Knicks / Wolves / Grizzlies simple trade

[Tekkenlaw]

I don't think Gay has much value, most people have figured out that he's a volume shooter and plays no defense.

[NashtyNas]

I don't think Gay has much value, most people have figured out that he's a volume shooter and plays no defense.

Yeah, this is WAY too much for Gay. I'm sure if the Wolves are willing to do Rubio for Gay, the Grizz will take it and run run run for their lives. Why wouldn't the Wolves just wait till next off season and give him a deal that the Grizz wouldn't want to match (over pay by 2-3mil). NY get's murdered anyhow, and wow, Chandler is criminally under rated around here. Yeah, he's streaky, but he's an average or close to above average defender when guarding the SF position, he's athletic, can play multiple positions, can score, isn't a terrible shooter, and a decent shot blocker for his size. On the Grizz currently, Chandler + Hill > Gay for sure. Once Zach is gone, they would have Hill/Arthur to man the PF, which is a good young forward combo in the future.

[Ricepilar]

^^^^^

I dont think Memphis would trade for Rubio. They could have drafted him if they wanted to. They didnt because he made it clear he didnt wanna play in Memphis. Now its clear hes willing to play in Europe. They'd be that much less inclined to trade for him now.

[moocow007]

I don't think Gay has much value, most people have figured out that he's a volume shooter and plays no defense.

But he's not a Knick so not playing defense doesn't matter.

[grizzleGM]

Hey Ricepilar... none of the three teams in this trade are relevant!!!

[moocow007]

whats his game though, he's not a defensive stopper, he's not a shooter, not a post up player, not a rebounder. He's a nice solid piece, but I don't see him as a starter on a good team.

Dude, he's only been in the NBA 2 seasons.

You can say that same thing (not being a starter on a good team) about plenty of young guys in the NBA (Nick Young, Jeff Green, Spencer Hawes, Thaddeus Young...guys just from his draft class that likely also wouldn't start on most good teams...and not because they aren't talented and have the potential to down the road).

But as long as we're talking potential rather than production it's worth noting that every one of those guys was drafted ahead of Chandler.

That is correct. All those guys were drafted WELL AHEAD of Chandler. But if you redo the draft Chandler would have been picked much higher than he was (just like many of Thomas' other late 1st to 2nd round draft picks...David Lee, Nate Robinson, Trevor Ariza...would have).

[shrink]

When the MIN joker reporter floated the "Rubio-for-Gay" idea, my response was brief, and it hasn't changed:

Stupid. We're not competing this year, and Rudy Gay will be a mid-tier free agent next season that MEM most likely won't match.

Even if we wanted Gay (and I'm not sure we do), why not wait until next year to try to get him, and keep Rubio?

[Prospect Dong]

When the MIN joker reporter floated the "Rubio-for-Gay" idea, my response was brief, and it hasn't changed:

Stupid. We're not competing this year, and Rudy Gay will be a mid-tier free agent next season that MEM most likely won't match.

Even if we wanted Gay (and I'm not sure we do), why not wait until next year to try to get him, and keep Rubio?

Shrink, that whole posts turns on the "Mem most likely won't match" bit. And I'm not at all convinced it's true.

[jefe]

Grizz pass. First, I don't believe the Grizz are inclined to trade Gay as the OP does; and even if they were, I think they'd hold out for more than this offer.

[shrink]

Shrink, that whole posts turns on the "Mem most likely won't match" bit. And I'm not at all convinced it's true.

It turns on "MIN doesn't need to pay to get Gay this year, and if they miss on him next year .. who cares?"

[Prospect Dong]

Shrink, that whole posts turns on the "Mem most likely won't match" bit. And I'm not at all convinced it's true.

It turns on "MIN doesn't need to pay to get Gay this year, and if they miss on him next year .. who cares?"

That's quite a different claim though isn't it? All I'm saying is that, contrary to what a lot of twolves posters seem to believe, Gay probably won't be much cheaper to obtain next offseason than he is now. We can have an argument about whether that's true, but so far in this thread every time I've said it the guy in question just retreats back to "and we don't even want him anyway". Which is cool, but not what you said the first time.

[john2jer]

That's exactly what I said. If the choice is either A. give up assets for him now or B. sign him next year, we'd prefer "B" and sign him next year. If we end up not getting him and miss out on both A and B? Big deal. Not that big of a loss. That's been exactly my stance the entire time.

[Prospect Dong]

And as I said, a couple of pages ago, I don't think "b" is a viable choice. If that means you don't want Gay, fine, but IMO his impending RFA status is pretty irrelevant to his value, except in as much as he's due for a big raise. Which is pretty much exactly what I typed a couple of pages ago.

[john2jer]

And as I said, a couple of pages ago, I don't think "b" is a viable choice. If that means you don't want Gay, fine, but IMO his impending RFA status is pretty irrelevant to his value, except in as much as he's due for a big raise. Which is pretty much exactly what I typed a couple of pages ago.

And I'm not arguing that, but you got worked up over my "one year rental" comment, which was in direct response to someone saying we should trade for him just to see if he "meshes" for the year, which is stupid. You don't trade good, future assets to see if a guy "meshes", you do it for a long term solution.

It's pretty much the same argument that's used when Amare, Boozer, or any of the other 2010 free agents are mentioned in relation to rebuilding teams.

So if we don't know he's already a long term solution, then we shouldn't be trading for him. If you want to argue that he is a long term solution, then fine, but that wasn't the discussion at hand.

[Prospect Dong]

And as I said, a couple of pages ago, I don't think "b" is a viable choice. If that means you don't want Gay, fine, but IMO his impending RFA status is pretty irrelevant to his value, except in as much as he's due for a big raise. Which is pretty much exactly what I typed a couple of pages ago.

And I'm not arguing that, but you got worked up over my "one year rental" comment, which was in direct response to someone saying we should trade for him just to see if he "meshes" for the year, which is stupid. You don't trade good, future assets to see if a guy "meshes", you do it for a long term solution.

It's pretty much the same argument that's used when Amare, Boozer, or any of the other 2010 free agents are mentioned in relation to rebuilding teams.

So if we don't know he's already a long term solution, then we shouldn't be trading for him. If you want to argue that he is a long term solution, then fine, but that wasn't the discussion at hand.

Those guys are all UFA's, which is the fundamental distinction I've been trying to make. Right from the start (of what I now realise was another thread) people have been saying "why trade for him, we can just sign him" . It's my view that you probably can't, though I'm happy to argue about it. But you would be trading for a long term solution. Maybe not a good one, or maybe not worth what you give up, I'm not expressing a view either way, but not an asset you're likely to lose, and not one you're likely to get for free.

[shrink]

Shrink, that whole posts turns on the "Mem most likely won't match" bit. And I'm not at all convinced it's true.

It turns on "MIN doesn't need to pay to get Gay this year, and if they miss on him next year .. who cares?"

That's quite a different claim though isn't it? All I'm saying is that, contrary to what a lot of twolves posters seem to believe, Gay probably won't be much cheaper to obtain next offseason than he is now. We can have an argument about whether that's true, but so far in this thread every time I've said it the guy in question just retreats back to "and we don't even want him anyway". Which is cool, but not what you said the first time.

Stupid. We're not competing this year, and Rudy Gay will be a mid-tier free agent next season that MEM most likely won't match.

Even if we wanted Gay (and I'm not sure we do), why not wait until next year to try to get him, and keep Rubio?

So I suppose I could have been clearer, but I am not itching to get Rudy Gay on a big deal next season.

As for MEM paying to re-sign Rudy Gay, there were rumors that Gay couldn't get along with Mayo on the floor, and MEM posters have said that instead its the fact that management doesn't want to run plays for Gay. Either way, there was a drop in Gay's production, and neither one points to MEM's likeliness to re-sign him. Moreover, with the exception of Zach Randolph (I don't get that move at all), MEM is one of the smallest markets in the NBA and has shown a refusal for years to give out big bucks, Now, I don't really care if they don't re-sign him, but I certainly have my doubts whether they would be willing to match even an $8 mil offer with multiple years, if Gay was to get one.

Regardless, for a "win-later" team like MIN, there's little reason for the Wolves to give up on Rubio now to see Gay this season.

[Trader_Joe]

Stupid. We're not competing this year, and Rudy Gay will be a mid-tier free agent next season that MEM most likely won't match.

Even if we wanted Gay (and I'm not sure we do), why not wait until next year to try to get him, and keep Rubio?

So I suppose I could have been clearer, but I am not itching to get Rudy Gay on a big deal next season.

As for MEM paying to re-sign Rudy Gay, there were rumors that Gay couldn't get along with Mayo on the floor, and MEM posters have said that instead its the fact that management doesn't want to run plays for Gay. Either way, there was a drop in Gay's production, and neither one points to MEM's likeliness to re-sign him. Moreover, with the exception of Zach Randolph (I don't get that move at all), MEM is one of the smallest markets in the NBA and has shown a refusal for years to give out big bucks, Now, I don't really care if they don't re-sign him, but I certainly have my doubts whether they would be willing to match even an $8 mil offer with multiple years, if Gay was to get one.

Regardless, for a "win-later" team like MIN, there's little reason for the Wolves to give up on Rubio now to see Gay this season.

For some reason Memphis has been linked to Zach in rumours for what seems like ages.
Meanwhile I think the only reason they traded for him was to stay above the minimum team payroll requirment, and to trick the players and the fans into the belief that they are actually willing to make moves/spend money.

[Prospect Dong]

So I suppose I could have been clearer, but I am not itching to get Rudy Gay on a big deal next season.

As for MEM paying to re-sign Rudy Gay, there were rumors that Gay couldn't get along with Mayo on the floor, and MEM posters have said that instead its the fact that management doesn't want to run plays for Gay. Either way, there was a drop in Gay's production, and neither one points to MEM's likeliness to re-sign him. Moreover, with the exception of Zach Randolph (I don't get that move at all), MEM is one of the smallest markets in the NBA and has shown a refusal for years to give out big bucks, Now, I don't really care if they don't re-sign him, but I certainly have my doubts whether they would be willing to match even an $8 mil offer with multiple years, if Gay was to get one.

Regardless, for a "win-later" team like MIN, there's little reason for the Wolves to give up on Rubio now to see Gay this season.

I'd throw in Darko and Josh Smith, and eating Jaric's salary in order to move up the draft as examples of not-all-that-cheapness. So you're basically arguing they'd be happy to pay
all of those guys, but refuse to match a similar or smaller deal for Gay. I think that's pretty delusional.

I agree that another down year for Gay might change that situation, but then people shouldn't both be valuing Gay based on that down year while simultaneously treating at as evidence that he's being misused. If you think he's got untapped potential based on his third season you should value him more highly, not less.

[shrink]

I'd throw in Darko and Josh Smith, and eating Jaric's salary in order to move up the draft as examples of not-all-that-cheapness.

Going to previous years is not a door you want to open, because Pau Gasol trumps any example you could provide.

I agree that another down year for Gay might change that situation, but then people shouldn't both be valuing Gay based on that down year while simultaneously treating at as evidence that he's being misused. If you think he's got untapped potential based on his third season you should value him more highly, not less.

I'm not following - who says he has untapped potential in his third season? They went for Mayo, and he's the future, and either with issues between the players, or with the coaches, Gay didn't fit as well. Mayo's staying, so was Rudy Gay's decline an abberation, or was that what should be expected after a year of evidence?

[Prospect Dong]

I'd throw in Darko and Josh Smith, and eating Jaric's salary in order to move up the draft as examples of not-all-that-cheapness.

Going to previous years is not a door you want to open, because Pau Gasol trumps any example you could provide.

I agree that another down year for Gay might change that situation, but then people shouldn't both be valuing Gay based on that down year while simultaneously treating at as evidence that he's being misused. If you think he's got untapped potential based on his third season you should value him more highly, not less.

I'm not following - who says he has untapped potential in his third season? They went for Mayo, and he's the future, and either with issues between the players, or with the coaches, Gay didn't fit as well. Mayo's staying, so was Rudy Gay's decline an abberation, or was that what should be expected after a year of evidence?

That stuff is all post Gasol. Like I say, I'll happily anticipate idiocy on part of grizzlies management, but it's ahrd to be specific about how that will look, but overwhelming cheapness hasn't really been their style.

As to the second point - you're saying, as evidence that Gay might be on the way out, that he appears to have played badly/have been treated badly last offseason. Fair point. But that means his value to a team without Mayo, like the twolves, ought to be higher, and you shouldn't be valuing him based on his play last season. So you seem to be both arguing Memphis won't match, because he's a poor fit, and that the wolves wouldn't want him, because he played badly. There's a pretty obvious contradiction there.