RealGM

Sign Iverson to a 1 year deal, like we would have given Artest(but less).

Give it a chance, doesn't hurt anything for the 2010 market.

if that's a great idea, morey would have done that 3 weeks ago!

Well,it would be fun to see the look on Miller and Roy's faces when they saw a Rocket starting backcourt of Brooks and Iverson

smg22,
Iverson has serious issues with moving the ball and this yr the Rockets are going to fully commit to Adelman's ball-moving offense. Horrible fit.
The team is also hoping/expecting/dreading McGrady's return. Should McGrady return what happens to Iverson. In Detroit he refused to come off the bench-and it's why he isn't signed now-and why would the Rockets start him over Brooks,knowing Brooks is coming back next yr and AI wouldn't?
Finally,the Rockets don't have much to offer beyond a vet minimum or perhaps $1.8mil of MLE left. We've seen what happens when a vet signs a contract far below what he thinks he's worth-remember Bonzi Wells.

I've actually thought about this. At first, I thought it could work out pretty well and that even in the worst case scenerio signing him couldn't really hurt us since it would only be a 1 year deal. After thinking about it awhile though I don't really like the idea of doing this.

tisbee wrote:Finally,the Rockets don't have much to offer beyond a vet minimum or perhaps $1.8mil of MLE left. We've seen what happens when a vet signs a contract far below what he thinks he's worth-remember Bonzi Wells.

but mainly this:

tisbee wrote:Iverson has serious issues with moving the ball and this yr the Rockets are going to fully commit to Adelman's ball-moving offense. Horrible fit.

With all the young talent we have this year could you imagine Iverson on this team? He wouldn't ever share the ball. He'd stunt the growth of the entire team.

smg22 wrote:Sign Iverson to a 1 year deal, like we would have given Artest(but less).

Give it a chance, doesn't hurt anything for the 2010 market.

Agree with tisbee. Additionally, here's a basic weighting:
What's it help? Iverson, assuming he's even capable of being productive, CERTAINLY won't put us over the hump this year.

What's it hurt? He takes minutes from Brooks and Lowry, both of whom it's in our interest to develop, whether for long term or for trade-oriented goals.

Do you want him as a third string and/or think he'd accept it? I prefer old man Barry. At least you know there's an off-chance his dentures fall out in mid game from a stray elbow.

I'm still glad we didn't sign Artest, either. Not worried we're signing Iverson, at all.
Btw, please fix your title to make it clear that this is an Iverson thread.