Netaman wrote:vincecarter4pres wrote:Tha King wrote:Herro can't defend but he's not the net negative that some of the non-defending guards he gets compared to are. His efficiency has been improving each of the past three years and he gives you playmaking. That contract will also look much better the next few years with a rising cap if he simply maintains where he's currently at let alone continues to improve.
If you can get him for some combination of non-core players or even Simmons w/o giving up any of the important picks that would be a good move imo
The main thing that gives me pause with Herro, even if you’re getting him for literally nothing more than Simmons, is what happens if a month later a guy like Mitchell is really on the block and they want to move fast to deal him? Now you’ve lost a lot of salary matching ability.
the only way herro makes sense is if they absolutely loathe simmons and dont want him anywhere near the team and this is the only way to get rid of him. literally the only other way they could match him other than simmons is expirings who prevent flexibility (like you said).
the problem with the simmons rationale is that if portland is the only way to get rid of him, why not just do a dame trade?
i know everyone feels burned by the last big 3 but dame is such a different personality. he is the same age as KD was when he decided to come here and not coming off an achilles. we all understood there was risk in kds age/recovery. and that kyrie had his red flags and injury issues. dame isn't the talent kd is/was but look around and there aren't more than a handful of guards we'd rather have then him if we could literally pick any of them. lillard was 3rd in the nba in ppg last year at 32 on 46/37/91 with NOTHING around him.
Dame, Bridges, a bunch of 3&D's including 1 elite shooter and 1 elite defender is a big step in the right direction and they have a ton of assets to keep adding if they keep spending. which they'd have no reason not to do after getting dame.
KD (and Kyrie) joined Brooklyn via cap space and didn't require the magnitude of what it would take to get Lillard.
The accolades for Lillard are great but he's also played a total of 87 games the last two seasons, why should that be expected to improve going forward? He's also at a point where a sharp decline can happen at any point, as we saw with Harden. At least with Harden you could rationalize the move because adding him made Brooklyn an absolute contender, with Lillard you still need convoluted ways of finding other pieces to seriously think about contention.
If you add Lillard and the trade goes the other way (i.e. he declines, barely plays like KD, etc.) this team is done for the foreseeable future with no ways of improving.























