Finally some posters who agree we don't have to win the lottery to be good in the future. I guess I'll have to keep asking these questions until I get an answer -- did we get Steve Francis from the lottery? Did we get Cuttino Mobley from the lottery? Did we get Shandon Anderson from the lottery? Did we get Kelvin Cato from the lottery? If we didn't need the lottery to build the team to its current state (which we did amazingly in the span of less than a year), why do we need it now to add one or two small pieces? HeyPartner, Dr of Dunk, great posts. ... 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.
"...did we get Steve Francis from the lottery? Did we get Cuttino Mobley from the lottery? Did we get Shandon Anderson from the lottery? Did we get Kelvin Cato from the lottery? No, we apparently got all of them to get to the lottery. You once said in the rebuilding-"don't be like Boston" argument that this was all irrelevant due to the fact that the Rockets won because they "won the lottery" with a player like Olajuwon and we were blessed to have him ... Agreed. So I ask... Did we get Hakeem Olajuwon from the lottery? How about Tim Duncan, who you said was the next great? Did it take losing to get there? Did you know that if the Rockets had won 10 more games in 83-84 -- just 10 more -- they'd be looking at drafting Leon Wood. Leon "The Dream" Wood doesn't have quite the ring to it. How about the "WoodShake"? "Lucas to Ralph to Leon ... OH BOY he put the Woodshake on that defender!" I know, I know... you'd say we would have drafted John Stockton at #10 because our organization drafts the gold nuggets. It just is NOT always the case. See Buck Johnson (over Arvydas Sabonis), Steve Harris (over Terry Porter), Derrick Chievous (over Rod Strickland), trading the pick before Shawn Kemp, trading the pick two selections before Michael Finley (forgiven since it was in the Drexler deal), John Turner (over Rick Fox). EEE-GADS did I forget Alec Kessler over Jayson Williams? No worries... Draft Day Trade: Kessler for Dave Jamerson. Upgrade City! Yes, Shandon Anderson was a good pickup and it didn't take the lottery to get him, but shouldn't the Rockets have just picked him outright instead of T-E-R-R-E-L-L B-E-L-L 6 picks before Anderson? I'd rather have Derek Bell. And if Anderson was a lottery pick, wouldn't he be viewed as a bit of a bust? As a second rounder he's fantastic... lottery pick? Shandon Anderson? Slow down there a bit. I know you'll say "different organization" and mention such great pickups as Horry, Cassell, Othella and Mobley in the mid to late 90's -- which were indeed great pickups -- but putting your trust in a late first rounder or second rounder is a REAL crapshoot. Many say the lottery is no guarantee -- well what the hell is a non-lottery pick? I assure you, it's less of a guarantee. As for the second round, If you get a decent role player in the second round consider yourself incredibly fortunate. And if the Rockets organization is so great at making picks, wouldn't you rather that braintrust have the pick of the litter? I mean I know you said you don't want a Vince Carter on our team -- but personally, I do. BTW, Steve Francis was the second pick in the draft -- which would classify as high lottery. If the Rockets can parlay Bryce Drew, Kenny Thomas, Tony Massenburg, a pick (yadda, yadda) into another top three selection again, I'll stop preaching about the importance of acquiring a top pick via a few losses. Also, Kelvin Cato came via a trade you were strongly against -- trading a veteran star for some youth. That has been my main point here ... play the young guys -- no sense in playing soon-to-be-retiring veterans to scrap out a few extra wins -- which you seem to be in agreement with ("I'm against relying on vets to win in the short-term"). What do you want then -- Hakeem to come out, wave to the crowd and sit on the pine? "I want what Dream wants" -- well you didn't want what Pippen wanted when it didn't fit into your idea of the Houston Rockets. Preach on brother Will ... I'm just here to pay my tithe. "I guess I'll have to keep asking these questions until I get an answer" I guess I'll have to keep posting the answers until you read them. ------------------ Clutch Confident the Rockets would be title-less had they drafted Leon "The Dream" Wood CLUTCHCITY.NET -- SPREAD THE WORD [This message has been edited by Clutch (edited January 04, 2000).]
Clutch: "wouldn't you rather that braintrust have the pick of the litter?" I think everyone will say yes to this. That's why I say we are somewhat splitting hairs. We agree. The new question that DD, Popeye and I asking is "At what expense". Is the difference is picks that noticeable in the long run? Does losing hurt trade value of players. Does losing hurt defensive effort? Do bad habit develop. You have to say Yes a little to that. Compare those little Yes's to the difference in a #7 and #10 pick. To get a 4 or 5, our team would have to be at .300 and largely not play any defense. I don't want that. So, now we are at likely #7. No matter how hard we try, getting to #12 is about our max. We can win and try our best and only reach #10. #10 can land a good, tough rebounder and defender who wants to learn. Can #7 do that much better. We are splitting hairs. Let's just focus on winning, improving defense, and think about the lottery later. I'm fine limiting Hakeem's time, and doing only new system offense. But I do not believe in giving up on the defensive end. bad habits, man!
Clutch, I must say that I’m flattered that you pay such close attention to my posts. I take it as a compliment that a respected member of the media and basketball god such as yourself (I'm being serious) can rattle off my own past personal ‘takes’ so effortlessly. I asked did we get Francis, Mobley, etc. from the lottery, to which you replied "No, we apparently got all of them to get to the lottery." Okay, that’s real cute, but we already have our entire core for the next 10 or so years intact, and some people are still talking about making the playoffs this year. It usually takes most franchises years to get to this point, and the Rockets did it in months. How long do you think before the Bulls start having to decide between lottery and playoffs? You once said in the rebuilding-"don't be like Boston" argument that this was all irrelevant due to the fact that the Rockets won because they "won the lottery" with a player like Olajuwon and we were blessed to have him ... Agreed. So I ask... Did we get Hakeem Olajuwon from the lottery? How about Tim Duncan, who you said was the next great? Did it take losing to get there? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. We got Steve Francis instead, and didn’t have to lose. When you acquire the best player in the draft, what difference does it make if you had to lose or not to get him? It took losing to get Hakeem. It took shrewd personnel moves to get Francis. So what? The end result is the same. Just how many Steve Francis’ would you like us to get? And by the way, that’s not all I said in the ‘Boston’ argument. Most notably, I said it didn’t matter if the Rockets let Hakeem retire without compensation, because the organization was smart and capable enough to overcome that. Well, what do you know, in a matter of months, here we are, one of the most promising young teams in the NBA, with practically our entire starting lineup filled out for the next decade, and Hakeem is set to retire a Rocket, the way it should be. Did you know that if the Rockets had won 10 more games in 83-84 -- just 10 more -- they'd be looking at drafting Leon Wood. Leon "The Dream" Wood doesn't have quite the ring to it. How about the "WoodShake"? "Lucas to Ralph to Leon ... OH BOY he put the Woodshake on that defender!" I know, I know... you'd say we would have drafted John Stockton at #10 because our organization drafts the gold nuggets. It just is NOT always the case. See Buck Johnson (over Arvydas Sabonis), Steve Harris (over Terry Porter), Derrick Chievous (over Rod Strickland), trading the pick before Shawn Kemp, trading the pick two selections before Michael Finley (forgiven since it was in the Drexler deal), John Turner (over Rick Fox). EEE-GADS did I forget Alec Kessler over Jayson Williams? No worries... Draft Day Trade: Kessler for Dave Jamerson. Upgrade City! That's all very amusing, but any pre-Rudy draft/personnel moves are irrelevant when talking about our current future. When Rudy and Carroll are going to be the ones shaping our current team’s direction, what difference does it make who the Pattersons selected in 1988? None. That’s pretty basic stuff. If Don Nelson takes over for Rudy next year, then maybe I’ll be a little apprehensive come draft day. Until then, I’ll take my chances. Yes, Shandon Anderson was a good pickup and it didn't take the lottery to get him, but shouldn't the Rockets have just picked him outright instead of T-E-R-R-E-L-L B-E-L-L 6 picks before Anderson? I'd rather have Derek Bell. What a perfect way to illustrate how the draft is not the only way to build a team. And if Anderson was a lottery pick, wouldn't he be viewed as a bit of a bust? As a second rounder he's fantastic... lottery pick? Shandon Anderson? Slow down there a bit. Are you trying to say that since one of our starters wasn’t a lottery pick, we have no future? Do you want a lottery pick at every position? Exactly what are you saying here? Please explain. I know you'll say "different organization" and mention such great pickups as Horry, Cassell, Othella and Mobley in the mid to late 90's -- which were indeed great pickups -- but putting your trust in a late first rounder or second rounder is a REAL crapshoot. Many say the lottery is no guarantee -- well what the hell is a non-lottery pick? I assure you, it's less of a guarantee. As for the second round, If you get a decent role player in the second round consider yourself incredibly fortunate. That’s the whole problem with counting on the draft to save your franchise in the first place. If it’s such a crapshoot, why even worry about it? I’m not. I don’t even think about the draft until the season’s over. I’m not ‘putting my trust’ in it, I’m putting it in Rudy and co. to make the right moves to improve the franchise, whether it be draft, trades, free-agent acquisitions, etc. Teams with smart people running the show don’t have to rely as much on the next Shaquille O’neal falling into their laps. And if the Rockets organization is so great at making picks, wouldn't you rather that braintrust have the pick of the litter? I mean I know you said you don't want a Vince Carter on our team -- but personally, I do. What are the odds that Steve Francis and Vince Carter would even last more than 3 years together on the same team? How long did Iverson/Stackhouse last? O’neal/Hardaway? Jackson/Kidd/Mashburn? Marbury/Garnett? If your philosophy of building a team is to acquire as many young ‘potential franchise players’ as possible, knock yourself out. Hell, if Rudy decided to do that, I’d probably even go along with it just because I usually trust the guy. History says it’s a waste of time, however. BTW, Steve Francis was the second pick in the draft -- which would classify as high lottery. If the Rockets can parlay Bryce Drew, Kenny Thomas, Tony Massenburg, a pick (yadda, yadda) into another top three selection again, I'll stop preaching about the importance of acquiring a top pick via a few losses. What is the importance of acquiring another top pick via a few losses? Better yet, what is the importance of acquiring another top pick, period? That seems to be the issue. Some, like you, think we need another top pick, others think we have a good nucleus that only needs time and minor tweaking. My whole point to begin with is we don’t need losses to fill our needs anyway. Also, Kelvin Cato came via a trade you were strongly against -- trading a veteran star for some youth. Yes, I was against that trade because I thought we had a shot at the championship. I also said, however, that acquiring Cato was a good move for the future. The fact that I was against the trade is irrelevant in this discussion. That has been my main point here ... play the young guys -- no sense in playing soon-to-be-retiring veterans to scrap out a few extra wins -- which you seem to be in agreement with ("I'm against relying on vets to win in the short-term"). What do you want then -- Hakeem to come out, wave to the crowd and sit on the pine? C’mon Clutch, being so educated in my past postings, you should know what I want Hakeem’s role on the team to be (hint: 15-foot jumpers, 15-foot jumpers….). I’ve advocated him taking a secondary role, and letting the younger guys be the focus. I don’t consider that relying on vets. "I want what Dream wants" -- well you didn't want what Pippen wanted when it didn't fit into your idea of the Houston Rockets. Why should I have wanted what Pippen wanted? Hakeem = 18 years in Houston, the city’s only 2 championships. Pippen = 50 games and underachievement. Can you honestly not see why I would want Hakeem to go out on his own terms? I mean, it’s not like I’m saying that Brent Price should’ve been able to dictate HIS future with the Rockets. Preach on brother Will ... I'm just here to pay my tithe. I'll take it you're speaking for Will as well, since he decided to ignore my post. "I guess I'll have to keep asking these questions until I get an answer" I guess I'll have to keep posting the answers until you read them. You still haven’t explained why the Rockets future hopes are totally dependent upon where they pick in this year’s draft. I think I’ve given plenty of reasons why I think they aren’t. You’ve said that you’d rather get a high draft pick than not, but why do we have to have a high draft pick next year to satisfy our future needs? Has this organization not proven that they will continue to compile a winner no matter where they select in the draft? The bottom line being -- Beat the hell outta Seattle tonight!!! Oh good -- the one-lining sarcastic condescending TheFreak is back. I got pretty tired quick of the paragraph version. Right back atcha, babe! Hugs and kisses, The FreakShow [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited January 04, 2000).]
Clutch. "Woodshake"!?! milk about came flying out of my nose when I read that!!! hilarious!!! I would never trade hakeem but I agree 100 percent on how important the draft is.
I read Clutch's post while I was on the phone with a Microsoft tech guy. I had to hold my nose for about a minute and a half to keep from bursting out laughing into the phone. The "Woodshake" just about blew out my cartilage.
Im goin to have to agree with TheFreak on this one. While drafts can be and have been important in a team's development in the past, I think trades and free agency dictate a team's fate moreso. Unless you have a VERY high lottery pick (top 3-4 picks), chances of landing a franchise player are slim. And at this point, the Rockets aren't bad enough to be in that position. Even the top 3 picks are not a guarantee of a gem, as finding a good complimentary player like Joe Smith or Marcus Camby in that range is common. My point is, I rather the Rocks play hard, barely make the play-offs, gain some valuable play-off experience that will play dividends in the future, and sign someone like Eddie Jones, McGrady or even a solid role player (Gill?). The can then use that player, the gained experience, and a decent draft pick to catapult the team further into contention.
TheFreak -- Flatter yourself if you must, but I can also quote LHutz, JazzRule and ej0881 -- even easier when all the quotes are from direct point-counterpoint discussions I was involved in. In particular, what stuck out at me from the Boston argument was you saying it was indeed a moot point due to the Rockets having gotten lucky in the lottery and gotten a player like Olajuwon. You did say that. In fact I remember something about they may not win for another 25+ years if ever -- something to that effect. Now, as Karl Malone would put it, you've "done a 360" and are downplaying the importance of the draft/lottery. So when you say you're "not sure what point (I'm) trying to make", I can't tell if you're playing dumb or, well, not playing dumb. There is one fundamental difference here and the reason we won't reach a common ground: You think the Rockets are done and rebuilt. I, on the other hand, do not think our core for the next 10 years is intact. I think the Rockets have legitimate holes to fill -- especially in the paint. Though Carlos Rogers has been a pleasant surprise and Kenny Thomas has done fairly well in limited time, the Rockets could use a legitimate defensive-minded board machine at the 4-slot. I don't think Matt Bullard or Walt Williams (or Shandon Anderson for that matter) are the long-term solution at 3 either. I obviously love Francis at the point and I like Shandon and Mobley covering the two and Cato has good potential at the five, but that's it as far as the starting lineup goes. I like Rogers, Thomas, (Mobley or Anderson) and Drew as the makings of a decent to good bench. That's it -- and I don't think any of those players, with the exception of Francis, are sure things. Are you telling me the Rockets already have their long-term answers at 3 and 4, or could we use a 15-10-solid defender in the post? Just how many Steve Francis’ would you like us to get? This is like going to war, handing out one bullet to each soldier and questioning why he might want more. There are 12 players on a basketball team. I think Steve Francis could use some help. This is the same TheFreak who was against trading a "major talent" like Scottie Pippen, right? So what was your beef? We already have a talented player in Steve Francis -- how many talented players would you like us to get? Sorry for the obvious insult, but that was just a really off the wall question. And by the way, that’s not all I said in the ‘Boston’ argument. Most notably, I said it didn’t matter if the Rockets let Hakeem retire without compensation, because the organization was smart and capable enough to overcome that. Well, what do you know, in a matter of months, here we are, one of the most promising young teams in the NBA, with practically our entire starting lineup filled out for the next decade, and Hakeem is set to retire a Rocket, the way it should be. We're one of the most promising young teams in the NBA? How come I didn't get that memo? If we are, then so are the Grizzlies, Clippers, Mavericks and any other team that is young and has an awful record. The Kings, T-Wolves, Nuggets, Bucks, Hornets, Suns, Nets, Sixers, Raptors... hell, even the Blazers still, might have something to say about that one. I'm halfway with you there though ... I do like what the Rockets have managed to do in one year -- I just don't think they should be done by any stretch. That's all very amusing, but any pre-Rudy draft/personnel moves are irrelevant when talking about our current future. When Rudy and Carroll are going to be the ones shaping our current team’s direction, what difference does it make who the Pattersons selected in 1988? None. That’s pretty basic stuff. If Don Nelson takes over for Rudy next year, then maybe I’ll be a little apprehensive come draft day. Until then, I’ll take my chances. The Finley pick, Popeye Jones for Eric Riley, I hear Rodrick Rhodes is selling hot dogs in Philly, Erik Meek joined the circus, Terrell Bell, Venson Hamilton and Tyrone Washington are playing cards in Turkey and I think I saw Alvin Heggs picking up my garbage in Round Rock the other day. How's that for amusing? Are you trying to say that since one of our starters (Anderson) wasn’t a lottery pick, we have no future? Do you want a lottery pick at every position? Exactly what are you saying here? Please explain. Gladly. Are you telling me that if Shandon Anderson was a lottery pick, he would have the same expectactions as a second rounder? If Cuttino Mobley was a lottery pick, the byproduct of a losing season, would he be tabbed as a steal/great pickup? Do you not recognize that the expectations bar is higher for a lottery pick than a second rounder? Where on God's green earth did you get me saying since one of our starters isn't a lottery pick we have no future? Quite a big reach there. Teams with smart people running the show don’t have to rely as much on the next Shaquille O’neal falling into their laps. Actually I disagreed with your "Must have the franchise player" theory then (to a point), so I must agree with you now. But any "smart person" knows it's better to get a top pick for free then to give up to get it... and a Shaquille O'Neal ain't hurting any. What are the odds that Steve Francis and Vince Carter would even last more than 3 years together on the same team? How long did Iverson/Stackhouse last? O’neal/Hardaway? Jackson/Kidd/Mashburn? Marbury/Garnett? Bird/McHale. Magic/Kareem. Hakeem/Clyde. Stockton/Malone. Jordan/Pippen. Jason Williams and Chris Webber look pretty damn good together. Are you trying to tell me since we have Steve Francis, a POINT GUARD, we are not allowed to get any big-time talent on this team? Are you discounting that right off the bat? Or are you saying Francis is cut from the same thread as Iverson, Shaq and Marbury as far as "Me First" goes? You're scaring me. If your philosophy of building a team is to acquire as many young ‘potential franchise players’ as possible, knock yourself out. Hell, if Rudy decided to do that, I’d probably even go along with it just because I usually trust the guy. So what you're saying is if the Rockets could add a Tim Duncan you would balk (unless Rudy told you it was OK) because history says its a waste of time to have more than one young potential franchise player. Any chance Francis could play and excel with Duncan? How about Kenyon Martin, or Terence Morris, or Chris Porter? History says it’s a waste of time, however. History says middle of the road teams in the NBA go nowhere also. What is the importance of acquiring another top pick via a few losses? Better yet, what is the importance of acquiring another top pick, period? That seems to be the issue. Some, like you, think we need another top pick, others think we have a good nucleus that only needs time and minor tweaking. My whole point to begin with is we don’t need losses to fill our needs anyway. If we don't make the playoffs, what do wins get us? The point here in this argument is ADDING TALENT. You seem to think the Rockets will get the same caliber player at 15 that they will at 5. I disagree. We're comparing the importance of 10 more wins this season to dropping 5-10 slots in the draft. THAT IS IT. Yes, I was against that trade because I thought we had a shot at the championship. I also said, however, that acquiring Cato was a good move for the future. The fact that I was against the trade is irrelevant in this discussion. Actually no, it's highly relevant. You tried to claim you were right previously in the Boston argument, but you were only half-right (or shall I say 2/3). The Rockets kept Dream and Barkley, but they traded Pippen. The argument was trade the vets to rebuild. C’mon Clutch, being so educated in my past postings, you should know what I want Hakeem’s role on the team to be (hint: 15-foot jumpers, 15-foot jumpers….). I’ve advocated him taking a secondary role, and letting the younger guys be the focus. Oh.... because I want Hakeem's role to be what Hakeem wants his role to be. You still haven’t explained why the Rockets future hopes are totally dependent upon where they pick in this year’s draft. I think I’ve given plenty of reasons why I think they aren’t. You’ve said that you’d rather get a high draft pick than not, but why do we have to have a high draft pick next year to satisfy our future needs? I don't like the way the words "totally dependent" are used there -- neither you nor I know the future, that's for sure. What I think is the Rockets can get there quicker and be stronger by adding a high lottery selection. Under the new CBA the way it is structured, it makes the Draft that much more important. What has me stumped is why you're against it. We've had this discussion before, but lets try it again. There are three ways to add talent: Draft, Free Agency and Trades. Trades The idea is you have to give to get, and if you like our core, you're going to have to give up something to get what you want. The Steve Francis deal was a steal, but it still cost us the fruits of a mediocre season (Dickerson) and a young up and coming power forward (Harrington). So if you like our core and want to add pieces, how are you going to do it? Free Agency We're capped out. Unless we can make trades to unload cap garbage (see Williams, Walt) for a contract set to run out (see Gill, Kendall), free agency isn't going to come into effect until Hakeem retires (2001), and what do you know... that happens to be the season that the rookie class skips because the new CBA extended the rookie contracts from 3 to 4 years. The Draft You draft a player you get him for 4 years -- fairly cheap. It's FREE ... it costs you nothing off your roster to get the draft pick. It's simply adding talent. And you seem to have a problem with this? Now, we can add Leon Wood or maybe even a good pickup in the middle of the road, like Michael Dickerson, but are the Rockets a Michael Dickerson away from contending? I 100% would like to see the Rockets have one of the Top 5 picks in this draft. I question anyone who doesn't want to add serious young talent to the team, and do it sooner rather than later. Has this organization not proven that they will continue to compile a winner no matter where they select in the draft? Um, TheFreak -- we've lost 21 of 31 games this season. Next question. The bottom line being -- Beat the hell outta Seattle tonight!!! Maybe next year. Simply put, you haven't established why the Rockets are better off without a top pick. You're actually against "better", as if you would trade the third pick straight up for #11. No matter what way you slice, dice or package it, the Rockets get stronger with a higher pick. Whether it's the chance for the "brilliant Rocket braintrust" to pick from a larger selection of players or a chip for the "shrewd Rudy T" to take to the wheeling and dealing table, a higher pick only helps -- no matter how you cut it. The irony is too thick, but I can't resist: Please, TheFreak ... Stop towing the company line. Puttin' on the "WoodShake", Clutch
Great post, Clutch. I'd like to give it the response it deserves, but it might take a little time (I do work sometimes). Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I hear ya -- that's what took me so long to reply... that and my 10-month old fighting a vicious cold. I do think you have good points and enjoy the intelligent discussion (I wouldn't write so much if it wasn't a worthwhile discussion) -- I also think the Rockets can rebuild as you say. I just think it's going to take longer and we may not be as strong. I'm also selfish -- I want a damn high lottery pick for going through this losing hell. Also, want to add, I still root for the Rockets to win like crazy ... just when they lose, I'm not really upset at all any more. However, if the Rockets keep this record pace up (which would put them at 26-56 for the year), I'll probably just flat out pull for losses near the end.
#5 and after I think Garnett went #5 only because he and Kobe were the first HS-ers in a long time to come out. So, people were gun shy. Someone that tall with that much talent fully scouted and hyped in HS and KG was, would go in 1-3 now. Also, Carter really was a #4 (toronto's draft position). My main point about 15/10,,,saying those numbers nowadays are more for the nice sound... "Who wouldn't want a 15/10 PF defender". The new Horace Grants, Kevin Willis, Thorpes just aren't there anymore, and they are rare anyhow. Herb Williams, Elden Campbell, Brian Grant, Gugliotta, Mason, Jayson Williams, just aren't doing that (Mason once). BTW: only Jayson Williams/Mason out of them has even pulled down 10 boards. Disclaimer: before you say Horace Grant only did it once. That's my point. He's the consummate 15/10, but really is a 13/10. I think what we are really saying from a stat perspective and lottery selection is a 15/8, such as Ilgauskas' (#20 pick) we are talking about, plus the others above. look at their draft places. Clutch...thanks for not carrying my first encounter with you to the grave. you are the master of the cutting wit and sarcasm. you can count me as someone that likes it, and will never think it is personal. added text: LaFrentz was a #3, right? I don't think we can do better than #4, no? I guess what I'm not allowing here is a trade-up a couple spots from say #6 to #3. Does that happen much in basketball? getting into the 1-3 through trades (after the ping-pong ball bounce. serious question...i don't know [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 06, 2000).]
Clutch, HeyPartner, DD, Freak, Ya'll, Whoever I cannot remove this double-ended sword that is firmly stuck in my craw, and threatening to choke the living hell out of me ... The argument on this thread seems to be demarcated along the lines of these two diametrically opposed positions: Position Number One: (a) a lottery pick is a good thing. (b) winning is a bad thing when it threatens the improved chance for (b) above. Position Number Two: (a) all teams should play a game(s) focused so as to win it, despite the odds or ability of that happening. (b) focusing on losing a game(s) now, to make it easier to possibly win another game(s) at some other future time, is wrong. While I categorically align myself with Position Number Two, I will partly agree with Position Number One that a lottery pick is a good thing. It is not the whole thing,though. Also, I strongly disagree with the (b) part of that argument. It directly interferes with my sense of sportsmanship and common sense. Sportsmanship This is a very subjective thing and everyone has varying parameters of what they consider okay and not okay. This is not my judgement on anyone else's criteria or standards. Mine goes back to my rugby, soccer, hockey and basketball days. Never Say Die,EVER! Focus on winning at all costs. It has not always been a pretty sight. I sometimes have rightfully been called an miscretin. But I play to win. I can't (or maybe won't) change now. I thought this was the credo of the Rockets. Common Sense It has been stated succinctly enough here, that the present day Rockets have improved their lot .... 1. when the management focus was winning. 2. when the league considered us a "class act" and we had no trouble collecting valued talents. 3. when we used opportunities other than the lottery to improve our roster. 4. when the fans and players played for the game and not any other alterior motive (money, endorsements,etc...) In short, the Rockets put a very competitive team together in the past by observing and implementing these principles .... I see no reason for the departure from this common sense approach. [This message has been edited by popeye (edited January 06, 2000).]
Let's hear what Rudy has to say about this. On August 27, the day the Francis deal was done, Rudy said the following: "Whenever you can get a lottery pick without going into the lottery and without going through the pain of a season like that, it's a big plus." So what does this mean? 1. Rudy would like to get a lottery pick. Evidently, he thinks a lottery pick is significantly better than a non-lottery pick. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but there seems to be a dispute about it in this thread, with lots of folks betting Rudy could nab a star player later in the first round. Evidently, Rudy thinks he has a better chance at the star player if we're picking in the lottery. 2. He'd rather not go through the "pain" of losing a lot of games to get that high pick. Unfortunately, Rudy doesn't address the key question here: whether he'd accept the pain in exchange for the pick. However, on numerous occasions, he has said he wants his guys to play all out to win every game. 3. Why choose? Some of us want the pick, others don't want the pain. So let's do it the way Rudy wants. Call it the "big plus" strategy. Skip the pain AND get the pick. How? Well, one way is to trade Massenburg, Bullard, Hamilton, and the contracts of Don MacLean and Matt Maloney for the Clippers' unprotected #1 next year. And in case that doesn't work, we could run the table for the rest of the season, miss the playoffs by one game, and have our sole ping-pong ball pop up for the #1 pick. That's what I'm for. And if, despite our best efforts, we sink lower and lower in the standings and end up deep in the lottery and have to pick Terence Morris and spend the next decade trying to win a championship with him and Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley and Kelvin Cato and Shandon Anderson and Kenny Thomas and Bryce Drew and whatever free agents will deign to play alongside such a weak and aging cast of players, well, I guess I can live with that.
Now this is getting depressing. and i have a stack of season tickets next to me. oh please Rocket god...deliver me an exciting above .500 2nd half of the season and a sleeper European like Ilgauskas or a risky sophmore who drops to #12, who pounds the boards plays D and becomes coveted by every NBA team looking for a workhorse rebounder under Rudy's tutelage. Is 37-44 and a Jamie Feick too much to ask? I promise I'll buy season tickets again.
one-on-one bbs smack...gotta love it or leave it. glad to see no one resorted to the last word "you're a child; I'm not talking to you anymore." here's a little more fuel: a ten game difference won't make a 5-10 spot difference in the lottery. that's exaggeration for effect or dilusional. OH...and how many 15/10s are in this league that were drafted #5 or below...look that one up. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 06, 2000).]
heypartner -- here's a little more fuel: a ten game difference won't make a 5-10 spot difference in the lottery. that's exaggeration for effect or dilusional. I don't think 5 spots is exaggeration at all -- in the case of 1984, which was the original one I raised, the difference was 9 spots for 10 wins. Quite a high opportunity cost if you ask me. Though I concede it is somewhat different now with the ping-pong ball lottery (though picks 4-13 are still based on record alone) OH...and how many 15/10s are in this league that were drafted #5 or below...look that one up. When you say "#5 or below" do you mean 1-5 or 5th pick and after? Elton Brand was the first pick last year. Olowokandi, LaFrentz and Jamison alone in 1998 were drafted with the hopes of being 15-10 players. Tim Duncan was #1 in 1997. I also don't think I would exclude selecting a talented three if I had a 1-5 pick... I just think a power forward of that caliber is one of our needs. [This message has been edited by Clutch (edited January 06, 2000).]
Don't give up on me Clutch! Just having a little trouble trying to fit in everything I want to say without writing a novel. Also, did anyone catch who was reffing the game last night? None other than Leon Wood. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited January 07, 2000).]
"Woodshake" looked good out there ... driving to the timer's table, dunkin' down the gatorade and did you hear that fadeaway whistle near the end of the second?????
Well, so much for not writing a novel. Clutch, I elected to summarize your basic points because it was just getting too damn long. Feel free to clarify any positions. 1. Importance of the Draft/Lottery The draft is important when your most important need is talent. I don’t think talent is our most important need right now, therefore I don’t feel the draft is as important to us. The draft was very important for us 2 years ago, when we traded Kevin Willis for picks. We simply needed more young bodies. I think the draft for us next year should be looked at entirely as a bonus – what we do on the court this year is more important to our future in my opinion than where we place in the draft, not in wins and losses, but in developing a winning chemistry. 2. Are the Rockets Finished Rebuilding? The Rockets are not finished rebuilding, however rebuilding is not completed in the first couple of years. What’s important is finding a player to build your franchise around for years and years. We’ve already got that guy in Francis. To me, that’s the hard part and THE most important step to building a champion. If you don’t have that one guy, you’ve already started out on the wrong foot and chances are you’ll never reach the promised land. The rest of the building doesn’t take place overnight – it takes years of gaining continuity and chemistry, while slowly adding the pieces to make it work. After you start to get a couple of pieces in place, like we’ve already done (at least 60% of our starting lineup for the next decade or so has already been filled out), chemistry and learning how to win starts to become more important than simply adding talent. Those final couple of pieces probably aren’t going to be added until the team is almost at its peak. For example, we didn’t add the final piece of our starting lineup for the first championship team, Robert Horry, until after the other 4 guys had been playing together for a few years. I’m saying start concentrating on developing a winning attitude and chemistry right now with the guys we’ve got – if we happen to lose games because of it and end up with a high draft pick, that’s great, if not, that’s okay too. In other words, if we miss out on the playoffs, and still don’t get a good draft position, it’s not a wasted season. We’ve still hopefully made progress by planting the seed of chemistry and watching it grow a little. Any further additions made should be done to compliment what we already have in place. I think a team’s ‘core’ consists of 3 to 4 guys, tops. For better or worse, our core looks like it’s going to be Francis, Anderson, Mobley, and Cato. Any other addition is going to be complimentary. If we find out in a few years that we need a Robert Horry-type player to get us over the hump, I don’t think that is going to be that hard to accomplish. "the Rockets could use a legitimate defensive-minded board machine at the 4-slot." Again, I don’t think all of a team’s pieces are acquired right off the bat. I also don’t think that back in 1990 or ’91 that people were saying Kenny Smith and Maxwell were our ‘long-term answers’ in the backcourt. What was more important, though, was that they could play as a team and compliment our post game. I don’t think searching for the prototypical player at every position is the way to go. 3. Why couldn't the Rockets use another Steve Francis? What I meant by that was how many franchise players would you like us to have. I don’t think the Lakers need another Shaquille O’neal-caliber player, I don’t think Miami needs another Alonzo Mourning-caliber player, I don’t think Toronto needs another Vince Carter-caliber player (neither do we ) ... When you have a Steve Francis on your team, you try to add guys that compliment his game, not guys that are equal to him. I hope that’s a little more clear. You might say "why not just get the best players possible", but I don’t think merely stockpiling talent is the way to build a winner. 4. The Rockets a promising team? I don’t think we’re doing that bad. I bet we have a lot better winning percentage w/o Hakeem and Barkley in the lineup (2-10 start) than with. In fact, when you take away that 2-10, we’re 8-12. How’s that for the first year of a rebuilding project? Pretty damn good, I’d say. Look at the Bulls (2-26). Some of the other teams you mentioned either a) don’t even have a player with the potential to be the best in the league someday (Nuggets, Kings, Bucks, Hornets, Suns, Nets, Mavericks), which I think is a requirement (I think Francis has that potential), or b) have already been rebuilding for years, and still aren’t that far ahead of us as far as record. 5. Mobley/Anderson compared to lottery picks By comparing Mobley and Anderson to lottery picks, I take it your responding to my question "did we get Anderson/Mobley from the lottery?" I guess I shouldn’t have shortened the question. What I meant to say was "did we get Anderson/Mobley from the lottery or by trading Hakeem?" This was in response to the assertion that the only ways to 'stop sucking' in the future were to trade Hakeem or lose a ton of games. Those clearly are not the only two ways for us to 'stop sucking'. Popeye and heypartner have explained this very well. Playing good defense, building chemistry, trades, draft, and free agency are all ways to 'stop sucking'. There are things we can do this year to improve for the future that don’t require any personnel changes, like developing chemistry, good habits (a defensive mindset) and a winning attitude. What’s funny is that the Rockets' '94 Championship team was possibly the least talented champion ever in the NBA, and now we’re saying that stockpiling talent is the secret to winning. 6. Why not put 2 young stars together? All of the tandems you mentioned were either already established players when they teamed up, like Hakeem and Clyde, or one of the guys was already solidified as the main guy on the team for a few years before the other one got there, while the other one was added as a compliment to that player. Stockton/Malone is a case where the guys were about the same age, but Stockton was a mid-first round pick who didn’t even start his first few years. I wouldn’t be wary of teaming two guys like that together. The main thing to fear is the egos. How would Francis react if another 'young stud' was brought in to share the spotlight? Whose team would it be? The Lakers had no problem adding James Worthy, a no. 2 pick, to Magic Johnson’s team, because it was understood that it was just that, Magic’s team. Chris Webber’s been in the league, what, 5 or 6 years? I don’t think Jason Williams was coming in thinking he was going to take over. 7. Adding a Duncan-caliber player If we had a chance to add a Tim Duncan, I might want to look at trading Steve Francis. I just don’t think two young guys of that caliber is a good mix. I’d rather pick one, and trade the other for multiple pieces to put around the other. If the Rockets somehow got into, say, the top 5 this year in the draft, I think they should seriously look at trying to trade down (getting close to equal value, of course) for another pick plus possibly another player or two. 8. Importance of 10 more wins vs. dropping 5-10 slots in draft (what do wins get us?) In a tangible sense, wins may not get us much. I’m more concerned with developing a certain mentality and building a chemistry. 10 more wins on paper isn’t going to tell us a lot. You’re assuming that losses mean nothing at this stage, only where we pick in the draft. I disagree. Whether or not losses mean anything will be determined by how we lose. Our progress this year isn’t going to be determined by wins and losses. If you’re saying that all else being equal, picking at no. 5 is better than picking at no. 15, well that’s a no-brainer. I don’t think it’s that simple, however. If you’re saying it’s better to play bad and end up with a high draft pick, than to play good, not make the playoffs, and end up with a lower pick, I disagree. It’s never okay to play bad. We should begin building to our eventual goal right now, not wait for more talent before we start that process. 9. Boston argument was trade the vets to rebuild. I’m not trying to go back on anything I said, but from what I understand, the Boston argument had everything to do with letting your "legends" retire on their own. Hakeem, in my mind, was our only "legend". I felt no allegiance to Barkley, and certainly none to Pippen. The only person I thought should retire a Rocket was Hakeem. This argument started right after the Hakeem rumors leaked. This was before a Pippen trade was even discussed, I believe. My stance was (and still is) 1. keep Hakeem at all costs, no matter what it costs us in the future, 2. Keep Pippen and go for a ring this year because there’s a good chance this is as close as we’ll ever get, 3. If Pippen is traded, trade him for youth only because we won’t win a ring anyway, 4. My feelings on Barkley’s future with us were/are totally indifferent. I felt it was possible for us to trade him and improve, I just don’t think anyone would’ve ever traded for him. Trading Hakeem was not going to get us the ingredient needed to win a championship – a future star with best-player-in-the-league potential. That’s why the Hakeem deal was in part a moot point. The only way to get back to prominence was to get a guy like Francis (5th and 12th picks wouldn’t accomplish this), which we amazingly did without having to be bad. 10. Can't we rebuild quicker with higher pick? Are you against a higher pick? The Rockets MAY be able to rebuild quicker by picking higher in the draft (I’ll use this terminology rather than ‘adding a high pick’ to include the possibility of trading the pick). As I’ve said, I’m not against getting a good draft pick. I’m against trying to lose to get one. I think we are at the stage where developing the right habits and chemistry are just as important as adding more talent. I’m against adding talent at the expense of not developing these things, as well as adding talent that doesn’t compliment what we already have in place. 11. There are three ways to add talent: Draft, Free Agency and Trades. Isn't the draft free talent? The draft is only free if you take the approach I hope the Rockets take, which is concentrate on playing as good as we can and build up some of our intangibles this year, and let the ping-pong ball fall where it may. It is not free if you sacrifice any of those things in order to get a higher selection. That way, you’re taking 2 steps back in order to take 1 step forward, IMO. 12. Rockets only a middle-of-the-road player (Michael Dickerson) away from contending? Saying the Rockets are any player or players away from contending at this point is jumping the gun. Those are the kinds of questions we should be asking in about 3-5 years. 13. "I 100% would like to see the Rockets have one of the Top 5 picks in this draft. I question anyone who doesn't want to add serious young talent to the team, and do it sooner rather than later." I 100% would like the Rockets to play as good as they possibly can this year, develop chemistry, a good defensive philosophy, and a winning attitude. If they do all those things and end up with a good pick, fine. That should be looked at as a bonus, not a requirement. I question anyone who wants to add talent at the risk of developing bad habits. I question anyone who doesn’t see that talent is not our number 1 need right now. 14. Aren't we stronger with a higher pick, no matter what? All else being equal, we are definitely better off with a higher draft position. This goes back to the 'is the draft free?' question. What it boils down to is what route we take to get to that position, and not strictly in the wins and losses sense. To sum up my feelings on rebuilding, look at our ’94 championship team. Our 'core' of Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Hakeem, and Otis Thorpe was already together for a few years before the finished product was in place. People didn't even know if that core was good enough to win anything, and it was often suggested that that unit should be scrapped altogether and a rebuilding effort begun. I don’t know how many times people said the Rockets would NEVER win a title with Kenny Smith at point. That team became better than the sum of its parts simply by playing together for so long. Then, in ’92, Robert Horry was added. In ’93, Mario Elie and Sam Cassell come along. Very minor but significant moves. We had what was necessary to win it, IMO, in a 'once-in-a-lifetime' player in Hakeem, and a team built around him. If we’re ever going to win another ring, Francis has to become that player. That’s the gamble we took when we traded for him. I’m not saying more talent won’t help, or that I don’t want any more talent, I’m saying it’s not the most important thing at this point. Developing our core is. TheFreak ------- Firm believer that more whistles would be going our way today had we drafted Leon Wood. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited January 07, 2000).]
TheFreak: Great posts, but couple of points I question: I don’t think talent is our most important need right now, therefore I don’t feel the draft is as important to us. I still think we need a big man to compliment Francis. The best way now with the new CBA is through the draft. I don't see any way of getting a great big man without the draft. After we get the star forward, then we can work on chemistry, role players, etc. How would Francis react if another 'young stud' was brought in to share the spotlight? Whose team would it be? If we happen to draft Morris, there's no question that both players would be fine. They were teammates together at Maryland and it was Francis' team. I don't see why the 2 stars idea wouldn't work. If we had a chance to add a Tim Duncan, I might want to look at trading Steve Francis. I just don’t think two young guys of that caliber is a good mix. I’d rather pick one, and trade the other for multiple pieces to put around the other. If the Rockets somehow got into, say, the top 5 this year in the draft, I think they should seriously look at trying to trade down (getting close to equal value, of course) for another pick plus possibly another player or two. What?! Right now, Morris is in the same level of Tim Duncan(talent-wise) and a top 5 pick. Morris is Odom-like if you don't know. Now please explain why if we could have a Morris/Francis tandem that you would trade down? I really want to know why. My points are: 1. They were teammates before, so there would be no chemistry problems. 2. There would be no controvery on who's team it would be becuase it would be Francis' like it was at Maryland. 3. They are both future superstars, compliment each other, so why not team them up to together?
