On assets, the media, and Morey

There has been discussion regarding the Houston Rockets and the nature of the term asset, and a general criticism of the fact that the Rockets seemed to have to use it to a greater degree compared to other teams, as part of Morey’s statistical analysis. I would posit that this would fall under a critique of dehumanization, where the referring of players who we cheer for as assets takes some of the enjoyment of basketball out of things, and rather it becomes a strategy between GMs – and we don’t pay tickets to watch backroom deals. More importantly, it has been discussed here that the referring of players as assets or trade pieces as a whole weakens teams, as Martin or Lowry will not perform as well for some reason which has never been clearly defined – Lowry will get paid whether he’s playing in Atlanta or Houston. For now, however, let us accept that this is true.

I wanted to discuss namely, whether it is the discussing of Morey using the concept of assets as a whole that is the factor that would provide the discouragement. Morey talks on the radio quite a bit. And we know that he has said no one is tradable. But I wanted to question, is whether it is the fact that Morey talks about them on radio that is the driving force behind this supposed demoralization?

After all, let us suppose that Morey did not perform the radio interviews that he so frequently does. What, necessarily changes? It can be assured of what does not change – the Rockets will not fall out of trade rumors because Morey does not talk to 610. The very nature in which the Rockets as a team are stuck in has merited and may possibly continue to merit pursuit of a superstar, regardless of what the Rockets tell the media. Furthermore, it is generally accepted by most of the Rockets community and virtually all of the nationwide basketball community that the Rockets do not have a single player who is remotely at the level of a Melo or Bosh, much less a Paul or Howard. It thus is logical that if it is possible for the Rockets to obtain these players, it would be necessary to offer multiple players or draft picks.

Consequently, what I would argue is that what Morey claims on 610 about assets or tradability is frankly, not very important. Regardless of what the Rockets as an organization claims or does not claim, the fact that they have been in pursuit of superstars means that they will be included in potential discussions for superstars by ESPN and other nationwide organizations. As long as the Rockets are in trade rumors, it must be that these concerns of players not performing as well due to trade rumours must manifest, regardless of what the organization as a whole states. The only way that the organization could remove this would be to expressly deny that there are trade rumors. However, this is a more foolish strategy for very obvious reasons.

One might then argue that Morey’s statements of how no one is tradable is not a matter of benefit to the Rockets. In the face of the fact that he cannot dismiss the rumors as they are in fact, true, what is the best approach? He cannot refuse to speak to the media, as that is his job. Stating that persay, Lowry and Martin will not seriously alleviate matters as neither Lowry or Martin are franchise players, and there thus will be irritation with what they are not tradable and Scola is. And honestly such an approach is foolish - Dallas more or less made Beaubois untradable at the deadline, and how do they look now with how he's been playing after he came back? Here, honesty is the best policy – and to get Howard or Paul, everyone is tradable, and everyone here knows that.

To sum up, I would argue that Morey’s utilization of the concept of assets is merely a symptom of the times in which we live in and is a matter of adaptation, as opposed to something which actively hurts the organization. And to what degree does the utilization of the concept of assets and such actually harm the general play of the Rockets on the court?