Trade for Melo?

[Crymson]

There are tons of guys around the league that are pylons on D, but play big roles on very good teams. Kyrie and Harden come to mind immediately.

Both are superstar offensive talents. Kennard is not in the same universe as either of them, nor does he have the tools to be.

The system plays more of a role than just surrounding one bad defender with a bunch of DPOY candidates. I also think he's far from a lost cause on that end. He has plenty of rookie lapses on that end, but he showed more solid defensive moments than I ever thought he would. He's not the next Bruce Bowen, but I think we've definitely got worse defenders on the roster.

He might someday be a borderline-acceptable defender. But he'll probably always be a liability in many matchups due purely to his physical limitations. The athletic standard in the NBA is ever higher, and athleticism ever more important. He's low on the scale. If he's ever to be a viable starter on the defensive end, he'll probably need to be surrounded with good defenders.

You also significantly ignore the effect of being deadly from just about anywhere on the court has on one's ability to create offense. Luke will never have to get to the rim and go over the top of bigs as a huge part of his offense, because he shoots better from mid-range than a lot of guys do right at the rim.

If he can't penetrate, he's of limited use. Simply put, that's the way of things. It's a necessary skill for complete scorers, beyond which it opens up the floor for other shooters. If the defense is aware that he cannot penetrate, they can plan accordingly.

For the record, his percentage this season from mid-range when he wasn't wide open was about 46%. That's not even remotely efficient, and it's far below what many players average at the rim.

He knows how to turn his outside threat and footwork into offense. It's clear as day to anyone who watches whenever he's not just forced to camp out in the corner.

He'll be a good scorer. But I think he'll always be somewhat one-dimensional. Being able to penetrate to the next is a gigantic asset without which no scorer is complete.

He's certainly the best option we've got next to Bullock right now. ESPECIALLY when you consider the fact that we're desperate for floor spacers.

He's a valuable perimeter guy. But the odds are against him progressing much past the point of, say, Korver or Redick: that is, a high-percentage complementary shooter. That's fine for a #12 pick--even if we did miss out on a franchise-changer thanks to our previous moron of a GM--but he'll never be anything like a go-to scorer. He just doesn't have the tools for it.

[7r5ur]

a high-percentage complementary shooter. That's fine for a #12 pick--even if we did miss out on a franchise-changer thanks to our previous moron of a GM--but he'll never be anything like a go-to scorer. He just doesn't have the tools for it.

This is your problem. No one on here calling him a future superstar. Your whole superstar or nothing outlook is what fogs your opinion (along with the whole Donovan Mitchell complex)

Dude is absolutely starter material and our best wing player to put next to Bullock. You don't see many people saying anything else. Him and Bullock paired together will make this team far more dangerous on offense.

[Crymson]

This is your problem. No one on here calling him a future superstar. Your whole superstar or nothing outlook is what fogs your opinion (along with the whole Donovan Mitchell complex)

I have no such complex. You brought up Kyrie and Harden. The guy to whom I originally responded called Luke the future of the organization. I responded as such. Nowhere have I said anywhere even remotely in the realm of what you've claimed.

Dude is absolutely starter material and our best wing player to put next to Bullock. You don't see many people saying anything else. Him and Bullock paired together will make this team far more dangerous on offense.

What makes him "absolutely starter material?'" The fact that he's a good perimeter shooter? There's a great deal more than that to being an effective starter in the NBA.

Kennard and Bullock would be an extremely undersized wing duo, and starting them both would produce perhaps the worst defensive starting lineup in the NBA. Luke will probably always struggle on defense, and Bullock is woefully undersized to be defending small forwards. Jackson and Griffin are mediocre at best on defense, and Drummond can rank from very good to very awful depending on how hard he feels like trying.

Are they the best choice on offense? Yes, as things stand, but that's largely a reflection of just how drastically weak this roster is on the wing right now. If Johnson can become a passable scorer, his other skills, better size, and greater defensive aptitude will make him a much better candidate than Kennard for the starting lineup, especially as that'll also allow Bullock to play at his native position.

[7r5ur]

But the odds are against him progressing much past the point of, say, Korver or Redick: that is, a high-percentage complementary shooter.

Regarding your Korver/Redick comparisons, I just think that's a bit lazy (white guys who can shoot). For the record, Luke was assisted on 52% of his 2P FGs during his rookie year. Redick's career number is 72.7% and Korver's number is 82%. Despite that, Luke was way more efficient than they were their first few years. Plus he's already a better passer than those guys. That'll give you a small idea about their abilities in creating offense.

[Crymson]

Regarding your Korver/Redick comparisons, I just think that's a bit lazy (white guys who can shoot).

They're elite perimeter shooters who have substandard athleticism and cannot penetrate to the net. How about addressing the remainder of my response to you?

For the record, Luke was assisted on 52% of his 2P FGs during his rookie year. Redick's career number is 72.7% and Korver's number is 82%.

What's your point? As I said, he was not a good mid-range shooter last season.

Despite that, Luke was way more efficient than they were their first few years.

Absolutely and totally incorrect. Redick posted a 56.6 TS% in his first three seasons and Korver a 57.8% in his own first three full seasons (he played very little in his rookie season). In each of those six seasons, the two beat Luke's 56.0%. They furthermore accomplished this in in a much lower-efficiency league; the TS% and EFG% in 2006-2007, Korver's third full season and Redick's first, were 54.1% and 49.6%, respectively, versus 55.6 and 52.1% in the most recent regular season.

Plus he's already a better passer than those guys. That'll give you a small idea about their abilities in creating offense.

He averaged 3.1 assists per 36 minutes, versus Redick's 2.1 in his first season and Korver's 2.5 in his first full season. That's neither a big number nor a big difference, and Kennard has shown no indication of having above-average passing ability for a wing. So what's your point?

[ImHeisenberg]

There isn't a "quick fix" for this team. Trading Melo bring back a bad player, and a bad locker room presence. The culture in the Pistons locker room has been shaky at best over the last ten years. We don't need a toxic presence.

[Mo_Speights5]

our shooting slump would be even worse, getting rid of the decent shooter in Galloway, hell no, i don't want brick shooters Melo and Smart at the same time.

[Bricks50]

Not a fan of Melo, he sucks

[Mo_Speights5]

and he doesnt fit in Casey's system.