Magic "have expressed interest" in trading for Rudy Gay

[BadMofoPimp]

Bucks fan here, What about

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

Thoughts

I think that is a damn good trade that could help all (3) teams involved. Especially, Milwaukee would do so much better with a Jennings/Afflalo tandem, defensively. And, Grizz get their expiring with Ellis while still being able to compete this year with a SF for the future. Magic get their starting SF and fans get to keep JJ with Moore as a capable backup. Nice.

[ChosenSavior]

Bucks fan here, What about

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

Thoughts

I think that is a damn good trade that could help all (3) teams involved. Especially, Milwaukee would do so much better with a Jennings/Afflalo tandem, defensively. And, Grizz get their expiring with Ellis while still being able to compete this year with a SF for the future. Magic get their starting SF and fans get to keep JJ with Moore as a capable backup. Nice.

This.

[Yab]

Yeah and JJ finally would get the oppurtunity to start for a consistant period. Would pull the trigger on that anyday

[OrlChamps2030]

I have zero problems trading for Rudy Gay. He is a solid #2 for a championship contending team.

Yes, i know we are not championship caliber yet, but you have to start somewhere. As for his contract, let me ask you this, If we had signed Rudy Gay this coming offseason to a 2-year with him making 17.9 & 19.3 million respectively, i feel hardly nobody would complain, and Henny would be championed as a master negotiator for getting Rudy to sign a short term contract that we could either re-negotiate (signing him to a lower per year average) or just get out of deal completely when he reaches the age of 28 (if we feel he either declined or did not raise play level), all while still having the cap space for after the 2014-15 season intact.

Btw, some of you guys are nuts talking about Harkless being the straw breaker if this deal were an actual possibility. The chances of Harkless ever developing into the level player that Rudy Gay is is remote as hell. Besides that, what the heck would we even need Harkless for if we had Rudy playing his 38 mpg?

This is my line of thought for what makes the remainder of Gay's contract bearable. He is only 26 right now and he will be 28 when his contract is up. 28 for most players is still during the middle of their peak play. If the Magic organization feels they can get their own Harden and want to pay the price financially they could be interested.

[Orium]

Btw, some of you guys are nuts talking about Harkless being the straw breaker if this deal were an actual possibility. The chances of Harkless ever developing into the level player that Rudy Gay is is remote as hell. Besides that, what the heck would we even need Harkless for if we had Rudy playing his 38 mpg?

It's not necessarily about what Harkless produces compared to Gay, obviously there is no comparison there. It's more about the rebuilding philosophy and unwillingness to jeopardize a more long-term plan for our team, as opposed to a mediocre win-now philosophy. If over the next few seasons Orlando is a team that becomes known for ushering good young talent into the league then I'd be ecstatic. We can take our pick of the litter and remain flexible enough to strike with FA back into championship contention.

Right now our team isn't ready for that, so Gay isn't a real solution.. unless the deal doesn't stagnate the rebuild.

[woosah]

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.

[applash]

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?

[tiderulz]

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.

[Bensational]

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.

[Orium]

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.

[tiderulz]

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.

[thelead]

No more Rashard Lewis contracts.

[woosah]

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.

[mhectorgato]

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.

[Cigamodnalro]

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.

[Bensational]

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.

[Orium]

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.

[thelead]

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.

[ucfmay2000]

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

[Def Swami]

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.