I see Jag's point, but I think Rice helps the Rockets on offense more than he hurts the defense. I'd like to see Langhi, Walt, and KT traded and bring in a couple of backups that make up for the complementary weaknesses. I am hoping Morris and Griffin shore up the defense.
If you are looking for an example of how the Rockets can succeed with a collection of scorers and no truly exceptional defenders, look no further than the Bucks. George Karl took a team led by Sam Cassel, Glenn Robinson, and Ray Allen and had them poised to make it to the NBA finals. Now I know doing so in the much bigger west will be almost impossible, but were we going to beat the Lakers or Spurs with SA instead of Rice? Of course not, and I'm sure Rudy and CD already knew this. IMO, the motivation behind this trade was that as they were envisioning their offensive sets for the upcoming season, the one element that never seemed to fit was seeing SA standing around on the 3-pt line waiting to brick another wide-open look, or worse yet, pass on it. Enter Rice, possibly the second-best shooter in the League behind Reggie. Looking at the Knicks roster, whom would you have rather had? Camby is untouchable, and a case could be made for Othella, but unless another SF was acquired to replace SA, you're looking at starting a rook or the Wizard. A more realistic goal may be the Mavericks of last year. I'll take Steve, Cat, Rice and Mo over Nash, Finley, Dirk and Juwan. That team was built around scorers, yet still managed to get the 5th seed and pull off a 1st round upset over the Jazz. Looking at our roster, I see no reason why we cannot realistically expect to reach that level as well. As far as Rice hindering a run at a C or freezing our FA flexibility, we have tried that route, and it has failed. We've had tons of cap room the last two offseasons, and what has it brought us? SA and MoT? Those two signed for exception money, while the big bucks set aside for the Webbers and Duncans have gone unused. The way I see it, any team with legit championship hopes needs two superstars, a third star to ease the scoring burden, and role players do the little things. We already have our two superstars (Steve and Griff) and our third scorer (Cat), so all we need to do is surround them with good support and let them grow. In three years, when Griff has matured enough to contend with TD and KG in the paint and Franchise is a perennial All-Star, Rice will be a FA, we will have the flexibility to fill in the holes and make our run.
Comparison to the Bucks are not very accurate assesments. 1) If (and that's a big if) we say that Francis and Mobley are equal to Cassell and Allen, then I submit that Glenn Robinson (who is 6 years younger than Rice) is a better defender and a better rebounder than Glen Rice. Right now, if the contracts were equal and Milwaukee offered Robinson for Rice straight up, who here would not take the deal? To imply or even expect that the Rockets will be successful because they "resemble" the Bucks is a poor argument IMHO. 2) Kelvin Cato makes Earvin Johnson look like a the next coming of Jabbar. Johnson is the "D" player JAG is arguing that the Rocks need. The Bucks' success against the WC was not all Cassell, Allen, and Robinson.
There is no way that losing Shandon Anderson means our defense will fall apart, and not even losing Dream will hurt as badly because he played limited minutes, and missed a ton of games. The Rockets defense, while it needs improvement, isn't as bad as stated. The Rockets held teams to less points this other playoff teams such as Toronto, the Lakers, Minnesota, Sacramento, etc. The Rockets had the best defense of all team that didn't make the playoffs, and better then some of the playoff teams. Keep in mind this is in the West. If Cato can even pretend to step it up he helps the defense a lot. Rice can't do any worse defensively at the SF spot then Shandon did. Shandon was obviously out of place at the SF spot.
<b>Comparison to the Bucks are not very accurate assesments. 1) If (and that's a big if) we say that Francis and Mobley are equal to Cassell and Allen, then I submit that Glenn Robinson (who is 6 years younger than Rice) is a better defender and a better rebounder than Glen Rice. </b> The funny thing is people ragged on Robinson's defense since he came into the league. He was looked as a guy who only cared about his stats and scoring, and didn't bother to hustle on defense. He still isn't consider a great individual defender, only a decent defender. As for Robinson being a better rebounder, Rice is a career 4.6 rpg player, Robinson is a career 7 rpg player, so that is true, but Rice isn't exactly a slouch. <b>Right now, if the contracts were equal and Milwaukee offered Robinson for Rice straight up, who here would not take the deal? </b> Obviously we would take Robinson because he is younger and with more upside. But if you had a chance to trade Jordan at age 33 for Kobe would you do it? Obviously not. Jordan may have been great at that age but he was getting older. That still doesn't mean you can't compare Kobe and Jordan. Rice fills a need for the Rockets, and while Glenn Robinson is probably better, well obviously better, Rice can make as much of an impact with the Rockets as Robinson can with the Bucks. <b>To imply or even expect that the Rockets will be successful because they "resemble" the Bucks is a poor argument IMHO. </b> Not really. The Rockets were similar to Milwaukee, beat Milwaukee at their own game, and have improved their offense. <b>2) Kelvin Cato makes Earvin Johnson look like a the next coming of Jabbar. Johnson is the "D player JAG is arguing that the Rocks need. The Bucks' success against the WC was not all Cassell, Allen, and Robinson.</b> Cato, while playing horribly last year, outscored Johnson, rebounded well, and when motivated is a better shot-blocker. Consider, Cato didn't play well, and his rebounding would go up with minutes, he was a better scorer then Johnson, and he is probably a better shot-blocker.
I agree with Gater - now that the Rockets are obligated to Glen Rice contract - we do not have options on free agency. We do not have any money left. We can't sign Moochie.The best thing about this transaction may be Kyle Hill as back up point guard. We are too thin in this spot. Without Moochie to back up Steve-I hope Hill can play. I hope this deal does not turn out as bad as signing Matt Maloney to a long term deal- all long range shooting - no defense-no game....
GATER- I wasn't trying to say the Rocks were exactly like the Bucks, I was just using them as an example of a donut team that has found a way to be successful. Ervin Johnson, btw, didn't even start in the playoffs. It was Scott Williams, with Johnson coming off the bench. As for Robinson, I know he is better than Rice, but as mentioned, as a defender he is average at best. Basically, they are both excellent spot-up shooters, decent rebounders, and below-average defenders. Besides, I eventually conceded that the Mavs might be a better example. I cannot think of a PF in the NBA more like MoT than Juwan Howard. Bradley is a shotblocker, but would you trade him straight up for Cato? Dirk is far better than Rice, but in a zone, his stroke from the outside is just as good. And I will take our backcourt over any in the league. My whole point was that by replacing SA with a scorer like Rice, I think we improved to the point where competing for a 5th or 6th seed is not so impossible. You can make the argument that having a defender like SA is more valuable, but I agree with others on this board who think his D is overrated.
crispee-- What I said was that someone had suggested that our "individual" defenders were somehow better than the "Nasty Boys" individual defenders...I apologize if my blindness lead me to incorrectly infer that from your statement " The fact is, the heart of their offense in '84-89 played worse indival (sic) defense than the heart of our offense, but everyone was fast or strong." I'm always making mistakes like that...
So, you always thought I was comparing us to the "Nasty Boys." I was talking about the evolution of the champion....not the champion. I want to talk about how Detroit built an offense first. If you can't remember Isiah, Tripucka, Laimbeer and Vinnie being a scoring machine with no defense....I can tell you they were. Then note they traded for Dantley (arguable the worst defensive low post player ever) and made the Finals. Then traded him for Aguirre (another softy), and won twice. Their offensive system evolved around the skills of mediocre defenders. Now, why would I compare our defense to them?? I was comparing our evolution to that of a defensive poor Detroit, which coincidentally turned out to be the BEST defensive team ever, yet continued making trades for bad defenders Tripucka -> Dantley -> Aguirre. Given comparable evolution, us versus the mid 80s Pistons, there is no reason to say the future of our defense is in question by this trade for Rice. Detroit drafted their defense with mediocre draft picks, and used their blockbusters on scorers with bad defense. Sounds familiar to me. Oh....and thanks for the [ sic ] there JAG. I see you are a man of BBS formality. btw: I'm not...
crispee-- In terms of defense, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In terms of which Pistons team you were discussing in your post, I'm never very good with years, but I thought the Championships were between the 84-89 period you mentioned.. Also, and maybe someone can clear this up if I'm wrong, but I thought that when the Pistons drafted Dumars (out of McNeese State, if I remember correctly) he was amongst the leading scorers in the nation. His ability to play defense was only part of his package, and while he was often the Pistons second leading scorer during the Championship years, he was an all arounder that I'm not entirely convinced we can count on acquiring through a "mediocre" draft pick...My point is that it wasn't getting guys like Tripuka that lead to the Championship years, there were, like Dumars, a lot more important moves down the road that had little or nothing to do with having had one dimensional scorers on the team..In fact, if you look at the way they shuffled Tripuka/Dantley/Aguirre in and out, you might be tempted to conclude that one-dimensional scorers are the most easily replaced parts of the puzzle. I have heard Chuck Dailey state that, while Isiah was a given (being drafted so high), the move that made the Pistons the Champions they were to become was the incredible return on value that they got when they drafted Joe Dumars...And, although it has no bearing on this conversation, Tripuka was amongst the most over rated players I have ever seen... While agreeing to disagree re: defense, though, can we find some common ground re: Rice's attitude? Are you at all concerned about his constant complaints when he's not the offense's first priority, and the effect that might have on this young team built around two fairly proficient scorers?Adding him to Cato in the starting 5, surrounded by younger players, might that not be a bad combination?
Good point about Tripucka -> Dantley -> Aguirre proving how you can actually acquire your leading scorer via trades, but not unless you part with your leading scorer. The return on value of Dumars definitely won them that championship, and same with Rodman. Good point that Daly's trades for leading scorers were based on no idea about the true value of Dumars and Rodman, much like how Rudy doesn't know the true value of Eddie Griffin, yet, or role playing ability of Morris on defense. And for reference: <ul><li>Detroit won their rings in '89 and '90. And Dantley and Aguirre were leading scorers the 3 times they went to the finals. <li>Joe Dumars was an #18th pick <li>Dumars looked up to Dantley as a role model <li>Mahorn was a trade in '85 for non-essentials <li>Rodman was a 2nd rounder and Sally a #11 in the '86 draft <li>So, the "Nasty (sic) Boys" were not put together until 86-87, and not really a major force until the '88 final with Dantley.</ul> good discussion
I don't think that the people who suggest Rice is a bad fit as a Rocket will go with you when you suggest that Rice has no game, that's a LITTLE extreme. And regarding Moochie, we have his early bird rights (didn't renounce them) and that enables us to give him the same sort of contract that Mobley is on. If it comes to him wanting that much money then I'm all for letting him walk, he's just not worth $4.5mill plus per seaason. Kyle Hill simply replaces Colson on the bench; if Moochie goes then we have to find another backup PG, Hill won't do there!!
My point was that cap room is not the only way to lure a player to a club. More often than not a big move will go down through a trade to land the big name player or through a sign & trade to secure the marquee free agents. Look at the bulls, they've had cap-room for the last three seasons and haven't been able to do anything more than sign Eddie Robinson and Ron Mercer to massive deals. The best player they picked up was Oakley and that was through a trade. Free agents (more particularly their agents) know how much cap-space a team has and will seek to get as much of that for themselves as possible. I still assert that there is nobody out there worth pursuing. Do you think Mason (an all-star last season) will take the same amount of money that Eddie Robinson (a bench player) is getting? Mason would want 8million himself, and in terms of fitting the Rockets system, I think Rice is a better player. Two things about this; (i) Do you think the Rockets are a better team by just letting go of two of last years starters and filling the gaps with 2 rookies and Jelani McCoy? I guess it's possible that this improves the team, but how much? 2-3 games? Perhaps the Rockets staff see something in the game of Morris that makes them think that he'll be able to fill some of the defensive roles that Shandon took on? Maybe (*gasp*) BahDakota is right and Griffin plays PF this year - I'm starting to get on board with the thinking that MoT plays a lot of center during stretches and that Griffin gets time at the PF spot - that's what he himself has suggested in terms of where he plays. Rice doesn't take Griffins time because Rudy will find a way for them all to play. (ii) If we leave ourselves with $8million in cap-space and wait until the trading deadline to become "everybodies favourite trading partner" then we will get stuck with junk! Who would we have that anyone would want to take away from us? Teams with players on contracts that they want to dump in order to clear cap-room would be ringing the phones all week to dump them off on us, what can we expect to get out of this? Maybe I was incoherent when I made the original post, but I still don't think that Rice is that much of a dud pick-up; in my book it was Rice or Anderson - and there's no debate about who is better there.
First...is "Nasty" innacurate? Second...how do you get those dot things? Third...Given that you and i seem to agree that Dumars and Rodman were the moves that made Detroit Champions, do you then agree that the previous moves, the one-dimensional offensive player ones, were the easier to construct? I mean, let's assume that you and I, crispee, are the Rockets' co-Gms.(!!!), do we really want to use the Pistons as our blue-print? How does it go... "Well, Crisp...we've got the important parts in place...we've got Tripuka, and Thomas...and we can flip KT for a real player before the rest of the league figures out that when he's not scoring Kelly adds less to our team than the jock-strap guy...All we've got to do now is turn a late first round pick into one of the best guards in the game, and use a second rounder to draft maybe the best defender/rebounder since Russell..." "Now, Jag, don't forget we need to get a servicable big man/tough guy to help lead these guys and give them an identity..." " Right you are, Crispee, but those guys are a dime a dozen in our universe..." You get my point...to justify the Rockets' acquisition of Rice by comparison with the Pistons getting the likes of Tripuka/Dantley (a much better player than KT in my opinion) and assume that the defense can be improved afterwards in a similar fashion is assuming that we can pull of moves similar to those that the Pistons used to get Dumars and Rodman...and those kind of moves happen less often than Michael Jordan gets in foul trouble... Hey, you never answered my question re: Rice's attitude and it's possible repercussions...Does that not give you cause for concern on a young team still establishing their identity? For example, if we get back to our Pistons analogy...wouldn't it be fair to say that the younger Pistons stars (Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, etc.) took their cues from the likes of Mahorn, Dantley, etc..in other words, the veterans brought into the team established the tough guy image, and the younger players bought into it...Is Rice the guy we want establishing the tone for our team? And isn't there a danger of that happening? Sure, it's Stevie's team, but he's still young...The Pistons were unquestionably Isiah's team too, but Laimbeer, Mahorn, and Dantley wrote the music he danced to...So, if that does happen, what is our image going to be? 12 guys chucking it up every chance they get, playing Flag Rules defense, and every game to be immediately followed by 12 seperate news conferences wherein each player sadly suggests that he needs a new environment, as the present offense doesn't give him the opportunity he deserves? What will our nickname be...the Needy Boys? The No-D Boys?
Wow, is this a great thread or what? It went over my head about 24 hours ago and has just kept climbing. Did you guys know that by using parthenogenesis you can grow stem cell lines without fertilization or the possibility of embryonic development beyond the blastocyst stage? It's even less ethically problematic than somatic cell nuclear transfer.
