Trading Derrick Rose

benster — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:12:05 -0000

Don't bust your shorts. Hear me out.

The deal would be with the Clippers, like so:

They get: Rose

We get: #1 pick (i.e. Blake Griffin)

Straight up, no foolies.

This is assuming, of course, that Baron Davis wants out of Clipper-land and they trade him. Our lineup would look like this next season: Kirk - Salmons - Luol - Blake - Noah, with Tyrus, Brad, and the #16 and #26 picks (hopefully some guards for depth, say, Terrence Williams and Toney Douglas) coming off the bench. That lineup's assuming we don't resign BG, but if we do, hot dog, put him at the 2. If we don't resign Ben, that lineup's probably good for a six or seven seed next year, and would set us up big for 2010, as we would hopefully sign one of those bombtastic 2-guards (Johnson, Redd, or Wade) to a max-deal, making us real contenders.

A couple of things:

1. This is the ONLY trade I would give up D-Rose for. Not for Lebron, not for Wade, not for Bosh, considering all of their contract situations. MAYBE for Dwight Howard, but the Magic are never giving him up.

2. This has nothing to do with D-Rose's supposed character issues.

3. Look at the last ten teams that have won championships. In no particular order, the starting point guards for those teams:

Derek Fisher

Tony Parker

Chauncey Billups

Jason WIlliams

Rajon Rondo

These guys are good point guards. But they're certainly not CORNERSTONE-type players like D-Rose. At best, they're seasoned leaders. In fact, you have to all the way back to the Magic-era Lakers to find a title-winning team built around a PG.

Championship-winning teams have cool, steady point gaurds. Captain Kirk fits that description to a T.

Championship-winning teams are built around superstar swingmen or superstar big men. Plain and simple. Blake Griffin would be one of those guys. He's big and developed, and already has a post-up game that'll murder people. If he improves steadily over the season, when 2010 comes around, guys are gonna be itching to play next to him for the next six years.

Somebody on another post (Scotter, maybe?) pointed out that a good team rolls with it's star player's off nights. If your star player is having a good night, you win, if he stinks, you lose, if he's kind of middling, the steady guys take up the slack and eke out a win. Having that star player be a point gaurd is a risk, because all the offense goes through that player. Having a steady role player at the 1-spot might be better than having the bulk of your scoring (and thus, the bulk of your off-nights) at that position.

***

So, this is my first post. Throw me to the wolves.

SB Nation User Blog: benster

Trading Derrick Rose