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