What's a more important trend? 20 years? 4 years? Or 1 month?

scintillating... maybe i'll tune in

 

I totally agree with the OP.

I also think there is still hope to salvage this season... We should all not be so short sighted. Something is awry right now, but we've all seen enough to know for a FACT that this team is better than this. They can turn it around. I don't know when or if they will, but they can. Yao and Brooks getting healthy will certainly help our cause.

 

This was last season's team:

1. We had a roster full of gritty players.
2. Our bench was deep and were trouncing opponent's benches.

This is why we were optimistic during the offseason:

1. We added a recovering Yao, a fairly high draft pick, and a savvy veteran center.
2. The chemistry was in place because the core has not changed.
3. We got rid of the TMac distractions.

The only significant change was the Lee for Ariza deal. Unless you think that the Lee-Ariza deal has completely wrecked the team (which is ludicrous), nobody has given a cogent reason WHY WE ARE LOOKING MUCH WORSE THAN LAST SEASON'S TEAM WHEN THAT TEAM IS STILL FULLY INTACT.

 

Maybe you forgot about the Landry for Martin deal.

 

Is this an intended pun or a strategic coincidence?

 

our team really just lacks that final cog, a bad season that netted us one of the top 2 would be ideal oddly enough (as much as i really hate the idea of tanking).

The problem is we lack the creator type that tracy was, someone like martin needs it (imagine how much his efficiency would work for someone like chicago who has a sublime playmaker to get him the ball, the two of them would put up 50-60ppg on a 60% TS)

We have good players who can score efficiently, its just their styles don't transfer to money time and none of them really have that explosiveness to crack defenses.

 

Last year's team started out well but didn't finish well. They were struggling even before the trade deadline b/c Morey basically had them all on notice. Also that team is nowhere near fully intact. Landry was killing people in the 4th quarter.

 

I notice you left out the second part of my post where I said something along the lines of: it only makes sense if we're just stacking assets waiting for a trade. and waiting. and waiting.

like Major said, if you want to liquidate this team, chances are you could get more now than you would have before Morey got here. but don't kid yourself into believing we're a better team now for it. this board was all hopped up on, "worst case scenario: 50 wins and a first round victory!! In Morey We Trust!!!"

i have yet to see if Morey is capable of building a significant contender. i'm positive he can stack assets though. i'm just not sure how valuable that is when you create a situation where no superstar will accept a trade to.

 

I won't dignify the comment. To the average person, the term "hater" is used almost exclusively by those who can't intelligently debate or discuss. So they discredit at a personal level.

First, I have enough of a personal life that posting is not a matter of wins or losses.

But enlighten me. When and where did this "winning" that $Ball produced occur? Please...facts only. If the goal is to win an NBA Championship, the Rockets are no closer now than when Carroll Dawson allowed Morey to trade for Battier.

14 games into the season, those are no longer reasons. They are excuses.

You're method of operation is throwing large amounts of mud on a wall and hoping some sticks.

Tell you what. At the end of this post, I describe a series of tip jar bets. Put up, shut up and no excuses?

Excuse me? Building for today? Ohhhhhh no!!!!!!! You are NOT getting away with that dreck.

They acquired Battier to "Win Now". I don't have to defend this because 99% of the people over the age 18 who post here know the term and the facts.

As far as Battier, he was a Morey $Ball trade. Jeff Van Gundy said it, and I 100%believe what I heard VG say.

The Battier-Gay trade has Morey's aroma all over it and absolutely none of Carroll Dawson's.

If you think that this is the worse it can get, you really have been drinking too much of the red kool-aid. Morey hasn't had his eye on anything other than a spreadsheet and the bottom line.

He was among the last GM's to realize the importance of athleticism. He is on record that height was not part of the original $Ball evaluation equation. He has never picked a player for the Rockets that didn't minimally have 3 years of college ball. That is a fact.

The Rockets do not have as much cap space as you think. They have $33.8M committed before they decide what to do with Yao and Battier. If they gave then each $5M, they'd have $43M committed.

Let's see what the competition has...

Nets = 12M of Troy Murphy and $38M committed for 2011-12. Plus, they and Carmelo already have mutual interest.

Knicks = $11.2M of Eddie Curry expiring and $42M committed for 2011-12.

Raptors = $15M of Peja expiring and $45M committed for 2011-12.

Cavs = A $14.5M TE from LeBum to the Heat. They have Jamison's 15M coming off in 2011-12 and only $22M commited for 2012-13.

Pistons = $11M expiring of a player who can still play. Tayshaun Prince. They have $48M committed for 2011-12.

Pacers = Dunleavy Jr, TJ Ford, Jeff Foster expiring and totalling nearly $26M. They have $35M committed for 2011-12.

Mavs = Tyson Chandler and Caron Butler expiring for $23M. These are decent FA's that Cuban will not let go the free agency. Or, he can choose to SnT them because they have talent.

Grizz = $17M of Zach Randolph expiring and $41M committed for 2011-12.

Nugz = A ton of cap space with Melo expiring and a $14M Team Option on Billups.

TWolves = $42M committed and no player making more than Beasley's $6.3M.

Kings = Dalembert expring at $12M and $27M committed for 2011-12.

Drinking the red kool-aid gives one an aura of operating in a vacuum.

And that star player comes from Morey collecting a bunch of $3M players and trading 4 or 5 of them for one star? Don't hold your breath. There are too many other fish swimming in that pond.

That's the spirit. The competiton is NOT the Lakers, the Spurs, the Thunder, the Blazers or Jazz...it's the Sixers. Wow. I'm speechless. Next topic.

By any chance, you also a Cubs fan? Maybe you don't work with any Spurs fans. I'm tired of listening to their dreck. Almost as tired as I am of Morey apologists and re-writers of history.

I doubt you appreciate Richard Jefferson. Know what he cost the Spurs? Bruce Bowen, Kurt Thomas and Fabricio Oberto.

Now I bring this up not becasue I particuarly wanted Jefferson as a Rocket. But to make a point. The competiton for talent isn't just teams with cap space or picks. Competition is everywhere. And it requires a certain level of risk. Risk that I have yet to see from Daryl Morey.

Now about that tip jar bet.

I get a $5 credit for every game that both Yao and Brooks play and the Rockets lose. You get a $5 credit for every game Yao and Brooks play and they win. Whoever has the fewer credits at the end of the season pays the tipjar the difference.

Example. Rockets lose 10 games with Y&B, they win 12 games with Y&B. I have 10 credits, you have 12 I owe $10 to the tip jar.

No excuses!!! Scola was hurt, the Rockets were tanking blah, blah, blah. Put up or leave me alone.

 

I didn't even notice.

 

hold the phone...seriously???? is this for real??? when did he say that? i totally missed it.

 

uh...no....you have me all wrong. i don't think there was any building for the present, ultimately. I'm not talking about getting rid of certain players. I'm talking about the players that were acquired to play alongside other members of our current roster. If you're telling me every move Morey makes is about how he ultimately flips that move for the next, then I'm telling you they're never building for the immediate future. At some point, you have to look at your roster and a potential piece and say, "If we want to win games, does piece X fit with the pieces we already have?" I'm not saying that analysis isn't being done...I just don't see the fruits of it at all. The pieces do not fit. And again, this isn't something I'm just now saying...I've been saying it since long before the season ever began.

I'm great with flexibility as an asset.

I'm NOT great with it being our only asset. And I don't think this flexibility we have is creating a very compelling product.

At some point, I'd like to consider the makeup of our roster as a whole as asset. Some call that a team.

What? Who are you having this conversation with, because it certainly doesn't sound responsive to what I'm saying? I'm fine with trading away guys from a roster that has zero chemistry. Pick a guy...for example..pick Aaron or Kevin. Keep one...get rid of the other. Go from there. Or trade them both if you think neither is good. I don't care, honestly. Neither is so valuable to me that I'd hold on to them like grim death.

But what you can't do is put them together and pretend you're going to have enough defense to be legit. And what you can't do is hold on to them both so that you can hope that one fits with whatever superstar you acquire, assuming you ever acquire one. That's nonsensical. You don't hold on to role players simply for the sake of hoping they complement a superstar you MIGHT acquire. You get the star and THEN you worry about putting the right pieces around him.

Again, are you sure it's me you're directing this towards? Because i'm with you entirely on the "it's not a video game" point! I think I've used that direct phrase quite a few times about this squad....someone has to think about chemistry at some point. That's the very point i'm making...that the roster seems to be made with lots of consideration as to how each piece can be flipped (with fingers crossed that someone will want to flip something worthwhile to us for them)...but not with how the pieces fit together, currently.

My understanding is this team was trying to win THIS YEAR. I do not understand how they thought that was gonna happen given this roster...and I said that long before the season ever started. I do not understand how you bring in a kevin martin to play alongside an aaron brooks, while shortly thereafter trading ariza...and still say with a straight face you're out to win a title. Someone somewhere has to play defense. There are roles to be played, and it was evident the roster had giant holes in that regard.


I don't think we have a choice with rebuilding. tank?? Hell, this squad doesn't even have to try to tank. They're flipping 4-11, meh. If they TRIED to tank, it wouldn't look much worse than it already is.

And are you seriously trying to scare me with the "3-4 years of rebuilding??" Seriously? My team has won one playoff series in about 13 flipping seasons!!!! I don't get too excited about first round playoff losses...or playoff appearances in a league where more teams make the playoffs than don't. How is 3-4 years of rebuilding any worse than 13 years with one series victory...particularly if it leads to something more substantial...which it MUST if Morey's at the helm, right??? Certainly if you gave the Chosen One 3-4 years of time to remake a roster he could build a true contender....right??

 

Interesting theory, though that makes it sound like DM is building around the coach.

 

Why is this even a question that requires answering? It's pretty simple, right or is it rhetorical?

They slightly overachieved last year relative to the talent level through the first 35 games or so, then reverted to mean. This year they're underachieving relative to talent level. Ultimately it's irrelevant becuase it's about a 38 win team given it's limitations so a a few more or less wins is kind of blah.

 

about as enterntaining as my morning dump and filled with as much content.

maybe i'll respond later over a glass of kool-aide.

 

We made a critical error in thinking that a lot of good players would be enough to compete in a league dominated by great players

At least everyone knows why they make obscene amounts of money.

 

He's been pretty hush-hush so you really have to dig. I heard it on an interview feed someone posted once. But that's no longer around. Best I can do quickly...

He intimated to ESPN he would sacrifice height for many other factors. Factors that say Chuck Hayes can guard any position on the court, Battier can guard PF's (don't think Battier's efforts against Boris Diaw last Fri night was what they were expecting) and that Scola can guard 3's...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3658571

Everyone wants Kevin Garnett—he's got the perfect height, body, mentality—but most times, you're going to have to do with less," Morey says. "Behind Yao and Tracy, we've been willing to give up an inch of height, let's say, for more skill, a person who plays harder and creates for others, who defends and rebounds well." Morey's "basketball players" don't pop off a stat sheet, but they give coach Rick Adelman interchangeable and versatile parts that are capable of creating offensive and defensive advantages. "Chuck can guard anyone from 1 to 5; Shane can play 2, 3 or 4; Luis Scola can play 3, 4 or 5; and Brent Barry can go 1, 2 or 3," Morey says. "We're limited only by our strategic insight."


Here's as close a quote as you'll find easily. From March 2009.... ..

http://www.masshightech.com/stories...h-analytics-to-gain-edge-in-player-picks.html

Often, players pegged as productive by analytics are ignored by scouts for being undersized. “Height is probably overvalued, but that’s changing,” Morey said.

A combination of traditional scouting and statistical models of college performance led Morey to draft Aaron Brooks, an undersized point guard, with the 26th overall pick in 2007, Morey said. The team has won 11 of 13 since Brooks became a starter, despite the loss of swingman Tracy McGrady to season-ending surgery.

................................................................................................

If the above is not ignoring height, not sure what is.

...............................................................................................

While I don't care much for Morey. I do think Kevin Pritchard is at least his equal and probably better.

But...let's look at even Pritchard's height de-valued list...

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=130970


And last but not least. Morey's view from when he was hired...

http://www.clutchfans.net/news/1316/10_questions_with_daryl_morey/

While we have Tracy and Yao our goal is to each year develop a roster that is championship caliber. That said, we also are going to build a consistent winner which requires that the time horizon on many of our decisions be longer than just one year. I generally will avoid publicly discussing what I see as weaknesses in our roster as that info can put us at a competitive disadvantage.

......................................................................................................

Now, if you think what Daryl Morey has done for the Rockets from Day 1 has had the proper emphasis on height, we can agree to disagree. In closing, what I'll offer is this.

Team specifics for quantitive analysis tend to be at a premium. But one month before Morey's "height tends to be over-valued" comment, Mark Cuban gave us this. It's his Top 30 players at that point in time. Not all are All Stars. But few are under-sized.

http://blogmaverick.com/2009/02/08/nba-all-stars-by-the-numbers/


The game is about mismatches on both ends of the court. IMHO, the Rockets' variable for height (and athleticism) in the equation started out too low. And it's still needs adjusting.