The doctrine of double effect

Amazing that this post got pushed down so far....a big reason why I don't start many threads any more.

If you want to pull out the stops to win every game we can this year, then accept the consequences of your philosophy: At best, we'll barely make the playoffs this year. We'll get nothing special in the draft, and we probably won't be much better next year.

Will, why do you say we'll get 'nothing special' in the draft? Was Sam Cassell 'nothing special' at #24? Was Othella 'nothing special at #32? Was Cuttino 'nothing special' in the 2nd round? Why do you say we probably won't be much better next year? To say that is saying the only reason we're losing is lack of talent. It says nothing about the need to develop chemistry and learn how to win. Why do you assume this team won't show any improvement with time? How many years were Hakeem, Otis, Maxwell, and Kenny Smith together before they broke through? Like I've said many times, this team has almost all the tools, they just need the time.

But if you want the Rockets to stop sucking, then you must accept realistic means to that end. Option #1 was to trade Hakeem this summer. We didn't do it, for moral reasons. Fine. Then the less immoral option, now that Barkley is gone and Hakeem is on his way, is to lose our way deep into the lottery.

Here we go again with the 'only 2 options to rebuilding'. Can someone please explain to me how we acquired Steve Francis? Did we trade Hakeem for him? Did we have the worst record in the NBA and select him in the draft? Will, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the Rockets really have their sh*t together, and are capable of rebuilding a team without tanking it? I just don't see what more they have to prove. They go out and acquire the future cornerstone of the franchise in Francis, along with a valuable piece in Shandon Anderson, and still would have been able to compete had Pippen not blown up. They pluck another cornerstone of the franchise in Mobley in the second round. They trade for their center of the next 10 years in Cato. None of this was done via the 2 solutions you mentioned. They let their star(s) retire with dignity, and they're rebuilding the franchise at the same time. They've done the hard part already, and they didn't have to turn out like the Chicago Bulls to do it. What makes you think they can't finish the job (the easy part: adding a couple of missing pieces, developing chemistry) without tanking it?

For what it's worth, I totally agree with the second half of your post. I think we should go with our youngsters this year. I'm against relying on vets to win in the short-term (although it's awful hard to stick to that philosophy, as I'm finding out). If we lose, we lose. They need to learn. But we don't try to lose.

 

there is no question that management has made some gutsy moves in the past. I for one am not an advocate of tanking games. Being a die-hard competitor that I am, I want to see them win every game. However, I have lost a lot of faith on this team. There are some very talented players, no question. I just don't believe that these players can play together. On top of that, I don't believe Rudy and the players believe in their system which is undefined. Rudy has some serious issues. I think he's probably lost some confidence in himself as a coach too. Very indecisive with the play calling and players as well. The lottery and draft is not going to change things for the Rockets OVERNIGHT as someone has mentioned. For anyone to think that the Rockets can pull off a Spurs is ridiculous. They were extremely lucky and on top of that, they have some veteran leadership which has helped Duncan's game. Do you really think, had Duncan gone to the Clippers, that they would be a championship team? Every championship team had several veterans to mold the young phenom players into SUPERSTARS. It's kinda like someone who was brought up in a rich family vs. a poor person who won the lottery.

More than likely, the person who came from money is groomed into handling the responsibilities of success to make them greater. It's a lot harder for a poor person, who instantly becomes rich, to maintain their success and bring them to another level.

That is what we are seeing in the NBA. These young kids who grew up poor all their lives are suddenly instant millionaires. They all of a sudden have many pressures that they are not accustomed to, so when they go onto the court, these young players don't have that fire as when they were on the streets or in college. Veteran players help keep these young players grounded. They give them the tools and experience to not only handle the pressures of the game on the court but off the court as well.

When the season started, I was so excited at the promise of actually making the playoffs and winning it all. We had the tools and the mix of veterans and rookies. In my mind, the Rockets made a mistake in trading Pippen as much as I hate him now. However, as Barkley and many other players have said, you don't have to like a player personally to play with them professionally. I believe had Pippen stayed with Francis, Anderson, Barkley and Dream...things would be different today.

Say what you will about Pippen, but he is a lot better than what we have now. I'm not taking anything away from the players we have because they are all talented. However, Pippen was a positive role model to Cuttino Mobley and they still maintain a close relationship. Barkley is a positive model for Francis, however so much for that now with his career ending injury. Dream has been positive for....himself. He has not offered nor shown a desire to help anyone on this team. All I hear is rhetoric from him. He says all this stuff to the media, but he can't lead by example anymore. These players don't relate to him. I have hope for the Rockets one day...but just not today. We need some veteran leadership and a coach that these players can relate to.

 

Rocket Rich, I am fuming for you to say Hakeem has only been a role model for himself. You have been in NYC too long! Just kidding but I have seen Dream working with the other big men on the team before games and I know he helps them in practice, etc. from interviews of young players over the years. Besides, you only have to see Hakeem to have him as a role example - just follow his example on the court and off the court.

On topic, this theory that Rudy is playing all these players for the future and not tanking the season is somewhat of a relief for me. I have been very disappointed in how many players he is using (he used to not use enough players in my opinion)and you never know when or how they will be used. This isolation stuff is more boring than posting up for me. I thought he was tanking the games with his coaching or else was showcasing our talent for trade bait maybe.

I have been a strong Rudy fan for so long that I will accept the reason of losing now to give these young guys experience. But I tell you last night after the Toronto game, that is the lowest I have been on Rudy. No Francis in the last few minutes - unless it is true it was his back more than his play. Common sense tells me to keep your go to guy in there and sooner or later he will start making them. Cuttino is clutch and I respect how far he has come but this is Steve Francis' team and he is the star.

 

Will, I agree with what I think Clutch was saying. Play the younger players, get experience, your going to lose more then you win but not because you weren't trying to win.

Why when the team does bad is it Rudy's fault? If the coach is so bad why do you never hear a player speak out, is it possible that the players realize the other team had more talent? They might know almost as much as some really knowledgeable fans.

It seems to me the Rockets [Rudy & CD] have been fairly successful drafting talent and making trades. Because we got undercut with a bad deal with Pippen and had a setback, lets not count on their knowledge any longer, and get a new person to take over.

But I give some on this board credit for not taking a differant approach. They want Rudy gone regardless of the wins or losses. Then some want trades regardless if it will or will not work. Almost like its a game to them, and the people they want to get out are trying to do their best. With any luck it will happen to them in their job[if old enough to have one], then see how they feel.

I know it is not the right way to feel, but I would like to play the kids, see who wants to be here and who don't. At the end of the season leave it to Rudy and CD to make the drafts and trades to upgrade and get ready for next year. But being of a older age, maybe that is just blind faith and no longer exceptable in this new era.

 

Will,
Nice point about playing time between the vets & the young guys... this team should develop. We're past the point of killing veterans for 40-42 min. a game merely to squeak out another win. In the meantime, let the offense flow, and let the core (including Rudy) become accustomed to the new offense.

 

Will- just wanted to give you props for sticking to your guns.

In the beginning of the season, things were much the same as they are now, but we were losing games in the 4th with post-ups instead of isolations. Many of the posters in here were furious, including Will, if I remember right. A thread ensued which stated much of the similar stuff above: give the young guys a chance to learn their stuff in game situations; we might not have as high a shot % as with Hakeem or Bark, might lose a few more games, but let's prepare for the future. At the time, it seemed to be a rather radical statement, but now that we're getting more used to the losing, it's easier to swallow.

Anyway, I want to give props to all who stuck to their guns, if you went with that statement back then and still do now, even in the face of losing with our young talents.

It's interesting to note how Rudy has indeed changed since the beginning of the season. At first, in post-game interviews, Rudy would explain (make excuses?) for using the old inside-out play in the 4th. It's the high-percentage shot. It's what is working the most. Sorry we aren't running as much, but we need to win games.
That's changed. His tone in post-game interviews is quite different. We didn't win, but we made good plays to stay close. The kids are learning; hopefully this will be a lesson that will sink in. We just need to get over that hump. We're getting closer all the time.
Rudy is looking to the future, as we are. This move was obviously aided by the Absence of Hakeem and Chuck, but now we have committed in a certain direction. It is really clear now that we aren't winning much more or losing any worse by running plays for the guards than running the post-ups. There's no turning back now, even when Hakeem returns. In my opinion, he will add many dimensions sorely needed on this team. But that's another thread entirely.

 

Will:

Catholics in general probably would call it "Extreme Unction" after amassing a 10-20 record.

Irish cathloics would probably call it a "bloody poor arse showin'".

Italian Catholics would likely say: "get otta here youse guys, whats da matta' for you,eh?"

 

The assumption I see being made are higher picks are noticeably better players. Will, you said "savior from the middle picks" won't be there. But where will they be? In my book, there is a little over one savior/franchise player per year in the draft. Look at the last seven drafts. nba.com shows them. Study those and lets talk about the difference in value between the #4 through #11 picks. And lets talk about how many saviors there are.

Let's have this talk. The threads are boring right now anyhow during this long break.

The question is: does having a higher pick in the 4-11 slots really increase your odds of finding a "savior" or impact player versus the proven value of 4th q wins, fighting for minutes, all the intangibles of trying to win.

Look at these big men, swing men through the years that we could use:

1999 (somewhat premature,,,but)
#9 Shawn Marion
#13 Corey Maggette
unpicked....drum roll...Griffin (10/8 50%)

1998
#9 Nowitzki (18ppg)
#10 Pierce
#25 Al Harrington

1997
#8 Foyle (leading shot blocker)
#9 McGrady
#10 Fortson (11rbs/11pts last year)
#14 Mo Taylor
#15 Cato
#19 Pollard (quality off the bench)

1996
#17 Jermaine O'Neal
#20 Ilgauskas (15/8 yearly)
#26 Jerome Williams (#1 FG%)
2nd Round
Jamie Feick (12.2 boards)
Othello Harrington

1995
#10 Kurt Thomas
#13 Corliss Williamson
#16 Alan Henderson (12.5/8.5)
#18 Theo Ratliff
#21 Michael Finley
2nd Round
DeClerque (10/7 52%)

My Points: Clutch/Will. You can have your cake and eat it two. Call it the doctrine of double dipping. Unless you believe 1-3 spots is a possibility, or the ball will bounce our way...the 4-8 slots versus the 9-25 slots are not really producing huge differences. That's why my rebuilding priorities are:

1. win with what you have...to gain 4th quarter experience.
2. upgrade through trades with those winners (leaving your best core)
3. build through the draft

I modified this after looking at the drafts.


[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 03, 2000).]

 

Hey, HeyPartner :

I'm bored. Let's talk. The odds of finding "a savior" in picks #4-11. Now our definitions of "savior" may be in disagreement, but I'm not specifically talking about the Rockets, but rather pure talent that turned out to be worth their position in the draft. I'll mention some first round players from those drafts that went #4 or later, and you tell me if they qualify under your definition. Here we go (excluding the 1999 draft since it's too early to tell) :

1993
#5 Isaiah Rider
#8 Vin Baker
#11 Alan Houston
#24 Sam Cassell
(honorable mention #4, Jamal Mashburn)
(honorable mention #3, Anfernee Hardaway)

1994
#5 Juwan Howard
#8 Brian Grant
#10 Eddie Jones

1995
#4 Rasheed Wallace
#5 Kevin Garnett
#21 Michael Finley

1996
#4 Stephon Marbury
#5 Ray Allen
#6 Antoine Walker
#13 Kobe Bryant

1997
Good Lord, you tell me. Tracy McGrady at #9?

1998
#4 Antawn Jamison (MAYBE, but not proven)
#5 Vince Carter
#7 Jason Williams (MAYBE)
#10 Paul Pierce
(honorable mention Dirk Nowitzki at #9)

Again, I based these picks of mine on talent alone. I did not ask myself "The Rockets need a [blank] so where did a good [blank] go after the #3 pick?"

I can say that good talent can be found up to the #5 pick with some hidden gems later in the draft. However, looking at the past few drafts, you better have a top-5 pick in order acquire good talent. Anything else is a crapshoot. Also consider that we're only concentrating on picks after #4. There's no certainty that picks #1-#4 are guaranteed to yield impressive talents. For example consider the following duds-to-semi-duds in the top 4 :

1993
#2 Shawn Bradley

1994
#4 Donyell Marshall (good player, but not good enough for a 4 pick)

1995
#3 Jerry Stackhouse (has made a resurgence lately, so probably shouldn't be here)

1996
#2 Marcus Camby (has started getting it in gear)

1997
One of the biggest in dud-drafts of the past decade.
#3 Chauncey Billups
#4 Antonio Daniels

As a matter of fact, if you were to look at picks #4-#11, you will find many a dud. Far more duds, as a matter of fact, than super or near-superstars.

BTW, I don't know about you guys, but I sure as heck wouldn't mind having that #5 pick (well, Isaiah Rider without the stupidity, would've been nice).

------------------
Rocket fuel pumps through these veins...

 

Oh great HeyPartner,

Looks like you edited your message while I was typing mine. Haha. I'll be danged if I'm gonna delete my work of verbosity.

------------------
Rocket fuel pumps through these veins...

 

HeyPartner,

Looks like your idea of a "savior" pertained strictly to Rockets' needs. Mine was geared more towards the question : "If we were to get a higher pick are we guaranteed a star?" I was posting in reference to all the talk lately concerning whether or not we should tank to move up in the draft, and if we did move up, would it really make a difference based upon past drafts.

What's interesting is that both you and I basically came to the same conclusion without reading one another's posts. I agree with you. Anything outside maybe the first 4 picks and definitely outside the top 10 or 11 has been a crapshoot at best.

------------------
Rocket fuel pumps through these veins...

[This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited January 03, 2000).]

 

The Rocket "Recipe".

With very few exceptions, including the Dream "switch", and the luck that this involved during that particular draft day, this franchise has grown and prospered through the "recipe".

Actually this Rockets franchise has prospered well by using the "recipe": A large heaping cup of timely trades, a full pantry stock of easy priced ($1M - 3.75M) role players and flavored with key veterans while keeping focused on "blending" fifteen individual talents into a cohesive finely tuned team.

That in a nutshell is the nature and history of the Rockets franchise recipe. Always improving through acquisition. Always building with two or three anchors and supporting with capable role players. Always having two or three in training pushing the anchors for their jobs. Always focusing on the available trades and the expendablity of a few for the improvement of the team as a whole. However, the Rockets have rarely used the draft to build their franchise. Not unless you want to recall the Houston Mavericks of the old ABL, who had to draft from availables after the fifth round,because they couln't buy the entrance ticket into the draft hall. They eventiually were put out of their misery.

The 5-15 split.

That may change this year, as it looks like they are purposely heading for the draft beer spigot and lottery bingo route. They very well may be around the fourth to eleventh pick as some very adroitly postulated.

As the following will show, the difference between the one to four (1-4) and the five to fifteen (5-15) places at the draft shows consistently, that only one or two key NBA players are found in the top four. But the next eleven places may triple that with five to six key game makers perennially coming to the NBA forefront from the 5 to 15 spots.(There are a some exceptions,so don't go crazy on me,okay.)

1998

1 LAC Michael Olowokandi . C 7-1 265
2 Van Mike Bibby ......... G 6-2 190
3 Den Raef LaFrentz ...... F 6-11 235
4 GS Antawn Jamison ..... F 6-9 223
5 Tor Vince Carter ....... G-F 6-7 215
6 Mil Robert Traylor ..... F-C 6-8 300
7 Sac Jason Williams ..... G 6-1 190
8 Phi Larry Hughes ....... G 6-5 185
9 Dal Dirk Nowitzki ...... F 6-11 237
10 Bos Paul Pierce ........ F 6-7 220
11 Det Bonzi Wells ........ G-F 6-5 210
12 Orl Michael Doleac ..... C 6-11 265
13 Orl Keon Clark ......... C-F 6-11 220
14 Hou Michael Dickerson .. F 6-5 190
15 Orl Matt Harpring ...... F 6-8 225

1997

1 SA Tim Duncan ......... C 6-10 238
2 NJ Keith Van Horn ..... F 6-10 220
3 Bos Chauncey Billups ... G 6-3 202
4 Van Antonio Daniels .... G 6-4 195
5 Den Tony Battie ........ C 6-11 230
6 Bos Ron Mercer ......... G-F 6-7 210
7 Phi Tim Thomas ......... F 6-9 230
8 GS Adonal Foyle ....... C 6-10 250
9 Tor Tracy McGrady ...... F 6-8 210
10 Mil Danny Fortson ...... F 6-7 260
11 Sac Olivier Saint-Jean . F 6-6 223
12 Ind Austin Croshere .... F 6-9 235
13 Cle Derek Anderson ..... G 6-5 195
14 LAC Maurice Taylor ..... F 6-9 250
15 Por Kelvin Cato ........ C 6-11 255

1996

1. Phil Allen Iverson PG 6- 0 167
2. Tor Marcus Camby PF 6-11 223
3. Van Shareef Abdur-Rahim PF 6-10 220
4. Minn Stephon Marbury PG 6- 2 182
5. Mil Ray Alle SG 6- 5 198
6. Bos Antoine Walker SF 6-10 234
7. LAC Lorenzen Wright PF 6-10 230
8. N J Kerry Kittles SG 6- 5 177
9. Dal Samaki Walker PF 6- 9 247
10. Ind Erick Dampier C 6-11 268
11. GSW Todd Fuller C 6-11 255
12. Clv Vitaly Potapenko C 6- 9 277
13. Char Kobe Bryant SG 6- 6 199
14. Sac Predrag Stojakovic SF 6- 9 229
15. Phx Steve Nash PG 6- 3 192

1995

1. GSW Joe Smith PF 6- 9 220
2. LAC Antonio McDyess PF 6- 9 230
3. Phil Jerry Stackhouse SF 6- 5 208
4. Wash Rasheed Wallace PF 6-10 230
5. Minn Kevin Garnett PF 6-11 217
6. Van Bryant Reeves C 7- 0 290
7. Tor Damon Stoudamire PG 5-10 170
8. Port Shawn Respert SG 6- 1 198
9. NJ Ed O'Bannon SF 6- 8 222
10. Mia Kurt Thomas PF 6- 9 240
11. Mil Gary Trent PF 6- 6 252
12. Dal Cherokee Parks PF 6-10 247
13. Sac Corliss Williamson PF 6- 6 244
14. Bos Eric Williams SF 6- 7 222
15. Den Brent Barry SF 6- 6 187

<center>INTERESTING LISTS AREN'T THEY???</center>

Doublette Effect

The usual prerequisite of "putting someone out of their misery" or to "relieve unrelenting or intractable pain" is that this last resort must be the only available recourse left, after all other avenues have been explored. That is clearly not the case with our young and impressive Rocket team.

To call this spirited team a lost cause and demonstrating that opinion by NOT doing everything possible, including entertaining trade offers, pursuing roster moves and by NOT continuing to focus on a winning competitive season is delporable.

My Postscript

It is obvious I would much prefer the Rockets continue to push at every attempt to win each and every game, like the competitive and class organization I have followed for so many years.

To Tank Or Not To Tank

This business of parlaying a season into an opportunity to increase a couple of positions in the upcoming summer draft is dispicable and quite frankly, should be reprehensible by any standards. IMHO, of course. But then I'm just a die hard Rocket fan.

Enjoy the debate. Cheers.



[This message has been edited by popeye (edited January 03, 2000).]

 

DD,

Great...I found someone bored with this long lay-off. Sorry about the edits. I chose to edit rather do a new post after I looked at the drafts.

yeah...I was concentrating on big men.

Now that I look at your picks two #5s stand way out...Garnett and Carter. The HS Garnetts I don't think will fall to #5 much anymore....Garnett and Kobe really have validated the HS risk. Garnett-hyped HS player at his height coming out again would go higher than #5. And the Carter thing was really a #4 -- that 4 for 5 trade was odd, not to mention Bibby being an overthought #2.

My true saviors in last 7 drafts are:

Kidd
Hill
Garnett
Carter
Duncan
Webber
Iverson
Kobe

I'm saying...franchises are rare after #4 (our lowest reasonable draft pick)...then look at the 5-7 versus 8-16. There are plenty of quality players 8-16. This is because of Europe and the HS players have added picks.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 03, 2000).]

 

Or, C

We give our young team a chance, an opportunity to excel even beyond the sorry assed expectations of the people entrusted to focus the team on winning. We fill a couple of need areas. We encourage with deed as well as word. We say we have a chance to give you a little help in this area.

Then we sit back and watch this team play with heart ... without breaking their heart. We get to enjoy a game and we can easily say they gave their best. Including the management. Every night. Just like we came to expect of this franchise.

And if we don't win it all, which even on the very best of circumstances and acquisitions, is very unlikely ... then we end up with a middle of the road pick. So bloody hell what!!!! Trade up. Trade off. Parlay. Move some people. Make some backroom offers. Just like the championship years. Only with a young and undefeated spirit.

 

HeyPartner,

While I agree that the addition of European and high school talent has allowed the draft to become injected with a larger talent pool, I don't necessarily agree you will find great additions to the team there. As a corollary to this discussion, consider how many of the top 10 draftees worth their pick end up with the same team as little as 2-4 years later :

Somebody help me out here; I'm just guessing based upon casual inspection.

1993
I don't think any of the top 10 are still with their original teams

1994
Glenn Robinson is still with Milwaukee
Grant Hill is still with Detroit
Juwan Howard is still with Washington

1995
Kevin Garnett is still with Minnesota

1996
Allen Iverson is still with Philly
Sharif Abdur-Rahim is still with Vancouver
Antoine Walker is still with Boston

1997
Tim Duncan is still with SA (for now)
Keith Van Horn was traded to NJ before the season started and he's still there.
Tracy McGrady is still with Toronto.

1998-1999 too early to look at.

What I'm getting at is that even amongst the top 10 players in any given draft, rarely do they stay with the same team over the course of just 3-5 years. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that a lot of duds get drafted in the top 10 while star players in the top 10 get traded for monetary reasons, personality conflicts, or other reasons. Wouldn't it be better to maybe trade a high first round pick for a good to very good veteran and add a lower first round pick in the trade to boot? I'm basing this on the supposition we'll get a pick #6 or after. Of course there'll always be the fear that you gave up on the next superstar to move down in the draft, but still... is it worth it?

I've never really noticed how many below-average to pathetic players were drafted in the top 10. Almost makes me wonder why anyone would give a blip about making a low-lottery pick.

------------------
Rocket fuel pumps through these veins...

 

DD
That draft look-up was fun. Yeah we did come to similar conclusion. Sure, trading picks would be fine. But why. Just win and do the trade with your winning players. You snuck in an observation that almost contradicts itself..."Why would anyone care about low picks"...then, why would anyone trade a good vet and #15 for a #6.

Will...Oh...I think we're splitting hairs here to build up theories.

Fortson at #10 is not a huge mistake by other teams nor is he a lucky pick. Neither is Ilgauskas at #20 (sometimes foreigners don't sign contracts until they land on a team they like). At .500 right now, we'd have the #12 pick.

Having more players to choose from is always better...but how much, is my point. It depends on the draft. No way Mo Taylor falls that far in PF-depleted years. But it also depends on how good the organization is at developing players. At some point you have to say, the Rockets aren't lucky, they just know what they like and how to bring them up.

I know you want to see the Rockets win and so does Clutch. Look at those players up there and find a huge difference in SFs/PFs in 5-12. (Carter was really a 4 where Toronto drafted, Garnett risky as 1st HS-er in long time)

And what exactly is this PT thing. At this point with Hakeem and Barkley out, that point doesn't really mean much, unless you are saying give Thomas more time than Rogers. Then, I could counter: We are building up Rogers' immediate trade value.

In short, my (a) / (b) / (c) is

(A).500 pct, huge turnaround, winning experience, player focus, increased trade value for role players (maybe an eyepoP trade), #12 pick

(B).333 pct (current), status quo, 30 min for Thomas, keep Hakeem/TMass/Walt under 23 minutes (no impact trades), practice defense, #7 pick

(C).300 pct, 40 minutes play till they drop for 5-7 guys for future, disgruntled vets you don't care about, huge amounts of time practicing moves, different plays, TIRED DEFENSE or no D, possible stress injuries, #4-5 pick

I pick (A) and likely never make .500 and get the #10 pick. You seem to end up with the #7 pick. I don't see you as a (C) person, because you know .300 means no D in this league. So, can't we double dip?


[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 04, 2000).]

 

Heypartner,

That's exactly why I said, there's an ego thing involved in those top 10 picks. Everybody thinks they will get that next "superstar". No matter how many bombs have been drafted in the top 10, each GM's or coach's ego says, "I can't trade this pick away, I know this guy on my board next will be the next [insert hall of famer here]".

My question was, would it be advisable to give up that high draft pick and get quality veterans in return since most of these players end up getting traded anyway (from the looks of it)? Take advantage of other teams' egos and your talent evaluation and gouge other teams for that lottery pick. We have a (future) superstar on this team in Francis. We have the beginnings of a great supporting cast. Let's find those small missing pieces from existing talent in the NBA that's proven instead of joining the crapshoot for talent known as the lottery.

My opinion is this :

A) Let the team play the young guys and have them gain experience.
B) We'll lose but will be an improved team by the end of the season due to experience.
C) If we get a pick from #6-#9 (maybe #10) or higher, consider trading it for proven veterans (under the age of 28) and perhaps a mid-round pick because I can almost guarantee that someone will take that combo. If we were to get picks #4 or #5, keep it. Draft history has shown that we can get a very good player at that position.

I think it was Popeye that said it best, this team has always won not by the draft, but by opportune acquisitions and via the trade. Steve Francis, Clyde Drexler, Cuttino Mobley, Kelvin Cato... all great acquisitions that have helped us. None were drafted via the lottery. Sure we obtained Hakeem and Ralph via the lottery, but that was another era in which tanking guaranteed you a great pick.


------------------
Rocket fuel pumps through these veins...

[This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited January 04, 2000).]