I guess I took you to mean 20 ppg when you said "a night." You meant on any given night... that would make more sense since Frye and Smith don't score 20 ppg but CAN score 20 in A game. Then, yes, I suppose we do need more natural scorers.
Nobody was talking trades last season, you know why? Things were going well. This team is the same. Guys got paid, they don't wanna play with effort. Right now I would just be focusing on trading other than cj or dame for a nice defensive piece. These proposals for trading cj I kind of get but when you put dame in the conversation, it's absolutely crazy. Once again nobody on this damn forum was saying shit when we were winning last season but the moment we are bad, you start looking to trade our franchise player. It's insane
Dame is another tier above Brandon. Also, we only got one true elite year out of Roy and he was not able to get us out of the first round. Both extremely clutch, but Dame delivered on the biggest stage more so than Brandon.
Yes and no. I do like Dame more, he's a better leader, better teammate, has a better head on his shoulders, etc. But Roy was a legit Top 3 SG in his prime, possibly Top 2 (didn't his prime coincide with a period of time where Wade was struggling?). I know some people in here think Dame is a Top 5 PG, but even if that were true there are so many good PGs and there isn't a lot of separation between them. Dominant wings are generally a better bet than dominant PGs. I came to loathe Roy, but if he had stayed healthy and we brought in a decent coach, I think Roy's talent would win out over Lillard's. And I hate saying that.
I liked Roy for his being a PG in a SG/SF body. You could pair him with any midget scorer SG in the back court. His defense was really good, too. I like Dame for so many reasons. He's healthy. He is a big time big shot taker/maker. He's getting to the FT line like a superstar (which he is one), he loves the city and the fans, he's a fearless 3pt shooter, he's a team player, he's a leader, he's a great diplomat for the team and the game. Pure class.
You do realize that a guard has a way bigger affect on the offense than the affect of him being a bad defender?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
