Getting a b/u Center

[shamelessblazer]

Behind Lopez we only have Freeland and Leonard, if he gets injured, we're screwed. But I don't think we want to spend big on a b/u right now (and who would we trade?)

But it does seem like it would make sense, especially for playoff intensity with having some extra fouls be a nice luxury.

It seems like ewe could either take a gamble on a young guy with size who is athletic and brings some beef, I'm thinking:

Ekpe Udoh or Kevin Seraphin (both are talented but deal with injuries or mental lapses, maybe being around our disciplined team would bring out the best in them)

OR, Going after a vet who can be foul insurance and a good influence:

Chris Kaman (who we know Olshey loves), or Dalembert (he's a pretty lazy dude but might be great for 15-20 mpg)

What do you guys think? Who would you be willing to give up to go after someone?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Adding front court depth with experience is a great idea.

Someone should have thought of that earlier

repped

 

[Strenuus]

Adding front court depth with experience is a great idea.

Someone should have thought of that earlier

repped

I don't know if you're being serious or not. lol. Since it's been mentioned quite a bit.

 

[Carlito]

Getting a center is a must to even make playoffs at this point. It's a BIG problem. Blazers should call about Asik asap

 

[magnifier661]

I actually really love Nate's idea of Hawes. Why?

1.) Philly will most likely lose him regardless.

2.) Philly is in tank mode, so giving them youth like Leonard, Barton and Claver would work.

3.) Hawes is a vet and has range; which fits perfectly in stotts system. He could basically bring Hawes in and feel comfortable letting Aldridge sit.

4.) we would hold Hawes's "Bird rights", which means we can resign him and still have MLE this summer for another key player.

 

[Strenuus]

So I went looking for all the Centers in the league, to just see if any names pop up.

Ranking the Centers

And wow, there really isn't a whole host to really choose from. Mahimi maybe? I thought maybe Gray would be a good choice, but he just got traded to Sac...

I mean, the only choices that make sense are Kaman (who would be easy to get given his current situation at LAL), Dalembert...

It's just really hard to get good solid back up centers. I trust Olshey though, that he'll finagle something.

 

[Strenuus]

Getting a center is a must to even make playoffs at this point. It's a BIG problem. Blazers should call about Asik asap

I see what you did there.

 

[Strenuus]

I actually really love Nate's idea of Hawes. Why?

1.) Philly will most likely lose him regardless.

2.) Philly is in tank mode, so giving them youth like Leonard, Barton and Claver would work.

3.) Hawes is a vet and has range; which fits perfectly in stotts system. He could basically bring Hawes in and feel comfortable letting Aldridge sit.

4.) we would hold Hawes's "Bird rights", which means we can resign him and still have MLE this summer for another key player.

I'd LOVE Hawes. Oh man. Though, not surprisingly, he is not that great at defense. And that still may hurt us on that 2nd unit. It's going back to that "We're still going to have to score more" mentality.

 

[magnifier661]

I'd LOVE Hawes. Oh man. Though, not surprisingly, he is not that great at defense. And that still may hurt us on that 2nd unit. It's going back to that "We're still going to have to score more" mentality.

Freeland and T. Rob will benefit from a player like Hawes though. The main problem is neither freeland or T. Rob can make anything beyond 5 feet consistently. Our bench issues really have more offensive problems than defensive, IMO.

 

[Strenuus]

Freeland and T. Rob will benefit from a player like Hawes though. The main problem is neither freeland or T. Rob can make anything beyond 5 feet consistently. Our bench issues really have more offensive problems than defensive, IMO.

Fair point. I see where you're coming from with that. However, it doesn't solve anything down low. It spaces our floor on the offensive side, which is always great... but on the defensive side we'd be selling swiss cheese in bulk.

 

[Blazinaway]

I have been pushing hard for Hawes for a long while now, he's my preference, but I'l take any reasonably capable and attainable big

 

[magnifier661]

Fair point. I see where you're coming from with that. However, it doesn't solve anything down low. It spaces our floor on the offensive side, which is always great... but on the defensive side we'd be selling swiss cheese in bulk.

Adding a quick defensive minded PG could solve this very quickly.

 

[Strenuus]

Adding a quick defensive minded PG could solve this very quickly.

We don't need to add anyone, then. WATSON! Put Mo at the 2! ( I do know how unrealistic this is.)

 

[Blazinaway]

a quick change of subject here, is MO reminding any else more and more of Crawchuck?

 

[Blazinaway]

We don't need to add anyone, then. WATSON! Put Mo at the 2! ( I do know how unrealistic this is.)

I wonder how CJ's defense will be?

 

[Mediocre Man]

a quick change of subject here, is MO reminding any else more and more of Crawchuck?

I have called him Mo Chuck a few times in here already.

I got lambasted for it though, so I stopped

 

[magnifier661]

We don't need to add anyone, then. WATSON! Put Mo at the 2! ( I do know how unrealistic this is.)

Exactly! I think Stotts putting dame in is because our bench doesn't have the scoring punch we need. If you bring in a capable scorer (10-12 ppg) off the bench, will allow Stotts to gamble with Watson.

 

[Strenuus]

I have called him Mo Chuck a few times in here already.

I got lambasted for it though, so I stopped

He's just so Jekyll and Hyde. It's really frustrating. I have no problem with someone calling him Mo Chuck.

 

[Strenuus]

Exactly! I think Stotts putting dame in is because our bench doesn't have the scoring punch we need. If you bring in a capable scorer (10-12 ppg) off the bench, will allow Stotts to gamble with Watson.

Which Mo has proven he can do at times. I think if Mo played off the ball more he'd be better, IMO. Get him in a rhythm shot, perhaps. Let Earl make those decisions, let Mo shoot.

 

[Blazinaway]

He's just so Jekyll and Hyde. It's really frustrating. I have no problem with someone calling him Mo Chuck.

it would be nice to have a backup PG who doesn't so often bring to a sudden halt the excellent ball movement we generally have with the starters, yeah when MO is "on" it's not a big deal as he can score, but when he's not "on" (which happens frequently) our offense just dies

 

[Strenuus]

it would be nice to have a backup PG who doesn't so often bring to a sudden halt the excellent ball movement we generally have with the starters, yeah when MO is "on" it's not a big deal as he can score, but when he's not "on" (which happens frequently) our offense just dies

Yep. Like I said, I think Stotts needs to experiment with Watson running the back up point and having Mo play off the ball. I think the ball would move MUCH better. We still need to do a trade (not a big one, just for some low post help) to make it really work.

 

[shamelessblazer]

I've said it a handful of times, and I'm not sure we could get him easily, but giving all of Mo's current minutes (and a couple of Dame's) to Andre Miller and CJ would be my preference.

It wouldn't sold anything on defense, but it sure would make our offense a lot better and we'd get a lot more easy buckets. Andre being given the reigns for 20 mpg with shooters all around and Aldridge would be magical.

Hypothetically: there's a three team trade out there where Mo ends up on a contender, something goes back to Denver, and Andre comes to us.

Also: Leonard, Claver, Barton for Hawes (they get more ping pong balls and Leonard theoretically may work with Noel?)

this 10 man rotation (Hawes is probably the only sub getting 20 mpg) would be great, we'd never be the top defensive team but the offense would be amazing and there's plenty of rebounding.

not by position but more sub patterns:

Batum (basically playing PG right now)/Miller
Lillard/Wright
Matthews/CJ
Aldridge/Robinson
Lopez/Hawes

 

[magnifier661]

I've said it a handful of times, and I'm not sure we could get him easily, but giving all of Mo's current minutes (and a couple of Dame's) to Andre Miller and CJ would be my preference.

It wouldn't sold anything on defense, but it sure would make our offense a lot better and we'd get a lot more easy buckets. Andre being given the reigns for 20 mpg with shooters all around and Aldridge would be magical.

Hypothetically: there's a three team trade out there where Mo ends up on a contender, something goes back to Denver, and Andre comes to us.

Also: Leonard, Claver, Barton for Hawes (they get more ping pong balls and Leonard theoretically may work with Noel?)

this 10 man rotation (Hawes is probably the only sub getting 20 mpg) would be great, we'd never be the top defensive team but the offense would be amazing and there's plenty of rebounding.

not by position but more sub patterns:

Batum (basically playing PG right now)/Miller
Lillard/Wright
Matthews/CJ
Aldridge/Robinson
Lopez/Hawes

As much as I would love to have Miller, I think that shipped sailed. I doubt Denver parts with him, and I also doubt they want anything we are willing to part with to get him.

 

[magnifier661]

Is Hawes's defense that bad? He is averaging 9 boards, 1.6 blocks

Hawes is grabbing 19.4 PER, while holding his opponent to 17.6 (+1.8). I know it's not stellar, but isn't that fine for a bench player?

Also, he has a defensive rebounding % of 25.2. The defensive rating is poor (107), but that is more of a team stat.

 

[shamelessblazer]

Is Hawes's defense that bad? He is averaging 9 boards, 1.6 blocks

Hawes is grabbing 19.4 PER, while holding his opponent to 17.6 (+1.8). I know it's not stellar, but isn't that fine for a bench player?

Also, he has a defensive rebounding % of 25.2. The defensive rating is poor (107), but that is more of a team stat.

I think he'd pair well with Robinson (he'd play outside on O, inside on D). I also think Frye would (whose interior D is not that bad, especially against b/u players)

 

[Pinwheel1]

I think we should keep the Lakers from tanking. Keep them out of the lottery. They need a PG in the worst way. If we are not going to use Earl Watson and we really think we need depth at center.........Watson and Claver for Kaman?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I actually really love Nate's idea of Hawes. Why?

1.) Philly will most likely lose him regardless.

2.) Philly is in tank mode, so giving them youth like Leonard, Barton and Claver would work.

3.) Hawes is a vet and has range; which fits perfectly in stotts system. He could basically bring Hawes in and feel comfortable letting Aldridge sit.

4.) we would hold Hawes's "Bird rights", which means we can resign him and still have MLE this summer for another key player.

This is my favorite best case

 

[Natebishop3]

I would love to get Hawes... but I think we'd have to give up either TRob or CJ.

Of those two, I'd trade Robinson. He's more of a project, and I think Freeland can play inside while Hawes provides offense off the bench.

 

[magnifier661]

I would love to get Hawes... but I think we'd have to give up either TRob or CJ.

Of those two, I'd trade Robinson. He's more of a project, and I think Freeland can play inside while Hawes provides offense off the bench.

I'd feel really bad for him, but T. Rob makes the best sense for us. I would think Leonard, T. Rob and Barton should easily do the trick. That's a young core that comes back for a player they will most likely lose anyway.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I would love to get Hawes... but I think we'd have to give up either TRob or CJ.

Of those two, I'd trade Robinson. He's more of a project, and I think Freeland can play inside while Hawes provides offense off the bench.

This brings up a good question. Who do we prefer to keep in a Trob vs Joel scenario? At first one would easily say TRob. But I have always thought Joel would be a good back up PF. Not as flashy, not as much potential, but solid and more versatile on defense. He is a true 4/5 guy to have on your bench. Trob strictly a 4. Tough question IMO. Obviously depends on who else we have in the middle.