I think that if we get CP3 it opens up incredibly offensive possibilities. James would no longer be the primary ball handler; while he should get a high number of looks initiating the pick and roll, his usage on other plays should decrease substantially. James is a great scorer, but many of his moves are set up by setting up the defender using hesitation and footwork along with his strength. While James certainly can play off-ball , I wonder if he is as explosive an athlete off-ball as he was his first year here and in OKC. McHale tried to get James to play off the catch more, maybe we didn't have the auxillary playmakers , maybe james didn't buy in, maybe james doesn't have the straight line athleticism needed. If we bring in CP3, james will have to change. That's not a bad thing, but it will require time. He will have to step up massively on the defensive end. If his load gets lightened to the extent that CP3 would take over, then there is a requirement James becomes an above average defender. Still, as many here have said, 2 playmakers is not enough. Even if they are on the level of Chris and James ( especially at CP's age). I always have felt that our offense in 12-13 was our most beautiful and most dangerous offense of the Harden era. It was more inconsistent than in 13-14 and James was a much better player in 14-15 .... but in 12-13 we had 3 play makers on the floor in Lin, James, and Parsons ... and when they were on , they were on. 3 guys capable of handling the ball, making solid passes, and having the versatility for some level of improvisation is the standard. We had flashes in 14-15 with Dmo and Smith out of the post, but generally speaking we haven't had a playmaking big or wing since parsons. While paul is an incredible playmaker, he plays at the 1. Beverley is no paul, but (paul-beverley) < (parsons-ariza) as playmakers and ball handlers on offense. IF we want to lighten the load on James, that's what we need. 2 more playmakers in the starting lineup... or at least one at the 3/4 position. Paul will be an upgrade to bev , but if I had a choice I'd rather upgrade the 3 or 4 since the overall jump could be bigger. I'd rather have blake than paul for this reason. Sign up blake, and put dekker into the 3 spot and that's a team I'd like to see gel.
I was halfway through the post and liked it, because I agreed with everything you said. Then I read the last line. "I'd rather have blake than paul for this season" That's when I unliked it.
I think Blake at center here would be really nice. I love Chris Paul, he's the better player, he's a true superstar HOF PG. That being said he's 32 and I worry about his fit with Harden. Don't get me wrong I'd take Paul in the blink of an eye no matter the fit if we could sign him, that being said if both Griffin and Paul were willing to sign it would be tough choice for me. It is entirely depends on how willing Harden is to play off ball (which I think would be good for him), if he is then I'd go with Paul. If Harden isn't, Griffin would be much better fit with Harden. He's the ultimate PnR guy/lob guy, who's also a great playmaker in his own right. When Harden goes off the court, Griffin would be the PG. When Harden/Griffin are on the court, it's PnR all day with shooters around the arc. I don't think either Griffin nor Paul will be interested in signing here though, not unless we did something extraordinary like trading for PGeorge.... And if we did that... I would double down on the worry about too many chefs in the kitchen with Chris Paul if we had Harden/George wanting to create, I think if we got George that Griffin would be the hands down better fit.... if we had that choice.
There is nothing to unlike, it was probably. 1. CP3 2. Blake If you cannot get CP3 in the first place, Blake is a good alternative, better than nothing. Or he prefers Griffin because he likes him more.... that is just his opinion.
The ONLY way Blake works here is if he plays center substantial minutes and he loses all the dribbling post-ups while playing the 4 in the double big lineups. Those are offensive killers. And honestly, Blake should be paired with a big like Brook that can face up and spread the floor while he runs pnr. Blake and DeAndre are offensively duplicitous and they destroy spacing. And Blake simply cannot shoot the three well enough. So Blake Sitka have to play 5 here a lot and when he played 4 we'd have to get a Brook/Marc type to play 5 for it to work.
Honestly with Paul I can see Harden averaging 32 points or more this season . He wont look have to pass and just look for his shot. Harden's offensive output would go through the roof.
A Paul / Capela PnR (which would be elite in itself) leaves Harden either open for 3 or guarded by a lesser player that now has to defend him with a rotating unset defense...unstoppable.
I'm not sure what the end game is. Hell, maybe getting CP3 alone is the end game. All I know is getting him would be a major accomplishment and would make any future moves where the players have pull (free agency, waiving no trade clauses, forcing trades, etc) much easier. When it comes to reputation, CP3's is about as rock solid as they come. Players like him and will want to play with him.
Harden currently does not know how to play off the ball, ala a Klay Thompson. There's no such thing with James as just looking for his shot. He looks for his shot by sizing up his defender and making a move past him into the lane, or taking a contested unassisted three pointer. basketballreference will tell you how much/what% of a player's shots are assisted. Only 9.6% of James' 2 pointers were assisted this year. Only 9.6%! That's less than Westbrook. Your point may be "exactly!!" that's why Harden will be so much better with a CP3. And sure, he should be better, but you can go back and look at past years as well... it's been a LONG LONG time since Harden was a guy who got "set up". And even in his OKC days, with the exception of his rookie year, he still rarely got set up for 2 pointers. It'd make the season interesting but I struggle to see how the fit would be ideal.
I'd tell people to stop thinking about an end game mosaic, and instead picture the situation as a Rubix cube where one change drastically alters the counter moves that come afterwards. Meaning if you get Indiana to agree to a Paul George trade first (in a crazy DREAM scenario), that changes players and picks going out in a later future move/signing, but you make that move first, and then alter your next move after. You have to make the first move first before knowing what you have to do to make the second. But you talk to teams about multiple scenarios to prepare for anything. So think Rubix cube... not Mosaic painting.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of taking the ball out of James' hands. Yes even for Chris Paul (who again, has accomplished NOTHING in his career and has worse court vision and awareness than Harden). That isn't gonna make this team better imo. Paul is a classic choker who doesn't get along with teammates, and plays a style of basketball that doesn't win games. He is talented and I suppose I would take him on the team, but he absolutely would not be my first option.
He was clutch enough to beat a Duncan/Kawhi lead Spurs in 7 games just a few seasons ago before his entire team choked against us to make the WCF. He would help spread the court with Harden not take the ball away from Harden. If it were just CP3 I'd say hell no, if it ends up being say Paul George or Gordon Hayward then CP3 I'd make an exception. If we only manage to sign CP3 it would be less of a lateral move because of the players we would have to clear out/renounce.
No one is perfect, we take talent, it comes with risk. I'd prefer to get draft picks personally. If Morey likes to continue building around Harden, any of them should be great addition without considering injuries.
Draft picks are awesome, but every NBA GM thinks so. They're tough to acquire. (Well, picks that are any good, anyway.)
