Yeah I've been trying to come up with a trade different from this one and I really can't. I was half-way hoping we'd be able to attach Mozgov or Deng to Lou as a way to dump one of those contracts, but I haven't found a way to do it yet. If we can't do it and it turns out we're only able to flip Lou for a 1st and filler, that's fine too. I don't care much.
I don't see the problem with Smith's contract. It's not prohibitive in this NBA. Smith and the first is the earliest rumor I've heard. Agree that Oubre isn't going to be part of any deal that's landing them just Oubre. Maybe Nicholson, a 1st, and a 2nd for Lou - maybe. Nicholson's contract is mildly prohibitive given that he doesn't look like an NBA player. Burke, Satoransky, and a 2nd was also mentioned somewhere. Smith/McLellan would definitely help us - I'm thinking we might end up gutted at the G spot if we make the moves I'd like to see us make (Lou, Nick, and Calderon).
I don't know that he's good for the team, which is precisely why he was allowed to walk away from Atlanta. I don't know where the "two years" idea comes from. It's not as if free agents are lining up to play with Lou Williams. I honestly can't see that he makes a difference to our team this year or in the next few seasons - but getting a first rounder potentially makes a huge impact.
Don't know much about Smith but he can't be any more worse than Mozgov...and he did body check Griffin one time. The idea of getting a first rounder is appealing.
Some more names for the list - Iman Shumbert (CLE) PJ Tucker (PHO) Tyson Chandler (PHO) Brandon Knight (PHO) -Phoenix looking for youth or picks. BTW, early 2nd round picks are pretty awesome. I fully trust our scouting on those. If we could land two early 2nds, that's every bit as useful as a mid to late first.
I'd view it as an asset we can flip this summer. Plus in the (possibly likely) event we lose the 4-7th pick in the draft, at least we've got something...
I don't mind us securing a first round pick but based on the rumors I see I still feel like we are trading for the sake of a trade and not getting better. And if folks have been complaining about losses now, it will be worse once Lou goes and we potentially get even younger.
Simplistic? I was replying to the exact wording of your post below, with the thought continuing to be frivolous above with "high draft picks don't mean nothing". "At least one of randle or dlo needs to be traded so msg is clear.....being young isnt an excuse for not playing hard at all times"
I still do not see how we end up better within a 2 year span. Trading Lou means losing 18ppg off the bench. He's our best player according to any advanced metric.
There is a better chance of birds flying out my butt than Mitch making a deal at the deadline. Mitch doesn't make deals at the deadline anymore. Last one was Sessions. And he did nothing for the Lakers.
The pick doesn't have to be better than Lou. The pick + assets we currently have has to be better than those assets + Lou - and I don't see any reason to believe that won't be true.
How is that any different than a direct comparison of Lou and the pick? current team + Lou vs current team + pick Or are you implying that our kids will progress further without Lou?
1) we get rid of a player that costs us as many games as he wins for us. Let's be clear: Lou Williams may be a 4th quarter savant, but by the same token he takes control of games in the 4th quarter and fails as often as he succeeds, more often than he succeeds if you look at our record. When Lou is in the game our ball movement is almost nonexistent and the team suffers even if Lou looks great in the short term. 2) with Lou out, the young kids are now the focus no matter what happens. We no longer have the crutch of a 17 point 4th quarter from Lou to bring us back, it's on the kids to figure it out. Does that mean we lose games? Sure, but we're already losing games. At least this way the kids can actually learn instead of letting Lou take over. 3) Lou Williams will not be the reason we're a better team in 2 years. I don't think there's anyone that could argue that a 31 year old Lou Williams will be the reason we're competitive again. D'Angelo might make us competitive again. Julius might make us competitive again. Ingram and Zubac might make us competitive again if they all learn to grow up and take advantage of the opportunities ahead of them. In two years, I'd rather have figured out if the kids are going to be something (or traded them) than have Lou over here winning us 6 games and losing us 8 games while the kids sit on the bench and watch. There is really only one reason to hold on to Lou at this point: you think he can get you more value than a mid-1st rounder. That is entirely possible, but I'm not willing to take the chance. I'm trading him now while his trade value is at his highest it's been since we signed him and I'm getting the best return I can.
Teams value lots of things - good players, expiring contracts, and picks among them. Lou's market value is tied to his performance plus his contract. Lou Williams will not be better in a year or two. A first round pick costs less than Lou, and could well be better in the near future. In fact, many first round picks end up being better than Lou, and that's not to take anything away from him. Packaging a pick with a lower salary and higher ceiling is more appealing to many teams (not to all, mind you; that's why we think we can get a first for Lou). Thus, Lou + current team vs. Lou + pick misses the point. Lou on the team is the wrong comparison; it's "Market for Lou + this team" vs. "Market for pick + this team" that has to be compared.
BTW, YES - our players will grow more without Lou - and I don't think that's a debate. He's absolutely a ball-dominant chucker who plays atrocious defense. His absence actually puts our younger guys on the floor more and gives a more structure offense. He's a good fit for some teams, but he's not good on this team. Terrible fit.
Agree... The biggest effect has been on Clarkson who I think is trying to do too much with limited minutes and opportunities.
As I mentioned above, all the advanced metric says otherwise. We win more games when he's on the floor. This I understand but I think the kids are getting enough minutes already. Lou and Young aren't the reason Russell and Julius are struggling. Now you are twisting my words. I never said that. I'm saying losing Lou for another pick will make us worse for 2 years. That's trading for the sake of trading. I would consider trading him for a player with immediate impact. I'm not giving up 18ppg for an unknown rookie that may or may not get any playing time. No way.
We win more game with Lou on the floor. We're the 2nd worst team in the league. We already suck; my goodness. If Lou can get you an asset back, you take it. Plus, I'm not keen on paying a 32 year-old Lou when his contract expires. Trade him if you get something good. It's rather simple.
OK if your argument is that we are adding by substracting Lou, that makes sense. I don't agree entirely, but yes, prioritizing the growth of our kids is important. I'd just like to win while doing that. If Julius, Russell, and Ingram were more consistent, I'd pull off a Lou trade in an instant. But not now. It's too soon. We desperately need Lou's scoring off the bench.
