With the crummy luck we've had, wouldn't having a chance to draft this guy be worth one crummy season. http://nbadraft.net/players/andre-drummond
Doesn't matter that much because unlike the last couple of seasons, this draft should be deep (that's what she said).
Looks like the Knicks are -6.5 at the Wizards tonight. And CX I'll put up 50 to your 55 for the tip jar. The Rockets won't make the playoffs with this core of Lowry, Martin, Scola, Bud, Lee, T-Will, PPat, Dalembert, Hill, and Morris.
Who knows maybe we will get lucky like the last time we had a #1 overall pick. Yao didn't win us much but he was fun to watch.
Forget Andre Drummond, Anthony Davis, or Harrison Barnes Morey needs to draft this kid( sell the whole farm if you have to) http://www.nbadraft.net/players/shabazz-muhammad
Ok done. If we trade any of our vets for "potential" or picks the bets off. If we consolidate our depth into an allstar or someone you think is a gamechanger the bet is off.
The following is an exerpt from Chad Ford's most recent chat and echoes a sentiment that I have repeatedly tried to clarify to those desperate for the Rockets not to have to give up their first round pick THIS year vs. in a subsequent year: Louis (South Africa) Hey Chad, great to have you back! With the upcoming draft being so allegedly deep, do you think that means it is deep in potential superstars that can become franchise players, or is it just deep in terms of quality role players? Thanks. Chad Ford (1:47 PM) I'm not sure there is a LeBron or Dwight Howard or Derrick Rose in this draft. But Anthony Davis, Harrison Barnes, Perry Jones and Andre Drummond could all be all-stars if they live up to their potential. The lottery is also deep with players who could be legit starters on their team. As far as depth goes, I don't feel this draft is quite as deep as last year's was once you get past the 20th pick. Many people on this BBS have just assumed that the "depth" of the 2012 NBA Draft related to the top talent, thinking that the Rockets could somehow get a better player at, say, #10 than in other years. Not so, IMO (and apparently also in Chad Ford's opinion). The depth of the 2012 NBA Draft is NOT at the All-Star talent level. In fact, Ford thinks there are fewer future superstars in the upcoming draft and only a small handful of potential All-Stars. The depth of that draft is in the 10-20 range. After #20, according to Ford, the draft is actually LESS deep than the 2011 draft. That is why I think quite the opposite of you, JayZ. I think (purely from a draft pick standpoint, and not necessarily from an overall direction of the franchise standpoint) this year is the best year NOT to tank and that the Rockets should just try to make the playoffs. The reason for this?: They own the Knicks' pick, which now looks like it could be in the top-20. With the Rockets--even if they trade away some veterans--looking like no worse than a late lottery team again (their record is deceiving given their tough early schedule against all playoff teams), I honestly don't think the Rockets could tank their way into a top-9 pick without seriously damaging the growth and value of all of their current young players (at least a couple of whom might be just as good or better than a top-8 or 9 pick in this year's draft). FYI, I fully agree with the general sentiment of Cxbby's point about winning increasing everyone's value around the league. With the depth of "pretty good" players on the Rockets, it seems the best way to maximize the value of their assets (including their first round pick) as a whole is to win. There are plenty of good young players on the roster as is. No need to add 3 more rookies next year. At least 2 of the 3 would never see the light of day in game action. Win. Make the playoffs. Increase everyone's value. Give the pick to New Jersey (and get that obligation out of the way). Get New York's pick (which, if the Rockets make the playoffs, might actually be BETTER than where the Rockets would have selected had they not conveyed the pick to New Jersey). If the Rockets need to move up a few spots, they'll have Minnesota's second rounder (expected to be in the 35-40 range), which should help them in that regard. Also, by getting the New Jersey pick obligation out of the way, Morey will be freed up to trade future Rockets' first round picks in trades without horrible qualifications that greatly minimize the picks' value. Bottom line: The 2012 NBA Draft is a so-so draft to have the #1 pick. It's a pretty good draft to be picking in the top-5 or 6. It's so-so picking between, say, 7 and 10. It's pretty darn good picking between 10 and 20. And it's just meh beyond that. Since the Rockets will have a pick (the NYK pick) in the "relative sweet spot" of this draft, this is a prime opportunity to get the NJ pick obligation out of the way and free up flexibility for future trades. And by winning, the Rockets would either make the playoffs or end up in the top end of that "relative sweet spot" (picking #13 or #14 again). They won't get a future All-Star, but they'll get at least one decent player. But if the Rockets can actually make the playoffs and increase everyone's perceived value, while STILL getting a decent player with the Knicks' pick, I think that's the best of both worlds.
^ I disagree with both your and Chad Ford's opinion. Who am I? Just a guy on a website. But it's not like Chad Ford has proven to be some great prognosticator either. Don't get me wrong... I like Chad Ford, think he is a smart, logical guy, who clearly has more time and better access to scout players. But he's just another guy spouting an opinion. FOR EXAMPLE, his grading of the Knicks 2010 Draft: This is just an example. Of course he's right sometimes and wrong sometimes. And a lot of what it is is talking to GM's and scounts and everyone coming to general consensus... which is why when someone takes a player outside of that general consensus, he gets confused. Regardless, in my view, and the view of many others, but clearly not EVERYONE, is that this draft is both strong at the top and deep. Pick for pick, I'd take a projected 2012 draft player over the actual player taken in 2011 in almost every case through the lottery. Drummond, Davis, Barnes, Beal, Lamb, Sullinger, Ross, Jones, Gilchrest, Rivers, etc. > Irving, Williams, Kanter, Vesley.... you get the idea. Maybe once outside of the lottery things start to even out. I can agree with this. But tanking means you're not drafting outside of 20. AS does barely slipping into the playoffs, but a better pick is, regardless of draft depth, always better. in either case, this is MY opinion. If you don't share it, you don't share it. I'm not sure how Chad Ford's opinion that the draft is pretty good through the 20th pick but so so after changes one's opinion on tanking or not? Moreover, I'm not sure what you're seeing with regards to out young players that I'm (and others on the board) aren't. Basically, every EXCEPT Lowry, Martin and Scola. Where is the obvious growth and upside for any of these players? I just don't see it. I just don't see a ton of examples of that historically. Do the Austin Croshere's and Trevor Ariza's of the world get a playoff value appreciation? Of course... but you don't often see a Zach Randolph scenario... which as I noted anyways, isn't exactly comparable. Again, not to be a broken record, but put aside Lowry, Patterson and Morris (if he makes it back). What other players will see a huge change in value whether or not the team loses in the first round or ends up with a 5-10 pick because of their record. These guys aren't finished products, but I'm sick and tired about hearing about how they may have upside. Thabeet, Terrence Williams, Dragic, Courtney Lee, Budinger, Hill? C'mon people, these players are the same players they've been. If they're getting any better... and, btw, they're NOT... it's just a little experience. I just disagree. The ONLY scenario where i see the playoffs being a plus is if the make the second round and push that opponent to a solid series. I put the odds of that happening at virtually zero. 9th seed versus 8th seed? Clearly, 9th seed is better... you get to keep your pick. Also, I'm not sure how "getting the New Jersey obligation" out of the way this year is some kind of boon? I'd rather get that obligation out of the way when the team is actually fully positioned on the path to 5 years of multiple playoff pushes. I'd rather not give up a draft pick when the team is in such a period of flux. Are they good? Are they bad? Do they need more talent? Would having more assets help get that talent? Moreover, the comment with regards to NY's pick versus the Rockets pick is neither here nor there. They get NY's pick regardless. We're not comparing NY's pick to where the Rocket's pick might have been if they didn't give it to New Jersey because they crept into the playoffs. They get NY's pick (unless it's a top 5)... period. The question is would you rather limp into the playoffs, and get beat in the first round, or have a mid teens draft pick? Sure, by virtue of having given up that asset. That's NOT the bottom line. That's your read of it. Clearly, there's no obvious Lebron at this point. But even with a Dwight, I don't recall that being obvious. It was Dwight vs. Okafor. Just like it was Rose vs. Beasley... Sometimes things work out better than you expect. Nobody expected Derrick Favors to turn into the next Dwight. But Drummond and Davis both have much higher potential than a Favors did. They both have Dwight like potential, when Dwight came out of high school.. especially Drummond. I'll admit Drummond hasn't been as dominant in college as anticipated... and that speaks to the crapshoot nature of the draft a bit... but Drummond had near Dwight level hype as a senior in high school. And Davis HAS been dominant of late. I mean have you seen Davis play? Do you follow college ball at all? Granted, Kentucky hasn't exactly been playing Duke or North Carolina, but with a team with that much talent, being dominant is always hard. Plus, they did play and beat #4 Louiseville last week, and Davis played his typical stellar game.
I definitely see the value in winning the way you said. But unfortunately it's much harder to win enough to get noticed(likely playoff heroics) than to suck enough to get a tangible asset(high lottery pick). So that's kind of where I sort of stand. If only the Gasol trade had gone through, I'd be feeling much better about the Rockets winning enough to draw some attention.
Let me address each of the bolded statements above. Re: Other players benefiting from playoffs. I definitely think the values of Budinger, Lee, Hill and maybe even Williams will be greatly affected based on a swing from making the playoffs vs. being so bad as to merit a top-5 to 10 pick, as you say. Obviously, you're not going to get a king's ransom for any of those guys; but a #9 pick also isn't the be all-end all, either. I think the cumulative increase in trade value for all of those players could possibly outweigh the value of a #9 pick, especially if you also add a, say, #18 pick in 2013 they'd otherwise have to give to New Jersey if they miss the playoffs this season but make it next season. Re: Getting the NJ pick obligation out of the way. As I have repeatedly tried to explain on this BBS, due to the Ted Stepien rule, the Rockets are GREATLY constricted in what they can offer other teams in trades with respect to their own future first round picks. Once the Rockets use the Knicks' pick (either in trade or in the draft), they will be severely hamstrung in "big trade packages" by not being able to offer much in the way of future picks. For instance, if the Rockets still owe NJ their pick after the 2012 draft, the Rockets would not be able to put together a trade package featuring anything better than a pick swap before 2015 (best case scenario). With so many teams valuing the IDEA of "a first round pick", this puts the Rockets at a disadvantage in future trade talks. However, if the Rockets can make the playoffs and give New Jersey, say, the #18 pick in 2012, while still getting, say, the #17 pick from New York, the team still benefits from a quality rookie in a deep draft (especially in that range) while ALSO being able to offer any sort of future first round pick as part of a mega-trade package. Meanwhile, if the Rockets miss the playoffs, they'll still probably only have, say, the #10 or #11 pick at best. (Yes, I don't think they can possibly suck as much as you do - we just fundamentally disagree on this point.) No team with a top-5 pick is going to trade it to Houston for #11 and #17. The Rockets will be stuck taking two decent players in a deep draft, but neither will be a game-changer for them. Just another two in a long list of pretty good young players on the roster. Sure, I'd like a guy like that, but they'll get one anyway with the Knicks' pick. That's my point. (I suppose this also addressed your comment re: having the Knicks pick. Yes, they have it either way. But KNOWING you're getting a decent player out a particular draft makes giving up a pick in THAT draft possibly better than waiting to give up a pick but being constrained in trades.) Re: "Bottom line". My intention by writing that (which appears in many of my lengthier posts) is merely to allow the reader to scroll down and see a summary of MY OPINION. I am not trying to pass it off as the gospel or any sort of factual certainty. I'm sorry that I did not make myself clearer as a general rule. But now you know. Hey, like you said, we're just going to have to disagree on some of these issues. Nothing wrong with that. It's what keeps this BBS from being boring.
From what I understand about the rule, you can get around it by acquiring 1st round picks. So if Morey makes another Brooks/Battier type trades they can be more flexible in giving up their own pick.
Bima, I hear you and definitely understand and respect your positions. I obviously understand it's not gospel. Nothing anybody writes on here is gospel. It's a message board. I know when you say "bottom line"... it's your bottom line, not the ACTUAL bottom line... which would be impossible (unless you're secretly Daryl Morey??) Like meh, I'm not overly concerned about being hampered by not being able to make trades. Obviously, Morey can pick up future picks. More to the point, in a semi-tank scenario, I'm betting on draft picks being more important than the ability to trade those picks anyways. I'm with you with regards to perhaps waiting till the offseason to make any draft day trades... UNLESS you get an offer involving picks at the deadline that is too difficult to pass up. I just don't foresee the other path... which is the be a broker for a Gasol type deal. It took all we had to try and get in on it this time, we were likely overpaying, and even by adding Nene, given the dearth of other quality players on the roster (my opinion), I don't think the team would have been meaningfully better with Lowry/Nene/Gasol + as they are with Lowry/Martin/Scola +. Clearly better, but not meaningfully.
Not really. I forget where it is, but I had a pretty detailed back-and-forth with someone (was it jopatmc?) in another thread about this topic. The only way the Rockets can free up their own pick is to get another team's UNPROTECTED pick. That's not likely to happen. The Ted Stepien rule requires a team to be GUARANTEED a first round pick in at least one of the two subsequent drafts. Even now, the Rockets cannot trade their own first round pick, since it is POSSIBLE that the Knicks will pick in the top-5. Even at the trade deadline, unless the Knicks have clinched a playoff spot by that time (again, not likely), the Rockets cannot trade their own pick. The most they can trade is: The Houston Rockets' first round pick in the First Allowable Draft (being the draft two years after Houston satisfies its obligation to convey a first round pick to New Jersey from the trade involving Terrence Williams). Folks, if the Rockets don't make the playoffs this season, that amounts to a 2015 pick at the EARLIEST. Other teams (especially those looking to trade a star player) aren't going to value that sort of pick very greatly. On the other hand, if the Rockets make the playoffs, convey their 2012 pick to New Jersey, and still have the New York pick to select a pretty good player, they can offer just about ANY combination of future picks or swaps in trades (so long as the new package does not violate the Stepien rule). For instance, after getting the pick obligation to NJ out of the way, in the 2012 offseason (July-August), the Rockets could offer up their own UNPROTECTED 2013 first round pick for another team's star player. While I'm not so sure that Morey would ever do that, he would have the OPTION to do that. And teams just drool over "unprotected picks", even if the likelihood is that the actual pick is likely to be in the 20-25 range. While I certainly think the opposite viewpoint is quite reasonable, I just think those who don't quite realize what impact the NJ pick obligation and the Ted Stepien rule have on the Rockets' ability to make future trades aren't giving the "let's go ahead and make the damn playoffs" approach a fair shake.
On your bolded statements: --See my response to meh. Sure, Morey can get some heavily-protected pick from another team and include THAT pick in a trade package. But he won't be able to include the Rockets' OWN pick or be able to offer any sort of limited protection on picks, which is what helps increase the value of a team's offered trade package. --Obviously, if the Rockets absolutely LOVE two guys in the 10-20 range who each fall to where the Rockets are selecting, then your point has a great deal of merit. However, I'm more inclined to think that the Rockets would do well to have the benefit of being a playoff team, still have one of the two guys they like fall to them, and also be able to trade future picks. It just flat out gives them more flexibility. (And you know Morey likes flexibility.) --Glad to see we agree on waiting to trade Martin/Scola for picks (if at all) until after the season. Also agreed that an offer could be made at the trade deadline that is too good to pass up. But I don't think the latter scenario is very likely.
The problem I have with this viewpoint is... so what? If the Rockets don't make the playoffs this season, and are "really" bad, they'd value having a top pick in this draft higher than they'd value being able to trade a near term first for a future player. If the Rockets don't make the playoffs this season by being the 9th seed, then, as many have expected, they really are stuck in averageness. And yes, a 14th pick in the draft is an asset to add to a trade, but as you've noted, it's not exactly a great lotto pick... so it's not exactly an irreplaceable asset. In other words, it's hard to imagine Morey would strike out on a potential great trade because he didn't have the ability to add the 2013 or 2014 pick to a trade. Because an opposing GM should say two things: (1) Well, that's historically not exactly been an awesome pick anyways, and (2) post trade, given the Rockets are likely trying to use the trade to work their way up the Western Conference, the pick is even more likely to not be great. In other words, as the Hornets Gasol nix and eventual trade showed, the Hornets valued the pick in the deal because it was (1) Minnesota's, and (2) unprotected. So, I "guess" what you're saying is in the event we do actually really suck, and do have a high lotto pick, we will not be able to use that pick this offseason in a trade for someone like, say, Dwight Howard, in a sign and trade, where the Magic get back some talent - Kevin Martin, a lotto pick, and some young filler...? Or make a similar trade the following year. Or broker a similar trade. Fair enough... BUT we won't have that pick unless we suck, which negates the whole argument, because if we suck, we keep the pick, and are stuck in the situation. Which all points to the one obvious thing about this: this was a bad bad trade by Morey.
Come on. You're too smart for this. There are tons of "unprotected" picks that are not going to be worth much. Especially come the trade deadline when many picks are basically have no chance being better than in the 20s. For example, if we trade Courtney Lee for Chicago's pick, I really doubt Chicago will care to add protection when they have one of the best records in the NBA.
JayZ, since you are making some good points (and since I do have SOME work to do today!), I'm probably going to end our back-and-forth here with this post. The Minnesota pick was so valuable for THREE reasons, actually: (1) it is Minnesota's (a bad team); (2) it is unprotected; and (3) IT IS IN NEXT YEAR'S DRAFT. Teams inherently value picks coming sooner over those coming later. My point was that the Rockets COULD NOT offer those sorts of picks. Teams would have to wait a long time to ever receive the Rockets' pick. Also, I don't necessarily think that the Terrence Williams deal was a bad trade AT THE TIME. It was a worthwhile gamble on a player who was valued by the Rockets as a top-10 talent in his draft. Sure, it's not looking like it will have been worth it. But I want to see how Williams does over the course of this season (and perhaps next) before I truly judge that trade. I'm just explaining the downside of the trade, is all. Again, our divergent viewpoints are founded on a fundamental disagreement over how bad the Rockets could possibly be this season. You think they could possibly be "top-5 pick bad" under certain circumstances. I do not. Your viewpoint is perfectly reasonable. We agree to disagree. All's cool. I'm going to get lunch now.
Agreed. Also, Bima, i still don't think we trade our way into contention. At this point, our two vet trade-chips are a year older, and even if we could package them for an All-star (not likely), we'd still be another top player away from championship contention. Nope, now that the Nene signing fell through, I am more convinced than ever that a losing season this year, and rebuilding through the draft (by packaging players and picks to get a franchise player-pick) is the best plan for Houston. You need a franchise player to attract other franchise players. Even if we took a page out of the celtics' book, we have no paul pierce to pair with a garnett or ray allen. I don't see that we have any other choice but to build through the draft.
Definitely great conversation. Thanks for partaking. To the above, the Rockets can not offer those types of picks anyways, since they don't have them. Under the only scenario where they will have them, we will then know definitively one way or the other how bad this team can be, and it's kind of a pointless discussion, cause the situation will be what it is.
So what if a playoff appearance would increase the value of our assets. Even if that's true, what we get for our players still won't match what we can draft 1-5 or maybe even 1-10. And, as usual, all this depends on the cooperation of individuals outside the organization, but the Rockets control their own destiny with a high lottery pick. It's theirs. They don't have to trade for it. A high lottery pick is more of a sure thing than waiting around hoping that Morey can fleece another team like he did the Knicks, and I think that ship has sailed, for what it's worth. The days of Morey sneaking up on another GM are probably gone for good.
