Bring back the Rosebuds, they are already on the Stanley Cup (1st American team to be there).lukeyrid13 wrote:I actually think hockey would be well received here
Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1
- Zyme
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:35 pm
- GM: New York Knicks GM
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
DASL1 Rings: '93, '94
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
-
- All-American
- Posts: 10597
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
That might be the only mascot worse than the beaver.Zyme wrote:Bring back the Rosebuds, they are already on the Stanley Cup (1st American team to be there).lukeyrid13 wrote:I actually think hockey would be well received here
-
- Senior
- Posts: 2502
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:05 pm
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
Not unless they get a #1 overall pick in return.
They should get rid of CJ. His defense is bad and offense inconsistent.
They should get rid of Stotts, he can't coach defense for beans.
They should get rid of CJ. His defense is bad and offense inconsistent.
They should get rid of Stotts, he can't coach defense for beans.
-
- All-American
- Posts: 10597
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
At this point what can they even get for CJ? I doubt anything more than a low lottery pick. He’s just not great.
- Phalanx
- Senior
- Posts: 3922
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
I think people assume C.J. is tradable, but with his deal paying him $100 million over the next three years, it is by no means a given that there would even be a market for him, aside from trading for another albatross contract.
- AutzenMember
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:47 pm
- Location: Camas, WA
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
I'm so tired of seeing CJ and his one-on-one, no pass, no vision mentality. He's a great player, but not a leader and not a star in the clutch. Dame is all those things. Build around him PLEASE! We absolutely need a big, either a 4 or a 5 that can defend and won't need a ton of scoring opportunities. NO MORE TRADING FOR GUARDS!!! A slight upgrade from GTJ to Powell is not helping the team. It does, however, put the Blazers in a better position to trade CJ. I do agree that his value is not as high as it could've been, but he needs to go. Nobody wants an ISO player with no vision (ie. late bailout passes in desperation leading to turnovers). He single-handedly lost the game tonight IMO, which is a shame that Dame's record setting night is jaded.
I agree with most that this poll is not worded correctly. There is no proof that they will lose in the first round every year. And blaming that on Dame's salary? C'mon man. This is a take (a bad one) not a poll question. In fact, Dame is the best Blazer of all time. He loves Portland...what are you not seeing in Lillard???
I agree with most that this poll is not worded correctly. There is no proof that they will lose in the first round every year. And blaming that on Dame's salary? C'mon man. This is a take (a bad one) not a poll question. In fact, Dame is the best Blazer of all time. He loves Portland...what are you not seeing in Lillard???
- Phalanx
- Senior
- Posts: 3922
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
AutzenMember wrote:
I agree with most that this poll is not worded correctly. There is no proof that they will lose in the first round every year. And blaming that on Dame's salary? C'mon man. This is a take (a bad one) not a poll question. In fact, Dame is the best Blazer of all time. He loves Portland...what are you not seeing in Lillard???
If you actually read the poll question, it says 'hypothetical Blazer option'. I wrote that to avoid the incredibly obvious statement you make above. The irony of having to deal with this criticism over and over is that they ARE losing in the first round as we speak. Just pretend, for the sake of argument, that what has happened four out of the last five seasons will continue to happen in the future. The Blazers are losing in the first round. Are you cool with that, as long as you can keep Lillard, or do you think the team should capitalize on his current value and start fresh - a thing they will be doing anyway in a few years? Really, it's not that hard to understand. It's not a 'take', it's simply a question, to see if normal fans love Lillard more than they love winning.
Lillard is not the best Blazer of all time. His career playoff shooting percentage is an incredibly mediocre 41%, even with tonight's effort. He also can't play defense to save his life. It's like saying TaJuan Porter is the best Duck of all time. You need more than a guy hucking up threes all day to win in the playoffs. Clyde Drexler had a way more complete game, and the playoff results demonstrate the very clear difference.
The idea that there is this burgeoning market for CJ wherein the Blazers can suddenly improve their status as first-round patsies is the actual bad take. What GM, after watching this game, is going to say "We need that guy and his max contract on our team"? I wonder if they could even give CJ away at this point.
- Boom
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5676
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
- GM: Houston Rockets
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
Clyde had 7 first round exits with the Blazers.. and Lillards effective field goal percentage is higher. I don’t really see the point in comparing the two though. Lillard is an all NBA player and the Blazers should try and continue to build a better roster around. Recent draft picks and FA signings have been big misses. Imagine if they had signed Jae Crowder instead of Derrick Jones.. or why not include Anfernee Simons in an Aaron Gordon trade? They need a GM with fresh eyes.
- AutzenMember
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:47 pm
- Location: Camas, WA
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
Well, that explanation is worded way better than your poll and I see where you are coming from. My answer is that I want to see Portland win...no player is above the team. But, if Portland can't build a team around Lillard, when are they ever going to contend?Phalanx wrote:
Just pretend, for the sake of argument, that what has happened four out of the last five seasons will continue to happen in the future. The Blazers are losing in the first round. Are you cool with that, as long as you can keep Lillard, or do you think the team should capitalize on his current value and start fresh - a thing they will be doing anyway in a few years? Really, it's not that hard to understand. It's not a 'take', it's simply a question, to see if normal fans love Lillard more than they love winning.
Lillard is not the best Blazer of all time. His career playoff shooting percentage is an incredibly mediocre 41%, even with tonight's effort. He also can't play defense to save his life. It's like saying TaJuan Porter is the best Duck of all time. You need more than a guy hucking up threes all day to win in the playoffs. Clyde Drexler had a way more complete game, and the playoff results demonstrate the very clear difference.
The idea that there is this burgeoning market for CJ wherein the Blazers can suddenly improve their status as first-round patsies is the actual bad take. What GM, after watching this game, is going to say "We need that guy and his max contract on our team"? I wonder if they could even give CJ away at this point.
Clyde drove me nuts as an offensive player. Highlight worthy for sure, but decision making was poor. Thought he was a 3-pt shooter but shot 30% for his career. More like CJ than Dame...he took ill advised shots in bad moments that took other players out of the game. His defensive was way better than Lillard, but overall, Dame is a once in a lifetime player while Clyde was a Top 10 player at his time with a great roster to back him up. Without a supporting cast, Clyde would've been awful to watch, IMO. Since you like Hypotheticals...Put Dame on that early 90's team instead of Clyde...Imagine Porter, Kersey, Duckworth, Uncle Cliff, Buck and Dame...I say improvement. Now put Clyde on today's team and no Dame. Playoffs? Did you say Playoffs?
I'm in agreement on CJ and said as much. He needs to go...trade partners or not.
On another note, I see you and I joined this forum 3 minutes apart
- Phalanx
- Senior
- Posts: 3922
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
I mostly disagree with you, but this is exactly the kind of opinion I am soliciting in this thread. You aren't admitting that 'building around Lillard' is actually code for 'keep paying Lillard and losing in the first round', and that this has already been the strategy for a number of years now. People just don't want to admit that his contract is prohibitive in terms of the team-building part. That's fine. The years ahead will demonstrate my point better than I ever could. The trouble is that the window to trade him and get a great jumpstart on the future will have closed by the time people are willing to admit the problem.Boom wrote:Clyde had 7 first round exits with the Blazers.. and Lillards effective field goal percentage is higher. I don’t really see the point in comparing the two though. Lillard is an all NBA player and the Blazers should try and continue to build a better roster around. Recent draft picks and FA signings have been big misses. Imagine if they had signed Jae Crowder instead of Derrick Jones.. or why not include Anfernee Simons in an Aaron Gordon trade? They need a GM with fresh eyes.
I've been thinking, you know who I would love to see play opposite Lillard? Dillon Brooks. I think they would complement each other really well.
- Phalanx
- Senior
- Posts: 3922
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
I'm not going to agree about Clyde, and I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. What isn't up for debate is that Clyde's teams were contenders that went deep into the playoffs, including two years in the finals, going toe to toe with a couple of the best teams in NBA history (to say nothing of actually winning in the Finals with the Rockets). Lillard has never sniffed contention, and with his salary and that of his buddy McCollum, he never will. Clyde's salary during the glory years was roughly 10% of the cap, and so the team could afford other good players. Saying he had a better team around him is making my case for me. Lillard is overpaid, and his contract hurts the teams ability to compete, and that situation will only get worse in the coming years. I'm sick of it, and I started this thread to find out if others were as well. What I get from the comments is mostly that people would rather keep Lillard and keep hoping they can win, despite the overwhelming evidence that it will never happen.AutzenMember wrote:
Well, that explanation is worded way better than your poll and I see where you are coming from. My answer is that I want to see Portland win...no player is above the team. But, if Portland can't build a team around Lillard, when are they ever going to contend?
Clyde drove me nuts as an offensive player. Highlight worthy for sure, but decision making was poor. Thought he was a 3-pt shooter but shot 30% for his career. More like CJ than Dame...he took ill advised shots in bad moments that took other players out of the game. His defensive was way better than Lillard, but overall, Dame is a once in a lifetime player while Clyde was a Top 10 player at his time with a great roster to back him up. Without a supporting cast, Clyde would've been awful to watch, IMO. Since you like Hypotheticals...Put Dame on that early 90's team instead of Clyde...Imagine Porter, Kersey, Duckworth, Uncle Cliff, Buck and Dame...I say improvement. Now put Clyde on today's team and no Dame. Playoffs? Did you say Playoffs?
I'm in agreement on CJ and said as much. He needs to go...trade partners or not.
On another note, I see you and I joined this forum 3 minutes apart
- Duck07
- All-American
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
Here's my preference with Stotts and Olshey being gone before anything else happens:
-Keep Dame, trade CJ and Nurk, trade any bench player to bring back a legit #2 like Jimmy Butler who would actually fit next to Lillard.
-Keep Dame, trade CJ and Nurk, trade any bench/starter to bring back as much young talent/picks as possible.
-Trade Dame and CJ and anyone else to bring back back as much young talent/picks and clean up the Cap as quick as possible.
-Keep Dame, trade CJ and Nurk, trade any bench player to bring back a legit #2 like Jimmy Butler who would actually fit next to Lillard.
-Keep Dame, trade CJ and Nurk, trade any bench/starter to bring back as much young talent/picks as possible.
-Trade Dame and CJ and anyone else to bring back back as much young talent/picks and clean up the Cap as quick as possible.
- Boom
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5676
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
- GM: Houston Rockets
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
Clippers are close to a 1st round exit. Paul George could be available if that happens. I think CJ actually makes sense for them. Blazers would likely need to add multiple picks as well. Not sure how Dame would feel about that though.
-
- Five Star Recruit
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:07 am
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
The issue is that Portland doesn't and likely will never attract top tier free agents. Maybe you can argue they get some better role players if they trade Lilliard, but what good is that without any top 20 players on the team? If they trade Lilliard, they are gambling that they land a top draft pick and they pan out, which is far from a guarantee. Look at how many teams remain bottom feeders in the NBA, despite repeatedly having top draft picks. The draft is a complete crapshoot.Phalanx wrote:I'm not going to agree about Clyde, and I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. What isn't up for debate is that Clyde's teams were contenders that went deep into the playoffs, including two years in the finals, going toe to toe with a couple of the best teams in NBA history (to say nothing of actually winning in the Finals with the Rockets). Lillard has never sniffed contention, and with his salary and that of his buddy McCollum, he never will. Clyde's salary during the glory years was roughly 10% of the cap, and so the team could afford other good players. Saying he had a better team around him is making my case for me. Lillard is overpaid, and his contract hurts the teams ability to compete, and that situation will only get worse in the coming years. I'm sick of it, and I started this thread to find out if others were as well. What I get from the comments is mostly that people would rather keep Lillard and keep hoping they can win, despite the overwhelming evidence that it will never happen.AutzenMember wrote:
Well, that explanation is worded way better than your poll and I see where you are coming from. My answer is that I want to see Portland win...no player is above the team. But, if Portland can't build a team around Lillard, when are they ever going to contend?
Clyde drove me nuts as an offensive player. Highlight worthy for sure, but decision making was poor. Thought he was a 3-pt shooter but shot 30% for his career. More like CJ than Dame...he took ill advised shots in bad moments that took other players out of the game. His defensive was way better than Lillard, but overall, Dame is a once in a lifetime player while Clyde was a Top 10 player at his time with a great roster to back him up. Without a supporting cast, Clyde would've been awful to watch, IMO. Since you like Hypotheticals...Put Dame on that early 90's team instead of Clyde...Imagine Porter, Kersey, Duckworth, Uncle Cliff, Buck and Dame...I say improvement. Now put Clyde on today's team and no Dame. Playoffs? Did you say Playoffs?
I'm in agreement on CJ and said as much. He needs to go...trade partners or not.
On another note, I see you and I joined this forum 3 minutes apart
Their best chance is to trade McCollum, as he and Lilliard's skillsets are redundant and they will never be decent defensively with both on the floor. The problem is whether McCollum has much trade value, or whether teams will be interested in acquiring him given his injury history of late and large contract. What it comes down to is that you essentially need 2-3 stars to be competitive in the NBA today, and that's unlikely to happen again in Portland, unless they luck into a couple of draft steals like Golden State did with Curry/Thompson/Green. I think the more likely scenario if they trade Lilliard is that they are even less competitive for the next 10 years, so it doesn't seem all that worth it.
- lukeyrid13
- All-American
- Posts: 10484
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
- GM: Portland TrailBlazers
Re: Should the Blazers Trade Lillard?
Yeah, look at:
- Knicks
- Kings
- Cavs
- Magic
- Pistons
- Bulls
- Twolves
etc.
- Twolves haven't been good at all since trading KG.
- Cavs have been abysmal and have no top talent since Lebron left
- Kings have been awful since Webber left
- Magic have been awful since Dwight left
- Pistons haven't been good since Wallace bros and Billups
All those teams are still waiting for their next superstar and saw a massive decline once that star left. 48-52 wins and 55 point games by Dame etc are better than 10 years of hoping and praying for the next Dame
- Knicks
- Kings
- Cavs
- Magic
- Pistons
- Bulls
- Twolves
etc.
- Twolves haven't been good at all since trading KG.
- Cavs have been abysmal and have no top talent since Lebron left
- Kings have been awful since Webber left
- Magic have been awful since Dwight left
- Pistons haven't been good since Wallace bros and Billups
All those teams are still waiting for their next superstar and saw a massive decline once that star left. 48-52 wins and 55 point games by Dame etc are better than 10 years of hoping and praying for the next Dame