Lillard makes for an intriguing trade asset--discuss

[Natebishop3]

All I am doing is asking the question. Similar question I asked about for all the other Milwaukee Bucks we have fallen in love with in the last few years.

I acknowledged he would be an awesome role player, but how many 10x allstars, who are guards/wings, shoot 27% from 3pt range these days?

Don't get me wrong I would love to have him on our team, but in today's NBA if you can't shoot from deep at a high level, you will struggle to become a super star.

And to build on that, is Giannis another Kevin Durant, or is he a longer/more athletic Draymond Green? I get it, the guy can do a lot of great things and he throws down sick jams, but is he someone that can be your #1? Can he drop 30 points in a playoff game? I just don't see it. He's a REALLY good player, but to be successful in the NBA you have to have a go-to-guy. Someone who can just kill the other team. That used to be Dame. It seems like people have zero tolerance for injuries.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I acknowledged he would be an awesome role player, but how many 10x allstars, who are guards/wings, shoot 27% from 3pt range these days?

Wade, Rondo, and Parker have all met that criteria (all-star wing, under 28% from 3) in the past 10 years.

http://bkref.com/tiny/KMSi1

So, as long as he can play alongside a couple other hall-of-famers, he could be a secondary piece on a title team.

 

[Natebishop3]

Wade, Rondo, and Parker have all met that criteria (all-star wing, under 28% from 3) in the past 10 years.

http://bkref.com/tiny/KMSi1

So, as long as he can play alongside a couple other hall-of-famers, he could be a secondary piece on a title team.

That's just it though. A secondary piece. Who is the main piece? Where will they get that main piece if they don't have him already? It's the equivalent of Draymond going somewhere else to be "The Man" and trying to lead a team as the primary option on offense. I just don't see it happening.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That's just it though. A secondary piece. Who is the main piece? Where will they get that main piece if they don't have him already? It's the equivalent of Draymond going somewhere else to be "The Man" and trying to lead a team as the primary option on offense. I just don't see it happening.

Yep--I intended to find somebody to use to argue with you, and all I got was support for your point.

 

[Minstrel]

Was a prime Jason Kidd a secondary piece? How about Bill Russell (even in the era he played in, with far less sophisticated defensive schemes and less size in general, he wasn't a dominant scorer)? And, personally, I don't consider Green a "secondary piece." Yes, it's great to have a dominant scorer, but value comes in a variety of ways. Green, as a guy who can defend every position, protect the rim, rebound, pass like a guard and shoot, is one of the most valuable players in basketball.

Antetokounmpo isn't the perfect player, obviously, since he can't shoot, but he does so many things well, he's definitely one of the most valuable players in basketball. Not to mention, he's averaging 23 PPG and he's only 22--he may have some upside left.

 

[riverman]

At what point is his Giannis' freakish abilities going to translate into wins

I personally think he's going to be the next Kevin Durant...the kid has mad skills

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

The title of this thread should be Teams Are Calling Trail Blazers About Trading Lillard

 

[Pinwheel1]

Wade, Rondo, and Parker have all met that criteria (all-star wing, under 28% from 3) in the past 10 years.

http://bkref.com/tiny/KMSi1

So, as long as he can play alongside a couple other hall-of-famers, he could be a secondary piece on a title team.

Technically I said a 10 x allstar. In other words a hall of famer which basically what chzbrgr is projecting for him.

Tony Parker had years where he shot over 40% from 3 pt range.
Rondo has only made it 4 times. Wade however is a pretty good exception, but he still is a good outside shooter in the clutch.

I get that Giannis is still young and his 3 ball could improve. But until it does he will be good, just not great.

 

[Minstrel]

Technically I said a 10 x allstar. In other words a hall of famer which basically what chzbrgr is projecting for him.

Tony Parker had years where he shot over 40% from 3 pt range.
Rondo has only made it 4 times. Wade however is a pretty good exception, but he still is a good outside shooter in the clutch.

I get that Giannis is still young and his 3 ball could improve. But until it does he will be good, just not great.

Trying to use historical precedent for Antetokounmpo doesn't work, in my opinion, because he's historically unique. If he continues at this pace, let alone gets better (which I think is most likely), I think he'll be an easy Hall of Famer. If he actually develops a good three-point shot, he'll likely be the best player in basketball. He can certainly be great without it.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Trying to use historical precedent for Antetokounmpo doesn't work, in my opinion, because he's historically unique. If he continues at this pace, let alone gets better (which I think is most likely), I think he'll be an easy Hall of Famer. If he actually develops a good three-point shot, he'll likely be the best player in basketball. He can certainly be great without it.

He is young and can get better, but this year he is shooting (I rounded up)

41% from 3-10'
34% 11-15 '
37 % 16-23'

To be great you have to be great in the playoffs. He will not be dunking as much in the playoffs. His shooting has to improve to be considered great IMO. Lebron was the same way for about a year or two. He was getting criticized until his outside shot started to fall.

 

[Minstrel]

He is young and can get better, but this year he is shooting (I rounded up)

41% from 3-10'
34% 11-15 '
37 % 16-23'

To be great you have to be great in the playoffs. He will not be dunking as much in the playoffs. His shooting has to improve to be considered great IMO. Lebron was the same way for about a year or two. He was getting criticized until his outside shot started to fall.

To be considered an all-time top-ten player you have to be great at everything. James would have been a Hall of Famer even if his outside shot had never been great. Jason Kidd was considered great even though he didn't have a consistent outside shot until his 30s.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

A healthy Middleton/Brogdon/1st is tempting.

IF Neil is considering moving Lillard there has to be a red flag somewhere - ankle issues?

 

[Strenuus]

A healthy Middleton/Brogdon/1st is tempting.

IF Neil is considering moving Lillard there has to be a red flag somewhere - ankle issues?

Did Neil say he was considering it? He's just taking phone calls - like any good GM would do for any player.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

How about Tracy McGrady as a historical precursor of Giannis? Giannis is bigger but McGrady was even more athletic.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I personally think he's going to be the next Kevin Durant...the kid has mad skills

I dunno if Durant is a good comp. Durant is an unbelievable shooter, which Antetokounmpo definitely is not. However Giannis is a more well-rounded player and a much better defender. It's like comparing Reggie Miller with Clyde Drexler.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Minstrel]

How about Tracy McGrady as a historical precursor of Giannis? Giannis is bigger but McGrady was even more athletic.

McGrady (who was actually a very good defender before he was forced to carry the entire offensive load in Orlando) couldn't guard all five positions. I think the best comparisons would be players like Kevin Garnett and Draymond Green--guys who have completely outlier defensive flexibility and guard skills.

 

[Natebishop3]

Was a prime Jason Kidd a secondary piece? How about Bill Russell (even in the era he played in, with far less sophisticated defensive schemes and less size in general, he wasn't a dominant scorer)? And, personally, I don't consider Green a "secondary piece." Yes, it's great to have a dominant scorer, but value comes in a variety of ways. Green, as a guy who can defend every position, protect the rim, rebound, pass like a guard and shoot, is one of the most valuable players in basketball.

Antetokounmpo isn't the perfect player, obviously, since he can't shoot, but he does so many things well, he's definitely one of the most valuable players in basketball. Not to mention, he's averaging 23 PPG and he's only 22--he may have some upside left.

I think it could be argued that Jason Kidd was never good enough to be a prime piece. He bounced around the league. Didn't do anything with Dallas or Phoenix. Got the Nets to the Finals, but that was when the East was a huge dumpster fire. He didn't win a championship until he was a role player in Dallas AND he had improved his outside shot. So if Giannis' future is bouncing around the league five or six times until he finally wins a championship as a role player, well..... I'm not sure if that's the comparison you were going for.

 

[TBpup]

I don't think fans want him gone. They would just like him more 'vested' on the defensive side of the ball. Same with CJ.

 

[riverman]

Didn't do anything with Dallas

he won a championship with Dallas

 

[Natebishop3]

he won a championship with Dallas

Not the first time around, he didn't.

 

[riverman]

Not the first time around, he didn't.

you said he didn't do anything in Dallas...but in fact he did...he won a ring there....you mentioned him getting to the finals twice with the Nets but failed to mention his greatest success in Dallas....I don't call that doing nothing in Dallas

 

[riverman]

He didn't win a championship until he was a role player in Dallas

Just saw this part of your post....Terry Stotts in the coaches interview gushed about how much Kidd brought to that championship run....he was hardly a role player on that team from all I remember.

 

[Natebishop3]

you said he didn't do anything in Dallas...but in fact he did...he won a ring there....you mentioned him getting to the finals twice with the Nets but failed to mention his greatest success in Dallas....I don't call that doing nothing in Dallas

I was going through his career chronologically. I mentioned his championship in Dallas.

 

[Natebishop3]

Just saw this part of your post....Terry Stotts in the coaches interview gushed about how much Kidd brought to that championship run....he was hardly a role player on that team from all I remember.

He certainly wasn't a star by that point. Go look at his stats in the last 4.5 years he played in Dallas. He was the very definition of a veteran role player.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html

 

[Minstrel]

I think it could be argued that Jason Kidd was never good enough to be a prime piece. He bounced around the league. Didn't do anything with Dallas or Phoenix. Got the Nets to the Finals, but that was when the East was a huge dumpster fire. He didn't win a championship until he was a role player in Dallas AND he had improved his outside shot. So if Giannis' future is bouncing around the league five or six times until he finally wins a championship as a role player, well..... I'm not sure if that's the comparison you were going for.

Well, I was asking you if you saw prime Jason Kidd as a franchise player. Obviously, the answer is no. We disagree then. I don't consider it problematic for the comparison that he didn't win a title in his prime--teams win titles, not individuals. Jordan also never would have won a title if he hadn't gotten the appropriate team around him. Jason Kidd's performance, in my opinion, made him pretty clearly a championship-caliber franchise player, even if he didn't have the team.

I think Antetokounmpo can very easily be a championship-caliber franchise player, even without a great outside shot. And considering he's scoring 23 PPG as is, in his age 22 season, I don't even think scoring is going to be a problem. Another comparison I'd make is an evolutionary Scottie Pippen. He's longer and therefore can match-up even with centers, which Pippen couldn't really do. I think Pippen was a championship-caliber franchise player (even if the Bulls had another, greater one).

 

[Natebishop3]

Well, I was asking you if you saw prime Jason Kidd as a franchise player. Obviously, the answer is no. We disagree then. I don't consider it problematic for the comparison that he didn't win a title in his prime--teams win titles, not individuals. Jordan also never would have won a title if he hadn't gotten the appropriate team around him. Jason Kidd's performance, in my opinion, made him pretty clearly a championship-caliber franchise player, even if he didn't have the team.

I think Antetokounmpo can very easily be a championship-caliber franchise player, even without a great outside shot. And considering he's scoring 23 PPG as is, in his age 22 season, I don't even think scoring is going to be a problem. Another comparison I'd make is an evolutionary Scottie Pippen. He's longer and therefore can match-up even with centers, which Pippen couldn't really do. I think Pippen was a championship-caliber franchise player (even if the Bulls had another, greater one).

Pippen was another secondary player. In the one year that Jordan was not there, they did not win it. You have yet to name a comparable player who won a championship while being the best player on the team. Pippen.... Kidd...... great ancillary stars. Hall of Famers even, but could they have been THE GUY? Why was Kidd traded so many times if he was so great?

 

[Minstrel]

Pippen was another secondary player. In the one year that Jordan was not there, they did not win it.

They replaced Jordan with Pete Meyers and still got within a bad call of the conference finals. He got it plenty done as a lead player. I doubt Jordan would have gone any further if they had replaced Pippen with Pete Meyers.

You have yet to name a comparable player who won a championship while being the best player on the team.

Yeah, because I don't consider that a meaningful metric. Also, I have named such a player: Bill Russell. Kevin Garnett is another obvious lead superstar who wasn't a "dominant scorer."

 

[riverman]

Kidd traded so many times if he was so great?

In New Jersey the window had closed...they had to blow it up...with the Suns or the Nets he didn't have the team to win it all...in Dallas they won as underdogs with smart basketball...now he's coaching his second team...I don't think it's a stretch to say Kidd has always been a franchise player...but agree to disagree because in the end...doesn't matter....John Stockton...no ring...Chauncey Billups..champion...Stockton is the better player...Billups the leader

 

[Natebishop3]

They replaced Jordan with Pete Meyers and still got within a bad call of the conference finals. He got it plenty done as a lead player. I doubt Jordan would have gone any further if they had replaced Pippen with Pete Meyers.



Yeah, because I don't consider that a meaningful metric. Also, I have named such a player: Bill Russell. Kevin Garnett is another obvious lead superstar who wasn't a "dominant scorer."

It is meaningful if I already conceded that he's a good player. I'm sure he's going to be great, but the point of contention was whether or not he's a lead guy. I guess if the East ever reverts back to being a dumpster fire, he'll have a shot then, no?