It's the "grass is always greener" mentality that I am trying to fight. It's our right as fans to second guess the moves made by the GM. Frye could end up exploding, but I sort of feel like there is something going on with him that is holding him back. Petro has always seemed very limited. You never know for sure, as I said, but I have to think the team has done their due diligence on all available prospects and have ended up finding the best fit for the team. A player that is young or has "athleticism" may also have other issues that decrease their chances of improving... or contributing to our team.
It depends on which player you are talking about, not just the age, no? I think in trying to determine whether a guy will "progress" or not, one needs to look at whehter the player actually has made progress in years past. If you have a 23-year-old who has been in the league for 3 years and didn't make any critical improvement during this time, are you going to bet on him improving big time in the next 3 years? For example, how old was Kirk Snyder when the Rockets got him? Where was his "improvement"? How about Kelvin Cato? Or Eddie Curry when the Knicks traded for him? On the other hand, you have guys like Scola making a significant improvment between ages 28 and 29.
I don't know how much you've watched Frye, but other than a decent rookie season in which he showed promise (I thought he was going to be good back then), he has ranged from abysmal (year 2) to merely mediocre (year 3) to abysmal and slipping out of the rotation (year 4). And if you think he would start over Scola/Landry you are on crazy pills. There's a reason why his minutes and production have been on a downward trajectory since his second season. Journeyman player, through and through.
It has been a few years since I watched him play in the NBADL. When He was there he was not real active. It looked like he did not know where he should be set up. In my opinion he had a very low basket ball IQ. The only time he got active was when he got mad. That being said he is the only center I have seen dunk with his chest above the rim. For what its worth.
Well there isn't much left in free agency...who knows he might be decent, he certainly has the right tools.
We're not exactly in search of the next Yao here...he'd be a back up to a back up, which basically means a cheap one year rental. If he shows promise, then maybe they devote more time to him, if not, he's gone. Not every single move we make has to be a home run, sometimes you need temporary or small pieces..
There are plenty of examples of guys who get better in that age range after being average or worse players for multiple years. Jermaine O'neal is a great example, Stephen Jackson is another guy, possibly our own Von Wafer, that guy in your signature (Ariza) went from being traded for Brian Cook to being a worthy MLE money player. Unfortunately predicting a players' development isn't as easy as extrapolating some linear graph of his previous improvements. The one thing we do know is that young players CAN get better. Sure, with a guy like Frye it's less likely but there's still a reasonable possibility and you KNOW he's somewhat comfortable with the nba speed. Basically, he and Andersen are both wild cards but you know Frye can contribute something on the nba level. There's always a possibility Andersen could end up like another Vspan. Again, I'm not saying that Morey made the wrong decision just that you can't laugh off these other free agent possibilities. I have not seen much improvement from Luis Scola, and I'm a definitely a fan of his. He was good two seasons ago, he just played less minutes and the coaches understand more of his strengths and weaknesses. The streak was really when everyone noticed how great a scorer and rebounder he already was.
1. Certainly more players improve earlier in their career. Not disputing that. The job for every GM, though, is to try and determine which of the young guys are likely to improve (and how far up their ceilings are) and which are likely just stuck as being what they are. I agree that fans may tend to look more favorably on their own team's young player, but it would be wrong to say everyone is biased when they think, for example, that Brooks and Ariza have upside while, say, Gerald Greene and Johan Petro probably don't. A reasoned discussion can be had bsed on whether the young guys actually displayed a capacity for learning during their time in the league. 2. Scola did improve: Compared to his rookie season, he scored more efficiently, rebounded at a higher rate per minute, had a more elbow consistent jumper, displayed better defensive displine and earned more playing time.
Considering Yao's foot problems, I'm all for getting a young 7'3 guy with upside. He could really develop in our system and with our coaches. Very Nice.
I'm not sure you understood what my point was. The players I named were in the Gerald Green/Petro category in their first few years. They really didn't show any kind of steady progression or "capacity for learning". You could actually make the case that in year 2 Gerald Green was better than a couple of them. Sometimes young players just improve out of the blue. That is why GM's continually take chances on them. Sometimes you get a Scola, Sometimes you get a Vspan. You're taking a chance either way. You can't dismiss one gamble while boasting about another one. The defense, I'll give you. He had a bigger impact on that end but he wasn't any stronger, quicker or smarter. He just had more of an understanding of where Shane, Yao and his other teammates would be so he could help prevent his man from scoring. Also, I mentioned his coaches understanding his strength and weaknesses. Scola's mid-range jumper is one of those strengths. When he took his shots the spacing was much better and very early on in the season it became one of the teams staples. Other than that, if you look at his production per 36 minutes (as I seem to remember is your forte) he really has no significant gains other than free throw percentage. He has a few marginal gains in shooting percentage, rebounding, etc. but nothing of note - just normal changes you would see in a player year to year. I wouldn't say he had declined this year if he shot 50% fg% and grabbed 8.3 rebs per 36 mins, It's a very slight difference.
why not develop our rookie big guys? they're not going to suck like Cook defensively. I'm sure Dorsey can give us 10 rebounds a game.
You are right that every roster spot decision you spend is a gamble. The question is whether some random Johan Petro type is worth a gamble more than, say, David Andersen or even Joey Dorsey. And youth may have some value in terms of improvement potential it's fine taking a chance on youth as far as giving Von Wafer or Gerald Green or James White a try goes. But lets not go
CH,Hayesfan,Sam, all I'm saying is this year the rockets are trying to build for the next year. I think it would be better to pay a 24 yr old guy with nba production with potential to get better vs a soon to be 30 yr old international big that will take at least half a season if not a entire season to get something out of. Scola was the best big in europe and it took half a season for him. I think frye for all of his faults will have a better year by far than andersen. If nothing else, frye could actually be that 4/5 who could make scola tradeable. Top it off, he ischeap. When I look at frye in portland, it was a numbers game.Like I said also, I don't think scola or landry would play anymore than frye did in portland with oden healthy.Frye is a low risk guy as is andersen,but frye has a higher rreward because of his age.
Andersen is an unknown while Frye is a player that has faded. In terms of building for the future Frye is an unknown as well because no one knows in which way his career is headed. Frye is an average rebounder. I think at the very worst Andersen will be the same rebounder that Frye is. Even though Andersen has never played in the NBA at least he has been a productive rotation player for the past few years on a championship level Euroleague team.
What exacly is Frye's potential? I really can't see him becoming that great after basically regressing during his 4 years in the league. Frye seems to me like Juwan Howard when Juwan was in his 30s playing for the Rockets, only a bit taller and quite a bit softer. What does he really have besides an inconsistent 20 footer an his height? He doesn't rebound much, doesn't post up much, doesn't block many shots, doesn't D up his man very well. I just don't remember a guy playing like him all of a sudden turning it around. Andersen may be 30, but I see him realistically being Matt Bonner level or better and that's a useful guy to have. If we are lucky, he might display more skills and be a poor man's Andrea Bargnani. That's probably more than you can say about Frye.
Frye has a jumper,is young,but he is soft. I only remember hearing about Ramos when he went against Yao,sounds eg from our Puerto Rican friends that he isn't worth going after. Petro has limitations,at this point obviously everyone will have quite a lot,I doubt if he can give us more than Dorsey even with his height advantage.
All this discussion is interesting, and no offense to anyone, but I will defer to Morey and his staff's evaluation of talent over everyone here.
