Mayo is a Grizzly

[jman3134]

This is because the benefits are not intrinsically linked to the team's record, which you seemingly cannot fathom. He has played two seasons in the league and is already averaging 20 ppg. Maybe he is not the superstar we are looking for, but those numbers are certainly worthy of a bit more money. I think we can afford him at this point, after we threw away our team (what little of a team we had) for cap space. But, DD, at the rate this team is going, I doubt they throw much money at him or any of our free agents in the future.

With Battier, sorry to tell you, we never made it out of the first round. So if you want to sit in purgatory, maintaining a static existence getting knocked out in the first round year after year, Battier is who you would want. But, for those of us who want something more, it is easy to see why we are in rebuilding mode.

[jefe]

Easily MH's worst debate. There are way too many extenuating circumstances to say Rudy doesn't make a team better. Pau's injury, Pau's trade, three head coaches, his completing only his second season. You can't put the lack of improvement solely on Rudy.

You're right on message: the "future superstar", "future star", "future All-Star" is not allowed to be judged, no burden can be put on his shoulders; it's everyone else's fault.

The bottom line is that a poster foolishly said we got a steal. There was no steal. We have 22 games in the W column two years in a row, and we're about to throw more money (hopefully not Pau money) at this "steal". No one has been able to point out a single benefit. Everything exists in the hypothetical: he could be a star, etc.

Since you conveniently missed it, and continue to passively call me out:

Since you love to compare Battier and Rudy, what exactly was Battier doing at ages 20-21? Or how about his second year in the NBA? Let's compare apples to apples, or does that make too much sense for a "fan" like you? Finally, I'll give you a definition for "future," it might help you what exactly is being debated here (Yes, we know the Grizz won 22 games last year).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/future

It seems the only leg you have to stand on, and the one you begrudgingly refuse to back away from, is that Shane Battier has experienced more team success as a 29-30 year old, 6-7 year NBA veteran on a much more talented team than Rudy Gay has as a 20-21 year NBA rookie and sophomore on a much less talented team. You'll have to excuse the rest of us for saying "Duh, wtf did you expect - but we're talking about the future, not the present / recent past." Now, obviously your view is skewed by your irrational hate of Rudy and equally irrational love of Battier - but what I can't understand is why you can't grasp the fact that we're not debating the past two seasons, we're debating the next 3-5.

[Double Dribble]

This is because the benefits are not intrinsically linked to the team's record, which you seemingly cannot fathom. He has played two seasons in the league and is already averaging 20 ppg. Maybe he is not the superstar we are looking for, but those numbers are certainly worthy of a bit more money. I think we can afford him at this point, after we threw away our team (what little of a team we had) for cap space. But, DD, at the rate this team is going, I doubt they throw much money at him or any of our free agents in the future.

Uh, unless a team is making a move for salary cap relief, then benefits are most definitely linked to a team's record. That's generally the goal for a team: win games. And as you know, the trade wasn't made for payroll purposes. So what benefit is there to the team? What is the team benefiting from with this 20 ppg? NOTHING. It is not translating into wins. This is an undeniable fact. No one has yet to mention just what the benefit is or just what the steal is.

With Battier, sorry to tell you, we never made it out of the first round. So if you want to sit in purgatory, maintaining a static existence getting knocked out in the first round year after year, Battier is who you would want. But, for those of us who want something more, it is easy to see why we are in rebuilding mode.

It is interesting that you and others try to twist the playoff argument into being about not getting past the first round. It's immaterial nonsense and it's a transparent attempt to lessen the accomplishment and the discrepancy. This isn't about first round versus second round or first round versus championship; it's about the playoffs versus not being in the playoffs. This is another undeniable fact: Shane Battier is a starter on a playoff team; Rudy Gay is a starter on a team that has only mustered 22 wins each year he's been on the roster.

[M-Town's Finest]

Jason Williams, Bonzi Wells, James Posey, Lorenzon Wright, Earl Watson. Those guys had nothing to do with our dropoff of course. Battier was worth 20+ wins more than Gay!!!

[M-Town's Finest]

Seriously though, Gay has not been clearly better than Battier to this point in his career, but let's face it... he's 22. I think Battier was 22 or 23 as a rookie. It's hard to ignore that Gay is better at this point in his life than Battier was at the same point. And besides that, Gay has things that point to potential (size, athleticism, youth). Battier was what he was. A good starter on a championship team. Right now, I think I would say the same thing about Gay, but because of that potential, he may become more than that.

[jefe]

Seriously though, Gay has not been clearly better than Battier to this point in his career, but let's face it... he's 22. I think Battier was 22 or 23 as a rookie. It's hard to ignore that Gay is better at this point in his life than Battier was at the same point. And besides that, Gay has things that point to potential (size, athleticism, youth). Battier was what he was. A good starter on a championship team. Right now, I think I would say the same thing about Gay, but because of that potential, he may become more than that.

Yes, it is difficult, but obviously not impossible - as has been demonstrated herein.

[Double Dribble]

Yes, it is difficult, but obviously not impossible - as has been demonstrated herein.

Even those who are only able to apply a minuscule amount of reading comprehension would realize that this isn't a point of discussion in this debate. it is an entirely different argument.

[jefe]

Yes, it is difficult, but obviously not impossible - as has been demonstrated herein.

Even those who are only able to apply a minuscule amount of reading comprehension would realize that this isn't a point of discussion in this debate. it is an entirely different argument.

Oh, I thought we were debating whether or not the Grizz got a steal on draft night in 2006 by netting a future superstar for the definitive role player; in which case, the point that Rudy Gay is a much better player at ages 20-21 than Battier was at the same age would point towards the value of the steal the Grizz got. But you're right, that's entirely different

[Double Dribble]

Oh, I thought we were debating whether or not the Grizz got a steal on draft night in 2006 by netting a future superstar for the definitive role player; in which case, the point that Rudy Gay is a much better player at ages 20-21 than Battier was at the same age would point towards the value of the steal the Grizz got. But you're right, that's entirely different

That's what you get for trying to think, because your logic is hilariously flawed.

[jefe]

Oh, I thought we were debating whether or not the Grizz got a steal on draft night in 2006 by netting a future superstar for the definitive role player; in which case, the point that Rudy Gay is a much better player at ages 20-21 than Battier was at the same age would point towards the value of the steal the Grizz got. But you're right, that's entirely different

That's what you get for trying to think, because your logic is hilariously flawed.

Care to explain? Or is that just another hollow statement like so many you've made before?

[M-Town's Finest]

Yes, it is difficult, but obviously not impossible - as has been demonstrated herein.

Even those who are only able to apply a minuscule amount of reading comprehension would realize that this isn't a point of discussion in this debate. it is an entirely different argument.

Oh, I thought we were debating whether or not the Grizz got a steal on draft night in 2006 by netting a future superstar for the definitive role player; in which case, the point that Rudy Gay is a much better player at ages 20-21 than Battier was at the same age would point towards the value of the steal the Grizz got. But you're right, that's entirely different

Owned. =(

I'm sorry to say that I can't remember ever seeing such idiotic comments by someone who seems to genuinely think he's intelligent than your comments in this thread DD.

[Double Dribble]

Yes, using a ridiculous unprovable premise that Rudy Gay is a future superstar as the foundation of one's argument is ownage, alright. Hey, let's see how many of these future "facts" not yet in evidence (and likely to never be realized) we can both use to bolster our positions. The argument is not that Rudy is a better player at his age than Shane was at the same age.

Let's get this back to basics once again: the argument is we got a steal for a future superstar (or future star, they seem to be interchangeable here depending on the mood or whim) by trading Shane Battier. Not Shane Battier age 20, 21, or 22, but Shane Batter at age whatever in 2006. Fact: the Grizzlies have won 22 games each year Rudy Gay has been on the team; fact: Shane Battier is a starter on a playoff team.

It is immaterial if Shane and the Rockets have not made it past the first round, since playoff team > 22 wins. The first round argument is nothing but a red herring intended to distract.

It is immaterial if Rudy at 20-21 is better than 20-21 year-old Shane; we still are left with 22 wins. Shane Battier makes a team better; Rudy Gay does not.

So what you are left with holding are 22 wins (twice), and this wish-upon-a-star "future superstar" fantasy. Fantasy built upon hypotheticals; 22 wins < playoff grounded in reality.

[M-Town's Finest]

"Fact: the Grizzlies have won 22 games each year Rudy Gay has been on the team; fact: Shane Battier is a starter on a playoff team."

Fact: you're simply picking out the one player of many that we got rid of that offseason (a fact that has already been pointed out to you and promptly ignored) and using that alone as the difference between us making the playoffs and winning 22 games. But wait, there's more... you say things like "using a ridiculous unprovable premise that Rudy Gay is a future superstar as the foundation of one's argument is ownage, alright". Umm, excuse me, isn't you telling me that Rudy Gay is not a future superstar a ridiculous unprovable premise??? Since when can we "prove" anything that has yet to come to pass and why are you putting the burden of proof at provable when all we're really talking about here is probability?

"It is immaterial if Rudy at 20-21 is better than 20-21 year-old Shane"
"the argument is we got a steal for a future superstar by trading Shane Battier"

How is Rudy's age versus his production level not relevant as to what he will eventually become as a player??? In fact, how is that not the central piece of evidence?

[jefe]

Yes, using a ridiculous unprovable premise that Rudy Gay is a future superstar as the foundation of one's argument is ownage, alright. Hey, let's see how many of these future "facts" not yet in evidence (and likely to never be realized) we can both use to bolster our positions. The argument is not that Rudy is a better player at his age than Shane was at the same age.

Let's get this back to basics once again: the argument is we got a steal for a future superstar (or future star, they seem to be interchangeable here depending on the mood or whim) by trading Shane Battier. Not Shane Battier age 20, 21, or 22, but Shane Batter at age whatever in 2006. Fact: the Grizzlies have won 22 games each year Rudy Gay has been on the team; fact: Shane Battier is a starter on a playoff team.

It is immaterial if Shane and the Rockets have not made it past the first round, since playoff team > 22 wins. The first round argument is nothing but a red herring intended to distract.

It is immaterial if Rudy at 20-21 is better than 20-21 year-old Shane; we still are left with 22 wins. Shane Battier makes a team better; Rudy Gay does not.

So what you are left with holding are 22 wins (twice), and this wish-upon-a-star "future superstar" fantasy. Fantasy built upon hypotheticals; 22 wins < playoff grounded in reality.

This looks like a fun game.

Fact: Battier for Gay was obviously a move for the future - anytime a 5 year vet is traded for a rookie (much less an underclassman) it's apparent (see 1996, Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divac). Unless you think - on average - an underclassman rookie is going to have more of an immediate impact than a 5 year vet.

Fact: Despite the painfully obvious motivation behind the trade, you continue to "judge" the value of the trade prematurely. Again, it was obviously a move for the future - so why are you judging it by looking at the (contemporaneous) present and immediate future results? What kind of logic is that?

Fact: Rudy Gay is a better player at age 20-21 than Shane Battier was at 20-21. This would lead me to believe that Rudy Gay should be a better player at age 27-28 than Shane Battier is at 27-28. Obviously, that's not 100% certain to happen - but it's certainly more likely than not.

Fact: Shane Battier managed to win 23 and 28 games in his first two years as a professional (since you're fond of judging the absolute value of a player by the amount of games his team wins) - and missed the playoffs. You, yourself, have said that playoff team > non-playoff team (more or less, Im paraphrasing here, not directly quoting). So what's the difference between a 22 win non playoff team and a 23 or 28 win non-playoff team? It's probably "immaterial" right? And if the great Shane Battier couldn't make the playoffs in his first two years and still gets your praise - as a much older and experienced player, albeit not as good as a player - then why must Rudy Gay in order to get your respect? It seems you're holding them to different standards - which is fine - if you hate Rudy Gay subjectively (and he can do nothing right in your eyes), that's fine ... just don't clown around and try to make it seem like your view is objective when it's obviously not.

[Double Dribble]

[quote="jefe"].
Fact: Battier for Gay was obviously a move for the future - anytime a 5 year vet is traded for a rookie (much less an underclassman) it's apparent (see 1996, Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divac). Unless you think - on average - an underclassman rookie is going to have more of an immediate impact than a 5 year vet.

Fact: Despite the painfully obvious motivation behind the trade, you continue to "judge" the value of the trade prematurely. Again, it was obviously a move for the future - so why are you judging it by looking at the (contemporaneous) present and immediate future results? What kind of logic is that?

Fact: Rudy Gay is a better player at age 20-21 than Shane Battier was at 20-21. This would lead me to believe that Rudy Gay should be a better player at age 27-28 than Shane Battier is at 27-28. Obviously, that's not 100% certain to happen - but it's certainly more likely than not.

Fact: Shane Battier managed to win 23 and 28 games in his first two years as a professional (since you're fond of judging the absolute value of a player by the amount of games his team wins) - and missed the playoffs. You, yourself, have said that playoff team > non-playoff team (more or less, Im paraphrasing here, not directly quoting). So what's the difference between a 22 win non playoff team and a 23 or 28 win non-playoff team? It's probably "immaterial" right? And if the great Shane Battier couldn't make the playoffs in his first two years and still gets your praise - as a much older and experienced player, albeit not as good as a player - then why must Rudy Gay in order to get your respect?

Consult a dictionary, for you are confusing opinion for fact. This isn't centralized around making the playoffs versus not making the playoffs; it's centralized on making the team better. 28 is still greater than 22; it's marked progress and improvement...it's a better overall result. We could still have not made the playoffs last year and still have progressed and gotten better due to Rudy (and that progress would have had to be greater than 28 wins). But we didn't and we weren't. Don't get focused on the playoffs; that's not the intent. The intent is to point out that the piece we traded is a starter on a playoff team while the "steal" we traded him for can't even raise the team up to a win total better than the inaugural year in Memphis. No one is calling Shane a star or a superstar, but you clearly feel Rudy is or will be one. Therefore, you are the one holding Rudy to a higher standard, so don't get upset when that standard is being held against him and he doesn't measure up.

[GrizzledGrizzFan]

BTW - helluva couple games that OJ's opened with. I hear he's a Grizzly now

[jefe]

Consult a dictionary, for you are confusing opinion for fact. This isn't centralized around making the playoffs versus not making the playoffs; it's centralized on making the team better. 28 is still greater than 22; it's marked progress and improvement...it's a better overall result. We could still have not made the playoffs last year and still have progressed and gotten better due to Rudy (and that progress would have had to be greater than 28 wins). But we didn't and we weren't. Don't get focused on the playoffs; that's not the intent. The intent is to point out that the piece we traded is a starter on a playoff team while the "steal" we traded him for can't even raise the team up to a win total better than the inaugural year in Memphis. No one is calling Shane a star or a superstar, but you clearly feel Rudy is or will be one. Therefore, you are the one holding Rudy to a higher standard, so don't get upset when that standard is being held against him and he doesn't measure up.

It's obvious we're just going in circles - your "opinion" won't change and neither will my opinion - so I'm heeding Grizzled's advice. Try to have a good day.