CV,Lue may be traded for Landry and Filler

REDDzone · Post #21 » by **REDDzone** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:49 am

I love this deal if it happens.

Nebula1 · Post #22 » by **Nebula1** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:50 am

fam3381 wrote:Woelfel's also mentioning OKC as a possibility.

http://my.journaltimes.com/post/woelfel ... nsify.html

Seems like this makes the most sense. Landry is still undersized at PF and we don't really need another shooter w/ Jones coming in. I'd like to see an OKC PF coming. Smith, ideally.

Bernman · Post #23 » by **Bernman** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:50 am

RayRayJones wrote:I don't care if Landry produced 20 wins for the Rockets.

He's a guy who's had consistent injury problems, is not THAT physical as he's hyped up to be and won't provide us anything more than CV already does.

CV is putting up better numbers by a landslide in 2 more minutes this year AND we give up Lue?

No way.

You will soon be changing your tune, curmudgeon.

xTitan · Post #24 » by **xTitan** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:50 am

I am thinking the addition of a vet like Barry who can spread the floor would be very nice as well, I know the playoffs are paramount to the senator, so that would make some sense as well, for the now, Barry would probably be better that Head.......although I never turn down good Head....

fam3381 · Post #25 » by **fam3381** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:51 am

paulpressey25 wrote:Landry also has a pretty friendly contract. $3mm this year and for the next two years after that. Apparently the last year is a team option.

That's why this is a very good deal IMO...you end up adding a player who's young and offers comparable production to CV but who's going to be cheaper for the next two years after this. If he can stay healthy it's a steal, that's really my only question. The Bucks had to shop Villanueva now while he was playing well.

trwi7 · Post #26 » by **trwi7** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:52 am

wichmae wrote:The hang up is who we get with Carl. Head or Barry. If its one we may also get a pick included with that player (NOT CONFIRMED). I personally would prefer Barry. (more length).

How sure of this pick thing are you? If we take on the player the Rockets would prefer to trade (between Bary and Head) would that have them involve the pick?

Also, are we talking about a 1st or 2nd round pick?

eagle13 · Post #27 » by **eagle13** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:52 am

Thanks GAD. Truly appreciated.

I guess that trade is cool? Not as excited about Landry as many of you. Kinda short. CV was just starting to come on. Hopefully he doesn't dump another 48 on us next time we play Rockets.

IS this what Bogut was blogging about? Guess he figured we'd like hometown boy? Does this mean Drew is glad to be rid of CV?

Guess DJ becomes #3 PG. Please God keep Luke & Ramon injury free.

Post #28 » by **paulpressey25** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:53 am

Bernman wrote:Brent Barry wouldn't exactly be filler, for us, if he returned to his form last year w/ extended minutes.

Exactly. If somehow Brent Barry were coming back this way, and he didn't completely lose it, he'd be very valuable for us.

Did you guys see CV's numbers for December? Very impressive all around in almost every category. I'm guessing Hammond sold as "high" as he could on this one. Seems clear that Hammond and Skiles are now doubling down on "defense" and willing to make the last step to be an elite defensive team with the defensive consistency of Landry versus the inconsistency that CV brought.

fam3381 · Post #29 » by **fam3381** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:54 am

Nebula1 wrote:Seems like this makes the most sense. Landry is still undersized at PF and we don't really need another shooter w/ Jones coming in. I'd like to see an OKC PF coming. Smith, ideally.

Why would anyone want one of the OKC PFs over Landry? Are people that worried about Landry's knee? CL's cheaper, younger and more productive than any of those guys.

wichmae · Post #30 » by **wichmae** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:54 am

It would be a conditional pick.

xTitan · Post #31 » by **xTitan** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:55 am

eagle13 wrote:Thanks GAD. Truly appreciated.

I guess that trade is cool? Not as excited about Landry as many of you. Kinda short. CV was just starting to come on. Hopefully he doesn't dump another 48 on us next time we play Rockets.

IS this what Bogut was blogging about? Guess he figured we'd like hometown boy? Does this mean Drew is glad to be rid of CV?

Guess DJ becomes #3 PG. Please God keep Luke & Ramon injury free.

I wondered the same thing, although I am pretty sure Cv and Bogut got along pretty well....the difference is that Landry is a more physical, defensive player (although short).

Nebula1 · Post #32 » by **Nebula1** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:56 am

If this turns out, well done to all those involved. While I'm excited about Carl, the second piece is important. I guess Head makes sense if Bell is really hurt, but I'd rather see another PF.

trwi7 · Post #33 » by **trwi7** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:57 am

wichmae wrote:It would be a conditional pick.

Conditional of what? How far the Rockets go in the playoffs? If the Bucks make the playoffs it's a 2nd, if they don't, it's a 1st? Something like that?

xTitan · Post #34 » by **xTitan** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:57 am

The Bucks do seem to be stock piling 6'8" athletes, but that is the direction the NBA seems to be headed in.

RayRayJones · Post #35 » by **RayRayJones** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:58 am

fam3381 wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:Landry also has a pretty friendly contract. $3mm this year and for the next two years after that. Apparently the last year is a team option.

That's why this is a very good deal IMO...you end up adding a player who's young and offers comparable production to CV but who's going to be cheaper for the next two years after this. If he can stay healthy it's a steal, that's really my only question. The Bucks had to shop Villanueva now while he was playing well.

CV is a year younger than Landry. He's also averaging 4.1ppg, 1.6rpg more than Landry is in 2 minutes more.

Not very comparable to me.

Adding Landry for two years is nice, but fact of the matter is - he's a backup PF who is another "RJ" type. He can do everything decent, but excels in nothing and likely never will. We're trading basically our starting PF (nobody expected LRMAM to be LRMAM) and a PG who has fit in well in his time here in Lue for a guy who's a career backup.

He's not a good defender, he's decent, he's not a good low post force, he's decent. I'd much rather have LRMAM be our defense specialist and CV be our scoring specialist at the PF than having a defensive specialist and an all around guy, but I guess that's where views of team concepts come in.

Nebula1 · Post #36 » by **Nebula1** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:59 am

fam3381 wrote:
Nebula1 wrote:Seems like this makes the most sense. Landry is still undersized at PF and we don't really need another shooter w/ Jones coming in. I'd like to see an OKC PF coming. Smith, ideally.

Why would anyone want one of the OKC PFs over Landry? Are people that worried about Landry's knee? CL's cheaper, younger and more productive than any of those guys.

I meant in addition to Landry. I like Carl alot, but we're still slim at that position.

wichmae · Post #37 » by **wichmae** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:59 am

OK, so the logistics of the trade are.

CV and LUE would be traded to Houston

for Carl Landry (BYC and matched RFA) and either Barry or Luther Head (to make BYC status work. Trade kinda has been in the works for a bit so HOU created a TPE with moving Francis to help acquire a player. Which in turn helps them get Lue.

Lue then wil be traded to LAL and depending on how we take (Head or Barry)(NOT CONFIRMED) LAL will send Mihm and a conditional pick (OR NOT) to Houston.

bigkurty · Post #38 » by **bigkurty** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:00 am

I guess he is a decent role player but it is a definite downgrade in talent right now. CV was really starting to come around. Of course if we didn't have any plans on resigning him, picking up a good player on a pretty good contract is what had to be done then. Who is going to be our 6th man who can score off the bench now? I say its a perfect time to convert Redd to the 6th man, haha.

JustinCredible · Post #39 » by **JustinCredible** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:00 am

RayRayJones wrote:
fam3381 wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:Landry also has a pretty friendly contract. $3mm this year and for the next two years after that. Apparently the last year is a team option.

That's why this is a very good deal IMO...you end up adding a player who's young and offers comparable production to CV but who's going to be cheaper for the next two years after this. If he can stay healthy it's a steal, that's really my only question. The Bucks had to shop Villanueva now while he was playing well.

CV is a year younger than Landry. He's also averaging 4.1ppg, 1.6rpg more than Landry is in 2 minutes more.

Not very comparable to me.

Adding Landry for two years is nice, but fact of the matter is - he's a backup PF who is another "RJ" type. He can do everything decent, but excels in nothing and likely never will. We're trading basically our starting PF (nobody expected LRMAM to be LRMAM) and a PG who has fit in well in his time here in Lue for a guy who's a career backup.

He's not a good defender, he's decent, he's not a good low post force, he's decent. I'd much rather have LRMAM be our defense specialist and CV be our scoring specialist at the PF than having a defensive specialist and an all around guy, but I guess that's where views of team concepts come in.

Landry is shooting 58% on the year and 60% for his career. Compare that to CV's 43% this year. Have to look at how effective each player is.

emunney · Post #40 » by **emunney** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:01 am

First off, I like Landry better than CV. CV has been pretty fun to watch for the most part this year, but offering him a big contract is such a dicey situation given his past motivational problems. Then you add in the payroll stability in having a guy producing at a starter's rate with such a small contract, and the deal's a no brainer (unless we're getting Head... OH!!!). It's so hard to tell what CV's going to be worth this coming offseason, so I'm glad that, for once, we're not just going to be reacting to what other teams do. We are moving forward.

I like the way Lue's been playing lately, but he's on a one year contract and shouldn't be a major consideration. He seems like a good guy and I wish him well.

Charlie's most definitely a good guy, too, and I wish him nothing but the best.