Would you trade Lillard?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
WillG said:
I think the team would be better off.
Despite what rose colored glassed fans will say, Lillard is not a SuperStar (though his branding would like to have you think so). He is a fringe All-Star (and that's a very good player still).
Ultimately, he gives up too much on the defensive side of the ball.

Lillard = 45/50 for offense, only 10/50 for defense = 55/100 rating.
We look much better with CJ at point - a bigger guard who has more defensive potential but has much less experience and therefore room to grow into the role.

If the Blazers are serious about winning, they wont care about backlash from trading him and will let the win column translate into fan approval of it's own accord.
Click to expand...
You do realize that a guard has a way bigger affect on the offense than the affect of him being a bad defender?
 
Minstrel said:
There could be a profitable deal involving Lillard for multiple good players, but it is a truism that the team getting the best player tends to win the deal--it's very, very hard to diversify from a star and come out ahead.
Click to expand...

Well, if you put it like that, yes. But I presume what you meant was the team getting the player regarded as the best at the time wins the trade, and that's less obviously true. Look at the Pau Gasol trade: everybody said Memphis was absolutely hosed, but they got Marc Gasol, then an obscure second-round pick, who will almost certainly go down as a Greater Grizzly than his brother.

And remember that 3-way trade moving Kemp and Vin Baker. But the Bucks, who ended up with Terrell Brandon and Tyrone Hill arguably won that (because Baker and Kemp were drunks by then).

There's also Bill Simmons's Patrick Ewing Rule, which is something to the effect of teams without their star players can do better (like the Knicks making the finals with Ewing injured). This is like trading a star for nothing and coming out ahead. Arguably that's what's happened in the last two games for the Blazers.

Ooh, ooh, I got another one: when the Pistons traded for Rip Hamilton, Jerry Stackhouse was the bigger star of that trade.
 
BonesJones said:
You do realize that a guard has a way bigger affect on the offense than the affect of him being a bad defender?
Click to expand...
1. "Effect".
2. Huh? Is your point that a guard has to run the offense and that's a bigger part of the offense than him merely guarding perimeter players is a part of the defense?
If so, well, first, that's only true of traditional PGs. So the classic case that supports your view would be Steve Nash - he was everything to the offense but also a very mediocre defender. But, despite Nash winning back-to-back MVPs, he never made it to the Finals. And his role in the offense was more than almost any other PG. Some teams make do without a trad. PG at all, most notably Jordan's Bulls because of the Triangle. And that's probably better, because it involves everybody and makes the offense much harder to guard. So, actually, it's probably not a good idea if your PG _is_ super important to your offense. Chris Paul is even a good defender, but his team's failures in the playoffs are well-known. Curry is a much less traditional PG, and the ball-movement in that team is what makes it great, not him hogging the ball.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
1. "Effect".
2. Huh? Is your point that a guard has to run the offense and that's a bigger part of the offense than him merely guarding perimeter players is a part of the defense?
If so, well, first, that's only true of traditional PGs. So the classic case that supports your view would be Steve Nash - he was everything to the offense but also a very mediocre defender. But, despite Nash winning back-to-back MVPs, he never made it to the Finals. And his role in the offense was more than almost any other PG. Some teams make do without a trad. PG at all, most notably Jordan's Bulls because of the Triangle. And that's probably better, because it involves everybody and makes the offense much harder to guard. So, actually, it's probably not a good idea if your PG _is_ super important to your offense. Chris Paul is even a good defender, but his team's failures in the playoffs are well-known. Curry is a much less traditional PG, and the ball-movement in that team is what makes it great, not him hogging the ball.
Click to expand...
Lillards OBPM is over 7 and his DBPM is only in the -3s.

Any guard has a bigger part in their offense than defense. That's why you'll see guards with OBPMs approaching 10 but will never see the same with DBPM.
 
WillG said:
Another point to consider is longevity.

Dame has an explosive first step and his game is predicated on athleticism.
At 27 it's only a handful of years till his early 30's where that speed may start to diminish.

CJs game is based on skill moves.
I could see Cj having a Jamal Crawford type timeline - where his skills facilitate a lengthy career.
Click to expand...
CJ also doesn't take a lot of contact; Dame does. Again, possibly adding to CJ's longevity vs. Dame's. But you never know.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Well, if you put it like that, yes. But I presume what you meant was the team getting the player regarded as the best at the time wins the trade, and that's less obviously true. Look at the Pau Gasol trade: everybody said Memphis was absolutely hosed, but they got Marc Gasol, then an obscure second-round pick, who will almost certainly go down as a Greater Grizzly than his brother.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a very good counter-example, and the Stackhouse/Hamilton one isn't bad either. The Seattle/Milwaukee/Cleveland deal involved players who were closer to one another in ability--while you're right that I meant the player perceived as the best at the time, I meant (though, granted, I didn't say) that player being traded for multiple players perceived to be in a significantly lower tier. The Pau Gasol trade certainly qualifies, but the Baker/Kemp/Brandon deal involved players who were all All-Stars.

In general, it seems that when that proposition isn't true, it's usually because the supposed "better player" stops producing like he used to, either due to injury (in the case of the Deron Williams deal blue12 referenced) or the player exiting his prime soon after (as in the case of Stackhouse).

Gasol for Gasol (and...stuff) is a rare case where the established star didn't disappoint and yet the other team still won. I still think it's difficult to win a star-for-multiple-players deal, but if Portland could pull off a Gasol-type deal for McCollum, that would be pretty nice.
 
BonesJones said:
Lillards OBPM is over 7 and his DBPM is only in the -3s.

Any guard has a bigger part in their offense than defense. That's why you'll see guards with OBPMs approaching 10 but will never see the same with DBPM.
Click to expand...
That's an unfair metric to use. The highest DBPM ever recorded was by Ben Wallace, and it was under 7, whereas there have been over 50 seasons with OBPM's over 7. By the very nature of the stat, OBPM will usually be higher and more volatile.
 
Here's some more suggestions for Lillard. Not saying I'd do them, just curious if anyone would:

Lillard for:
Jimmy Butler
Nikola Jokic and Mudiay
Hassan Whiteside (plus maybe Justise Winslow?)
Porzingis
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Here's some more suggestions for Lillard. Not saying I'd do them, just curious if anyone would:

Lillard for:
Jimmy Butler
Nikola Jokic and Mudiay
Hassan Whiteside (plus maybe Justise Winslow?)
Porzingis
Click to expand...
Did you really say Lillard for Jokic and Mudiay?
And Lillard for Whiteside and "maybe" something else?
Lillard straight up for fricken Porzingas?!

Get outta here.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
That's an unfair metric to use. The highest DBPM ever recorded was by Ben Wallace, and it was under 7, whereas there have been over 50 seasons with OBPM's over 7. By the very nature of the stat, OBPM will usually be higher and more volatile.
Click to expand...
That's because one player can carry you offensively, but one player can't do it all defensively, because offenses can go away from him or make him play to his weaknesses (ex. a rim protector might struggle and pick n roll and offenses can take advantage of it.)

The stats the way it is because offenses dictates what happens and defenses are reactionary.
 
BonesJones said:
Did you really say Lillard for Jokic and Mudiay?
And Lillard for Whiteside and "maybe" something else?
Lillard straight up for fricken Porzingas?!

Get outta here.
Click to expand...

Porzingas is the one that really burns you? I am virtually certain Porzingas has more trade value than Lillard around the NBA. Porzingas is one of the most coveted young players in the league, up there with players like Towns and Antetokounmpo. I'd trade Lillard for Porzingas with no doubts in my mind at all.
 
BonesJones said:
Did you really say Lillard for Jokic and Mudiay?
And Lillard for Whiteside and "maybe" something else?
Lillard straight up for fricken Porzingas?!

Get outta here.
Click to expand...
It's not just "Lillard for Mudiay/Jokic" (for example), so much as it's

Lillard/CJ/Harkless/Aminu/Plumlee + Turner/Crabbe/Vonleh/Leonard for
CJ/Crabbe/Aminu/Plumlee/Jokic + Mudiay/Turner/Harkless/Leonard.

It's certainly arguable that the latter is a better, more balanced squad, and certainly better defensively.
 
anyone notice they are resting lillard in preparation to trade him? or is it to showcase CJ's ability to run a team so they can trade him?

:MARIS61::MARIS61::MARIS61::MARIS61::MARIS61:
 
Minstrel said:
Porzingas is the one that really burns you? I am virtually certain Porzingas has more trade value than Lillard around the NBA. Porzingas is one of the most coveted young players in the league, up there with players like Towns and Antetokounmpo. I'd trade Lillard for Porzingas with no doubts in my mind at all.
Click to expand...
EVERYBODY loves the 7 footer that can shoot. Guessing you love Meyers too? granted, porzingis is way better than leonard just saying. No way in hell though Lillard=Porzingis. That is insane
 
Cippy91 said:
EVERYBODY loves the 7 footer that can shoot. Guessing you love Meyers too? granted, porzingis is way better than leonard just saying.
Click to expand...

Everybody loves the new Dirk Nowitzki who also provides rim protection? Yes, basically.

I don't love Meyers Leonard because he neither has the Nowitzkian ability to hit contested jumpers nor does he have any defensive value at all, let alone great rim protection.

We'll have to agree to disagree on his relative value versus Lillard, but as far as I'm concerned, he's likely to end up having similar offensive impact with far, far greater defensive impact. I still don't think there's any NBA GM that would prefer to have Lillard over Porzingas in a one-for-one comparison. Especially considering Porzingas is five years younger, so nowhere close to his peak.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Here's some more suggestions for Lillard. Not saying I'd do them, just curious if anyone would:

Lillard for:
Jimmy Butler
Nikola Jokic and Mudiay
Hassan Whiteside (plus maybe Justise Winslow?)
Porzingis
Click to expand...
Maaaaybe? (But no.)
NO!
NOOO!!!
No!
 
dviss1 said:
Ok so just where the hell are these numbers coming from? Out of your ass?
Click to expand...

FFS it's a loose estimate of his abilities on both sides of the ball.
OK then, tell me, what are your estimates of his abilities - I'll go back and correct mine so you can wipe away your tears.
 
No.

Was there really discussion on this? I guess we should talk about more impossibilities...
 
WillG said:
FFS it's a loose estimate of his abilities on both sides of the ball.
OK then, tell me, what are your estimates of his abilities - I'll go back and correct mine so you can wipe away your tears.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is, based upon your personal assessment, we're supposed to use your opinion? Um no. Hell, I'd take 2K attributes before yours.
 
dviss1 said:
So what you're saying is, based upon your personal assessment, we're supposed to use your opinion? Um no. Hell, I'd take 2K attributes before yours.
Click to expand...

No. What I'm saying is I believe they are reasonable, and being used to make a point - not the point itself.

Look man, I've read and agreed with a lot of your posts, I just don't know why they bothered you so much.
All they are saying is Lillard is a good offensive player, and not very good on defense.
 
BonesJones said:
That's because one player can carry you offensively,
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. Put Michael Jordan on a team with a bunch of non-scorers and he'll be shut down. The other players have to be able at least to be a threat to make you pay for crowding the star player. It's no accident that it was often one of Jordan's "supporting cast" who hit the championship shots.

Not to mention that the rest of the players have to "run the offense" by setting screens etc. even if the star player does shoot more. It's like saying that the quarterback does it all and the offensive line contributes nothing.
 
Just to be clear: I think Lillard is a very, very good player, with a lot of qualities that you would kill for your star player to have. He oozes class. It's just that we have a very unbalanced roster and we can probably get best value for him. If we'd've taken Giannis instead of CJ I wouldn't even be talking about this. (And if we could've somehow got Rudy Gobert AND Giannis, then we'd be a powerhouse already!)
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Just to be clear: I think Lillard is a very, very good player, with a lot of qualities that you would kill for your star player to have. He oozes class. It's just that we have a very unbalanced roster and we can probably get best value for him. If we'd've taken Giannis instead of CJ I wouldn't even be talking about this. (And if we could've somehow got Rudy Gobert AND Giannis, then we'd be a powerhouse already!)
Click to expand...

lol. the past, the past, the past, stop trying to make it last.
 
WillG said:
No. What I'm saying is I believe they are reasonable, and being used to make a point - not the point itself.

Look man, I've read and agreed with a lot of your posts, I just don't know why they bothered you so much.
All they are saying is Lillard is a good offensive player, and not very good on defense.
Click to expand...

So you've agreed with some of my posts. :dunno:

I disagree with yours. Saying Lillard is a 20/100 on D is borderline trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top