I don't get knocking of pg here of being called a suped up 3/D guy but at the same time think the core we have could take us into contention?
I think underneath all this is price. PG is really good, but at LeBron money? Blah. Doesn’t feel right, but there’s not much choice because if you won’t, they will.
OK we can probably agree that the semantics/hyperbole argument is getting tiresome so I'll just respond to this. Why are you bringing up players like Blake, Clark and Goudelock? Those guys never even averaged double-digit points in their career. You were claming that I was selling PG short, and now you are selling Ariza short by bringing up those scrubs and misrepresenting his best season. Ariza's career year actually came in 2013-14, when he averaged: 14.4 pts 6.2 reb 2.5 ast 1.6 stl 45.6 FG% 40.7 3P% 77.2 FT% 59.0 TS% In comparison to PG's career average, PG is a better scorer but there's nothing else in it. I would call that a souped up version of Trevor Ariza. I don't really have a problem with you calling Kobe a souped up Eddie Jones. Eddie was an allstar, and a souped up allstar is a superstar/HOFer. Or you could say Kobe was a souped up Paul George
Bad news is Cavs won (ruins our pick) and NO lost (helps OKC stay in the pkayoff hunt). But the good news is that Minny won and Utah looks like they're going to win (hurts OKC's playoff chances). Hate the cLips, hopefully they win and that really puts a hurt on OKC tonight. And saving the best for last, down goes OKC to the Harris-less Nugs.
Those averages, as I pointed out, are Trevor's best season and they don't come close to Paul George's career averages which include Paul's rookie year that he barely played in. If anything these numbers prove how much better of a player Paul George is that Trevor can't even come close to Paul George in his best season. This post doesn't really help your point much. I brought those players up for good reason. They're the same type of comparison you're trying to make. A player that is obviously worse than the player you're comparing him to, but they share some similar strengths. Steve Blake had a pretty decent all around game in a limited body. Andrew Goudelock was an impressive scorer for what he was. Earl Clark was versatile and provided a unique skill set at his best. All of those comparisons are equal to what you're trying to say with Trevor being similar to George. As for Kobe being a "souped up Eddie Jones" that's patently ridiculous. Eddie was very good, but he wasn't close to a Top 10 player of all time. Ariza is solid, but he's never been close to the best players in the game like Paul George has been. It's reductionist arguing and it's not a good argument.
Do you even know what souped up means? souped-up adjective \ ˈsüpt-ˈəp \ enhanced or increased in appeal, power, performance, or intensity; A souped-up player is a better version of that player. Trevor Ariza is a starter on a contender. A better version of Trevor Ariza is an allstar which describes Paul George. g-leaguer -> scrub -> fringe starter -> starter -> allstar -> perrenial allstar -> hofer Likewise, a souped up scrub (ie Earl Clark) is barely a starter. What's so hard to understand? If we sign Paul George, he'll be our best player by default because we have no allstar on our roster. But don't expect the type of impact that a perennial allstar or top-tier star would bring. That's not who he is. That's been my argument all along. You could disagree all you want but he's just not a Top 10 player in this league. He's barely Top 20 to be honest.
Guys, I think we’re just arguing semantics here. I don’t think Tada is wrong, but I think TRD is taking exception to simplifying things to this extent. I’ve been watching this debate from afar and can see both sides. I don’t think you’re as far apart as it appears.
We have to get this guy; we are in need of some top-shelf talent. And while I like our prospects/youth, PG expedites the process for winning and growth. 45 plus wins next season if we get him...
It may seem like talking down to me makes you look smarter, but it really doesn't. If anything all you're doing is making your point sound worse. I don't have a problem understanding your argument, I just think it's a bad one. It's reductionist. It's arbitrary and in a lot of ways insulting to the upper tier players and the talents/abilities they have. I can and will continue to disagree with you because you're wrong. You've provided zero evidence to support your claims and I've responded with mountains of evidence. You have no basis in fact for this argument. It's pretty clear at this point.
