LMA= starting center? Inquiring minds want to know

by JPop on Mar 13, 2007 7:51 PM PDT Comment 24 comments

We've seen him score thirty, we've seen him pull down double digit rebounds, will we see him in the starting line up at the five spot next year?

One of the things that drives this for me is that the Blazers are not going to get the first or second pick, so no Oden for us. One thing about there being so many high rated bigs this draft is that some NBA quality swing men are going to drop down to where we could get them, so lets say we draft a under-rated SF type instead of a project big, do you think LMA can hold the fort at center? Talk amongst yourselves

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Blazers might get Oden

I'm not going to do anything but make general plans and do research until after the lottery happens.

Atlanta won again tonight. Blazers could wind up with as many as 5th most ping-pong balls. Blazers at that point have a somewhat reasonable chance to get the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd pick.

There's 13 SFs in this draft that I feel have the potential to be good starters in the NBA. Some of those guys are going to get down to the Blazers 2nd rounders.

by Blazers Nation on Mar 13, 2007 9:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

I guess what I meant was more along the lines of "Let's assume we don't get Oden", and sort of flows from there. If we get a chance to get Oden, I wouldn't let already having LMA influence the no-brain decision to take him. Take the best player, regardless of position: that is the mantra of successful GM's.

Friday the 13th/walking down Elm Street/ Come in my realm you get beat

by JPop on Mar 13, 2007 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To me,

LaMarcus is/will be a terrific 5. Also - and I may be one of the few who feel this way - I hope they don't bulk him up too much. I like him lean, lithe, agile and quick as a cat. He can flat get it done now and when experience is on his side he'll be something to behold. I know ... the popular thing is for everyone to say 'let Bill Bayno spend big time with him'. But I'm certainly hoping it's not overdone. Speed and quickness in todays NBA is more important than ever. Gain 30 pounds and those attributes are always thwarted. And Jermaine O'Neil,in my opinion is no exception.

By the way, given a choice between Oden and Durant (neither of which we have a realistic chance at), I'd pick the speed, agilitiy and scoring ability of Durant any day.

by TwoDeep on Mar 13, 2007 9:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Name me a run and gun team that has won a title.

I know there is a currently a huge fascination with the Phoenix style run and gun, but show me a run and gun team that has ever won a ring.

Here's a hint. Don Nelson has never won one.

Last I checked, once players started playing at playoff intensity, the Suns nearly got upset by the Lakers.

Offense sells tickets, but defense wins titles.

by Blazers Nation on Mar 13, 2007 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Having LA at center

doesn't make us a run and gun team, nor does it prevent us from being an effective halfcourt team.

Out of recent title teams, the only dominant center involved was Shaq--and he wasn't as dominant with Miami. I'm counting Duncan as a PF, and while Big Ben was a key player for the Pistons, the 2004 Bad Boys were a team effort--no one player dominated that series.

Having an Oden would be a nice thing. Having Oden + Aldridge would be sweet. But Aldridge + Zach could be a beastly frontcourt in a year or two, if Aldridge continues to blossom and Zach keeps up his much-improved play this year.

by EngineerScotty on Mar 13, 2007 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oop[s,

I meant Medina.

by TwoDeep on Mar 13, 2007 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

I don't think they should bulk him up as much as make him stronger. I see him as a mixture of the Garnett and Amare: Long and lean yet fast and strong. I think experience is the biggest contributor, but he'll need to be stronger to battle it out in the Finals in 5 years against the likes of Dwight Howard.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 14, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at Marcus Camby

He does all right at center for the Nuggets.

He and LaMarcus are of similar size. 6'11" and in the neighborhood of 230 pounds. Oh, and Aldridge arguably outplayed Camby tonight--both put up double-doubles though Aldridge's double was nicer than Camby's. Getting 17 boards in a game featuring Camby and Z-bo is no mean trick.

Where Camby is better--at this point--is that he's an experienced NBA player, who doesn't get whistled up like a supermodel at a construction site, and has learned to play intimidating D. LaMarcus hasn't learned that yet. LaMarcus has shown far greater offensive potential.

So, I think LaMarcus might be able to play 5. The only Really Big center out west who is a high-caliber player is Yao; Tyson Chandler and Erick Dampier probably deserves mention and Bynum has loads of potential. The rest of 'em are either small quick centers (I'm including Amare in this group), or big stiffs that hit the boards and defend but aren't gonna win you many games. Aldridge shouldn't have any issues matching up with a Mehmet Okur. Other than Yao, the beasty big men (Shaq, Dwight, etc.) are mainly in the Eastern Conference.

He probably does need to add strength--but he may well be able to do so without adding too much weight. Aldridge at 250 would probably be less effective rather than more. A 240-pound Aldridge would proably be a load to deal with.

by EngineerScotty on Mar 13, 2007 9:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Depends on the future of Zach

In my opinion. I am hopeful that if Zach is here for the indefinite future that LA will be an extremely productive 5. I think he may be an even more productive PF in the event that Zach wasn't here.

With regards to the draft if we could pick up Oden or Durant I'd jump at the chance for either, if it's someone else I'd probably still go with a big if possible unless Freeland is WAY ahead of where I think his development is in all likelihood. (I'm not sold on us having another capable 5, though hope Pryz returns, but even when he played this season... ouch) With the "lesser" draft picks I'd be trying to pick up more players with shooting range who also have some sort of promise as defenders. They should also be better than average runners, though don't necessarily need to be lightning fast, I think we can roll the dice with these "lesser picks" so to speak.

by drawingjeremy on Mar 13, 2007 10:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Better the O'Neal

i remember something about Bayno saying he thinks lamarcus has more potential then O'Neal for strength.

remember he hasnt lifted weights like some of the other rooks have. Just imagine if he starts beating sergio in the weight room. Then its on.

by gavin on Mar 13, 2007 11:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've spouted on enough about adding Green.

Just gotta re-acknowledge that's on record as my preference.

But two points regarding what you're saying:
1) Beyond Oden, if we don't get the Lucky Pingy Pong,
I wouldn't trust ANY of this draft's bigs any further than I can throw a Mihm.
2) I absolutely can see where LMA-as-center could be headed, and work magnificently.
I made a John Salley comparison a few days ago, but if you wanna get
all absolute-ceiling, best-case-scenario on the dude,
he has a chance at turning into the next Robert Parrish.
That's not a classic Shaq-type "big body" by any means,
but still a damn effective interior presence for a halfcourt-dependent team.

In fact, best-case dreaming aside, I'd say after the past few weeks
that LMA absolutely IS a Parrish-type center, or at least will be after a few more seasons
(and off-seasons) of filling out his frame and getting used to NBA paint.
It's more a question of, how GOOD of "That Type" can/will he be?

"Kill the bear! KILL THE BEAR!!!" -- Statler & Waldorf

by QualityPie on Mar 14, 2007 8:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

what if

are lottery fortuen takes a u-turn and goes south and we end up with the 5-6th most lottery balls but end up selecting 10/11??

ROY for R.O.Y.

by junit3123 on Mar 14, 2007 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not likely at all

Blazers would have to put two long winning streaks back to back to make that kind of move in the standings with the number of game that are remaining.

by Blazers Nation on Mar 14, 2007 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two long winning streaks back to back ...

at this point have us in the playoffs. I'd take that.

How many draft picks ever actually end up playing to thier potential?

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 14, 2007 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The absolute worst case is falling 3 spots back.

If the 3 ball-drawn top picks are all teams that were slotted behind you,
then you fall back three spots, no further.
Slotted 5th = guaranteed 8th at worst, slotted 8th = guaranteed at least 11th, and so on.

But keep in mind, the chances for ALL three lucky balls to go to
the very-low-odds teams in the 6-14 range are horrifically slim.
Slightly unlikely for one sub-seventh team to get a top-three pick,
freakishly improbable for two to roll that way.

I'd rule out all three going to teams that under-represented in the hopper.

"Kill the bear! KILL THE BEAR!!!" -- Statler & Waldorf

by QualityPie on Mar 14, 2007 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AND!--only getting a top-3 ball draw moves you up.

For any lottery team of pre-draw stancing X, your options in the lottery are only:

1
2
3
X
X + 1
X + 2
X + 3

All other slots are inaccessibe to you except by trade.

"Kill the bear! KILL THE BEAR!!!" -- Statler & Waldorf

by QualityPie on Mar 14, 2007 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'll wait and see who gets the gm*prez job 1.st

because if it's petrie everybody from the ballboys to the cotton candy vendor will be evalulated.if it's pricthard then he's going to make some major moves to make the team better.

by fatty on Mar 14, 2007 10:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What if it IS both, like I suggested?

I know you think that won't happen, that Petrie means Adelman,
but if GM Pritchard/Prez Petrie DID happen, what do you think that would be like?
Bad? Good? Clashing?

"Kill the bear! KILL THE BEAR!!!" -- Statler & Waldorf

by QualityPie on Mar 14, 2007 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LMA could do it

I think that if we asked him to, LMA could do it. The kid's a gym rat and would be an athletic monster in no time. It wouldn't be his preference, but he'd do it. We'll get a better picture of what he could become by the time the summer league rolls around.

Sidenote: I see KP showcasing how to turn a team around quickly. I'm expecting another stunning draft to fill the couple holes we have, and then to address our veteran needs. Basically a complete roster make-over in two seasons. Add water and grow.

by Steve The Hedge on Mar 14, 2007 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

to anwser you ?

honestly then as much as i love him since 1986 and i'm not joking what i'm about to say,but nate mcmillian will definately will be on the clock a year from now.why because if pricthard is getting the gm post that's teflon because he's p.allen's baby another b.kolhde his job is safe nate on the other hand better find an team identity very quickly because you know who is lurking behind the scenes.and to anwser you ? q.p. yes petrie*pricthard will be a dynamic combo dangerous around nba circles.the planet of nba fandom will be very worried and will have 1 eyed open at all times..also petrie unlike nash if he does'nt like what he sees will let pricthard make a blockbuster deal or 2 to make us better.just like b.buckwalter did for us in the mid to late 80's early 90's...

by fatty on Mar 14, 2007 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You're right about Nate.

Last year, he needed to lay the groundwork;
this year, he needed to instill progress and stability.

Next year? With all these pieces in place and the addition of
one more, probably last high draft pick?
He will need to WIN--improve the win column over this year
about as much as this year did over the last two years,
which will be about 10-12 wins (I'm averaging out
the last two seasons, 27 and 21 wins respectively, for a 24-win average).
That'd be putting us a few games over .500, which is automatic playoffs with these PPCs.

That's gotta be the expectation for next year.
If we don't make the playoffs, it will be considered an underachievement,
and Nate will be on the hotseat, if not on one-last-chance-the-next-year-goes notice.

"Kill the bear! KILL THE BEAR!!!" -- Statler & Waldorf

by QualityPie on Mar 14, 2007 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus, after next year

he'll only have two years left on his deal--enough that firing might be a not-too-expensive option. :)

I expect futher improvement next year; though depending on who we land in the draft and who is healty or not, a playoff birth may or may not be a possiblility. If we get the Prz of old back, if the young ones continue their improvement, and if we land a decent player in the draft (not necessarily Oden or Durant), we could be a decent team next year.

by EngineerScotty on Mar 14, 2007 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, yeah! Heck yeah!

I guess I was pretty much venting my OWN expectations for next year, and assuming that
the fan base, local media, and team front office would all have similar expectations.

And yeah: If you take my desire for improvement to be a 10-12-win improvement
both this year and again NEXT year on top of this one,
with that 24 wins (average of last year and the year before) as the base for that,
you're talking about an improvement of exactly 22 wins in two years,
or a perfectly non-ballpark strict number of 46 wins next year.

That's the goal.
That's a playoff spot, above the level of a 7th or 8th seed PPC,
yet well below the sort of records the Powers (Suns, Spurs, Mavs)
will have this year, last year, the year before that, next year:
somewhere in the range of where the Jazz, Rockets, and L***rs are at, right now.
A playoff spot, and neither the favorite nor an easy out in the first round.
13 months and one major draft piece to get us there.

Do it, Nate. Do it. C'mon. No pressure.

"Kill the bear! KILL THE BEAR!!!" -- Statler & Waldorf

by QualityPie on Mar 14, 2007 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs