# Rumor: Aldridge for Chi's Pick



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

this is from Chad Ford's insider article



> Paxson told ESPN Radio on Wednesday that he would be open to trade offers for the No. 1 pick. Within hours we had our first rumor. The Blazers were willing to send LaMarcus Aldridge to the Bulls for the chance to draft Rose.


i'd love to see pritchard do this deal. i doubt the bulls would bite.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I don't believe this for a minute. Aldridge is a rising star who has proven he can perform big-time in the NBA. Rose has proven nothing yet. Pritchard would not do this deal.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Please, this is Chicago we're talking about. We probably offered Oden and Roy for the #1 pick.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I would hate this deal.

Unless Aldridge has flat out told the Blazers there is no way in hell he will play past his rookie contract, it would be stupid to move him.

Aldridge has already shown he can play very well in the NBA, and he and Oden will be pretty unstopable for the next 12 years or so.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> I don't believe this for a minute. Aldridge is a rising star who has proven he can perform big-time in the NBA. *Rose has proven nothing yet.* Pritchard would not do this deal.


just as oden is unproven? i don't think there's 1 gm who would value aldridge higher than an unproven oden. i don't think rose is close to oden, as far as their value, but i think you understand my point.

aldridge obviously has shown he'll be at least an above average player, but i believe rose's potential is higher.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

The article also says... 



> Ummm … not so fast. I contacted a source inside the Blazers. They haven't made an offer, and while certainly interested in finding a way to get the No. 1 pick, don't sound inclined to give up Aldridge.
> 
> Still, the deal would've been interesting. Aldridge would be a good fit on the Bulls. But the irony of the whole thing would be thick. The Bulls traded the draft rights to Aldridge to the Blazers for the draft rights of Tyrus Thomas. Trading back for Aldridge would be tantamount to admitting they made the wrong choice two years ago.
> 
> Expect other trade offers to flood into Chicago over the next few weeks. There is a lot of interest in Rose and Paxson might be able to get multiple pieces if he's willing to give up the pick.


No frickin way I trade LA before we see him with Oden. They're gonna help make each other top 5 players in their respective positions.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there's zero chance chi does a deal of la for #1 pick. and it's not la for rose, it's la for rose or beasley (or mayo). the trade would be alot more palatable for portland fans than for chi fans.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

I like Rose and I think he'll be a great player, but I don't want to see Portland send Aldridge to Chicago for him. I'd like to see what options there are for point guards all around the NBA. We don't have to set the bar for our point guard criteria at the superstar level.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> just as oden is unproven? i don't think there's 1 gm who would value aldridge higher than an unproven oden. i don't think rose is close to oden, as far as their value, but i think you understand my point.


No, I don't. Oden is the kind of player who comes along once every 10 years. The day he was drafted several NBA analysts said they expected him to bring Portland several championships. No one has said anything like that about Rose.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Interesting article. I don't think there's any chance of CHI doing this though.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I also doubt if Chicago would do that; it would be embarrassing to trade the # 1 pick this year for a guy they could have had previously for a lower pick.

but I think it's possible Portland made the offer. They may figure with Travis and Frye they have good replacements for Aldrige (and may think he is not tough enough to ever be great). But they don't ever expect JJ or Blake to be great point guards.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Maybe this will clear this ugly false rumor up

From Chad Ford 


• Paxson told ESPN Radio on Wednesday that he would be open to trade offers for the No. 1 pick. Within hours we had our first rumor. The Blazers were willing to send LaMarcus Aldridge to the Bulls for the chance to draft Rose. 

Ummm … not so fast. I contacted a source inside the Blazers. They haven't made an offer, and while certainly interested in finding a way to get the No. 1 pick, don't sound inclined to give up Aldridge. 

Still, the deal would've been interesting. Aldridge would be a good fit on the Bulls. But the irony of the whole thing would be thick. The Bulls traded the draft rights to Aldridge to the Blazers for the draft rights of Tyrus Thomas. Trading back for Aldridge would be tantamount to admitting they made the wrong choice two years ago.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

My guess is that Ford worked up this little rumor from what Dan Patrick was saying on his show yesterday. Dan was talking about how Chicago never should have traded Aldridge to us and how the Bulls would be in great shape if they had him on their roster now.

Thanks to MM for posting the entire story and putting this rumor nighty night.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Constantly trading back to get the next big rookie or "potential" guy can be a never ending trap. I believe Prichard when he says he doesn't want to make the team younger, he wants to add an established vet. I deem this rumor BS.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I like Aldridge next to Oden, and agree that Rose is unproven. However, it is a lot easier to get a decent PF than a decent PG. I also have concerns about Aldridge's rebounding. And Frye offers many of the same things as Aldridge--on a lower level. I'm not saying I would pull the trigger, but I would spend a lot of time evaluating it. 

From Chicago's side, it depends on how you see Beasley. If they think he is really a three, or has an attitude (which they don't need any more of) then LMA makes a much better fit in their hole at the PF spot. Also, Chicago is ready to go now, not in four years. If Rose take time to develop, it will slow them, and they still won't have a post presence. 

I could go either way. This is the kind of thing that KP gets paid for. 

Rose-Roy-Rudy-Frye-Oden 

or

[Calderon or Westbrook]-Roy-Rudy-Aldridge-Oden

If Aldridge was committed to Portland, then I guess the second lineup looks more appealing to me.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Yega1979 said:


> Constantly trading back to get the next big rookie or "potential" guy can be a never ending trap. I believe Prichard when he says he doesn't want to make the team younger, he wants to add an established vet. *I deem this rumor BS.*


I second the motion. The motion has been seconded, all in favor say aye ...


:mob:


Those against say nay ...

:krazy:


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

dont worry its not happening. if paxson wanted aldridge he would have drafted him. trading the 1 pick for him is him admitting he was wrong and will probably get him fired in the long run.

Besides Beasley will probably be better then aldridge.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Deke said:


> Besides Beasley will probably be better then aldridge.


You can only hope.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Deke said:


> dont worry its not happening. if paxson wanted aldridge he would have drafted him. trading the 1 pick for him is him admitting he was wrong and will probably get him fired in the long run.
> 
> Besides Beasley will probably be better then aldridge.




Maybe, but that's debatable. Aldridge will have more rings though


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Aldridge is a good scorer, a good defender but a very weak rebounder. If we could upgrade to one of the best PGs in the league, we'd have to do it. We can find a guy who can rebound and defend to replace him and we have enough offense elsewhere.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Aldridge is a good scorer, a good defender but a weak very rebounder. If we could upgrade to one of the best PGs in the league, we'd have to do it. We can find a guy who can rebound and defend to replace him and we have enough offense elsewhere.


Aldridge is not a very weak rebounder

Aldridge is one of the better players at keeping his man off the glass. Joel, Frye and everyone else benefit from him. 

When Joel went down with an injury Aldridge averaged 10 rbs per game

Most every team in the league would be ecstatic if their PF averaged 18/10


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Most every team in the league would be ecstatic if their PF averaged 18/10


Now why you going to start a campaign for Zach to come back with the chemistry working and all.

Unless you see the Blazers trading Aldridge for Rose and then getting Zach back . . . Blazers should be estatic getting back a PF that averages 18/10. :biggrin:

Note: I would do a Rose for Aldridge deal (with the idea Blazers believe Rose is a guarentee starting PG). . . mainly for the idea taht it is easier to find a PF than a PG. Yes Aldridge might work great with Oden, but so would other PFs.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Maybe this will clear this ugly false rumor up
> 
> From Chad Ford
> 
> ...


Why this whole section of the article wasn't included in the original post is beyond me.

If I'm KP, I try to move up as high as I can without giving up Aldridge, Oden, or Roy. If he can get up to the 3-6 range, maybe he could package that pick and get to #1. If the article is right, and Chicago is listening to offers...why not try?

I bet we could get in the 3-6 range with an Outlaw/#13 pick/filler package. Take that newly acquired pick, throw in some combo of Martell, Frye, Jack or whatever...plus we could trade Raef for Hughes to give the bulls some salary relief. I still doubt Chicago would do it though.

Sure it's a long shot, but I would at least try and trade just about anything outside of the big 3 for the #1 (even Rudy & Joel).


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Aldridge is not a very weak rebounder
> 
> Aldridge is one of the better players at keeping his man off the glass. Joel, Frye and everyone else benefit from him.
> 
> ...


Oh wow. You're so far off it's ridiculous.

He was a weak rebounder in college. He is a weak rebounder as a pro. It's okay...all players have flaws. But saying that it's a POSITIVE that he doesn't get rebounds. (He keeps his man from getting rebounds? really?) is absurd.

What he did for a 5 game stretch at the end of the season is probably less important than what he did for the first 77 games. Or in his first season. Don't you think? He's shown that at this point in his career, he's a weak rebounder. (By the way, in that stretch he had two nice rebounding games of 15 and 16...then 5, 5 and 9 to finish the season. It's not as if he suddenly turned it on and started to rebound like a typical 7 footer. He still finished with weak rebounding.) 

Yes, teams would love to have an 18 and 10 guy who plays defense (Aldridge is an 18 and 8 guy, but still...) I'm glad we have him. I like Aldridge a LOT. I don't want to see him go, unless we seriously upgrade a position. Rose at PG would be a SERIOUS upgrade.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Oh wow. You're so far off it's ridiculous.
> 
> He was a weak rebounder in college. He is a weak rebounder as a pro. It's okay...all players have flaws. But saying that it's a POSITIVE that he doesn't get rebounds. (He keeps his man from getting rebounds? really?) is absurd.
> 
> ...



What's sad is that all of you that don't see his value when rebounding will pound him next year because his numbers will either stay the same or decrease because of Greg Oden


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

HELL NO!!! I'll stick with LA! Rose is going to be great, but LA is the real deal! He's only going to get better. I believe he will have a better season then BRoy next year. The same way Stat down in PHX blew up once they brought Shaq in. He was double teamed every possession last year. Other teams can't afford to this year with Greg out there. He will have single coverage in the post. 24 and 11 is what I predict.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

You know I see a lot of arguements over Lamarcus rebounding. This happened all year long. You either like him or you don't. That's what it comes down to. I just think folks expect too much out of him, like they expect him to rebound like Dwight Howard or something. You forget that a lot of the best rebounders in Blazer history, averaged anywhere from 8 to 10 a game. Buck Williams. Brian Grant. Aldridge is already at 7.6 a game, and will likely add 10 to 15 pounds more bulk going into the year. I think he will be right in that ballpark when he comes in this year, and having a 270 pound center who can clog half the lane blocking out for him will only enhance that. 

Trading him for an unproven PG is folly.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

To be perfectly honest, I still haven't figured out whether
Orlando did the right thing in splitting up the Shaq/Webber
potential Juggernaut. They did get 3 1st rounders in addition
to A. Hardaway, so that's different.

They did go to the finals immediately (1st year with Hardaway, I think),
and had 3 more 1st rounders, and had Horace Grant. They certainly
made the right decision.

I bring this up because the Twin Tower similarity seem aprapos.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i think its a pretty even trade really...but would i do it???

i dont know...i would have to hear more on rose at workouts and pre draft camp and stuff


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

ick man. No matter how good Rose is we wouldn't know for sure how he would mesh with Roy, and I don't want to get younger. LMA and Oden compliment each other perfectly, have the potential to make us the best defensive team in the paint for a very long time, and who else (in NBA history) can boast of two young, mobile, skilled, 7'ers ever? No one will be able to double either of them, ever! It's two one on one matchups where we will have the advantage with both of them against almost all teams! Setting up post offense is easiest in the NBA, and the most reliable come playoff time. Roy should be our primary backcourt engine for this, it's hard enough to find a star guard willing to play in a post dominated offense.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Chicago wouldn't do this. It doesn't really matter if the players may be equal. We also have a team that has good chemistry right now... with two new rookies coming in... you don't want to mess with that.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Trading him for an unproven PG is folly.


Agreed. I've seen a few busts in my time, and I'm not willing to trade away Aldridge just on the "chance" that Rose will be great.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

The only way I do this is if LMA says he doesn't want to play here..
Otherwise, this trade sets us back another year or so, because, right now, I think we are primed to compete for the division.
Finally, you do not break up Twin Towers, easily as that!LMA averaging 18 and 8 in hi soph campaign...you know his worst case scenario is Chris Bosh, but playing with Oden skyrockets his ceiling imo.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

What if Portland traded LMA, Raef, #13, Webster and Jack for #1 (Beasley) and Kirk Hinrich?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> The only way I do this is if LMA says he doesn't want to play here..
> Otherwise, this trade sets us back another year or so, because, right now, I think we are primed to compete for the division.
> Finally, you do not break up Twin Towers, easily as that!LMA averaging 18 and 8 in hi soph campaign...you know his worst case scenario is Chris Bosh, but playing with Oden skyrockets his ceiling imo.


LA's "worst case scenario" is NOT Chris Bosh. That is ridiculous. 

His worst case scenario (barring unforseen injury) is that he just had the best season of his career. That is the "worst case", and it has happened to many a NBA career.

It is not likely. The typical pattern for a young, improving big man, is to continue to build on their game. Yet, LA has a ways to go before he is as good as Bosh has been already. For LA to be BETTER than Bosh, he will have to make big strides. And you have that as your "normal case". What does LA have to become for "best case"? Hall of Fame?


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

LaMarcus is going to be a great power forward which is much more difficult to find than point guards. No way you do this deal.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Some of you guys are priceless. There isnt one GM in the league who would take Aldridge over the #1 pick. So ridiculous its not even funny.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Some of you guys are priceless. There isnt one GM in the league who would take Aldridge over the #1 pick. So ridiculous its not even funny.


I'm a Blazer fan and I aprove this message.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

TLo said:


> LaMarcus is going to be a great power forward which is much more difficult to find than point guards. No way you do this deal.


Great power forwards harder to find than great point guards? You have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Great power forwards harder to find than great point guards? You have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.


Totally off the topic, but is that you and your wife in your avatar? I ask because it says "married sucker" just above the pic.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

LMA > Beasley...MB is way too much of a tweener. There is no way in hell he'll be able to score in the paint like he did in college.
And yes, his worst case is Bosh is he continues to improve..go run n tell dat!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Funnily enough (but not funny ha-ha), after the lottery I was going to start a thread saying "Aldridge for Rose?" to see what people think, but I forgot. And now here it is. At the time I thought there's no way Chicago would do it straight up beacause:
(a) with the hype on Beasley, nobody would accept a non-superstar PF instead, even one that's taller and that can play defense
(b) this would be admitting that they made a COLOSSAL blunder in trading away Aldridge, particularly as they went on to release Viktor.

...so it would more likely be the #1 and a contract they want to dump for LA, the #13 and maybe Webster or Przybilla.

I'm torn. I like Aldridge and all, but if we got rid of him and got Rose, then we'd be much more of a running team than if we kept LA and kept our average PGs. (We could then go on to see if D'Antoni could talk Walsh into giving us David Lee for Sergio.) Can somebody set up a poll?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Totally off the topic, but is that you and your wife in your avatar? I ask because it says "married sucker" just above the pic.


Yep. Thats me and my wife at our wedding in the Dominican. Shes pretty drunk and making some sort of strange face.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> LMA > Beasley...MB is way too much of a tweener. There is no way in hell he'll be able to score in the paint like he did in college.
> And yes, his worst case is Bosh is he continues to improve..go run n tell dat!


Worst case scenario is turning out to be Chris Bosh? Really? Do some of you even hear your posts in your head before you type them out? Saying LMA's worst case is Bosh is something that should get you a one way ticket to the looney bin. Theres a difference between cheering for your team, and just being a delusional ahole.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Some of you guys are priceless. There isnt one GM in the league who would take Aldridge over the #1 pick. So ridiculous its not even funny.


Actually, that is the "priceless"...err...ridiculous comment...

Rose..PROJECTS to be a very good PG...Aldridge in his 2nd year is alreay averaging 18&8...IN THE NBA...I think he has proven himself to be a good NBA player with the potential for much more....

He certainly has some things to work on, but personally I think he has made GREAT strides in his 2 years here, and I expect him to expand on that even more next year...

I think the main reasons CHI wouldn't do this deal is b\c of the Thomas\Aldridge flip flop fiasco.....b\c Rose is from CHI & b\c it is the #1 pick, and the weight of trading that pick freezes most GM's from actually pulling the trigger on a trade....How many times has the #1 pick been traded again?

As for the deal for POR? Ballsy...I'll give it that...POR does have Frye & Outlaw to step into the PF spot, I guess it would depend on how Pritchard and crew values\sees Rose as an NBA prospect...as for this type of deal to happen, I would imagine it would be pretty dang high (Paul, Deron Williams level)...and IMO that is walking out on the ledge...b\c there are no guarantees with Rose...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Actually, that is the "priceless"...err...ridiculous comment...
> 
> Rose..PROJECTS to be a very good PG...Aldridge in his 2nd year is alreay averaging 18&8...IN THE NBA...I think he has proven himself to be a good NBA player with the potential for much more....
> 
> ...



Really? Really? My side of the argument is the ridiculous one? So if I were to say, oh I dont know, make a poll on the NBA general board, I'd look like a fool because everyone would vote to keep LMA right?


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Great power forwards harder to find than great point guards? You have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.


That is a fact. I keep hearing foolish statements like yours and they make me laugh. The population of 6-0 to 6-4 men is far larger than the population of 6-9 to 7-0 men. It's simple logic to deduce that it's more difficult to find the dominant big men.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

TLo said:


> That is a fact. I keep hearing foolish statements like yours and they make me laugh. The population of 6-0 to 6-4 men is far larger than the population of 6-9 to 7-0 men. It's simple logic to deduce that it's more difficult to find the dominant big men.


This is hillarious. You really do have no idea what you're talking about do you? Do you even watch basketball? Outside of a handful of players, the 1 spot is chalk full of mediocre players. It much easier to sign a good, starter quality PF than it is to find a PG for your team.

If you dont agree with that, I dont know what to tell you other than you dont know what you're talking about.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

R-Star said:


> This is hillarious. You really do have no idea what you're talking about do you? Do you even watch basketball? Outside of a handful of players, the 1 spot is chalk full of mediocre players. It much easier to sign a good, starter quality PF than it is to find a PG for your team.
> 
> If you dont agree with that, I dont know what to tell you other than you dont know what you're talking about.


Please! You don't have to prove your basketball ignorance to me!

Chris Paul
Darren Williams
Jason Kidd
Tony Parker
Brandon Roy (Yes, he's a PG)
Rajon Rondo
Chauncey Billups
Allen Iverson (maybe a SG?)
Baron Davis
Steve Nash

Thanks for playing though!


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

It's true. Looking around the league, it is significantly easier to find a very good player at SG/SF ("wing") or PF. If you choose between a top-tier PG and secondary PF, or the opposite, you clearly go with the better PG. He's the ball-handler, playmaker, etc. There is a lot of talent at the PF position: 

(East)
KG
Josh Smith
Rasheed
Okafor
Jermaine O'Neal
Rashard Lewis
Bosh
Jamison
(West)
Dirk
Harrington
Al Jefferson
Elton Brand
Gasol
Odom
Amare
David West
Aldridge
Duncan
Boozer

That's about 20 top-tier PF's either playing at a very good clip (at or after their peak) or still on the rise. You can add Beasly to the list as well I suppose. That doesn't even count some of the lower level players like Drew Gooden, Charlie, Vilanueva, David Lee, etc. 


I agree that there is pretty good talent at PG, but the difference between a mid level PG and a star is more apparently and makes a stronger impact. Look how much better Houston played against Utah with Rafer Alston back in the lineup. He's not a star, but he made a huge impact by being a better starter than Bobby Jackson.


This deal would never go down. Fans (in Chicago) would be irate. If they want a PF they take Beasily, or they take home-town Rose. They'll probably go rose based on the rise of PG play in the league recently.

Anyways...


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

In the current state of the game (where so many teams try to rely on the pick and roll) competent PG's are only slightly less hard to find than dominant *centers*, but the PF position is nowhere near as hard to fill as the PG spot.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Really? Really? My side of the argument is the ridiculous one? So if I were to say, oh I dont know, make a poll on the NBA general board, I'd look like a fool because everyone would vote to keep LMA right?


:lol:

Yeah b\c a poll of non-biased fans will really tell the "truth" won't it?

I wonder who has more fans on this board? POR or CHI? It could be close... 

In all seriousness, last time I checked, 20 & 10 guys are a pretty rare and highly regarded commodity as well...Aldridge was on the cusp of that in his 2nd year...and I imagine he would hit that level next year...sans Oden....

So I guess no GM in his right mind would trade the #1 for Oden either, right? I mean PG are afterall the far more valuable commodity...right?

I'll say it again...I don't think CHI would do this type of trade....but it certainly isn't b\c Aldridge isn't a worthy offer....


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

That is just not true. In the last 3 years we have seen:

CP3
Darren Williams
Brandon Roy
Rajon Rondo


What great players at power forward have we seen come into the league during this time? Maybe LaMarcus Aldridge? Although he has yet to prove that he will be a dominant player.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Trade Rose for Aldridge, Outlaw for Villanueva

Rose/Blake/Sergio
Roy/Fernandez/Jack
Webster/James
CV/Frye
Oden/Pryzbilla

Boom!


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Just look at the Spurs and tell me how irrelevant the power forward position is.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TLo said:


> That is a fact. I keep hearing foolish statements like yours and they make me laugh. The population of 6-0 to 6-4 men is far larger than the population of 6-9 to 7-0 men. It's simple logic to deduce that it's more difficult to find the dominant big men.



Let's put that to the test shall we.......

Great to very good PF's in the league today

KG
Duncan
Boozer
Stoudemire
Nowitzki
Brand
Bosh
Jamison
Jefferson
Gasol
Smith 
Marion
Wallace
Okafor
Horford
Aldridge 

Now PG's

Paul
Williams
Nash
Kidd
Davis
Parker
Billups
Arenas
AI
Ford?
Calderon?
Bibby?
Rondo?

Who am I missing????

That's 13 Pg's to 16 Pf's


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TLo said:


> Just look at the Spurs and tell me how irrelevant the power forward position is.


They also have a decent PG too ya know


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> :lol:
> 
> Yeah b\c a poll of non-biased fans will really tell the "truth" won't it?
> 
> ...


True but 20/10 assist guys are even more rare.


----------



## frozen_hamburger (May 12, 2008)

i don't understand why this is even a rumor. great teams have stable cornerstones, KP and the blazer organization has made it clear that Roy-Aldridge-Oden is blazers' cornerstone, so now they are going to eat their words to buy a prospect in this year's draft? what about next year's top prospect? are we gonna talk about if the team with the 1st pick would trade us their pick next year for BRoy? Enough with the rumors, LMA is here to stay, SHOW SOME TRUST PEOPLE.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Let's put that to the test shall we.......
> 
> Great to very good PF's in the league today
> 
> ...


Here is a good reference for figuring this out. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=pf&seasonType=2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dper%26qual%3dtrue%26pos%3dpf%26seasonType%3d2


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Here's the rarity spectrum:

Centers are rarest
Followed by PG
SG/SF/PF are all next in line. Find a team without one bubble-all star at either of the SG or SF spots. You won't find one. Every team has a decently good player there, whether it's a Corey Maggette, Mike Miller, Rudy Gay, ....whatever look around and find any team.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

I haven't seen enough of Rose to get a clear feel for him, but it often takes some years to learn the PG spot (think Billups and Nash), and the it is anything but certain that a good looking college PG will "for sure" become a top flight pro PG.

I think basketball experts would say that the difference to team play between a great PG and an average PG is much more than the difference between a great PF and an average PF. So, I beleive, it is generally thought that one should be willing to do quite a bit to get a great PG.

If I knew for sure that Rose was going to be Kidd with a jump shot, then, I'd consider making the trade. However, I don't know that to be true. If Rudy is thought to be very good, and can get his own shot, then there is far less need to shore up the backcourt. It is not easy to get good perimeter defense, but it is not impossible to find a Bruce Bowen or a Raja Bell. LA and Oden were said to have good chemistry together last summer, and the strengths of their skills seem to complement each other well. I am looking forward to see them play with each other for years and years. 

Generally speaking, fans and the media, hype top draft picks well beyond their true value in production in the early years of their careers. LA has already passed through a couple of NBA seasons, and 1) he is still said to possess a very good work ethic 2) he seems like a decent person 3)he is rapidly improving 4) we haven't heard him complain about not getting enough touches or TV commercials 5) he is said to be willing to learn from coaches. I would not be surprised if in a couple of years, we find that either or both Rose and Beasley aren't as good on the above points.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Let's put that to the test shall we.......
> 
> Great to very good PF's in the league today
> 
> ...


How about Gilbert Arenas?
How about Sam Cassell?
How about Devin Harris?
How about Shaun Livingston?
How about Luke Ridnour?
How about Sebastian Telfair?...er, wait. :lol:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TLo said:


> How about Gilbert Arenas?
> How about Sam Cassell?
> How about Devin Harris?
> How about Shaun Livingston?
> ...


I have Arenas there. The only one I left out was Harris 

If Livingston and Ridnour belong on that list then Lamar Odom, Scola, Leeand others belong on the PF list


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Let's put that to the test shall we.......
> 
> Great to very good PF's in the league today
> 
> ...


IMO....That is a little misleading of a post MM..

West would be another PF to add...


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I have Arenas there. The only one I left out was Harris
> 
> If Livingston and Ridnour belong on that list then Lamar Odom, Scola, Leeand others belong on the PF list


Sorry, I missed Arenas. I think the point is that position isn't as important as being a dominant player. And I would rather have a dominant big man than a dominant small man. I'm talking dominant as in *GREAT!* It's harder to find great big men.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I think you have to add Brandon Roy to the list of great PG's. I think that is where he will play for us.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> :lol:
> 
> Yeah b\c a poll of non-biased fans will really tell the "truth" won't it?
> 
> ...


Alridge isnt a fair offer. Oden? Well of course he is. Oden could be something special you only see once or twice in a lifetime. Aldridge? He could maybe be a perenial allstar, or could be a borderline allstar the rest of his career. Hes not worth the #1.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Here is a good reference for figuring this out. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=pf&seasonType=2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dper%26qual%3dtrue%26pos%3dpf%26seasonType%3d2


Check it. A PER of 15 is average set to the season. 19 PG's above PER15, with 30 PF's above PER15. And that considers Amare, Al Jefferson, and Duncan as centers. PG's handle the rock, and thus they put up more erratic fantasy numbers. Included in the PG's above the cut were Nate Robinson and Louis Williams, not exactly stars IMO. 

Anyways, 

PG talent is less common than PF talent, at an elite level at the least. There are way more people at 6'1" who play basketball in the world than people who are 6'9". Those PG's better be DARN good. CP3 stands out even among them. Quite the rarity.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Perfection said:


> Check it. A PER of 15 is average set to the season. 19 PG's above PER15, with 30 PF's above PER15. And that considers Amare, Al Jefferson, and Duncan as centers. PG's handle the rock, and thus they put up more erratic fantasy numbers. Included in the PG's above the cut were Nate Robinson and Louis Williams, not exactly stars IMO.
> 
> Anyways,
> 
> PG talent is less common than PF talent, at an elite level at the least. There are way more people at 6'1" who play basketball in the world than people who are 6'9". Those PG's better be DARN good. CP3 stands out even among them. Quite the rarity.


And yet CP3's team was knocked out of the playoffs by the team with the greatest PF of all time.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

BuckW4GM said:


> just as oden is unproven? i don't think there's 1 gm who would value aldridge higher than an unproven oden. i don't think rose is close to oden, as far as their value, but i think you understand my point.
> 
> aldridge obviously has shown he'll be at least an above average player, but i believe rose's potential is higher.


I love Aldridge and oden but ya I agree. To many people talk about Oden like he's this big time proven player who will dominate the game for years to come. If thats the case can't the same thing be said about Darek Rose or Michael Beasley?


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

TLo said:


> And yet CP3's team was knocked out of the playoffs by the team with the greatest PF of all time.


OK, Greatest PF of all time > young Chris Paul? Maybe

Duncan+Parker+Ginobli and LOTS of experience (plus Greg Popovich is an advantage)

to Paul+West+Chandler. One is on the uprise and the other the downside of their dynasties. It was a great series that could have EASILY gone the other way.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

TLo said:


> And yet CP3's team was knocked out of the playoffs by the team with the greatest PF of all time.


Yep. Just shows how crappy CP3 is. Couldnt even win a title in his 2nd year. What a loser.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Schilly said:


> What if Portland traded LMA, Raef, #13, Webster and Jack for #1 (Beasley) and Kirk Hinrich?


It is interesting to see how polarized people are on this. As you point out, there are a lot of combinations between these two teams that could make sense. Both have young talent and some specific needs that could be met.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Perfection said:


> OK, Greatest PF of all time > young Chris Paul? Maybe
> 
> Duncan+Parker+Ginobli and LOTS of experience (plus Greg Popovich is an advantage)
> 
> to Paul+West+Chandler. One is on the uprise and the other the downside of their dynasties. It was a great series that could have EASILY gone the other way.


I agree.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Yep. Just shows how crappy CP3 is. Couldnt even win a title in his 2nd year. What a loser.


Duncan won a title in his 2nd year.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TLo said:


> Duncan won a title in his 2nd year.


Magic Johnson (PG) won in his first year


----------



## frozen_hamburger (May 12, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Yep. Just shows how crappy CP3 is. Couldnt even win a title in his 2nd year. What a loser.


this was CP3's 3rd season, please use correct statistics in sarcasm.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Magic Johnson (PG) won in his first year


Magic played every position on the court.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

frozen_hamburger said:


> this was CP3's 3rd season, please use correct statistics in sarcasm.


:lol:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i don't see why this has to be much more than a talent assessment. it's not like the core blazers have so much experience together that they'll be sacrificing. if your talent assessment has aldridge over beasley and rose, it's easy. if not, you have to think about it. the blazers don't exactly have the pg spot locked up. and if beasley is an upgrade over aldridge, you wouldn't do it because aldridge has some experience playing with roy and webster??? do you think about how the pieces you have fit? of course, but why in the world would you dismiss without assessing the talent? seems that's what many of you are doing.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

kflo said:


> i don't see why this has to be much more than a talent assessment. it's not like the core blazers have so much experience together that they'll be sacrificing. if your talent assessment has aldridge over beasley and rose, it's easy. if not, you have to think about it. the blazers don't exactly have the pg spot locked up. and if beasley is an upgrade over aldridge, you wouldn't do it because aldridge has some experience playing with roy and webster??? do you think about how the pieces you have fit? of course, but why in the world would you dismiss without assessing the talent? seems that's what many of you are doing.


I agree with this. However, I think Aldridge is better than Beasley. I also think he's more important to this team than Rose would be.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Yep. Just shows how crappy CP3 is. Couldnt even win a title in his 2nd year. What a loser.


uhhhh this year was his third year.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Yep. Just shows how crappy CP3 is. Couldnt even win a title in his 2nd year. What a loser.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

ehizzy3 said:


> uhhhh this year was his third year.


My 3 key doesnt work on my computer, so I uh, I had to put the 2 instead. So in conclusion, I know hes in his 3rd year, but my 3 key doesnt work, so I put 2 instead.

Thank you for your time.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Some of you guys are priceless. There isnt one GM in the league who would take Aldridge over the #1 pick. So ridiculous its not even funny.


I can see both arguements. But seriously, how do they not know what they are talking about?

They are saying don't trade a 6'11, 22 year old PF, with a great attitude that goes PERFECT with Oden and that has proven himself on the NBA level at 18 and 8 for Rose, who averaged 14.9 ppg and 4.7 apg in college. Rose isn't a sure thing, and we already have Roy who dominates the ball.

Now i LOVE Rose, but i would not trade LMA for Rose. I can see both views, but what Portland fans are saying is hardly stupid and unintellegent.


----------



## iversonfan 349 (Oct 15, 2006)

I think the bulls should keep there pick and get beasly or rose.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

R-Star said:


> My 3 key doesnt work on my computer, so I uh, I had to put the 2 instead. So in conclusion, I know hes in his 3rd year, but my 3 key doesnt work, so I put 2 instead.
> 
> Thank you for your time.


 Now that is funny! :lol:


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

R-Star said:


> My 3 key doesnt work on my computer, so I uh, I had to put the 2 instead. So in conclusion, I know hes in his 3rd year, but my 3 key doesnt work, so I put 2 instead.
> 
> Thank you for your time.


Good to see you apparently got it fixed. For the record, he didn't win in his 2nd year either.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I don't think either team would do the trade, especially not the Bulls, but I don't think that the trade is unfair. Rose is not one of those 'can't miss' draftees like Oden or Bron, he is a #1/#2 pick in the draft because there aren't any 'can't miss' players this year. Kind of similar to two years ago when Aldridge was drafted #2 behind Bargnani at the #1 pick. Just looking at that draft, Bargnani is a waste and even though he went #1, I don't think any lotto team would even consider trading their pick for him. Aldridge, in his second season (that's 3rd to R-Star) has shown that he is a top three player from his draft class along with Gay and Roy. And Aldridge is still growing leaps and bounds, and IMO will end up being a 20/10 player with great defense. 

Personally, I really like Rose and think he will end up as a top flight PG in the league, but I also thought that Bargnani would be a top PF in his draft two years ago. Trading an unknown Rose for a known Aldridge is not wacko. And it's not like you would be trading for a player who is on the downside of his career, Aldridge is also very young and has many years to continue to improve.

So, I don't think either team would do the trade, and I think the trade may favor the Bulls slightly, but I don't think that a proposal like this is bad or terribly one sided. A lot of it comes down to team needs and the teams scouting department. If the Bulls are looking at Rose/Beasley and think that they are being over-valued because this is a weak draft, then it might make sense to try and get something good for the pick rather than end up with a player worth less once the pick doesn't pan out.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

R-Star said:


> My 3 key doesnt work on my computer, so I uh, I had to put the 2 instead. So in conclusion, I know hes in his 3rd year, but my 3 key doesnt work, so I put 2 instead.
> 
> Thank you for your time.


Dude, this is how you do that joke:

My *three* key doesn't work (####, see), so I uh, I had to put the 2 instead.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> I can see both arguements. But seriously, how do they not know what they are talking about?
> 
> They are saying don't trade a 6'11, 22 year old PF, with a great attitude that goes PERFECT with Oden and that has proven himself on the NBA level at 18 and 8 for Rose, who averaged 14.9 ppg and 4.7 apg in college. Rose isn't a sure thing, and we already have Roy who dominates the ball.
> 
> Now i LOVE Rose, but i would not trade LMA for Rose. I can see both views, but what Portland fans are saying is hardly stupid and unintellegent.


Nah, let's just admit it. This entire Portland board is stupid and lacks intellegence. We, collectively, have no idea what we are talking about. Just igore us folks. Nothing to see here. Move on.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Dude, this is how you do that joke:
> 
> My *three* key doesn't work (####, see), so I uh, I had to put the 2 instead.


:clap:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

aldridge and oden compliment each other so well, trade you outlaw and two #1st for number1


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

GOD said:


> I don't think either team would do the trade, especially not the Bulls, but I don't think that the trade is unfair. Rose is not one of those 'can't miss' draftees like Oden or Bron, he is a #1/#2 pick in the draft because there aren't any 'can't miss' players this year. Kind of similar to two years ago when Aldridge was drafted #2 behind Bargnani at the #1 pick. Just looking at that draft, Bargnani is a waste and even though he went #1, I don't think any lotto team would even consider trading their pick for him. Aldridge, in his second season (that's 3rd to R-Star) has shown that he is a top three player from his draft class along with Gay and Roy. And Aldridge is still growing leaps and bounds, and IMO will end up being a 20/10 player with great defense.
> 
> Personally, I really like Rose and think he will end up as a top flight PG in the league, but I also thought that Bargnani would be a top PF in his draft two years ago. Trading an unknown Rose for a known Aldridge is not wacko. And it's not like you would be trading for a player who is on the downside of his career, Aldridge is also very young and has many years to continue to improve.
> 
> So, I don't think either team would do the trade, and I think the trade may favor the Bulls slightly, but I don't think that a proposal like this is bad or terribly one sided. A lot of it comes down to team needs and the teams scouting department. If the Bulls are looking at Rose/Beasley and think that they are being over-valued because this is a weak draft, then it might make sense to try and get something good for the pick rather than end up with a player worth less once the pick doesn't pan out.


Excellent post :clap:



> don't see why this has to be much more than a talent assessment. it's not like the core blazers have so much experience together that they'll be sacrificing. if your talent assessment has aldridge over beasley and rose, it's easy. if not, you have to think about it. the blazers don't exactly have the pg spot locked up. and if beasley is an upgrade over aldridge, you wouldn't do it because aldridge has some experience playing with roy and webster??? do you think about how the pieces you have fit? of course, but why in the world would you dismiss without assessing the talent? seems that's what many of you are doing.


Also Excellent :clap:

And I think that this is what a trade of this magnitude would come down to...Where does each team project Rose to be a few years down the road....Where do they predict Aldridge....How would either affect their team composition and do they have other options there already (CHI...Hinrich for example...POR Frye)...


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

If this rumor is true I hope it doesen't grow deeper as time goes on. It could come back to haunt us. Darek Rose is going to be hell of a PG. The real question here is do you want Oden and Alridge complementing eachother or Rose and Roy. Please don't come at me like Rose hasen't proved himself yet like Oden has. Thats BS.:smoothcriminal:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

If I'm the Blazers, I do it... although I try to do something like

Aldridge + 13 
for
Tyrus + 1

From Chicago's perspective? I probably just take Beasley and plug him in with the rest of the team.

Does anyone else think that Portland and Chicago are bound to battle in a Finals or two in the future?

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BlazerFan22 said:


> The real question here is do you want Oden and Alridge complementing eachother or Rose and Roy.


I don't think it has to stop at that analysis. West compliments Paul, Gasol compliment Kobe. I think, if Rose is all that, he could compliment Oden. 

Many seem stuck on the fact Aldridge compliments Oden (not you) . . . well we don't know that yet and just because Aldrdige compliments Oden (if it turns out that way) doesn't mean Rose doesn't compliment Oden.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Ed O said:


> If I'm the Blazers, I do it... although I try to do something like
> 
> Aldridge + 13
> for
> ...


 I can't see Chicago being a serious contender until they get a good center, and those aren't easy to come by.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If you honestly believe that Rose is the second coming of Chris Paul, then the deal makes sense. Personally, I am reluctant to say Rose is going to be THAT good.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If you honestly believe that Rose is the second coming of Chris Paul, then the deal makes sense. Personally, *I am reluctant to say Rose is going to be THAT good.*




I'm not, I think Rose is going to be a bigger version of Chris Paul.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

graybeard said:


> I can't see Chicago being a serious contender until they get a good center, and those aren't easy to come by.


A good center is not a must considering how much talent Chicago has.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> A good center is not a must considering how much talent Chicago has.


 And all that talent has gotten them where? You can get along without a center if you have MJ on your team. Chicago seriously needs a post presence.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

graybeard said:


> And all that talent has gotten them where? You can get along without a center if you have MJ on your team. Chicago seriously needs a post presence.


Don't know yet. But adding the #1 pick is going to do wonders. Regardless of who they draft, I don't see them needing a center.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Don't know yet. But adding the #1 pick is going to do wonders. Regardless of who they draft, I don't see them needing a center.


 Don't need a center? Who is their center? Who is the post presence they're going to draft with the #1?


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

graybeard said:


> Don't need a center? Who is there center? Who is the post presence they're going to draft with the #1?


I said they don't need a good center. So they don't need to draft a post presence. 

But, Beasley can play the low post if they draft him. Rose will make Tyrus and Gooden better if they draft him. 

I see no reason for them to obtain a center.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

graybeard said:


> Don't need a center? Who is their center? Who is the post presence they're going to draft with the #1?


I'm not a huge Noah fan, but he should evolve into an energy guy who can defend many (perhaps most) centers.

Beasley can be the low post presence.

PG: Hinrich
SG: Gordon
SF: Deng
PF: Beasley
C: Noah

With Nocioni and Tyrus Thomas providing depth up front off the bench... they need to get a third solid guard, but I REALLY like Chicago's future.

Ed O.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm not a huge Noah fan, but he should evolve into an energy guy who can defend many (perhaps most) centers.
> 
> Beasley can be the low post presence.
> 
> ...


 It looks to me like they're getting seriously outplayed at all positions except PF & SF. http://www.82games.com/0708/0708CHI5.HTM I see them being mired in mediocrity.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

graybeard said:


> It looks to me like they're getting seriously outplayed at all positions except PF. http://www.82games.com/0708/0708CHI5.HTM I see them being mired in mediocrity.


Then you are seriously underrating their players.

Last season was a complete disaster that can't be blamed solely on the players.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

graybeard said:


> It looks to me like they're getting seriously outplayed at all positions except PF. http://www.82games.com/0708/0708CHI5.HTM I see them being mired in mediocrity.


I love how Luol Deng and Lamarcus Aldridge can be the same age, and put up the same exact numbers (with Deng's being better in his last healthy season) and yet Deng is going to be "seriously out played" at his position and Aldridge is an untradeable piece of a future dynasty.

Anyone care to explain that one?


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I love how Luol Deng and Lamarcus Aldridge can be the same age, and put up the same exact numbers (with Deng's being better in his last healthy season) and yet Deng is going to be "seriously out played" at his position and Aldridge is an untradeable piece of a future dynasty.
> 
> Anyone care to explain that one?


 I edited my original post to include the SF position. I like Deng. You never heard me say that Aldridge is untradeable, heck, I'll trade you Aldridge for Rose straight up. You do that trade and we might see you in the finals in a few years. :biggrin:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

It's_GO_Time said:


> Many seem stuck on the fact Aldridge compliments Oden (not you) . . . well we don't know that yet and just because Aldrdige compliments Oden (if it turns out that way) doesn't mean Rose doesn't compliment Oden.


It's not too much of a stretch to think that a quality high post player and a quality low post player would compliment each other. A quick scan of my memory banks can't come up with any examples where this wasn't the case. That they are both good sized/very long and defensive minded bodes well too especially playing in the current era where zone D is permitted. 

While I think Rose would probably excel on the Blazers, it doesn't seem nearly as natural of a fit. First, he lacks the solid outside shot to stretch the D and compliment Oden. Second, Roy already does a tremendous job dominating the ball/directing the offense. I'm pretty excited to see Rudy playing opposite Brandon. 

For all his obvious talents I don't see Rose as the superior player to Aldridge or having a higher upside. I'll happily stand pat and will be pretty shocked if KP moves any of his top 3 guys.

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Welcome back, STOMP. Haven't seen you for a while. (or a couple days at least)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Welcome back, STOMP. Haven't seen you for a while. (or a couple days at least)


thanks :smile: I've been off having some outdoor fun golfing and mountain biking in the rain up the McKenzie River

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Keep Aldridge and bring in a proven PG who's still fairly young (but doesn't have to be) and avoid breaking up our young core.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

zagsfan20 said:


> Keep Aldridge and bring in a proven PG who's still fairly young (but doesn't have to be) and avoid breaking up our young core.


Who are you talking about when you say "young core"?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

B-Roy said:


> Who are you talking about when you say "young core"?


Roy, Aldridge, Rudy, and Oden.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

In a f'n heartbeat!

It's a moot point. Chicago is NOT trading their pick.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Sonny-Canzano said:


> In a f'n heartbeat!
> 
> It's a moot point. Chicago is NOT trading their pick.


It's a moot point my man, because KP wouldn't do that deal!


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I've been thinking about it long and hard... I think I'd do the deal. Rose for Aldridge. I'd do it because a point guard is quickly becoming the IT thing in the NBA. You put an All-Star caliber point guard with Roy and Oden... man... Dangerous. I think power forward is the easiest spot to fill right now, especially if Oden is as good as advertised. You put a hard worker next to Oden, someone who can hit a mid range J and plays solid defense. That's all you need. Horace Grant played alongside Shaq for how many years? Get us someone who hustles and has a decent mid range J. That's all we need at that spot.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

To play devil's advocate there seem to be more realistically attainable "final piece" PF's in the '09 FA class then there are PG's. Paul and Williams are pipe dreams and will be extended, AI and Kidd will be too old. Meanwhile a player like Boozer if he opts out, and it's looking more and more like he will, would be a nice fit, or possibly even Brand.

Rose
Roy
(insert role playing SF)
Boozer
Oden

That would be pretty formidable. I'm a huge Aldridge fan, and it's highly unlikely we'd move him. But what makes Rose so intriguing to me is his defense and position. A PG who could be a perenial all-star and first team defensive player is pretty attractive.


----------

