Lets look at the game changers that have been moved in recent years: Lebron - Went to join Wade and Bosh Bosh - Went to join Wade and Lebron Tracy - Went to join Yao ... See the pattern? The last time I feel that a person was freely traded was Garnett and Allen to the Celtics (which they had top draft picks to trade and we don't) in 2007 and Shaq to the Heat in 2004. So 2 cases in the past 10 years has a game changer been traded beyond his request. In both cases there was someone else there waiting (Wade and Pierce) to help them get a ring. And in this day and age of teams trying to form superteams, I don't see any GM giving up their game changer unless they are over the hill (not much use to us in our current form) or disgruntled (in which case we won't be on their list). The game changer is someone everone would rather have.
Umm... if you have been following Portland recently, they're NOT saying they're rebuilding. And using the Knicks and the Wolves as examples doesn't really say much. Both of these teams have failed repeatedly in recent years. The Knicks got raped on just about every trade they made since their "rebuilding." The Wolves never had any talent where anything they said mattered. I mean, Minnesota's talent after all these years of lottery picks can't even outplay a bunch of scrubby low picks Morey put together and getting blasted for.
I think there's a difference between 9 and 17 years. If you are talking about the Pacers comment, fine, strike it. I guess the point was more that the Pacers were consistent playoff team, with a fan base that demanded it, tried a quasi-rebuild with Artest and company, that didn't work, went full lotto rebuild mode, and it appears at least to be working. Perhaps the Artest incident forced their hand a bit, and they were on the right rebuild path, and that's true. before the malice in the palace that squad was prepared for more deep playoff runs. but they also put together that squad by rebuilding at the appropriate time. They acquired Artest + Miller and company by giving up Rose and Travis Best package. They acquired Jermaine Oneal for Dale Davis, who was an all-star at the time... and even with that got lucky. My point? The Rockets are past the point where they have the type of assets you need to rebuild and remain not only competitive, but championship level competitive... absent extreme luck. This is the dilemma. They don't have the assets in terms of talent to rebuild. They don't have the assets in terms of high draft picks to rebuild. People can, and for goodness sake certainly have, repeatedly, blamed "evil dictator Stern" for quashing such a trade from potentially happening. But the trade didn't happen. And whatever you think about it in retrospect, it's not hard to see why. The Hornets might have finished with a better record had the first trade gone down, but they'd have been saddled with bigger contract, older players incapable of making the playoffs in the same conference with theoretically better teammates already. If I'm the Hornets, health aside, I absolutely rather have Eric Gordon. And that ignores the Gasol question - principally, how much better are the Rockets if that trade goes down? Surely if you assume the Nene signing and Hayes staying, with the other assets, you would think that it is a playoff team, and maybe could have even squeaked home court advantage in there. But I don't think it is a team well positioned for the long-term. Heck, Denver's already unloaded Nene. TLR! All the naysayers like to point to the perceived constant lottery-dwellers. Fine. How about this? How about finding examples of teams in positions very similar to the Rockets current spot and showing how those teams turned into at least championship level contenders? I can think of few examples. Maybe the best would be the Suns acquisition of Barkley... but that's like hoping for more than even the luck required to win the lottery. That was one of the worst trades in history on behalf of the Sixers.
Most teams do not tank (or will admit to it), but there are teams who do intentionally cut payroll for a number of reasons. For example, the Florida Marlins were notorious for cutting payroll to astronomically low levels to the point that the whole team together made less than Alex Rodriguez. Could you say that they were tanking or simply wanting to gain a profit throughout the season, while not having to put a great amount of money into a team.
It's easy to say it "works" and then site one example. Sure it's worked for OKC and a couple other teams over the years. What about the Clippers (aside from this year), Hornets, Kings, Warriors, Wizards, Nets etc...that have been tanking for years and still haven't done anything and won't do anything for the foreseeable future?
Why do people talk like the Wolves have been bad forever? They were a good team when they had KG and that wasn't that long ago. Factor in that they had a top 5 pick not come over for two years and their rebuilding project hasn't been that long or bad.
Please provide examples where not "tanking" worked for teams in position similar to the Rockets. The Hornets, too. They're not world-beaters but have been playoff team more often than not.
whether our GM used the word, tank, or not, whether our HC played vets or young, whether their boss, LES, said this team should always compete or not, none of them bother me much. the only thing that made me confused is they improved this team from 11 seed in WC to 10 seed w/ trade & signing. or maybe their intention was to improve the team to 8 seed in WC but it still doesn't make any sense. i don't know whether morey used his equations or formulars to convince LES that the chance of landing a superstart by trading our assets is pretty good so they have been kept doing exactly same thing again and again. i hope LES would understand morey's moneyball formulars have a big flaw. they don't have human being factors in their equations. if morey integrated human being's factor into his formulars, he would see the chance is zero to land a superstar in houston through trade cause those stars have zero desire to come to houston after yao was done.
Man, if all Rockets fans have patience like you, where missing playoffs for EIGHT years is "not that long ago," GARM would be a much more upbeat place.
I don't agree with tanking, but didn't sonics trade away their stars for picks to tank and ended up with durant and green (who they flipped for perkins), westbrook, and then they got ibaka with like the 24th pick. you can get gamechangers. I believe there are players in this draft whose game is more catered to the NBA, and they will succeed. it's a deep draft, and I still believe in Morey in the draft. Morris is NOT a bust yet. patterson did have that surgery this year. we have really good position this year and we can make something happen. we have motie coming too. I hate that we've been where we have been the last few years, but think about how we were only 2 weeks ago thinking about the 5th seed. THAT'S not stagnation, with 1/3rd of your payroll injured.
I don't have the time or the resources to look that up. The point is nothing is guaranteed by losing other than a gamble near the top of the first round. Sure you could end up with a D. Rose or a Durant, but you're more likely to end up with someone that won't have the impact you're looking for.
That's true, but by tanking, you are ensuring sucking.....and sometimes that sucking takes a loooong time to get out of.
since rox in houston not ny or la, landing a gamechanger through draft has better chance than through trade.
Morey needs to be fired; or Les needs to sell the team. This owner/management combination has failed.
Well then why join the argument? If you are going to be a proponent for one course over the other, at least be able to intelligently explain why. Focusing on the risks of tanking - which many/most tankers acknowledge - doesn't come close to properly evaluating the situation. If you're driving a car and come to a fork in the road, and either side might lead you to a (1) pot of gold, (2) over a cliff, or (3) nowhere, to only look at one side and say "sure some of the people over here found that pot of gold, but some others drove right off a cliff" doesn't help you make an informed decision. For one, you have to decide if you are comfortable just going nowhere forever. Assuming you're not, you need the stats on both sides of the road to make an informed decision.
This is the list of teams I can remember over the last 30 years that managed to make an NBA finals without having to tank to get a top 5ish pick to get there. 80 - 83 76ers 04 - 05 Pistons 90 - 92 Trailblazers 93 - 94 Suns 00 - 04 Lakers 06 Mavericks 08 - 10 Celtics 08 - 10 Lakers 11 Mavericks So, while this proves you can win without tanking... you've got to either land a stud late in the draft (Kobe, Dirk, Pierce, Drexler, etc.) or you've got to be gifted mana from heaven via trade (KG-Celtics, Pau-Lakers, Barkley-Suns). Or some combination of the two (76ers drafting Dr. J and being gifted Moses Malone). And being a premier franchise/free agent destination doesn't hurt either.
Are there really any examples of teams "in a position similar to the Rockets" doing what the Rockets are trying to do?
