Bucks have assets to trade for Lillard...

[bondom34]

I'll bump this post so our neutral observers can respond to it.

Knight's defense was not far better than Lillard's, and may have been worse. As well, to say he'd give the same production is completely ridiculous, there's a vast difference in ability between the two. I understand if you don't want to give up Parker or Giannis, but that entire paragraph is so far beyond reality I didn't even bother to initially respond.

Check your reading comprehension and see the bolded above.

Now lets compare production, that you deem 'ridiculous'

Knight last year with milwaukee:

PER36 19.7 points, 6ast, 4.7 rbds, 1.8 steals, 3.5 TO 43.5 FG%, 40.9 3pt%, 88.1 FT%

Advanced: 18.5 PER, 55.6 TS%, 28.6 ast%, 26.6 usage%, .128 WS/48 16.7 TO% 26.0 FTr

Lillard last year with Portland:

PER36 21.2 points, 6.2 asts, 4.7 rbds, 1.2 steals, 2.7 TO, 43.4 FG%, 34.3 3pt%, 86.4 FT%

Advanced: 20.7 PER, 56.0 TS%, 29.0 ast%, 26.9 usage%, 12.6 TO%, .174 WS/48, 29.3 FTr

Is lillard a better player? YES, he turns the ball over less and is a slightly better scorer. But if you can't see that the production is extremely similar then I don't know what to tell you. Is it worth the 2nd pick in the draft to go from the Knight's production to Lillard's? Because that's what this is about. The entire point of the comparison is the fact that Knight produced nearly as much as Lillard, at age 23, on a team missing 2 key players, and the Bucks still didn't want to pay him. So reason with me why the bucks would then want to trade away the guy they just took 2nd overall to get a player who is very similar to one they already had, but didn't want? That's where the disconnect is occurring and none of the 'neutral' observers can wrap their head around it which is hilarious because its so unbelievably simple. I do appreciate you calling my post 'beyond reality' though.

Also back to the point about other guards who do the same things that don't cost the 2nd pick in the draft. Let's look at George Hill.

PER36 19.7 points, 6.3 assists, 5.1 rbds, 1.3 steals, 2.0 TOs, 47.7 FG%, 35.8 3pt%, 79 FT%

Advanced: 21.5 PER, 57.9 TS%, 31.4 ast%, 23.8 usage%, 10.3 TO%, .203 WS/48, .267 FTr

Does George Hill not give you what Lillard does and more? Should Parker be traded for George Hill so Milwaukee can be the best team in the East?

You're also still ignoring Lillard had better numbers and his team was better with him on court. Knight's wasn't. And still ignoring you were entirely incorrect on every measure of defense. So yes, if you want an iso heavy scoring guess who brings most of his team down by on off stats and not a top six point guard, Knight is similar. If you want a really good player and not a run of the mill combo guard, its Lillard. The comparison is ridiculous.

[Ruzious]

I don't disagree with Matt often, but in this case - Lillard's in a different class than Knight. If Lillard played in the East, his team could go far in the playoffs with him as their number 1 option - assuming a decent team is put around him. I don't think that could ever happen with Knight.

[Waynearchetype]

This is how I feel 90% of threads with young players go:

"The boats is a boat, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!"

I remember getting laughed at a few years ago, proposing an Aldridge/Derrick Williams swap midseason. The consensus then was that Williams potential outweighed Aldridges value. The consensus now was that we are all stupid, including myself, about young players.

You don't trade a rookie who is actively showing elite skills. You do trade a rookie for an allstar if offered if he has an "okay" rookie season. You'd be pretty dumb not to, because more often then not he won't ever be elite.

That said, I'm not sure why the Blazers would do this, they seem attached to Lillard and it appears Lillard genuinely enjoys the city. If they do trade him, I'd hope it is for a shiny new lottery ticket, not a slightly used one.

[Texas Chuck]

This is how I feel 90% of threads with young players go:

"The boats is a boat, but the mystery box could be anything! It could even be a boat!"

I remember getting laughed at a few years ago, proposing an Aldridge/Derrick Williams swap midseason. The consensus then was that Williams potential outweighed Aldridges value. The consensus now was that we are all stupid, including myself, about young players.

You don't trade a rookie who is actively showing elite skills. You do trade a rookie for an allstar if offered if he has an "okay" rookie season. You'd be pretty dumb not to, because more often then not he won't ever be elite.

That said, I'm not sure why the Blazers would do this, they seem attached to Lillard and it appears Lillard genuinely enjoys the city. If they do trade him, I'd hope it is for a shiny new lottery ticket, not a slightly used one.

You need to link that thread to make that claim.

[skones]

Wouldn't have traded the number 2 (or 1 for that matter) for Lillard during the 14 draft. Still wouldn't. Not worried about the ACL. Some are making it sound like it's improbable that Parker reaches the level of Lillard. I don't think that's the case at all.

[mattg]

I don't disagree with Matt often, but in this case - Lillard's in a different class than Knight. If Lillard played in the East, his team could go far in the playoffs with him as their number 1 option - assuming a decent team is put around him. I don't think that could ever happen with Knight.

You think it's worth the 2nd overall pick in the draft to go from knights production to what Lillard would give you? Because that's what this is about. Not some stupid knight is as good as Lillard stuff. Just that the difference between what both would give you isn't enough to fetch the 2nd overall pick in the draft.

[AussieBuck]

Parker has the skill set on offense right now, he'll get his body right and we'll all look back on this and chuckle. On behalf of Bucks fandom, thanks for the offer but we are unanimously uninterested regardless of how much our current PG sucks. Lillard for the Lakers pick had we not **** the bed on that trade would be something interesting on our end, this is not.

[Trader_Joe]

I don't disagree with Matt often, but in this case - Lillard's in a different class than Knight. If Lillard played in the East, his team could go far in the playoffs with him as their number 1 option - assuming a decent team is put around him. I don't think that could ever happen with Knight.

You think it's worth the 2nd overall pick in the draft to go from knights production to what Lillard would give you? Because that's what this is about. Not some stupid knight is as good as Lillard stuff. Just that the difference between what both would give you isn't enough to fetch the 2nd overall pick in the draft.

Except it's not.
Knight got MCW who is there and would be if the deal is Parker and Mayo for Lillard.
MCW would help get another F in theory or at least how I see it.

So is the #2 with going from Knight to Lillard and whatever MCW gives you on the court or in trade.
I think so, as do most non Buck fans.

Seems the arguments are getting more and more disingenuous...like this and the 80% statement.

Now about the 5-7 year waiting on a prime despite..
Free agency
Injuries
Coaching changes
Ownership changes
Middleton and Monroe leaving their primes/contracts
Unrealized potential

?

[Dame Lizard]

When you have a chance to win now, I would.
If you're aiming for peak Giannis/Parker you are talking 5-7 years from now when factor like free agency, injury, not hitting potential, coaching/ownership changes, lockouts, other EC superpowers, etc. are all possibilities. I'm not advocating a treadmill either as the team would still be based in youth, major talent and plenty of assets...with potential to beat anyone.

Lillard age-wise is more in line with Middleton (your best player last year), Monroe (your major FA signing), MCW, Henson and pretty much everyone other than Giannis and Vaughn compared to Parker.

And yes you won 40 games in the East....after having the worst record in the NBA the year before...meaning the team's trajectory is on track for home court and the potential to be the best team in the East other than Cleveland. Why wouldn't contention be right around the corner? GSW was a rather young team that succeeded on style of play/coaching and came out of no where.

Seems when it's convenient to put down ones team or it's chances it will be done, but when it's fun to hype their potential that will be done too. LBJ is at the end of his prime. IMO the East could be wide open as early as next season (not this coming one). Personally I'd take the chance to win the East starting next year and for the foreseeable future as opposed to waiting for the potential that Parker may offer one day.

Some really good points here.

I think the Cavs have a few more seasons being the favourite in the EC but Milwaukee could definitely develop into the 2nd best East team over the next couple of years (and who knows what plays out with performance and injuries. No one had Dallas making the Finals or winning it all in 2011 and they got a ring, Jason Kidd included ironically).

Fans underestimate risks of waiting.

Portland fans only know this too well. The core of Oden, Brandon Roy and LMA (could even throw Batum in there as well) infamously didn't even remotely get a chance of eventuating due to injuries.

[skones]

When you have a chance to win now, I would.
If you're aiming for peak Giannis/Parker you are talking 5-7 years from now when factor like free agency, injury, not hitting potential, coaching/ownership changes, lockouts, other EC superpowers, etc. are all possibilities. I'm not advocating a treadmill either as the team would still be based in youth, major talent and plenty of assets...with potential to beat anyone.

Lillard age-wise is more in line with Middleton (your best player last year), Monroe (your major FA signing), MCW, Henson and pretty much everyone other than Giannis and Vaughn compared to Parker.

And yes you won 40 games in the East....after having the worst record in the NBA the year before...meaning the team's trajectory is on track for home court and the potential to be the best team in the East other than Cleveland. Why wouldn't contention be right around the corner? GSW was a rather young team that succeeded on style of play/coaching and came out of no where.

Seems when it's convenient to put down ones team or it's chances it will be done, but when it's fun to hype their potential that will be done too. LBJ is at the end of his prime. IMO the East could be wide open as early as next season (not this coming one). Personally I'd take the chance to win the East starting next year and for the foreseeable future as opposed to waiting for the potential that Parker may offer one day.

Some really good points here.

I think the Cavs have a few more seasons being the favourite in the EC but Milwaukee could definitely develop into the 2nd best East team over the next couple of years (and who knows what plays out with performance and injuries. No one had Dallas making the Finals or winning it all in 2011 and they got a ring, Jason Kidd included ironically).

Fans underestimate risks of waiting.

Portland fans only know this too well. The core of Oden, Brandon Roy and LMA (could even throw Batum in there as well) infamously didn't even remotely get a chance of eventuating due to injuries.

It's more about what Giannis and Parker COULD become rather than what Lillard is. I guess I don't view Lillard as the guy to get us over the hump and into long term contention whereas I can see one of Giannis or Parker becoming that guy. To me it's like cashing in one of your two lottery tickets for a guy who might improve the overall win total but ultimately is not the centerpiece to a championship contender. You give yourself one less chance to hit on that guy and hope that you chose the correct ticket. Obviously there is risk involved, but let's not act like obtaining Lillard is without risk as well. There are a number of factors when it comes to risk, how well he's able to carry a team without LMA, his willingness to stay in Milwaukee without throwing a fit, his ability to fit within Kidd's system, etc.

I'll just roll with what I have and take the risk.

[M-C-G]

I don't disagree with Matt often, but in this case - Lillard's in a different class than Knight. If Lillard played in the East, his team could go far in the playoffs with him as their number 1 option - assuming a decent team is put around him. I don't think that could ever happen with Knight.

You think it's worth the 2nd overall pick in the draft to go from knights production to what Lillard would give you? Because that's what this is about. Not some stupid knight is as good as Lillard stuff. Just that the difference between what both would give you isn't enough to fetch the 2nd overall pick in the draft.

Except it's not.
Knight got MCW who is there and would be if the deal is Parker and Mayo for Lillard.
MCW would help get another F in theory or at least how I see it.

So is the #2 with going from Knight to Lillard and whatever MCW gives you on the court or in trade.
I think so, as do most non Buck fans.

Seems the arguments are getting more and more disingenuous...like this and the 80% statement.

Now about the 5-7 year waiting on a prime despite..
Free agency
Injuries
Coaching changes
Ownership changes
Middleton and Monroe leaving their primes/contracts
Unrealized potential

?

I still am shocked that the 80% production is even a question. That's about the most disingenuous thing going on in this thread.

[Texas Chuck]

I still am shocked that the 80% production is even a question. That's about the most disingenuous thing going on in this thread.

If we are all pretending to be shocked, Im shocked you still think the 80% production is either accurate or relevant, yet you do for some reason.

Its like if minutes played don't matter, and totals and percentages don't matter, and effectiveness doesn't matter and if it helps with an agenda then yes Knight has 80% of the production of Lillard.

But in reality he doesn't.


Avg Season for Knight: 1052 pts,
Avg Season for Lillard: 1659 pts

That is not 80% of his production. Again completely discounting effectiveness, Knight still isn't giving you close to 80% of Lillard's actual production. So please stop with this meaningless argument.

[Trader_Joe]

I still am shocked that the 80% production is even a question. That's about the most disingenuous thing going on in this thread.

If we are all pretending to be shocked, Im shocked you still think the 80% production is either accurate or relevant, yet you do for some reason.

Its like if minutes played don't matter, and totals and percentages don't matter, and effectiveness doesn't matter and if it helps with an agenda then yes Knight has 80% of the production of Lillard.

But in reality he doesn't.


Avg Season for Knight: 1052 pts,
Avg Season for Lillard: 1659 pts

That is not 80% of his production. Again completely discounting effectiveness, Knight still isn't giving you close to 80% of Lillard's actual production. So please stop with this meaningless argument.

That and 80% production means next to nothing
Doesn't mean he's 80% the player, has 80% the impact or take into account that at the elite level every little bit means that much more. Didn't rookie Tyreke Evans offer 80% of LBJ's production (random assumption but the point stands)

Either way I'm out..I've gotten a MKE fan to admit bias and essentially saying if they already had Lillard they wouldn't do trade for Parker. It's a drafted player with major hope kinda deal..I kinda respect that and have probably been guilty of it, but when 90% of the neutral population disagrees I'm shocked there's not one descenting opinion. Not sure what that says. Are we really not seeing something? Or is there something else here?

[AussieBuck]

End of the season and chances are Parker is back to being the guy everyone was drooling over at the start of last season while Lillard leads one of the cellar dwellers. We'll see what the "neutral population" thinks then. We'll decline on selling low and buying high thanks.

[Trader_Joe]

End of the season and chances are Parker is back to being the guy everyone was drooling over at the start of last season while Lillard leads one of the cellar dwellers. We'll see what the "neutral population" thinks then. We'll decline on selling low and buying high thanks.

Milwaukee was the worst team in the league 15 months ago.
Poor argument.

I actually see the opposite happening as well.
The Bucks D taking a hit because of Parker paired with Monroe and a similar win total despite the expectations. Looking forward to the trades proposed then as well (not for Lillard per se)

[AussieBuck]

End of the season and chances are Parker is back to being the guy everyone was drooling over at the start of last season while Lillard leads one of the cellar dwellers. We'll see what the "neutral population" thinks then. We'll decline on selling low and buying high thanks.

Milwaukee was the worst team in the league 15 months ago.
Poor argument.

I actually see the opposite happening as well.
The Bucks D taking a hit because of Parker paired with Monroe and a similar win total despite the expectations. Looking forward to the trades proposed then as well (not for Lillard per se)

It's not a poor argument just because it has gone over your head. I don't expect us to win more games than last season either. But yeah overall it's pretty funny that you guys are trying to force a trade down our throats that we have no interest in.

[MrPerfect1]

I like the dialogue here.

For Bucks fan, I can't believe any fanatic would argue trading even Parker for Lillard would be a step back NOW or FUTURE in any capacity.

Lillard talents are definitely more realized then Parker ATM, but doesn't mean his potential is tapped out...cause it's not.

Chances of Parker reaching Lillard production level are very improbable (but definitely possible). That is just the NBA. Not many players ascend to that level...no matter how young, where drafted, and how much one's home team fanatic want so.

Can Parker? Yes. Can he exceed Lillard now or Lillard with an upward trajectory entering his prime? Yes. But such a difficult mountain to climb that will prove for Parker (or any 20yo).

It is improbable for Parker to surpass the Production level of a 0 Time All NBA Player (1st-3rd Team) who has never even been in the top 10 for MVP voting? I find that very hard to believe. The fact Parker has a far superior contract and is 5 years younger are both 2 more strong points in the favor of Parker.

Lillard likely helps more this exact second, but I find it hard to imagine in 3 years when Parker is close to entering his prime and Lillard is leaving his that MIL is better off when the more expensive, no longer in prime Lillard.

There really is no logical reason to trade a 20 year old (Parker) who wants to be in MIL and was viewed as having Clear Superstar potential for a 25 year old who plays the league's deepest position, who won't hit his Prime when MIL's other primary core piece does, and may or may not want to play in MIL. On top of that, Parker obviously has the far superior contract too.

For what it is worth, Parker having higher upside is of value too. If someone from the future were to post on the board that 1 of these 2 players is a future MVP, I'd bet almost everyone (except for maybe POR fans) would take it as a given that he was referring to Parker.

-If someone from the future were to post on the board that 1 of these 2 players is an average starter, I'd bet almost everyone would take it as a given that he was referring to Parker.

--If someone from the future were to post on the board that 1 of these 2 players is playing in China, I'd bet almost everyone would take it as a given that he was referring to Parker.

-If someone from the future were to post on the board that 1 of these 2 players is injured and a bust, I'd bet almost everyone would take it as a given that he was referring to Parker.

See how that works? (I'm not at all predicting any of these things, simply trying to make a point.)

So we agree that Parker is more likely to be a Superstar but also more likely to be Average or to be a Bust. That is still a strong reason to favor Parker since MIL is likely only a Title contender if both Parker and Giannis become studs. 1 Stud is not enough. Better to go with the player who has higher stud/bust potential when going for a Title (especially as a small market), that settling for someone who has a ceiling of All Star Backup.

[Takingbaconback]

End of the season and chances are Parker is back to being the guy everyone was drooling over at the start of last season while Lillard leads one of the cellar dwellers. We'll see what the "neutral population" thinks then. We'll decline on selling low and buying high thanks.

Milwaukee was the worst team in the league 15 months ago.
Poor argument.

I actually see the opposite happening as well.
The Bucks D taking a hit because of Parker paired with Monroe and a similar win total despite the expectations. Looking forward to the trades proposed then as well (not for Lillard per se)

It's not a poor argument just because it has gone over your head. I don't expect us to win more games than last season either. But yeah overall it's pretty funny that you guys are trying to force a trade down our throats that we have no interest in.

I feel ya, wolves prospects appear in a lot of trades and people come in and say they haven't done anything, they are just nickels and dimes. I wonder why the hell they are always desired on these threads, and prized greatly by our coaches. Just gotta wait it out so people who want to dismiss our prospects (who really don't watch our games to begin with) and are intimidated by future have to accept that many of these youngbloods are legitimate studs

[MrPerfect1]

I still am shocked that the 80% production is even a question. That's about the most disingenuous thing going on in this thread.

If we are all pretending to be shocked, Im shocked you still think the 80% production is either accurate or relevant, yet you do for some reason.

Its like if minutes played don't matter, and totals and percentages don't matter, and effectiveness doesn't matter and if it helps with an agenda then yes Knight has 80% of the production of Lillard.

But in reality he doesn't.


Avg Season for Knight: 1052 pts,
Avg Season for Lillard: 1659 pts

That is not 80% of his production. Again completely discounting effectiveness, Knight still isn't giving you close to 80% of Lillard's actual production. So please stop with this meaningless argument.

That and 80% production means next to nothing
Doesn't mean he's 80% the player, has 80% the impact or take into account that at the elite level every little bit means that much more. Didn't rookie Tyreke Evans offer 80% of LBJ's production (random assumption but the point stands)

Either way I'm out..I've gotten a MKE fan to admit bias and essentially saying if they already had Lillard they wouldn't do trade for Parker. It's a drafted player with major hope kinda deal..I kinda respect that and have probably been guilty of it, but when 90% of the neutral population disagrees I'm shocked there's not one descenting opinion. Not sure what that says. Are we really not seeing something? Or is there something else here?

Surely Production to you does not just mean points scored, right? Production should factor in Points + Rebounds + Assists + Steals + Blocks + Defense +Efficiency+ etc

[Wizenheimer]

Either way I'm out..I've gotten a MKE fan to admit bias and essentially saying if they already had Lillard they wouldn't do trade for Parker. It's a drafted player with major hope kinda deal..I kinda respect that and have probably been guilty of it, but when 90% of the neutral population disagrees I'm shocked there's not one descenting opinion. Not sure what that says. Are we really not seeing something? Or is there something else here?

I think the "something else" is that it appears this thread has become a food-fight over some fairly loopy arguments designed to dismiss Lillard.

I'm not saying that as an 'objective' fan either...I'm a Blazer fan that has seen Lillard's RealGM value get trashed lately by some insistent posters following his worst season, shooting-wise, due to injury. It's not worth spending any time engaged in the argument, IMO

as to the ongoing debate about potential vs established production, potential almost always gets grossly overrated around here. And I say that as someone who has been guilty of that sin myself. The problem, as some have pointed out, is that imagined potential always reaches the ceiling, never crashes to the floor. Meanwhile, established players have shown their warts...their flaws. Potential rarely has to carry that real-world burden

that 80% argument is purely weird. Hell, Lillard gives almost 90% of the "production" of Stephen Curry so there's hardly any difference between them at all...