Ok Clutch, here we go again, I don't know what your problem is. Your comparison with the Clyde Drexler situation does not make sense in Hakeem's case for one simple reason: Clyde WANTED to go to Houston. Hakeem said that he would RETIRE if he was traded and he does NOT want to leave Houston. Is it that hard to understand? I AM surprised you don't see this and I don't know what your personal problem with me is. I have nothing but respect for the great web service you are running here, but I really don't know what the deal is with you insulting me without cause.
Well, I am happy to be able to contribute to this thread right at the beginning before anyone takes all my thunder! But IMHO, I think we should hold on to the team...FOR NOW. If by Christmas, we don't see progress and I mean BIG TIME, 8 in a row, 10 out of their last 11, 13 out of their last 15 wins type of progress, then we trade CHUCK and not Dream. It would be absolutely impossible for me to trade Dream and function properly. But, emotion aside, I would have to trade him ONLY IF he wishes. Its the most we can do to someone who brought us so much. If Dream wants, and to a certain extent Charles, then I say let them go. Though the team shows some flashes of possibilities, we have to look at the whole picture. If we trade them both, we can clear space and maybe(by some miracle of the biggest b-ball fan of all upstairs)we can make a run at Hill or Duncan or some big time free agent. Damn, I am so depressed just talking about all this. ------------------ Live Rocketball. Breathe Rocketball. Die with Rocketball.
A couple of thoughts on leadership: (1) Since when has Hakeem ever been a leader on this team??? IMHO Hakeem's biggest downside was that he has never been a vocal leader of the team. In fact, he was never a vocal leader in college as well. Hakeem has always deferred this role to other players. During the first championship season, Vernon Maxwell was the leader of the team, in the second championship season, Clyde Drexler was the leader of the team. It was never Hakeem. Maybe this is because Hakeem is a quiet person by nature. Maybe its because his is a foreigner whose English is, at times, weak. Maybe its because he is an African who cannot relate to the experience of the most of his American teammates. I have no idea. But when Hakeem led the team, it was with ability -- an ability that is much declined. (2) I do believe that Barkley has been an important person in the locker room. It is my understanding, however, that he does not get along with Steve Francis. More important, however, Barkley will be gone next year. So the only question is whether we should keep Barkley and his experience and leadership, which will only last one more year, or whether we should trade Barkley for whatever LONG-TERM value we can get for him. (3) Oh, and one other thing about leaders -- leaders don't let their team blow leads in the fourth quarter. I have never seen a team blow so many fourth quarter leads as the Rockets. So stick that in your leadership pipe and smoke it.
German: Hakeem wanted a long-term contract as part of being traded. His claim that he would retire was simply a ploy to get a better deal for himself.
No, I think Hakeem said that he would probably retire if they traded him this summer when the trade rumors with Toronto came up. You're talking about a different situation. Hakeem has clearly said that he does not want to be traded. Clutch's argument was that he doesn't understand why it is so hard to understand that it can be a GOOD thing to trade a player in order to help him get a ring and gave the example of the Clyde Drexler trade as a parallel to the Rockets situation. Then he went on to make a little uncalled for remark about not being surprised that I can't understand this. -- I would actually be thankful if someone could tell Clutch I am NOT one of the "troublemakers" he needs to pick as a target. -- I made the point that Clutch's example does not make sense since Clyde WANTED to be traded whereas Hakeem has repeatedly stated that he does NOT want to be traded and he even indicated he would retire. This happened this summer. Another difference, by the way, is that Clyde was also in a different situation in comparison to Hakeem because Hakeem already has two rings. If you, Clutch, were referring to Barkley, the difference remains that the player has not stated that he wants to be traded. It's more comparable in Barkley's case. However, Barkley has made negative remarks about Iverson before and I don't see how Philly has more of a chance to get a ring in the current situation than the Rockets. A sidenote: Is it very common that e-mails politely asking to stop the personal picking on persons just remain unanswered and instead it just continues? [This message has been edited by GermanRocket (edited November 23, 1999).]
German: Why are you picking on me again? ------------------ Rockets' biggest problem is not player talent levels, it is the coach's ineptitude.
Tod... Hakeem not a leader? You must be vocal in the shower to be a leader. jeeze. He has been the center of our chemistry since Rudy took over. Don't bother with that. Just reveals you as not being worth talking too again. Your Barkley/Francis remark wreaks of unsubstantiated rumor. For everyone else: Put your fantasy basketball stats aside-- No one has convinced me the team is better by trading intangibles and the organization's classy history, for psuedo stars that championship teams are willing to dump. Like that will help longterm chemistry of this team. Besides...what is this thread about anyhow when we clearly have taken drastic steps to rebuild. We have the #2 pick and the best PG in the draft. We have a man who with work and better fundamentals can be one of the top 5 dominating centers in the league. We have a true small forward better than Horry ever was (except when Horry wants to play Defense), we have two very active shooting guards....we have Massenburg who has shown me a skilled turnaround jumper and arguably fills Harrington's shoes. That is a strong nucleus from which to grow. Complementing that nucleus can be down with roll players and your occassional big free agent. We simply are not at a point of franchise desparation here that the Bulls are at. The players that come from trading your franchise leaders must be measured against how it effects longterm team chemistry. We already have a nucleus that this thread is saying we don't have. But nucleus's means nothing if the franchise does not pass leadership of the team down.
Couple of things,again: 1. The concept that the fourth quarter is being blown because of Hakeem's poor leadership is utter nonesense. For most of the reasons mentioned here over the last several weeks including: rookie PG, unsettled rosters, turnovers, individual focus, scoring versus shooting and poor Free Throws. All of this points to execution on the court by professional players paid to walk the walk. 2. Just to put all of this in perspective.In 1980-81 we went 40-42 with SEVERAL eight runs of losing. The Rockets with both a veteran and youngster blend led by the aging Moses Malone went to the finals. We lost to the Celtics, a team with an equal quantity of veterans and kids led by Larry Bird, in a memorable hard fought series that ended at 4-2 for Boston. We were the 6th seed out of six places in the West. We remained the lowest seed throughout the playoffs. Despite the increasing calls for a change for change sake, the 1980-81 Rockets only made a couple of (almost predictable) roster changes, but the meat of the team remained. That single year's experience, to most sports historians, made the Rockets a viable and respected contender in the "new era" of basketball (considered to be 1980 to present). Although they never won that year and only came close a couple of times until 1985-86 championship run, that 1980-81 year was considered a very successful franchise year. Remember we are talking about a 40-42 season! <center>Sometimes success is measured by competitive participation and not rings.</center> [This message has been edited by popeye (edited November 23, 1999).]
If we could get Bender by all means do it the kid is awesome, Harrington I am not too high on because I have seen him play and I see him as being a Antwoine Jammison type player. If we could aquire Bender somehow I am all for it do not forget this was the number 5 pick in the draft and if Cuttino, Mack, Drew, Williams will do it DO IT. Isn't it funny how these young kids that come straight to the NBA are almost always better than if they were to play in college, I think not, by skiping college these players are molded toward the NBA game and not made into college phenoms like Elton Brand, Antwoin Jammison, Benniot Benjamin and so on and so on. Get this kid anyway you can becuase he will be something once he gets his chance next year on the year after. ------------------ "We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day
Popeye: We'll just have to let the Barkley debate rest until another time. I don't want to bore everyone else on the BBS by dragging it on. Anyways, I think Miller would be in the same boat as Richmond. Reggie has had a good start to the season, but I wouldn't want to trade anything of value for him. He is old, in the middle of a lengthy contract dispute, has proved all the critics correct that he is anything BUT a leader, and worst of all...he is painfully one dimensional. I think they are talking to the Bulls about a Jackson-Kukoc swap...hmmm. I think Jalen Rose is out of reach as he is clearly their best player right now, and more importantly, the only guy on that roster who can consistently create his own shot. What do you say about perhaps pursuing Best? I know that Toronto has interest in him. Maybe Best-Croshere-Bender(?)-salary cap throwins for Barkley-Mack-Drew(?). That would provide Indiana with the low-post threat they have never had to compliment Reggie's outside game. Even with the Davises' they had always been a weak rebounding team, and Charles could probably shore that up. The Pacers need to be focused on beating the Knicks right now, and with their depleted frontline, they could do that with Charles. Also, the Pacers have no real leader right now, so Charles' ego would certainly be welcome. [that's just to sugarcoat the whole deal ] Then package any combination of TMass, Mobley, Rogers, and Best to Toronto for McGrady. What are your thoughts on that?
I'd like McGrady, but why would you want Best...I don't think he would be of any help, neither now nor in the future. We should have made more of an effort to get a guy like Terry Porter or Derek Harper. If there is still even the slightest chance to get Derek Harper, let's try it. Are they even considering it? And does anyone have any insight as far as the Sam Mack situation is concerned? I don't really think it's very classy how this situation has been handled. I am very surprised the guy hasn't signed anywhere yet.
German Rocket: I'd like McGrady, but why would you want Best...I don't think he would be of any help, neither now nor in the future. We should have made more of an effort to get a guy like Terry Porter or Derek Harper. If there is still even the slightest chance to get Derek Harper, let's try it. Are they even considering it? And does anyone have any insight as far as the Sam Mack situation is concerned? I don't really think it's very classy how this situation has been handled. I am very surprised the guy hasn't signed anywhere yet. *We wouldn't keep Best. We would use him to get McGrady. *What good is Derek Harper going to do when we are clearly rebuilding? *Sam Mack hasn't signed anywhere for one simple reason. Houston can pay him more than anyone else and I think we are just looking for the best deal possible. What is the point of hurriedly signing Sam Mack? Where will that get us? It's better to wait it out, and try to include him in a package for some young talent.
Ok, I understand the Best thing now. About the rebuilding, let's wait. If it's clear that we have no chance of making the playoffs, we can still see if trades are necessary. Until then, I don't think it makes sense to take us out of the hunt ourselves by trading for a player who will help us less this season than the player we're giving up.
Wow, after more than 150 posts, I tried posting in bold letters for the first time... Well, from what you are saying, and I agree that this is the only way it makes sense, there must be an agreement between the Rockets and Mack that they will sign and trade him. Anything else could not explain the current situation with him not complaining, but not signing anywhere else either.
I am tired of watching Dream and Chuck play and although I love Chuck, I think we could get someone, or some somebody for him. Hakeem's not going anywhere. I hope the guy retires after this year, and we can go ahead and begin rebuilding. Grabbing draft picks and attracting free agents. Scarface - I'd love to get Bender. Two exceptions to your rule on the high school phenoms are these. Korleon Young, Rashard Lewis. I think Rashard has ability, but is the guy of the bunch, who should have definantly gone to college. I'm not sure where Young is, maybe Europe.
Another sad exception is Leon Smith in Dallas. I think guys like Garnett and Kobe are the exception, it's more common the other way around, it's just that the high school guys who fail don't get all the attention like KG and Kobe.
Good point, German. Leon is a very sad story. Reminiscent to some degree of Dimitrius Underwood in the NFL. I still think Lewis would have benfited greatly if he had gone to college.
Hey guys trading Charles is not possible. Something in the rules that he cannot be traded. CD was on 610 last week and said that is out of the question and they are not able to if wanted b/c of some rule. Trading Dream. The chance was then we are stuck NOW.
RH Cab: Yeah, but they sure like Croshere up there. BTW you would have to think that the Hughes to Toronto talks,which was HOT,has probably cooled considerably as Larry Brown is left without Iverson with his navicular fracture for 3-6 weeks. The problems with all that player movement Pacers/Rockets/Toronto is that McGrady has such a low salary that you would have to be very careful. We would lose probably K.Thomas,Drew and Mobes (due to their relative low end salary and perceived upside) along with someone substantial. That means Cato, Barkley, or a Massenburg/Rogers Combo including the above three. Also I have always liked the idea of Shandon/Francis/Mobes/McGrady combos. I'd hate to see that die. We also would be forced to take someone with a heavy contract from the Pacers to match Barkley or Hakeem's meaty salary. Here is something only my warped brain could think of ... Smits and Croshere, for Hakeem (with Hakeem's blessing of course)... we sit Smits down for sixty days then he retires due to injury, and we have Croshere and a Health/Career-ending exception (outside the cap, transferrable and optional to use all or portion of full amount) money. We buy and or buy/trade for any available including McGrady around all-star break. I wouldn't be surprised if New York makes a move to unleash the hounds and trade talk one of the Houston/Camby/Sprewell links. Sign him immediately to a multi year with his transferred bird rights. Again outside the cap exception. Sam Mack to a sign and trade with Detroit for Harper. Trade Charles/Drew/K.Thomas to LA for Rice. Phil would do that in a New York Minute. We zone home to the end of the season schedule with a low but salvagable run. Then go to the playoff dance with: Cato/Massenburg/T.Hamilton Croshere/Carlos/Bullard McGrady/Rice/Williams Anderson/Mobley Francis/Harper <center>Pinch me I truly am dreaming. I know. See I told you it was wacky!</center> Tired Dwarf That "rule" they referred to has got to be the sixty day rule. Or, Charles has a "no trade" clause without permission and he has refused to excercise the trade. No other rule I can think of ... I wish I could have heard the question. [This message has been edited by popeye (edited November 23, 1999).]
