Some of your comments seem to indicate that you have a great deal of confidence in the Rockets front office and management. I'm with you on that, but the comments above seem to contradict that position. Look at how well the Rockets have drafted in the late first round and early second round. Given their track record, wouldn't you be okay with the team taking their chances with a late lottery pick? I'm glad you brought up specific individuals, because I think that's what you're going to need to do to validate trading the lottery pick for a role player. I think the scenarios have to be realistic. I would not trade the lottery pick for a center coming off knee reconstruction in Pryzbilla. Alligator arms Gortat is intriguing, but only because he fills a need. Jamal Crawford, who has been trashed on this board before, is probably not going anywhere and doesn't make mle money, and he isn't your typical role player. He's a guy who can drop 50 on a given night as he's done for multiple teams in the past. While Miller has had an off year due to injury, the only similarity I see between him and Gallinari is scoring. Miller is a better shooter and better overall player in all other facets of the game vis-a-vis Gallinari, but this is a moot point because Gallo isn't going anywhere either. Other than needing a legit backup C, this team has all the role players it needs. While you want to accumulate more role players in order to cash in at some undetermined point in the future, what happens when you have too many role players (i.e. too many assets) and can't move them and they begin to depreciate? Also, this strategy means that nothing will happen in the meantime other than the Rockets toiling away in mediocrity. By mediocrity I mean winning 50 games in the Western Conference and getting bounced in the 1st round or 2nd round if we're lucky. You've come up with lots of creative reasons and I commend you for that, but according to Occam's Razor, the simplest solution is usually the correct one. Thus, there is no need to give away an asset like a lottery pick for a role player when those types of players are readily available via minor transactions and free agency. Again, why would you trade a lottery pick for role players that are readily available through minor transactions and free agency? This team has two needs if it wants to compete for a title: One a legit backup C and the other a star front court player. Other than Scola and Lowry of course (I'm assuming they're both coming back), I would make Camby my primary free agent target this offseason. You won't need to trade a lottery pick for him either. The other move would be to utilize the assets the Rockets ALREADY have, which is a combination of young talent in Hill, Chase, and/or JT along with draft picks, and attractive expiring contracts (Jeffries and Battier) to get the other star that this team needs this offseason. People on this website have persuasively argued that this is exactly what the Rockets are doing. In an indirect manner, this is similar to what the Knicks and others are doing. Therefore, I think it's a bit premature for you to say some of the things you say above. You simply don't know. You may be thinking long term, but I don't think the Rockets and most of the fans on here share the same outlook. As I said, I believe the future is now. I'm not content with waiting around for the right scenario to magically present itself while the team continues to be mediocre, especially when you're only a couple of moves away. You have to be aggressive or predatory (as we were told the Rockets would be) and there will always be risks associated with any move. This team already has all the assets it needs in order to cash in. If the Rockets want to compete in the next few years this is what they're going to have to do. Please see my response to pbthunder. Your problem isn't with me or what I'm saying, it's with the way the trade was explained to everybody by the Rockets organization. In relation to revisionist history, go look at the stats and you'll see that Matt Harpring, a bench player playing 11 less mpg than Battier put up either comparable or better numbers in all categories with the exception of steals. While the use of the term abuse was probably too strong, I can make the same claim that you're making in saying that you're the one employing revisionist history by saying that Battier played well in that series and "probably got abused on one play," but you'll probably fallback on the stale "intangibles" argument Either way, since the trade didn't accomplish the goal laid out by the organization itself (even when everybody was healthy), I don't see how you can characterize it as anything but a failure.
Kwame, now that I think about it, you're right. The Houston Rockets organization did, in fact, send out the following official notice to its fans in the summer of 2006: "Shane Battier, a key role player from the 50-win Memphis Grizzlies, has been added to the Houston Rockets. He provides great defense, team leadership and is a real 'glue' guy for the team. We think that he is the missing piece to a championship Rockets team. Let it be known, fans, that because Mr. Battier is seemingly the last piece to our purported championship puzzle, we will be pinning all of our hopes and dreams squarely on HIS shoulders. Despite the fact that we have a former league scoring champ and top-five talent in Tracy McGrady, along with one of the top centers in the NBA in Yao Ming, we feel that all Houston Rockets fans should know that any failure by this organization to reach and win the NBA Finals will be entirely the fault of Shane Battier. We'd also like to take this opportunity to inform you that, despite Coach Van Gundy's public comments that the Rockets were slated to select Thabo Sefalosha (a nice young player from Switzerland with long arms and good instincts) with the eighth pick had no trade occurred on draft day, the Rockets organization was, in fact, going to select Rudy Gay, small forward from Connecticut, with that lottery pick. We feel that he will go on to put up fantastic statistical numbers with the Grizzlies and will undoubtedly become a 20 ppg scorer in this league. However, because we think that Mr. Battier is the missing piece to our championship dreams, we will forego this young talent in favor of a sure-fire championship. To sum up: (1) Shane Battier will be totally responsible (or totally liable) for any success (or failure) that this team and organization will achieve (or suffer) over the next few years. (2) Rudy Gay was going to be our pick, and we expect him to do great things in Memphis for many years to come. Thank you for your time." Yeah . . . that sounds about right. Is that the explanation from the organization you were talking about?
I have confidence, yes. But I still believe that we have been very lucky with our draft results as well. And I'm perfectly okay with taking a chance with the pick, but if a good value deal is offered, I don't think it's wise to have imo questionable rules in place like "We can't trade lottery pick for a role player". If you described it, "don't trade a top-5 or top-10 pick" I would be inclined to agree but we are most likely talking about the 14th pick here, and the value of that is nowhere near, for example, a 5th pick, which was used in a trade for Ray Allen. Those players were just examples, they are not ment to be similar in every way, I just thought they could be good examples of a good value for a 14th pick. I mentioned I would probably agree to trade for healthy Pryzbilla, not the busted knee version. And you are correct that Jamal Crawford is making a little bit more than the MLE, but he still is a role player on a contender. His role just happens to be to score a alot. As for Miller and Gallinari, of course they are not similar in every way, but they are still role players, and could be good value for a 14th pick, which was my original point anyway. If we trade some of our current players for a star this summer, then we have to replace them somehow. And then trading the pick for a role player could be an option. And of course there has to be a balance. I'm not advocating that we get to a point where we have 17 role players on our roster before the camp. What I originally ment by stockpiling assets shouldn't be interpreted solely as accumulating more role players. I may value winning games but not winning it all more than some others but I truly believe that this is how the Rockets think as well. If it's very likely that some risky move will dramatically increase your chance of winning it all in a couple of years while losing you games in the near future, for example, then sure you can make the deal. But there are usually no such guarantees, so I would think that the preferred route for this organisation would be to try to improve in other ways while they keep winning the fifty-something games. It's not like we haven't got anything other going for us than this year's lottery pick. It may end up being the wrong approach, but like I argued before, winning and making profit even if not winning it all are probably important for Les Alexander's interests. I wouldn't trade a lottery pick for Camby either. Not that it has anything to do with anything anyways. I'm not arguing against using our assets in a trade for a star. What I was saying originally is that there is no reason to refuse trading the pick for a role player if the value of the move is high. And you are right, I don't know what the Rockets are doing/ should do. But I surely don't think the bitterness from Gay becoming a player and Battier not winning us a championship should affect us in any way, when we assess what we should do from now on, either. You seem to base your whole premise of "not trading lottery picks for role players" heavily on this one deal, of which your assessment is biased and most likely very questionable, as have been mentioned by others as well.
What I tried to say was Wall, Turner and Cousins are the only three guys I would trade up for. Their upsides are high enough for me to seriously consider giving up some solid rotational players. I was assuming they would go top 3. Other than those three I say just draft the best player available at #14.
I guess you had no better response than to take all that time to write a satirical post. I wasn't the person that said the Battier move was made to "win now." This permeated from the organization. We all know what "win now" means. The fact of the matter is that didn't happen, even when everybody was healthy. To top it off, the player that was acquired in order for the team to "win now" was outplayed by a bench player who was playing 11 less mpg when everybody was healthy in the 2007 playoffs. Please be specific and tell me what, in your mind, constitutes a deal of good value. Thus far, the players you mentioned in your earlier post are not realistic options and/or don't constitute what I would consider a good value. If you want to bring up top-5 or top-10 picks, please remember that two late first rounders and an expiring contract got the Rockets Ron Artest. There was no need to use a lottery pick to acquire him. The players that I mentioned (Hill, Chase, JT, Jeffries, and/or Battier) are not part of this team's core. The first three are young, cheap talent and the last two are expiring contracts. The lottery pick would be thrown in as a bonus in order to acquire a star. A star would replace a lot of what these guys bring to the table. Also, I have no doubt that replacements, if necessary, can be acquired through minor transactions and free agency. Again, no need to trade the lottery pick for a role player. If you want to acquire a role player so bad, there are going to plenty available via free agency and other minor transactions. Again, I don't see a reason to trade the lottery pick for a role player. No, your assessment is incorrect here. My whole problem with the Gay-Battier trade was that a) when arguably the most talented player in the draft lands in your lap, you take him, no matter what your preexisting plans are and b) since the Rockets decided to move him, they should have gotten more out of that trade than they did. Historically, lottery picks aren't traded for role players. I don't see why that is so difficult for you to understand. Again, role players are readily available through minor transactions and free agency. How many examples do you want?
8th pick + bad contract for a suberb role player? I don't know if they are realistic or not. They were just examples you asked of ROLE PLAYERS I would consider trading the 14th pick(i.e. LOTTERY PICK) for. Imo, with the stipulations I listed, they are good value. Morey might not agree with me, though. 14th pick is quite close in value to 23th + 28th + backup PG with expiring contract. Also, Kings presumably wanted to get rid of Artest quickly and wouldn't want to wait any more for better offers. I wouldn't trade 5th pick for Artest in 2008, but I would have traded 14th pick for him. Actually, the use of the term lottery pick without any clarification bothers me in this thread somewhat. You used the Ray Allen trade earlier as an example but trading a 5th pick is very different than trading a 14th pick. If you want to acquire an ABOVE AVERAGE ROLE PLAYER like Shane Battier in 2006, you must give up some value. Or then you have to use your whole MLE on one, if there are even some available. Sure you can get 8-12th guys on a roster through minor transactions, but I consider an above average role player being 4-7th best player on a team, and those are not as easy to acquire. It's not all about talent. You have to consider other issues as well. It's actually funny you never bring up Eddie Griffin in these threads: He was, after all, a 7th pick who arguably was the most talented player in the draft and he fell into our lap. Success. Dumping a bad MLE contract and a 8th pick of all potential but so far little substance for a player of Battier caliber was a fair trade. Just because Gay realized his potential doesn't mean that the trade was lopsided. It's not difficult for me to understand and I don't deny that historically it's rare. I just question the logic of not trading late lottery picks for great role players, when history shows that it is better value with less variance as well. But whatever, I think I'm done with this argument. It's unlikely that you will never change your view on the issue, and I'm not probably going to either. Let's just hope that our picks are used well, regardless of how.
I was going to let it go as well until I read this tidbit. You're wrong. Role players, even ones that you want to arbitrarily attach the term 'above average' to, are expendable and bounce around a lot. Let me repeat it for you again: They are readily available through free agency and other minor transactions. I guess you really didn't pay attention in all those Battier threads where your line of thinking was obliterated. Posey acquired as a free agent by Miami and Boston for substantially less than the MLE both times. Matt Barnes acquired by Orlando as a free agent with a salary a little over $1.5 million. Barnes has actually never been paid anything close to the MLE ever. The full MLE was not used on Pietrus by Orlando as well. Aaron Aflalo was acquired by Denver for a 2nd round draft pick. Lets go back a bit further and use some historical examples. Bruce Bowen, even after he established himself as an elite defender, was never paid close to MLE money. Mario Elie, after he won championships in Houston, was signed as a free agent by the Spurs and helped them win a championship. All these players have better if not comparable numbers to Battier. They all make or made less money than him as well. None were acquired by trading away a lottery pick. Although this point is tangential, another thing that separates most of them from Battier is the fact that most were consistently key contributors on teams that have gone deep in in the playoffs. The Rockets could've and should've done a lot better with that lottery pick.
I am very, very reticent to give up Hill. I think he has shown that he was worth a #8 overall pick last year. Given that he now has a year's experience, and is less of a gamble than a pick this year, I think that, by himself, he is worth a #6 overall pick. I think that Hill plus our pick, or Hill plus Budinger, should be worth a #3, maybe a #2 overall pick.
Your argument would sound better if you didn't leave some facts out and distort others. Posey was paid close if not full MLE (5.9M) in Miami. Then he went to Boston for more ringwhoring and then Hornets paid again close if not full MLE for him. Barnes isn't as good and his attitude leaves a lot to be desired. In specific situations he might be useful, but there are reasons why he has bounced around a lot. Affalo played like 10-15 minutes a game in Detroit. He might have developed since but not close to Battiers level now and certainly not when traded so it isn't really the same. It's not like he was oozing with potential either. Pietrus plays like 20 minutes a game and makes over 5.3 million a year, which is what 300,000 less than the full MLE the year he signed. Mario Elie was 34 or 35 when he left Houston with allegedly questionable attitude. Many people thought he was done as a player, but he squeezrd some more out of him. Good for him, but not really good for your argument. Bruce Bowen I can agree with, he made like 2/3 of the MLE so you have an argument there. I don't disagree with the notion that sometimes you can get quality role players at bargain prices. But saying that you can always get them is simply not true. edit. I looked up Arron Afflalo's numbers and seems he is doing better than I remembered. However, when traded for, that was clearly not the case.
Where did I say you can always get role players at bargain prices? My whole point, which you haven't shown any evidence in disproving, is that they are readily available through free agency and other minor transactions, and teams don't give up lottery picks for them. It just so happens that the examples I brought up involved players who made less $ money than the example you brought up, Shane Battier. I also object to your use of the term 'ringwhoring' in relation to Janes Posey. He was a key contributor and came through when it counted the most for both Miami and Boston as those two teams won championships. On the other hand, Battier has either been unable or unwilling to do the same for the Grizzlies and Rockets.
Your examples were basically worse players or players who were paid MLE +/- a couple hundred of K's. Are worse players readily available, yes. Are players who are capable starters and can play up to 30-35 min a game readily available? Not as much. There is a limited amount of those. How many teams were after Ariza? Even Gortat? And they take up the whole MLE almost always. I wouldn't call those minor transactions, either. Minor transaction is when you trade the rights for Malick Badiane for the rights of some Kazakstan center nobody remembers, and still after the trade every summer the bbs is full of posts: Is Badman gonna play in the summer league this year? I used the term ringwhoring with Posey because he probably took less than his market value, because he liked the role and Celtics' chances at winning. I didn't say he wasn't a contributor. You can keep saying that teams don't historically trade lottery picks for role players, because it is usually true and I don't deny it. I'm just saying that there are cases where they probably should if those kind of trades are available, as historically there isn't that much available at the 14th pick.
Been over Battier vs. 8th pick (be it Gay or otherwise) many times. I believe Battier worked out fine, the issue with that team was injury to the stars. Just want to point out this year is different than 06. Going into the 06 draft, the Rockets had two stars in their mid 20s but not much depths around them, particularly on the wing spot. David Wesley as very much washed up. Luther Head is severely undersized. At PF, too.... we had Chuck (who, in retrospect, was the only good PF on that team), aging Juwan, and disappointing Stro. Rafer Alston was the only proven PG on that team. Today, the Rockets may lack stars -- Yao is the best candidate, but he's coming off injury, but has plenty of good players. Scola, Chuck, Hill, Jeffries and Andersen provides plenty of depth up front. Brooks and Lowry are each better than Rafer. Martin, Battier, Ariza and Budinger all deserve playing time. There is not an obvioius hole to fill. While in 06, Shane Battier over, say, 35 mpg of Luther Head was going to be a substantial upgrade, this season, the "baseline" is much higher. There is almost no reason to make a trade unless it's someone who is a surefire improvement over what they have now. Unless the team gets a star, it might as well just keep its good players, make a pick and let the kid learn on the job (and maybe try for a star later).
It would have been better if CD had been able to get Lowry with the 24th pick along with Battier. We needed as much depth through future assets at the time. Fortunately DM realized that better than CD. No one can deny that Shane has been valuable,but the team was lucky to get Kyle for Rafer. He has been an asset along with the others.
Good points. Allthough, our depth might cause our "potential" pick to never get any playing time needed for development. But, we'll see. I'm sure we are seeing at least some trades to balance the roster.
Agreed that it would have been better. But the fact that the 24th pick (which I, too, would have used on Lowry at the time) was not included was a matter of (a) the value Memphis placed on Shane Battier and (b) the value Houston placed on ridding themselves of Stromile Swift's contract.
In retrospect, would have loved to have Lowry. Thought I wonder if the Rockets would have picked him at 24. They got Novak at 32... wonder where the two guys compare on their draft board. Also, given that JVG pretty much demanded his PG to be able to shoot the spot-up 3 to give TMac space to work, would Lowory have earned much time or would have have been the Black V-Span? In any case, it worked out. Lowry was called up to the Big League club from the minors last year once he was ready.
