Lamarcus Aldridge probably WILL NOT sign extension with Portland.

If you can only sign one star, make it Lillard, he hasn't reached the top yet. But if you do let Lamarcus reach FA, you're going to have
to pay him the max. We can't afford to lose him.

 

At that point we'd have to S&T him - we can't afford to hogtie the team to LMA at $25M per season. Hello, Rashard Lewis! Letting him walk - while damaging - would be better than giving him a MAX contract.

 

#1 and fillers to Portland\ Aldridge to the Cavs?

 

He makes 16 now and I guarantee he won't be getting a pay cut.

 

Well if there ever was a time to deal LA to the Cavs this would be it. Embiid, Wiggins or Parker Lillard could have his choice in running mates. However, it won't happen.

 

Better for what? Your psyche, so you won't have to post 1000x a season about how LMA sucks?

 

None of the three you listed are franchise players at the level of a Blake Griffin/Anthony Davis/LMA, let alone a James or a Durant.

 

Wait, are we saying Franchise players at the time of the draft? Because Griffin and Davis, yes... but I honestly don't know if LMA was considered a franchise player at the time of the draft.

 

The Blazers need a strong commitment from Aldridge that he will resign with the Blazers after the 14/15 season. I don't think it's so cut & dry that you can just make up your mind. cmeese47 is right, If there is ever a time to deal LA this is it.

 

I mean right now. None of the rookies can step in and carry the team like LMA.

 

I have suspected that part of our decision to get Thomas was as a backup plan should Lamarcus choose to leave.

 

You add Tristan Thompson, Dion Waiters and Anderson Varejao to this team and it's still a good team but ya Lillard would be considered the only true star on the team.

 

Without LA, even adding a top rookie and those three, were not a playoff team in the west. There is lots of bitching about LA and a lot of it comes from him shooting the mid range so much but one thing LA does, and its very apparent when LA isnt playing, is creates mismatches by just being on the floor. Teams have to gameplan to stop him and throw doubles at him, even when doubles arent thrown at him there is usually a defender that is playing well off his man and looking to help out on LA.
Say what you want but unless we trade LA for love whatever we get for him is two steps back for maybe two steps forward later

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

The numbers you're throwing out aren't even half of a max. contract. You're talking about $40 million vs. $127 million.

No, it's not. Those numbers make absolutely no sense for Aldridge. The reason he's not going to sign the extension is to get more money, not less. With the extension, he'd get $55.5 million for 3 years, yet you're arguing that he'd be better off skipping the extension so he can become a free agent and sign for $40 - $48 million over 4 years. Seriously, is there a single person alive that would rather get paid $40 million for 4 years of work instead of $55.5 million for 3 years of work?

BNM

 

So, if we let him walk and got nothing in return, how many more games would we win the first year? How many more the second year? How many more the third year? How many more the 4th year?

To me, "better" is measured in wins, not Paul Allen's personal net worth. I don't care if Paul Allen overspends and has to pay luxury tax if it helps us win more games. I know there are cap implications to giving him a max. deal. But, there are ways to get around those.

Look at Brooklyn this year. The cap this year was $58.2 million and Brooklyn's payroll was $102.8 million. They were $44.8 million over the cap. They didn't spend their money wisely (and hired an inexperienced head coach), but that's not the point. The point is, if you're willing to open your wallet, there are ways around the salary cap. If we can lock up both Lillard and Aldridge long term, I LOVE to see Allen overspend to bring in veteran role players like Paul Pierce and Andrei Kirilenko.

I guarantee they'd win more games over a 5 year period, and get further in the playoffs, with a bloated payroll that includes two proven all-stars and some overpaid vets than they would with a lower payroll, one all-star and a bunch of unproven youngsters. Plus, having two all-stars locked up makes the team more attractive to vets who want to win. How many guys in the twilight of their career dream of playing for a losing team that's in full scale rebuilding mode?

BNM

 

I don't have any problem with LA. He's one of my favorites but I want commitment he's going to resign with the team.

 

The commitment is we can pay him more money and give him more years than any other team.

BNM

 

We shouldn't be looking at a trade involving a draft pick and expect that pick to replace LMA. But it's certainly reasonable that the team could be as good - or better - due to other changes to the roster and different shot distribution. Most people who are entertaining the idea of trading LMA agree that it would be for a lotto pick AND a very good player. So, in theory, we're getting a known commodity along with an unknown and we should be able to expect the known commodity to replace x% of LMA's stats. Can the rookie make up the difference? Maybe, maybe not. But even that doesn't complete the picture. The trade would also free up cap space allowing us to (a) sign another player or (b) make a lop-sided trade for another player. If we plug someone like David West (not saying he's available) in he immediately replaces nearly everything that we lose by trading LMA. So then we've got "West", Traded Player, Rookie - and that likely makes us better than just having LMA.
Also, it's not a given that we're a Playoff team next season WITH LMA. We had a BLAZING hot start to the season, which we coasted on to get into the Playoffs. If we had a more typical start we wouldn't have made the POs this year, and then we'd all be talking about how LMA was going to leave. Without Wes and LMA shooting well over their career percentages for Nov, and a few buzzer beaters by Dame, we're a lotto team this season and we're blowing things up. Will we have another hot start next season? Will we win more consistently so we don't need a hot start? Perhaps with a few key bench players we will. But it could just as easily turn out that we don't fulfill increased expectations.

 

Yah cause LMA was such a frachise player leading us on deep playoff runs before Lillard.

Funny thing is I do not recall anyone claiming Lillard would be a franchise changing PG. Yet, that is what happened, Lillard is far more valuable to this team than LMA.

You trade LA to Cleveland you have Lillard, Embiid, Parker or Wiggins, T-Rob, Batum and 35+ million in cap space money that could be spent signing someone like Kevin Love.

 

One thing we are forgetting is that if Lamarcus goes, a lot of fans might go with him.