tremonthustler1
aka bx_representer
There's one HUGE downside to what you're suggesting (remember when they used to call stacking assets and trading them for a superstar "the Boston model"?). One day, there will be a player that will become available, and all it takes for your assets, as great as they look, to become worthless, is for that player to dismiss your team as an option, and that happens a lot.
In other sports, that doesn't happen because the best offer wins. If the Mariners feel like sending Felix Hernandez to the Pirates or Rockies or Padres, then that's what it's gonna be. If the Jets felt like sending Darrelle Revis to the Seahawks or Browns, then that's what it is. Too many times a player in the NBA will use a no-trade clause he doesn't have to get where he wants. It's smart for the player but it screws the team over. In reality, if Orlando was fishing for the best offer, period, then none of these squads they were dealing with had that, but that's what Dwight Howard did-- restrict them that much, to the point where there were no young players with potential to get.
The only thing the Houston deal woulda gave them were picks that were already chosen (Lamb, White, Jones). There's even a downside to that. 3 picks + 2 picks you already have + new GM and coach - possible franchise player = LOTS of losing. You're risking fukking up all of their development because losing that much beats even the kids down.
).
.
