Mango is on a roll!!! ------------------ "I look kind of dumpy. Look at my butt. And what kind of shoes do they have me wearing? At least they got the chinstrap beard right." -Kevin Garnett on the KG bobblehead dolls during KG bobblehead doll night at the Target Center [This message has been edited by LiLStevie3 (edited June 30, 2001).]
That was pretty harsh Mango...ouch. Here's my take on Webber and why we shouldn't get him. Actually 12 million reasons to not sign Webber, you only pay a FA 12 million dollars if you want him to be "the man". The ball can only go to so many people, if Webber got his touches, then that means even less touches for Cuttino, Eddie, and Steve. I know maybe for the first couple years that would be okay, but there will come a time when we'll all want to see Steve and Eddie turn into superstars. Can someone name a team that had 3 superstars or 2 superstars and 1 star on the downside of his career that actually won anything? Note: The star on the downside of his career can't be a Glen Rice type shooter, I'm talking PF's on the downside... We don't need anymore stars, we need roleplayers on the team, what role does Taylor fit? He's the guy that can drag out the Duncan/Robinsons, Wallaces, Webbers, and Malones out to the 3 point line while Stevie and Cuttino penetrate. If the other team's PF crashes down then Steve or Cuttino can dish the ball to a wide open Taylor for his money shot, the shot he almost NEVER misses. His value to this team is his outside shooting, we can't have a PF that lives on the block b/c that would clog the paint. If a team tries a zone then our PF could hit the outside shot that would break the zone. Webber has NO shot, it's the most horrible thing I've seen in the playoffs, all he did was settle for that shot, that's a reason his team lost. Now's when people say "Well he was hurt...", guess what, he always gets hurt, and I doubt he's going to get less injuries as he gets older. So we might go through a playoff run with Webber when he's injured, is he going to heave those horrible shots or is he going to go inside? I doubt he'll go inside b/c he didn't do that this last playoff run. Sure Webber might help now, but I guess I'm one of the few that would like to grow with this young team. I want to see Eddie and Stevie grow into 1 of the top Forward-Guard combo's in the league. I want Cuttino to be left alone at the end of the game for the game clinching 3. If we threw Webber on this team, then someone else will get hurt by it, either Mobley, Stevie, or Eddie. It seems like the early player that would get hurt would be Eddie, as TheFreak pointed out earlier, why the hell would we trade 3 potential roleplayers for a superstar if we're only going to let him play as a roleplayer? The only reason I want Mo Taylor is because I can't think of another player we could sign or trade for realistically that's only getting paid 5-7 million and that's still at a reasonable age that he won't retire when this team finally reaches their potential. Mo Taylor's at least very young and has a lot of time to develop into a decent rebounder. Also I've got to say if you want Mo Taylor, you shouldn't want Marc Jackson to play C for this team. Marc Jackson is just a bigger version of Mo Taylor. Don't let those rebounding #'s fool you, he played for the Warriors, the Warriors were the best rebounding team in the league. They also gave up the 2nd most rebounds in the league. There's a reason they and their opponents got so many rebounds, it's because they have players like Larry Hughes jacking up 16 shots a game at a horrible sub 40% clip. If we resigned Taylor, we need to find a way to get a defensive minded big man that could help grab boards. We don't need 2 big men that specialize in shooting jumpers. Also Jackson only played in 48 games last season, I would never risk paying a FA nice money when they only played in 48 games. Remember Brent Price, Tony Massenburg and Big Dog out of Utah? It's hard to remember those guys b/c they were injured for months at a time. I'm sort of convinced that a trade will go down before the regular season involving 1 of our SF's (probably Williams since he only has a year left on his contract) for a big man that has testicles and doesn't play like a girl scout. The reason I think this is because I find it very hard to believe the Rockets would keep FIVE SF's under contract, that's assuming we resign Bullard, and I really want to see him come back. I'm sure some team would like to free up capspace and work a deal with us for Williams. Summary: Re-sign Taylor b/c he's our best option that isn't asking for 10+ million and try to work a deal for a C, if a deal doesn't work then just try to make it through a season with Hakeem, Cato, and Collier at C... ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own... [This message has been edited by Band Geek Mobster (edited June 30, 2001).]
BGM sez: "Can someone name a team that had 3 superstars or 2 superstars and 1 star on the downside of his career that actually won anything?" hmmmm....Spurs - Duncan is young Robinson is old. How about the Lakers in the 80s? Kareem was old Magic and Worthy were not. How about the Sixers? Dr J was old and Moses was not.70s Bucks - Oscar was old Kareem was not. 70s Knicks - Willis Reed was old Walt "Clyde" Frazier was not. This is actually a great argument for Webber. He is The Man now, as he gets older in the next seven years, Franchise, Griffin and Cuttino should get better, eventually reversing roles where Webber becomes a role player as his skills diminish(ala Magic/Kareem). Why is it a bad thing if Cuttino has to tone down his game for Webber? Inside beats outside (look at Shaq). High FG% beats low FG%. Why is suggesting the Rockets change their orientation bad? Because we have made moves for a "guard oriented offense" does that mean we NEVER change it, even if we could get a sweet front line player? And why is everyone so afraid of expectations ("Webber will bring high expectations - the media will say we should win 60 games") and change? The Rockets not only did not challenge for that championship last year, but they didn't even make the playoffs. Is everyone so scared of the Lakers that they want to build for five or six years from now, praying Shaq will retire by then or get hurt? This is ridiculous. Stand up and be counted. We have the pieces for the future in place: Griffin, Franchise, Mobley - now take it to the next level and lets see what we can do. ------------------
Reread what I said, I didn't say 1 superstar and 1 guy on the downside, I said 2 superstars and another star on the downside. The only example you gave me that fits that description is Magic+Worthy+Kareem. I don't know much about that team to argue with you, but those other teams do not fit the mold I was referring too. Also do you think Webber will just step aside and let the Steve and Eddie take over? I don't see stepping aside like that and letting them takeover. I see him acting like Hakeem and taking a very very very long time to realize his skills are greatly diminished. Eddie, Steve, Cuttino, and Webber is WAY too much offense. It would be impossible to keep all 4 of those guys satisfied. Someone will be unhappy with their touches, who should it be? Do we all want Steve to be this little PG that never takes his shots and just passes to the other 3? I don't know about you guys, but I want him taking more shots then he did this last season. I guess Cuttino and Eddie would get less touches for Webber, but don't we want to develop Griffin into a superstar? Wouldn't he just turn into Robert Horry if he's forced to give up touches for Chris Webber? We all know Cuttino's not going to take that many less shots, so if we got Webber, I see Steve and Eddie giving up their shots the most. Do we really want to do that for a guy that hasn't done anything in the playoffs and has no midrange shot that's worth bragging about? Maybe I'm just biased b/c Chris Webber seems like a huge choker that would bail on his team when things got hot. These 4 guys (Mobley, Francis, Griffin, Webber) all have pride, you have to a lot of pride to make it this far in the league. Do you think any of them would be happy to be a team's FOURTH option? I have serious doubts in that... ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own... [This message has been edited by Band Geek Mobster (edited June 30, 2001).]
Can someone name a team that had 3 superstars or 2 superstars and 1 star on the downside of his career that actually won anything? How about the Show Time Lakers with Magic, Worthy and Kareem? 3 of the all time 50 on the same team. How about the '86 Celtics? Bird, McHale, Parish and Walton. Four of the all time 50 on the same team. ------------------
aelliot, Can you tell me how you see a team with Webber, Griffin, Francis, and Mobley working? What's each players role on the team? I concede the Lakers and the Celtics, I have no clue how I could forget them... ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own...
Are those quote snippets supposed to make a point Mango? People can't change their minds about a player or what? I was against Mo vehemently, but he showed a lot of promise this last year, and displayed talent i didn't think he had. Now I WANT to keep him. OMG i changed my mind. I was on both sides of the fence! and you can probably find quotes to prove it too! Do i want to give Mo the max? No. But I dont want to give Webber the max either. I want Mo, Mooch, and a pretty good center over Webber. ------------------ .,.·^*'´'|'\..........,.·^*'´¯¯¯'`*^·,...,/|'`*^·-, '|.......'|::\......,·'.....,.·:*:·,......'`i:'|.......| '|.......'|:::|.....;.......':,:::,:·.......';:|.......| '|.......|::;i - ·;i'`:,......¯¯.......,·´|::|.......| '|.......'´.......'|'i:::`*:~·.–·~^*'´: :'|::|.......'`*·-, '|........,.-:^:':'\:'`:;:: :: : : : :: ::;·'i::/`':^·.,......`'i '|..,.:'´:::::::::::'\| '`*^~·:–:·~^*'´..'|/:::::::::'`:^:., | '´:;:::::::::;:-·^*'´.....................`'*^·:;-.....:;·' ....`·;:·'´........................................'`^·:;·´
I never admitted that he wasn't going to rebound, and I never said we'd need an enforcer at the 5 spot to make up for his weaknesses. If you weren't talking about his rebounding, then what were you talking about? You keep saying he's a good defender, so other than shotblocking, what did you mean? We need that whether we get Webber or Taylor, in my opinion. Why? A front line of Webber, Griffin and Cato would be one of the top shot blocking and rebounding front courts in the entire league. I think Mo plays much better defense than KT, so I don't follow you there. No way. When Mo and KT are in the game together, why do you think that Thomas always matches up against the tougher player? And KT isn't much of a shotblocker either. But he's still a better shot blocker that Taylor. That's my point, if you want a guy to be a role player and a 4th option on offense, then KT fits as well or better than Taylor. You can argue each guys' strengths and weaknesses, but the fact is they're pretty comparable in rebounding, shot blocking, passing and defense. Those are the things that you need a role player to do, so why in the world would you pay Taylor $6M a year or more, when Thomas makes less than $1M/year? and either KT or Walt is near as good a fit in team chemistry as Mo is, if I'm watching the same team. I guess it comes down to how you're defining "team chemistry". If you mean that the guys like each other and they get along, then Walt wins hands down. He's extreemly tight with Francis, Mobley and Moochie. According to Doc Rocket, we had a potential trade of Williams, but we didn't pursue it further because the players wanted Williams here. On the flip side, we've got Francis and Mobley courting Webber. I'm guessing that they're aware of the fact that if we sign Webber, then Mo is gone. What is Mo's role? To be a big man playmaker. We have Griffin who is going to crash the glass, block shots, and get you some points on offense. We need another big man, a true big man, to be able to create opportunities for himself and teammates. Mo can get himself space for his sweet jumper with his ball-handling, and he can find open teammates off the double teams. And I don't care what his assists per game numbers are-- I've watched these scenarios develop, and Mo is a good passer for a big man. In addition, defensively and offensively, We're not good enough to have the luxury of spending $6M or more a year on a guy to be the 4th option on offense and be the 3rd or 4th playmaker. We've still got lots of holes to fill, and we're set at the 1, 2 and 3 spots, so the 4 and 5 needs to fill those holes. The things that Mo brings are way down the priority list. If you keep Taylor at the 4, then you're going to have to have a monster at center and those aren't easy to come by. Instead of resigning a guy who duplicateds our team strengths and hoping to find one player to fill all of our holes, don't you think that it would be wiser to bring in two guys that combined can fill all those weaknesses? I expect him to give 100% to try and take the charges, defend the top PF's well, and do a lot of the intangibles. You do know why Taylor takes charges, don't you? It's because he never tries to block his man's shot. He simply stands there with his hands up and let's the guy shoot over him. Sure, he draws a charge every few games, but he also let's his man shoot his shot with very little resistance. I still have visions of Ruben Patterson posting him up for the game winning shot and Taylor never leaving the ground. However, if we got Ben Wallace and lost Mo, I still think we'll need a big man offensive creator from the 4 or 5 spots. Just so I understand, we've already got guys that can create from the 1,2 and 3 spots, but now we need a guy to create from the 4 or 5 spot? Interesting. Hey, here's an idea, how about Chris Webber? He's the best passing big man in the league! ------------------ [This message has been edited by aelliott (edited June 30, 2001).] [This message has been edited by aelliott (edited June 30, 2001).]
Remind me never to cross Mango. ------------------ I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip that I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.
How does Mango's research affect any of my statements? I will admit, and always have, that I did not like Mo Taylor when he was with the Clippers. He didn't rebound well, and I didn't think he served a lot of our needs. However, when he came to Houston, I had an open mind about it, and when I watched him play I saw several things about him that I had not heard about before, and I loved what he brought to the table. And I wanted Webber and Mo both very badly until we got Griffin. Griffin changed my perspective on Chris Webber-- not Mo Taylor. If you read back in my quotes, you know that I've always been in favor of getting Chris Webber here, until we took care of our needs on draft night. My opinions changed on Mo since he became a Rocket. I didn't like him before he was a Rocket. What in the world is that supposed to prove? I don't really see the point. I didn't know it was illegal to change your opinions. I'm sorry. ------------------ EDDIE, EDDIE, EDDIE!!! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
BGM sez: "Reread what I said, I didn't say 1 superstar and 1 guy on the downside, I said 2 superstars and another star on the downside. The only example you gave me that fits that description is Magic+Worthy+Kareem. I don't know much about that team to argue with you, but those other teams do not fit the mold I was referring too." Even if that was true, you asked for an example, and you got one. Proving your chemistry point is wrong. In addition, the Knicks had Earl "The Pearl" Monroe, a third All-Star, so that's two examples that disprove your point. BGM sez: "We all know Cuttino's not going to take that many less shots, so if we got Webber, I see Steve and Eddie giving up their shots the most. Do we really want to do that for a guy that hasn't done anything in the playoffs and has no midrange shot that's worth bragging about?" There is no reason to believe having Webber (a superstar) on the roster would not help develop Griffin. In fact having a well respected talented PRODUCING veteran like Webber should be the perfect role model for Griffin. And Cuttino SHOULDN'T be taking so many shots if we had a superstar (which Cuttino is not) on the roster. Francis is not going to have to give up shots because he doesn't take that many shots to produce his points. If Cuttino doesn't like that then it is a problem with his attitude, not something you want to foster in your players. So many of the anti-Webber contengent say TEAM TEAM TEAM, but how is that reconciled with "Cuttino will be mad if he takes less shots?" BGM sez: "These 4 guys (Mobley, Francis, Griffin, Webber) all have pride, you have to a lot of pride to make it this far in the league. Do you think any of them would be happy to be a team's FOURTH option?" And this is my point: winning should be more important. I believe Webber is at that point since that is the reason he's looking to get out of Sactown. I believe Francis inherently has that right attitude of win first, Cuttino may not, but that is a problem with Cuttino not Webber. If it IS a problem with Cuttino then Rudy should point him in the right direction, not keep letting him jack up as many shots as he wants. As far as "getting this far in the league" goes...Griffin, Francis, and Mobley have not gotten very far so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Griffin isn't even in the league yet. Webber has done enough to be considered in the MVP balloting, which may not be as good as a ring, but it does put him in elite company. If Francis, Griffin, and Mobley are yellin TEAM TEAM TEAM like you guys seem to think, there is no doubt the would sacrifice their own numbers to win. ------------------
"Griffin, Francis, and Mobley have not gotten very far so I'm not sure what you're talking about." I meant pretty much every player that makes into the NBA has confidence in his game. You don't think Francis, Mobley, and Griffin have a lot of pride in their abilities and think they can be "the man" on the team? Self-confidence might be a better term... ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own... [This message has been edited by Band Geek Mobster (edited June 30, 2001).]
How does Mango's research affect any of my statements? You're not allowed to change your opinion, ever. Once you decide something about a player, you can't change your mind -- even if there is good reason. For that matter, we should all still like Pippen & Cato, since we liked them at one point. At least, that's what Mango appears to believe. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
What I want to know is why he changed his mind when Mo basically did the same thing here that he's done in Clipperland. I mean you don't go from propping Jerome Moiso over Taylor to saying you prefer Taylor over Webber without something drastic happening. The only reason Mo is fitting in with the "chemistry" of the team now is because he knows his future contract relies heavily on that. He's said the right things before in the same situation as my quotes of him in another thread clearly show. The fact that he is a Falk client cannot be stressed enough. Falk has him walking and talking like he loves it here. Is that the truth? Who knows what the truth is when a guy is trying to break the bank. ------------------ First the Sopranos and now Eddie Griffin... thank you New Jersey!
I think Mango is pointing out that The Cat's reasoning was sound before Mo was acquired. Mo hasn't changed... Mo hasn't improved... only the homeristic appreciation of him by Rockets' fans has changed. ------------------ calling powdered toast man girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
Timing--why would David Falk have Mo say that he loves it in Houston and wants to stay? Saying things like that only lessens Falk's bargaining leverage. You know an agent is involved when a player says, "Oh I'm not even thinking about that," or, "I'm going to do what's best for me and my family," or, "I will weigh all of my options and see what's out there." But saying that you want to stay in Houston is not a bargaining chip, it hurts your leverage. Falk may be evil and powerful, but Mo's not his puppett. ------------------ It's a ring toss game.
Achebe, Before we got Mo, I was going by a statistical evaluation only. I had watched him play in one, maybe two games tops. All I was going by were statistical observations and opinions of Clipper fans. I'd say my opinions now, while you may find them homeristic, are more valid because I've seen him play for an entire season. ------------------ EDDIE, EDDIE, EDDIE!!! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more! The Mo Taylor Fan Site
Mo HAS changed. Attitude is usually a big thing, look at Cato for one. ------------------ Draftsource.net
aelliot,Can you tell me how you see a team with Webber, Griffin, Francis, and Mobley working? BGM, That's kind of hard to say considering we haven't seen Eddie Griffin play one second in the NBA. That's the main problem that I've had with Cat's point of view on this. He's counting on Eddie Griffin to plug the majority of the holes in the team, while only expects Taylor to be the 4th option on offense and a playmaker from the 4 position. Is it realistic to expect Griffin to become a dominant rebounder, a low post scorer, the third go to guy and a defensive presence, all from the SF position? That's alot to ask of Griffin and too much to risk the future of the team on. What if he turns out to be a good or very good player instead of a superstar? I'd rather see them sign Webber and then bring Griffin along slowly. Cat himself admitted that we'd be better with Webber for the next couple of years. So, what's the worst that can happen, Eddie Griffin develops into a star and we decide we don't need Webber, so we trade him? Trades are how teams acquire talent nowdays. The teams with deep rosters are the teams that can make attractive trade offers without gutting their team. It's not like Webber won't have any trade value in a couple of years, he's only 28. How old were Hakeem and Barkley when they won their MVP awards? 32 or 33? On the flip side, if we sign Mo Taylor and Griffin doesn't develop into a superstar or if certain parts of his game don't develop (say his rebounding), then we're left with holes in our team. Sign Webber now, he plugs alot of our holes. If Griffin develops in the future and duplicates alot of Webber's skills, then that's a luxury that will be beneficial to the Rockets. If at that point, we decide that we don't need all four guys, then make a trade. I don't see a down side to getting Webber. Griffin isn't going to be the primary option on offense, so if he gets fewer shots initally, then it's not a big deal. Most of his improvement initially will come from practice, not games. If he's good enough to deserve shots, then he'll eventually get his shots. That's how the Lakers brought Kobe along. In Kobe's first couple of years, you didn't hear anybody screaming to trade Eddie Jones because he was taking shots away from Kobe and stunting his growth. Once, Kobe was established, they Lakers decided they need some outside shooting and they used Jones as part of a package to acquire an all-star perimeter shooter. I'd much prefer a situation where we had four stud scorers who don't get as many shots as they'd like, than a situation where we can't rebound, block shots or defend well. Shaq and Kobe weren't happy about the number of shots they were getting, but they worked it out ok. As far as roles (betcha didn't think I was going to actually answer your question), I'd see Webber as our primary inside threat and rebounder. I'd see Francis' role more like Isiah Thomas' in Detroit. He'd be responsible for getting everyone involved, but when the team needed it, he could take over offensively. I'd envision Griffin's offensive game to be alot like Shawn Marrion's. Get alot of put back points, run the floor and get some fast break buckets, post up a little and make himself available when the guards penetrate. I'd prefer to use Mobley more in a Vinnie Johnson role (even though he starts). If Mobley is hot, then you go to him. If he isn't then he gets fewer shots. Overall, I'd see us use the same philosophy as the '86 Celtics or the Showtime Lakers. You go to the guy that's got the mismatch or the hot hand that night. Some nights James Worthy got 22 shots, other he only got 10. Same with Magic. If a team couldn't defend McHale, then he was going to see the ball every trip down the floor. That's what made those teams so tough, most likely somebody was going to be on each night. Right now, we're just the opposite, if our guards are off, we lose. ------------------
