RealGM

I have seen a lot of posts recently about how we absolutely NEED to trade off our 23 year old center with an all star season under his belt. Allow me to be clear: That opinion is NOT rational, and if you hold it you are being irrational.

Look, when we drafted Drummond a lot of us saw a HUGE center and immediately had visions of Shaq. As his career unfolds, I think it is becoming more and more clear that Drummond is not and probably never will be Shaq. However, what he is is a very young (23!) player with an elite skill set at a difficult to fill position.

I think it is a frame of reference thing. As long as you want Shaq, you are going to be disappointed. That kind of dominant force down low is a generational phenomenon. So I went to basketball reference to get a better perspective on who his career resembles. It gave me a lot of old school players and about three that I think would be reasonable frames of reference for this board: Sabonis, Motumbo, and Willis Reed.

Now, I'm not saying Drummond plays like any of those players. What I am saying is that his impact on the court through 4 years has been similar to their impact through 4 years of their career. That isn't opinion, that is statistics.

So, before you post another "we should trade Drummond for a bag of chips and a sweat towel" hypothetical, I encourage you to use those types of players as your metric: "would I accept this trade for a 23 year old Motumbo or Sabonis?" Frankly, we are all too close to this situation to rationally value him.

To be clear, this doesn't make Drummond untouchable. he shouldn't be untouchable. But it DOES mean he is valuable. And he IS valuable.

Just my opinion.

Sabonis comparison with Dre is like if you compare Kasparov with Cletus Spuckler

When your franchise player is a liability at the end of close games it's time to evaluate whether or not he should be your franchise player.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/drumman01.html

Towards the bottom is a "similarity score". It lists the players who's statistical impact are most similar to Drummond through the first 4 years of their career. Sabonis is the #1 comparison at 92.4/100 similar.

So no it isn't a crazy comparison. And I'm not saying they play the same or that they look a like or anything of that nature. I'm saying that statistically they have a comparable impact.

And again, it wouldn't be crazy to consider trading Sabonis or Motumbo, so long as you got a decent return. Some of you want to trade him for any scraps you can get. That is not rational.

he's valuable, but maybe more than his effective value and upside. so if we can sell him high, let's do it.

El Chivo wrote:he's valuable, but maybe more than his effective value and upside. so if we can sell him high, let's do it.

The most critical aspect of the "sell high" mentality is the "high" part, not the "sell" part. More than a few people on this board have been focusing on the wrong part of that idea.

Sure, if you can get MORE value than a 23 year old all star Center, go for it. But lets not unload him for a mid first rounder and a couple of 6th men just because he's at his peak value right now. Even if he depreciates as an asset he will be worth more than some of you would like to trade him for.

chewtoy wrote:

El Chivo wrote:he's valuable, but maybe more than his effective value and upside. so if we can sell him high, let's do it.

The most critical aspect of the "sell high" mentality is the "high" part, not the "sell" part. More than a few people on this board have been focusing on the wrong part of that idea.

Sure, if you can get MORE value than a 23 year old all star Center, go for it. But lets not unload him for a mid first rounder and a couple of 6th men just because he's at his peak value right now. Even if he depreciates as an asset he will be worth more than some of you would like to trade him for.

I am all for keeping Drummond long term. For the 9th pick in the draft, the Pistons are set at Center for many years. He is not a superstar center, but a solid Center. Now, all the Pistons have to do is complete and develop the rest of the team.

I mean I'm not with it myself because you don't give up on a guy with his talent at 23...
That said, it kind of comes with the territory of being the highest paid player on a team and having a down year by his standards..
I don't agree with a lot of the crap that gets slung around these parts as it pertains to Dre but I at least get where people are coming from with it..

Is he really having a down year?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/drumman01.html

Check it out: basically the same per 36 numbers as last year. A better VORP and better win share pace than last year. His Rebound %, his assist %, his block % are all better than last year (and most are career bests.)

The only real problem is that he didn't take another step forward and leap into the stratosphere. he hasn't taken a step back by any statistical measure.

I don't take a 1 year platue to be a sign that he has hit his ceiling. Not at 23. If he were 27 and not improving, sure, but you can't expect a continuous march to dominance. Sometimes there are pauses in players growth.

Again, I can't help but feel like it is a perspective thing. We all wanted the same leap in improvement this year that we saw last year. He didn't get worse, and he still has time to grow. The frustration is misplaced in my opinion.

Never seen so many apologists in my life.

He's a lazy bum. Trade him and Reggie.

haha... the grass is always greener. A trade isn't going to bring a prime michael jordan to Detroit. the player we get in return will have shortcomings as well.

Drummond looks like he isn't trying sometimes, but the fact that he produces is hard to argue with. I prefer that over someone who tries really hard but just isn't good....

Chewtoy, I agree with you that some of the criticism of AD is over the top. When you look at all the problems that have beset the Pistons this season, Drummond is among the least of them. There's a reason for the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt." For all his weaknesses, 23 YO iron man rebounding phenoms are not that easy to replace. The same guys that go orgasmic over other player's big games will then turn around and discount Andre's production as "empty." Baby, bathwater, etc...

He is what he is as this point - 23yo means nothing as an excuse, this is his 5th year in the league. The learning curve has flattened out at this point - he could and will still improve of course (barring injury), but it will be marginal. He's not a gym rat with the fanatical work ethic that the greats have.

Out of curiosity, Kilo, what are you basing that off? Can you provide examples that indicate players typically plateau after 4.5 years in the league, even if they are only 23?

The counter examples are easy. There are a LOT of players who improved after 5 years in the league and after 23 years old. That said, there is some selection bias involved - we KNOW about those players because they got better. I'm willing to entertain it. Give me some 23 year olds with 5 years experience who never improved (exclude injury flameouts for fairness, please.)

chewtoy wrote:Out of curiosity, Kilo, what are you basing that off? Can you provide examples that indicate players typically plateau after 4.5 years in the league, even if they are only 23?

The counter examples are easy. There are a LOT of players who improved after 5 years in the league and after 23 years old. That said, there is some selection bias involved - we KNOW about those players because they got better. I'm willing to entertain it. Give me some 23 year olds with 5 years experience who never improved (exclude injury flameouts for fairness, please.)

The question here is that after 4 seasons the team has a better net rating when Drummond, now on a max contract, is OFF the court. Think about that. We're a better team when our highest paid player is on the bench and we're playing **** Aaron Baynes instead(with all due respect to Baynes, I love his effort and Bball IQ)

Isn't that a bit like how the backup Qb sometimes has a better Qb rating because he only plays in mop-up duty, though? I mean, Baynes gets 10 minutes a night against the 2nd string. Its kind of apples and oranges, right?

When Drummond's at his best he's capable of putting up 20 and 20 and making it look effortless. I don't think he's plateaued, but even if he never gets much better, if he can just play more consistently like that he'd easily be one of the best players in the league. One would hope that his defense and basketball ball IQ can improve with more years under SVG, time will tell I guess...

What we do know about Drum is he will not follow his man to the 3 pt line, especially in this age of big men who can shoot threes. He will not close out guards coming off pnr giving basically free throws to NBA guards. He will not fight and use his size for post position, two feet in the paint, but settles for poor post position. And after 4 plus years in the NBA he is incredibly inconsistent about taking proper angles and challenging shooters at the rim. These things involve more effort and I.q. than anything else. To the fan who realizes the ability is there but not the effort or bb I.q. its frustrating to watch

Following up on the previous point regarding on/off court - It looks to me like it is our guards that are getting killed, not Drummond. Drummond has a net production of +3.3 (compared to -4.4 for Baynes. So while other teams are outproducing the pistons while Drummond is on the floor, it isn't his man who is surrendering the points. Udrih, Smith, and Jackson are all between -4 to -6.

I'm not totally sure how to interpret that. Maybe it means he isn't a great help defender. Still, he's a net positive while he is on the court.

http://www.82games.com/1617/1617DET.HTM

IMO Drummond is just too dumb to be an impact player with a large role, he should only be a low usage player than grabs rebound and dunks on a team with established stars. On paper he has improve his post game and maybe even his defense but he just doesn't know how to max out his abilities.