I would say the reasoning is sound, just that draft picks need to be rated at what their average expected value is at the time of the trade.
All I know is Camby and his backhanded high 5's were underrated. He played really well for us albeit a short time and running on his last legs.
The last 2 years have done nothin but hurt us. Years before that led to more mediocrity. Best deadline day deal would be morey growing a pair of balls, throwing away the stat sheet, and firing mchale. Just fire the guy. He doesn't belong in the nba. Don't wait for another first round loss because you're afraid of hurting team morale. This team sucks against top teams anyways, what's the point of chemistry? Would have been ecstatic with george of Karl.
the kevin martin deal - we gave up a broken star who was getting paid huge money for a serviceable scorer and some good potential draft picks and a potentially good big guy in Hill. Giving up Landry as part of the deal did suck but I think that was the best trade all around. After that I would say the Dragic trade since we got Dragic and a first round pick. Brooks went downhill since then. Lowry trade was great but in hindsight - many were scratching their head when we gave up our starting PG. And also we had to take on Brian Cook for Lowry - that was a low moment in Morey's career having to take on Brian Cook
What's impressed me the most about Maury is not his deadline deals, but all the post-season success he's had in the 8 years he's been the GM of the Rockets.
That's the thing. These were all short term rentals that led to nothing. If morey had the vision to hold onto a Dragic or lowry it would be different. If he held onto brooks last year instead of getting hamilton we would have beat portland. But the massive player turnover is a fantasy dork swinging at every thing.
The Harden deal included both Martin and the Toronto pick. Anyway, I've always been against multi-step reasoning in assessing trades. "We traded A for B, then traded B for C, so we traded A for C." What is not accounted for most of the time is how B's value changed over time, which had not been planned in the first trade. The fact is, those were two different trades and each needed to be evaluated separately.
