And if you understand my point, Oklahoma City is the exception rather than the rule, in that they were fortunate to have many consecutive draft picks pan out to be superstars / stars. Again, they are the exception rather than the rule. More likely scenario is you end up like the Clippers or Timberwolves, and you have to stink for a decade or more waiting for a superstar or two to fall in your lap.
So you mean we would have players like Griffin, Love and Rubio?! SIGN ME UP!!:grin: Oh btw, I THINK Morey has gone on the record saying that the easiest and fastest way to rebuild a squad is through the draft .... only thing is the Rockets aren't doing it that way, were being innovators with our rebuilding process... rebuilding while staying competitive !
The Sonics did stink for like a decade before they drafted Durant. People seem to forget about that too easily. They stunk so bad they moved the team.
sounds like he may have jobs syndrome or aka hyper IGE syndrome retained baby teeth constant staph infections pneumonia risk for scoliosis easily fractured bones eczema facial anomly with frontal bossing and skin roughness i just read a little bit of his article and it sounds pretty hit or miss obviously i dont have blood work and other review of symptoms but it could be whats bothering him. IF thats the case i recommend staying away. A terrible condition to live with
**UPDATE** - 94WIP’s Howard Eskin says a front office source within the Sixers organization assures him there is no problem with Evan Turner that they are aware of. “There is nothing going on with Turner, nothing, no problems,” Eskin said. In addition, the source indicated that Evan Turner has no idea what the problem that Hochman referenced was either.
he should take a proper physical. I dont know how many players end up on teams with pretty severe conditions and only find out till they are almost traded. Seems like physicals during the draft are crappy or they are ethically allowed to withhold medical information. Regardless if you are at risk of injury or you have a condition I think the employer should know because after all this is a physical sport and all conditions will affect performance.
Say what? Dude’s PER this year is 2.5 points better than Gasol. And generally hasn’t been that far behind. No, I’m not saying he is or will go down as a better player than Pau. Clearly not. But he’s younger, cheaper and this year playing at a higher level. And if the Rockets could get him while holding onto Scola to trade in another deal, you’d be crazy to pass that up. Not sure why Utah would trade Millsap for Turner, though. Same problem I'd have with a straight-up deal for Evan... he hasn't proven he's worth any of the other players in the deal yet. Maybe he explodes next year, but it's hard to envision his upside being an all-star or even near-all-star as Millsap and Martin are. But if Utah really wants to bet on Favors + Jefferson, and believes in Turner's upside and youth, and don't think they could get anything better for Millsap, it could work, and if I'm DM I certainly do it. You'd like to have that next Scola trade lined up. But then, you think Lowry AND Scola for Aski, Gibson, Korver and a horrible Chicago draft pick makes sense somehow, so I can see why you wouldn't like Millsap.
Bro, there's not many championship teams (or championship caliber teams for that matter) that didn't draft a superstar. You say OKC is the exception; how about Chicago? Are they also an exception? All of the good teams drafted at least one superstar. Dirk with Dallas, LA with Kobe (i'm counting the draft night trade), Miami with Wade. Boston with Paul Pierce. Spurs, etc. Even if you point to the free agent signings that put those teams over the top, it was the "superstar" that attracted those free agents in the first place. Hell, do you think T-Mac would have come to Houston if Yao (who we drafted) wasn't on our roster? Building through the draft is the best way to create a championship contender. The "exception", is an all-starless team signing a guy like Zach Randolph outright, in free agency. That doesn't happen very often anymore.
Kyle Lowry and Paul Millsap would be an awesome combo to watch. They would destroy teams, and they have FANTASTIC contracts. 1. Kyle Lowry (6 million) (19.6 PER) 2. 3. 4. Paul Millsap (8million) (22.7 PER) 5. For 14 million, that is absurd production.
The Phily insider threw out the idea... He said something along the lines of Turner for Millsap/Millsap for Martin. It's a few pages back. Check it out brah!
I think what Patience was trying to say is that more often than not, a team has to be bad for a very long time to have any chance at acquiring enough talent to even compete at a high level. The Thunder were very bad for years as the Sonics, and ultimately moved the team partially for that reason. More often than not, you become the Wizards and just stay bad. How many #1 picks do they need to be relevant? Does anyone actually think the Wizards, Bobcats, Kings, Pistons, Hornets ect. will get good anytime soon? The problem is, to draft someone like Davis, we would have to be worse than all of these teams and even then the player you covet doesn't always turn out to be a savior. Remember how hyped John Wall was coming out of the draft? He doesn't seem to be impacting that team in terms of wins at all right now. Those teams are stuck at the bottom, just like the Clippers were for decades. Before you say, Blake Griffin brought in Chris Paul, consider the fact that the Clippers play in LA which undoubtedly played a large factor. Just remember how bad the Clippers were even with Griffin, who is a once in a decade #1 pick to begin with. By the way, the Mavs didn't draft Dirk. They traded for him. The Lakers didn't draft Kobe. They traded for him.
That's not true. They weren't bad for years. In fact, they had recently made the playoffs, AND made the second round of the playoffs, before they started getting bad. They went from 2nd round elimination to 4 bad non-playoff years to playoffs to Western Conference finals. Moreover, keep in mind, in the later portion of those bad 4 years, they were nonetheless getting better, and well positioned with great young players. I recognize though that drafting KD, Westbrook and Harden takes really really good and partially lucky (see Portland drafting Oden instead) drafting, not to mention solid GM'ing to get those picks in the first place. All very good and valid points. BUT, if the analysis shows that you have to go the draft route to win, then you have to do that no? It may also show going the draft route could result in prolonged, decade+ periods of futility... but isn't that the essence of the argument - take that risk instead of the known commodity of solid, slightly above average performance in perpetuity (see Rockets past decade plus). He noted those teams didn't draft those players. And I think, clearly, everyone would be ecstatic to find a franchise player in the late lottery - either through a pick of your own or by trading an asset. But it still falls into the franchise player you acquired via draft being required to win a championship theory. The Pistons are really the only obvious example of the last 25+ years.
with the exception of the Pistons, those are pretty much bad organizations you listed. They don't make very good moves and that's why they remain bad. But since you mention it, yeah, i do think some of them will be competitive sooner rather than later. It's just a matter of time before the Wiz stumble over their own **** and draft a legit star to pair with Wall. I'd say the same thing about Sac-town with Cousins. Both of those teams have something we don't ...a superstar you can build around (whether through free agency or the draft). ...and i was counting Dirk because it was a draft night trade, just like Kobe.
Fair enough. What I should have said in regards to Dirk/Kobe was that both were drafted very high relative to what they ultimately became. Dirk 9th, Kobe 13th. Neither the Lakers or Mavs were bottom feeders by any means when they pulled the trigger for these players. Therefore, I don't think the tanking method applies to them as neither team subscribed to that approach. Come to think of it, those trade are indicative of what the Rockets are attempting to do. My question to you is this. Had we decided to tank this year, (pass on Dalembert, trade scola/martin in the offseason. Everyone else is relatively young, so I don't know what more you could do going in that direction.) Do you believe we would be worse than any of the teams I previously mentioned? The Thunder landed three top 5 picks. All three turned out well. The Clippers and Bulls had to land the #1 pick. Those players turned out well. In my opinion, we would have had a very slim chance at landing anywhere near the top 5 had we tanked. I understand the contradiction here. Dirk and Kobe landed outside the top 5, but they are very rare exceptions and they were traded for by teams with assets to make a move. Even so, we've chosen in the late lottery twice now with no semblance of a Dirk from those picks. Just shows how sporadic the draft can truly be.
Good points, but my initial objection to your post was not that the Rockets need high draft picks to land superstars. I agree that this is probably the most likely way to land a superstar in the long run. My objection was to your implication that Donatas, Llull, and P-Pat are the potential superstars. I just don't see it at this point. I hope I am proven wrong. My point is that in order to accumulate the many high lottery picks needed to built a team like the Thunder, we are talking potentially 5-10 years of really, really sucking. Yes, I admit Chicago beat the odds by landing the #1 pick with a half-decent team. The Rockets also got very lucky in landing the #1 pick to draft Yao. I am not terribly confident about the odds of repeating that luck in the near future. Again, I hope I am wrong. BTW, in the future, could you maybe take it down a notch from calling me "Bro" and telling me to "find the brain power to understand your point". This discussion is not personal.
