He is a solid role player. That's about it right now. If we are going to judge Trob off of right now might as well do the same with Patterson. Patterson is a solid role player at best, not a definitely starter. Morey will be able to replace Patterson in one off-season surely. Either by signing a old vet that may be better or by any of the young PFs we have simply getting better. As for Robinson, it's silly to think that he's not going to improve from this season. It's his rookie year, it happens. With a off season of work I'm sure he'll be much better.
The team overall has gotten better-- Lin is better now than he was, better chemistry among him, Parsons, Asik, Harden, etc. Also, not facing these teams in the 2nd half of b2b helps. What Patterson gave the team-- 118 ORtg, nearly .600 TS%, few turnovers and high awareness on both ends of the floor is missed. The replacement PFs have not performed as consistently as he (and Morris) has-- as evidenced by how many of them the team has run through in a month. If the PF position is not an issue, McHale wouldn't have had to try so many guys in search of one (or really two, since you want to have a sub also) on which he can rely. Also, there is just objectively no denying that the schedule got softer. You'll always have some good opponents and some bad ones, but if you look at objective measures like combined win% of opponents and # of rest days before each game, it is pretty clear that the Rockets have had it easy vs how it was earlier this season.
It's pretty clear that the Rockets couldn't beat an elite team with Bargnani out there doing pretty much nothing on both ends of the floor and now they can.
Robinson is going to be an elite rebounder and defender, in a mini Rodmanesque mold, where his offensive game goes is a complete crapshoot.
I agree Patterson can be replaced. We just have not found the guy yet-- and it certainly doesn't look like Robinson is the guy. And having different guys "step up" for a game or two is not a very good solution because you'll have to spend some time each game trying out guys and see if they "have it" tonight or not and the time you spend figuring it out may well cost you the game. It now looks like the the non-PF portion of the team has improved enough and the schedule has been soft enough (both in terms of opponents and more so in terms of rest days and home-away split) for the team to make playoffs despite issues at PF. However, having at least one more or less reliable PF could make a difference both in terms of seeding and possibly pulling an upset (or at least win a game or two) once playoffs start. As I said, the issue isn't what Patterson is-- nobody is arguing he should be 100% off limits for trades and most of us (other than the OMG PPAT SUCKS!!! crowd) agree that he's a good role player. The issue is whether Robinson is even worth giving up a good role player for. Trading Patterson is not by itself a bad idea-- the whole "OMG U LOVE PAT SO MUCH!" thing is a red herring. My point is that trading him FOR ROBINSON is a bad deal because not only is Robinson is not useful now, I also don't see non-negligible probability of he become that good a player or valuable as an asset in the future. What I see in Robinson's future, assuming he gets over "rookie mistakes" (which he likely will at some point), is the PF version of Trevor Ariza-- On D, an often effective defender due to his quickness, but gambles a bit too much. On offense, a guy who will pull off some flashy dunks but shoots a low % from basically inside and outside and tends to make more negative plays (like bad turnovers) than positive ones when you tally up the numbers.
But Patrick Bargnani was 100% bad now in his 4th year in the league and 100% not going to grow into an all-star level talent in the future.
Because they got traded for each other. Because even if TJones >>>>>> both, TJones+Pat is still better than TJones+Robinson. If TJones is really good, he would have eventually earned the minutes left by Morris and maybe even supplant Patterson as starter even without the trade.
Patterson is the greatest role player the Rockets could possibly ever have an we trade him.... Sack Morey, Sack McHale, Sack the fitness coach!!
Reading this makes me laugh... a lot. You are trying to impy that Houston has had a soft schedule and thats the reason PPat has not been missed but you completely ignore the fact that Houston has had some very quality wins since PPat has been gone. You have also ignored the fact that even with PPat on the team, the Rockets net production was better when he was not on the floor. You make up excusses for everything. As I've pointed out, the Rockets have their 3 best wins of the season with out PPat against SAS, OKC and LAC. Without PPat: - 13 wins 7 losses - .650 winning percentage - 4 road wins 4 road losses - .500 road winning percentage - Quality Road Wins against Brooklyn and Golden State (Play-off teams) - Quality Home Wins against OKC, SAS, Utah, LAC and Dallas (All are in the play-off picture and all but one will be in the play-offs) - Offense: Pts per 100 Poss.110.6 - Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 106.8 - Net Points per 100 Possessions +3.8 With PPat: - 29 wins 26 losses - .527 winning percentage - 11 Road wins 18 Road losses - .379 Road winning percentage - Quality Homes Wins against Bulls, Knicks, Jazz, Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Grizzlies, Hawks, Lakers, Nets, Jazz, Warriors - Quality Road Wins against the Hawks, Knicks, Bulls, Bucks, Jazz and Warriors - Offense: Pts per 100 Poss. 112.1 - Defense: Pts per 100 Poss. 109.7 - Net Points per 100 Possessions +2.4 Looking at all those stats and facts I don't think you can pick out one singe fact that supports the theory that the Houston Rockets miss Patrick Patterson at all. The offense was 1.5 Pts per 100 Poss. better with Pat on the court but the defense was 2.9 Pts per 100 Poss. worse with PPat on the floor. That means the Rockets are 1.4 Pts per 100 Poss. better with out PPat. Of course the most important indicator is the fact that the Rockets are winning more games with out PPat and at the end of the day that is all that really matters when looking at this season.
2 bad games from Pat now but I thought the reason we got rid of him for TRob was because Pat was going to cost us too much? Is he too good to pay or is he a scrub that we sold high on (not sure you'd count TRob as a win though)? People here are picking the flavor of the day to support their justification for liking the trade. Personally I think both teams sold high but I think Pat will still be an NBA player 2 years from now while we will have an "expiring contract". Pat was a good bench player for our system. He was given the starter role because he was the best that we had at the time. He would still be a good player for our system. People want to hate Pat because of his rebounding weakness yet they want to love the new guys because of the unknown (and draft pick order) inspite of their many weaknesses. We gave up a role player for an athletic person who plays basketball. It's not that I loved Pat so much that I disliked the trade but, it's because we traded chemistry on a playoff run for a player that already was showing signs of being the 2012 bust poster child. Shopping in the bargin bin usually doesn't net you any bargins. I know it's only 1 game, but I hope TJones can fill the role we need and I do hope they rebuild the chemistry in time to at least make a series out of whoever we play.
I don't understand. The reward for this trade far outweighs the risk. +We finally get to play all the young PFs we've been collecting +We get a top 5 draft pick that has potential to be something The second one is big here. The reward is that you can help Trob develop into a great player. YOU guys may not think it possible, but Morey obviously thinks Trob can be an asset to this team. That's really all that matters because he's the one that made the trade. The negatives? - We give up a role player That's really it. So in the end we risked losing a role player for a shot at getting a guy with star player potential. Morey will make this trade nearly every time because if you are still building your team then potential is what wins you championships. Sitting on role players and falling in love with role players is what keeps you mediocre.
1 game? Try 3 years. The guy is irrelevant. The Rockets play better with him off the court, back when he was on the team, and now that he is gone for good. This is Aaron Brooks all over again. And this time, you are DD. I am sick and tired of people calling Patterson a "solid role player". Chandler Parsons is a "solid role player". Omer Asik is a "solid role player". Jeremy Lin right now is a "solid role player". If Ortg is the only thing you have for me, then I guess Greg Smith is our franchise player. Jason Thompson has nothing to do with why Patterson didn't play much last night. The reason why Patrick Patterson didn't play much is because Patrick Patterson doesn't play much. This is a guy that can barely get off the bench for one of the worst teams in the league. If that is not the definition of irrelevant, I don't know what is.
I couldn't care less how patient or impatient people are with Robinson. He is and always was a crap shoot. Said it from the start. We were never counting on him to carry us to the playoffs or win games. Who cares, we gave up a corpse for him.
Most of us (other than the OMG T-ROB SUCKS!!! crowd) agree that he is an athletic young forward with potential to develop into a good player. This issue is whether you are letting your stubborn ego cloud this judgement.
You are right that the bottom line is how good Robinson really is. Listening to Morey's interview this morning, it seems that he has more confidence in Jones panning out than Robinson. (Of course, the context was discussion of Jones's performance last night, so take it with a grain of salt.) I am still convinced that Robinson is just a trade asset for Morey. In his mind, Jones is most likely to develop into a star than all the other young PFs, including Robinson.
