↓ Login/Logout ↓
↓ Roster ↓
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

3-on-3: Pistons measure up with NBA’s best?

Modeled after ESPN’s 5-on-5, three of us will answer three questions about a Pistons-related topic. Please add your responses in the comments.

1. Coming off three ugly losses, the idea of the Pistons pushing Portland and taking out Indiana seemed rather preposterous. So, who deserves the most credit?

Dan Feldman: Josh Smith. Regardless of how many bad shots he takes (basically none against Portland and several against Indiana), Smith getting to into the paint regularly is huge for the Pistons. He’s so efficient on those short looks, and they come with everything settled, so make or miss, they allow the defense a better chance to set. When he gets inside, he also offensively rebounds better.

Patrick Hayes: Smith. His Pistons tenure consisted mostly of performances that were either forgettable or unforgettable for the wrong reasons prior to the Portland and Indiana games. With some of the more vocal fans ridiculously comparing Smith’s signing to much inferior free agent busts Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva, Smith finally showed off the skillset that makes him one of the league’s most versatile players — he defended well, he scored around the basket, he passed … basically, he looked like the type of position-less force who could succeed no matter what his spot in the lineup is called.

Brady Fredericksen: Maurice Cheeks. There are a lot of variables that go into the Pistons being highly-competitive against two of the league’s best teams after being highly-flatulent against some of the most mediocre. From tweaking the offense to make Smith more comfortable to finding a pretty sturdy rotation, Cheeks has slowly but surely gotten this team playing consistently — for better or worse. Obviously the team is still far from a finished product, but compared to how discombobulated they were just a month ago, it’s refreshing. They’re slowly that is slowly but surely discovering what works and what does not on both sides of the ball.

2. Smith has found his groove and has been a big part of the Pistons’ success against Indiana and Portland. How sustainable is his current level play?

Dan Feldman: I know I’m setting myself up for disappointment, but I think it’s pretty sustainable. Smith, when staying on the perimeter too often, had been falling out of favor in the Pistons’ offense. When he goes inside more, he’s the focal point. We know Smith loves his jumpers — his way of proving his doubters wrong by repeatedly proving them right — but I think he’d improve his shot selection in exchange for a bigger role. There’s no guarantee Smith will stick with this, but I think he’s genuinely interested in doing things the right way with his new team. The bigger question is how long Smith can remain committed to playing smart. There’s a difference between wanting to do something and having the focus to do something.

Patrick Hayes: I’m cautiously optimistic. Fans have understandably been hard on Smith — he’s played poorly, he’s the highest profile (and most expensive) free agent signing in Pistons history and the team hasn’t performed as well as expected. Those occurrences will not make things easy on Smith. But it’s also important to remember, he’s played his entire career in a different city, in a much different role and with a surprisingly small amount of core turnover on those Atlanta teams. He’s still getting adjusted to a new team, a new city and he’s playing with a much less veteran group surrounding him. I think Smith’s game will always be frustrating to some extent, but he’s also a much better player than he’s shown overall so far, and I don’t think it’s a leap to think he continues to get better as his comfort level rises.

Brady Fredericksen: Not likely, but that’s not a bad thing. The chances Smith continues to semi-efficiently score 30+ points a night are about as slim as an NBA team ever offering me a 10-day contract. But, there are still plenty of positives that are sustainable from Smith’s current streak of success. His shot selection — though it’s seemingly included him taking a million shots — has been good. He’s getting the ball close to the basket and has been able to post up more than he has all season. A lot of his interior-shooting struggles are based on the fact that he has to use a dribble drive to get to the rim. That’s not his game, but posting up, being able to use the baseline to get open and being able to roll as a screener is. The more creative ways the Pistons get him the ball, the fewer 3-pointers he’ll see him shoot; I think.

3. The Pistons have won 6 of 10. Is their recent play what we should expect the rest of the season, or does this team need to evolve further?

Dan Feldman: Both. The Pistons look more cohesive than they did early in the season, which was to be expected with so many new faces and odd fits. I expect them to have a winning record from here out, but there’s still some confusion, especially defensively. The Pistons should improve in-season more than most teams.

Patrick Hayes: There might only be 12ish teams in the entire league that actually prefer to win games this season. The Pistons are definitely among that group, and with the Eastern Conference even tankier than expected, I think it’s a good bet that the Pistons not only make the playoffs, but have a chance to win a round. The fact that the Pistons are trying really hard to win separates them from a significant portion of the league. Then, on top of that, injury issues for Chicago, age issues for Brooklyn, LOL issues for the Knicks and things not coming together as quickly as hoped for up and coming teams like Cleveland and Washington all but assure the Pistons are a top six team in the East, flaws and all. I’m not sure how much good a playoff run by default does the Pistons in the longrun, but it probably does Joe Dumars a lot of good in the shortrun.

Brady Fredericksen: There’s more to come. The thing about this team is that it’s got a ceiling. They can keep improving and potentially slip into the No. 4 or 5 seed in the East, sure, but there’s always going to be limitations. Some teams are going to be superb matchups, but some are going to be horrific ones. As long as the Pistons can limit the damage done to them by teams who can really shoot while still beating the hell out of smaller teams, they should be in good shape as they continue to develop as a group.


  • Dec 18, 201310:13 am
    by MIKEYDE248


    I really hope that Smith is smart enought to realize that if he plays the style he did in the last two game, the Pistons can compete with anyone.  I’m not being very optimistic about it though.  As we saw in the game in Indiana, as the game went on, he get’s too tempted to shoot the long ball, when the other teams give it to him.

    • Dec 18, 20134:41 pm
      by frankie d


      Smith has been in the league for a long time.  He is who he is.
      He spent an entire season playing smart.  Then he returned to his old ways the next season.  Obviously, he wants to and likes playing a certain way.
      Expecting anything else is unrealistic, imho.

  • Dec 18, 201310:15 am
    by apa8ren9


    There is a really weird vibe in regards to the Pistons making the playoffs this year.  For the life of me I cannot understand why its a bad thing that they make it and either lose in the first round or heaven forbid win a round?  If the east is so bad and you are trying to win shouldnt you advance further than others that are tanking? Last I checked we are trying to obtain a level that Miami and Indiana have now, what is the downside to potentially playing them in the playoffs? If they sweep us so what? Next time get better so you dont get your ass kicked right?  But if you never get your ass kicked how do you learn how to fight?

    • Dec 18, 201311:34 am
      by MIKEYDE248


      I think it all goes back to the losers mentality that David Stern has brought about in the NBA, that you have to be really bad to get better.  Right now there are only about 6 teams that probably have a chance to win the championship this year and maybe another 8 teams that have a chance at maybe winning a playoff game or two.  All the other teams are fighting to win the lottery.  That’s over half the NBA teams that their only purpose is to tank right now.
      Even as bad as the Pistons have been in the last couple years, there are still always 8 or more teams that are worse.  Stern’s successor should be looking at the NFL at how almost every year there are teams that move up or down, but most don’t stay down for very long.  In the NBA you have teams like Charlotte that just keep getting top draft picks, but never get any better.

    • Dec 18, 201312:04 pm
      by oats


      @ apa8ren9. The league has long had fringe playoff teams that just stagnate. They don’t tear things down because they are in the playoffs, but they are drafting late enough that it’s tough for them to add talent. They also tend to end up pretty cap strapped. As a result they either are forced to blow it up in order to give themselves a chance to be a legitimate contender. The Bucks are a solid example of a team that has finally decided to blow it up. The Hawks meanwhile are a team that has both blown it up and not really improved their odds much because they didn’t both getting bad. Seriously, they were an early playoff exit that was not really a contender with Joe Johnson and Josh Smith, now they look to be an early playoff exit with neither of them.
      I don’t know if that is all of it, but I feel like a significant portion of what you are talking about stems from that. It’s been dubbed the mediocrity treadmill because teams do a lot of work to not actually go anywhere. I get the fear, I’m just not convinced that is where the team is headed. Monroe is still young enough that it is unlikely that he has actually peaked, even if his ceiling isn’t all that high. Drummond’s ceiling is the best center in basketball and a top 5 player in the league, and that alone should be enough to keep Detroit from limited to just running in place. I think KCP’s ceiling is a slightly above average starter, but that is still a lot of room for growth from where he currently is. Jennings still has room to improve a bit too. Mitchell could grow into a really solid 3rd big if things shape up well. This team is also still learning how to make things work, so even without individual improvement they have room to grow. On top of all that they will have about $10 million in cap space this summer without making any moves. Oh, and they have some trade pieces too.

      • Dec 18, 20132:35 pm
        by Tim Thielke


        No matter your strategy, you’re not usually going to field a championship or even a top tier contending team. You could do a lot worse than being the Hawks of the past several years, who were perpetually a second round team and one big opportunity away from true contending (not very different than the Pistons before the Sheed trade). That big opportunity never came along, but I’d say it was at least as likely to happen for them as for a team following a different strategy.

        • Dec 18, 20135:12 pm
          by oats


          Yeah, that’s a fair point. I probably came off as too harsh about the Hawks. I was using them because a lot of arguments for the existence of the mediocrity treadmill bring them up. I actually still like what they are doing. There’s enough there that a player could convince himself that they could win in Atlanta, and Atlanta is also a good place for an NBA player to live. I wouldn’t be that shocked if a good player decided they wanted to go play with Horford, Teague, Millsap, and Korver. Those are some solid pieces, and they added some intriguing young guys to help facilitate a trade.

          • Dec 19, 201310:28 am
            by Huddy

            I think its worth noting that when the top tier teams, like Miami, have players who are elite in the NBA at their positions in 3 different positions there is only so much that any team can do to try and be on par with them (because of salary cap and the finite amount of talent that exists).  Regardless of what strategy is used it takes pretty special circumstances to reach that level.  This is evident in Miami with how pay cuts and existing relationships between players and such even make it possible to put that kind of team together.  Putting together a solid group like the Hawks have in the past is kind of the best one can realistically hope for in many cases.  To move past the second round you might need a little help like a late trade or signing or even something that can’t be counted on like injury trouble to other teams.  I don’t mean that to harp on the Hawks point Oats, I just think there are too many people who feel like if their team isn’t adding the next Lebron they are a failure (again not that you are one of them).

    • Dec 18, 20131:12 pm
      by ChrisCMU


      Why would winning now (even if not a true contender) be bad?  They owe Charlotte their first round draft pick anyway.  So, by winning you give yourself a better shot at FA’s (more attractive destination), you give your core playoff experience (something they are all lacking), and you give Charlotte a worse pick (which is huge since they are in your conference fighting you for playoff spots in the future).  It helps you in every way possible.

      • Dec 18, 20131:21 pm
        by oats


        To be fair, most people that don’t like the idea of Detroit making the playoffs also want them to really tank. If the Pistons have a top 8 pick they would keep it this year, and then next year they could try to make the playoffs and send Charlotte a lower pick in a weaker draft than this one.

        • Dec 18, 20132:23 pm
          by apa8ren9


          @oats the tanking and the draft pick logic is what really drives me crazy.  Its so flawed.  Especially from a fan’s perspective.  I understand that teams have different agenda’s and some of our Piston bretheren dont always realize that all teams are trying to win.  Teams say they are but they really arent trying to win.  The Pistons are actually trying to win. We’ve been duped with these drafts. 
          Supposedly this is the greatest draft in the history of mankind coming up.  It really isnt.  The draft has been thin ever since they let you go straight to the pro’s (95-96 ish in my estimation).   Back in the 80′s if you had a top ten pick, more likely than not that pick would wind up being a reliable starter/fringe allstar. The top 2-3 guys were always regarded as franchise players cause they had skills to back it up. Thats not the case these days as you draft for potential rather than actual skill unless a guy just is off the charts like a durant, lebron or griffin.  But you are talking about 1-2 guys every couple of years. You cant plan your billion dollar business around that type of luck.  This draft is a very nice draft, but the fruit of this will be 4 years down the line. 
          Are the Pistons in a position to delay winning that long? People are going crazy now and we arguably have picked the best player in 2 of the last 4 drafts.  What OKC did was the exception and not the norm.   And they lost Harden because of the salary cap.   It just goes to show you how difficult it is to win a championship.  You cant tank your way to being a good team.  You can tank your way to larger ticket sales, you can tank your way to a marketable star thats good for business. You cant tank your way to a championship.

          • Dec 18, 20134:56 pm
            by oats

            Ask yourself this, are the Pistons going to actually contend before Drummond hits whatever peak he eventually gets to? I feel pretty comfortable saying that they won’t unless they trade him for a top 10 player in the league. He’s 20 so we’re about 3-5 years from him getting to his peak. That fact is the basis for any pro-tanking mindset. The goal is to build a team that will be contending when Drummond gets to his peak, and as a result it makes sense to gather up young assets that will be good players when Drummond gets there. I actually agree with this part of the logic. I feel like I should mention that I think the Pistons are past the point where tanking makes sense. Once Smith signed they had too much talent to effectively tank and now they should try to build differently. They have some internal room for improvement, cap space, and the pieces to make a trade. That’s how they have to go about it from here on out. That said, I was very much pro tanking the last few years when it was obvious they were going to be bad no matter what they did. To me that is when you should want the team to tank, when being good isn’t actually an option. Now it is, and I want them to be good.
            So, how exactly are drafts now that much weaker? Talent level is not dependent on experience, and talent level is what determines the overall strength of the draft. At most it might effect the decision making, but I’m not buying that argument either. It’s always been a crap shoot. I know I’m cherry picking with this, but it still makes the point. Let’s go over drafts every 5 years, starting with the ’83 draft. If you know your draft history you will see where I’m going with this coming, but too bad. I’ll start with the top 5 picks in each draft.
            1983: 1) Ralph Sampson, 2) Steve Stipanovich, 3) Rodney McCray, 4) Byron Scott, 5)Sidney Green. Clyde Drexler went 13th by the way. The top pick was great, the next 4 a little less so. Picks 2 and 3 were pretty awful.
            1988: 1) Danny Manning, 2) Rik Smits, 3)Charles Smith, 4) Chris Morris, 5) Mitch Richmond. They did better this year. Smith got hurt but was really good his first 3 years, and even Morris was a solid player.
            1993: 1) Chris Webber, 2) Shawn Bradley, 3) Penny Hardaway, 4) Jamaal Mashburn, 5) Isaiah Rider. That’s not too bad, even if Bradley is best known as the guy getting dunked on in posters.
            1998: 1) Michael Olowokandi, 2) Mike Bibby, 3) Raef LaFrenz, 4) Antawn Jamison, 5) Vince Carter. That wouldn’t look so bad if those guys were in reverse order. Please note that these are all college students. Olowokandi and LaFrenz were seniors, Jamison and Carter were juniors, and Bibby was a sophomore. The only freshman in the top 10 was Larry Hughes, a really solid pick at 8. No high school players went in the top 20. The top one was Al Harrington at 25, followed by Rashard Lewis at 32. Both of those were great picks by the way.
            2003: 1) LeBron, 2) Darko, 3) Anthony, 4) Wade, 5) Bosh. Like I said, I’m cherry picking, and this draft is why I chose these years. Still, we heard an awful lot about how loaded that draft was, and man was it loaded. With the exception of the Darko, this draft was pretty much spot on. Wade was a Junior, Bosh and Anthony were Freshman, and James was a high school player. That is pretty close to the environment that teams are in now, except they’ve learned their lesson and foreigners that don’t play don’t beat out guys that own the college game now a days. This draft is also thought to be very strong despite the lack of foreign talent in it, so that’s not that relevant to the evaluation of this draft anyways.
            2008: 1) Rose, 2) Beasley, 3) Mayo, 4) Westbrook, 5) Love. Ok, not as spot on as ’03, but totally in line with the years prior to the draft changing so much. Beasley was a bust, and Mayo about half of one. I’d take Mayo over the 2 guys drafted after Sampson though.
            That was cherry picking, but I could do it with any set of years pretty much. ’84 featured Bowie before Jordan and Perkins before Barkley. Stockton went 16th in that draft by the way. ’85 they nailed Ewing, but Wayman Tisdale and Benjamin Benoit were the next 2 picks. Chris Mullin went 7th, Karl Malone 13th, and Joe Dumars 18th. ’86 was really bad too. Brad Dougherty was a solid top pick, and the second pick was Len Bias so that’s kind of understandable. That was followed by Chris Washburn at 3, followed by a long list of players before getting to the best player in the draft at 27, one Dennis Rodman. Every era has some drafts that were loaded with talent and teams nailing decisions, and they all have drafts that were either really weak or teams just botched the decisions.
            Teams do have less of a sample size for evaluating some guys than they used to. They also have more information from that limited sample. We have more access to game film and stats than ever before, and the stats do a better job explaining what is happening in games than they used to. Scouting departments are way bigger than they were back in the day, and NBA teams often have access to information about these guys dating back to junior high. The process is different, but I see little evidence that teams have gotten worse at player evaluations.
            Also, have you watched many of these guys this year? This draft is loaded. There are a lot of talented players. Some of them will bust and someone no one saw coming will be good, but there is a lot of talent in this draft.
            By the way, the Thunder didn’t lose Harden because of the salary cap, they lost him to a combination of cheapness and bad decision making. They refused to just go into the luxury tax to keep the team together. That might not be a mistake in and of itself, but there were other errors. They backed Westbrook, Durant, Ibaka, and Perkins at the cost of Harden. Perkins could have been amnestied, or they could have moved Westbrook or Ibaka instead of Harden. They decided they were concerned enough with Howard and Bynum that they felt they needed the extra size of the Perkins and Ibaka pairing. They also decided to go with Westbrook and Ibaka since they both agreed to deals that were less than a max deal, but Harden wouldn’t do that. They maxed out Durant and gave Westbrook the 5 year deal for slightly less than the max. Harden felt that since he couldn’t get the extra year he should be getting a max salary, which to him would say they were on even footing. The Thunder didn’t like that idea and moved him. It’s a combination of stupidity, cheapness, and being stubborn that broke up that team.
            Last but not least, you can tank to a championship. The Spurs had a few injuries and then tanked their way to Tim Duncan. That seems to have worked out. The Celtics tanked and failed to get a top pick, so instead they traded the pick that became Jeff Green for Ray Allen. Thanks to now having Ray Allen they were deemed talented enough for KG to agree to go there. It’s unconventional, but they definitely tanked to a title. If you don’t think that all of the Heat’s success isn’t at lest partially tied to tanking enough to get Wade, then I don’t know what to tell you because it definitely is. It is totally possible to tank your way to a championship. What isn’t possible is guaranteeing it. No one thinks that you can guarantee it using any method of building a team though.

          • Dec 18, 20135:28 pm
            by apa8ren9

            I hear you oats, I probably didnt clarify my points well enough and I do understand where you are coming from and why you would think that way.  Your point about guaranteeing the championship is probably what I was trying to convey in my round about analysis.   Fans really think that is the guaranteed/only way to do it.   I didnt think  the Pistons should have ever  tanked at any time because I really believed that Dumars would right the ship.   And that is where the schism with fans occur.  I believed he could do it and there were extenuating circumstances that prevented it the last few years along with mistakes, while others believed that he was incompetent. 
            I was kinda going overboard with they hype over this year’s draft.  I think there is talent.  I just dont think its better overall than several of the drafts you mentioned as examples and there are not multiple Franchise Players. (a player whose presence is good enough to get you to the playoffs year in year out essentially by themselves) 
            We will have to disagree on the tanking to the championship because while unconventional as you call it, its not a strategy you actively implement to win a championship.  I believe those examples were exceptions not the rules.  3 championships out of 60 plus years I dont believe makes it so.  You can become a good team, sell tickets and have a successful market, yes.  Championship NO. IMO.  

          • Dec 18, 20136:29 pm
            by oats

            Well, the Heat have 3 off Wade’s back (and yes, I’m counting these last 2. LeBron doesn’t go to Miami if Wade isn’t recruiting him there), the Celtics got one with KG, and Duncan got 3. That’s 7 in the last 15 years. In that time period the exceptions are the Pistons, the Mavs who kind of tanked for Dirk but I won’t count them, and 6 for the Lakers. Detroit is not the Lakers and they don’t have guys lining up to play for them. The tally is tanking 7, Lakers 6, everyone else 2. Don’t get me wrong, most teams that tank don’t ever get there, but I’d say that with the current system the odds of getting there without tanking or being the Lakers is pretty slim.
            That’s why I’m in favor of tanking if the team is going to stink anyways. It’s not like the Pistons were good the last few years, might as well bottom out and get a top talent. The NBA draft shows that the higher the pick, the higher the chances of getting a good player is. They aren’t good at differentiating between similar talents, but they generally do a good job of assigning guys into tiers. The 4th pick might be better than the second pick, but picks 2-4 are way more likely to produce a star than 10-12. Thankfully the Pistons were able to benefit from one of the exceptions by getting Drummond. I actually was rooting for them to lose so they could get Drummond, and I’m still confused by how he slid to 9. They’ve got their centerpiece, so hopefully they won’t have to tank. Still, it’s not like the blue print is that different from a tanking strategy. Get bad enough to get a blue chip player and get cap space to try to do something in free agency or trades. Detroit is just one of the few teams lucky enough to get that kind of player without having to really bottom out first.
            I also think this draft has a chance to go down as one of the all time great drafts. I actually referenced a few of the others. ’03 is up there. ’84 and ’85 had 4 Hall of Famers. I’m not projecting 4 Hall of Famers, but this draft could be special. There are 10 guys that look like potential All Stars. They obviously won’t all make it, but all 10 of them could be a top 5 pick in most drafts including all of the ones I mentioned other than ’03 and ’84. This is definitely the strongest draft class since ’03 at least.

          • Dec 18, 20136:35 pm
            by oats

            Sorry, quick correction. The Lakers have 5, not 6. Tanking 7, Lakers 5, everyone else 2.

  • Dec 18, 201312:00 pm
    by Brigs


    Hey just read on espn that Houston and either the celtics or 76ers are looking for A third team in the asik trade. Any chance it’s gonna be us?

    • Dec 18, 20132:53 pm
      by Tim Thielke


      Probably not. Odds are that if they’re looking for a third team, it’s because they can work out a fair value exchange, but one side likes the particular pieces they’re getting (Asik or Green or Turner/Young) and the other doesn’t.

      The only one of those pieces that fits particularly well in Detroit is Green. But what would the Pistons give up for him? He’s not worth Monroe. He is worth about Jennings, that would be a fair swap. But does that help Detroit? And do the Rockets actually want Jennings? The answer to the first question is maybe, and to the second is probably not.

      The only way a three-teamer makes sense that I can see is either this, with Detroit getting a first rounder from Houston:
      or this:

  • Dec 18, 201312:59 pm
    by Drewski22785


    First post guys, but been following piston powered a long time, mainly the comments!
    Brigs – I had the same thought, from what I read Houston would prefer a pick/cap space. I was thinking partner with Boston for the following:
    Charlie V -> Houston
    Asik -> Boston
    Green -> Detroit
    Some type of draft pick compensation to make everyone happy (maybe)… Something a long those lines. I think this could make everyone happy/better!

    • Dec 18, 20131:24 pm
      by Jacob


      Yup, that would work for me. We might have to give boston a little something extra, maybe stuckey for lee, because Boston would probably have to throw in a pick to Houston.

      • Dec 18, 20131:41 pm
        by Corey


        I think Boston would have to throw something in to Houston, maybe us too. Green isn’t the player Asik is. Us participating just with an expiring contract does seem a little odd, though. Maybe Boston doesn’t have any significant expirings this year. I’d expect Houston to want more for Asik than an expiring contract, however, even if it’s just adding a couple second round picks to their asset pile.
        Boston has a horde of first rounders from the Nets, though. I could see them offering Houston the lower of the Boston/Nets firsts in a year they have the swap rights with Brooklyn.

      • Dec 18, 20131:45 pm
        by Drewski22785


        I was thinking more a long the lines of a second round pick from us to boston if they surrender a first to houston. Something less valuable than stuckey

      • Dec 18, 20132:59 pm
        by Tim Thielke


        I have nothing against giving up Stuckey, but I don’t want to take back Lee.

        Also, I’m seriously wondering what happens with Asik anyway. by the sounds of it, Houston want s a lot more than he is worth. Asik for Green straight up would be fair. But the Rockets want a lot more.

        Odds are that if they’re trying to make a three-teamer, it’s to look for a team that’s willing to give up a first-rounder to Houston for Green. I’d be pissed if Detroit did that. Green is worth Stuckey or Jennings, but that’s about it.

  • Dec 18, 20133:40 pm
    by Brigs


    i like the second trade a lot better plus I think Houston would rather have smith then Monroe either way

    • Dec 18, 20133:50 pm
      by Drewski22785


      Agreed, Monroe for green would be dumb. If we are going to trade monroe I say you need someone like beal from washington. My idea came from the fact that the “RUMORS” involve cleveland taking on greens contract as a salary dump. I was going with the idea of us taking on green, giving up CV which gives houston a stretch PF they want, houston getting a first rounder from boston as well. CV is serviceable and would probably work well next to howard, plus his expiring contract has value. I would be okay with giving up a second rounder or something to Boston to make it all mesh if that was possible. Honestly though, I don’t see how boston would be willing to give up green and a first rounder

  • Dec 18, 20133:51 pm
    by Drewski22785


    Agreed, Monroe for green would be dumb. If we are going to trade monroe I say you need someone like Beal from washington. I would like that! Monroe + Stuckey for Beal + Aviza!!!

    My idea came from the fact that the “RUMORS” involve cleveland taking on greens contract as a salary dump. I was going with the idea of us taking on green, giving up CV which gives houston a stretch PF they want, houston getting a first rounder from boston as well. CV is serviceable and would probably work well next to howard, plus his expiring contract has value. I would be okay with giving up a second rounder or something to Boston to make it all mesh if that was needed. CV + 2nd rounder for Green I think is a great move for Detroit!

    Honestly though, I don’t see how boston would be willing to give up green and a first rounder for Asik, but that is what the rumors are saying. And if Cleveland is going to jump in and take on greens salary why not detroit? At least we are offering an expiring contract, a useful player to them and maybe a little more if needed.

    That was my thought process.

  • Dec 18, 20134:18 pm
    by pt


    Brady – you clowning by giving Mo Cheeks that dap. CLOWNING my man. I’m expecting a correction to be printed on this article soon. You gotta take that dap back. 

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here