Harden won't sacrifice to win? You mean, the player whose peers voted him MVP of the entire league in his most recent full season? The guy who was the far-and-away best player on a Western Conference Finals team? The guy who remains only 26 years old and may still have his prime years ahead of him? That guy? I don't take any consolation from making the playoffs or being the 8th seed. It's a wildly disappointing year no matter what (unless they shockingly win a playoff series or two). That does not mean, however, that the obvious answer is to blow up the franchise. As frustrating as this season is, it's nothing compared to 2010-2012. That was hopelessness. This? You have one of the best players in the game still under contract for multiple additional years, and he may not even be fully in his prime yet. If you "blow it up" AND eschew marquee free agency pursuits, you're essentially tanking and hoping that maybe you can draft/develop a player(s) as good as the version of James Harden we just saw a year ago. Tell me, how many players drafted since 2009 are as good or better than Harden? It's not a very long list. I'd say the higher-percentage play is to try and work WITH the star player you already have here to improve his shortcomings. Also, free agency hasn't worked out? It's what got them Dwight Howard, which significantly improved the team and put them very close to a contending level. They all but landed Chris Bosh, who essentially agreed to come to Houston before Miami panicked and tossed out an absurd overpay of a deal at the last moment. I'd say the odds of Harden recapturing the form he had less than one year ago -- when his peers voted him MVP of the entire league -- and luring Durant or another star are a lot better than the odds of tanking and finding multiple 2015-Harden-or-better pieces exclusively through the draft. If you want to tank, there's plenty of time after 2018 for that, should this not work out. In the meantime, I think the obvious play is to try and build around the star you already have.
This makes just too much sense. Unless a chosen one appears in the draft AND the team with the #1 offers it for Harden (thus guaranteeing the selection), the team might as well ride it out.
Glad to see there are still some rational and reasonable people on this forum. I am so tired of people making up silly extremes about our players.
2010-2012 was still more fun to watch than these guys. I'm not saying Harden isn't a fantastic player. I'm saying he's not a leader and his effort is inconsistent, especially on the defensive end, and that a problem seeing as he's our franchise player. Are you really debating me on whether or not the Dwight Howard aqisition has worked out? Where is the ring? What's our record this season? How many games has he played for us since signing? Perhaps my standards are too high for a max player? I'm not trying to be knee jerk, but you look at Golden State or San Antonio and it's clear their formula for success has been the draft. I'm just not convinced anymore that Morey's approach is the right one. Yes I think we should blow Up our team and harden shouldn't be off the table.
San Antonio, Golden State and Houston all have the same formula for success, which is to acquire the best players. The level of success of each of those teams is fairly consistent with how much talent they have been able to acquire.
Here is the Audio http://download.podcast.play.it/med...ouston&awCollectionId=1130&awEpisodeId=600661 http://houston.cbslocal.com/audio/the-triple-threat/
Of course it's worked out. The Rockets were 45-37 the year before signing Dwight. They won 54 and 56 games the next two years, both times finishing in the top four of a loaded Western Conference. They reached the Western Conference Finals in the second year, where they lost to a historically-great Golden State team that never faced an elimination game the entire postseason. Dwight played in every playoff game and was largely a monster in doing so. Dwight Howard made the team significantly better, so to me... yes, his signing was very worthwhile. The Warriors have the best player on the planet and perhaps the most dominant offensive player in league history right now. The Spurs have Tim Duncan, one of the top 10 players in NBA history, and made their leap this season by signing LaMarcus Aldridge, the top free agent on the market. I don't know why you're acting as if the draft and free agency are two completely different strategies. They're both means to the same end -- acquiring top-end, transcendent talents. That's the only consistent way to build a contender in the NBA. With Harden, the Rockets are never going to be bad enough to get a super high pick, so taking swings in free agency is the most logical route to get there. You can be concerned about Harden's defense and leadership this season, sure. However, I think we can all agree they weren't issues a year ago -- when he led his team to the WCF and his peers voted him MVP of the entire league. So essentially, the question is whether 56 games of largely-iffy defense in 2015-16 is enough to tip the scale to where Houston's odds of getting two (or more) elite-level players in the draft are better than working to improve Harden (who they already have under contract) and luring Kevin Durant or another star. If acquiring Harden-or-better level players in the draft is so easy, the same teams wouldn't be in the lottery year after year. It's hard. I don't know what the odds of improving Harden and luring Durant are, but I'd say they're better than finding two comparable players in the tank scenario.
for some strange reason, i believe you'd at least have one home-grown star to be successful. cant be all hired guns.
Bro, I've been a loyal Morey defender for years. At some point you have to be honest. We have zero chance to win this year and we haven't won since he took over all those years ago. you can argue we got close last year, but Consider that's the closest we've been since the 90's and I'd argue we got lucky last year. I just don't think it's good enough. We are not in the same class as the best in the west. It's my opinion. I could be wrong. But it's how I feel. Of course you try to add talent through trade or free-agency; Morey certainly succeeded in bringing in two of our best players that way in Howard and Harden. But I would argue that the draft is the best way to build a foundation, and you use trade and free agency to build on that foundation. That's actually a more accurate portrayal of what San Antonio, And golden state did. Those are the kinds of organization's I'd like to emulate. Look, I think it's reasonable after many years of no championship, to want to do things differently. I'm a results driven person, and while I respect what Morey has accomplished in keeping us competitive, its about winning; winning in the playoffs and winning championships.
I just don't see why it matters whether Curry/Duncan were drafted by those teams, or if they got there a different way -- like LeBron to Miami. Coaches change, GMs change, systems change -- the constant is the top-end player. If you want to emulate GS/SA, I'd say the starting point is to get multiple elite talents by any means necessary. Winning a championship is hard. Only 1 team in 29 can do it, and sometimes it can be the same team as the year before. I don't see why it's some huge failure if you're in the other 28. Sure, over the course of an executive's entire career, it's a measuring stick. But we're talking about evaluating 2.75 seasons, right now. The biggest reason HOU isn't in the class of GSW/SAS is that HOU doesn't have enough elite talents. There's been some slippage in Dwight (at least the regular-season version), while the Spurs went out and added the top free agent on the market in LMA. If the Rockets want to get to that top tier, they need to add more top-end talent -- and a plan that involves one of those already under contract would seem to have better odds than a multi-year tank.
talent is indeed important, but it cant be all talent. think the spurs. how much talent they have now? a 40yr-old td who often doesnt play, aging parker and manu,,, outside of kawhi, i dont see them have any mega talent. but yet their w-l record dwarfs all teams' but gsw's. system, chemistry, discipline,,, those things matter.
You left out the top free agent on the market last summer, who they successfully signed (and HOU didn't). That's the biggest reason why they took a leap forward when LAC/HOU -- two teams with almost identical records a season ago -- did not. System, chemistry and discipline matter... after the talent is in place. As far as the Spurs example, Duncan was an MVP-level player for much of his career, and Parker was close to a top-5 PG. Now they've added Aldridge, who was the top free agent available last offseason. Right now, the Rockets have one consistently above-average player on offense. That's it. That's not good enough in an era with multiple historically-great teams.
this makes sense if the guys in red only lose to spurs/warriors. but losing to the nets, jazz, portland? personnel havent changed since wcf, this is just not a team that wants to win. people want to sweep aside the chemistry problems but there is no other explanation other than chemistry problems.
Absolutely there are chemistry problems this year. I don't think people are sweeping it aside... it's just not the main issue. Even if the chemistry was absolutely perfect, there isn't enough talent to compete with GS/SA. See last year's WCF, for one example. And, quite frankly, chemistry is easier to "fix". As you said, it's virtually the same personnel as last year's group -- which exceeded most expectations (typically an indicator of strong chemistry). Even if the Rockets magically acquired Gregg Popovich, it would require multiple top-end talents for them to compete with GSW. It is more likely to acquire those types of talents by continuing to build around Harden and being aggressive in free agency than it is to tank. That was my main point.
We won 68% of the games in a season when Dwight played in 50% of the games. We won 49% of the games in a season when Dwight played in 81% of the games. I am not disagreeing with your take overall. But I don't think signing Dwight has been as successful as was anticipated.
The playoffs were the biggest reason they signed him, and he's been extremely dependable there. Perhaps we can quibble over the degree of success relative to initial expectations. That's fair. But on the whole, it's absolutely been a big positive.
we don't need Durant or any "super star" except the future GOAT that is Curry no new system/coaching staff/culture=no success
Dwight has declined a lot, so it may be time to part ways, but if you told me that we'd only reach the WCF before we signed Dwight a few years back I wouldn't have been hugely disappointed. Only one team can win it all. We would not have sniffed the WCF or even the 2nd round without Dwight.
