Felt it deserved its own thread: LMA, now THAT's how you play basketball

No.

I think there's a point where you actually want to keep players, and not just sell high on everyone, for someone younger, to eventually have to sell high on them.

 

I'd probably still keep him as well as I've never been one to be so highly critical of him like a lot of others here. The question is more for those that are so highly critical of him saying he's soft/sucks/overpaid/etc.

 

But if he keeps it up for another couple of months as you hypothesize for your question, then he won't have just done it against 3 terrible teams with terrible front lines. At that point, there's much more reason to believe that he may keep it up long-term.

 

They'll play plenty of terrible teams over that stretch I'm sure so his numbers could still be way up. He could still dominate the bad teams while being more 'normal' against the better ones. In the end his averages would still be up and teams could bite.

 

I suspect teams' scouts pay at least as much attention to other players in the league as fans of the team in question. Certainly if I were in charge of a team considering a big offer for a guy like Aldridge, I'd want to look at (or have my scouts look at) the game tape for the period of his great play with special emphasis on the better defensive teams (both better overall defenses and better interior defenses). I don't know how teams actually function internally, but that seems like common sense to me.

 

It would be but not only do some teams have terrible scouts/don't scout as well as others, they also as an organization could be prone to making stupid decisions like giving Travis Outlaw 5/35. A lot of it boils down to how desperate/impatient some teams are and that can play a big factor. Some team can can look at their own roster and say they're a PF away from contending and convince themselves Aldridge is that piece because it sounds good and then they act on it.

A lot of dumb decisions are regularly made in the NBA.