Jebus and MadMax, My post was in reply to the following: Now. If most of the teams do the above, you must be trading with a player generator of some sort. For every team you can come up with that made a trade that achieved any one of the above, ever, I can come up with another team that either got shorter, older, lost picks or decline in stats. You want to test me? lol. I am going to assume you guys know what MOST means. .
clove -- maybe i'm wrong, but i'm thinking he listed 1-4 as things you aspire to do through trades. goals of trading, if you will. with the #5 chemistry issue being a catch-all if one of the 1-4 isn't achieved.
I think this is exactly what he (Pugs) meant. If you can't accomplish at least one of those 4 things, then why make the trade? The only logical reason is if you have chemistry issues you think the trade can resolve. Obviously not every team is able to do all of those things with every trade. That would violate the first law of basketball thermodynamics.
Ok. I suppose they are things you look for. He didn't say that, he only said that "MOST of the time when you make a trade you either". In a trade, for every team that gets younger, the other team gets older...for every team that gets taller, the other team gets shorter....gain pick, lose pick.... Do you see what I am getting at? Half the teams in trades don't get that. His #5 is a legit point, and a very important one.
What I was trying to say is that out of those 4 options, if you aren't accomplishing at least 1 of them for YOUR TEAM, the trade seems pretty pointless. This is a Rockets board and I'm trying to look at it from the Rockets point of view. Sure one team is going to get older and the other will get younger, but hopefully if your team is getting older you will at least get taller, get someone who puts up better numbers, or get a draft pick(s). I think we're all smart enough to know that both teams can't get younger, but I do appreciate you pointing that out just in case. Pugs
edit: just saw Pugsly's reply. Made most of my post irrelevant. But I can leave the last part: In this trade the Rockets accomplished none of the first 4, so they better have accomplished #5.
Very interesting opinion from Clutch on the front page. Might we guess who this source is.... Its interesting that player dissent was apparently a factor in the trade. Clearly Boki needs some NBA playing time, but this seems a rather drastic way to achieve it. Another sour aspect about this trade is that it has a negative legacy; next year the roster will be more expensive than it would have been without it. More bad contracts. Big management problems.
could this possibly have been a dig by Clutch at all the Boki lovers? It seemed pretty obvious that JVG didn't care about Boki one way or the other, much less hate him enough to get rid of Jackson - a guy he professed to love- without any other motivation. If JVG thought Boki was such a distraction, why not put him on IR or just freakin waive him/buy him out? No need to get rid of a "team leader" in order to get rid of Boki. I call B.S. - I'd buy that locker room issues were a factor, but not from Boki's end.
Boki did make demands and was pissed that he was placed on IR. Is anyone surprised? He has been a good soldier for 2 years and finally gets a small chance and the team pulls the plug, during a contract year. Good for Boki standing up to this morons that are running this team. DD
He did show it, remember the Karl Malone play. Heck, don't you have to be ON the floor to show that fire? Fire on the bench just gives you a red bum. DD
