Not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Cuban is an owner who can do whatever the hell he wants because its his money.
This. While I don't advocate for 'tanking' per se, I am very much in favor of trading 'known assets' for high draft picks. Even if they don't provide immediate help, their trade value is usually extremely high. I'm going to cringe if I hear Morey say teams wanted "too much" for a guy they think can be a star (Harrison Barnes falling). True, but we've never heard of Les Alexander stopping Morey from making a move. In fact, we've heard just the opposite: Morey has a lot flexibility to pay for picks/players/tax/etc.
I was incorrect. I was refering to this thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=201652&highlight=trade+western+conference+team It was Anthony, not Williams MY BAD
That quote was from Adrian Wojnorowski -- I think from an interview he did on local radio. Edit: ^ Oh yes, for Denver not Utah.
But wait...doesn't Morey have a blank checkbook from Les to be competitive? The Rockets regularly PR that they'll "go over the LTax for the right player". Is that false PR for the fandom? Or is it truly that Cuban CAN/WILL take more risks that the Morey Rockets?
There is a difference is being risky to get a ring and being cheap and breaking up your 3 best players for luxury tax purposes. He waived Finley with the Allen Houston rule that allowed teams to waive players and not take the luxury hit on the waived player's salary and he refused to sign Nash, even when Nash countered with a lower salary. Don't tell me that was apart of his risky plan to win a ring. Morey tried to hit a homerun with Artest, T-Mac and Yao and failed. He took a risk and failed, but was trying to form a big 3 instead of destroying one.
If you truly believe Morey takes as many risks as Cuban...get ready for a long ride on the mediocrity treadwill.
There are a couple distinguishing factors. One, he is undoubtedly working under certain constraints to keep the owner (not to mention the head coach) happy. Two, Cuban has a HOFer on his team who has shown pretty much no drop off over the last 5 years. Its much easier to overspend to put talent around a stable star, knowing there's a pretty good chance you'll compete for a championship.
Its not all that clear cut that a team can turn its fortunes OVERNIGHT around based on just one tanked season. It seems you need at least 3 lotteries to "get one right", where you can get a franchise changer Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, D Wade type. Golden State, Atlanta, Minnesota, they've had plenty lottery picks and havent had much improved records. Or their players responsible for them being good are NOT draft picks but free agents. Atlanta has draft picks Josh Smith and Al Horford, but they also drafted Acie Law, Shelden Williams, Josh Childress, Marvin Williams. Its Joe Johnson that makes their engine run. Golden State's drafted Ike Diogu, Anthony Randolph, Marco Bellineli, Patrick O'Bryant. Monta Ellis was a SECOND round pick. And their best records was with traded for players Baron Davis and Stephen Jackson. I can see why Daryl Morey would stockpile assets toward a future trade. You need both a GOOD draft position and a DEEP draft to help your chances. If the Rockets tank toward the lottery I wouldnt mind cuz I trust them more than the Clippers and T-Wolves to make good draft decisions. Then they can trade a Derrick Favors type based on "potential" for a real deal player, or just keep him.
I think there's a much larger burden of evidence to show a particular target is "the right player." Anyone who thinks Morey actually has a blank check is fooling themselves, IMO. In contrast, Cuban can sign whoever he likes. He really doesn't answer to anyone else, and with a player like Nowitzki he has a much larger margin for error too.
I don't know where this idea that good organizations turn into the Clippers and Timberwolves for several years and never recover. Timberwolves and Golden State are horrible examples. They weren't winning or decent teams that tanked 1 or 2 seasons . They were horrible teams that didn't have to tank. They were poorly managed and poor drafting teams, no matter where they picked. Look at the Rockets/Hakeem, Spurs/Duncan, Heat/Wade. They were good teams that had a history of playoff apperances that sucked for 1-2 seasons to get another player. They have done done well in the drafts, but couldn't get a superstar at their draft positions until sucked. Show me some examples of playoff teams that went into the lottery for 2 seasons, that ended up like the Clippers and not recovering.
Owners get a lot of money when their teams make the playoffs. I think Morey sold Les on the idea that he could build the Rockets up to contender status while not sacrificing their ability to compete for the playoffs. So this is the strategy the Rockets have committed to, which may very well have been a mistake. If the Rockets keep missing the playoffs this year and again next year without significantly upgrading their talent, I could see Morey getting canned.
It worked for the Wizards. Getting rid of Butler and Jameson in their in season tanking last year got them John Wall and as long as they get another high draft pick to get another wing, say Perry Jones, their future will be better then ours. The draft is bad but the top 5 isn't all that bad. Irving will become a stud.
This here cuts to the heart of the question: Is the goal of a team to win as many games as possible or as many championships as possible? Let's look at a three year time horizon. In Scenario A, the Rockets win 45 games each year in 2011, 2012, and 2013. In the weakened West, they'll probably make the playoffs as 5-8 seed each year and win 10 or 15 playoff games, putting them at 145-150 wins over that time span. In Scenario B, the Rockets blow it up this season. They win 15 games in 2011 and 2012. However, their crappy records earn them a pair of high lottery picks in both seasons, which they are able to parlay via draft or trade into a couple of superstars. During that time, one of Patterson, Bud, T-Will, Dragic, or some draft pick blossoms into a legitimate All-star. In 2013, the new-look team goes on to win 64 games and 16 games in the playoffs en route to a championship. Here's the thing. In Scenario B, the Rockets win only 110 games. Scenario A's win total is much, much more. But can anyone realistically say they'd prefer Scenario A? So no, Herm. You don't play to win the game. You play to win the championship. Two is not a winner and three nobody remembers.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W42iiCcFbxE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But the counter argument is that the draft is risky, if you are winning around 45 games a season you have a lot better chance of luring a stud to your team via free agency then if you were winning 15 games a season. Why are the same teams always in the lottery? That's just how I look at it. If some of our players out of, Pat Klow Goran Lee Bud Twill Thabust ect ect can develop into better players over the next 2 seasons who's to say Dwight doesn't look at our roster and go well If I'm the stud there I will have much more support from those players, I could really see us winning it all. But who knows what the right thing to do is. I just think both sides of the argument can be looked at seriously.
