RealGM

CV may be the better all around player (up for argument), but Landry fits into the system that hammond and skiles are trying to create. CV does not. That's just that.

Moreover, I'm going to the game tomorrow night and had hoped it'd be competitive...however, it always seems that the game after a trade is made, the team sucks, so I'm sure I'll get to see an awful game. Hopefully it'll pay off in the grand scheme of things.

Like this deal. Like. This. Deal.

I'll take Landry over CV any day of the week, as well as either Barry or Head over Lue. For this season, Barry would be a nice fit. Great shooter. Long-term I'm a Head fan.

The TJ Ford trade is now complete. With Landry signed up for two more years after this, we'll have netted 2.3 years of CV and 2.7 years of Landry.

I do agree with DB in that I'd like to see what Landry does with extended time since he'll be the starter here. He could still just be a nice 10/5 player or break out ala Milsap.

The only concern I'd have at all on this deal is whether the middle gets too congested for Bogut to work and RJ and Redd to slash.

trwi7 wrote:

Baller 24 wrote:Ugh, guys can you give me some insight on Charlie?

Very good rebounder but very inconsistent on offense. Tends to wander out to the perimeter too much, but is good inside and in the midrange game. Much better defender under Skiles, but still average to below average.

I used to think Charlie had an outside game. Has his outside game improved our is it declining?

DrugBust wrote:Landry is a short, below the rim PF with limited upside.

He seemed more like that in college but it's weird watching him in Houston. He seems to constantly be dunking on guys, double-clutch dunking, etc.

Bernman wrote:I really can't believe anybody doesn't like this deal. Look at how livid Rockets' fans are. Call him their best power forward on an outstanding team. And he definitely doesn't play below the rim. He's probably up there among NBA players in dunks per minute.

If you don't care about our cap situation then I can see some people still being seduced by CV's "potential" or whatever. But our cap situation is a huge limiting factor on what we can do trade-wise and in free agency next summer...getting a good young player who's locked into a contract < CV's salary would be extremely helpful. How many of those guys exist? Basically no one except Landry and guys on rookie contracts. They're just not generally available.

So yes, I agree with you Bern

75totheMACCfund wrote:CV may be the better all around player (up for argument), but Landry fits into the system that hammond and skiles are trying to create. CV does not.

I'm cool with this deal, but I'm always going to be a little leery of deals that jettison the talent for guys that are 'hard working'. I'm not sure which coach said it (it was an NFL coach I believe) but I once heard something to the effect of, 'if I can't get the most talented players to win in my system, then it's time to find a new system'. I didn't like that Mo Williams was dealt (to a top three team none-the-less) because Skiles and Hammond didn't want to coach him. There's zero question in my mind that with Mo Williams we're above .500 right now.

A.J. wrote:

trwi7 wrote:

Baller 24 wrote:Ugh, guys can you give me some insight on Charlie?

Very good rebounder but very inconsistent on offense. Tends to wander out to the perimeter too much, but is good inside and in the midrange game. Much better defender under Skiles, but still average to below average.

I used to think Charlie had an outside game. Has his outside game improved our is it declining?

He's never really had an outside game. He should play from about 17 feet and in. If he shoots from further outside than that, there's a slim chance that he's going to score.

A.J. wrote:I used to think Charlie had an outside game. Has his outside game improved our is it declining?

You'll get differing takes on it here. I think he's got an excellent 10-15 foot jumper that he just started this year. But he likes to take three's instead. Two out of three games you'll just cringe as he launches ill timed threes that clank. Then that third game, he'll go 2-3 or 3-4 on them as part of a 25-point night.

Nebula1 wrote:Anyone here really believe Landry is the solution at PF though? I like him alot, but he's not a starter in the League. I'm glad he's coming and I hope Houston likes Villanueva, even though it's likely they'll hate this deal. Still more work to be done, but progress is being made. I wonder when we'll see the new guys... Houston game?

This is the thing that gets me the most about this trade.

Landry is a backup on this team and on basically every NBA team in the league. That's his ceiling, a good 6th man. CV is a guy who can start and put up good numbers or come off the bench in the scoring role and put up points in a hurry. Sure, he may be inconsistent but so is Manu Ginobili.

I just don't understand why we're trading our starting PF for a backup and a 3rd string PG. The only thing is that Landry is 2 years longer, but this does NOT solve our solution at PF because when we lose CV, we'll have nobody except Landry as our PF when you figure LRMAM is a true SF who can fill in at PF, not the reverse.

Bernman wrote:He's probably up there among NBA players in dunks per minute.

He definitely could be, he's a bull around the hoop. A lot of that is sheer aggression... he's also a very good athlete and strong enough to take the hit and finish, but he's not long enough to really get up high above the cylinder. A big part of getting a lot of dunks is that athleticism and strength, which Landry has... but the other necessary part is TRYING to get a lot of dunks, which Landry most definitely does. Defensively, I think the "below the rim" claim rings far truer.

Bright future at the forward slot and an amazing rotation for the year. I mean just imagine a lineup where we insert Moute at the 2 RJ at the 3 and Landry at the 4, forget about CV- that is straight up finesse, versatility, basketball IQ , defense etc( Richard just needs to get his a**(( motivated ...and we're getting better as the year goes on.......)





( if he can get his head in the game; he's got much room for improvement)

paulpressey25 wrote:

Nebula1 wrote:Anyone here really believe Landry is the solution at PF though?

I think he's the solution to making the playoffs this year. You could see that for every CV game where he was outstanding, he'd have two where Skiles would be wanting to hammer him for being out of position on defense or tossing up those three point shots. As we've learned, Skiles will take reliability over "talent".

We still though need to get a top tier "talent" on this team somehow. But this move I think does make the team a bit better the next 2-3 years. You should like this Nebs, since Carl Landry is the "Shane Battier" of power forwards.

Oh I like it alot actually. Love Carl's game. Love getting a Milwaukee player. Love the Landrys in general. Still, he's not the PF to carry us to the next level. Should give Luc a break though and Skiles more flexiblilty. Overall our PF situation is weak, although if this deal happens, it's a step up. I think he'll fit perfectly. Thank God it wasn't Sessions, so I'm happy. We're still hunting for our Rasheed to make it all click.

I think there are certain members of this forum who are more concerned with what players can do, than what player do do. More interested in what the pretty wrapping looks like outside than what are the contents inside.

Landry is 6-8 and a half with a 6-11 wingspan.

RayRayJones wrote:Landry is a backup on this team and on basically every NBA team in the league. That's his ceiling, a good 6th man. CV is a guy who can start and put up good numbers or come off the bench in the scoring role and put up points in a hurry. Sure, he may be inconsistent but so is Manu Ginobili.

Why is that Landry's ceiling? When has he ever failed as a starting PF? He's the most efficient backup PF in the game probably.

And when has CV ever put up good numbers as a starter? It's always been the same story with Charlie--points and boards but poor scoring efficiency, no defense, and no consistency. He's finally having a good season, but it's by sixth man standards.

RamonSessions wrote:

Fixed your last picture.

Chuck Diesel wrote:Landry is 6-8 and a half with a 6-11 wingspan.

About a foot of that is above his eyes, but he can jump.

Chuck Diesel wrote:Landry is 6-8 and a half with a 6-11 wingspan.

Landry's standing reach though is only 8'-6" which is an inch shorter than LRMAM's (8'-7.5"). Both guys are undersized for PF's but it will be fun as heck to watch those two battle inside.

I am very pleased with this deal, especially if it gets us LH. I am not expecting this deal to turn us into a top team in the east but it will definitely improve our toughness, defense along with eliminating a potential contract nighmare at the end of this year. Hammond sold high, smart; I like it very much!

Just another step in the right direction for this franchise, if you ask me!

Wait is thise for real?
I am worried Villanueva doesn't play defense and is kind of a ball hog right?

If it's true you guys get a bargain in Landry , he is a little short but can dunk reound , shoot the mid range and is very efficient.