Trade Would you trade CJ... The Super Duper Trade Thread!

I had not heard that,, but I am glad he implied it. I would prefer the Lakers take him. A young nucleus of D'Angelo, Clarkston, Simmons, and Randle does not worry me. Ingram would fit in much better. And even then....not to scary-they will need other FA moves....

 

No way! I'd hate to lose C.J. for about a billion reasons, but I'd hate to help accelerate any chance of the Lakers returning to relevancy even more.

C.J. became a 21 ppg scorer in his first season as a starter. And, he's an efficient scorer than can knock down the catch-and-shoot 3, as well as penetrate and create his own shot. Because we also have Dame, I think some people take that for granted. They shouldn't. It was like when MIN offered GSW Kevin Love for Klay Thompson. GSW could have said, you know what, we have Steph, we don't need Klay's 3-point shooting. I'm pretty sure they're pretty damn happy they never even seriously considered pulling the trigger on that trade.

Sending C.J. to the Lakers would help them get better faster - and I don't want that. I know a lot of people around here consider being a 40-something win lower playoff seed to be the worst thing in the world. I don't. Almost every eventual champion passes through that phase - especially the young teams, like us. To me, being stuck on the lottery treadmill, winning between 15 and 25 games year, after, year, after year is the real definition of purgatory.

Champions don't rely on the lottery. Losers do. Until this year, the Lakers had only been in the lottery 4 times in 30 years. The Spurs have only been in the lottery 3 times. Teams like MIN, the old Clippers and PHI go a decade, or more, of missing the playoffs and playing lottery roulette without ever getting significantly better. That's the fate I want to see for these Lakers. I want them out of the playoffs and winning 15 - 25 games a year for the next decade and beyond. The draft is a crap shoot and they may eventually hit a winner, but until then, every young player they draft will take years to develop. some will become decent, but some will also become busts. The point is, unless they can also acquire real, proven NBA talent, like C.J. McCollum, they won't escape that lottery treadmill anytime soon.

BNM

 

Yeah, definitely. It just fees like trading Terry Porter to get the #2 pick in the 1988 draft:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_1988.html

 

My initial thought on the mental stability of the team is grow the fuck up, but then I look at what a clusterefuck the Rockets were this year. I was only thinking in basketball terms

 

I don't know if my opinion is a homerific opinion or not. I really don't pay that much attention to the draft (particularly when the Blazers don't have a pick), and I don't watch college basketball except for March Madness (occasionally), so maybe I am not the best person to ask. Drafting LMA, Roy, Oden was cool. That made me excited (although I kind of wanted Foye -- so goes to show you how much I know and why my opinion of the draft being a crapshoot is just that). When I look back at the drafts over the years, what I see is that the players drafted take quite a while to develop and some never do. There are players I have thought would be really good in the NBA who never seem to pan out to be all that. Evan Turner is one. Shelden Williams is another. There were people who actually thought Bargnani would be as good or better than Dirk Nowitski. We made a nice leap from expectations this year. I would prefer to build on it and not gamble on a draft pick, even if it is a top one. Am I opposed to trading for a draft pick? No. But, given how much I think the NBA draft is a crap shoot, I'm not going to trade one of the better players on our team for a bet at the roulette table. If they made the trade, I wouldn't complain. I guess I trust the front office to make the right decision. As crandc said, if I was in charge, I wouldn't do it.

 

The Spurs are multiple time champions because of the lottery though. Golden State is a champion because of three lottery picks. You always bring up the shitty teams, but some of the best teams are champions because of the lottery.

 

No, I wouldn't for either of those players. We aren't talking a Oden and Durant top 2 here. If they were on that level then sure you have to. They aren't though.

 

This is quite unfair. No one knows if Ingram and Simmons will be Manning and Richmond or Lebron and Wade. It's a total crap shoot. I just think you need to roll the dice

 

I want to keep both Crabbe and C.J. I don't see them as redundant. Crabbe can't create his own shot. He lacks the passing and ballhandling skills of C.J. But Crabbe is bigger, a better defender and can knock down the open 3.

The nice thing about having all of Crabbe, C.J. and Dame is they give you lots of options. Crabbe fits well next to either C.J. or Dame. In that scenario, C.J. or Dame is the PG that runs the offense, creates shot for themselves and their teammates - including Crabbe who can knock down the open 3 when C.J. or Dame collapse the defense. That gives us a great 3-guard rotation.

It also gives us the option of going small without really going small. Crabbe has the length and defense that a 3-guard line-up of Dame, C.J. and Crabbe can work great when other teams elect to go small. Throw Meyers Leonard into that line-up, along with either Ed Davis, Mason Plumlee of a free agent big man and we have 4 REALLY good 3-point shooters on the court at the same time. Talk about spreading the court! We have that already, but if we could get a REAL rim protecting big man this summer, I think that would be Terry Stotts' wet dream team.

BNM

 

They traded their 3rd year, 15 PER combo guard who averaged nearly 30 mpg for two seasons for a #15 pick.

That was the George Hill for Kawhi Leonard trade.

CJ is better than Hill ever was, but ya your point still remains.

 

It's an odds thing. Sure the Warriors look good now, but it took them 20 lottery picks to get good. I'd prefer not to suck for the next 20 years. There is no Tim Duncan or LeBron James in this draft. There isn't even a Steph Curry that I can see.

BNM

 

Not worth the gamble. CJ is a legit/very good starting SG. How many top 10 picks end up being good solid starters?

 

Frankly I have no idea what your post means. I was talking about Duncan

 

Those were different rules back when SA won the lottery. They were guaranteed Duncan if they tanked. The odds are not quite as good now.
The Warriors were lucky........ Green was a 2nd rounder. You don't need to be in the lottery for that.
Steph.......Minnesota took back to back PG's before him.

 

I may disagree with no Lebron or Duncan. I get those two are transcendent players, but Simmons and Ingram both have a chance to be really special. More so than anyone in a while

 

He is saying that the spurs traded away a solid starter for the #15 pick and it turned into Leonard, which is better than George Hill. It was a gamble and it paid off.

My questions is, what are the percentages of such trades paying off vs becoming busts?

 

I was refuting the idea that @Boob-No-More made about how Champions don't make moves like this by adding to your point about the Spurs.

They traded a proven rotation player for a lottery pick and it worked out for them.

Not sure how this is confusing.

 

67.3%

 

You pulled that out of your ass! LOL

 

54% of statistics are made up and 103% are exaggerated