I'm curious. How can Landry improve his defense, but Chuck Hayes can't improve his offense? Infact, how does Chuck Hayes not have any offensive skills? This is pure opinion. It's really the same both ways. Landry is good on offense, and thus he puts himself into positions where he can score and make himself look good. On defense, he doesn't put himself into a lot of positions where he can fail. Meaning, he is going to call for help in one-on-one situations to get the ball out of his defenders hands. He doesn't want them to shoot. Chuck on the otherhand will man up against the best Center/Power Forward in the league. Sometimes even the best Point Guard in the league. He wants them to take a shot because he is confident they will miss more shots when he is guarding them. On offense, he doesn't put himself into positions where he can't score or look bad. In short, both players play to their strengths. Chuck is not going to put up 8-10 shots per game just to score more points and Landry is not going to check Tim Duncan and foul out of the game.
haha thank you! i thought the point was clear enough but i guess people get distracted with trade talk.
Hayes is easily in the league-wide top 10 in post defense. What does Landry do that ranks in the top 10 at anything? I think Pops can replace most of what Landry does.
Except that you never implied anything about VALUE in the OP. If you're going to start a trade thread then change your mind midway through it I suggest you word it better next time. Stating something like: "So who would you be more willing to part with?" is pretty point blank.
....and where exactly to do YOU get off insulting the collective intelligence of this forum? The same poster that thinks Scola is a three, Ramon Sessions is a starting two and creates mindless threads attacking Adelman for not playing Chuck Hayes enough calling him gutless, yellow pie slingers, etc. I mean, really.....you can drop the arrogant, pompous attitude thing you've got going on. You're one of the biggest running jokes on this forum.
The Lakers showed why Hayes hurts the team. He can't do *anything* offensively. They didn't even guard him. It is STUPID for Hayes not to work on his offensive game but I guess he doesn't cherish his NBA salary enough.
I said he could play the 3, never said he was a 3. Ramon Sessions was an absolute steal for Minnesota and as much as you hear of Brooks and Lowry playing together in the scrimmages, you can damn sure bet Adelman would love to have a Sessions/Brooks/Lowry rotation. Guys that are just going to constantly drive the ball into the heart of the defense and create open looks for their team, draw fouls, and find a way to score are much harder to come by in my opinion than athletic wing defenders who don't create their own shot. And Rick Adelman is gutless if he doesn't start Chuck Hayes over his current crop of "Merry European Floppers and 1-Dimensional Power Dunkers..."
i dont think we're on the same page here. and usually (from what i remember) we are. you sound a bit put off and i'm not sure why. i wouldn't call this a trade thread because i never suggested trading anyone, or acquiring anyone. i simply told the story of how i came to ask myself this question which i couldn't answer. so i chose to ask other fans how they would answer this question. simple enough. i think it was worded just fine, but there is nothing you can do about some posters who choose to comment on the fact that i mentioned marcus camby. then the camby conversation starts. in hind sight, i'll give you this, i shouldn't have mentioned which player i was targeting on the trade machine. and since we're already on the topic... if all things were equal, who would you part with first?
Not put off, just responding to burnnotice jumping out of the looney bin and people acting like he's parting the Red Sea with his dissection of your question once you clarified exactly what you were asking. Originally, you asked: "Who would you part with first/Who would you be more willing to part with" in the context of constructing a trade, then you're surprised that people respond accordingly? But anyway, regardless of whether we're constructing a trade or not I would part with Landry first. Partially because Chuck is probably our best bet at center and is more consistent. Partially because I believe Landry's value around the league is relatively high and that he's more likely to help us land a bigger piece (since I think most of us feel a significant trade will take place before February -- maybe even sooner). I like Landry but he's always been too hit-or-miss for my taste plus he's probably peaked -- I doubt his value will ever get any higher.
The OP stated clearly that "Camby" is just a variable. It isn't as much about acquiring Camby as it is assessing who you would sooner part with, Landry or Hayes. You're focused on the wrong half of the equation.
It is an impossible question to answer, whom would you be getting back? What is the makeup of the team at the time. It is a waste of time... DD
I understand the topic as asking "Which of the 2 would you toss in toward ANY ending contract?". Example hypothetical: Rockets get back 9 Million Expiring Rockets trade Cook's $3.5M Barry's $2M Dorsey's 900k. HAYES OR LANDRY $2M - Who would you part with? Keep in mind you're not getting market value. You already know who you're getting, just have to let 1 go. I still like how the topic was approached. Cuz if it was simply POLL: "Landy or Hayes, Who Goes?", people would call the OP a rookie for being too redudant and simple. My choice...yikes...Hayes seems to win the numbers battle every time is all I can say
I saw a lady at the open practice thing on Saturday that had a homemade shirt with all of the players on it. She got all of the numbers right, but mis-spelled Landry's name... Laundry. That would be a cool nickname. Laundry puts his man on spin cycle. Laundry is fithy tonight.\ Laundry is in the rotation. and at the end of his career, hopefully far from now... Laundry is washed up.
