Case Against Trading CJ

[PtldPlatypus]

Yes. One player has more if an impact on offense than defense, especially as a guard. If you put Avery Bradley and Tony Allen in the backcourt they'd still suck.

Against Dame and CJ, they'd probably combine for 50 points and 15 assists.

 

[BonesJones]

Against Dame and CJ, they'd probably combine for 50 points and 15 assists.

Against the Portland Trail Blazers with their non-defensive coaching staff, their busted scheme, and the rest of the team that sucks at team defense?

Still, no.

 

[Denny Crane]

What a difference a year makes.

This year:



Last year:

 

[Minstrel]

I just don't see how you can trade either right now. First, Stotts needs to change his scheme and hire a defensive expert as assistant coach. If that doesn't work, you fire the head coach and hire a defensive minded guy. If that doesn't work, you do everything to get a premier rim-protector. If that's not enough, you get rid of more of the other guys and find better defensive players to surround them.

You act like I (or anyone else) am suggesting trading Lillard or (more likely) McCollum for nothing. There's no reason to spend years trying everything to make a Lillard/McCollum pairing work and plenty of reason to split them up and get back a similar asset in a different form. McCollum is a fine player, but he's not some generational talent that you simply never ever trade. Even Lillard, for all his historically great shooting, is not that kind of player. You don't trade away either guy just to do it, but there's plenty of reason to think that you can build a stronger overall team with a good trade of one of them.

 

[Minstrel]

This discussion is actually ridiculous. The only way you trade CJ is if we get someone better (Cousins or George). We need 3 stars to contend and we have 2. Trading CJ for a star still keeps us at 2 with no flexibility. We need to think more creatively, and trading CJ is an easy "solution" that won't get us any closer to fixing the problem.

You don't need 3 stars, you don't need any specific number of stats (though not having even one probably won't work). You need a team that actually functions well together, in addition to a star or two. I'd take two stars and a cohesive team around them than 3 stars that simply can't form a coherent whole.

Stars that can't form a cohesive while is, in my opinion, where the Blazers are right now and it's not the fault of either Lillard or McCollum (unless you want to hold their defensive deficiencies against them). They simply double-down on each other's strengths and weaknesses. Duplicating strengths isn't insurmountable, but duplicating weaknesses, the defense, probably is.

Trading McCollum isn't an "easy" solution. It's simply a (likely) necessary step towards the solution. The team will also need to be creative--it's not either/or. Even nailing a McCollum deal won't be easy--you need to target the right guy, or guys. Trading McCollum won't instantly turn the Blazers into a championship contender but I think trading McCollum smartly does get them closer.

 

[BonesJones]

They simply double-down on each other's strengths and weaknesses. Duplicating strengths isn't insurmountable, but duplicating weaknesses, the defense, probably is.

You say double down on their strengths like it's a bad thing.

 

[BonesJones]

There's no reason to spend years trying everything to make a Lillard/McCollum pairing work and plenty of reason to split them up and get back a similar asset in a different form. McCollum is a fine player, but he's not some generational talent that you simply never ever trade.

Years? One bad third of a season and we got the majority of the board clamoring to trade CJ. It's ridiculous.

McCollum is averaging over 22ppg on almost 50-50-90 percentages. That's pretty damn good. He doesn't get enough spot up looks in Stotts offense and needs to be ran around screens that actually have a purpose. The dude is a top 10 scorer in the league because of his volume+efficiency.

 

[Minstrel]

You say double down on their strengths like it's a bad thing.

In a sense, it is. Since both are at their best as ball-dominant scorers/play-makers, playing either off the ball wastes their talent. While they trade off doing it a bit (which doesn't change that talent is being wasted), McCollum is generally the one off the ball. Turning McCollum into a JJ Redick a lot of the time is inefficient, since McCollum could do more. Trading him to a team where he could be a slightly-worse Lillard and getting back someone who's talents are maximized alongside Lillard would be a more efficient use of talent. That's why doubling down on strengths isn't ideal (and doubling down on their weaknesses is crippling).

 

[Minstrel]

Years? One bad third of a season and we got the majority of the board clamoring to trade CJ. It's ridiculous.

The "years" comment was in reference to you saying we first need to get a better defensive coach and see and then if that doesn't work, fire Stotts and get a better defensive head coach and see and then if that doesn't work, get a rim-protector and see and then if that doesn't work, rebuild the entire team around Lillard and McCollum. That's basically saying "We need to spend 5+ years trying everything possible to make this combination work," and I don't see why.

If it were a question of losing McCollum for nothing or else trying everything to make it work, yes, I'd agree. But that's not what's being suggested. What's being suggested is trading McCollum for similar talent that fits better alongside Lillard. Why spend years trying to make a bad fit work?

McCollum is averaging over 22ppg on almost 50-50-90 percentages. That's pretty damn good.

You seem to be taking these "trade McCollum" discussions as "McCollum is terrible and we need to dump him," which is weird. Everyone agrees McCollum is pretty damn good. That's why the team could trade him for something else pretty damn good, hopefully someone else who fits better with Lillard.

 

[riverman]

we got the majority of the board clamoring to trade CJ. It's ridiculous

not really what's going on here Bones....it's a possibility that's explored...nobody is clamoring about anything really but defensive improvement and team identity...CJ for Paul George...CJ for Klay Thompson...CJ for Jimmy Butler...you have to consider those and actually....I think you've proposed more trades than any forum member....

 

[Scalma]

CJ is a great player, but still a luxury. Most successful teams don't have two ball dominant scorers like that. Not even golden state. We can use CJ to balance out the team, why would anyone even be against that?

 

[Orion Bailey]

CJ is a great player, but still a luxury. Most successful teams don't have two ball dominant scorers like that. Not even golden state. We can use CJ to balance out the team, why would anyone even be against that?

I think because we as fans find it hard enough to get great players to come here. Now that we have two, we have to trade one?

Not that I disagree, but it still sucks...I can see the hesitation no matter how you slice it.

 

[BBert]

I don't mind 'doubling down' on some of Lillard and McCollum's strengths. They aren't really exactly the same player, and what they both bring we need. They also take some pressure off of each other on offense, which is also good.

It's the doubling down on the weaknesses that's the problem, specifically the defense, and the only reason trading CJ is even being discussed. If just one of them were a good defender, I don't think we'd even be talking about this. But it is something to talk about.

I think it's very unlikely to trade CJ for a player as good or better than CJ at another position though. So, I don't expect him to be traded. It's more likely that if we are going to fill our defensive void, it will be from trading someone other than CJ, if for no other reason than it's difficult to pry a player of that caliber away from the team they are on.

 

[riverman]

CJ worked out with Steve Nash....I think that's where he got his defensive skills...I like CJ a whole lot in a different role

 

[BonesJones]

In a sense, it is. Since both are at their best as ball-dominant scorers/play-makers, playing either off the ball wastes their talent. While they trade off doing it a bit (which doesn't change that talent is being wasted), McCollum is generally the one off the ball. Turning McCollum into a JJ Redick a lot of the time is inefficient, since McCollum could do more. Trading him to a team where he could be a slightly-worse Lillard and getting back someone who's talents are maximized alongside Lillard would be a more efficient use of talent. That's why doubling down on strengths isn't ideal (and doubling down on their weaknesses is crippling).

Yeah, playing the 47% 3pt shooter off the ball as a spot up option is totally wasting his skillset...

You're acting like McCollum always needs to ball to be effective, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The dude is one of the top 5 3pt shooters in the league, and is just as efficient as Redick. Yeah, he can do more, so have him attack closeouts that are too strong to get an open shot off, and let him handle the ball to take the pressure off Lillard. That's what they do. How does that mean their wasting CJ's talent.

McCollum is just as good spotting up on the wing as he is with the ball in his hands. You're turning that into a negative by saying CJ shouldn't be used as a spot up shooter in some scenarios because "he can do more". That's like saying you shouldn't let DeMarcus Cousins post up because he can do more than post up...

CJ's spacing helps Lillard, and vice versa. Their skillsets help one another, not hurt them. CJ is such a great shooter and ball handler that defenders don't play off him often because he'll hit the three or attack the closeout very well.

You're logic makes sense in a Nate McMillan offense, where there is one guy iso-ing and trying to get buckets while everyone stands and watches. However, their ability to play off each other and score from anywhere on the floor benefits each other in any type of offense where the players move the ball or play off of each other.

The "Doubling down on strengths makes those players less effective" theory is one of the dumbest theories I've ever heard in regards to Lillard and McCollum. It makes sense in very specific scenarios but people try to apply it where it has no merit.

It would make sense if you had a starting lineup with Rajon Rondo, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Ben Simmons. They all pass well, but none of them can shoot. Therefore, all their passing gets collectively wasted because none of them are scorers.

But how does that work with two guys that are so dynamic offensively that they can play on and off the ball, both handle the ball, both create for others, both hit mid-range and 3pt jumpers off the dribble, both play in the pick n roll, both spot up and hit shots and attack closeouts, and both move well without the ball and are comfortable coming off pin-downs, flare screens, and make the right backdoor cuts when they're overplayed?

Sure, with Crabbe and not McCollum, Lillard would have to shoot more. He'd score over 30ppg, but on a less efficient clip due to the lack of a threat at the SG position, THUS making Lillard less effective himself without McCollum (and vise versa).

There is no way that playing Lillard and McCollum together isn't maximizing what both of them can do. I understand that neither are good defensively and how that's a problem when neither of your guards can lock down one of the oppositions guards, but their offensive skillsets are so versatile offensively that they would compliment any guard in the league very well because they can do anything and everything offensively.

 

[BonesJones]

CJ worked out with Steve Nash....I think that's where he got his defensive skills...I like CJ a whole lot in a different role

Off the bench? Yeah, diminishing the role of a guy scoring 22ppg on almost 50/50/90 shooting is a great idea. Either playing him less minutes or playing him 17 straight minutes to end each half would either hurt the team because he'd be playing less, or hurt the team because he'd be exhausted at the end of each half due to the extended time he's in the game without a breather.

It also makes no sense because the same lineups would be playing the same amount of minutes together (unless CJ played less which would be worse). So instead of having our bench in against bench lineups, we'd hypothetically have Dame and CJ in against bench lineups. So instead of a bench player (ex. CJ Miles) not scoring much because he's guarded by Turner or Crabbe, now he'd score more than before because he'd have McCollum on him, thus netting us the same result as if McCollum started, which is a player scoring more than he should. However, instead of a starter, it'd be a bench player. Is that better? Because usually if that starter is a great player then no one will be able to slow them down, and it makes no difference who's on them.

So now instead of the starter going off because he's hot and then having decent defense to handle the player that substitutes him, now we have that starter going off on Crabbe (who you've suggested we start), and then are defense would let their bench go off too.

You guys really don't look into the "Bench McCollum theory" when you suggest it, because if you did, you would realize how it would hurt us even more.

And that's not even getting into stats that @Boob-No-More has posted about CJ's blistering starts he usually gets on, where he shoots over 50% from the field and from 3 during the 1st quarter.

 

[WillG]

Last season that stint, where McCollum took over the team when Lillard was out for seven games or so; CJ was phenomenal.
( 26.0 PPG/ 6.5 APG / 5.5 RPG )
Personally I thought the teams offense was more unpredictable, and therefore dangerous to opposing defenses with CJ at the point.

Question is: can he do it year in year out - with defenses targeting and game planning for him?

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah, playing the 47% 3pt shooter off the ball as a spot up option is totally wasting his skillset...

You're acting like McCollum always needs to ball to be effective, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

No, you're completely misunderstanding me. Of course he can be effective off the ball. I'm not in any way saying he isn't effective without the ball or that he's useless.

I'm saying that because he can do more than that, and so can Lillard, when you play them together, you're wasting the versatility of one of them. It's not that it renders them ineffective, it's that their full skillsets are not being optimized.

Let me put this another way: on the Blazers, Lillard offensively is (let us say) a 95 and McCollum is an 80. 80 is great! That puts him way ahead of nearly every other NBA player offensively. Having a 95 and an 80 together is great for Portland.

However, McCollum could be an 88-90 on another team, because he could do everything he does now and also be the primary initiator. Let's say that's true (because I'm trying to explain to you what I'm saying, not currently prove to you that this is true). If so, then McCollum is losing value on Portland, value he could regain on another team.

Why does that matter? It matters because Portland could, at least theoretically, trade McCollum for another 88-90 player, one that fits better with Lillard. In this case, "fits better" means use all of his value alongside Lillard, rather than "just" 80 points of value (which, again, is still great). In this way, even though Portland traded like-for-like (McCollum for someone equally talented), Portland actually improves because the new guy gets to use all of his value. Now Portland has a 95 and an 88/90 rather than a 95 and an 80.

That's maximizing efficiency. Efficiency isn't maximized when two players have overlapping skillsets that they can't both use to their full extent together.

 

[BonesJones]

No, you're completely misunderstanding me. Of course he can be effective off the ball. I'm not in any way saying he isn't effective without the ball or that he's useless. It's baffling to me that you think I'm saying that.

I'm saying that because he can do more than that, and so can Lillard, when you play them together, you're wasting the versatility of one of them. It's not that it renders them ineffective, it's that their full skillsets are not being optimized.

Let me put this another way: on the Blazers, Lillard offensively is (let us say) a 95 and McCollum is an 80. 80 is great! That puts him way ahead of nearly every other NBA player offensively. Having a 95 and an 80 together is great for Portland.

However, McCollum could be an 88-90 on another team, because he could do everything he does now and also be the primary initiator. Let's say that's true (because I'm trying to explain to you what I'm saying, not currently prove to you that this is true). If so, then McCollum is losing value on Portland, value he could regain on another team.

Why does that matter? It matters because Portland could, at least theoretically, trade McCollum for another 88-90 player, one that fits better with Lillard. In this case, "fits better" means use all of his value alongside Lillard, rather than "just" 80 points of value (which, again, is still great). In this way, even though Portland traded like-for-like (McCollum for someone equally talented), Portland actually improves because the new guy gets to use all of his value. Now Portland has a 95 and an 88/90 rather than a 95 and an 80.

That's maximizing efficiency. Efficiency isn't maximized when two players have overlapping skillsets that they can't both use to their full extent together.

I mean, an 88-90 player would be a Paul George, Jimmy Butler type. Yes, I'd definitely consider that (depending on what else we could change around them). But I'd consider that because of the defensive impact.

I don't think that that scenario would be "maximizing his skillset". Yes, his per game scoring and assist numbers would rise, but his efficiency would drop.

Playing Lillard and McCollum doesn't waste the versatility of either of them. Their versatility is that they can play any role in a specific half-court set and an extremely high level (Slasher, distributor, spot-up shooter, etc.). Therefore, how can their versatility be wasted in any scenario? If McCollum doesn't touch the ball, his high level shooting spaces the floor, and his ability to attack close outs makes his defender even more wary of playing too far off him. This creates a lot of space for Lillard to create for himself and others. The versatility of McCollum helps Lillard even when he doesn't touch the ball. Without one, the other has less space even with a great shooter next to them (as that shooter likely isn't as good of a slasher so defenders can simply go 100% on closeouts to guard the spot-up threat).

With less space, more defensive attention, and the lack of a dynamic threat to get McCollum easy looks, does McCollum really go from an 80 to a 88-90 if he plays somewhere where he's an alphadog? No, I don't believe he does.

If you think so, give me a detailed half-court scenario where one of their skillsets isn't helping the team overall, and is being "wasted".

 

[Minstrel]

Playing Lillard and McCollum doesn't waste the versatility of either of them. Their versatility is that they can play any role in a specific half-court set and an extremely high level (Slasher, distributor, spot-up shooter, etc.). Therefore, how can their versatility be wasted in any scenario? If McCollum doesn't touch the ball, his high level shooting spaces the floor, and his ability to attack close outs makes his defender even more wary of playing too far off him. This creates a lot of space for Lillard to create for himself and others. The versatility of McCollum helps Lillard even when he doesn't touch the ball. Without one, the other has less space even with a great shooter next to them (as that shooter likely isn't as good of a slasher so defenders can simply go 100% on closeouts to guard the spot-up threat).

I agree that they help each other--it's hard for two excellent players not to be of some benefit to each other. The question is whether their skillsets optimally help each other or not, and I think that two guys who are both ideally suited to play as the lead initiator don't optimally help each other. If I had both prime Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, they would certainly be great together and make each other's jobs easier but if I could trade Bryant for, say, Olajuwon, I would--not because Bryant was useless, "not helping the team" or any other such thing, but because both Jordan and Bryant need to be lead initiators to be at their best and they can't both be lead initiators. They can find ways to play together well, obviously, but shifting Bryant's talent into another player who doesn't need to be the same thing Jordan is to be at his very best, would be ideal.

With less space, more defensive attention, and the lack of a dynamic threat to get McCollum easy looks, does McCollum really go from an 80 to a 88-90 if he plays somewhere where he's an alphadog? No, I don't believe he does.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think McCollum can certainly better leverage his talent as a lead guard. He's played extremely well without Lillard on the floor. Obviously, every player needs talent around him, but I think both Lillard and McCollum would be better off as the main initiator with shooters around them (or a Klay Thompson type of side kick). Both Lillard and McCollum are the Steph Curry model of player.

 

[BonesJones]

I agree that they help each other--it's hard for two excellent players not to be of some benefit to each other. The question is whether their skillsets optimally help each other or not, and I think that two guys who are both ideally suited to play as the lead initiator don't optimally help each other. If I had both prime Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, they would certainly be great together and make each other's jobs easier but if I could trade Bryant for, say, Olajuwon, I would--not because Bryant was useless, "not helping the team" or any other such thing, but because both Jordan and Bryant need to be lead initiators to be at their best and they can't both be lead initiators. They can find ways to play together well, obviously, but shifting Bryant's talent into another player who doesn't need to be the same thing Jordan is to be at his very best, would be ideal.



We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think McCollum can certainly better leverage his talent as a lead guard. He's played extremely well without Lillard on the floor. Obviously, every player needs talent around him, but I think both Lillard and McCollum would be better off as the main initiator with shooters around them (or a Klay Thompson type of side kick). Both Lillard and McCollum are the Steph Curry model of player.

The problem with Jordan and Kobe playing together would be that their a lot more effective with the ball as without it, that's why it would make sense to trade Kobe for Olajuwon in that scenario. However, Lillard and McCollum are equally as effective with or without the ball so therefore they don't cancel each other out. Therefore, it makes no sense to trade one for anything less than a better player.

He played well in a 7 game stretch, which isn't enough of a sample size to base how well he'd play without Lillard if he got traded.

Any team would rather have two Steph Curry's than Curry+Thompson. I understand that it'd be nice to have a defensive SG next to Lillard, and it makes sense to trade for a guy who's a little worse than CJ offensively, but way better defensively. It'd make sense next to Lillard. Thing is, that player would be a better player than CJ, and would be understandable to trade CJ for. However, it makes ZERO sense to trade CJ for someone who's not surely a better player than him.

 

[Minstrel]

Any team would rather have two Steph Curry's than Curry+Thompson.

Sure, because Curry is a lot better than Thompson. As I said, you trade McCollum for a similarly talented player, not a worse one.

I understand that it'd be nice to have a defensive SG next to Lillard, and it makes sense to trade for a guy who's a little worse than CJ offensively, but way better defensively. It'd make sense next to Lillard. Thing is, that player would be a better player than CJ, and would be understandable to trade CJ for.

Yeah, and such a player wouldn't be available for McCollum. Because why would the other team trade a better player for McCollum (unless they have red flags like injury concerns)? I'd trade McCollum for a player who was somewhat worse than him offensively and significantly better than him defensively (offense is worth more, on the individual level, than defense, so the drop-off on offense wouldn't need to be as high as the defensive gain). In other words, a player about as good as McCollum but with more of that talent allocated to the defensive side and (ideally) a different offensive skillset.

I think I should note, at this point, that the "overlapping skillset" thing isn't the biggest concern. It's just an added inefficiency. But if McCollum were a strong defensive player, I wouldn't be advocating trading him even if I think there's some inefficiency in the skill overlap. The main issue is the overlapping bad defense, heh. So even if the return player had a similar skillset, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker. Mostly what I want out of a McCollum deal is better defense without losing talent.

 

[BonesJones]

Sure, because Curry is a lot better than Thompson. As I said, you trade McCollum for a similarly talented player, not a worse one.



Yeah, and such a player wouldn't be available for McCollum. Because why would the other team trade a better player for McCollum (unless they have red flags like injury concerns)? I'd trade McCollum for a player who was somewhat worse than him offensively and significantly better than him defensively (offense is worth more, on the individual level, than defense, so the drop-off on offense wouldn't need to be as high as the defensive gain). In other words, a player about as good as McCollum but with more of that talent allocated to the defensive side and (ideally) a different offensive skillset.

I think I should note, at this point, that the "overlapping skillset" thing isn't the biggest concern. It's just an added inefficiency. But if McCollum were a strong defensive player, I wouldn't be advocating trading him even if I think there's some inefficiency in the skill overlap. The main issue is the overlapping bad defense, heh. So even if the return player had a similar skillset, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker. Mostly what I want out of a McCollum deal is better defense without losing talent.

Problem is, our team defense is trash, so adding a good defender at McCollums position wouldn't fix anything, while our offense would drop off big a large amount. That's why we need to trade for a rim protector and fire Stotts without giving up McCollum. A coach that teaches team defense well and a rim protector do far more towards fixing our defensive issues than trading McCollum for a defending SG. And we wouldn't have any drop off in offense in that scenario.

A different offensive skillset from McCollum would be "ideal"? So basically a guy that could just shoot at a high level instead of shooting at an extremely high level and do everything else at a high level?

Why would you want a different skillset offensively? Thats ridiculous.

 

[Denny Crane]

Live by the jump shot, die by the jump shot. If you're can't miss, you still lose in the Finals. Hello, Warriors.

Having some inside game is pretty important.

 

[Scalma]

Live by the jump shot, die by the jump shot. If you're can't miss, you still lose in the Finals. Hello, Warriors.

Having some inside game is pretty important.

"WHO NEEDS A FRONT COURT?" -Neil Olshey

 

[BigGameDamian]

"WHO NEEDS A FRONT COURT?" -Neil Olshey

The Blazers have always been blessed with great power forwards except for this year. Go figure.

 

[Minstrel]

Problem is, our team defense is trash, so adding a good defender at McCollums position wouldn't fix anything, while our offense would drop off big a large amount. That's why we need to trade for a rim protector

Need both better perimeter defense and a rim protector, in my opinion. A backcourt that can't play any defense at all won't work, with or without a rim protector.

A different offensive skillset from McCollum would be "ideal"? So basically a guy that could just shoot at a high level instead of shooting at an extremely high level and do everything else at a high level?

No? DeMarcus Cousins, for example, has a different offensive skillset. Does your description fit him?

It doesn't have to be a guard for a guard. It could be. If it were, sure, a guard who can just shoot at a high level but also play good/great defense could well be an improvement.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Great conversation guys.

CJ/Leonard/1st for Paul George. Crabbe and a 1st for Nerlens Noel.

Done. Short and sweet and we are looking much better I think.

Dame/Napier
Turner/Laymen
George/Harkless
Aminu/Davis
Plumlee/Noel

That would be a very today's NBA type of team I think. That starting lineup would be able to provide some serious lock down and would be awesome on offense with how well Turner and Plumlee can pass.
Our bench would need to be improved/tweaked, but Harkless is turning into a stud, and if Laymen can be a consistent outside threat, then that bench is not all that bad either. The bench should be able to provide some stops with Davis and Noel inside and Harkless on the perimeter.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Off the bench? Yeah, diminishing the role of a guy scoring 22ppg on almost 50/50/90 shooting is a great idea. Either playing him less minutes or playing him 17 straight minutes to end each half would either hurt the team because he'd be playing less, or hurt the team because he'd be exhausted at the end of each half due to the extended time he's in the game without a breather.

It also makes no sense because the same lineups would be playing the same amount of minutes together (unless CJ played less which would be worse). So instead of having our bench in against bench lineups, we'd hypothetically have Dame and CJ in against bench lineups. So instead of a bench player (ex. CJ Miles) not scoring much because he's guarded by Turner or Crabbe, now he'd score more than before because he'd have McCollum on him, thus netting us the same result as if McCollum started, which is a player scoring more than he should. However, instead of a starter, it'd be a bench player. Is that better? Because usually if that starter is a great player then no one will be able to slow them down, and it makes no difference who's on them.

So now instead of the starter going off because he's hot and then having decent defense to handle the player that substitutes him, now we have that starter going off on Crabbe (who you've suggested we start), and then are defense would let their bench go off too.

You guys really don't look into the "Bench McCollum theory" when you suggest it, because if you did, you would realize how it would hurt us even more.

And that's not even getting into stats that @Boob-No-More has posted about CJ's blistering starts he usually gets on, where he shoots over 50% from the field and from 3 during the 1st quarter.

Tonight is yet ANOTHER reminder why we need to start C.J. I mean seriously, 6-7 with 14 points in the first 8 minutes. He's been our most efficient 1st quarter scorer all season. The idea of bringing him off the bench so we can start PER = 10 Allen Crabbe is just fucking insane.

BNM

 

[Denny Crane]

Why would Indiana trade Paul George?