1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

(3 stars) vs. (2.5 stars) vs. (2 + deep bench)

Discussion in 'Houston Rockets: Game Action & Roster Moves' started by Rox>Mavs, Nov 11, 2014.

?

What's the best approach moving forward now?

  1. 3 superstars or bust

    35 vote(s)
    16.4%
  2. 2 studs and 1 or 2 borderline stars

    100 vote(s)
    46.9%
  3. H&H + a quality deep bench

    78 vote(s)
    36.6%
  1. Rox>Mavs

    Rox>Mavs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    There are many nuances to the cap that I'm not knowledgable enough to speak to and consider. I'm curious what others think though.

    We almost got bosh this summer and could have resigned parsons. Those two would have committed us to 35 million a year. We would have had 3.5 stars (parsons being the .5). We would have had a fairly balanced roster but would need to build a bench full of vet mins.

    my assumption is most here bought into morey's big 3 model (myself included). I'm wondering what the temperature on CF is now that the team is doing well with 2 stars and quality role players.

    If you have a "bucket" that can fit only so much in salary, do you

    A) spend big on another 3rd star (think Melo money)
    B) go for two borderline all stars (think milsap or dragic)
    C) just spend the money on building for depth and quality role players.

    Obviously it all depends on who is available but I'm just asking in a vacuum and from a philosophical level.

    Ariza has had such a huge impact on out team and by all rights he's just a great quality role player. Is it still worth holding out for that 3rd star or even borderline star? Or just fill out the roster and bench with Ariza type players. We seem so close to being able to put a real contender out there if we just had more depth. Is it worth sacrificing future flexibility to sign a 3rd star in order to go "all in" now?
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. steddinotayto

    steddinotayto Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    20,869
    When a role player that's never averaged more than 16 points and 5 rebounds per game gets $15 million a year you know the landscape of the NBA has changed.

    I'd love to have a deeper bench with solid role players like what the Mavericks did during their championship run but that kind of bench costs a lot of money. That's probably why Morey tries to find those diamond-in-the-rough players because their production is as close to those veterans but at a fraction of the cost.
     
  3. OremLK

    OremLK Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    16,510
    Likes Received:
    10,942
    With the current CBA I don't know that you can actually make a championship caliber team with three stars without one of those stars either being on a rookie deal or choosing to take less money (like the Heat guys did). It's just not possible to have an actual team with three max players. That was the intent with this CBA and it pretty much worked.

    So for me, I'd rather Morey stop star-chasing and just build deeply around H&H. Ariza was a good start, grade A roleplayer, but we need a bench now and maybe a PF who can play better defense (depending on how TJones evolves).
     
  4. ross84

    ross84 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    41
    That could be taken advantage of by playing the waiting game.
     
  5. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    24,190
    Likes Received:
    20,228
    Not sure what the term "3 stars" really means anymore. Even with Miamis supposive "big 3" Bosh was hardly a superstar the first two years and last year DWade sure wasn't up to the task of superstar production.

    The Rockets might very well pull off a true big 3 with another max contract player but someone will have to take a back seat in that case.

    If the Rockets can get a max contract player in the future it better be someone that is good enough to dethrone either Harden or Howard. If not that its probably not great value and hurts your ability to grab multiple role players instead of just one really expensive one.

    That's my 2 cents on the topic.
     
  6. pmac

    pmac Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    8,021
    Likes Received:
    2,635
    It's not about stars. The goal of a GM is to attain high value players (or assets). It's much simpler to put together a perennial championship contender with 3 extremely underpaid players (stars) than continuously fielding an entire roster of them. Teams with a 'big 3' are successful because the max salary makes it impossible to pay Lebron more than Parsons so you're getting that extra production for free.

    The best rout would actually be to do whatever the hell it is the Spurs have done to convince an entire roster to play for half of what they would get in free agency.
     
  7. finsraider

    finsraider Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,924
    Likes Received:
    4,984
    You get the 3 and try to win with talent. Then you fill in the bench. One does not preclude the other.

    For example, let's say you have to trade almost everyone except Harden, Ariza, and Howard to get a player like Horford. Next year, you've got Llull and Gentile as options for the MLE, and a backup center for the BAE. My guess is in less than 1 season, you will have a "full" bench AND 3 stars.
     
  8. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,306
    Likes Received:
    13,826
    If we're saying that the 3rd star is there for the signing and it's just a matter of whether you'd rather spend on that one guy or save the money for multiple guys, then you take the 3rd star. Once you get to a critical mass like that, other players tend to come at a discount and you'll also find diamonds in the rough and the like.

    But, if the two borderline guys are there for the signing and you have to decide whether to sign them or hold out in hopes of getting that third star later, then I think you take the 2 in the hand. The risk of not ever getting the third star, and/or wasting valuable time with your first 2 stars is too great. 2 stars plus 1-2 borderline guys should be enough to give you a chance. Wait and you might not even get a chance.

    Just a deep bench though? Nah. You need to be able to put a lot of power on the floor at one time. It's nice to be strong 8 deep, but when you're in the championship game, you want as much talent as you can have in the 5 guys who get to be on the floor at the end.
     
  9. Streets 01

    Streets 01 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    457
    Always take the third star. It's not even a question. Morey has proven time and again that he drafts and scouts well and can fill the roster with capable role players for minimum cost, but the mega stars take years of planning and preparation to land. This isn't even a question. Plus the more stars you have, the more the Ray Allen's, Mike Miller's, etc. of the NBA tend to want to hop on for minimum salary to try and win that championship.
     
  10. bongman

    bongman Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,213
    Likes Received:
    1,411
    Haven't we learned anything from FIBA? Chemistry and unison is more important than talent.
     
  11. BigMaloe

    BigMaloe Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,905
    Likes Received:
    15,196
    Why not 2.5/5?

    Essentially 2 superstars and 2 borderline stars. Day like adding milsap and dragic. Or west and lawson.

    I feel this is much better approach.
     
  12. Zergling

    Zergling Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,726
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    With Morey's ability to find talent in the 2nd round, Europe, and off the streets, the Rockets could have 3 superstars AND a deep bench.
     
  13. Joe Joe

    Joe Joe Go Stros!
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    24,178
    Likes Received:
    14,283
    Really depends on the players.

    I'd consider Horford and Millsap to be as good as some "stars". A borderline star like them that fit the team very very well would be worth it to give up on the Bosh's and the Anthony's provided the Rockets can keep flezibility to improve rest of roster.
     
  14. jtr

    jtr Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,470
    Likes Received:
    275
    Heck of a post OP and great discussion CF! I remember Cuban discussion this topic when the current CBA was signed. He speculated that the ideal team in the near future would consist of one superstar, two all stars and three very good players earning $5-$7M a year.

    The Rockets currently invest about 57% of their payroll in two players. The ability of teams to increase payroll indefinitely if they are willing to pay the tax makes this calculus very difficult, so it comes down to an opinion. I personally would prefer to see the injury risk spread out among more players. If Harden or Howard go out for the season the Rockets are essentially done. Just my two cents.
     
  15. banzai

    banzai Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,410
    Likes Received:
    1,404

    As many posters would agree, the key here is to follow the Spurs model. Develop their own players and get a good pipeline of talented role players who eventually become stars or super stars and put them in a balanced system and you won't have to go through the fluxuations of contracts and egos. Flexibility is the key to a dynasty. If you go all in at once, what would happen if your stars fall i.e. Thunder. Game Over. Millions and a couple of seasons lost. How would you manage your portfolio?
     
  16. Yung-T

    Yung-T Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    24,403
    Likes Received:
    7,050
    15 stars.
     
  17. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    24,190
    Likes Received:
    20,228
    I agree with Joe Joe's point. The Rockets might get just as much impact from a player that isn't necessarily a star, but is a Really Good player that fits their team like a glove ALA Horford/Millsap/etc.

    The term "third star" most likely more than anything refers to name recognition outside of hardcore fan-bases & the media.

    Ex: Al Horford is a better player than Kevin Garnett right now, but fans & the media are more likely to call KG a star than Horford. It's because KG they know of, and his name means more to outsiders.
     
  18. pmac

    pmac Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    8,021
    Likes Received:
    2,635
    What we've learned from FIBA:

    The more talented team will dominate as long as they have a couple extra weeks of practice and a little extra foresight in the roster selection. But, we're talking about decisions of a Kyrie Irving over a John Wall (star v. star) not low talent guy over a star for chemistry sake.
     
  19. steddinotayto

    steddinotayto Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    20,869
    Not to be a Debbie Downer but there isn't a "Spurs model" because it doesn't exist. The way they've constructed that team can never be replicated. It took skill from the front office, talent from the players, and sheer luck from the basketball gods to assemble what they have achieved since 1997.
     
  20. Relativist

    Relativist Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    241
    This is a topic I've been thinking about. One issue is what are the realistic options right now for either the third star or borderline stars?

    It looks like we're unlikely to have enough space below the salary cap to afford a max contract next offseason. What third stars are realistic options? LMA? Maybe if Portland severely underperforms. Rondo? How likely is it that we can clear the space to land either of those guys as 2015 FA? Or are we counting on being able to trade for them at the deadline? What other third stars do people see as realistic possibilities?

    Millsap and Dragic seem like possible borderline star options. But I'm curious what Morey's thinking would be if we could get one of those guys. Would he go all out (i.e. - NOP pick, give up flexibility for 2016 (Durant)) for one of those guys?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now