Guest N/A Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Exactly, they should be trading their players. Charlotte traded Gerald Wallace because they realized that they are going in circles by keeping him. They need to trade Steven Jackson too. Indy has Hibbert and Collison, and should trade Granger and let Paul George start. Granger hasn't even got them to the playoffs yet, so I'd trade him while his value is his highest. Milwaukee has Jennings and Bogut, but with all the injuries, they should trade Salmons, who's been known to spark the team he's traded too. ---------- And it's not tanking. Trade the old veterans who won't be there when you turn it all around, and play the young guys so you can rebuild NOW. How many teams were mediocre with veterans, made the eight seed, then won the finals a few years later? The Golden State Warriors had the eight seed, then a 50 win season the next year, and now look at them. You can't trade veterans like it's nothing. No one wants Salmons or Granger's terrible contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleveland's Finest Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 People have wanted Salmons...he's gone from Sac-town to Chicago to Milwaukee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N/A Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 People have wanted Salmons...he's gone from Sac-town to Chicago to Milwaukee. That was before he signed a 5 year 40 million contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleveland's Finest Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Well, Milwaukee shouldn't have done that...they signed Salmons, and also Gooden to big contracts....were they going to be a top four seed? Then why do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N/A Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Well, Milwaukee shouldn't have done that...they signed Salmons, and also Gooden to big contracts....were they going to be a top four seed? Then why do that? They were trying to win a championship/make playoffs and it failed miserably. Even if they did win the lottery maybe the #1 pick would put them over the luxury tax after they signed him. http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 The chances of a 9 or 10th seed winning the lottery are about the same as an 8th seed upsetting the best team in the conference. Before I wanted to miss the playoffs but after taking a deeper look at this draft class, I'm not so sure anymore because outside of the top 8 picks there isn't much that would help the Rockets right now. I wanted a project center but we already have one in Thabeet and Fredette is less appealing with the acquisition of Goran Dragic. Houston sports right now are so freaking dull that I wouldn't be opposed to making the playoffs as the 8th seed and facing the Spurs. I remember my first playoff experience was when the Rockets made it as the 7th seed and faced the 2004 Lakers, the series lasted merely 5 games but the city was buzzing and I watched and anticipated every game of the series with a passion. The downside to making the playoffs is that the Suns pick will be lower (if the Suns miss the playoffs, we get the Magic pick instead of the Suns) and the Grizzlies could possibly be setback as well (instead of 2013, the Rockets will get the pick in 2014 because the Grizzlies owe a lottery protected pick to Minnesota). I was hoping earlier that the Rockets could package their pick (somewhere between 11-14) and the Suns (around 18th hopefully) and move up into the top 8 in the draft. So yeah...I'm undecided right now. I guess I'll go with whatever happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 A lot of factors go into a decision, not just seeding. A team like the Grizzlies would probably rather make the playoffs. They have nice pieces on the team, they probably would want some post-season experience. Plus, even if they miss, they're stuck at 14. It would take damn near a miracle to get a top 3 pick. Plus, I'm sure the owner would want the revenue that two-playoff home games would bring. And I don't think they'd be an easy out. I don't think they could beat the Spurs, but they won't roll over either. The Pacers on the other hand, they probably would benefit. from getting into the lottery. I don't even think they'd make a good practice squad for the Celtics in the 1st round and if they miss the playoffs, they'd almost surely have the 11th pick. So they can, theoretically, get the 11th best player in the draft which would be good on a team that doesn't really attract FAs unless they overpay. Or they can trade it and could get better value that if they made the playoffs and traded the 15th pick. I personally would rather win and make the playoffs because I feel that if you do a good job scouting, you can find great talent anywhere in the draft. But there are benefits to tanking: Spurs would have never gotten Duncan, Cavs would never have got LBJ, Boston wouldn't have gottent he piece to trade for Allen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted February 28, 2011 Owner Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Tanking and rebuilding are two different things. You're rebuilding by trading away what you have to acquire draft picks and cap space, and young talent that has the potential to be good, not taking into consideration how your team will do in its first season together. The team may play as hard as they can every night...but they aren't tanking, they just aren't good enough. You tank when your players are asked to deliberately lose games, no matter the talent level. Or, in the Spurs' case, your best player sitting out most of the season (same concept). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFranchise03 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Tanking and rebuilding are two different things. You're rebuilding by trading away what you have to acquire draft picks and cap space, and young talent that has the potential to be good, not taking into consideration how your team will do in its first season together. The team may play as hard as they can every night...but they aren't tanking, they just aren't good enough. You tank when your players are asked to deliberately lose games, no matter the talent level. Or, in the Spurs' case, your best player sitting out most of the season (same concept). I agree. I say it a lot but i dont actually want to team to stop trying. I want them to look for the future. Everything the Rockets have said and done is toward getting a very low seed into the playoffs. Even at the expense of the younger players. T-Will has potential but just starting getting minutes. Scola is 30 and they gave him a 5 year deal. I wish they would give Patterson some more minutes. Thabeet is a project that will only play in blowouts This is just one example of a team i think should try to develop the younger players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.