players to make up T-Mac's contributions, a trade is an option, although I hate to say this.
     
  13. MLittle577

    MLittle577 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Likes Received:
    133
    Well, the Mav's one superstar went down the other night, and they came back from a double digit deficit to dominate in the second half.

    Our second superstar goes down, and we've won one game since.

    They have a formula to win in spite of what happens.

    We have a formula to win if everything is as it should be, which is hardly the case in the NBA.
     
  14. bjshot

    bjshot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4
    This compatison is nothing. 4 Rocket rotation players either can't play or are not 100% (TM BW KS and sura). I bet if J howard and J terry are down together, they will strugle big. Another thought, maybe Dirk are not that big as we supposed. Let's see.
     
  15. mbiker

    mbiker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don’t agree with your logic. First, when you lose an important player in the lineup, it takes time for players to adapt without that player. Second, the Rockets are playing on the road. The average team wins more at home than on the road. Obviously, TMac is an important part to the team, but if you put a good offensive player with Yao, you are going to win more.

    Having a starter that cannot play on a consistent basis is devastating for a team, especially if it’s someone that takes up a lot of cap space. Keeping TMac is a big gamble, which can effect this team for the next few years. Those of you who have not been around people with back problems have no idea what the Rockets are in for. It is rare for a person with chronic back problems to just heal. The odds are that Tmac will have problems for the rest of his career, which will only get worse with age.
     
  16. smoothie

    smoothie Jabari Jungle

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    20,716
    Likes Received:
    6,945
    even with tmac playing like a shell of his former self, this team was great early on.

    that proves that we don't need a superstar next to yao to be a good team, just an outside scorer who makes great decisions with the ball.

    i'd like to offer an opinion that those two attributes do NOT have to be in the same player.

    in andre miller: we would have a guy that makes great decisions. he isn't the scorer we need, but the decision maker. he shoots 47% from the field (much higher than tmac or rafer).

    in jason richardson: we would have a big 2 who can play defense and score 18-20 ppg. that would fill in for tmacs scoring.

    both of these guys could be had for the right price (smaller/ending contracts and picks). the problem is moving tmac.
     
  17. TTRocket

    TTRocket Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't know why people think our team was "great" this year when Tmac played. Yes, we had a winning record, but we didn't have any wins that really impressed me. On the other hand, we did have some losses that exposed us ie Phoenix and San Antonio.

    I remember in the 04-05 season we won so many "statement" games that I felt confident going into any 7 game series with any team. I knew we had a fighting chance with Tmac playing the way he was and our role players consistently knocking down shots. I just don't get the same feeling with this team, with the 50% Tmac playing. Our only hope IMO is for Bonzi to step up BIG time this yr and regain the offensive firepower that our team had in 04-05.
     
  18. baller4life315

    baller4life315 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    12,648
    Likes Received:
    2,910
    So basically we're a "great" team with T-Mac on the floor but the problem is finding a way to move him? You know, I read everything else you said but that point just seems to stick out more than anything else.
     
  19. OGKashMoney

    OGKashMoney Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    35
    I would rather take a 60, 70, or 80 percent TMac that gives a chance at a championship than two stars that makes us a competitive team. Look at the Suns and Mavs. They have been competitive teams for the past 4+ years, but they have not WON IT ALL. Whats the point of getting to the playoffs, or to the semi-finals if you know your going to lose to the Spurs. We need a team that can compete for a title. If you want a competitive team than you might as well trade Yao and build a team like the Suns who will give us 50+ wins every year, but won't win a title. At least they score 100+ a game and give us some highlights.
     
  20. MLittle577

    MLittle577 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Likes Received:
    133
    Josh Howard and Terry are part of the point of this thread. The formula of two superstars + role players vs. one superstar + star level players + role players. Of course the Mavs would struggle without them.

    On the first point, T-Mac has to be out of the equation, like I took Dirk out, because they were both hurt for their last games. Sura has not played in two years, is he really apart of the rotation at this point?

    With Kirk and Bonzi, I suppose that you may have a point, but they are again apart of this big umbrella that we call role players for the Rockets. Maybe Bonzi has the potential to be of the star caliber. If that is the case though, the topic has to be changed to two superstars + one star + role players vs. one superstar + 2 stars + role players.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now