Oh yeah, I forgot him. That said, it would still be converting a guard into a bigger player, so if anything it reduces some redundancy (unless you consider Cunningham an important player, which I don't).
No, because wing depth isn't their main concern, they're pretty desperate (too strong?) to add a quality power forward ... which Randolph is.
I disagree. It's not impossible that occasionally clearing a roster spot could be smart, but the vast majority of the time you're better off keeping a proven rotation player than opening a spot so you can sign someone off the street. Ed O.
I can't quite figure out why some of you seem to be in such a hurry to dump Rudy for seemingly anything. Are we in need of low draft picks or has Paul Allen ever been unable to go out and buy one if we need it? Are we short of bench players? Can we expect to get anything more for him right now? I think the answer to all of those questions is no. There aren't many teams out there who are in need of Rudy right now. An injury or a need to make a deal to move another player near the deadline could change the equation later in the season. Cho should just sit back and wait for a good opportunity.
The funny thing is, I was saying trade Rudy as quickly as possible and for almost anything (a middle first round pick or so) before he started making trade demands because I figured he still had some value and the Blazers weren't operating from a position of total weakness. Now that he's gone public with his "trade me or waive me" demand, his value is as low as it can possible go. I guess I'd say it's better to hold onto him and see if he can't build up some of his value before the end of training camp or before the trade deadline when teams are much more motivated to make deals. I get the feeling that if the Knicks are struggling and are barely holding on to playoff position by February they're going to soften their stance, especially if it becomes apparent that they don't have enough shooting or depth at guard. Something tells me this Rudy for Randolph deal is just in hibernation, with a chance to be revisited in five months or so. Plus part of me really wants to see if Rudy is foolish enough to hold out and forfeit his salary.
Well, birthday boy, here is my thinking. With the signing of Matthews the team seems to be making it clear we're making a shift to defense as our top priority. This will easily cut back Rudy's playing time as well as his role one the team to merely a 'stand in the corner' shooter. He'll be unhappy and I think justifiably continue to demand a trade. That's not good for the team. I also think that when a team has too many players that can rightfully demand playing time that also creates problems. So get rid of the whole mess anyway you can. As an example, did we get true "equal value" for Rasheed? No. For Zach? No. But we became a better "team" when we traded players that created problems. It's the same in this case. I hope the best for Rudy, but he has player out his welcome and is better moving on. If Cho can't, or won't, accommodate him, then cut his loose and let's all move forward. Sometimes a team has to take a small step back in order to take a larger step forward.
Agree 110%. Addition by subtraction implies there is something wrong subtracting from the value of the whole. Right now Rudy isn't passing around a bong or being the one guy at public events sitting and talking on his cell phone making everyone else think its OK to be bad, or running a dog fighting ring and getting these guys more addicted to gambling than playing for the love of the game. Hell, I don't even think Rudy sits in the locker room and talks to anyone since he barely speaks English. His being there is meaningless to the other players. But having an incredibly active off-the-ball player who is an NBA record holder in 3-point shooting on a team with no shooters is a lot more valuable out there as a 6th man than just being dumped from the roster. So you better get something better than some 20-something pick for Rudy, because Paul Allen could just buy that if he wants it, so there isn't nearly the value there. Hold out until you get in the lottery or a solid player in return. Otherwise your team is still better with Rudy coming off the bench than Armon Johnson or Babbitt (or whoever would get those minutes).
Yes, a better team. When you jettison unhappy or problem players or players that can't make those around them better you may not always get "equal value", but you can add players that make the team better. Basketball is a team sport. The better the team is, the better your chances of winning. It's a sports thing, ya know.
Is winning relevant in this "team sport" you talk about? Because the wins dropped off sharply when players like Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells were jettisoned for pennies on the dollar. Was the team "better" despite losing more?
Precisely my point. I mean I get it that some people find it as or more important for the team to be likable and for the players to be wholesome, palatable and innocuous, but for my money I'll take the wins.
Nice cherry picking of your choices of players to represent. Now what happened when Zbo hit the road? The record has gone nowhere but up. I am sure anybody can find players being ditched and what happened afterwards to the teams record to support whatever argument they want to support. That is why general blanket statements are useless.
Was Zach's replacement -- Channing -- more or less responsible for wins? We ate Steve Francis' contract and rented Chan-man for two years and in the meantime we've been desperate for interior scoring. I get why Zach was traded and I wasn't dead set against moving him, but I would hardly call unloading him for pennies on the dollar a notch in the win column as far as trades are concerned.
I wasn't cherry-picking, I was using the "era" of the team when good players were being dumped for the purpose of culture change. The on-court results were not good. If anything, you're cherry-picking by selecting a player who was jettisoned just as Roy and Aldridge were leading an upswing for the team. The point is that there has yet to be any compelling evidence shown that teams are made better by getting rid of controversial players for little or nothing in return.
Why are people in such a "Rush" to have Rudy traded for a middle/late first round Pick. We get that pick and what happens... that player will sit on our bench doing nothing, or maybe it'll be used as a throw in in a trade. If we can't find a good deal for Rudy hold onto him and trade him to a team that wants him with Pryz expiring for a better deal then just giving him away when we can just sit him on the bench and wait tell the trade deadline when teams looking for a good playoff birth or maybe making sure they enter the playoffs will be wiling to give up more for a sharpshooter then what they are willing to give up now.
Rudy for a mid-to-late first round pick seems about equivalent value to me. Thus, it wouldn't be any big deal to me whether such a deal were made or not. Rudy for a lottery pick or for a young player like Randolph would be a big win for Portland. Thus, I'm perfectly fine with Portland hanging onto Rudy if the offered deals are mid-to-kate first round pick or worse. If he raises his value sometime this season, maybe Portland can get a better deal (as they'll still have a minutes crunch even if he proves to be better than his showing last year). If he doesn't, it's not like they passed on a lot of value in return.
Like I said. There are times a team (or a person in life) has to take a step back in order to take two steps forward. Getting rid of players like Wallace and Zach allowed us the freedom to rebuild quicker and more effectively.
Still the inherent flaw is Rudy's being there vs. not being there doesn't impact the remaining 14 players even 0.1%. So there. He doesn't bring any baggage or negatives to the "team". Just an agent talking with management behind closed door and a guy that doesn't speak English either being there or not. So it's one step backwards for the same step back forward.
I disagree. Here is how it may impact the team: 1) We didn't grossly overpay Matthews to ride the bench. He's going to get playing time and he's a pure SG. So is Rudy. So it's going to effect Nate's rotation by either playing one or both of them out of position (where players do not play as well as when they play their natural position), or try somehow and split the minutes. But when Nate does that he tends to get very inconsistent and that bodes poorly for all concerned- and hence the team. Not necessarily that it will cost us games, but the potential is very real with players playing both inconsistently and out of position. 2) If Rudy plays less (which is pretty much guaranteed with Matthews here) and if he cannot fulfill his wish of being more of a playmaker (another given), then he's clearly going to be more unhappy with his role on the team. Now maybe he'll be a good soldier about it all and maybe he won't. But I think it safe to say his agent will be causing waves and that can have a negative effect on a team. 3) Freeing up a roster spot could be a good thing in the event of injury... to add a player who might be able to contribute some minutes here and there. On the other hand, Rudy Fernandez is not a major cog on this team. If he sits and sulks, then fine. But I fail to see the positives in it all.
