Which contending team did we put together after Harden pushed CP3 out of the team? I must've missed it. The Rockets went from 65 wins to 53 wins following the departure of Ariza. Im not saying it was all because of him but he was a BIG part of the team. And certainly our lack of continuity is one of the reasons we dropped 12 wins the following year.
Oh, there was no way they could recover from what Harden did to them in less than a year, the Westbrook bomb went off, but they managed to unload him for a better player AND a pick and then landed an amazing up and coming star to pair with Wall and Harden. Right now, the Rockets have the best team they've had since CP3's first season here.....and allowing for roster flexibility by not getting bogged down with washed up scrubs is how they were able to do that.
OP seems like a reasonable guy. I know there is some Tillman stooge "good ole boy" arguing in this thread though LOL.
No, not having Ariza had nothing at all to do with fewer wins the next season, it had to do with CP3's health. Like 100% to do with that. Ariza was not a positive player by the time he left the Rockets. Not paying him was a smart move.
Again how does signing a veteran to a one year deal hamper the team's flexibility going forward? You're not making sense.
It's not always about one year deals, for example, some in this thread are whining about not signing a different washed up scrub to a contract extension that he doesn't deserve....those are the kinds of moves that hurt roster flexibility. Moving on from Ariza was just a good idea. He was godawful in the playoffs and he was going to keep getting playing time as long as he was here. That's when the GM saves the head coach from themselves.
Ariza was traded for positive asset after he signed his one year deal. We could've signed him and flipped him for draft capital. How is signing him not a "smart" move when we struggled to find a SF all year that year to replace him. Melo and James Ennis were a freaking joke. You can argue it was a smart "financial" move because it allowed Tilman to save money. Hmmm yay? Basketball wise, it was stupid.
We seem to have "fans" here that get alot of pleasure from seeing Tilman Fertitta save money. Here's hoping he can save alot more money in the future. Go Tilman! Go luxury tax saving!
Because if we had him, we still wouldn't have had a starting caliber SF but we'd keep throwing him out there anyway. He'd be terrible, but just like the PJ Tucker apologists, we'd have people here defending him anyway. He was one of the worst players on the team when we dumped him, but we have people suggesting that not bringing him back hurt the team. It's ridiculous. There's just a group of fans who will seemingly simp for any washed up scrub that either used to be on the Rockets or is still there and wants an extension.
You do understand that I'm talking about more than Just Ariza right? When talking about Ariza, I said that it's good he wasn't signed because he was a terrible player and if he was on the team, the coach was going to play him, meaning the team would suffer as a result. Forcing the team to move on was not a bad thing. Hell Ariza being just godawful was a BIG part of why the Rockets never managed to beat the Warriors.....and you apparently wanted more of that. I don't see why you are so hung up on wanting to set millions on fire when it wouldn't even help the team. Would you be happier if the team was constantly making stupid wasteful moves like that? Would it enhance your enjoyment? It certainly wouldn't make the team any better.
The Ariza trade to the Blazers was largely to cut the Blazers' tax bill, though Ariza actually played pretty well there for the brief stretch after getting traded. The Kings got Bazemore's terrible deal for it's last year (that Morey wanted the Rockets to give him for what it's worth) and two second round picks. Basically the Kings got off longer guaranteed money to Ariza and the Blazers saved money on their tax bill. We'll just have to disagree on the Celtics. It's not exactly the same but it's the same ballpark. They do have a longer horizon with Tatum and Brown but Kemba is aging and signed for a lot. The east is wide open. The Lakers aren't the seemingly impenetrable dynasty the KD Warriors were and Lebron could slip at any point. The Celtics have no other obvious way to get better and Hayward right now is much more likely to be better this year and maybe the next year or two than Ariza was at 33. So any leeway you give them for having a longer timeline should be offset by how much the dropoff from Hayward to other options is. If our situation matched the Celtics and Tilman let Hayward walk and replaced him with Thompson CF would be all over him. Regarding Les and money, we let Parsons walk over cash to try and replace him with a next best option, though that fortunately worked out extremely well. For your other beefs I'm not really arguing one way or another. Tilman's call to trade for Russ was terrible and he has to own that. But the complaints about not spending just based on what's been done with payroll (and not in light of saying he'll spend, etc.) really isn't abnormal in the NBA. Sarver isn't an "everybody does it" comparison. It's more of a comparison that nothing the Rockets have done in terms of cost cutting under Tilman is anywhere close to as egregious as Saver with the mid 2000s Suns.
You know what doesn't make the team better? Declined to sign your 3+D veteran and instead attempted to replace him with Journey man on minimum deal(Ennis) or washed up has-been(melo). I can argue that we still don't have a starting caliber SF since Ariza. No, you're right its not about him. This was never about Ariza. Its about our cheap owner declining a fair market deal (one year 15 mil) for whats supposed to be a championship contender and seeing a potential dynasty fall apart due to his repeated frugal and ill informed decision.
Not having Ariza was probably worth a couple of wins, but the biggest difference in the two years was CP3's dropoff. Plus Clint played 7 less games and regressed a little. Losing Luc was big too. Bzdelik's "retirement" for the start of the season also hurt a lot. And even if we'd resigned Ariza there's a pretty good chance the dropoff he showed with the Suns and Wizards would have happened here too.
Not signing a "3 and D veteran" who couldn't make wide open 3's and wasn't playing defense anymore isn't a negative, no matter how desperately you try to spin it as one.
Draymond actually played 18 minutes against Portland (0 points, 4 boards, 4 assists). I'm sure he's getting back into game shape but I also don't think he is or will be anywhere close to the player he was a few years ago.
No argument there. It was a series of event that led to the team's major decline that year. Like i said Ariza isnt the reason we fell 12 games in the win column. But his departure was exacerbated by the fact that we didn't have a single playable SF that year.
Yeah. The main premise of the thread was a sort of counter to the general narrative about Tilman and the tax. Part of the thread though was also to laugh at how ridiculously terrible Oubre has been and to enjoy the Warriors demise (though again, I do give credit to Lacob for shelling out the cash).
Does it really matter though? On a one year deal, we could have kept continuity, kept Ariza's value up and gotten some assets for it. There is no reason to believe Trevor was looking for 15 million exactly, just more than what we were offering him. Ariza was far more valuable to our squad than James Ennis. If you just won 65 games you pay whatever you need to to win. Those GS games were very very CLOSE. And I have no doubt that his contract could have been used for flexibility at the deadline. Way better situations than Anderson as well. They literally arent the same. Their players are in their lower to mid twenties, their CORE pieces. They have a really good amount of time. They arent in a win now situation. They also did not win 65 games the year prior and are in the easier conference. Well the Celtics do have ways to get better lol, they just refuse to do them because Ainge is cheap. Hayward was ass for them in the playoffs and didnt move the needle for them. Losing him isnt a substantial loss. That has nothing to do with their ownership being cheap btw, it has everything to do with Danny Ainge being a weasel. Hayward is a good player but not a needle mover for them. We are on the other hand could have used Ariza against GS because the series WAS THAT CLOSE. I mean maybe? It doesnt matter because again, the Celtics have a future. We did not. We needed everything we could to improve the team even at the margins but the owner made us to crap deals in the off season and crap deals at the deadline because he was cheap. It wasnt just Ariza and you know that. Morey was going to pay him if Bosch signed, he did not. So I mean...it is what is. Morey and Less did good work there. Its abnormal when your team wins 65 games the year prior and takes the GOAT team to 7. He didnt want to improve teams at the margins. Cleveland did that with less and so did the Warriors. We had James Harden going on a historic MVP run and the man STILL made Morey do cost cutting deals at the deadline. I'm sorry bro but he does not get off the hook. He's trash. And him being cheap isnt the only thing that's a problem.
