all of that is inaccurate except the size issue.. obviously you didnt know we swept Boston and embarassed them at Toyota Center, you also didnt know we beat Spurs at the end of the season in a character showing OT game.. guess you didnt know we have the Grizzlies' number either and call them whenever we want.. I just hear alot of senseless whining from you bub, this team is a Center and SF away from being contenders.. the Grizzlies are killing in the playoffsm the same team we own, all we need is size and we are exponentially better than them.. if you dont believe that then you dont understand basketball
You could be right. The fans could turn on him. Then again, all he has done lately is keep the team afloat after losing not one, but TWO franchise/superstar players. Has that endeared him to fans? Or does 60% of Clucthfans still want him fired? On the other hand, like I've talked about in other threads, if we trade Martin for one of the Euros in this year's draft like that Jonas kid, we could stash him overseas next year when there is a likely lockout. Then in 2012 we could have another high pick where we could go for a real franchise player like this Quincy Miller kid who is compared to Durant with the passing ability of Tmac. That's rebuilding on the fly with only ONE losing season. And we could potentially end up with a young and talented roster like OKC. Houston fans can't wait ONE year for that? After 15 years of futility? Like I said, you might be right. But for me personally, I am definitely willing to wait one year for potential greatness. And the best part of it is, if that whole plan fails, we know how easy it is for Morey to re-acquire guys like Martin and Scola. He did get them for Vspan and a second round pick after all. He's said it on radio multiple times. He has also stated that every move no matter big or small has to work towards the ultimate goal of winning a championship. In that case, incremental improvements to appease an impatient fanbase in order to maintain profitability certainly does not fit. No matter which side you take, it looks like he is embellishing his motives a bit one way or another. Which I am perfectly fine with.
Oh the irony of breaking down my simplistic stat and ending your in-depth analysis with "over half the teams make the playoffs and we didn't, so statistically, we obviously suck". Apparently there is no such thing as injuries or young player development eh? No such thing as gelling as a unit or finally understanding your role on an NBA floor? Apparently you don't realize that no team has ever had their 17 million+ star players injured for the season and gone on to win anything? Not to mention the constraints that puts on the front office. So yes, my stat may seem arbitrary and selective to you (even though it isnt, it covers almost half the NBA's entire history and the entire history of the NBA draft lottery, and I chose top 4 because that's what the worst team is guaranteed). Yet it's a far more accurate assessment than saying the 8th youngest team is doomed to mediocrity despite all core players showing improvement this season.
completely disagree with OP. we are neither closer to the bottom nor to the top. let me make it clearly. we don't have a foundation NOW. we don't know what type of a foundation we are going to get. When you don't have a foundation, all other parts we have now are irrelevant. any scenario can pop up, all gone, majority gone, some of them gone, and none of them gone. what i am trying to say is who we keep or who we dump is irrelevant. what ppl here are trying very hard to predict who is going to stay and who not is meaningless. we have to wait to do so until a superstar sets up rox direction. by that time, we can discuss who is the best fit to the suparstar we have.
Alright, let`s do some daydreaming... in the offseason we manage to snatch both Marc Gasol and Danny Granger. We don`t have to give up a key piece for that... maybe Scola/Patterson, a draft pick or Lee. So we now have a team of let`s say: Lowry/Dragic Martin/Lee Granger/CBud Patterson/Hayes Gasol/Miller A pretty nice group of guys - borderline allstars on each position but PF. But this team still would not have a closer - and I think in the NBA today, you have to have that closer to win in the playoffs (think Randolph, Wade, Rose...). But which closer can we acquire? I don`t know if there really is one. JR Smith may be the closest thing to a closer, that could be availabe. What I´m saying is - I think you need to have at least one real star/closer to win. And I don`t think the Rockets can get one in FA. Those players don`t want to go to H-Town, for whatever reason. So probably the Rockets need to build through the draft (which in the NBA is really hard to do). Of course, if we are ok with just contending, we can add to this group. Maybe add Gasol or Granger - maybe one of our guys developes into this closer (Lowry? Martin?). But I don`t see it happen.
what does that have to do with anything? it doesn't matter how you get there.... this isn't a referendum on whether or not the organization is trying... clearly they are... they still are closer to the bottom than the top. not arbitrary, just not that meaningful. it doesn't really teach us anything. it's like saying you're better of not tanking because historically teams that have picked in the 20's have won more championships... point was, if you were arguing against rebuilding through the draft, I don't think your random stat was all that helpful. not sure where you're going with this. who said that? not arbitrary, just not that meaningful. it doesn't really teach us anything.
1986-2011, 25 NBA championships: Led by the top 4 draftees (14 rings) Bulls , Rockets, Spurs and 'showtime' Lakers. that's 14 rings. Led by "low-position" draftees (2 rings) McHale (3rd pick), Bird (6th pick)'s Celtics Miami but Wade was drafted at #5 unfortunately. Hollywood style (5 rings) Kobe's Lakers The ones we are trying to follow (4 rings) recent Celtics, Pistons.
1. Regular season basketball does equal playoff basketball in any way, measurable or not. 2. Also, winning 2-4 games spread over an entire season is not the same as beating 1 team 4 times in 2 weeks.
It teaches us that tanking has only led one team to the ultimate goal. So when we already have good young talent we shouldn't rebuild something that is in the process of being built because the odds are against us. I'm not saying that top picks are bad or contrary to success, I'm just speaking from a simple risk/reward viewpoint.
totally agree with OP... thanks for making this thread. We have a bunch of bandwagoners that came on as olajuwon and co were on their way out... most of these *losers* here are just used to losing and do not know anything... they have all jumped off the bandwagon anyway so screw them. We are a defensive big man away from being right there.
Why do you keep saying only one team won the ring led by their top pick? Rockets did it. Bulls did it. Lakers did it. Spurs did it.
I was talking about players who were drafted in the last 25 years, i.e. after the draft lottery was invented.
You're joking right? The rockets had one of the best, most efficient offenses last year. Try did great in the half court. Defense sucks because we dint have the personnel. No coach is going to fix that without filling the holes in the roster. I honestly don't think te rockets are too far off either, but losing a great coach almost likely their offense isn't going to help any. Especially with the team of role players the rockets play with .
I don't know how to make sense of this. I assume the Rockets will be efforting the acquisition of a "star." I assume that, if they're successful, the team you're judging as "closer to the top than the bottom" will be completely broken up in an effort to acquire that "star." I just think the whole discussion is a non-starter. It doesn't matter how close we are now...we're not close enough to make the playoffs...and I can not imagine the Rockets will continue to ride this bunch to see if MAYBE next year the outcome will be different. I think we're going to see change.
we had a good offense but we were a full court run and gun team. when teams slowed the pace down to a half-court game our offense suffered. nowadays, in the playoffs, the half-court game is more valuable than run and gun.
CXbby, this makes more sense than anything else I've read in this thread to this point. It would be very similar to what the Spurs did to get Duncan. Robinson missed a year due to an injury (he only played 6 games in 1996-1997), which gave them the #1 pick in 97, Tim Duncan. Only instead of losing our Robinson due to injury, we'd stash him away for a year in Europe, continuing to develop. Of course, we'd have to trade away a big asset to get him (Martin and/or Scola). That would cause the team to drop to the bottom 10 in the standings next season, giving us a top 10 pick in 2012's draft for a shortened season of losing, but keeping much of the plug-and-play role-player team we already have. Then you have two very high potential stars playing their rookie seasons in 2012-13, surrounded by much of the rest of the team's very solid role players. That is a recipe that has worked before and could work again. There are few circumstances in which I am for 'tanking' (and I think it's fair to say that this would be a year of tanking if it panned out this way). But this is definitely an approach that I could get behind. We'd just have to trade up in this year's draft to start that process.
