Info re the debate of who was behind the Battier/Gay trade

We traded the 8th pick and Swift for Battier.

JVG himself was on the radio many months ago and said Morey was behind the deal. I'm not going to lie, I would have preferred he had gotten a pick back with the Battier deal. But I have no problem with Battier himself.

I love the fact that the core guys in the rotation are in their prime. The team is going to be so good and glad we have the players that we have. Artest and Battier on the same team?

 

if you want to be dense, that's your prerogative.

 

I would have Tmac at the point because he is our best playmaker, Rudy at the 2, Artest 3, Scola 4, and Yao at the 5 position if we didn't trade for battier and still got Artest.

 

and still, the Rockets traded Gay for Battier.

the whole issue is funny to me. folks, like you, try their damnedest to rationalize, apologize, illusionize (had to invent a new word for the bio-solid content of the "we never traded ...etc")

Battier has been great for the Rockets, celebrate him! No need for the asinine excuses for a recorded trade.

 

no we traded Swift on a bad contract and Gay for Battier. And thats the fact. Without Swifts contract we made more moves in the proceeding summers.

So realistically if you want to be direct you might as well count all the players that we signed with effect of unloading Swift's contract.

Look alrite at least we didn't unload a contract for nothing, aka Marcus Camby to Clippers

 

the rest of your post is great. but look it up, we traded Gay + Swift for Battier. yes, some will always question the trade. Battier has been great and the only truly debatable issue(imo) is his initial cost.

no real need to drink the "we never traded Gay" koolaid. we traded him, its a matter of record.

 

If you want to look at it like that... then Sacramento traded Artest for Bobby Jackson and Donte Greene. Of course, no one in Sacramento is mad at this seemingly lopsided trade. There were circumstances about the trade that made it much more reasonable a few years ago.

You make it sound like we knew he was going to be as good as he was anyway and still traded him. Gay could've turned into Sheldon Williams or Tyrus Thomas or Andrea Bargniani or Randy Foye or Adam Morrison or Patrick O Bryant (picked right after Gay, now not even a rotation player). It's called a risk. We were betting on Gay being a bust (a bust in the sense that he wouldn't become a decent player for a good 3-4 years sort of like Dwight Howard, Tmac, Kobe, if at all). Don't fool yourself, when Gay was drafted, he was considered a project from the get go. Gay wasn't a proven commodity at the time (perhaps that is why he was the 8th pick in a weak draft?).

I don't think anyone is trying to say that at the beggining of last season they wouldn't want to trade back. Everyone knows Gay is a good player NOW. We ****ed that one up. But hey, hindsight is 20/20.

But as long as we are using our hindsight. We've traded for Artest now. So it might actually be safe to say that we were better off trading for Battier. Battier would probably sign back with us long term to be a Robert Horry type of guy off the bench. We would've lost Gay for nothing with Artest on the team because no way Les would sign 3 wingmen for over 10 million dollars.

 

I agree its like saying it was Marcus Camby traded for whatever the Trade Exception gets for the Nuggets, which is probably nothing. When you trade for picks you don't know how it pans out. Its essentially like what Memphis did themselves this by trading Love and Miller away for Mayo. Will Mayo pan out? No idea, how would have Gay panned out under us instead of under a lowly Memphis team where he was one of the go to guys? Completely unknown.

Gay was probably most certainly on board but if you think about it, he wasn't something we were thinking about on draft night until Brandon Roy went. If you say this is a Morey ball move then so be it, but its more like we traded a POSSIBLE STUD/FAIL for a reliable rotation player. I think that is more then worth it given the stated intention to win now. I love it how everyone says that Gay would have been in line with our win now mode look at how his contributing last season and this coming season blah blah blah.

No one knows how Gay's development would have handled under JVG and with T-mac and Yao in front of him. If any of you had ever seen the dude defend you would know he would have been benched after some defensive mistakes. Its too hard to tell and saying that we Traded Gay for Battier is presumptive. If your going to forward the pick into Rudy Gay then you might as well include the players we signed with the cap space off Swift's contract.

 

That wouldnt happen though. We would still have Swift with a over paid contract. Meaning we wouldnt be able to afford Artest or Scola and especially with an expiring contract with Gay.

Also how good would Gay be in the first two years under JVG?

We have who we have now because of what was done prior.

 

...Houston wasted 2 seasons finding out that having Shane Battier and Rafer Alston play 30mins a night is NOT a good idea.

What gets lost in this discussion isn't just the poor evaluation of Gay but also the Rockets completely misread Battier. They thought he was more Josh Smith than Bruce Bowen....that he would play "real" minutes at PF. Use him as a weapon and not just a counter or reaction when other teams go small.

Van Gundy has always talk about the importance of a PF who can knock down jumpers when playing next to McGrady and Yao. He's even mention how in a perfect world he would be a Horry type....someone who can extend out to the 3pt line. They thought Shane was that guy. Opening night that season Houston at Utah and Boozer goes for 24 and 19 and that was basically the end of Battier being a "weapon" at PF. Cant guard real PF and is a poor rebounder....they would've known that if they had bothered to watch Dirk torch him in the '06 playoffs....31ppg 8reb 50%

 

Semantics aside, we traded Gay for Battier.
But no way we could've gotten Artest with Gay and Stro's contract.
Plus Rudy blows on defense.

 

I'm not making excuses for anything. Even knowing what I know now about Gay, I'd still probably do that trade, because Battier is the perfect 6th man, and those are as hard to find as the Gay's of the world - as evidenced by the fact that player's like Robert Horry or Bruce Bowen get so many rings. That complimentary player is hard to find - granted, we've lucked into Artest and don't know how that will work out yet, but I'd rather take my chances with Artest + Battier than Gay.

Regardless, the point is still the same. It doesn't matter what is recorded or what physically happened, etc. What matters is the decisions that were made, and why, and what that means as to what actually happened. Take this year's draft.

Did the Rockets actually draft Nicolas Batum? Yeppers. It's right there, written down on a piece of paper. But it would be completely assinine to grade the draft based on what Nicolas Batum turns out to be. The Rockets never wanted him, didn't draft them for themselves, etc. The pick could have been whomever worked for the trade they had planned. Nicolas Batum had nothing to do with it.

Answer me this - Would your view of the trade be (positive, negative, whatever it is) be different if instead of Gay, Memphis had asked for somebody else?

And then answer this - would the Rockets brass have done anything different in the above scenario that implied a different reasoning, perspective, anything on what they did?

I can tell you with some certainty, the the view of the trade on this board would definitely be different, even though the answer to the second question is no, the executive team didn't do anything different.

So, it doesn't matter how hard folks, like you, try to rationalize, apologize, or illusionize the fact that we traded Gay for Battier, because, in the end, what is "recorded" doesn't matter and has no bearing on the thought process in mind or the hindsight analysis of the trade.

 

Do you really think a good sixth man (refuse to call Battier perfect as we have never seen him as sixth man) is harder to find than a good starter? Before you answer, just think about it for a bit. Take a look at every team's roster and try to find 10 who would start battier over their current 3-man without hesitation.

Quality bench players are not as hard to find as freakishly athletic, very coordinated young players destined to play in all star games. They're just not.

Also: The Robert Horry's, Bruce Bowen's, Dennis Rodman's of the the world have brings because and only because they play with the Hakeem Olajuwon's, Shaquille O'Neal's, Kobe Bryant's, Tim Duncan's, and Michael Jordan's of the world, etc, etc, etc......otherwise, no rings. The fact that these role players rode the coat-tails of the games greatest players while chipping in on the defensive end is not evidence of anything.

No. If for example, the Rockets drafted Patrick O'Bryant, and shipped him to Memphis for Battier, while passing on Rudy Gay, I would be equally unhappy with the move as I am now. Before the draft, I was extremely confident that Rudy Gay was the ideal player for the Rockets in that draft. He was young, athletic, coordinated, a mis-match waiting to happen, and unselfish (his stock dropped because he deferred to much to his teammates).

During JVG tenure, we aquired one washed up former knick after the other (weatherspoon, oakley, marc jackson.....yet there's still this conception that JVG had no say in personnel moves???). We kept adding old guys with nothing left, which turned out to be a waste of a few seasons worth of acquisitions. Rudy Gay was the athletic young third scorer the team has needed for a while. I didn't see it as a question of would he turn out to be good, it was a matter of would he somehow someway be available when we picked. Rudy Gay being on the board at 8 was a long shot.

Consider the value of a mid lottery pick. For Jeff Green, the Celtics got Ray Allen. For Rudy Gay, the Rockets got Shane Battier. When they announced the trade, I kept waiting to hear who else was involved. Mike Miller too right? A future draft pick? nope.

The answer here is also 'no', which is the very reason why my opinion of the trade would remain unchanged even if the above scenario was somehow different.

 

If you guys really want to debate then we should start discussing why we took Luther Head instead of Monta Ellis.

 

How many superstar players in this league have as many rings as Horry, Bowen, Derek Fisher, heck, even Posey now? Shareef Abdur Raheem was once freakishly athletic and young, too.

Seriously...it may be easier to say a Rudy Gay is a once in a every five years type player...BUT, it's just not true. Every team seemingly has one (if not more) player like this, including the bad ones. Not every team has that oh so important role player that gets you over the top. Hakeem played on some pretty talented teams in his day...BUT, even though that first championship team, on paper, didn't seem to be quite as talented as some of the 80's teams, it was the Horry's, Elie's of the world that made the difference. It helped that Hakeem played out of his mind, but he had earlier seasons where he dominated in the playoffs, too...occasionally more-so.

I'm not discounting the importance of a superstar. It is definitely more important than the chemistry glue-guy 6th man. But the Rockets, theoretically (depending on your view of T-Mac and Yao), had 2 superstars already...so yes, I'd DEFINITELY take Artest + Battier over Artest + Gay any day of the week. With Artest, I think Battier helps you win a lot more than Gay does, on this team.

While I think you're viewing the trade correctly, let's remember a lot on this board aren't. I guarantee the "tone" on the board about the trade would be drastically different had it actually been Patrick O'Bryant instead. It'd be more like "thank goodness we made that trade....too bad we didn't grab Gay, though".

And, I certainly agree with you that I thought Gay slipping was very fortuitous, and that the Rockets needed athletic talent. But, on the other hand, I remembered Eddie Griffin. And what's more, that also happens to be the type of stance that could have led us to go ahead and draft a Thabo, enticed by his freakish athletic ability...and that would have been a horrible decision.

Point being, I agree that was a mistake in hindsight. But I think things could have turned out a lot worse, and I think viewing it as a trade of Gay for Battier is wrong. It was a trade of a #8 draft pick, plus the dumping of salary, for Battier. Historically, number 8 draft picks are hit or miss. Because of how Gay is turning out, it makes the trade seem worse. But I don't think that makes it a bad trade....though definitely bad scouting.

All depends on the situation. Speaking of Mike Miller, consider that to move up 2 spots in this past year's draft, Memphis had to not only trade their #5 pick but add in Mike Miller. So sometimes things come cheap, sometimes not so much. all depends on the situation and the viewpoint. again, i think the rockets probably overpaid, but things could have turned out worse. It's a c+ deal, not an F.

Right. Kind of my point. The analysis should be of the trade of the #8 pick and dumping of Swift's salary for Battier. If you think that was a bad trade, it doesn't matter who is picked at #8.

I think we're mostly on the same page. It's just tiring to read so many threads over the past year about how we traded away a great young player for a limited role player, etc., etc., blah, blah...which somewhat distorts what actually happened. We traded away the opportunity to draft that player, but aside from being told to draft him for the trade, we didn't do that. And while that is still something to complain about, as I mentioned in a previous post, why aren't people complaining that we drafted Novak instead of Paul Milsap, or going back a year before (though not on "Morey's watch") we drafted Luther instead of a Jason Maxiell or Linas Kleiza or David Lee or Ronny Turiaf or Monta Ellis (as correctly noted above)?

 

I don't think we're that far apart either, but I also think you are over-valuing Battier, as lots of fans here tend to do IMO.

You say "not every team has that oh so important role player that gets you over the top", but do we have any evidence that Battier is that kind of difference maker? He was supposed to be the guy who helps Yao and T-Mac get past the first round. In two years, he hasn't gotten them any closer to that goal than they were before. This team was good defensively before he showed up.

What was lacking was the overall level of talent needed to be competitive in the playoffs. If you look at the teams that have had success in the playoffs, it's not just about having fringe role players, it's about having an overall level of talent that surpasses your opponents. They don't have to be superstars, but they have to be skilled.

The Rockets, until picking up Scola for nothing and finding Landry as a diamond in the rough, were facing a huge talent deficit every night they went out there. Outside of T-Mac and McGrady, most of the others were offensively inept. Rafer's inconsistent, Battier simply stands in the corner, Juwan Howard was abysmal, Chuck Hayes works has tail off but shoots lay-ups and free throws at a 40% clip.

The team that pushed the mavericks to 7 games was better, but guys like Sura and Barry and Mike James were already on their last legs. They were all older guys who were basically stop-gap solutions. The team would've been better off taking a more long term approach.

People sweat having too many superstars, and claim that Gay never would've become one playing under McGrady and Yao. Here, he wouldn't need to become a superstar. He could be that talented third scorer that this team desparately needed.

I like Battier. There are a lot of teams that would happily swap their pick in that draft for a guy like him. I'm not convinced the Rockets are better with him than they would be with Gay though. IMO, having a talent like Rudy Gay coming off your bench would be much scarier for opponents than someone like Battier.

 

I think this get overlooked a lot. I remember people looking at shane as a 4. They said howard is a inch taller and they rebound the same, but there is a huge difference when you're a guy like Howard who is used to playing that spot. Opening night, boozer showed the Rox why it was a poorly thought plan. Also, a lot of posters want to talk about Swifts contract. Personally, mid-level isn't that big of a deal nor are they hard to move. In fact this is the last yr of that deal. No matter how anyone sells it, #8 and swift for shane wasn't a good deal. Even if they were in win now mode, there was a reason why they had a high lotto pick. The spurs were fresh off a conference finals and the next season they had a 19 yr old french pg starting. It was a poor trade that led to what happen in getting ron. If the Rox just draft the best player at the need position then they get gay or brewer. They went into that off season talking about being longer and atheletic and they came out with battier. The got Artest now, so its cool now.

 

WOW. Who does our scouting again?

 

Excellent point, indeed. You definitely have to look at where both teams are AFTER the trade. Even with a healthy Gasol, the Grizz would not have been on the same level as the Rockets thenand now, IMO. Gay was an enigma, just like any young talent is and the Rockets got the better part of the deal in the long run, I think.

 

Exactly. I don't know why people still can't get this. Bad scouting of draft prospects and bad trade decisions are two different things. On hindsight, of the teams that drafted in front of us, the only team that clearly got a better player than Gay was Portland. The other teams' fans should be more mad than us because we got Shane out of the 8th pick and dumped Swift. What did Chicago get with their high pick?

Trading a draft pick is about potential, which is about scouting, which is about calculating risk and reward. A lot of highly rated draft prospects, touted as "can't miss" turned out to be duds. A lot of unknowns became stars.