The only part I agree with is he became a better team player from year 2 to 3. I think his defense has actually got worse, I believe his intensity has dropped off, and his court awareness has been pretty bad. His game has gone more and more outside even though we have lacked an interior presence on offense. He lacks physicality, even though he has the mass to play very physical. Look: Rookie year blocks per game: 1.2 2nd year: 1.2 3rd year: 1.0 4th year 0.6 So that is his defense getting better? So that is improved court awareness? 0.6 blocks per game for a player of his size and athletic ability is a fucking joke. Rebounding: Rookie year: 5 in 22 minutes per game. One rebound per 4.5 minutes. Last year: 8 rebounds in 37.5 minutes. One Rebound per 4.68 minutes. Is that an improvement? Nope. Scoring: Rookie Year: 9 points in 22 minutes. 1 point per 2.44 minutes. 2nd year: 17.8 points in 34.9 minutes. 1 point per 1.96 minutes. 3rd year: 18.1 points in 37.1 minutes. 1 point per 2.04 minutes. Last year: 17.9 points in 37.5 minutes. 1 point per 2.09 minutes. (In a yaar where he was expected to carry the load when Roy was out.) Is that an improvement? I think the comment of flat growth curve if not negative, is exactly on the money. Right now half the teams we play against in the western conference, we go into the game with a big disadvantage at PF from the start of the game. You might as well right yourself up a 6 point and 3 rebound hole to start the game before you even tip the ball.
Per 36 numbers look like this for points/rebounds/blocks: 14.6/8.1/1.9 18/8/1.3 17.5/7.3/.9 17.2/7.7/.6 all with a field goal % somewhere between 48.5 and 50%, similar usage, free throw attempts, and a PER that has gone from 17.1 to 18.5 to 19.1 and back down to 18.2. Go ahead and plot that on a scatter graph and fit a line to it, and then tell me what it looks like. Don't get me wrong I think LMA is a 'good' player and I was really hopeful that he would take a sizable step forward this year, but it's OK to admit that he's merely an above average player relative to other players at his position and around the league -- probably a top fifty player in the league, on par with a guy like Luol Deng -- but probably not all-star caliber, and definitely not a enough of a difference maker to be the number 2 guy on a championship team. Some will say that Greg is slotted to be that number two guy (or maybe even Batum) but I'm more or less in that camp that doesn't believe you can build around Greg (everything he gives is gravy to me).
Cousins was over 35. Of course, John Wall isn't even in the Top 100, and Omar Sahman apparently is Greg Oden's equal, at least comparing college PERs. http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/holl.../insider.espn.go.com/ncb/hollinger/statistics
Great post. That comes with familiarity though doesn't it? You could say the exact same thing about women
I don't know. When we traded for him, I was just hoping that LaMarcus would turn out to be Rasheed Wallace without the crazy. So far, I think he is well on track to giving us that career. Do I want him to be better? Sure. Damn straight. I am greedy like that. Do I think he has topped out and is almost guaranteed to be little better than he is now? No. I don't know. He might get worse. I think unlikely barring injuries. He might get better. I think pretty likely. He might get a lot better and be a multiple all-star. Not very likely, but very much in the realm of possible - certainly as possible as a draft pick that is anything short of a top 1 or 2 consensus sure thing. And I don't understand on what basis anybody is coming to the conclusion that a 4 year player who is 24 years old has no more potential to improve.
Look at all these players who have been on an All-NBA team who made their first All-Star team when they were 24 or 25 in their 4th or 5th season: Pau Gasol Andrew Bogut (not all-star, but All-NBA) Carlos Boozer Peja Ron Artest and yes, Rasheed Wallace Jermaine O'Neal, 23, 6th season McDyess, 26, 6th season Couple of late bloomers: Glenn Rice, 28, 8th season Ben Wallace, 28, 7th season Jamal Mashburn, 30, 10th season Detlef Shremph, 30, 8th season Few of these guys above had stats the year BEFORE they made their first all-star team that blow away LaMarcus' stats. I just don't see the convincing evidence that most all-star caliber players make the team by the end of their 4th season. Hall-of-Famers do, usually by their 2nd year. For a non-hall-of-fame player it is a mixed bag. Some early, then fade or suffer injuries. Most at some point during their prime of 23 to 30, after several seasons in the league. And the 5th season seems eerily common in the short list above. I think we should all give LaMarcus at least as much time as Travis and Webster got to show what they had for this team. Give him another year or two to take the next leap and show up stronger in the playoffs.
That's reasonable, but only b/c I see it as a flawed argument. Sure, I'm not saying to not sign LMA to an extension. But if someone would've come along in 2008 and said "Hey, I'll sign-and-trade Ginobili to you for Webster" Webster would've been gone. If they would've said in 2007 "I'll give you Al Horford's #3 pick for Travis Outlaw" Travis wouldn't be here. If the argument is to not jettison LMA for scraps before we see what he can do, then I agree. If it's to not trade LMA at all, for either perceived "upside" value like a #3 pick or someone like Bosh, then I disagree vehemently.
You're equating Bosh with Favors or Cousins? I disagree. Plus, Webster has never come close to putting up the production of Aldridge. How is that even a close comparison of hypothetical trades?
The guys over at SLAM magazine aren't big fans of Cousins at all, it seems. "At best, he's an early career Zach Randolph" Ouch. They might as well just call him Al Jefferson like everyone else. There's really not that big of a difference between Al and Zach. They compare Favors to a defensive minded Amare Stoudemire.
No, I'm saying that the upside of Cousins, Favors or Turner is not something to dismiss out of hand since we have a 18/8 finesse power forward who has not progressed in 3 years. I'm also saying that the proven production of Bosh is also not something to dismiss out of hand. Are there arguments to be made for why and why not to trade LMA? Of course. I was talking specifically about the "we should give him as much time as Webster or Travis" comment. If Webster or Travis had ever been discussed for the 3 pick or someone like Bosh, we wouldn't have given them any time, either.
Webster and Outlaw are much more limited players than Aldridge. I guess I'm not understanding your point at all. Aldridge is ~ an 18 PER player right now. Good enough for top 45 in the NBA, and Top 18 for players who stay on the court 35 mpg. Would I trade him for Bosh? Sure. Would I compare trading him versus trading Webster or Outlaw for the same asset? Um, come on now.
you're not seeing where the analogy came from, though by what you said we're on the same side. You said you'd trade him for Bosh. So would I. The previous poster said "Give him the same time we gave Travis and Webster". I disagree. How about I put it this way....if someone would've said "I'll trade you Player X, who's as much better than Webster as Bosh is to LMA, for Webster", Webster wouldn't be on our team. Same with Travis. So the "give LMA the same time to develop as we gave Webster and Travis" argument doesn't hold water for me, if in fact a trade like that is out there. I'm not comparing backups to an 18 PER player. Now to your point that Cousins or Favors is not the same value for LMA as Bosh is? Sure, that's got some argument to it. But I don't think "wait 6 years to figure out what you have, then maybe think about trading LMA--b/c dangit, we waited that long to trade Travis (and Webster is STILL HERE!)" is the way to look at this.
No. The argument is the theory that LaMarcus has absolutely reached his potential and WILL NOT IMPROVE is false. Garbage in = garbage out. Unproven, baseless opinion: LaMarcus has for sure topped out. Leads to poor conclusion: Therefore, try to trade him now if you can get a solid pick that has "upside". I reject that concept as being sound. LaMarcus may yet still improve. Many players have done it in the past. Thus LaMarcus still has "upside". And more to point of the current state of this team, if LaMarcus does improve further he is likely to do it in the next two seasons. A draft pick? Who knows? Better than LaMarcus is now: two years at the very earliest and that is if they are as good as someone like Amare was early, and more likely 3 years. And that only if they reach all expectations. So, we would trade a bird in the hand - a solid, high-post big (who in theory fits very, very well with Oden) for youth. Besides all that, LaMarcus is tricky to trade with his extension, thus limited his trade market and lowering his price and the value to the Blazers. As for Bosh, why does everyone seem to forget that Bosh, though a better player, would cost the Blazers over $20,000,000 per season in salary and gut the ability of the team to pay for above average role players off their rookie contract.
He hasn't "absolutely reached his potential" but isn't it just a little more likely that he's a lot closer to that ceiling than not? And how is it baseless to evaluate that on 4 years of play with little tangible improvement? Secondly, I can understand the whole 'bird in hand' theory, but what you're really saying is that you want LMA to hold steady and that the team needs Oden to reach his full potential (which means staying mostly healthy and becoming a dominant low post player on offense and defense) to become a champion -- I find that model for success less compelling now than I did a year ago.
Is it possible that LMA will show significant improvement? Possible yes, likely no. Could a top 5 pick produce a player as good or better than LMA for a fraction of the salary? I'd say that was more than just "possible." Say 50/50? Finally, any argument for keeping LMA that includes the language "if Oden ever gets healthy" should be dropped. LMA needs to be judged on his own performance - which was OK, but not nearly enough.
