[Interesting take on Chris Finch from the FanPosts. - Tom]

The idea has recently come up quite a bit that the Rockets are "grooming" a certain coach for the head coach position in the future.  I detest this idea for a number of reasons.

Continue reading this post »

His name is No Van Gundy. 

I mean seriously, how many chances does the Van Gundy family get to squander opportunities for the Rockets?

 I truly hope that SVG doesn't become the coach.  If he gets it, I predict an era of close but no cigar.  His brother Jeff's moribund offense sunk the team's chances when Yao and McGrady were healthy and in their prime.  SVG has similiar problems.  He can coach a team that has stars, but he can't get them over the hump.  Both coaches have lots of positives, but simply don't have what it takes to get a team to the championship level.   

I have a lot of respect for the Van Gundys, but ultimately they are fodder for the Phil Jackson's and Pat Rileys of the coaching world.  When the chips are down, these guys do not deliver.  It's as simple as that.  We might have a strong regular season record, but the pattern is there.  They have had lots of great players and been on great teams, but as the playoffs wore on, they seemed to fall apart against better competition. 

Lawrence Frank is an option right now and his work with the Nets was excellent until the owner started selling off the team.  Kevin McHale is from a winning tradition in Boston.  Mario Elie or Sam Cassell might be good coaches from the Rudy T mold of bringing in former Rocket players.  I don't know who the best coach is.  I just know I will be severely dissapointed and bitter if a second Van Gundy is given the opportunity to under achieve with the talent given. 

I think our very own T-Mart should replace Solomon in the Chronicle (at least for the basketball related commentary since I don't know the self-proclaimed king's opinion on other sports).  If this takes off online, perhaps it will happen.  I come to TDS first for any Rockets related news because I know I'm getting a good quality news and writing from the guys who run it.  Plus, its pretty messed up when the city's most dedicated fans universally call out a columnist for not knowing anything about the sport he writes about.  Blinebury could say things I disagreed with, but his knowledge of the game was strong and his columns entertaining.  Solomon just seems to be designing toilet paper.       

After ripping apart the Spurs, but Memphis winning their game, the Rockets still stand 3 games out of 8th place with a respectable 40-36 winning record.  The remaining Memphis schedule is pretty easy and they seem determined not to be denied a playoff spot.  I don't think we will overtake Memphis.  They don't appear ready to self-destruct. 

New Orleans, however, is tied with Memphis at 14 games behind to the Rockets 17 games behind. 

In the next two weeks, the Rockets play Atlanta, Sacramento, New Orleans, the Clips, Dallas and Minnesota. 

N.O. plays Indiana, Houston, Phoenix, Mempis, Utah, Dallas.

We play N.O. which will move us up a full game if we win.  Unfortunately, its the second night of a back to back and is on the road.  If the Rockets win all their games in a row and N.O. stumbles on their more difficult schedule (more difficult opponents but easier actual schedule), the Rockets could realistically make the playoffs. 

They will have to play like iron men though.    

____________________________________

Additionally, I am tired of teams with winning records not making the playoffs when Eastern Conference doormats continually get playoff spots year after year.  I think a corrective rule change could be to allow the teams with the highest winning records outside the playoff 8 in their conference to replace teams in the other conference's playoff bracket who don't have winning records.  Obviously, this would probably never happen but it would make more exciting basketball to see teams like the C's and the Magic actually face competitive first round opponents like their W.C. counterparts have to do every year.   

I was kind of shocked to see all the people who are clearly basketball fans arguing that we should just "play the young guys" and not compete for a playoff spot, that this would somehow serve the "long term interests" of the team. 

Allow me to explain why this is wrong. 

First, the best way to develop your players is by giving them playoff experience.  There is absolutely no substitute for that.  Only Scola has meaningful action as a starter and that was 2 years ago.  Everyone on the team will benefit tremendously from playoff experience.  Every year without this experience, the competition gets a leg up.  The playoffs are a totally different game.  Just ask the 1997 Minnesota Timberwolves who got swept by Hakeem, Charles and Clyde.  There is no doubt that KG is a champion now in part because of his experience in that series. 

Second, the Rockets have lots of the types of players they could get from a pick outside of the top ten.  We don't have a strong need for any more role players.  There are logjams at multiple positions already. 

Third, the specific player most in need of development because of his tremendous upside is Patrick Patterson, but he is already getting more minutes because he has earned it.  To imply we need to tank our playoff chances to get Patterson more experience is ludicrous.  Additionally, he will certainly see playoff action if we make it and for a rookie to get playoff experience is extremely valuable. 

Fourth, we will not rebuild by having a terrible season and getting the number 1 to 5 pick.  The Rockets are simply too good for that to happen.  Additionally, that's the Clippers strategy and it sucks.  The best way for the Rockets to become contenders is to show all the all-star free agents that they are already a great team.  Secondly, being able to trade veterans with playoff experience will land a much better caliber player than just having lots of guys with potential. 

Fifth, a team tanking its chances is pathetic to watch and I hope to never witness it from my home team.  Ultimately, you support the team you have.  That's what being a fan is.  AND, you root for them to win. 

Sixth, tanking games will create a loser mentality that can potentially destroy competitiveness for years to come.

I could see the Spurs playing bench players in their disaster of a season before getting Tim Duncan, BUT they had no hope whatsoever of making the playoffs and had a pretty high chance of getting the number one pick in the draft. 

Rockets are down 1.5 games from 8th place and 1 game behind Utah for 9th.  Clearly, the race has tightened. 

I don't have the energy to do an analysis of all the teams' schedules, but here is Houston's from here on out:

March

18 - Boston

20 - Uta

23 - GS

27 @ Mia

29 @ NJ

30 @ Phi

April

1 – SA

3 – Atl

5 – Sac  

6 – @ NO

9 – LAC

11 – Dal

13 – @ Min

This is a schedule that includes Boston, Miami, San Antonio, Dallas and Utah.  With the exception of Miami, we play the toughest teams at home, but this is still a murderous schedule.  It gets them tough games at home and sets up possible upsets on the road because they'll be so tired from their homestand. 

I will admit, I was a huge Brooks supporter and was upset to see him go.  I will still follow what he does and root for him as often as it doesn't conflict with my Rockets' loyalty. 

HOWEVER, Lowry has played nothing short of incredible.  He is getting strong assists and rebound numbers while scoring at a healthy clip and leading the team to a long winning streak.  I don't think he is the go to scorer that Brooks proved to be in crunch time during the last season and the Portland and Lakers series the season before that.  But, Lowry is performing very well and we have him locked to a long term contract.  The dual point guard situation was good for no one and it seems like the decision that was made has been panning out.

Do Brooks supporters need to admit they wrong or was letting him go still the wrong move despite how great Lowry was playing? 

Since their combined age is now about 150, we should get to pay them all the veterans minimum divided by three.  They will share a jersey with the name Kleinnington-Longley and #50.  They will be given 12 fouls each, will get 4 rebounds per game each over a course of 10 minutes per player and will NEVER SHOOT A 3 POINTER.  They will play center the old fashioned way by getting an exception from the 3 second rule and just standing in the paint with their hands in the air.  

Brad Miller will be waived.      

Who should get the start though?  Longley, Klein or Wennington?  Debate amongst yourselves. 

It seems the Rocket's major weakness is rebounding.  We have great scorers on the team, but rebounding is atrocious at times.  Kevin Love is a guy who, at 6'10, can play center and is averaging 21 and 16 boards a game.  It doesn't look like Jordan Hill is becoming the force some of us (me) thought he could become and Brad Miller seems content to float around the three point line like he's Toni Kukoc and Jordan, Rodman and Pippen are inside fighting for the rebounds.  Scola is a great scorer, but it seems like he is also a huge over-achiever with the rebounds he does get.  With Minnesota being in complete rebuilding mode and Love being someone who doesn't have the flashly dunks to draw in fans, he might be someone the T-Wolves would part with for some good contracts, unless I am misunderstanding what draws in Minnesota fans. 

I am thinking the Wolves might take some combination of Brad Miller, Scola, Paterson or Hill if we threw in a good guard like Brooks or Lowry.  Basically, we would be giving them some depth in exchange for one really good player.  Obviously, any trade involving BOTH Scola and Paterson or BOTH Brooks and Lowry would be a no go.  No trades with Martin should be taken.  In my view, he is the best player in the franchise.  Also, I would like to see Budinger eventually become the starting small forward.  With the expiring contract of Battier, we need a replacement ready to go and it wouldn't surprise me to see Budinger averaging from 15 to 21 ppg at some point in the future.  So, I wouldn't want to see Budinger go.  Paterson is a guy who is brimming with potential and he will cause a logjam at the 4 spot at some point in the future like Landry did.  He has shown an ability to rebound so it would be difficult to trade someone like that before the potential is realized.      

The Rockets have lots of offensive weapons, but they need boards to make the offense run.  What do y'all think?   

I hate to be the guy who suggests a trade, but the season just isn't panning out like we thought it would and they aren't going to stink up the place like the Clippers, so there is no hope of getting saved by the draft.  With lots of good players on the team, it seems like a trade is the only way to improve. 

So, these are the upcoming teams we play until the new year.  It doesn't look like the back to backs will be ridiculous.  It's a tough schedule in terms of games per week and  travelling, but that's the NBA.  Does anyone else think this is a relatively easy schedule until January that should give the Rockets the ability to right their ship.  Right off the bat we have Wash, Indiana and NY....

Continue reading this post »

posted this over on the rockets blog:

Anyone else enjoying watching Boston beat up Miami and take the Heat lunch money?

by ClutchFanSince94 on Oct 26, 2010 5:15 PM PDT

• 4 comments
• Email
• Print
• Admin
  • Edit
  • Delete

The score is 25-13 as I write this.  It's in the second quarter so definitely low scoring but the C's are playing great D.  Miami just looks really lost out there.  They've been standing around and doing iso attacks on the basket while the C's are playing pretty well as a team.  Shaq surprised me with one alley oop slam and one incredible jam on the fast break where he basically used the rim as a chin up bar.  Obviously the Heat are playing their first regular season game and could get dramatically better but right now they are kind of stinking up the place and have no interior presence against the C's who are really deep at the 4 and 5 with Shaq, Garnett, Perkins and Jermaine O'Neal and Glen Davis.  The C's even have Von Wafer on the bench...

The score is 25-13 as I write this.  It's in the second quarter so definitely low scoring but the C's are playing great D.  Miami just looks really lost out there.  They've been standing around and doing iso attacks on the basket while the C's are playing pretty well as a team.  Shaq surprised me with one alley oop slam and one incredible jam on the fast break where he basically used the rim as a chin up bar.  Obviously the Heat are playing their first regular season game and could get dramatically better but right now they are kind of stinking up the place and have no interior presence against the C's who are really deep at the 4 and 5 with Shaq, Garnett, Perkins and Jermaine O'Neal and Glen Davis.  The C's even have Von Wafer on the bench...

We've seen a lot of criticism of Stern on this board and in the media recently. Let's take an objective look at the facts.

Without a doubt, David Stern has presided over the largest expansion of the NBA in its history. Stern became commissioner in 1984 when the NBA was a league of haves and have nots with the Lakers and Celtics on one tier and then numerous teams that moved about in search of economic stability - the San Diego Rockets being one of them. He oversaw the league when it exploded in popularity and expanded to its current size by adding the Timberwolves, Heat, Magic, Hornets, Grizzlies, Bobcats, and Raptors. Stern was president of the league when basketball became a truly global game, not just a national third tier sport below football and baseball.

That begs the question: How much of this is attributable to Stern? What is the legacy of David Stern and is he the right person to lead the NBA into the future?

Continue reading this post »

I'm on the move and don't have much time to write, but I saw this on yahoo sports where Stern said contraction (ie, reducing the amount of teams in the NBA) is on the table as a way to cut expenses or remove teams that do not bring in money to the league.  What does everyone think?  Is this a legit option?  Who would go? Would this benefit the league or be a colossal blunder?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Aq59D5bRZ.YeZSNo1_y6UbG8vLYF?slug=ap-stern

But, but, but, but… that will make big markets too tough to compete with.  Big markets will just pay all the players really large sums of money and no one else will be able to compete. 

But, but, but, but, but, b-b-b-but... owners will make bad decisions and overpay players.

But, players are overpaid…

Bad teams need to get the best players to stay competitive.

A big problem with professional sports are FANS who believe players make too much money and need to have their salaries artificially lowered by a salary cap and that owners need to be protected from making mistakes.  Also problematic is that most fans completely buy into the owners’ attempts to mitigate their risks.  By denying owners and players the freedom to contract, we keep sending the best players to the WORST franchises via the draft.  Think about how many great teams could have actually done something productive with the 35 lottery picks that the Clippers have had sense 1980.  Think about how quickly a team could rebound from the bad decisions of a previous GM if it weren’t hampered by salary cap considerations.    

Contracts would become much more performance based and it would be unlikely to see a player like McGrady making 22 million dollars a year to ride the pine in a fancy suit for years on end.  Players would have an incentive to work even harder if contracts were drafted giving players serious benefits for going deep into the playoffs.  Currently, salary cap restrictions prevent this.

In short, the Salary Cap and the NBA Draft are an attempt by owners to mitigate their risks, but it actually just benefits the worst franchises and the worst owners.  Good owners would benefit by getting rid of this system.  In a true free market, salaries could be higher but they would go to the most productive players.  Bad franchises wouldn’t keep getting rewarded for their ineptitude with great draft picks.  But, rather, the talented players would migrate to the great franchises that are run well (like Kobe did to the Lakers by demanding a trade from Charlotte).  Owners who fail would have to sell their franchises to more savvy business people who can find and evaluate talent better.  This would lead to better basketball which would lead to greater profit for the NBA and owners because its easier to sell a better product.      

Teams in big markets wouldn’t be able to destroy teams in weak markets (arguably) like in baseball.  A basketball team only needs ten players and talent will naturally spread out by the talented people going where they will get the most playing time.  Some teams will be winners and some will be losers, but that’s always true.     

So far, these are only the basketball related reasons to eliminate the salary cap.  The human reasons are more compelling.  There is something truly barbaric about getting athletes to be “drafted” with no say in what team will choose them.   After they run and jump for people making notes, they will then be chosen by others who may buy, sell or trade them and determine what city they will live in.  It would be much more dignified to allow players and team owners the ability to meet together and come to mutual agreements that don’t involve one party having the power to alter the other person’s life in a major way. 

Additionally, when team and player no longer wish to stay together, they could both simply void the contract and each go their separate way without having to disrupt the lives of ten other unrelated people in sign and trades and things like that.

Basketball would be vastly improved by simply letting players and team owners come to mutually beneficial agreements and just making it about basketball.

I wonder how many people will agree and how many will make the tired arguments about parity and competition which don’t hold up to scrutiny.       

Speculation about winning 73 is pretty much what the Miami Heat blog and former Rocket’s coach JVG are up to these days.  I’m thinking that they won’t beat the Bulls record of 72 games, nor even reach 70.  Why?  The 95-96 Bulls were already a tough team that was put together before Jordan returned for the 95 Playoffs and before Rodman was brought in during the offseason. 

Prior to Jordan returning and Rodman joining the Bulls, they had a deep roster with Pippen, Ron Harper, and Kukoc.  They had legit role players in Steve Kerr and even Luc Longley and Bill Wennington.  While the big guys may not have been world beaters, they still could score a few times a game, put a body on someone and grab a few boards.  They gave the Bulls needed size.  Ron Harper and Pippen were both lock down defenders and Harper could score having average 20 a game prior in his career.   Kukoc was a great offensive weapon also.  This was a team that was already loaded with offensive and defensive threats. They went deep in the playoffs before Jordan returned.  Add the greatest scoring guard of all time and the greatest rebounder of all-time and that is a recipe that will send a team into 70 win stratosphere. 

The Heat, in contrast, have no lockdown defenders besides Wade.  I’m not sure if I would call LeBron a lockdown player.  Bosh is not at the same level as Rodman in rebounding and they have no big bodies on the team so they will suffer when teams try to beat up on them inside.  Whether they have an inside presence to go 82 games without breakdowns is highly debate-able.  The Heat have no scoring threats besides the big three like the Bulls had Kukoc and Harper.

Finally, the Bulls were an established team with a long track record of playing together.  3 rings prior to Jordan’s retirement and two deep playoff runs (albeit, one without Jordan) mean that the Bulls understood how to play together long before the 72 win season.  The Heat big 3 have only played together in global competition with other all-stars and the supporting cast is just showing up like a casting call at a Hollywood talent agency.

I’m not saying the Heat will never get there or that they will be awful, but to say they will break 70 wins is highly optimistic.  To be fair, the poster from the heat blog only says its possibly, but we all know they are all thinking it. 

FINALLY – Jordan and Pippen came out from day one and made 70 wins their goal.  They had the guts to set that as the objective.  LeBron, Wade and Bosh don’t want that kind of pressure.  That says everything we need to know. 

I made a chart but wasn't able to post it, but this is basically the simple response to the Knicks fans who have been talking trash about Houston.  I figure Houston fans don't need the visual but Knicks fans may want to have a friend convert this into an Excel chart so that they can visualize and internalize the numbers better.

We won't even bring up the 94 Finals.  We'll just keep it to the last decade.  There are lots of ways to analyze this but I will simply say that in our worst year, we only lost two less than the Knicks THAT YEAR and that the Knicks have only won 40 games once in the last decade in 2000-2001.  Oh, and. one more:  3 years the Knicks have not cracked 30 wins.  OUCH.  Perhaps this is why they are obessing so hard over Carmelo Anthony.

Proposed Roster Overhaul

 TRADE #1 – Yao, Miller, and Martin for Steven Curry (GSW PG who averages 17.5 ppg and 5.9 apg)

 TRADE #2 – Trade the now expendable AB for Rip Hamilton who will provide veteran leadership

 TRADE #3 – Trade the rights to the NY picks, Patterson, Battier, Hill and Scola for Boris Diaw

 FREE AGENT SIGNING – Sign Vlade Divac to fill the void at center.

 Here is our starting line-up:

 PG – Steven Curry

SG – Rip Hamilton

SF – Boris Diaw

PF – Jarod (sp?) Jefferies (sp?)

C – Vlade Divac

 This trade would improve us because we would get a PG with room to improve and we would be in
“win now” mode with veterans at both wings as well as center.  And Jefferies is the best perimeter defender is the league so he could battle with Nowitzki but he’s also tall enough to go again Pau.  Also. Rip Hamilton is a Kobe stopper as evidenced in the 2004 Finals.  Diaw is a Kobe stopper too.  So, we have two guys who can lock down Kobe, a big who can lock down Dirk and veteran savvy at the center position. 

 Come on, guys.  You have to admit that this is the best roster overhaul that anyone has presented thus far.    

I'm just thinking back to the last time the Rockets traded for a guy who averaged in the upper twenties to thirty per game.  That was a colossal disaster.  I'm sure we would have to get rid of Brooks or Martin, if not both (remember, we traded Francis and Mobley for McGrady).  And we would have to get rid of a power player, most likely (like Cato in the McG trade).  Who wants to get rid of Scola or Hill on top of losing great scoring threats? 

If all we have to do is trade someone like Patterson and Hill and a few other players who haven't been integral in the past, then that would be fine.  BUT, if we have to gut our team to get Carmelo then I would object strongly.  Anthony seems like an overall good guy with some immaturity issues, but that's similiar to how I would describe McG before the trade to Houston.  I just don't want to put all of our eggs in this basket.  I feel like we've been down this road before with Barkley and McGrady. 

Comments?

It looks like Lowry lost the most in this trade.  The purpose for the Lee trade - other than cap relief - was clearly to get a soldi back-up SG.  SG is the position that Lowry slides over to earn more minutes.  Now - unless AB is having a bad night - Lowry will likely be forced to play back-up minutes to a guy capable of playing 40 minutes a game.  Also, he may have to fight Lee for back-up PG duties depending on Lee's ballhandling skils.  Lee's defense could potentially be good enough to use him as a shut-down defender at the point when AB is resting and Lee could rotate between back-up SG and back-up PG.  Big loss of minutes for Lowry if Lee comes on strong which he is expected to do. 

Budinger appears to be the clear winner in this trade.  His chief competition for SF minutes was Ariza.  If Patterson matures into more of a PF than SF then Budinger is basically guaranteed at least back-up SF minutes.  If not, Budinger gets to fight with a rookie for the back-up minutes.  With Battier getting older or resting for playoff duty, Budinger might even get the starter nod if he comes into the season strong. 

To summarize, Lowry gets a thrown into a logjam at PG/SG and the SF position opens up so Budinger can compete to be the starter. 

Inspired by the draft game post but without the patience, I have created this game call "All Time Best Starting Five."  I will pick my all time best starting five that includes any player in his prime.  Then anyone else can pick a team that they think could beat it and we can discuss.  One rule:  No one gets Michael Jordan (or "roster player" for old school NBA live fans).  We need creativity, people.   

I choose:

PG - John Stockton

SG - Clyde Drexler

SF - Larry Bird

PF - Tim Duncan

C - Hakeem Olajuwon

I guess this list means I believe the 80's to 90's were the best years of basketball, but I seriously think this team would dominate anyone and would give wedgies to LeBosh Wade.  I thought about Mitch Richmond at SG but Clyde is better all around and is much tougher.  Also, I debated putting Barkley or Malone at PF but Duncan in his prime was as dominant as Kareem and I can cheat by putting him at PF.  Most importantly, everyone on here but Stockton is a champion with the will to go the distance and Stockton only came short because of a guy wearing #23 from Chicago. 

Challenges anybody? 

When the Rockets are not playing, I usually have a back-up option of who to root for, obviously with the rockets taking priority any time there is a head to head match-up.  I'm thinking the Thunder are my top back-up option now because they are pretty fun to watch, have former Rockets PG Scotty Brooks as their coach and, as a Longhorn, I have to support fellow alum, Kevin Durant. 

Some of my other back up options are 1) whoever is playing against Utah unless we need Utah to beat someone for playoff rankings, 2) LA, but only if they are playing Miami 3) anyone playing LA that is not Miami, 4) Spurs, Mavs (because they are the other Texas teams).

Thoughts?

Or Bird for playing with McHale and Parish?

Or Hakeem for playing with Clyde, Kobe for playing with Shaq, Wilt Chamberlain for playing with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, Bill Russell for playing with 25 other All-Stars, or Jordan for playing with Pippen and Grant, or Dr. J for playing with Moses?

NO.

The reason is because these teams were put together by a general manager who knew what he was doing in creating a vision and putting together a team.  That begs the questions though, why is it great for basketball when a general manager puts together a great team but it is terrible for basketball for players to put together a great team?  Isn’t the end result the same?

How great would it be for the game if Magic Johnson played for the Los Angeles CLIPPERS and never won more than 36 games a season?  How about if Jordan toiled in obscurity with players one year removed from the CBA?  Actually, before Pippen and Grant that’s pretty much what he did and the NBA suffered for it.  How about if Kevin Garnett had never been traded to Boston after wasting away his youth in Minnesota where his best teammates were the over the hill versions of Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell, oh and Wally World?

I guess you get where I’m going with this.  Basketball is best served when the greatest players come together to form the greatest teams and competition is pushed to a higher level.  Hence, we should celebrate what Miami did this offseason and hope it spurs greater competition in the league.  But, I guess that won’t happen because the players and not a GM made the team happen.  Too bad.    

[Nice analysis from the FanPosts -- Tom]

Carroll Dawson was the Rockets GM from 1996 to 2007.  I wanted to grade his performance since it seems like the current guy is much more productive in that position.  How much better is DM than CD?  Or, is DM just lucky?  Let’s do the analysis.  I’m not sure if he participated in the 1996 draft so this analysis will not give credit for the Randy Livingston / Othella Harrington draft class. 

1997 – drafted Rodrick Rhodes (24) & Serge Zwicker (2nd, 1); passed on no stars

1998 – drafted Michael Dickerson (14),  Bryce Drew (16), Mirsad Turkcan (18), Cuttino Mobley (2nd, 12); passed on Ricky Davis (21), Al Harrington (25), Ruben Patterson (2nd, 2), Rafer Alston (2nd, 10), Rashard Lewis (2nd, 3)

1999 – drafted Kenny Thomas (22), Tyrone Washington (2nd, 44), Venson Hamilton (2nd, 50); passed on Devean George (23), Andre Kirilenko (24)

2000 – drafted Jason Collier (15), Dan Langhi (2nd, 2); passed on Hedo Turkoglu (16), Desmond Mason (17), Quentin Richardson (18), Speedy Claxton (20), Michael Redd (2nd, 14)

2001 – drafted Richard Jefferson (13, traded for Eddie Griffin), Jason Collins (15, also traded), Brandon Armstrong (18); passed on Troy Murphy (14), Zach Randolph (19), Brendan Haywood (20), Jamaal Tinsley (27), Tony Parker (28), Gilbert Arenas (2nd, 2), Mehmet Okur (2nd, 9)

2002 – drafted Yao Ming (1), Bostjan Nachbar (15), Tito Maddox (2nd, 9); passed on (after the Nachbar pick) Tayshaun Prince (19), Carlos Boozer (2nd, 6), Luis Scola (2nd, 27)

2003 – No 1st Round Picks, drafted Malick Badiane (2nd, 15); passed on Kyle Korver

2004 – No 1st Round Picks, drafted Luis Flores (2nd, 27)

2005 – drafted Luther Head (24); passed on David Lee (30);   

2006 – drafted Rudy Gay (8, traded for Battier), Steve Novak (2nd, 2)

From the 2007 to 2010 drafts, DM drafted Aaron Brooks at 26 and Carl Landry in the second round.  In Boston, DM participated in drafting Rondo and Kendrick Perkins.  What marks the CD years isn’t just the spectacular blunders (passing up Rashard Lewis 3 times, trading Rudy Gay for Battier, trading Richard Jefferson for Eddie Griffin, missing star after star) but is actually the numerous years where we couldn’t even find someone who could get a spot on an NBA roster.  Combined with 2003 and 2004 when we didn’t have a draft pick, CD’s stewardship of the draft was like a colossal shipwreck that stifled the Rockets’ ability to get vital young talent.  CD did find us Cuttino Mobley though.  That was one good, non-obvious pick.       

Now, lets look at trades.  Here, CD does a little better.  He got us Barkley.  But, he had to gut the entire team.  CD got us Pippen for a steal.  The Francis trade was a no brainer and Francis forced that trade.  Then the McGrady trade got a high value for assets that seemed to be at their peak.  However, with CD we see a pattern of neglecting the draft and swinging for the fences with big trades for superstars.  During that era, the Rockets’ big weakness was always journeymen at key spots (Matt Maloney, Jon Barry, Steve Novak, etc. playing big roles in the playoffs and getting outmatched by guys like Stockton and Dirk).

Now, lets look at DM’s trades.  DM has gotten us stars like Kevin Martin and Luis Scola via trade, but he has never gutted the team in order to do so. 

So, what’s the CD legacy?  Was CD a guy who made the blockbuster trade but his stars couldn’t pull it off or was CD’s decade overall the lost decade for Rockets’ basketball? 

As much as I shudder to think about this, if the Lakers defeat Miami in the Finals in 2011 then that would give Kobe the ability to surpass Jordan in terms of legacy.  Jordan has never faced a playoff team as loaded in talent.  Additionally, LeBron and Wade individually are compared to Kobe.  If Kobe dispatched them both and Bosh, then this would give him a legitimate claim to surpass Jordan in terms of being the all time greatest player. 

Generally members of this board who are vocal on the matter fall into two categories.  The first category is people who believe AB is an all-star caliber point guard and the second is people who believe he’s a great player but doesn’t belong in the same discussion as the “elites.”

Allow me to make the case the AB is an elite, all-star caliber guard, or rather, he will be by the season’s end.

Continue reading this post »

My second big-post (I am planning to be more active).  I’ve been thinking about all the talk about the Lowry re-signing and the anticipated Scola re-signing.  There appear to be a few main points being made by people, both of which I think are not true. 

1)      Signing Lowry and Scola could hurt the team financially if the Rockets must match ridiculous offers made by desperate GM’s who lack the ability to find good players with scouting and data analysis. 

2)      Signing Lowry will cause conflict with Aaron Brooks as both play the point and Brooks’ rookie contract is up next year and he will be due a huge pay raise.

First, it appears that in the next few years we will have the expiring contracts of David Andersen ($2.3mm), Battier ($6.8mm), Chuck ($2.1mm) and Jared Jeffries ($6.5mm).  It looks like Battier’s time may be coming to an end with Ariza, Budinger and now Patterson all capable of playing small forward and, for as great a defender and leader as Battier is, $7mm being too much to pay for 8ppg and 5 rpg.  So, that is $17.7 million that will be expiring in the next several years.  Lowry is getting $6mm of that, leaving $11.7 million.  That money will go a long way to re-signing Scola and AB.  AND, the Rockets will be developing Hill, Patterson, and Budinger.  So, if one or more of those players develops into a star, the Rockets can always use their Bird rights to sign them over the cap.  Ditto for the Knicks picks.  By focusing on developing young talent, the Rockets can keep retaining the guys that show promise and just keep finding new players to step up.  It is a great system that is made possible when a GM is able to consistently identify new talent and effectively use the draft and trades to find undervalued young players.  Check, check and check for Houston’s front office. 

So, it looks like the Rockets can easily handle the financial ramifications of the Lowry, Scola (and then Brooks) re-signings.

Second, it has been brought up that there may be an emerging conflict with both Lowry and AB being too talented to develop together and that the Rockets may find themselves in an either or situation.  To respond to that, it is pretty clear that Lowry is a good deal at $6mm and at the very least the Rockets have kept a good asset that they can trade if a conflict emerges down the road.  However, I think that Lowry and AB should be kept together and that no conflict will emerge.  Here is why…

Lowry is not just a back-up PG.  He is also the back-up SG.  He is the best second option at both those positions, so he should be able to soak up substantial playing time.  He is even is able to use his playmaking ability to be the playmaker with AB the scoring guard when they are playing together.  But, AB is the starter.  He is a 20ppg PG with a lightning quick handle.  He seems to score at will sometimes.  AB’s numbers are virtually identical to Chauncey Billups’s and both are tied for being the second highest scoring PG in the league behind Derrick Rose, but AB played ALL EIGHTY-TWO GAMES, 4 higher than Rose and 9 higher than Billups.  

However, Lowry is also extremely valuable.  When Lowry went down, we would get destroyed when our third string PG went into the games.  If anything, we need another strong PG to back up Lowry.  Last season, PG seemed to be the most crucial position to the Rockets’ success.

FINALLY, it appears that the Rockets are positioned well to be a major contender this season.  We have a backcourt that averaged 40 plus last season, a great defender in Ariza and two talented big men in the line-up.  We also have an extremely deep and talented reserve roster. Our roster would likely be something like this:

1)      AB, backed up by Lowry

2)      Martin, backed up by Lowry and Budinger

3)      Ariza, backed up by Budinger and Battier

4)      Scola, backed up by Patterson and Chuck

5)      Yao, backed up by Hill (6’10) and Chuck

That is a ridiculously deep roster.  Even if Yao only averages 11 and 7, he is still 7’6 and we are still stacked at every position.  The fact that the guard and PF spots have so much offensive fire-power gives Yao the ability to work his way back into top form. 

So, despite all the concerns with the restricted free agency situation, the Rockets are good to go to make a serious run for the next three years at least.  Coached by Adelman, this is going to be an incredible offensive squad.  With the interior guarded by Yao, it will also be a great defensive squad as well. 

Then the Knicks picks will be continued boosts that will keep the roster replenished indefinitely.  Good times ahead.  BIG REASONS for optimism and a great time to be a Rocket’s fan. 

Hello everyone.  This is my first post so I hope someone finds it interesting.  With the stress of the Rockets being a longshot, dark horse contender for the number 8 spot  in the west, I had some diversionary thoughts while they play it out.

First, is there anyone else who feels that if the Rockets were an Eastern Conference squad that they would be at least a top five team in the East (below Boston, Cleveland and Orlando but above most everyone else in the East)?  This has been a point that I thought about often in the years that they've missed the playoffs only to see atrocious teams with losing records make the playoffs in the East.  Right now Miami has the 8th seed with a 500 record so I can't complain too much, but in past years it has been really bad with horrible teams making it in the east and the rockets getting left out in the west.  But, Houston is above 500 now so maybe I can complain.   

Second, how good are they going to be with Yao?  Without a guy who was a star before the season started (except McGrady) the Rockets have competed and kicked some serious tail when they weren't exhausted or run ragged by the schedule.  Chuck Hayes has done a great job but his ppg is nowhere near what even a rusty or recovering Yao Ming is capable of.  If Yao only gets 10 shots a game, he adds so many points to a team that had trouble establishing a go to scorer.  I'm guessing if everyone is relatively healthy next year, they win 55 games with Yao back.  Is it too optimistic to dream about a 60 plus win season and trip to at least the Conference finals?