I have nothing to add to this post. I'm just quoting it because it's so well-reasoned and non-kneejerk that I want to make sure more people read it.
Sure, but that's not really the point. If you have a final spot on your roster, and you have to choose among players with non-guaranteed contracts (or will be owed equivalent money) to fill that spot, who do you take? That's the question I'm asking. This came down to a choice between Lin, Adrien, and Smith. Flynn making the team was a given.
I would have kept greg smith then. If I had to pick now, id still probably pick smith. And this is coming from someone who just won a bet with lin. If lin would not play on our team, why would you keep him?
Its possible it wasn't, but that's my assumption. For the sake of discussion, I'm saying let's assume that in the end the competition for the last spot was between the three guys without a guaranteed contract. Now, what should the criteria be for making the selection?
Think outside the box and cut Jonny Flynn. Isn't Moneyball about challenging conventional wisdom to gain advantage?
Its not guaranteed that Lin wouldn't play. People forget, Dragic struggled quite a bit in the first half of the season. Maybe Lin would have been given a chance, and maybe he would have made the most of it. Also, there are some who believe Dragic is a prime candidate to be traded, because his skills are valued around the league and we may not want to pay him what he's worth this summer. Well, having Lin to fill in behind Lowry would be pretty nice in that case.
At the same time, its not guaranteed that he would play. Both showed their talent. I would take the player at the position we were weak at, which was/is center.
I think in general you go with the guy who has the best upside, a low risk high return kind of thinking. But at the bottom of it, it is still a matter of talent assessment. I have pointed out many times in all these Lin discussions. If they knew Lin was as good as he is showing, they would have kept him not over Adrien, not over Flynn, but over Dragic. Morey would have signed Lin to a 2-year or 3-year cheap contract like those of Budinger and Parsons. And he would trade Dragic for something much better than Adrien. (Yes, for the nth time to those who say Lin wouldn't have been playing on the Rockets, that's a false assumption. If Morey had kept Lin, it would be because he thought Lin could play the backup PG spot in place of Dragic.)
If they knew he was this good, I agree. They didn't so even if they kept him, he would not be playing unless lowry/dragic got injured.
The Rockets were not going to carry 4 point guards into the season, especially keeping in mind that Courtney Lee can also be a serviceable PG if needed. So it came down to a question between Lin or Flynn. Keep one, cut one. Flynn was from Minnesota like McHale and it appears that Coach McHale had probably put himself on the line for Flynn. And Flynn also had a guaranteed contract. So, there it is. Lin was, for all practical purposes, designated camp fodder from the moment he arrived. He never really had a chance here.
I think that played into it a GOOD AMOUNT. Rockets only made a LIGHT "commitment" to Adrien. But even just THAT LITTLE BIT of commitment probably kept him in more. That kinda made Adrien a "14th & 1/2" guy. Letting go Adrien in that way mighta led to more "Morey treat human man as ASSET" sentiment within the team. Some Vassillis Spanoulis cry baby stuff Lin was a typical "last one in, first to go" acquisition. If they brought in Lin the same way they did Adrien luring him over from a STEADY job, I bet Lin woulda have more "in" and Adrien would have been an easy cut.
Well, that's 5 bigs spread out over two positions, versus three PGs spread mostly over one position (conceding that we have played two PG offenses). One other factor... PG is the Rockets strongest position, and Lowry is arguably your best player and plays a lot of minutes. Dragic is considered better than Lin and has played well enough to warrant substantial minutes. So... not many possible minutes for the 3rd PG, regardless as to whether its Flynn or Lin. And if your argument is that you have four PGs on the roster... even fewer possible minutes. Contrast that with our bigs... yes, Scola is a good offensive player and decent rebounder. Dalembert is a reasonably good defender and rebounder. But Patterson was recovering from an injury, and Hill is spotty at best, and Thabeet is, well, less than zero. And teams basically slice through our defense like hot knife through butter. And our defensive rebounding is also spotty. It would be hard to consider any of the bigs "our best player" or that the bigs is our strongest position. All this adds up to using that last position to shore up the bigs. And if it isn't Adrien, its Smith.
Moneyball has nothing to do with challenging conventional wisdom, it has to do with...money. Cap flexibility > 3rd stringer.
Good post. Agree to most of your points. The only thing I disagree is "d'Antoni system of all-offense no-defense ". The knicks play great defense right now without Amare and Melo. If only D'Antoni can make both their stars play some defense, we shall see.
