But we said no! Hell yeah I would say no too. http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/61639/20090917/knicks_wanted_rudy_for_lee_blazers_said_no/
I'm surprised you guys wouldn't have made that deal. I like Rudy but it seems like a good deal to me. A fairly replacable backup SG, behind your best player, for a harder to find, quality, backup PF- I'd have done it (if the salaries were even)
I have a worry that Lee is kind of like Zach, where his stats suggest he is a better player than the amount he actually helps his team. Don't get me wrong, I would like to have him for cheap, but not at the cost of Rudy. Good job KP.
The comparison isn't completely off; Lee is something of a liability at the 4 and 5 spots when it comes to defense, but he differs quite a bit from Zach in that his offense comes all off of hustle and inside play, where Zach actually has touch on the ball, but also seems to be the beneficiary of a lot of his own misses to generate his bloated rebounding numbers. Frankly, if Zach had his head screwed on straight and wasn't getting paid 17 million a year but instead made 9-10 million a year he'd be worth his salary. In any case I'll take Rudy as a sixth man over David Lee as a sixth man, if only because Lee duplicates a lot of what Joel and Greg can give you but only at a reduced height and length.
If you believe Rudy is "fairly replaceable" and Lee is a "harder to find, quality" then yeah your argument makes sense and the Blazers should try to push for that type of deal. But I believe Rudy is our best player off the bench, one of our 5 best players, and a higher quality talent than Lee. Blazer management appears to agree with me, thus your assessment sounds flawed.