Timing -- when did you start having to resort to personal attacks to try to make a point? Do you always post like this in this forum? I guess I never really paid attention until now. I don't recall you being like this in the Hangout forum.
That's hilarious. Rudy just pulled off a great draft day deal, got talent no one else saw, like Norris, Ellie, Horry, Cassell, etc. Some were draft picks others were just grabs, but Rudy saw them and brought out the best in those players, now you throw a couple of examples out their and say he has a horrible track record? Rudy's good decisions far outweigh his bad decisions as far as that goes. And yes it's true that Pippen in his heyday was talented and played well. I dislike him, but he was a good player. You want to talk about giving players huge contracts, and yes it happened. But judging by the past performance those guys had(Maloney in the playoffs, Cato actually looked promising at one time.) I could see how those mistakes were made. You are using your 20/20 hindsight to judge thoe things. But even with the mistakes, I think Rudy is still in the top 8 as far as that goes. Timing, if you disagree show me 8 other teams that have no mistakes with big contracts and bad draft blunders, and still have as many good picks, and surprise good picks? ------------------
"I guess Rudy was too busy watching tapes from Turkey to notice poor little Rashard Lewis in his own backyard. How many minutes did Turkcan play for Houston again? Zero right? " -timing Mirsad Turkcan didn't play for us, but remember he did get us a pick when we traded him, and we all just saw how important an extra pick or two can be in acquiring a key player. Just because he didn't play for us does not mean he didn't help us out somehow. ------------------ Who needs teachers? I can learn my own self.
I would like to know what center you think we should target (leaving this argument behind)? I would still like to go after Marc Jackson or Raef Lafrentz. They aren't the best people to bang inside, but they still are very capable of throwing their body around, and both rebound the ball pretty well. The reason I bring up them is that even if we have Mo Taylor at the PF spot, I still think it would be nice for this team in our system to have a PF who could shoot out to 20 feet also. It doesn't have to be the staple of his game, but it would give us the option of pulling big men out of the lane so that Griffin, Francis, and Mobley can slash to the hole. The ideal fit would be Antonio Davis, as he has a good jumper out to 18 feet and can bang inside, but he will cost near the max and he also is too old for the direction this team is going. ------------------ EDDIE, EDDIE, EDDIE!!! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
What personal attacks? I haven't said word one about anyone's person. Pulease... ------------------ First the Sopranos and now Eddie Griffin... thank you New Jersey!
Cat, how much would you resign Taylor for? Probably about 6 million per season. I am basing my observations on resigning him for approximately that amount. He is a good fit here, esp. in team chemistry, and he serves some needs. However, I am aware of the weaknesses he has and I don't think he's worth 7.5-9 million per season. The reason I would prefer him over Webber is that we have the stars now, and I believe we can acquire some good role players (Hakeem counts as this) with the excess money we would have from signing Mo instead of Webber. If Mo tries to command an amount that would prohibit us from gaining an interior defender with the rest of our cap space, then I might prefer to look elsewhere. ------------------ EDDIE, EDDIE, EDDIE!!! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
Your opinions are crazy, the only problem is that you've been spewing them for so damn long that people just don't bother with them anymore. Trying to speak on behalf of the whole BBS (on a subject that you know many disagree with you) to diminish my personal opinions seems a whole lot like a personal attack to me. ------------------ EDDIE, EDDIE, EDDIE!!! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
Also, your attack on Rudy's ability to evaluate talent is way off. In my mind, behind the Lakers and the Suns (and maybe you could argue one or two otehr teams) , Rudy and Co. are the top evaluators of talent out there. If this is not the case, then why have the Rockets been so successful? If this is not the case, then why haven't they been fired and you hired, as you would have surely picked Rashard Lewis and other great players? Why did sooo many other teams pass on Rashard also? How did Rudy manage to find gems ala Cuttino, Cassel, Othella? In my mind, it is because Rashard played HS in Houston and because we already THOUGHT we had the SF position taken care of, that Rudy was CORRECT in passing on Rashard. Would he have blossomed here as he has in Seattle? Would he have known defeat such as that on draft night to turn around and make himself a better, hungrier player? Nobody knows, but to say Rudy is an idiot for not picking a player that might have sucked if we picked him anyways is really backward logic. ------------------ I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Ok, I'm not entirely convinced I want to wade into the middle of this spat, so I'll be a typical Canadian and pick my way carefully out on the fence... But seriously, this IS how I see it: In terms of talent, and I don't just mean individually, I mean in terms of team talent, to me the obvious choice is Webber. Guys like this don't come around that often, AND he fills a need, AND he says we're one of his choices, AND he's friends with our best player, AND he's still fairly young, AND you win championships with moves like this. To me the arguments in favour of Mo Taylor are less tangible, but maybe as important. Right now we've got great chemistry, which is a hard find.The guy loves it here, and if these guys blubber about each other anymore I'm gonna free base some insulin and search through my cd collection to see if I've got that Sister Sledge song the Pirates circle-jerked to in the 70's...Just kidding, I love the chemistry, but I had to say something kind of tough sounding to make up for inexplicably being able to remember that Sister Sledge sang We Are Family...Ok, where was I? Right...So, to me it's a matter of what you think is more important...Chemistry or talent. A point for talent : Chemistry comes and goes, and if we could have signed Webber and don't, and a month into the season people are b****ing at each other, we're kicking ourselves.And some folks say winning breeds chemistry. A point for chemistry : One of the things that sustained the 49ers throughout the 80's was that they became famous for team chemistry and loyalty, and once you get a rep for that with players, it can go a long long way. ------------------
Like Cat, I am somewhat prone to be a homer, but I think there is validity to not going after Webber. 1.Will adding Webber win us a championship in 1-2 years? -It's impossible to predict but the odds are against it. 2.After the team doesn't win a championship will Webber want to bolt somewhere else? -I think this is likely. Then we would have let our free agents go, and end up with no rings, and nothing to show. One thing about our championship teams is that they stuck together. Think of how many times they faced elimination or the odds were against them, and the team told themselves that all they could do was stick together, and rely on each other to pull out the wins. The Rockets had Hakeem who was the best star. But especially in '94 the Rockets didn't have any other real stars, but they stuck together and played as a team and pulled it out. If we keep Taylor, who loves being here, we have a team that is definitely capable of relying on each other and having the trust it takes to stick together. Chemisty is there. Webber doesn't definitely mean the Chemistry will be broken, but it is a distinct possibility. Also there is something to be said for teams growing and bonding together. The Laker core has been consistent and more or less the same for quite a while. The Bulls teams also had a consistent core. Learning to play with each other is a huge factor in any championship. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Franchisedream (edited June 29, 2001).] [This message has been edited by Franchisedream (edited June 29, 2001).]
This chemistry issue is really a red herring. There are no reasons why a Rockets team with Webber has LESS chemistry. As others have pointed out, he is friends with Franchise, he fills a need, he is one of the better players in the league. If you buy into this chemistry argument, then why won't Marc Jackson or Antonio Davis hurt team chemistry? And if you buy this you are dooming the Rockets to never make other moves until they are sure five or six years down the road that this team won't win a championship. To win the chemistry argument you have to show a player that would be pissed with Webber's arrival and his game. Franchise obviously will not (as I pointed out before) since he doesn't need/want to take all the shots. Cuttino is the only one who'll lose shots and it is much better for the Rockets to have Webber shooting close to 50% than Cat shooting 40% and hogging the ball. In addition, the team of Mr. Stiff Center, Webber, Griffin, Cuttino, Franchise certainly has a great chance to win the cmpionship. VERY FEW teams ever have the opportunity to have great players at 4 positions. That is NOT by choice, despite Cat's assertions. Every GM would take the best players he can get and leave it to the coach and players to make the chemistry work. If nothing else, Webber has FAR MORE trade value than any other player we are liable to pick up (in case this all falls apart as you doomsayers are sooooo scared of). ------------------
WHAT'S THE DEAL ABOUT EVERYONE THINKIN MO TAYLOR OS SO WELL DEVOTED, DOES HE NOT SIT OUT GAMES WHERE HE JUST HAS MINOR INJURIES. HE SURE HASN'T WORKED TO HARD TO IMPROVE HIS REBOUNDING. JUST CAUSE HE WANTS TO BE A ROCKET, DOESN'T MAKE HIM HAVE HEART. ------------------ oh
DOES HE NOT SIT OUT GAMES WHERE HE JUST HAS MINOR INJURIES. Can you give me one example of such an occurence since he became a Rocket? ------------------ EDDIE, EDDIE, EDDIE!!! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
One of the reasons this is a hot discussion is because Webber really isn't as solid a top player as others If we were discussing Garnett it would be a no brainer- SIGN HIM UP Other no brainers (guys you take if you have any chance) * Shaq * Kobe * Duncan I don't think Webber belongs on that short list: He falls in a second group of stars Webber, Carter, Iverson, R. Allen, Dirk, Great players now but are not a slam dunk I would take them no matter what else. For instance I wouldn't trade Stevie for anyone on the 2nd list BUT I would trade Stevie for anyone on the 1st list ------------------
What does Getting Webber cost us? Will it cost us Dream Mo T and Shandon and Moochie? Not to mention no more Free Agents? Plus may take us out of the Market next year and the next? Webber is NOW! Mo T is Now and the Future. If we can get webber . . GREAT!!! If not GREAT!! I won't die I don't think saying MO T is better than Webber Hell . . I won't go as far and say MO T will be better or even that he a better fit for the team I will say that in the long run [next 5 years] MO T is a d*mn good if no the best Alternative to Webber I think alot of folx just tire of Webber playing games and getting their hopes up so at this point they just saying f*ck webber [if someone holds money in ya face long enough you start to think it's really not worth the effort] The bottom line is: MO IS SAFE we know what we gonna get we know we can get it Webber is not. . . we may or may not get him and we may or may not be able to keep him happy. Rocket River ------------------
I sure wish people would stop bringing up the "but Webber and Francis are friends!" argument to try to refute chemistry concerns. We're talking about on-court chemistry here. I'm sure 80% of the NBA are "friends" with each other. That says nothing about on-court chemistry. Drexler and Barkley are very close friends -- on the court they had serious problems playing together. Mobley and Francis are perhaps too good of friends, if that's possible, and it shows on the court with favoritism at times. The fact that players may be friends is not relevant.
I didn't say he would for sure destroy the chemistry. But with Mo, we already have the chemistry. And, the possibility, at least exists that it wouldn't be as strong with Webber. Webber has never shown a real loyalty to any team he has been with. That in itself could well be enough to lessen the positive environment. If the seed is planted it can then grow. I will admit that's it's pure speculation on my part. I also admit it's just a possibility of what could happen, though with some basis in history. I also wouldn't mind signing him if he would just sign or say he didn't want to. But he is running teams through the ringer. I just don't think he is worth that kind of fuss. Yes he's better than Mo, yes he's a great player, but no he's not worth busting the bank and getting rid of loyal players to get him. ------------------
It has just come to me what is going on. We would be INSANE to not offer Webber the maximum to come us as a free agent. I think this would be a 6 year $90 contract, a bargain for players of this quality when you look at league contracts-- and a duration that Webber will be an elite (great for 3-4 years, very good for 3 more) player for. The abosulte worst case scenerio is our chemistry would be disastrous (I really doubt it) and we trade Webber in 2-3 years for great picks/players we otherwise would not have such privaledge for. Of course we have offered him 6/90 Mil, and it probably isn't a consideration Webber is thinking about. (For whatever reason, more money, not wanting to leave the Kings high and dry, likes what the Kings are doing this offseason, etc.). This is why we are moving on, and focusing on other options. Without Webber we still have already had a great offseason and have a ton to look forward to. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 29, 2001).]
I just thought of something else. I hear people talk about how certain player aren't loyal to their team, etc. There those that even say that about Hakeem. I just wanted to make two points on that. 1. Chris Webber hasn't shown any real loyalty to any team he has been with yet. 2. Loyalty goes both ways. While Mo Taylor isn't as good as Webber he loves the team, and he is better than your average PF. So if the Rockets can show some loyalty to him, and their other free agents now it will speak highly for the organization. That might make the organization more attractive to other free agents in the future, as well as help the team get the most from the players that they do have. ------------------
I thought people were supposed to know what they were talking about before they started posting on here? MoT is a Rocket. HE HAS HEART. The Rockets will sign Mo and they will ignore Webber. Wake up and smell the posts. ------------------ "How close were you to her? Real close until the roofies wore off. Then she woke up talking about pressing charges, so I took my tongue out of her ass and left son." - Marlon Wayans "Scary Movie" Go Rockets!!! SS
