Ok so here is my question..... Everyone here wants to give up AB and other assets for Chris Paul. Now I think that we can get Andre Iguodola without giving up AB. So my question is would we be a better team with a trade in a scenario where we got Chris Paul (i.e. trading brooks and taking Okafor and his contract) or a trade where we get Andre Iguodola? I believe that because we would have to give up less to get Iggy and we would be upgrading a position that needs upgrading (not depleting it) he would be the better trade to pursue, however I wanted to see what everyone else's opinion was.
if CP3 is playing well, he could probably make our wing players as good as AI. the reality is, if you can get one of the best, if not the best PG in the league, you do it.
Also AI makes near the max while Brooks will get double digits when he hits FA. In the end its cheaper to get someone like Paul and Ariza than Brooks and AI.
Well, it's more like CP3+rotational player vs. AB+AI. In the NBA, I think you should always go with the star and try to build around that as they are usually what wins championships in this league.
Chris Paul isn't going anywhere so why all the ridiculous CP3 polls? They promised him they are going to make the cap space for him to recruit Melo to NO. That is why he is happy with the direction of the team and is going no where.
It's more like Paul and Ariza and Okafor sans Brooks and any number of Hill, Budinger, Battier, Jeffries, etc. vs. Brooks and Iguodala sans Ariza and any number of Hill, Budinger, Battier, Jeffries, etc., but likely at a lesser price than it would take to get Paul.
I honestly don't get the big deal about Chris Paul and I never got the whole Bosh thing either. I mean Lebron I understood and D wade I would understand, but Chris Paul is not THAT much better than AB IMO, AB just needs to learn how to be a playmaker. Chris Bosh is also not that much better than Scola. I just will never get why people would want to give up so much for another point guard, it's not like he's Michael Jordan. People are always thinking the grass is greener, but who cares if your grass is already green. We need a small forward, not a pg, we have two very good pg's. People are talkin about how players who leave their teams are not loyal, but the fans aren't exactly loyal either.
If we were talking about Granger or AI over Ariza then I would understand, thats a big upgrade. Trying to get CP3 when we r already set at pg would be a step back.
Chris Paul and Chris Bosh are top 10 caliber players. Scola and Brooks are role players. Paul is light years better defensively than Brooks. He's light years better as a shooter and a playmaker. I just don't see how you win a championship with 3 awful defensive starters (Brooks, Martin, Scola).
I think Iggy would be a great fit in Adelman's system. We could use a good passer out on the wing. He has constantly averaged around 5apg throughout his career. Passing is one thing our team is sort of lacking unless Ariza decides to go out for more triple-doubles. And face it, we are not getting CP3, but I would still choose Iggy over Granger if it meant keeping AB. Adding a distributor to our weakest position would help big time.
I like Chris Paul. But when you look at this team, I don't think acquiring him is the best route to a championship. I think we've seen Paul's best, but Aaron Brooks may yet improve. Brooks is also homegrown, and we know exactly how he fits in with this team. We don't know that about Paul. I also really like Igoudala. He's a complete player, unselfish, and an elite defender. I'd rather keep Brooks, trade for Igoudala and watch this team go to war like that.
Depth is a strength of the current roster to the point where some guys who probably deserve minutes won't be able to get them. We essentially have too many good players and not enough great players. So, I'd want to shoot for the most talented player we can get our hands on even at a significant premium to concentrate more of the team's talent into the 5 guys who get to be on the floor at any one time. Our rotation won't suffer much from giving away multiple guys for Paul. If we lose Brooks, we still have Lowry. If we lose Ariza, we still have Battier and Budinger. If we lose Hill, we still have Scola, Hayes and Patterson. We can afford the expensive model.
I think our two-headed monster at PG is a strength of this team. As such, I wouldn't necessarily pursue a trade for a PG, whereas I'd be looking to upgrade the SF spot. If CP3 fell into our lap, I'd listen. But I'd aggressively go after a guy like Iggy, 'cause that fits more of a need. But that's just like, my opinion, man.
Terrible question or at least change the X vs. Y. If we do trade for Iguodala I'm assuming Ariza OR Battier are the key parts of our team that is being traded. So it's Aaron & Iguodala or Paul & Battier or Ariza. In such a case, I'd take Paul & Battier/Ariza especially with Martin as our SG who would be the third or fourth best offensive compliment to someone like Paul(behind Durant, Dirk for sure). Martin's an efficient off-ball scorer/shooter. That's the ideal "match" for Paul to work with. Though if we ended out getting Iguodala at a fair rate, i.e. Ariza, Hill, Jefferies I'd be very happy too. He'd be our best playmaker, among our best rebounders, and certainly our best athlete. He'd be 17/7/7 here and would go beautifully with Aaron Brooks.
I don't think Scola or Brooks are awful at D. We were one of the top defensive teams in the league with the both of them in the lineup. I juss think our players are much better than we give them credit for. We had a lot of injuries. I guess this is going to be a very interesting year.
Unfortunately, that's not something you can just learn/teach. And while I agree with the second part of your post, don't kid yourself, CP3 is MUCH better than AB0. Otherwise Aaron would have his own nickname and not one that mimics an All-Star PG.
