I am not saying it would make for a good team, just saying that IMO, Jefferson fits Leonard better than Aldridge does
I just don't see how the trade makes us any worse than we already are. We're a bad team! At worst the trade is a lateral move in the short term - and if we actually use the cap space to sign or trade for someone there's no way we're worse than we were this past season. I know people don't like Hickson, but just as an example by trading LMA we could sign Hickson as our starting PF (he'd likely stay if he had the starting job) and he alone would essentially replace everything LMA did for us. Then on top of that we'd have Thompson as a back-up PF and Oladipo as either our starting or back-up SG. That's two holes adequately plugged right there, and still cap space to acquire a C plus the #19 pick. That's also 3 tradeable assets in Hickson, Oladipo, and Thompson (plus whoever we take at #19, and whoever we sign/trade for with our cap space).
See, it blows a hole in everything you type, and I quite honestly stopped reading immediately after, when you say Hickson will replace everything Aldridge did.
So Aldridge isn't a championship player, but Hickson is? You realize how flawed your logic is, right?
I know that per36s don't really show what would happen, but for players who play in the 30-40mpg range it's a decent way to equalize and get a dirty view on how they stack up: http://www.basketball-reference.com...m=0&p1=aldrila01&y1=2013&p2=hicksjj01&y2=2013 I think 4 fewer points on 6 fewer shots is at least overcome by 5 more rebounds. So yeah, while it's not a literal 1:1 replacement Hickson would essentially replace what LMA gives us, roughly.
No where did I ever say Hickson is a championship player. But we wouldn't be building around Hickson (and Hickson was merely used as an example of how we won't just be suddenly missing out on 20ppg). So, you realize how flawed your logic is, right?
Sure. The same way Monta Ellis and Brandon Jennings can "essentially" replace what Lillard does for us. Roughly.
You are continually trading Aldridge because he's apparently not good enough to win a championship, yet the players you replace him with aren't even close to be as good as Aldridge. Your logic is beyond flawed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
