Would you trade Lillard?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Wizard Mentor said:
We are not getting from other teams any player that is as good as Lillard
Click to expand...

You can apply this logic to just about any trade, and conclude that no trade will ever happen.
Of course every team wants to "win" a trade. But the trick is to find a team that is overloaded at one position, and ideally has a player who they aren't using right or fear they will lose anyway. Also, we would trade for a player that isn't as good as Lillard yet (although better at defense I would hope) but has the potential to end up at least as good.

BUT ALSO:
Suppose we don't. Okay, then we crash. But it might be better to crash now rather than hover in mediocrity for years getting crappy picks.
 
Last edited:
The George Karl allstar snub FU tour may have had the opposite effect on Dame....let's hope not. There aren't many players I'd trade him for. I love the Greek Freak though...that kid is going to rock the NBA and is really young
 
Rhal said:
Rasta didn't you want to trade Lillard for the #2 pick two years ago because Russell was going to be oh so much better then Lillard
Click to expand...
Damn - somebody with a good memory on the board.
Okay, here's my defense:
1. I was going by what everyone was saying. I didn't actually watch Ohio State. And people RAVED about Russell.
2. I didn't say I wanted to do it, I just floated the suggestion. (You could call that suggestion "a floater".)
3. I would never say that now. (Not just because Russell isn't good - he's actually improving at a steady rate, although he'll never be a good defender - but he just seems to be a self-satisfied dick.)
 
riverman said:
The George Karl allstar snub FU tour may have had the opposite effect on Dame....let's hope not. There aren't many players I'd trade him for. I love the Greek Freak though...that kid is going to rock the NBA and is really young
Click to expand...
Milwaukee would hang up in a heartbeat.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
You can apply this logic to just about any trade, and conclude that no trade will ever happen.
Of course every team wants to "win" a trade. But the trick is to find a team that is overloaded at one position, and ideally has a player who they aren't using right or fear they will lose anyway. Also, we would trade for a player that isn't as good as Lillard yet (although better at defense I would hope) but has the potential to end up at least as good.

BUT ALSO:
Suppose we don't. Okay, then we crash. But it might be better to crash now rather than hover in mediocrity for years getting crappy picks.
Click to expand...
No.
The top 10 players in the league aren't going to be traded, period.
 
Minstrel said:
That's true and impressive--but we're talking about overall performance and this year. Being one of the youngest to X points and Y assists is pretty cool, but doesn't really impact how he compares this year to a host of other talented guards. And factoids like that never captured overall value (including scoring efficiency, defense, etc).
Click to expand...

How about injuries?

How about shitty teammates?

Was Westbrook no longer one of the top 10 in the league when he was out with an injury? When Michael Jordan was coming back from retirement and he was rusty, was he not one of the top 10 shooting guards in the league?
 
The simple answer is no. There are multiple reasons, the 1st is of the players I would trade him for the Team on the other end wouldn't be be overly open to making the deal, not because Damian's value is low but because we are talking about face of the franchise guys who typically just don't get traded unless they ask to be moved. The next thing is, Dame is just about the epitome of today's NBA PG. You aren't going to fix they undersized aspect of our backcourt by trading the PG, unles you bring back a 6'5"+ PG to play alongside CJ somehow, because IMO CJ is not long term PG. The flaw I see is not in trying to use Dame and CJ together, it's in trying to have our own "Draymond" aka a SF who can play PF. I think swapping Plumlee for Nurkic will be a nice step in the right direction but several more steps are needed.

IMO we still need a backup PG, preferably a taller one, Rubio came to mind briefly, he's not a shooter, but his defense is better than advertised. If you can bring him off the bench at the point and let Dame and/or CJ play sg alongside.... Also would have to run Layman out there for shooting. It's a thought, and its not a sexy one, I imagine most in here will say hell no, and I'm not sold myself, but it's intriguing, especially if Turner is the starter.
 
Natebishop3 said:
How about injuries?

How about shitty teammates?
Click to expand...

I addressed shitty teammates in my initial response to you (as a credit to Lillard). Injuries can certainly reduce a player's ability--but that's just unfortunate, it doesn't change the reality of how he's playing. And the truth is, he's actually not playing worse this season than last. He's actually scoring more efficiently this season than last and his turnover rate is down. But his defense is worse, balancing that out. If you want to attribute his worse defense to a persistent injury that isn't holding him back at all offensively, you can.

The point is, I think you can easily argue his relative positional ranking this season between around 5 and 11 without being a hater or a homer. Maybe his defense will improve next year and he'll push himself clearly to #5 or higher. That would be fantastic. I like Lillard a lot.
 
Apparently Stan Van Gundy is getting pissed off at both Drummond and Jackson. Now, I hate Jackson's game (and so do a LOT of Pistons fans) but what if we could somehow get Drummond by giving up Lillard? Would people go for that? Because Drummond was the ONE guy picked after Lillard that people say might possibly have been a better pick.

How 'bout this? (the rare 3-way trade where everybody is worse off!)
(Incorporates a rumored Jackson-for-Rubio swap as a way of redirecting Jackson. But Detroit would be kind of hosed here. EXCEPT: they finally free up big minutes for their star-in-waiting - BOBAN - and Van Gundy is not afraid to just walk away from players he doesn't like (see Josh Smith - who at the time was actually considered a good player)
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Apparently Stan Van Gundy is getting pissed off at both Drummond and Jackson. Now, I hate Jackson's game (and so do a LOT of Pistons fans) but what if we could somehow get Drummond by giving up Lillard? Would people go for that? Because Drummond was the ONE guy picked after Lillard that people say might possibly have been a better pick.

How 'bout this? (the rare 3-way trade where everybody is worse off!)
(Incorporates a rumored Jackson-for-Rubio swap as a way of redirecting Jackson. But Detroit would be kind of hosed here. EXCEPT: they finally free up big minutes for their star-in-waiting - BOBAN - and Van Gundy is not afraid to just walk away from players he doesn't like (see Josh Smith - who at the time was actually considered a good player)
Click to expand...

That's probably the most reasonable trade scenario I've seen posted here. I'm not a huge fan of Drummond, as he still hasn't become much of an offensive weapon, but I think he could play off McCollum reasonably well. Even if Drummond never becomes a real post threat, he could make hay as a roll man if McCollum and the next Portland point guard can master tossing lobs. And his defense and rebounding are excellent.
 
The problem for the Pistons is that they've been sort of build around Drummond. So if you remove him they (in all likelihood) go to shit. But Drummond is kind of a big tease. He's not the rim protector you'd think he should be. And he's a historically bad free-throw shooter.
 
I would only consider trading Dame for a guy like LBJ or a Paul George caliber player. How about Kristaps Prozingis? Probably not
 
Last edited:
I still believe that either Lillard or CJ must be traded because of their very poor defense. But, if you think there is no way the team trades Lillard (probably true) and CJ (probably also true until NO is replaced), then do you think surrounding them with three good defenders at the 3-5 could work well enough to make this team great? Any examples of that that we have seen in league history? I honestly can't recall any. Thomas and Dumars were short, but Dumars was a heck of a defender. Wall and Beal each have an inch on our guards, but Wall is a good defender.

Thomas and Smart (Boston) are probably the closest, with Smart being a slightly better defender and a bit bigger than CJ--and Boston has three plus defenders behind them (Crowder, Johnson, Horford). Is Boston, not Golden State, what we should be shooting for (assuming we keep Dame and CJ)?
 
Reep said:
I still believe that either Lillard or CJ must be traded because of their very poor defense. But, if you think there is no way the team trades Lillard (probably true) and CJ (probably also true until NO is replaced), then do you think surrounding them with three good defenders at the 3-5 could work well enough to make this team great? Any examples of that that we have seen in league history? I honestly can't recall any. Thomas and Dumars were short, but Dumars was a heck of a defender. Wall and Beal each have an inch on our guards, but Wall is a good defender.

Thomas and Smart (Boston) are probably the closest, with Smart being a slightly better defender and a bit bigger than CJ--and Boston has three plus defenders behind them (Crowder, Johnson, Horford). Is Boston, not Golden State, what we should be shooting for (assuming we keep Dame and CJ)?
Click to expand...
Tony Parker has never been a good defender and he won Finals MVP. But I don't recall if there was another sub-par defender in the starting line-up.
 
Reep said:
I still believe that either Lillard or CJ must be traded because of their very poor defense. But, if you think there is no way the team trades Lillard (probably true) and CJ (probably also true until NO is replaced), then do you think surrounding them with three good defenders at the 3-5 could work well enough to make this team great? Any examples of that that we have seen in league history? I honestly can't recall any. Thomas and Dumars were short, but Dumars was a heck of a defender. Wall and Beal each have an inch on our guards, but Wall is a good defender.

Thomas and Smart (Boston) are probably the closest, with Smart being a slightly better defender and a bit bigger than CJ--and Boston has three plus defenders behind them (Crowder, Johnson, Horford). Is Boston, not Golden State, what we should be shooting for (assuming we keep Dame and CJ)?
Click to expand...

Talent is the big key here. Boston just has much more talent across 12 guys than Portland does.
But to answer your question. Iverson(6') + Snow(6'3) backcourt went 1-0 on the Lakers in 2001 NBA finals. Their only loss of that post season.
 
blue9 said:
Tony Parker has never been a good defender and he won Finals MVP. But I don't recall if there was another sub-par defender in the starting line-up.
Click to expand...

Parker wasn't a notably bad defender until the past few years.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Damn - somebody with a good memory on the board.
Okay, here's my defense:
1. I was going by what everyone was saying. I didn't actually watch Ohio State. And people RAVED about Russell.
2. I didn't say I wanted to do it, I just floated the suggestion. (You could call that suggestion "a floater".)
3. I would never say that now. (Not just because Russell isn't good - he's actually improving at a steady rate, although he'll never be a good defender - but he just seems to be a self-satisfied dick.)
Click to expand...
Memory's not that great because I thought you were adamant about trading Lillard for Russell and not just floating and idea around.
 
honkicracker said:
Talent is the big key here. Boston just has much more talent across 12 guys than Portland does.
But to answer your question. Iverson(6') + Snow(6'3) backcourt went 1-0 on the Lakers in 2001 NBA finals. Their only loss of that post season.
Click to expand...

But snow was a plus defender, right? Also, AI was good at steals. Agree on Bostons talent though.
 
blue9 said:
Tony Parker has never been a good defender and he won Finals MVP. But I don't recall if there was another sub-par defender in the starting line-up.
Click to expand...

He played with Hill part of that and I think always had a plus defender next to him. And SA had the best team defense for a decade.

The key will be surrounding Dame and CJ with very good defenders. maybe that would be enough, but I think it is risky.
 
Lillard for Drummond would be a bad deal. Drummond's game is too limited, if we are going to trade him for a center it would be someone like Cousins, Towns or Embiid who can do it all instead of one-dimensional player like Drummond.
 
Reep said:
But snow was a plus defender, right? Also, AI was good at steals. Agree on Bostons talent though.
Click to expand...

Depends what stat you look at on AI/Snow being "good defenders". Especially during the year they made the finals.
While not as good as either of them, CJ/Lillard by some stats are technically + defenders.

However if you look at the eye test from that 00-01 team the 70ish games snow/iverson played together weren't the best defensively.
The others made up for their lack of ability on that end.
McKie/Hill/Ratliff/Lynch/Mutumbo(in the playoffs) were really the anchors defensively for that team.

Spurs/Cavs started some pretty small backcourts for awhile there.
West/Williams, Johnson/delnegro.
One had LBJ, other had Robinson. So there are examples of small backcourts making deep playoff runs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top