LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

    http://www.csnnw.com/blog/blazers-talk/source-aldridges-rep-meets-olshey-talk-trade-scenarios

    If the Celtics can get Aldridge then the rebuilding process will be shortened.

    The Celts would have to give up Sully, other young players, and a draft pick or draft picks.

     

    Rondo, Uncle Jeff, Aldridge, and Oly makes the Celts an elite team again.

    The question is will Aldridge want to play for the Celtics?



    I am going to laugh my self Ito sleep.  Elite team?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from R9R. Show R9R's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

     

    http://www.csnnw.com/blog/blazers-talk/source-aldridges-rep-meets-olshey-talk-trade-scenarios

    If the Celtics can get Aldridge then the rebuilding process will be shortened.

    The Celts would have to give up Sully, other young players, and a draft pick or draft picks.

     

    Rondo, Uncle Jeff, Aldridge, and Oly makes the Celts an elite team again.

    The question is will Aldridge want to play for the Celtics?

     



    I am going to laugh my self Ito sleep.  Elite team?

     




    I agree, you need to start fab and have LA come off the bench as your 6th man. THEN you'd be elite!

     

    I dont understand the hype for LA. I think Sully Bradley & a top5 pick is way too much for a guy who will demand a max and is a PF.

     

    I'd keep sully, keep bradley, and use expiring money to go after a center next summer. With the new CBA, Sully is too valuable right now. Same with Bradley.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to R9R's comment:

     



    Yes, the Celts, in my opinion, should avoid becoming a playoff team.

     

    But what can we do if Rondo plays on opening night.

    [/QUOTE]

    Then you start him with Fab Melo.

    [/QUOTE]


    LOL.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

     

    Agreed ... LA is on a perpetual rebuilding team that hasn't contended in years and won't. He sees the forest for the trees and wants to be on a team with a history of winning and one that is serious about competing ASAP ... If he looks at a teams record when it comes to championship driven, ownership and fan base he has very few choices if he wants to win on a consistent basis. 

     



    Why this love for LA?  Danny is not supposed to be thinking like this.  Danny is supposed to be fleecing other GMs that may be thinking like this.

    Even on bad teams KG was a star.  He won MVP.  He competed.  Granted that I have seen very little of Portland but I don't have the impression that LA competes.  Multiple times I have seen the Warriors make him look very ordinary.  You don't remember him after the game.

    It is too much of an assumption that he will start competing and become a star on a better team.  Paul Pierce was on bad teams but you could see that he is a star.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    people here call Jeff Green untouchable, while at the same time thinking portland will trade their 28 year old all-star center to Boston for Kris Humphries, injured Sully, and a 1st round pick... funny. homerism at it's finest.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to prakash's comment:

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

     

     

    Agreed ... LA is on a perpetual rebuilding team that hasn't contended in years and won't. He sees the forest for the trees and wants to be on a team with a history of winning and one that is serious about competing ASAP ... If he looks at a teams record when it comes to championship driven, ownership and fan base he has very few choices if he wants to win on a consistent basis. 

     

     



     

    Why this love for LA?  Danny is not supposed to be thinking like this.  Danny is supposed to be fleecing other GMs that may be thinking like this.

    Even on bad teams KG was a star.  He won MVP.  He competed.  Granted that I have seen very little of Portland but I don't have the impression that LA competes.  Multiple times I have seen the Warriors make him look very ordinary.  You don't remember him after the game.

    It is too much of an assumption that he will start competing and become a star on a better team.  Paul Pierce was on bad teams but you could see that he is a star.



    dude, your logic filter is seriously flawed. Aldridge is an all-star Center, but he's not KG. him not being as good as KG doesn't mean that he doesn't compete. he's been part of playoff teams, he competes. he's an all-star caliber player, just not an MVP caliber player, so far.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

    In response to prakash's comment:

     

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Agreed ... LA is on a perpetual rebuilding team that hasn't contended in years and won't. He sees the forest for the trees and wants to be on a team with a history of winning and one that is serious about competing ASAP ... If he looks at a teams record when it comes to championship driven, ownership and fan base he has very few choices if he wants to win on a consistent basis. 

     

     

     



     

     

    Why this love for LA?  Danny is not supposed to be thinking like this.  Danny is supposed to be fleecing other GMs that may be thinking like this.

    Even on bad teams KG was a star.  He won MVP.  He competed.  Granted that I have seen very little of Portland but I don't have the impression that LA competes.  Multiple times I have seen the Warriors make him look very ordinary.  You don't remember him after the game.

    It is too much of an assumption that he will start competing and become a star on a better team.  Paul Pierce was on bad teams but you could see that he is a star.

     



    dude, your logic filter is seriously flawed. Aldridge is an all-star Center, but he's not KG. him not being as good as KG doesn't mean that he doesn't compete. he's been part of playoff teams, he competes. he's an all-star caliber player, just not an MVP caliber player, so far.

     



    Well, I have seen many games where LA was made to look downright silly.  In my book competing means being able to deal with adversity and coming on top.  So I don't accept that my logic filter is flawed.  Just because LA has been an All-Star does not make him a desirable player to me.  To me he is a David West kind of player.  Good to have but not worth going after.

    So let me understand, are you advocating that Danny should go after LA?  Are you advocating that Danny should not go after LA?  Or are you simply trying to beat me into submission?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to prakash's comment:

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

     

    In response to prakash's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Agreed ... LA is on a perpetual rebuilding team that hasn't contended in years and won't. He sees the forest for the trees and wants to be on a team with a history of winning and one that is serious about competing ASAP ... If he looks at a teams record when it comes to championship driven, ownership and fan base he has very few choices if he wants to win on a consistent basis. 

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

    Why this love for LA?  Danny is not supposed to be thinking like this.  Danny is supposed to be fleecing other GMs that may be thinking like this.

    Even on bad teams KG was a star.  He won MVP.  He competed.  Granted that I have seen very little of Portland but I don't have the impression that LA competes.  Multiple times I have seen the Warriors make him look very ordinary.  You don't remember him after the game.

    It is too much of an assumption that he will start competing and become a star on a better team.  Paul Pierce was on bad teams but you could see that he is a star.

     

     



    dude, your logic filter is seriously flawed. Aldridge is an all-star Center, but he's not KG. him not being as good as KG doesn't mean that he doesn't compete. he's been part of playoff teams, he competes. he's an all-star caliber player, just not an MVP caliber player, so far.

     

     

     



    Well, I have seen many games where LA was made to look downright silly.  In my book competing means being able to deal with adversity and coming on top.  So I don't accept that my logic filter is flawed.  Just because LA has been an All-Star does not make him a desirable player to me.  To me he is a David West kind of player.  Good to have but not worth going after.

     

    So let me understand, are you advocating that Danny should go after LA?  Are you advocating that Danny should not go after LA?  Or are you simply trying to beat me into submission?



    i'm just pointing out your logical flaws. my opinion on whether or not DA should go after LA is irrelevant to that. though, i'm pretty sure i've already stated my opinion on that several times througout the thread. overall, i am opposed because i don't see a realistic deal that makes sense and i don't believe that aldridge make's the C's a contender and DA will have to force the rebuilding process and potentially make bad move's with young assets trying to put talent around Rondo, LA, and Green.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

     

    In response to prakash's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prakash's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Mployee8's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Agreed ... LA is on a perpetual rebuilding team that hasn't contended in years and won't. He sees the forest for the trees and wants to be on a team with a history of winning and one that is serious about competing ASAP ... If he looks at a teams record when it comes to championship driven, ownership and fan base he has very few choices if he wants to win on a consistent basis. 

     

     

     

     

     

     


     

     

     

     

     

    Why this love for LA?  Danny is not supposed to be thinking like this.  Danny is supposed to be fleecing other GMs that may be thinking like this.

    Even on bad teams KG was a star.  He won MVP.  He competed.  Granted that I have seen very little of Portland but I don't have the impression that LA competes.  Multiple times I have seen the Warriors make him look very ordinary.  You don't remember him after the game.

    It is too much of an assumption that he will start competing and become a star on a better team.  Paul Pierce was on bad teams but you could see that he is a star.

     

     

     

     



    dude, your logic filter is seriously flawed. Aldridge is an all-star Center, but he's not KG. him not being as good as KG doesn't mean that he doesn't compete. he's been part of playoff teams, he competes. he's an all-star caliber player, just not an MVP caliber player, so far.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well, I have seen many games where LA was made to look downright silly.  In my book competing means being able to deal with adversity and coming on top.  So I don't accept that my logic filter is flawed.  Just because LA has been an All-Star does not make him a desirable player to me.  To me he is a David West kind of player.  Good to have but not worth going after.

     

     

     

    So let me understand, are you advocating that Danny should go after LA?  Are you advocating that Danny should not go after LA?  Or are you simply trying to beat me into submission?

     

     



    i'm just pointing out your logical flaws. my opinion on whether or not DA should go after LA is irrelevant to that. though, i'm pretty sure i've already stated my opinion on that several times througout the thread. overall, i am opposed because i don't see a realistic deal that makes sense and i don't believe that aldridge make's the C's a contenderand DA will have to force the rebuilding process and potentially make bad move's with young assets trying to put talent around Rondo, LA, and Green.

     

     

     



    Then you don't see how Danny traded up his assets to get Ray and KG, so there's no point in discussing with you as you're blind to your concept of bottoming out for 2-3 years for lottery picks and cap space (for what?) rather than Danny's tried and true philosophy of horse trading ... again, wake up and smell the coffee!

     



    are you comparing LA to KG? lol 

    "we will never win a good lottery pick because the last two times we got screwed"

    "we should trade away 1st round picks for established talent because that's what worked last time."

    this is simpleton, black and white thinking. no two situations are identical. the KG/RA trades were unique and something never seen before in the NBA. Ray Allen was 30 years old and on a bad team, Boston had a guarenteed #5 draft pick, KG was a over 30 and on a bad team and also at the end of his contract, McHale was running the show in Minny. it was a perfect strom.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    If KG/RA never happened our examples of trading prospects for proven talent would be Chauncey Billups and Joe Johnson, not very good. and again, Aldridge is no KG.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

     

    i'm just pointing out your logical flaws. my opinion on whether or not DA should go after LA is irrelevant to that. though, i'm pretty sure i've already stated my opinion on that several times througout the thread. overall, i am opposed because i don't see a realistic deal that makes sense and i don't believe that aldridge make's the C's a contender and DA will have to force the rebuilding process and potentially make bad move's with young assets trying to put talent around Rondo, LA, and Green.

     



    There is no flaw in my logic.  I am not using logic.  I am making a judgement call.  You are disagreeing with my judgement call and calling it a logical flaw.  Doesn't make sense.

    Here is my position on LA, simply stated: "LA is not worth going after because he just doesn't have enough.  If he did I would have seen him compete better.  I have seen him get easily neutralized and made to look silly at times.  The fact that he is an All-Star doesn't sway my judgement.  I prefer that Danny gambles in other places to improve the team."

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

     

     here is your actual quote..

    "this love for LA?  Danny is not supposed to be thinking like this.  Danny is supposed to be fleecing other GMs that may be thinking like this.

    Even on bad teams KG was a star.  He won MVP.  He competed.  Granted that I have seen very little of Portland but I don't have the impression that LA competes.  Multiple times I have seen the Warriors make him look very ordinary.  You don't remember him after the game.

    It is too much of an assumption that he will start competing and become a star on a better team.  Paul Pierce was on bad teams but you could see that he is a star."

    your flawed for your reasoning for not wanting him. your argument is that he isn't a star and he doesn't compete. your reasoning for saying that is because he has never been an MVP caliber player like KG or PP while on a bad team. this is flawed thinking. he has steadily improved over his career and has become an all-star, he is a star. To my knowledge his effort and competitiveness have never been questioned.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to MrCricket's comment:

     

     here is your actual quote..

    "this love for LA?  Danny is not supposed to be thinking like this.  Danny is supposed to be fleecing other GMs that may be thinking like this.

    Even on bad teams KG was a star.  He won MVP.  He competed.  Granted that I have seen very little of Portland but I don't have the impression that LA competes.  Multiple times I have seen the Warriors make him look very ordinary.  You don't remember him after the game.

    It is too much of an assumption that he will start competing and become a star on a better team.  Paul Pierce was on bad teams but you could see that he is a star."

    your flawed for your reasoning for not wanting him. your argument is that he isn't a star and he doesn't compete. your reasoning for saying that is because he has never been an MVP caliber player like KG or PP while on a bad team. this is flawed thinking. he has steadily improved over his career and has become an all-star, he is a star. To my knowledge his effort and competitiveness have never been questioned.

     



    Read that and you will understand my reasoning.  Beyond that, it is not a logical flaw.  It is a difference in judgement.  You are basing your opinion on your set of observations.  I am basing them on mine.  It is quite simple.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BCSP. Show BCSP's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    Found this on Chat Sports and could not help but think about possible "buy low super stars" that might be available! Aldridge and or Hayward! 

     

    Is Bogans sneakily a good trade chip?


    When the Celtics and Nets made the famous "KG/Pierce" deal this summer, they needed more salary from the Nets to balance things out. The solution was to give Bogans, an NBA journeyman who made $1.2 million last season, a major pay raise to over $5 million this season. The contract had nothing to do with Bogans play, and everything to do with NBA trade rules. By signing-and-trading Bogans to Boston, the Nets could acquire Pierce, Garnett and Terry. And by agreeing to sign Bogans, the Celtics could simultaneously do two things:

    A. Complete the trade and pick up a valuable $10.3 million trade exception from Brooklyn.

    And, 

    B. Give Bogans the necessary money for 2013-14, but make his future salaries non-guaranteed. This means that Bogans becomes a $5 million expiring contract this summer. 

    What does that mean for the Celtics? Well, it actually makes Bogans a fairly attractive trade chip. Expiring contracts always have value, and Bogans is actually the 25th largest expiring contract in the NBA this season. The Celtics also have the expiring contracts of Kris Humphries ($12 million) and Jordan Crawford($2.1 million), giving them just over $19 million in expiring deals. This means that if the Celtics feel like there is a buy low superstar out there, they can package these deals with some of their other assets (namely the nine first round picks they have collected between 2015-2019) and try and make a move. Making Bogans deal even more attractive is that it has no guarantee date for next year, meaning he can actually be traded next summer and immediately waived by a team. This could be a very attractive chip for a team looking to dump a player as they can quickly slash $5 million off their payroll. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BCSP. Show BCSP's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    Aldridge will be 28 this year, which would mean he is half-way through his prime. He has been putting up excellent numbers in each of the past three seasons, but those numbers will eventually come down.

    He needs to be able to maximize his talent and do so on a winning team.

     

    Admittedly frustrated

    According to Scott Schroeder on Pro Basketball Talk, Aldridge recently admitted that he had been "frustrated" in Portland.

    Certainly fans could understand why. Last year's team was a joke. Not a joke in the sense that it was void of talent. Any team withDamian Lillard on it certainly has some talent.

     

     

    No, the Blazers were a joke last year because of the bench that management put together. Of the subs, only a few are actual NBA-caliber players that have a shot at making any type of impression on teams league-wide.

    Luke Babbitt? Nolan Smith? Sasha Pavlovic?

    Until a midseason trade for Eric Maynor, there was not a single viable option coming off the Blazer bench.

    Sure, Victor Claver and Will Barton have some talent, but neither is ready to carry any type of load for the Blazers.

    It has got to be frustrating for a star player like Aldridge to be forced to play sizable minutes because the bench players can't fill his shoes and then be forced to play from behind when those bench players leave points on the board.

    But luckily for Aldridge, the Blazers went into this offseason determined to improve their anemic bench.

    They added players like Brook Lopez, Mo Williams, Dorell Wright and Thomas Robinson as well as rookie C.J. McCollum. At every single position, they improved their depth.

    The overall level of talent on the Blazers has improved greatly.

    Now how good, exactly, is this team determined to be? There are just too many question marks surrounding too many of the players to give any honest assessment.

    I would say that at the very least, this team should improve.

     

    How much time?

    Back to Aldridge.

    LaMarcus is technically under contract through next year. He is on the hook for about $30 million over the next two seasons.

    However, those numbers and years really don't mean much. For a player of Aldridge's talent, plenty of teams will find a way to make room for him.

    The real question becomes: Just how content can the Blazers make LA?

    Aldridge is not going to want to wait until after he is 30 to find a contending team. The next two years are just too important to waste on a team that isn't committed to winning.

    The take here is that the Blazers have one year to wow Aldridge. They need to make real tangible steps in the right direction.

     

    Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

     

    Now does that mean contending for a title this year? Of course not. Barring a miraculous trade for a superstar, the Blazers just will not be contenders this year.

    The Western Conference certainly isn't as tough as it once was, but it isn't completely weak either. The Blazers should improve this year, and the playoffs certainly should be viewed as a viable goal.

    Aldridge needs to know that the Blazers are committed to winning now and not in the distant future.

    If they are able to move in the right direction, they may just have a shot at keeping Aldridge a Blazer.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    I think he is an elite midrange shooter.  That's it though.  I've always thought he was an average nba pf who benefitted from being on teams with limited options.

    i like the people who add Wallace to these deals.  why not just throw in some Celine dion tickets too?  Wallace is a deal breaker, not a maker.  

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hondorondo. Show hondorondo's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    I think a team with Rondo, Green, Aldridge and Olynik is capable of being an elite team with another key addition. That leads to a question I have for those of you who have salary cap/salary matching expertise. If we were to acquire Aldridge through a trade for players and picks, can you describe some scenarios in terms of what kind of money we might have to spend before next season based on what expiring contracts we would be unlikely to involve in a trade for Aldridge? Thanks.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from debrit. Show debrit's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to TheBigTicket05's comment:

    maybe sully,wallace, Melo and crawford plus picks for LA will do



    Melo is in Dallas.We can not trade him.HaHaHa

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from debrit. Show debrit's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to TheBigTicket05's comment:

    maybe sully,wallace, Melo and crawford plus picks for LA will do



    We can not trade Melo.He belongues to the Dallas Mavericks.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: LaMarcus Aldridge On The Move

    In response to hondorondo's comment:

    I think a team with Rondo, Green, Aldridge and Olynik is capable of being an elite team with another key addition. That leads to a question I have for those of you who have salary cap/salary matching expertise. If we were to acquire Aldridge through a trade for players and picks, can you describe some scenarios in terms of what kind of money we might have to spend before next season based on what expiring contracts we would be unlikely to involve in a trade for Aldridge? Thanks.



    That addition would have to be Lebron.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share