W.T.H. Hakeem was always a stud. Always. The Rockets had some bad breaks with drugs and Ralph injuries that kept them down early but Hakeem was ALWAYS our franchise player. Any NBA follower would tell you that - not just a Rocket homer. Name 1 center better than Hakeem in the league? Kareem? Maybe, maybe not. Are you done going through the NBA roster yet? Besides Jordan, Magic and Bird, who would you trade him to? Like KG just because your team might not be doing too well, doesn't mean your aren't a superstar. Come on Freak - You've been around for awhile and I know you're smarter than throwing out Hakeem wasn't a superstar to anyone but the Rockets.
Hakeem was 1st or 2nd team All NBA all but one of those years...when he was 3rd team All NBA. He was 1st or 2nd team All NBA Defense all of those years except one when he was 3rd team ALL NBA Defense. That's the caliber of player the Rockets are nowhere close to having. Hakeem peaked later in 93-95...but having any player in that 1st or 2nd team all NBA range is having the kind of player you can build around to be a serious contender....the Rockets don't have anyone even remotely close to that vicinity.
No we aren't a bad team and that's the problem. We are stuck in the middle with this team. Sure these guys would be great to have to your dinner party, but this team is not another #14 pick away from being a contender. That's the issue. And for FAs...IF we clear all the contracts we have (Thabeet, Sammy, Lee, etc) we will have enough for 1 FA. The problem is that FA has to want to come here for mega millions less than what he could get by staying put. IF he insisted on a sign and trade to leave AND he truly is a superstar, he's got 29 teams to chose from and we know that IPads are not enough. The only FA I see coming here is if we overpay...pay more than anyone else, including their current team, is willing to pay. And paying max money for a KM type guy is not the right direction. Like Clutch said - it's about the direction of the club. If our goal is only to make the playoffs (which IS the FO's current goal), then we're on the right track. If your goal is to bring home the trophy, then I don't think we are.
I'm sick and tired of people referring to it as "Tanking" when it's obviously called developing.. Trade Scola + Martin "develop"(Grow to a better player) maybe we get lucky and draft in the top 3 and draft someone who can "develop" with our guys.
I think there is a fine line somewhere on what tanking is. Of course some see it as a play Flynn 48 minutes...at center. Others see it as rebuilding by sending out pieces that don't fit for young players or picks. That can be hard but that is a GMs job. Smell blood on some of the perpetual losers and make a trade to keep them down. Then you play the young players significant minutes to see what kind of player they really are. They might improve over the year, they might stink it up. But by the end of the year you know you have a keeper or mistake. If that young team has a swagger and puts us in the playoffs then fine. Lets see if they continue improving and we may have something (give it another year). But if they find themselves out of contention with 10 games remaining, I would give more minutes to the 2nd and 3rd team to dig a little deeper on evaluation - might even rest some starters with an "hammy injury". It makes no sense for the future of the club to win games and move down the lotto ladder when the lotto is unavoidable. Fighting it is not beneficial.
I'm not against playing our young guys. But what exactly can our vets net us? Nobody is giving us a high draft pick for them. Im guessing playoff teams would want our vets so that doesnt leave us with a high draft pick. Not to mention that we will have to take back salary because Scola and Martin make a nice chunk of change. Gauging by what we had to give up just to get Gasol, I don't think we will land any young studs. Our team is one of the youngest as it is. What more do you guys want? Two of our starters are youngsters (chase, hill), we have a rookie getting some minutes (parsons) and a rotation of more young guns (Patterson, Williams, Flynn) and round it out with Lee and Dragic. Seems pretty young and future orientated to me.
That is what tanking essentially is. I don't think teams actually intentionally lose by telling the players to play poorly. Tanking is kinda a misnomer.
Oh I agree that Martin or Scola aren't going to net us a top 3 pick but you can use them to get something that has more value in the future than what it has today or try pillaging a losing team - that's a good GM's job. Examples may not be realistic but something along the lines of Wesley Johnson and Anthony Randolph for KM. Or my dream trade Scola, Bud + anyone else but Lowry for Cousins. I'm not saying get younger because it's true that we are already young, but trade for guys with more potential. It may turn out to be sweet or it may turn out to be a bust. Sweet is good, bust is Drummand. Win-Win. And if/when lotto is unavoidable, go with it.
You could get a 1st rounder from a good team that is pushing for a ring but near the end of the run. Dallas, Knicks, Phoenix, even Orlando. A team desperate to get better to keep D.H. They would give up future 1st rounder. I am sure San Antonio would love to get Scola at this stage of Duncan's career so they can make one more push. And you probably could swap out k-mart to Denver or Phoenix, even the Knicks and Dallas could use him. Point is you can get first rounders for say 2014 or 2015 which would be a very smart thing for the Rockets to do.
Hakeem did not make an All-NBA or All-Defensive team in '91-92, and the Rockets didn't make the playoffs (in a league where more teams make the playoffs than don't), the 5th straight year they didn't make it out of the first round. Hakeem was 29 years old and going into his 9th year in the league. Nowadays on clutchfans those conditions mean you need to scrap everything and rebuild. Do you disagree with that? Yet the Rockets basically stood pat. You would have been fuming had that happened today, if your posts this off-season are to be taken seriously. Just admit it.
You're missing the point Freak. Hakeem was our franchise and you're just trolling if you don't think Hakeem was our franchise player. The arguement here is that we don't have a franchise player and since trading for 1 is hard without the drawing card, drafting is the only way and you can't get a franchise player when drafting in the teens. You have to have a high pick to get a franchise player to build around. The fact that the Rocket FO couldn't get out of the hole that injuries and drugs put them in doesn't mean you trade your franchise player or that you don't have one. I'm sure they got offers for Hakeem - probably some very nice ones - but the best move they made back then was don't fall for it - keep Hakeem. The last person you should trade is your franchise (unless he turns 40 and wants 13 million). You don't trade Howard to make your team a contender. You don't trade Kevin Garnett to make your team a contender. And because KG was stuck on a mediocre team doesn't mean you trade him or that he's not a superstar. That was stupid of Minny but they were never smart enough or lucky enough to get him the supporting cast he needed so they thought trading him was their best move. How'd that work out for them? You start with the franchise and you build from there. And these days, you are on the clock because if your don't put together a good team, your franchise player is probably going to leave and you'll have to start over. This team does not have a superstar, franchise player, player to build around, etc. We have some good players that will keep us playing 500 ball and picking in the teens for more good players that will keep us playing 500 ball and picking in the teens for more good players that will...
I'm tired of this tanking bs too. Stop, just please stop. You and I, everyone and the Rockets organization know, that tanking is classless. <b>Might</b> get you somewhere, but that *ish is a RIDICulous team-concept. Stop.
Hakeem was the franchise player but the franchise was going nowhere at that time. That's the point. There was no optimism whatsoever amongst the fanbase. Coming off a lotto season, naming an interim coach the head coach, making an unpopular draft choice and no moves outside of that to improve the team, a franchise player who didn't make an all-NBA team and was disgruntled. Keeping the same squad together that had gone nowhere several years in a row. This was at a time with no internet and clutchfans. You can bet there would have been a ton of pressure to blow it all up at that point had those things existed. I'm not trolling. I'm not one of those who would have wanted to trade Hakeem. But there were a ton of folks who would have.
Your argument is ridiculous. In 91-92, the year Dream did not make an All NBA team, do you know what his numbers were? 21.6 points, 12 rebounds, 4.3 blocks, and 1.8 steals. And he shot 50%. Dream just happened to play in the greatest eras for centers in the History of the NBA. I see what you are trying to do. You're trying to: 1) show that Dream was not a clear cut franchise player because he missed 1 All NBA team and the team missed the playoffs 2) You want to claim that the Rockets should not rebuild now because it would have been a bad idea to rebuild then, since it wasn't clear then either that we had a franchise player and were poised for a title run. The problem with your reasoning is that Dream was one of the most clear cut franchise players ever from the moment he came into the league. Your argument makes sense if you are directing it to Orlando fans who are looking forward to trading away Howard, but to Rockets fans, who do not have an All-NBA player at all, much less one of the caliber of Dream, it makes no sense. Personally I am against massive rebuilding as well. But your argument was so terrible that it offended my logic and sense of decency, and I had to step in.
Now that's what I am saying. Morey almost pulled it off, until Stern *f* up the Rockets. But a big HECK NO to "tanking"... or "rebuilding," if you like euphemism. Yeah. Wooohooo!
