No, it doesn't. If Cho had traded him when his value was low, they wouldn't have had an asset that would have interested Charlotte. Saying "Rudy is the guy they want so Cho should have got rid of him because now it's costing him the trade" is so internally broken, in terms of logic, that it boggles the mind. At least if you had said that Cho could have traded Rudy for an asset that would have interested Charlotte now, instead...that would have been a little less strange. Still a bad argument because, as you acknowledge, Rudy's value was low at the time plus there's no way to predict whether that acquired player would have been of interest to Charlotte. Smart GMs don't leave value on the table. Trading Rudy at the bottom of his value would have done that.
It's not, really. Rudy was a headache in August and now you've let that headache possibly determine the outcome of a deal. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the other team values Rudy and the Blazers have him because in the end they won't end up trading for him if he threatens to just leave for Europe/ask for a buyout and become a headache for them. That just goes without saying. The argument can be made Rudy's value is even lower now with him saying he'll just ask for a buyout. Letting it get to that point is a shame. If the trade isn't completed because the Bobcats don't want to deal with Rudy, that's on Cho, period. Done with this discussion. You can have the last word if you must.
I guarantee his last word will make more sense than most of what you have posted tonight... your logic is just silly, but it seems that is only apparent to everyone other than you.
how can you say "Rudy's costing us Crash?" If anything, this play by Rudy's agent (if true) helps us out. CHA knows they have to have another player added to Joel's salary to dump Crash on us and get a pick and some payroll relief. So of course they ask for the best player they think they can get in the 1-2M range (Rudy, but I'm sure they asked for Nic first). Rudy saying he's basically off the table for them moves them into Elliot Williams/Patty Mills/ArmonAndMarks range if they want to get the deal done. This isn't a bad thing.
Now Wallace may be heading to UTA along with Livingston for Harris. What does CHA need with Harris and Augustin? Hmm....
And if you didn't have him, you still couldn't do the deal. But the Blazers can still play him. His value on the court is better than trading him for nothing back in the summer. It doesn't, actually. It needed to be said in order for me to point out why that was a bad argument. It would be a remarkably weak argument, since the Blazers still get value from Rudy by playing him. Dumping him at the bottom of his value would have meant zero value. No on-court value, no getting-Gerald-Wallace value. You can keep repeating it as much as you want but considering you can't support it with logic, it's not a very damning accusation.
His PER dropped from 18 (previous two seasons) to 15 this year. His DRtg dropped from 101 (previous two seasons) to 105 this year. His TS% dropped from 59% (previous two seasons) to 53% this year. Maybe it's an off year but at age 28 it's a pattern I'm not comfortable with.
Hmm I guess we will see. I either expect that by the time I wake up tomorrow the deal is either confirmed dead or we do end up getting Wallace, but not until the trade deadline is near over.
I'd still take him as he could be of great service to a playoff team like the Blazers. Even though there's been a dip in his stats, he'd be more reliable than Joel Przybilla.
One thing I like is he still seems like a beast of a rebounder for his position, that is something we could use especially when Camby is out.
He's not the player he was, but our package isn't what it would have been two years ago, either. He can still be quite useful. He's Corey Maggette who plays defense and can rebound.
