[quote name='cpawfan']It isn't about hearing that, it is about reading that. Reading articles from all across NBA cities, the deal was panned. The problem with that survey question, is it only focuses on the addition of Battier, not what was given up to get him. Yes, getting anything including a bag of flaming poop for Swift was an improvement, but giving up Gay was a huge price to pay and a serious drop off in talent. With a healthy TMac and Yao, Houston was a playoff team. Adding Battier didn't take them any further than they would have been without him.[/quote]</p> Some writers panned it. Some said it was a great deal. Ultimately, when all is said and done, Dawson finished 2nd in Executive of the Year -- the only reason being the Battier trade (no other significant player was added to the team). And, I think GMs understand that when judging a player acquisition you look at both the player received and the player(s) given up. That's part of their job to think in those terms. </p> </p> We needed more perimeter scorers, and we got two above average ones in James and Francis. Adelman is known to take good offensive talents and meld them into the team's offense. Considering what we had to work with in the offseason, I think they were positive acquisitions. The concern you bring up about James and Francis being "me first" and controlling the ball to much should be minimized in (a) an offensive system that focuses on ball movement and moving without the ball, and ( a system where 2 huge scoring options will already be on the floor a majority of the time. Anyways, that's my hope. We'll see how it works. </p> </p> Money doesn't matter to them, sure. That's why they were willing to buy him out. What matters is winning, and for the money Francis was earning the Knicks could do a lot better. No one in their right mind would say that Francis is worth 15 million or even 10 million. Maybe not even 5 million. But we're getting him for a pretty good price, and he doesn't have to be a star for us. I think its a very good situation for him, and hopefully it will be for us. </p> </p> You can't just look at a player's nature. You also have to look at the situation they were put in. I wouldn't want to have Francis as my first or second best player. I wouldn't want him running the offense, and doing so for 35+ minutes a night. And it goes without saying that I wouldn't want us shelling out 15 million for it. Steve is going to have a reduced role on the team, and he's going to be in a winning situation. There's never been less pressure on him to be the man. He'll likely play under 30 mpg, and his usage rate will be low (closer to 20 than 25, I bet) -- by necessity. </p> </p> Would you prefer it straight from Adelman's mouth? http://youtube.com/watch?v=XCSYmHb9oSo</p> It seems to me that you've already made up your mind about how Morey does things, and it doesn't matter that he constantly emphasizes the limitations of applying stats in basketball and the importance of traditional scouting and finding players that fit the coach's system. </p> </p> </p>
Hey just admit that Durvasa is correct.<DIV>Looking at all these posts, only proves that Durvasa is correct. </DIV><DIV> The GM did a good job of signing Battier, and Brooks looking at summer games, seems as if he has the<DIV>mentality to play the 1 guard. </DIV><DIV>Why are you trying to bring all these arguements up?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></DIV>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Maxballer)</div><div class='quotemain'>Why are you trying to bring all these arguements up?<div></div></div><div>To be fair, he just stated his opinion. I initiated the argument.</div> </p>
[quote name='durvasa'][quote name='cpawfan']It isn't about hearing that, it is about reading that. Reading articles from all across NBA cities, the deal was panned. The problem with that survey question, is it only focuses on the addition of Battier, not what was given up to get him. Yes, getting anything including a bag of flaming poop for Swift was an improvement, but giving up Gay was a huge price to pay and a serious drop off in talent. With a healthy TMac and Yao, Houston was a playoff team. Adding Battier didn't take them any further than they would have been without him.[/quote]</p> Some writers panned it. Some said it was a great deal. Ultimately, when all is said and done, Dawson finished 2nd in Executive of the Year -- the only reason being the Battier trade (no other significant player was added to the team). And, I think GMs understand that when judging a player acquisition you look at both the player received and the player(s) given up. That's part of their job to think in those terms. [/quote]</p> Again, I'm not talking about the writers, I'm talking about the blinds in their articles.</p> It is foolish to belive Dawson finished so highly because of Battier. He finished that high because the Rockets went from 34 wins to 52 wins. If that doesn't happen, he wouldn't have received the votes.</p> The question was about acquisitions, not about trades. Acquisitions includes FA signings which is why Ben Wallace was the top vote getter for biggest impact acquisition. The majority of people thought Battier would help the Rockets, that wasn't questioned. However, the majority of people believed the Rockets paid too high of a price for him. </p> </p> We shall see. My concern is adding too many redudant players insted of addressing the other needs on the roster. </p> </p> The point is that the Knicks couldn't spend that money on someone else even if they bought him out because of cap rules. </p> </p> Again, we shall see. </p> </p> That is still after the draft. Perhaps it is too cynical, but I don't put much stock in teams talking about how much they like their draft picks after the draft. </p> </p> I'm looking at what his moves have been and analyzing the data. </p> </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (durvasa)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Maxballer)</div><div class='quotemain'>Why are you trying to bring all these arguements up?</div> <div>To be fair, he just stated his opinion. I initiated the argument. </div> </p> </div></p> It has been an enjoyable debate between two people with a different perspective</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Maxballer)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hey just admit that Durvasa is correct.Looking at all these posts, only proves that Durvasa is correct. <div> The GM did a good job of signing Battier, and Brooks looking at summer games, seems as if he has thementality to play the 1 guard. <div>Why are you trying to bring all these arguements up?</div> </div> </div></p> It is a sports forum and debate is something we do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and should defend them.</p> </p>
[quote name='cpawfan']It is foolish to belive Dawson finished so highly because of Battier. He finished that high because the Rockets went from 34 wins to 52 wins. If that doesn't happen, he wouldn't have received the votes.[/quote]</p> That's true, but if the Battier trade was perceived as negative like you say, then why would he have gotten any credit at all for the increase in wins? </p> </p> That sentiment was there, certainly, but it wasn't a consensus (Marc Stein, for instance, loved the trade and he certainly isn't a stats guy). I remember the reaction being mixed, and over the course of the season the media was increasing positive about it. Certainly, the majority of Rockets fans think it was a good trade at this point. There's a tendency to overrate young players with "potential" and underestimate solid, consistent veterans like Battier. We needed a player that could help immediately -- not a player who might end up being good years down the road. </p> Also, I think in general the media overvalued Rudy Gay and undervalued Battier, relative to actual NBA people. A lot of people in the media thought Gay deserved to be a top 5 pick. Without the Rockets taking and trading him to Memphis, he may not have even been a top 10 pick. I don't expect this will sway you, but for what its worth Dawson said the following shortly after the trade:</p> source </p> </p> What are the other needs, and how could we have filled them? I agree, there is redundancy on the roster. But I think that comes with just having a ton of players signed right now. I feel we have pretty good depth at all positions. </p> </p> This, I didn't know. </p> </p> Yes, I think you are being a bit cynical. </p> I think a lot of non-stats oriented people are liking what the Rockets have done in this offseason, so the conclusion you're drawing that only a guy obsessed with stats would make such moves doesn't seem to follow. You keep saying that Morey thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and I'm thinking "based on what?!" As far as I can tell, it's coming from (a) Morey said he uses non-traditional analytical approaches to help guide his decisions and ( you don't like the decisions he's made. But it doesn't follow from those two things that Morey is a pretentious show off. </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> The Rockets were widely panned, not praised for the Battier move. There is a lot of rewriting history on that trade, but it was driven by statistical analysis.</p> What an insult to Terry Porter to compare James and Francis to him. Porter averaged 8 or more APG for 5 consecutive seasons and wasn't a chucker. Heck for that matter, when the Kings were NBA Finals contenders, Bibby shot a lot less than Francis ever did. Yes, Alston is hot garbage and needed to be replaced, but not by me first chuckers.</p> I'm curious as to your source that Adelman liked Brooks. On one hand I'm not surprised, but is it just media reports where every coach is going to positive about the teams draft picks or do you have a better source. </p> </div> </p> I don't get it, how can anyone be against the Battier-Gay trade in hindsight? In 2006, the Rockets won 34 games. We added Battier and a bunch of scrubs who never got any minutes (Bonzi, Novak, Spanoulis, Lucas, and Snyder) and lost Gay/Swift. In 2007, the Rockets won 52 games, + 18 in the win column.</p> In 2006, the Grizzlies won 49 games. They added Gay (started 43, played 78), Swift (started 18, played 54), and Lowry (only played in 10 games). In 2007, they won 20 games, -29 in the win column. </p> 2006 Rockets record against the Grizzlies: 0-4</p> 2007 Rockets record against the Grizzlies: 4-0</p> Injuries: Don't matter, T-Mac missed 11 games (12, if you count 15 minutes as a game), and Mike Miller missed 12 games. Yao missed 34 games, and Gasol missed 25 games.Dikembe missed7 games (all of which we had no starting Center)</p> Point: Battier is a winner, Rockets won from that trade. Kudos to Morey.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Montaman)</div><div class='quotemain'> I watched Aaron Brooks play from time to time in the PAC-10, and I think it's selling him short to refer to him as a 6-1 SG. While he does have the tools to be a very capable offensive force, he does have the proper mentality and desire to play a point guard role, and in fact I think he might be the ideal kind of of point for a team like Houston. Francis, Alston, and James are all exiting their athletic primes anyhow.</p> I can understand that you might have reservations about leaving the bulk of the team's distributing to a young guy like Brooks, but perhaps you might see some of Rick Adelman'sstandard trickery, here? High post passing from the 4/5 positions, maybe usingMcGrady as a point forward now and again? There'sat least enough options for the Rockets to where I wouldn't lament the Brookspick asa bad thing, certainly not at this point.</p> As far as Francis likely wanting to get more shots than would be availible... I'm sure he realized the point guard glut when he signed. If he'sso determined to be a nuisance as to complain about not getting enough shots off (which, for the record, I suspect he won't be), then he'll just play his way off the team for the second time in his career.</p></div> <font face="comic sans ms,sand">why does Point Forward always comes back to haunt us lol</font></p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think this team needs a more athletic power forward to go along with Yao. I think if they get a real tough defender at the PF spot, and make sure Francis, James, and McGrady are each getting at least 4-5 assists a game, then Houston will be a serious contender. A lot of that depends on Addelmen though. I think Houston has potential to be a 55 win team, or a 30-40 win team. Its hard to tell.</div> </p> they already tried that. (See: Stromile Swift). They need a good rebounder, and a smart defender. i like Chuck Hayes there, i think he should start. and Scola should help out there, too. </p> And nevermind all this talk about the PGs, McGrady should run this team, with the other players playing off of him. </p> too bad it probbably wouldn't work out like that. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (igotask8board)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> The Rockets were widely panned, not praised for the Battier move. There is a lot of rewriting history on that trade, but it was driven by statistical analysis.</p> What an insult to Terry Porter to compare James and Francis to him. Porter averaged 8 or more APG for 5 consecutive seasons and wasn't a chucker. Heck for that matter, when the Kings were NBA Finals contenders, Bibby shot a lot less than Francis ever did. Yes, Alston is hot garbage and needed to be replaced, but not by me first chuckers.</p> I'm curious as to your source that Adelman liked Brooks. On one hand I'm not surprised, but is it just media reports where every coach is going to positive about the teams draft picks or do you have a better source. </p> </div> </p> I don't get it, how can anyone be against the Battier-Gay trade in hindsight? In 2006, the Rockets won 34 games. We added Battier and a bunch of scrubs who never got any minutes (Bonzi, Novak, Spanoulis, Lucas, and Snyder) and lost Gay/Swift. In 2007, the Rockets won 52 games, + 18 in the win column.</p> In 2006, the Grizzlies won 49 games. They added Gay (started 43, played 78), Swift (started 18, played 54), and Lowry (only played in 10 games). In 2007, they won 20 games, -29 in the win column. </p> 2006 Rockets record against the Grizzlies: 0-4</p> 2007 Rockets record against the Grizzlies: 4-0</p> Injuries: Don't matter, T-Mac missed 11 games (12, if you count 15 minutes as a game), and Mike Miller missed 12 games. Yao missed 34 games, and Gasol missed 25 games. Dikembe missed 7 games (all of which we had no starting Center)</p> Point: Battier is a winner, Rockets won from that trade. Kudos to Morey.</p> </p></div> </p> i think you might be looking at this the wrong way. you have to remember, the Rockets also had billions of injuries the previous year, to key players such as Yao, TMac, Sura, and even Wesley. </p> and you're forgetting Pau was injured this last season, and missed the first 22 games, and was hindered by that injurie for at least half the season. Not to mention they were using more of the young players during the season.</p> But i still believe that was a good trade for the Rockets. Battier is a quality veteran player who can do it all--shoot, score, defend, rebound...i approve of that deal, whether it was about stats or not.</p>
