In a Single Day, the Rockets Doomed Itself To Mediocrity

Respond to the point that the Rockets mouthpiece has indicated the Rockets are wanting to take on salary and are not willing to pay picks to just dump players for LT reasons?

They are pursuing Green from Memphis. The only move they can realistically make for him would add small salary. They have trade exceptions that Feigen says they will try to use to bring back minimum players. They still want to use the MLE to add a player if there's a decent buyout.

I question whether they would take on a HUGE contract. Otto Porter for example, whom I like. I have real questions about whether they would take on that kind of money. There's no reason to think they'd balk at adding 5-10 million though.

 

Why all the posts saying we should trade for Gasol? Is it just because the Grizzlies say he's available?

Did anyone stop to think that at this point in his career, Gasol is not going to want to come off the bench behind Capela?

As for OP, he's willing to trade our starting PG because he's too old and makes too much money, for someone who's OLDER, still makes $25M a year, and isn't even remotely athletic enough to play in our system??? You want an aging, unathletic, disgruntled, expensive backup center?

WTF is wrong with you people?

 

Didn't I say that? I said Memphis wouldn't make that deal, but if for some crazy reason they would Morey would probably feel obligated to make it even though Gasol isn't what this team needs.

 

I wasn't knocking you, I was knocking the poster you quoted who suggested that trade.

I do think it's weird that you think "for some crazy reason Morey would feel obligated" to acquire Gasol, though. Morey doesn't have a track record of picking up expensive backups who don't fit the system. Those are the guys he gets on small contracts (Melo, Josh Smith, etc.)

 

This is a combination issue.

A lot of it is morey for just not being able to see outside the spreadsheet, trying to game the system with harden and 9 sfs which all falls flat if capela is injured or in foul trouble. How did faried really help against mismatches? He’s still 6’9 with the added disadvantage of not being able to knock down threes or have range. Great, he can switch on picks. What can he do against Adams or cousins? Can he even keep up faster sfs like George?

Feign can say what he wants, can be a fluff piece like many in the past [justice used to do it all the time for the stros] , but we will see how much thy take on. Tillman just isn’t that rich for a billionaire, likely the poorest individual owner in the nba.

No chance for Otto porter multi yr obl with Paul getting 40m per. That’s why Gasol works, he’s an expiring who has never won or even gone deep in playoffs. Gs isn’t playing their same system 24/7 with cousins. There are other combinations too, but it’s much more limited when your trying to lowball g league players to fit in a tight space. And with the only asset late 1sts, you either get a veteran on a team that wants to tank [ Memphis ] , or a huge long term contract that few can afford [ porter, wall, Beal etc]. More of the same ol won’t cut it, unless harden averages 50 on 50% shooting.

 

When acquired, CP3 essentially took a one-year pay cut. I think it was understood when he came here what it would cost.

This thread would be worth more if or when we don't acquire anyone worthwhile at the trade deadline, but oh well.

 

I don't know that he really would I was more just trying to emphasize how silly the conversation was. Like it's so silly that Morey might feel obligated. If for no other reason than because if we could somehow turn a totally unusable asset like Knight into a marketable asset like Gasol you'd have to be tempted just for the flip.

 

I'm just here wondering if he can set a new record for this year by starting14 straight games without sitting out. Two down. If he makes it past Feb 28th he will break his record this year!! Exciting stuff that's not even debatable. May the force be with you Chris . Stay strong and carry on!

 

Not at all. I hate fans who give up so easily

 

Supermax. Seriously **** Chris for having winning expectations but not willing to work with the rockets . If his goal is just to make dough then he is entitled to whatever , but if he wants to win like he has made it clear asking for a supermax as an aging fossil isn’t the way

 

You say this as if it has some basis in fact. The owners of the Celtics and Thunder are worth around $400M each, and I'm not going to do the research, but I'm guessing Tilman falls right about in the middle of the pack.

Rockets fans always seem to think we've got the poorest, stingiest owners. Les and Tilman are hardly that.

 

Once again, CP3 could have asked for $10M/year less and it wouldn't have opened up any additional cap space or changed anything about our current situation.

 

Tilman is hard to figure out financially. Google will tell you he has a networth of close to $5 billion which would put him comfortably in the top 10. It's not clear that this is REAL net worth though and he has often been described as cash poor.

 

Sure, on ClutchFans.

 

You mad?

He’s not wrong, you don’t have to accept it, but it’s the truth. You’re just in your feelings. Very emotional.

 

Re: "Re-signing CP3 was the only way we could compete for a championship"

Spoiler

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation — "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs — I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."

What will you say, Monsieur Industriel -- what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?

I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying — What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?

 

I think #3 is the highlight. They need to figure out some way to get more out of him without just simply putting him in the same isolation situations that work for Harden. Some thoughts:

• One easy thing is to some how get him to take more 3s. He takes about 3 less 3-point shots that Eric Gordon does. He should be taking about the same amount. Over the past five or so years he's actually shot a better 3P% than Gordon.
• Maybe run some more picks and rolls for him. Before there was Harden-to-Capela, there was Paul-to-Jordan and Paul-to-Blake. It's odd how Harden-to-Capela is so common, but Paul-to-Capela is almost non-existent. Instead, the Rockets just kind of do picks on Paul's man just to get an in isolation switch instead of for pick-and-roll purposes. Paul never seems to try and attack the basket after a pick. This is fine for Harden, but I haven't seen anything this year that suggests Paul is very effective in isolation situations.
• Is there no 2-man game we can play with Paul and Harden when they're on the court together? Seems like they don't really take advantage of having two of the best play-makers and passers of all time on the court at the same time.
• When Harden's off the court, the Rockets try to play too much like Paul is simply his replacement in the same type of offense. They almost need a second type of offense for when Paul is on the court without Harden. Maybe one that is closer to the Steve Nash lead offense of the Phoenix Suns than the isolation heavy offense that is employed when Harden is on the floor.

 

Rocket River
. . . seriously . .. when the Rockets win the championship . .. . . don't come around here trying to celebrate with us

 

This is such a stupid thread. I'm pretty sure I've said this in another thread bemoaning the fall of CP3, but:

With CP3 in the fold, we took one of the best teams of all time to 7 games. Had we not lost him towards the tail end of that series, we would win the WCF and probably the Finals, as well.

As a GM, after going as far as you've ever gone before, you would have let Chris Paul walk? To sign "better players?" Which FA(s) in their right mind would see our situation (Rockets just cut bait with a top player on a very, very, VERY successful season) and would have a desire to play for this team? This team that's now without its second best player?

Most NBA players are not stupid - marquee players, even less so. If you saw the bs that the Rockets pulled by letting CP3 go, why would you come to play with just Harden?

In hindsight, sure. CP3 doesn't seem worth the contract, now. But you're only saying this about 6-7 months after the fact. If you were Morey at the time of the signing, there'd be zero reason NOT to resign CP3.

Not signing him at that point in time, would be a bad basketball move, a bad statistical move and worst of all, a bad human move.

 

Hey OP, can I borrow your time machine?