Could Chris Paul be available?
I'm not basing this off of any rumors or articles, just from seeing Darren Collison play. To this point, NO has been a team that several DBB'ers have suggested trades with, almost always trying to pry away Okafor. After Paul's latest injury, Collison has more then proved to be a capable replacement, and in a cash strapped market like NO, I could see them considering a trade for the right pieces. Lets say we put together a package for Paul, containing this years pick, Tay (expiring contract), CV (for salary purposes) and Jarebko (promising young player) . In return, we take back Paul, Posey, and Wright.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yfy5hac
I don't like this scenario the best, but it's the only fit I came up with using the trade machine on this years salaries. It would give them 1 more year paying CV then they would Posey, but would clear cap space for next summer and give them 2 young talents. I think if we offered this years pick/tay/Stuck for Paul it would be a better fit for them. I'll admit I'm not very good at this, but I do think that Collison's recent play could have NO thinking about changing up their roster. They're past the point of contention, and will surely need to revamp their roster and get under the cap. I would LOVE to have CP3 on our team. Is there any other trades/scenario's that someone could suggest that would fit better?
Update: Marc Stein addresses the subject of the post (in general, not specifically), and essentially says that there's a better chance of collison being moved before Paul. Here what he said in the weekend dime at espn.
You can smell the wishful thinking from here.
Darren Collison is putting up huge numbers as Chris Paul's fill-in (see below), which naturally prompts teams around the league to dream that Hornets owner George Shinn -- once he realizes that he's paying just $1.3 million to Collison this season compared with $13.5 million for Paul -- will consent to trading CP3 this offseason.
Don't count on it.
Back on Christmas we ran through some of the reasons why the Hornets, even when they were over the luxury-tax threshold earlier this season, wouldn't even consider the prospect of trading Paul. One source with knowledge of the Hornets' thinking reiterated this week that nothing has changed since then, especially since the Hornets are now under the tax line and suddenly have two promising young assets besides Paul: Collison and fellow rookie Marcus Thornton.
Paul's future will remain a popular topic because of his ability to become a free agent in the summer of 2012 and the Hornets' standing as a .500 team. But given his immense profile in New Orleans and the fact that Paul almost exclusively makes basketball viable in Saints territory, it seems far more likely that the Hornets would try to move Collison to fill another need.
Not that you'll get any such hints from Jeff Bower. The Hornets' coach/general manager insists that Paul and Collison can and will play together -- no matter how much Paul is used to having the ball -- when his All-Star returns from knee surgery to try to nudge New Orleans into the playoffs.
"I see two guys that have the same makeup," Bower said. "They play the game with the same mentality. They measure everything they do based on winning and how the team is doing.
"I'm excited to see them together. I do think they can [function in the same backcourt]. Not the whole game, of course, but I think they can play together and Chris can be a dynamic scorer off the ball. And Marcus Thornton can be a dynamic scorer with them."
FanPosts are user-created posts from the Detroit Bad Boys community and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all fans or the staff at DBB. The DBB staff reserves the right at any time to edit the contents of FanPosts as they reasonably see fit.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't see it.
1. Dumars currently lacks the swagger to land Paul.
2. Hornets adore Chris Paul, and understand how rare it is to land a PG of his skill and potential. Their fans would likely riot if they traded him.
"I didn’t even know Elvis was from Memphis, I thought he was from Tennessee." — Drew Gooden.
I’d rather keep Jerebko than get Paul. As has been pointed out repeatedly in recent weeks, it’s looking more and more like Paul is a product of the system. Collison has been putting up similar numbers to Paul and so does Thornton when he’s running the 1. Our system hasn’t been point guard friendly since the 80’s and we still don’t know just how the injury will affect Paul in the long run; knee surgery isn’t something to take lightly in any sport, but especially in basketball.
Also, our biggest weakness, in my opinion, is not the point guard. Stuckey and Bynum can hold it down somewhat. While they aren’t the answer, they do get the job done for the most part. But in this trade we are trading away 6’9 Tayshaun, 6’11 CV31, and 6’10 Jerebko. We lose size, which IS our biggest weakness. We lost a lot of size. Our front line, if the trade were done today, would be Ben and Maxiell, both shorter than ALL of the people you trade away in this trade. How can you possibly justify doing that to us?
Not to mention that Jerebko is one of the top rookies this year (Most sites are ranking him at around five right now, and he just won rookie of the month after everyone thought he would decline with the return of Tayshaun. He actually got better, somehow), and EASILY the best rookie from the second round. Personally, Jerebko’s the third best Swede in Detroit now, and that’s including the 7-9 Swedes on the Wings.
In my defense
That was the only trade i could work on the trade machine. After the season, the contracts will be different (was too lazy to calculate for that). My trade would be the pick/stuck/tay. Weather or not that’s enough, i’m not sure. But CP3 is the kind of player that guys would like to play with, imo. As for the size issue, the trade you reference would lose us some size, but Tay’s practically out already, so that’s not really a loss. And all i’ve heard is complaints on CV (and watching him is kinda depressing. He lurches more then moves on the court). Agreed on the Sweed. But no way we pick up an mvp candidate w/o giving up something. Sure size is a more pressing issue, but if we could land a player of cp3’s caliber, I’d settle for making that move first.
by C$ on Mar 4, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
That's not entirely true
A lot of CP’s assists come from the system and the fact that he has 2 very good bigs on top of one of the former best shooters in the entire league. However the guy is one of the smartest players in the league and can run a half court offense much better than Collison.
Have you even watched NO play? Collison tends to play at full speed the entire time, which frees up easy assists, where as Paul has a natural ability for finding holes in the defense. As much as a I prefer D-Will, Paul has always been the more efficient player, including scoring.
I don’t think Chris Paul will be available for anything short of LeBron or Howard. The guy is that good, and besides, he is the face of the entire franchise. I doubt fans would ever forgive management if they willingly traded him for cap space (just look at how mad we still are at Joe for trading Chauncey, and Chauncey isn’t nearly as talented nor was even producing at a high level anymore in Detroit).
However I wouldn’t be surprised at all if NO starts shopping Collison when CP3 returns. His value has skyrocketed, NO could demand just about any draft pick short of John Wall and the other team would gladly oblige.
by bearded thundar on Mar 4, 2010 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
"Our system hasn’t been point guard friendly since the 80’s"
Really? So, all of the coaches since then have run the same system? And if that were true, how do you explain a point guard winning a Finals MVP during that time?
Maybe it’s just that the Pistons have just had two great point guards (Zeke and Chauncey) who have played great and point guards that are not so good have played like they’re not so good. I bet Paul would still be the best point guard in the game on the Pistons, but there is no way Detroit gets him.
Chris Paul is the product of “a system”? Can anyone please explain to me what “system” is in place in N.O. please?
Chris Paul is the best PG in the game and still would be on just about any team in the game (diminishing returns would hurt next to a guy like LBJ). If he’s somehow available, we should make every attempt to gut this train wreck of a team to get him.
But, there’s no way he’s available, so it’s moot.
by brgulker on Mar 5, 2010 8:58 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
Yeah if CP3 is a product of a "system"
Then shouldn’t we be trying to pry away their coaches and not their players? At least changing coaches is something that JoD is batting above average on based on the below data-intensive highly analytical statistical regression (unlike his free agency and draft grades IME)…
Carlisle +1
Brown +2
Saunders +1
MCIAFI -3
Kuester – Incomplete
Overall Grade: +1
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.
Chris Paul
is a very talented player, I can see the NO GM thinking this would be feasable for about 2 seconds then he realizes who he would be trading.
and If anything I would say Collison is more a product of the system than CP3.
with regards to a trade with NO. I don’t see Joe D trading stuckey and if we get CP3. Where does stuckey play?
Duh....
Stuckey moves to SG along with BG and Rip. Then we can start running an SG rotation akin to a pitching rotation in baseball to achieve maximum efficiency from our $100+ million in salary tied up at that position. Sounds effective enough to me.
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.
I love the trade machine
I made a 4-way trade where we ended up getting Dwight Howard, Dwayne Wade, Michael Beasley, T-Mac, and Chris Bosh. We unloaded all of our (in my opinion) current trash, I guess it worked financially. We still had some solid role players too. (sigh) what a waste of time….
Collison is the real deal.
NO can basically take their pick of anyone’s first rounder this year outside of the top 5 for that kid. What a luxury to have. Two incredible PG’s. I just one ONE. Oh yeah, it turns out that Jrue Holliday is good too.
So basically, while in dire need of a PG, we don’t draft a PG in the best PG draft in history. Sweet.
I've said this before and I'll say it again
We all make the claim that Chauncey Billups is a GREAT point guard and I will not argue otherwise. But to say that Rodney cannot be a GREAT point guard akin to what Chauncey is is unfair to Stuckey and statistically unproven when you compare the two players through their first 3 years in the NBA:
(All Stats are Per 36 Minutes – both players through their first 3 years were averaging 29.2 minutes per game and without going into detail had similar coaching and personnel experiences through the first 3 years of their career)
Stuckey – Billups:
Points Per Game: 15.9 – 14.6
Turnovers: 2.5 – 2.7
Steals: 1.3 – 1.6
Assists: 5.3 – 4.7
Rebounds: 4.2 – 2.9
FT%: 82% – 87%
3P%: 25% – 38%
FG%: 42% – 38%
% of Team’s Assists: 25% – 21%
So Stuckey has outperformed Billups through their first 3 years of their career in every statistic except steals, FT% and 3P%. How anyone can come to the conclusion that Stuckey cannot be an incredible PG in this league while also arguing that Billups is a great point guard is beyond me.
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.
How anyone can come to the conclusion that Stuckey cannot be an incredible PG in this league while also arguing that Billups is a great point guard is beyond me.
Relying on seasonal averages in primary stat categories to make that conclusion would be foolish. Chauncey’s second year in the league was during the lockout of 98-99, and he only played 13 games in his 3rd season due to injury. Statistically, comparing the guards in their first three seasons is not feasible.
Chauncey did, however, exhibit something early on which Stuckey has shown no semblance of— perimeter shooting. He averaged 4.4 attempts from three in his early years, and has averaged 5.0 throughout his career. Nearly half of Chauncey’s attempts come from the outside, balancing his own offensive game and making him very difficult to defend. One third of Chauncey’s offensive game comes from three, one third from inside, and the final third in assists.
Stuckey, however, has proven to be predictable and easy to defend. He’s got one move— head down, charge basket, yell “HEY!”, miss more often than not. I love dude, but comparing Rodney Stuckey to Chauncey Billups in their first three years is a) not statistically feasible and b) already shows a gap in skill sets. This gap begins to show why Chauncey is such an incredible guard— because dude is good at everything. Rodney’s first three years do not show that, when looking at averages alone.
Aminu, here we come!!11
by Mike Payne on Mar 9, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think I just got Payne'd?
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.
by The Boourns on Mar 10, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
Alright I'm coming back to this
If you don’t utilize on seasonal averages in primary statistical categories to draw comparisons between two players then what do you use Payne (asking with some attitude but generally interested in what you would use instead)?
You mentioned it would be unfair to compare their first 3 seasons statistically but what if we compare Billups’ first 5 seasons to Stuckey’s first 3? In this case, Billups played in some 297 games to Stuckey’s 198 so the sample size for Billups is significantly larger.
When you look at that sample size, Stuckey still matches up evenly or above Billups in per 36 minute stats for points, turnovers, steals, assists, rebounds, and blocks while also averaging one more trip to the line than Billups.
I do completely agree with you though that what makes Billups a great point guard is the balance to his game and his ability to extend the defense. Billups outmatches Stuckey in this key category (as wel as in FT%) but I think its unfair to say that because Stuckey hasn’t shown a 3 point shot thus far, that he will never develop one at all.
Rip was never known as a 3 shooter and yet he’s developed a more consistent long-range shot later in his career.
As for Stuckey’s “one move”, well I can only assume he learned that from Chauncey during the waning years of Chauncey’s career in Detroit. So often we complained that Billups would drive to the hoop looking for a foul rather than to finish. I disagree though that that is Stuck’s one move. Like Billups, he’s developing a post game but that takes time as Stuckey grew up as a perimeter player. And Stuckey does have a very solid crossover as evidenced numerous times this season (eg – Iverson faceplant).
The overall point of my original post though was not to say that Stuckey is as good as Billups but that based on where he currently is in his career, we should be confident that he can be just as good as Billups. You may not share that same level of confidence, but I feel like you’re disregarding key statistical categories that support that level of confidence.
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.
Oh and one more thing
Through his first 5 seasons, Billups had a PER of 15 to Stuckey’s 14.9
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.
I feel like you’re disregarding key statistical categories that support that level of confidence.
The problem is that there is no conclusive, statistically-matched manner to compare the two players early in their career. There is a systemic bias against Chauncey in such comparisons, exemplified by a) environmental factors such as the lockout of 98 and subsequent injuries, b) usage statistics such as usage rates and minutes per game averages. To ignore these factors and only to look at seasonal averages in three or even five years is to make a biased assumption in favor of Rodney.
If you don’t utilize on seasonal averages in primary statistical categories to draw comparisons between two players then what do you use Payne (asking with some attitude but generally interested in what you would use instead)?
You don’t use seasonal averages until the minutes played and usage rates match-up. I’ll explain the real world significance of this in a minute, but for now, the math:
This season, Rodney’s third season, he is recording a usage rate of 26.3%. Chauncey’s usage rate was right around 20% until he arrived in Detroit in his 6th season, when it jumped to 24.1%.
Rodney is averaging 35.4 minutes per game this season. Chauncey averaged less than 30 his entire career before coming to Detroit, and in his second year with the team (7th career season), he averaged the same 35.4 minutes per game.
In terms of minutes played and usage rate, Chauncey’s 7th season was most similar to Rodney’s 3rd. Here’s a comparison of those seasons.
Why is this significant? In Rodney’s sophomore season, he was made the key playmaker and given his chance to shine. In his 3rd, he was “the man” on this team, logging a rather ridiculous usage rate for a player of his production.
Chauncey, on the other hand, was not given full starters minutes and command of a team until arriving in Detroit, and he didn’t come into this role until his second year in charge.
So back to your question:
If you don’t utilize on seasonal averages in primary statistical categories to draw comparisons between two players then what do you use Payne
You don’t use anything. You cannot compare their early seasons. Rodney has been playing at full capacity for nearly two full seasons, and Chauncey wasn’t used even close to capacity until his second year in Detroit. There is no favorable statistic to compare the two until their usage rates and minutes played match.
based on where he currently is in his career, we should be confident that he can be just as good as Billups.
Suggesting this with statistics is a flawed argument. You’re better off comparing Rodney to a player of a similar usage and mp rate early in his career.
Jonas Jerebko : Pistons :: Skippin' Bail, Dippin' Jail, Whippin' Tail and Sippin' Ale : MF Doom
Stuckey needs to learn that move Billups used to do, where he’d pump fake and somehow get the defender behind him, riding his back. Keeping his dribble, he (fairly slowly and methodically) make his way towards the nearest elbow, pump fake again to get the defender in the air, draw the foul by contorting his body as the defender bumped him from behind a little tiny bit, and still drain the jumper. That’s a good move.
by garrettelliott on Mar 11, 2010 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
Wow, holy mixed tenses, Batman. That was pretty much a disaster of a post. Sorry, English!
by garrettelliott on Mar 11, 2010 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Boourns
There’s an assumption you seem to be making that I’m not necessarily buying: that Stuckey can and will become a better shooter, and when he does, he could approximate something like CB did in Detroit. Rip seems to be the example you’re using.
However, there’s a key difference between Rip and Stuckey, namely, that Rip is an effective mid-range player. So, in order for him to become a better 3PT shooter, Rip merely had to extend his range. (and if khandor were listening, I’d mention that Rip also developed a set shot from distance while employing a jump shot at mid range).
By contrast, Stuckey is a craptacular shooter from everywhere. He is a horrid mid range shooter, and he’s not improving. It seems unlikely that he will become even an average 3PT shooter until he can fix his mid range game.
One of the key reasons that Billups is so much more effective than Rodney is because he scores a lot more points per possession used, and he does so because he’s a much, much better 3PT shooter, and he’s a better FT shooter. If Rodney doesn’t make dramatic improvements in his shooting over the summer and into next season, he simply won’t make the jump to the “next level” (as cliche as that sounds).
Yeah Rip isn't a very good comparative example
I guess I’m a strong believer in a player’s ability to improve their game through repetition so I feel like a set shot from beyond the arc is something Stuckey could develop if he simply shot enough 3s in the off-season.
Looking at his college stats (and yes I realize that the 3PT arc is closer in so its not a true comparison) he shot a lot of 3s averaging 5.2 attempts per game through 2 years of college ball. He sunk 98/309 for a 32% (shooting 37% his first year and 27% his second) rate which certainly doesn’t make a case for him being a good 3PT shooter but its not horrendously bad either.
His FG% was 47% for his career at EWU which my guess is more attributed to him being able to blow by defenders for easy buckets but without more information (ESPN doesn’t have his college stats) I can’t really see where his shot distribution fell in college.
Regardless, I look at that and think, "he has the core foundation necessary to be a good perimeter shooter if he simply works hard at perfecting his set shot/works to revamp his set shot (in a similar way to Rip going to set vs. jump) so it is more accurate from long range.
Lastly, I think that the kool-aid still runs through these veins when it comes to Rodney. As much as we fault him, I REALLY like the guy and REALLY want him to succeed so realizing that I’m sure I have a tendency to place a lot of his development on faith that he’ll put in all that hard work necessary to get there.
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.
Thanks for the AWESOME discussion though
I really do appreciate getting schooled in stats…best way to learn.
Jonas Jerebko once killed a charging female rhinoceros in heat protecting its young with nothing more than a hook shot.

by 












