Now give me a great set shooter and great playmaker. Every thread here would start "I've got sunshine..... on a cloudy day......" And that would be completely fine with me. But alas, we aren't discussing recombinant DNA and cloning today.
I too think Steve could be a servicable point guard for the Rockets with some time. My issue.....and nobody wants to discuss this.....is that we effectively have a limited budget to spend on players. Right now, Steve makes more than anyone on the team. With what Steve brings to the table....or even with what we think he might be able to bring to the table in the future......is he really worth tying up that much of our cap space? To me.....that's the real issue.
Obviously Ineed to restate: I am not saying that We Need Not To Have A Great Playmaker...I am Saying That We Donlt Need To Have A Pure Playmaker to succeed. Talent you donlt plan to use is a commodity. You spend that commodity as wisely as possible, and the wisdom in question is most importantly applied to find talents which meet our needs. As such, to devote a lot of our commodidites looking for someone like Kidd, whose value ( and cost) are most predicated on his excepional playmaking would be a misallocation of funds. Kidd would be just great, but not as great as his value, and we could have been almost as successfull at that position for most of our sets while at the same time being able to pick up a potential star at another. As such, I would much rather translate Francis, Mobley, and Taylor into Billups/Hinrich, Kwame/Darko/Chandler and a high pick than Kidd and change. There is a reason you rarely see a dominant point and a dominant center on the same team: They each tend to define their teams. Kidd defines his teams as running, motion, slashing to the hoop teams, and that is the best use of his skills. Shaq and Hakeem tend to define their teams as inside-out, somewhat conservative teams. Meshing them is difficult. Magic adjusted to KAJ for a while, and the KAJ adjusted to Magic. And KAJ was always an extremely mobile, less post centered player than your average dominant center.
You are thinking what I am thinking: Steve is over paid for what his current role on this team. With the addition of Yao, Steve became overpaid in his current role as PG. Plain and simple. I ultimately think Steve can fit as a 2 guard where we trade Mobley and Taylor for serviceable starting PG and PF; however, trading Steve is another option.
MacBeth- please make a bad post so I can remove my nose from your arse. I'm seriously feeling like a brown noser here but every single time you make a thread I feel like there are two things I can count on: 1. I'm going to agree with at least 90% of everything you say (even if it hadn't previously occurred to me) 2. I'm going to learn something about basketball. (I never played sports but somehow fell in love with basketball anyway and as such, I lack alot of basic basketball knowledge that all of you player/coach types possess) As to your list of players that would suit our needs- I agree but I'd like to add anybody whose last name is Barry to that list. Aren't both Brent and Jon free agents this offseason? Let's get them both!
I agree with the concept. That is why I wish the Rockets had gotten Charlie Ward. Here is a player that plays solid defense, can shoot the three with consistency, has no problem passinjg it into the post on every possession and costs a miniscule amount compared to Francis. If we had gotten Ward, we could trade Steve for a PF and start winning titles. I am sure there are other Ward like players out there, we need to get one of them and move Steve on down the road.
I agree with most of what you said, MB... 1) We don't need a playmaker, or a pure point guard, or a ball-wizzard, or shooter pg...We just need a PG that is, like you said, efficient. If we mange to get the aforementioned "titles" then that's just a bonus. But there's a 2nd part.... 2) We'd need a player(s) that is of the same level of compensation.... The key is to not let other teams (ha) know that the "hype" of Francis actually makes his game look better than it really is. Thus, maybe we can trick some GM on another team that he's just as good as THREE of their players. Shhhhh.... Heh...Lets hope that other teams are easily distracted by shiny objects. And we're not talking about rings. shiny objects = the cross-over dribble, dribble, dribble, the ISO, and the dunk Example, and 1 for 1 trade of Francis for T-Mac....Orlando would get screwed in that deal!
I agree that Kidd's J is weak. But I disagree that Kidd on this team with Yao would be wasted. Kidd DOES know how to run the half-court. He's smart like that. As far as the fast break...well, that's a bonus, and usually started by the center passing out of the rebound. That's perfect for a 3 on 1 or 2 on 1 fast break. That's just what Kidd loves. He doesn't NEED Yao running the court every time down the court. If Yao choses to do so, the BIG man will get rewarded. I think the reason that you believe that Yao would be wasted with a Kidd is because it's been sooooo long that we've had a PG that could actually run the fast break. You must feel that it's difficult. Uh...no. Francis MAKES it difficult. Thus, he doesn't do it much. Yep! But lets hope we'd get more than just a 1 for 1 trade. We'd need more compensation.
1) yeah, all big men are suceeptible to the big/little double, but Yao particularly so, as he is still prone to bringing the ball down. 2) Agreed. There are two types of lead guards, though, as far as the break. There's the get it ahead guard, and the bring it up and dish guard. Obviously all guards to both, but there are clear tendencies ( Steve, for ex. is strongly in favor of the latter style, though he isn;t all that adept at it. I have long thought that he could really improve our team break if he looked to get it ahead rather than push it himself)...Someone like Hinrich or Kidd, who spend a lot of time breaking will favor the push but really recognize the opportunity for the pass ahead. So when you say you want a pg that can lead the break, don't forget that there are pg's that are effective if not spectacular break points without being exceptional playmakers. Nate McMillan was an example. Also, we shouldn;t underestimate the secondary breaks ( I love Roy Williams!) To me the Rockets lose as many scoring opportunities by not even atempting secondary breaks as they do with inefficient first breaks.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Kidd. I am not saying he wouldn;t be an improvement, just that the weight of his trade value/price is based on attributes more conducive to a running/athletic team rather than what we're going for, and I'd rather spend less on a point who can be almost as effective given our system, and use the excess on a 'star' 2, 3, or 4.
In a way Barry is perfect...but I am less certain about his ability to protect the ball against top flight defensive points. I see what you;re saying, and I almost included him, but I have also seen teams give him trouble, not so much in terms of forcing TOs, but in terms of making him take a lot of time off the shot clock merely to get into position to set up the offense. Not a glaring problem, but I'd prefer others.
My point is to get a lesser 'value' pojnt, but turn the excess into a star or top pick at another position. LOl...love to get T_Mac, but would also like to bring Wilt back to life for the Rockets...
Hmmmm, GATOR....you there? I'd figure the possibility of getting T-Mac in the summer was easier -- very possible -- compared to getting Wilt back from the dead...am I right?
If you compare Yao Ming in a year or two, if his development goes well and he becomes, let's say, a 21/12/3 guy (pts/rebs/blks), and Francis gets his game back to normal, let's say 20/6/6, then compare that to the Spurs. Is Parker much more of a playmaker than Francis? Not necessarily...at least his assist numbers don't really indicate that. If Francis gets his turnovers down and Ming keeps developing, we could have the same model as San Antonio, with more added talent than they have (Mobley/Taylor/Jim Jackson). It surely worked for them. However, I am a little confused, MacBeth, when you say we don't need a great playmaker and then you want to trade Francis for Hinrich/Chandler...wouldn't the point of this mainly be to get a better playmaker?
Hinrich is a better playmaker, true, but that would be gravy. What's more important is he is a better shooter, defender, and especially this: He knows when to pass, and wants to. He doesn't have the individual break your man down ability that Francis has, although he's no slouch, and he is nowhere near the rebounder/dunker...but he's smarter, a better team player, and the Bulls players have already unanimously shosen him as their team leader, which speaks volumes about his character.
