LaMarcus Aldridge Could Inevitably Become Available Soon

So the fact that most good NBA defenses are geared to force long two pointers, and so those shots are most frequently available, carries no weight with you?

If a big can't dunk the basketball on every possession, then he isn't worth obtaining?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make, except to speak in irrelevant generalities.

The long two is considered a bad shot because most players cannot make them at an efficient clip. And you think bringing that up is a knock against one of the few players who can?

Come on now.

 

I think too much is made of where a player shoots on the floor with out considering all the factors. If a player hits 50% of his shots from 5 feet and 50% from 15 feet then there is no efficiency advantage unless the player is getting to the free throw line more at 5 feet. Some players like Kevin Martin are better at drawing fouls out on the floor then someone like 2Pat is at drawing fouls close to the basket. I would think the best gauge of a players scoring efficiency would be points per FG attempt which takes into account 3pt shots and free throws.

For his career LMA makes 1.2 points per FG attempt. Over the last 3 seasons that number was closer to 1.25.

By comparison Parsons is right at 1.3 for this season
JHard is at 1.42 for this season
KMart is at 1.46 for his career
Durrant is at 1.38 for career

 

Aldridge is more valuable if you look at what they do on the floor. But doesn't the fact that Parsons making less than a million dollars per year adds to his value. With Parsons we get a solid player and get to spend our money elsewhere. With Aldridge we get a better player, but we lose flexibility in regards to cap space, right?

And I don't know anything about how salaries need to match up if we make a trade for LMA.

 

Some of you guys don't seem to realize that it's pretty unlikely that any of our rookies develop into anything close to a LMA level player...

 

That's the gist of it, yeah. If they ever part ways with Parsons--and I hope to god they don't--the Rockets would also lose out on whatever unrealized potential he has as well. Meanwhile, Aldridge has already reached his ceiling. Which isn't a terrible thing, by the way. An all star and one of the top big men in the NBA? That's...a pretty decent ceiling imho

 

And getting worse and worse each year. If you take away predispositions about the guy, he's trending towards Luis Scola At this point. The guy absolutely does not play 6-11. A bit like PPat, except with better skills.

 

What kind of package we can offer that is supposedly attractive to the Blazers?
They wouldnt be that high on Parson because they got Batum.
Damien Lillard is playing out of his mind so Lin is out of the question.

If we had to include Asik then I'd rather not do thsi trade at all.

This trade is highly unlikely

 

No not really. If you look at this season his FG% has dropped but were only about 15 games into the season. In each of the last 3 seasons his FG% has gone up and over 50%. And His rebounding has been about the same 8.1, 8.7 & 8.1 rebounds a game.

 

That's my thinking as well. Asik is almost untouchable in my book, not because he is a better player, but because he is almost impossible to replace and what he does is so valuable.

 

The long two is considered a bad shot, because it is an inefficient shot.
Generally the further away from the rim you shoot it, the less likely are you to make the shot, so yes, it doesn't matter to me whether or not the defense wants you to take that shot. If you shoot ten midrange jumpers/long twos a game and only make them at a 40-44% clip, I indeed will bring it up as a knock against you. It's just not ideal.

Also, you act like Aldridge is this amazing shooting big, when really he's mostly been just an above average to good shooter from 9 feet+ compared to other starters. Look up the numbers. League average for starters has been around 40% for the last few years. Aldridge is like a ~42% shooter for his carreer from midrange.

Well, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

I've never said anything along the lines of Aldridge not being worth obtaining. At all.

In fact, on page 3 I wrote:

My whole point is about Aldridge being very good, but not great, see:

and

and

 

I was speaking of his FTAs, which have been going down. But anyway, if you really think those are somehow star level stats, then how do you think Aldridge compares with the following player. I'll call him Player L.

Player L's per-36 stat(I used per 36 because he averaged 32mpg)
20.2points/9.0rebounds/2.8assists/50% shooting/4.3ft attempts

Aldridge last year per-36 stat(average 36.2mpg)
21.5points/8.0rebounds/2.4assits/51% shooting/5.0ft attempts

Player L was Luis Scola from 2 years ago. And there's no point comparing their defense. Neither's very good at it. Aldridge's Blazers have been quite bad on defense ever since Camby left.

 

Absolutely.

Elite defensive bigs are rare in this league while there are more than a handful of good offensive PFs.

Problem I have with LMA is that he shoots too many jumpers, 92% of his shots are midrange jumpers, we are literally getting a "Luis Scola on steroid" out of LMA. In that case I'd rather go for Milsap who's a lot cheaper but does essentially the same thing with better efficiency, Milsap is also a better lowpost player.

 

Aldridge is no defensive dynamo, maybe even below average, but still better than Luis at defense. That is not saying much so no real point to be made there. Scola is one of the more skilled players operating in the low post in the league regardless of his scoring average.

 

LaMarcus Aldridge has developed into an All Star level player for two years in a row and counting. He has developed into a player who shoots an even better percentage than this from midrange. But you'd rather attempt to discount that with "career" averages, as though how he shot 6 years ago as a rookie, when he was still learning the game has any bearing on things? Interesting.

I just don't understand what issues people would really have with such a complete and versatile player. His HEALTH would be a primary one, sure, but these attempts to pick apart his actual game really are falling flat.

I've seen the goalposts moved twice now in an effort to make him look like some sort of scrub.

First it was that he wasn't "efficient" from midrange, but then whoops, turns out he's incredibly efficient from midrange, one of the most efficient in the league from midrange, and here are the numbers to back it up.

Then it was "okay, so maybe he's efficient, but he's not effective from midrange" whatever "effective" is supposed to mean.

He has the versatility to post up on the low block or shoot over smaller defenders at midrange, and when he does shoot he does so at a high percentage. He was "effective" enough to put up 22 PPG on over 50% shooting the last two years. I don't know how much more "effectiveness" a jaded internet poster could want, to be honest. I feel like I'm just being BSed by somebody who doesn't like Aldridge for whatever nit-picky ulterior reason, and so this has just become some game of grasping at straws and trying to poke holes in the game of a very, very good basketball player.

 

Love and Aldridge expire at the same time so trading for him has no affect unless you extend him. Even if he falls apart you still have a 26 year old harden and cap space. Trading for him isn't very high risk for a young team rebuilding since he only has two years left after this season.

 

Your bolded part doesn't make sense and is just conspiracy talk. If this were the case, Philly would sue LA for damages and Stern would lay the ban hammer on them, like what he did with Minny after they did some hanky-panky with Joe Smith. Philly had the right to give Bynum a physical before the trade, they waived that right, plus, it's no secret Bynum was injured, he aggravated his injury by bowling after getting traded.

Oh yeah, my bad for these cautionary tales. We only have a bajillion traded players that had a myriad of injuries which became even more injured after the trade:

Kyle Lowry, Andrew Bogut, Amare, Bynum, Tmac, Boozer to name a few.

As a counter-example the only guy you can bring up is Howard, except the Lakers traded Bynum to get him! Howard's an upgrade over Bynum at every single department, including health so why is that an example again? It'd be like if we had Greg Oden making 20M then we traded him for LMA straight up.

Look, back injuries are CHRONIC, they won't heal but will only get worse over time. Dwight's problem isn't his back per se, he had a herniated disk that was operated upon, and once that heals it'd be like he never got injured. That's different from general back problems, which is what LMA seems to be suffering from. It's like when Tmac or Lowry were suffering from back spasms, that **** means their back/spine are seriously jacked up and it'd only be a matter of time before they go down.

 

The difference is LMA is already 27, Love's only 24. Plus, LMA's injuries seem to be more serious and due to wear/tear, Love's injuries seem to be due to freak accidents.

Capspace is nice, but trading for LMA would entail a king's ransom, this is the same team that demanded a top 6 lottery pick for Gerald Wallace. So really, we would be giving up a ton of assets, assets we could use for another FA trade. Like I said we only got one shot at this, and i'd rather wait for the best FA like Bosh/Love then settle for someone with chronic injuries like LMA. Plus, the dude's playing like crap this year. If you want someone underperforming why not trade for Hibbert instead.

 

I don't know what sort of plaintive nonsense I'm reading right now.

Are people under the impression that Kyle Lowry rolling his ankle and missing 4 games was a serious injury now? Or that Andrew Bogut hadn't already been scheduled to receive off-season surgery even while he was still with the Bucks? In other words, he didn't get "more injured" after a trade either?

And are we really using Carlos Boozer clumsily tripping over a bag to answer a door in his own home and breaking his hand in the process evidence of how injured he was after a trade? (not joking, that's seriously why he was unavailable after he has traded to the Bulls)

My goodness lol

 

Just say that Aldridge is a great player and get over it. If you think the Rockets should trade everything at their disposal and their mother for him than that's fine, I just disagree.

Career numbers are usually more indicative than an one year sample size, that's why I went with his career numbers. It's not like he's been improving every year. He's been pretty much up and down across the board. I have nothing against the guy.

I mixed up ineffective with inefficient, I apologize. English isn't my native language.
I also never said he wasn't efficient from midrange, but that 44% from 2 is not efficient, big picture.

I'm done arguing with you now. Let's just agree to disagree - you have made up your mind anyway.

 

My statement was about having the money to sign love not trade for him.