Morey Fires Back At Misconceptions - In case you missed it...

Who says Coach had only a "short term" plan. His plan is to win just like the GM.

You are largely assuming what Adelman's plan is. He hasn't really said. Really, you are only saying why Coach got fired...a disconnect. You are not really saying anything about who has the better plan ... not at all.

Rehiring Coach who is proven to be able to develop Morey's players, get them to respect him and the team concept, and win as best they can is a valid way to Win Big later...as long as Morey keeps doing his job, like Petrie did for Adelman.

Les is making a questionable move just like the Maloofs. Fire Rick Adelman with the plan to Lose Now (Really Big) to get into the top 5 drafts picks. Well, 5 years later (FIVE YEARS) even with two top 5s, the outcome is still pretty shaky for Petrie. He got Evans and Cousins...but they don't match much...and a bad coach who seems to actually be making Evans worse...and they are still losing big.

Les is turning us into the Kings.

Bottomline: Who says Les has a plan vs a HOF Coach.

 

The two stars and their giant contracts are gone, the roster is filled with solid role players with reasonable contracts, and Morey gets to choose a coach more to his liking.

This is as close to a blank slate for Morey as he'll ever get. I'm interested to see what he makes of it.

 

I remeber that case. At that time people believe Lowry can be signed for 4M as backup PG if he was offered extention during the season. But during the off-season Cavs desperate move after lose LJ make Lowry's value up.

After this year performance, Lowry is totally worth the 6M starting point guard salary. But please don't tell me DM saw that coming one year ago.

 

I agree, and it seems to me that this was a move Morey did not want to make, but that he made because Adelman insisted on it. Just doesn't seem like a Morey move at all.

 

"We're not looking for a super coach...err...yea, no...we ARE looking for a super coach...."

 

Frequently Morey has made moves that are shunned by the masses (trading Rafer, drafting Landry, drafting Brooks) at the time and then make everyone looks stupid later on. Hopefully this will be another of those times.

 

I'm not saying anything about Morey. I was simply replying to DD's posted question of "How can you pay market value and overpay?". I simply pointed out that he's complained multiple times about Lowry being overpaid and his salary was set by the market.

Lowry definitely got market value. So if DD truely thinks that Lowry was overpaid then it should be quite clear how you can end up overpaying when paying market value.

 

Letting the market decide the player's value has both upsides and downsides. However if we had offered extensions at the start we would be paying Lowry 4 mill a year (good) and Brooks 9M a year (bad). Would rather be paying Lowry 6M a year or paying him 4M a year and paying Brooks 9M a year? I'd go with the former.

 

not saying brooks is trash but it seems to me that morey through his use of stats kept and paid the player with the most UPSIDE (Lowry)thats like seeing the future.....morey likes to draft players with enough data and by the end of their rookie contract he should have enough data to know if he is a keeper or not.

 

Aelliott,

You are completely missing the point.

If they signed Lowry to an EXTENSION, they would have gotten him cheaper, the market did decide.

My point is you sign the players to an extension BEFORE you let the market decide, because some wackjob could overpay for a player and you get stuck having to match.

At the end of the day, I think the team has won some, and lost some with this strategy, but the players themselves feel like they are unsecure and is a losing strategem overall.

I hope that clears what I am trying to say up, I hate the "NO EXTENSIONS" policy and think it is poisonous around the league for potential free agents and it causes some of our players to feel insecure and not perform as well as a team due to them seeking their own numbers instead of doing what is right for the team overall.

It is just a bad strategy, IMO.....

DD

 

Let me be a little more clear:

I believe by offering an extension you set the market value, if you go out to free agency, others can overpay in the marketplace forcing your hand.

That is what I think the Rockets do, and I don't think it is an effective strategy.

Because sometimes players do get OVERPAID as teams try to steal them away.

Why not come to an agreement BEFORE that point? As almost every other NBA team does?

DD

 

The other thing to point out is morey said in the interview that he had never used the term assets when referring to his players. That is a bunch of crap, he had said that multiple times in interviews.

 

The key in Morey strategy appears to be maximizing flexibility, so when an all-star is available he is right there ready to make things work.

Is it worth paying Chuck that 1-2 extra mil to retain him, at the cost of lessening your pile of assets to acquire an all-star? What if that 1-2 mil is what is needed to make a trade work?

Championship caliber team could over pay, as they already have an all-star, while the rockets probably shouldn't.

 

How insecure and underperforming number seekers were Lowry, Scola, Battier and Landry when they didn't get their extensions?

One of the reasons why the "NO EXTENSIONS" policy is great is that it weeds out the real insecure little girls who's selfish ball hogging no defense playing numbers seeking tendencies are put on full blast when it is **** or get off the crapper time. That way we know to stay the hell away from them. True professionals like the names above who had zero problems with it also stand out, which makes it easier for us to identify who to keep.

 

You proved my point if it bothered one player than it was a problem, and who knows if those players might have performed even better had they gotten the extension done?

Lots of players have talked about how it had an effect on them, including Battier.

I just believe in controlling everything you can, when you can, and when they are under contract, that is the time to offer them an extension.

Once they hit the open market, other teams might force you to overpay......or overpay in your eyes.....so to speak.

DD

 

BTW CXBBY,

Almost all of your posts focus on Brooks sucking or your Lowry love.

That was decided already, you were right, perhaps it would be time to move on and talk about the Rockets team overall?

Just a suggestion.

DD

 

You don't seem to get my point. That it bothered one player to the point of self-destruction is not a problem with the policy, it is a problem with the one player. I am sure there will be plenty of players in the future who will let it get to them too. We will be shipping their asses out of town just like for the last one. The policy in addition to making the most economic sense is also a great filtering tool.

Battier might have said it bothered him, but he certainly did not let it affect his play. Which is ALL that matters.

Of the players that we have retained, Landry, Lowry, Scola, who was overpaid? Who was underpaid? The strategy has worked great. Just because you did not have the foresight to see Lowry's contract as one of the best bargains in the entire league and made a fool out of yourself by calling him overpaid is not an indictment on the policy. It is an indictment on your own player evaluation and asset management skillz.

 

Ah yes, the one trick pony strikes again.....Lowry vs. Brooks....the neverending CXBBY freight train.

Choo choo.....lol....

I did think the Lowry contract was overpaying a bit, clearly did not see Lowry improving as much as he did, now his contract is a great value.

You were right, I was wrong about Lowry - for the umpteenth time.

Where were you CXBBY on the Scola vs Bosh debate? Ah never mind...doen't matter, water under the bridge.....

As for the extensions policy, I contend that the Rockets could have gotten Lowry locked up EVEN CHEAPER if they had signed him to an extension before hitting the open market, thus they did lose out in that situation, same with Scola, and Landry.......

So, to me, it is a failed strategem...and it costs the team money and some players do not function as well because of it.

DD

 

I am sorry DD, but the fact that I so thoroughly dismantled you in that argument is what gives you the colored glasses now where anytime I even occasionally bring up Brooks again it is extra poignant and painful for you. If you actually read through what I talking about, it is most definitely about the Rockets, or ranting about how fans who foolishly mistaken themselves as asset managers question guys who actually manage multi-million dollar corporations in real life. Not video game life.

 

Sorry again, I could not keep up with your editing. How you got "Lowry vs. Brooks" out of that I have NO IDEA. Again, I guess now everything that even relates to Brooks is "Lowry vs. Brooks". I've made my point clear. Let's move on now before you get yourself banned again.