We need a reliable true defensive center to help Yao,Bosh and Chuck out. That seems unlikely unless an additional trade is made. No to Dalembert types. I'm leaning towards no,as an answer.
i think brooks is not over-rated. he gives you a great efficient offensive burst. i'd trust the ball in his hands, at the end of a game over bosh.
1. This team needs a scoring wing player. 2. Brooks & Landry are our two best trading pieces. We do everything possible to not use both in the same trade (unless we are getting two second-tier or first-tier stars. 3. Toronto does not need Landry/Scola. They need a true Center. Sure they may take him, but it makes no sense. 4. Bosh is not the greatest late game closer. 5. How many good PF's are in the West? A lot. When Yao played, they tried to not let him guard them when they could, which would mean they would be Bosh's assignment. Oh, and he's not a very good defender.
No objection to getting Bosh. But I object to giving up Landry and Brooks for Bosh. Too high a price. Not worth it.
The objection is Brooks + Landry, that is way too much. Brooks and Landry are likely future all stars (future may even be this year). Bosh is NOT that good.
Lowry is not > than Aaron Brooks and anybody who actually thinks that needs their head checked. Lowry will never have a game like Brooks had tonight Brooks is still learning (first real year running the show) and he's getting better. His max potential still hasn't been tapped and it'll be a mistake to give up on the guy now. Basically i kinda compare this situation to Houston with Jacoby Jones and Kevin Walter. Jacoby gave you headaches while Kevin Walter just got the job done, but now the superior talent of Jacoby is starting to show up on the field and next year we'll most likely bump Walter on the depth chart. Brooks is more talented and has WAY more upside than Kyle Lowry who's already his his ceiling.
No, It is like the Barkley trade all over again. Giving up too much ( ex. Landry and Brooks ) for a player. Even if Bosh is younger than Barkley at this stage, giving up on too many pieces that was formed to form the core of the team is very risky.
Lowry's Dallas game was better (26 points, 10 assists, 6 rebounds, 5 steals, only 2 turnovers, in 39 minutes -- on the road against a quality opponent).
and?.........that was one game. Brooks has been racking up 20+ scoring games on a nightly basis now. I swear all the people creaming over Lowry, remind me of the Sage Rosenfels fanatics. Everybody loves the backup I guess. As soon as Brooks is moved...if he is moved, Lowry will quickly turn into Rafer Alston 2.0 (a solid PG, but not a "nightly difference maker"). The guy is a excellent backup and could start in this league...but as a starter he's not near as good. There's a reason why he came so cheap. He's not better than Aaron Brooks.
good post. Last year, I felt adamant that Lowry was a better option because of defense, decision making and the ability to create offense for others. This year I think it is proven that Brooks is the more talented player with higher upside. That said, I truly believe they are great compliments to each other with their varying styles of play. I appreciate them both.
i don't want to give up our future talents in landry and brooks, i think we have 2 great pfs and don't need a proven all star pf, i think if anything we need a 2 guard, who have a combo guard in brooks, but we need a starting 2 guard. we don't need an allstar in this region either, just a quality 2 that can create off the dribble better than ariza. we could save EVERYONE and just let tmac play! but i don't see that happening unfortunately : (
