Seems like all these threads are trade Battier for this or trade Battier for that. I was wondering how many people want to actually keep him? To me he is more than a player, rather he is a vocal leader of the team. I do not want to see him in another team's uniform.
If you take Battier out, the team would have no leader. Ariza is not familiar with a leadership role (thanks to Kobe), Brooks is not experienced enough. The only person that might take a leadership role is Scola, albeit I don't know how that would turn out.
That poll is biased. Who wouldn't trade battier for better value? It would be stupid to keep him if we're getting better value in return.
Battier for Rudy F. and Travis Outlaw Do it or some variation of the above trade otherwise save him till the trade deadline!
So you want a bandaid for next season, when in 2010 we have Yao coming back and Tmac's contract out the door? I would much prefer a 20 win lotto team with a nice pick than a quick fix that puts us in a more awkward situation for 2010
I think at this point with the way it looks like the season is going to turn out we owe it to Shane to trade him to a contender who will give him a shot at a title. This of course is assuming we get young(ish) players back who can actually help our team in the future
Rather vague question. Whether it's a good idea to keep someone depends on what you get get for him. Rudy Fernandez. Sure, let's trade him. Travis Outlaw? Not so much.
So you are saying we should put a player's wants and needs over the teams? I love Shane as much as the next guy, but if we don't get a significant return. Then it is not worth it.
Battier is a locker room cancer and refuses to play the team game that the Rockets need. I would rather trade him for someone who has a better work ethic, and won't slack on defense. The 'me me me' attitude of NBA players like Shane is what's wrong with the game today.
I'd want to know what we're getting in return. An expiring plus a first round draft pick? Sure, I'd go for that, absolutely.
Yeah, no kidding. I was about to say the exact same thing. Even if it's an equal value but younger, I'd still do it. I'm actually surprised to see the poll result is so close. But again it all depends on how you define equal or better talent. If you only evaluate the talent by tangibles, I wouldn't do it for an equal one. But if all things (tangibles/intangibles) considered and we could get a better talent in return, it would be assinine not to do it.
