Calm down, I'm not serious. Well, I sort of am. I think I'm acquiring a reputation as a Lillard-hater, and I really am not. Lillard has been great, and I've enjoyed the hell out of his rookie season. What I see myself as, is (as all pessimists call themselves) a Realist. Lillard is good, but seriously, how good will he get? He's not like Derek Rose, who has all-world athleticism combined with great size for a PG and the potential to be the best defending PG in the league. Lillard is above-average for athleticism, a very good shooter, a solid penetrator, an average distributor and a poor defender. Now, maybe he has such a force of personality that he can take all those and become All-NBA. I was a Chris Paul doubter precisely because he was short and not a great athlete, but I would be the first to admit that he's shown himself to be one of the transformative players in the NBA. HOWEVER: he showed it from day one, and the stats guys were all saying after his rookie year that he'd had the best advanced-stat rookie year for a PG since Magic Johnson. Whereas, stats-wise, Lillard isn't even top ten for active PGs. So. What we'll almost certainly do is stick with him, and he'll become a solid player who is the best guard on a mediocre team. And then he'll get a huge contract because we can't afford to lose him. You know, like Joe Johnson in Atlanta. Alternatively, we could see him as a great gambling chip. Our best, in fact. Offer him in a trade for a superstar or a top pick. That could backfire terribly, though (think Jerry Krause trading ROY Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler because he thought Chandler had more potential) and undermine a lot of good will for the franchise. But Olshey has done something similar before with Eric Gordon for Chris Paul. Discuss.
Eric Gordon had injury problems from day one. I think it's more justification that you gamble on potential for health in this regard. But, think about how a guard like step curry was and is for golden state... I actually see us trading the other chips like batum or Matthews; maybe both to get that superstar. And to be honest, I would do any combo trade like Matthews and batum for a legit superstar any day and twice on Sunday!
Too bad they didn't wait and say it during the trade deadline of his 4th year or right after his 4th season.
Yeah, I don't think you trade Lillard when you have 8 more years of control over him playing in Portland. LMA and Wes are at that point of max value with respect to contract (2 years left) where a team receiving them gets two good prime years before they can walk away. Lillard isn't. Leonard isn't. Now, talent/fit with team/demanding trades/etc. might change the equation, but trading Lillard right now would be pretty odd unless you were getting another PG in a similar contract situation (Irving/Wall). Just not really worth it.
If you could guarantee me that Wade stays healthy (doesn't miss more then 3 games a year) for the next 4 years then it is Wade. I don't think anyone can guarantee me that though.
No. Even if I didn't think Wade was going to decline pretty precipitously (which I do) I wouldn't give up 8 years of Dame for (maybe) 3 good years of Wade. Especially with the SG talent coming out of this draft.
Pretty ridiculous thread as well. Lillard has high value but its his small contract that makes him all the more valuable. If you can move him for a top 5 player you have to do it but to get a top 5 player wed have to give up LA as well leaving us in even worse shape unless the incoming player is durant/lbj. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
You don't trade Lillard. It's a horrible idea because you won't get equal or greater value. The guy plays like a vet, he's a dynamic guard, and I don't think we've seen his best yet. I could very easily see him as a Tony Parker type PG, and I'm totally fine with that. The Spurs have won a lot of championships with smart players, solid offense, and great defense. We just need a better bench and we need to improve on our defense.
You've brought up trading Lillard multiple times.. Why make a new thread about it? There's no point.. it's stupid.
This forum has been turning to shit lately with threads like this. This place is really starting to suck.
Why would we discuss arguably the worst trade in Blazers history? Unless we get LeBron for him, no thanks.
Big Thread Fail: for bringing up Chris Paul - yet again - as an "example". Example my ass. That shit's too painful. You gonna mention Michael Jordan next? As for trading Lillard. Not in the cards. You say he will be good, but not great, and then we get stuck paying him Joe Johnson money. NO. Wrong. You are completely wrong on that. If Lillard is very good, but not great, the team will easily be able to sign him to the Baby Max (25% of cap) contract - or less (like the team did with LaMarcus). A Baby Max is worth it for a player of Lillard's current caliber. Players with 7+ years of experience can sign for up to 30% of the cap. Players with less are stuck with only 25%. But, rookies coming off their 1st contract can get 30% if they have been named to 2 All-NBA teams, been an All-Star Starter twice, or been the MVP (Derrick Rose collects!). Lillard won't qualify for the 30% if he is merely very good. The team will hang on to Lillard because they can lock him to the team for a long time before they have to worry about the Joe Johnson type contract disaster.
