Simmons proposal I like

[PapaG]

There's a pretty large difference between having Lillard at his current level for the next 8 years, or LMA for the next 22 months.

If Lillard was doing what he's doing right now 7 years and $56M into his Blazer tenure, and about to walk for nothing in 2 years, AND someone offers the #1 pick, we can discuss that then. Heck, I'll probably be one proposing it. Until that point, it's a pretty ridiculous strawman.

What about having Lillard without LMA, though? There is no guarantee that the Blazers replace LMA with another All-Star big. None at all. Portland finally drafts and develops a big high in the draft into an All-Star, and suddenly it's time to trade him for draft picks and an undersized PF in Thompson.

 

[RR7]

There's a pretty large difference between having Lillard at his current level for the next 8 years, or LMA for the next 22 months.

If Lillard was doing what he's doing right now 7 years and $56M into his Blazer tenure, and about to walk for nothing in 2 years, AND someone offers the #1 pick, we can discuss that then. Heck, I'll probably be one proposing it. Until that point, it's a pretty ridiculous strawman.

It's not a strawman. It's asking a serious question about Lillard expectations and roster building. People are annoyed about building around Aldridge because he is more of a #2 guy. And if you have a #2 as your centerpiece, you're not really going anywhere. Do you view Lillard as being a #1 guy, or is he only going to be a #2. And if you think he's only going to be a #2, then rather than hopping on that same mediocrity train, by that logic, it's better to keep on sucking. Why suck with him when you can suck more without and hopefully land that once a decade prospect when he comes along.

 

[Rhal]

There's a pretty large difference between having Lillard at his current level for the next 8 years, or LMA for the next 22 months.

If Lillard was doing what he's doing right now 7 years and $56M into his Blazer tenure, and about to walk for nothing in 2 years, AND someone offers the #1 pick, we can discuss that then. Heck, I'll probably be one proposing it. Until that point, it's a pretty ridiculous strawman.

Your argument for trading LMA seem to revolve around the assumption he walks for nothing in two years. Would your feelings on the situation change if you instead thought he would stay?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BrianFromWA]

Of course there's no guarantee that Portland replaces LMA with an All-Star. And I'm sure that any big you get will have lower performance than LMA over the next two years (even if you pick Noel with #1, which I wouldn't). But I'm also pretty sure that whoever you pick #1, #19 and Thompson combined will have a better performance and more all-star appearances over the next 9 years* for the Blazers than LMA will over the next 2.

*or 7, if you trade them at the same point you trade LMA

 

[RR7]

Well shit, I'd hope 3 players would be able to outproduce one. If we trade Lillard to Orlando for the #2 pick, Mo Harkless and Aaron Afflalo, they will combine to outperform him also on a generic stat level.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Your argument for trading LMA seem to revolve around the assumption he walks for nothing in two years. Would your feelings on the situation change if you instead thought he would stay?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Of course. If he signed a 3- or 4-year extension right now to 2018 or 2019(can't happen), I'd happily take him with the chance that he plays more like LaMonster with a defensive-minded center.

But since he can't, you're rolling the dice awfully hard if you keep him. At least if you make the trade and it goes horribly and the picks come out at lower-than-expected value (think OJ Mayo instead of Dwayne Wade), you still get some level of performance out of them. If you don't trade him, and the less-optimal instance occurs, you get a 2018 2nd-rounder or something.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Well shit, I'd hope 3 players would be able to outproduce one. If we trade Lillard to Orlando for the #2 pick, Mo Harkless and Aaron Afflalo, they will combine to outperform him also on a generic stat level.

Totally disagree with you. I'll take Lillard's next 8 years over the impact/stats/All-Star games of #2, Harkless and Afflalo's next 8.

 

[PapaG]

Totally disagree with you. I'll take Lillard's next 8 years over the impact/stats/All-Star games of #2, Harkless and Afflalo's next 8.

Unless the Blazers get a sure thing #2 in return, I'll keep LMA for the next year and a half and see if Lillard develops into a #1, and at some point, maybe a legitimate #3 will surface (Batum??).

Tristan Thompson and Nerlens Noel (and JJ Hickson, I suppose) do not make the team better next year than the team with LMA, and you don't trade All-Stars for projects unless you're starting the rebuild.

The rebuild has already started, like it or not, and LMA/Lillard/Batum are the players Olshey wants as the core.

 

[RR7]

Of course. If he signed a 3- or 4-year extension right now to 2018 or 2019(can't happen), I'd happily take him with the chance that he plays more like LaMonster with a defensive-minded center.

But since he can't, you're rolling the dice awfully hard if you keep him. At least if you make the trade and it goes horribly and the picks come out at lower-than-expected value (think OJ Mayo instead of Dwayne Wade), you still get some level of performance out of them. If you don't trade him, and the less-optimal instance occurs, you get a 2018 2nd-rounder or something.

getting the "some level of performance" over just a 2nd makes it a treadmill team, however. Thought people want to avoid that.

 

[OregonHuskerMan]

Garbage

Uh. How?

 

[BrianFromWA]

So you think that Lillard/Wes/Batum/(NO LMA)/Leonard or Jordan or Asik or whatever (and obtw, no 2014 draft pick and a mid-first in 2015) in 2015 ISN'T a treadmill team?

 

[PapaG]

Uh. How?

Because that team would be lucky to win 30 games. Did you see this team without LMA this year?

 

[PapaG]

So you think that Lillard/Wes/Batum/(NO LMA)/Leonard or Jordan or Asik or whatever (and obtw, no 2014 draft pick and a mid-first in 2015) in 2015 ISN'T a treadmill team?

The "old" player LMA is 27 right now on this roster. Everybody else worth a crap for the future is 25 or younger.

Check out the age of the core of the Grizzlies/Heat/Spurs. The Pacers are an anomaly, but they are in the East, so I can't really say they'd get out of the 1st round in the West.

It's OK to let a core grow a bit. Getting perpetually younger does not make a team better.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm not saying "old". As I stated, if LMA was guaranteed to be here for 6 years I have no problem with your idea. After 2002 (iirc) there was never a thought that Timmy wouldn't retire a Spur. Ginobili always said he would take less to stay.

But he's not. IMHO, there's a much better chance that he's SuperFriends with someone in 2015 than in a Blazer uniform. And IF that's the case, AND CLE is offering a slew of picks including the #1 for him, then it would be foolish to not take that deal.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not saying "old". As I stated, if LMA was guaranteed to be here for 6 years I have no problem with your idea. After 2002 (iirc) there was never a thought that Timmy wouldn't retire a Spur. Ginobili always said he would take less to stay.

But he's not. IMHO, there's a much better chance that he's SuperFriends with someone in 2015 than in a Blazer uniform. And IF that's the case, AND CLE is offering a slew of picks including the #1 for him, then it would be foolish to not take that deal.

You should say "old." You don't rebuild a team around 28 year olds.

 

[PapaG]

I'm not saying "old". As I stated, if LMA was guaranteed to be here for 6 years I have no problem with your idea. After 2002 (iirc) there was never a thought that Timmy wouldn't retire a Spur. Ginobili always said he would take less to stay.

But he's not. IMHO, there's a much better chance that he's SuperFriends with someone in 2015 than in a Blazer uniform. And IF that's the case, AND CLE is offering a slew of picks including the #1 for him, then it would be foolish to not take that deal.

OK, but that's assuming a lot of things. LMA basically laid out his timeline. If the team gets better, and can contend, I see no reason for him to leave. If the team still sucks in a year and a half, and he's only 29, then trade him at that point and start another rebuild.

 

[RoyToy]

Who says Aldridge and Lillard won't be "SuperFriends"?

 

[RoyToy]

The Blazers have a "SuperFriend" for Aldridge in Lillard and can offer him the most money. Then throw in Batum and Wes.

This will be a really good roster in a couple years. Getting a true center to go with the core could solve a lot of problems.

 

[Reep]

My first hope is that they can add to the current team and win now. But, I still haven't seen a likely scenario that allows for that.

If that is not possible, then I do have concerns with LMA staying, and also how long his career will last. He seems to be aching and groaning at 27. Sounds like retirement at 31 to me. If they can't make a needle-moving addition this summer, then I would rather they make a deal like the Cleveland one and get some more assets.

 

[PapaG]

You should say "old." You don't rebuild a team around 28 year olds.

You can build with a 28 year-old as your second-best player, and a 23 year-old as your franchise PG, though. The Blazers were actually in the play-off hunt until the minutes caught up with the starters, and that's with a young core.

The Spurs say hello, again. Core players are 30, 35, and 37 right now.

 

[PapaG]

The Blazers have a "SuperFriend" for Aldridge in Lillard and can offer him the most money. Then throw in Batum and Wes.

This will be a really good roster in a couple years. Getting a true center to go with the core could solve a lot of problems.

A center, a legitimate back-up PG, and then a back-up big, would make this a playoff team next season if LMA and/or Lillard don't get hurt.

 

[RoyToy]

You should say "old." You don't rebuild a team around 28 year olds.

Damian

Lillard

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I remember at the early part of the season when the Blazers were exceeding expectations that many thought the Blazers starting 5 could match up with almost any team . . . and that was with Hickson being a starter.

Not time to blow this up yet. The Cavs will likely shop this year's #1 because there is no one consensus #1 that is being predicted as a future all star (apparently a lot of potential in this draft according to GMs in the draft ) but by all accounts, no sure fire #1 pick. Cavs know this . . . problem is so do other teams.

 

[BrianFromWA]

OK, but that's assuming a lot of things. LMA basically laid out his timeline. If the team gets better, and can contend, I see no reason for him to leave. If the team still sucks in a year and a half, and he's only 29, then trade him at that point and start another rebuild.

What were CLE's records/playoff finishes the last two years Lebron was there? Were they "contenders?" And CLE was bending over backwards for him, even making trades and hiring coaches for him. Didn't stop him from taking less money elsewhere. Bosh took less than what TOR was offering, also--granted, they were basically a .500 team, so that doesn't refute your "contender" thought.

In a year and a half, do you think you'll get a lotto pick for him if you had to trade him?

 

[PapaG]

What were CLE's records/playoff finishes the last two years Lebron was there? Were they "contenders?" And CLE was bending over backwards for him, even making trades and hiring coaches for him. Didn't stop him from taking less money elsewhere. Bosh took less than what TOR was offering, also--granted, they were basically a .500 team, so that doesn't refute your "contender" thought.

In a year and a half, do you think you'll get a lotto pick for him if you had to trade him?

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?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

What were CLE's records/playoff finishes the last two years Lebron was there? Were they "contenders?" And CLE was bending over backwards for him, even making trades and hiring coaches for him. Didn't stop him from taking less money elsewhere. Bosh took less than what TOR was offering, also--granted, they were basically a .500 team, so that doesn't refute your "contender" thought.

In a year and a half, do you think you'll get a lotto pick for him if you had to trade him?

So you say comparing LMA to Lillard is a strawman and then you use Lebron as an example to compare with Aldridge situation?

 

[BrianFromWA]

gotta run for now. Good discussion, though.

 

[RoyToy]

A center, a legitimate back-up PG, and then a back-up big, would make this a playoff team next season if LMA and/or Lillard don't get hurt.

I would hope Leonard could fill the back-up big role.

His defense sucks, but he should be able to give the Blazers offense. Meyers Leonard is kind of a wildcard going into next year depending on how much he improves.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So you say comparing LMA to Lillard is a strawman and then you use Lebron as an example?

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.

 

[PapaG]

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.

James is much more than an All-Star, he was an MVP. He also gave Cleveland 7 years, and still didn't ask out of town. The Gilbert-McPoyle clan blew it by not trading him at the deadline during his walk year, though. LMA is nowhere near the player James is, but the Blazers still can decide to trade him in two year when LMA is 29 and still in his prime.