[rquoter]"We talked about it," Brooks said. "They explained their reasoning. I'm cool with that. I'll move on." [/rquoter] Brooks has already mentally checked out and decided to move on to another team. Time to trade his ass.
I disagree with this, they have more tradeable assets if they make the extension, because if they go restricted, they limit their ability to trade anyone going forward. I also agree, it makes the franchise look cheap, and it gives players another reason not to come here. And honestly, the whole "Improve through trade" thing, works occassionally, but it is not necessarily the best option.....sure Boston did it, and LA got lucky with Gasol, but so few superstar players shake loose. I think DM is blinded by the fact that Boston pulled it off, which is more an outlier than the norm. If anyone has ever managed people, and a team of people be it in business or sports or whatever, chemistry and harmony are keys to success....the way DM goes about it, does not create either. I am not a buyer of DM's style of people management. DD
Poison Pill Provisions and Base Year Compensation Status limit ability to trade. This is not to even mention the reasonableness of the contract.
True, but teams know what that contract will be when they make the trade....anyone trading for Brooks now will know he has the power as a restricted free agent to seek a huge deal, leaving them in the lurch or forced into doing something they may not be comfortable with..... The known is always better than the unknown. DD
This is the unfortunate business side of the game... but I personally have to side with the Rockets right now. Don't get me wrong, I do like Brooks as a player, but right now all he's shown is a lack of ability to play defense (something that has always been a problem with him) and he's consistently blown games with his poor court management in the 4th quarter. The Rockets just can't simply sign him to an extension in hopes that those two things improve.
I think it was a good call because this coming offseason, the Rockets have an especially urgent need for flexibility. They don't know if Yao is healthy enough to continue to be their superstar. And they don't currently have another franchise player to glom onto. So, they need to prime the roster for maximum flexibility. Keeping their options open so they have the ability to revamp the roster later is worth something, since they will definitely need to make some big trades to get their next star (except in the case of Yao's miraculous recovery).
ok, at first it was just a joke putting josh smith + Teague + picks for Brooks and Scola im pretty sure this works financially, and also, it will improve us significantly in one position, the pf. its the gain through loss thing i had mentioned. this team has way to much talent, which is causing us to lose games, as we have no EXACT rotation. so by giving up two role players, we get smith, which is without a doubt only going to get better, he is only 25, and has crazy good defense. he would fit great with our offense as well, as we are doing the whole run n gun thing now. dunks and inside presence, something we desperately need. his addition would also imo, make us a top 5 defensive team. battier, ming, dampier, hayes, lowry, and smith. get outta here. and let's not forget guys, scola isnt getting any younger, the man is 30, and is playing a lot of minutes, i love him, but come on, lets be real, how long can he keep this up for. we are asking to much from him. brooks is the key here, i think teague is a pretty good prospect, we'd obviously start lowry, and would play teague, a little or not much, but i think he has great potential, nice defense, good offense. he has what it takes to be an all star. unless you want mike bibby, veteran, all offense, like brooks, which eh, im not too excited about. and picks of course would be what makes us do it, it cant be a trade with out picks, since we are giving up the almight brooks.... http://www.hoopdata.com/blogengine/post/2010/10/14/What-Kind-of-Point-Guard-Can-Jeff-Teague-Be.aspx what do you think clutchfans?
Let's take Brooks as an example. If we sign him to a deal, that puts a cap on how aggressive we can be going after a star (perhaps a max-deal star). I don't believe our thinking is that we can sign him cheaper by waiting. The motivation is maintaining the flexibility to bring in a star. Same with Lowry/Scola. The Rockets main objective this past summer was acquiring a star player via sign&trade. They failed in that objective, but at the same time they did give themselves a chance. If they extended Lowry and Scola early, I don't think they even give themselves that chance, because they wouldn't have the cap flexibility to trade for a max player. When you look at it historically (and lets keep in mind that the Rockets do look at historical trends -- they study it much more closely than any of us have), how do teams win championships? With stars. Not just pretty good players, but multiple allstars or 1 or more superstars who play big minutes. There are very few exceptions to that. How do you acquire such players? You can develop them, in-house. That's rare, unless you've drafted high in the lottery. You can clear house, and sign them in the offseason -- but some franchises/locations are more "attractive" to players than others. And if you strike out in a free agent bid, then you've screwed your team for the upcoming season. But then that gives you a chance to draft high in the following summer. Or, you can build up your roster, accumulate players with good contracts that other teams are interested in, and then try to pry away all-stars or potential stars from those teams. Clearly, the Rockets are going for the latter approach. That allows them to remain competitive and please the fans, while also giving them opportunities along the way to upgrade to the next level. You think they should just stick with what they have, I take it?
You want to give an extension to a guy that put up 20-5 (Ala Mike James) on a non-playoff team, for one year? Not to mention the defensive side of the ball? His value is at an all-time high, and frankly, I see little room for improvement. His value is deflating with every game played, and the new CBA could greatly dwindle his pricetag, which is of the utmost importance to a team that might have to completely rebuild in a year's time, imo. I would much rather stay financially flexible, and not commit to a PG devoid of size, pacing, vision, and perimeter defense. I like AB, he is a difference maker. He could be a solid 3rd/4th option on a playoff team. You DO NOT extend 3rd/4th offensive options. Take Jeff Green for instance.
This is an unfortunate part of the "Asset" side of Morey's mindset. I think being MIP he probably should have gotten an extension, but because he will be restricted I cannot fault Morey on handling it well moneywise because we can sit back and let the market dictate his value, problem is he could end up on another team and we get nothing. Also, will "statistics" tell us how not getting an extension will affect his attitude and/or performance this year?
The underlying message is that Morey has shown he can overpay for players who can perform/will take the Rockets to the next level. But if AB isn't showing that he can match what he's asking for, then he becomes one of those players that can be flipped (bargain assets). It doesn't mean he will trade AB. Just means AB is another card who's expendable if he doesn't fit when Morey does land THE player Morey covets. numbers and numbers
Brooks is trade bait. He can't net us a very good player. Or we can just keep him. Win/win situation.
Oh boy, here we go. DD's going to start spamming the BBS on how Morey, Adelman, and Yao are cancers now.
This is the same guy who thinks Budinger is going to be a perennial all-star. He's said repeatedly that he thinks the Rockets are a championship team right now.
Actually, yes, it could. Just look at past trends on how players perform without an extension and with an extension. Generally, players perform better when they are playing for a contract. I'm sure the Rockets have some data on that, and it may very well be guiding their decision making to some degree.
I much rather have players play to earn their contracts, then just to give an extension early in the season. If Brooks wants that big contract, he'll have to earn it this year. Smart move by Morey.
We'll see what happens. If Brooks takes a step back this year, I think I know what the excuse will be.
Pretty sure somewhere along the line he flopped and also said the focus was on next year. We can't have the best of both worlds. If the focus is next year, we don't go for one year rentals.
