Clutch You seem to assume team chemistry builds as a matter-of-fact over time. I'm sure you'd agree team chemistry is more delicate and difficult to achieve than that. Wholesale changes pretty much throws team chemistry to the wind, and the franchise at that point has lost control and must rely on the players developing it themselves. Throwing out the veterans and forcing the rooks to develop on their own can result in cell phones taking over the locker room...egos fighting...blah blah. You simply cannot rely on the youngsters nowadays being determined and team focused like Garnett or Duncan. The majority of them simply don't have that character; yet can develop it in the right atmosphere. Look at the Lakers: team chemistry problems after a slew of trades. Look at Miami: wholesale changes with Riley, but he still doesn't have them performing in playoffs better than Utah and Indiana. I agree with you that the young nucleus is the future and we should change the team now to suit them. I only disagree on how to do it. First, I think our young players are getting plenty of playing time right now (except Cato--i don't know what's up with that)...I suspect Cato has changed since the contract--see barkley's comments. Secondly, I don't think trades will get any quality young players in return like they can in baseball. Thirdly, we still need to protect our franchise identity as a class place to play (that is important for future free agents). Lastly, our current young nucleus is in place (splash in a choice free agent down the road and roll players--voila). Remember: Your way and my way cannot produce a contender any faster than Minn or Sac have done...yet every champion from the Pistons on, was built from talent and roll players in a solid mixture of team chemistry. Sorry you can't see how your wholesale trade idea throws chemistry and franchise identity to the wind...leaving it to the player egos to regain. I'm glad the Rockets front office would never listen to these fantasy basketball approaches to player moves.
Of course I don't think we should trade Hakeem, duh. But, not just for personal reasons. He has already said that he doesn't want to be traded, and that he'll retire before he allows it to happen. So, why even ask the question? Because, if he retires, we don't get anything and we still take the salary hit. I really don't think we should trade Barkley either. If we do, I don't know if I'll ever consider him a true Rocket. If he retires here in Houston, I will lean more to considering him one. Yeah, yeah, that may just be me, but I'm giving my opinion here. But, besides that, who is gonna give us anything of value for an aging player who is retiring at the end of the season? Even if a team wanted to, how could they with his contract? They'd have to match his $9 or $10 million contract with either quantity or quality. Answer me this: Let's say you have a house and a dog in the backyard for protection. A few years go by and that dog turns out to be a great investment. He has been a great companion to you and your kids, he loves the neighborhood kids too. He doesn't crap in the house, he doesn't bark unless there's something wrong, he greets you everyday when you come home, and he has on two seperate occasions foiled armed robbery of your home. But, after ten years or so, he starts to get old. He can't see like he used to, and he's sure as heck isn't as fast as in his prime. Meanwhile, about a year ago, you got another young puppy. This puppy seems to have all the potential to be as good a dog as his predecessor. He isn't as big as the other dog, but he's quicker and scrappier. Would you just send the first dog to the pound or Animal Control because he can't do his job as well as he used to? Or would you hang onto him and show him the same loyalty that he showed you until the bitter end? Well, I for one would stick with him. Keep in mind there is no guarantee the new puppy will be as good, or not get sick or hurt. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem.
I am sorry about all the reposts. I'm still fairly new here and didn't realize my messages were posting but they were on another page. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I apologize to Clutch too. I didn't realize he meant "only if they want the trade". I would give Dream and Charles whatever they want - and sorry, yes out of loyalty and what they have done for the team, especially Dream. Of course, I would have to get something to benefit my team for the future. I thought the way the trade of Hakeem and Toronto was handled poorly. It obviously was not what he wanted - he did not even know about it. I am sorry I missed the point (not my day)in that yall are talking down the road if the record is still poor. My only point is it has to be handled with class - has to be wanted by the two Top 50 stars and has to be to a contender, especially for Barkley. Heehee, my last post on this topic, I promise.
heypartner Thank God the Rockets don't listen to stay-put freaks otherwise we'd still be built around Ralph Sampson, Tim McCormick and "Cornbread" Maxwell. You seemed to ignore the contradiction you posted, that you stated it takes "years" to develop chemistry. I agreed, but stated we don't have years with Barkley and Olajuwon. I'm awaiting your response to that. You also seem to think that I think a trade guarantees chemistry. Of course not. What I am saying is we need to get the guys in here that we plan on trying to build with. If chemistry is unstable, you change the structure. But if you're trying to form a championship concotion that teakes years to develop, your main chemicals shouldn't be ones that dissipate after a year or two. Capiche? That is, unless you plan on burning research for a year or two knowing you won't reach the answer and starting completely over at that time. What if we had said "Lets keep John Lucas", or "Why give up cash for this Maxwell hothead?", or "Jim Petersen will come around." No Kenny. No Vernon. No Otis. ... or, "Why part with Otis... he helped us win last year. We've already got perfect chemistry." No Clyde. Minnesota was an up-and-coming team with Marbury and Gugliotta. Both gone. By trading Marbury, they got Brandon AND Szczerbiak. Not bad. Trades are not always the answer, but to rebuild they are sometimes necessary. ------------------ Clutch Out to prove Scottie Pippen will apologize at gunpoint. www.clutchcity.net
Kudo's to Clutch for having the Balls to bring up this topic. For those of you who think even mentioning the word trade when it comes to Hakeem and Barkley denotes an unloyal and fairweather fan, grow up. The NBA is a business, plain and simple. If the Rockets trading away a veteran is the only possible way to rebuild the team, then it has to be viewed as an option. Remember the TEAM NAME is the Houston ROCKETS, not the Houston Hakeems. IMHO, trading Hakeem would give us more leverage, although it would kill me to see him in another uniform. BTW, if you don't like the way the site is being run, build your own damn BBS, I'm staying here with this one. ------------------ The truth is out there... but not in the post.
I'd keep 'em both, hope to God we make the playoffs, and see what happens from there. Charles will either go out a champion or have a sad, yet unbelievably heroic finale to his great career. ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL.
The Clips aren't really the BEST example....the reason they could not rebuild successfully was mainly due to the part of one man, Sterling. [Note: This message has been edited by Administrator]
Thacabbage: BTW, LOL and other acronysms are tired, old, and really belong in teenage chat rooms. Just letting you know. ------------------ "I would like to thank... everyone... for their contriboootions" Hakeem accepting his MVP award at the 1999-2000 NBA Finals.
