At 12 million this year and next, maybe they could have found another "shooting guard" for a little less and still kept Landry? Remember, Patterson is "better" than Landry; why didn't they trade him instead?
...So you're one of those idiots who think that if you trade away a player who's making 12 million dollars, you automatically get 12 million dollars to find a new SG, instead of there being this little thing called "cap". Good to know.
To give Yao outside shooting he could kick out to. Have any other questions about trades that took place to improve a different roster entirely?
Yep, liked turiaf too as a combo behind yao and scola. They resigned landry at a 3m deal and then traded him for the spineless martin. At that point, the way landry was playing, I said numerous times scola could've been let go. The simple fact that I know is the rockets shopped scola, but no team wanted him because of his age and soon to be free agency. Sacramento demanded landry as being part of dumping martin and helping the rox trade mcgrady. The combo of scola/landry with yao wasn't going to work because neither could play center.
This. You honestly think it was best to have Yao surrounded by the amazing shooting combo of Battier and Ariza? We already had Scola starting at the 4. He was a much better overall player. (yes its true. Scola was very complete in past seasons. Landry just can't rebound the ball among other things.) Fact if the matter is, we had no shooting guard on the roster. Martin was known as a top tier shooting guard on a bad team. He was very efficient. Had he played with Yao, we would have seen that. Either way, he still managed close to 24ppg on .436. Not bad at all given the amount of shots he had in the offense. He was never supposed to be a first option. Check his efficiency before he was traded here, it was even higher. Carl Landry has always been inefficient. Although his field goal percentage is higher, you seem to forget that he was given far less shots. Also, as he is a power forward, his efficiency should be much higher. Quite frankly, hovering around .500 isn't very good at all. In Martin's case he was always an efficient guard given his position and role in the offense. If you are going to compare the two with ppg and field goal percentage as you have done, you might need to do a little more research on what exactly that entails. It is absolutely ridiculous to argue against the merits of trading an inefficient backup power forward who had a very incomplete game, (who mind you, Morey absolutely stole him in the second round) for a top tier, in his prime, shooting guard. Especially given the fact that Trevor Ariza, a small forward, previously shouldered that burdon. Please stop posting here, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Thanks.
You totally fail. This clearly shows Martin as the better player. Martin scored 10 more ppg, attempted five more shots per game and was shooting the ball from the perimeter, not the post. Again .500 for a post player is bad. Especially when you only score 12 ppg. You also bolded his terrible rebounding stats for his position, as well as his -3 overall. You totally fail.
