Interesting mostly unbiased view of the Blazers

[Nikolokolus]

Playing devil's advocate here.....Did Howard become a superstar in Orlando because they built their team around him and they are not in Los Angeles? Maybe he will never be a superstar if he has to play with one. I have seen some monster games from Howard this year, yet they still lost. I think it is more that he and Kobe have bad chemistry and/or they play in the wrong system. Not sure it was his back.

Howard is less than a year removed from back surgery. Don't get it twisted, D12 was every bit the top five player that he was when he was in Orlando, leading a pretty mediocre band of players to the finals. The Lakers' troubles are that they can't defend for shit and their personnel is mostly old and super slow trying to play D'Antoni ball.

 

[blue9]

I could definitely see Lillard being at Tony Parker's level. He won 3 championships.

I could also see Lillard eventually becoming as good as Parker. But that doesn't mean he'll be good enough to lead us to Championships, just because Parker won 3. Parker won those because he plays for the Spurs, not because he's Tony Parker.

 

[Denny Crane]

Orlando was a strong defensive team. Lakers are not. It's that simple, IMO.

 

[magnifier661]

I could also see Lillard eventually becoming as good as Parker. But that doesn't mean he'll be good enough to lead us to Championships, just because Parker won 3. Parker won those because he plays for the Spurs, not because he's Tony Parker.

But Parker is a superstar no?

 

[magnifier661]

Orlando was a strong defensive team. Lakers are not. It's that simple, IMO.

Weren't the Lakers a strong defensive team under Brown? At least I remembered them being one.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Weren't the Lakers a strong defensive team under Brown? At least I remembered them being one.

That's what Brown wanted, but they weren't good defensively. Just too old.

 

[magnifier661]

That's what Brown wanted, but they weren't good defensively. Just too old.

ahhh I see said the blind man to his deaf son.

 

[blue9]

Is Lillard/Batum/Aldridge good enough, or will they be good enough, to win a championship?

No. At best that's a team that'll reach the "heights" that DEN achieved a couple seasons ago.

The second question is, do we have a superstar?

No. Lillard has an outside shot at becoming one, but you certainly don't plan on it happening because it's much more likely that he's just a very good player.

The final question is; can we win without a superstar?

No. In order to win without a superstar you need players who can do A LOT of things VERY well. Lillard may be Billups, and Nic may be Prince, but that's as far as we go towards matching DET's recent championship team. You also need an EXCELLENT coach - I'm fully convinced that Stotts is NOT that coach.

This is why I'm fully convinced that the only way to be anything more than a middle-of-the-pack playoff team is to trade LMA for multiple players and draft picks. It's the most bang for your buck in terms of getting assets. By obtaining multiple players/picks you're increasing your chances of having more potential trade fodder down the line to continue making the right moves to keep the team on a championship track.

 

[blue9]

But Parker is a superstar no?

Not in my mind.

 

[Natebishop3]

No. At best that's a team that'll reach the "heights" that DEN achieved a couple seasons ago.


No. Lillard has an outside shot at becoming one, but you certainly don't plan on it happening because it's much more likely that he's just a very good player.


No. In order to win without a superstar you need players who can do A LOT of things VERY well. Lillard may be Billups, and Nic may be Prince, but that's as far as we go towards matching DET's recent championship team. You also need an EXCELLENT coach - I'm fully convinced that Stotts is NOT that coach.

This is why I'm fully convinced that the only way to be anything more than a middle-of-the-pack playoff team is to trade LMA for multiple players and draft picks. It's the most bang for your buck in terms of getting assets. By obtaining multiple players/picks you're increasing your chances of having more potential trade fodder down the line to continue making the right moves to keep the team on a championship track.

It's just too bad we couldn't move Aldridge for Harden, because I think Harden could have been that guy for us.

 

[blue9]

It's just too bad we couldn't move Aldridge for Harden, because I think Harden could have been that guy for us.

Absolutely! I was all about exploring a deal involving LMA/Harden/Ibaka - if we could have somehow gotten both Harden and Ibaka...hoo boy!

 

[Natebishop3]

But Parker is a superstar no?

No. He's not. He's about what I think Lillard's ceiling will be. A perennial All-Star.

 

[magnifier661]

I would be fine with Aldridge for Harden. That's more like it

 

[KeepOnRollin]

I would be fine with Aldridge for Harden. That's more like it

No chance now. They mean last year's deadline.

 

[Natebishop3]

No chance now. They mean last year's deadline.

Yup, Houston won't be letting him go. Our only chance would have been when he was on OKC and they wanted to unload him. I'm not even saying that the trade was possible, but if I was OKC I would have taken Aldridge over Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Absolutely! I was all about exploring a deal involving LMA/Harden/Ibaka - if we could have somehow gotten both Harden and Ibaka...hoo boy!

Why would OKC have done that? If they wanted a to spend 14-15 million on a player, they would have kept Harden.
You guys keep bring that up and it makes no sense to me. Yeah I would have done that too. I love Harden's game. So did OKC, they just could not afford to keep all three.

 

[magnifier661]

No chance now. They mean last year's deadline.

I know that.... i was talking about last summer. I wouldn't be pissed if we traded Aldridge for Harden. I even said we should have gotten on board when that was an option.

Also, i thought that OKC should have traded Westbrook for Irving.

 

[blue9]

Yup, Houston won't be letting him go. Our only chance would have been when he was on OKC and they wanted to unload him. I'm not even saying that the trade was possible, but if I was OKC I would have taken Aldridge over Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb.

Precisely.

 

[magnifier661]

Why would OKC have done that? If they wanted a to spend 14-15 million on a player, they would have kept Harden.
You guys keep bring that up and it makes no sense to me. Yeah I would have done that too. I love Harden's game. So did OKC, they just could not afford to keep all three.

I believe it would be Aldridge and a player like Matthews for Harden and Ibaka

 

[KeepOnRollin]

I know that.... i was talking about last summer. I wouldn't be pissed if we traded Aldridge for Harden. I even said we should have gotten on board when that was an option.

Also, i thought that OKC should have traded Westbrook for Irving.

Yep. Love Irving and don't care for Westbrook. OKC should have moved Westbrook instead of Harden.

 

[Natebishop3]

Why would OKC have done that? If they wanted a to spend 14-15 million on a player, they would have kept Harden.
You guys keep bring that up and it makes no sense to me. Yeah I would have done that too. I love Harden's game. So did OKC, they just could not afford to keep all three.

Harden replicates too much of what Westbrook does. They're both slashers, they both need the ball in their hands. Aldridge would have been a much better third wheel for OKC than Harden. Why else did Harden explode when he finally got out of there? He's the man in Houston. Durant, Aldridge, and Westbrook would be an awesome lineup.

 

[Natebishop3]

Yep. Love Irving and don't care for Westbrook. OKC should have moved Westbrook instead of Harden.

I agree with this, and I know it was discussed at the time of the trade that many of us would have dealt Westbrook because he's arrogant. I've never liked the guy.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I believe it would be Aldridge and a player like Matthews for Harden and Ibaka

But it came down to money. They went to the finals. They had a near perfect roster. Young and talented. If they were in LA or New York, they would have kept the roster the same. They fucked it up because they did not want three max guys. (Or at least 3 "near" max guys)

 

[magnifier661]

I agree with this, and I know it was discussed at the time of the trade that many of us would have dealt Westbrook because he's arrogant. I've never liked the guy.

If OKC never wins a title; it will be because of Westbrook. I am serious. The dude doesn't understand who the best player is on his team. He thinks he's just as good as Durant.

A coach like Phil Jackson; or types like him. Could play mental warefare and force Westbrook to win the game for them. The odds of keeping Durant out of the game and allowing Westbrook to shoot is a much better odd than giving Durant his.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Harden replicates too much of what Westbrook does. They're both slashers, they both need the ball in their hands. Aldridge would have been a much better third wheel for OKC than Harden. Why else did Harden explode when he finally got out of there? He's the man in Houston. Durant, Aldridge, and Westbrook would be an awesome lineup.

So how would that differ from Harden and Lillard?

 

[magnifier661]

So how would that differ from Harden and Lillard?

Lillard would be fine with facilitating Harden, IMO. He is a slasher too; but he is a fundamental player. I think he would whatever he needs to in order for his team to win.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Lillard would be fine with facilitating Harden, IMO. He is a slasher too; but he is a fundamental player. I think he would whatever he needs to in order for his team to win.

I agree with you. But then I also thought Harden and Westbrook looked pretty good together as well. Harden may not have been an allstar if he was still in OKC, but if I am a OKC fan I don't care. That back court duo was the best in the NBA. They screwed up IMO.

 

[magnifier661]

I agree with you. But then I also thought Harden and Westbrook looked pretty good together as well. Harden may not have been an allstar if he was still in OKC, but if I am a OKC fan I don't care. That back court duo was the best in the NBA. They screwed up IMO.

I know Harden and Westbrook played on the floor together; but the majority of time, I saw Harden in when Westbrook was out most the game. I didn't see a ton of games, but more than 20 last season.

 

[Natebishop3]

So how would that differ from Harden and Lillard?

Lillard doesn't need the ball in his hands to be good. Yes, he can create, but he can also spot up. At times the Blazers have run Lillard at shooting guard, and he's been effective. He's a good enough shooter that he could play off the ball. Not saying he would do it all the time, but I think he and Harden could co-exist. Most importantly, Lillard isn't an ego-maniac like Westbrook.

With that said, the most important thing is that Harden has the capability to be the best shooting guard in the league. That's what we're looking for. Lillard is very good, but Harden could be a superstar.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

the most important thing is that Harden has the capability to be the best shooting guard in the league. That's what we're looking for. Lillard is very good, but Harden could be a superstar.

Some would say Harden already is. It is between he and Wade. Kobe is now 3rd and dropping.