Good points and I agree with them up to a point. However, if you want to tank, you can tank. You don't have to run Lowry, Patterson, and Lee out there. You run Johny, Thabeet, and Adrien out there and let them scrum it out. If we are sitting at 18-26 at the trade deadline, then we ain't winning anyway. And if we are sitting at 23-21 at the trade deadline, then what is so attractive about Houston that guys want to come here. Yeah, you're right. You win and you win big. You gotta have the horses to do that though. I'm afraid in this shortened season, with back to backs, after losing Hayes from last year's team and picking up Dally that we aren't in a position to increase our winning percentage one point. That means we ain't winning and winning big. So, the question is where do we go from here? What superstar player is going to want to come here and play with Kyle? In my opinion, after Howard and Deron are gone, there is no superstar that is going to be available for another season or so and then it is questionable. Do you hang on to a mediocre bunch and keep stringing along the team in hopes of getting Love or Griffin in free agency in a couple seasons? That doesn't make sense to me. If we can't get Dwight and Deron, it's time to move Martin and Lowry.
Great Post....the only problem with this is that we do not have the talent that Memphis or Dallas have in order to go deep into the playoffs to showcase our team.
It's almost impossible to respond to this post because it starts with a completely flawed process.... that the team as constituted, even when trying their hardest, can win. They can't. They MIGHT, if they're lucky, sneak into the playoffs. That's why people are frustrated. They can't win. Martin and Scola's value is what it is. It won't change. Lowry's, as this year has shown, is changing. All of the other players can improve and improve their trade value... but WILL they? I don't know, but I'm not betting on it at this point. The Dragic's and Budinger's of the world might get a little better, but if they improved significantly, there wouldn't be this issue. There are only a few players on the squad, imo, with REAL upside - Patterson, Morris.
All they need to do is sneak into the playoffs. You are misunderstanding. Player's value changes all the time, without them improving a single bit. For example: Value of Zach Randolph losing on Blazers and Knicks- black hole stat padding cancer that no team wants. Value of Zach Randolph winning in Memphis- untouchable max contract franchise player. Those two players are the exact same, with vastly different values given by the rest of the league, all due to winning vs. losing. No one said anything about winning a championship with Martin/Scola. Just win some damn games. Then talk about dealing them.
I understand completely. You are trying to compare Zach Randolph to Martin/Scola. I don't see how they are comparable. Neither Martin or Scola are guys who have historically shown an "attitude" problem, or "underperformed". Moreover, Randolph actually DID get better. His last 2 years with Memphis were, statistically, his best 2 consecutive years of his career. Yes, he's always been talented, and yes, he's put up some great years statistically previously, but he did also get better, if only marginally. Finally, if the Rockets were to sneak into the playoffs, and then were to make a run to the 2nd round, taking some team to 7 games, then my opinion of the players on the roster would change anyway. I'd be more willing to roll the dice and add a free agent or two, let Morey flip player X for player Y that's a better fit, and hope to win a championship. BUT, even with all that, are there GM's out there salivating over the thought of adding Zach Randolph? With all of the turnaround they had, they still ONLY got to the second round. The Rockets have done that previously and regressed since. AND finally, even with all of that, at this point it time, all I can do is tell you, in my opinion, they aren't going to sneak into the playoffs... AND even if they do, they are extremely unlikely to win a first round series, without home court advantage (0-4 on the road thus far), against a better team. Meaning, at the end of the day, opposing GM's will view Scola/Martin as they're currently viewed... great players, but just under all-star level, and need to be surrounded by 1 or 2 considerably better players to make a serious championship push.
I am not comparing Randolph to Martin/Scola. I am comparing Randolph to Randolph, and showing you how winning vs. losing can effect a player's value. Then you would be falling into the same trap I hope other GMs will. If we get to the second round, there is still no chance this team as constituted ever wins a title. But by then, you would be able to sell high on our veterans for full value, as opposed to 15 cents on the dollar right now and trying to bottom out. Thanks for your opinion! In my opinion, this team, as currently constructed, especially given some recent developments with the Spurs/Grizzlies, is an absolute shoe in for the playoffs. It really isn't even close. As for winning a series or not, who knows? Once you get to the dance, anything can happen. I'd sure take those chances than shooting for the moon with the draft lottery.
okay, then kinda pointless to bring it up. winning vs. losing is part of the equation. the actual player is the other part. There's plenty of players who have won or lost based on what teams they were on. Randolph's value hasn't gone up because he went from a loser to a winner. It's because he got better and led his team to that winning. If Martin/Scola lead their team like Randolph did last year, then of course my opinion, and others opinion, of them as a player, will change. While I generally agree with your assessment... I wasn't arguing GM's would be willing to trade significantly more for those players. I was just arguing in the very unlikely scenario that this actually happens, then the Rockets, as a team, might be closer than I think. Certainly, some GM's will place more value on these guys afterwards, but 15 cents on the dollar as compared to full value is way way way too big a discrepancy. Right, and thanks for your opinion... That's what this site is for... opinions. Cheap shot, but we know in your opinion Marcus Morris was going to be the future face of the Rockets... so, I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt. Do you want to do a tipjar bet on the Rockets reaching the 2nd round?
Regarding those worried about the Knicks tanking, thus getting a top 5 pick, remember the following: 1. In order to virtually guarantee a top 5 pick (96% chance), the Knicks will have to be the 3rd worst team in the league. Last season, it would have required a 22 win record. 2. In order to have a 55% or so chance of a top 5 pick, the Knicks will have to be the 5th worst team in the league. Last season, the 5th and 6th worse record was a tie at 24 wins. 3. If the Knicks had the 6th worst record, they only have a 21.4% chance of having a top 5 pick (have to win the lotto and get into the top 3). I really can't see the Knicks being that bad. MSG spent a ton of money upgrading the arena, and raised ticket prices. They are more likely to make trades to fix their holes than to tank and blow things up (this is their natural tendency anyway).
While I certainly cannot foresee what trade opportunities will arise for the Rockets going forward, allow me to use the Charlotte-Milwaukee-Sacramento 2011 pre-draft trade in which: Charlotte trades: Stephen Jackson, Shawn Livingston and the #19 pick Charlotte receives: Corey Maggette and the #7 pick Milwaukee trades: John Salmons, Maggette and the #10 pick Milwaukee receives: Jackson, Livingston, Beno Udrih and the #19 pick Sacramento trades: Udrih and the #7 pick Sacramento receives: Salmons and the #10 pick as a basic framework to show my point about about waiting to trade Martin or Scola for picks. For purposes of this illustration, let's say that Houston was inserted for Charlotte and the trade was going down in 2012, not 2011. So, instead of Charlotte's outgoing package, it was instead: Kevin Martin (a player with higher trade value than Jackson, IMO) Goran Dragic (a player with higher trade value than Livingston, IMO) and A lottery-protected 2012 first round pick. (In this illustration, the Rockets don't owe the Nets their pick. Just go with me on this.) If this trade was proposed at the March 2012 trade deadline, I don't think Sacramento would have been willing to give up a "top-6 protected 2012 first round pick", nor do I think Milwaukee would have given up a "top-9 protected 2012 first round pick". Instead, the most you get is lottery protection on each of those picks (including the Rockets'), never burning off and eventually becoming two second rounders in 2017 and 2018 if they never make the playoffs over the next six years. Martin, Dragic and Udrih go to Milwaukee with a full month remaining in the season. Milwaukee (having only lost Salmons from its prior team) goes on to garner a playoff spot in the East. Their pick ends up being around #17 or so. (And sorry, folks. I still think NYK makes the playoffs even if Milwaukee sneaks in. They'll probably pick at #17 or so . . . or maybe slips to #16 if Milwaukee passes them in the standings.) Sacramento adds Salmons in place of Udrih. They still don't make the playoffs in the West. But because they were reluctant to give less then lottery protection, the pick obligation gets pushed to a future year (and may never actually net a first rounder at all). Houston adds Maggette. (I know he's not a fit. This is just to show a point about netting picks in trades for talented veterans.) They miss the playoffs without Martin (pushing their pick obligation to a future year) but are still too good to get a high lottery pick. Their pick ends up at, say, #11 overall. So, come draft day, the Rockets would be picking at #11 (its own pick) and #16 (the NYK pick). They may never see the Kings' pick. INSTEAD, the Rockets could just (1) play out the season, (2) possibly make the playoffs (ending up with, say, the #18 pick?) and (3) wait to trade Martin until before the trade, in the exact type of trade mentioned above, with the lower of the Rockets' or Knicks' picks being part of the package. (Again, notice that I think Martin and Dragic have more trade value than Jackson and Livingston, so I think the #7 would have been available had you swapped Houston's package in for Charlotte's.) NOW, the Rockets would be picking #7 (Sacramento's pick) and have the higher of New York's pick or their own (which should be in the mid-teens). #11 (but owing a future pick to SAC), #16 and the faint hope of a future mid-first rounder? or #7 and #17 AND MAKE THE PLAYOFFS? I'd take #7 and #17 and the playoffs, personally. I know this was a crazy hypothetical, but I wanted to use a concrete recent example to prove my point. I'm sure people can tear this apart, but at least admit that it is somewhat plausible to play out that way. (Oh, and no, I don't think the #10 pick is so much more valuable than the #14 pick, or that the extra 2.1% chance at a top-3 pick is so great, that I would trade one of my best players for the difference.)
Sure. What kind of odds you want to give me? I'll take them making the playoffs straight up, even odds. In fact I might give you some odds.
That somewhat invalidates your hypothetical, then. Clearly one is better than the other, since you don't owe a pick, but not as different as they otherwise could be, especially if you add in the potential that, say, your team really sucks after the trade deadline and instead of picking at #11, your picking at #6. But I certainly gets your point. It clearly comes down to what you can get, and when, and if you can't get what you want (ie unprotected lottery picks) and feel you should wait to do the trade at that point, then you wait. But you never know. If you are at a trade deadline, and are trading an asset to a team that really thinks it makes the playoffs with said asset, I can envision a scenario where they trade a draft pick without lotto protection. Of course, they may actually make the playoffs then... but perhaps that keeps the Knicks out... Who knows? Plus, this draft is a lot deeper, so you might not be able to do the proposed trade at all come draft time, where you'd be able to at least get something at the trade deadline - this is the opposite of what you suggest, but the deepr draft could make it so. Sacramento wasn't worried about Jimmer not being there at #10 last year. This year, the difference between #7 and #10 could be meaningful, and might be more obviously meaningful on draft night than at the trade deadline. I view both scenarios as somewhat comparable, in either case, and resulting in a similar end-game. Marginal improvements through mediocre draft picks and average free agent signings. However, the first scenario at least holds out some hope, minuscule as it may be, that you can luck into some decent lotto picks (either by you sucking, or getting a future lotto pick with relatively few protections), or just end up with a bunch of picks which you could package to move up in the draft. So I guess what I was asking, instead of just a different timing, is do you foresee any game changers by taking a stay the course approach, as they seem to be doing? I don't even consider the Gasol non-trade a game changer, even with Nene... solid frontcourt, but both of those guys would be overpaid and limited, too. But I'm open to saying that could have been a game-changer, if you want to view it that way. You have the best knowledge of the new CBA on the board, and of its seeming ability to reduce players leverage with regards to where they get traded. You have as much knowledge as the rest of us with regards to upcoming free agents, and who could potentially be unhappy where and when. So, with that in mind, do you see a better end game?
Reasonable thoughts. However if we are 18-26 at the trade deadline and we trade away Martin and Scola for scraps and picks, there is a much greater likelihood that our lottery pick falls between 1-8 that it does 10-11. And by the same token if NY is a .400 team at the trade deadline, moving Martin and Scola to their Eastern Rivals could put us with another pick in the 6-10 range versus doing nothing and winding up with picks 14 and 20 in the draft. I don't think you are getting in the top 5 with Martin and 14. I do think you could get top 5 with picks 8 and 10. And that could be a critical difference. I said "could".
I wasn't planning on giving you any odds, given how confident you were they would make the playoffs, and it being the basis of the psuedo-comparison to Zach Randolph. However, if you want, you can give me odds for making the playoffs and I can give you the exact same odds for making the second round??
You're on. Please note that I did say "as currently constructed", so if we somehow ship Martin to Minnesota(which I can totally see) then the bet is off. To make it fair if we somehow get Howard you can call it off too.
CXbby, you know by now that I'm a proponent of tanking. So I'll just say that it's not as clear as you make things out to be. 1. Players value is a quite finicky. For example, the Warriors have players that people should've innately understand are beneficiaries of an all-offense/no-defense system. Yet they're still highly valued because people still care about raw stats. 2. High lottery pick in of itself is just so valuable. So while our veterans may only be worth 50cents on the dollar. It can be more than made up by a top 5 pick vs a ~15th pick. 3. Name recognition a lot of times simply comes from hype. And there's just a lot more hype of players at the top of the draft vs ones that developed. I don't disagree that winning can help a player's value. But it's not all-benefit/no-downside situation either. Besides, even if Scola/Martin's value this year becomes lower. Their value could easily rise back up if there's a Drummond on the team next year. The thing about the Knicks is that they might not be able to fix anything. They've traded their picks. They're capped out. Their salary distribution is fixed to 3 players, so they can't match salaries like other teams. There's a reason why they picked up freaking Baron Davis. The Knicks are also skating on thin ice due to Amare and Chandler's healths. Overall, I think they have a shot at sucking badly. Bad enough for the Rockets to be skittish about a pick in the top 5? Probably not. But if one or two things go against the Knicks way, we might actually have to sweat out the lottery selection. One reason why I feel we should just trade the pick before the draft anyway.
I don't disagree with any of that. I mean, the reason I would want to win is exactly to take advantage of the finicky natural of player values, and to sell high on those vets in the off season, preferably during the draft for one of those high valued picks, as opposed to now for mid first rounders. And yes, if we tank for a top 5 pick their lost value can be made up, but I just can't see us being that bad. Even without Martin/Scola, I think it will be very difficult to lose more than Washington/NJ/Charoltte/Sacromento/NO with Lowry, Patterson, Lee, Dragic, Bud, Dalembert and some of the new guys. I could be wrong, and we just fall apart, but I doubt it would be enough. And simply getting rid of Martin/Scola for anything less than a top 5 pick just wouldn't be worth it. EDIT: Actually it's not like I really know better. If we are really down and out by the trade deadline and they decide to blow it up, I will certainly not be one to complain. Just playing devil's advocate here, and seeing the value in trying to win and make the playoffs, as opposed to "going nowhere" like most here believe.
^ excellent point. I'm not typically a proponent of tanking... especially in the NBA, which remains a league where there is a gulf between the haves and have nots and once you're down, it's hard to get back out. But, there are so many reasons that the timing of this particular season makes a semi-tank just make sense.
