Simmons proposal I like

[RR7]

And yet, Toronto aside because Colangelo is an idiot, Cleveland, because of tanking and landing Irving, probably has a better future ahead of them, at least as it pertains to winning a title, than Utah and Denver do, regardless of whether the sum of the smaller parts is better.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I said trading Lillard today is a strawman, because we have 8 years of team control left on him, vs. 2 for LMA.

And yes, I used an example of an All-Star in a small market who said he'd stay with a contender ending up taking less money to go somewhere else with his buddies. Both Bosh and Lebron. And TOR and CLE ended up with the lovely parting gifts of 2nd-rounders and trade exceptions.

OK, I see James situation as completely different, but Bosh seems almost equivalent (if I remember correctly, Bosh was much more highly thought of than LMA). Of course there is a chance Blazers could lose Aldridge. But there are also players who resigned with their clubs after becoming UFA (Deron Williams). So they could lose Aldridige or end up re-signing him.

Bottom line, there is a risk involved both in trading or keeping LMA. But one thing seems clear, trading one of the team's best players for draft picks is a clear signal the team is rebuilding. So this comes down more to should this team rebuild or try to make a run with their core players. I say run baby, run.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm kind of over your hypothetical scenario. You had a lot of "ifs" in it.

Bottom line - are you advocating trading LMA and #10 to CLE for #1 and Tristan Thompson? 'Ifs' aren't allowed. Yes/No?

I thought the deal was LMA only. I wouldn't include anything else. LMA for the #1, #19, and Thompson. Either use the #10 to draft depth or trade it with Wes and the 19 for other talent. Use cap space to sign a replacement for LMA. I really don't think it's that bad of a deal. We're not talking about a LeBron or a Chris Paul. I like Aldridge, I think he's a good player, but he's not a superstar. He's a very good All-Star. If we could net a #1, that's pretty good value. Utah really didn't get shit for Deron Williams. Denver did okay on the Melo deal. I guess it all depends on how Lillard develops this year and how Aldridge feels about staying.

 

[blue9]

The concern shouldn't be whether LMA might leave in two years, the concern should be whether he's good enough to win a championship on a superstar-less team (a la Detroit). And I've seen more than enough to answer that with a definitive "no". There are so many PF options that will give you a little less scoring but a whole lot more in other areas that it just doesn't make any sense to hang on to this guy merely because he made a couple of all-star games. Get the biggest haul for him that you can get and don't worry about what he goes on to do, because he will never win a championship in Portland.

 

[RR7]

The concern shouldn't be whether LMA might leave in two years, the concern should be whether he's good enough to win a championship on a superstar-less team (a la Detroit). And I've seen more than enough to answer that with a definitive "no". There are so many PF options that will give you a little less scoring but a whole lot more in other areas that it just doesn't make any sense to hang on to this guy merely because he made a couple of all-star games. Get the biggest haul for him that you can get and don't worry about what he goes on to do, because he will never win a championship in Portland.

What exactly is good enough to win on a superstar-less team? I think he can function as a very good #2 to Lillard.

 

[RoyToy]

If Aldridge won't win a championship in Portland

What makes you think Favors/Horford/Monroe/Noel/Thompson would?

You created an argument for trading Aldridge, but at the same time that argument shits all over any player the Blazers would receive in return. You're making the problem worse, not better. Might as well trade Lillard as well if that's your argument.

Lots of bad ideas in this thread.

 

[Rhal]

The concern shouldn't be whether LMA might leave in two years, the concern should be whether he's good enough to win a championship on a superstar-less team (a la Detroit). And I've seen more than enough to answer that with a definitive "no". There are so many PF options that will give you a little less scoring but a whole lot more in other areas that it just doesn't make any sense to hang on to this guy merely because he made a couple of all-star games. Get the biggest haul for him that you can get and don't worry about what he goes on to do, because he will never win a championship in Portland.

This statement needs a little clarification because its sounds like your saying all LMA is good at is scoring. What other PF's can we get that will help out a lot more in other areas? Please explain this because about the only thing we could "upgrade" at the PF position with a FA this off season is rebounding and if we got Josh Smith defense when he feels like it.

 

[blue9]

What exactly is good enough to win on a superstar-less team? I think he can function as a very good #2 to Lillard.

In order to build a championship team that's not centered around a superstar or three you need to have a starting unit of 4-5 complete players - players who aren't the best at any one thing, but are very good at everything...or at least the parts of the game that are key to the position they play. The bigs need to be able to defend one-on-one as well as help out by rotating. They need to be able to set solid picks to create space for the guards/wings, and then know where to roll. And they've got to be able to crash the boards. Also, having the vision and ability to pass when lanes open up is highly valuable to an egalitarian offense.
LMA doesn't possess these traits. His only impact on the game is his scoring. And while points are necessary to win, we'd be a far more effective team if we had a PF who contributed more defense, rebounding, passing, and picks even at the expense of points. We can make up for the ~8 points we'll lose by trading LMA for a "lesser" PF by spreading the shots around to players who will take higher percentage or higher value shots.
On offense LMA is a fine (not very good, but fine) #2 option. But he's not effective enough as a scorer to make up for his shortcomings elsewhere for him to ever be a key component to a championship team. His man-defense is fine (again, just fine), but his help/team defense is atrocious. His rebounding improved this year, but still leaves a lot to be desired. I always come back to Bosh with regards to LMA. Bosh has always been a more complete and skilled player. But Bosh was a joke as the #1 option in TOR. Now that he's the 3rd wheel in MIA he's playing in a spot that's more suited to his talents - but MIA could just as easily replace him with a couple players who make less money, and might not be quite the scoring threat but provide better defense and rebounding, and become an even more effective team. Bosh isn't the key to their championship hopes, and if Bosh is better than LMA how are we hanging our championship hopes on LMA?

 

[HailBlazers]

Guarantee LMA will be better than Bosh next year, Guaran-fucking-tee.

This was a 'down year' for LaMarcus and his numbers were still stellar.

 

[RR7]

I'll just go ahead and disagree that LMA's only impact on the game is his scoring. But I know you've been down on him for quite some time, so don't see a point in really arguing it with you. You're going to see him in that negative light, and see greener grass elsewhere. So be it.

 

[e_blazer]

In order to build a championship team that's not centered around a superstar or three you need to have a starting unit of 4-5 complete players - players who aren't the best at any one thing, but are very good at everything...or at least the parts of the game that are key to the position they play. The bigs need to be able to defend one-on-one as well as help out by rotating. They need to be able to set solid picks to create space for the guards/wings, and then know where to roll. And they've got to be able to crash the boards. Also, having the vision and ability to pass when lanes open up is highly valuable to an egalitarian offense.
LMA doesn't possess these traits. His only impact on the game is his scoring. And while points are necessary to win, we'd be a far more effective team if we had a PF who contributed more defense, rebounding, passing, and picks even at the expense of points. We can make up for the ~8 points we'll lose by trading LMA for a "lesser" PF by spreading the shots around to players who will take higher percentage or higher value shots.
On offense LMA is a fine (not very good, but fine) #2 option. But he's not effective enough as a scorer to make up for his shortcomings elsewhere for him to ever be a key component to a championship team. His man-defense is fine (again, just fine), but his help/team defense is atrocious. His rebounding improved this year, but still leaves a lot to be desired. I always come back to Bosh with regards to LMA. Bosh has always been a more complete and skilled player. But Bosh was a joke as the #1 option in TOR. Now that he's the 3rd wheel in MIA he's playing in a spot that's more suited to his talents - but MIA could just as easily replace him with a couple players who make less money, and might not be quite the scoring threat but provide better defense and rebounding, and become an even more effective team. Bosh isn't the key to their championship hopes, and if Bosh is better than LMA how are we hanging our championship hopes on LMA?

The basic answer is that Bosh is not better than LMA and your "analysis" of his game is flawed. Your assertion that, "we'd be a far more effective team if we had a PF who contributed more defense, rebounding, passing, and picks even at the expense of points", is flat out wrong, IMHO. Front court production is critical to success in the NBA and without LMA's ability to score the Blazers would have lost another 20 games this season. But then, I guess that would be okay with many of you because then we'd maybe have the number one pick in this wonderful draft and you guys could continue panning those shallow waters for fools gold.

 

[blue9]

I'll just go ahead and disagree that LMA's only impact on the game is his scoring. But I know you've been down on him for quite some time, so don't see a point in really arguing it with you. You're going to see him in that negative light, and see greener grass elsewhere. So be it.

While it's true that it's doubtful you could convince me otherwise, I'd still be interested in hearing how you feel LMA appreciably impacts the game. I mean, obviously he does things other than just scoring - I just don't see it done at the level necessary to contend for a championship (or even make/advance in the playoffs).

 

[blue9]

The basic answer is that Bosh is not better than LMA and your "analysis" of his game is flawed. Your assertion that, "we'd be a far more effective team if we had a PF who contributed more defense, rebounding, passing, and picks even at the expense of points", is flat out wrong, IMHO. Front court production is critical to success in the NBA and without LMA's ability to score the Blazers would have lost another 20 games this season. But then, I guess that would be okay with many of you because then we'd maybe have the number one pick in this wonderful draft and you guys could continue panning those shallow waters for fools gold.

Oooookay. Except Bosh IS better than LMA - there's no question about that. And LMA doesn't really score in the front court - he scores from 18' out, and that's largely why we won't go anywhere with him leading the team in FGA. Swap out LMA for just about any other of the top 15 PFs and we'd have essentially the same record.

 

[e_blazer]

Oooookay. Except Bosh IS better than LMA - there's no question about that.

Ooooooooookaaaaaay! Is this where we pull out the pages of stats and get all indignant with each other? I'm too short of time and lacking in interest to play that game today. I've always thought Bosh was a bit overrated and I think you are letting your predjudice against LMA color your opinions, but whatever. To each their own delusions...just don't mess with mine.

 

[Boise Blazer]

M.S. Boyer/J. Valade ‏@PDcavsinsider 55s
Comparing Josh Gordon to Vincent Jackson, Tribe's woes and trading for LaMarcus Aldridge: Blog Roundup: ... http://bit.ly/1471XcX #cavs

http://kingjamesgospel.com/2013/05/...nSided&utm_medium=Network&utm_campaign=NavBar

Why the deal would make sense for Portland…
A lot of the things that I discussed in the previous paragraphs apply here. While an All-Star in his prime, Aldridge has not really shown signs of being the type of player that can carry his team deep into the playoffs. While the Blazers had a decent starting lineup this season, their bench was horrific and the team still needs some proper rebuilding. They will have cap space this summer and will most likely let go of J.J. Hickson. Picking Nerlens Noel would instantly fill the gap Hickson leaves, and the team could also add another young piece with the 19th overall pick. While Thompson isn’t as versatile as Aldridge, he is still a decent young piece and could grow with the team. This trade would make the Blazers worse on a short-term basis but possibly set the team up for a better future. Damian Lillard is expected to get better and better, and could very well be an All-Star in a couple of years. Going forward with a core featuring Lillard-Matthews-Batum-Thompson-Noel is not the worst thing in the world.
…and why it wouldn’t
The Blazers like LaMarcus. He doesn’t really complain, seems like an overall great guy and is obviously an All-Star. He is the team’s best player, and has belief in the franchise to put the right pieces around him and Lillard. Then there is also that thing with Portland picking centers with knee problems with the top overall pick (Noel is recovering from a torn ACL, in case you missed it).

 

[Reep]

This deal keeps popping up all over the place, viewed from both sides. I think if the Blazers can't get a legit center this summer, then I could see this deal making sense for both teams.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Late to the party here, but I I kind of like the trade as proposed. It's tough to think that they'll get a direct replacement for LaMarcus' production out of Thompson, or even paired with the number 1 pick (in this draft), but the extra cap space and the fact that they'd be adding some depth could line this team up to be in a good position in a couple of years as Lillards enters his prime.

As always though, I don't think Paul Allen or the fan base has the stomach for another 2 or 3 years of sucking balls for just the chance to get into the upper echelon.

Never going to happen, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

As always though, I don't think Paul Allen or the fan base has the stomach for another 2 or 3 years of sucking balls for just the chance to get into the upper echelon.

As has been mentioned, however, we don't necessarily have to suck. Signing Al Jefferson, for instance, would essentially replace Aldridge's scoring/rebounding, and do so with a more pronounced inside presence. In fact, I think a post player like Jeff could actually open up more room for our perimeter players.

 

[Mediocre Man]

As has been mentioned, however, we don't necessarily have to suck. Signing Al Jefferson, for instance, would essentially replace Aldridge's scoring/rebounding, and do so with a more pronounced inside presence. In fact, I think a post player like Jeff could actually open up more room for our perimeter players.

Jefferson is actually a much better fit with Meyscrub Leonscrub. Who has a nice face up game and prefers not to bang.

Not advocating, just sayin

 

[Pinwheel1]

Jefferson is actually a much better fit with Meyscrub Leonscrub. Who has a nice face up game and prefers not to bang.

Not advocating, just sayin

Not sure I agree. Two centers who have yet to prove they can play D, does not sound like a good combo.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Not sure I agree. Two centers who have yet to prove they can play D, does not sound like a good combo.

I am not saying it would make for a good team, just saying that IMO, Jefferson fits Leonard better than Aldridge does

 

[blue9]

As always though, I don't think Paul Allen or the fan base has the stomach for another 2 or 3 years of sucking balls for just the chance to get into the upper echelon.

I just don't see how the trade makes us any worse than we already are. We're a bad team! At worst the trade is a lateral move in the short term - and if we actually use the cap space to sign or trade for someone there's no way we're worse than we were this past season.
I know people don't like Hickson, but just as an example by trading LMA we could sign Hickson as our starting PF (he'd likely stay if he had the starting job) and he alone would essentially replace everything LMA did for us. Then on top of that we'd have Thompson as a back-up PF and Oladipo as either our starting or back-up SG. That's two holes adequately plugged right there, and still cap space to acquire a C plus the #19 pick. That's also 3 tradeable assets in Hickson, Oladipo, and Thompson (plus whoever we take at #19, and whoever we sign/trade for with our cap space).

 

[RR7]

See, it blows a hole in everything you type, and I quite honestly stopped reading immediately after, when you say Hickson will replace everything Aldridge did.

 

[RoyToy]

I just don't see how the trade makes us any worse than we already are. We're a bad team! At worst the trade is a lateral move in the short term - and if we actually use the cap space to sign or trade for someone there's no way we're worse than we were this past season.
I know people don't like Hickson, but just as an example by trading LMA we could sign Hickson as our starting PF (he'd likely stay if he had the starting job) and he alone would essentially replace everything LMA did for us. Then on top of that we'd have Thompson as a back-up PF and Oladipo as either our starting or back-up SG. That's two holes adequately plugged right there, and still cap space to acquire a C plus the #19 pick. That's also 3 tradeable assets in Hickson, Oladipo, and Thompson (plus whoever we take at #19, and whoever we sign/trade for with our cap space).

So Aldridge isn't a championship player, but Hickson is?

You realize how flawed your logic is, right?

 

[blue9]

See, it blows a hole in everything you type, and I quite honestly stopped reading immediately after, when you say Hickson will replace everything Aldridge did.

I know that per36s don't really show what would happen, but for players who play in the 30-40mpg range it's a decent way to equalize and get a dirty view on how they stack up: http://www.basketball-reference.com...m=0&p1=aldrila01&y1=2013&p2=hicksjj01&y2=2013

I think 4 fewer points on 6 fewer shots is at least overcome by 5 more rebounds. So yeah, while it's not a literal 1:1 replacement Hickson would essentially replace what LMA gives us, roughly.

 

[blue9]

So Aldridge isn't a championship player, but Hickson is?

You realize how flawed your logic is, right?

No where did I ever say Hickson is a championship player. But we wouldn't be building around Hickson (and Hickson was merely used as an example of how we won't just be suddenly missing out on 20ppg). So, you realize how flawed your logic is, right?

 

[RR7]

I know that per36s don't really show what would happen, but for players who play in the 30-40mpg range it's a decent way to equalize and get a dirty view on how they stack up: http://www.basketball-reference.com...m=0&p1=aldrila01&y1=2013&p2=hicksjj01&y2=2013

I think 4 fewer points on 6 fewer shots is at least overcome by 5 more rebounds. So yeah, while it's not a literal 1:1 replacement Hickson would essentially replace what LMA gives us, roughly.

Sure. The same way Monta Ellis and Brandon Jennings can "essentially" replace what Lillard does for us. Roughly.

 

[RR7]

No where did I ever say Hickson is a championship player. But we wouldn't be building around Hickson (and Hickson was merely used as an example of how we won't just be suddenly missing out on 20ppg). So, you realize how flawed your logic is, right?

We'd be building around Lillard. The same way we are now.

 

[RoyToy]

No where did I ever say Hickson is a championship player. But we wouldn't be building around Hickson (and Hickson was merely used as an example of how we won't just be suddenly missing out on 20ppg). So, you realize how flawed your logic is, right?

You are continually trading Aldridge because he's apparently not good enough to win a championship, yet the players you replace him with aren't even close to be as good as Aldridge.

Your logic is beyond flawed.

 

[blue9]

You are continually trading Aldridge because he's apparently not good enough to win a championship, yet the players you replace him with aren't even close to be as good as Aldridge.

Your logic is beyond flawed.

No, you just can't seem to comprehend asset acquisition. The only way we're ever going to build a contender is through trades. Right now we have very few assets - by turning one big asset into 3-4 smaller (yet still valuable) assets it gives us a greater chance of making additional moves to get us closer to that championship roster. Right now we're not even close to having one, and as long as LMA is considered a core player we'll never get there.