TBpup
Writing Team
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 22,657
- Likes
- 34,641
- Points
- 113
Different writers and media outlets have again offered up the idea of at least exploring the idea of trading LaMarcus Aldridge. While on the surface, that idea seems ludicrous. The Blazers are coming off their first playoff series win in over a decade and have a young nucleus of players to build around.
But there is always another side.
LA has increasingly become a less efficient player each year. His shooting percentage is in decline as is his total points per shot. In fact he ranks near the bottom of his own team when compared with the rest of the starters. Now that doesn't mean 'ditch him' but it is a long term trend that will not likely reverse itself. LA takes (and can make) the toughest, most inefficient shot in basketball...the turn around, fade-away 15-20' shot. He makes that better than anyone else in the league and it is almost indefensible.
The problem is, it is still not an efficient shot. If that is the only shot the Blazer offense can generate at times, perhaps Stotts isn't the offensive guru we all think he is.
Even the playoffs were a testament to reality. His first two games against an undermanned Terrance Jones were of historical beastiness. The rest of the playoffs?
78-191... .408% shooting. That isn't even average.
His 'handle' isn't any better than it was years ago rendering him almost useless when he has to put the ball on the floor more than once.
It is not a 'sky-is-falling' scenario. LaMarcus can still be counted on for solid numbers on almost any night but the efficiency of those numbers is of very low rank and thereby put the Blazers at a disadvantage from an overall scheme in some cases. If LA is shooting long fade-aways, the other team gets longer rebounds and more fast break opportunities. Portland gets outscored on the break on a nightly basis and that is certainly a contributing factor.
LA is still very good on defense as well and in fact, I believe an under-rated defender for the entire league. Without blocking shots, he moves his feet well, plays smart and get his hands on a lot of balls down low before the shot ever goes up.
So as LA is at his peak, is that peak high enough to not at least contemplate moving him? Is he that #1 that can take you to the next level? Remember, it took 2nd year Damian Lillard's miracle '3' at the buzzer to get them to the next round.
I like LA and he puts up amazing numbers but in a historical sense, he seems like more of a 'compiler' like a Dominique Wilkins than someone who is going to lead his team to contender status.
Not sure if that is worth $100+ million over a 5 year contract from age 30-35.
But there is always another side.
LA has increasingly become a less efficient player each year. His shooting percentage is in decline as is his total points per shot. In fact he ranks near the bottom of his own team when compared with the rest of the starters. Now that doesn't mean 'ditch him' but it is a long term trend that will not likely reverse itself. LA takes (and can make) the toughest, most inefficient shot in basketball...the turn around, fade-away 15-20' shot. He makes that better than anyone else in the league and it is almost indefensible.
The problem is, it is still not an efficient shot. If that is the only shot the Blazer offense can generate at times, perhaps Stotts isn't the offensive guru we all think he is.
Even the playoffs were a testament to reality. His first two games against an undermanned Terrance Jones were of historical beastiness. The rest of the playoffs?
78-191... .408% shooting. That isn't even average.
His 'handle' isn't any better than it was years ago rendering him almost useless when he has to put the ball on the floor more than once.
It is not a 'sky-is-falling' scenario. LaMarcus can still be counted on for solid numbers on almost any night but the efficiency of those numbers is of very low rank and thereby put the Blazers at a disadvantage from an overall scheme in some cases. If LA is shooting long fade-aways, the other team gets longer rebounds and more fast break opportunities. Portland gets outscored on the break on a nightly basis and that is certainly a contributing factor.
LA is still very good on defense as well and in fact, I believe an under-rated defender for the entire league. Without blocking shots, he moves his feet well, plays smart and get his hands on a lot of balls down low before the shot ever goes up.
So as LA is at his peak, is that peak high enough to not at least contemplate moving him? Is he that #1 that can take you to the next level? Remember, it took 2nd year Damian Lillard's miracle '3' at the buzzer to get them to the next round.
I like LA and he puts up amazing numbers but in a historical sense, he seems like more of a 'compiler' like a Dominique Wilkins than someone who is going to lead his team to contender status.
Not sure if that is worth $100+ million over a 5 year contract from age 30-35.
SlyPokerDog is a nitwit.
