Mags, I like Greg Monroe. However he and LA do the same thing. When I brought my highlight out, it was in response to MM saying Batum couldn't play Defense. Then I show him blocking the shot of the best player in the league. My Highlight was to prove a point. Your highlight tape actually proves my point: Monroe would take touches in the post away from LMA on offense, and he doesn't protect the rim so the paring would not be a good one defensively. We should be trying to get Drummond not Monroe. That being said BOTH guys are a pipe dream. On to the next.
But having Monroe could give us a lot of tradable assets. We could even trade Aldridge later if we had to. Or maybe Monroe with another player. Who knows even Leonard or other players. A good big is way more valuable than a wing unless that wing is a superstar. Fortunately, Detroit has too many bigs and no wings.
We may not get him. But that is fair compensation for LMA which is all I am pointing out (example of trading Batum for Monroe and then LMA for a SG or SF).
Deal Nic for Monroe and LA to Houston for Chandler/Asik, then figure out whatever other parts are necessary to make it a fair deal all around. Asik/Monroe/Parsons frontline.
If I were Detroit I would make that trade in a heart beat with Drummond and Smith on the team. For Portland it would be OK. I see pros and cons. At 6'11" 250 Monroe needs to turn himself into a center. He attacks the basket well. If he could guard centers I would love the deal. Can he?
Saying we could get Monroe for Batum is saying that BATUM is the tradeable asset right? I just don't see us trading our starting defensive stopper for redundancy. How are you going to keep Aldridge happy by trading for someone who's going to make his numbers/touches go down?
See!? Now you're talking! Form a team don't just put players together. I would do those moves. This officially hands the keys to Lillard.
Assuming Detroit makes the deal, you do it because then you can turn around and trade Aldridge. If you bring in Monroe, Aldridge becomes much easier to trade and hopefully we are able to bring back some really good assets in the process. If not, you play them together and you aren't hurt quite so bad if he leaves in a couple years.
Batum is a valuable tradable asset; but we have players that can play SF. Maybe not as well, but good enough. The return you would get for Aldridge or Monroe with a player would be more valuable than Batum, IMO.
You could probably just make it a 3 team deal. http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=mjrxkdb I will say this line-up ain't half bad. PG: Lillard, CJ, Watson SG: Matthews, CJ, Barton, Crabbe SF: Wright, Claver, Matthews PF: Monroe, T. Rob, Freeland Center: Asik, Lopez, Leonard
If we can live with Hickson and Aldridge, I think we can live with Monroe and Aldridge for a little while.
the way you formed it wouldn't work though, because Houston would be taking back way more salary than the CBA would allow. It would have to be something more like this. HOU out--Asik/Jones/Parsons HOU in--Aldridge/Barton DET out--Monroe/Villanueva DET in--Batum/Freeland POR out--Aldridge/Batum/Freeland/Barton POR in--Asik/Monroe/Parsons/Jones/Villanueva EDIT: To increase the salary disparity threshold, HOU and DET could also do a Stuckey/Lin swap (if each team were interested in such a thing)
But that's the point. We couldn't live with Hickson and Aldridge. The Hickson/Aldridge frontcourt makes LMA want to leave. Remember what he asked for in the offseason right?
I would be happy with that scenario. It would be nice to get rid of freeland too! Makes the deal much better IMO.
