[Basketball Prospectus] Rebuild? Discussion on the "Success Cycle"

No way can they build a team like that Detroit team. Imo they would have to move Scola/Martin/Brooks for picks and hope this plan works to try and sign Howard and Paul in the process in 2012. Scola/Martin/Brooks is three of the worst defenders in the league. That Detroit team had the best defensive team and savy veterans who could carry them in a cohesive manner. Then you'd have to draft really, really good in hopes this plan could work out. Howard/Paul/Pick/Pick/Pick would be the new core imo. I'm saying you could probably trade Brooks to Toronto for their TE and draft pick, trade Martin to Cleveland for their TE and draft pick. And trade Scola in the same sence, maybe not for a pick, but at least something close to that. Then trade for Brand/Pick in hopes that you have a chance to select Irving, Jones, Kanter. Again that would show your taking your chances to rebuild quickly AND be positioned to sign Howard/Paul for the long-term.

 

The Rockets will not get the type of star they need in order to be legitimate contenders using their current strategy. "Renting" Carmelo or trading for some ex-franchise player doesn't count. I've ask before and I'll ask again, which one of the current top 15 players do we have a realistic chance to trade for? And I'm being generous when I say top 15. In truth, with one exception over the last 30 years, you need a top 10 player to win it all. Names please? Who is this top ten player we're going to get?

 

1. You are tanking, you are trading a productive player for a non-productive player in the hope that said non-productive player has potential in the future while at the same time making the team worse to increase the chances of winning the lottery. What you suggest is the definition of tanking.

2. Presti was not the GM responsible for the sonics getting Durant, that would be Rick Sund. Rick Sund was the fantastic GM that got the sonics a bad enough record to get Durant. Kind of proves my point.

and Kevin Pritchard also got fired, kinda proves my point as well. Again he was also not the GM that led portland to having the 1st pick in 2007, that would be Steve Patterson.

It's kind of weak for your argument that the two GMs you tout were both essentially brought in AFTER the teams were bad enough to get the 1st and 2nd pick in the draft. And one of them has already been fired.

3. Great GMs don't let their franchises get to a situation where they have to trade off bad contracts. Great GMs are great GMs because they are always on the right track. If a GM steers their franchise down the wrong track, they get FIRED, they don't get a chance to correct their mistakes.

 

Again and again Morey has proven the doubters wrong... can't wait till discussion about tanking is over and we become contenders.

 

They tanked in 2008 finishing with one of the worst records in history, netting them Beasley, then floundered for 2 years, basically made no key additions, and all it got them was LeBron & Bosh.

 

Why is it so hard to imagine I'd take the blue chip stock over the risky junk bond? Its not that I'm so entrenched in my position, I usually explain why I think the way I do.

I'm not saying everyone agrees with me, I'm sure 90% of the board would rather have Melo over Kevin Martin as well.

And what would be your proof that you can surround Dwight with talent after your team was so bad it tanked enough to get a high lottery pick? DH would be leaving the Magic for a reason, to go into a power team. I'm pretty sure he won't leave Orlando for Houston and then be patient enough to wait 3-4 years while you surround him with the talent he deserves. Same thing with CP3 unless collusion is involved its hard for them to commit to a barren team without another guy committing to it first. What happens is a waiting game that more than likely will result with the FAs signing with someone else.

NY and NJ both tried the "clear your capspace and sign max FAs" route. NY walked away with Amare (who is a huge risk at given his age, knees and injury history) and NJ walked away with just Anthony Morrow despite having Harris, Lopez and the 3rd pick in the draft as talent come-ons to potential free agents.

And that's why I'm saying there's no guarantee with tanking, even if your management is pretty good. Not only that, it might happen that your draft class might be a dud. DM might walk away with the BPA, but if say you're drafting 5th in a 4 man draft then that's not much consolation.

 

Wade was injured in 2008 that was why they sucked, not cos they "tanked".

And yes they made plenty of additions, they did so without compromising their cap position, which is what a smart GM always does, including Morey.

 

My idea is not really tanking, but make the bold moves required to stack some talented youth from the draft. Both Cleveland and Toronto have pretty big TE's enough to move Martin/Brooks/Scola for some picks imo. Maybe not Scola. A couple more moves like trading Yao contract (if insured) for Brand/Pick. These moves alone put you right back on track to rebuild in less then 2 seasons by not really tanking to luck out for lottery balls. So they could land a 'superstar' by not really having to tank. And on the fly clear cap room for 2012.

 

Uhhh.. you told me that tanking was losing on purpose. I said that we could play out the season, WITHOUT LOSING ON PURPOSE, and still be able to get a high pick by trading one of our assets for it. How exactly is that tanking? And how on earth would you know the draft pick would be a "non-productive" player? You don't, you're just pulling things out of your butt to try to save your losing argument.

If we traded Luis Scola for Kevin Love last year, when Scola was the better player but Love possibly having more potential.. would that be tanking? You need to get clear on the definition.

Actually, you're wrong again. Sam Presti was the GM who drafted Durant and traded Ray Allen -- check your facts. He;s also had multiple high draft selections.. four top five picks in three years -- and yet he's considered amongst the best GMs in the league. So much for proving your point?

Keeping with the wrong theme, Kevin Pritchard was the assistant GM (or GM in waiting) in 2006 -- the year before Oden. He's the one that has gotten credit for the Roy and LaMarcus deals, kinda how Morey gets credit for the Battier deals. But most importantly, Pritchard was not fired because of poor performance -- he was fired for personal reasons that transpired amongst his friends in the front office and the owner. So again, not really proving any point you're trying to make.

Most Importantly, I'd love to hear your plan to build this Rockets team into a contender. Remember, you can't trade any "proven" assets for "non-productive" players from the draft. Please, explain to me how we're going to build a championship when our three best players are all below-average defensively?

 

dang.. double post, sorry

 

You can't make up hypothetical trades that have no chance of happening in reality in order to justify your argument. There is ZERO chance of Kevin love being traded for Scola last year. The reason is that any top draft pick that would be traded for a productive veteran player is by definition non-productive, if they were productive why would the team that draft him trade him?

So don't give me hypotheticals, give me real examples of trades that have worked out well for the team that traded a productive player for a top draft pick, I can give you countless examples where it utterly failed.

Elton Brand for 2nd Pick
Ray Allen for 5th Pick
etc..

Sam Presti took over when the Sonics already had the 2nd pick sewn up, so in no way was he responsible for the franchise getting the 2nd pick. According to you, getting the 2nd pick is the most brilliant strategy that a GM can make, but instead of rewarding Rick Sund for it, the owner fired him.

Also Sam Presti took over one of the worst teams in the league, I don't see how that proves any point you are trying to make. Give me a GM that blew up a mediocre squad in order to get a high draft pick and still was employed after that team got back to relevance. Give me an example of that, and you might have a ghost of a point.

Also don't give me that crap about Pritchard fired for personal reasons, you don't think that the fact he draft Roy and gave him a max extension when the franchise already knew about his knee issues(which were the reason that he fell in the draft in the first place) and that he chose Oden over Durant when there was many people had huge red flags about Oden's health. You don't think that had anything to do with it?

 

For me, that's the most important part of the article. There's really not THAT big an "if" -- Minnesota and Memphis WERE willing to deal. Chronically bad teams are bad for a reason, and that's because they have management that does stupid things. I think our best bet of landing a high draft pick is for Morey to fleece the less-intelligent GM of one of these bad teams.

Find out which bad team is most hurting for cash and offer to take a really bad contract off their hands in return for Jeffries -- IF they part with their #1 NOT-lottery protected. Find out which perennially bad team wants to get under the LT this year and give them Jeffries and Brooks for their #1 and a solid rotation guy.

Those are just examples, obviously, and because the Rockets don't pay me like they pay DM, I'm not going to do the work to plug real teams and players in. Still, it can be done. The Lakers made trades in the late '70s that landed them the #1 pick two years in a row. Hello, Magic! Hello, Worthy! Hello, Showtime dynasty.

Moral of the story is: Tanking is for losers. We hired Morey because he's smarter than the average bear. Time for him to out-think a few people and get us a top 5 pick.

 

That's some great logic you got going on there. If a draft pick is traded for a player who is productive, then the draft pick is by definition non-productive. Brilliant.

You said, "GMS who get high draft picks year after year get fired." I gave you two examples of GMs that were considered amongst the leagues best and had multiple high draft picks -- neither of which got fired for doing a poor job.

According to me getting the 2nd pick is the most brilliant strategy a GM can make? Do you just hit reply and not read anything I'm saying? I've never ONCE advocated for the team to purposely lose games OR trade players for crappier ones so that we would have a worse record.

What I DID say was that, if we're going to trade for a superstar, we need to have a big-time asset like a top five pick would usually get you. Do you dispute this? Do you think we can land a superstar with Kevin Martin as the centerpiece? With Aaron Brooks? Luis Scola? I don't seem to recall Denver being too interested in anything we've offered so far.

Again, poor argument. Presti was the one pulling the strings in deciding to draft Durant, letting Rashard Lewis walk, AND trading Ray Allen. He saw they had a mediocre squad, he helped blow it up by dealing Ray Allen and letting Rashard walk for the cap space. The Thunder are now one of the better young teams in the league right now -- but let me guess, you're going to comeback with "how many rings have they won?!?" Jordan was 28 years old before he won his first championship, so don't come back telling me the Thunder strategy is not smart because a 22 year old Kevin Durant hasn't won a championship yet.

I'm sure a little. But the main reason he was fired was for the behind-the-scenes stuff that went on. If you don't know that, you weren't following the situation very closely. The owner released the news of his firing one hour before the Draft -- if that doesn't tip you off that it was personal, then I don't know what will.

Exactly the type of moves I'd consider. Probably best to go fishing for those moves closer to the deadline so that we have a better idea of the direction the teams are heading.

In the end, and for the last time trugoy, I don't want this team to lose on purpose. I don't really think any team has ever done that in the new age lottery, except maybe with the Spurs situation (lot of reports saying their vets were healthy enough to play at end of year).

trugoy, you've failed to lay out your plan for me on how you expect to build a championship contender. When we had Yao & McGrady, all we had to do was add the right role players around them -- both of them were top tier stars. What are you going to do when your three best guys are third-tier stars, at best? Build the Detroit Pistons? Well that options off the table when your three best players are also your three worst defenders, seeing as the Pistons had the best defense in the NBA the year they won.

So what should you do? Tank? Be the villain? No -- you let other teams suck, target who you believe will or can develop into a true franchise player, and trade up to get them. If that means giving up one of our three 'best' guys, so be it -- they aren't leading us anywhere except mediocrity. The benefit of having a high pick is that you can either: a) develop him into the franchise player you believe he can be; or b) use him as bait to trade for a disgruntled superstar.

Hypothetically, if we traded Kevin Martin and the #18th pick for the #4th pick in the draft -- do you think this makes us considerably worse next year? Courtney Lee is a much better defender and still gives you a great spotup three-point threat from the SG position. Lee can average double figures in scoring given the minutes and Scola/Brooks' can certainly pick up the scoring slack. Additionally, you would assume that we did the trade to pick up an impact player. You're acting as if a move like the one above would completely dismantle our team and put us amongst the bottom feeders -- I highly doubt it. We'd be just as competitive and still have a pretty good team -- with a #4 pick to develop or use in a trade to add to our 'asset' collection.. in fact, it would most likely be the best asset we have -- a young player with a high ceiling locked into a cheap contract for several years.

If there isn't a player at that spot that management feels can eventually lead this team, then they don't do the deal -- but you're outright stupid if you think they should never consider a move like this. It all depends on who enters into the draft and who would be available.. I've said many times that I wouldn't mind holding on to Brooks/Martin/Scola until the draft to see if we can use them to move up to draft a guy we really like.

Dwight & CP3 will be two guys who will be in the exact same position that Carmelo is in next year -- and guess what: we won't be able to land them for Brooks/Martin/Scola either. If we're able to trade for a top draft pick in the coming draft, we might be able to land an asset that can stack up to what other teams will be offering for either player.

In the end, both sides would love to trade for a big time superstar. Both sides should recognize that the three best guys on our team right now are not capable of leading this team to a championship by themselves -- they should be in supporting roles, not starring ones.

If we're going to trade for a superstar, we're going to need big-time assets.. it's about quality, not quantity.

 

So please give me one example in the CBA era of a trade of a productive player for a draft pick that went well.

You gave me two examples of GMs who were hired 3 years ago, and one of them has already been fired and you think this is proving your point?

The one who hasn't been fired, has improved his teams record each year and has only ever been to the lottery 2 times.

Presti has guided his team to the lottery two times, his superstar Kevin Durant was a lucky inheritance, the difference between them being a rising young team vs a twolves basketcase is that they got very very lucky that year they had the 8th worst record in the league but got the number 2 pick.

So you believe all that bull**** about personality that the portland newspapers were spewing, all that is pure propaganda on behalf of pritchard.

His performance is worthy of firing, he's basically done a really bad job after the 2006 draft, blunder after blunder.

Look at his moves, especially his move to have Roy remove all the cartiledge in his knee and return within 10 days of having knee surgery.

That was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

I laid it out perfectly here
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=198011

 

The only thing worse than building around Martin is building around Rudy Gay, except Gay is still young and could end up a pretty good player while you already know what Martin will give you and it just ain't good enough.

The only recent exception to the "Superstars wins championships" rule was the Pistons, they did it by having 5 guys who were all borderline all stars playing elite defense.

your plan to build around Martin will yield the same number of championships as tanking and drafting a bust, none.

 

Obviously Morey doesn't think so, which is why is scouring the NBA for a defensive C, exactly like how the pacers built around reggie Miller.

 

We would be looking for a Center regardless of whether or not Kevin Martin was on the team, our starting Center just gone down for the 40th time and we have a 6'6 guy taking his spot.

Anyone with a brain would be looking for a defensive C at the point, doesn't mean Morey wants to build around Kevin freakin Martin who wishes he could be as good as Miller.

 

Kevin Martin is our best player, he is our highest paid player(other than Yao), he is our top scorer, what do you call putting better players around him other than Building around Kevin Martin?

 

Crap, half the posters in this thread want to trade Kevin Martin for a lottery pick. Getting a defensive C is called building around Kevin Martin.

 

We would be the Grizzles, who are building around Rudy Gay just because he is their highest paid and their top scorer.

BTW slightly off topic, this feels really weird because we are having 2 separate arguments in different threads