A lot of people here are confused about the direction we are going in. Some people think we simply have no direction. Other people believe we have finally just chosen a direction now with the Adelman firing and that is to lose big for a top pick. Well get ready to become even more confused because as someone here have already said, "the tank ain't coming". Morey has stated many times, throughout this year and again recently, that "tanking" while seeming to be the easy way out is not the path the Rockets will be taking. Now unless he is being a two-faced conniving liar again, that means the Rockets won't be pooping out top picks anytime soon. With the Adelman firing, we can also deduce that consolidating our assets into an established superstar, something we have been desperately attempting for the last 2 years, probably won't be the direction anymore either. Unless one falls into our laps. The reason I say this is because as we know Adelman left on philosophical differences, opposing the changes that are about to sweep across Rocketland. Now I HIGHLY doubt those changes were presented to him as us trading a handful of our players for Lebron, or CP3, or any other superstar. Otherwise he would be a fool to jump ship. So with everything we are NOT doing out of the way, let's get to where we are going. Really if you follow our line of thinking there is only one way to go now, since we have eliminating everything else: To trade up in the draft using our assets for a potential franchise player when one is available. As we have seen in the past, the draft is the ONLY time when teams are fully willing to give away franchise players like hotcakes. Okay, maybe not fully willing, but at least a lot more willing. Guys like Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge were all traded draft day. If you look in the past there are even more examples like Kobe, Dirk etc. This is because during the draft these franchise players have not proven themselves as franchise players yet. And quite frankly there are plenty of teams who suck at evaluating potential franchise players. This is also why it is our best chance at one, since evaluating talent is the strong suit of our front office. If history is any indication, it will take a top 5 pick to get your franchise player. Not a top 5 pick in any draft, but one that has a franchise player(s). There is only one asset on our entire team that can be traded for that. Kevin Martin. The value of top five picks was set a few years ago when an aging Ray Allen was traded for one, so I think Martin fits the mold. If not we can add our own pick to sweeten the pot. Or a filler like Twill/Hill. I am not sure how popular a move that would be around here. Martin is undervalued by some, but overall he is seen as one of our best players despite his shortcomings. Most people would rather trade Scola since he is aging and potentially declining which might not fit with a championship core down the line. The problem is every other team sees that too, and no one is trading a top 5 pick for him. In fact, as an asset Scola is far more valuable to the Rockets for his production than anything they can get for him in a trade. Which is why it is much better to just keep him. To sum it all up, I believe the direction of the team will be to attempt to trade Kevin Martin + ____ for a potential franchise player in the draft. Whether that is the 2011 draft or the next one depends on if they see a potential franchise player available. This is supported by the keep winning, no tanking theme, as winning will be the only way to keep the value of Martin up. As opposed to the 20+ point scorer on a losing team when he was traded for a backup PF.
Dude, Lemarcus Aldridge was traded in a swap of a #2 for a #4. Roy was a swap of #6 and #7. Neither one of those trades is any indication that you can trade into those spots without a high draft pick yourself. In fact, they are more proof that you can't. As for Allen, that was for Jeff Green, and Boston also got Glen Davis with Allen. Again, that is more evidence that trading into the top five is dicey. It is actually evidence of how Boston used a Top 5 to acquire a vet and young player to get them a ring. It is a complete reverse of what you are saying is achievable. imo, the likelihood of Martin + X landed us into the Top 5 is slim, per history. And the likelihood of such a trade producing a franchise player is even more slim. I sure hope Morey can pull off something like that. But imo, you are dreaming.
Dude, Lamarcus Aldridge was traded for Tyrus Thomas. Brandon Roy was traded for Randy freakin' Foye. If anything, that proves again that there are plenty of teams out there that just don't know what the hell they are doing. As long as that is true, I'll take my "dream" and run with it.
I'm all for moving up but Idk about trading a proven baller like Martin. I'm hoping that Morey can find a package that doesn't include Martin or Lowry.
also, bare witness to the fact that Morey has tried every year to move up in the draft, and has not succeeded.
I agree with heypartner, top 5 pick is pretty unlikely. But if anything, Lowry is more likely for this than Martin. Martin: 28, reached peak, $12 million for two more years. Lowry: 25, still improving, $6 million for 3 more years.
The problem is, if we can make these assumptions: 1. A franchise player is needed to win a championship. 2. The best way to get a franchise player is with a high pick. 3. The only asset that will get us a high pick is Martin. Then while it is certainly a risk, it would be a risk we have to take. Yes, HAVE to take, since if those assumptions are true then that is the only course that has a shot at the championship. Also, I would not trade Martin for any top 5 pick. I want Morey to first identify a player that has a high probability of turning into a franchise player, and then trading Martin for him. Martin for a franchise player is a no brainer that anyone would do. The risk is the franchise player not panning out. For that I have faith in Morey to do his thang.
Trading up for a chance to draft an elite level player is not a viable strategy, because it depends on the cooperation of other teams.
Actually, the only year we have tried to move to the top of the draft was last year. Before that we were still in "win now" mode with no intentions of trading productive players for future bets. At least not on the level of "top picks". So fail once and never try again?
QUESTION: If you trade away your top talent for prospects . . . . is that not TANKING? I think next year Scola, Hayes and Martin will be traded. Probably to a contender for their picks and then try to package those picks to move into the top 5 at some point [probably 2012 draft] I think Morey already told us that. Patterson, Lowry, Lee are the Future [Martin still young enough but he is too good an 'asset'] I think the NON-TANKING 2011-2012 Rockets maybe Hill/Thabeet, Patterson/unknown, Bud/Twill, Lee/unknown, Lowry/Dragic If they go 43-39 . . good If they go 30-52 . . . higher pick . . .good Do the MOREY SHRUG . . .shrug . . shrug. . shrug. .. Rocket River
As far as what I am suggesting, no it is not the same as tanking. Because if you trade Martin for a franchise player you get better right off the bat.
Winning is also a strategy that depends on the cooperation of other teams not beating you. Yet that does not stop us from attempting it. Just like you beat other teams by being better than them, we can trade with them by outsmarting them. My whole premise is that there are plenty of incompetent front offices out there as far as talent evaluation goes. Those guys can "cooperate" with us.
Tanking is purposely losing. Tanking is NOT banking on potential. Banking on potential is still a winning strategy. Even trading Kevin Martin for Ryan Bowen is not tanking as long as your team is giving their best, honest effort and falling short. When your team is not giving an honest effort to win every game (GM and coaching staff included) you are in tanking territory. I will never stand for tanking.
Who would trade an established franchise player for Martin? The only thing Martin might fetch is a *potential* franchise player -- i.e. a draft pick. It's not a sure thing, for every lebron James or Derrick Rose you get one Greg Olden or Darko Mailici.
No one wants our players, otherwise Morey would have traded them already. We got absolutely nothing (but put Memphis in the playoffs and up 2-1) with the trades of two starters. We're not going to get a top 5 pick with our cast-offs.
I have been calling for a Martin-for-top-five-pick move since before the season when it was apparent our talent did not stack up to the true contenders. That said, this is NOT the draft to do that in. If we're going to rebuild Thunder style, we should be pushing all of our chips into the middle for the 2012 draft. One thing that I never want to hear from Morey again: "We tried to move up, but teams were asking too much." There should be no such thing as "too much" when we're talking about acquiring a potential franchise player to build around.
Unfortunately it is true. . .this is the NBA . . at some point. . you WILL have to 'overspend' QUESTION: Morey mentioned he would 'overspend' on a Hayes if they were in contention but could not see doing so with them out of contention. During the TMAC YAO years. . . when we were in contention . . who would you say we 'overpaid' for? Artest? Maybe? Rocket River
Precisely! We've exhausted all other options and have nothing to gain by trying to win this season except lowering our draft position. Focus all efforts on the longterm future.
I thought Artest was fair value (Donte Greene + pick + expiring). Battier we overpaid for.. you could say we overpaid for Stromile Swift. I don't think you can come to the conclusion that we won't overpay for players even while contending unless you can show that we had a shot at X player but lowballed the offer. With that in mind, the name that sticks out is Marcin Gortat. In the end, Orlando matched and it's a moot point -- but we tried to get him cheaper than the full MLE, which he is clearly worth and more.
