[Video] Kevin Martin scores 32 in first half vs. Cavs

Idk how a 22 ppg player qualifies as a "role player".

Scoring through fouls is much better than scoring random jump shots for your team, as you score more efficiently as well as puts the other team in foul trouble and us in the bonus.

Points scored in the first quarters are worth the same as ones scored at the end, and you're more likely to avoid close games if you're scoring 20 points in the first 3 qts, which is what good teams try to do...avoid close games.

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. He's scored 40 exactly once while playing for the Rockets. That's not any given night territory.

He's generally considered an exceptional offensive player because he gets to the line so frequently and racks up the points. I've yet to see him completely take over a game down the stretch scoring at will in the 4th quarter.

What would you call him? I wouldn't call him a star. He doesn't win you games down the stretch, but he can consistently score through the first three quarters. Stars, in my mind, are the ones who win you the games when it matters.

 

I don't think the team will "completely rebuild," as in tanking for a higher lotto pick.

Tanking get you one better draft pick, but at the same time decreases the value of all 14 or 15 guys on the roster. Most likely, as long as the Rockets rebound sufficiently (i.e. getting back above .500 and into the playoff picture), they will most likely continue their course of trying to obtain value by (A) trading existing players other teams want for upgrade, (B) eating salaries with expiring contracts/trade exceptions in exchange for players/picks they want, and (C) trying to get that "superstar who shakes loose" (of course, this last item requires considerable luck, as obtaining superstars always does).

Martin can be traded, but most likely he will be traded not for a "rebuild" but for an "upgrade" if one become available (and it's not likely one will be available). Lee is a decent player, but I don't think he gives you what Martin gives.

 

How many of you think Martin is a good looking boy?

 

we really need to bring him off the bench so that lee can start with brooks lol :grin:

 

I would not accept the excuse that he shouldn't take any responsibility because he was good through 3 quarters. He's our leading scorer, and you have to be able to rely on your leading scorer to make plays in crucial stretches of a game.

That's not to say the performance itself is unacceptable. If he kept us from being blown out, then he was a positive contributor.

 

There is, of course, the do nothing alternative. Or at least trade for cap space and a lesser young talent.

If we're already losing, why not trade for some lesser talented young guys. Sure, it's basically tanking but it seems better than paying a premium to be mediocre.

I'm not sure Morey's "let's just win" approach to transactions is helping. Paying out so much money to non-star vets is creating a ceiling on the team's potential to improve over time. Not to mention, the teams with disgruntled stars don't have high-priced vets on their wish list.

 

Offensively, no way. But when you add his defensive contributions (vs. Martins), it helps close the gap in my mind. I don't mean to say trade Martin because Lee is better if given the opportunity.. but Martin is more valuable on the open market, Lee would be much cheaper for the foreseeable future and hopefully we'd be able to land talent/draft picks from Martin. Naturally, it all depends on what's available.

My main problem with Martin is his salary -- not including last night's game, Adelman has played him 5 minutes in the previous three fourth quarters. As a guy whose going to be making the most money on the team next year (and 2nd this year), that just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Martin's salary is largely irrelevant as far as any kind of "burden" it imposes on the Rockets' ability to improve the team.

Even if Martin balls for free or for the league minimum, the Rockets still wouldn't have any more money get anyone else since they are over the cap and have used all of their exceptions. It's not like Martin's salary is the one thing preventing the Rockets from going out and getting, say, a Chris Bosh or Carmelo Anthony.

 

I don't think we should undervalue salary cap flexibility. Without it, there's no way that the T-Wolves get Beasley for pennies, who is dropping 20+ a night now.

It's not about it being a burden for me -- it's just about him not being worth the money. I don't think a good argument for keeping him would be, "well who else would we pay?" We were 12-12 in games he played for the Rockets last year and 28-25 prior to acquiring him. I just don't see him as someone making a big difference in W-L record despite making $11M a year.

We'll probably be under the cap next year -- how much so depending on Brooks' raise (if he's retained) and Yao (if he's retained). Without either, we'd have around 20+ million in cap space. Trading Martin would push that to $33M -- and it would take off his ~$13M in 2012-13 as well.

I guess part of this discussion is that I'd prefer a full rebuilding effort as opposed to a retooling.

 

How does being the leading scorer relevant to his ability to make plays down the stretch? "Making plays" is neither his role nor his strong-suit. It is not the reason he was brought here for. He was brought here to contribute to wins, so as long as he does his job, and is a "positive contributor" as you called him, then it should be fine.

We were well aware that Martin's strength was scoring efficiently in the flow of the game. The fact that he cannot "force his will" onto the game in closing minutes is as outrageous as Scola's inability to rain 3s.

Another example:

The reason why many dominant centers cannot be relied upon offensively in crucial stretches of the game is because they have trouble 1. getting the ball 2. creating for themselves when defenses have the luxury of keying on them for those few possessions.

Even though they may have been the leading scorers on their respective teams, should Shaq, Dwight Howard, Yao be penalized for this or is their excuse acceptable?

 

1. But what kind of impact is Michael Beasley having on the Wolves prospects? Cap flexibility might allow you to get a "Beasley-level" guy-- probably one step below the "Martin-level" guy, but if you want a true "superstar", cap flexibility isn't all that relevant.

As we learned over the last year or so, the most important thing is find a way to convince the player to want to join your team. Then you can work out a signing or a trade or a sign-and-trade or whatever. Otherwise, cap room or no cap room, trade assets or no trade assets, you can't get a guy who doesn't want to join your team?

2. All the projected "cap math" is dependent on the new CBA, and no one really knows what the new CBA wll look like.

3. Kevin Martin is having an impact. The Rockets are ranked 8th overall in offensive efficiency this year so far. They have not ranked this high since 1998/1999, when guys named Olajuwon and Barkley (and Pippen) were on the team. They also don't do anything particulary well offensively besides getting to the FT line and making 3s, the two Martin specialties.

They need to get better defensively and Martin generally doesn't help on that end, but it's good to at least have one aspect of the game more or less covered while you find a way.

4. Does a "full rebuilding" guarantee (or give you a reasonably good opporturnity to achieve) anything more than the middle-class status that the Rockets currently are at? Look at even teams who are smart about their rebuilding, and got relatively lucky in the process, how many of them end up topping out in the 50 wins with no rings territory?

Look at the Blazers: Pretty good job in the draft, but their would be "stars" fell to injury like Houston's did after achieving 50-win status.

Look at Toronto: Lucking out with Bosh, won the lotto in 2006, and is now rebuilding again after topping out at not even 50-wins.

How about the early late 1990s-late 2000s Rockets? How many lotto picks did they get? They got Francis in a steal of a trade, they lucked out with Yao, they lucked out with McGrady, hell they even managed to trade up for Griffin.

The latest would-be rebuilding success are the Thunder, I guess, but even they don't look so shiny after last year's surprising success story.

I can see the logic to rebuild-- if your "middle class" team is getting old and/or full of bad contracts and have no more "upward momentum" to improve based on player development or trades (which generally require players with good contracts), but given that "rebuilding" doesn't guarantee you anything other than a decent chance to return to middle class status (i.e. where you already are) after a few years of suffering, it's generally best to exhaust your upward possibilities before rebuilding.

 

Buckets

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd prefer Beasley to Martin. Beasley will win you games in the final two minutes (as he has shown this year) ... Martin will wonder why the refs aren't bailing him out.

Also, I can't really envision many of the top tier talents wanting to come to Houston for a chance to play with Martin, or even Scola for that matter.

LeBron/Bosh/Wade were all able to join a team because they had cap space. The Knicks are able to entice Carmelo by adding Amare and Felton with their cap space. The Bulls landed Boozer with their cap space. The Magic added Rashard via cap space, which finally pushed them over the top into contending status.

Cap space also becomes an asset as far as trading teams big trade exceptions, like you saw with all the SnT's from this summer. Trade exceptions give you more wiggle room in trades since you don't have to worry about the number of players on each side matching. Morey couldn't even get a meeting with Bosh this summer; Cuban couldn't get a meeting with LBJ. Neither team had cap space, so they didn't bother.

He's having an impact in an offensive category but not in the only category that really matters at the end of the day, which is wins and losses. He didn't make us a better team last year after joining us. Our record speaks for itself this year (*not entirely his fault).

I'm tired of hearing about TS% or efficiency. Building a team along those lines has done nothing for our team except make our fans feel smart. Martin's a good player, but if I can't count on him to consistently contribute down the stretch, he's nothing more than a role player being paid like a star to me. If his shot is not falling, he's not hitting the boards, he's not making up for it on the defensive end. He doesn't make others around him better. What he does do well is shoot open jumpers, move without the ball, and flop his way to the line 10+ times a game. It's no wonder Kings fans were not that upset when he left, particularly when you factor in the amount of games he missed for them.

You're right that completely rebuilding guarantees us nothing. Injuries are a part of life -- you can't predict them. Yao was supposed to be the best center in the NBA by now. Oden was supposed to be right behind him. But the odds of landing an elite player are still greater if you do it through the draft than it is holding on to a bunch of mediocre assets hoping a team will trade one to you. Take a look around at the best players in the league and how they got to their respective team:

Chicago built their now-contending team with Derrick Rose and Noah; Thunder with Durant and Westbrook; Orlando with Dwight Howard; Washington with John Wall; Spurs with Duncan; Hornets with CP3; Jazz with Deron; Dallas with Dirk; Denver with Carmelo; Clippers with Griffin.

Now, admittedly, most of those players are #1 draft picks or taken in the top five. The hope is to be able to trade guys to move up in the draft if we don't land a lucky ping pong ball.

There are a lot more examples of teams getting their elite talent through the draft than there is of a team building up enough assets to trade for one. So while it isn't a perfect science, I feel it is still better than hoping a bunch of mediocre assets (Jordan Hill; NY's now 20s draft picks; Budinger; Patterson (?)) will land you a franchise player.

 

A lot of those superstars you mention are very efficient, and it's a big reason they are superstars. Just because Martin isn't a superstar, it doesn't dollow that efficiency is an overrated metric. That's faulty logic.

Beasley is mediocre. Yeah, he averages 21 points, but has to shoot 18.5 times to get it. Ok, he can create a shot for himself, but who cares if he's probably gonna miss?

 

People need to break out of thier traditional way of thinking, because our franchise is very NON traditional.

I know this may come as a shock to people, but we have been "rebuilding" for the past 3 or so years since Adelman took the reigns. We just havent rebuilt through sucking and getting a high draft pick to build around.

Rafer
McGrady
Battier
Hayes
Yao

L.Head
B.Wells
J.Howard
D.Mutumbo

was our group when Adelman took over. We had a PnR only team with a heavy emphasis on defense. What most may consider tweaking the roster, I see as a complete overall of the system and personell. Of that group, there is what 3 people left? Every piece they have added, looks like a long term piece because they are young and fit the system.

And yes, Martin is a role player. His role is to score effeciently and thats exactly what he does. There is nothing wrong with that role or his salary, because nobody else in the league can really do what he does. The problem is expecting him to be something more than he is.

 

The big reason why they are superstars is because nobody can stop them from scoring, especially when the game is on the line.

And the only reason Kevin Martin doesn't have as many FGA is because he gets fouled and they don't count when he misses them. People act as if Martin only shooting 15 times allows for more opportunities for others.. no, it doesn't. He's just going to the line instead of adding +1 in his FGA column. Let's take a look at their FGA + FTA/2. I say we should divide FTA by two because generally you get two free throws for one possession/shot you're fouled on. It's not a perfect science, but it'll do for arguments sake.

Beasley: 20.75 FGA/game
Martin: ~19 FGA/game

Pretty damn similar -- and Beasley is shooting a higher FG% even though he's shooting more jumpers than Martin. When you factor in that Beasley can get off his own shot and has shown the ability to win you games in the clutch this year... yeah, I'd take Beasley.

 

Spurs obviously has contended and won championships. Dirk and Howard have been to the finals. But have Melo, Deron and CP really gotten close to a real shot at the trophy? It's too early to tell with Griffin, Wall and even Durant and Westbrook, but it's still a question mark whether they'll become more than simply leaders of 50+ win playoff teams.

Yes. I agree your odds are better with one of those guys on your team, but even with a true "elite player" you have to be really good and really lucky with the rest of the roster to become a champion, or even to reach the finals. Look at Kobe in the Post-Shaq/Pre-Gasol years, even with Odom and a young Bynum that team was a mid-40s win/1st round fodder.

Given that 1. pretty much everyone is a draft pick at one point, and 2. most elite talent were a high lotto picks at one point, of course there are more examples of teams getting an elite talent in the draft. However, the question really is what most team does to get an elite player, but rather what your specific team should do. And the goal is not to get an elite player, but to build an elite team. They are related but not identical goals.

Frankly, if your team isn't elite already, you don't have a very good shot at reaching that status either by "rebuilding" or by "looking for improvement." It's just that hard. For the most part, we are really talking about something like 10% vs. 15% (or 15% vs. 20%) probability here as far as your chance to become an "elite team" in the next, say, 4-5 years, depending on the state of your team.

So, no, I don't think the Rockets right now have a great shot at elevating themselves to a championship contender level within the next year or two, but I also don't see the "rebuilding" alternative to be all that attractive since, chances are, if you throw away all your existing talent for youth/picks, you go into the lotto for a couple of years, you probably will get enough talent to return you to 45+ wins, maybe even 50+ wins if you are good, but you still don't have much of a shot at getting to that 60-win/NBA Finalist level.

 

I said he's a positive contributor in the scenario you described. I'm not convinced Martin is a significantly positive contributor on average. Scoring 22 points against weak defensive pressure "in the flow" helps some, but who's to say we wouldn't have scored close to that amount with someone else replacing him on the floor? And then you factor in his non-contribution on rebounds and on the defensive end, and what do you have left?

Martin will be a better player if Yao can return healthy. His 3-point shooting is his best asset, and if the Rockets can figure out how to execute with Yao in the middle he should get more open 3-point looks in the 4th quarters.

 

Typically when you acquire a player by trading your BACK-UP PF for him you are pretty happy when he is a guy who regularly drops 25 points on 12-14 shot attempts.