Why do these mocks say we need PG when we have Lowry/Dragic?

Are you serious???

 

Aside from the obvious point that the Rockets will take the BPA, there actually is a reason to target a backup PG at #23.

Dragic will be a free agent next summer and (at least under current rules) his cap hold would count over $6M against the cap at a time when the Rockets might actually want to maximize their cap room.

Getting a quality young PG to back up Lowry if Dragic isn't retained long-term is actually a fairly forward-thinking idea.

 

I think the reason so many mock drafts do this is because the Rockets always say they take "best available" over need. And, to some degree, this has been true under Morey. And so, as these experts work there way down their mock drafts, they get to the Rockets and, according to their lists, the next best prospect is a PG. It's as simple as that.

 

Maybe the nba saw lowry injured some, who knows if they think the Rockets might need a good 3rd stringer to step behind the dragon in if it happens again.

 

just like what i know we dodn't need PG anymore

 

Just look at Clyde

 

Reasons why: Lowry is undersized and cannot shoot... his post all star break stats were a fluke and DM knows this. Dragic is a backup, nothing else. Need anymore reasons why?

 

First rule of trolling: be original.

 

y u not know we need center

 

Packed enough to not be a playoff team.

 

Injured in NJ yet still put up 15 and 13, I think I'll take that over Lowry. Westbrook only averaged 22 and 8, hard to see how you can look at that and think horrible, not mentioning Westbrook gave you more steals and a higher shooting and free throw percentage. All that > the higher turnovers Westbrook gives.

 

IMHO you can't just say BPA blindly, because you don't know who the BPA is. Look at the Wolves, they adhere to their BPA so much they end up with 100 pgs and 36 forwards and nothing else. Going BPA is a double edged sword, if you end up with two talented guys who play the same position that's great, but if you try to trade one other teams automatically devalue your players cause they know you have no choice but to get rid of the glut.When Minny got both Love and AL J, they decided to trade AL J, however all they got for him was a draft pick. This is the same reason why Toronto couldn't trade either Calderon or Ford when their stock was high, or Bosh and Bargnani when they both had them. Whenever Colangelo would call other teams trying to trade Bargnani or Ford he'd get crap offers because other teams know he had to trade one.

IMHO the best way is to mix both, if you're already solid on PFS (liek if you already have Hayes, PP and Hill), then you go for high ceiling centers or small forwards.

 

D-will also cost 20M, Lowry only cost 6M. D-will is superior to Lowry alright, but is he 3x better? I don't think so. Instead of just relying on D-will and maybe another guy I'd rather have Lowry and 14M going to other players.

 

That's understandable from a business point, but to say Lowry is superior or on the level of D-Will, or Westbrook is laughable from a basketball talent view.

 

Here is my opinion in all of this. If we do draft a PG it would be our 23rd pick. Then we could trade Dragic and let the rookie PG play as our back up for Lowry. If we play Dragic until his contract expires then the rookie will have to be on the bench watching and play garbage time. So next season he'll have more experience and wont be off the bat bad.

 

I hate this view. It makes sense from a business standpoint, but not from a basketball one. You always take the more talented guy.

 

He averaged 4.5 RPG, not 9.

But it's still pretty good. I wish there were comprehensive stats for passing because I'd like to know where Lowry ranks in terms of getting his teammates open shots.

I definitely don't think we have a pressing need for a PG; I believe that Lowry and Dragic will continue to improve.

 

Considering the NBA (especially Les) operates from a business standpoint, it is a very fair view, because it is typically the valid one. We can argue all day about who we as fans want, but until Les hits his head and starts believing he is Cuban, it is still up to him who he busts out his checkbook for. As of now, the last couple of All-Star caliber PG's to lead their teams to victory are Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups, and Magic Johnson. You can count Kidd, but I would hardly point to an aged Kidd as the one leading the Mavs. We all know it was Dirk dragging them them into late Finals. With the NBA setup today, I would gladly keep Lowry over players like D-Will or Paul if we can pickup an All-Star wing. Wings and defensive bigs are infinitely more important than a great PG (case in point, Miami and Lakers). Both experience greater post season success with crap PG's. Guys like Westbrook, Paul, and Williams are great in that they give you both scoring and passing from a single position, however I believe that keeping Lowry and bringing in an All-Star wing will ultimately be more beneficial.

 

I don't think it is. It's a baseball moneyball approach -- that doesn't work in the NBA.

You brought up the Mavericks -- they wouldn't have made the NBA finals without Tyson Chandler, Shawn Marion, Jason Kidd, etc -- all guys who are overpaid but played a vital role.

Dikembe Mutumbo's last two years for the Rockets, he was making the veterans minimum. Is 2011 Tyson Chandler 10x better than 2007 Dikemebe Mutumbo? Of course not, but if Dallas would've opted for 07 Mutumbo over Chandler, they wouldn't have won the NBA finals.

Chase Budinger v. Shawn Marion. Is Shawn Marion 7x better than Chase Budinger? Nope, but without him, Dallas wouldn't have won the NBA finals.

Trotting out statements like "CP3 makes 3x as much as Lowry but is only 2x better than him, so I'd rather have Lowry" is just flat out dumb. You will NEVER win like that. Thankfully, I think Morey agrees with me. Some of you stat geeks take them way too far.

 

If Kemba Walker is there that sounds like a good idea. Kyle lowry or not.