cavs/houston trade idea what do you think?

bgrep14 · Post #1 » by **bgrep14** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 1:25 am

CLE Sends: Zydrunas Ilgauskas and either jj hickson/danny green/eyenga/or future 1st rd

CLE Recieves: Shane Battier and Carl Landry

Cavs reasons for trade: Though i have a soft spot in my heart for Z like all other cavs fans, but the fact remains we have nearly half our cap space bundled up in two center that are ageing. The cavs have a few other positions that need to be addressed especially with the bench having no size on the wing and with varajeo likely leaving we solve two problems with one trade. Battier provides veteran leadership and brings solid defense to the table and could start at the two instead of west or he could be our sixth man. With landry we get an athletic big who also could make an immediate impact and should crack the starting lineup. Im assuming varajeo is looking for way to much money and is not worth more than the mle. This gives us some insurance incase and makes the team even better to compete for a title.

Potential lineup

williams west
battier gibson
lebron green
landry Jackson
Shaq
Houston Sends: Shane Battier and Carl Landry

Houston Recieves: Zydrunas Ilgauskas and there choice of jj hickson/eyenga/danny green/or future 1st rd pick

Rockets reasons for the trade: With Yao Ming being injured pretty much for the season this gives houston a legitimate big man to start next to scola. The rockets also have dorsey, chuck hayes, and brian cook which make landry expendable especially with his new contract desires that houston does not want to pay him. Also with t mac coming back and signing of ariza this makes battier a lil more expendable as well so they can now have a legitemate center and a young sf or pf that they can develop to go along with z. Plus Z's contract expires at the end of the season making him a trade chip if yao comes back or gives you cap space for the big 2010 summer. While Battier still has another two years at a lil over 6 million.

Houston potential

Brooks/foye
tmac/ Wafer
ariza/ Possibly green/eyenga/future first
scola/chuck hayes
Z /dorsey/ ming

Let me know what you guys think

Guy986 · Post #2 » by **Guy986** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 1:47 am

Battier AND Landry? GTFO

bgrep14 · Post #3 » by **bgrep14** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 1:55 am

explain to me how that is unfair battier and landry averaged 8 pts a game your acting like their all stars you guys need a center z averages 12 and 8 every year and he's in the final year of his contract so you will have cap space in 2010 while battiers contract runs through 2011 ud be getting your center in Z and a player you can develop for the future because with tmac and yao on the pine the present just isn't happening. We'll even throw in gibson as well.

Guy986 · Post #4 » by **Guy986** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 2:10 am

bgrep14 wrote:explain to me how that is unfair battier and landry averaged 8 pts a game your acting like their all stars you guys need a center z averages 12 and 8 every year and he's in the final year of his contract so you will have cap space in 2010 while battiers contract runs through 2011 ud be getting your center in Z and a player you can develop for the future because with tmac and yao on the pine the present just isn't happening. We'll even throw in gibson as well.

Von Wafer averaged 10 points a game for us last year. You can have him for Big Z. YOu know there is more to basketball than just scoring right?

bgrep14 · Post #5 » by **bgrep14** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 2:16 am

your acting like it's a ridiculous offer like there all stars while there not! like you said their role players were giving you a starter and a 1st for two role players so how is that unfair. z also equaled their rebound production combined as well.

Guy986 · Post #6 » by **Guy986** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 2:19 am

bgrep14 wrote:your acting like it's a ridiculous offer like there all stars while there not! like you said their role players were giving you a starter and a 1st for two role players so how is that unfair. z also equaled their rebound production combined as well.

For the record Battier is our starter too. We're essentially trading one starter and a backup PF for a one year rental. Also Cleveland's pick is likely to be in the 28-30th range, aka trash. This may not be a ridiculous trade but its still a bad one from our perspective.

tisbee · Post #7 » by **tisbee** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 2:21 am

bgrep14,
While we could debate the merits of the players involved the catch is the Rockets are turning to a younger,more up-tempo team and Big Z just doesn't fit.
If JVG was still the coach,I could see it,but not for the actual Rockets of today. Sorry.

Post #8 » by **TMU** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 2:22 am

Battier has more value than Big Z, and Landry is worth more than Hickson, Gibson, Green or Eyenga.

And to be honest, I rather have Przybilla than Big Z.

Teckon · Post #9 » by **Teckon** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 2:33 am

Z won't be very useful to Rockets if Rockets plan to run and implement their motion offense totally. JJ Hickson may be worthwhile to take a look. The only good point of this proposal is in the event of Yao out of full season and Tmac's not able to play any sooner (not recover well), Z's expiring contract and Tmac's will allow Rockets to be a MAJOR player in the 2010 FA market as they will have cap space to sign 1 Max deal in the SHRINKING CAP in 2010 while the rest of the core in tact (except for battier and landry). But that view is only applicable if Rockets have totally given up this coming season.

Not a ridiculous offer but a DEMORALIZING one for Rockets to consider.

EDIT: I also wonder if Cavs management would even consider this trade as Battier and landry will destroy some of the cap room ($11 million) of Cavs for 2010 FA market. So unless Cavs management believe adding Battier and Landry can win them a title this coming season, they may be reluctant to do this.

JSB · Post #10 » by **JSB** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 3:54 am

miki moore!

Sports Arsenal · Post #11 » by **Sports Arsenal** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 4:39 am

Are you a BG rep for this company?

http://www.bgprod.com/company.html

I used to use that company....

Ribalding · Post #12 » by **Ribalding** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 4:50 am

ShaqSux wrote:Are you a BG rep for this company?

http://www.bgprod.com/company.html

I used to use that company....

Why'd you stop?

Too many stupid trade ideas?

Post #13 » by **TMU** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 5:00 am

Ribalding wrote:
ShaqSux wrote:Are you a BG rep for this company?

http://www.bgprod.com/company.html

I used to use that company....

Why'd you stop?

Too many stupid trade ideas?

OMG, I'm dying. :rofl:

Mike12345 · Post #14 » by **Mike12345** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 9:20 pm

Im surprised ppl replied to this trade its actually that ridiculous. You think thats the best we can get for battier and landry?? Z doesnt even fit our offense, this would be a money saving trade but at the same time id rather grab an expiring of somebody who we could possibly resign in 2010 that would fit our team. Giving up Battier and Landry to save money would be a bad move, and your prospect hickson or whoever means nothing unless its somebody Morey has a high interest in which I highly doubt.

Only way this trade works is if Morey badly wants one of your prospects. We can definately get better offers for Battier and Landry from teams looking to make a push next year or the year after

SportsBoy · Post #15 » by **SportsBoy** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 9:41 pm

No way the cavs do this deal.....NEXT

Alex_De_Large · Post #16 » by **Alex_De_Large** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 10:05 pm

I don't like it, but i would do a Tmac for West+Ilgauskas.

bgrep14 · Post #17 » by **bgrep14** » Tue Jul 7, 2009 1:48 am

we don't want tmacs overpaid corpse

KiDdFrESh · Post #18 » by **KiDdFrESh** » Tue Jul 7, 2009 2:58 am

Damn can this thread just die already? Give it up.