Not really. When the rockets are nowhere close to winning now regardless of what players they acquire
Basically Jaesean Tate if he was bigger and had Kevin Martin's leaping ability. Honestly I'm cool with any draft pick at this point.
No I understand how the weighted system works. My question is purely about tie breakers after the drawing. I mean since the lowest you can pick is 4 slots under your staring spot if we're still tied with S.A. for the #2 pick going in and 4 teams pass us both up then what you're saying is that in deciding which one of us gets pick #6 and which gets #7 the FIRST tie breaker is the coin flip!? Is that what you're saying?
What does "winning now" mean to you? Maybe you need to lower your expectations? Below are three solid NBA rebuild stories. Rockets just had their Year 0. Yet to be seen if they have a Curry, Jordon, or Hakeem on their roster. So far, Green hasn't been a transformational player or maybe they'll get lucky and get that player this draft. Or maybe this team finally clicks next season into a Year 1/2 trajectory. Golden State Year 0: 2009 - 29 wins (gets 7th pick) Year 1: 2010 - 26 (Rookie Curry) Year 2: 2011 - 36 wins Year 3: 2012 - 23 wins (step back year) Year 4: 2013 - 47 wins Year 7: 2015 - championship Chicago Bulls Year 0: 1983 - 28 wins (gets 3rd pick) Year 1: 1984 - 27 wins (Rookie Jordon) Year 2: 1985 - 38 wins Year 3: 1986 30 wins (step back year) Year 4: 1987 - 40 wins Year 5: 1988 - 50 wins Year 8: 1991 - championship Houston Rockets Year 0: 1983 - 14 wins (gets 1st pick) Year 1: 1984 - 29 wins (Rookie Akeem) Year 2: 1985 - 48 wins Year 3: 1986 - 51 wins, Lost in Finals Year 4: 1987 - 42 wins (step back year) Year 10: 1994 - 58 wins, championship Outlier: Tim Duncan. Spurs only team to have ever gone from worst to first in one season. One interesting observation, all three teams had a big step backwards after a promising year 2 or 3. Another observation, Curry, Jordan, and Hakeem weren't surrounded by nothing but noobies so maybe this is the year it clicks. But again, Rockets need some vets to stabilize the team. The disaster was building a 24 and under starting line-up. Results were predictable and stunted the growth of our next franchise player, if we currently have one on the roster.
I don’t mind the story . Still tied with spurs and Detroit at 14%. It’s all about fate at this point !
Yes, after the lottery, teams who were’t one of the 4 lucky ones break regular-season record ties randomly all to way to #30 — playoff seeding is not used. (Good chance LAC will be tied with one or more teams, as well). fwiw: we could also be tied with SAS for the 5th spot, where 3 teams pass us both, and Detroit stays in top 4.
my expectations are exactly where they should be. on a team that consists of ~20 year olds they're winning as many games as expected. adding another one will be more of the same. the adding vets logic all depends on what type of vets. If they're vets that don't really matter, well it won't impact much None of those teams were built around 19/20 year olds coming in.
It’ll still be a re-build next year, unless they can pull off a Harden and Bridges/Brown. I have my doubts they can get either, but they might be able to pull off a Conley/Bridges and vet Center that can actually play the backup role. If they can do even that they will be in contention for the play-in.
I don't have a side on this as I have repeatedly wrote here that Its an empty conversation. I think making and executing a plan for tanking is complex and way beyond the capabilities of our current leadership. Everything happening here for the last 2 to 3 years has been completely random and I was not expecting that to change in the last 3 games of this particular season. I am simply amazed that there are people here angry at some part of the fanbase for complaining about not being to able to tank effectively. And now I'm amazed that people were expecting the Fertita team to get something done. They have not achieved anything for the past couple of seasons, it's not going to be different now.
All of those teams were built around drafting an impact rookie as a centerpiece. The difference was those teams weren't soley based on rookies. They also had vets. Correct, pick up a vet that is an impact player (aka a legit NBA starter). Not a rotational player. Rocket's need to push hard on making a legit acquisition (or two) plus pick up some nice rotation parts.
Exactly they weren't solely based on rookies. This rockets team in full rebuild is and they're about to add another kid all rookies aren't created equal. a 19/20 year old kid isn't the same as someone coming in as a 21 year old
Hey, we agree on something. Green and Alpy just finished the sophomore seasons so next season they are poised for some meaningful growth ...esp. if they have some solid support around them. However, I agree they won't do much next season again if their starting line is 100% <25yo. Back to my original, I don't think it's in the Rocket's best interest to invest more time in rookies (unless it's Wemby or Scoot).
3rd year has pretty much been the barometer for a make or break year that projects to what direction a player will ultimately be in this league. all of the top prospects even after wemby or scoot are still kids. and based off where the rockets are likely to pick, they won't have a choice not to take one of them. I guess trading the pick if its not top 2 is your preference
Correct. Anything after 2, trade the pick. Trade down. Swap to a future year. They really don't need any more rookies.
Scoot isn't in the same tier as wemby for me. I'm perfectly fine with any one of miller, jarace, scoot after wemby. All have just about the same level of talent in their own way and just as good of a prospect as the other.
Okay. I think if they can move KPJ and replace him with a less turnover prone PG, that is key. Not sure if Scoot falls in that category. I'll defer to the professional scouts rather than my 5min on YouTube. My main point, dropping from 5 to 7 isn't a tragic outcome, IMO. Obviously, higher is always better but honestly, dropping to 7 rather than, say, 3 is almost better. It removes the pressure and expectations that we must invest a bunch of time to develop that prospect. Just trade the pick as part of a package and level up to find a more immediate contributor or defer for a more valuable pick later. I think this current team has loads of talent that is on the cusp of being competitive, if they can find some reliable talent to provide some stability. Just my opinion. Whoever they draft may end up being the next generational player ...or not. 2009 Draft: #2: Hasheem Thabeet #5: Ricky Rubio #7: Steph Curry If Scoot ends up maxing out at, say, Ricky Rubio, is that worth the investment in time to develop him? Career, he's 10.9 ppg / 7.4 apg. (Side bar: Interestingly, As a rookie, Rubio's averaged 10.6 and 8.2, which is basically his career average. lol. He's been consistent until last year when he tore his ACL.)
