a case could be made that landry would be more productive than scola. and i havent analyzed landry's defense, but could he be more productive than chuck? we have 3 good to very productive power forwards. we need to move one of them in a trade to bolster other areas of weakness.
Obvious candidate is Hayes. Playing next to Yao makes him look 10 times better than he really is. Always a good idea to trade guys whose value is inflated by peculiarities of your team. It would help if he'd start hitting at least one of every six shots. What areas of weakness would you bolster? Aren't we overloaded at precisely the two positions where we need the most help? You'd have to pull off two trades simultaneously, or you'd end up with five PGs.
Certainly one of your lesser thought out topics. Landry's athletic... BUT HE'S A ROOKIE! Scola's still adapting, and a case could be made that he's still not showing all his stuff . And I'd certainly keep Chuck because of his experience (other than the fact that no other team's gonna take him anyway). This thread is just left-over adrenaline.
i disagree. we have three solid role players but none of them is real starter material for a contending team. i really love scola, landry and hayes but it is how it is. scola can't start because his defense isn't really good and we need him as our backup center. and he's still not the most consistent player. hayes is very one dimensional and his inability to score at times has hurt the rockets this season. we really need him for our defense. but as a limited hustler and rebounder ideally he should only come off the bench. landry is probably the weakest defender of our current pf rotation. sadly he's also the only really athletic one. and this athletic ability is really missed by this rockets team. i mean the hustle and energy of scola and hayes is great but they really lack a lot of athleticism. we need that. still, i think landry is nowhere near a made player. of course he's not a starter yet but i also doubt he's ready to handle 25 mpg off the bench just yet. bottom line: we can't trade chuck because we would lose a lot on the defensive end. landry and scola are average defenders at best. we can't trade scola because he's our main backup center and he is the best offensive player of the three. teams would laugh at us if landry and hayes was our pf rotation. and we shouldn't trade landry because he adds a much need dimension to our roster and he's still a noname so we wouldn't get much for him. a trade would only make sense if it's a package of additional high priced players for a really good pf in return. but i don't see any trade partners for us at the moment.
Leave Landry in for too long and he's gonna do something r****ded (goaltending Duncan). Right now he's maximizing the limited minutes he gets with high energy and great hustle on both ends. However, he's not the defensive presence Chuck is nor the offensive threat that Scola is. With our line-up, there's nothing wrong with a PF by committee approach where all 3 could around 15-25mpg.
That goaltending call could have gone either way. It is a trade off - we lose a bit on the defensive end, but compared to Hayes, we gain a lot on the offensive end both in baskets *and* in offensive rebounds.
You might need to study up on your basketball. Chuck stay with an offensive board and always gives us an extra possession.
This is crazy. We have two rookie PFs who are both keepers and we couldn't get a pack of chewing gum for Chuck. If Landry and Scola continue improving, Chuck would be fine as a scrub next season.
If Landry keeps improving, he may end up replacing Hayes in the next year or two. However, it won't be by this trade deadline, especially if the Rockets want to have any hope for a playoff run. Landry and Scola are too green to man the PF/back up center positions by themselves this season. But if all goes well and Landry looks like the real deal on both offense and defense, I can see the Rockets moving Hayes this off-season.
i stopped reading right after this sentence. you think the oberto that the spurs have are starting material on a contending team? that's rit. a combo of hayes, scola, and landry should be enough esp. given that two of them have room for improvement. this team CAN be good enough to contend in the playoffs.
Landry is just anther Stromile Swift on the court with more passion and hungrier because of his rookie status. Don't get blinded by his athleticism to discredit Scola's contribution to the team. Thsi is baskeball, not a circus.
Well sir, judging by the thoughtful, informative and knowledgeable response you just presented, id have to agree with you and include you as one of those fans. In relation to the thread, i have to agree with some of the posters and keep all 3. They each bring different games to the table and are all useful in certain situations. However, the main reason why we should keep all 3 is because none of them have enough value in the market to bring back a helpful piece of puzzle. I mean its not like Chuck or Landry could bring us a point guard like Bibby or a small forward like maggette. Keep all of them, i say.
I really like the Scola/Landry 5/4 combo against the opposing 2nd team. They are usually more athletic & energetic and gain much needed experience.
Hayes would be the only one I would consider moving, and only if we were getting something of value in return. Scola and Landry have too much potential and their contracts are too small to get anything of value back. Like any trade suggestion though, until you start talking specific players that we would be getting back it is impossible to even guess as to whether the trade would be a good idea.
