That's not unreasonable. If we can trade Chuck for a better player, duh ... we do it. But who could we get in return, for a similar salary, that would be more valuable? You said in your opening post (the thread title) that Chuck "has to go". That makes it sound like he should be traded for whatever we can fetch for him. That's not how you treat players who are assets. Chuck's an asset. He's helping us win games. If there are opportunities to bring in a quality player that could really help us in another area by giving up Chuck, we should look into it. But let's not underestimate what he's doing for us right now.
Your right but thats why you package him with someone else. I'm not sure who said it but Chuck Hayes is 6'6 and is our BACKUP CENTER!!!! I like Chucks defense I appreciate what he brings to the team but im sure there are takers. Morey can make it happen. Who would have thought we would have got Artest for Jackson and our draft pick. There is this guy name Sean Williams on the nets. Stuck at the end of the bench and i know for a fact he can get the job done. I wouldn't be to thrilled about a guy who basically made this team off of 10 day contracts. There must have been something other G.Ms saw in him. Guys love and appreciate chuck hayes which i do 2 but hate and want to trade McGrady so sad. And people say im crazy for wanting to trade a guy that could make the team better lol Bandwagons i say thats what they are
Okay, I am going to cut you some slack here because I don't think you are close to the legal voting age. There isn't a person that posted in your thread that they wouldn't trade Chuck no matter what... not even me. But your original statement is "No disrespect but he gotta go" which means to most everyone who speaks the English language that he's not cutting it and by whatever means necessary get rid of him. The point you seemed to want to pound to death is that Chuck isn't taller than 6'6" and should therefore be traded for any player over the size of 7'0" regardless of if they can help us more than he can or not. Now you say "That's why you package him" Which is fine. A lot of us have been thinking he would be packaged with Luther for someone who can play in the rotation. But our point to you is, you don't give away someone in your rotation that has a specific function for a small cost for someone who will sit on your bench because he can't play as well, even though he is taller. You need to stop taking everything personally and think about what you are saying before you post. People here aren't saying that Chuck is untouchable, they are saying his function out weighs his cost which is why it's hard to trade him straight up for someone that is taller.
If the Rockets can get get Sean Williams for Chuck, and that's really what the coaches want, then I think they'll do it. My impression is that the coaches actually like what Chuck brings the team, and they'd prefer to keep him over a player like Williams. Remember we're trying to build a team of players who can help us right now, not players who may help more in the future. Sean Williams is a raw athlete who may become a good player down the line. He isn't what we're looking for at this point. If you're really annoyed about our lack of size, the Rockets do plan on adding a 7-footer at some point. It's just a matter of freeing up some money with a trade.
We traded away Bonzi for Jackson. I know that trade was to get a backup pg but Bonzi was part of our rotation. We could have just traded away James for Jackson straight up.
No we couldn't have. Bonzi was what NOH wanted out of the trade. Bonzi was on the fringe of the rotation and could be replaced, for him we got a consistent backup pg. Trust me, there is no way that NOH would have taken a deal straight up Bobby for Mike James.
QFT Why would NOH want another PG with a bad FG% that has a longer contract then Bobby J? They needed bench scoring help and thought Bonzi was it. Luckily for us they took the bait and we got rid of James' contract and parlayed Bobby J into Artest.
Well we got a good pg. I dont know about consistent because Jackson came and went away on nights and disappeared when it mattered the most. But i guess what im tryin 2 say that i should have said b4. When Shane comes back Hayes mins are going to drop big time. You'll have Landry and Scola playing the 5 sometimes and Artest at the 4 spot sometimes. Hayes will not see the court depending on teams health (knock on wood) so why not trade him and filler for something good. I respect hayes i really don't believe this is the team for him. If it wasnt for JVG he wouldn't even be playing for us. Don't think im a Chuckwagon basher cuz im not i love what he brings to the team.
You couldn't be more wrong. Shane is gonna reduce minutes from Brent Barry, T-Mac, and Artest. As it stands now we will see very little of Artest af PF(if any at all). If anything we might be seeing more Artest as SG. We'll also see less of that super small lineup of Brooks and Alston.
Chuck gets paid under 2 million dollars. Find me a player that another team is willing to trade that makes a contribution like Chuck for that price. Most under 2 million dollar players are either a) Young players or b) crappy players or c) veteran crappy players. Chuck is a bargain. I would trade him if we could get someone that could help the team, but he is by far more of an asset than liability. If he were getting paid 5 million, then I would say he isnt worth the money.
+1 Chuck Hayes is like one of those MasterCard commercial. Priceless. Well not exactly. but he's underpaid for the skills he possesses. We are lucky to have him.
You should go to a liquor store and drown yourself with vodka for weeks. Then come back here we'll see if you still feel the same way.
Jason Friedman's take: http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5800014704 [rquoter] ... Perhaps it's time to stop obsessing about the Rockets' so-called "desperate need" for a back-up big behind Yao, and start focusing on the value Houston gets from a guy known as one of the best post defenders in the NBA. So while you're perusing the list of available 7-footers out there, just ask yourself if they'll be able to provide anything close to the value Hayes brings to the team on a nightly basis. The answer, invariably, will be no. In other words, who played a bigger role in the Rockets' 22-game winning streak last year: Chuck Hayes or Loren Woods? There are plenty of sizable issues plaguing the Rockets right now to be sure (health, shooting, health, etc.). But having quality backups behind the big fella is not one of them. [/rquoter]
Chuck Hayes is one of the best bargains in the NBA. He is durable, smart, scraps, great post defender, protects the paint by clogging the lanes by taking charges, has great hands and strength, excellent post defender, and is a decent passer. What more do you want for $1.7 million a year! And if the Rox wanted to trade him, almost every team in the league would be interested.
Official Pre-Draft measurements after draft when we got Landry was clear that Landry is not so undersized - He is legit PF. use Ctrl+f and you find: Landry without shoes : 6' 7,75" Landry with shoes : 6' 8,5" Hayes without shoes : 6' 5,5" Hayes with shoes : 6' 6,75"
