it would mean the team is better than either Utah, Wolves, Denver, Grizzlies or Mavs. Or one of the "superstar" teams from LA, Spurs or Thunder. Not happening. But if it does, it means rookies / Lin / Asik are just off the charts, because in all likelihood it would take 45+ games to achieve that. So sure, why wouldn't someone be ok with that.
I don't think plugging in Okafor or Ariza makes much of a difference. Beal will be a good player, but he won't turn the Wizards around by himself in his first year and neither will Nene, who IMO really isn't too good a fit next to Okafor. I think the Wizards will be better, but don't think they'll win more than 30-some games, which is about as much as I expect the Rockets to win. I don't think it's out of the question the Wizards could finish with a better record than the Rockets at all, but if I had to bet on it, I'd bet on the Rockets. The Blazers have some nice players, but no center and no bench. I expect both the Blazers and Suns to finish with a win record in the 30s. Again it's very conceivable that both teams will finish with a better record than the Rockets, but I don't think it's a lock in either case. New Orleans added some pieces, but I really don't like how those pieces fit together and they also lost Jack, Carl Landry and Ayon. Can't see them finishing with a better record than the Rockets. The Kings are the Kings. They will suck. Bet on it. If I could edit my post, the one thing I'd change is the Rockets, not "probably" being better than the Magic, but rather "maybe". They got robbed in the Howard deal, but there still are some solid players on their roster and they very well could finish with a better record than the Rockets also. Basically the teams who will be worse for sure are CHA, DET, CLE, SAC, NOH. So I guess the best case scenario, if you will, would the Rockets finishing with the 6th -- not 7th worst record.
Someone get Michael Moore on the line and get him to expose Stern's Manhattan Grove project. Asik vs Dalembert: 7 ppg, 7.5 rpg, and 1.7 bpg - Asik beats those numbers Can we just fast forward to next years draft? I think there's a flux capacitor prototype in the HMNS basement.
I hope you're wrong. I hope the Rockets lose 70 games next season, because that is the only way we are going to build a NBA Championship level team.
A couple responses to the people's thoughts: 1. The OP was not intended to argue whether the Rockets are better off being really bad or around .500. My point is that I don't think the Rockets' record will end up being all that bad-- whether any of us is happy about this is a different question. 2. I agree with the point that the situation in 09/10 is somewhat different than in 12/13. The 09/10 team is somewhat more experienced and has been together longer. The positive side to this is, however, that if the 12/13 team actually does somewhat well, it will likely say something very positive about the young players on the roster (in terms of both their future as Rockets players or as trade chips) even more so than when the 09/10 team did well. Back then, the 09/10 team's performance helped Landry's trade value, and Brooks' (though he wasn't traded until he had a bad 10/11 season) but a lot of the credit ended up going to older guys like Battier, Hayes and Scola, too. This year, it will be up to guys with 2 years or less experience to get things done, and to get credit for the wins. 3. I think people underestimate what it takes to be really bad in the NBA. It isn't hard to win 26-32 games and end up with something like a 7th or 10th pick, but to be a 10-20 win team would require a near total lack of talent (either by a concerted effort to deplete the team of talents or, more often, though years of stupid roster moves) and extra factors like having team cancers and criminals on the team. A 10-20 win team would require some combination of (a) Lin and Asik being horrible mistake contracts, (b) Parsons regressing, (c) all of the rookies being Jonny Flynn/Wes Johnson level busts, and (d) some players or coaches being revealed as child molesters.
Best case scenario. 1. Morey doesn't make any desperation moves. 2. The Rockets lose 70 games and we win the number one pick. 3. Jeremy Lin becomes an all-star and wins all-star MVP. 4. Lamb or D-Mo win ROY. 5. We sweep the Mavs.
Also, remember this: The Rockets can have more than $26.5M in cap room coming into 2013. A good record with a young team will help FA signing/S&T efforts.
no way no how. The 09/10 team, like others have stated was extremely battle tested and had just been through a war of a 7 game series with the lakers, we were blessed to have some grizzly veterans in Luis, Shane and Chuck. We also had youth with playoff experience and had already gelled with other players on the team. Most people knew their roles and where they fit on the team. Keep smoking that good stuff. We will be a bottom of the barrel team, the west is loaded with better teams. The 2012-2013 is a novelty act and once the suckage begins, no one outside of Rockets fans (which i am) will care what Lin does.
This team is not bad enough to be the worst. That's why we need to put the best effort to be one. We need to win less than 8 games. There is no point being a mediocre team and then trade half of the team the next season, again and again. If Rockets can not get a top 5 pick, I think Morey needs to resign.
The Durant-Westbrook team wasn't that hot until the last couple of years. So no, young players, even with out of the world talent, don't win much.
Here's the thing: Your reasoning is in retrospect. Knowing that the 09/10 team had a .500+ record, folks now see them as battle tested and having grizzly veterans. Back in the summer of 2009, a lot of people didn't think the Rockets were "battle tested" or didn't think that their "battle tested-ness" mattered. Bottom line: That team was more talented than they were given credit for (the under-rating of the talent level had much to do with the fact that a number of these guys were low draft picks).
Winning more games than expected will probably depend on Asik extending his defensive production to around 30 minutes a game, can't see this young roster winning too many games without a good defense.
but they were battle tested, and as a unit too, regardless of what people might've thought. it's a measurable quality. while this team is basically rebuilt over one summer out of pieces with little to none familiarity among themselves, little to none playoffs experience. Or winning culture experience in general. And even less any kind of NBA experience overall. It just seems less likely that they would be as successful. Unless you dismiss value of chemistry / deep understanding of a system / experience.
people might call that group relatively inexperienced and young compared to the likes of Pistons or Spurs. But compared to this group, the difference is stark.
I think Stern has come to the realization that having super teams in the major markets is a good thing for TV ratings, and as such is a good thing for the NBA.
