You didn't really say anything that wasn't brought up by at least a couple others. But here goes: 1. The general reaction of exec right after a deal isn't all that relevant. Execs has the same reaction about the Landry for KMart deal (in fact, I heard Cuban complain about it in person at the Sloan Conference) and it turns out both guys are at about the sake talent level (good specialists with some flaws). Also, not all execs reacted the same way-- at least one spoke to David Aldridge and opined that SAC got the better end of the deal. 2. HOU does have a glut of young PFs and can use a star level player at that position. However, this doesn't mean trading Patterson for Robinson is an improvement for now or the future. The better way to go about it is to use the offseason cap room to obtain a proven star PF to pair with Harden. They can then make a decision about Pat, DMo, Jones and White in the summer. There will be some lotto bust available in the summer too if HOU wants to take a chance on another TWill, Jordan Hill, Thabeet type at that moment. Trading Patterson has nothing to do with "vetting" young PFs. DMo would have gotten minutes with only Morris gone. Smith was getting minutes even before the deal. And neither Jones nor White get minutes even after the deal.
You might be right when its all said and done, but can you at least wait until he has an offseason to permanently label him a lotto bust. Is that really that much to ask for.
the better way? no sir. that is one way. a way that is still available. what morey did was increase his odds by taking a shot midseason while still leaving his offseason alternative available. he was also never going to re-sign patterson, so losing him was a foregone conclusion - something you seem to ignore. And his real risk was missing the playoffs which would have provided him an additional first round draft pick. really horrible downside (oh please). moreover, it had been reported for weeks that dmo was playing well in practice and mchale himself said he deserved playing time, but on this team with high turnover players, he couldn't bring himself to play another guy that was turnover prone. Had it been left to mchale, he would have played smith over dmo (we'd have had a few more wins and already secured a plyoff spot) and dmo would have never gotten a sniff. here's where subjectivity comes into play. I believe that giving dmo (and now trob) playing time now, greatly expedites the development curve and even if they can never be players - allows management the time to see them and make a decision moving forward. What if mdo or trob is the solution at power forward but you don't know it because they don't play? what is the risk there? The risk there is spending cap money on a player like josh smith or the like when you could be looking to upgrade elsewhere. I'm thoroughly amazed that someone like you is missing this point. we are making the playoffs this year. we always were. but it wasn't really about that. hell, it's not even about sneaking out of the first and upsetting a team. it's about getting there. developing the team and starting our real run beginning next year. will dmo/trob/smith be all the better next year for having been in the playoffs this year? undoubtedly. would they have gotten that same boost had patterson/mook been manning the four? Not a freaking chance. We'd have cap space and too many unanswered questions. /thread
At this point you aren't even hoping to be proven wrong. You're openly rooting for the Lakers and Jazz to prove a point.
1. Patterson does not have to be gone, even after next season. The team can well sign him to a reasonable contract to back up a Josh Smith-type PF. Moreover, even if you don't want to pay Patterson as a FA, it doesn't mean trading him right now for Robinson is the right choice. Instead of Robinson, getting a late 1st round pick or 2nd round pick (either now or at draft night) may be the better option given the salary implications. 2. McHale said he told management not to send DMo to the D-League because he wanted to find him minutes with Houston and it was reported that McHale was OK with trading Morris. So, I'm pretty sure his plan was to give DMo a chance. As for using Smith at PF over DMo: If McHale really preferred that, he wouldn't have played DMo before Smith (and then started DMo before he started Smith). Like I said, all evidence (including McHale's own words) suggest that McHale planned on playing DMo after Morris gets traded. 3. Given that DMo would have played no matter what, the issue really is just Robinson vs. Patterson. You can "take a look" at Robinson without giving up anyone for him-- NBA game video are available to all teams and you can even go to their games to watch him live. He just isn't that good whether he's wearing a Kings uniform or a Rockets uniform.
If the Rockets made the playoffs then I may still be right. NBA games are probabilistic events. Just because the trade lowered the probability of making the playoffs from, say, 95% to 85% at that time, it doesn't mean that the 85% chance event won't come true. It's like having a 85% FT shooter take a technical FT when a 95% shooter is available. Just because he makes the shot it doesn't mean the decision didn't lower your chances. As for ORtg: It is not the ultimate measure of offensive skills or talent, it measures efficiency without regard to things like volume of shots taken. So, players can choose only to take easy shots within 5 feet of the basket (the Chandler and Koufos types) off passes and rebound are going to have an easier time to have a high ORtg than a guy who has to generate offense for himself and his team (the Harden and Kobes of the NBA). However, it is a good comparison when we are talking about two guys who have similar roles and take on similar offensive burdens-- and Pat and Robinson are two such guys: both are PFs and both have similar usage rate (roughly 18% with Houston for both). In fact, Robinsion typically shoots closer to the basket than Patterson does and one would expect Robinson to be more efficient as a result-- but this isn't the case. ORtg in this case does tell us quite a bit about how efficiently each of them has peformed on the offensive end.
I think at this point Carl is rooting for Robinson to fail LOL. His point must be proven above all else!
Nope. Not rooting against Robinson or the Rockets making the playoffs. Just giving an objective assessment of what takes place on the court. I am not rooting for Robinson to fail any more than the inventor of ORtg is. I am stating the #Truth. You people can believe whatever conspiracy theory you want about my motivation, the #Truth is still the #Truth. #BeWell.
You're not stating #truth. You're stating your opinion. And you're entitled to it. But you are hating on Robinson because you disagree with the trade. That is my opinion. But I think there's some #truth to it.
I think the true objective way to look at things is that Robinson deserves more than just his rookie season before he's declared a bust. Not saying he'll pan out. Not even saying it's likely that he'll pan out. But saying he's a bust after a rookie season is most certainly not objective.
1. Patterson had multiple years here and was wildly inconsistent and had proven who he was. If you are an advocate of someone like Smith as being the endgame, then I understand your position but completely disagree. We need a second "star". Additionally, the late first you reference was the downside of the trade if we missed the playoffs. I really don't get your point here. Again, let me restate. We got a top five pick (who admittedly was available because of his questionable performance) and our downside of missing the playoffs was getting a late lotto pick. That's both what you are stating as more desirable and the potential of a guy you think your coaching staff can do a better job with in the long run. 2. Yet after he said that he made the comment I referred to with not wanting to get another high turnover guy on the floor. He's a coach to and wants to win - just as any coach should. Morey looks to the future while he looks at now. 3. With the trainwreck that is Sacto - how would you even be able to effectively vet a player off tape? Is he coachable? Is he being asked to do what is in his skill set? Is the locker room to a point where everyone is tuning out the coach? And you are correct. I made a poor reference when I said he would have started smith. In fact, if he had kept Patterson, he would have deferred to Delfino as the backup four as he had been doing previously. (btw - a lineup that performed better than the starting lineup with patterson) but go ahead.... keep the lobs coming and I'll keep slamming them through.
You're so convinced Robinson is a bust, yet would have been okay with the trade if done on draft day. If you think he's a bust, why do the deal EVER?
If you say so. I think it'd make you wrong in this case because it seems the Rockets didn't have Patterson in their long term plan and got something in return before some team overpaid for him. But their roles are not similar and Patterson took more shots and got the ball more. Robinson does get closer shots to the rim,....and his FG% has risen considerably since playing for the Rockets but he's not a part of the offense at all. Either way, most of your argument is based on Robinson being a bust. Because if he's not then this move looks absolutely brilliant...and if he is? What did the Rockets really lose? How good is Patterson here? Maybe it's just because you think we gave up the next Pau Gasol and most here think Patterson is what he is now and likely won't improve much.
Clearly no one can say definitively that Robinson will be a bust and I am not saying that I have that power of prediction. What I am saying, however, is that available evidence of his NBA play, both with the Kings and with the Rockets, does not look good on that front. I am not sure why we must not form an opinion on a player's performance or future potential because he's played "only" 66 regular season NBA games. In fact, teams do this stuff all the time for various purposes. Coaches like Kevin McHale have to make a judgment on whether to give a guy minutes. The Rockets had to decide how much to pay Jeremy Lin based on 64 NBA games played, they had to decide whether to trade Marcus Morris after 71 NBA games, and they had to decide whether to match a contract offer to Carl Landry after 42 NBA games. They got rid of Jermaine Taylor and Joey Dorsey after they played 10 games as Rockets. Many of us here were excited about Chandler Parsons' future before he completed his first season, in which he played 63 games. We were similarly excited about Chase Budinger and Carl Landry based on less than 66 games played. It is really not too early to make a judgment on Thomas Robinson's abilities and potential-- this isn't the last word on this topic and things might well change, but 91 ORtg, 20% turnover rate, and headless chicken style play on the court are meaningful data points.
