OT Rockets in free fall, to Acquire Ty Lawson

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Pinwheel1 said:
I agree. I don't know what happened to him last year, but I am guessing playing for a team who decided to tank by trading good players had an effect. I do know that the season before ( at least early on) He was playing great. He was getting to the rim at will. IMO this is the type of situation where you surround him with a couple of allstar vets, with a chance to contend, and he will stay focused.

Two DUI's tells me is stupid off the court, but not necessarily an alcoholic. Not excusing him for his actions, just stating that it is correctable and won't effect his play. Houston got better if he gets along with Harden, and it looks like they are friends.
Click to expand...

IDK man. 2 DUI's is a telling sign..... considering hes fucking RICH and could get a god damned taxi! This means he's drinking so much/often that he just thinks hes "good to go". Not good when you don't understand your own drinking.
 
BonesJones said:
Think about it, is having the ball in Hardens hands less a better thing? No. Plus Lawson is a worse shooter than Beverly and Terry, therefore less spacing for Harden drives. He's also a worse defender then Beverly (obviously), but also worse than even Terry... And he's a locker room cancer. He's not gonna help them.

To say they're a top 3 backcourt is hilarious. They're the worst defensive backcourt in the league, and don't fit offensively. Id take Curry/Thompson, Wall/Beal, Lowry/Derozen, Teague/Korver, Rose/Butler over them. Hell, even Conley and Lee.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's not a better thing, but it's better than having it in Beverley hands when they double Harden and force him to not be the primary ball handler. So once any decent team trapped Harden (as he spoke about) they were pretty much fucked. Now they have a PG they can pass it to who can ALSO create off the bounce and I'd say who also excels at getting into the paint or getting a decent shot for himself or his teammates based on his elite agility and quickness and solid decision making. Also, Lawson is a FAR superior offensive player to Beverley and JT. Sure they might sacrifice a little defense ( in which they close hard at the 3 PT line and force people to dwight anyway, so it doesn't matter as much) but they get exponential return on offense. And he is a career 37% spt shooter with a great ast%. Additionally, he isnt going to be a locker room cancer if he isn't your leader. I'm convinced you haven't watched much of Lawson at this point. He is a very, very good PG with a lot of moves on offense and GREAT passing ability.

Additionally, Harden is quite capable playing off the ball.

And out of that list, the only back courts I'd take are Curry and Thompson and Wall/Beal (if healthy) over them - and you aren't factoring in backups either, which they now go 3 deep at PG with tons of different looks.

Interesting you chose to say that both Lawson and Harden need the ball to be effective and then 2 of the back courts you mentiones, Butler & Rose, and DeRozan and Lowry are arguably even more ball dominant and not NEARLY as good passing as either of the two for the Rockets are.

Conley and Lee? Teague and Korver? Lowry and DeRozan? Uhh..do you know how good James Harden by himself is???

Hell, I'd trade BOTH of those just to get Harden. He was a legit MVP candidate and arguably should've won imo.

Combine that with an elite offensive PG, with superior creativity and passing, and you have a damn good backcourt.
 
ThugginPaulyGAllen said:
Nope. It's not a better thing, but it's better than having it in Beverley hands when they double Harden and force him to not be the primary ball handler. So once any decent team trapped Harden (as he spoke about) they were pretty much fucked. Now they have a PG they can pass it to who can ALSO create off the bounce and I'd say who also excels at getting into the paint or getting a decent shot for himself or his teammates based on his elite agility and quickness and solid decision making. Also, Lawson is a FAR superior offensive player to Beverley and JT. Sure they might sacrifice a little defense ( in which they close hard at the 3 PT line and force people to dwight anyway, so it doesn't matter as much) but they get exponential return on offense. And he is a career 37% spt shooter with a great ast%. Additionally, he isnt going to be a locker room cancer if he isn't your leader. I'm convinced you haven't watched much of Lawson at this point. He is a very, very good PG with a lot of moves on offense and GREAT passing ability.

Additionally, Harden is quite capable playing off the ball.

And out of that list, the only back courts I'd take are Curry and Thompson and Wall/Beal (if healthy) over them - and you aren't factoring in backups either, which they now go 3 deep at PG with tons of different looks.

Interesting you chose to say that both Lawson and Harden need the ball to be effective and then 2 of the back courts you mentiones, Butler & Rose, and DeRozan and Lowry are arguably even more ball dominant and not NEARLY as good passing as either of the two for the Rockets are.

Conley and Lee? Teague and Korver? Lowry and DeRozan? Uhh..do you know how good James Harden by himself is???

Hell, I'd trade BOTH of those just to get Harden. He was a legit MVP candidate and arguably should've won imo.

Combine that with an elite offensive PG, with superior creativity and passing, and you have a damn good backcourt.
Click to expand...
nobody is as ball dominant as Harden, and all this pairs are miles ahead defensively... Harden does so much iso that it's hard to double to begin with.

As for Lawson not being a cancer if he's not the leader, that might be true if you had a good leader on the team.. but no you have Harden and Howard, two bad leaders in themselves.

All I'm saying is Lawson impact will be a lot less. Sure he's a lot better then Beverly, but he doesnt have the ball often enough to make a better impact then Beverly. And now Beverly is diminished, as he makes the biggest impact against top notch PGs, but now he's coming off the bench, against bench players with less PT
 
With two DUIs he'll most likely have to wear one of those alcohol ankle monitors, if he plays bad all you have to do is throw a glass of beer on him, it will trigger the monitor, he'll be sent to jail and you can void his contract.
 
And after Houston finishes 15-20 games ahead of us, we can all have a good laugh at their expense.

Oh...wait....
 
Looks like my online team for nba live just got upgraded for the new game
 
Mediocre Man said:
As long as they don't win a title, we would have had a more productive season if we land in the lottery
Click to expand...

So, if HOU wins 65 regular season games and loses in the finals to CLE, and we win 13 games for a 1 in 4 chance of landing the top pick in a draft with no consensus number 1 pick, we'll have and the more "productive" season? Seems like a very odd definition of "productive".

Winning the lottery is not the panacea that many seem to think. Say you, "best" case, finish with the worst record in the league. You are guaranteed a top 4 pick and have a 25% chance of landing the top pick. Neither guarantees you will eventually win a title. In fact, the odds are extremely stacked against you. In the last 30 years, exactly two number 1 picks has led the team that drafted them to an NBA title - David Robinson and Tim Duncan (and they did it together). Here's the complete list of all players picked in the top 4 in the last 30 years that eventually won an NBA title with the team that drafted them:

David Robinson, 1st Pick, SAS, 1987
Sean Elliot, 3rd Pick, SAS, 1989
Jason Kidd, 2nd Pick, DAL, 1994
Tim Duncan, 1st Pick, SAS, 1997
Darko Milicic, 2nd Pick, DET, 2004

That's it - for THE LAST 30 YEARS. That's a pretty significant sample size. And if you look at that list, three of the players (Robinson, Elliot, and Duncan) won a title together, Kidd was drafted by Dallas and traded three times before returning to win his ring as a 38-year old role player, and Darko was a total bust that played exactly 14 minutes of playoff basketball and scored a whopping 1 point during DET's championship run.

So no thanks, I'll take a deep playoff run anytime over being the worst, or one of the worst teams in the league.

BNM
 
SlyPokerDog said:
With two DUIs he'll most likely have to wear one of those alcohol ankle monitors, if he plays bad all you have to do is throw a glass of beer on him, it will trigger the monitor, he'll be sent to jail and you can void his contract.
Click to expand...
He may have to blow into the ball before he shoots it.
 
MM didn't say anything about winning the lottery, just getting there.
 
Boob-No-More said:
So, if HOU wins 65 regular season games and loses in the finals to CLE, and we win 13 games for a 1 in 4 chance of landing the top pick in a draft with no consensus number 1 pick, we'll have and the more "productive" season? Seems like a very odd definition of "productive".

Winning the lottery is not the panacea that many seem to think. Say you, "best" case, finish with the worst record in the league. You are guaranteed a top 4 pick and have a 25% chance of landing the top pick. Neither guarantees you will eventually win a title. In fact, the odds are extremely stacked against you. In the last 30 years, exactly two number 1 picks has led the team that drafted them to an NBA title - David Robinson and Tim Duncan (and they did it together). Here's the complete list of all players picked in the top 4 in the last 30 years that eventually won an NBA title with the team that drafted them:

David Robinson, 1st Pick, SAS, 1987
Sean Elliot, 3rd Pick, SAS, 1989
Jason Kidd, 2nd Pick, DAL, 1994
Tim Duncan, 1st Pick, SAS, 1997
Darko Milicic, 2nd Pick, DET, 2004

That's it - for THE LAST 30 YEARS. That's a pretty significant sample size. And if you look at that list, three of the players (Robinson, Elliot, and Duncan) won a title together, Kidd was drafted by Dallas and traded three times before returning to win his ring as a 38-year old role player, and Darko was a total bust that played exactly 14 minutes of playoff basketball and scored a whopping 1 point during DET's championship run.

So no thanks, I'll take a deep playoff run anytime over being the worst, or one of the worst teams in the league.

BNM
Click to expand...
This is why I totally hate the "tank for a title chance" concept. It has been a seriously flawed concept. What really needs to happen is for a team to get really fucking lucky. We had that luck in 06 when we won the #1 pick with Aldridge and Roy as the center piece. Unfortunately, that luck ran out with the injuries to the players we needed to contend.
 
Boob-No-More said:
So, if HOU wins 65 regular season games and loses in the finals to CLE, and we win 13 games for a 1 in 4 chance of landing the top pick in a draft with no consensus number 1 pick, we'll have and the more "productive" season? Seems like a very odd definition of "productive".

Winning the lottery is not the panacea that many seem to think. Say you, "best" case, finish with the worst record in the league. You are guaranteed a top 4 pick and have a 25% chance of landing the top pick. Neither guarantees you will eventually win a title. In fact, the odds are extremely stacked against you. In the last 30 years, exactly two number 1 picks has led the team that drafted them to an NBA title - David Robinson and Tim Duncan (and they did it together). Here's the complete list of all players picked in the top 4 in the last 30 years that eventually won an NBA title with the team that drafted them:

David Robinson, 1st Pick, SAS, 1987
Sean Elliot, 3rd Pick, SAS, 1989
Jason Kidd, 2nd Pick, DAL, 1994
Tim Duncan, 1st Pick, SAS, 1997
Darko Milicic, 2nd Pick, DET, 2004

That's it - for THE LAST 30 YEARS. That's a pretty significant sample size. And if you look at that list, three of the players (Robinson, Elliot, and Duncan) won a title together, Kidd was drafted by Dallas and traded three times before returning to win his ring as a 38-year old role player, and Darko was a total bust that played exactly 14 minutes of playoff basketball and scored a whopping 1 point during DET's championship run.

So no thanks, I'll take a deep playoff run anytime over being the worst, or one of the worst teams in the league.

BNM
Click to expand...

Ok
 
Nikolokolus said:
MM didn't say anything about winning the lottery, just getting there.
Click to expand...

Which may be even worse. How many players picked 13 or 14 have led the team that drafted them to an NBA title in the last 30 years? The chances of getting a franchise changing superstar at the tail end of the lottery are pretty slim. Remember, Meyers Leonard and C.J. McCollum were late lottery picks, and while both are developing into very nice players, they aren't Shaq and LeBron (neither of whom have won a title with the team that drafted them). Unless there is a clear consensus future superstar, AND you have the top pick, history has shown the lottery is a total crap shoot. And even if there is a clear superstar, AND you have the top pick, chances are he'll bolt for greener pastures as soon as his rookie deal is up for a better chance to win a title (just like Shaq and LeBron did).

I stand by my assertion, I'd rather win 65 games and lose in the finals than be in the lottery. If you seriously contend for a title, you will be much more attractive to top tier free agents and veteran ring chasers willing to play for the veteran minimum salary. History shows that winning breeds more winning and losing breeds more losing.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Which may be even worse. How many players picked 13 or 14 have led the team that drafted them to an NBA title in the last 30 years? The chances of getting a franchise changing superstar at the tail end of the lottery are pretty slim. Remember, Meyers Leonard and C.J. McCollum were late lottery picks, and while both are developing into very nice players, they aren't Shaq and LeBron (neither of whom have won a title with the team that drafted them). Unless there is a clear consensus future superstar, AND you have the top pick, history has shown the lottery is a total crap shoot. And even if there is a clear superstar, AND you have the top pick, chances are he'll bolt for greener pastures as soon as his rookie deal is up for a better chance to win a title (just like Shaq and LeBron did).

I stand by my assertion, I'd rather win 65 games and lose in the finals than be in the lottery. If you seriously contend for a title, you will be much more attractive to top tier free agents and veteran ring chasers willing to play for the veteran minimum salary. History shows that winning breeds more winning and losing breeds more losing.

BNM
Click to expand...
OK. Who wouldn't want to watch a 65 win team? The Blazers weren't in that position, so I fail to see how this applies to this particular team's current situation.

Most people arguing for the lottery are saying they'd rather see this team win 25 and at least have a chance at some help (maybe god forbid even a blue-chipper) vs. 43 wins, an 8th seed and losing the pick. The trick is to be either really, really good or pretty bad, the worst place to be is stuck in the muddy middle.
 
Boob-No-More said:
So, if HOU wins 65 regular season games and loses in the finals to CLE, and we win 13 games for a 1 in 4 chance of landing the top pick in a draft with no consensus number 1 pick, we'll have and the more "productive" season? Seems like a very odd definition of "productive".

Winning the lottery is not the panacea that many seem to think. Say you, "best" case, finish with the worst record in the league. You are guaranteed a top 4 pick and have a 25% chance of landing the top pick. Neither guarantees you will eventually win a title. In fact, the odds are extremely stacked against you. In the last 30 years, exactly two number 1 picks has led the team that drafted them to an NBA title - David Robinson and Tim Duncan (and they did it together). Here's the complete list of all players picked in the top 4 in the last 30 years that eventually won an NBA title with the team that drafted them:

David Robinson, 1st Pick, SAS, 1987
Sean Elliot, 3rd Pick, SAS, 1989
Jason Kidd, 2nd Pick, DAL, 1994
Tim Duncan, 1st Pick, SAS, 1997
Darko Milicic, 2nd Pick, DET, 2004

That's it - for THE LAST 30 YEARS. That's a pretty significant sample size. And if you look at that list, three of the players (Robinson, Elliot, and Duncan) won a title together, Kidd was drafted by Dallas and traded three times before returning to win his ring as a 38-year old role player, and Darko was a total bust that played exactly 14 minutes of playoff basketball and scored a whopping 1 point during DET's championship run.

So no thanks, I'll take a deep playoff run anytime over being the worst, or one of the worst teams in the league.

BNM
Click to expand...


I actually agree with you....but making a deep play-off run is not an option right now. Our choice is between mediocrity and reconstruction.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Which may be even worse. How many players picked 13 or 14 have led the team that drafted them to an NBA title in the last 30 years? The chances of getting a franchise changing superstar at the tail end of the lottery are pretty slim. Remember, Meyers Leonard and C.J. McCollum were late lottery picks, and while both are developing into very nice players, they aren't Shaq and LeBron (neither of whom have won a title with the team that drafted them). Unless there is a clear consensus future superstar, AND you have the top pick, history has shown the lottery is a total crap shoot. And even if there is a clear superstar, AND you have the top pick, chances are he'll bolt for greener pastures as soon as his rookie deal is up for a better chance to win a title (just like Shaq and LeBron did).

I stand by my assertion, I'd rather win 65 games and lose in the finals than be in the lottery. If you seriously contend for a title, you will be much more attractive to top tier free agents and veteran ring chasers willing to play for the veteran minimum salary. History shows that winning breeds more winning and losing breeds more losing.

BNM
Click to expand...


FA wanting to come here after playoff runs has certainly worked for us over the years
 
Mediocre Man said:
FA wanting to come here after playoff runs has certainly worked for us over the years
Click to expand...

Now who's changing details??? I said DEEP playoff run. The last time we were making deep playoff runs, guys like Scottie Pippen and Steve Smith wanted to play here.

BNM
 
Nikolokolus said:
OK. Who wouldn't want to watch a 65 win team? The Blazers weren't in that position, so I fail to see how this applies to this particular team's current situation.
Click to expand...

The claim was that unless HOU won the title, if we end up in the lottery, we will have had a more productive season. That was the assertion I take exception with. A deep playoff run, without winning the title, puts you MUCH closer to actually winning a title than being in the lottery.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
The claim was that unless HOU won the title, if we end up in the lottery, we will have had a more productive season. That was the assertion I take exception with. A deep playoff run, without winning the title, puts you MUCH closer to actually winning a title than being in the lottery.

BNM
Click to expand...
OK, fair 'nuff.
 
Guys wanted to come because PA was writing blank checks. Cant do that anymore. Teams like ours HAVE to build through the draft. That is why gettinf a good pick would be more beneficial to us than Houston not winning a title, but still not having room to improve
 
oldmangrouch said:
I actually agree with you....but making a deep play-off run is not an option right now. Our choice is between mediocrity and reconstruction.
Click to expand...

I never said it was. I was arguing that us being in the lottery does NOT make us more "productive" than HOU making a deep playoff run, but not winning it all. Here's what I actually replied to:

"As long as they don't win a title, we would have had a more productive season if we land in the lottery"

And I think that's complete bullshit. I'd rather come close to winning a title and then build on that success than be one of the worst teams in the league and hope you get lucky in the lottery. HOU went further than us in the playoffs last year and their fans have much more to look forward to this season than getting excited about sucking so bad and losing so many games that we'll get more ping pong balls in the lottery next June. Talk about polishing a turd. If we suck bad enough, we might only suck for a few more years while we wait for our next lottery pick to pan out, or not, or leave us for greener pastures if he does. Losing sucks - PERIOD. Ask MIN, SAC and PHI how well being in the lottery year after year after year has worked out for them.

That said, I am excited about watching our young players, but I'm excited about watching them WIN. I will NEVER cheer for our team to lose, not matter how many more ping pong balls it gets us.

BNM
 
Unless you are distributed, everyone would rather win than lose.what i am saying, which we all know youll disagree with with is this. Minnesota landed Towns in the draft and are on their way. That to me is productive. We made it to the playoffs and lost 4/5ths of our starting lineup. Who had the more productive year in their quest to win a title? I say Minnesota.
 
Nikolokolus said:
OK. Who wouldn't want to watch a 65 win team? The Blazers weren't in that position, so I fail to see how this applies to this particular team's current situation.

Most people arguing for the lottery are saying they'd rather see this team win 25 and at least have a chance at some help (maybe god forbid even a blue-chipper) vs. 43 wins, an 8th seed and losing the pick. The trick is to be either really, really good or pretty bad, the worst place to be is stuck in the muddy middle.
Click to expand...

Stuck is the operative word here. Teams that reach the 8 seed with veteran players and large contacts get "stuck" in the middle. Teams that reach the 8 seed primarily with young players with potential (and on rare occasions, also tons of cap space) are on the upswing and have a bright future. If this team is able to win 40+ games, we're the latter, not the former. Contrary to the claims of many in here, that would be a good thing.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Stuck is the operative word here. Teams that reach the 8 seed with veteran players and large contacts get "stuck" in the middle. Teams that reach the 8 seed primarily with young players with potential (and on rare occasions, also tons of cap space) are on the upswing and have a bright future. If this team is able to win 40+ games, we're the latter, not the former. Contrary to the claims of many in here, that would be a good thing.
Click to expand...
I guess some people think this is a realistic possibility - I'm not one of those people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blazer4ever
Lawson on the trading block
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Draco
Draco
VanillaGorilla
OTish: Flynn > Lawson ?
Replies
11
Views
1K
La Bomba
La Bomba
OSUBlazerfan
Ty Lawson is Available
Replies
21
Views
1K
handiman
handiman
Fez Hammersticks
What about Ty Lawson?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Minstrel
Minstrel
L
[OT] Draft Express statistical analysis of the PG in the draft
Replies
3
Views
868
BlazerCaravan
BlazerCaravan

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top