Was Aldridge worth it, tbh?

[TrainOfThought5]

Quite possibly the best/worst thread of all time. Right up there with "gutless worms" and "Will manu ever score 20 again"

[Cowboys_Wear_Spurs]

Every veteran pretty much has struggled their first year with the Spurs. LMA is not looking like the exception. But his defense has vastly improved over last year. If his offense comes up to par, he will worth more than what he is getting.

I reserve my take on first year players until season end to issue final verdicts on the season. A Month and half is a very small sample size.

Midseason verdict, LMA is well on his to be worth more than his current contract. Definitely was beasting last night on one of the better defensive PF in the league.

[houston spurs fan]

OP never shows his face on a Spurs win or when they do something positive. Only when they lose or to say something negative he views as profound. LMA has an off night Friday or Saturday and this place will be buzzing.

[BOHOLANO#21]

Western Conference Player of the Week ers!

[baseline bum]

The final "goalpost" is likely to be how he performs against Golden State in a potential WCF matchup. Given LMA's history, it's probable he underwhelms. But as I've said before, he was always "worth it." The alternative would've been crying about Tiago "It Still Hurts" Splitter in street clothes and then watching Kawhi piss away his prime playing with retreads and projects, suffering 1st and 2nd round exit after exit.

Yeah, I mean in the worst case LMA is still an enormous upgrade over Splitter.

[SpursFan86]

Curious as to whether anyone thinks his recent play has some to do with Duncan being out. Such a small sample size so I hesitate to take too much from it (I also didn't get to watch 2 of the games over the past week), but it's sort of interesting that he's played so well after being moved to center.

[SAGirl]

Curious as to whether anyone thinks his recent play has some to do with Duncan being out. Such a small sample size so I hesitate to take too much from it (I also didn't get to watch 2 of the games over the past week), but it's sort of interesting that he's played so well after being moved to center.

I do see he has more space to maneuver. He's harder to defend with the other big worrying about someone on the midrange or even in the perimeter. The team also plays a faster space w/o TD and teammates look for him more than they do with TD there.

[DPG21920]

My gut says that while his offense looks better (spacing around) that Tim being out is not the main cause, but general focus, conditioning and comfort.

The offense was still good with Tim/LMA at the beginning, just not the levels we are used to recently. It was bound to improve over time. I think LMA is more fit/in-shape now and he's more focused. I think the GS game was the proverbial wake up call like I said before. He realized the choice he made coming to SA after that game. It's win it all or nothing mentality now.

[HarlemHeat37]

Curious as to whether anyone thinks his recent play has some to do with Duncan being out. Such a small sample size so I hesitate to take too much from it (I also didn't get to watch 2 of the games over the past week), but it's sort of interesting that he's played so well after being moved to center.

Maybe, or it could be that 5 of the Spurs' past 6 opponents rank in the bottom 8 in the NBA in points allowed to starting bigs

Aldridge has been playing like a beast, though, doing his regular season thing..all irrelevant, unless he plays well vs. GS/OKC/Cleveland, something he hasn't done in the 4 total games against those teams..

[apalisoc_9]

Maybe, or it could be that 5 of the Spurs' past 6 opponents rank in the bottom 8 in the NBA in points allowed to starting bigs

Aldridge has been playing like a beast, though, doing his regular season thing..all irrelevant, unless he plays well vs. GS/OKC/Cleveland, something he hasn't done in the 4 total games against those teams..

Aldridge has always been a beast player against weak compe ion

[HarlemHeat37]

Aldridge has always been a beast player against weak compe ion

He's pretty great vs. mid-tier opponents, too, tbh..

[Robz4000]

Hasn't LMA generally owned OKC?

[apalisoc_9]

Lillard who deserved an allstar nod over harden this year, IMO..has always been portland go to guy against the top dogs. Judt check some of their stats.

Aldridge just seems like a guy sometimes who gets stats because he needs it for confidence. He really isnt someone who can make his teamates better.

[ChumpDumper]

But was he worth it, krew?

[HarlemHeat37]

But was he worth it, krew?

didn't post after the Warriors and Cavs games..

[ChumpDumper]

didn't post after the Warriors and Cavs games..

Thought he was worth it after those games. Haven't changed my mind from the start.

Was he worth it?

I'm asking you directly right now.

[DPG21920]

Lillard who deserved an allstar nod over harden this year, IMO..has always been portland go to guy against the top dogs. Judt check some of their stats.

Aldridge just seems like a guy sometimes who gets stats because he needs it for confidence. He really isnt someone who can make his teamates better.

Raw stats Lillard is the guy. LMA crushes him on defensive impact (which is way more bankable come playoff time and with regards to winning unless you are Dirk levels of dominant offensively).

LMA absolutely makes his teammates better both via gravity and defensive ability. Lillard is damn talented, but has a pretty bad AST/TO ratio, is more inefficient than LMA & I don't think he makes his teammates any better than LMA .

[HarlemHeat37]

Thought he was worth it after those games.

Was he worth it?

I'm asking you directly right now.

I don't know yet, the long-term deal part is still a concern to me..

If he plays well in the playoffs vs. the Thunder/Clippers(whoever the round 2 opponent is) and Warriors(doesn't even have to be great, as long as he isn't average or worse), then yes, he was probably worth it..

The overreaction part of this thread is Harlem worrying about Danny Green's decline in the new system, I admit..

[DPG21920]

I get what HH is saying in a bubble. Many people wonder about is LMA going to be worth his deal in a couple years. Also, there is two ways to look at this:

1) He was worth it in the context of what was available and achievable (even when many thought getting LMA wasn't feasible). In that light, yes, he's worth it no matter the outcome because we know that standing still would not have put SA in a position to win. At least with LMA, whether or not he fits or not, the talent is there and the ceiling was raised (regardless of if the ceiling is actually reached).

2) It's the HH way of looking at it long-term and evaluating based on playoff results and long-term fit/level of play. If he flames out in the playoffs and we see a sharp decline in level of play from him the last 2-3 years of his deal will people think he's worth it?

It just depends on what camp you are in and I do think both camps are reasonable.

Also, with regards to Danny Green, I think everyone was alarmed at his play and it was (IMO) a reasonable question as to what might be the cause (even though Danny has turned it around).

Not that HH needs any defense, but just some perspective from me.

[midnightpulp]

I don't know yet, the long-term deal part is still a concern to me..

If he plays well in the playoffs vs. the Thunder/Clippers(whoever the round 2 opponent is) and Warriors(doesn't even have to be great, as long as he isn't average or worse), then yes, he was probably worth it..

The overreaction part of this thread is Harlem worrying about Danny Green's decline in the new system, I admit..

Back to normal now.

[midnightpulp]

I get what HH is saying in a bubble. Many people wonder about is LMA going to be worth his deal in a couple years. Also, there is two ways to look at this:

1) He was worth it in the context of what was available and achievable (even when many thought getting LMA wasn't feasible). In that light, yes, he's worth it no matter the outcome because we know that standing still would not have put SA in a position to win. At least with LMA, whether or not he fits or not, the talent is there and the ceiling was raised (regardless of if the ceiling is actually reached).

2) It's the HH way of looking at it long-term and evaluating based on playoff results and long-term fit/level of play. If he flames out in the playoffs and we see a sharp decline in level of play from him the last 2-3 years of his deal will people think he's worth it?

It just depends on what camp you are in and I do think both camps are reasonable.

Also, with regards to Danny Green, I think everyone was alarmed at his play and it was (IMO) a reasonable question as to what might be the cause (even though Danny has turned it around).

Not that HH needs any defense, but just some perspective from me.

If we were an attractive big market team or a team with a long history of courting high profile free agents, then I could see the caveat in this instance. But given the Spurs non-existent record of drawing anything more high profile than in' Jefferson in their 40+ year history, LMA was the logical (and will stay the logical, no matter how he performs in the post-season) gamble.

He also, theoretically, is a perfect complementary big for Kawhi, which is why I think the Spurs were so aggressive in pursuit.

[DPG21920]

If we were an attractive big market team or a team with a long history of courting high profile free agents, then I could see the caveat in this instance. But given the Spurs non-existent record of drawing anything more high profile than in' Jefferson in their 40+ year history, LMA was the logical (and will stay the logical, no matter how he performs in the post-season) gamble.

He also, theoretically, is a perfect complementary big for Kawhi, which is why I think the Spurs were so aggressive in pursuit.

I somewhat agree. I'm in the middle of both schools of thought. I think on one hand Spurs were in win-now mode and this move improved their chances. I also think Spurs have proven crafty and if the deal is an issue later, they can move it/deal with it.

But I also think there might come a time where LMA's deal is viewed as bad, but that's the NBA and it's not a given. You pay long-term for now results and declines happen.

Spurs aren't as bad at attracting FAs as people make it seem. They have been so good for so long, they really have not been top tier FA focused in such a long time. I think that has as much to do with the perception as the market does.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, also worth mentioning is that LMA will enhance the Spurs as a free agent destination in the future after Duncan and Manu come off the books. Pitching, "We want you to come play alongside LaMarcus Aldridge and Kawhi Leonard," is a lot more attractive than pitching, "We want you to come play alongside Kawhi Leonard and 2nd round project #56.

[midnightpulp]

I somewhat agree. I'm in the middle of both schools of thought. I think on one hand Spurs were in win-now mode and this move improved their chances. I also think Spurs have proven crafty and if the deal is an issue later, they can move it/deal with it.

But I also think there might come a time where LMA's deal is viewed as bad, but that's the NBA and it's not a given. You pay long-term for now results and declines happen.

Spurs aren't as bad at attracting FAs as people make it seem. They have been so good for so long, they really have not been top tier FA focused in such a long time. I think that has as much to do with the perception as the market does.

I have to disagree here.

In '03, the Spurs courted Jermaine O'Neal, Karl Malone, and Jason Kidd. Whiffed on all 3, and had to settle for Rasho, Hedo, and Ron Mercer. In retrospect, the whiff on Kidd was a good thing, but it does illustrate the problem.

And just last year, Pau Gasol turned us down in favor of the bigger market Bulls.

I do agree the Spurs are great at attracting retread vets (Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis, Kurt Thomas, Michael Finley, Boris Diaw) and giving them new life, but until the LMA signing, that marquee signing has long evaded us.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know yet, the long-term deal part is still a concern to me..

If he plays well in the playoffs vs. the Thunder/Clippers(whoever the round 2 opponent is) and Warriors(doesn't even have to be great, as long as he isn't average or worse), then yes, he was probably worth it..

The overreaction part of this thread is Harlem worrying about Danny Green's decline in the new system, I admit..

lol no

Way to hedge your bets though.