The Trade Thread: All Eyes Toward The Offseason

[saintEscaton]

If we make Booker our starting PG, there is no way he's going to able to guard the elite PG's of the league. Say we trade Bledsoe, and draft Murray, you are looking at a starting 1-3 of Booker, Murray, and Warren. That would be hilariously bad on defense and we are starting three guys who are average in terms of length and athleticism. Games are won on both sides of the ball.

Thats like a self-imposed handicap, basically conceding 100+ PPG to the opponent with no stoppers at the wing positions. They would get eaten alive, we need at least one two-player in the lineup who's not a big, Bledsoe is a solid but not lockdown on the ball defender more than a disruptive rover.

[TheFire]

If we make Booker our starting PG, there is no way he's going to able to guard the elite PG's of the league. Say we trade Bledsoe, and draft Murray, you are looking at a starting 1-3 of Booker, Murray, and Warren. That would be hilariously bad on defense and we are starting three guys who are average in terms of length and athleticism. Games are won on both sides of the ball.

Thats like a self-imposed handicap, basically conceding 100+ PPG to the opponent with no stoppers at the wing positions. They would get eaten alive, we need at least one two-player in the lineup who's not a big, Bledsoe is a solid but not lockdown on the ball defender more than he is a rover.

Unfortunately, the solution for an elite 3&D wing is fairly limited. Not sure how comfortable I am at throwing the max in the offseason at Nic Batum and (especially) Harrison Barnes. The other scenario is to swing B. Knight a trade for someone lie Jae Crowder. Wishful thinking, I know.

As for the draft, an option is Jaylen Brown who is still very raw and while he possesses elite physical tools, he hasn't really shown any defensive instincts at the college level. The guy I would be looking at with our Washington pick is TImothe Luwawu who has a nice blend of length and athleticism.

[SideSwipe]

Booker as a PG might work. The best way to build a team in my eyes is to find an area on your team where you can be dominant and exploit it. Booker would be a tall PG. I think one of the reasons the Freak is having so much success right now, is they have figured out that tall guards/ ball-handlers will have an advantage. Most of the guards in the league are short right now. 5-11,6,6-1,6-2, 6-3. Freak is 6-11, Booker is 6-5/6 Length means everything when guarding and containing ball handlers. A 6-5 Booker can guard a 6-1 Paul to containment given work at it because his reach is 4+ inches greater. Height at the ball-handling position means visibility, it means more of a threat for a shot, and for the right players who figure out how to be slithery, it can make for a good package.

Magic Johnson was not that fast of a player, but he was a PG of the highest caliber because he figured out how to defend PG's from behind when they go by him, and he figured out how to get low when they were in front of him. All the other times he had a great view of the game and plays.

That said, I think ideally you find a 6-4 bulldog defensive passing PG to compliment Booker. That would give Booker more wide-open looks to play inside-out with Len on the strong side, and still protect the break/ transition play.

[AtheJ415]

Good grief. He has only been dishing in the past few weeks. Those stats mean nothing. What is clear is that Booker is playing more and more like a pg all the time. It's not like it's being forced, it's just how his game is evolving. It looks like it's what he is comfortable doing.

He is probably not the player to run the break consistently or to bring the ball up. But there is great merit in running the half court game through him. He is certainly a better choice at filling that role than Knight and he might even be better than Bledsoe. I could see that division of pg duties working.

Who on this board would have a problem with Booker initiating the half court offense? Is there any doubt that we would play more cohesive team ball if that were the case? That's how the 90's Bulls and then 2000's Lakers functioned. Harper and Fisher were the pgs. They most often ran the break and they brought the ball up. But the half court offense always ran through MJ and Kobe.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Being a heady passer does not make you a PG. It's about so much more than initiating the offense. Assist % is a huge deal. Sorry, Booker isn't one, no matter how many people on here would like him to be. The Harper and Fisher examples are exactly the point. Why take MJ and Kobe and try to make them Harper and Fisher. Who ever called MJ or Kobe a PG? Nobody, because they aren't. They're playmaking, mostly for themselves, 2 guards. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. Booker is a playmaking 2 guard in the mold of Harden imo.

You're just too trapped in your idea that everyone needs to fit into one of these traditional roles. We need more guys that are multifaceted and have multiple skills. Who brings the ball up is and those types of things are inconsequential. Sure, the guys should guard guys with similar sizes on the other end, and/or our best defender should try and guard their best defensive guys if their sizes match up.

Being able to dribble is not what is being discussed. Being the primary ballhandler is. You cannot have 3 primary ballhandlers. That is, in essence, the hydra theory. What you all are advocating is a hydra, just with one guys who is taller. What will happen is that there will still be one primary ballhandler and only one. There will be a secondary one, and then a 3rd one who stands in the corner and secretly resents not having the ball, while the primary and secondary ones take turns going one on one because they still have the ball less than they used to and want to get theirs. I'm not a fan of going back to that.

Nobody has a problem with Booker dribbling or having the ball, but there's a difference between that and being a primary ballhandler. The very definition of the word means that 60% of the players on the court are not that. Not unless we reinvent basketball to have 2 or 3 balls on the court at a time.

[AtheJ415]

Booker as a PG might work. The best way to build a team in my eyes is to find an area on your team where you can be dominant and exploit it. Booker would be a tall PG. I think one of the reasons the Freak is having so much success right now, is they have figured out that tall guards/ ball-handlers will have an advantage. Most of the guards in the league are short right now. 5-11,6,6-1,6-2, 6-3. Freak is 6-11, Booker is 6-5/6 Length means everything when guarding and containing ball handlers. A 6-5 Booker can guard a 6-1 Paul to containment given work at it because his reach is 4+ inches greater. Height at the ball-handling position means visibility, it means more of a threat for a shot, and for the right players who figure out how to be slithery, it can make for a good package.

Magic Johnson was not that fast of a player, but he was a PG of the highest caliber because he figured out how to defend PG's from behind when they go by him, and he figured out how to get low when they were in front of him. All the other times he had a great view of the game and plays.

That said, I think ideally you find a 6-4 bulldog defensive passing PG to compliment Booker. That would give Booker more wide-open looks to play inside-out with Len on the strong side, and still protect the break/ transition play.

Asking Booker to guard PGs is a losing proposition. He is having trouble staying in front of SGs now. The point guards in this league are the best players in this league as a position group. SG may be the weakest position group. In that scenario where he's having to guard CP3, Booker would foul out quickly because Paul would easily get around him and flail around when Booker reaches or handchecks to prevent his drives.

The best way to solve this entire problem is to move Knight so he doesn't have to start. Start a real PG like Bledsoe next to a SG Booker. Bledsoe does pass the ball despite what many on here think, and is elite at setting up Booker's #1 strength--3 point shots. And then if Murray is so good that we have to take him with our top pick (and I pray that's not with a top 3 pick b/c Simmons, Ingram, and Bender ought to be locks if we're up there), try Booker at the 3. It's fine to run the offense through your star player, but I think that's really different than being a primary ballhandler or being a point guard. Portland used to run its offense through Aldridge--he wasn't a point guard or primary ballhandler though. Same with Cousins in SAC. Same with Love in MN.

[bwgood77]

Being a heady passer does not make you a PG. It's about so much more than initiating the offense. Assist % is a huge deal. Sorry, Booker isn't one, no matter how many people on here would like him to be. The Harper and Fisher examples are exactly the point. Why take MJ and Kobe and try to make them Harper and Fisher. Who ever called MJ or Kobe a PG? Nobody, because they aren't. They're playmaking, mostly for themselves, 2 guards. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. Booker is a playmaking 2 guard in the mold of Harden imo.

You're just too trapped in your idea that everyone needs to fit into one of these traditional roles. We need more guys that are multifaceted and have multiple skills. Who brings the ball up is and those types of things are inconsequential. Sure, the guys should guard guys with similar sizes on the other end, and/or our best defender should try and guard their best defensive guys if their sizes match up.

Being able to dribble is not what is being discussed. Being the primary ballhandler is. You cannot have 3 primary ballhandlers. That is, in essence, the hydra theory. What you all are advocating is a hydra, just with one guys who is taller. What will happen is that there will still be one primary ballhandler and only one. There will be a secondary one, and then a 3rd one who stands in the corner and secretly resents not having the ball, while the primary and secondary ones take turns going one on one because they still have the ball less than they used to and want to get theirs. I'm not a fan of going back to that.

Nobody has a problem with Booker dribbling or having the ball, but there's a difference between that and being a primary ballhandler. The very definition of the word means that 60% of the players on the court are not that. Not unless we reinvent basketball to have 2 or 3 balls on the court at a time.

I certainly don't want to see a hydra. Personally I want a pure point running the offense and getting the flow going. I'd like to have a team full of good and quick passers though. I don't want Booker playing the point or Knight for that matter.

I guess you misread my post. Mine was just that people sometimes slot people into positions unnecessarily. For example, everyone would say "Houston needs a PG" or (when Kobe was still pretty good) "The Lakers need a PG". No, they really didn't need a "PG". Houston didn't need Lawson and Kobe didn't need a Nash to run point, because Harden and Kobe effectively are running the offenses and are for all intents and purposes are the guard running the point. These guys needed spot up shooters that can guard smaller point guards next to them. Not true point guards.

I was just stating, in general, people try to emphasize positions more than simply playing guys together who fit together.

Personally, if we're talking about Murray, I don't want Murray, or Knight for that matter, playing with Booker. I want to see Booker and Bledsoe. If we take any guard with a top pick, it better be Dunn. But like you, I'm hoping for Bender.

[AtheJ415]

You're just too trapped in your idea that everyone needs to fit into one of these traditional roles. We need more guys that are multifaceted and have multiple skills. Who brings the ball up is and those types of things are inconsequential. Sure, the guys should guard guys with similar sizes on the other end, and/or our best defender should try and guard their best defensive guys if their sizes match up.

Being able to dribble is not what is being discussed. Being the primary ballhandler is. You cannot have 3 primary ballhandlers. That is, in essence, the hydra theory. What you all are advocating is a hydra, just with one guys who is taller. What will happen is that there will still be one primary ballhandler and only one. There will be a secondary one, and then a 3rd one who stands in the corner and secretly resents not having the ball, while the primary and secondary ones take turns going one on one because they still have the ball less than they used to and want to get theirs. I'm not a fan of going back to that.

Nobody has a problem with Booker dribbling or having the ball, but there's a difference between that and being a primary ballhandler. The very definition of the word means that 60% of the players on the court are not that. Not unless we reinvent basketball to have 2 or 3 balls on the court at a time.

I certainly don't want to see a hydra. Personally I want a pure point running the offense and getting the flow going. I'd like to have a team full of good and quick passers though. I don't want Booker playing the point or Knight for that matter.

I guess you misread my post. Mine was just that people sometimes slot people into positions unnecessarily. For example, everyone would say "Houston needs a PG" or (when Kobe was still pretty good) "The Lakers need a PG". No, they really didn't need a "PG". Houston didn't need Lawson and Kobe didn't need a Nash to run point, because Harden and Kobe effectively are running the offenses and are for all intents and purposes are the guard running the point. These guys needed spot up shooters that can guard smaller point guards next to them. Not true point guards.

I was just stating, in general, people try to emphasize positions more than simply playing guys together who fit together.

Personally, if we're talking about Murray, I don't want Murray, or Knight for that matter, playing with Booker. I want to see Booker and Bledsoe. If we take any guard with a top pick, it better be Dunn.

I actually think Houston does need a PG. It can't win a title running a Harden iso-based offense. The problem is Harden loves his numbers and Houston is so poorly led that he continued to run that offense even after they got Lawson. If you're going to run that offense, Beverly is the best PG you could have to possibly pair with him, but really what they need is a new, more balanced offense with multiple playmakers, which ought to allow Harden to play with more energy defensively.

Point guard isn't just the traditional position group, but it also isn't just the role of the guy you run the offense through. Demarcus Cousins isn't the Kings PG even though he touches it more often than anybody else.

I have no problem running the offense through our best player(s), but I have a real problem having 3 guards on the court at the same time, labeling them all primary ballhandlers, and watching what happens, because I have seen that show and it isn't all that great.

[bwgood77]

I actually think Houston does need a PG. It can't win a title running a Harden iso-based offense. The problem is Harden loves his numbers and Houston is so poorly led that he continued to run that offense even after they got Lawson. If you're going to run that offense, Beverly is the best PG you could have to possibly pair with him, but really what they need is a new, more balanced offense with multiple playmakers, which ought to allow Harden to play with more energy defensively.

Point guard isn't just the traditional position group, but it also isn't just the role of the guy you run the offense through. Demarcus Cousins isn't the Kings PG even though he touches it more often than anybody else.

I have no problem running the offense through our best player(s), but I have a real problem having 3 guards on the court at the same time, labeling them all primary ballhandlers, and watching what happens, because I have seen that show and it isn't all that great.

I would never call Cousins a PG. I would call someone like LeBron a Point Forward though and would say he doesn't need a PG, he just needs a couple shooting guards to play with.

I'm not talking about touches (in Cousin's case). The best players should always get a lot of touches. Besides, Rondo is the PG there and is among the league leader in assists, so bad example anyway.

This is the second time (in a row) you have created a hypothetical and then argued against that hypothetical when it had nothing to do with the point I made in my post.

[jcsunsfan]

Booker as a PG might work. The best way to build a team in my eyes is to find an area on your team where you can be dominant and exploit it. Booker would be a tall PG. I think one of the reasons the Freak is having so much success right now, is they have figured out that tall guards/ ball-handlers will have an advantage. Most of the guards in the league are short right now. 5-11,6,6-1,6-2, 6-3. Freak is 6-11, Booker is 6-5/6 Length means everything when guarding and containing ball handlers. A 6-5 Booker can guard a 6-1 Paul to containment given work at it because his reach is 4+ inches greater. Height at the ball-handling position means visibility, it means more of a threat for a shot, and for the right players who figure out how to be slithery, it can make for a good package.

Magic Johnson was not that fast of a player, but he was a PG of the highest caliber because he figured out how to defend PG's from behind when they go by him, and he figured out how to get low when they were in front of him. All the other times he had a great view of the game and plays.

That said, I think ideally you find a 6-4 bulldog defensive passing PG to compliment Booker. That would give Booker more wide-open looks to play inside-out with Len on the strong side, and still protect the break/ transition play.

Asking Booker to guard PGs is a losing proposition. He is having trouble staying in front of SGs now. The point guards in this league are the best players in this league as a position group. SG may be the weakest position group. In that scenario where he's having to guard CP3, Booker would foul out quickly because Paul would easily get around him and flail around when Booker reaches or handchecks to prevent his drives.

The best way to solve this entire problem is to move Knight so he doesn't have to start. Start a real PG like Bledsoe next to a SG Booker. Bledsoe does pass the ball despite what many on here think, and is elite at setting up Booker's #1 strength--3 point shots. And then if Murray is so good that we have to take him with our top pick (and I pray that's not with a top 3 pick b/c Simmons, Ingram, and Bender ought to be locks if we're up there), try Booker at the 3. It's fine to run the offense through your star player, but I think that's really different than being a primary ballhandler or being a point guard. Portland used to run its offense through Aldridge--he wasn't a point guard or primary ballhandler though. Same with Cousins in SAC. Same with Love in MN.

Just because you play the pg on offense doesn't mean you have to defend the pg on defense. All that said, I am in agreement that Bledsoe/Booker combo has promise on paper. Bledsoe can defend either position (long arms and strength, he has already proven this). Booker's distributing ability can make up for Bledsoe's lack of the same. Let Bled run the break. Once it gets into half court, let Booker touch and distribute (or shoot).

I cannot for the life of me why I would want to add Murray to this mix. Funny how you don't want to run Booker at pg but you want to slide him to SF, really? I think he is less suited for SF than for pg.

[dremill24]

Holy balls with the position pigeon hole-ing...im getting dumber with every post.

[bwgood77]

Holy balls with the position pigeon hole-ing...im getting dumber with every post.

Yeah, defined positions is more and more becoming a thing of the past. Get the most multi dimensional players you can that are unselfish, know how to play and move the ball, and things will work. SA and GS do a lot of this. Assists are distributed a bit more. The more playmakers the better. Who brings the ball up the court is somewhat inconsequential as long as they can handle the ball fairly well and of course you want to be able to match up well defensively.

[Cutter]

I see Booker as a "lead guard" who is the primary ball handler, but can also play off-ball if someone else is handling the ball. If Booker is lead guard, I see someone like Marcus Smart as "defensive guard" who is a stud defensively with some offensive abilities. I do think Smart could be available in thee right deal as Danny Ainge is a wheeler dealer looking for a big star, and McD could get in on the action.

[Qwigglez]

I see Booker as a "lead guard" who is the primary ball handler, but can also play off-ball if someone else is handling the ball. If Booker is lead guard, I see someone like Marcus Smart as "defensive guard" who is a stud defensively with some offensive abilities. I do think Smart could be available in thee right deal as Danny Ainge is a wheeler dealer looking for a big star, and McD could get in on the action.

Why not just keep Bledsoe?

[jredsaz]

I would like to see Booker passing to Murray or Murray passing to an open Booker vs a non shooting "PG." Again, fan pool, who is better running the offense, Booker, Bledsoe or Knight? Definitely not the "PGs." But lets not have Booker run the offense because he is a "SG" nor Murray.

I'm all in with JMac on this one. If we can't land a top two pick and Murray is on the board he is the bpa imo. Bender is pretty much unknown so I'm leaning toward Murray.

[saintEscaton]

I see Booker as a "lead guard" who is the primary ball handler, but can also play off-ball if someone else is handling the ball. If Booker is lead guard, I see someone like Marcus Smart as "defensive guard" who is a stud defensively with some offensive abilities. I do think Smart could be available in thee right deal as Danny Ainge is a wheeler dealer looking for a big star, and McD could get in on the action.

Smart can't shoot a lick and can't finish at the rim , he 's 36% from the field this season, and just went 1-10 vs OKC who he usually feasts on. He's a one dimensional supersub, an absolute bulldog on the other end but he can't effectively drive n' dish, a guy built like a tank should be living at the charity stripe but he rarely draws contact

[DRK]

I see Booker as a "lead guard" who is the primary ball handler, but can also play off-ball if someone else is handling the ball. If Booker is lead guard, I see someone like Marcus Smart as "defensive guard" who is a stud defensively with some offensive abilities. I do think Smart could be available in thee right deal as Danny Ainge is a wheeler dealer looking for a big star, and McD could get in on the action.

Agree. Smart would be awesome for this team if we could trade Knight.

I could see Smart as a super-six man playing a Pat Beverly role next to Booker, who would be lead guard.

If we want to turn up the defence we can bring in Bled and Smart at the 1 and 2.

[JMac1]

I would like to see Booker passing to Murray or Murray passing to an open Booker vs a non shooting "PG." Again, fan pool, who is better running the offense, Booker, Bledsoe or Knight? Definitely not the "PGs." But lets not have Booker run the offense because he is a "SG" nor Murray.

I'm all in with JMac on this one. If we can't land a top two pick and Murray is on the board he is the bpa imo. Bender is pretty much unknown so I'm leaning toward Murray.

[JMac1]

I see Booker as a "lead guard" who is the primary ball handler, but can also play off-ball if someone else is handling the ball. If Booker is lead guard, I see someone like Marcus Smart as "defensive guard" who is a stud defensively with some offensive abilities. I do think Smart could be available in thee right deal as Danny Ainge is a wheeler dealer looking for a big star, and McD could get in on the action.

Why not just keep Bledsoe?

There is just about a census here that believes Knight or Bledsoe has to go and even though Knight is younger, Bledsoe would be easier to move. I prefer to keep Bledsoe and move Knight......McD might have to swallow that Knight deal and really look bad next year when the Lakers hand over that pick and its top 5 in a "strong" draft.

[Amareca]

Bledsoe is not going anywhere, smh at the amount of stupidity. It is like talking to Trump voters.

Bledsoe every year ranks in the top6-10 in many advanced stats for PGs. Particularly RPM and when Bledsoe is injured we go from mediocre 35 win team to 15 win team.

None of Bledsoes knee injuries were serious. Both were repairs with full recovery projection and both were treated for long term success.

Bledsoe is everything we want from a PG next to Booker and Bledsoe is comfortable with less pressure on him to do it all.

[Amareca]

Murray is a smaller less athletic Booker that is used to high usage and volume scoring.

Id only pick him because 3-7 is dire and I am not sure how to rank them.

Brown is intelligent and athletic but raw
Bender is in my opinion not the best internationsl prospect and ultimately a center
Poetl is not better than Zubac/Zizic!
Dunn will be 22 already and a suspect shooter and has not improved much (but i liked him last year)
Murray is a combo guard with not enough PG skills