Would you give up Batum or Lopez for Monroe?

[Minstrel]

I'd rather have Monroe than Lopez, but not at the max salary that he's seeking. Monroe would fit nicely with Aldridge, since Monroe likes to work as low post threat while Aldridge is comfortable shooting mid-range jumpers and working from the high post. They wouldn't get in each others' way as the mess in Detroit unfolded.

But if you get Monroe, you're basically locking in the core as Monroe, Lillard, Batum and Aldridge...the Blazers aren't going to have any flexibility again any time soon. That might be okay, but the Blazers' big problem was defense, not offense, so giving up any chance to adjust the core to bring in an upgrade on offense but a further detriment on defense seems like a mistake.

Lopez is also a pretty good player and not much older. He could probably be a core piece without requiring an anvil of a contract.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Browsing a lot of Pistons related forums there is a consensus on who they think they can realistically get for Monroe:

Wesley Matthews + Robin Lopez

This, IMO, is a talent upgrade that you'd have to do.

You trade two very solid role players for a 24 y/o Center with All-Star potential. He's already a double-double guy, proven (efficient) scorer - I think he takes his game to another level playing 3rd option with Lillard and LA.

With the passing/unselfishness of Batum/Aldridge/Lillard/Monroe - The Blazers are very Spurs-like with this unique core.

 

[Minstrel]

You trade two very solid role players for a 24 y/o Center with All-Star potential. He's already a double-double guy, proven (efficient) scorer - I think he takes his game to another level playing 3rd option with Lillard and LA.

The problem is that he's a defensive minus and the Blazers were already one of the best offensive teams in the league last year. Improving the offense slightly (when you're already around the top-five, the upside potential is smaller) while weakening the defense further probably won't get them closer to the championship.

Now if it were someone like Roy Hibbert, who doesn't have a lot of offensive skill but improves the Blazers' defense a lot, I'd be much more interested in the Blazers investing another max deal.

 

[illmatic99]

Save the bullets to go hard after Marc Gasol next summer. He'd be the perfect addition

 

[BBert]

Talent upgrades and asset acquisition are generally a good thing. You never know: if we get Monroe, despite his poor defense, a year from now we could be trading him for Gasol or Hibbert.

 

[blue9]

... and the Blazers were already one of the best offensive teams in the league last year. Improving the offense slightly (when you're already around the top-five, the upside potential is smaller) while weakening the defense further probably won't get them closer to the championship.

Eh, not really. I know people like to go off of OffRtg, but if you look at where our team ranks in FG% we're smack dab in the middle - #15, right between the Lakers and Knicks. Good offensive teams don't have such a mediocre shooting percentage.

Adding Monroe would be adding an offensive element that we don't really have. Monroe made about 50 more shots within 5' feet of the hoop than LMA attempted. Monroe would give us a legit low-post presence every time down the floor. I don't know how he does with kicking the ball back out of the post, but if he can do that he'll create far more space for our shooters than LMA does from the high-post. And if LMA can crash the weakside offensive boards (like he did early in the HOU series) when Monroe is taking the shot then he could maintain/increase on both his scoring and rebounding averages, and see an increase in his FG%.

 

[magnifier661]

Save the bullets to go hard after Marc Gasol next summer. He'd be the perfect addition

We wouldn't have space next summer at all. Aldridge will be maxed; which leaves MLE available.

 

[donkiez]

All things being equal, yes I would to either, but for the sake of this thread it would have to be Lopez because loosing Batum would create to big of a hole. All thing is all things arn't equal however, and Monroe will make way more than Lopez and we would have to give someone up to get him. How much better is Monroe than Lopez anyway? I dont think its a huge upgrade, especially when considering salaries. Then if you look at our other options of adding a player without trading either Batum or Lopez, like say Hawes, then its a no brainerr and a no to either trade.

 

[Minstrel]

Eh, not really. I know people like to go off of OffRtg, but if you look at where our team ranks in FG% we're smack dab in the middle - #15, right between the Lakers and Knicks.

Field goal percentage removes the impact of offensive rebounding. I don't see any real reason why points per possession wouldn't be the best measure of a team's offensive ability. If you're converting possessions into points at a better clip than everyone else, then you're a top offensive team.

 

[RR7]

Field goal percentage removes the impact of offensive rebounding. I don't see any real reason why points per possession wouldn't be the best measure of a team's offensive ability. If you're converting possessions into points at a better clip than everyone else, then you're a top offensive team.

Primarily because it fits the narrative he wants to go with. If it works better to downplay a player he dislikes, then he's happy to use advanced stats.

 

[Harry's Raincoat]

Tough choices. But I think if you have the opportunity to add Monroe and not have to give up Lillard or LMA you have to do it. He's immediately your third most valuable player. Its a talent upgrade even though it creates some unknowns in the lineup.

Lillard - CJ - Wesley - LMA - Monroe

or

Lillard - Wesley - Wright- LMA - Monroe

or

Lillard - Wesley - Crabbe - LMA - Monroe

 

[HailBlazers]

Tough choices. But I think if you have the opportunity to add Monroe and not have to give up Lillard or LMA you have to do it. He's immediately your third most valuable player. Its a talent upgrade even though it creates some unknowns in the lineup.

While I mostly agree, it's a tough pill to swallow considering offense hasn't necessarily been the Blazers problem.

 

[PCmor7]

The only way a Monroe acquisition makes sense to me is if it is part of another deal or probably tied to several other deals.

 

[blue9]

Primarily because it fits the narrative he wants to go with. If it works better to downplay a player he dislikes, then he's happy to use advanced stats.

Oh really? I do not recall ever using advanced stats to support my opinion. I may sometimes include them in my analysis (though rarely) for people who think they know what they mean. But I can't think of ever using advanced stats to form or support my opinion.

For years I've felt that FG% (or eFG%) is the best measure of offense, as it only measures the team's ability to put the ball through the hoop and weeds out free throws.

Also, how does it remove the impact of offensive rebounding? I don't get that. It removes the impact of free throws and (if you go with raw FG% rather than eFG%) 3-pointers, and strictly measures makes vs misses. Again, it only measures how good a team or player is at putting the ball through the hoop. That, to me, is what offense is all about. If it's all about converting possessions into points for you, that's cool. But personally I hate Harden-style offense - sure, he converts possessions into points by duping refs into giving him free throws. But that's not good offense, IMO.

 

[Blazinaway]

some of it depends on what the 2015 plan is, keep in mind that BOTH Wes and Lopez are FA's next summer and will get paid, especially Rolo, so that consideration does add another element

 

[Minstrel]

Also, how does it remove the impact of offensive rebounding? I don't get that.

Because if you shoot, miss, rebound the ball and put it in, that's as good as not missing in the first place even though the field goal percentage is worse. And yes, it also removes the effects of free throws, three-pointers as well as turnovers. In other words, it misses a lot about effective offense.

If it's all about converting possessions into points for you, that's cool.

That's all that offense is, turning possessions into points. All defense is, is making sure opponent possessions don't result in points.

 

[blue9]

Because if you shoot, miss, rebound the ball and put it in, that's as good as not missing in the first place even though the field goal percentage is worse. And yes, it also removes the effects of free throws, three-pointers as well as turnovers. In other words, it misses a lot about effective offense.



That's all that offense is, turning possessions into points. All defense is, is making sure opponent possessions don't result in points.

Thanks for explaining what you meant. I understand that a lot of people think these advanced stats are the end-all be-all - I do not. A missed shot is a missed shot. An offensive rebound and a made shot after the fact do not cancel out the fact that the shot was initially missed.

I do NOT think that trying to draw a foul so you can get free throws indicates good offense. Making high percentage shots is good offense. Duping refs, or using tricks to draw fouls rather than just trying to make a shot, is a bastardization of the game. Relying on 3-pointers isn't a bastardization of the game, but I don't think it can be called a good offense - it's just playing the odds.

Our Ortg is inflated because of 3-pointers. It's an estimate of points scored per 100 possessions. That's about 13 more possessions than we averaged per game. With 1/3 of our shots being 3-pointers that's adding four 3-pointers to the estimate, and with our better-than-average 3% it artificially inflates our Ortg. If Ortg was changed to be based on 200 possessions we'd skyrocket ahead of everybody based solely on 3-point shooting.

Is it so weird to ask that a good offensive team have a good FG%? To me the two go together - you can't be a good offensive team without a good FG%. There's no way, IMO, that we're the 2nd best offensive team in the league when our FG% is league average. I suspect the truth of our offense lies somewhere in the middle, because certainly it's better than the Lakers. It just really irks me when people latch onto these ideas and treat them as gospel (remember when Nate was a defensive specialist?), despite evidence to the contrary.

But the larger point was that Monroe would provide us with something on the offensive end that we don't really have. I agree that it shouldn't at the detriment to our defense, which is why I'd like to see Monroe come off the bench this season (and start the following season). But the idea that our offense is "great" so we don't need to do anything about it doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

So... have we basically decided that this rumor was totally bogus?

 

[RoyToy]

FG% says a lot to me as it usually says a lot about what kind of looks you're getting on offense (contested vs uncontested). Generally the more uncontested shots you take the better the FG% will be.

The better offenses shoot better and get better open looks, as well as scoring in the paint.

The Blazers are a very good offense, but the fact that they're a perimeter oriented team scares me going forward. There's a lot of settling for jumpers with this group and not attacking the paint, and a lot of that has to do with Stotts' system.

So overall I think the Blazers have a very good offense, but I don't consider it elite or great. They're great at shooting the 3pter but that's it. If you run them off the 3pt line (see SA) they really struggle to get open looks as Lillard is the only player that's great or above average with the ball in his hands.

You have to watch the games to see this. Eye test still matters.

 

[RoyToy]

You can't be an elite offense imo when you're 26th in points in the paint

You're just too one-dimensional

 

[Strenuus]

You can't be an elite offense imo when you're 26th in points in the paint

You're just too one-dimensional

Makes sense... Even two dimensonal, like Houston, is the same way.

 

[OregonHuskerMan]

Have we already forgotten how pathetic our offense (as well as our defense) was against the Spurs in the playoffs?

Chemistry is great and all, but talent in addition to chemistry, is what makes a championship team. Simply put, Monroe is a MASSIVE talent upgrade over Lopez.

Also, the cap is going to skyrocket in two years anyway. So the amount we have to pay Monroe is less of a factor than people think.

 

[Strenuus]

Have we already forgotten how pathetic our offense (as well as our defense) was against the Spurs in the playoffs?

Chemistry is great and all, but talent in addition to chemistry, is what makes a championship team. Simply put, Monroe is a MASSIVE talent upgrade over Lopez.

Also, the cap is going to skyrocket in two years anyway. So the amount we have to pay Monroe is less of a factor than people think.

Miami's offense and defense sucked too.... so what?

 

[magnifier661]

Have we already forgotten how pathetic our offense (as well as our defense) was against the Spurs in the playoffs?

Chemistry is great and all, but talent in addition to chemistry, is what makes a championship team. Simply put, Monroe is a MASSIVE talent upgrade over Lopez.

Also, the cap is going to skyrocket in two years anyway. So the amount we have to pay Monroe is less of a factor than people think.

Did you notice every other team looking like shit against them? There was no stopping that locomotive!

And okc had arguably the best duo and Miami had the best player in the nba