Filling the PG hole this Offseason

[Yuma]

If we are dreaming, getting Harden with all the ASU guys who like the Suns would he a grand slam. We couldn't get him trading Ayton AND Zion I am betting. LOL!

 

[devilalum]

If we are dreaming, getting Harden with all the ASU guys who like the Suns would he a grand slam. We couldn't get him trading Ayton AND Zion I am betting. LOL!

Suns coulda had Harden. Could have easily put together a better offer than Houston did. Lots of people on this board saw it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yuma]

Suns coulda had Harden. Could have easily put together a better offer than Houston did. Lots of people on this board saw it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That did suck!

 

[devilalum]

That did suck!

I remember how we were all making up hypothetical deals then were all blown away by how little the Rockets paid.

ASU kid too. Damn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AzStevenCal]

Name 5 other point guards that are considered better than Russell Westbrook.

I suspect he is a top 5 PG but Mao's post was to challenge your assertion that he's a top 5 player and I'd agree with him that Westbrook is not top 5. For me, he's not all that close either.

 

[Proximo]

Name 5 other point guards that are considered better than Russell Westbrook.

Lillard
Kyrie
Steph

are all better to me.

Westbrook's inability to shoot really hurts his value - especially in the playoffs when defenses get serious.

He is not top 5

Tell me he is better than any of these guys

Durrant
Giannis
Kawahi
Steph
Lebron
Hardin
Anthony Davis

 

[Yuma]

I suspect he is a top 5 PG but Mao's post was to challenge your assertion that he's a top 5 player and I'd agree with him that Westbrook is not top 5. For me, he's not all that close either.

I don't know about not being close to top 5. Does he slip past top ten? Top 15? Hard to argue he slips that much past top 5 just looking at his production. Probably one of the NBA teams would take him first if they all had to rebuild lineups next year.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I remember how we were all making up hypothetical deals then were all blown away by how little the Rockets paid.

ASU kid too. Damn

I remember it a little differently. Other than our own future picks, we had no assets at the time that anyone wanted. OKC overvalued the primary player they got in return, there's no reason to believe they'd have been just as wrong in evaluating our talent. And I don't believe we had anyone that had the draw of Jeremy Lamb at the time.

There were several here that wanted us to try and get him but as I recall though, there was really only one strong proponent for sending multiple picks and players for James and that was ASUCHRIS. I think I led the "don't do it" squad and despite how much Harden has improved, I'm still not sure I got it wrong. With the roster we had at that time I am unconvinced that minus 3 future picks we'd have had much success building a real team around Harden. We'd have had a better run from that point on (than what actually happened) but Harden would likely have walked as soon as his extension ran out and we'd be in worse "future shape" than that Scola team was.

 

[Yuma]

I remember it a little differently. Other than our own future picks, we had no assets at the time that anyone wanted. OKC overvalued the primary player they got in return, there's no reason to believe they'd have been just as wrong in evaluating our talent. And I don't believe we had anyone that had the draw of Jeremy Lamb at the time.

There were several here that wanted us to try and get him but as I recall though, there was really only one strong proponent for sending multiple picks and players for James and that was ASUCHRIS. I think I led the "don't do it" squad and despite how much Harden has improved, I'm still not sure I got it wrong. With the roster we had at that time I am unconvinced that minus 3 future picks we'd have had much success building a real team around Harden. We'd have had a better run from that point on (than what actually happened) but Harden would likely have walked as soon as his extension ran out and we'd be in worse "future shape" than that Scola team was.

I don't dispute your take on what we had to trade. I do remember almost the WHOLE NBA being shocked how little it took to get Harden.

 

[Chaplin]

The guy can average a triple double. Name 5 players that can do that.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The guy can average a triple double. Name 5 players that can do that.

I can't and not to be snarky but when they start deciding who wins based on triple doubles, I'll be top 5 impressed. I really laugh at the double double and triple double attention, I certainly remember a time when nobody talked about that (and I do mean nobody).

When I first started watching a lot of basketball, they talked about 20/10 games. ESPN came along and (IMO) wanted more buzz so they cooked up this triple double idea and followed it up with double double fame. It's a nice thing to talk about I guess but I find it rather meaningless.

Let's face it, a 10-10-10 game simply isn't as valuable as a 50-9-9 game but one makes it into the triple double bucket and the other doesn't. I'm less impressed by the triple double itself than I am the fact that earlier this season, during one of Westbrook's consectutive triple double streaks, the team won almost every time he filled up the stat sheet. Now that's impressive but that hasn't always been the case.

Anyway, I'm not saying he isn't a great player. I just don't think he helps his team quite as much as his stats would suggest. And, health concerns notwithstanding, I think I'd rather have Giannis, Curry, Harden, Davis, Embiid, James, Durant, Kawhi and maybe even Lillard, Jokic and Gobert.

 

[Yuma]

I can't and not to be snarky but when they start deciding who wins based on triple doubles, I'll be top 5 impressed. I really laugh at the double double and triple double attention, I certainly remember a time when nobody talked about that (and I do mean nobody).

When I first started watching a lot of basketball, they talked about 20/10 games. ESPN came along and (IMO) wanted more buzz so they cooked up this triple double idea and followed it up with double double fame. It's a nice thing to talk about I guess but I find it rather meaningless.

Let's face it, a 10-10-10 game simply isn't as valuable as a 50-9-9 game but one makes it into the triple double bucket and the other doesn't. I'm less impressed by the triple double itself than I am the fact that earlier this season, during one of Westbrook's consectutive triple double streaks, the team won almost every time he filled up the stat sheet. Now that's impressive but that hasn't always been the case.

Anyway, I'm not saying he isn't a great player. I just don't think he helps his team quite as much as his stats would suggest. And, health concerns notwithstanding, I think I'd rather have Giannis, Curry, Harden, Davis, Embiid, James, Durant, Kawhi and maybe even Lillard, Jokic and Gobert.

I think ESPN was around when Magic and Larry were playing. That's when I remember triple doubles being highly touted. That went away somewhat during the Michael Jordan era. It's like dress styles. Triple doubles are back in vogue. It does somewhat register with me on hustle. You have to be playing at all phases to do it. When Hakeem did his quadruple doubles, I was IMPRESSED with that!

 

[Raze]

Lillard
Kyrie
Steph

are all better to me.

Westbrook's inability to shoot really hurts his value - especially in the playoffs when defenses get serious.

He is not top 5

Tell me he is better than any of these guys

Durrant
Giannis
Kawahi
Steph
Lebron
Hardin
Anthony Davis

I completely agree that he isn't top 5 overall. He's not even top 10 to me. In fact I'd rather have 2 players on his current team more than him (George and Adams). That said...

Far be it from me that I defend Russell Westbrook, but yeah, he's a better "PG" than Lillard/Kyrie/Steph. (barf). PGs have long been assessed by their APG. I mean Nash won two MVPs while averaging in the teens in PPG but leading the league in APG. While it's true that Westbrook has MAJOR flaws, it's also true that he almost doubles up those three in APG. And as Chap points out, he averages a triple double. They are playing in the same era with the same stupid rules and they can't do what he is doing.

Plus, your assessment would have to completely ignore half of the game, aka Defense. Westbrook is a good defender. Steph is a good team defender, but struggles individually. Damian has shown improvements on D, but not near his caliber. And Kyrie is James Harden-awful on Defense. That is, he doesn't even pretend to defend.

Westbrook has them, by a long shot, in total game.

(Please don't ever make me do this again. I need to go shower).

 

[AzStevenCal]

I think ESPN was around when Magic and Larry were playing. That's when I remember triple doubles being highly touted. That went away somewhat during the Michael Jordan era. It's like dress styles. Triple doubles are back in vogue. It does somewhat register with me on hustle. You have to be playing at all phases to do it. When Hakeem did his quadruple doubles, I was IMPRESSED with that!

Yeah, Magic's NBA career and the start of ESPN happened almost simultaneously. But I don't think the "triple double" hysteria started at the same time. To my recollection that was a handful of years later though obviously, still during Magic's run. And it's not that I don't like the triple double, I just think we give it too much glory. Same with slam dunks and 18th row rejections. And I still think the traditional 20 and 10 game is often better than some of the triple doubles we've seen.

 

[Yuma]

Yeah, Magic's NBA career and the start of ESPN happened almost simultaneously. But I don't think the "triple double" hysteria started at the same time. To my recollection that was a handful of years later though obviously, still during Magic's run. And it's not that I don't like the triple double, I just think we give it too much glory. Same with slam dunks and 18th row rejections. And I still think the traditional 20 and 10 game is often better than some of the triple doubles we've seen.

I watched Wilt and Dr J early on in my youth. The dunk used to be the big deal that brought the house down in games. That seems so innocent back then. LOL. Now it's shooting the three. Every kid thinks they can shoot the three! LOL.

 

[Chaplin]

I can't and not to be snarky but when they start deciding who wins based on triple doubles, I'll be top 5 impressed. I really laugh at the double double and triple double attention, I certainly remember a time when nobody talked about that (and I do mean nobody).

When I first started watching a lot of basketball, they talked about 20/10 games. ESPN came along and (IMO) wanted more buzz so they cooked up this triple double idea and followed it up with double double fame. It's a nice thing to talk about I guess but I find it rather meaningless.

Let's face it, a 10-10-10 game simply isn't as valuable as a 50-9-9 game but one makes it into the triple double bucket and the other doesn't. I'm less impressed by the triple double itself than I am the fact that earlier this season, during one of Westbrook's consectutive triple double streaks, the team won almost every time he filled up the stat sheet. Now that's impressive but that hasn't always been the case.

Anyway, I'm not saying he isn't a great player. I just don't think he helps his team quite as much as his stats would suggest. And, health concerns notwithstanding, I think I'd rather have Giannis, Curry, Harden, Davis, Embiid, James, Durant, Kawhi and maybe even Lillard, Jokic and Gobert.

You’re generalizing but Westbrook’s triples weren’t 10-10-10 either.

The post I was really taking issue with was Mao saying he wasn’t a top 5 POINT guard. Of course there’s room for interpretation.

 

[Hoop Head]

Let's face it, a 10-10-10 game simply isn't as valuable as a 50-9-9 game but one makes it into the triple double bucket and the other doesn't. I'm less impressed by the triple double itself than I am the fact that earlier this season, during one of Westbrook's consectutive triple double streaks, the team won almost every time he filled up the stat sheet. Now that's impressive but that hasn't always been the case.

He also had a 20-20-20 game this year. The only other player in NBA history to do that was Wilt. Westbrook did it as a 6'2" or 6'3" point guard. You can't brush that off as easily as a normal triple double.

I believe he's a top 10 player but he needs to be more team oriented to be a top 5 player. Whether the Thunder are a 50 and fade team or not though I don't think falls solely on his shoulders anymore. He has Paul George now but other than George and Adams he doesn't have a great supporting cast. Is that because Westbrook doesn't make them better or better players don't want to play with Westbrook, I'm not sure but I don't see how someone would think he's not a top 10 player right now. He's not the first good to great player who couldn't win in the postseason and he won't be the last either. I think too much weight is put on postseason success sometimes when grading a players impact and value.

 

[AzStevenCal]

He also had a 20-20-20 game this year. The only other player in NBA history to do that was Wilt. Westbrook did it as a 6'2" or 6'3" point guard. You can't brush that off as easily as a normal triple double.

I believe he's a top 10 player but he needs to be more team oriented to be a top 5 player. Whether the Thunder are a 50 and fade team or not though I don't think falls solely on his shoulders anymore. He has Paul George now but other than George and Adams he doesn't have a great supporting cast. Is that because Westbrook doesn't make them better or better players don't want to play with Westbrook, I'm not sure but I don't see how someone would think he's not a top 10 player right now. He's not the first good to great player who couldn't win in the postseason and he won't be the last either. I think too much weight is put on postseason success sometimes when grading a players impact and value.

I agree with much of this but I can't help remembering how well some of those guys played once they got away from OKC. Maybe it was coaching or just the result of growth and development, I don't know? But I wouldn't quibble over top 10, he's close enough to argue either way IMO.

 

[Chaplin]

I agree with much of this but I can't help remembering how well some of those guys played once they got away from OKC. Maybe it was coaching or just the result of growth and development, I don't know? But I wouldn't quibble over top 10, he's close enough to argue either way IMO.

But again, how big is the difference between, say, the 4th best player in the NBA and the 8th best? Minuscule at best IMO. In some cases, the #10 and #5 could be swapped and there wouldn’t be much of an argument.

 

[AzStevenCal]

But again, how big is the difference between, say, the 4th best player in the NBA and the 8th best? Minuscule at best IMO. In some cases, the #10 and #5 could be swapped and there wouldn’t be much of an argument.

You're right, it isn't the black and white ranking that I've probably made it out to be.

 

[Chaplin]

You're right, it isn't the black and white ranking that I've probably made it out to be.

And of course, “not a top 5 player” and “not a top 5 point guard” are very different statements, especially when most of the very top players in the NBA aren’t point guards.

 

[GatorAZ]

He also had a 20-20-20 game this year. The only other player in NBA history to do that was Wilt. Westbrook did it as a 6'2" or 6'3" point guard. You can't brush that off as easily as a normal triple double.

I believe he's a top 10 player but he needs to be more team oriented to be a top 5 player. Whether the Thunder are a 50 and fade team or not though I don't think falls solely on his shoulders anymore. He has Paul George now but other than George and Adams he doesn't have a great supporting cast. Is that because Westbrook doesn't make them better or better players don't want to play with Westbrook, I'm not sure but I don't see how someone would think he's not a top 10 player right now. He's not the first good to great player who couldn't win in the postseason and he won't be the last either. I think too much weight is put on postseason success sometimes when grading a players impact and value.

You have to be dangerously obsessed with your own stats to put up numbers like that. You also need teammates that sell out for you to get rebounds. Great player but will never be remembered for winning anything as the best player in his team.

 

[BC867]

Let's face it, a 10-10-10 game simply isn't as valuable as a 50-9-9 game but one makes it into the triple double bucket and the other doesn't. I'm less impressed by the triple double itself than I am the fact that earlier this season, during one of Westbrook's consectutive triple double streaks, the team won almost every time he filled up the stat sheet. Now that's impressive but that hasn't always been the case.

I was going to respond to your example of "a" 10-10-10 game and an extreme comparison to a 50-9-9 game.

But you, yourself, then referred to Westbrook's multi triple doubles. That is the key. Not one game. But over a season.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I was going to respond to your example of "a" 10-10-10 game and an extreme comparison to a 50-9-9 game.

But you, yourself, then referred to Westbrook's multi triple doubles. That is the key. Not one game. But over a season.

Well, that example wasn't about Westbrook, it was about the value of the triple double itself. Years ago, players didn't stay in the game to get that 10th assist or rebound but now they are out there in games that have long been decided just to notch a triple double. In an era of stat chasing, IMO, the triple double becomes a watered down accomplishment.

 

[Chaplin]

Well, that example wasn't about Westbrook, it was about the value of the triple double itself. Years ago, players didn't stay in the game to get that 10th assist or rebound but now they are out there in games that have long been decided just to notch a triple double. In an era of stat chasing, IMO, the triple double becomes a watered down accomplishment.

I just don’t agree, not when we’re talking about a player that has the skills to AVERAGE a triple double. I don’t care how it is divvied out, that’s one of the more impressive feats in the modern game.