I hope so, but am not sure. His numbers this year look a little flat after last year (not much improvement), even though his game seems to have matured. He needs to cross some mental barriers to do much more. Again, probably, but not sure. He is only 26 or 27 right? Who knows what he will do on a different team. He may still show more yet. I would probably keep Aldridge over Amare, but not over Bosh. However, that is all based on my perceptions of their value over the next few years. Aldridge could remain a 17/7 guy the rest of his career, or could end up a 22/9 guy.
Amare's career future-health-wise is comparable to that of Darius Miles, as is his (lack of) work ethic. In the big picture LaMarcus is the "greater" package.
On paper, that may be true. As a practical matter, I am not so sure. Adding Amare means firing Nate, permanently freezing Oden out of the offense, and probably trading or underutilizing Roy. Amare is essentially a more talented version of Zach, who can't be bothered to rebound consistently. When a guy tells the media "I am no longer a team captain, so I no longer have to provide leadership", you have to really wonder where his head is at.
I don't really agree with any of this. Sorry, OMG. You've built up what appears to be a worst-case scenario in your head... Oden get permanently frozen out? Roy getting traded? Why? And why? Oden barely gets shots now, and I think he might get more if we had another guy who would draw double-teams. Aldridge rarely does that. Roy could go back to being the player that is most natural for him: a guy who does a lot of things well and scores easily but doesn't FORCE things, as he often does now because we don't have that many offensive options. I just don't see how any of your post would be likely, except maybe Nate, and I think that it's pretty likely he's not going to be here long-term in any case. I don't know the context for that quote, but I wouldn't be overly concerned about it because it is, at some level, true. If the Suns removed his captaincy I can see why he would be insulted and, if a reporter asked him (as an example), "How can you lead this team full of veterans even though you're no longer a captain?" his answer seems perfectly reasonable. Should a 26 year-old on a team with Nash, Shaq and Grant Hill really be relied upon to lead that team? Ed O.
The thing is though, Amare isn't better than Aldridge and if he is he's only slightly better. Aldridge is a better back to the basket scorer, better defender, has more range, better rebounder(which is sad), and is an overall smarter player. The only thing Amare has shown to do better is put up slightly more PPG in a super fast pace offense and a world class PG. If we trade for Amare we still don't address any of the team needs, such as a backup PF or longtime starting PG or SF.
You lost any credibility. Amare is a tier above LaMarcus. Zach, despite his #'s, is a tier below both Amare and LaMarcus. Amare > Aldridge > Randolph
Please enlighten me? ... and Stoudemire is right there with Z-Bo in defense; consider "Defensive Adjusted +/-" from last season. http://www.82games.com/ilardi2d.htm#table You can also compare Stoudemire and Aldridge in "Defensive Adjusted +/-" last season, with Stoudemire recording a -2.63 and Aldridge checking in at +3.06. http://www.82games.com/ilardi2d.htm#table In other words, according to that advanced metric, Aldridge saved his team 5.69 points defensively per 100 possessions when compared to Stoudemire. And in "Overall Adjusted +/-", Aldridge scored a +5.27 to Stoudemire's +1.76, meaning that Aldridge was worth 3.51 more points per 100 possessions overall. And that was last year when Amare was putting up like 28 points per game. http://www.82games.com/ilardi2.htm#table An opposing team's scout sizes up the Suns ... Amaré Stoudemire is a horrific defender, and when you look at somebody so athletically skilled as he is, you have to wonder if it's a matter of effort. ... Stoudemire is past the age where you talk about his potential. Will he be a winner? The reason he fell to No. 9 in the 2002 draft was because teams were scared of him as an inconsistent personality. He is an exceptional talent, but one thing he has never done is defend. He just doesn't do it. So I don't know how much of a building block he can be as they move forward hoping to create more of a defensive-mindedness. ... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/10/22/suns/ Last season, Stoudemire finished second-to-last in "Defensive Adjusted +/-" among power forwards and centers who played over 2,000 minutes. http://www.82games.com/ilardi2d.htm#table
Aldridge while a bad rebounding PF is better than Amare which is sad. Since Amare's has to work to create his own offense his efficiency has gone terribly down. He's been spoonfed by Nash for far too long. He won't have Nash here in Portland. Aldridge>Amare Tell me one way how Amare is better besides a slightly better PPG in a fast paced offense with a world class PG. Aldridge is younger, Aldridge is a better back to the basket scorer, Aldridge is a better rebounder, Aldridge is a better defender, Aldridge has more potential, Aldridge can create his own shot better. Amare is a better finisher I'll give him that but is a finished product.
... In the first quarter last night, Stoudemire was able to take advantage of some mismatches against the smaller Warriors, but for the game he only shot 7-18 from the field because he was usually trying to score one-on-one. Once he entered the game, Ronny Turiaf was largely able to shut Stoudemire down in man-to-man situations, much like Brian Scalabrine and Matt Bonner in previous contests. Stoudemire is so-so as a self-created scorer and spotty as a passer, which means that he's not a strong fit as a centerpiece that the offense should run through (as opposed to him finishing plays). When Stoudemire averaged over 20 points per game without Nash in '03-'04 (and the Suns did feature some talented guards that year in Stephon Marbury and Anferenee Hardaway early on and Leandro Barbosa and Joe Johnson later), what was his field goal percentage and what was the team's record? Why are the Suns 6-12 (.333) over the last five seasons when Stoudemire has played and Nash hasn't? Stoudemire is not the kind of LeBron James/Kobe Bryant/Dwyane Wade scorer that some of you apparently fancy him as, nor can he score in the post like Tim Duncan or a prime Shaquille O'Neal or, dare I say it, even Boris Diaw. If you watch him, Stoudemire struggles to routinely create space and separation with his one-on-one moves and because he doesn't dribble well, the ball lags behind his body movement, thus neutralizing some of his athleticism and allowing defenders to stay with him, even guys who are mediocre athletes by NBA standards such as Scalabrine and Bonner. To be worthy of the $20M-plus per season that he will be seeking on his next contract, Stoudemire would need to become a really strong all-around power forward who defends, rebounds, and passes consistently, and to this point he has shown little consistency in any of those areas. Indeed, paying a specialist as if he were a franchise player would constitute a terrible mistake, more apt for a general manager like Isiah Thomas. Without the kind of substantial improvement that I've spoken to, Stoudemire would be no better than Zach Randolph in terms of leading a team anywhere. ...
A massive upgrade? C'mon lets get real. Both of them are a little below average defenders. They both have range, Stoudemire can explode to the rim better and pass out of double teams better, but he's also further along in his career and in his prime. Stoudemire is a little better, I'll give you that. But he's not a "massive" ugrade.
