When was the last time a team traded AWAY a key star...

I agree if you have a KG, you do not trade him, if you have a kobe, you do not trade him. You do not trade superstars that calibers for other players to fit a new system. You design a system around those stars.


The question is, considering all the apsects: skills/hearts/health/leadership... is tmac in the same group of the kobe/kg/td/lebron ...

if the answer is yes, I say we fire Coach A, trade YAO for younger wallace or deke + younger barry, wesley and sura, let tmac dominates 80% of offense and hope he can last long enough and his long jumpers will be always reliable in the close games. Hopefully, it will give us a championship if everything is perfect.

 

you almost enver trade a star for star, so when you trade a star, it's to rebuild, so you're not gonna get better right away...you have to wait

 

It depends, if Denver trade AI, they won't have to rebuild, if Nets trade Carter, they won't have to rebuild.

Furthermore, I won't call it rebuild if you trade a star NOT fit in your system(if it's true).

 

How did that work out for the Wolves? They held onto KG for about 10 years and made it out of the first round 1 time. Sometimes your star players make you good enough to get low draft picks, but not good enough to win the title. Maybe the Rockets are in that situation, and maybe they are not. The idea that would should never trade a star player is just not supportable though.

 

I think the problem with Wolves was not they built around a wrong guy, it was they did a really poor job to find supporting cast.

If you cannot build around KG, you cannot build around any1.

 

We all know this. I just say, imagine these boards how they are now times one million during that rebuilding stage, hahah.

 

You are moving the target because initially you said all teams get worse when they lose a superstar. When you were provided with examples of teams not getting worse you discounted them and said some of those teams didn't get better (immediately). When provided with examples of teams that got better immediately you say, well they won more games but they aren't any better in the playoffs. Even when provided with examples of teams that did better in the playoffs, you reply with something like those are exceptions or that was too long ago to count. What is the point of discussing it. Apparently you want more than X number of teams per year all improving how far they go in the playoffs and one of them winning a championship after trading a superstar to disprove the theory that the Rockets will be worse off if they trade TMac. Sometimes there is simply no way to convince someone once they have made up their mind.

They were hamstrung by KGs huge contract and a really dumb move in trying to cheat the salary cap for Joe Smith. Even without losing those draft picks, it is debatable if they would have gone anywhere. If they had trade KG years ago they could have acquired a bunch of young guys and draft picks, or maybe even a star veteran and some young talent.

 

Wait; did the Mavs ever make it to the Finals with Nash? I remember thinking how funny it was that Nash suddenly became great once he went to Phoenix, but the Mavs got better.

Also, Seattle went from like 55 to 61 wins after trading Kemp for Vin Baker.

I don't see how a team with the best center in the league and some quality supporting players would be automatically relegated to rebuilding status. Rebuilding means your best players are rookies or unproven. That wouldn't be the case. Again this depends on who the Rockets would get in a trade.

 

Because you have no argument against the counter examples. Let's just do one. Nate Thurmond was a superstar. He is a Hall of Famer, probably better than TMac. In 1973, Nate and the Warriors finish second in their division, but 3 games out of the playoffs. In 1974, Nate was moved on to Chicago for young talent Clifford Ray and a draft pick. The very next season, the Warriors win the title. Thurmond was undoubtedly a superstar, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said he was the best defender he ever played against. Superstar traded, young talent and draft pick coming in return, immediate championship. Seems like that is exactly the scenario you said would not happen.

It's because I am not the one that made sweeping generalizations. I didn't make a claim that trading away a superstar is always going to benefit the team, only that it may or may not. As soon as someone proves me wrong (which is going to be tough because there have already been examples posted going both ways) I will gladly admit it.

 

I don't agree with those examples because you have to look at the team's future. I'm not saying T-Mac is declining as dramatically as Shaq but you cannot hold on to superstars that are clearly on their way down. The Lakers would've been handicapped for years if they held on to Shaq. Granted the Heat did win a championship in the first 2 years of Shaq's arrival, but look at them now and look at their future. As much as people don't want to suck for a year or two, I just think it's inevitable in the nba.

Personally, I think T-Mac still has a few good years left in him for our team and people aren't giving a fair enough chance. It's not like he's been here for several years. But if he were traded, I wouldn't mind it as long as it made sense for the team.

 

if you trade mcgrady you better make someone bleed through the nose to get him. all those times those teams traded their superstars they didnt get an adequate return.

 

Actually you have said that it never happens, and strongly implied that it is impossible to improve by trading Tmac. You also keep saying that it leads to "years of mediocrity" which is often not the case for teams that let stars go. The only reason anyone even considers trading Tmac now is because we have already been a mediocre team for 10 years now.

Now if you are merely saying it is unlikely that we improve this year by trading TMac I agree, though like I said before you need to discuss who we would be trading him for to make any sort of educated guess there.

I think the only reason you are getting an arguement at all in this thread is the apparent absolute that you have set that it is impossible to trade Tmac and improve. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? no.

 

You realize that according to you're own numbers Kobe is only averaging a little less than three games a season compared to T-mac?

 

Exactly,

We're not dealing with absolutes here, but it is a discussion of likelyhood, and you're right in saying that it is highly improbable that we would improve that way. I prefer that they take the measured long term plan and follow it, don't panic, give the players a chance. In three years if we still haven't done anything we'll take the money from T-mac's contract and rebuild the team, Yao's contract will be up the following year so we'll be in a great position to try to rebuild then. The quick fix would be a mistake in our current situation.