Even the stop-gap comparison is stupid though. Dalembert provides things that this team needs and that Brad Miller could never provide. Dalembert fills a gap Brad Miller WAS the gap. This doesn't even address the fact that Brad Miller was dead weight that would never be considered anything but salary filler in a trade. Dalembert can be considered a valuable piece in a trade as well as possible salary relief if thats what a team is looking for.
I don't understand the people saying we could easily trade him. 1) He has to stay on the roster as certain number of days before we can trade him (90?). In this shortened season, that shortens his trade window. 2) As with any player, if they are worth their contract, then they are tradable. Otherwise, they become a negative weight in a deal. Since our team needs a C, we won't trade him unless its for Howard. The problem there is Howard isn't interested in us and I doubt Orl is interested in any pieces we have even if you add Sammy. And most importantly... 3) Teams weren't beating down the door for Sammy. He was the last FA C taken. Most teams could use a C but decided to pass on him and just go with who they had. Besides Miami, who was so desperate for a C that took a flyer on Eddie Curry, what other teams were interested in Sammy? Even Sac, who got to test drive Sammy for a year, wanted a 6'6" C instead of bringing him back. And when that fell through, they still didn't want Sammy. If all this doesn't scream red flag, then I don't know what else will. And most likely we gave up a mid-to-low (who know where the balls would have put us) 2012 pick for Sammy. The only good thing about signing Sammy is there are no SOFs following him to trash up the board with biased talk. Houston Floaters - that's what we are becoming.
Neither did you, but we all get to listen to your expert opinion....lol. At least coach Edwards made a few bucks leading a professional team.
Hey now, that is just not true, my AAU team has won the championship the last 2 years..... And I got paid.....got a nice $100 gift card to Academy. SO there !!!! PFFFFFT ... DD
Line up rotations center. Dalembert 9 million a year he starts/ hill Power forward. Scola will compliment sammy nice/patterson sforward. Morris we all know he is the best all around sf on the roster Sgaurd. Martin will suffer with the kevin martin rule/lee,williams Pguard. Lowery beast mode/ goran so much better than flyn
You know what is funny, we were on a baseball team that tanked to get the number 1 pick. Basically kids are on a team for 2 years, and the coach tanked the entire season to get a better team in his son's 2nd year. He would put the worst kids and crucial spots and in the lineup spread out the good kids. It pissed off so many of the parents (including me) that a lot of us petitioned the league to go back in the draft. His team struggled the 2nd year too...lol. DD
Look at the Atlanta Hawks. The Hawks are a Pretty Good Team in a pretty good city with a lot of pretty good players signed. The Hawks are capped out, so they can't get stars in free agency. They have low picks from their pretty good record, so they can't get stars through the draft. Some of their players may improve somewhat, but nobody on that squad has superstar potential. They'll win around 45-50 games each year for the next five years or so, they'll consistently make the playoffs, and they'll never, ever sniff a championship until they blow it up and rebuild. That's the future that the Rockets are facing. Here's what I'd say to you (and Herm Edwards): It depends on what you want to win. There are a significant number of people on this board who see nothing wrong with the Hawks route. After all, they're winning more games than they're losing, and they're making the playoffs. They're a Pretty Good Team, and if you're satisfied with a Pretty Good Team, then we've got nothing to argue about because your opinion is perfectly valid. If that's the case, the Rockets should ignore all the other stuff and just do whatever's most likely to win the next game on the schedule. Just please be aware that some people don't hold this opinion. Some of us want to win the championship, and we feel that the team should do whatever it takes to get there. Even if if means suffering through a couple of losing seasons to acquire the talent necessary to go all the way, we don't care if the Rockets are a Pretty Good Team - we want them to be the best. It doesn't mean we're not Rockets fans - it means we have a different goal than you do.
I have a question regarding salary. Since this is a condensed season, do the players get only ~3/4 of their agreed "annual" salary? For example, will Dalembert only get 5mil? If so... that is a steal! How about all the other players on their contracts? I'm confused of how the players will get paid based on previous vs new contracts in light of the shortened season and less games.
Revisionist history. Miller was a season removed from averaging 12-8. He was signed with the intent of taking over Mutombo's role as Yao's primary backup, but he ended up having to be more. You don't sign salary filler to 3 year deals like Miller was. He was intended as a roleplayer, same as Dalembert. Dalembert's value is also already established - about a year ago, he fetched a deadweight contract (Nocioni) and a disappointing, middling prospect (Hawes).
There is one problem with your strategy. Losing teams don't just lose out a couple of seasons, they can go for a decade losing before they get a superstar player (if they are lucky). Then, there is no guarantee that player will be around once he develops. The Clippers have sucked forever. I would rather have been a fan of the Rockets the last...well...forever, than be the Clippers who frequently got high lotto picks. Once again, getting high picks does not mean you get Lebron. You might just get Thabeet instead and then have to wait 5 more years to get a high pick. Nobody is interested in watching a bottom feeder for 15 years.
The problem with this idea is that there is nothing guaranteed. The lottery is a crap shoot. Draft picks are a crap shoot. Even if you are lucky enough to get the pick that nets you Dwight Howard and not Hasheem Thabeet, you still have to have a team that can win. At some point, you are going to need a free agent or two. The fact that you made decisions in the past that were in the interest of losing and not winning will not be appealing to free agents that want to win. The losing seasons will cost you fans and gain you an empty arena which is even less appealing to free agents and owners. In short, losing is for losers. Making moves that make the team better without hurting your flexibility is not a crapshoot. There is no downside to making smart player and salary cap decisions that improve the team. There is just as good a chance to get a good player or draft pick through a trade as there is through losing without all the harmful side affects. The other fact is that we are still going to have draft picks and every allstar is not picked in the top three. Take heart though, there is always the chance that half our team will get injured and we will lose all our games to get a bunch of ping pong balls and a chance at lightning in a bottle.
The Hawks have been a pretty good team in the East. The Hawks have 3 players making more than our highest paid player. The Hawks have 8 players 27+ years old, the Rockets with the signing of Dalembert now have 3. The Rockets have much better cap/roster flexibility, more young prospects and in my opinion are playing in the more wide open conference now that so many stars have moved East. To me it's not much of a comparison as to which franchise has the brighter future.
Virtually every championship team has been led by a top 10 pick that they either drafted or acquired on draft day. Dallas had Dirk Lakers had Kobe (not quite top 10, but they're the exception) Boston had Pierce (and they acquired Allen by virtue of a top 5 pick) Spurs had Duncan Heat had Wade Pistons had Hamilton Bulls had Jordan Rockets had Hakeem Pistons had Zeke And before that, you had Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers. The one person who puts a wrench in this is Shaq, who was key to the both the Lakers and Heat. But if that's your argument, you should be advocating the "Dwight Howard or bust" approach, or at least be advocating a trade for an all-star. A lottery pick doesn't guarantee you a championship, but it's been a (and in most cases, *the*) key ingredient to every champion going back more than 20 years. The only other way it's been done has been to hit a homerun on a superstar via trade (Shaq). The model we most resemble right now was the Hamilton led Pistons, but their overall talent level was just better than ours.
I agree that Dalembert by himself has limited trade value. But as a serviceable defensive center with a good contract or a salary dump in a year, he has value in a trade of multiple players for one star. We have had no success at this so far but this is the plan and with that in mind the signing makes sense. We were not going to lose enough to get a high pick no matter what with the talent we have. How do you "shed" talent? Everyone seems to think that we can just play bad players and lose a lot. This is a pipe dream, do you expect our players like Lowry, PPat, Scola, KMart to stand for sitting while we play losers to lose. Even if this happens do you think we are going to ever get anyone to come play here after word gets around. This is the Clippers strategy and they did get lucky to get Griffin after 30 years of losing. They still would have been a mediocre team if they didn't change tact and start actually bringing in winners and spending money. Even then they may still be mediocre if injuries decide to rear their ugly head. The fact is you can tank and hope to get lucky or you can make smart bets and keep improving by hedging your bets.
Over the last 10 years the following teams have had a top 10 pick in the draft. The better teams today had lower picks and some scrub teams traded away or lost their superstar but at least they had one at 1 time. 1 Pick - Magic, NOLA, Pacers, Lakers 2 Picks - Nets, Celtics, Jazz, 76ers, Pistons, Suns, Nuggets, Rockets 3 Picks - Kings, Blazers, Wizards, Heat, Cavs, Grizzlies 4 Picks - Hawks, Thunder 5 Picks - Bobcats (ok they just stink at picking), Bucks (ditto), Warriors (ditto), Raptors (ditto), Knicks 6 Picks- Bulls, Clippers, TWolves The Bulls built their team from the draft with 6 top 10 picks over the past 10 years. Even with the Clipper and TWolves FO, their club has a brighter future than us IMO. The Heat...they got their star that brought other stars from the draft. Those that have 2 or less picks are heading down (yes even the Lakers and the Celtics are making their last hurray IMO). While most (other than those poorly run clubs) that have had 4 or more picks are going up. Can we have a playoff team while maintaining the in/out of playoffs season after season? Yes. But to think that we can have a championship team without going through the draft is somewhat delusional.
The only team that is going to trade their star for multiple players on our roster are those trading an aging star or one that wants out and lists Houston as a choice. The later is not happening and the former is not a way to build a championship team.
This is pretty much how feel about it; he certainly wasn't my first or even second choice for a good center, but it's an ok compromise, for now. I sure hope that we can do better in the near future, though.....
