I was pretty upset last night. I thought we just were handed a player with much better than expected value at the #9 spot, then traded him for a player taken at #15 who appeared to be a reach and only got (in all likelihood) an extra late first pick next year for it. Then we go a trade for another similar player in the 2nd round (giving up a future 2nd rounder) who was very similar to player we reached on at #15. In the process we did a number of things detrimental in the process. THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT IT: #1 we need defense, especially bigger and more athletic guys to protect the interior. Right now unless Shandon is at the 3 (and he can't match up with all 3's) and pending what the flaky Cato will contribute, we simply are terribly weak defensively throughout our front line. Ask Phoenix if you ever can get over the hump and be a serious contender without shoring up the middle--at least on the defensive side of the ball?? They will tell you a very obvious answer. Neither Collier or Langhi block shots worth a darn despite being almost 7 feet, Langhi doesn't rebound, I doubt neither can play much interior D as well. Usually to be a great defender you need quickness, strength, length, and tenacity--obviously many, if not most, of these features are missing in our picks. #2 We have the scorers. This relates to the first issue, our smaller players already do a fine enough job generating offense and will only get better, in our bigger bodies we want defensive skill (see #1). #3 We want to dump the no-D Walt and his sorry contract to free up space for more well-rounded players. None of our new acquisitions help us rid of Walt. Najera might even have been a potential Walt replacement, his D is probably better than Walt's, his attitude and court effort certainly is better, he could be a physical presence, and he would come much, much cheaper. We might miss Walt's O a little, but that is the least of our worries (see #2). I would have liked to keep Najera as I think he would be an ideal bench guy (aggressive, fouls hard when need be, can shoot a little, plays all his minutes like his job is on the line, etc.) and then use Shandon starting at the SF most of the time (maybe Los or Najera versus taller 3's). WHY THE MOVE WAS ALMOST GREAT I liked the idea of trading Przy, who seemed to have a lot of value. Man, if Thomas or Moiso had slide just a little more (so Milw took either instead of Collier), I would be all over this move. In them we had a rugged defensive 4 in the mold of B. Grant or a long-athletic high potential player in Moiso along with more future picks. I would not have done this trade unless we got one of these two players with the first pick, not Collier. We should have demanded Milwaukee move up for one of those guys, or simply demanded more than the rights to Collier + future late #1. Finally, if Milwaukee can't move up, then we demand Tim Thomas (who I like better than Croshere anyway) for Walt + Prz + Drew. Alternatively maybe we should have taken Tsakalidis even if we know he won't play immediately--at least it would be a high-potential player. MAYBE THIS WILL LOOK OK DOWN THE LINE This might turn out OK, but right now I see little reason for adding another defensively weak C/PF, and I see absolutely ZERO reason for adding two of such players to our team (why not take O.O. with our 2nd rounder??). The only way this looks good to me is if we do another trade. If Indiana wanted Collier for Croshere, I am fine with the move. I would have rather tested Milwalkee's desperation for a center (again I like Thomas better than Croshere), but if this ends up netting Croshere and say next years 20 pick for our #9 this year than I say we made out well. We only have to look so far as Lewis to see we can make some fairly boneheaded moves as well as brilliant ones, right now I a leaning toward the former. We will see. [This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited June 29, 2000).]
I don't think it was a bad move. It seems to me the Rockets have a very clear understanding of what they're looking for, which is players that fit their style. With Przybilla, from what I hear you get basically another Cato. Can this guy run the pick -n- roll? Can he hit the jumper? When could you play him and Cato together? It may work defensively, but offensively you'd have a mess. You'd have two guys that can't run the pick -n- roll or hit an outside shot. What are they going to do then? The offense would be totally cluttered. Yes, the interior D would seemingly improve, but that's only one side of the ball. I don't think the Rockets saw a sure thing at 9 (Przybilla is not a sure thing), so they traded down to get something they knew would help them in some way. Also, Collier is a 7-footer, so that's an IMMEDIATE improvement defensively over KT or Rogers. So you do improve the defense somewhat. Collier can play on the floor with Cato at the same time, Przybilla can't. If Rogers is still on the team, you might be able to get away with Rogers, Cato, and Collier out there together. Flexibility and chemistry were the main factors, IMO. Also, I wouldn't assume that the Rockets want to get rid of Walt. They may consider him an asset. Even so, Langhi should be able to play that spot if needed. I think it's becoming more and more evident that the Rockets are not too concerned with defense at the moment. I've thought that perimeter defense would become less important with the rule changes, and it looks like the Rockets may feel the same way. They may be content with just the one shot-blocker in Cato. ------------------ Too-Rye-Aye!
Moiso and rugged somehow don't seem to work in the same sentence. Also, I don't think that Croshere deal will be going down. Collier was picked for us. He's not a center, and Indiana is loaded with PFs. Now we get to rid ourselves of the short PF!!!! Collier is left handed. He is also 7 foot. He also really plays PF. He can shoot. He makes sense for the Rockets, as Rudy saw his athleticism was better than first thought. And he can run the floor. As for the 2nd rounder, I was dissapointed in that. Not only do we now owe a 2nd rounder, but we could've had Carrawell, Oyedeji, Ernest Brown, or Corey Hightower, and ended up with Langhi. I wish we traded down for both of San Antonio's 2nd rounders, and picked up at least one of them with it, and come out much better. Game wise, I actually see a little similarity in Collier and Croshere (call me crazy). Big men who can shoot the 3, and post up, and are good rebounders. Croshere has the edge in quickness, Collier in height. By the way, Collier has averaged at least 1 block per game every year of college. He is a very good system player, and this environment actually may be similar to his Georgia Tech environment-playing PF next to a shot blocking extraordinaire (Alvin Jones and Cato) ------------------ The more lefties on your team, the better. Collier is Seven Foot and Left Handed. How can you go wrong? Trade or bench Kenny Thomas. [This message has been edited by NIKEstrad (edited June 29, 2000).]
I am not assumming the Rockets want to get rid of Walt, but they should get rid of him for many reasons. To say tersely, he is just way too expensive for a streaky offensive minded player who will be well past his prime when our team matures. You identified what I think is faulty thinking by the Rockets Freak, I think we are paying way to much attention to who fits in our offensive system, to the detriment of adding quicker, meaner, more atheletic and tougher front court players. In this day an age you only need a couple of great guys take care if the offense (obviously we will be a guard lead team), the rest of the guys primarily take of the defense. This is basically the story behind all the championship teams since 90 in my opinion. The offensive minded teams, even those terrific at it (Phoenix, Utah, Indiana), just can't seem to get it done completely. I think looking for some young offensive role players to fit in our system was simply not a luxory we could afford at this time given our defense needs shortning up. Of course, I thought this would be the best draft position we would get for some time, I am less sure of this today than I was yesterday afternoon however. Note on Nike: Yes I agree Moiso isn't rugged. And E. Thomas isn't polished offensively either. But either collectively has far more of the attributes that make them valable, especially defensively. And 1 shot block per game (Collier) for a college 7 footer is very weak. For instance, Thomas averaged 3.7, Pryz 3.9, and Moiso 1.7 last year. I also saw Moiso overwhelm one of the tallest and deepest front lines in the county (Stanford). The guy has a ton of physical gifts. Oh, and I am not of the opinion Croshere is a savior (for instance I like TT better), but I like him as an option better than Collier. [This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited June 29, 2000).]
"You identified what I think is faulty thinking by the Rockets Freak, I think we are paying way to much attention to who fits in our offensive system, to the detriment of adding quicker, meaner, more atheletic and tougher front court players." I think the Rockets would like to add those players as well, if they were available (all the big guys of that mold that they wanted were picked in the top 5). Since they didn't find one of those good enough, they opted to get a sure thing, as well as another mid-first round pick. I can understand the thinking of opting for a sure thing over an athlete who may develop, and even if he does develop, can only play one position. "In this day an age you only need a couple of great guys take care if the offense (obviously we will be a guard lead team), the rest of the guys primarily take of the defense. This is basically the story behind all the championship teams since 90 in my opinion. The offensive minded teams, even those terrific at it (Phoenix, Utah, Indiana), just can't seem to get it done completely." Well, the new rule changes have only been in effect for one season. I don't think you can go back to '90 when the rules were different then. The Pistons would not be able to play their brand of defense today. The new rules help teams guard the post by allowing doubling off the ball on the strong side. That way you can more effectively guard the post, even without good post defenders. HOWEVER, guarding the perimeter (the Rockets' strength) is made tougher by these same rules. Indiana, by the way, was in the Finals this year. They were not far off from winning a championship, and their defense is not that good, nor do they have a post up threat. The only thing going against them was they didn't have the best player on the court on their team. Even so, if Reggie Miller shows up in Game 2, they could've won the series. Their strength was attacking from the perimeter, very similar to what the Rockets are trying to do. ------------------ Too-Rye-Aye!
Freak, I see where you are coming from, but Indiana also might have won the title if they had a little more athleticsm on the interior. They lost a home game I think where they shot over 50% because they couldn't defend. The only team who slowed Shaq even a little (I think held him under 28PPG) was the Blazers (the series was really there for the taking) and they have more than their share of athletic and strong front court players to play solid team defense. The best 2 teams this year were LAL and Portland, they also were among the best 2 defensive teams. To me the rule changes mostly result in increased ability of guards to break down defenses (this helps us), but you still need formidable interior defense to play post defense and double quickly inside and outside. You need the kind of players to be able to help, and help quickly. Our draftees I don't think are those kinds of players. [This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited June 29, 2000).]
Excellent analysis ss. I concur that we are not a better team defensively with Collier over Pig Miller. We will have to address that need next year in the draft or FA. BTW, I do not expect Langhi to even make the team this year, barring a 2 for 1 type of trade (or the waiving of Bryce Drew). ------------------
