One Aldridge Trade Thread to Rule Them All

I am all for waiting it out, but if you do then sending Aldridge to place where he does not want to go, towards the end of his contract , would not be smart for the team getting him.

IMO there are very few scenarios that will work. Now or later

 

...making him very valuable to Houston. He's also the guy that recruited Dwight Howard and their only SF that I can see. I don't think the trade makes sense for Houston.

I also don't believe that Parsons would really that great for another team. I'm suspicious of a player who wasn't a world-beater when playing in the French League (yes, I mean Parsons - that's where he was before Houston called him back) suddenly emerging. It's possible, but I think he may have benefited from Houston's breakneck pace scoring system.

Also: just look at him. Do you honestly believe he's a good defender? I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but... just look at him!

If they were combined into one player, maybe. But that's like saying Gerald Wallace + Kyle Korver > Lebron because one shoots better and the other defends better.

It's not the worst trade idea, but I don't see anybody going for it.

 

Batum>>> Parsons

Parsons' contract>>> Batum's contract

I'd still rather have Batum

 

Parsons did indeed have a very good year. And is signed to a ridiculously low contract. But that means he's going to think he's owed a HUGE contract next time to make up for the bargain he's been up to this point.

Maybe we're all deceived about Batum, but I still see him as more talented and as a possible all-star, particularly if Aldridge is traded. I just don't think you give up Batum just to make an Aldridge trade work. And I think Houston is not going to do a trade where they have to give up Parsons, who complements their setup, even more now they have Howard. Also, while we're using BasketballReference, let's see how they do Head to Head...

Finally, can you see Parsons doing this:

[video=youtube;qHeLM-PgGyk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHeLM-PgGyk[/video]

Finally, finally: nut punches. Nic gives 'em, Parsons receives them - from his own teammates!

[video=youtube;KfAscH_l0ps]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfAscH_l0ps[/video]

(With this and the Dee Bost thing it's going to look like I'm obsessed - but it's not me! It's YouTube - they keep popping up when I just type in the names.)

 

But you're saying WE should prefer Parsons/Asik to Aldridge? Because we could do the Batum for Monroe thing independently, so essentially we're acting as if Parsons/Asik is the best we could get for Aldridge. And that's assuming we would even want to do the Batum for Monroe, which I don't think we should. So this trade is based on two ideas that I contest:

1. Asik + Parsons is the best we could get for Aldridge
2. Monroe for Batum is a good trade for us.

Putting two bad ideas together does not make one good one. Yes, each trade makes sense - for the other team.

 

Maybe it's the Suns we should be trading with.

 

As I said, it's not the worst. But (to summarize):

1. it brings in players that their respective team likes and is happy with just to facilitate a trade for another guy. I don't think that's good practice. If this was a fantasy distribution of players it might even make sense, but I think a good GM takes loyalty into account, and the Rockets owe Parsons a lot.
2. I don't think Monroe is a good player to have. The Pistons have sucked epically while he put up good numbers. That smacks of Shareef Abdur-Rahim/poor man's Al Jefferson.
3. Our need for Asik has diminished. It would be nice to have him, but he's not filling as huge a hole as he would have before we got Lopez.
4. Asik is all-defense, no offense. Monroe is all-offense, no defense. You can hope that two one-dimensional players cancel each others' deficiencies out, but I'm not sure it would work.

I just don't see it happening. And I'm glad.

 

I concur. All great points. Repp'd.

 

This....

Lopez and asik would be a hell of a center combo. Robinson and Monroe is a strong rotation too. Monroe would be like Aldridge, in which he could move to center if we need more offense.

The parson/wright combo would be fine at sf too.

I agree that Detroit would probably swap stuckey and Lin.

 

There is three very important intangibles.

1.) Monroe will be a restricted free agent and we will most likely have him for another 4 years. Probably cheaper than Aldridge.

2.) we overpaid for batum and parson will be much cheaper.

3.) all the players coming back are younger, with the exception of asik. But all players totally fit Lillard and a pick and roll offense.

The one thing we really suck at is setting up a pick and roll. Asik and Monroe are really good at doing that. Parson is fucking deadly from the perimeter and actually likes to drive to the basket as well.

 

"Intangibles"? Do you mean "factors we haven't mentioned yet"?

As well he should be, because he's half the player.

If we overpaid for Batum, why would Detroit do it? Parsons will be cheaper until he isn't, because he's been underpaid. Again: shitty move by Houston if they do this. Not a good message. Not saying that would mean it wouldn't happen, but a good GM takes that into account.

One very important point about this trade: it doesn't come close to working salary-wise. Portland sends out $26.2M in salary and gets back $13.4M. Mess around on trade machine and see if you can make it work. (Detroit and Houston swapping Lin and Stuckey makes absolutely no difference to that imbalance because they earn the same, or at least, count the same against the cap.)

 

We would need to take back gooden from Detroit.

 

Charlie "gooden" Villanueva.

 

Yes!

 

Bill Simmons belatedly jumps on the bandwagon: