Comments on: Could Pistons trade Richard Hamilton to Lakers for Ron Artest and Luke Walton?

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:02:32 +0000

Mike, trading Prince for Butler and Stevenson wouldn’t save the Pistons any money. A Prince-for-Butler trade, if made today, would save Detroit $220,913. Every day the trade doesn’t happen, that amount decreases. No matter when the trade is made, it would generate no additional cap room. Do you really want the Pistons to trade a useful player for someone who can’t play just so Karen Davidson can save $220,913?

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:49:25 +0000

Mike, not a chance the Lakers go for that.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 04:22:39 +0000

Why not trade Prince and rebuild. He is 30 yrs old already. The Mavs would offer Butler’s expiring deal and Stevenson(expiring)…this saves the Pistons money and considering that the team is selling…it might be good for them.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 04:18:09 +0000

Trade Odom and Blake for Hamilton…that makes more sense for both teams.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:28:19 +0000

I disagree entirely. I respect your opinion, but Rip would thrive on that team. He wouldn’t be required to be the top scorer/go to guy every time up and down the court. He would have a REAL PG to feed him the ball. He would have solid Big’s down low to assist with Defense, and would be able to get back to his old self right away.

Deshawn Stevenson/Jason Terry are their current options…. Of course RIp makes them better! Terry is NOT a starter, and Rip is clearly a better option then Stevenson.. Plus, he has Playoff experience, is a team player, hustles on offense/defense – and undoubtedly will play his heart out for a team that actually cares about him…

YES he’s getting alot of money, but were talking about a Dallas team who is paying 10 million to Jason Terry, and 8 million to Shawn Marion… I don’t think Cuban of all people would be hurting too bad if he took on Rip’s contract.. They are build to win now, and I think this gives them a much better shot at doing so then their current roster will permit.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:18:51 +0000

I have to agree with Laser here, for sure. Not only is Stuck taking more shots, we’ve constantly had too many players rotating in and out of games, Rip hasn’t been able to develop the rhythm that he was able to in the past. It’s not just Rip’s numbers either, we see the same thing with Ben Gordon, Charlie V, all of their numbers have been on the decline.

This has alot to do with not JUST Stuck, but the way the offensive game plan has been executed the last couple years as well.

Rip has been fairly consistent his entire career, and I just don’t believe his age is the reason for his decline. If he were 36, then maybe i’d agree. But i really don’t think it’s the case here.

Look back at the archives, months ago i was pleading to start T-Mac at the PG, or at least if nothing else allow him to facilitate at the SF position, allowing BG and RIP on the floor at the same time. We’ve elevated T-Mac to the starting PG spot, but have not given RIP a chance to in this lineup. I just don’t think its a smart coaching decision. I understand, we have too many players to get them all on the court, but i’d at least like to think they ONE GUY that has been our best player for 8 years, would at least get a shot in the “New lineup” before being jettisoned from the rotation. Give RIP 5 games with T-Mac at starting PG, if his numbers don’t improve, then i’m all for conceding his decline.

I’m just not willing to do so until I see what Rip can do with a facilitator again.

By: Laser

Laser — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 03:02:37 +0000

here’s a guess, feldman: different levels of opportunity. he was still top dog when iverson was here. then gordon was a bit more of a threat to his shots/minutes since he was signed long-term. stuckey’s been steadily “emerging,” and since we all know he’s a shooting guard, that means he’s been dominating the ball more and more. then this season we suddenly adopted an offense based entirely on running isolation plays. that certainly explains this season’s decline. plus increasing amounts of frustration.

By: Laser

Laser — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:56:14 +0000

eh. maybe it’s a reflection of getting more and more frustrated and restless with a bad team, bad system (especially for him), i dunno. but nothing about this team has been acceptable lately. a player’s prime is supposed to be 27-32 or something like that. guy’s not old. he’s just not a 1-on-1 player. period.

By: Laser

Laser — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:52:25 +0000

it’s not farfetched. the issue is that i’m not going to just assume it without seeing him in a sensible system. that’s all. he may well have declined, but i’m not ready to write the guy off or bury him just yet. everyone’s been awful for us since the iverson trade. everyone.

i don’t want to point the finger at one player, not even stuckey. but i think stuckey’s a better person to point the finger at.

rip’s had flashes of absolute brilliance. a few of them this season. the kinds of flashes that let you know he’s still “got it,” even if he hasn’t been rolling lately. the 35 point explosion (alongside t-mac) comes to mind. and that game where he dominated overtime (the one time i remember them consistently running plays for him all season). i’ll believe he’s got nothing left when i see him play a stretch of games starting alongside t-mac, with just one SG coming off the bench behind him, playing starters’ minutes.

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:10:42 +0000

Stephen, any problems started because Artest said McGrady needed to defend better. The Pistons need someone who will demand accountability on defense. That will help them in the long run.