# Wally or Davis



## hollywood476 (Aug 20, 2005)

Wally World or Davis who would you rather have? Personally I would rather have have Wally on the team.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

i think ricky is the better all round player, hard to argue with that


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Ricky no doubt.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

I might miss Wally's pure shooting, but we have good shooters in James, KG, and more... I would rather have Ricky because he's a better all around player which he can play defense in where Wally is sorely lacking in. After the trade, the Wolves became more athletic team from a slow running tempo team in the beginning of last year.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

Juxtaposed said:


> After the trade, the Wolves became more athletic team from a slow running tempo team in the beginning of last year.


And Minny still add another C in Mark Blount (who it seems that Minny fans like more than Kandiman) with the move...


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

davis hands down. wally is the better shooter no doubt, but thats pretty much all he brings to the table.


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Zuca said:


> And Minny still add another C in Mark Blount (who it seems that Minny fans like more than Kandiman) with the move...


minus him being so turnover prone.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

we definately got the better of the trade as far as im concerned, i would have swapped wally for ricky straight up, but getting blount was a bonus.
wally is great if he's a 3rd or 4th option on a team so he can simply be relied upon for shooting, ricky brings a much more all round game


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

Boston fans said they got the better deal as we say we got a better deal, too. 

It's either one or another. I prefer ours


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Getting rid of the Kandi man is always going to be the better deal.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Wally has a worse contract and more injury prone. Wally has worse defense.... Let me shorten this up. Wally is only better than Ricky at shooting. I remember the game against the Nuggets last season when Melo hit the game winning 3 in OT. But how Ricky did in that game when he hit a 3 and then stole the ball right after and tied to go into OT. He just that game was absolutly amazing. Then I told myself, what would have happened if Wally was in the game? I wouldnt be surprised if he wasnt even in the game. Plus we had a few other good players that game too.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

The two things I thought Wally did worse than any other human being on Earth was dribbling and defense. But Ricky is probably worse at both. I agree with Avalanche that Wally would be a good 3rd or 4th option, but it's not like Ricky is any good at being a 2nd option either. I'd take Wally.


----------



## moss_is_1 (Jun 14, 2004)

Avalanche said:


> we definately got the better of the trade as far as im concerned, i would have swapped wally for ricky straight up, but getting blount was a bonus.
> wally is great if he's a 3rd or 4th option on a team so he can simply be relied upon for shooting, ricky brings a much more all round game


Well player whys i think so but we also traded a 1st round pick...


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

moss_is_1 said:


> Well player whys i think so but we also traded a 1st round pick...


yeah but whats new there  lol


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

> Well player whys i think so but we also traded a 1st round pick...


Huh?

And it doesn't matter anymore.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Well, I always liked Ricky, but I've always been a big Wally fan, too. You won't see very many Celtic fans defending this trade, incidentally...

That being said, Wally has absolutely outclassed Davis so far this year. The dude is on fire. It's too bad the entire Boston Celtics forum can't stand him and when he drops 35 points they find something else to talk about, like how ugly one drive he took was.

BTW, what's wrong with Slick this year?


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

Getting Blount is what makes the trade good for me. But streight up I would rather have Wally.


----------



## PFortyy (May 31, 2006)

i personaly like davis better


----------



## alexander (May 6, 2005)

Wally, and it's not even close

hard to believe that you guys don't see how horrible the Wally/Ricky trade was for your team (much worse than the Jaric/Cassel trade)


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

If it's so hard to believe perhaps you could enlighten us?


----------



## JuX (Oct 11, 2005)

alexander said:


> Wally, and it's not even close
> 
> hard to believe that you guys don't see how horrible the Wally/Ricky trade was for your team (much worse than the Jaric/Cassel trade)


Interesting coming out from a diehard Marko Jaric fan who seemed not to notice any fault of his.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

alexander said:


> Wally, and it's not even close
> 
> hard to believe that you guys don't see how horrible the Wally/Ricky trade was for your team (much worse than the Jaric/Cassel trade)


so far its simply a lateral move for both teams, neither have improved.
ricky is a better fit on this team now, with james on it... wally is a role player.

if u have wally on your team and hes scoring 35 something is wrong with the rest of your squad


----------



## alexander (May 6, 2005)

Avalanche said:


> so far its simply a lateral move for both teams, neither have improved.


see, that's not the point, i'm not saying Boston got the better deal, Boston ripped you off or whatever. The point is the trade was TERRIBLE for your team and that's what you should care cause the Celtics current status does not make the trade look any good for the T-Wolves.

I told you this, I watched about 70% of Minnesotas games before that trade, and I really enjoyed it. That was very interesting team(Kandi/KG/Hassell/Wally/Jaric) with lack of fortune in the crucial moments(you lost a lot of games by 3 or less points, and still you had a decent(playoff) record). The weakest spot on that roster was, no doubt, SF/SG Trenton Hassell. It was too obvious that he was the one who should've been replaced. But, unfortunetely, McHale came up with an idea to trade away an expiring contract and only shooter on the team for a below average centar with a bad contract and a proven loser. Later in the offseason he signed a first-shoot PG(never a good move, unless that's A. Iverson) Now, your team is in deep sh!t.
The fact that: Mark Blount is your best center(what), Hassell is your starting SF(bad idea), Mike James is your starting PG(it's not gonna work), and R. Davis is your 2nd best player(nope)...is enough to make a statement that you are not gonna make the playoffs.

good luck though


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

alexander said:


> I told you this, I watched about 70% of Minnesotas games before that trade, and I really enjoyed it. That was very interesting team(Kandi/KG/Hassell/Wally/Jaric) with lack of fortune in the crucial moments(you lost a lot of games by 3 or less points, and still you had a decent(playoff) record). The weakest spot on that roster was, no doubt, SF/SG Trenton Hassell. It was too obvious that he was the one who should've been replaced. But, unfortunetely, McHale came up with an idea to trade away an expiring contract and only shooter on the team for a below average centar with a bad contract and a proven loser. Later in the offseason he signed a first-shoot PG(never a good move, unless that's A. Iverson) Now, your team is in deep sh!t.
> The fact that: Mark Blount is your best center(what), Hassell is your starting SF(bad idea), Mike James is your starting PG(it's not gonna work), and R. Davis is your 2nd best player(nope)...is enough to make a statement that you are not gonna make the playoffs.
> 
> good luck though


Lack of fortune? It's not fortune, they were just bad. That team had no clue how to win games (not that the current squad does either). I'm not sure how you can say Hassell was the weakest spot. No player outperformed their expectations more last season than Hassell did. He was the lone bright spot for that dismal team. I should also remind you that Hassell started in 03-04 when the Wolves had the best record in the West. Yet him being a starter says that you won't be a playoff team?


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Got to go with Ricky Davis here. Wally might be a more consistent scorer, but Ricky is much more complete, with his ability to drive and do the drop step. Wally is mostly a shooter with a couple of different off-ball moves.

And defensively Ricky is consistently underrated while Wally is terrible at best.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Wally, easily.

Without any hesitation.


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

I'd take Ricky back in a second. I hate being stuck with this bum. He can't play D at all. All he can do is get pumped up, hit a few shots, then turn the ball over and start turning the game over with it, because he tries to take Pierce's role. He's nothing but a shooter. He has shotty dribbling and everything else is just...Man I miss Ricky.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

KingHandles said:


> I'd take Ricky back in a second. I hate being stuck with this bum. He can't play D at all. All he can do is get pumped up, hit a few shots, then turn the ball over and start turning the game over with it, because he tries to take Pierce's role. He's nothing but a shooter. He has shotty dribbling and everything else is just...Man I miss Ricky.


Actually that sounds quite a bit like Ricky too.


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

socco said:


> Actually that sounds quite a bit like Ricky too.


Not Boston Celtics Ricky. He was a completely different player here. Wally just sucks anywhere. :biggrin:


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Wally just sucks anywhere.


This is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. I'm not even getting into it. If 22/4/2 on great %'s isn't enough for you, then I really don't know what you want from Wally.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

socco said:


> Lack of fortune? It's not fortune, they were just bad. That team had no clue how to win games (not that the current squad does either). I'm not sure how you can say Hassell was the weakest spot. No player outperformed their expectations more last season than Hassell did. He was the lone bright spot for that dismal team. I should also remind you that Hassell started in 03-04 when the Wolves had the best record in the West. Yet him being a starter says that you won't be a playoff team?


got to this reply before me, i totally agree.
hassel was fine as starting SF, and performed really well last season.. adding some much needed offense to his already great D.
he was starting in a WCF team and had big input.
not every player needs to score, hassel just does whatever needs to be done...


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

This is an old argument about style vs. substance, Ricky has a certain style and flair that is fun to watch but unfortunately doesn't translate into a lot of wins, doesn't shoot for a high percentage, not really that great defensively despite what people say Ricky is not a good defender, he has plays that you enjoy watching but when he takes a bad shot or doesn't play good defense it balances out, Wally has an ugly shot but shoots 50%, 40% on threes, hustles his *** off, spreads the floor which is something that is important on a basketball floor that gives room for the other players to do their thing, so overall watching both of them play you have to say that Wally is the better player.


----------

