The problem I have with this logic is say we do (which is a long shot). Say we go the route of New Orleans or Utah and get a franchise level talent and become a 50 win team. Are we THAT much worse than said Utah or New Orleans team right now? And you act like if we fail it's just "oh well". We could fail in multiple ways... bad luck with injuries like Portland forcing you to be stuck with bad contracts for multiple years. Drafting players like Rudy Gay and being forced to sign them (thus being locked into a star contract while having a lottery team). The draft pick could just not be star player (happens far more often than not). We went through the first situation with Tmac and Yao, and without some epic trading by Morey, we would be the Toronto Raptors right now.
It is utterly and completely semantics. I never said the Lakers tanked. I've never advocated to tank myself. The Lakers traded a PRODUCTIVE player for the POTENTIAL of the #13th pick. Which is.. gasp.. exactly what I've been arguing all along for the Rockets to do! The Lakers traded their starting center at the time for the #13th pick, and you're trying to argue that the Lakers shouldn't get credit for 'drafting' Kobe? So the Rockets don't get credit for 'drafting' Eddie Griffin? If we ended up doing the proposed deal of Foye (#8) + Luther Head for Brandon Roy (#6), are you telling me the Rockets shouldn't get credit for 'drafting' Brandon Roy? How is that not semantics? I don't understand how you equate trading Vlade Divac for the #13th pick to trading McGrady/Landry for Hill/Martin/2012 1st. The two aren't similar.. the Lakers traded a productive player for a lottery pick on draft night. The Rockets traded an injured player/productive one for another productive one, a former lottery player who was being called a 'bad rookie' and a draft pick in 2012 at the trade deadline. Not exactly the same circumstances. And no, Morey doesn't get credit for trading for Terrence Williams until he actually proves his worth on the court. Forgive me for not assuming it was a good deal before seeing the guy play in our offense. I'm not blaming him either -- I'm just remaining in neutral. Seems like the most logical place to be until we can judge for ourselves, no?
LongTimeFan: Not only that, but not playing your veterans towards the end of an already-lost season is very different from throwing away your season in the early going specifically to try to get a pick.
griffin will be THAT good that they won't be losing year after year. he's not michael olowokandi or elton brand now.
I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that they did it.. which means, they purposely did not play their healthy, better players so as to not add meaningless wins to their record. And I never advocated for the Rockets to do this. I was just saying that the Spurs DID do this; I didn't say it is what I wanted. And yes, gah it is just semantics. I'd love for someone to prove otherwise. I never said that we have to suck now to get that kind of talent. Please don't project other peoples desires for my own. If you don't think the Clippers are better off with Blake Griffin than we are with Luis Scola or Kevin Martin, we'll agree to disagree -- but I bet I'm right. Blake Griffin is already better than both of them, so I don't know exactly what you're arguing.
The Lakers were already fairly confident that they were going to sign Shaq in free agency. And (wouldn't you know it!) clearing Divac's cap figure opened up the requisite cap room needed to sign Shaq. And the Lakers don't get credit for finding Kobe as a diamond in the rough. He was a highly sought after prospect. The New Jersey Nets were poised to draft him at #8, but Kobe refused to play for them. He wanted the Lakers or bust. The Lakers drafted Kobe in the same way that the Rockets drafted Steve Francis. Just because the Lakers traded for Kobe on draft night doesn't make that much of a difference. But we digress from the central theme of this thread . . . You are (apparently, if I can keep your posts straight) advocating that the Rockets try to trade for lottery draft pick talent, even if it means trading valued player assets. Morey tried desperately to do JUST THAT this past draft to try to crack the top 5 and get DeMarcus Cousins. He failed, through no fault of his own. I'm sure that Morey will continue to try to add players who can help the team win a championship (either via the draft or by veteran acquisitions). But those acquisitions will be made VIA TRADE and not with the Rockets' own draft picks in the high lottery.
So I guess every team should be rebuilding besides LA, Miami, and Boston right? The games are played for a reason... <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9_PoLB8_cWw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9_PoLB8_cWw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
We have the same # of championships in the last 10 years as the Raptors though, that is why I wouldn't mind if the franchise took a massive risk, the worst thing that would happen is that we still wouldn't win a championship IMO.
The only reason we were able to contend and talk about "what if so and so were healthy" was because we were utter crap and got the #1 pick.
They don't get credit for drafting him? That's ridiculous. You're saying he was an obvious talent to everyone that TWELVE other teams passed on him because they were scared he wouldn't play for them, even when they knew he was the best player? Not buying it. Further, you're wrong about the circumstances: http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2...e-for-bryant-has-been-misconstrued-ar-113126/ Steve Francis told the Grizzlies he didn't want to play for them; they drafted him anyways and looked for the best deal so they can trade him. The Hornets traded their #13th pick for Vlade Divac -- but sure, try to discredit the Lakers if you want. My post are pretty consistent -- it's others who try to muddy the waters. It's probably my fault because sometimes I'll argue a point that I don't even necessarily believe in, but I like having all the facts presented in an argument. What you said in the post above is no different than what I have been saying all along. I don't want the Rockets to purposely tank and I don't think they're bad enough to ever get a high draft pick as presently constructed. That leaves the only other option of acquiring one as trading up for one in the draft using your 'assets', which is what I've been saying in every thread about this topic we've had. I think he's referring to the fact that the only reason we were in that position is because of our #1 pick, Yao Ming.
I think I get you now. It’s not just semantics especially in a thread where rebuilding through trades or the draft (via tanking) are the major points of discussion. It’s been very hard trying to tell you apart from the tanking front, because your arguments seem to point there. Outside of semantics, can we agree that it’s better to rebuild through trades (trades for draft picks included) than it is through tanking to get your own lotto pick? As Bima already mentions, we tried to trade with Philadelphia to get that top pick that you want, although I believe it has been established he was after Favors not cousins (even over Turner)
Yeah, I apologize for the confusion; I don't believe in tanking, but I like having all facts of an argument presented so at times I've probably taken the other side. There's no reason to tank -- let other franchises suffer through that. Eventually, they're going to get tired of taking young guys after young guys and look to deal their high pick for more immediate help. This is where I'm hoping the Rockets can strike.
What does that have to do with anything I said? and when did we ever contend with Yao? All I'm saying is, just because LA, Miami, and Boston are the main "contenders" to win the championship, doesn't mean they can't get beat by a team like us.. or any team for that matter. Sure, we probably need another piece or two, but that doesn't mean we should blow the whole thing up. The OP is acting like no team has a chance but "those" teams.
We were contending with Yao during that Lakers series before he went down again. Sure, we could beat a team like the Lakers, just not in a 7 game series with our current team. I don't agree with blowing everything up but if your goal is to win the championship in this league you need superstars, Houston is not a LA/NY and the draft might be the best chance the Rockets has of winning anything in the next 10 years. The OP is right though, the Bostons and Lakers are the teams winning the championships.
What position? The video was just an example. The video could of been of New Orleans or Memphis for all I care. It's the message from the video I'm talking about.
His point was that the only reason we had a chance at beating a "contender" is because at one point we were able to get the #1 pick and land Yao Ming. If you want to win it all, generally you have to have that one superstar player that can carry you when you need it. Now days, you need much more than that.. but you still need that one star guy. The Celtics give it to Paul Pierce, the Lakers give it to Kobe Bryant, the Rockets give it to..... Aaron Brooks? That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle that we're missing. It's a lot easier to add Aaron Brooks type talents to a team than it is to add a Kobe/Pierce type talent -- which is why there is a gathering of people that prefer us to tank and try to land that type of talent before acquiring the complimentary pieces. The other side of the argument is to continue the course and hopefully trade for that kind of talent using all the assets we've acquired. There are examples for both sides of the argument and neither is really a fool-proof plan (or intelligent plan), which is why there will be constant debate on the topic.
We were NOT contending then. We were complete underdogs. but that's what I'm saying. Even the underdog can win.
