I dont think either side can claim victory in last years trade, yet. So far our picks have gained us nothing. For NY, they got half of what they wanted (Amare), but are not much if any better without that 2nd star they wanted. Id say neither team has gained much to this point. I say NY wins if they can somehow manage to get that 2nd star in Feb or next summer and get into the playoffs this year, thereby making this years swapping meaningless for Houston. And by the same token, have a reasonable record next year making the no.1 pick for 2011 a middle to later rounder. Houston wins if NY plummets (fails to get another star) in the standings and our swapped pick materializes into #2-#6 or so. And next years in the #6-#8 range. In the end, NY's success or failure to get another big piece will determine the winner.
I don't get your logic. The 2010-11 Rockets have no problem scoring points. Their problem is defense. And as much as I love the guy, Carl Landry is NOT a good defender. And considering that the Rockets have yet to play a SINGLE game with it's full rotation all playing at 100%, it is WAYYYY too early to be making comparisons. Add to that the fact that teams are not taking this year's Rockets team as lightly as they were the first half of last season. I honestly thought the Rockets got at least 5 wins early last season due to the other team totally overlooking Houston without Yao. If Yao totally falls apart again this year, then the comparisons will be totally unfair, since Martin was brought in to play off of Yao. Still, I think the trade was a 100% positive for the Rockets.
Why do you say that? Jared Jeffries's contract expires after this season, so they could have simply NOT made the trade if they wanted to add a star this February or next summer. Even if those picks are late first rounders, then it's at least one late first rounder worse for NY than had they not made the trade at all. Oh, yeah, and they lost their 2009 lottery pick, Jordan Hill.
True, they wanted the star last summer. But if they add one in Feb, they make the playoffs, and our picks value drops like rocks, then you have to weight: Houston Got: Hill, Jeffries and a mid 2011 1st NY Got: 2 Stars (Amare & ?)
It doesn't really make sense to compare those two. We didn't actually give up 2 stars to the Knicks, just the ability to pursue them(which they have failed to do). On the other hand, the Knicks DID actually give us Hill, Jeffries a potential 2011 1st pick, and 2012 1st pick.
Emotion. Not logic. [irrational thoughts]Rockets are worse to start this year than last, thus any trades involving players that were on the team must be a negative. I mean, after all it really is that simple when plugging players in. No matter what the condition is of the guys playing, if they were on the team this year and on the team last year, then it must be the ones different causing the issue. And since Ariza is a better defensive player than offensive player, and Landry is a clutch 4th quarter scorer(or was last year with the Rockets) then this MUST be the problem. Couldn't be other things such as chemistry or injury or anything.[/irrational thoughts] I agree with everything you said by the way, though Landry was a great energy and emotion player, just not a great defender.
Where did i say we gave up anything? I stated potentially what each team may receive. I consider the winner the one who benefits the most from the assets received from the other. In some cases, both teams can either lose or win. But since our picks value is directly determinate upon NY's record, their will probably only be one winner here in the end.
That doesn't make sense. They could have got the 2 stars in separate summers without trading their 8th pick from the draft, 2011 draft pick trade rights, and 2012 draft pick. They traded for the chance to get 2 stars in one summer, which they failed to do. Therefore they gave up Hill, 2011 trade rights and 2012 pick for nothing. It seems pretty clear to me, who the winner is.
I think it presumes much to say that they definitely would have gotten their stars anyway. And again, how can we evaluate the trade fully until we see what those NY picks get us?
He's so smart. He can do a statistical analysis of the value of those 2011 and 2012 draft picks in a graph. JcDenton didn't make one in his analysis, but this fella is sharp as a tack.
They wern't keeping Ariza anyway. He just wasn't worth the money they were paying him. And the reason why its been bad defensively, its mainly because of one 7'6 Chinese dude and everybody trying to adjust to his stopwatch minutes--who happens to be on the shelf again. Oh yeah, we are now missing our starting point guard and the only guy who can get his own shot. Landry was traded mainly because we already have Scola. Landry was going somewhere else to get paid. The Rockets wern't going to pay both. So the trade has nothing to do with the current woes.
We won the only 2 games without him. I like AB but so far we are overrating his ability to get a good shot when it counts.
I can't say I'm a fan of the direction this team is going, personnel wise, but I can't say much negative about the Knicks trade either. We won, big time.
How so? You're lost. They traded for the chance at 2 stars in one summer. They didn't get that. They still have a chance to get 2 stars in 2 different summers. However, they still had that chance without the trade. Therefore they gave up Hill, 2011 pick switch rights, and their 2012 pick for nothing. Let's say they get another big FA next summer, and we get a mid range 2012 pick. The trade didn't help them get that 2nd FA, they could have done it either way. Unless you think the fact that they traded Hill, Jeffries and 2 picks made them more attractive to FAs, the trade did nothing for them. Therefore Hill, mid-2012 pick > nothing. If they suck this year and don't get a big FA next year, those picks just became great lottery picks That's why the article says the trade can "becom[e] even more disastrous than it already is."
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y_cjTjBsysc?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/y_cjTjBsysc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
The problem here is the Knicks missed out on the "idiot luck" that Memphis had when they dealt Pau Gasol for a bag of peanuts. In memphis' case, Marc Gasol was apparently pretty good, and actually became a better fit. In NY's case, had they not made the trade they would only have cleared enough room to sign Amare, but the Melo drama would have enabled them get Melo for Hill, Gallinari and picks. I said it at the time of the trade, and I'll say it again. DM is a friggin' genius for pulling off this trade. Hill, a defensive roleplayer and two potential lottery picks out of tmac's contract. WOW :grin:
