What's new
By:

Lillard available?

MDAV28 said:
So right you go over the screen... Hill getting around a screen is night and day compared to Lillard. Having Gobert doesn't change the fact that Lillard still needs to get around a screen right? You don't want to switch Gobert. You pull the best defender in the league out of where he is effective.
Click to expand...

If Lillard did on defense what Quinn would ask him to do at any time the last two years his man gets a dunk. It changes everything to have someone like gobert under the rim. Any real jazz fan would understand that. You should watch the Jazz more.
 
♪alt13 said:
If Lillard did on defense what Quinn would ask him to do at any time the last two years his man gets a dunk. It changes everything to have someone like gobert under the rim. Any real jazz fan would understand that. You should watch the Jazz more.
Click to expand...

Gobert, the force he is, can't magically allow Lillard to get around screens my friend. That matters. Gobert can't fix it. In this case Gobert's man gets a dunk for picking up Lillard's. Watch some more Blazers.
 
MDAV28 said:
In 2014, Tony Parker thrashed Lillard in their series. I think he had 2 30+ point performances, some of the highest outputs of his season. And only played about 30 minutes a night. The had to switch Wes and Batum on Parker. Completely changed the series. Spurs won 4-1. I think Lillard is WORSE now than he was in that series.

This sounds like I hate Lillard. I like Lillard. I just think his defensive inability shouldn't be ignored, especially if you're giving up your team for him.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. As much as we are giving up for Lillard, we wouldn't be giving up the team for him. We'd still have Hill, Hayward, Neto, Burks, Ingles, Johnson, Lyles, Gobert.

Yeah, Lillard has defensive problems. He also has incredible offensive abilities.

Hood and Exum aren't exactly defensive elites. Lillard is a lot better offensively than Hood and Exum are defensively. Losing Favors hurts, but reality is, we are losing Favors anyways. We can't afford to keep him. If you can move him for a star, do it.

Think of it this way:

You can only have three max guys. Gobert and Hayward are 1 and 2 for the Jazz. Who is #3? Do you see Hood, Favors or Exum as our #3?

Or, if you can move those three for a legit #1, wouldn't the smarter thing be to move them for the #1, especially if Hood is going to get 90 million as a free agent?
 
MDAV28 said:
Gobert, the force he is, can't magically allow Lillard to get around screens my friend. That matters. Gobert can't fix it. In this case Gobert's man gets a dunk for picking up Lillard's. Watch some more Blazers.
Click to expand...

Lillard is a plus player on a s*** team. Despite admittedly being a negative Defender. You should watch the Blazers. I'm sure you haven't that's pretty clear.

If Willard can be a net-positive on a team with s*** defense all around then he's going to be an even bigger positive on a good defensive team. It's simple stuff really.
 
green said:
That's the thing. As much as we are giving up for Lillard, we wouldn't be giving up the team for him. We'd still have Hill, Hayward, Neto, Burks, Ingles, Johnson, Lyles, Gobert.

Yeah, Lillard has defensive problems. He also has incredible offensive abilities.

Hood and Exum aren't exactly defensive elites. Lillard is a lot better offensively than Hood and Exum are defensively. Losing Favors hurts, but reality is, we are losing Favors anyways. We can't afford to keep him. If you can move him for a star, do it.

Think of it this way:

You can only have three max guys. Gobert and Hayward are 1 and 2 for the Jazz. Who is #3? Do you see Hood, Favors or Exum as our #3?

Or, if you can move those three for a legit #1, wouldn't the smarter thing be to move them for the #1, especially if Hood is going to get 90 million as a free agent?
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, I have no problem moving them for a #1 (like Jimmy) because I am well aware of the financial decisions looming. The question is if Lillard is a #1.
 
♪alt13 said:
Lillard is a plus player on a s*** team. Despite admittedly being a negative Defender. You should watch the Blazers. I'm sure you haven't that's pretty clear.

If Willard can be a net-positive on a team with s*** defense all around then he's going to be an even bigger positive on a good defensive team. It's simple stuff really.
Click to expand...

So we are throwing him on this squad? Sign me up. We are trading our team for him. What money does Hill take? Where's the other money going?

Let me know when Gobert can change how Lillard gets around a screen. Until then, giving up the farm for him would only hurt the defense, depth, and flexibility. Never once said he's a net negative.

I actually would want it to happen to see heads roll when Lillard gets targeted play after play and gets stuck on screen after screen.
 
Lillard to the jazz without giving up gobert or hayward? Yes please. And duh
 
MDAV28 said:
Like I said earlier, I have no problem moving them for a #1 (like Jimmy) because I am well aware of the financial decisions looming. The question is if Lillard is a #1.
Click to expand...

If Butler is a #1, then Lillard is. Butler is a three time all star, three time all defensive team.
Lillard is a two time allstar, two time all nba team.

Butler has been an allstar one additional time. Lillard has been on all NBA teams twice...Butler has zero.

Now, I'd rather have Butler as well. But, that doesn't mean Lillard isn't a #1 and not worth looking into.
 
green said:
If Butler is a #1, then Lillard is. Butler is a three time all star, three time all defensive team.
Lillard is a two time allstar, two time all nba team.

Butler has been an allstar one additional time. Lillard has been on all NBA teams twice...Butler has zero.

Now, I'd rather have Butler as well. But, that doesn't mean Lillard isn't a #1 and not worth looking into.
Click to expand...

So is Hayward a #1 to you? If Lillard and Butler are stars then Hayward is as well.

None of those players can put their teams on their backs and carry them by themselves. If they are the #1 they need a really good team around them to do well. Clearly Hayward was not good enough to carry young, injured bad teams, neither is Lillard. Frankly the three of them and George are all in the same tier of player. Arguing which is better in ranking is too difficult. It is easier to put them in tiers of players.

It would be nice to get any of these big name all-star players who are supposedly on the trade block. I think Cousins was our best bet and he is a big risk. These are other players are less of a risk, but much harder to get and pretty unlikely for us.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
The first part is dumb. Why do people think Quin wants to play slow? I promise he doesn't.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...


Hows it dumb? Our team plays at a slow pace... Im sure Quin can coach up tempo bball but he's correctly identified our strength as defense and he's had a young team, its a great way for them to learn and half court offense/defense IS playoff basketball.

None of this changes imo with the addition of Dame.

We aren't Houston or GSW, we have our own identity (thanks to DL); DEFENSE, LENGTH and the ability to SWITCH at every position.

Is Lillard a competent DEFENDER. Nope
Does he have LENGTH. Nope
Can he SWITCH multiple positions. Nope
 
MDAV28 said:
These don't really exist anymore cause players get the same salary in a sign-and-trade as they would in the open market.
Click to expand...

But if a team with no cap space wants the guy, sign-and-trade is still relevant, is it not?
 
hgb said:
But if a team with no cap space wants the guy, sign-and-trade is still relevant, is it not?
Click to expand...

Sure but it's just extremely rare. It doesn't benefit the player to do so, and obviously without cap space you're matching salaries
 
MDAV28 said:
Sure but it's just extremely rare. It doesn't benefit the player to do so, and obviously without cap space you're matching salaries
Click to expand...

It's not _that_ rare, is it? Was just two the previous summer, though (Troy Daniels and Dellevadova), so perhaps you're correct. I thought it was more common for teams over the cap.
 
Ron Mexico said:
So is Hayward a #1 to you? If Lillard and Butler are stars then Hayward is as well.

None of those players can put their teams on their backs and carry them by themselves. If they are the #1 they need a really good team around them to do well. Clearly Hayward was not good enough to carry young, injured bad teams, neither is Lillard. Frankly the three of them and George are all in the same tier of player. Arguing which is better in ranking is too difficult. It is easier to put them in tiers of players.

It would be nice to get any of these big name all-star players who are supposedly on the trade block. I think Cousins was our best bet and he is a big risk. These are other players are less of a risk, but much harder to get and pretty unlikely for us.
Click to expand...

Lillard single handily put PDX on his back and took them to the playoffs last year.
 
elan_prodigy said:
Hows it dumb? Our team plays at a slow pace... Im sure Quin can coach up tempo bball but he's correctly identified our strength as defense and he's had a young team, its a great way for them to learn and half court offense/defense IS playoff basketball.

None of this changes imo with the addition of Dame.

We aren't Houston or GSW, we have our own identity (thanks to DL); DEFENSE, LENGTH and the ability to SWITCH at every position.

Is Lillard a competent DEFENDER. Nope
Does he have LENGTH. Nope
Can he SWITCH multiple positions. Nope
Click to expand...

Let's hope DL and Snyder feel differently than this. Steph Curry can't do any of that either.
 
He is the take over games offensively type superstar player we lack. I would be stunned if Portland traded him though. I don't see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top