[RealGM.com] Star by Star - When will the Rockets add a 3rd 'superstar'?

He turns the ball over about 50% of the time when he "creates" for himself...

Unless you are talking about bail out 3s.

 

<br>
This is not true.

Parsons is actually pretty good in pick and roll situations. Watch the last few games of the season, especially that Lakers game. He did it well during the OKC series also.

 

I don't actually want a 3rd superstar. I think Parsons is great as a role player for a championship team. On this team, he doesn't need to create for himself. What we should be concerned about is PF position. We really need a spread 4 who can also defend.

 

Best bet in my opinion is for Dirk to get pissed and ask for a trade at the deadline then at the end of the season sign home to an extension for around 8mill/3years and hope for Parsons to turn into that third star. This way if Dirk doesn't want to take the pay cut (I'm willing to bet he would) the rockets can still be players in FA 2014

 

8 million per year for three years**

 

I don't quite recall those plays, but if so, that is good for him. But most of the season as far as I can remember, he was given big time in games to create, with Harden and Lin out, and he turned the ball over about half of the time. I certainly hope he develops his games next season, if he can truly create for himself, that will make him a borderline all star, and that is what we need.

 

Well, both Omer and Lin MUST be included for a 3rd max guy, due to salary matches. T-Jones or D Mo MUST be included to plug up the hole left (assuming we are asking for a PF). I would assume 2-3 firsts, and a bevy of 2nds, to be included. Also, players with team options in the 2nd year to alleviate the $30 million Lin/Asik actually get paid, as opposed to the 16.6 we actually send out, so 13.4 million dollars lost from the other team. Would also think 1 bad contract coming back to Houston (which would be fine, because we will be cap strapped from here on).

Any point made about a 3rd 'star', will include Lin in the article being dealt, and to a 3rd team because the best PF's we want, already have a PG that's running the franchise.

 

Do we need a 3rd star? I think not! On any given night, we have 4 starters that could lead the team in scoring (Harden, Howard, Parsons or Lin).

Our starting 5 is exceptional. With PF competition (Jones, Motie or even Smith) can play well enough in our starting line-up. We can even play limited mins with Howard at PF and Asik at C.

Our bench is very solid. With Asik, Garcia and Beverly we have a solid 8 rotation. If Motie develops further he can give us a offensive presence in the paint with our 2nd unit. If Anderson sticks and keeps playing hard, he's reliable and still could grow further.

I don't believe we need to sacrifice our youth and depth for a 3rd star. Parsons is capable of being that 3rd option and Lin can step up and serve us well when Harden needs a break as a QB. 82 games is a long season and having the depth we have at 5/4/1 spots could prove critical if injuries hit.

 

I think the three star combo heydays are gone. The new cap tax rules just make it impossible. Having three stars on the roster will in essence mean that the rest of the team needs to play on vets min or second round rookie rates. I think Morey and McHale are doing something very nice here. They are creating a new style that is sustainable with two stars and still produces huge scoring. I also think that the Rockets new roster can offer much better defense than last season. Still need to see that the pieces fit together, but this is a very promising roster.

 

I think I have reached the point, previously, where I will be responding to your posts. Take care of yourself.

 

I think we have a 3rd star already; Chandler Parsons. White boy can ball

 

morey got DH doesnt impress you? you must be a God

 

I have done work in the media and in media criticism, which has to do with observing media and media figures and breaking down their writing and their agendas. I am very confident in my ability to ascertain a writer's thought processes and agendas.

To help illustrate my point, I included the earlier piece from Tjarks. There was a reason I included it. There is a pattern in the writing, the pattern being that, for Tjarks, Beverley is a better fit than Lin and that Beverley is a starting-caliber point guard (meaning he's ready to replace Lin when Lin is shipped out).

My conclusion isn't very hard to come to, then. You could say that it's not the ONLY conclusion in what Tjarks writes, but it seems very difficult to argue Tjarks isn't advocating that position. Of course, he's only doing it for the betterment of the team. Yeah, sure.

Also, Tjarks praises both Jones and Asik. The first person he mentions as potentially being gone is Lin. And he mentions Lin in the capacity of someone having to take him on, as if Lin is a burden and afterthought.

In other words, Tjarks plays a bit of "odd man out" in his piece. Jones looks ready for a breakout season. Asik is worth his contract. Only one person, then, is the obvious deadweight for the team's hopes.

We know who that person is.

And thus, for the team to reach its true potential and compete with the elite, it just has to get a 3rd star. A 3rd star who will mean the trading of the dead weight piece and a 3rd star who will, presumably, allow Patrick Beverley to show he's a starting-caliber NBA guard.

Just as Tjarks said he was.

One thing you learn fast in the media biz is that people want to be proven right and people want to try to have things they want to happen actually happen.

For example, Mark Deeks said Lin was on the trading block. Got a lot of notoriety for saying it, too.

Do you think Deeks would be happy if Lin was traded? My guess would be "yes," because then he was "the guy" who broke the story. And so, I would expect Deeks to keep pushing the angle that Beverley is ready to start and is better than Lin. He's not going to change positions, in other words. But Beverley can't prove Deeks right if Lin is around and starting.

You get my drift here?

Similarly, Tjarks.

I've been writing for a very long time. There are all kinds of techniques for pushing a thesis or premise. You don't always come right out and say "TRADE THIS GUY NOW!" Sometimes it's more subtle than that.

If you want a guy traded, and he plays for a team with 2 stars, then your angle might be "you know what, having two stars isn't cool, but having 3 is." And then you make sure you point out who is going to be the first guy out the door if said Third Star comes to the team. And, you also make sure to answer any issues that could get in the way of said Dead Weight Player being traded ("someone will take him"), because it might seem like Dead Weight Player's contract could be stopping his being shipped out.

In the same way it's been stressed on here to not be naive when it comes to Daryl Morey being coy or even a bit two-faced when it comes to discussion about who is and is not on the trading block, don't think writers are always writing pieces with the best interest of the team in mind. They may be, they may not be.

This is why it's important to know who has what agenda. Before you read what they write.

Tjarks position is that Houston needs 3 stars, not 2. As I said previously, the 2009-2010 Lakers might disagree. As might the Indiana Pacers and San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs were about 5 seconds away from ending the charade of the "Big 3" as an NBA necessity.

Anyways, my summary of Tjarks' piece would be along these lines:

For Houston to have a chance at a dynasty, they need to get a 3rd star. And to get that 3rd star, You-Know-Who is going bye-bye

This isn't really news. We went through it with Josh Smith. Except that in the Josh Smith scenario, it looked like Asik might be going bye-bye.

That's why I think Tjarks made it clear that Asik is "affordable." As in, no more dangling Asik for the 3rd star. Tjarks has another piece in mind that is going to go if a 3rd star is brought in.

To me, this is all obvious. To you, maybe less so. That's why I included what Tjarks had written previously, to try to help make it clearer for people. I did a similar thing regarding Ken Berger in the long Dwight Howard thread, I believe, to try to help walk people through my thought process.

Anyhow, time to wrap this post up. We can disagree on the analysis of Tjarks' piece and what Tjarks' agendas may or may not be. It doesn't really matter, what Tjarks wrote isn't likely to have any effect on anyone's decision making at the top levels. So, it's kind of a tempest in a teapot. Tjarks can feel what he wants, as can Mark Deeks, as can you, as can I.

Just putting my two cents in on something that seemed fairly obvious to me.

 

Let McHale create a system with the guys we have now. Maybe he is even thinking about Asik at C and Howard at PF. If Dwight will be our C T-Jones would be a stable part in McHales rotation. Lets see how Jones produces because last year he was always between the Vipers and the Rockets.

 

Just to help further my point, another gem from Tjarks in his pre-Real GM days. I didn't even know about this piece, but I think you can understand how it helps me make my point:

"Knicks Point Guard Jeremy Lin Is Not That Special, He's Replaceable"

http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...remy-lin-is-not-that-special-he-s-replaceable

As I said, it's clear Tjarks has never been a Lin fan.

One other thing, and this is important to point out and stress to understand the dynamics of all of this.

If you are not a fan of Jeremy Lin, for whatever reason, the last thing you want to see him do is play on a good team. Because not only will he gain more respect, the good teammates around him are likely to make him look better. In a similar way that, say, Mo Williams might look better playing with LeBron James rather than a lesser small forward.

So, if you are a writer and it would appear you have a longstanding agenda to point out, and have it demonstrated, that Jeremy Lin isn't very good, you don't want him on a contender like Houston. That should be obvious. But it's only obvious if you understand the feelings of the writer towards said player.

This type of thing isn't limited to Jeremy Lin, of course. For example, Ron Borges of the Boston Herald can't stand the current New England Patriots team and has done everything in his power to make them look bad, for years. That's known. Adrian Wojnarowski used to do all in his power to make LeBron James look bad. That's known.

Just because it may be less known that Tjarks seems to have a Lin agenda doesn't mean he doesn't have that agenda.

Take it easy.

 

Phislam has been on this board since Lin was 10 years old.

 

They don't get to the Finals without Chris Andersen. Bosh was hardly a "star" this year. They would better off with Asik and someone like Ersan Ilyasova than Bosh - hardly "stars".

 

The three star combo isn't done, if anything the new lower maxes make it much more viable. What is done is the endless roster bloating through the addition of continual mid level players (expirings have been devalued because of it as well) that teams like the lakers, mavs and knicks were known for.