No, the way I see it, it's 2-3 years at the minimum until you MAYBE find the right guy to build around. Then you have another 2-3 of building the right team. Then another 1 or 2 taking your lumps in the playoffs and learning how to win. THEN if everything has gone right and your guy hasn't left or gotten hurt or any of the other things that could go wrong you MIGHT win it all. I don't think it's wrong to believe this strategy can work, I do think it's wrong to believe it's the only way it can work or that it has a high chance of success.
Your points would probably be stronger if Al Jefferson actually was a lottery pick, instead of being drafted after Marcus Morris and Patrick Patterson. Odom was also a free agent signing, one that was only possible after Bill Duffy "forgot" to pick up Anthony Carter's option; it was the equivalent of Jared Jeffries not picking up his option last year, and you'll never convince me otherwise that the Heat gave Duffy a huge kickback. Finally, if you're using a top 10 pick as the cutoff for tanking, I'd argue the Rockets don't need to actively get rid of any players to get there. They were only about 10 games ahead of Charlotte last year, and with a new coaching staff, a Kevin Martin injury, Kyle Lowry regression to the mean, and a short, Midwest loaded schedule, the Rockets could be in the top 10 without having to sell Scola or Martin for 20 cents on the dollar.
10-15 wins? Yes, probably impossible, though somehow the Mavericks managed it with Jim Jackson and Jamal Mashburn in 1992-1994. I'd argue that in order to make tanking truly worth it however, the GM must not only get a franchise cornerstone, but to get one that develops slowly enough to allow the team to end up with at least 2 more quality young players. Keep in mind that everyone's darling, the Zombie Sonics were built on the back of 3 consecutive top 4 picks, as well as another top 5 pick by trade. The previous flavor of the month Portland had the #4 (traded for the #2 LMA), and the #7 (Roy), then got the #1 (Oden) the next year. The Grizzlies...are incredibly strange; they have a #8 (Gay), a #4 (Conley), a #3 (Mayo), had a #2 (Thabeet), and a #11 (Henry), and only one of the players is really any good, yet the team is a dark horse contender. Compare these teams to Toronto, Utah, New Orleans, Cleveland, Orlando; all teams that got a cornerstone in the draft yet improved too quickly to get a second piece to put them over the top, and now are all going to start over again. Thinking about this, building a contender through the draft is not a lottery; it's winning a lottery 2 or 3 times in a row.
Which has a better chance of landing you a superstar? 1) Trade? Highly unlikely someone unloads their superstar unless he's on his last legs and that's not what you want to build on. Under the super rare occation that a superstar is traded, you have to have the right team wanting to unload a superstar AND you have to have the BEST package available to that team. And remember, your offer has to beat 28 other teams who will fighting for any superstar that is available. 2) FA signing? Doubt a superstar FA is going to come here by himself and/or drag his homies to Houston. No offense but Miami, NY and LA (and even Chicago) is the place to be and the rare KD types are likely to just stay home. 3) Draft? Not a guarantee by any means but I think you have the best odds of picking up a superstar via the draft. However, you will have a terrible finding one in the 12-20 range. You really need to be picking in the 1-5. And you might have to pick there a few times because not every draft is going to have a superstar - see 2009, and many others. Again not guaranteed but I think your odds are far greater of rebuilding this way.
that analysis is actually pretty good. i guess you wanna get like 2 DeRozan type players before you get your lebron and you have a contender
So, say Marcus Morris is good, though maybe not as good as you are projecting. The Rockets get the 6th playoff seed, giving up their draft pick to the Nets. They lose in the first round. During the season, Morey could not swing the game-changing trade he wanted. In the meantime, the Knicks are the 3rd seed out East and net the #25 pick which is sent to us. 2012 free agency starts and none of the big names really look at Houston. Even the next best group such as the elderly Nash looks elsewhere. After all that, would tanking in 2013 be a reasonable idea or should they still stay the course? The biggest reason for teams not out-right advocating this strategy is because most fans believe that Stern would have reprimanded them for doing so. Even so, many teams have been guilty of having major contributors be "injured" for extended periods in order to improve draft position. I think you are missing the main argument here. Given that most championship teams have at least one "superstar player" they drafted (or got in a draft day trade) and that a very, very high percentage of those picks were in the Top 10 or even the Top 8 picks, it makes sense that most of those teams had to be really bad to net those picks. Yes, some of those teams were bad due to coaching, players quitting, chemistry, injuries or whatever. But they were bad. Most people here also believe that with Morey acquiring players, such as Scola, Lowry, Hayes, Patterson, Lee, etc., who are hard-working, high IQ, and high character players, it will be difficult for a Morey-led team to be that bad. Given those two premises, the argument is why wait through multiple years of mediocrity before the inevitably of team becoming just so bad that is will get a high pick, and engineer that situation now. You, yourself said that the bad teams are rewarded with the opportunity of superstar players. Sure, there are no guarantees, but getting that player at least means that your holding a hand at the table instead watching from the sidelines. So why wait for that inevitability on its own?
When Mavs got dirk he was a substitute and he was not coveted much around here. Spurs and got their last 3 championships not based on a #1 pick only. It´s not that many stars saw Duncan and went all crazy to sign with San Antonio. They did it by drafting smart between 24# (Parker) and 56# (Ginobili). I think the Spurs "model" is more suitable than the Mavs, because Dallas just spends a lot of money, and the Spurs have a great guy and built around him. You can get that guy paying him big bucks. IF the Spurs would have gotten Duncan on free agency and payed him big buck (what he was already receiving by 2003) they would still have at leas that championship as Ginobili and Parker where on rookie contracts, you can also argue that they would also have 200 and 2007 as they resigned Ginobili WITHOUT needing to use the Larry Bird exception because they created the cap space. So, crying because you don´t get something will never get you there, for starters the FO needs to really think what they are up to, if they are going win-now, so be it, if that doesn´t mess with the idea that in the end, it´s safer to get ONE superstar. The trio will then be formed, but you don´t need superstars for that, just great competitors, and those are not so expensive, they are harder to find.
Without Duncan the Spurs wouldn`t have won even one championship. Most teams need that one guy - and most team get that one guy through the draft. We don`t get stars in FA - Morey has tried time and again, but now with Yao gone I don`t think there is any chance that a guy like Howard or Paul chooses Houston over LA, Miami, Chicago, Boston, NY... Now you could say: what about the Pistons? They didn`t have a star. And their role players are compareable to ours - well, they had two things that we don`t have. A kick ass defense AND really clutch players across the board. Having a high draft pick doesn`t automatically get you a future superstar. But it improves your chances - and I think it`s the only chance the Rockets have at netting a superstar. The alternative? Trying to go the Pistons route. It may work, but it`s really hard to acomplish. Having said all that - I don`t watch college basketball and have no idea who will be in next years draft and how many potential superstars are there. Can someone enlighten me on that?
Still a bit early to start truly evaluating the freshmen particularly if they raise the age limit to 2 years out of college. Anthony Davis and Andre Drummond are the two freshmen to watch; both can be absolute monsters on the defensive end. Austin Rivers has played badly so far, but most agree he definitely has a ton of talent. But going only by the sophomores, it's generally agreed that Harrison Barnes, Perry Jones III, Jared Sullinger, John Henson and Terrence Jones would all have been early lottery picks last year; Jeremy Lamb might have also snuck into the late lottery as well. Ironically, if all the freshmen come out, the draft will be so loaded with young, projectable talent that getting a potential superstar might just be possible without tearing down the team and tanking; to my eyes, there are potential superstars all throughout the lottery.
