LMA Trade Talk

[Chinook]

Man, the Thunder are the poster child for MY argument! They let Durant go for nada.

Nah. They have role-players galore. But they can't do it with one star. That was the end result, KD trade or.

[mo7888]

The thing about the LMA trade talk that I don't get is, why now? We match up very well against GS in the West and against Cleveland in the East, so why would we want to trade him before we let this thing play out? If we get to the end of the season and LMA is wanting out then we can revisit it this summer. I understand the argument that says he's worth less in the summer with 1 year left on his contract but (to funnel my inner Chinook here for a second) you have to consider the value of having him on the court the rest of the season..and that is a REAL value. Also, looking ahead to the summer...if he wants out and we try to accommodate him by moving him to a team he likes there may be more options than we know when we get to the draft. So, let's just be patient for now...

[Chinook]

So, are you saying the Spurs would be better off to trade LMA for Melo?

Yes, I think the Spurs with an incorporated Melo at the four would beat Cleveland. Melo's a much better player than people give him credit for.

[Chinook]

The thing about the LMA trade talk that I don't get is, why now? We match up very well against GS in the West and against Cleveland in the East, so why would we want to trade him before we let this thing play out?

There's not a logical answer to that, just a bunch of illogical ones.

[sasaint]

Sorry, Manu4tres has been very vocal about the trade, and I know of you and ceperez not wanting to get LMA in the first place (Harlem, Apalisoc have been vocal about that too).. so you see there are many who didn't want LMA to begin with... but strictly championing the trade LMA cause, Manu4tres is the banner bearer. (I know there are others, but can't recall, some are not even regular posters... anyways, I'll put your name in the list lol)


I am just going by raybies idea... one includes a pick, that is clearly the future... a young prospect (he's not going to be KAT-level, he's going to be someone with potential and flaws too, hopefully with a high ceiling but will need time to get there) ... and a roleplayer that can play right away... That is a rebuild to me. There are no immediate stars in that package, and you have to hope either the prospect or the pick turn into a significant contributor at some point. The roleplayer is a roleplayer.... I don't see a package like that helping put the Spurs over the top this season IMO>

P.S. - I've been saying that it was Kawhi who, unfortunately, was about to become "the bridge."

[SAGirl]

Man, the Thunder are the poster child for MY argument! They let Durant go for nada.

He was the kind of player that you risk for... (Kawhi is in that tier)... But they did trade stars like Harden and significant contributors like Ibaka...

[MaNu4Tres]

Melo would put the Spurs over Cleveland, even at the expense of LMA. Don't let the narrative get in the way of reality there. So that should help you understand why LMA isn't on the block. All he has to do is pull his head out of his ass, and he's going off for 30/15 against the best teams in the league no matter what they try to do to stop him. Amir or Cole or Miles aren't doing that. You trade LMA, you get the Thunder now. Role-players don't win you real games unless they're super role-players like Danny and Iggy, and even those guys can't do it very often. If you were talking about moving LMA for two (2013-2015) Green-level players at PG and PF, maybe there's something to talk about. But there isn't when the guys aren't going to even be better than Lee and Dedmon.

You win with stars, even if they are faded stars and still-nebulous stars. They don't have to be top-five players, but they damned-sure need to be top-20 guys or at least be able to play like that in a way that Duncan and Manu were in 2013 and 2014.

I disagree with too much of this to post. I have a few meetings to go to here soon. We'll just agree to disagree and we'll let this play out. Believe what you want in regards to him not being traded.

Another threat or creator from the perimeter player and an efficient finisher/defender at PF >> the type of offense LaMarcus brings + Parker starting.

[Chinook]

He was the kind of player that you risk for... (Kawhi is in that tier)... But they did trade stars like Harden and significant contributors like Ibaka...

And they have Adams, Sabonis and Oladipo to show for it. Shoulda just let them walk, especially considering the contracts they just gave out.

[sasaint]

Nah. They have role-players galore. But they can't do it with one star. That was the end result, KD trade or.

They received nada for Durant, himself.

[SAGirl]

P.S. - I've been saying that it was Kawhi who, unfortunately, was about to become "the bridge."

They would be OKC this season .. with some guys for the future... IMO. Really what still makes me consider the trade is the fact that they need a quality guard and will have to upgrade somehow, at some point and I think if they underachieve this season it won't be on LMA, it will be the guard situation.... just IMO...

[MaNu4Tres]

If scoring is the only elite skill of your star player, you want his scoring to be a weapon to make teammates better. Aldridges' offense isn't that. Even Dirk made his teammates better because he could put pressure at the rim with his drives when faced with a hard close outs. Plus, he could extend his range from 3 point land w/ great volume to where it would make his TS% very high and valuable. Aldridge shouldn't be compared to Harden or Durant either just because they were " stars" too. You have to be able to break down the skill-sets to figure out true value instead of just looking at his All-Star appearance or sheer " points per game" and going by that.

[Chinook]

I disagree with too much of this to post. I have a few meetings to go to here soon. We'll just agree to disagree and we'll let this play out. Believe what you want in regards to him not being traded.

Another threat or creator from the perimeter player and an efficient finisher/defender at PF >> the type of offense LaMarcus brings + Parker starting.

As long as Kawhi brings his type of offense, the SL won't be free-flowing again. You aren't going to be able to make it with only one guy who is able to get his own shots. And adding like Bledsoe and Chriss instead is definitely going to lower the ceiling. That's a team that loses to the Warriors 8/10 times and never gets better. You keep the guy who can drop 26/14 on GS without it being a surprise.

You just have to get off this shtick. First it was you agreeing with Lowe at it was possible (rational and not worthy of much criticism). Then you tried to use some of the worst logic ever to justify why it should happen. Now you're onto talking about mysterious sources that give you this smug air about it happening. I don't even care if the sources are real; it's a shtick. I don't know what the next evolution of it is going to be. Maybe fake tweets?

[sasaint]

They would be OKC this season .. with some guys for the future... IMO. Really what still makes me consider the trade is the fact that they need a quality guard and will have to upgrade somehow, at some point and I think if they underachieve this season it won't be on LMA, it will be the guard situation.... just IMO...

Isn't that the point? They need guys for the immediate future, which they currently lack - as well as for the present. Question: Do you think with the Spurs' current backcourt (heck, team) that they are legit contenders this season? With Timmy's unexpectedly sudden breakdown, last season was just the beginning. If Tony doesn't even reach the level of "serviceable" this season (laying aside Manu's current level of play), the Spurs will have stayed too late at the parade. They appear to be in reactionary mode, rather than pro-active mode. That slope is starting to look pretty slippery to me.

[Chinook]

They received nada for Durant, himself.

But they would've sucked regardless right now, and they would've not been so close to a Finals trip last season. He's a terrible, terrible example. Stars will walk from time to time. You can't out predict that. But you play this GM game to compete for les, and you don't continuously cap your ceiling just to lower your risk.

[MaNu4Tres]

As long as Kawhi brings his type of offense, the SL won't be free-flowing again. You aren't going to be able to make it with only one guy who is able to get his own shots. And adding like Bledsoe and Chriss instead is definitely going to lower the ceiling. That's a team that loses to the Warriors 8/10 times and never gets better. You keep the guy who can drop 26/14 on GS without it being a surprise.

You just have to get off this shtick. First it was you agreeing with Lowe at it was possible (rational and not worthy of much criticism). Then you tried to use some of the worst logic ever to justify why it should happen. Now you're onto talking about mysterious sources that give you this smug air about it happening. I don't even care if the sources are real; it's a shtick. I don't know what the next evolution of it is going to be. Maybe fake tweets?

No shtick at all.

No offense, but I'm good with my logic over yours and with what I was told yesterday validated a few things. That's why I addressed it again.

I just don't have time to post as much as you do. Quality is always better over quan y.

We will see what happens.

[Chinook]

If scoring is the only elite skill of your star player, you want his scoring to be a weapon to make teammates better. Aldridges' offense isn't that. Even Dirk made his teammates better because he could put pressure at the rim with his drives when faced with a hard close outs. Plus, he could extend his range from 3 point land w/ great volume to where it would make his TS% very high and valuable. Aldridge shouldn't be compared to Harden or Durant either just because they were " stars" too. You have to be able to break down the skill-sets to figure out true value instead of just looking at his All-Star appearance or sheer " points per game" and going by that.

"Even Dirk" like the dude isn't a HoFer. You want your star player to be able to score even when the other throws everything at trying to stop you. LMA has proven he can do that. More than the abstract Xs and O's that you want to talk about, you need bucket-gettters. That's it. You're not going to win a le by having nothing but super-role players, no matter how good your gameplan is. Things will break down no matter what, and you need your bucket-getters to save the day. With the 2014 Spurs, Tim, Tony and Manu were still bucket-getters, and that made the rest of it work, especially after Kawhi became his own bucket-getter. The Spurs have a severe dearth of bucket-getters now. You have Kawhi, LMA and Pau when he tries. You take out LMA for a non-bucket-getter, and you have no chance.

[sasaint]

But they would've sucked regardless right now, and they would've not been so close to a Finals trip last season. He's a terrible, terrible example. Stars will walk from time to time. You can't out predict that. But you play this GM game to compete for les, and you don't continuously cap your ceiling just to lower your risk.

I'll just say that your crystal ball is much clearer than mine. I don't know what kind of return the Thunder might have received for Durant nor how that would have altered the team's fortunes this season or last. The indisputable fact is that they got nothing of value in return.

[Chinook]

No shtick at all.

No offense, but I'm good with my logic over yours and with what I was told yesterday validated a few things. That's why I addressed it again.

That's a shtick. Your logic is just not correct. There are too many counter examples. You can have all the confidence you want, but it won't make up for the fact that it's not a reasonable argument.

But this whole "I know something you don't know" is a shtick. You're trying to get people to ask you what you know for no reason other than to feel good about yourself. And that's whatever -- it's your life -- but it's still a shtick, especially since I don't recall you breaking things before.

[MaNu4Tres]

"Even Dirk" like the dude isn't a HoFer. You want your star player to be able to score even when the other throws everything at trying to stop you. LMA has proven he can do that. More than the abstract Xs and O's that you want to talk about, you need bucket-gettters. That's it. You're not going to win a le by having nothing but super-role players, no matter how good your gameplan is. Things will break down no matter what, and you need your bucket-getters to save the day. With the 2014 Spurs, Tim, Tony and Manu were still bucket-getters, and that made the rest of it work, especially after Kawhi became his own bucket-getter. The Spurs have a severe dearth of bucket-getters now. You have Kawhi, LMA and Pau when he tries. You take out LMA for a non-bucket-getter, and you have no chance.

And in 2014, Tim, Tony and Manu made their teammates better with the way they scored. They never isolated themselves into contested fade aways or long 2's with significant volume. It was always attacking the rim from the PnR or like Tim from catching the ball in the pocket in his rolls to the basket and either passing the ball to the weakside corner 3, getting a lay up inside or passing it off to Splitter or Diaw in the dunker spot. At times, yes Spurs would have to dump it to Tim at the end of a clock to manufacture something like the OKC game 6, but those opportunities were few and far in between everything else.

[Chinook]

I'll just say that your crystal ball is much clearer than mine. I don't know what kind of return the Thunder might have received for Durant nor how that would have altered the team's fortunes this season or last. The indisputable fact is that they got nothing of value in return.

No, it's not. That's what I'm saying. They got a deep-playoffs trip for it. They should've gotten a Finals trip for it. That is the actual value of everything GMs are trying to do. Whatever they got in a trade is supposed to work toward that end. They could've gotten all three Brooklyn picks, and that still wouldn't mean anything if those guys don't get them deep playoff runs and chances at les.

But yeah, it's very safe to assume they weren't going to beat the Spurs had they traded Durant before the WCSF. Top-five players almost as a rule have significantly more on-court value than trades can ever realize.

[MaNu4Tres]

That's a shtick. Your logic is just not correct. There are too many counter examples. You can have all the confidence you want, but it won't make up for the fact that it's not a reasonable argument.

But this whole "I know something you don't know" is a shtick. You're trying to get people to ask you what you know for no reason other than to feel good about yourself. And that's whatever -- it's your life -- but it's still a shtick, especially since I don't recall you breaking things before.

That's your opinion, which has been absurd before and I'm sure it will again soon. I'm not breaking any news, I'm just saying what I heard makes me believe he will be traded this year. At the end of the day, Spurs won't trade him for nothing, it will have to a good deal for both sides -- which is hard to accomplish these days. So we'll see.

[Chinook]

And in 2014, Tim, Tony and Manu made their teammates better with the way they scored.

You were on ST back them, weren't you? Those later two guys were definitely catching heat from fans for their team impact back then. Manu and Tim helped their teams in the sense that they added to the score, but for Duncan it was all about how he was feeling, because he was already being left out to shoot jumpers and having issues finishing many nights. And Manu being reckless was costing the team games sometimes. When they were on, sure, they were making guys better. But they weren't doing it all the time.

At times, yes Spurs would have to dump it to Tim at the end of a clock to manufacture something like the OKC game 6, but those opportunities were few and far in between everything else.

Yes, but that was Duncan's true value on offense, that he could be a 6/10 95 percent of the time and jump to a 10/10 the rest of the time. Without that 10/10 potential, the Spurs don't win a le, game-planning be damned.

[Chinook]

That's your opinion, which has been absurd before and I'm sure it will again soon. I'm not breaking any news, I'm just saying what I heard makes me believe he will be traded this year. At the end of the day, Spurs won't trade him for nothing, it will have to a good deal for both sides -- which is hard to accomplish these days. So we'll see.

Yes, he might be traded, and if he is, you'll probably bump a whole bunch of threads. But no, it's not my opinion that trading guys years in advance has not been helpful. It is your opinion that the Spurs would be low-balled if they tried to move him next year. I'm not saying it's a myth that expiring stars are worth less. I am saying that in terms of trade value, it's just not a sound argument to make. The gap between having multiple years and having one year left is the gap between being untouchable and being movable. As far as what actually gets spent once you move them, it's pretty much the same.

[sasaint]

No, it's not. That's what I'm saying. They got a deep-playoffs trip for it. They should've gotten a Finals trip for it. That is the actual value of everything GMs are trying to do. Whatever they got in a trade is supposed to work toward that end. They could've gotten all three Brooklyn picks, and that still wouldn't mean anything if those guys don't get them deep playoff runs and chances at les.

But yeah, it's very safe to assume they weren't going to beat the Spurs had they traded Durant before the WCSF. Top-five players almost as a rule have significantly more on-court value than trades can ever realize.

Man, are you intentionally setting up straw-men? In an earlier post you seemed to suggest that moving LMA would only net "non-bucket-getters" in return. Are you suggesting here that Durant would have necessarily netted the three Brooklyn picks? Again, your crystal ball is far clearer than mine. But I am good with that, and I freely admit mine is mostly cloudy.

Bottom line is that you and I both doubt LMA will be moved in-season, and I am sure we would both be shocked at that eventuality. I just think it would be a potentially good move and you, a bad one.

[MaNu4Tres]

Yes, he might be traded, and if he is, you'll probably bump a whole bunch of threads. But no, it's not my opinion that trading guys years in advance has not been helpful. It is your opinion that the Spurs would be low-balled if they tried to move him next year. I'm not saying it's a myth that expiring stars are worth less. I am saying that in terms of trade value, it's just not a sound argument to make. The gap between having multiple years and having one year left is the gap between being untouchable and being movable. As far as what actually gets spent once you move them, it's pretty much the same.

If you were another team, would you give up significant assets or a package for a 1 yr rental or half yr rental of LaMarcus next yr?