Terrence Williams says hi. Also, so does Hasheem Thabeet's height. (You can't teach height, can you? . . . Can you??? )
Good call Bima -- I hate Thabeet...HATE!! Not as a person or anything, I just want to gouge my eyes out Oedipus style when I am watching him play. Similar emotions are stirred in me while watching Terrence Williams. HOWEVER, these are not examples of what I am talking about when I say the Rockets need to take calculated risks. I don't think the Rockets thought that either one of these guys you mentioned had the chance at being stars -- Rockets fans maybe, but not the actual front office. The general consensus in the league by the time the Rockets acquired them was that these guys were not very good -- which is why the Rockets could get them without giving much up. What I am saying is go after someone who has not already given indicators with bad NBA play that he will probably suck (as Thabeet and Terrence had), but who you will have to give up more for. Does this sound just as off base to you?
I've changed my mind. I am now in favor of trading Martin for a top five pick in this year's draft. Before, I was looking at it from a value standpoint -- will that draft pick be as good as Martin is? Now I realize it simply doesn't matter. The Rockets are not contenders. We're not even two pieces away from being contenders, unless those two pieces are both all-stars. Kevin Martin is a good player, but let's compare him to other contenders (and future contenders) and their second-third options. LAL -- Pau MIA - Wade/Bron BOS - Garnett CHI - Boozer OKC - Westbrook NYK - Amare To put it simply, Martin doesn't belong anywhere on that list (perhaps neither does Boozer). On the truly elite teams of this league, Martin would be better as a third or fourth option on a championship contender. It's time for the Rockets to build a core for the future -- we can't do it by having the best 43 win team in the league year after year. I would dangle Martin as trade bait to trade up to snag (outside of the top two) Vesely, Motiejunas, Valanciunas, or Kanter -- the international foursome. I know, I know -- I was just hating on a few of those guys on the last page. What can I say.. I've had an awakening. If we deal Martin for one of those guys, best case scenario is we land a talented big man (or young Kirilenko).. the worst case scenario is they don't pan out and we get a higher draft pick to move the rebuilding along. The only person on the current team that I'd like to hold on to is Kyle Lowry. Everyone else is expendable, IMO.
Another video of Kanter was just added ... man can this kid shoot. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l5kAZL0Q3ic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
- Don't know why you hate them. - Those are 2 fair examples of calculated risks. And Rockets front office wouldn't have traded for them if they had not thought that they have chances to be good-very good players. Those are the type of risks everybody is talking about, but now you have to give them some playing time, and see what happens.
The only team that would probably give up their top pick for martin i think would be the minnestoa timberwolves, we need to trade martin ASAP before we get closer to talks about extensions and all that we dont do that around here, we dont play that ish!.
Some hangover you've got there. Why trade Martin, our one sure scorer. Wouldn't it make more sense to trade Lowry instead, seeing as we have Dragic who has shown that he can be a legit starter.
I think we need to draw a distinction between a calculated risk and a reclamation project/ flier. Thabeet and T Williams were fliers -- they were acquired cheaply and with the expectation not that they would become stars but rather a hope they could be contributors. The ceiling on both was not very high or likely, so they were able to be gotten without much expenditure -- which is to say, without much risk. Also, the types of players I am thinking we should take risks to acquire are not players you give playing time to, but who earn it. They may not get star minutes when they first come in the league, but great players are never given playing time, they earn it from the beginning. Their roles just expand as their game does and their potential is realized. Of course, to get a player that has such potential (which did not include Thabeet and Williams at the time the Rockets acquired them) you have to give up a lot of value -- which is where the calculated risks come in. Thabeet and Williams were not calculated risks because they were acquired so cheaply the Rockets risked almost nothing in the moves.
Hell no! we should sell martin as high as we posibly can now, think about his contract situation, we should just roll with lowry in a couple of years he might be an all-star.
Isn't this a calculated risk? -or maybe I'm wrong with the term?- I understand you, but those are typical Morey's moves: you don't give a lot, and one day you could sell it high. Good moves, in my opinion. Then we can talk about upper range moves in which you have to give more, but could obtain also more in return in the long run. Sure that Morey is going to consider that kind of moves. But I think is a usual mistake to ignore the useful pieces of your current team only because the team is not good enough. And I disagree with a part of what you said: if you lose the trade in the long run... of course that does matter. It's not like "ok, we will suck and will be able to get a better draft pick... so, fine". You've definitely taken a step back here, so let's not fool ourselves. Difficult job.
You're not thinking clearly about the type of trade I'm talking about. As stated above, the team to target is Minnesota. Who do they have? They wouldn't give up their high pick for another point guard. On the other hand, they have a big hole at their SG position. Martin simply holds much more value to a team like Minnesota. That's not saying anything about Lowry being more of a two-way player, being younger and cheaper -- and apparently the most clutch player we had on our team last year on last second shots. I'd rather keep him and let Courtney Lee take Martin's spot.
I'd take Martin over Boozer. Garnett is better but I take Martin just cuz of age. Anyways aside from BOS and CHI look at our team compared to those teams 4 5 and 6 options we dominate them. I wouldn't say we need 2 all stars to compete. If we had a big I think Martin would be an All Star since I bet is ppg would go up a little. But I have nothing against trading Martin and Scola for young pieces if we can get strong pieces for the future.
He reminds me of Kevin Love. I don't know what kind of go get it rebounding ability he has, but he's a skilled big man that can post up and shoot the jumper. He isn't the most athletic guy in the world, but he's a big body with lots of skill, I'd love to have a big man like that.
I am having a similar change of heart. The pillar behind the "path out of mediocrity" thread was the idea that we will not take the easy way out(tank). Which has been perpetuated and repeated by Morey. I tend to believe him since there really isn't a reason to lie about it. If he traded vets for youth to rebuild no one would blame him, so why put that out there? The only thing I guess would be to throw a curve ball to teams like the Wolves so we don't have a giant FOR SALE sign on the team. Maybe he learned his lesson from supposedly talking about our assets too much. At any rate, if we ignore his stance on record, I would absolutely love to go the "easy" way. Which is pretty much what you described. Trading Martin + our picks to the Wolves for a high pick, REGARDLESS of who is available. That is the opposite of what I have been supporting, because it is much more of a gamble, and probably selling Martin short, since most likely we won't be getting back a franchise player in return(how many are there in this draft?) We would almost assuredly not be as competitive next year, especially if we end up trading Scola as well. That would be the point though, since our target for franchises players would be the 2012 draft, one supposedly loaded with them. We would have 2 first round picks, one I am assuming would be in the teens, if not better if anyone on that thin NY squad gets injured. The other being the high pick of our own. We could then package both of those if we so desire and move up even more, nabbing the franchise player we have been waiting for. Maybe even a superstar player. Really there is no easier path. It would only take ONE year of losing basketball, and we come out the other side with: Lowry, Dragic Lee, Llull Vesley, Budinger Patterson, Hayes Franchise player Or Lowry, Dragic Lee, Llull Franchise Player, Budinger Patterson, Hayes Kanter or Jonas V That is full of potential with both youth and youthful veterans. Very OKCesque and exciting if you ask me. I am starting to hope DM is BSing us and this is the path he is willing to go, which is why Adelman was let go since he did not want to wait a year of losing.
BTW as for the topic of the thread I like Jonas V, Kanter and Vesley if we can trade up. Derrick Williams would be a pipedream since I doubt we could trade that high. That's just based off some extremely limited scouting though so I might be way off. Then again last year the one guy I liked above all else, even Wall, was Cousins. And despite landing in one of the worst situations in the league, which exacerbated his faults, I'd still stick with that pick a year later.
I agree with CXbby and LongTimeFan. While there’s good chance we won’t get a player that will end up better than Martin with a top pick in this year’s draft, you must look at the big picture. Keeping Martin will probably keep us middling team, and we could probably lose Martin at end of contract for nothing by staying middling team. Trading Martin for high draft pick that can be cornerstone of rebuilding team makes sense. This is much like when Seattle traded Allen for #5 Jeff Green. Allen is better player than Green, but Green was good fit for new direction of team. Having Jeff Green that year instead of Allen also made them lose more than Allen would have, which led to #4 pick superstar Russell Westbrook. What I would do with #3 pick from Timberwolves would be draft center (Jonas, Kanter, Biyombo). Since after #2, draft becomes very uncertain, I would address this need we’ve had for so long -- especially since in 2012 draft there are no amazing center prospects so far. Then we can choose franchise player from high pick in 2012 draft we will probably get from season without Martin.
If we go down this route Jonas might be the best case scenario, since we could simply leave him over in Europe for one more year of development, while ensuring that our 2012 pick is even better. If you want to "tank" you never want your players to intentionally lose. Not only does that instill losing habits it is disgraceful. On the other hand, if you trade your top players for guys who will stay overseas another year, we would ended up "tanking" even with our players playing their hearts out every night. Which is the way you want to go.
This makes sense. I was thinking rookie center might make team lose more than Chuck. Maybe best to let Chuck go and roll with Thabeet, Hill, Miller for a year?
Only way I would even accept Kahn trading the Wolves top pick for Martin would be if they get screwed in the lottery drawing and end up with 3rd or 4th. Even then I think 'Sota should take Kanter and run. Besides they sort of drafted Wesley Johnson 3rd overall just last year.
