Metaphor is the concept of understanding one thing in terms of another. A metaphor is a figure of speech that constructs an analogy between two things or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: "The Rockets are on the mediocrity treadmill".
This is still true today, because DM kept on stockpiling assets. Next year we'll have an even better package to trade for a superstar. If nobody bites next year, then he'll have even more assets to trade for a superstar the year after, and the next, and the next and the next. I think collecting assets to trade for a superstar is a more reliable way to get a superstar than blowing up your roster and tanking in hopes of landing one.
LongTimeFan just likes to read his own words. I don't see the point of arguing with someone who won't concede even the most reasonable of facts argued against his position. The truth of the matter is this: every team in the league is flawed, right this second. Nobody is guaranteed anything. That's why we play the games. I'm thankful for our past success and the fact that I'm having fun watching our team fight for a playoff spot this year. I could give a crap about a championship team, because building such a team usually takes years of winning playoff games as a team before the team is experienced enough to move on to the next level. Dynasties aren't built in a season. Real contenders are crafted through years of slow improvement. Good teams become great when they're in the second round year after year. That was what we had with Hakeem's Rockets, that's what we were on the brink of TWO YEARS AGO (heck, arguably last year) with Yao and T-Mac. Chill out and enjoy the freaking ride. It's not like we're building a team around Stevie Franchise, though truthfully, those years were some of my most fun times as a Rockets fan.
The stretch between having 3 stars(one top 50, two all stars) and tanking is a bit of a wide stretch. Not saying teams haven't been built that way, but it's misleading to think that those championship teams were grown that way from tanking. The Lakers were a mediocre team until they traded for Pau and I think you could argue that they really only have 2 stars (Odom/Artest as a Laker are borderline stars at best)....and in their first run with Shaq/Kobe - neither were drafted by LA(Kobe came via trade after he refused to play for the Hornets and Shaq left Orlando to sign with LA)....so the benefits of tanking were never realized by one of the most successful teams of the modern era. You could argue Houston's first title was one with a single star. Everyone else on that roster was a role player(Thorpe was the closest we had to a second "star"). Detroit didn't even have one top 50 player when they won their title. ...and the other side of the coin is what has being a consistently bad team done for the teams who have had high draft choices year after year? The opportunity to pick up a franchise type player is so small - ask Clippers(until this year with Blake), Sacramento, Bucks, Bobcats, Grizzlies, etc. These teams have struggled to find all stars much less transcendent talent and that's after years of these teams getting high draft picks. If there is data to support tanking, I would love to see it....
...and one other thing to note here - All Stars generally come from good teams. Good players on bad teams are often penalized by coaches/fans. The idea that teams need 3 stars in the modern age really depdends on how you define an All Star because a good team always has the brighter spotlight on it's players making those players seem better than they might be compared to the other talent in the league....and let's also not forget the fallacy of NBA All Star Voting that calls certain players Center and others PFs regardless of where they actually play and inadvertently excludes otherwise deserving players.
You know we are in the worst possible position a team can be in right? We are too good to get into the top 5 of the lottery but we don't have the talent to to make the playoffs. Even if we did sneak into the playoffs we would get wiped out so its all for nothing with this roster. We. have pieces in Lowry, Patterson and Lee that can help us in the long run. But Martin and Scola are the front seat drivers that are putting us on the "mediocrity treadmill" Its looks like we are gonna have trouble bringing in top free agents, so the best thing to do is tank like the heat did in 03 and 08 and build from there. I'm not mad that we didn't do it this year since it might be one of the worst drafts ever, but next year be must. And the only way we can tank is if we trade Martin and Scola since all they do is make us mediocre and not great.
I prefer to be in the Miami Heat position where every time there was an elite draft(03 and 08) coming up somehow they manage to tank far enough to get into the top 5.
Mark Cuban would never trade a starting PG for a complete unknown at the time, Kyle Lowry and let an unproven Aaron Brooks start.
I'm sure this has been said over and over, but I'll say it again. There are way more benefits to winning than there are to tanking. Spoiler Pros of tanking: Good draft pick Cons of tanking: FA's/coaches don't want to join crappy teams Players' trade values go down Fan apathy Less revenue ...Losing Pros of winning: FA's/coaches see a competitive team Trade values go up Fan support More revenue Winning Cons of winning: Worse draft pick Unless we have high draft picks for multiple years (Thunder, Grizzlies, Clippers, Kings), tanking will hurt more than it will help. People act like it's easy to pick a future HOF in the draft, and it's not. Chances are, we'd get a good, solid starter, maybe even an all-star (if we're lucky), and we'd win some games, but not enough to really compete for a ring. Then we're back to where we started. Yay. I think a smarter idea is to get better year by year, and trust Morey and the front office to land us either a legit superstar, or multiple impact players. Winning will make Morey's job much easier. The Tmac experiment ended 2 years ago. The Yao experiment ended this year. Give it some time. We'll be in the playoffs soon enough.
I know it does no good comparing ourselves with inferior teams, but I'm pretty sure we're in a better position than the Kings.
I don't know their roster very well, but they look like they have a few good players in place, like Johnson, Beasley and especially Kevin Love. Rubio's reportedly joining them next season and they'll have another high lottery pick this summer. However, too many ineffective players with MLE-size contracts or smaller. All in all, it doesn't seem like a bad position to me. Morey could probably do something pretty good with their core and draft pick.
They're in basically same position we are basketball-wise. The difference is that they've been mediocre to bad for so long that their fan base doesn't care anymore. That affects a team.
We have a vastly better group of role players and a stronger team overall. But they have a better group of (potentially) top-tier players. (Love, Johnson, Rubio, this summer's lottery pick.) They also have more cap space to work with, I believe. A good GM could turn that team around...maybe faster than he could the Rockets?
You're right, I meant contracts in the $4 to 5 million range. Not huge individually, but they start adding up, especially if they're repeatedly given to the wrong players.
