Nice thread! I agree 100% with your contention. However, the only time that I will be able to settle on admitting that we took a risk, is if daryl trades up in the draft. I love kevin's ability and overall game, I adore luis' hard nosed effort and his vet leadership BUT why is everybody reluctantvin trading them away? If we dont package atleast one of them in a deal we will likely have another .500 9th seed season. All we need is a presence at the 5 and a franchise cornerstone to lean on, rely on and expect consistant productive out of in order to make the eighth seed to say the least. The shot blocker and the guy to step up late in games is the void that needs to be filled. Risks, ****ing risks!
The Rockets have quite consistently shown themselves willing to take risk: taking a headcase like Artest, trading for Kevin Martin's significant contract, taking on Thabeet and his rather heavy salary (at least for one year), better the Knicks' picks may have value, betting on Squid, offering multiple rotation pieces to land a star or a high draft pick, etc. Hell, even sticking with injury prone stars like Yao was a risk. A huge one, actually, that didn't work out. I don't think the Rockets just now think "IT'S TIME FOR RISKS!" They've been thinking and acting like "It's time" to take risks for quite a while now. I don't think anyone disagrees that you have to take risks, the Rockets front office certainly don't. The question is what specific moves are we talking about? Some of the proposed "risks" are simply not good moves-- they'd be better off holding on to what they got and make other deals later rather than doing something hairbrained because some fans are going "What do we want? Risks! When do we want it? NOW!!!!" Frankly, it's meaningless to talk about generic concepts and tired phrases like "risks" and "high risk high reward" etc. Everyone understand the theory, the question is in the execution.
Give me an R Give me an I Give me an S Give me a K Give me as S What's that SPELL. Pregnant Cheerleaders.
I apologize. If I have addressed all your concerns and you have nothing more to add then I will just leave it at that. If you still have questions, concerns, or issues, I obviously have no problem addressing them for you. If you simply have a problem understanding what I am trying to articulate, which clearly seems to be the case, then I can try to break it down into simpler terms. But please, twisting my words and trying to shove them in other people's face is not the best way to convince them, especially those who apparently agree with me. Because most people here apparently DO understand what I am trying to say, whether they agree or not.
Since you're shouting down the OP, and since I happen to agree with him, I'll take up his cause real fast before hitting the hay (bad pun intended). I'm going to stop you there, because he did not say that. The point is that Morey has the skill of being able to assemble solid role players seemingly ex nihilo, so that, even if the cupboard is laid bare in order to bring in a risky prospect (that might become a franchise player), that Morey would still be able to find a way to surround him with talent. More directly, he is not saying you trade the role players already assembled for just anyone and just to get rid of them -- he is saying you trade them ONLY for a player that MIGHT become a franchise player. Then, one of two things will occur: 1) that acquired player becomes a franchise player and Morey finds a way to surround him with talent (which he has shown he can do), and the Rockets are in business -- OR -- 2) the guy sucks, the players traded for him were wasted, and the team careens into wretchedness; at which point the Rockets will find themselves drafting in the top 5 with a chance at winning the Lottery a la 2002, and then the Rockets are in business.
You can definitely include me in the class of people who DO understand what you are trying to say. don't worry about that. but dude. 50% of the posts in this thread are yours. chill. let ppl talk in your threads or we won't talk except for ppl who agree with you.
HamJam, your #2 point is what I said. no? I don't agree with, "and then the rockets are in business" part...as 2002 was due to a major injury to Francis. We had a Franchise player and we got that seed because he was injured. OP is saying if Morey fails, and we waste all assets in bad risks, we still have nothing to worry about. If that were the case, every team would hire Nick Gilbert to be GM. Nothing would matter. But then we'd all be doing the same strategy. Not everyone wins. Do you not get that?
None of those are high risk. Trading unproven low first round talent plus unproven future picks for a proven commodity like Ron Artest is the definition of a low risk trade. I don't see how anyone could argue trading Landry for Martin is any risk at all. His "significant contract" is fair, and even the peanut gallery around here were almost universally applauding the move. That was as close to a clear upgrade as you can get. One of the more one sided trades in franchise history. Trading Battier for Thabeet is seen as the ultimate risky trade by some, but again it couldn't be further from the truth. Keeping Battier around and risk him leaving for nothing is the far greater gamble. Getting something, anything back in return was the safe and smart bet. We traded a PROTECTED pick for squid. The only thing that would make that LOW risk high reward trade an actual risk would be if we actually made the playoffs. Ironic. Given that those examples were not high risk at all, I believe there was a change in philosophy in the front office the second they determined Yao was really done. A change from attempting to rebuild on the fly with Yao still in mind to rebuilding legitimately. I believe some of that change is what drove Adelman out, as he was clearly not on board at still wanted to give it another shot. As for specifics what do you want me to do? Turn this into a random trade thread? I've suggested some of the trades I would like to see and some of the prospects I like in the draft in other threads. But let's be real, I have no real scouting reports and I wouldn't know the first thing to do with them if I did. I have no idea what value is asked for those picks. None of us do and we would be talking out our asses if any of us offered specifics. The point I am trying to make is pretty simple. Some "risks" that may not seem like good moves for a team already settled may actually be fine for a team that is rebuilding. Some moves that are deemed too risky or not getting enough value in return for teams already settled may be fine for a team that is rebuilding. Risk and value are different for teams in different situations. Most of the people who want to hang on to our veterans are still thinking from the perspective of your typical team, instead of a rebuilding one. That is why some deals may not seem good to them.
How about going after a deal for Ricky Rubio that had Morey tell Adelman "we might win 20 games with him"? How about going after someone like DeMarcus Cousins? Risky enough for you?
Obviously not, since you are asking hamjam the same questions you asked me that I have already answered repeatedly in separate occasions. Why do you think I have so many posts in this thread? Apparently answering the question once is not enough for some people to get it. I am not sure what this even means. Who is stopping you from talking, and by what means is this man accomplishing that?
did you even read what Carl Herrera wrote? He said exactly what you've been preaching, and you are focusing only on what you can argue against. I guess you don't read posts do you. You are a poor arguer. Sorry.
Signing Marcus Cousin was an incredibly risky move too. Morey risked the chance of an entire fanbase burning his house down thinking Morey pulled a bad prank.
Obviously not risky enough, or rather, it was too risky for them, at the time, since neither of those deals were consummated. And like I said, I do not blame them for that because at the time I believe they still had Yao in mind, trying to rebuild on the fly. I believe the other rumor, or maybe the same rumor(as the Demarcus one) was them trying to get the Philly pick but declined because they had to take on too much salary. Again, too much risk at the time. My point is we are currently in a different situation, a change in direction, and are actually willing to give up what was needed to execute on those type of deals now.
"let people talk." You don't know what that means. It doesn't mean you are stopping me from talking...per se, it means I won't talk anymore in your threads if you interrupt everyone's conversation like a young DaDakota just because it's your thread.
Please, heypartner, if you are trying to piggyback on someone else's point now that I have addressed all of your own then at least do me the favor of actually pointing out what you are talking about. Because I am not even sure. I'll assume it is the bolded, even though I've already addressed some of that so I am confused. Taking on Thabeet. I've already addressed this. Losing Battier for nothing is the real risk. Getting anything back is a safe play. You wonder why I posted so many times in this thread? Answering and reanswering your questions. Betting on Knicks picks. What exactly did we give up to get the Knicks picks? Tmac's broken down corpse. So please explain to me what exactly we actually RISKED to make it a high RISK high reward play. Betting on Squid. Again, already addressed. Traded a PROTECTED first rounder for him. That is called LOW risk high reward. Multiple pieces to land a star or pick. So I guess now we are getting to the hypothetical since none of the trades that ACTUALLY went down were high risk. First of all, the fact that no trades for a pick actually happened means we were not willing to take on the risk, or rather give up enough. And please someone explain to me how giving up multiple pieces for a star is considered high RISK. Getting a star is the whole point, if we are the ones receiving the star then we are not the ones doing the risking. Heypartner, if you just want to come with things to argue with me about I am down. But at least come up with your own, so that when I address your points you can actually own up to them instead of deferring them to someone else.
Heypartner, I'd rather remain civil, but seriously what the hell is this? "Interrupt everyone's conversation"? How the **** do you interrupt someone on a freaking message board? Like I said a million times, if you have a point make it. If I already addressed your point and you take offense to that then come up with a ****ing better one next time. Cut the BS. We are all adults here. This is not "my" thread. It is a forum for discussion. That means if you make some haphazard remark that doesn't even make sense I am allowed to comment on it. Now let's get back on topic.
I don't really care about your points. Because you talk over everyone. That's why I am talking over you...to piss you off. Looks like it work. How can you say Battier for Thabeed is not a risk trade? Oh, because it is your thread. Ariza for Lee! Fact is: considering Morey was attempting to build upon a contender (in your terms a reason to not take risks), he took many risks. The fact you think he hasn't and you need to tell him how to do his job is lame. you suck...because you think you are better than Morey. And you post twice as much as anyone else in your threads. You'll learn. Eventually, no one will respond to you except people who agree....and newbies. have fun with that.
You're right. Those trades are risky moves you mentioned. Just not good ones or big risks and high reward either. Kind of minor risks which kind of goes back to OPs point in a way. I agree they were risky but not good risks. Yet.
Let me stop you right there and this will be the last exchange between us since this has obviously degenerated to trolling. I've never said or thought any of the above and actually believe in the opposite. That is not surprising since english is obviously not your first language as you have consistently had problems understanding me in this thread. That is no fault of your own and I actually feel bad now for being hard on you. We can stop it there since trying to explain things to you obviously is a waste of time. As for people who disagree with me that is what a forum is for. Carl obviously disagrees and offers his points of view, while I do not agree with him at least his points make sense so that I can address them and make my case. And I don't have to repeat myself over and over since he has shown the capacity of understanding simple human interactions. That is called a discussion. Very common in forums and message boards. He might still not agree but hopefully he is not so childish to think I am "talking over him" when I am simply addressing his points. But then again, you don't care about my points. So what the hell are you on a message board for? Oh right, we'll stop the trolling here.
