I Say we Keep the Roster intact..im confident Tmac wont let us down no more + Yao Ming is not playing this summer..
I think you seriously underrate Hinrich and overrate Udrih here. Hinrich actually IMPROVED across the board last season from the prior year. His FG% was 44% (up from 41%), his 3pt% was 41% (up from 35%), and most importantly, his PER was 13.97 (up from 13.41). It only SEEMED like he was getting worse because his minutes were necessarily reduced by the addition of Derek Rose. For some perspective, Kirk Hinrich's PER for his career: 2003-04: 13.12 2004-05: 15.30 2005-06: 15.56 2006-07: 17.09 2007-08: 13.41 2008-09: 13.97 Meanwhile, Aaron Brooks's PER for his career: 2007-08: 13.14 2008-09: 12.95 Agreed, Kirk Hinrich had a bad year last season. Hence, the "buy low" part of my proposal. However, even with Derek Rose taking his minutes and forcing him to play out of position for a good chunk of his minutes, Hinrich managed a PER significantly better than Brooks (with very similar MPG). Another thing to realize is that Kirk Hinrich has NEVER played with a low post presence. If he's shooting 41% from 3-pt range without any quality offensive big men, can you imagine how well he could shoot playing alongside Yao Ming? And again, Hinrich is a vastly superior defender to either Brooks or Udrih. I get it. Kevin Martin is a young stud. Kirk Hinrich is not in Kevin Martin's league right now. But Kirk could really help this team, and the Rockets would still have T-Mac's contract to work with or could possibly even use a healthy T-Mac if he ever recovers from his injuries (at whatever percentage of his former self). I think we're both proposing trades that would improve the Rockets. I'm just saying that you are seriously undervaluing Kirk Hinrich here. And Beno Udrih is terrible. Just terrible. I mean, he's just awful. I mean, I think I could even put up some decent numbers playing in Sacramento's wide-open, "let's-just-not-care-on-defense-and-get-some-stats-on-offense" style. Heck, I bet the Kings would still win almost as many games with me at the point. Almost.
Will Emeka be able to fit in as a backup C is the first question? Secondly, he will definitely need minutes at the 4 as well in order to be productive. Either Luis or Carl will have to be moved. Emeka's injury history will also have to be taken into condersation,as you have pointed out.
BimaThug, I like your idea more than baller4 life 315's because of Udrih's contract. Beno plays out of control a lot. However, I do feel that Hinrich can't be considered even at his best to Kevin Martin. That won't matter much if DM can retain Ron,Von and Battier. I was skeptical about Hinrich coming back successfully after the way he played last year plus getting hurt. He has done well and seems to be worth going after. Lowry can back him up.
Don't think Orlando would be looking to give him up. Pietrus at the MLE looks real good right now.... Kudos to Orlando.
Ive been saying we need hinrich season the beginning of last season, it would also be a steal if we could get deng, salmons, gordon, or miller to but i'd be happy with just hinrich
wow i that was a horrible sentence, ive been saying we need hinrich since the beginning of last season... sorry
I am a Hedophile. Turkoglu is basically what we all want T-Mac to be. A clutch 6'10 ball handling guard/forward who can create his own shot? Plus, he would definitely be an upgrade over Brooks or Artest in terms of feeding Yao with his height and passing skills. Fortunately Turkoglu has the option to opt out of his contract after the playoffs, and it's likely that he will because he is making much less than Howard or Lewis and the Magic won't be able to afford him. Not sure what the Rockets can offer, but it'll have to be more than $7 million, which is what he's making now.
Thanks. baller4life315's trade is pretty good, too, but I agree that Beno's contract would send me running. I never compared Hinrich to Martin, except to say that he wasn't in Martin's league. My point was that they were two completely different TYPES of trades. baller's Kevin Martin trade involved giving up T-Mac, while my Kirk Hinrich trade involved parting with nothing more than Aaron Brooks and scrubs. Heck, if the Bulls agreed to waive Barry, the Rockets could even re-sign Brent. All that being said, I definitely have my reservations about that trade. I think Hinrich is a better fit for the Rockets than Brooks is, especially since I think Aaron's playoff explosion was more the exception than the rule as far as what we can expect from him in the future. But committing that much salary to Hinrich requires that Daryl Morey be VERY confident in the same opinion. If the team truly believes that Aaron Brooks is the future at PG, then perhaps they sit tight with a player who would then be probably the best value in the entire league (at $1.1M next season).
I understand what you are saying better now. My feeling is that Brooks will get better with experience, but it's going to be hard for him. He isn't a natural PG as we all know, and he won't be going up against Fisher and Blake much. I feel he will pan out to be a career backup PG. His value can probably increase eventually but not by much.I also feel that most GM's are aware of that and won't over rate him which will make it difficult to get much value for him in return. I know you mentioned this as a possible salary saving move by the Bulls so they can re-sign Gordon, but I don't think they would bite on it.
I get what you're saying and it's not that i'm trying to undersell what Hinrich brings to the table, it's just there's little upside to a move like this. The only upside in this trade proposal is what we would be giving up (Brooks). Will he continue to improve? Will he develop his playmaking skills more? Will he continue to utilize his speed and remain a potent scorer? These are all fair questions to ask regarding Brooks. The problem is, in my judgment I view Brooks' learning curve to be not all that far off from where Hinrich is already at. It's obviously hard to compare the two given that they're entirely different players. One is an unpredictable speedster that can blow up for 20-25 points, the other is a stabilizer, JVG-mold, all-around good but not great player. PER cannot account for Brooks' blazing, game changing speed the same way it cannot account for Hinrich's tremendous on-ball defense and intangibles. Both are good players that I would welcome on this team. The problem? I still contend that the opportunity cost is too high for a move like this. Don't get me wrong, you've made your points extremely well and it's a logical move for both sides. I just think at the end of the day you are risking too much in swapping Brooks out for a base hit or double type player with a huge contract. Logically speaking, Hinrich is already overpaid and Brooks is currently underpaid. If the difference between the two isn't staggering, wouldn't standing pat be your best option? I think the source of our disagreement here is that we have overlapping "trade themes" here at work. 1) How to or should we cash in on Brooks' value being at an all-time high, 2) What to do with McGrady and 3) What should we do if those strategies intertwine. Your proposal is a good one but we sacrifice one of our best trade assets in Brooks which means we still have McGrady and consequently one less throw-in to sweeten to deal for whichever cap stricken team we try to play "vulture" with (if that's the route we choose to pursue). It's kind of why I think doing them both together is the most practical option. Of course, we could ultimately end of hanging onto McGrady and either letting him try to play, letting his contract expire or attempting to play "February Mad Scientist" -- who really knows? Let me ask you: if we pulled off this deal you suggested for Hinrich, what would be your "What to do?" plan for McGrady?
Both of those geezers are already making noise about getting contract extensions, and I don't want the Rockets still having to pay Nash max dollars when he's 40 freaking years old.
if the Magic win it all, they will certainly open their wallets for Hedo, because they don't win it without him. sweet shooting 6' 10" guys with point guard skills are so hard to find in this league. cough, T-Mac, cough.
Well put, baller. Good points throughout. Still, Beno Udrih?!?! As far as what to do with McGrady if the Rockets already use Brooks to acquire a starting PG (be it Kirk Hinrich or some other player), here are some options: (1) LET HIS DEAL EXPIRE: Yes, from a competitive standpoint, this would be a really bad outcome for the Rockets. But we must all realize that this is also a business. Les Alexander has been a great owner for the City of Houston and has been willing to pull the trigger on major acquisitions in the past (i.e., Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Steve Francis, Tracy McGrady, Ron Artest), often at great personal expense. Anyone who thinks that Les is some sort of cheapskate if he lets T-Mac's contract expire clearly has no sense of history or of the current economic climate facing the NBA as a whole. Plus, with the resulting breathing room from the luxury tax, the Rockets could go out and try throwing the full MLE at a quality player to pair with a core of Yao, Artest, Battier, Scola, [starting PG - Hinrich?], Lowry and Landry. And if T-Mac's injury is ruled to be "career-ending", the Rockets might actually get a Medical Player Exception amounting to a second MLE it can use on yet another quality player. However, Les and Morey probably would only spend all that extra "MLE-caliber" money if they let T-Mac's deal expire and didn't re-sign him unless to a substantial pay cut. (2) RE-SIGN McGRADY: If T-Mac can show that he is capable of coming back from his knee injury (which is looking somewhat more optimistic after hearing that T-Mac is shooting to be available by training camp - a goal I don't see him reaching, though), then he would probably be an asset more valuable to this team than just about any player the Rockets could possibly add via trade. Plus, no having to take back a bunch of terrible deals. Just Tracy's one way-overpaid year of this deal. Then, if he shows that he can still play (wear and tear aside, the guy just turned 30), the Rockets can attempt to re-sign Tracy to a more reasonable deal. An 80% T-Mac making $10M per year (3 years?) would probably be a better use of the Rockets' cap space than most other players the Rockets could add via trade (including the bad contracts). (3) TRADE McGRADY TO THE KNICKS IN A 3-WAY DEAL: I was thinking of starting an entire new thread on this subject, but it probably belongs in this more general thread. The Knicks are the perfect confluence of (i) desperation to maximize cap space for 2010 and (ii) willingness to spend/trade whatever it takes to get that cap space. The biggest obstacles to the Knicks getting in position to offer two (2) max contracts are Eddy Curry and Jared Jeffries. Any team willing to take one or both or those guys could almost name their price as far as what else they want from New York. That is why the Rockets could probably trade Tracy McGrady, WITHOUT having to give up Brooks, Landry or Scola in the process, if it was in a three-way deal involving (a) the Rockets shipping McGrady's huge expiring contract to New York and (b) Houston taking back Jared Jeffries as part of the return package in the process. Jeffries is way overpaid through 2010-11, but he still has a unique skill by being a 6-11 defender with long arms, capable of defending four positions. He was the starting center for the Knicks for awhile last season in D'Antoni's run-and-gun small-ball team. The Rockets lack a shot-blocking athletic defender. Of course, Jeffries is not an ideal fit, but he could probably be a contributor in the Adelman one-cut offense. The trade possibilities are numerous, but using these basic parameters, the Rockets could get value for McGrady's contract without having to give up any other major assets.
Trading Brooks is really possible..remember the Kings era when they had Jason Williams. He's good but the team needed a someone that could put them on the next level..then came Mike Bibby to the Kings.
Another awesome post and agreed entirely about points #1 and 2. Given the economic climate the way it is and the fact that LA is losing money in personal endeavors, Houston fans can't just EXPECT him to parlay McGrady's expiring $23M into something of tangible value at his own personal expense. That's wildly naive and selfish of us to to just count on LA to do that. As you stated: he's rolled the dice many times in the past back when the economy wasn't in as bad shape and circumstances were different. Nowadays, you have to look out for yourself. Any sane, knowledgeable fan should understand that. Furthermore, while we're on the topic of being a sane, knowledgeable Houston Rockets fan: let's all try to be level-headed going forward in regards to McGrady. Sure, we all had every reason to be annoyed with his half-assing it and hiding information from the team -- and rightfully so. Still, the past is the past. It's not the crisis plenty made it out to be. You definitely get the vibe that the fans (and not the team) are the only ones still bitter over his 08-09 season. If keeping McGrady is the route we choose to pursue I see no reason why the fans shouldn't welcome him back with open arms. Let's try to not to be so "What have you done for me lately?" here. Interesting idea of suggesting NY as a potential trade partner. I'd be curious to see what kind of offers could be on the table given that your suggestion clearly involves a LOT more than just changing McGrady's $23M for Jeffries' $7M. I guess you have to factor Larry Hughes being a throw-in. Hughes works for the "change McGrady's contract for parts" strategy some have mentioned. Of course, what I want to know is what our incentive is going to be. Whether it's getting back a Wilson Chandler, Gallinari or whatever. I would hope if the Knicks are as desperate as it seems that we could pry a nice young piece or two away from them. With David Lee, of course, being ideal.
