Absolutely no. We would have to give Monroe a near max contract. His value beyond a max contract is not worth one of our starters. If Detroit wants to keep him themselves on a max contract let them go that direction. We can look for bench help elsewhere. I am definitely in favor of bring Monroe here if we only give up bench players and a draft pick though. I agree its likely thats not enough; but it doesn't hurt to make the offer. Teams have done many sign and trade for less.
I voted that I would trade both Batum and Lopez if we had to. The reason is, the point is to get better through consolidation trades. Plus, I thought I'd rile up this thread. http://bkref.com/tiny/CJOFL
I'd rather have Monroe than Lopez, but not at the max salary that he's seeking. Monroe would fit nicely with Aldridge, since Monroe likes to work as low post threat while Aldridge is comfortable shooting mid-range jumpers and working from the high post. They wouldn't get in each others' way as the mess in Detroit unfolded. But if you get Monroe, you're basically locking in the core as Monroe, Lillard, Batum and Aldridge...the Blazers aren't going to have any flexibility again any time soon. That might be okay, but the Blazers' big problem was defense, not offense, so giving up any chance to adjust the core to bring in an upgrade on offense but a further detriment on defense seems like a mistake. Lopez is also a pretty good player and not much older. He could probably be a core piece without requiring an anvil of a contract.
Browsing a lot of Pistons related forums there is a consensus on who they think they can realistically get for Monroe: Wesley Matthews + Robin Lopez This, IMO, is a talent upgrade that you'd have to do. You trade two very solid role players for a 24 y/o Center with All-Star potential. He's already a double-double guy, proven (efficient) scorer - I think he takes his game to another level playing 3rd option with Lillard and LA. With the passing/unselfishness of Batum/Aldridge/Lillard/Monroe - The Blazers are very Spurs-like with this unique core.
The problem is that he's a defensive minus and the Blazers were already one of the best offensive teams in the league last year. Improving the offense slightly (when you're already around the top-five, the upside potential is smaller) while weakening the defense further probably won't get them closer to the championship. Now if it were someone like Roy Hibbert, who doesn't have a lot of offensive skill but improves the Blazers' defense a lot, I'd be much more interested in the Blazers investing another max deal.
Talent upgrades and asset acquisition are generally a good thing. You never know: if we get Monroe, despite his poor defense, a year from now we could be trading him for Gasol or Hibbert.
Eh, not really. I know people like to go off of OffRtg, but if you look at where our team ranks in FG% we're smack dab in the middle - #15, right between the Lakers and Knicks. Good offensive teams don't have such a mediocre shooting percentage. Adding Monroe would be adding an offensive element that we don't really have. Monroe made about 50 more shots within 5' feet of the hoop than LMA attempted. Monroe would give us a legit low-post presence every time down the floor. I don't know how he does with kicking the ball back out of the post, but if he can do that he'll create far more space for our shooters than LMA does from the high-post. And if LMA can crash the weakside offensive boards (like he did early in the HOU series) when Monroe is taking the shot then he could maintain/increase on both his scoring and rebounding averages, and see an increase in his FG%.
All things being equal, yes I would to either, but for the sake of this thread it would have to be Lopez because loosing Batum would create to big of a hole. All thing is all things arn't equal however, and Monroe will make way more than Lopez and we would have to give someone up to get him. How much better is Monroe than Lopez anyway? I dont think its a huge upgrade, especially when considering salaries. Then if you look at our other options of adding a player without trading either Batum or Lopez, like say Hawes, then its a no brainerr and a no to either trade.
Field goal percentage removes the impact of offensive rebounding. I don't see any real reason why points per possession wouldn't be the best measure of a team's offensive ability. If you're converting possessions into points at a better clip than everyone else, then you're a top offensive team.
Primarily because it fits the narrative he wants to go with. If it works better to downplay a player he dislikes, then he's happy to use advanced stats.
