What about the money you save for not resigning Chuck Hayes? What if the guy we sign with Chuck Hayes money can beat him out?
You and DD are really underestimating the Chuckwagon and what he bring to this franchise. They are plenty of teams and fans that would Love to have Hayes on their team, http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=1261179 http://blogs.bettor.com/Luc-Mbah-a-Moute,-Chuck-Hayes-Top-Free-agents-this-off-season-NBA-Special-Report-Part-1-a79999 http://www.theknicksblog.com/2011/07/11/would-the-knicks-entertain-a-little-big-man/ http://www.raptorshq.com/2011/7/4/2258130/nba-free-agency-2011-top-power-forward-options-for-the-toronto-raptors
I DON'T agree that Hayes is like Battier and "old hat". For the fact that Hayes actually did STEP UP his game to be an complimentary part of the system, UNLIKE Battier who stayed the same not improving diddly squat. Perhaps that was Hayes's contract year performance for a bigger payday. Things are trending AWAY from keeping Hayes, but I wouldnt be all that uspet if he stayed. Scola is actually looking a bit more expendable.
Lol, calm down VanGundier, sometimes organizations move out players that are better now to make room for players with potential. It happens all over league, it happened last year with Shane. Sometimes GMs have to do what is right by taking a longer view, heck Chuk should do whatever is right for him too and take a shot at a ring somewhere else. BTW, it will become clear as to whether the Rox really value CH when Morey puts a cap on his value, if it is to low the writing will be on the wall. DD
You're really clueless, Chuck would be the C's starting 5. And at the idiot who said he's not a quality starter, how'd he manage to anchor the 6th best starting lineup in the league, playing alongside one of the worst defensive big men in the league? It's all good though, at the end of the day DD will be wrong like he always is and Chuck will be starting for us again.
What happened last year with Shane had nothing to do with letting young guys behind him play. We moved him because his contract was expiring, and most likely he was not going to sign with us. We traded him so that we wouldn't lose him for nothing. That is the exact opposite of what you are proposing with Chuck: letting him go for nothing.
I'll say it again -- Chuck Hayes is 28 years old. There is nothing about his game that is going to decline with age, so he can be a contributor when we're ready to compete even if that takes three years. Two years ago I would have agreed that any team with Chuck Hayes logging heavy minutes isn't going to far. But with his improved ability to finish around the basket, he is the ideal role player to either start next to a dominant center or be the first big man off the bench. Think Dale Davis or Anthony Mason type impact. Nothing special, but a valuable contributor. Jordan Hill and Thabeet are scrubs. Bottom line. Thabeet has a little hope that maybe he can turn into something, but neither of them deserve PT right now.
Scola took Chuck's starting spot in half a season. Landry broke the rotation around the same time. Hayes went from starter to third string without issue, so let's not pretend that he's hindering the development of some young, can't-miss talent now. Let's also not pretend that Chuck will get a large contract that will stall our rebuilding process. We don't even know what the details of the new CBA will be, so wanting to preemptively dump Chuck brings no immediate benefit. Several of the big market teams have already demonstrated that players on reasonable contracts can be dumped at the last minute to free up cap space anyway, sometimes at value. He will not be untradeable. Think of someone like Nick Collison. He was there for the crappy Sonics era and stayed right through the rebuilding process in OKC. He plays the exact same role now that he did five years ago despite their contender status. They've drafted and traded for guys to play ahead of him, but they didn't just dump him for nothing. Why would a team need to do that?
Not at all, they moved both Shane and Ariza in part because they had CBud and Lee that could do the job as well as TWill that they wanted to look at. I agree with you that the contract had something to do with it, but not everything, same thing with Ariza, they wanted to clear more time for others. Happens all the time, and I would not be surprised if it happens with Chuck....I know he is a beloved player I like him too, but to me, the org has got to find someone better, whether that is someone currently on the roster or not. If Chuck Hayes is starting for your team, you are not going to be contending any time soon. DD
They traded Ariza FOR Lee, because Lee was the better player on the cheaper contract. Not to open up playing time for guys like Twill who weren't even on the roster at the time. And certainly we didn't just give Ariza away for nothing. As for Shane, you have it backwards. The fact that we had a few guys behind him had something to do with it, but primarily it was due to his contract expiring. With Chuck, if we had no interest in bringing him back, we would have traded him at the deadline along with Shane, to at least get something back. I'm sure contenders like Chicago, Boston etc would have been interested. The fact that we didn't tells me we will almost assuredly bring him back. As for your worry about him starting, ideally he won't have to when we find a starting center. That doesn't mean he can't serve this team in some other capacity without us just giving him away. Besides, if you are worried about contending for a championship, starting Chase Budinger at the 3 should be of greater concern.
I bet when Hill and Thabeet’s options aren’t even picked up next season, some doofwads will still be claiming they’re our future… Chuck has a place on this team. As our backup C once we find our long-term starter. As our leader and glue guy. As our Blake/Amare stopper when no one else can get it done. Hill and Thabeet have places in the garbage where they belong.
Clutchfans: Where proven starters hinder you and scrubs like Williams and Thabeet are the keys to rebuilding.
Proven starters....snicker.....proven what? 43 wins, 42 wins...yeah...team !!! Such low expectations....you kids need to review your history, sometimes you have to take a step back to get somewhere more important than 9th seed. DD
this is hard to say but I agree with DD. Nothing worse in the NBA than mediocre and good but not great.
Not Chuck's fault that your boy had a mental breakdown and led the worst bench in the NBA. He did his part, as proven by the starters being 6th best in the league. But thanks for your in-depth analysis that I could have got from my 6 year old. Kobe's teams were mid 40s before they added dominant players beside him too, your kiddie analysis skills would have had the Lakers trading him LOL.
