The Rockets' roster seems to be set, doesn't it?

by grungedave on Oct 20, 2009 10:10 AM CDT in Random Commentary Comment 29 comments

For the moment I shall ignore all rumors about Jerry Stackhouse but after last night it seems the Rockets may have already settled on the 15 players... okay the 13 "active" players that will be on the roster for Opening Day. Yao and Tracy obviously being inactive as of Halloween, but due to quirky NBA rules, Morey and the gang have to keep them on the 15 man roster. So lame. I much preferred being able to stash guys on the inactive list with fake injuries.

The one really big piece of bad news is that Joey Dorsey has most likely sulked and half-assed his way off the team. Leaving me with about 50% less material to write about this upcoming season. As if I weren't already facing an uphill climb without Yao to praise and T-Mac to belittle?!?!

That aside, here's what (as of today) looks to be the 2009/10 roster:

60% of our salary cap
C - Yao Ming (essentially deceased for 2010 purposes)
SF - Tracy McGrady (only mostly dead)
---
starting lineup (probable)
SG/SF - Trevor Ariza
PF/C - Luis Scola
SG/SF - Shane Battier
PG/midget in traveling circus - Aaron Brooks
PF/C - Chuck Hayes
---
scrubs/bench
PF/C/SF - Carl Landry
PG/resident bulldog - Kyle Lowry
SF/PF/token white guy shooter - Chase Budinger
SG/rookie beyotch - Jermaine Taylor ("sing it again!")
PG/practice dummy - Will Conroy
PF/C - David Andersen (he's here to keep Luis happy)
PF/C/blog killer - Pops Mensah-Bonsu
worthless waste of cap space - Brian Cook

This leaves no room for Joey. It also leaves no room for Jerry Stackhouse... unless the Rockets plan on cutting Budinger, Taylor or Pops. Or can somehow find a sucker to take Brian Cook's contract off our hands. Brent Barry is also still on the roster, but he will be traded or bought out or forced into early retirement soon enough.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Conroy/Dorsey

Feigen seems to think that Dorsey will make the team and that it’s a tossup among Pops, Conroy, Temple and Beck, and is leaning toward Pops. What makes you think Conroy has the edge on Dorsey? Dorsey’s guaranteed for almost a million this season I believe.

by forshizzzle on Oct 20, 2009 10:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

they need another PG

The way the Rockets are going to play uptempo – they need a 3rd PG on the roster.

by grungedave on Oct 20, 2009 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just don’t see the “need” for a 3rd PG who might play 5 or 6 minutes every few games, especially at the cost of cutting a guy with a guaranteed deal (if in fact Dorsey’s contract for this season is guaranteed). The conditioning of AB and Lowry shouldn’t be an issue whether the team is playing uptempo or not. I do think there’s a greater need for a ballhandler that won’t play than another big that won’t play, but I would suspect the cost of keeping Conroy would be a pretty strong factor in whether they cut him.

by forshizzzle on Oct 21, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the main need is for when Brooks or Lowry have to miss time due to injury. With Brent on the roster, you have a guy who can handle the ball for 10 minutes a game while the remaining PG rests. My guess is that Conroy (if they keep him) remains inactive as long as both Brook and Lowry are healthy. Without Conroy or Barry, the injury backup PG is….Budinger? Ariza?

by Moondebah on Oct 21, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We need Conroy as a 3rd PG because Adelman likes to play AB and Lowry together. I think he is going to play them together more often, so we definitely need another PG.

by dacodeman on Oct 21, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree ABZ is going to spend a lot of time at SG I think, so another PG is a must.

If the Red Nation apparatchiks start talking about a Five Year Plan, I'm out of here.

by Xiane on Oct 21, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

even then i think Lowry will be the SG just because he can defend some of the taller SGs out there rather than AB. But even then I think Lowry will be defending them, but on the other end (offense) he would be the PG because ofcourse AB is a pure scorer.

by dacodeman on Oct 22, 2009 3:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that doesn't make any sense

AB may very well get some time on the court with Lowry, but I don’t see why that makes another PG a necessity. Lowry comes in and AB slides over to the 2 and either Battier or Ariza has a seat, but it’s not like AB and Lowry are going to play a ton of minutes together. And I’m failing to see the connection between having Lowry and AB on the floor together and needing a third PG on the bench. Is it because both of those guys after being on the court together would then need to come off the court at the same time?

I had thought about who else the Rockets have to simply bring the ball up the court if both AB and Lowry are in foul trouble (and it would be real hell if one of them were injured), and it really isn’t very pretty. I’ve seen Ariza bring the ball up some in the preseason with AB running around screens, and I’ve heard Adelman talk about having him do that. He probably can’t be any worse than Luther Head was at that. And if TMac can come back sometime this season, he could handle some of those minutes for brief stints. But if one of AB or Lowry does get banged up, you can bring Conroy (or John Lucas or Anthony Roberson or any other guy) in on a ten-day contract and assess what needs to be done. Essentially, is cutting a guy with a million dollars guaranteed (after you’ve already cut loose a guy with $2 million guaranteed and spent several million on three second round draft picks and are looking at a season without Yao and who knows what you’ll get from Tracy without any games on national TV and a slim shot at the postseason and the extra money that goes along with those extra games) worth it to add a marginal guy who might help you if one of your PGs is injured? Now, you might be saying that the Rockets are already going to have to pay Dorsey, so whether you cut him or not, he’s going to cost the same money and likely have the same impact, and incrementally, adding Conroy is just a few hundred thousand additional dollars, and Les is a generous owner so maybe he’ll do it, but I just don’t see how you justify it in terms of will Conroy make an impact on the Rockets above what Dorsey could provide and is that impact worth the additional dollars.

by forshizzzle on Oct 22, 2009 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure Chuck Hayes can play a very defense oriented PG...

If the Red Nation apparatchiks start talking about a Five Year Plan, I'm out of here.

by Xiane on Oct 21, 2009 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha! thats hilarious! hahaha seriously XD

by dacodeman on Oct 22, 2009 3:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It also leaves no room for Jerry Stackhouse

The stackhouse rumor has been floating around since early September. It makes no sense. If Morey wanted to find a crappy, high-usage shooter, there are many more floating around the league who aren’t 35. His last good season was seven years ago.

This leaves no room for Joey.

I could see the Rockets not taking Conroy, figuring that he’ll only be getting limited minutes, anyways, and keeping Dorsey, perhaps assigning him to the D-League (though he didn’t take well to that last year). And, of course, there’s the chance that Cook is traded/cut in the remaining time.

Your friendly neighborhood Dream Shake mod.

by Only_A_Lad on Oct 20, 2009 10:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think that's right.

I think we may get a trade of Dorsey, and right now, as down as Adelman is on him, I see him getting traded to a bad team, where he gets a ton of minutes despite looking lost a lot of the time, figures things out and becomes a version of Ben Wallace.

I wonder if someone would take a deal where they got Dorsey but had to take Cook as well? Probably not, as Dorsey just hasn’t shown enough to get people excited. I’m sure you could do that with Landry, but I wouldn’t want to. Landry looks to be a real gem – a guy who’d go 24-12 in starters minutes – that’s a star.

If the Red Nation apparatchiks start talking about a Five Year Plan, I'm out of here.

by Xiane on Oct 20, 2009 2:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

There’s always a chance the team could get something for Dorsey…

… but it will most likely be a 2nd round pick. But to ask anyone to take Cook would cost our team a draft pick. We’d have to pay someone just to take him off our hands with zero coming back in return…

I had to stop arguing with drunks, Steeler fans, and all other fools.
It was making my brick wall jealous...

by steeler-hater on Oct 20, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This team has had to deal with adversity a lot lately.

Yao is gone for this year and won’t be any help at all to the team on the court this season. Try to think of the Cook situation as being similar. We are stuck with Cook on the roster & him not helping the team on the court win this year. But next year, when Yao is back helping the team win, Cook will be helping this team out a lot just by being gone. I’m sure whoever takes his roster spot next year will do a helluva lot more to help the team win than Cook ever could at this stage of his career…

I had to stop arguing with drunks, Steeler fans, and all other fools.
It was making my brick wall jealous...

by steeler-hater on Oct 20, 2009 2:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The only way I see Stackhouse on this team is…

… they can find some sucker to take Cook off our hands.

Very doubtful at this point of the season.
Maybe at the trade deadline when teams look to trade for expiring contracts…

I had to stop arguing with drunks, Steeler fans, and all other fools.
It was making my brick wall jealous...

by steeler-hater on Oct 20, 2009 2:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Any chance that the Rockets will let Cook go (despite his hefty price tag)..

and put in the best possible group on the floor?

by Kari on Oct 20, 2009 4:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

depends on whether Les Alexander wants to cut a $3M check today

by grungedave on Oct 20, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the only way Cook is given that big check not to play and is cut is…

… the Rockets need his roster spot badly enough to use for a great player.

It is obvious to me that Cook will be the #13 guy almost every game, barring injuries.

(Of course, right now T-Mac is #14 & Yao is #15. But that’s only because they’re injured)

I don’t see Houston getting a hold of a player that is so good that it would justify them paying off Cook and cutting him, just to free up his roster spot. 3.5 million is a lot of money and Cook has to know that he can’t make that much if he accepts a buyout for less money. If he takes only 2 million to “go away”, what team would give him enough money to at least make up the difference? If he is let go, he’d be lucky to get himself some 10-day contracts, let alone another deal worth millions of dollars. And even if Cook were to be signed by another team, chances are he’d be buried deep on their bench, too. So if he won’t be playing either way, why should he want to be bought out in the first place? Sitting every game on Houston’s bench is no different than sitting on someone elses bench. Either way, Cook probably ain’t seeing the court much.

Basically, I think the team is stuck with Cook until at least the trade deadline…

I had to stop arguing with drunks, Steeler fans, and all other fools.
It was making my brick wall jealous...

by steeler-hater on Oct 21, 2009 1:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, a $3.5 million expiring contract is a valuable trade asset.

by VBG on Oct 21, 2009 3:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that mightbe morey's thinking

of why to hold onto him, and hope to let him go by the trade deadline

by EveryHoustonTeamRox! on Oct 21, 2009 7:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's really the only reason.

Morey and Les Alexander seem like pretty smart guys, so I doubt they’re falling for the sunk cost fallacy.

Your friendly neighborhood Dream Shake mod.

by Only_A_Lad on Oct 21, 2009 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

They had this planned out the moment they accepted Cook’s useless ass in exchange for Rafer last year. Still to this day a winning trade for us.

by grungedave on Oct 21, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, we've only scratched the surface of what Lowry can be.

Not having a first in the past draft, meh, so what, we got a guy who was predicted for a top 10-12 pick in Air Bud – a lot of his problems last season can be explained by the utter chaos that was U AZ basketball. Seriously, it was a circus, go look.

If the Red Nation apparatchiks start talking about a Five Year Plan, I'm out of here.

by Xiane on Oct 21, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you thinking the idea of a sunk cost is a fallacy?

Or that the Rockets should just accept Cook as a sunk cost to acquire Lowry, and send him on his way, despite the financial hit?

It’s not my money, but I’d favor the latter – what’s Cook’s future? There are other guys who might have one we would cut in his place.

If the Red Nation apparatchiks start talking about a Five Year Plan, I'm out of here.

by Xiane on Oct 21, 2009 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I mean is

that I doubt Les Alexander is saying to himself “I’m paying 3 million to Cook, so I can’t cut him.” The only reason to not cut him is if you think:

Cook will be worth more than a min-salary player
Cook’s value in exchange is more than either his value or on the court or the value of that minimum salary player.

1 seems unlikely. 2 seems to be the only reasonable explanation.

Your friendly neighborhood Dream Shake mod.

by Only_A_Lad on Oct 21, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs