Simmons proposal I like

[Nikolokolus]

If Hickson got all of the attention that LMA receives in a game plan his inferiority as focal point in an offense would be readily apparent.

In any case I think Olshey is unlikely to trade him this year because I suspect he wants to see if he can put the pieces around he and Lillard (and Batum to a lesser extent) before pulling the plug on this particular core. If LaMarcus is going to get traded it will depend on how competitive the team is next year and how patient he seems to be with the current plan.

 

[RoyToy]

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.

Yet they are with Hickson and Thompson......... K

At least Fez wants to trade Aldridge for DeMarcus Cousins, a very talented player that's just an idiot. You're replacing Aldridge with bench players. You don't know what you're doing.

 

[RoyToy]

If Hickson got all of the attention that LMA receives in a game plan his inferiority as focal point in an offense would be readily apparent.

In any case I think Olshey is unlikely to trade him this year because I suspect he wants to see if he can put the pieces around he and Lillard (and Batum to a lesser extent) before pulling the plug on this particular core. If LaMarcus is going to get traded it will depend on how competitive the team is next year and how patient he seems to be with the current plan.

Aldridge makes his teammates better. Imagine that!

It's no coincidence Hickson has had the 2 best years of his career playing next to Aldridge.

 

[RR7]

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.

So the idea is we trade one big piece for a smaller collection of assets in this asset acquisition phase. And we acquire these assets to be able to move them for one big player eventually. So.....yeah.

 

[blue9]

At least Fez wants to trade Aldridge for DeMarcus Cousins, a very talented player that's just an idiot. You're replacing Aldridge with bench players. You don't know what you're doing.

Actually, I also would prefer to trade LMA for Cousins (or Drummond, or Monroe) - but I wouldn't turn down the CLE offer if it's the best we can do.

 

[blue9]

So the idea is we trade one big piece for a smaller collection of assets in this asset acquisition phase. And we acquire these assets to be able to move them for one big player eventually. So.....yeah.

Essentially - except we target a big player who actually has a big game. We've seen enough from LMA to know that he's not a "big time" player. Basically it all comes back to my belief that you don't win championships by building around a PF - not unless he's Tim Duncan. The PF is a supporting player and shouldn't take up the most cap space and shouldn't get the most FGA.

 

[Denny Crane]

The thing about LMA is his floor is high and his ceiling is low. For the team.

Ideally you have LMA as 4th option and the other three are simply that much better.

I have a light switch I wired up. I turned it on and the light didn't go on. I could sit there and flip the switch over and over again and the light wouldn't go on. That's standing pat. To make the light go on, I had to actually get in and change something about the way it was wired.

If you absolutely think LMA is going to be part of a championship Blazers team, then keep him. If not, the worst thing that happens is the team goes into the tank and gets some really awesome shots at the next Durant in the drafts.

 

[RoyToy]

The thing about LMA is his floor is high and his ceiling is low. For the team.

Ideally you have LMA as 4th option and the other three are simply that much better.

I have a light switch I wired up. I turned it on and the light didn't go on. I could sit there and flip the switch over and over again and the light wouldn't go on. That's standing pat. To make the light go on, I had to actually get in and change something about the way it was wired.

If you absolutely think LMA is going to be part of a championship Blazers team, then keep him. If not, the worst thing that happens is the team goes into the tank and gets some really awesome shots at the next Durant in the drafts.

Aldridge is a good #2 option. #4 is really undervaluing him.

Lillard is the future, not Aldridge. Together they combine to make one awesome dynamic duo, with Batum hopefully one day realizing his potential.

 

[RR7]

Essentially - except we target a big player who actually has a big game. We've seen enough from LMA to know that he's not a "big time" player. Basically it all comes back to my belief that you don't win championships by building around a PF - not unless he's Tim Duncan. The PF is a supporting player and shouldn't take up the most cap space and shouldn't get the most FGA.

what DO you win championships building around, then?

 

[mook]

Keep in mind that Tristan Thompson was drafted #4 just two years ago, and he only played a year of college. He's basically averaging a double double in 31mpg, and didn't miss a game all season. He's not as good as Aldridge, but he's really not that far off from the stats Aldridge put up in his second year.

I haven't watched him play much, so I'm mostly going off the numbers. But Thompson isn't just a throw-in when you also get the #1 pick.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

I like the Spurs model: A go-to scorer in the starting unit (Duncan) and a go-to scorer off the bench (Ginobli)

 

[Pinwheel1]

The most important part of every NBA game are the last few minutes. The majority of teams take out their centers in crunch time and go with their most skilled players. Whether or not this is a smart move or not, it seems to happen regardless.

So who is most important? Your guards and wings for sure are at the top of that list because they tend to be the players who can create their own shot, and hit their free throws. But you also need someone like LMA who is big and has skills and can jump out to cover the shooters. He will be hard to replace if we trade him even if he does miss some free throws down the stretch.

 

[Denny Crane]

Aldridge is a good #2 option. #4 is really undervaluing him.

Lillard is the future, not Aldridge. Together they combine to make one awesome dynamic duo, with Batum hopefully one day realizing his potential.

Think how good 1-3 are if LMA is your #4 option.

 

[RR7]

Think how good 1-3 are if LMA is your #4 option.

Why stop there. I wish he was a scrub on my team! Think of how good....He's not a #4 on a team. A team isn't very likely to obtain 1 through 3 better and still have him as 4. Just unrealistic.

 

[BBert]

Ideally you have LMA as 4th option and the other three are simply that much better.

Are you talking about two-time All Star LaMarcus Aldridge? I can't wait for the Blazers team where we have three other All Stars, all better than LaMarcus.

 

[Denny Crane]

I did say IDEALLY. If you can get the other three guys to push him to 4th option, you do have that awesome team.

The issue is if you can, whether it's worth trying, etc.

 

[jlprk]

http://www.basketball-reference.com...m=0&p1=aldrila01&y1=2013&p2=hicksjj01&y2=2013

I just noticed that Aldridge pulled ahead of Hickson in PER at the end of the season. My favorite player got jobbed. Stotts stopped playing Hickson after Olshey decided he isn't coming back.

Aldridge makes his teammates better. Imagine that!

The imaginary world is not reality.

Aldridge is a good #2 option. #4 is really undervaluing him.

On a championship team, Aldridge is about as valuable as a Metta World Peace or Lamar Odom. #3 or more probably, #4.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

I saw late in his soph. Season that he's a third option on a contender.

He is not an alpha dog.

 

[PapaG]

Think how good 1-3 are if LMA is your #4 option.

How ridiculous.

 

[PapaG]

I saw late in his soph. Season that he's a third option on a contender.

He is not an alpha dog.

I don't think anybody on this board sees him as a #1 on a title team. Congrats for stating the obvious.

 

[STOMP]

Keep in mind that Tristan Thompson was drafted #4 just two years ago, and he only played a year of college. He's basically averaging a double double in 31mpg, and didn't miss a game all season. He's not as good as Aldridge, but he's really not that far off from the stats Aldridge put up in his second year.

I haven't watched him play much, so I'm mostly going off the numbers. But Thompson isn't just a throw-in when you also get the #1 pick.

Cleveland had a lot of garbage time last year so take that into account when looking at his stats. The numbers that concern me are his relative lack of height & length for defending NBA Bigs. I've seen him play and he's seemed the tweener his measurements suggest. Though he may have a productive career, I doubt he's ever a starter on a good team

to weigh in on the thread's OP? A bench player and the top pick in a draft without one in exchange for one of the best Bigs in the game with 2 years left on a reasonable contract... Haha no thanks! I can understand why Cleveland would want to pair one of the best young PGs in the league with LA though

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

A bench player and the top pick in a draft without one in exchange for one of the best Bigs in the game with 2 years left on a reasonable contract... Haha no thanks!
STOMP

I view this as a Pervis Ellison/Michael Olawakandi/Andrew Bogut draft, where there is no obvious choice to get a difference-maker at #1. No need to trade LMA for an undersized Thompson and a crapshoot at #1. Did anyone actually watch Nerlens Noel play? He's nice defensively, but his offense has a long way to go, and he's skinny as can be.

Here's an idea. Wait a year with LMA, and see what happens in the 2014 draft, which has at least two difference makers in Jabari Parker and Andrew Wiggins. See how the draft order shakes out, and deal LMA then, if necessary. Getting rid of him now makes me question the BBIQ of every person advocating such a move.

 

[PapaG]

As for Tristan Thompson, may as well just resign JJ Hickson, except Hickson has an outside shot. Neither defend worth a shit, but they get double-doubles!

 

[BrianFromWA]

I view this as a Pervis Ellison/Michael Olawakandi/Andrew Bogut draft, where there is no obvious choice to get a difference-maker at #1. No need to trade LMA for an undersized Thompson and a crapshoot at #1. Did anyone actually watch Nerlens Noel play? He's nice defensively, but his offense has a long way to go, and he's skinny as can be.

Here's an idea. Wait a year with LMA, and see what happens in the 2014 draft, which has at least two difference makers in Jabari Parker and Andrew Wiggins. See how the draft order shakes out, and deal LMA then, if necessary. Getting rid of him now makes me question the BBIQ of every person advocating such a move.

A) If we keep LMA, and the team is what you think it is (I can get on board with that), we don't have a 1st-round pick in the 2014 draft and we don't get to the 2nd round of the playoffs to "show we're a contender".
B) I could be off, but IMHO there's no way on God's Green Earth that someone will trade a lotto pick in next year's draft for the walk year of LMA's contract. It becomes a much different proposition if he has two years left AND the pick is either this draft (not great) or uncertain position in next year's.


In the words of KP, "Chess, not checkers."

 

[PapaG]

A) If we keep LMA, and the team is what you think it is (I can get on board with that), we don't have a 1st-round pick in the 2014 draft and we don't get to the 2nd round of the playoffs to "show we're a contender".
B) I could be off, but IMHO there's no way on God's Green Earth that someone will trade a lotto pick in next year's draft for the walk year of LMA's contract. It becomes a much different proposition if he has two years left AND the pick is either this draft (not great) or uncertain position in next year's.


In the words of KP, "Chess, not checkers."

It depends on who has the pick, though. The team getting him a tread still keeps his Bird rights, and still can trade him at the deadline, if need be.

I like that possibility much more than a Tristan Thomapson/#1/#19 tread for a two-time All-Star who had his best rebounding and scoring season ever this past year.

I will say this, and many here know it. I view Imaginary Trade Land as an exercise in futility during the summer, and while I don't put out pie-in-the-sky trades, I do comment on them. If that makes me a negative poster, than I can live with it.

 

[Rhal]

If the mavs are in the lottery next year you know they will deal the pick for LMA in a heartbeat. I'm nowhere near convinced he will walk at the moment so I see no reason to deal him unless the deal is mind blowing.

 

[e_blazer]

I'm definitely in the category of waiting to see what can be done to improve the roster this summer before thinking about dealing LMA. I think that there's a very real chance to become a solid playoff team next year and to move beyond that the following year.

One thing I don't get in all of the discussion of this particular trade idea is the flip side of the equation. If the Blazers are making this move because Aldridge/Lillard don't have the window to become a title team, as so many here have said, why does Cleveland think that Aldridge/Irving does work? I know they'd still have some cap space to go after another free agent even if they burned a chunk of it on Aldridge, but it would be about the same money as the Blazers have to spend to improve their roster.

I think Aldridge/Lillard coupled with Wes and Batum and a center signing this summer is a pretty solid starting lineup. I want to see the Blazers build from that, not tear it down and start over again.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

After reading a short article about the new CBA, I kind of like the #10 pick (if not traded).

You can have the first pick and pay 5M/yr or the #10 pick and pay 2M/yr. With this draft, you might have a chance of getting a better player with the #10 pick at less than half the cost.

I think #6 would be the most ideal at 3M/yr . . . but I am partial to that 6 pick for some reason.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

To take this rumor in context, another Bill Simmons thought:

with Simmons straining for a linkage between the history and the sporting event he'd witnessed:

“I didn’t realize the effect [the MLK assassination] had on that city…I think from people we talk to and stuff we’ve read, the shooting kind of sets the tone with how the city thinks about stuff. We were at Game 3. Great crowd, they fall behind and the whole crowd got tense. They were like, ‘Oh no, something bad is going to happen.’ And it starts from that shooting.”

http://www.memphisflyer.com/Beyondt...mphis-history-internet-erupts-in-faux-outrage

 

[Reep]

why does Cleveland think that Aldridge/Irving does work?

I'm not sure Cleveland is really out there working this right now, but assume they are and their starting point is #1 for Love/Aldridge. That gives them a lineup of:

Irving
Waiters
Gee
Aldridge/Love
Varejao

bench:
Speights F/C
Thompson PF
Miles
Zeller

Their only real weakness is at the 3. They would have a solid front line and guard play. The bench has a lot of height, may need some more wings. I think that lineup is a lot closer to contending than Blazers would be. Irving is a clear all-star now, and can take over a game. Blazers aren't quite there yet.

Having said that, I'm still not sure that Cleveland could compete with SAS or the Heat. But, they if Irving pops, then they might. For the Blazers to match that, they would need more bench, a defensive rebounding center, and for Lillard to really make that next step next year (not 2-3 years down the road).