Slings and arrows.... but would you?

[WillG]

I don't agree with this. The only reason why I consider Paul an upgrade is because he makes his teammates better. I think he would make Oden and Aldridge instant All-Stars, and because we have Rudy, I think we can afford to make the offer. This is not a knock on Roy in any way. I think he's an amazing player, and I think we could win a championship with Roy, but I think Paul is just simply a better player and we should make a run for him, if he's available.

We are in agreement. That is my view aswell.

 

[Masbee]

So the question is, would you do it?

I haven't read any of the other responses yet:

So the question is does a hypothetical trade idea make even the tiniest bit of sense for both teams?

Make a shred of sense for Portland? Sure. They wouldn't do it, but you could make a case.

Make a shred of sense for New Orleans? No. Not at all.

If they are going to trade Chris Paul they will trade him for either a very hot young prospect locked in on a rookie deal and wanting to establish himself in the NBA;

or an established good young player who is VERY unhappy in their current situation and looking to spread their wings and make their mark. (Think the Joe Johnson situation when he was with Phoenix).

They will also be looking at some cap relief. The deal better be lowering their salary commitment. But, that is a side note to the core concept above.

If a deal doesn't meet that criteria, Paul can whine all he wants, but the Hornets are better off hanging on to him until he is an expiring contract.

Roy doesn't meet their criteria. So, now you are needing to work another team (or two) into the mix in order to get it done. Near impossible to pull off. And if you don't pull off the deal, you are left with one pissed off MAX salary star player. Not a smart game to play.

 

[Sug]

I would not do it, mainly because Roy has the mental tools that CP3 lacks. Chris Paul blows his top and is unable to bring calm to his team, and this is where the great players excel. Brandon Roy excels in this area, and his ability to rally the troops and bring stability is a star quality that CP3 does not have. I also don't think that you can learn it, either you have it or you don't.

 

[B-Roy]

Doesn't matter that Carter didn't want to be there. He was a superstar traded in his prime for rebuilding purposes for a team on the decline.

Of course it matters. He wouldn't have been traded if he wanted to stay.

Garnett was still in prime shape. He won DPOY and made the all-star team and did play quite well. Sure, he didn't put up the same numbers, but that's because he wasn't on the romper squad.

He's was still a good player, but prime insinuates relatively young and peak of production. He was not at his prime.

Gasol was still the Grizzlies franchise player. Traded for financial reasons because they weren't going anywhere.

So? Michael Redd is the Bucks's franchise player. Just because he's a franchise player doesn't mean there's different levels of players. Chris Paul is a SUPERSTAR, top 5 player in the league. You don't trade those players.

 

[WillG]

I would not do it, mainly because Roy has the mental tools that CP3 lacks. Chris Paul blows his top and is unable to bring calm to his team, and this is where the great players excel. Brandon Roy excels in this area, and his ability to rally the troops and bring stability is a star quality that CP3 does not have. I also don't think that you can learn it, either you have it or you don't.

Winners hate to lose. I think this roster could use some fire.
Maybe Roy is the ying to CP3s yang.

If we could somehow bring CP3 without disturbing our core players???

 

[Sug]

Winners hate to lose. I think this roster could use some fire.
Maybe Roy is the ying to CP3s yang.

If we could somehow bring CP3 without disturbing our core players???

If you could bring CP3 in while keeping Roy, YES.

 

[illmatic99]

Paul and Roy could make for the best backcourt.... ever?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Outlaw, Blake, Bayless and the Blazers girls for Chris Paul?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

There has been a lot made out of Paul's unhappiness. I don't know necessarily that he is unavailable if the right price were presented.

We went through this with Damon when he was with the Raptors. Obviously Paul's pedrigree is higher than Damon's was at the time, but the situation is similar.

The Hornets could be competitive again if given the right pieces. If we were to trade them Roy, Blake, and Joel, that would put them in a much better position.

Blake
Roy
West
Okafor
Joel

is a better lineup, I think, than:

Paul
Mo-Peterson
West
Wright
Okafor

That would never be their lineup.. do you think West is a SF?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Fernandez, Aldridge, Blake for Paul!

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

Paul and Roy would coexist about as well as Miller and Roy exists together.

Bring in Paul. Roy would need to go.

 

[WillG]

As much as it would hurt . . .I wonder if something based on:
Fernandez, Aldridge, Bayless + picks/lower tier players would be worth a look.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

Wow Bishop, your topic was a winner.

 

[B-Roy]

As much as it would hurt . . .I wonder if something based on:
Fernandez, Aldridge, Bayless + picks/lower tier players would be worth a look.

People offering Aldridge need to consider:

Do the Hornets want him with both West and Okafor?

If they want to shed salary, how would taking Aldridge's 5year/65 million dollar contract help?

 

[B-Roy]

Paul and Roy would coexist about as well as Miller and Roy exists together.

Bring in Paul. Roy would need to go.

That's fine. I'd rather have Paul dominating the ball and a mediocre Roy than Miller dominating the ball and a mediocre Roy.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Magic was the most versatile PG ever. He played center sometimes, for crying out loud.

The real question is - would you do it with Clyde and Isiah? Because CP3 is Isiah #2, not Magic.

The difficulty with that comparison for me is, I think Roy is, or at the very least will be, a better leader and true #1 option than Clyde was.

I'm sorry...but are you both nuts?

Thomas was one of the most over-rated players of all times. Paul is already better than Thomas ever was, and will quite possibly keep getting better.

As for Roy being better than Clyde - that's like claiming Sabonis was better than Walton. Clyde may have had personality flaws...but on the court he was flat out great.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I also like Roy more for never having intentionally punched another man in the balls on the court.

Wasn't the guy he punched Jarrett Jack? I would think most Blazer fans would canonize him for that.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

As for Roy being better than Clyde - that's like claiming Sabonis was better than Walton. Clyde may have had personality flaws...but on the court he was flat out great.

Well, no, not really. Sabonis was never an all-star, while Walton was an MVP. The gulf between the two is obvious.

Clyde was never an MVP, but was a 10-time all-star over 15 years. Roy is a 2-time all-star over 3 years, suggesting that Clyde's figure is wholly attainable.

Comparing Roy to Clyde is absolutely reasonable.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

That's fine. I'd rather have Paul dominating the ball and a mediocre Roy than Miller dominating the ball and a mediocre Roy.

What do you mean by mediocre Roy?

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

I'm sorry...but are you both nuts?

Thomas was one of the most over-rated players of all times. Paul is already better than Thomas ever was, and will quite possibly keep getting better.

As for Roy being better than Clyde - that's like claiming Sabonis was better than Walton. Clyde may have had personality flaws...but on the court he was flat out great.

I think some of you underrate Isaiah. Or have forgotten how good he was. Isaiah is one of the best of all time. I think they are closer than some of you give credit for.

 

[B-Roy]

What do you mean by mediocre Roy?

Less than he could be.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

Less than he could be.

I see

 

[oldmangrouch]

I think some of you underrate Isaiah. Or have forgotten how good he was. Isaiah is one of the best of all time. I think they are closer than some of you give credit for.

Sorry, but I watched those Pistons' teams play too many times. During Thomas' "prime", they owned the refs the same way the Lakers currently do. The League *made* Thomas a star.

A typical sequence: Mahorn sets a "pick" for Isiah. This consists of him standing on the defenders foot, throwing a hip into him, and then finishing him off with an elbow to the temple. No whistle. Isiah misses the shot. The nearest defensive player, who is 5 yards away, gets whistled for fouling him. Isiah misses the free throw. Lane violation whistled on the defense. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

Sorry, but I watched those Pistons' teams play too many times. During Thomas' "prime", they owned the refs the same way the Lakers currently do. The League *made* Thomas a star.

A typical sequence: Mahorn sets a "pick" for Isiah. This consists of him standing on the defenders foot, throwing a hip into him, and then finishing him off with an elbow to the temple. No whistle. Isiah misses the shot. The nearest defensive player, who is 5 yards away, gets whistled for fouling him. Isiah misses the free throw. Lane violation whistled on the defense. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.

lmao

The best comparison of Isiah that I have heard but he was obviously more selfish than Isiah was Allen Iverson. Built about the same way. The quickness, the speed was comparable. They both could shoot it and dominate.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't know about it. Very different eras. I think Thomas would have looked just as awesome in an era where there is a "no hand checking" rule.

...

I think that we forget how much nastier and physical the game was back at the time - and how much harder it would have been for the smaller players to dominate.

I think you're overstating it. Hand-checking was allowed, but zone defenses weren't. Also, the "nasty and physical game" was ushered in largely by those Pistons teams...they were the anomaly at the time. Which means Thomas played against much less physical competition. The first half of the '90s was the era of the much more physical defense...the Pat Riley Knicks and the Seattle Supersonics continuing the "knock down slashers and put a forearm into every offensive player" mentality of the Pistons, which then became league-standard. Thomas played almost all of his prime prior to the very physical defenses on the '90s.

I don't think Thomas had it easier or tougher. He just wasn't as talented or productive.

 

[Minstrel]

So you think Paul's roughly on Jordan's level, then?

If Paul keeps putting up seasons of 30+ PER, I think the argument could be made that he's near Jordan's level of production. Jordan was also an elite defensive player, which Paul isn't, so he wouldn't be as good as Jordan even then.

I think LeBron James and Chris Paul are the two best players of this era.

He's clearly surpassed Magic, who's career best PER is 27. So why even compare him there?

Not clearly surpassed, but I think they are comparable. PER is not nearly conclusive enough that you can be that fine with it...that Paul is a couple points of PER ahead so is clearly ahead of Magic. But he's so far ahead of Thomas that I feel comfortable saying that there's a clear disparity there.

If Paul has a full career at this level, I think he should go down as one of the best three point guards ever (with Magic and Oscar Robertson). The precise ordering of them would be difficult.