you guys have be spoiled, you don't know what's it's like being the fan of a ****ty team. u guys better hope the rox stay competitive at least on SOME level
Forget about the championship for a second. You're making the problem more complicated than it is. The first thing this team needs to do is get a franchise player because all champs besides the Pistons have had at least one, and because they're the best value in the league. The question you have to ask is: what strategy is most likely to get that franchise player? If you're asking for an example of a team that intentionally tanked and then won a ring a few years later as a direct result of the move, I can't give you one. As with most things in life, a perfect analogy doesn't exist. However, I can give you several instances of teams that have done things similar to what we want to do. The Spurs tanked for Duncan and won with him as their franchise cornerstone. The Thunder acquired a young franchise talent in KD and built a contender around him. The Celtics acquired a valuable trade chip in Jefferson and used him as the centerpiece in a deal for a franchise cornerstone. They also went from zero to contender in an extremely short time. Parallels do exist for specific things tankers are advocating. Even the teams you're deriding for their failure to win (so far) have successfully acquired franchise players. Unless you honestly think Morey couldn't build a contender around Griffin or Love, this doesn't seem like a bad strategy at all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any rockets 'fan' who wants the team to tank is not a true fan.
Marcus Cousin. What kind of fan doesn't follow the rio grande vipers god i can't stand you fake fans anymore. And please do not talk about drugs here, squid could be reading this and we don't want him to get any funny ideas in light of the season starting.
You never know how a season will turn out. The 49ers this year were in the conversation for 'Suck for Luck' before the season started and look at them now.
You don't have to draft in the top 10 to nab a stud player, but your odds of nabbing one are higher with a top 10 pick. Looking back at the past 10 years, you can only find one team that didn't have a stud player. So my question to you is how do you propose we get a stud player? We are striking out in free agency since guys want to go where other stars are and we don't have great assets to trade for one. So??? FYI, Dirk was drafted in the top 10. So was Duncan. They combined for 4 titles. Miami and Boston (2 titles) had the assets to trade for a stud (Odom & Butler were both top 10 picks, and so was Jefferson and Boston sent a #5 for Allen). LA is a destination spot and we aren't (Shaq title in 01) and their last 2 titles came by stealing Gasol...by trading a former #1 pick (he was a bust though). Since teams are into young players now the days of a Kobe falling to 313 are over. Oh, and Bynum was a top 10 pick as well.
More like odds are better when drafting in the top 4 or 5, remember Shane Battier was the 6th player taken, Eddie Griffin 7th.....once you get past 4 or 5, it is a crap shoot. DD
The point of tanking is to increase your chances to draft a stud player. The odds are that you can't win a title without one. All studs don't win titles, but damn near all title teams have studs. You need a stud to get dealt a hand. I trust our GM to properly build around his star players. I don't care that other teams didn't do this. Either way, I would happily take 5-7 years of a stud player and give Morey a chance to build around him. LeBron and Howard have been to the Finals. Amare and Melo have been to the Conf Finals. And I like our mgmt better than those of all of their past teams. None of these guys have become available for us. If they did then we would have signed or traded for one. Unless you are a destination city/market then you have better odds of drafting a stud then convincing one to come play for you.
Historically speaking, top 5 for whatever bizzare reason seem to be the cutoff point for superstar talent. Perhaps it's due to there generally being at most 1-2 superstars at most per draft. And simply probability does allow said player to slip past #5. And top 5 can be guaranteed. Even if you don't suck too badly, the odds are pretty good.
Screw enjoyable NBA . If we wanted to we should take Boston up on their desire to trade Rondo for more offense. overpay for Rondo but make them give us Green also. Lowry /Martin / Bud and take on O'neals expiring. We are forced to tank because our team would be pretty bad but young and we could get a top 5 pick with space to try and nab a top free agent, if not we atleast have a top pick and a young talented team.
Spot on. To think that McHale is going to be able to produce as much out of the same players as Adelman was is baffling. if not for the greatest player of all time and probably the worst refereed quarter of all time, Adelman would be just under Phil with the rest of the multiple ring coaches. And he had that success with multiple teams without any true top 10 of all time type talents (like Jordan, Duncan, Kobe or Shaq). Look, I like McHale, and am okay with the hire.... precisely BECAUSE he will play some of the younger guys more, and perhaps be a better fit for some of the younger bigs. But because of that, we should see worse performance. It'd be amazing if they were as good offensively, and none of McHale's Minnesota teams made you think defense. On the other hand, there IS enough talent on this team to compete. I could see them making the playoffs (as a 7 or 8 seed type) as easily as I could see them regressing and being passed by the Suns, Clippers, and Warriors. Well, none of those young stars have won a ring, but remember this is the NBA we're talking about here... the least parity of any major professional league. I mean the Lakers have been to the Finals 25 times. Since and including 1980, the championship has only been won by nine teams. 32 years, only 9 different winners. And 3 of those won only once. So 29 years, only 6 winners. The Lakers have represented the West half the time. That's not to say one of those young stars couldn't have become that transcendent player to take a franchise to that dynasty level. Jordan did it - it's not like the Bulls were special before him. But it is to say, the NBA hasn't exactly been set up historically to allow for parity. So it's about putting together the best team you possibly can over the long haul and trying to join that group. Maybe in the new CBA it will be easier. But if the best bet for the Rockets to win one or multiple championships over the next 10 years if for them to complete suck ass for 1 year, and that 1 year is a lockout shortened year, then good heavens, what's wrong with that?
I really wish people would get this 1 year thing out of their head. If you want to tank, be real about it. Gonna be a lot longer than just a 1 year thing.
Yeah, it's gonna take at least 2-3 years before we see results. If you can stomach 2-3 seasons of 10-15 wins a season, go for it.
