I think he is as good as anyone you would consider a top-10 point guard. See, with the point guard spot, you have a few who are clearly better than the others (Paul, Curry, etc.). But then the next 12 or so point guards are virtually even. So even if you rank Ty Lawson as the 15th best point guard in the league, he's still virtually the same as, say, the 7th ranked point guard in the league. There's not much difference.
He's a Luis Scola. He'll probably never be an All-Star, but he can go toe-to-toe with any player in the league. He's good enough to the point where if you look at a box score and see that he outplayed a Curry, CP3, Lillard or Wall type you won't be surprised at all. And much like Scola, he's also a winner. His numbers are more solid and niche-oriented than they are across the board level typical superstar numbers (20 PPG, strong two-way numbers, etc). His niche, obviously, is he's a legitimate pure PG that can also put the ball on the floor. So what if maybe he'll end up being a better Aaron Brooks with a handle and good instincts? That type of player could potentially put us over the top. That said, where that ranks him in terms of top 10 PG's and the hierarchy of the NBA...I don't really know (or care). All I do know is this trade was a total win for us and addresses a HUGE weakness of ours - turnovers. We were just about the worst team in the league in terms of TO's committed -- nearly tied for second in the regular season; worst in the playoffs. Lawson will have a huge impact.
In terms of PG's there is just Paul and Curry. Everyone else is debatably as good as the other, just that they have different strengths and weaknesses and thus, fit differently depending on team. That is simply how good the point guard position at this point is.
IMO Lawson will benefit greatly playing next to harden and Howard and Howard will benefit too. Harden is relieved of playmaking duties and gets to focus on scoring every time he touches the ball. I think a pg is a product of what is around him harden opens up so much of the floor for Lawson and Howard is great in the pick and roll and a good finisher for dump offs. Lawson's game will elevate playing with the rockets, but I think he's a borderline top 10.
This will greatly depends on how Ty and Harden meshes up. Based on past seasons, Harden needs the ball to be effective. Ty needs it too as evidenced from his game with the Nuggets. We still have to see how each of them moves without the ball. I'll reserve my judgement once they are able to play together next season. If they can't work together then this is a potential disaster.
I don't see it being a disaster in any circumstance. I'm assuming their minutes will be staggered so we have a playmaker on the floor at all times. Worst case scenario we gave up nothing for an expiring contract since he agreed to a non guarantee next year. However, optimistically it will work out and they all get their touches and turnovers are cut down.
It's okay to rank player A over player B and yet believe player B is a better fit for the team. For instance, Steph Curry is one of the top three PGs in the league but would be a bad fit for a team not suited to run screens and plays big-man-heavy. Paul, Wall, and Lawson are very different from Curry, Westbrook, and Irving. Saying Lawson is not a top-ten PG is not saying he is not a top ten fit for this team. Westbrook is a better player but he pretty much duplicates what Harden does (without the theatrics) so not as good a fit as Lawson.
But the benefit of Lawson, is I think he'll be a better fit for the current Rockets than many of those PG's who are better than him. We have a pseudo PG in Harden. He needs assistance and Lawson gives us that and I think can also play the 2 when Harden's off, whilst complimenting Bev. At least I hope!
At Scola's best he was a super solid role player. Ty Lawson was third in assists last year. I can't think of a single thing they have in common other than the fact that they both play in the NBA.
Scola was an 18-8 player on essentially a playoff team once upon a time, so I don't know what all of this role player talk is about. Especially, whenever your response implies a degree of delusion in regards to what Lawson has accomplished in his career thus far. Lawson isn't some established superstar like your post seems to suggest. Scola is a career 13-7 player; Lawson is a career 14-6 player. Both with high skill levels, defensive limitations and impressive resumes outside of the NBA. If either player went off and outplayed a first-team All-NBA player, I wouldn't be shocked at all. That's the kind of talent they possess/possessed. That was the basis for the comparison. Obviously, no comparison is perfect, but both players seem to have track records that are more solid than spectacular. That's the point that I was making. The difference, of course, is Lawson is in the prime of his career and could very realistically get better. Which is one of the 100,000 reasons this trade was masterful.
In May, Bleacher Report ranked him #13 in the league, just behind Tony Parker, Knight and Holiday and ahead of MCW, Rondo and George Hill.
