I respect your position on the matter. I seriously disagree with you. I'm not making the point where no plays are made in isolation, but to try to judge a guy's defensive output against one position is seriously flawed. You need to win individual games. You need to win those games based on the events/plays that take place DURING that game. Player avgs give you that information it tells you what you're likely to get on a game to game basis. On any given night, you're going to get "X." That's important to me because it tells me no matter who we're playing, we're likely to get a certain amount of output from player X and player Y. Yes, I'm citing avg. stats, but being a stat junky doesn't win you games (from a decision making perspective). You show me a game where a guy guards ONE person at ONE position the entire games and never switches, helps, double teams, etc. and I'll be willing to talk about what he gives up "per possession" ...it's pointless. If his man scores and he was defensively responsible for rotating away from that man and someone else doesn't help, that not his fault, yet it goes in the stats as a bucket he surrendered at his position. That kind of thing happens so frequently during games to ALL players, I can't find those type of stats useful. Basketball is not a game of 48 minute isolation plays (despite how hard CLE tried to make it so, with Lebron) and it is not played in a vacuum. It's a team sport and the difference had better be pretty much night and day if you're talking about giving up a guy to get an OLDER guy with the same stats. It's just not. ...and Caramello is relevant how? Besides, Monroe IS a center, Smith is not. Trying to determine how Smith looks against centers is less than futile. You would never sign that guy and then make him play centers. Ever. ...well, M. Curry might. Again, this is a team sport. We didn't lose games because Monroe couldn't guard opposing centers. Hell, he spent half the game getting dunked on and picking up fouls for trying to help when HORRIBLE defenders like Singler (who started something crazy like 72 games) routinely let players go right by him or was late coming off screens and giving the ball handler free reign to get into the paint. Who has to pick up the slack for that? The big men. So, while he's spending an entire game having to close off the paint because Frank waited until playoff seedings were set to play Drummond and our guards (Calderon included) couldn't keep anyone in front of them, he's busy picking up fouls, allowing for drive & dishes because of having to switch and help, and having to fend off 2-3 opposing players for rebounds. ALL of this happens because the rest of the TEAM is not playing a high enough caliber basketball to win games and secondly to allow him to do his job effectively. I don't begrudge you liking Smith more. That's your right as a fan. But, this team has way more glaring holes in other areas. To suggest giving up Monroe just to get Smith is a lateral move at best and in my opinion, a backward one. Players tend to play about 12 years and then retire. IF those players were to play the same amount of years (say, 13 years) in their career's we would potentially get 10 more years out of Monroe and only 4 from Smith and just like with most players, their skills start to decline especially more explosive/athletic players. We have way bigger problems and giving up Monroe would just make them worse. We're losing EVERY free agent pursuit right now. NO ONE wants to play here. Frankly, our track record with our best players is not so good. Yes we have new ownership, but Joe has a lot of dirt on his hands (by way of Davidson or not) and we have a lot of players that were shown the door and shouldn't have been. We also have a lot of guys that SHOULD have been shown the door and held on to "for value." We're paying Stuckey over 8 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR to be awful (and STILL get 30 mins. a night). Say what you want about CV, but he was at least playing to the same efficiency he always has....hell, it was Joe that decided he and Ben Gordon should be paid like borderline all-stars. Nevertheless, CV's minutes were reduced while even after being sent to the bench, Stuckey still wound up on the court for damn near 30 minutes every night. Singler was our starting SF....ROFL! Maxiell got more minutes than Drummond. We had a gameplan that went ENTIRE 4th Qtrs and never saw Monroe touch the ball. Despite being the only guy able to put the ball in the bucket at times, Bynum would sit ENTIRE QTRS while Stuckey, Singler, and KIM FREAKING ENGLISH got minutes. Through all this crap and two different coaches Monroe continued to be consistent, productive, and our best player. I'm not interested in shipping that off. I would LOVE to add to it, but not give it away (and with his numbers there's only 3-4 players that would make a trade an equitable one because you'd need to replace him with a big man, unless we're looking to add our 7th guard to the roster). Lastly, you don't get fans until you start being competitive. NO ONE wins because they got fans first and a good team second. "Can't contend until they have some fans?" Really? Owners don't rely on ticket sales to pay for players/coaches. These guys don't make their money on NBA teams. They're rich LONG before they decide to buy a team and NO NBA franchise wins because fans get interested FIRST. Fans get interested when you put a competitive product on the floor...NOT before. "Fun to watch" is what losers use to sell their team to the fans because they already know they have no chance of winning. 'Fun to watch' usually means, "Look good losing." The Showtime Lakers are the exception that proves the rule.