I've thought a lot about this: I don't think you trade Lowry unless you are getting a superstar PG in return. Not only would you destroy the moral and chemistry of the team, but a PG of his caliber locked into such a cheap contract would be almost impossible to find. I think you look to move Martin because he has incredible value to contending teams, his age, his salary, and a rising Courtney Lee behind him. I think you look to move Scola for the same reasons, and a rising Patrick Patterson behind him. Patterson, Lowry, and Lee are perfect complimentary players if you are hunting for superstars. They all play smart, they all play defense, they are all under contract cheap, and they are all getting better every year. If you can add a Granger and a Howard to those 3, you can contend. I'm no Bima, but i imagine it would be impossible to add a Granger and a Howard to team paying Scola and Martin a combined $20+ mil per year.
Anyone, as long as it is a clear upgrade for the team, filling a glaring need. What I would not want to do is trade valuable players for future picks simply to give guys like Williams and Thabeet "playing time" to "see what they can do." Does anyone seriously believe Adelman wouldn't have played one or both if he thought it would win games? If they do, I have a bridge over Lake Austin I'll sell you for a buck. One of the best coaches in history didn't see enough to give them minutes. While I expect to see them get more minutes this coming year if they remain on the team (and I'd be happy if they did not remain with the Rocks, to be clear, based on what I've seen them do), moving veteran, highly effective players simply to give those two more minutes would be, in my opinion, stupid. Patterson is something else altogether. And he was getting increased minutes as the season progressed. If Chuck goes to another team that can pay him more money, Patterson will see his minutes increase a lot, in my opinion. They probably would, regardless.
Deckard, Sometimes the goal is not to win the games, but to develop for when you are a contender. Oh sure you TRY to win, but you play guys that need playing time in order to get their game to maturity faster. Adelman was all about winning every single game, that is not what this team is about, IMO. DD
It sounds like you're describing a minor league baseball team, not an NBA franchise that's won 2 championships.
I am not thinking of "THIS" team, I am thinking of getting us to a championship contender as quickly as possible. Playing guys that have peaked and are warriors but don't really have all that high of an upside, leaves you wallowing in mediocrity. Playing young guys and inflating their stats because of playing time, makes your chips more valuable to trade for that superstar player, and if you happen to suck while doing that, you get a higher draft pick. Deck, if you take a step back and realize that perhaps Morey is not looking at the team this year, and take a longer view you will see where I am coming from and what I believe they are doing. DD
Deckard, This is an interesting discussion and if I could start a thread on it, I would..lol. Something like "How would you like to build the Rockets"? Because I think there is more than one way to skin a cat, and would love to hear some other Clutchfans folks opinions about how they would go about it. Maybe someone has a plan that all of us could agree upon? DD
So help me out here, so I can understand you. You want to play Williams and Thabeet so their value can be inflated by playing more minutes, so Morey can get more for them in a deal, or you want to play them more minutes because you think they will develop into something they have yet to show they can be, improve their value, and/or help the team. In scenario #1, it assumes that they will look better with more minutes and become more valuable as trading chips. What if they don't? If they don't, they would help the team lose games, and lower what value they have left. Do you see that as a plus? In scenario #2, they become something I just haven't seen them being capable of becoming. Valuable players deserving of increased minutes on the court. Either way, it looks like a crap shoot to me, DD. I'm all for the "long view." Patterson clearly has a very bright future. All he needs are good coaching, good mentoring on the bench and on the court, and increased minutes. Like Lowry (and Chuck, but not as a starter), given good health, I see him improving from year to year into a solid starter, perhaps even something more. Morris also has talent, and may develop into something good, given time (and if he can play the 3). Donuts has loads of potential, and playing in Europe this year, and possibly next, will be good for him. Williams and Thabeet? I simply don't see it. In the meantime, I like watching a competitive team. I thought the Rockets were a joy to watch last season. No, they didn't win as often as I would have liked, but they played hard, never quit, and finally "got" Adelman's offensive system. They needed a center, and Thabeet couldn't give them what they needed. If he had been able to, Adelman would have had him on the court. Every time Williams saw minutes, he played 1 against 5. Why is he suddenly going to change? Give minutes to young players to let them develop, but give those minutes to young players who deserve them. Unless you want to tank.
Yes, because if they improve their value it is good for the long view of the team, and if they don't, we get a higher draft position, also good for the long view of the team, and they are both expiring contracts, better find out now while you have them on your roster, right? It is most definitly a crap shoot, but that is what Morey has been building towards, it is the only way without sucking, take risks on players others have given up on, in the hopes that you find the Chauncey Billups among them. We have 4 lottery players from the 09 draft class. Thabeet - has barely played, and lacks confidence, but has all the tools and brains to develop into a starting NBA center. Flynn - Very well thought of coming out of college, and played hurt all of last year, has talent, shown flashes, may need a better system to suit his style. Hill - Also has shown flashes, and like Thabeet has only played basketball for a short time. TWill - Best athlete on the team and can play like a poor man's Tmac, unfortunatly lacks maturity or understanding of how to fit in on an NBA level. If any of them develop, ANY of them with playing time you have found a piece or a trading chip to help the team, if they do not develop, so what? They are already at a bottom barrel price around the league, you have nothing to worry about by trying to develop them. I agree about Patterson, like him a lot, and sure Chuck could mentor him, but his costs are going to be too high for a mentor and non starting player. Not sure how on one hand you can be so down on Thabeet and others and high on Morris when you have not seen any of them play NBA basketball, isn't that a bit of a contradiction? I do like Morris, but none of us know what he can or can't be on an NBA level, put him in the mix like the guys above, he needs playing time to develop. Agree on Twill, disagree on Thabeet, he looked good his rookie year when he was given consistent minutes, and Mchale being a big man himself will help him a lot. He has always been a project, it is time someone took the time to help finish that project. And again, how can you say Mo has potential when you say our 09ers don't? They were all drafted higher than him....all of them. I like the Rockets too, but Adelman was trying to squeeze every win out, and sometimes coaches get locked into security blankets and don't see the bigger picture. Morey traded Adelman's security blanket Battier and the team got BETTER because of it. Morey traded Brooks (whom I still like) and the team got better because his attitude was killing the clubhouse. The GM has to make decisions for coaches who are only looking at the next game and are more trusting of players they have played that have done it for them before, even if others on the bench might be able to do it better now, they just haven't done it yet...and never will without time on the NBA floor. That depends upon what type of team you are putting together, and whether it is a 1 year, 3 year, or 5 year plan/window. I don't think they are looking at this year, but rather 3 or more years down the road.....and yes, we might stink because of that. Or, the team and young players might surprise you and give you something to really cheer about more quickly than guys who hustle like mad, but are not really going to lead a team anywhere meaningful. DD
