This is the last thing you want to do. Letting Asik go to them would be a terrible decision for us and everyone else in the league. Why do we need a third star. Don't you think that Harden/Howard will already generate enough open looks for other players. I think we could legitimately win it all with the team we have if the chemistry is right.
Rockets stars: Harden and Howard Rockets rising stars: Parsons, Lin, Asik, Beverly(, and Casspi if he somehow stays hot) Rockets very good / solid players: Garcia, Motiejunas, Smith Rockets special pieces: Brewer Rockets ???: Canaan, Covington, Camby, etc. ^Not an exhaustive list, but I think it's obvious that we have so much firepower in the first and second rows alone, that superstar money wouldn't make up for the cost in talent to fit the budget. Don't forget the value of the right-place-right-time hero role player (i.e. superstars aren't necessary at every position)! If 10 guys drop 10 points a piece, that's 100 points right there. This shouldn't be hard to see.
The term 'star' throws people off, what all teams want are players who can generate their own offense and create open looks for other players. The Rockets have three players who do this Harden, Howard and Lin. Parsons success last year was driven by the fact that Harden and Lin created wide open 3s and dunks for him. I personally think the Rockets dont need to do anything to win a title. There are numerous ways to win a Championship. Two bigs like Duncan/Robinson, Hakeem/Thorpe, Parrish/McHale or one big with shooters like Duncan's Spurs or Hakeem's Rockets, Or two dynamic wings like the Bulls, or dynamic backcourt backed up with strong defensive frontcourt like the Thomas/Dumars/Johnson Pistons. So i know everyone can see the Heat and think they must copy them but please do your homework first. The Rockets dont need LMA or Love, actually those players probably want to be here more. I think the Rockets are trying to create a hybrid of the 95 Rockets and the 89 Pistons, a dynamic backcourt (Lin, Beverly, Harden) backed up with a formidable front line defense (Asik/Howard) but the ability to switch from inside out action to drive and kick, also the ability to run off of defense like the 95 Rockets and use the three point line as a weapon like the Rockets.
The risk/reward for stars is interesting. Nothing destroys a team's competitiveness faster than an injured star. The most recent example is Westbrook on OKC. Having $16 million in salary injured makes OKC not a contender in the West until Westbrook comes back. The best they can hope to do is tread water and hope fora quick return. This is despite having KD, the second best player in the NBA. This is in stark contrast to what would happen if someone like Ibaka goes down. If someone is interested, a quick WARP study would put some numbers behind this line of thought.
The interesting part, I think, is that a third star is somewhat of a misnomer. There aren't enough shots to support three starts on a team. So in order to get three starts on a team, they have to show that they are stars on different teams. Consider Harden, no one knew *how* good he was exactly until he came here. So, when one team gets two other team's best players, then that team has three stars. I think teams can only really have two stars. Bosh was a star, but now he is a really good role player. If he was always on Miami he would never be considered a star. We may have three stars already. Who knows, who cares? Stars, schmars. If we can make a move that makes us better, we will do it. And that decision is a lot more complicated than just adding another "star" player IMO. Just thinking out loud. First thoughts. I wonder how good James Worthy would be as the main guy. How good would Dennis Johnson be as a number two guy? We found out how good Cassell and Horry were after they left. I disagree that anyone has anything inherent in them that is "starness". /IMO
I can see the possibility of this. I also see validity in the "we don't need a 3rd star" argument. I tend to think that we'll use Asik to nab an underrated difference-maker such as Paul Millsap (who makes about 60% or so of Bosh's salary and outplays him), and then rely on having two All Stars (Harden and Howard of course) the underrated difference maker (Millsap or whomever) with Parsons potentially improving, too. If Morey shoots high, he'll let Asik and Lin walk and sign Love before signing Parsons to his extension. But that's a long wait. A more likely "third star" path would be to aim for one whose contract is not yet onerous. For example: Horford would be a great "get" (besides being a 4/5 rather than an Asik "5/5", he'd fill in the "H-town" billboards nicely) but he's Atlanta's lone All Star type and Atlanta would want to add to him rather than trade him Rondo would give us the playmaker and defender we need, although Ainge tends to overvalue his players (his recent fire sale notwithstanding), and I don't know if we'd have anything Morey'd give up
No trade this year. As for 2015...that's a long time away. LOTS can change til then and we may have our third star already. Lin and/or Parson have the potential to be all stars and who knows about our very young (DMo especially, at 22 y.o.) power forwards. As a Red Sox fan growing up I have seen what can happen when you trade away an up-and-coming rookie prospect like Jeff Bagwell.
Some statements I don't agree with: - "We have to start the best players in each position". Although that seems reasonable, I don't think it is always the best. You can have an extraordinary 1st unit that can achieve a differential of +15 regarding the opposing team. However if you lose by -16 with the 2nd unit, all the good things done by the 1st unit are neutralized/lost. So, for me, it's a matter of having a way to have more points than the opponent by the end of the game. Some teams, as SA Spurs, don't put their best players as starters. Ginobili is arguably one of the 3 best players on that team, and he is a 6th man, making sure that the Spurs can keep some sort of intensity (offensively and defensively) throughout all match. Same as Harden at OKC, and it worked well (OKC was much better with Harden than last year, and the starters were basically the same). So, for me, you have to allocate the players during the game minutes in a manner that will give us the optimal point differential at the end. Being honest, for me it's more important who are closing the game and his overall contribution than who are starting it. - "Lin is better with the 2nd unit"/"Beverly is more fitting with the 1st unit": At this point, any analysis of this kind is speculation or at max a longshot. Sure, we can base our opinion on the players skillset and project how would this could serve the other players in each formation. However, it will always be an opinion due to: lack of knowledge about how they will actually mesh (Howard is a new and very different factor from last year, for instance), basing your assessment on previous performance (the team was new, and getting to learn how to play together, the players are young and they could change a lot during the offseason, the coaching staff can learn an adapt the system better, etc..), not knowing peculiar issues that can occur with a lineup change (players confidence, specific matchups that could or could not benefit each lineup, overall competitiveness and chemistry inside the locker room, etc..). How can anyone affirm what would be the best? We really doesn't have the sample size to do that. If we had several games with Lin and Beverley alternating the starting position, maybe we could measure point differential for each configuration and come out with a conclusion that this or that could be more beneficial for the team. But, this team has 1 year (without a proper preseason in the first year) old, and this year Howard joined. No way we can affirm anything at this point. - "It would be best for Lin to be the 6th man": It may or may not be the case. We can have arguments that reinforces any of the 2 scenarios: Lin can be more ball dominant with the 2nd unit. Lin can have much more assists with the 1st unit and maximize the PNR with Howard. Lin can be the primary scoring option in the 2nd unit and improve his stats. Lin can be most easily defended with the 2nd unit being the focus of the opponents best defense players at the moment. - "Beverly is a better fit with Harden": well, yeah, if you consider that a "better fit" is the one who let Harden get most of the offensive burden. On the other hand, it will just make opposing defenders' life easier, making them focus and double-team Harden/Howard, not having to deal with Lin drives to the basket. On the other hand, with Lin, maybe there is a little bit defensive pressure on Harden. Who knows? If they can learn to adapt, after 1 year and a proper off-season, Lin and Harden can be a killer backcourt. Or not. The fact is that we can not assume Beverly is the better fit with Harden just because he will "step back" and pass/catch and shoot. It can either make Harden's life harder with opposing defenses, or easier, with more time with the ball. "Lin as a 6th man will have less minutes/less playing time with Howard)": Being a starter only assures one thing: he will be there at the opening tip. Not anything more. He can be a 6th man and play 47 minutes. It all depends on the rotation, and not on the fact of being a starter or not. Lin can be a 6th man and coincide with Howard most of the time. I could go on and on, but my point is that we are not able to make any statements so far. The team is to new, the players are to new, and the improvements/adjustments potentially made are still unknown. In my opinion, the analysis could be done like: Point differential for the 1st unit: - Lin in the 1st unit: +/- X1 - Beverly in the 1st unit: +/- Y1 Point differential for the 2nd unit: - Lin in the 2nd unit: +/- X2 - Beverley in the 2nd unit: +/- Y2 So, if X1+Y2 > X2+Y1, let's keep Lin as a starter. Otherwise, Beverley. If Lin can make the 2nd unit improve their differential higher than when we have him in the 1st, maybe he can be better starting on the bench. And even that is highly dependant of the rotations. Conclusion: we cannot know. But it's nice to wonder, though.
People here have been suggesting that Jeremy should come off the bench because in the starting lineup he won't get enough shots and his talents there would be wasted. Geez, I hope these aren't the same people who are in the meantime clamoring for a "3rd star" who will be minimized in the exact same place that JLin is in now. Trade for LMA, and then have him come off the bench as the 6th man. Yeah, see how long that works.
There is a thing called fit. Dwight Howard and LMA will complement each other. LMA is one of the best, if not the best mid range big man in the game. It's not hard to see the difference.
Umm hello...you already got Lin, a perennial superstar and top 10 pg in the NBA. John Wall got schooled by Lin every time and he's a max player do I don't know why anyone would want Wall. The only 3rd superstar I would even consider getting is KD or LBJ, everyone else mehh . Jones is already showing he has the PF potential.
