Would you rather trade LMA or Amare if we trade with Suns

One's the soon-to-be star player, and the other accepts his role pretty well. It'd be different to have three stars for two positions.

It just seems too Bob Whitsitt-ish to me. It's hard to say that Amare is a better fit than Joel too. We don't need more offense, we need better defense. Joel provides that, Amare is questionable with his commitment to D.
And I think Amare can fetch a lot more than Joel on the trade market... Joel would not bring in a Caron Butler-type player.

 

I'd keep LMA. I don't like Amare's prima-donna attitude of wanting to be THE MAN and have the team built around him. I also don't like his defense and he isn't playing all that well this year (according to his standards) under Porter which is similar to how it would be under Nate except PHX has a better PG. Also, I think Amare can def. get you more back in a trade. And you don't even know if Amare will re-sign with you in a year and a half.

I don't really think LMA would be down with coming off the bench. I also agree w/ Alex that I don't like having Greg, LMA and Amare as a big rotation. One of them won't be happy, and I don't want to trade Joel, who has been our 2nd or 3rd most valuable player this year. I wouldn't trade Joel at least until next years trade deadline and we are sure about Greg's injury situation and foul problems.

I'd do Amare for Green and a flip of our 1st round picks, but I don't think OKC would do it... If we could keep Bayless, I wonder if they'd do Amare/Bayless for Green/Westbrook?

Either way, I don't see this trade happening (Amare). Too many people think it will happen. I think a trade that is more unexpected happens, but I wouldn't be sad if no trade was made and we see what we can do this off-season. Either way I trust KP.

 

If this trade goes down, you have to ask the question during the summer after you had the rest of the season to see who's the better fit and gives the team the greatest chance to win.

Either would give KP one hell of a trading chip to use on draft day this summer since I doubt you could go into next season with both on the roster.

 

thats only your guess. For all we know Joel is not happy about his current role or pleased about whats going to happen to his minutes as Greg matures. Do you really think he'll be pleased about spending his prime riding the pine for all but 10-15 MPG?

On the other hand, since LA can guard either 4s or 5s they could conceivably split the 96 minutes available at the Big spots evenly which is 32 MPG each. 32 MPG on a contender isn't the sort of role guys usually complain about.

again, your opinion and not one I agree with. Remind me who is the Wiz's starting 5? I know they've Antawn Jamison at the 4. We'll just have to agree to disagree because I think you're way off.

 

Well there's my point. There aren't many elite players in the league and the teams who have these elite players would most likely keep them.

Plus, if we could get a younger players showing signs of greatness, wouldn't Phoenix deal straight up for them instead of trading with us? I mean, if we could swing Amare for J.Green, wouldn't Phoenix just do the same and never have to trade Amare to us?

 

I'd trade Aldridge if Amare was guaranteed to stay here and not complain.

Amare is the better talent, but Aldridge might be the better fit.

edit - there's also no guarantee Aldridge stays here, as maybe he may want to be the man at one point or some team might offer more $, but we've seen no signs of that yet.

 

Yeah, but Amare is an elite player, too. The question is whether a team would be willing to give up an elite perimeter player for an elite power forward. Perhaps not, but it is possible.

 

Not one that could leave in 2010.

 

Could, but quite unlikely to. Whichever team got him would get his Bird rights, too. Which means they can pay him more than anyone else. Unlike in baseball, free agency in the NBA doesn't mean bidding wars for elite players. The player's current team can offer the most and that's it.

It's possible Amare could go elsewhere for less, but it's extremely unlikely. Money is almost always the main factor. Maybe a Memphis might have to worry but if, say, Portland dealt him to a good hoops market like New Jersey or Indiana, it's unlikely he'd leave for less cash.

 

Would you rather Amare leave, or have Aldridge locked up for the next 5 years?

What if that team has more than one long contract? (Like most teams)

Highly unlikely

Because they want to test the free agent market? They'd be stupid not to.

 

Man.... tough question. I'm leaning towards Amare honestly, but Aldridge would be fine too. I guess whichever one would yield the most talent in return.

 

"Test" what? Testing the free agent market means seeing what value you can get. That's not possible in the NBA, because the max value is set...and the highest value is with your current team.

In baseball and football, players test the market because there's no maximum and bidding wars can break out. Elite free agents rarely change teams in basketball because that possibility doesn't exist. Leaving via free agency means taking less money.

 

If Amar'e could be parleyed into a B+ point guard and an A- small forward I'd trade him, if there aren't those kind of deals out there and say you could trade LMA + whomever to get a very good point guard or a very good small forward (I'd prefer the former) then that is something I'd look long and hard at.

I don't think there really is a right or wrong answer to either possibility, it would all just boil down to what you could back in trade for either player, but from a "fit" perspective I'd lean toward keeping LMA not only because I think he's still got a lot of untapped potential, but also because I think Amar'e has a higher potential to be traded for multiple pieces that fill big holes on this roster

 

It's not just about money. Say Cleveland is stinking, would LeBron rather stay in Cleveland or get paid a little less and go play for a contender?

 

Yup, players "test" free agency when they aren't completely happy with their team's direction or perhaps they place a higher value on bigger markets or nicer weather, or don't like local tax laws (Canada's high personal income tax rate is much higher than it is in the U.S. for instance).

 

It's almost always about money. I agree that occasionally another factor can make the difference, but it's really incredibly rare.

The three star/superstar players (I'm defining that as players who command max deals) to sign a free agent contract with a different team in the past decade and a half or so were Shaquille O'Neal, Elton Brand and Steve Nash. But Nash changed teams only because the Mavericks were unwilling to max him out. Had they been willing to, he'd have stayed in Dallas. So he moved on due to necessity. Which leaves only Shaquille O'Neal and Elton Brand in close to 15 years.

Grant Hill was signed-and-traded, so didn't leave Detroit for nothing. Tracy McGrady wasn't yet a star when he left Toronto.

I may be missing someone, but the point is that very, very, very few proven, elite players ever switch teams in the NBA. And the reason is because the financial issues don't encourage it. Short of Amare being traded to an awful team in a tiny market (Memphis, for example), the team acquiring Amare from us (in this hypothetical situation) doesn't have a lot to worry about. It's always possible that he could leave, but very unlikely.