That is all you got, trading a guy who SUCKED to clear the way for a superior player. Yeah, explain how that translates to what you suggested. DD
I see two players of comparable offensive talent -- one is making 9 million a year, is on the wrong side of 30, his defense will only get worse, and the other can be had for considerably less. I'd rather have the cheaper player, especially when we've got a promising young player in Patterson who deserves more rotation minutes and when we need to invest more money in other positions.
I said the same thing. I have to think they are thinking of trading someone in the rotation if they want to do something to bring Carl back. Though what durvasa says makes sense as well if value/cost is taken into account. Carl isn't as quite as good as Scola, but he's also like 4 years younger in age and multiple years younger in games and is cheaper. If you want to make room for a guy off the bench (ie Patrick), it makes sense to trade the older more expensive starter
This. Anyone who has been around team sports long enough knows the value of having a intense competitor playing on your team when things get tough and guys lose confidence. Not to mention the guy would help us overcome dead spots in the 3rd-4th quarter. But I agree, we just don't have room for him right now until we make a primary move opening up PF roster space to get a center or a star (our first priorities of course). You can tell Landry hates losing and probably hates it over there. If he doesn't come here my guess is he would probably would go someplace like Milwaukee or Charlotte, or someplace similar that has decent team (potential playoff chances) and a hole at PF.
Dude, Les Alexander will pay for a winner, but no way he pays for a team in 2011-12 with Kaman, a re-signed Brooks, a re-signed Landry AND whoever they can get with a huge Yao TPE. That might be the largest team payroll in NBA history! Also, DD, I don't agree that it's as simple as the Rockets being able to sign Landry for "free" this summer. He will cost the team cap room they would otherwise need to use/save for a star player. Besides, I'd rather go the TPE route, anyway, which would likely preclude a Landry free agent signing. (To the extent that there is a MLE next year, it will probably be lower than Landry's asking price.)
I love Carl, I love his tenacity and the way he plays the game, but WE DON'T NEED HIM. Hill, as much as we all complain about him at times, has a pretty high ceiling if we continue to work with him, while Landry's pretty much already reached his ceiling as a player. Also, if we bring him back, then PP loses the pt that he needs to develop. Honestly, I'll be happy sticking with PP and Hill as the backups to Scola. Carl was a great guy for the team, but I think we need to be practical here.
The Rockets valued Rafer Alston much more than you, and he was an established starter on the team for many years and playing his best stretch of basketball as a Rocket in the weeks prior to the trade. And they traded him for Lowry -- a guy you referred to as a "career backup" who is purely an "energy player" off the bench. Kind of like your description of Carl Landry. Why did they make the trade? Partly to open up minutes for a younger, cheaper player who's upside they liked a lot. Kind of like Patrick Patterson.
I agree. Brooks is likely to be S&T'd but if not, Kaman is an expiring in 2011-12 and we could combine Kaman's expiring and the Yao TPE to bring aboard Chris Paul and Okafor. ; )
Scola for Landry, on its own is a head scratcher. But in conjuction with another deal(s), it could make all the sense in the world. Lets just pretend we all agree Landry is a small downgrade. And lets pretend a couple other minor additions made to make the money work. Ok, think MOREY. Hmmm. Well, if im downgrading a bit at the 4, im certainly not at the 5 also. So, im saying a center must be what he is after. He has helped himself to go get one by: 1) Saving $ 2) Maybe some cap space in the form of an expiring to go with Landry. 3) Maybe a 2nd rounder? Im thinking maybe he is moving 2 PF's. I mean were over manned at the 4 anyway. Add Landry, subtract Scola, we still got the same number. If were going to get a center, probably have to give up a big. Maybe a 4 who can play some minutes at the 5. Not Pat. Ah Hill. Separate deal here. Send Hill in the deal to get the 5. Send a pick. Yao contract. Maybe Bud. JJ. Exceptions. Pretty loaded to get something. Ok. Hill, Bud, a 1st, Yao contract, JJ, Battier, Exceptions = Who? (a center) ???
I would love to do it. Landry has proven that he belongs on the court. I honestly dont see Hill getting much better and most teams know this by now. I dont think Hill has any trade value by himself, teams would rather have him as a throw in piece in a bigger trade. The bigger trade will take care f the logjam as well.
Landry is a 2nd or 3rd tier talent and this team is loaded with that already. There's no reason to reacquire Landry unless we loose some guys in the pf spot because of a trade that brings in 1st tier talent.
I agree with most of you guys. I'd love to have Carl back on the team, but there has to be a real need.
No, he did what he had to do to retain Scola, who's a good player. I think the Rockets would have kept Landry instead of Scola at the deadline last year, if they had their choice.
Starter for starter......and the Rockets valued Rafer...ROFLMAO....they jettisoned him as soon as they found a sucker to take him. DD
