Is it time we stop referring to our players as assets and pieces?

He has been very consistent that unless he feels the core of a team is able to contend and therefore actually worth keeping, he will prize flexibility over team chemistry. For whatever reason, people who rag on Morey love to conveniently forget this. For the record, I completely agree with Morey on this. Some fans might be content with not contending as long as they feel warm and fuzzy about the team. I say screw them and their weak crap. The end game is all about winning all the way. Why waste money and time developing chemistry on a team that will never reach the end game? Once we actually get a team that can win in the finals, THEN you start worrying about chemistry.

 

Yes, depend on which company, which boss, etc. There is no a problem to use the asset term in lots area (in privately), but at least I did not heard it much (privately) in my work area.

 

Well, this is not a smart reply, how do you know that I never owned a business? Do not take the assets term too seriously, I do not care it much anyway.

 

I believe there was something lost in translation.

Anyway what's next? People getting upset about calling players bench warmers???

 

Morey messed up saying he's never used the term "asset". That's just not true. Not only has he used the term, but he's the poster boy for flipping & recycling the same "assets" over & over (Joey Dorsey, Greg Smith, Mike Harris, Ish Smith, Jeremy Lin etc). While it's always good to be agressive, at some point you have to get off the radio and off twitter and stop openly referring to "flexibility". It sends the message you're never happy with the players you DO have. If I'm a NBA FA, when choosing a team I'm gonna choose a team & city I can call home long term. Daryl Morey has made that impossible for Houston with his constant roster turnover

 

This is not true at all. Here is an NBA FA's priority unless they are on the old age end and just want to retire somewhere:

- Money (Read Bosh, Melo, and damn near every other FA out there)
- Winning (Dwight Howard, vets who sign for the vet min)
- Comfort (Players about to retire)

You and anyone else can say whatever they want, but money talks and last time I checked, the value of the Rockets dollar is the same as any other team.

 

The implication, then, is that the season is for naught. When he said we need a 3rd star in the middle of last season, he's saying we won't win. Next season -- since we didn't get the 3rd star -- we won't win. Now, it's true whether he says it or not, but his MO also means that all the progress in the interim is also for naught. Developing some good chemistry? Too bad, it won't help us in our championship because all those guys will be gone. Young guy had a breakout year? Too bad, he'll ask for too much money now and we'll replace him in free agency. Elite defense? Too bad, we're clearing the cupboard to trade for a third star and we'll backfill with the veteran minimum. Maybe he'll win a championship in the end. In the meantime, watching a season of basketball is a big waste of time.

In a perverse way, it's why the offseason has become such a newsworthy time for the league -- what the GM does in the offseason to manipulate the cap is more important to postseason success than what the players do on the court. The professionalization of the league sucks a lot of the fun out of it and just highlights the futility of not contending. How much more fun it would be if no one kept a box score and no one could forecast who can win.

So, anyway, I already know we won't win anything in 2014-15. Maybe we'll sneak into the second round. But, we're really not even trying to win for real until we have a third star. Maybe I can check out until I see the headlines for Morey's big catch and then they can work on actually contending.

 

Let me ask you this, would you rather lock up a bunch of mediocre plays for the sake of "team chemistry" and guarantee the inability to win it all or would you rather keep shuffling until you have a core that has a chance of winning it all before worrying about "team chemistry"? I choose the latter EVERY SINGLE TIME personally.

 

We need to sticky this post. It should be an opinion piece on the front page as well.

 

Most of us are pawn in the game, but nobody likes to be told that.

 

Isn't it moot if you quit refering to players as such, but they still are assets?

 

The only situation I can think of where two top 10 players isn't a core with a chance to win it all is maybe the all-star game.

 

I don't think it matters

Rocket River

 

I like the term "objects" and "entertainers" better.

 

The better question is to ask:

Should the organization try to improve on team culture, chemistry and a sense of belonging?

If you know you are an asset that can be dealt anytime, would you sacrifice any of your stats for your team?

 

Of course, u can if u leave the NBA
All things r assets in the business world, NBA is just a business organization

 

this guy gets it :grin:

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/V2h6_-YY3Ck" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Skip to 11:00 for the trade reaction part.

Team chemistry is important for every team. I disagree with calling anyone an "asset."
But then again, they are professionals and they get paid. But sometimes, there are other important factors for a team other than money. How can you give 100% for a team that considers you just an asset to be traded? Being a professional maybe? Maybe.

I don't see/hear the Spurs calling their role players assets.

 

The correct phrase is "shiny things."

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JuanValdez again."