Can you explain this further? Why would the Nuggets want to swap picks if the 2nd round pick is more valuable? I don't buy it.
Lawson easily makes up for that. My biggest thing about losing Josh was that we had no other creators on offense, and now we have Lawson is far superior than Smith in that category. In retrospect, Josh's biggest plus for us would have become a negative because he would have taken touches away from Lawson and Harden (not to mention Dwight's obligatory post touches to keep him happy). He would have hurt our offense. Last year was a perfect situation for Josh, but it wasn't meant to last.
You have put across this point far more eloquently than I could. I was unhappy that Morey didn't put more of an effort to re-sign Josh, but perhaps he had Lawson in mind as a target all along.
My biggest concern is our defense at the PF position. D-Mo is okay but he can't handle tweeners like Green, and Jones is simply terrible on defense. Josh's defense is way superior than both, he's gonna kill it in LA.
This is what makes it such a low risk for us. He is clearly talented. If it doesn't work out, then we would basically be in the same position we were anyway. You know what this reminds me of a little bit? The Mavericks of last year. Before you flame me too much, think about it. At the beginning of last season, the Mavericks were playing a ridiculous offense. They were on pace to shatter offensive records. And they were starting Jameer Nelson. They pulled the trigger to trade for Rajon Rondo, a player with known issues but who should have been a PG upgrade for them and help with their biggest weakness, their defense. This trade turned out to be a disaster for Dallas. The Rockets are an obviously good team. We were the second best team in a loaded Western Conference last year. We traded for a player with known issues that will help with our biggest weakness, PG and playmaking. There are obvious differences. 1- I'm not sure if Rajon Rondo is any good at basketball any more. He will have to prove that again. Rick Carlisle seems to be X's and O's coach but not so much a player's coach. McHale seems to be a good player's coach but not so much an X's and O's coach. The Rockets roster is much better than the Maverick's roster was last year. But the biggest difference- the reason that I like the trade for us so much and the reason the Mavericks trade turned out to be a disaster- is in what we gave up for those respective trades. The Mavericks traded a good 1st round pick, their best bench player in Wright and their PG in Nelson. When Rondo failed, they had lost their other PG option, they had lost their best player off the bench and they will probably lose next year's first round draft pick. For the Rockets, I am hoping that the Lawson trade doesn't work out that way. I don't think it will. For his offcourt issues, he doesn't seem to be as much of a headcase as Rondo. Let's hope not at least? But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it did. If Lawson fails in Houston as badly as Rondo did in Dallas- we would still have our PG in Beverley. We would still have our best bench players. We really wouldn't lose too much of significance in order to try this out. This is why it was such a great low risk/high reward trade
It doesn't have more value, it just has less of a risk. Since both the late 1st round pick and a high 2nd round pick have about the same chance of actually being someone who will contribute to a team, guaranteed money is what truly separates them both! Only 1st round picks have guaranteed contracts. The only benefit that I see of having a late 1st vs. a high second is that you get to pick a player before someone else does, but that doesn't guarantee that the player you chose won't be a bust. (Royce White) ....... ....... .......
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/lightning-round-the-ty-lawson-to-houston-deal/ Might just be the greatest thing I've ever read.
Does it even matter? I'd say 50 to 60 percent of NBA players smoke weed. If not more. As long as he chills with the alcohol it won't affect his on court performance which is all I care about.
I had you on ignore for awhile, but since you've backed off on the non-stop morey hate I'm good to engage in reasonable debate again. I was bothered by letting Smith go too and tried to understand it for some time.... Clutch's podcast made quick mention of this and I think it's worth talking about a little more. KJ was signed to the tax-payer MLE at just over $3m. I think DM knowing if they traded for Lawson, that would put them over the tax and so he had to consider the implications of how much MLE they'd have to use. Signing Josh to the full MLE and also trading for Lawson would guarantee a hard cap for us. So essentially I think the decision came down to a) use the full MLE on a guy like Smith, trade for Lawson and be subject to the hard cap and the ability to improve the roster more this season. b) use the full MLE on Smith, find another PG playmaker on a smaller contract but have to trade more assets to do so (losing Jones + more) c) use only the taxpayer MLE (which is only a few hundred thousand more than the contract we offered Smith), trade for Lawson and not be hard capped. given what we got Lawson for I'm okay with letting Smith walk now and not giving him the full MLE. We have more options now and still a bevy of assets to play with. I think we can still shore up the defense at the PF spot, the far bigger need and problem was our PG spot and need for a second playmaker, and the options there are far more scarce than the PF IMO.
Its a little concerning how many people here are okay with turning a blind eye to illicit drug use and alcoholism in order to win games. I really hope this pans out because seems like everyone is shouting championship and hitching those expectations to an alcoholic. MOre often than not substance abusers let down those that care and count on them. Just sayin'.
If your concern is whether people are okay having morally questionable and low character players on the team than that's an issue for all of professional sports, or virtually any organization (business corporations included) that are driven by profit/performance more than they are about creating a culture. At the very least though professional sports shouldn't be your cup of tea then.... If your concern is whether or not a person struggling with chemical dependency issues will hurt the team more than help, then that is indeed a risk but one that was accounted for in the price that was paid to acquire such a high risk/high reward player. Which is your concern?
More often than not you have tons of substance abusers at your job, that are performing, that you don't know about. Everyone hopes Lawson gets his act together.
Lawson and Smith are not comparable players. Lawson will have a much greater impact than Smith. Smith was a nice luxury, Lawson is a gamechanger.
