You may have a point about Scola, but Martin still has plenty of time left, and only has two years left on his contract, so I don't really buy that about him. You argue that Gordon is a better player, but age doesn't have anything to do with Martin's problems. He's going to still be very productive at 30 when his contract is up.
I wouldn't be totally opposed to trading Martin and Scola in a deal kind of like what was going to happen earlier this season since that was looking to pay immediate dividends. I just don't agree with trading them for nothing (a la the Lamar Odom trade). I don't even want to trade them for picks, at least not until MAYBE the season looks to be completely lost. Because the only people who would trade picks for them are teams that are on the verge of contention, and they won't net us very valuable picks.
That plus, apparently, owners didn't want to see the Lakers get right back into the title circle since they probably would have had Dwight lined up next.
Sad, that we're so desperate we are celebrating making the 8th seed (for a couple of minutes today), in hopes of making the playoffs in a sport where more than half of the league makes the playoffs. So easy to make the playoffs in the NBA.....
I would have gladly given up Martin to the Mavs in the Odom situation if they meant playing defense on them to keep them from getting DWill or Howard but they mostly likely wouldn't have done it. I also think a team like the Nets or the Bucks would have interest in either of them. I'd take the Bucks first round pick for Martin or our pick back from NJ for Scola.
Not in the west it isn't... If the Rockets were in the east, they'd probably be close to home court right now. I think the only two teams in the east that are definitely better than the Rockets are the Bulls and the Heat. Story of the last decade, though, I suppose.
My lord. How do you people not get it yet. 30 of the last 31 NBA Title winning teams have been lead by a superstar player who has been or will be in the Hall of Fame. That is a SUPERSTAR HALL OF FAME type player. Those type of players are drafted by a team or they chose to go to a team with another SUPERSTAR HALL OF FAME type player. As good as Kyle Lowry, Martin, or whoever can be, they will NEVER be that quality of superstar. That quality of superstar is rare for 1 big reason. They don't just have talent, skill and measurements. They have that innate desire to win at all costs, no matter what, no matter where. They will force everyone around them to give into that mantra, and if their team will not they leave or get rid of those people. That "winning breeds winning" is false, because this level of superstar DOES NOT NEED someone else breeding that inside of them or fanning those flames. That mantra is so written in everything they do on the basketball court that no one can doubt it. It is so in them that they inspire that in the players around them. Now yes, that player someones finds themselves on a bad team, but that player never loses that superstar talent or passion, and he will go out force the situation to change to do so. In the past, that level of player would often trust that his front office will put him in a position to do so, but no longer. Today's player with that caliber chooses where he wants to be and with whom he wants to play, and none of those players are going to choose the Rockets.
The point is that TANKING has never successfully brought a team such a player. If your team sucks, it sucks, and you go from there. But when it's already pretty good, you don't bet everything on getting such a player in the lottery. If we do that, it only sets us back another couple years in the rebuilding process.
First of all, It is much, much harder to go from good to great than to go from suck to good. Second, it depends on what your goal is as a team and organization. If it is simply to be good, then you follow your strategy. If it is to be great, then your strategy is flawed because waiting for your pretty good team to start to suck adds even more years to that rebuilding process
Uh... for my pretty good team to start to suck is exactly what you pro-tankers are asking for... so yeah, I agree with you. And it may be harder to go from good to great than from suck to good, but it's even harder to go from suck to great, which sort of goes along with the above. Also, you admit that if a superstar isn't surrounded by a team that buys into his winning mantra, then he looks to bolt. So then you DO see that winning breeds winning. It's just that superstars usually bring the winning themselves. Also, past results are not a guarantee of future returns. History is not necessarily as valuable of a lesson here as some seem to think it is, especially considering how much things have been changing here. I mean the Rockets have a solid team that, as I said earlier, is just one major piece away IMO. Plus, we have only something like $35M on the books this off-season, while most of our best players will still be under contract. That's a set up for a potentially great off-season. On the other hand, if we tank, we'll have to climb all the way back up in one of the deepest conferences in NBA history. That is going to be a GRUELING process. We should at least to see how the rest of the season pans out before we try to have a fire sale. We have good pieces here that aren't worth throwing away on a very risky gamble.
im an idiot for wanting to see anthony davis or andre drummond in red. maybe i should want to want a d-league star that the rockets waive and start a thread about it.
And actually, to go along with the above, it's not really any harder to go from suck to good than from good to great. Think about that logically. The distribution of quality remains about the same from year to year. You got some teams at the bottom, some teams in the middle, and some teams at the top. They're constantly shifting around. Some teams go from suck to "meh" or from "meh" to good or from good to great (or the opposite direction) every year. But regardless of whether you agree with that, the rest of the point stands. No, but there's a good chance you're an idiot if you want us to tank for those guys when there's no guarantee we'll get the player you want, or that they'll even have the impact you want. THAT'S why tanking is stupid. You don't TRY to lose. If losing happens, it happens. It's not going to set our clocks forward at all by trying to lose.
tanking means playing young talent and trade some players to position yourself for future prospects. you still keep players you know will work. even some vets. like ive said before, just think of it as strategically positioning your team for a higher draft pick. is that an easier pill to swallow?
We don't have any young talent that is not currently playing that is worth playing, and the guys who are playing right now are all worth keeping (except possibly Scola) unless the price is right, in which case, it wouldn't be tanking.
i've already addressed this a couple times in this thread... That was a pretty different situation, not to mention an exception, and not a rule. But you can go back and find those posts for more detail if you care.
2 years ago those bolded words were Hasheem Thabeet and Johnny Flynn. 1. Majority of teams who tank never go anywhere. You look at history and see guys like Kobe and TD, I look at history and see teams like the Memphis, Pistons and Pacers who are at the end of their 5-year rebuilding phase. Are those teams any better than what the Rox have now? How do you guarantee we won't endure 5 years of suck and end up in the same stare? 2. We won't suck enough to get more than a top 5-10 lottery pick, other teams are just so bad. I'm not willing trade Lowry for spare parts just so we can get a higher pick, and without trading Klow we won't get that top 3 pick you want build around.
No they didn't. The team who tanked was actually Boston Celtics, who tanked to get TD and ended up with Lenny Bias, who died right before the season was about to start. Tanking=FAIL.
