Ty Lawson to DET??

313 Professor · Post #1 » by **313 Professor** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:20 pm

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25243412/lakers-pistons-rockets-reportedly-remain-interested-in-ty-lawson-trade

Detroit ... that one's screwy. The Pistons just signed Reggie Jackson to an $80 million deal, and still have Brandon Jennings on the roster. Lawson, at least offensively, is a bit above both in talent, but doesn't have Jackson's upside and is a problem defensively due to his size, before you start to dig into all the off-court problems. A move sending Jennings out while pairing Jackson with Lawson would be an interesting fit, though, as the Pistons don't have a two-guard who really needs playing time and Jackson has spent a lot of time at combo-guard 2 over the years in OKC.

Thoughts?

Lionlifer · Post #2 » by **Lionlifer** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:29 pm

I'd prefer not to slide RJ to the 2, I want him to continue to grow as a PG, and this is not conducive to that.

Also, dude brings too much drama, and messes with the defense. This kinda seems like the 3 Bigs experiment of the last few years, pass.

Kilo · Post #3 » by **Kilo** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:37 pm

I think Stan was just kicking the tires to try and exploit the situation if Denver felt compelled to dump him for pennies on the dollar. Bring him in while his value is low, and then flip him during the season or off-season when he's recaptured his value, especially playing under Stan's very friendly PG system.

That being said, I think other teams need him more and thus would be willing to pay more for him. Stan probably called up the day the new DUI news broke and offered a Jennings, Martin, Granger deal hoping they'd instantly bite or something.

bstein14 · Post #4 » by **bstein14** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:42 pm

Lawson is a great pick and roll guy, and our offense revolves around it so I think he could thrive here big time. If he would only cost us Jennings plus a few end of bench guys it'd make sense to go for it with him.

Post #5 » by **Snakebites** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:45 pm

My thoughts are that it makes no sense at all. We just invested 80 million in a point guard, why trade for one when you don't even know if he can play alongside the current guy?

My guess is Houston is where he ends up. They actually need him.

Its Sports Illustrated, btw. Wouldn't be surprised if our interest isn't even true.

313 Professor · Post #6 » by **313 Professor** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:02 pm

I mean I guess... Lawson is an upgrade over Jennings (especially an injured Jennings) because he's more effective in the paint, and they both play the role of a Pure 1 with below average defense and defensive versatility. We can trap a good player on a deal for one year longer than we could with Brandon because he expires next year so I guess I wouldn't mind that swap. Idk if Denver would want more though or how highly they value Brandon OR his expiring contract. It's not like Denver is a big FA destination.

Could very well be nothing and a rumor though...

JLiv · Post #7 » by **JLiv** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:05 pm

Most good teams have a lot of talent. Taking on Lawson is a risk, and he has questionable fit here. However, if we want to make that next step, we have to take risks like this.

Best case scenario, he's sixth man of the year and puts alcohol behind him. If we got him, we'd likely flip him in a trade for a wing. Worst case scenario, he's toxic and destroys team chemistry.

I, personally, think that Stan wanted to get a third team like Houston involved to take Lawson and we go after Gallinari with our scraps.

whitehops · Post #8 » by **whitehops** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:07 pm

only thing I can think of is trying to buy low on him.

with Lawson's salary I can only imagine a potential would have to include Jennings.

that said, I'm not too keen on Lawson as a player and refuse to believe our interest goes beyond buying low on him.

coordinator0 · Post #9 » by **coordinator0** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:07 pm

Van Gundy starting Jackson and Lawson together doesn't seem very likely with how he stresses defense. Those two would make a pretty bad pairing in that regard. Some minutes per game would be likely but probably not as any part of a regular lineup.

I wouldn't mind Detroit bringing Lawson in as the backup point guard if the price was something like Jennings and one of the guys that are likely to be cut anyways but that's about it.

Post #10 » by **Snakebites** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:19 pm

Just a thought: Shouldn't we not want Lawson for the same reason the Nuggets don't?

The Penguin · Post #11 » by **The Penguin** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:21 pm

Am I the only one who took away more from the throw away line of "the Pistons don't have a two-guard who really needs playing time"? Do we just insanely overvalue KCP or is he getting slept on hard by the national media?

DetroitPistons · Post #12 » by **DetroitPistons** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:21 pm

313 Professor wrote:http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25243412/lakers-pistons-rockets-reportedly-remain-interested-in-ty-lawson-trade

Detroit ... that one's screwy. The Pistons just signed Reggie Jackson to an $80 million deal, and still have Brandon Jennings on the roster. Lawson, at least offensively, is a bit above both in talent, but doesn't have Jackson's upside and is a problem defensively due to his size, before you start to dig into all the off-court problems. A move sending Jennings out while pairing Jackson with Lawson would be an interesting fit, though, as the Pistons don't have a two-guard who really needs playing time and Jackson has spent a lot of time at combo-guard 2 over the years in OKC.

Thoughts?

So much wrong in that quote...

El Chivo · Post #13 » by **El Chivo** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:23 pm

let's try the 5 point guard lineup!

Post #14 » by **Snakebites** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:25 pm

[quote="The Penguin"]Am I the only one who took away more from the throw away line of "the Pistons don't have a two-guard who really needs playing time"? Do we just insanely overvalue KCP or is he getting slept on hard by the national media?[/quote]

I think KCP is pretty overrated on this board (and this is coming from someone who was relatively happy when we drafted him, in contrast to most others who were upset), I certainly wouldn't hesitate to make a blockbuster trade just because it might hurt KCP's minutes.

But yeah, the writer here was overly blunt and not really accurate.

313 Professor · Post #15 » by **313 Professor** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:26 pm

The Penguin wrote:Am I the only one who took away more from the throw away line of "the Pistons don't have a two-guard who really needs playing time"? Do we just insanely overvalue KCP or is he getting slept on hard by the national media?

A few people on here didn't have much good to say about KCP either so I think it might be somewhere in the middle...

DetroitPistons · Post #16 » by **DetroitPistons** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:26 pm

Snakebites wrote:Just a thought: Shouldn't we not want Lawson for the same reason the Nuggets don't?

We should want him less. Not only do we have our young PG of the future (like the Nuggets) but we also have ANOTHER young PG in Jennings, who carried us to an impressive stretch of success last season and clearly already fits well in SVGs system. The only possible reason we should go after him is to buy low and flip him when we know for sure Jennings is healthy (which shouldn't be too long considering he is still aiming to be ready by the start of the season).

The Penguin · Post #17 » by **The Penguin** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:29 pm

Snakebites wrote:Just a thought: Shouldn't we not want Lawson for the same reason the Nuggets don't?

Ehh. Denver is in a bit of a total rebuild, they just brought in Mudiay to be their PG of the future (and maybe present) and hired a new coach who is trying to rebuild the team's mentality. The last thing you want is Lawson taking Mudiay under his wing the wrong way while undermining the new coach.

Meanwhile, Reggie is more of an established presence and who isn't going to pick up bad habits from Lawson. The hope would be the trade shakes him into reality and he works on rehabbing himself personally and professionally. If it works out, we could have a dynamic backcourt rotation, if it doesn't we tell him to pound sand. His deal expires next year, but as this past summer showed, cap room is a bit of a waste here currently and the entire league will have space next summer.

If we pick him up for pennies, it's a big time risk/reward move. My biggest fear would be him and Marcus Morris hanging out and rubbing off on each other. Reggie and Dre both seem to have a good head on their shoulders that he's not likely to knock sideways.

DetroitPistons · Post #18 » by **DetroitPistons** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:30 pm

The Penguin wrote:Am I the only one who took away more from the throw away line of "the Pistons don't have a two-guard who really needs playing time"? Do we just insanely overvalue KCP or is he getting slept on hard by the national media?

Oh I noticed it too. That was part of the reason I said there is so much wrong with that quote. KCP is a quiet prospect that people don't know very well. That's all. He is going to be an excellent two-player for us and I consider him part of our core (as does SVG). He won't be an allstar but I can see him averaging 15-16 ppg with great defense and hustle in his prime. I would be livid if SVG decided to start Lawson over him and move RJ to SG. That would be a grave mistake.

The Penguin · Post #19 » by **The Penguin** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:30 pm

DetroitPistons wrote:
Snakebites wrote:Just a thought: Shouldn't we not want Lawson for the same reason the Nuggets don't?

We should want him less. Not only do we have our young PG of the future (like the Nuggets) but we also have ANOTHER young PG in Jennings, who carried us to an impressive stretch of success last season and clearly already fits well in SVGs system. The only possible reason we should go after him is to buy low and flip him when we know for sure Jennings is healthy (which shouldn't be too long considering he is still aiming to be ready by the start of the season).

Jennings would be in any deal for him.

DetroitPistons · Post #20 » by **DetroitPistons** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:35 pm

The Penguin wrote:
DetroitPistons wrote:
Snakebites wrote:Just a thought: Shouldn't we not want Lawson for the same reason the Nuggets don't?

We should want him less. Not only do we have our young PG of the future (like the Nuggets) but we also have ANOTHER young PG in Jennings, who carried us to an impressive stretch of success last season and clearly already fits well in SVGs system. The only possible reason we should go after him is to buy low and flip him when we know for sure Jennings is healthy (which shouldn't be too long considering he is still aiming to be ready by the start of the season).

Jennings would be in any deal for him.

Yeah, true. Which means I would hate this deal even more. Lawson has more off court issues, has a longer contract, has a bigger contract, and is a gamble on the court since we already know what we have in Jennings (which was pretty darn good last year). There is really no positive aspect to bringing in Lawson for Jennings imo.