It's a fine strategy, but if you trade LA, you have one star and whoever you get back. So instead of needing one star, we need two (or one and time for the second to grow up after being drafted). We'd still need to somehow lure a free agent (Melo? ) here to get that third star, and he'd have to be on LA's level to keep us from losing ground. On days when I'm feeling generous, I think Minny's an ineptly run franchise, and Love could help us. I still smell Shareef Abdur Rahim on Love, but the idea that trading LA for Love and Minny's pick if it's high enough would be either disastrous, or perfect. Again, this is a pure thought experiment... fantasy basketball almost.
First you have to assess the risk of LMA leaving. He still might, Lillard blows a knee, he's gone. A few injuries next year, Rolo, Batum, etc, the Blazers miss the playoffs and LMA is gone. If LMA even gets the hint of a rebuild he is out the door. The person you have to talk to is Lillard. He's been around the league two years now, he wants to be a champion, he has the drive to be great. But he also knows what kind of player(s) he needs to get to the next level. You need to consult with Lillard. If he says he can do better with a more banging, closer to the basket PF or a 3pt shooting pf like Love you have to consider it.
It makes some sense business-wise, but there's no way the Blazers do this, assuming Aldridge wants to say (and it seems he does). Olshey would be crucified.
Yeah, you only do this if LA calls a secret meeting and says he wants to play where there's more glitz and exposure.
No because I feel Portland is close to contending. They got a window right now. Isn't that the goal? Why close it?
I think Neils plans should be partly based on the potential that Lamarcus leaves. In other words he should be trying to land another star that will make the team better now while Lamarcus is here but also will be here along with Lillard should Lamarcus leave.
Unless Love is 100% to re-sign with Portland, and hes already left the state once for a bigger market, that move would be one of the dumbest trades in NBA history.
I would say that I am worried about a 30+ year-old LaMarcus taking up 25 million for five years. His game is not predicated on athletic ability so I think he'll continue to perform well, but when I read that we could offer 5 years/$100 million after next summer, I admit, I cringed. I really feel only a handful of players are worth that money. If Aldridge beasts on the block next season, I have no problem with it. But too often, he plays on the perimeter and he's not as automatic as Nowtizki playing that far away from the hoop.
I think the Blazers are more interested in their 'win now' position than they are setting themselves back three or four more years. But if LA walks into my er I mean Neil's office and says "i just cant do it anymore, I won't sign an extension". Then I think you seriously look at trading him for the pick.
Agreed. But I also think they won't back themselves into a financial corner making the assumption that LA will re-sign for sure.
No, bad idea. Coaches coach, players play and management manages. The GM job is to assemble the team not Lillard. Plus that puts Lillard in an awkward spot, does he stick up for his teammate? What if he doesn't but no acceptable offers are out there? Now the two stars have trust issues.
So if Olshey does what Lillard wants, and the team isn't as good, Olshey and Stotts are fired, and Lillard is stuck on a non-contender that he himself helped compose. I don't see how consulting him can at all be an option. He's not a personnel guy, he's a player.
