RealGM

mlloyd10 wrote:Bucks fan here, What about

Magic get: Gay
Bucks get: Afflalo
Grizzles get: Ellis/Harkless

Thoughts

Hate it. It's dumb financially. All we get is a recognized name, but no improvement and we still have to pay JJ afterward. You people do realize Afflalo and Gay both average 17ppg. We have a player that does the same thing, although not a sexy name, and you want to bring in a guy who takes more shots to do it and pay him double the money and then still have to get JJ on a deal? That makes no sense to me. And we give up Harkless?

HELL NO.

woosah wrote:
Hate it. It's dumb financially. All we get is a recognized name, but no improvement and we still have to pay JJ afterward. You people do realize Afflalo and Gay both average 17ppg. We have a player that does the same thing, although not a sexy name, and you want to bring in a guy who takes more shots to do it and pay him double the money and then still have to get JJ on a deal? That makes no sense to me. And we give up Harkless?

HELL NO.

So Rudy has a sexy name huh?

woosah wrote:

mlloyd10 wrote:Bucks fan here, What about

Magic get: Gay
Bucks get: Afflalo
Grizzles get: Ellis/Harkless

Thoughts

Hate it. It's dumb financially. All we get is a recognized name, but no improvement and we still have to pay JJ afterward. You people do realize Afflalo and Gay both average 17ppg. We have a player that does the same thing, although not a sexy name, and you want to bring in a guy who takes more shots to do it and pay him double the money and then still have to get JJ on a deal? That makes no sense to me. And we give up Harkless?

HELL NO.

i can see some points to it. Remember, Rudy doesnt play SG, he plays SF where we are getting very little production. You have Redicks production at SG with Rudy also. You starting lineup does improve, at the cost of your second unit. I would hope there are future plans though and some way to sell Rudy on a future, otherwise you are renting him for 2 years and he leaves to go somewhere to win and your assets used to get him are gone.

I don't think Gay is good enough to propel us into mediocrity all on his own. He may be the difference of a few extra wins in this latest slump, but he's not going to make us playoff contenders overnight. This team has shown that we're more than just 1 player away from being consistent. Right now, the moment either BBD or Jameer aren't around, this team falls to ****. It's because of the prominence of youth on this team and the abundance of little things they've yet to learn which help you close out games.

Again, someone please tell me the alternative option which taking Gay on will rule out? The only thing it might impact is a few less ping pong balls this year and next year. But if your philosophy for improving relies on a LOTTERY, then you've got a pretty weak business model right there.

Bensational wrote:I don't think Gay is good enough to propel us into mediocrity all on his own. He may be the difference of a few extra wins in this latest slump, but he's not going to make us playoff contenders overnight. This team has shown that we're more than just 1 player away from being consistent. Right now, the moment either BBD or Jameer aren't around, this team falls to ****. It's because of the prominence of youth on this team and the abundance of little things they've yet to learn which help you close out games.

Again, someone please tell me the alternative option which taking Gay on will rule out? The only thing it might impact is a few less ping pong balls this year and next year. But if your philosophy for improving relies on a LOTTERY, then you've got a pretty weak business model right there.

Lottery implies that there's a certain degree of luck involved, which is certainly true in determining where we pick. The hope is that, regardless of how many ping-pongs we have, we can start culminating good talent through the draft. I'd much rather lay low and strategically decide when the time is right to make our big moves, rather than jumping at the first big name that comes on the market.

Orium wrote:

Bensational wrote:I don't think Gay is good enough to propel us into mediocrity all on his own. He may be the difference of a few extra wins in this latest slump, but he's not going to make us playoff contenders overnight. This team has shown that we're more than just 1 player away from being consistent. Right now, the moment either BBD or Jameer aren't around, this team falls to ****. It's because of the prominence of youth on this team and the abundance of little things they've yet to learn which help you close out games.

Again, someone please tell me the alternative option which taking Gay on will rule out? The only thing it might impact is a few less ping pong balls this year and next year. But if your philosophy for improving relies on a LOTTERY, then you've got a pretty weak business model right there.

Lottery implies that there's a certain degree of luck involved, which is certainly true in determining where we pick. The hope is that, regardless of how many ping-pongs we have, we can start culminating good talent through the draft. I'd much rather lay low and strategically decide when the time is right to make our big moves, rather than jumping at the first big name that comes on the market.

true, but depending on what you trade for Gay (say Redick and TPE for this purpose) you still have picks to use
to gather more talent. But you also have a recognized good player that could be used in a trade also.

No more Rashard Lewis contracts.

tiderulz wrote:

woosah wrote:
Hate it. It's dumb financially. All we get is a recognized name, but no improvement and we still have to pay JJ afterward. You people do realize Afflalo and Gay both average 17ppg. We have a player that does the same thing, although not a sexy name, and you want to bring in a guy who takes more shots to do it and pay him double the money and then still have to get JJ on a deal? That makes no sense to me. And we give up Harkless?

HELL NO.

i can see some points to it. Remember, Rudy doesnt play SG, he plays SF where we are getting very little production. You have Redicks production at SG with Rudy also. You starting lineup does improve, at the cost of your second unit. I would hope there are future plans though and some way to sell Rudy on a future, otherwise you are renting him for 2 years and he leaves to go somewhere to win and your assets used to get him are gone.

Meh, I was counting Redick's production as the sf's really because AA and Redick are on the floor at the same time. So you have a 17ppg avg paired with a 14ppg (AA and JJR) or a 17ppg and and 14ppg pairing (RG and JJR) which is a wash. I see what you are saying, but i don't see it as an improvement, and we still have the issue of paying JJ. What do you think he will get on the market? I don't think it's worth spending that type of money to be a possible 8th or 9th seed.

Orium wrote:

Bensational wrote:I don't think Gay is good enough to propel us into mediocrity all on his own. He may be the difference of a few extra wins in this latest slump, but he's not going to make us playoff contenders overnight. This team has shown that we're more than just 1 player away from being consistent. Right now, the moment either BBD or Jameer aren't around, this team falls to ****. It's because of the prominence of youth on this team and the abundance of little things they've yet to learn which help you close out games.

Again, someone please tell me the alternative option which taking Gay on will rule out? The only thing it might impact is a few less ping pong balls this year and next year. But if your philosophy for improving relies on a LOTTERY, then you've got a pretty weak business model right there.

Lottery implies that there's a certain degree of luck involved, which is certainly true in determining where we pick. The hope is that, regardless of how many ping-pongs we have, we can start culminating good talent through the draft. I'd much rather lay low and strategically decide when the time is right to make our big moves, rather than jumping at the first big name that comes on the market.

Still a weak business model for an entertainment business -- provide subpar exhibitions. Not to mention RDV's thoughts on the matter and, unfortunately, his age.

How long do you stay low?

How many seasons do you let season ticket holders not renew?
How many seasons of reduced game ticket sales?
How many seasons of concession dwindling money?
How many seasons of reduced exposure on national TV?
How many seasons of reduced customer opinion of your franchise?
How many seasons of reduced advertising?
How many seasons of reduced merchandising?
How many seasons of ...?

As been said many times regarding silly trade scenarios ... this isn't NBA Live where a financially down season has no impact what so ever.

Season ticket holders don't put money in the bank. TV ratings do. Look at the Lakers' most recent deal...it pays to put a winning product on the floor, and a team who has committed $34,000,000/year to a Jameer Nelson/Arron Afflalo/Rudy Gay backcourt just doesn't put us where we need to be to compete, both for a championship and for ESPN spots.

Orium wrote:

Bensational wrote:I don't think Gay is good enough to propel us into mediocrity all on his own. He may be the difference of a few extra wins in this latest slump, but he's not going to make us playoff contenders overnight. This team has shown that we're more than just 1 player away from being consistent. Right now, the moment either BBD or Jameer aren't around, this team falls to ****. It's because of the prominence of youth on this team and the abundance of little things they've yet to learn which help you close out games.

Again, someone please tell me the alternative option which taking Gay on will rule out? The only thing it might impact is a few less ping pong balls this year and next year. But if your philosophy for improving relies on a LOTTERY, then you've got a pretty weak business model right there.

Lottery implies that there's a certain degree of luck involved, which is certainly true in determining where we pick. The hope is that, regardless of how many ping-pongs we have, we can start culminating good talent through the draft. I'd much rather lay low and strategically decide when the time is right to make our big moves, rather than jumping at the first big name that comes on the market.

I wouldn't call that "strategically" deciding. The strategy should already be in place long before you get there. And yeah, it's a lottery in the sense of the ping pong balls, and it's a lottery when you look at the exact number of players who have panned out to warrant where they were drafted. No matter how good at scouting Hennigan is, anything they do before a player makes it to the game is make a projection, and even then there's an element of gambling. You just have to hope you've narrowed down enough variables so that the pick is as low risk as possible. (which, I actually have full faith in Hennigan doing).

As mhec said - it's still a weak business model to continue losing in the 'hope' you land a star, both from a financial standpoint, and the track record of the accuracy of findinging star players.

mhectorgato wrote:

Orium wrote:

Bensational wrote:I don't think Gay is good enough to propel us into mediocrity all on his own. He may be the difference of a few extra wins in this latest slump, but he's not going to make us playoff contenders overnight. This team has shown that we're more than just 1 player away from being consistent. Right now, the moment either BBD or Jameer aren't around, this team falls to ****. It's because of the prominence of youth on this team and the abundance of little things they've yet to learn which help you close out games.

Again, someone please tell me the alternative option which taking Gay on will rule out? The only thing it might impact is a few less ping pong balls this year and next year. But if your philosophy for improving relies on a LOTTERY, then you've got a pretty weak business model right there.

Lottery implies that there's a certain degree of luck involved, which is certainly true in determining where we pick. The hope is that, regardless of how many ping-pongs we have, we can start culminating good talent through the draft. I'd much rather lay low and strategically decide when the time is right to make our big moves, rather than jumping at the first big name that comes on the market.

Still a weak business model for an entertainment business -- provide subpar exhibitions. Not to mention RDV's thoughts on the matter and, unfortunately, his age.

How long do you stay low?

How many seasons do you let season ticket holders not renew?
How many seasons of reduced game ticket sales?
How many seasons of concession dwindling money?
How many seasons of reduced exposure on national TV?
How many seasons of reduced customer opinion of your franchise?
How many seasons of reduced advertising?
How many seasons of reduced merchandising?
How many seasons of ...?

As been said many times regarding silly trade scenarios ... this isn't NBA Live where a financially down season has no impact what so ever.

You make a very fair point.. it's easy to play GM when you don't have the higher-ups creating expectations for you. The thing is, if the Hennigan game plan continues to work (you could argue this to some extent, but in year 1 we have 3-5 young guys with some promise), then I don't see the Orlando Magic completely falling from grace in the city at large. The revenue was going to take a big dip after the Dwight fiasco regardless of whatever move came next. If in year 2 we have another strong draft, the buzz will continue to grow that we're at least building towards something sustainable and wont be crushed by yet another big star leaving.

I don't care which route you want to take (lottery and hoping to draft a star or 1st round fodder and hoping to sign a star) it's going to be a long while before we're contending again. Season tickets have and will continue to take a hit until we're contending again.

I don't think Orlando is interested in Gay, they might move him to other team for young players. Houston might be interested in Gay. http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-am-nba-tr ... et-update/

How is about this trade?
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ayt4njt

ucfmay2000 wrote:I don't think Orlando is interested in Gay, they might move him to other team for young players. Houston might be interested in Gay. http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-am-nba-tr ... et-update/

How is about this trade?
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ayt4njt

Not bad. I'd bite.

Lol @that trade... Houston gets absolutely screwed...
Look at Parsons numbers..he might be s little worse than Rudy Gay but he is still young and makes like 1Mil for 3 more years and on top of that they give up almost all their promising rookies?

Afflalo and Gay put up similar numbers, Afflalo is alot cheaper, as said by hoopsworld Orlandos involvement is probably just as a 3rd team and attempting to get youth/picks in return.

I rather wait 1 more year before attempting to acquire a 2nd tier star, the 2014 draft is most likely our best shot at a franchise player, in the meantime we should continue adding quality young players and picks. I don't want to give up a shot at Wiggins/Parker/Hill by trading for overpaid players who are good, but not great

MagicFan32 wrote:I don't want to give up a shot at Wiggins/Parker/Hill by trading for overpaid players who are good, but not great

I'd have to assume Hennigan has a much similar idea, based on the trades/signings he's done thus far.

It's all about value at this stage of our rebuild. Can we buy low and sell high.
I think Gay is a great player and not so long ago Cleveland wanted to trade the No4 pick for him. ( in a weak draft though )
There are only a few great players around the league and the chance to trade for one is slim.

That said i prefer to tank too and hope we hit a homerun in the draft.

VGOSWAMI wrote:

ucfmay2000 wrote:I don't think Orlando is interested in Gay, they might move him to other team for young players. Houston might be interested in Gay. http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-am-nba-tr ... et-update/

How is about this trade?
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ayt4njt

Not bad. I'd bite.

Giving up 5 guys for one overrated player??? yeah....... that makes sense, not.