# Trade Proposal: LMA



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

I'm proposing the Bulls trade for LaMarcus Aldridge. Similar to Tyrus he got better as the season went on and had some good games at the end. The heart issue seems to be resolved. He can play C or PF. He's solid on defense and offense, still has upside and would be more experienced than a rookie we got from the draft.I know I'm going to be called nuts because Portland doesn't want to get rid of LMA, they want to get rid of Randolph. But just hear me out.

Chicago trade #9 and Thabo Sefolosha to Portland For LaMarcus Aldridge.

*Why Bulls do it:* Bulls get a long term starting C after Wallace retires. As I said above he's solid offensively and defensively and I think would work well with Tyrus and Deng in the front court. Would contibute/possibly start next season.

Hinrich
Gordon
Deng
Thomas
Aldridge

*Why Blazers do it:* They won't get fair value for Randolph so they could keep him. Thabo is an excellent defender (Bowen/Artest potential in my opinion) and a good rebounder for his position. Can play and defend several positions. He shot about 35% from 3 but his offense does need to develop. He is athletic, and a good ball handler so he'll be able to attack the rim more. Portland could use the pick to take Conely and Thabo would play SF, or Thabo would play SG, Roy PG and they take Brewer/Green/SF they like.

Conely
Roy
Sefolosha
Randolph
Oden

or

Roy
Sefolosha
Brewer/Green
Randolph
Oden


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I am willing to bet that the best you will get from Portland management would be "thanks, but no thanks". Portland was willing to give up Victor (loved, believe it or not, in Portland) to move from the #4 spot to the #2 so they will be sure they got LaMarcus. No way the change him for a #9 in this draft and wherever Thabo was selected last year. I am willing to bet that Portland will not do a a TT and #9 for Aldridge.

Portland does not need to move Zach. It would be nice if Portland was able to get a veteran starting SF or great prospect SF for him - but if these deals are not there - there are enough reasons to keep Zach around as a 3 headed front-court monster and move him at the trade deadline or next year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ouch, thats a tough trade to do, that you have to consider doing. Giving up that guard depth in Thabo sucks, but you fill your frontcourt legitly.

I think you have to do it, and then sign a guy like Devin Brown to replace Thabo.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

No way they trade Aldridge. That's why Randolph is available.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Oden, Roy and Aldridge are all untouchable. If Aldridge was coming out this year, the debate would be who is Seattle going to take at No. 2? Aldridge or Durant? Aldridge is clearly better than anyone else who would go 3rd in this draft. So, there's no way do you get him for No. 9 and a guy who would be Brandon Roy's back-up. You had your chance at him last year and passed. There's no way you're getting him now period - let alone with such a low ball offer.

BNM


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I would do this without blinking, pity Aldridge won't be available.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Its interesting how Portland is making LaMarcus Aldridge untouchable.

-He only averaged 9.0 pts 5.0 rebs 1.2 blks. Not bad by any means, but not like WHOAA.
-He had a heart problem.

Anyhow, just out of curiosity, comparing Aldridge's predraft numbers....

Height: Spencer Hawes: 6'10.5" vs. LaMarcus Aldridge 6'10" ADVANTAGE HAWES
Weight: Spencer Hawes: 244 vs. LaMarcus Aldrdige: 234 ADVANTAGE HAWES
Standing Reach: Spencer Hawes: 9'2" vs. LaMarcus Aldridge: 9'2" DRAW
Body Fat: Spencer Hawes: 13.0 % vs. LaMarcus Aldridge: 8.7% ADVANTAGE ALDRIDGE (more bone/muscle in comparison to fat)
No Step Vert: Spencer Hawes: 26" vs. LaMarcus Aldridge: 26.5" ADVANTAGE ALDRIDGE
Bench Press: Spencer Hawes: 9 vs. LaMarcus Aldridge: 8 ADVANTAGE HAWES
Lane Agility: Spencer Hawes: 11.8 vs. LaMarcus Aldridge: 12.2 ADVANTAGE HAWES
3/4 Court Sprint: Spencer Hawes: 3.51 vs. LaMarcus Aldridge: 3.43 ADVANTAGE ALDRIDGE

These are two very similar players athletically....fwiw.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Calling you nuts would be too kind 



> They won't get fair value for Randolph so they could keep him.



LOL that's my favorite part of the post. Since they won't get equal value for Zach, why not give them **** for Aldridge. 


As for the only 9/5 post.....It should be pointed out that as a starter after the all-star break he averaged 16/9

As for the heart condition, it was a simple thing that has been 100% fixed. It is not any kind of lasting condition.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Mebarak said:


> Its interesting how Portland is making LaMarcus Aldridge untouchable.
> 
> -He only averaged 9.0 pts 5.0 rebs 1.2 blks. Not bad by any means, but not like WHOAA.
> -He had a heart problem.
> ...




Now compare those to Durant's numbers. I guess Hawes is a better athlete than Kevin Durant as well. LOL


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Its interesting how Portland is making LaMarcus Aldridge untouchable.
> 
> -He only averaged 9.0 pts 5.0 rebs 1.2 blks. Not bad by any means, but not like WHOAA.
> -He had a heart problem.


I guess you mised how Aldridge played in March. His early season production was low because a lack of PT (he was behind Zach, Joel and Magloire in the rotation at the beginning of the year). Once he got some decent PT, his number for March were 14.7 PPG, 8.0 RPG and 1.6 BPG. Not bad numbers for a rookie. Brandon Roy was clearly the rookie of the year, but when all is said and done LaMarcus Aldridge may very well end up as the best player from last year's draft class.

The "heart problem" was easily corrected with minor surgery, will not be recurring and has no long term ill effects. Moving forward, it's a non-issue.



Mebarak said:


> Anyhow, just out of curiosity, comparing Aldridge's predraft numbers....
> 
> Height: Spencer Hawes: 6'10.5" vs. LaMarcus Aldridge 6'10" ADVANTAGE HAWES
> Weight: Spencer Hawes: 244 vs. LaMarcus Aldrdige: 234 ADVANTAGE HAWES
> ...


Snicker... Fine, go ahead and take Hawes if you think he'll be as good as Aldridge. If he's nearly as good as Aldridge (he's not), he'd be an absolute steal at No. 9.

And, while we're at it:

Height: Spencer Hawes: 6'10.5" vs. Kevin Durant 6'9" ADVANTAGE HAWES
Weight: Spencer Hawes: 244 vs. Kevin Durant: 215 ADVANTAGE HAWES
Standing Reach: Spencer Hawes: 9'2" vs. Kevin Durant: 9'2" DRAW
Body Fat: Spencer Hawes: 13.0 % vs. Kevin Durant: 6.6% ADVANTAGE DURANT (more bone/muscle in comparison to fat)
No Step Vert: Spencer Hawes: 26" vs. Kevin Durant: 26" DRAW
Bench Press: Spencer Hawes: 9 vs. Kevin Durant: 0 ADVANTAGE HAWES
Lane Agility: Spencer Hawes: 11.8 vs. Kevin Durant: 12.3 ADVANTAGE HAWES
3/4 Court Sprint: Spencer Hawes: 3.51 vs. Kevin Durant: 3.45 ADVANTAGE DURANT

So, based on these numbers, Spencer Hawes is clearly a better athlete then Kevin Durant, yet oddly, I bet there isn't a GM in the league that would draft Hawes over Durant and I don't hear anyone even suggesting Seattle should draft Hawes at No. 2. Go figure.

Hawes is a decent prospect, but thinking he's anywhere close to as good as Aldridge based on his pre-draft numbers is just as misguided as thinking he's as good as Durant based on the same numbers. Such comparisons completely overlook talent. Hawes has shown flashes of decent talent for a big man. Aldridge has shown more, and at a higher at a higher level.

BNM


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> ... a lot of Hawes vs. LaMarcus comparison ...
> 
> These are two very similar players athletically....fwiw.


Aldridge is a PF, Hawes is a Center. Aldridge is capable of playing Center and he played a lot of it next to Randolph last year - but when Zach was out of the picture and Aldridge started as a PF he averaged 21 and 9. Compare that to Randolph at 23 and 10. Aldridge is a rookie, plays much better D than Randolph. Now put Aldridge next to a true center in Oden and it is very clear why Portland will not trade him.

I will be very surprised if Aldridge does not average at least 16ppg and 8 rpg next year next to Oden. I actually think he will be higher than that.

Portland has a chance of a very special combination with Oden/Aldridge - and management knows it. The reason Randolph is available is not because of his salary - it is because Portland thinks they have someone that can be almost as productive as him on offense while being much better on defense.

If Zach stays I am guessing Aldridge will get 30 minutes per game and will be a contender for the 6th man of the year...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well just comparing the 2nd half splits of two players chosen at random with Aldridge from their rookie campaigns.

LaMarcus Aldridge: 10.8 PPG 6.1 RPG 0.4 APG 1.3 BPG in 25 MPG

Now in comparison....

Eddy Curry: 9.3 PPG 5.1 RPG 0.4 APG 0.9 BPG in 20 MPG

Tyson Chandler: 8.2 PPG 6.3 RPG 0.9 APG 1.6 BPG in 25 MPG

Whats the big deal about Aldridge again? Especially considering how he doesn't posess the athletic ability of these two, and was older than him. What does his 2nd half split do him to set him apart from other big men prospects of the past? Why is he so untouchable again?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I guess you mised how Aldridge played in March. His early season production was low because a lack of PT (he was behind Zach, Joel and Magloire in the rotation at the beginning of the year). Once he got some decent PT, his number for March were 14.7 PPG, 8.0 RPG and 1.6 BPG. Not bad numbers for a rookie. Brandon Roy was clearly the rookie of the year, but when all is said and done LaMarcus Aldridge may very well end up as the best player from last year's draft class.
> 
> The "heart problem" was easily corrected with minor surgery, will not be recurring and has no long term ill effects. Moving forward, it's a non-issue.
> 
> ...


I don't remember calling Hawes better than Aldridge. I said they are athletically similar.

I think its reasonable to assume that Aldridge will be a better defender and rebounder than Hawes, but Hawes should be the better scorer, and will most definitely be the better passer of the two.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

If you visit the Blazer board, half of the people there wouldn't trade Brandon Roy for Kevin Durant. Forget Lamarcus, you wouldn't even get Prizbilla for #9 and Thabo.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> If you visit the Blazer board, half of the people there wouldn't trade Brandon Roy for Kevin Durant. Forget Lamarcus, you wouldn't even get Prizbilla for #9 and Thabo.


So, oh rational Raptors fan, would you trade Bargnani for #9 + Thabo? That's basically equivalent to what's being proposed here.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Well just comparing the 2nd half splits of two players chosen at random with Aldridge from their rookie campaigns.
> 
> LaMarcus Aldridge: 10.8 PPG 6.1 RPG 0.4 APG 1.3 BPG in 25 MPG
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but post all-star break, Aldridge was 14.0 PPG, 7.3 RPG and 1.6 BPG.

So, picture a big man who scores more than Curry, but rebounds and blocks shots like Chandler - all in one package. Aldridge is a COMPLETE player who is above average at BOTH ends of the court. Thinking you could get him for #9 + Thabo is a joke. You're basically offering this year's #9 + a back-up guard for last year's #2.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, oh rational Raptors fan, would you trade Bargnani for #9 + Thabo? That's basically equivalent to what's being proposed here.
> 
> BNM


I was referring to how Blazers value their own players, making Aldrige untouchable.

And no, I wouldn't trade Bargnani for #9 and Thabo, however, I would at least consider that offer for Aldrige since Portland has a logjam up front.

But then again, what's the point. If you guys wouldn't trade Roy for Durant, are other trade offers even necessary?


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> If you visit the Blazer board, half of the people there wouldn't trade Brandon Roy for Kevin Durant. Forget Lamarcus, you wouldn't even get Prizbilla for #9 and Thabo.


I thought that was kind of funny also, and it definitely doesn't represent all Blazers fans. 

However I don't understand the comparisons of Hawes to Aldridge athletically, Aldridge runs the court like a guard is now a legit 7' (he actually grew last season, similar to what Deng did early in his career) has a 7'4" wingspan and a 34" vert. He may not quite have Tyrus athleticism but he's far from the stiff Hawes is.

That said there is zero nil zilch chance Portland would ever except this offer. Do you think you could get the #3 from Atlanta for #9 and Thabo? Portland reportedly already turned down #3 for Aldridge.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but post all-star break, Aldridge was 14.0 PPG, 7.3 RPG and 1.6 BPG.
> 
> So, picture a big man who scores more than Curry, but rebounds and blocks shots like Chandler - all in one package. Aldridge is a COMPLETE player who is above average at BOTH ends of the court. Thinking you could get him for #9 + Thabo is a joke. You're basically offering this year's #9 + a back-up guard for last year's #2.
> 
> BNM



Chances are slim that Aldridge will ever rebound or block shots as well as Chandler. And I doubt he'll ever outscore Eddy Curry. Should be a pretty good well-rounded big man though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If I were portland's GM, I'd strongly consider drafting Durant. The front court would be set for years with Aldridge at C, Durant at SF, and Randolph at PF. Roy is already looking like a very special player. Nice depth beyond the starters, too.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Dominant centers almost guarantees championships though. You almost have to take them when they're available no matter how your team is currently built.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Dominant centers almost guarantees championships though. You almost have to take them when they're available no matter how your team is currently built.


If Portland could somehow deal Randolph for an equivalent SF... I don't see it, though.

It's not like Durant isn't the real deal, and maybe we're looking at the Rockets/Hakeem vs. Bulls Jordan kind of draft decision.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If Portland could somehow deal Randolph for an equivalent SF... I don't see it, though.
> 
> It's not like Durant isn't the real deal, and maybe we're looking at the Rockets/Hakeem vs. Bulls Jordan kind of draft decision.




While they might not get equivlent, they will certainly get adequate.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> While they might not get equivlent, they will certainly get adequate.


Weren't you guys making the case for Aldridge being that franchise changing center? I think he's certainly got a real chance of being that player.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> And no, I wouldn't trade Bargnani for #9 and Thabo, however, I would at least consider that offer for Aldrige since Portland has a logjam up front.



Doesn't Toronto have the same situation? 

Bosh PF
Bargnani PF who can play SF

Randolph PF
Aldridge PF who can play C

So you would at least consider that offer correct?


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> Dominant centers almost guarantees championships though. You almost have to take them when they're available no matter how your team is currently built.


That Luc Longley was awesome wasn't he?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Doesn't Toronto have the same situation?
> 
> Bosh PF
> Bargnani PF who can play SF
> ...


I don't suppose you watched any Raptors playoff games this year, not many people did. Bargnani played the 5 alongside Bosh and was the main reason the Raptors were competitive the final 2 games against New Jersey. If anything, their future together as the starting frontcourt for the Raptors is very bright.

Well, if you put it this way, the Blazers really don't have a logjam up front since Aldrige can play the C with Randolph playing PF. If only they somehow acquire a starting center through some sort of trade, free agent signing, or *draft*. But *O*, what's the chance of something absur*d* happ*en*ing for the Blazers.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't suppose you watched any Raptors playoff games this year, not many people did. Bargnani played the 5 alongside Bosh and was the main reason the Raptors were competitive the final 2 games against New Jersey. If anything, their future together as the starting frontcourt for the Raptors is very bright.
> 
> Well, if you put it this way, the Blazers really don't have a logjam up front since Aldrige can play the C with Randolph playing PF. If only they somehow acquire a starting center through some sort of trade, free agent signing, or *draft*. But *O*, what's the chance of something absur*d* happ*en*ing for the Blazers.


Its a little easier for Bosh and Bargnani to play along side each other because neither player really tends to cog up the paint as they can drift out to the three point line and give each other space.

Whereas i think Portland will have a little problem with Aldrige and Oden, because they are both predominately post players that will stay in the paint. Both being big bodies don't help either as i don't think they'll be enough space to satisfy both, though i can assume that Aldridge can drift out occasionally, but i don't see them staying together longer than 3 years at the maximum.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

kulaz3000 said:


> That Luc Longley was awesome wasn't he?


The chances of Oden being a Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq/David Robinson caliber center is higher than Durant being the next Jordan. Chances are none of us will ever see another MJ, we just might see another Hakeem or D Rob.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> Dominant centers almost guarantees championships though. You almost have to take them when they're available no matter how your team is currently built.


Smartest thing you have posted in this thread. EDIT - KJ.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> The chances of Oden being a Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq/David Robinson caliber center is higher than Durant being the next Jordan. Chances are none of us will ever see another MJ, we just might see another Hakeem or D Rob.


Well thats what Portland is hoping anyhow. Imagine if Oden turned out like Nervous Pervis and Durant became the next Bird? Portland would be the laughing stock of the next generation.

Though i don't see that happening, but i can't wait to see both Durant and Oden playing in the next level before i judge on whether their talent has transitioned to the NBA. That being said, Portland is in a great position to become a good team fast, all they are missing now is veteran pieces as they won't get far just staying young. Thats the main problem i have with some Chicago Bulls fans that keep insisting that we keep drafting rookies and trying to trade up players to draft more rookies, its ridiculous. We need to become more experienced with veteran players, and we should worry about getting rookies when we become a little older. How many rookies and youngsters contribute to big time basketball teams?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I'm still not seeing what Blazers fans are seeing with Aldridge.

He is going to be a very good defender and rebounder. Comparing him to Chandler is just downright laughable in this regard though. He has some nice post moves, and a decent jumpshot, but his post moves aren't as good as Curry's or Hawes'. Hawes' looks like he'll have a better jumpshot than Aldridge too. In addition, on offense, LaMarcus Aldridge is a blackhole. Once that ball is going in, its not coming back out. This could easily become a problem in the future for us. We already have one black hole in Tyrus Thomas, we do not really need another one. Aldridge is probably a bigger black hole than both Randolph/Curry. He probably isn't a great fit here, with his lack of offensive awareness of his teammates when he has the ball, and a lack of pasing ability, and peripheral vision, he is limited in potential, and has a much lower ceiling on the offensive end than a guy like Tyrus Thomas, Yi Jialian, Joakim Noah, and Spencer Hawes. 

I think I'd rather take my chances on Hawes/Yi/Noah over trading #9 + Thabo for Aldridge. He's a bad fit, he wouldn't be able to find our guys on the perimeter due to his lack of abilities/intangibles mentioned above. While Noah/Yi/Hawes all are good passers, who I have no doubt would be able to find those guys on the perimeter in our offense, while Aldridge, in our offense, would be a big turnover problem probably, while stunting the offense. He is a much better fit next to Greg Oden, in a system where he won't be expected to come out of the high post, and make good passes, and just be the #2 big, who can play to his strengths of shooting open jumpshots, and playing defense, rather than having an offense run through him.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I agree that the suggestion that Portland would trade Aldridge for Sefolosha and the #9 is a bit insulting. 

Frankly I'm happy to keep Thabo and the pick. You never know, Yi, Hawes, Splitter or Noah could turn out to be just as good as Aldridge, and Thabo looks like he could develop into a ferocious Prince-like defensive wing man with a little offense to boot.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

Getting Lamarcus Alrdidge would be nearly impossible. They've already came out and said that he is untouchable so why would they trade him for Thabo sefolosha and the #9 pick? I highly doubt Conley falls past 6 so there goes that Idea of him playing with Oden. 

I said before we even drafted Tyrus that I would be happy with either Tyrus or Aldridge. It was either, "You have your frontcourt pretty much secure with Aldridge or, lets wait and see if Tyrus develops into something even better than Aldridge would have which is the route they took. You won't see it the first few years but I bet that within there 4th or 5th year, Tyrus will seem like the right pick.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

T-Time said:


> Getting Lamarcus Alrdidge would be nearly impossible. They've already came out and said that he is untouchable so why would they trade him for Thabo sefolosha and the #9 pick? I highly doubt Conley falls past 6 so there goes that Idea of him playing with Oden.
> 
> I said before we even drafted Tyrus that I would be happy with either Tyrus or Aldridge. It was either, "You have your frontcourt pretty much secure with Aldridge or, lets wait and see if Tyrus develops into something even better than Aldridge would have which is the route they took. You won't see it the first few years but I bet that within there 4th or 5th year, Tyrus will seem like the right pick.


Why is it that this forum will give TT four or 5 years to develop but considers LA a bust not worthy of development and patience?


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

I know Portland likes Aldridge but this whole "untouchable" thing makes him sound like he's Tim Duncan or something. If a trade makes your team better then you do it. If Portland drafts Oden then I think it does make them better.

Drafting Oden makes Portland strong in the front court and weak on the perimiter. Some people are acting like Thabo and the pick are scrubs. It's not like we're talking about Duhon and Malik Allen here. Thabo has the potential to be an elite defender. The value at 9 is going to be at the wing or PG depending on whos available or how you rate guys. 

Sometimes you have to make bold moves to get to the championship level.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I hate LA threads because there are both a handful of Bulls fans and a ton of Blazers fans that can't stop singing his praises. He'll be a good pro but people seem to think he's going to become an All-Star/Superstar calliber player and I've never quite seen it. 18 and 9? That's absolutely possible but people talk as though he's going to go 23 and 11 with a post game and stellar defense some day and I just can't project that. LA doesn't fit the Bulls needs because he's not a true center and he plays facing the basket so I wouldn't want to pay the exhorbitant price it would take.

I'd rather fill the back to the basket void with Hawes or draft a guy who figures to be a better back to the basket four than LA in Yi if he somehow falls.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I hate LA threads because there are both a handful of Bulls fans and a ton of Blazers fans that can't stop singing his praises. He'll be a good pro but people seem to think he's going to become an All-Star/Superstar calliber player and I've never quite seen it. 18 and 9? That's absolutely possible but people talk as though he's going to go 23 and 11 with a post game and stellar defense some day and I just can't project that. LA doesn't fit the Bulls needs because he's not a true center and he plays facing the basket so I wouldn't want to pay the exhorbitant price it would take.
> 
> I'd rather fill the back to the basket void with Hawes or draft a guy who figures to be a better back to the basket four than LA in Yi if he somehow falls.


Not to mention that he can't pass the ball, and has poor offensive awareness.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

BIG Q said:


> Why is it that this forum will give TT four or 5 years to develop but considers LA a bust not worthy of development and patience?


Did you not read what I wrote? Clearly I said I would have taken Lamarcus Aldridge and will even say he is a better player than Tyrus Thomas, but as a Bulls fan you gotta realize were going to think Tyrus will be better in a few years (Atleast those who believe in Paxson).


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

T-Time said:


> Did you not read what I wrote? Clearly I said I would have taken Lamarcus Aldridge and will even say he is a better player than Tyrus Thomas, but as a Bulls fan you gotta realize were going to think Tyrus will be better in a few years (Atleast those who believe in Paxson).


Aldridge undeniably had the better rookie season but since before the draft, Tyrus has always been considered the high upside/potential player out of the two. No one should be surprised by statements that Tyrus has more room for growth.

Also, asking an NBA player to develop any skill from scratch is a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask Tyrus to develop a midrange game and it's a lot to ask Aldridge to develop skills in the paint. That said, some skills are likely easier to develop than others. Some of the skills Tyrus has (elite shot blocking, elite steals for a big man, a good ability to get to the line) strike me as amongst the most difficult to develop. I suspect that the odds of Tyrus developing a decent 15 footer are better than the odds of LA ever averaging 2.5 blocks, one steal, or five free throw attemps per game. 

Maybe another way to put it is that Tyrus is phenomenal at several things and below average at others while Aldridge is above average across the board. It's probably easier for Tyrus to just become average or above average at the things he struggles with than it is for Aldridge to develop elite skills where he's already above average.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Aldridge undeniably had the better rookie season but since before the draft, Tyrus has always been considered the high upside/potential player out of the two. No one should be surprised by statements that Tyrus has more room for growth.
> 
> Also, asking an NBA player to develop any skill from scratch is a lot to ask. It's a lot to ask Tyrus to develop a midrange game and it's a lot to ask Aldridge to develop skills in the paint. That said, some skills are likely easier to develop than others. Some of the skills Tyrus has (elite shot blocking, elite steals for a big man, a good ability to get to the line) strike me as amongst the most difficult to develop. I suspect that the odds of Tyrus developing a decent 15 footer are better than the odds of LA ever averaging 2.5 blocks, one steal, or five free throw attemps per game.
> 
> Maybe another way to put it is that Tyrus is phenomenal at several things and below average at others while Aldridge is above average across the board. It's probably easier for Tyrus to just become average or above average at the things he struggles with than it is for Aldridge to develop elite skills where he's already above average.


I think you made a great point. Defensive skills are usual natural besides learning defensive schemes and certain positioning on the courts to better the team defenses. Players that are good blocking, steals and things alike seem to have those talents naturally. I can't remember off the top of my head a player who was a poor defender that turned into a great defender over the years, most often times then not they are usually good defenders coming in and they refine it over the years. But its much easier to improve the offensive side of your game than you defensive side thats for sure.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

BIG Q said:


> Why is it that this forum will give TT four or 5 years to develop *but considers LA a bust not worthy of development *and patience?


Interesting. That isn't even close to what T-Time wrote.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I hate LA threads because there are both a handful of Bulls fans and a ton of Blazers fans that can't stop singing his praises. He'll be a good pro but people seem to think he's going to become an All-Star/Superstar calliber player and I've never quite seen it. 18 and 9? That's absolutely possible but people talk as though he's going to go 23 and 11 with a post game and stellar defense some day and I just can't project that. LA doesn't fit the Bulls needs because he's not a true center and he plays facing the basket so I wouldn't want to pay the exhorbitant price it would take.
> 
> I'd rather fill the back to the basket void with Hawes or draft a guy who figures to be a better back to the basket four than LA in Yi if he somehow falls.




Well he went for 14.7ppg, 8rpg, 1.6 bpg in March 

I could see him getting 20ish and 11 in a year or two. 


As for comparing him to Chandler being laughable....

Per same minutes played either 40 or 48

Aldridge 19.5 ppg
Chandler 13.1 ppg

Aldridge 10.8 rpg
Chandler 17.2 rpg

Aldridge 2.52 bpg
Chandler 2.45 bpg



I don't think Aldridge will ever be the rebounder Chandler is now, but to say he won't be as good is laughable. He's already better at scoring and blocked shots.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> Why is it that this forum will give TT four or 5 years to develop but considers LA a bust not worthy of development and patience?


I asked the same thing at draft time last year. For some reason, the general consensus seemed to be that Aldridge was a stiff and very few people really wanted him to be our pick. I argued over and over against people saying he's slow, can't run the floor, is undersized, wouldn't be a good NBA defender, and would end up being only a spot up shooter.

I would have drafted him #1 last season if I were GM, although Bargnani was an interesting prospect that I had seen very little of.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I would trade Aldridge for Deng straight up if I were Portland. I probably would from Chicago's perspective as well, although it would be tough.

However, I'm not sure either side would want to do this in actuality. They both love their respective players.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Well he went for 14.7ppg, 8rpg, 1.6 bpg in March
> 
> I could see him getting 20ish and 11 in a year or two.
> 
> ...


Oh please. Aldridge might average more blocked shots, but come on, just watch the games. Tyson Chandler (like Tyrus Thomas) ALTERS shots. Aldridge just gets some blocked shot. He doesn't drive fear into people upon entrance into the lane like those two. Aldridge is a SOLID defender. Tyrus and Chandler are gamechangers on the defensive end.

Aldridge is a solid player. He is good, I was all aboard for drafting him at the time (he made more sense to Chandler...but Chandler's not here anymore).

I don't think most people are going to care too much about his split stats. Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry, and Jamal Crawford, have always been last month warriors. 

Tyrus Thomas had a good March as well, and actually did somethign in the playoffs.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Rhyder said:


> I would trade Aldridge for Deng straight up if I were Portland. I probably would from Chicago's perspective as well, although it would be tough.
> 
> However, I'm not sure either side would want to do this in actuality. They both love their respective players.




I think their stats will be pretty similar, as they were as rookies, and although Dend is by far the better player now it would be really hard to give up a 7' player with Aldridge abilities.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

In last years draft, amazingly, Vick Krapper was the difference between picks 2 & 4. Was this because the Bulls really wanted Thomas? Did the Blazers really want Aldridge? A move that still ??? me to this day. Of course in this draft, the difference between picks 2 & 4 is far greater, since its more top heavy and deeper overall. This leads me to believe that the #9 pick this year has more value than it does compared to most drafts. I can't agree with Aldridge being "untouchable", just because he was supposedly deemed that label. Any player could be had at the right price. I just don't know if we have what Portland wants that we're willing to give up. Blazers probably would prefer a wing player, but would they be satisfied with Thabo? I wouldn't think that's enough. Maybe if the Bulls took on a bad contract not named Randolph...I.E, Raef Lafrentz. How the Bulls would go about matching those numbers while including the #9, is beyond my capability.

Hindsight being 20/20, how good does an Aldridge/Noah (future) frontcourt sound right about now? Don't really know what Pax was/is thinking...I just hope we're smart enough to use this pick wisely, to get our guy, whether used by trade or moving up to get the more promising, fitting prospect.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> I'm still not seeing what Blazers fans are seeing with Aldridge.


No surprise there. How many times did you actually see him play an NBA game? Once? Twice? Zero?



Mebarak said:


> He is going to be a very good defender and rebounder. Comparing him to Chandler is just downright laughable in this regard though. He has some nice post moves, and a decent jumpshot, but his post moves aren't as good as Curry's or Hawes'. Hawes' looks like he'll have a better jumpshot than Aldridge too.


Again, have you actually seen him play? He's got a great jump shot out to 18 ft. with a very high release point that makes it impossible to block. You keep comparing him to Hawes, which is an absolute joke. If you think Hawes is all that, by all means draft him. Hawes' high scoring game in college this year was 24 pts. Aldridge scored 24 or more four times in March alone, including a 24 pt 17 reb (10 offensive) while being guarded by the NBA Defensive Player of the Year. Hawes only had two double digit rebounding games in college all season. Aldridge had five double digit rebounding games in March alone. Aldridge accomplished a lot more in the month of March against NBA competition than Hawes did in an entire college season playing against 6'9" kids on a regular basis in the Pac-10. Hawes is an incredibly weak rebounder for a player his size. Aldridge will have a far better NBA career than Hawes. Hawes won't be a total bust. He should develop into a solid NBA center, but that's about the limit of his upside. His DrafExpress profile lists "Best Case Comparison" as Andrew Bogut - and that's about right.

For Aldridge, they list his "Best Case Comparison" as Jermaine O'Neal - a six time all-star. And as someone who saw Jermaine as a young player, I can tell you Aldridge's offensive game is MUCH more polished at the same age. Here's what DraftExpress said about Aldridge's game coming out of college:

"_Offensively, Aldridge is about as talented and versatile as you can ask for out of a big man, but at the same time is also fundamentally sound. It is obvious that he was well coached as a youngster. He already has a number of silky smooth go-to moves in his arsenal that are downright impossible to stop at this level, mostly of the finesse type.

The first would be a terrific jump-hook shot. Aldridge sets up shop on the baseline anywhere out to 15 feet, catches the ball, spins to either shoulder, squares them simultaneously, elevates gracefully with one hand underneath the ball and flicks his wrist at the height of his leap with a soft touch. All in one quick, fluid motion. The second would be his turnaround jump-shot. When he doesn’t have the strength or will to back his man all the way to the basket, Aldridge can catch the ball, spin and fade away quickly, elevate straight up off the ground and get high enough to give him all the time in the world needed to knock down his shot with deadly accuracy. Both of these moves are simple and fundamental, but Aldridge executes them perfectly and has the perfect physical characteristics to make them nearly unblockable_."




Mebarak said:


> In addition, on offense, LaMarcus Aldridge is a blackhole. Once that ball is going in, its not coming back out. This could easily become a problem in the future for us. We already have one black hole in Tyrus Thomas, we do not really need another one. Aldridge is probably a bigger black hole than both Randolph/Curry.


Yes, Aldridge needs to improve his passing - as do most rookie big men. His AsR of 4.0 is extremely low and equal to Curry's career AsR, but nowhere near the AsR of 1.9 Curry posted in 2005-2006. I think that's the lowest AsR I've ever seen out of a player that gets regular minutes.

As far as rebounding goes, he may not be quite as good as Chandler, but he's definitely better than Curry. Offensively, he's already far better than Chandler and not that far behind Curry. In terms of overall production, Aldridge's PER as a rookie was 17.27. Curry, in his sixth NBA season had a PER of 17.17. Chandler, also in his sixth season, had a PER of 17.15. It looks like Aldridge the rookie is already in the same class as these two sixth year starting centers. And, after drafting Oden, Aldridge will move to his natural power forward position where his polished post moves, turnaround jumper and high release will be even harder to defend.



Mebarak said:


> and has a much lower ceiling on the offensive end than a guy like Tyrus Thomas, Yi Jialian, Joakim Noah, and Spencer Hawes.


Sorry, you just lost all credibility. A LOWER ceiling on the offensive end than Joakim Noah???????? You can't be serious. Noah has NO post moves and the worst looking jump shot I've ever seen. He has the worst offensive fundamentals of any potential lottery pick I've ever seen - and it's not like he's a raw kid coming right out of high school, he's had three years of college experience to work on his offense and hasn't shown any marked improvement. The only reason he was able to even average 12 PPG in college is because he had a size and quickness advantage on his opponents every night - something he won't have in the NBA. Take away that advantage combined with Noah's complete lack of offensive skills and he'll struggle to score in the NBA. He'll get most his scoring off hustle points (loose balls, rebounds and broken plays), but he'll never be better than the 5th option in a half court offense. Offensively, he's a younger version of Ben Wallace with better free throw shooting - and that EXACTLY the opposite of what you guys need. You need a legitimate inside scoring threat and that's NOT Joakim Noah. If you want a taller version of Ruben Patterson without a criminal record, Noah's your man. If you want a legitimate inside scoring presence to get you past Detroit and Cleveland in the play-offs, you better look elsewhere.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

kulaz3000 said:


> Whereas i think Portland will have a little problem with Aldrige and Oden, because they are both predominately post players that will stay in the paint. Both being big bodies don't help either as i don't think they'll be enough space to satisfy both, though i can assume that Aldridge can drift out occasionally, but i don't see them staying together longer than 3 years at the maximum.


Again, have you actually seen LaMarcus Aldridge play? If you had, you'd know he's the PERFECT 4 to play next to Oden. Aldridge has a fantastic face-the-basket offensive game for a big man and a great jumper out to 18 ft. He doesn't need to park his butt down on the blocks to be effective on offense. That's why he played so well in March alongside either Randolph or Magloire - two guys who clog the paint. That's why the Blazers are looking to move Zach and keep Aldridge. Zach + Oden = clogged paint. They'd be constantly getting in each other's way. Oden + Aldridge = complimentary offensive skills. Aldridge's ability to score out to 18 ft. it will draw his man out from under the basket and give Oden more room to operate dwon low.

BNM


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm not sure how much of you Portland guys saw out of Aldridge at Texas but he has three legitimate NBA ready post moves on the block. His hook shot will be not be able to be blocked once he adds some weight and strength to battle for position in the low post.

I don't think he'll ever be an All Star level player, but I think 20ppg 9rpg & 2.5bpg is about where he will fall in his prime. A poor man's Duncan, which is certainly not a bad thing to have.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> I don't think he'll ever be an All Star level player, but I think 20ppg 9rpg & 2.5bpg is about where he will fall in his prime. A poor man's Duncan, which is certainly not a bad thing to have.


J. O'neal was an all-star this year with basically these statistics.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

andalusian said:


> J. O'neal was an all-star this year with basically these statistics.


In a big man deprived East.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> I was referring to how Blazers value their own players, making Aldrige untouchable.
> 
> And no, I wouldn't trade Bargnani for #9 and Thabo, however, I would at least consider that offer for Aldrige since Portland has a logjam up front.
> 
> But then again, what's the point. If you guys wouldn't trade Roy for Durant, are other trade offers even necessary?


Yeah, cause we all know all of our player personnel decision are made by a handful of clueless posters on an internet message board, not our talented young GM.

As to the logjam up front, it's Randolph who's the odd man out. Zach is a great low post scorer and rebounder, but his game would directly conflict with Oden's. We saw that last year when they tried to start Magloire and Zach together. It was a complete disaster. Both of them played much better when paired with Aldridge. 

Of course, Magloire isn't in the same class talent-wise as Oden, but like Oden he needs to be close to the basket to be effective - and that's why him and Zach couldn't co-exist. It's no coincidence that Magloire had his best games of the year when Zach was out and Aldridge started at the 4. In back-to-back road wins against the Knicks and the Hawks, Magoire put up 14/16 and 9/16 with 3 blocks. That win over Atlanta, with Magloire putting up 9 pts, 16 rebs and 3 blks combined with Aldridge's 27 pts, 14 rebs and 3 blks provided a glimpse of what Aldridge could do at the 4 when paired with a low post center - and that was paired with mediocre low post center like Jamaal Maglore, imagine what Aldridge will be able to do when paired with Greg Oden. And that's why Aldridge is untouchable and Zach is available. It's not just about who's "better". it's about who is a better fit next to Oden, and that's clearly Aldridge. 

Zach would be a much better fit next to a strong defensive center who isn't much of a scorer. Someone like Ben Wallace. Wallace could help erase some of Randolph's defensive mistakes and Randolph would give you the low post coring threat that you lack with Wallace starting at the 5. You'd have a 4/5 combo with complimentary offensive/defensive skills - who are both also great rebounders.

So, the goal then becomes trading Zach, a proven 23/10 25-year old dominant low post scorer, for a decent starting small forward. There are several teams, especially in the East, that lack a legitimate low post scoring threat (Chicago being just one). Zach put up 23 and 10 last year playing in the West against the top power forwards in the game on a nightly basis. Imagine how he could do in the East. Serviceable small forwards are a lot more common than dominant low post scorers. Quick, name one other NBA player who averaged at least 23 PPG and 10 RPG. Can't do it. Zach was the only one. 

As much as I think Zach would help Chicago address their need for a low post scorer, I don't see any trade that works. Deng is really the only asset you have that Portland needs, and Skiles has said he's untouchable. A sign and trade with Nocioni and the 9th would be almost impossible to work out since the Bulls can't even start negotiating Nocioni until July 1. Perhaps a three team deal that gets Randolph to the Bulls and a decent SF to the Blazers could be worked out, but frankly, I think there are simpler deals out there that will get Portland what they need/want. 

So, hopefully now you'll understand why a low ball offer of No. 9 + Thabo for LaMarcus Aldridge is laughable. We're not going to trade the guy who's a perfect match for our new franchise center and keep the guy who will just get in his way - especially for such a low ball offer.

BNM


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not sure how much of you Portland guys saw out of Aldridge at Texas but he has three legitimate NBA ready post moves on the block. His hook shot will be not be able to be blocked once he adds some weight and strength to battle for position in the low post.
> 
> I don't think he'll ever be an All Star level player, but I think 20ppg 9rpg & 2.5bpg is about where he will fall in his prime. A poor man's Duncan, which is certainly not a bad thing to have.


Poor man's Duncan is a joke. 

Spencer Hawes is more of a poor man's Duncan.

Aldridge doesn't set the best picks (a strength of both Duncan/Hawes/Noah), and can't pass worth a lick (this is what makes Duncan special...in addition Noah/Hawes both excel at passing). 

You act like Aldridge will keep getting better, but none of these guys in the draft have any potential to get better.

Spencer Hawes averaged 14.9 points on 56.8 TS% (Ben Gordon was the highest on the Bulls with 57.2 TS%...Lebron James' is only 55.2%)

Thats amazing offensive talent. When you factor in that Hawes can pass, and set picks better than Aldridge, is it really that hard to believe that he is the better offensive prospect than Aldridge?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not sure how much of you Portland guys saw out of Aldridge at Texas but he has three legitimate NBA ready post moves on the block. His hook shot will be not be able to be blocked once he adds some weight and strength to battle for position in the low post.


In spite of minor shoulder surgery that kept him from lifting weights for two months, Aldridge was able to put on about 15 pounds of muscle without slowing down or messing up his shooting touch. By January, there were no more concerns about Aldridge lacking the strength to bang with the big boys of the NBA. Bobby Medina is one of the best strength/conditioning coaches in the NBA, and his work with Aldridge is a prime example. Even most optimistic Blazer fans thought it would take Aldridge two or three years before he'd have the bulk and strength to be a legitimate NBA big man. That he was able to get there as a rookie was a very pleasant surprise. Supposedly, he's become a monster in the weight room and loves to work out.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Spencer Hawes is more of a poor man's Duncan.


Then why propose a No. 9 + Thabo for Aldridge trade? Why don't you just draft the Poor Man's Duncan(TM) at No. 9? 



Mebarak said:


> Spencer Hawes averaged 14.9 points on 56.8 TS% (Ben Gordon was the highest on the Bulls with 57.2 TS%...Lebron James' is only 55.2%)


And Hawes did that against a bunch of 6'9" creampuffs in the Pac-10. Gordon and James did it against NBA level talent (I can't believe you just compared Spencer Hawe's college stats to LeBron James' NBA performance). BTW, in two years at Texas, LaMarcus Aldridge had a TS% of 68% and 60%. So much for Hawe's "superior" offense.

Seriously, if Hawe's is so great, why don't you guys just draft him? Why are you even interested in LaMarcus Aldridge?

BNM


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Then why propose a No. 9 + Thabo for Aldridge trade? Why don't you just draft the Poor Man's Duncan(TM) at No. 9?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Joakim Noah also has TS% all in excess of 60%....but you'd call him an opportunistic scorer, wouldn't you? That is exactly what Aldridge was his freshman year, with a measly 5 FGA per game. Year 2, he was more of a 2nd option, so that stat is more legitimate. Hawes, if he stayed another year, would probably be averaging something along the lines of 19.0 PPG (60 TS%), 8.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 2.1 BPG. 

Anyhow, Hawes won't even be available when we're picking.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Poor man's Duncan is a joke.
> 
> Spencer Hawes is more of a poor man's Duncan.
> 
> Aldridge doesn't set the best picks (a strength of both Duncan/Hawes/Noah), and can't pass worth a lick (this is what makes Duncan special...in addition Noah/Hawes both excel at passing).


I was talking about style and statistics. Aldridge plays a very fundamental game, much like Duncan. I don't think he'll touch the level of a Duncan in terms of effectiveness, hence the "poor man's" adjective.

Aldridge is a not a great passer, but if passing is what makes a Duncan comparison accurate, then Brad Miller is a better Tim Duncan than is Tim Duncan.



> You act like Aldridge will keep getting better, but none of these guys in the draft have any potential to get better.


When did I ever come close to making a comparison between Aldridge vs. anyone in this draft class? However, I'll guess I'll have to keep acting like this draft class has no potential...

I love this draft class outside of being down on Yi and Julian Wright.



> Spencer Hawes averaged 14.9 points on 56.8 TS% (Ben Gordon was the highest on the Bulls with 57.2 TS%...Lebron James' is only 55.2%)
> 
> Thats amazing offensive talent. When you factor in that Hawes can pass, and set picks better than Aldridge, is it really that hard to believe that he is the better offensive prospect than Aldridge?


Aldridge TS% at Texas was 59.7% FWIW.

I don't even know why you brought this up as I've never said anything negative on Hawes, but I know you have to blindly defend whoever you deem as your guy every draft.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I wouldn't trade Thabo and the #9 for Aldridge. No way. Aldridge is a slighty better version of Channing Frye. He's good, but hardly great. I'm reading all these stellar projections for Aldridge in the comming years and the question I have to ask is two fold: If Aldridge is grabbing all these boards, what, exactly is Oden doing? Similarly, if Aldridge is scoring all these points, what, exactly, is Oden doing?

As the season wore on this past year, Aldridge pretty much had a green light. When Oden comes on board, that green light changes to yellow. Oden's going to be the guy putting up 20+ / 10+. Aldridge will be getting the opportunity points and boards left behind. He'll score out of the set offense but i just don't see him putting up the inflated numbers the Blazer faithful seem to be putting on him. Which, is really doing the man a disservice. Aldridge is not Jermaine O'neil. He's not Tim Duncan. Hell, he's not even Chris Bosh. He's a good player with a nice future, but hardly a superstar or "untouchable". If that's how the Blazer brain trust is valuing him, so be it. They can keep him. Associate unreasonable expectations on him and then be entirely dissappointed in his lack of achievement.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I wouldn't trade Thabo and the #9 for Aldridge. No way. Aldridge is a slighty better version of Channing Frye. He's good, but hardly great. I'm reading all these stellar projections for Aldridge in the comming years and the question I have to ask is two fold: If Aldridge is grabbing all these boards, what, exactly is Oden doing? Similarly, if Aldridge is scoring all these points, what, exactly, is Oden doing?
> 
> As the season wore on this past year, Aldridge pretty much had a green light. When Oden comes on board, that green light changes to yellow. Oden's going to be the guy putting up 20+ / 10+. Aldridge will be getting the opportunity points and boards left behind. He'll score out of the set offense but i just don't see him putting up the inflated numbers the Blazer faithful seem to be putting on him. Which, is really doing the man a disservice. Aldridge is not Jermaine O'neil. He's not Tim Duncan. Hell, he's not even Chris Bosh. He's a good player with a nice future, but hardly a superstar or "untouchable". If that's how the Blazer brain trust is valuing him, so be it. They can keep him. Associate unreasonable expectations on him and then be entirely dissappointed in his lack of achievement.


That's an extremely fair assessment.

I pegged Aldridge as a 17-19ppg 8-9rpg guy before the draft last year. I suppose I inflated my ppg estimate a bit unfairly. I do think Aldridge will get 10+ shots per game once he plays regularly enough for starter minutes, Oden or no Oden, especially if they trade Randolph.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> I wouldn't trade Thabo and the #9 for Aldridge. No way. Aldridge is a slighty better version of Channing Frye. He's good, but hardly great. I'm reading all these stellar projections for Aldridge in the comming years and the question I have to ask is two fold: If Aldridge is grabbing all these boards, what, exactly is Oden doing? Similarly, if Aldridge is scoring all these points, what, exactly, is Oden doing?
> 
> As the season wore on this past year, Aldridge pretty much had a green light. When Oden comes on board, that green light changes to yellow. Oden's going to be the guy putting up 20+ / 10+. Aldridge will be getting the opportunity points and boards left behind. He'll score out of the set offense but i just don't see him putting up the inflated numbers the Blazer faithful seem to be putting on him. Which, is really doing the man a disservice. Aldridge is not Jermaine O'neil. He's not Tim Duncan. Hell, he's not even Chris Bosh. He's a good player with a nice future, but hardly a superstar or "untouchable". If that's how the Blazer brain trust is valuing him, so be it. They can keep him. Associate unreasonable expectations on him and then be entirely dissappointed in his lack of achievement.



You have to keep in mind that Aldridge put up his numbers with a player you guys like to call a black hole, and that same player did average 10 rebounds per game as well. Oden will never be as good of an offensive player as Aldridge.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> You have to keep in mind that Aldridge put up his numbers with a player you guys like to call a black hole, and that same player did average 10 rebounds per game as well. *Oden will never be as good of an offensive player as Aldridge.*



Oden is a better offensive player than Lamarcus Aldridge right now.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

fl_flash said:


> As the season wore on this past year, Aldridge pretty much had a green light. When Oden comes on board, that green light changes to yellow. Oden's going to be the guy putting up 20+ / 10+. Aldridge will be getting the opportunity points and boards left behind.


I do not see Oden playing all 48 minutes of a game. I imagine he will be logging 30-32 in his rookie year and around 35-36 later. This leaves Aldridge at least 12 minutes per game as "the" big man (usually against lesser defensive big men that will be out of the game when Oden goes out as well) and I imagine about 20-23 minutes guarded by the less accomplished big man defender on the opposing team next to Oden when he will often be open because of double teams or launch his almost impossible to block 15-18ft jumpers.

Add the fact that Aldridge is very fast for a big man and will probably have many opportunities to be the first big man on a break starting with Oden's block - and I can see Aldridge really putting some big numbers next to Oden. Will it happen? I do not know - but from what we have seen this year - Aldridge playing the 4 next to powerful center worked pretty well.

Maybe someone should ask Greg Oden what he thinks about Aldridge:



> Lamarcus Aldridge was a guy I was scared to play against in high school because he was one of the best in the country. I remember we were at a tournament he was in, and he was just annihilating people. He is a guy who I really did look up to in high school as one of my peers that was really good.


 - http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=2080


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Oden, Roy and Aldridge are all untouchable. *If Aldridge was coming out this year, the debate would be who is Seattle going to take at No. 2? Aldridge or Durant? * Aldridge is clearly better than anyone else who would go 3rd in this draft. So, there's no way do you get him for No. 9 and a guy who would be Brandon Roy's back-up. You had your chance at him last year and passed. There's no way you're getting him now period - let alone with such a low ball offer.
> 
> BNM



Ok, that's quite an exaggeration. Aldridge should turn out to be a good player but he wouldn't even be in the running for #2. Could he go 3rd? Yes, but he wouldn't be the consensus. The talent of Durant, combined w/ the season he had and the hype around him, there is no chance he goes beyond 2. 

The reason people were on the fence about about Aldridge last year is b/c he didn't really do "it" all the time last year in college. I know a lot to do w/ the offense they ran, but that's exactly why you had to look that much further at him to see if he was going to translate well in the NBA. We can't just assume he'd have been great every game this year and be the consensus 3rd player in this draft when this year's class is considered just that much better and deeper. He'd be way up there but I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd take looks at Horford or whoever else you want to throw in there. 

I like the guy and I'd trade 9 and something else for him. But the guy's not going to be close to a franchise player. (Ugh I hate going off the deep end like that w/ the franchise player comment, but that's what it seems he's being viewed as by some in the conversation.) He's a nice player sure but he's a piece, not a center piece.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> You have to keep in mind that Aldridge put up his numbers with a player you guys like to call a black hole, and that same player did average 10 rebounds per game as well. Oden will never be as good of an offensive player as Aldridge.


Sounds like Portland has a great PF-C rotation. Why break it up with a trade? Anyway, my guess is you get to see how well the three play together next year, 'cause no-one is going to take Randolph off your hands unless you are willing to take an equally bad contract, e.g., Steve Francis.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Ok, that's quite an exaggeration. Aldridge should turn out to be a good player but he wouldn't even be in the running for #2. Could he go 3rd? Yes, but he wouldn't be the consensus.  The talent of Durant, combined w/ the season he had and the hype around him, there is no chance he goes beyond 2.


You know that Durant and Aldridge are both Longhorns, right? Durant would not have got all the shots he did as a Freshman if Aldridge was still at school last year. I think that Durant is a better prospect - but he pretty much carried the team last year - he would not have played that big a part if he had a capable big man as Aldridge on this team and people would debate which one was the reason.

Aldridge took Texas as far in the tourney as Durant did a year later...


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

fl_flash said:


> If Aldridge is grabbing all these boards, what, exactly is Oden doing? Similarly, if Aldridge is scoring all these points, what, exactly, is Oden doing?
> 
> As the season wore on this past year, Aldridge pretty much had a green light. When Oden comes on board, that green light changes to yellow. Oden's going to be the guy putting up 20+ / 10+. Aldridge will be getting the opportunity points and boards left behind. He'll score out of the set offense but i just don't see him putting up the inflated numbers the Blazer faithful seem to be putting on him. Which, is really doing the man a disservice. Aldridge is not Jermaine O'neil. He's not Tim Duncan. Hell, he's not even Chris Bosh. He's a good player with a nice future, but hardly a superstar or "untouchable". If that's how the Blazer brain trust is valuing him, so be it. They can keep him. Associate unreasonable expectations on him and then be entirely dissappointed in his lack of achievement.


During March, when Aldridge finally became a starter and played consistent minutes he averaged 15/8. And that was as a rookie playing out of position at center all but a couple of those games next to a PF who dominates the ball and averaged 23/10. So, Oden copmes in, Aldridge moves to his natural power forward position and Randolph and his 23/10 are out. Somebody has to replace those 23 points and 10 rebounds. Do you think Oden is going to average 23/10 as a rookie? I'd be thrilled to death if he does.

Also, the Blazers were second to last in the league in scoring last year at 94 PPG. A situation I don't see continuing with the addition of Oden and the improvement of their younger players. Over the next few years, I can see the team averaging another 10 PPG, possibly more (especially if they go with Sergio at the point and a more up tempo style). So, I think Aldridge will have plenty of scoring opportunities - especially with all the double teams Oden is bound to draw every time he gest teh ball down low. I don't see Aldridge completely replacing Zach's 23/10, but I do see him improving on the 15/8 he averaged as a rookie in March. I wouldn't be surprised to see him someday average 20/9, but I'd be happy with 18/8/2 if Oden is averaging 20/10/3.

But really, I don't like to deal in hypotheticals. I'd rather just put them out on the court and let them play. They are both smart, talented players with very complimentary skills. How much each one scores, or how many rebounds each one gets really isn't the point. The goal is to have the best front line in the NBA, at both ends of the court, for the next decade. The combination of Oden/Aldridge definitely has that potential.

BNM


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

McBulls said:


> Sounds like Portland has a great PF-C rotation. Why break it up with a trade? Anyway, my guess is you get to see how well the three play together next year, 'cause no-one is going to take Randolph off your hands unless you are willing to take an equally bad contract, e.g., Steve Francis.




I disagree with this. Despite his contract and troubles, Zach Randolph will help some team in the east win the conference. GM's know this. Zach is double and triple teamed every night, so opposing coaches know it as well. 

No way Portland gets = value, but they'll get an asset


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Mebarak said:


> Year 2, he was more of a 2nd option, so that stat is more legitimate.


Actually, he wasn't even that. He played on a team with guards who dominated the ball and couldn't/wouldn't pass him the ball on a consistent basis. He was third on the team in FGA, and that was primarily due to his 135 offensive rebounds. On a college team with a real PG, Aldridge would have posted much better numbers.



Mebarak said:


> Hawes, if he stayed another year, would probably be averaging something along the lines of 19.0 PPG (60 TS%), 8.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 2.1 BPG.


Oh boy, here we go with the hypotheticals - the inflated fantasy numbers that can never be proven or disproven. I prefer to deal in reality, but since you went there...

So, Hawes is going to increase his scoring by over 5 PPg AND nearly double his APG. That would be a truly amazing accomplishment. Of course, they'd have to probably move him to PG to accomplish such a feet, but in the world of hypotheticals anything's possible, isn't it?

Of course, in this hypothetical alternate universe, he'd also be a much better rebounder than the 7'0" starting center who averaged only 6.4 RPG in a conference severely lacking in quality big men.

Seriously, you keep going on and on about Hawe's great passing ability. He averaged 1.9 APG. Not bad for a center, and certainly better than Aldridge, but it's not exactly the stuff of legends. The way you go on and on about it, you'd think he's the next Bill Walton (who averaged 5.5 APG in college). Heck, Zach Randolph, who seems to be everyone's definition of a black hole averaged 2.2 APG in the NBA last year and has averaged at least 1.9 APG for four years in a row. So, yeah, Hawe's is a decent passing big man, but hardly worth fawning over.



Mebarak said:


> Anyhow, Hawes won't even be available when we're picking.


Really??? Most mocks have him available at 9. Not that the mock drafts are anywhere close to accurate and it only takes on GM to fall in love with him to take him before your No. 9 pick, but I'd say there's a greater than 50/50 chance Hawes will be available at No. 9. On the nba.com consensus mock draft page, Hawe's average draft position among the 15 mocks they surveyed is No. 11. So, if you really want Hawe's, there's a good chance you can get him.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

McBulls said:


> Sounds like Portland has a great PF-C rotation. Why break it up with a trade? Anyway, my guess is you get to see how well the three play together next year, 'cause no-one is going to take Randolph off your hands unless you are willing to take an equally bad contract, e.g., Steve Francis.


It won't be Steve Francis because the Knicks have nothing else we'd want in return and we definitely don't want Francis and his selfish attitude anywhere near our young players, but our owner, the richest owner in all of professional sports, is more than willing to take on a bad contract as long as it comes with the right other asset attached. Taking on Raef LaFrentz' horrid contract last year is how we managed to get Brandon Roy. Without Allen's willingness to basically eat the remaining $35 million of Raef's contract we probably don't get Brandon Roy.

So, if taking back a hideous contract + a high draft pick or a solid SF is the only way to move Zach and get something worthwhile in return, Paul Allen won't blink. On the night the Blazers won the lottery he told Kevin Pritchard "this changes everything", meaning he'd be willing to open his wallet as wide as it takes to build a championship team in Portland.

BNM


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

SMH

some of you bulls fans need to put your thinking cap on straight

They potentially have the next TWIN TOWERS in portland.

There is nothing you can offer them from this team that will change that.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

andalusian said:


> You know that Durant and Aldridge are both Longhorns, right? Durant would not have got all the shots he did as a Freshman if Aldridge was still at school last year. I think that Durant is a better prospect - but he pretty much carried the team last year - he would not have played that big a part if he had a capable big man as Aldridge on this team and people would debate which one was the reason.



That debate wouldn't take long to figure out. Sure Durant wouldn't have had _as_ great of season but you'd be naive to think he wouldn't he wouldn't be pretty much in the same position he's in right now. The guy had hype coming in and lived up to it and obviously would have w/ Aldridge as well. Assuming Aldridge played with Durant and what people expected out of him (Durant) anyway, a GM w/ a top 3-5 pick right now might wonder how much LaMarcus was a product of his teammate. I'm not saying it's completely legit, but it's just enough to put the guy in the 3-5 range and not 2-3.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*If Aldridge was coming out this year, the debate would be who is Seattle going to take at No. 2? Aldridge or Durant? *

wow...

U can't really believe that man lol


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I argued over and over against people saying he's slow, can't run the floor, is undersized, wouldn't be a good NBA defender, and would end up being only a spot up shooter.


59% of his shot attempts were jumpers so I'd certainly say that your critics were right about at least the last part so far.



Rhyder said:


> I'm not sure how much of you Portland guys saw out of Aldridge at Texas but he has three legitimate NBA ready post moves on the block. His hook shot will be not be able to be blocked once he adds some weight and strength to battle for position in the low post.


Strange he didn't use them more last season.



Rhyder said:


> I would trade Aldridge for Deng straight up if I were Portland. I probably would from Chicago's perspective as well, although it would be tough.


I'd throw myself into oncomming trafic if that happened.



mediocre man said:


> Well he went for 14.7ppg, 8rpg, 1.6 bpg in March
> 
> I could see him getting 20ish and 11 in a year or two.


Sorry but considering a guy a 15 and 8 player based on 15 games is a _huge_ leap. The other 48 games he played last season are highly relevant to projecting his future. I don't see how 20ish and 11 follows even if LA had actually posted 15 and 8 in his rookie season. What's going to happen to change LA from a slightly below average rebounder for his position to one of the best in the league? That'd be pretty unprecedented.



Boob-No-More said:


> As far as rebounding goes, he may not be quite as good as Chandler, but he's definitely better than Curry.


I wouldn't be so sure. Both he and Curry posted 9.0 per 40 minutes as rookies. Either way both are below average rebounders for (quality players at) the PF or C position and I wouldn't expect that to change too much.



Boob-No-More said:


> Again, have you actually seen LaMarcus Aldridge play? If you had, you'd know he's the PERFECT 4 to play next to Oden. Aldridge has a fantastic face-the-basket offensive game for a big man and a great jumper out to 18 ft. He doesn't need to park his butt down on the blocks to be effective on offense. That's why he played so well in March alongside either Randolph or Magloire - two guys who clog the paint. That's why the Blazers are looking to move Zach and keep Aldridge. Zach + Oden = clogged paint. They'd be constantly getting in each other's way. Oden + Aldridge = complimentary offensive skills. Aldridge's ability to score out to 18 ft. it will draw his man out from under the basket and give Oden more room to operate dwon low.


I agree with this. It jives with the fact that LA has never been a good fit for the Bulls.


----------



## adotjames (Jun 21, 2005)

LMA a black hole? Fine.

What do you call a black hole who shoots over .500 from the field?

A Hall of Famer.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Hey Bulls Fans,

Thanks for the lively, informative discussion. After the Blazers board, this is the most active board on basketballforum.com by a wide margin. It's full of passionate, knowledgeable, articulate fans. It's one of the few other boards I bother visiting. I'm out of here for the weekend. Good luck on the 28th!

BNM

P.S. I grew up in NW Indiana and was a huge Bulls (Bears, Cubs and Blackhawks) fan back in the late 1960s - early 1980s. I have great childhood memories of Bob Love, Chet Walker, Jerry Sloan, Norm Van Lier, etc. Walter Payton was my hero and will always be my all-time favorite athlete. Although I've lived in Oregon for over 20 years and am a huge Blazers fan, I always cheer for the Bulls - except when they're playing the Blazers. Best of luck in the East next year. Hopefully, we'll see you again in the finals in a couple years.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> 59% of his shot attempts were jumpers so I'd certainly say that your critics were right about at least the last part so far.
> 
> Strange he didn't use them more last season.


He didn't have the strength coming in as a rookie to only play on the low blocks. I thought he would be a great fit in our pick and roll scheme.

Other notable bigs discussed joining the Bulls for their low post offense jump shot %:
Pau Gasol 55%
Zach Randolph 59%
Kevin Garnett 77%
Jermaine O'Neal 69%
Carlos Boozer 47%
Drew Gooden 58%

Aldridge's 59% does not seem all that out of whack. It's a good thing to have a big who at least is a threat to hit the outside shot. That was one of Eddy Curry's problems, and why it was difficult to always involve him in the offense. He was only good on the low post and wasn't a threat other than when he got great position and could get him the ball.



> I'd throw myself into oncomming trafic if that happened.


I only say that because I think it is likely we can get SF guy closer to what Deng gives us at #9 than we can get what Aldridge would. One of Thornton, Green or Brewer should be available to us at the #9. Thomas could play next to Aldridge, particularly when Aldridge adds more bulk. To me the trade makes sense for the team, although I would hate to part with Deng. Trading Deng for Gasol made sense for largely the same reasons, although he is much more proven and comes at a higher price both in terms of assets giving up and his contract.

I love me some Deng, and Paxson does too. Considering his stellar work ethic, I don't think you have anything to worry about.



> I agree with this. It jives with the fact that LA has never been a good fit for the Bulls.


Strange that you say this but want the Bulls to land Yi. All he really has is a face the basket game. He does also have a decent turnaround jumper as well.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Snake said:


> I know Portland likes Aldridge but this whole "untouchable" thing makes him sound like he's Tim Duncan or something. If a trade makes your team better then you do it. If Portland drafts Oden then I think it does make them better.
> 
> Drafting Oden makes Portland strong in the front court and weak on the perimiter. Some people are acting like Thabo and the pick are scrubs. It's not like we're talking about Duhon and Malik Allen here. Thabo has the potential to be an elite defender. The value at 9 is going to be at the wing or PG depending on whos available or how you rate guys.
> 
> Sometimes you have to make bold moves to get to the championship level.


You are sounding desperate. Just stop! You keep the nine and Thabo while we keep Aldridge. Portland is not your trade ***** or a minor league system for the big market teams. Thank-you!


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Oh please. Aldridge might average more blocked shots, but come on, just watch the games. Tyson Chandler (like Tyrus Thomas) ALTERS shots. Aldridge just gets some blocked shot. He doesn't drive fear into people upon entrance into the lane like those two. Aldridge is a SOLID defender. Tyrus and Chandler are gamechangers on the defensive end.
> 
> Aldridge is a solid player. He is good, I was all aboard for drafting him at the time (he made more sense to Chandler...but Chandler's not here anymore).
> 
> ...


If Chandler is all that, why in the hell did Paxson trade him? You guys worship at the feet of Paxson yet he turned Chandler (who you all seem to be fawning over) into Wallace that brought you what?


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not sure how much of you Portland guys saw out of Aldridge at Texas but he has three legitimate NBA ready post moves on the block. His hook shot will be not be able to be blocked once he adds some weight and strength to battle for position in the low post.
> 
> I don't think he'll ever be an All Star level player, but I think 20ppg 9rpg & 2.5bpg is about where he will fall in his prime. A poor man's Duncan, which is certainly not a bad thing to have.


I guess you mean not an all star in the West. The numbers you predict will easily be all star numbers in the pathetic East.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Poor man's Duncan is a joke.
> 
> Spencer Hawes is more of a poor man's Duncan.
> 
> ...


EDIT - KJ. All you have done is show in this thread a ridiculous bias against Portland, Aldridge and common sense. But then I see your profile says you are 17 so it would be expected. EDIT -KJ. At least you have good taste in women, nice avvy.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> He didn't have the strength coming in as a rookie to only play on the low blocks. I thought he would be a great fit in our pick and roll scheme.


I agree that face the basket players may be a good fit in our system. Everyone just seems to believe we need the back to the basket presence to spread the offense (I'm still not entirely sure where I stand there). 



Rhyder said:


> Other notable bigs discussed joining the Bulls for their low post offense jump shot %:
> Pau Gasol 55%
> Zach Randolph 59%
> Kevin Garnett 77%
> ...


Honestly, his jump shot percentage is lower than I thought. It stills seems high to me though. I'm not interested in a lot of the players on that list because they'd cost a bundle and their jump shot percentage is relatively high. Gasol and (obviously) Gooden are the only great fits in my opinion. In the Bulls-Blazers game I watched the shots LA made in the post did not seem like post moves. They seemed more like fallaway jumpers from the edge of the paint. 



Rhyder said:


> I only say that because I think it is likely we can get SF guy closer to what Deng gives us at #9 than we can get what Aldridge would. One of Thornton, Green or Brewer should be available to us at the #9. Thomas could play next to Aldridge, particularly when Aldridge adds more bulk. To me the trade makes sense for the team, although I would hate to part with Deng. Trading Deng for Gasol made sense for largely the same reasons, although he is much more proven and comes at a higher price both in terms of assets giving up and his contract.
> 
> I love me some Deng, and Paxson does too. Considering his stellar work ethic, I don't think you have anything to worry about.


That's fair. I just don't see LA as a good fit for the Bulls so it doesn't make sense to me to part with out biggest asset. Really, I think Noc is a poor man's (undersized) LA.



Rhyder said:


> Strange that you say this but want the Bulls to land Yi. All he really has is a face the basket game. He does also have a decent turnaround jumper as well.


Really it's just about value. If LA was in this draft and fell to 9 I'd probably be all over him (though Hawes might give me second thoughts).


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Mebarak said:


> Well just comparing the 2nd half splits of two players chosen at random with Aldridge from their rookie campaigns.
> 
> LaMarcus Aldridge: 10.8 PPG 6.1 RPG 0.4 APG 1.3 BPG in 25 MPG
> 
> ...


Why are you making these ******* posts? When LaMarcus started at PF instead of Zach he averaged 21/9, and throughout the season he got a thicker upperbody. Which was a big knock against him, how he was too skinny to play down low. As the season progressed he went downlow more and played great. With another offseason of work, and improvement, no doubt LaMarcus Aldridge will average 16/8 atleast if ZBo is gone. You can sig that. 

Curry's a fatass who has never been a dominant rebounder, and Chandler was even skinnier than LMA. 

If he sucks, or is as mediocre has you say he is, why the **** do you want him?


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

I really don't see the Trail Blazers trading LMA to the Bulls. The Blazers need a 3. We won't trade Deng for LMA and they probably won't do a sign and trade for Noce.

I think LMA is going to be a very good player in the league. His game (outside shooting) actually works well with Oden. He has game. We saw it when they played us. I could see the potential.

If I were the GM for the Trail Blazers I wouldn't look to trade LMA. If they decide to trade him, they probably would need a allstar veteran player in return. 

IMHO don't think we can give the Trail Blazer what they need/want for LMA.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

ChiSox said:


> I really don't see the Trail Blazers trading LMA to the Bulls. The Blazers need a 3. We won't trade Deng for LMA and they probably won't do a sign and trade for Noce.
> 
> I think LMA is going to be a very good player in the league. His game (outside shooting) actually works well with Oden. He has game. We saw it when they played us. I could see the potential.
> 
> ...


Thank you for being one of the first reasonable Bulls fans in this thread.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

I think people are forgetting why Aldridge is considered "untradeable". He's in that category because he looks to be a perfect fit beside oden. Where Oden is going to make a living in close to the basket Aldridge can now play the high post and be the jump shooter that he's suited to being. Randolf on the other hand will take up Odens place in the offense. They're not trading him because a Oden and Aldridge combination has the capacity to work well and be downright frightening in the future.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> Thank you for being one of the first reasonable Bulls fans in this thread.


So me being high on Aldridge is unreasonable??? :biggrin:


----------



## Baklash (Jun 17, 2007)

mgolding said:


> I think people are forgetting why Aldridge is considered "untradeable". He's in that category because he looks to be a perfect fit beside oden. Where Oden is going to make a living in close to the basket Aldridge can now play the high post and be the jump shooter that he's suited to being. Randolf on the other hand will take up Odens place in the offense. They're not trading him because a Oden and Aldridge combination has the capacity to work well and be downright frightening in the future.


Yep, Aldridge and Oden are going to be two special players IMO, when their careers are over with. Blazers are going to be a contending playoff team within 2-3 years, if not sooner.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

kulaz3000 said:


> I think you made a great point. Defensive skills are usual natural besides learning defensive schemes and certain positioning on the courts to better the team defenses. Players that are good blocking, steals and things alike seem to have those talents naturally. I can't remember off the top of my head a player who was a poor defender that turned into a great defender over the years, most often times then not they are usually good defenders coming in and they refine it over the years. But its much easier to improve the offensive side of your game than you defensive side thats for sure.


Ron Harper??


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Bulldozer said:


> In last years draft, amazingly, Vick Krapper was the difference between picks 2 & 4. Was this because the Bulls really wanted Thomas? Did the Blazers really want Aldridge? A move that still ??? me to this day. Of course in this draft, the difference between picks 2 & 4 is far greater, since its more top heavy and deeper overall. This leads me to believe that the #9 pick this year has more value than it does compared to most drafts. I can't agree with Aldridge being "untouchable", just because he was supposedly deemed that label. Any player could be had at the right price. I just don't know if we have what Portland wants that we're willing to give up. Blazers probably would prefer a wing player, but would they be satisfied with Thabo? I wouldn't think that's enough. Maybe if the Bulls took on a bad contract not named Randolph...I.E, Raef Lafrentz. How the Bulls would go about matching those numbers while including the #9, is beyond my capability.
> 
> Hindsight being 20/20, how good does an Aldridge/Noah (future) frontcourt sound right about now? Don't really know what Pax was/is thinking...I just hope we're smart enough to use this pick wisely, to get our guy, whether used by trade or moving up to get the more promising, fitting prospect.


I remember watching the draft live and when Tyrus Thomas was drafted by the Bulls he was interviewed and mentioned that the day before the draft, he was told and knew he was going to be drafted by Portland and then traded to Chicago for Aldridge. Obviously, other pieces were involved but I specifically remember Tyrus saying that.

Aldridge on the other hand said he had no clue what was going to happen nor did he know he was going to be traded so it was funny in a twisted sort of way.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yeah, cause we all know all of our player personnel decision are made by a handful of clueless posters on an internet message board, not our talented young GM.
> 
> As to the logjam up front, it's Randolph who's the odd man out. Zach is a great low post scorer and rebounder, but his game would directly conflict with Oden's. We saw that last year when they tried to start Magloire and Zach together. It was a complete disaster. Both of them played much better when paired with Aldridge.
> 
> ...


Chris Bosh?? And nearly KG.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Dornado said:


> Oden is a better offensive player than Lamarcus Aldridge right now.


DAMN RIGHT.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Value is what you're willing to pay for something. While you might think that Aldridge isn't going to be anything other than a decent player, others might place more value on him. It all boils down to how you value Aldridge and after reading some posts here he is under valued by some Chicago fans.

I think that Portland has two players currently that they just won't trade and that is Aldridge and Roy, both are Kevin Pritchard guys and with the addition of the number one pick (Greg Oden), Portland is going to have a very nice core with the center, power forward, and shooting guard positions locked up for years to come.

Pritchard is big on culture and let's face it, Portland is coming out of the dark years as a team. The three players listed above are not only good players, but positives in the community. 

I myself am looking forward to draft night, I want to see how this all pans out for everyone. I think that there is going to be some shocked people in the NBA on draft night.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> Chris Bosh?? And nearly KG.


Nope, and nope.

Bosh was next closest at 22.6/10.7

KG = 22.4/12.8

Duncan didn't do it, Boozer didn't do it, Dirk didn't do it, Brand didn't do it, Yao didn't do it. I'm noy saying Zach is as good as all these guys, but at 23.6/10.1 he's the only guy in the league last year to average at least 23 PPG and 10 RPG. And for those who call him one-dimensional, the last time I checked scoring and rebounding were two different things he does well. He's not the perfect player. His defense is weak and he's had off court isues in the past. However, he's a hard worker and an almost unstopppable inside scoring threat. He could instantly provide something the Bulls severely lack - inside scoring - that will keep then from making it to the finals, let alone winning a championship until they add that dimension to their game.

With Aldridge and Oden in Portland, Zach has become a surplus (surprising how the random bounce of some ping pong balls can instantly make your leading scorer and leading rebounder "surplus", but I'm not complaining). Problem is, I don't see anything the Blazers want the Chicago would be willing to give up in a trade for Zach. Nocioni and No. 9 would probably be enough (depending on what other offers Kevin Pritchard is getting), but since Nocioni can't even be talked to until July 1, that would be a complex deal with lots of dependencies. Perhaps a three team deal could be worked out that would get Zach to Chicago and something of value (decent SF or top 10 pick) back to Portland.

BNM


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> I remember watching the draft live and when Tyrus Thomas was drafted by the Bulls he was interviewed and mentioned that the day before the draft, he was told and knew he was going to be drafted by Portland and then traded to Chicago for Aldridge. Obviously, other pieces were involved but I specifically remember Tyrus saying that.
> 
> Aldridge on the other hand said he had no clue what was going to happen nor did he know he was going to be traded so it was funny in a twisted sort of way.


The cubs traded Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio. FWIW


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

DaBullz said:


> The cubs traded Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio. FWIW


It's no joke sir.

I remember even the reporters being suprised by what Tyrus was saying.


----------

