RealGM

At first, I was really pissed about the Bonzi trade. But the more I think about it, the more I like the deal.
First off, I know we all wanted to see Houston make the playoffs with Bonzi and hope he has a monster series; but thats just hoping, nothings for sure. Bonzi doesnt play well against all teams. Also, the fact is, Bonzi plays Battier and Mcgrady's positions. He would have gotten a decent amount of minutes, but like Morey said, what about someone getting minutes in the backcourt for the playoffs. Brooks is a rookie and will most likely not be ready for the playoffs, and we all saw how Luther Head handles the playoffs last year. Who was gona back-up Rafer? We can't expect Rafer to play this well all the time and if he has bad games in the playoffs BJax is insurance. Playoff time Mcgrady and Battier should be ready for 40 minutes, mcgrady because hes tmac, and if played a team like lakers, we want battier on the floor covering kobe for as long as possible.
Also, bobby jackson, if he doesnt bring what we want from him, is also an expiring contract next year, and we all see now how valuable those are. Kwame's expiring got Lakers GASOL!!!!
We can get someone pretty sweet(maybe not as good as pau) next year around the trade deadline.

Next year we will already be adjusted to Adelmans system, Scola Landry and Brooks will all have a year under them, we'll have the MLE to sign someone with over the summer, and we have a draft pick and bobby jackson's expiring.

You know what, I think we did a bad job in not trading Aaron Brooks for Artest. As David Aldridge reported, Brooks was the main thing that Sacramento wanted. We are a win now team, so we should have gone for it. I think we have plenty of time to prepare for the future later on, but if we want a championship we have to go after these good players.

I think if the deal was just Brooks and expirings for Artest it was adeal we should have made.

Somehow, I think the Kings either demanded a 1st or Battier or both, or tried to pawn KT on us. If either of those was the case, I applaud Morey for not making those trades.

No. I have to disagree. Morey wants to make sure our team is in contention every year. Getting Artest may make us more serious this year, but definitely not next. He wasn't going to stay because he would need to start and we're set on keeping Battier and Mcgrady there. Now, we can make a trade for a player like Artest next year because we will have Bobby Jackson's expiring to offer. Plus, win-now mode means this year and next atleast, not just this year. And Artest would not have led us to the championship, we weren't going to win the championship this year unless TMac and Yao play out of their minds in the playoffs.

Texas Longhorns wrote:You know what, I think we did a bad job in not trading Aaron Brooks for Artest. As David Aldridge reported, Brooks was the main thing that Sacramento wanted. We are a win now team, so we should have gone for it. I think we have plenty of time to prepare for the future later on, but if we want a championship we have to go after these good players.

i would disagree to trade for artest without knowing if he will sign for rockets. Nuggets have the same worry and hence didnot pursue further.
In addition, there is a major concerns in team chemistry with addition of Artest as Brooks alone will not be enough (salaries don't match) meaning more rockets have to be involved => more chemistry issues.

One of the key strength of rockets is their great team chemistry. Morey is right to be careful not to disrupt it with sure confidence of improving this season's and future seasons' success.

Texas Longhorns wrote:You know what, I think we did a bad job in not trading Aaron Brooks for Artest. As David Aldridge reported, Brooks was the main thing that Sacramento wanted. We are a win now team, so we should have gone for it. I think we have plenty of time to prepare for the future later on, but if we want a championship we have to go after these good players.

I have some friends who are alcoholics. They always have plenty of time to get over drinking, so they write off the drink that's in their hands.

Planning for the future comes in the past, not in the present. Acting for the future comes in the present, not in the future.