Lee-to-Portland Rumors Don't Add Up
A Daily Babble Production
As a promising young player and restricted free agent on a team working to maximize its space for the summer of 2010, David Lee's name is likely to make plenty of appearances in trade rumors in the weeks and months to come. But a recent hot topic potential destination for the young power forward leaves me wondering.
Both Newsday and the New York Daily News reported last week on interest on the Blazers' end in acquiring David Lee and possibly imminent trade talks between Portland, the Knicks and the Clippers. The Oregonian's Jason Quick responded with a report that there is no validity to the rumor, but we're still curious here at the Babble (and further, it's been a nearly two weeks since we wrote about the Blazers).
As enticing and productive a player as Lee is, making an in-season move for him hardly seems to make sense for a team in the Blazers' situation.
Lee is no doubt an attractive target. He is a grinder, banging the boards hard and always scrapping for loose balls. He has a nose for the basketball and doesn't take plays off on the glass. At the offensive end, Lee understands his physical capabilities and doesn't try to do to much. But he constantly seems to be in the right place to put back a miss or grab the ball off a cut to finish a dunk. He has become increasingly accurate on short jumpers of eight to ten feet, and he otherwise limits his shots to even higher percentage looks. That's a big part of his career 57.1 shooting percentage. Starting regularly for the first time in his career, Lee has produced in Mike D'Antoni's uptempo system, averaging 14.8 points and 11 rebounds per game while continuing to shoot a shade better than 57 percent from the field.
The issue is that Lee isn't going to come cheap this off-season. The Knicks have by all accounts been quite happy with him during his three and a half seasons in town. It stands to reason that a desire to avoid handing out long-term deals before 2010 is the primary factor in any attempt to move him on the team's end. While he is a great back-up, Lee has been a good starter in New York and has the ability to continue to be solid elsewhere, though any pace change is likely to deflate his statistical totals a bit. No matter where teams around the league believe he will fit in their rotations, Lee will demand starter money this off-season.
The obvious concern with that for the Blazers is that they already have a young starting power forward, one whom they expect to be entrenched at the position for years to come. Though not as tough or as much of a bruiser, LaMarcus Aldridge is taller, longer, quicker and younger than David Lee. Though he is markedly less efficient from the field, Aldridge has a considerably more expansive offensive repertoire, which includes a mid-range jumper and a back-to-the-basket game, neither of which is possessed by Lee. Aldridge has a much higher ceiling as far as being a scorer is concerned.
Though he isn't the beast that Lee is on the boards, LMA grabs nearly seven boards per game and comes off a sophomore season in which he pulled down 7.6 per outing. Aldridge is also a superior defender to Lee, who does a poor job on the interior. The numbers against Lee are somewhat inflated because of the Knicks' porous team defense and the fact that Lee has been used more as a badly undersized center than at his natural power forward spot this season, but they are worrisome nonetheless: 60.1 percent effective shooting for opposing power forwards and 53.8 eFG for centers. Lee doesn't do a great job getting position on the inside, and he doesn't have the quickness or length to make up for that. Opposing power forwards are shooting 52.4 percent eFG against Aldridge, but his length and ability to help underneath makes him more of a defensive presence.
The point here isn't so much to levy a judgment on the comparative worths of David Lee and LaMarcus Aldridge but to indicate that the Blazers likely don't have room for both players. Lee is most likely going to cost too much this summer to have around as a reserve power forward, especially if Aldridge proves once and for all that he is the franchise guy many expected him to be when the Blazers acquired him on draft night 2006 (the night he was picked second overall by Chicago).
All that in mind, it seems silly for the Blazers to move anyone of any value to them for a player who could well be a rental. David Lee is a nice player but by no means an acquisition that turns these Blazers into championship material this year, and the Blazers are still figuring out just how much reserve point guards Sergio Rodriguez and Jerryd Bayless are worth to them (both names have come up in the Lee rumor mill).
Further, even if one were to judge Lee the better power forward if the two were in a vacuum (thus making the idea of acquiring him and then using Aldridge as a trade asset more realistic), Aldridge seems the better fit for the Portland roster going forward. Greg Oden is going to be a low block player, and LMA (who still has plenty of room to grow as a player) seems most comfortable spreading the floor from the high post. When both youngsters get closer to maximizing their potential, they should be a dangerous duo, and their length could be scary defensively. Having Lee alongside Oden would leave the Blazers with a second frontcourt player working nearly exclusively in the low post. Lee doesn't even have a strong enough back-to-the-basket game to make up for the likelihood of his unnecessarily clogging up the middle at the offensive end for the Blazers.
Between monetary issues, the fact that the Blazers probably aren't giving up on their current power forward anytime soon and the issue of fits for the Portland roster in years to come, there seems to be little sense in Portland parting with any of its current assets to get a restricted free agent-to-be in David Lee. Here's guessing it doesn't happen.
***
Attendance note: Long as we're talking about the Blazers and a member of the Knicks, seems fitting to note (and yes, the timing of the piece is coincidental) that I'll be at MSG for Wizards-Knicks tomorrow and IZOD for Blazers-Nets on Thursday. Any other CB members going to either, feel free to come on by and say hello!
0 recs |
25 comments
|
Comments
Agreed
There was some similar talk about this on Yahoo’s Ball Don’t Lie blog. I love Lee as a player -heart, soul, determination, tenacity – but I definitely agree with you, the blazers don’t need him, he’s better suited for a team looking for that edge. The Blazers have so much depth you wonder why they’d consider adding more bench type guys and instead trading some of of them for a true stud. Their entire roster is worthy of a spot on just about any nba team. Excellent rebuilding job, and kudos to Nate McMillain.
by Slick on Jan 13, 2009 2:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I suppose NY is trying to package Marbury and Lee for Steve Francis, Outlaw and one other goodie. I think that’s a fair trade.
by Brickowski on Jan 13, 2009 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Portland can't deal Francis
I don’t think. Francis is on the roster in Memphis, so even though Portland is still on the books for some of Steve’s salary, I don’t think that is a tradable entity.
Steve, how do you know that Portland is still figuring out how valuable Sergio or Jerryd is to their team? Seems to me like they don’t need both.
by mvnclipper on Jan 13, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is sorta the point (about Bayless and Sergio)
We don’t know which one is most valuable to us. In the short term it is better just to hold ‘em. We aren’t gonna get anything awesome for them now and either of them might turn out to be “good.”
We could need both if we traded Blake in a few years. I still think you are right long term that we don’t want to keep both.
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Jan 13, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lee does give great hip checks defensively. Ask Rajon……And Tommy.
by Finkelskyhook on Jan 13, 2009 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Can we start some
Lee to Boston rumors?
OT: Why do you have to log in to post here if you are already logged into the forums? Very annoying.
by Bankshot on Jan 13, 2009 3:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lee is willing to take a reduced salary to win a championship, but a trade won't cover that
With Lee, Garnett can stay of the opposing PF and play more help defense just like he does with Perk. Two Perks are better than one. Lee would also help the Celtics rebounding a bunch. But to get Lee (& maybe to help facilitate a settlement with Marbury > Marbury signs with Boston) what can Boston do? Promise to suck in 2011+?
".. is gumby an alien?" - Sophia
by staylost on Jan 13, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They've still got LaFrentz though
That’s another guy to match salaries.
by Brickowski on Jan 13, 2009 4:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Off Topic
The news about Perkins is really distressing. The Cs need a different starting center.
by The Real Large James 2 on Jan 13, 2009 6:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The problem with David Lee is that he is grossly underpaid. He will want a big payday in June of 2010, which is a major issue for teams hoping to land LeBron, Bosh and all of the other “big” free agents at that time.
So Lee is most attractive to teams like Portland that need one more piece to get over the top. Cleveland is another potential suitor, and that’s very bad news for the Celtics.
by Brickowski on Jan 13, 2009 6:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If by over the top you mean winning the championship
the Blazers need something more than David Lee. They need experience.
The Celtics on the other hand…
".. is gumby an alien?"
by staylost on Jan 13, 2009 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would portland do this?
Portland has talented forwards with more skill than David Lee, this does not make sense. I could see maybe David going to the Thunder, or even the Mavs, but not the Blazzers.
by Scott_T_CT on Jan 13, 2009 7:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
IMHO Lee is a good fit for any team in the NBA. He’s just a great young player who hustles on every play. He’s a taller Leon Powe with skills.
by Brickowski on Jan 13, 2009 8:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Just Portland fishing for a sweet deal, seeing if NYC undervalue their own talent.
I doubt the Blazers would be willing to part with the type of pieces NY would ask for. They’re just fishing.
by Who on Jan 13, 2009 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
aldridge is a potential all star and complements oden. they don’t need lee, who as brick says, is a better powe, and the knicks deserve to rot if they want to dump lee. pay him the $- he is a mini dave cowens. he is not near as good as dave was but has all of his attributes.
by nazzbo on Jan 13, 2009 10:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
No, IMHO it’s the Knicks fishing for a sweet deal. Portland is in deep financial do do after the Darius Miles fiasco, and needs to shed salary. I’m sure that the Knicks asked for alot.
by Brickowski on Jan 13, 2009 11:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
How so?
- David Lee is averaging 15ppg, 11rpg and is doing so on 57% shooting. He doesn’t need the ball to be effective.
- He’s a young player just coming off his rookie contract and has his best years ahead of him.
- There’s only one player (Dwight Howard) in the league that can match those numbers.
- There’s only 7 players (including Lee) who can claim to average 12ppg/10rpg/50% from the field.
David Lee is a very good player and has excellent trade value.
Portland cannot put a trade package on the table that is good enough to get this deal done without (1) giving up one of their three best players (2) taking back bad salaries. Portland are not willing to do that …. they’re fishing.
Portland do this with just about every young player in the league, that’s why they’re involved in so many rumours that never come to fruition. They go fishing and see if they can steal talent away on the cheap.
by Who on Jan 13, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
D'Antoni numbers
Not that I disagree with your general points, but many people could put up those numbers if they were playing in D’Antoni’s world.
I agree that he is a great player to have as long as he is a role player because he hustles and he is a solid player plus he’s young.
As a fan, I hope Portland is looking for talent on the cheap all of the time (I’m sure Ainge does too), but I think the reason they are involved in so many trade rumors is the glut of talent through something like their top twelve players (I’m taking out Shavalik, Diogu, and Frye from that list). There are so many trades they could do and they have so many players other teams want.
Really though, I agree with the OP. Lee is not, and has not been, on the Blazers hit list. He would be an extremely expensive backup PF. Don’t get me wrong. We’d love to have him as that, but who could afford it?
".. is gumby an alien?"
by staylost on Jan 14, 2009 1:43 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed on all counts
good stuff, staylost.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 14, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree on Lee’s numbers. He’s had comparable numbers for two years prior to D’Antoni joining the team, Lee is just playing 4 to 5 minutes more this season than he did in those years. Anyway, the downgraded numbers to 12/10/50% (for comparison’s sake) provide more than enough cover for that, and clearly he’s doing something which few other players can do.
I have no problem with Portland fishing after young players, they should feel free to do so. My point wasn’t that the Blazers were wrong for that, just that this is not a real rumour. This is simply a probing phone call from Pritchard and that he has no intention of putting together the type of trade package he’d need to in order to get Lee. It’s not a rumour that should be taken seriously.
I also agree that every team (including Danny Ainge) does this to varying degrees, but my impression (and I could be flatly incorrect about this) is that Pritchard does this more than anyone else. Pritchard seems to be one of the most active GM’s in the league and keeps a longer shortlist of players he’s interested in than anyone else. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression and why I said this usual behaviour from Portland.
Portland’s depth allows them to get in on a lot of trades, but not a player of Lee’s proven caliber. The quality on their bench isn’t that good and the prospects there (like Bayless) haven’t proven enough as NBA players. Lee is too valuable a piece.
by Who on Jan 14, 2009 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right that Lee is something special
And unlike many young talents we are all interested in, he has proved he can do it.
On the other hand, the way New York is organizing their team right now leads me to believe that nearly nothing matters to them if they can create 2010 cap space. IF the blazers could help them with that I’m sure they could get Lee for the rest of the year regardless of the talent exchanged.
You may be correct about Pritchard, I really don’t have the perspective to know that. He does seem like a hard worker. Interesting point is we are largely just copying the Spurs in the way we do team management. If only we could get some of their defense. I guess that only comes from #1 pick big men that the Celtics missed out on. Wait a minute…
".. is gumby an alien?"
by staylost on Jan 14, 2009 2:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what do you think
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=236720183832772&teams=181822&te=&cash=
would ny hate getting perk and using tony on wing? and getting rid of james contract? do we not get better adding lee even if we drop ta and perk? ok so kg will hate having to go into the post more but we get more offense and rebounding. lee is really good and better than perk. i might be for it
by wahz on Jan 14, 2009 12:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think you need to keep Perk to successfully add Lee.
Lee would be able to spell KG or an injured Perk pretty well, and would be a player for the Celtics longterm future like Rondo.
Plus Perks contract doesn’t end in 2010 (I think I’m reading it correctly). That seems to be all that matters to New York.
If you have cash try to sign him when his contract expires. If he cares more about rings than ka-chings you might have a chance.
".. is gumby an alien?"
by staylost on Jan 14, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On another note since we’re talking about David Lee ….
What I’d like to see Donnie Walsh do is to use Lee to get rid of Curry and try to find another way to get rid of Jeffries (future draft picks like this upcoming 2009 pick perhaps).
Then go into 2010 free agency with no long term contracts and only two players of note – Danillo Gallinari and Wilson Chandler. and they can fill three different positions for D’Antoni so they’d give fantastic flexibility in targeting top tier free agents.
That may be possible, maybe not, but it’s what I’d like to see Walsh try to do. It would put them in an incredible position in 2010 if he could pull it off.
by Who on Jan 14, 2009 2:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lee: Role Player on a good team
I like Lee alot. He’s one of the few Knicks that plays both ends of the floor. As a result, rebounding and fg% are slightly inflated. He grabs a fair amount of his boards on the offensive end and scores on put-backs.
Lee doesn’t make much sense for Portland. As most people pointed out, they need vets, not more young players.
Lee will get a contract over and above his skill level. That’s the one benefit on a being a decent player on a lousy team.
by LuckyNumber07 on Jan 14, 2009 10:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 






















