I think in the grand scheme of things? Chick Hayes is happy with how his career went. Kyle Lowry, Kevin Martin revitalized his career and stats. Landry got his opportunity to shine here. Budinger got his shot to build a career out of the second round. Yao Ming has got numerous shots. We have been mediocre for quite a while giving all these guys a long extended period of shots and bulding up careers. I dont think other players around the league view the Rockets any different than the Bulls who made alot of similar moves replacing alot of other players before they got to their Championship type roster.
I agree. He should have after a certain point. He was not wrong to go after him and see what his interest in us was at first though. After he dragged it out? Then it was useless at that point.
I disagree. He first sounded piqued but settled down after the first commercial break. He appears to have been taken aback by the negative response from both fans and the national media to what went down. He basically sidestepped Blinebury's key criticisms but that was to be expected considering who owns the team. After all, to truly respond to Blinebury, Morey would have had to offer some examples where his approach had produced an NBA title or explain why letting a coach who still managed to win despite lack of talent, injuries and the collapse of the team's strategy for the past 5 years made sense. His response about this is not to say that Adelman did a poor job struck me as somewhat weak. But then, there was no way the Rockets PR staff was going to let him go into any amount of detail on the justification for this move. He did respond to Fran's 30 player stat by saying that the Celtics had done the same thing(implying that it works because they won a title by doing so) but that sounded somewhat fishy to me. All in all, it was OK but essentially nothing more than PR for the masses.
There was a part in the interview where he actually explains this quite clear (at least I thought) about re-signing guys like Battier/Brooks. Which I took it as that was what he was referring to. He gave an example about Nick Collison and OKC. He said something along the lines of a what if Nick Collison was going into free agency and demanding a higher salary. This would only work for OKC because he is a complementary fit alongside a franchise player like Kevin Durant, and him being a key component around a franchise player gives him his value in resigning him. So in other words, Shane Battier would be worth the money if the team had a foundation piece player and he was a player who complemented that player to help them contend. The OKC Thunder should spend money to keep their core and spend to keep surrounding pieces that fit the mold because they are set to contend now. However the Rockets dont even have a core piece to build around, and spending large amounts of cap space on role players will actually negatively affect your flexibilty going forward and can hinder your ability to sign All-Stars or trade for them.
I think most everyone is misinterpreting Morey on the assets deal. He's not denying he said players were assets; he's saying he never claimed to have a lot of them. He's responding to the criticism that he hasn't yet landed a superstar, which is a transaction that requires a lot of assets. The only problem here is that he has at least intimated on numerous occassions that he thought he had enough to make a deal for a superstar. It may have been bluster, but I suppose he can't admit that. You'll have to forgive fans for assuming you think you have enough assets to trade for a superstar when you keep declaring that you will aggressively pursue it (this coming offseason included). I don't think this is a good example of an "a lot" of assets quote, since it's from 2008, when we needed roleplayers, not stars.
Awesome thanks. But I am pretty sure if there is a FA target morey can open that up...easily..to the 10 - 12 mil range. Trade Thabeet for a 2nd rounder in 2012. Trade Brad miller and a second rounder + 3 mil in cash to team with pay roll flexiblity. You know...I belive those are wise moves to be made...it might take more than a second rounder to move miller though.
Morey also stated that they are going to look to bring back Chuck, and he sounded pretty confident in tone. In the past when they weren't planning on a player being with the team anymore they use statements like- "We will take a look at him this summer." "We will have talks with him in the offseason." Etc. -If Chuck isnt a Rocket next season, it will be because he decides to go to another team. If Adelman is picked up by a contending team, Chuck could follow.
In this interview? It sounded like exactly what I was thinking... Chuck may have played himself into a larger contract than the Rockets are willing to give him. I think they will see what people are offering Chuck... hopefully he stays, but I'm not counting on it.
I think Chuck will be back. As your starting Power forward like Morey wants. Not as your starting center like Adelman wants. Scola? Scola might be gone. Check that.... Likely gone in a trade or move. Patterson and Chuck Hayes being there to replace him as cheaper alternatives.
He wont start for anyone. Chuck is great but if you though is offensive liability mattered at the 5 its way more evident at the 4 with PFs like Blake and Amare dropping 20 pts. He would be the worst starting PF in the NBA from an offense prespective.
True. Without Adelman here though? I dont think the next coach favors to start Hayes. I think Hayes becomes Pattersons backup and our new starting centers backup. As it really should be.
"[W]e feel like whenever any trade comes along, we've got assets, maybe more than anybody else." (http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/fran_blinebury/07/22/houston.miller/?ls=iref:nbahpt1)
By the way, I think it's pretty clear from the context that he's responding to the notion that he perceives individuals on the roster purely in terms of their potential trade value:
