Fantasy GM summit at Hornets247: Trading for Chris Paul

@ aq
“How did the Lakers trade for Kareem work out? or Miami’s trade for Shaq? or Phoenix’s for Barkley?”

The Lakers with Kareem had Magic, Worth, Cooper, Scott, Kupchak, McAdoo, Wilkes and Rambis.

The Lakers with Barkley had KJ, Majerle, Chambers, Ainge, & Ceballos.
This would resemble our roster the most. Unfortunately for us, these guys didn’t have to face the tall trees from LA.

Miami with Shaq had Wade, Mourning, Payton, Walker, Haslem, Posey, D.Anderson, Kapono & J-Dub.

These teams had more talent and depth than the Spurs would have Paul, Duncan, Manu, Jefferson and Blair.

“The biggest thing is that the other guys are replaceable”

No they aren’t. How exactly do we improve with no cap space (and no expiring contracts) & no picks.? Who is there left to contribute? Bonner? Neal? Anderson? Temple? Hairston? A choker and completely unproven and inexperienced players. Not nearly enough.

Not to mention our front line would be far too short. Duncan, Okafor, Blair and Bonner. There would be no money to upgrade the roster coz Manu, RJ, Timmy, Okafor and Paul would have it all. How would Mr. Holt like a $80 + Million payroll for a team with big holes? Too much of our young, cheap talent would be gone. A team that won’t win a champion (because of our front line) with ZERO cap space and first round picks to upgrade the roster until Timmy’s contract is up.

Tempting? No thanks.

It’s too early to crown anyone champs…as far as physical talent goes…the big 3 in Miami tops the league with Bryant gasol and odom 2nd followed probably by the spurs and celtics in a crapshoot then Orlando . If Miami come against the lakers it will likely come down to the bench matchups and role players like this year, and who hits shots at the right time . So I think having a big three is important but not everything, especially when that 3 ( td Manu Paul) would only be together 2 years tops.
We are still an outside chance to win it all, and meanwhile steadily building for life after Tim Manu and maybe Tony

Hillarious…Talking CP3 trade when we have no viable center…Even if Duncan is moved to the 5, where is his back up?

Cant win in the playoffs and finals in this league as it is today, without strong front court…

If trade is the subject of the day….Hope it is for front court help…

Again….too many 6’4-6’6 guys clogging roster…Need size, shooting, rebounding and defense…

Period…

Here we go again…

Go Pop……….

@Ballhog

“Even if Duncan is moved to the 5….”

He moved to the 5 a long time ago.

Barring 3-team deals the best win-win-win for all parties (both teams and Paul) is CP3 and Okafor to either Orlando or Portland. If Portland gives up too much it could backfire on them, while Orlando likely improves no matter what they give back to the Hornets.

That guy Ryan Schwan from the Hornets blogsite has weak grasp on reality, almost every proposal he printed was absurd.

Tyler
July 29th, 2010 at 6:09 am

“I think the general point aq was trying to make was that superstars are much harder to attain than role players, which is certainly true. And when you have the chance to attain a superstar for just roles players, you generally have to pull the trigger. And like we’ve seen in Miami, Boston, LA, and even SA at times, when you have the superstars in place, getting role players to fill out the roster is generally much easier – you appeal to their desire to win a ring, which allows you to sign them for less.”

The fact is, it’s an art as much as a science to find the “right” role players to maximize the potential of the team around the stars. During our title years, Pop & the FO did a great job in finding those types of role players (and frankly, some of it was luck), and many of them did not come here to play for minimum salaries — not by a long shot (e.g., Brent Barry, Bowen, Horry, Rose, Steve Smith, etc.). Many came to San Antonio making MLE money or better in today’s dollars, or came here young and were given a big increase on their next contract.

There are “role players”, and then there are “unique role players” that are of championship caliber material. Discerning one from the other is a very important task in building a winner, and the special role players are generally not “old”, nor do they usually come “cheap”, regardless of what “stars” are on the team. The fact is, three or four young players that have star potential (e.g., Anthony Randolph), or exhibit the special qualities that make one confident that they will at least become a “special” rotation player, may very well be, depending on the circumstances, worth keeping or acquiring over a so-called “superstar”.

Thanks, Tyler. One other point is that people seemed to gloss over that I added “in the long run”. Paul is 25. The reality is that the Spurs are going to have a tough time getting past LA, Boston, Miami, or Orlando with or without him, but they would be in way better position in four years to rebuild with him.

Lenneez - The Lakers didn’t get those players until years after the Kareem trade. The Lakers sucked for a couple of years before the rebuilding took off.

Jim, I agree completely that it is a myth that role players take less money to play for a contender, but I’m less sold on the idea of a “special” role player.

Robert Horry was a special role player, although I’m not sure anyone was saying that when he was in Phoenix. There wasn’t a single irreplaceable role player on any of Timmy’s championship teams. Hell, it even turns out that the other stars were replaceable, just not the one MVP caliber superstar.

The role players on the 80s Lakers and Celtics constantly changed, as did those for the Bulls during the 90s, and of course for the Spurs over the last 12 years. I can only think of two guys who were indeed special role players; Horry and Cooper.

There are certainly other candidates, but in almost every case, the team won without them, thereby showing that while they may indeed have been special, they were not, in fact, irreplaceable. Ainge was special, but they won without him. Elie and Avery were special, but replaced. And the Spurs won long before Bowen ever showed up. Posey sure did seem special for Boston that one year, as did Ariza for the Lakers and Prince for Detroit.

The point is that history shows us that role players are immanently replaceable. There are lots and lots of good players in the league, and a role player on a championship team is really just one of those many good players put in a good position.

But there are only a handful of true superstars, and they are, by definition, not replaceable (except by each other). There has been only one team (’04 Detroit) in the last 30 years that has won a championship without a legit MVP candidate on their roster.

So, what it boils down to is that we have far more evidence that Chris Paul is a legit MVP candidate level player than we do that Splitter and Hill are special role players. And we have far more evidence that superstars are a prerequisite for titles than we do that specific role players are. Put those together, and when given the chance to trade for a superstar, history dictates that you absolutely have to do it, then sort out the rest later.

With one caveat. As you said, a bunch of players “may very well be, depending on the circumstances, [be] worth keeping or acquiring over a so-called “superstar””. I agree, but would argue that the current Spurs are not that circumstance. A team needs to have a superstar already on the roster, and a really good shot at a title.

The current Lakers would be that circumstance. Trading for Paul would necessitate them breaking up a proven championship caliber team, and the outcome would be unknown. They would be giving up a known reasonably good shot at a title or two. But that’s the only circumstance in which you don’t go for the superstar.

It appears that most agree that it would be foolish to give away our key pieces of future rosters, along with Parker, just to get Paul.

Those who think Parker is substantially worse than Paul may fail to recognize that a player is asked to play ball the way the COACH dictates, and is asked to contribute more in terms of the stat line if he is on a weaker club. I think everyone agrees that Paul is a better overall player. How much better is not as clear as some might suggest. I still think he’s only slightly better. Paul is not enough of a stud to put a team on his back, ala Lebron or Kobe, and he’s never going to be in the category. Frankly, neither is Tony.

Paul has been asked to score more points, dish more assists, and has been given WAY more freedom to dictate tempo, etc. than Parker has been given.

Over the years, Pop has asked his teams to think DEFENSE first. Imagine Parker’s stats if he’d played Nellie Ball or had D’Antoni letting him fly up and down the court willie nillie. Also, when TD was option #1 (and sometimes options 2 and 3)a couple years back, Parker was constantly expected to get TD more touches, etc. and set his own ego (and stats) aside. He did so without any known complaint, ever.

No doubt Paul has better court vision, but there are other areas where Parker is as good or better. Again, how do you compare stats when the players were in 2 different systems with 2 different sets of teammates? Look at Jefferson’s stats on the Bucks compared to his stats last year. Wow, did the guy go from really good to really average in one year? No, of course not. I know that the RJ example is extreme, but the issue is still out there in making CP3-TP comparisons.

Watch Parker have a great year, and see his team go deep into the playoffs. Then, watch New Orleans struggle to reach the playoffs, WITH a disgruntled Chris Paul , the supposed saviour for the Spurs.

Lenneezz
July 28th, 2010 at 10:52 pm

“There would be no money to upgrade the roster coz Manu, RJ, Timmy, Okafor and Paul would have it all. How would Mr. Holt like a $80 + Million payroll for a team with big holes? Too much of our young, cheap talent would be gone. A team that won’t win a champion (because of our front line) with ZERO cap space and first round picks to upgrade the roster until Timmy’s contract is up.”

That is a very good point, even with Duncan’s contract coming down in a couple of years. In fact, you left out Bonner’s 4 mil. per, 4 year deal also!

This from the Lakers History page concerning how the trade for Kareem worked out:
“But the big trade paid higher short-term dividends for Milwaukee than it did for Los Angeles-the Bucks went from last to first in the Midwest Division. The Lakers stumbled through a 3-10 January and finished out of the playoffs with a 40-42 record. At season’s end, Abdul-Jabbar won the fourth of six career NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. ”
From what I can recall, the Lakers were mainly giving up recent draft choices and their own center, Elmore Smith. They didn’t give up Gail Goodrich nor Pat Riley. They improved in a few years when they added Norm Nixon & Jamaal Wilkes, even more so when getting a 1st round pick for the loss of Goodrich then turned into Magic Johnson.

bduran
July 29th, 2010 at 6:45 pm

There’s really NO contest in this argument, as I’m sure you’re aware. TradeTp is in trouble!

Yeah, this guy has lost his mind. Paul is a great player but if that’s what the Hornets want, then that = they will not trade him. Splitter is what every team wants, a young athletic big. Maybe he will be a bust but for what the Spurs are paying him, I wouldn’t trade him just to get a point guard. I like the moves so far… wouldn’t mind the Shaq thing to help Tiago. If the rookie or the FA can actually hit the corner 3 this season could be very interesting.

aq
July 30th, 2010 at 11:22 am

You make a fair enough argument.

It’s interesting that out of the “arguably” top-five players that you listed, over half of them are 6’11” or taller (which comprise just 40% of a starting roster). More than a third of them are centers, comprising just 20% of a starting roster.

“Kobe, Garnett, Wade, Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Olajuwon, Isiah Thomas, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Moses Malone..”

I know it’s a small sample size, but I would suggest that winning a title with “special big men” is a safer bet than doing so with a 5’11” point guard. Isaiah Thomas is the only one comparable to Paul on the list.

You do make the point that a guy like Paul needs to be seriously considered by teams that have clear designs for building a team into a championship contender. Hence, all the interest in him lately. My main point is that it is very difficult to discern ahead of time who actually meets that special “top-five” threshold. I’m not entirely confident that Paul meets that threshold. Thus, my reluctance to part with “special” role players, and others for a situation that just didn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

For example, in terms of the Spurs, it’s not really the greatest fit because we don’t have enough “quality young players” in place (or sufficient cap space) to create a championship contender with him over the long haul. We “could” eventually, he is young enough, but he would be hitting us at a time of transition (out of the Manu, Duncan, Parker era), which could cause unnecessary problems in terms of establishing a long-term & solidified direction as a team. In my view, he would be a much better/smoother fit with a young, growing team like OKC. They have plenty of young talent to put into a deal: Westbrook, Harden, Green, Ibaka, etc. I think he would have a better shot at leading a team like that to multiple titles, which I’m sure is his goal.

Jim -

I noticed that as well. I was actually a bit surprised that it includes at least one player from each position, which would seem to imply that the position is less important than the quality. The other thing is that even though there are more big guys on the list, there are more rings for the “small” guys.

Paul is in a bit of a bind - I think you’re right about OKC being a good place from a talent perspective, but when thinking about multiple titles, he would probably be better off going to a place that has a good ownership and management team in place that will keep the team in contention through the years. OKC might have a really tough time keeping all of the talent they have as the rookie contracts expire, and he might end up in a similar situation to what has happened to him in NO. Portland might be a better fit in that way, as would be Spurs, Lakers, Mavs, and maybe even NJ with their new owner. At age 25, he shouldn’t worry as much about the current roster as much as he should about the track record of management. He’d be better off in the long run on a less talented Spur team (or one of those others I mentioned) and trust that management will find a way to build a winner. But that’s from his perspective, not the team’s.

aq
July 30th, 2010 at 3:38 pm

“The other thing is that even though there are more big guys on the list, there are more rings for the “small” guys.”

But in my view, Isaiah is the ONLY truly small guy on that list. That was more my point. For example, Magic may have been a PG, but he was 6’9″, 230 lbs., point guard, and a freak of nature. Kinda like Shaq, in a point guards body.

OKC actually has a pretty solid management team in place, starting with owner Clay Bennett, and followed by one of the sharpest young GM’s in the league, Sam Presti. And they’re off to a very good start this season, locking down future MVP candidate, Kevin Durant, to a 5 year, 86 million dollar deal.

“Portland might be a better fit in that way, as would be Spurs, Lakers, Mavs, and maybe even NJ with their new owner.”

Portland would be okay, although with the Kevin Pritchard flap, a brand new GM just inserted, and their ongoing injury problems, things appear a bit less stable there at the moment. The Lakers are an older team already in a championship run. It’d be hard to shake things up there. Plus this will probably be Jackson’s final year, and who knows how that void will be filled. The Mavs could be okay, I suppose, but Dirk’s getting on in years, and you gotta tell the aging Kidd, one of the best PG’s of all-time, to come off the bench, unless they wanted to try and work a trade for him. Plus, they don’t really have much young talent, except Beaubois, a small combo guard. New Jersey is awfully raw in the rebuilding phase for a guy like Paul. I doubt he’d want to go there anyway. And who would NJ have to give up, and what would they have left?

“At age 25, he shouldn’t worry as much about the current roster as much as he should about the track record of management.”

I don’t agree. I think both are equally important. And as I said, to me it would not represent the greatest timing for him to go to the Spurs at this point. Paul wants to win soon & often, not wait for 5 years until management can hopefully build the right talent around him.

are you people nuts no way id do that trade and in my opinion parker is better than paul

Jim, to borrow a phrase, you make a fair enough argument. I like Presti for sure, but we don’t know at this point if OKC will have the stomach to take on the extra payroll needed to really compete for a title.

By “small” I just meant the guys under 6’10”, and put it into quotes for the reasons you mention. It is interesting that we keep getting told that we are living in the time of the point guard, and more specifically of the small, speedy PG, but the Spurs are really the only team to have won a title with one since the hand-checking rules went into effect.

That article on size is interesting, although I’m always wary of a lurking availability heuristic in such arguments. The players mentioned may be the exceptions, not the norm. And, the article directly states that the center position is responsible for the most wins, yet (if we believe the farce that TD plays PF) Shaq is the only center to be even above average on a title team in the last 15 years.

I’d be more amenable to the argument that overall length helps, but perhaps that is an availability heuristic based on the Lakers’ recent success…

we trade tony and rj for paul and some others !!!! thats the right choice !!!

Salaries also have to match within 10%. The problem with a trade for Paul and Okafor is the combined contracts will take alot of players on the other side to make up the salary slot.

Parker is not as good as Paul, but if Paul is traded, the Hornets need a starting PG, and Parker is a former NBA finals MVP. How many other PG’s in the league can say that?

J2