I think the only reason Brooks will is if we are trying to upgrade to get an actual point guard. But I think Brooks still has a lot of potential left to develop as a point guard. Plus there aren't many middle tier point guards out there that is worth trading for or getting right now, so its worth to keep Brooks. Lowry is tradeable in my opinion and I wouldn't mind trading him for Bayless.
If I could Babel Fish Bayless' summer league scoring prowess and translate it into point guard skills, I would. We've been grooming AB as a point guard, why take on another project Babel Fish says: Let' cara de s, Bayless aspira como armador.
Personally, if your going for penetration and to encourage good ball movement and perimeter D., I would get PIG Miller for PG and Back up PG
That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Skip Bayless is like 50 years old and I'm pretty sure he has a long term contract with ESPN.
if half of you wanted lowry starting over brooks last season, ur gonna think bayless is the best thing since sliced bread. he's 6'3 with great skills and composure. he would be starting on this team the second he was traded here.
no...aaron brooks is better, and a better shooter than bayless...i think bayless is more like kyle lowry..quick and can get to the basket.
As a massive Lowry fan, I think we should stick with him. People might already be forgetting the smarts and toughness he brought to the team. I would be quicker to move Brooks (although not for Bayless) than KL7.
No doubt Bayless has talent. He can flat out score. He did it at Arizona and he did it in the Summer league. The question on Bayles is if he's a point guard or just a shooting guard in a PG body? Brooks too is a scorer but IMO he's got much better PG instincts than Bayless. As pointed out earlier, the Rockets certainly would move Brooks if they thought it helped the ball club. I don't believe that they'll move Brooks unless it's for a better PG (i.e. floor leader/setup man). I think the Rockets thought that Rubio has special skills as a passer/floor general and were willing to move Brooks for him. Would they do it for a score first PG with questionable playmaking skills? I don't think so. As for Lowry, he's completely different than Brooks and together they complement each other well. Brooks and Bayless have similar strengths and similar weaknesses. Having both of them doesn't really you to change things up when needed. If Brooks is havng a tough time stopping an opposing PG or hitting his jumper, I'd much rather have Lowry coming in playing strong defense and slashing to the rim. That's a nice change of pace.
From the Blazers perspective, I believe that they wanted him to develop into a point guard, but after his unsuccessful performance as PG in the summer league, they decided he wasn't ready to be a back up PG and brought in Andre Miller. I don't think getting Miller was about not trusting Blake, i think it was about realizing Bayless is a 2, and they already have a 2 who's going to take most of the minutes, and a backup 2 (Fernandez) who needs every minute he can get. I would look at Bayless as a 2 for us, as he could develop into a great scorer, but he is not now, and probably never will be a point.
"a score first PG with questionable playmaking skills?" To be honest with you, that's how I see Brooks... Lowry was a better point guard than Brooks while Brooks was a better scoring guard than Lowry.
Fair enough. Brooks does have some PG instincts but he is definitely a shoot first PG. If the Rockets can replace Brooks with a true PG, then I don't think they'll hesitate. I think the interest in Rubio showed that. Bayless though is even less of a true PG, so I don't think that he'd be an option. In games 3 and 4 vs Portland I thought that the team looked much better (both offensively and defensively) with Lowry at the point. When Brooks' offensie is working he can help the team. When he's not having a good offensive game, then he doesn't contribute much else.
Bayless is probably a better option, because he has some more size and wont be as much as a liability on the defensive end as AB0. But I dont think he is that much of an upgrade to be worth trading for.
Bayless would be a slightly better long term option. Mostly cuz he's almost 4 years younger than Brooks and has comparable athleticism and more size. Though Bayless is a smallish 6-3. And Brooks isnt some old vet. In a package deal maaaybe...but Bayless isnt worth trading for by himself. He can be a Monta Ellis type in the right situation. But not sure Rockets would be that right situation.
