Lillard trade request rumor...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Worth noting that this is less significant in regards to a Lillard trade than other recent superstar moves. You had to know you'd have a team good enough to compete after acquiring AD because he had one year left on his deal and could just walk if you didn't. Same with Kawhi, just to name another recent example.

This is not the case with Lillard. He has 5 years left on his deal: unless you think he's a legit threat to sit out 3+ years of a contract refusing to play (which I don't think he would) you don't need to know for sure you'd have a competitor left once you'd acquired him, you'd just need to believe you had a clear road to a competitor once you acquired him. Which wouldn't be too hard to imagine, even if it would be more difficult in practice.

---

Lillard has 3 years plus a player option left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

My question is: what sort of rebuild will the PDX FO want?

1. A complete tear down where you receive umpteen first round picks, some very young talent and ********ty contract filler like Bled and Adams to make the trade legal (also probably trade CJ)

OR

2. A competitive type rebuild where you want a decent star type player like Ingram, picks and some very young talent (and keep CJ)?

---

One would think #1 with how stacked the West currently is.....pack it in for a few seasons and accumulate a plethora of young draft talent or cash in picks to trade up for the next possible Dame.....but we're not feeling the pressure of ticket sales and profit. Like MM said somewhere about us, a lot of teams aren't chasing rings. They're just trying to fill seats. In my head, I'm thinking at some point Portland has to see they won't get over even the 2nd round hump with Dame and they're too far down the rankings to just attract another star so they'll trade Dame for a future move but they really just might be fine rolling out what they have been and staying competitive for a few more seasons and then trade him when he's 34 and declining but another team will still shell out the picks for him.

Good point on the difference in years and the threat of them bolting, Dae. Even three years and a player option is a whole different scenario than what AD was shilling....despite Ainge saying he wasn't phased by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

My question is: what sort of rebuild will the PDX FO want?

1. A complete tear down where you receive umpteen first round picks, some very young talent and ********ty contract filler like Bled and Adams to make the trade legal (also probably trade CJ)

OR

2. A competitive type rebuild where you want a decent star type player like Ingram, picks and some very young talent (and keep CJ)?

---

I think a complete teardown with picks and cheap talent would be preferred. Getting an expensive fake plant in Ben Simmons makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Lillard has 3 years plus a player option left.

---

Ah yes, my bad. This season is not technically over yet, hence why I was thinking 5 years, but really it's 4 years after this one and indeed, one is a player option.

This doesn't, however, make any real difference to my point. Lillard is not going to sit out multiple season, therefore you don't need to be ready to win a ring year 1 with him you only need to be confident of winning a ring within 3 in order for the all-in trade to be worth it.

I repeat that that would be really difficult in practice anyway, but it's easier to justify to yourself than ''all in, one year, win it or explode'' is with a guy like AD or Kawhi's situation.

Is Lillard a good buy at 34 years old like CP3 or Lebron, Dae?

I don't watch much 2021 Lillard to really Forman opinion if he can have positive longevity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

Is Lillard a good buy at 34 years old like CP3 or Lebron, Dae?

I don't watch much 2021 Lillard to really Forman opinion if he can have positive longevity.

---

I'm gonna say definitely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

Is Lillard a good buy at 34 years old like CP3 or Lebron, Dae?

I don't watch much 2021 Lillard to really Forman opinion if he can have positive longevity.

---

I mean, I think it depends what you value in a good buy.

The advantage of Lillard is that his strength is his shooting, and generally speaking, shooting lasts. Curry was turned 33 midway through this season and he put up 32 points a game on 65%TS and while, again, I don't think Lillard has ever been as good as Curry, he's a similar archetype of player; relatively short nuclear scoring guard who relies on distance shooting and self-creation to use his pull on defenses to make passing reads easier. Do I think he'll be as good as Lebron when he's 34? Probably not because Lebron at 34 was arguably still as good as Lillard has ever been, and age is usually not as kind to 6'2 guards as it is 6'9 forwards, but I think Lillard will still be a good and productive NBA player at 34 sure.

Send out 6 firsts for Lillard then go get Kawhi. Create our own super team for at least a few years.

Dame going to the Knicks if I were a betting man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdcreator

Send out 6 firsts for Lillard then go get Kawhi. Create our own super team for at least a few years.

---

Two of my current favorite players on my team? I’d sacrifice everyone not named Zion Williamson to make that happen. I mean trade. I’d trade them…

i wouldnt give the whole treasure chest for a midget score-first PG who's on the wrong side of 30.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fullcourtpress

i wouldnt give the whole treasure chest for a midget score-first PG who's on the wrong side of 30.

---

No. We’re talking about Damian Lillard. Not whomever you just referenced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fullcourtpress

i wouldnt give the whole treasure chest for a midget score-first PG who's on the wrong side of 30.

---

Dame sleep with your missus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fullcourtpress

i wouldnt give the whole treasure chest for a midget score-first PG who's on the wrong side of 30.

---

I disagree with your bashing but I wouldn't go all out to trade for Dame either.

+2

Someone posted on Twitter, Por and NO talking. Leo’s have offered Ingram and picks

Who is the someone?

Pelicans, Trailblazers have engaged on a deal for Damian Lillard, per NBA Sources.

There is not much traction yet, but the Pels have offered Brandon Ingram and picks.#RipCity #wontbowdown #NBA #NBATwitter pic.twitter.com/kry1R60hnK

— Landon Buford (@LandonBuford) July 22, 2021

I’m not sure who Landon is but the only thing I can say is he reported the Kawhi news first and it was right.

Is Landon legit then?

Portland getting Brandon Ingram? Do we go all in to get Leonard... I doubt Leonard wants to leave LA on a personal level. I can see him switching to Lakers if he wanted to leave. If that happens... Paul George will probably be on sale.

But Leonard runs the Clippers and gets everything he wants and his camp is all kinds of toxic. So... If Leonard pulls a Uncle Dennis and leaves for AD and LeBron. I can see George and Lillard, but that eats up all your picks.


I was hoping to keep Ingram and see if the Clippers break up, tho. Hopefully, they just used Ingram to get Portland to open the door and talk them down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fedupfan

I’m not sure who Landon is but the only thing I can say is he reported the Kawhi news first and it was right.

---

Ehhhh... Leonard to LA?

Not to discredit that dude, but everyone saw that coming. Leonard camp been trying to get him to LA since his Spurs sitout and trade demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I mean, I think it depends what you value in a good buy.

The advantage of Lillard is that his strength is his shooting, and generally speaking, shooting lasts. Curry was turned 33 midway through this season and he put up 32 points a game on 65%TS and while, again, I don't think Lillard has ever been as good as Curry, he's a similar archetype of player; relatively short nuclear scoring guard who relies on distance shooting and self-creation to use his pull on defenses to make passing reads easier. Do I think he'll be as good as Lebron when he's 34? Probably not because Lebron at 34 was arguably still as good as Lillard has ever been, and age is usually not as kind to 6'2 guards as it is 6'9 forwards, but I think Lillard will still be a good and productive NBA player at 34 sure.

---

Lillard's BIGGEST strength is his elite shot making ability in the clutch. It's on the level of the Kobe's and MJ's.

This ability alone can get you multiple wins a season and in the playoffs. He has shown absolutely no signs of decline and there is no reason to believe there will be any during the remainder of this contract. Also with the timing of the new TV contracts, it would likely behoove Lillard to opt into his final year and sign his next contract the following year, after TV contracts are up. So there is a bigger possibility you can have 4 years with him as you mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fedupfan

Who is the someone?

Pelicans, Trailblazers have engaged on a deal for Damian Lillard, per NBA Sources.

There is not much traction yet, but the Pels have offered Brandon Ingram and picks.#RipCity #wontbowdown #NBA #NBATwitter pic.twitter.com/kry1R60hnK

— Landon Buford (@LandonBuford) July 22, 2021

---

Is that the guy from Texas with about 5,000 followers? If so, he tends to throw a lot of crap against the wall and see if anything sticks. For some reason he has an interest in the Pelicans as he posts a lot about rumors, most that never come to fruition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socbe7

Lillard's BIGGEST strength is his elite shot making ability in the clutch. It's on the level of the Kobe's and MJ's.

This ability alone can get you multiple wins a season and in the playoffs. He has shown absolutely no signs of decline and there is no reason to believe there will be any during the remainder of this contract. Also with the timing of the new TV contracts, it would likely behoove Lillard to opt into his final year and sign his next contract the following year, after TV contracts are up. So there is a bigger possibility you can have 4 years with him as you mentioned.

---

Considerably better than Kobe's.

The fact that people still think of Kobe as an elite shotmaker who stepped up and consistently delivered in the clutch is one of the biggest acts of NBA propaganda ever executed.

He's shown no sign of decline as a shooter and shotmaker this is true, but his defense has gotten worse every single year for the last 4 years. He's legit one of the worst defenders in the entire NBA. While I would still support acquiring him purely for the offensive firepower than a Zion/Lillard combo would create, that's still something you have to reckon with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

Is Landon legit then?

---

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

No

---

The Legend has spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

The fact that people still think of Kobe as an elite shotmaker who stepped up and consistently delivered in the clutch is one of the biggest acts of NBA propaganda ever executed.

---

Is this a joke? For essentially his entire career, Kobe took the clutch shots on his team. Every defense knew he was going to be the one taking the shot. Most players in NBA history wouldn't even be able to get some of the shots off that he was able to do and he made plenty of them. Yes, he also missed many, but that comes with the sheer volume of attempts. That's the Mamba Mentality. He always believed a tough contested shot that he took was better than an open look by a teammate, and he was typically right. You can debate if that's right or wrong, but saying Kobe not being clutch is asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socbe7

Is this a joke? For essentially his entire career, Kobe took the clutch shots on his team. Every defense knew he was going to be the one taking the shot. Most players in NBA history wouldn't even be able to get some of the shots off that he was able to do and he made plenty of them. Yes, he also missed many, but that comes with the sheer volume of attempts. That's the Mamba Mentality. He always believed a tough contested shot that he took was better than an open look by a teammate, and he was typically right. You can debate if that's right or wrong, but saying Kobe not being clutch is asinine.

---

And he didn't hit them nearly as often as people seem to think. Kobe did not shoot considerably better than any other star player in the clutch, and he certainly wasn't as effective in the clutch as the all time clutch greats like MJ. The fact that people believe otherwise is a testament to the success of the propaganda job surrounding the ''Mamba Mentality''.

People bought the hype on Kobe big time when in reality the best games of his career, and the most winning years of his career, are the ones which came when he dialled the ''Mamba'' shtick back hard and was willing to play within a team context where he wasn't the Whole Damn Show. Kobe playing second fiddle to Shaq or Kobe playing sensible team ball with Pau and Odom and Bynum >>>>>> The mid 2000s ''Black Mamba'' who took 30 shots a night.

Edit: edited for clarity

Edit edit: Also, I don't think clutch time play is nearly as important as most other people on this board seem to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Edit edit: Also, I don't think clutch time play is nearly as important as most other people on this board seem to.

---

I can attest to your honesty, as l know that Zion Williamson is your basketball god. And we all know how 'clutch' he has been thus far in his brief career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Edit edit: Also, I don't think clutch time play is nearly as important as most other people on this board seem to.

---

So you don't think winning is important in this sport?

You somehow managed to follow up your Kobe take with a more mind boggling statement.

Man, I am old and I have never seen clutch time play be described as not nearly as important. It’s probably one of the most important parts of the game as the majority of NBA games come down to clutch play. Interesting thoughts for sure.

Yeah. The NBA is all about coasting until the clutch. It's why we would be in games and then lose at the very end. We have the talent to compete in an open game but once things tightened up in the clutch, our youth showed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

I can attest to your honesty, as l know that Zion Williamson is your basketball god. And we all know how 'clutch' he has been thus far in his brief career.

---

There isn't any part of Zion's game that would call for him to be a clutch shot maker......weird flex.


Also another opportunity for me to beat that dead horse and point out that Zion is 21......BI and Zo are 23. We need to stop comparing our young guys skill-wise to players in their prime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socbe7

So you don't think winning is important in this sport?

You somehow managed to follow up your Kobe take with a more mind boggling statement.

---

I'd recommend you go read the book Thinking Basketball by Ben Taylor, but to sum it up: if you need to be ''clutch'' all it means is that you didn't win the first 46 minutes enough. Points are points no matter when they're scored, and if you bury your opponent in all three of the first quarters, there's no requirement on anyone to be ''clutch'' in the fourth. Clutch time only ever happens when you have failed to dominate adequately enough earlier in the game. The book goes into detail on this phenomenon in detail and is honestly a pretty solid intro to a lot of modern basketball concepts, so I'd recommend it if you're new to analytic type stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

Yeah. The NBA is all about coasting until the clutch. It's why we would be in games and then lose at the very end. We have the talent to compete in an open game but once things tightened up in the clutch, our youth showed.

---

Yeah but that's my entire point. ''Clutch'' play is important precisely because teams are, frankly, unreliable and inconsistent. It's something that does not need to be valuable but gains artificial value because of team imperfection.

If you are a good team of consistent, high quality players, then clutch play becomes unimportant - partly because you just don't play in it often. Clutch time, as the NBA defines it, is when the score is within 5 points in the final few minutes. Well, the best teams just don't get into very many 5 point scrabbles at the end of games. They just win earlier in the match and then maintain the lead. The problem with the Pelicans this past year, for the most part, is that we blew the leads: in that circumstance, clutch became important because we sucked. But that's not a sign that clutch play itself is objectively valuable - we only got into clutch minutes because we failed earlier to maintain the lead - it's a sign that the Pelicans needed to be more consistent and execute across 48 minutes.

All of this means that while clutch play is valuable - because teams are not perfect and can be inconsistent - I don't think it's the be-all end-all that some others seem to. I don't think you should team-build around the idea of having tons of ''clutch'' execution at the cost of other things: build the best basketball team overall that you can and the better that you can do that the less important clutch play becomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I'd recommend you go read the book Thinking Basketball by Ben Taylor, but to sum it up: if you need to be ''clutch'' all it means is that you didn't win the first 46 minutes enough. Points are points no matter when they're scored, and if you bury your opponent in all three of the first quarters, there's no requirement on anyone to be ''clutch'' in the fourth. Clutch time only ever happens when you have failed to dominate adequately enough earlier in the game. The book goes into detail on this phenomenon in detail and is honestly a pretty solid intro to a lot of modern basketball concepts, so I'd recommend it if you're new to analytic type stuff.

---

So the open layup that Zion misses with three seconds left in a game when the Pelicans are down by one is excusable because he hit 13 layups earlier in the game but not 14?

Okay!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

So the open layup that Zion misses with seven three seconds left in a game when the Pelicans are down by one is excusable because he hit 13 layups earlier in the game and not 14?

Okay!!!

---

Or how Jrue would just give the ball away to the other team in the late 4th quarter after having a decent game otherwise. Fun times. We haven?t had a clutch player since the CP3 days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why haven't we signed anyone, yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Yeah but that's my entire point. ''Clutch'' play is important precisely because teams are, frankly, unreliable and inconsistent. It's something that does not need to be valuable but gains artificial value because of team imperfection.

If you are a good team of consistent, high quality players, then clutch play becomes unimportant - partly because you just don't play in it often. Clutch time, as the NBA defines it, is when the score is within 5 points in the final few minutes. Well, the best teams just don't get into very many 5 point scrabbles at the end of games. They just win earlier in the match and then maintain the lead. The problem with the Pelicans this past year, for the most part, is that we blew the leads: in that circumstance, clutch became important because we sucked. But that's not a sign that clutch play itself is objectively valuable - we only got into clutch minutes because we failed earlier to maintain the lead - it's a sign that the Pelicans needed to be more consistent and execute across 48 minutes.

All of this means that while clutch play is valuable - because teams are not perfect and can be inconsistent - I don't think it's the be-all end-all that some others seem to. I don't think you should team-build around the idea of having tons of ''clutch'' execution at the cost of other things: build the best basketball team overall that you can and the better that you can do that the less important clutch play becomes.

---

Well i mean it would be very hard to build a team with two or more consistent clutch players. One would suffice. We just need one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleeper

Or how Jrue would just give the ball away to the other team in the late 4th quarter after having a decent game otherwise. Fun times. We haven?t had a clutch player since the CP3 days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Kinda missing the point.

The reason one missed layup or one turnover has an impact in the late 4th is because the score is close enough that you need production out of that possession of can't afford an opponent score.

If you're up 30 with two minutes left, one missed layup or a turnover doesn't matter. But being up big going into "clutch" time requires high tier consistent execution throughout the previous 46 minutes, which the Pelicans have traditionally been very poor at. I want to see that play improve, rather than hyperfocusing on the aesthetic of having a "closer".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

So the open layup that Zion misses with three seconds left in a game when the Pelicans are down by one is excusable because he hit 13 layups earlier in the game but not 14?

Okay!!!

---

Open layup? Are you referring to the full length pass that he threw up off balance as time expired?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I'd recommend you go read the book Thinking Basketball by Ben Taylor, but to sum it up: if you need to be ''clutch'' all it means is that you didn't win the first 46 minutes enough. Points are points no matter when they're scored, and if you bury your opponent in all three of the first quarters, there's no requirement on anyone to be ''clutch'' in the fourth. Clutch time only ever happens when you have failed to dominate adequately enough earlier in the game. The book goes into detail on this phenomenon in detail and is honestly a pretty solid intro to a lot of modern basketball concepts, so I'd recommend it if you're new to analytic type stuff.

---

That's not how basketball is played. NBA teams are filled with NBA talent. On any given night, a "bad" team can beat a "great" team. That's why playoff series are 7 games and not single elimination. You can't play with the same level of intensity for 48 minutes. It's impossible. Even in the finals, teams have lapses and teams make runs.

Most games will boil down to "clutch" situations, where teams lock in defensively and you need guys that can score against that to close games for you. This is not complicated. It's pretty obvious if you watch enough NBA basketball and stop reading silly books.

Truth. AD and LeBron can't even coast for a season and still hold up for the playoffs. They only won the previous season after they got the long covid break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socbe7

That's not how basketball is played. NBA teams are filled with NBA talent. On any given night, a "bad" team can beat a "great" team. That's why playoff series are 7 games and not single elimination. You can't play with the same level of intensity for 48 minutes. It's impossible. Even in the finals, teams have lapses and teams make runs.

Most games will boil down to "clutch" situations, where teams lock in defensively and you need guys that can score against that to close games for you. This is not complicated. It's pretty obvious if you watch enough NBA basketball and stop reading silly books.

---

:rolleyes:

Again, you're arguing against something that I never said. At no point have I said that being clutch is bad or that you never need to win clutch minutes or that having the ability to execute in the clutch is entirely unimportant. What I'm saying is that ''being clutch'' is not the be-all/end-all of team design and that there are far more important things to worry about. Remember that I initially said

Quote:

---

I don't think clutch time play is nearly as important as most other people on this board seem to.

---

not

Quote:

---

I think clutch time play is completely unimportant

---

The Jazz had the best record in the NBA this season and guess what? They won 27 of their 50 games by more than 15 and only played 90 minutes of ''clutch'' time (According to the NBA's official stats) all year long.

The Bucks, who won the chip, also played under 100 minutes of clutch time all season.

What I'm saying is that being forced into clutch minutes where you are required to win a game in 30 seconds is a bad situation, and your best option is to avoid having to be put in that situation by winning the game early. And dominant regular season teams do that. They dominate and therefore do not get put into those uncomfortable circumstances as often as other teams.

Obviously no matter how good you are as a team, you'll have those nights where you can't hit the broad side of a barn, or where the other team can't miss, or someone will get injured, or there will be a sub-optimal matchup, and you'll get forced into clutch time. Obviously. I don't think any team has ever finished a season with 0 clutch minutes played. But the goal should be to minimise how often that happens, not to design your team around them.

This is not complicated. If you constantly find yourself in last minute scrambles for your life and can never just confidently beat a team, that's a problem.

There's a lot of double talk in this thread. Seems like someone's 'clutch' is slipping.

We need another Dame rumor to get this thread back on the rails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DroopyDawg

We need another Dame rumor to get this thread back on the rails.

---

Damian Lillard is going to start next season in a Blazers uniform, is my take.

Dame Lillard will play for the Pelicans.

In MyGM in NBA 2K22. It will be glorious until another defense perfectly swats down a pass he shouldn’t even see coming.

Lillard is my 2nd favorite Dame behind Judi Dench.