Merged: Rudy For Wilson Chandler?

[RR7]

I wonder if there are teams out there that would be interested in Chandler, and offer up slightly more for him than they would for Rudy. If Chandler isn't likely to see minutes here, we can always try to find a 3 way deal, where Chandler can go to a 3rd team, for a different asset, with Rudy going to NY.
Where might be a decent fit for Chandler?

I can see Cleveland being slightly interested, likely more so than in Rudy. Denver? G.S.? Clippers? Toronto? All could possibly have a use for him, and maybe more so than a use for Rudy perhaps.

 

[jlprk]

1. McMillan and D'Antoni spend weeks together assessing European players the US team will meet, including Rudy.

2. D'Antoni stays behind in the US due to his back problem. This ends his info gathering from McMillan.

3. The Knicks immediately make the best Rudy offer yet.

 

[BGrantFan]

I just want to state for the record that I think a Rudy for Chandler swap would be a good one for Cho to take. He's not a floor spacer or a shooter, but for 10 or 15 minutes a night backing up Nic you could do a helluva lot worse, especially given his defensive potential.

You'd rather have Chandler, who will be a RFA after the season, getting 10 mpg, over getting a first round pick for Rudy?

Jeebus.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: Rudy For Wilson Chandler?

Funny that he's referred to as a shooting guard in the Sheridan piece. He's a large SF. How efficient is he?

 

[RoyToy]

I think Chandler has more of a future than Rudy just because of his length and athletic ability(compared to Rudy), but I'd rather have neither and would have taken the 1st round pick yesterday.

 

[BGrantFan]

I think Chandler has more of a future than Rudy just because of his length and athletic ability(compared to Rudy), but I'd rather have neither and would have taken the 1st round pick yesterday.

Um, yeah. A 1st round pick is worth more than a Chandler-is-an-RFA scenario, IMO.

 

[Nikolokolus]

You'd rather have Chandler, who will be a RFA after the season, getting 10 mpg, over getting a first round pick for Rudy?

Jeebus.

Chandler is just as tradeable as anybody else and with his expiring contract, whomever you trade him to risks nothing. As for a first round pick sure I'd probably take that too, it would just depend on the range it was in. Late twenties? Not so much. Late teens? Sure.

 

[BGrantFan]

Chandler is just as tradeable as anybody else and with his expiring contract, whomever you trade him to risks nothing. As for a first round pick sure I'd probably take that too, it would just depend on the range it was in. Late twenties? Not so much. Late teens? Sure.

Chandler is team option for ~$2 million after next year, and he has a $3 million contract for '11/12 if the team decided to re-up him. Assuming the Blazers don't, how valuable is that $2 million? I'd rather have an unknown #1 pick from a bad/mediocre team over a 3rd-to-4th string SF who put up below average numbers on a bad team in an up-tempo offense.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Chandler is team option for ~$2 million after next year, and he has a $3 million contract for '11/12 if the team decided to re-up him. Assuming the Blazers don't, how valuable is that $2 million? I'd rather have an unknown #1 pick from a bad/mediocre team over a 3rd-to-4th string SF who put up below average numbers on a bad team in an up-tempo offense.

I don't know where you're getting the notion that I'd take Chandler over a 1st round pick, I just said I'd take Chandler for Rudy.

 

[BGrantFan]

I don't know where you're getting the notion that I'd take Chandler over a 1st round pick, I just said I'd take Chandler for Rudy.

Ah. Well, I wouldn't, if the rumors about Cho passing on first-round picks are to be believed. I don't see Chandler helping the Blazers next year.

 

[STOMP]

Eh, whatever. Remove the cancer.

I really doubt Rudy's situation affects the rest of the guys much (if at all) no matter how long it lingers. Players bitching about their minutes and roles is standard fare in the league for every team every year. Besides, since Rudy's agent has claimed that he won't be showing up, even if he isn't dealt the "cancer" won't be around.

I'm all for the club holding out for what they want and not settling for something they don't. If player X has really been offered in exchange, Portland might have umpteen legitimate reasons besides what shows up in the stats for not wanting said player. Contract situations, personal red flags, roster concerns, working on other deals... etc. could all factor. Hell, maybe they have a little motivation to let Rudy rot as a lesson to other under contract players of what could happen if they take a similar prima-donna tact? And again, I don't see much reason for the team to have to do something pronto. At least for this season, the roster doesn't have any glaring holes that need to be filled. They're stacked.

STOMP

 

[Blazer4ever]

Re: Rudy For Wilson Chandler?

IMO, that is a good trade. When you have such a situation, where a player asks to be traded, you need to get the best deal possible. You find someone like NY, that even it's own fans don't know who's playing SG for them next year, and you make them give you a solid bench player. We'd be left with no big time 3-point shooter but will get almost equal value for Rudy and would be able to play Wes in his more natural 2-position off the bench. It IS probably the best we can do.

 

[ABM]

Re: Rudy For Wilson Chandler?

I doubt Cho's first move as the Blazers' GM would be for a pothead.

 

[jlprk]

I thought Rudy wasn't coming back to the NBA . . . wasn't the agent last seen screaming this from the rooftops.

In the article, the agent says that he is "screaming from the rooftops" that Rudy won't report to the Blazers, not the NBA.

 

[Luther]

In the time that Cho has been here he has definitely contacted everyone that would be interested in Rudy. If he thinks the move is lateral or less than what Rudy's is worth, he's not going to make it. If we get rid of Rudy just to add some guy that will make less of an impact, we're wasting a roster spot and what should be considered a valuable contract. Rudy is a douche, but his contract is great for what he gives you on the court.

 

[STOMP]

In the time that Cho has been here he has definitely contacted everyone that would be interested in Rudy. If he thinks the move is lateral or less than what Rudy's is worth, he's not going to make it. If we get rid of Rudy just to add some guy that will make less of an impact, we're wasting a roster spot and what should be considered a valuable contract. Rudy is a douche, but his contract is great for what he gives you on the court.

If you're looking to sell your quality car for 10G and no one has responded to your ads in the first week you've listed it, do you slash the price just to get rid of it? What if you've already purchased your next car and your day to day cash isn't an issue? You've plenty of space in your garage to store the one you're looking to move...

Without Rudy the roster is full of quality guys who'll happily eat up his PT... there are no glaring roster holes that need to be addressed. Cho is dealing from a position of strength. Maybe he's letting Rudy twist in the wind to spite him for acting up as well as to hold out for the best possible deal? Regardless, Wilson Chandler is a pretty underwhelming possibility

STOMP

 

[jlprk]

Without Rudy the roster is full of quality guys who'll happily eat up his PT... Cho is dealing from a position of strength.

Maybe that's a position of weakness. Having 8 guards but room for only 6. Other teams knowing you have to trade, or have roster imbalance.

 

[STOMP]

Maybe that's a position of weakness. Having 8 guards but room for only 6. Other teams knowing you have to trade, or have roster imbalance.

15 roster spots... what the position the guys who never see the court hypothetically play matters little. They've plenty of balance and talent in their top 10-12 which is what does matter as those are the guys that need to stay healthy if the team is to succeed... thats true for every team. They aren't going to be contenders if Jawan Howard types from their deep bench are having to step into major roles.

Saying they "have to trade" when there is no pressing need to do so is overstating things to say the least. If their top guys start falling off to injury they can pick up FAs while those guys are on the IR and hopefully weather the storm until they're back.

STOMP

 

[Mediocre Man]

Maybe that's a position of weakness. Having 8 guards but room for only 6. Other teams knowing you have to trade, or have roster imbalance.

Roy
Miller
Bayless
Rudy
Matthews



Who am I missing that would get playing time? Williams and Johnson might get spot minutes, but either way that doesn't make 8. Matthews will play a lot of 3, so in reality that makes 6 with Johnson and Williams

 

[STOMP]

Roy
Miller
Bayless
Rudy
Matthews

Who am I missing that would get playing time? Williams and Johnson might get spot minutes, but either way that doesn't make 8. Matthews will play a lot of 3, so in reality that makes 6 with Johnson and Williams

...and isn't Matthews slated to get at least half his minutes at SF? SF is where Roy has effectively logged a good chunk of his minutes since he's come into the league (posting a 20+ PER) too...

I was going to address jlprk's math too but his whole point didn't seem to hold water

STOMP

 

[Masbee]

I have posted several times now who I think the (non-injury) heavy rotation guys will be this upcomming season, and it is close to several other posters. As you point out, more move are a non-issue. The roster is fine as is. Always look to improve, but there are no items on the emergency roster to-do list.

Starters: Miller, Roy, Batum, LA, Oden
Short Bench: Bayless, Matthews, Camby
Regular minutes: Cunningham, Pryz
Everybody else: injury backup and mop-up only. They are either rookies, 2nd rounders or guys who have demanded trades, and can sit on the bench all year long without affecting the team. I just don't see the problem here. I continue to be baffled by those who post over and over and over about "problems" that I look but can't see.

Purple dinosaurs. Do you see them?

 

[MickZagger]

Re: Rudy For Wilson Chandler?

I don't want someone stupid enough to get caught. The correlation to pot smoking players and lengthy careers is pretty good, if the talent is there. Look at Kareem and Charles Oakley. Hell, even Cliff Robinson. I have no problem with smoking it if you're (a) talented enough to make an impact at 35, and (b) smart enough not to get caught. Because if you're too stupid to keep it on the down low, you're probably also too stupid to play team basketball well enough to help a team win.

I'd trade Rudy for Lamar Odom and Chris Webber during their prime any day of the week. Sometimes twice on Sundays.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I have posted several times now who I think the (non-injury) heavy rotation guys will be this upcomming season, and it is close to several other posters. As you point out, more move are a non-issue. The roster is fine as is. Always look to improve, but there are no items on the emergency roster to-do list.

Starters: Miller, Roy, Batum, LA, Oden
Short Bench: Bayless, Matthews, CambyRegular minutes: Cunningham, Pryz
Everybody else: injury backup and mop-up only. They are either rookies, 2nd rounders or guys who have demanded trades, and can sit on the bench all year long without affecting the team. I just don't see the problem here. I continue to be baffled by those who post over and over and over about "problems" that I look but can't see.

Purple dinosaurs. Do you see them?

I should probably leave this for another thread, but since it is the only active topic that I find interesting........ I agree with that line-up but wonder how they they get offense from the second unit. I think the answer is.......don't have a complete second unit. Either LMA, BRoy, or Miller has to be on the floor at all times. I think to do this, Miller has to come out early so he can get back in early too. LMA will have to play the first 14 minutes. Bayless needs more minutes with Broy and not just with the second unit.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I should probably leave this for another thread, but since it is the only active topic that I find interesting........ I agree with that line-up but wonder how they they get offense from the second unit. I think the answer is.......don't have a complete second unit. Either LMA, BRoy, or Miller has to be on the floor at all times. I think to do this, Miller has to come out early so he can get back in early too. LMA will have to play the first 14 minutes. Bayless needs more minutes with Broy and not just with the second unit.

I don't know if this will come as a shock to you or not, but they basically did this last season: LMA played the first 12-14 minutes, and one or the other of them (LMA or Roy) was always on the court (when possible barring injury). The "second unit" is a myth anyway; a good 9-man rotation means some starter is always in the game.

 

[jlprk]

C
Camby
Oden
Przybilla

F
Aldridge
Batum
Cunningham
Pendergraph
Babbitt
OPEN

G
Roy
Miller
Matthews
Bayless
Fernandez
Mills
Williams, Elliott
Johnson, Armon

Gone:
Howard
Diener
2 guards above (1 if you pretend 1 is a forward all season)

15 roster spots... what the position the guys who never see the court hypothetically play matters little. They've plenty of balance and talent in their top 10-12...Saying they "have to trade" when there is no pressing need to do so is overstating things to say the least.

The bottom 5 are there to make practice and scrimmages more effective. Roster imbalance makes coaching those events harder (e.g. to install an offense, etc.). Obviously, we don't HAVE to have 6 guards, but normally a Coach would LIKE to. That's why teams almost always change rosters to balance them by position. Every team has players able to play out of position; that doesn't stop many from doing this.

If we go with 5 forwards and 7 guards, we'll be posting all season about our handicap, especially when one is injured. After every game, it'll be discussed--how did McMillan handle the problem tonight? Is Cho looking to pick up a D-Leaguer? Here's a proposed trade to fix it...etc.

Back to the original point: Having so many guards can be construed as a weakness just as much as a strength in our trading position for Rudy, since other teams know the surplus makes us want to trade him more.

 

[jlprk]

Maybe that's a position of weakness. Having 8 guards but room for only 6. Other teams knowing you have to trade, or have roster imbalance.

Roy
Miller
Bayless
Rudy
Matthews

Who am I missing that would get playing time? Williams and Johnson might get spot minutes, but either way that doesn't make 8. Matthews will play a lot of 3, so in reality that makes 6 with Johnson and Williams

I was going to address jlprk's math too but his whole point didn't seem to hold water

I didn't say we have 8 guards who will get time. I said we have 8 guards. Just for that, I'm adding back Diener, so now we have NINE.

 

[Ed O]

C
Camby
Oden
Przybilla

F
Aldridge
Batum
Cunningham
Pendergraph
Babbitt
OPEN

G
Roy
Miller
Matthews
Bayless
Fernandez
Mills
Williams, Elliott
Johnson, Armon

There's simply no reason to hold a roster spot open for a hypothetical sixth forward.

Ed O.

 

[STOMP]

I didn't say we have 8 guards who will get time. I said we have 8 guards. Just for that, I'm adding back Diener, so now we have NINE.

good job avoiding points made about Roy logging heavy minutes at SF throughout his career (excelling while there) and Matthews (who is bigger then Roy) being expected to log at least half of his minutes there as well. Addressing that would have let the air out of your whole point.

there is no issue with the roster, there is only the problem of few subjects to legitimately bitch about

STOMP

 

[jlprk]

Good job not seeing this.

That's why teams almost always change rosters to balance them by position. Every team has players able to play out of position; that doesn't stop many from doing this.

"This" referred to teams balancing their rosters through trades, pickups, etc. Good job bitching about my quite constructive response to your "math misunderstanding."

 

[STOMP]

Good job not seeing this.



"This" referred to teams balancing their rosters through trades, pickups, etc. Good job bitching about my quite constructive response to your "math misunderstanding."

playing out of position... yawn. You're really doubling down on something so stupid?

Brandon Roy's PER at SF has been well over 20... it's actually been higher then his PER at SG. According to the link I just gave he played there 44% of his overall minutes last season. Matthews was signed to be the primary backup SF. He played a lot of it last year so the team didn't just base their offer on some wild stab in the dark.

I'm quite happy with the roster as is, but then I'm not hung up on labels as much as I am on results... that and I don't have a need to complain regardless of the situation. Your overall point that the team is in some desperate/need to make a trade now state, seems to fit your view of a team at all times.

STOMP