You can't have your cake and eat it too. Yet the Rockets have managed to do it twice. They've landed in my opinion the number 1 player of the draft in Griffin and Francis. All without holding the top pick in either draft. All without having a top 10 selection in either draft. All without being the worst team in basketball. Though they may be real bad the rest of this year. With winning comes diminished draft positioning. And as the draft goes through, the talent continuoulsy errodes, till you have your CBA and pretenders lurking to get drafted by the NBA. Just as any fan might say I saw such and such person play a game, "why didn't they pick such and such player" The team is Stupid; the team has professionals who tell them other things. The teams have professional scouts that devote their time analysing all players from all walks and corners of the world. Just because one player played nearly all of his games on National television, doesn't mean he is better than one who grew into a star in a division II school. And that has been apparent with a lot of players coming to the pros. Hey, If we could do our actions based on hindsight, I'd get all my money, travel back in time and invest every penny in Microsoft. The same philosophy holds true to saying if we had drafted such player, we'd be winning more games. If you mean the Rockets are stupid for not taking Desmond Mason and other players, you should also say, "anyone who had the opportunity to invest in Microsoft back in the 80's is stupid as well." Thus in Hindsight, that draft really really sucked for the Rockets. No dividens has yet to be reaped from those assets acquired that summer.
They're not stupid for not taking Mason. They're stupid for wasting a #15 pick on a slow white dude that everyone with half a brain knew would suck.
Rudy and the Rockets by far have a winning record when it comes to drafts. They've found deals, and steals out there that rival, if not beat any other team in the league. Horry, Cassell, Cat, Griff, Francis. They're draft time deals and picks have to be among the best in the league. Are they perfect? No. Some drafts are better than others, but overall I'd give them an A
Just got in town and read this: Collier stinks. Period. Injury-prone white guy.... What in the heck does his ethnicity have to do with it? Substitute black for the word white and their would be a s---storm over it. Please read Leonard Pitt's column (Miami Herald and Hearst syndicated newspapers). Pitt addresses reverse racism in a thoughtful way -- unlike posters who stoop to the kinds of remarks like the one above. And, by the way, Pitt is black if that makes a difference. Posted on Thu, Feb. 07, 2002 Don't blame racism; power is real culprit ''Look how white I am,'' he writes. ``Am I lame or what?'' That's Rick Reilly's ''Life of Reilly'' column from the Sept. 4 edition of Sports Illustrated. Several readers have passed it along, inviting comment from your humble correspondent, who is happy to oblige. For those who missed it, Reilly's piece delineates what he sees as a double standard that allows black athletes to insult white people with impunity. How, he wants to know, could Shaquille O'Neal get away with writing in his book how embarrassing it is to be dunked on by a white guy? Didn't John Rocker get pilloried for saying things like that? And what about Mike Tyson grabbing his crotch at a recent disastrous press conference and making a vulgar and racist remark to a white reporter? Former Denver Nuggets coach Dan Issel just torpedoed his career by doing less. Why is there no firestorm of reproach and censure when the offender is black? I think Reilly makes a valid point. I'd quibble with him over some of the examples he chooses, but in the main, the guy is right on target in challenging blacks in sports -- and, by extension, blacks at large -- to give the same respect they demand. He should know that there is, however, more going on here than a simple double standard. After all, when he notes the absence of any response to racially inflammatory remarks by black athletes, Reilly is in effect indicting not just black observers, but white ones as well. Indeed, white ones perhaps primarily. Where is their outrage? Reilly believes their silence grows from a kind of racial inferiority complex, a sense that, where sports is concerned, denigration is deserved. He may be on to something. But that surely doesn't tell the whole story. I mean, race and sport are not the only arenas where one party is allowed to say things the other is not. Consider gender. And if you're a guy, you probably already know where I'm headed. According to a generation of female comics, the fact of malehood means several things. That you worship beer, bosoms and the internal combustion engine. That you communicate emotion by grunts and shoulder punches. That you choose each day's wardrobe by determining which shirt stinks least. That your cooking qualifies as a crime against humanity. That your love-making is worse than your cooking. That you are proud without cause, clueless without apology -- a channel-surfing, football-obsessed talking ape who would be helpless but for the civilizing influence of women. Who are, of course, superior. A woman can say pretty much what she wishes about a man. The man who tries to do the same becomes Andrew Dice Clay. I'm not here to suggest you feel sorry for that Neanderthal. No, my point is simply that most men don't spend a lot of time fretting about the disparity -- nor should they, nor can they, without sounding whiny and small. The disparity is, after all, part and parcel of belonging to the gender that, for the most part, still controls the levers of power. As much as we like to pretend equality has arrived, the truth is that access to those levers is still largely a matter of gender and race. It is, when all is said and done, power that's the true dividing line here. Most of us instinctively observe different rules, give broader latitude, depending upon whether one is part of the group that wields power or the group power is wielded upon. That's why the secretary who yells at her boss is considered audacious, but the boss who yells at the secretary is overbearing. We make an automatic perceptual adjustment depending upon who's doing what to whom. So there's usually no outcry, even among whites, when some black public figure says some stupid thing. Reilly is right in suggesting that black athletes ought to be called to account when their rhetoric is racist. Such behavior braces up stereotypes injurious to blacks. It is also offensive. But if he truly expects to see a day when the sins of a Shaq O'Neal call down the same fury as those of a John Rocker, he needs to understand that it's not coming. You can have pity or power, but you can't have both. Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column runs in Living & Arts every Thursday and Saturday. Call him toll-free at 888-251-4407. leonardpitts@mindspring.com
Ralph Samson was an injury prone black guy. I see no offense there. Collier is an injury prone Honky M***** F*****, would be offensive. I think "white guy" in sports signifies being out of place, more than a racial slur. How about "He danced like a black guy at a Polka Party." If I said " Black guys are the most talented athletes in Basketball today." Most people would agree. If this is true, it means white guys are the least talented athletes in Basketball. White guys were always allowed to play Major League sports. Black guys haven't always been that fortunate. Sometimes it isn't what you say, it's how you say it.
I have a few points to make here. First, Najera is a very talented player and shouldn't be characterized as someone who fills the seats because he is hispanic. I have watched every Mav game and the Mavs didn't really start winning until Najera started to play significant minutes. I personally don't think Kenny Thomas is better than Najera. Just my opinion. Also, the Mavs are full of white players. Some are good players. Some are complete white stiffs. I am white and I will call them white stiffs all day long. Bradley, for example, is a white stiff. Most white people don't get offended by that I don't think. One more thing. Desmond Mason would have been a better selection than that white stiff Collier. Everybody knows it. It is a shame because he really wanted to be a Rocket!
But you wouldn't say (if Bradley were black) .... "Bradley is a black stiff." You just wouldn't do it out of PC. That is Pitt's point.
I bet u if Langhi was playing in Dallas, he would be thriving. His game is perfectly suited for their offensive style. Also, you don't draft a player b/c u think he will fill the seats (IE Najera). Najera would have no place on this team with our glut of power forwards when healthy also.
