Portland: Off-season losers?

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 12:35 PM PDT Comment 77 comments

ESPN.com Insider's John Hollinger has listed his '15 winners' of the off-season (i.e., teams that have improved) and the Blazers failed to make the list.

A note at the top of the article says "Coming Thursday: Hollinger's offseason losers". If there's 15 winners, I assume there's 15 losers, and he counts the Blazers among them (unless there's a third, smaller group that... what exactly?)

Here's his rankings, though I'm leaving out his comments:

Rockets
Bobcats
Suns
Knicks
Hawks
Celtics
Grizzlies
Wizards
Hornets
Kings
Lakers
Bulls
Raptors
Pistons
76ers

I just cannot come up with a criteria that keep the Blazers off that list. We'll be better next year than last, and we've added more talent than any team in the league. By any measure Portland had a fantastic off-season. My only thought is Hollinger just forgot about the Blazers.

0 recs | Comment 77 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hollinger's an idiot.

I put absolutely no stock in anything that man writes. Rarely is the day he is right about anything. Its a good thing he's a columnist and not a reporter needing to base his articles on fact. I think him and Canzano should hang out, and invite Stephen A. Smith into their club. My only hope is that that loud jackass doesn't get Dan PAtricks Old gig at ESPN radio.

On Paul Allen's cash it should say "In Pritchard We Trust"

by kevingiard1 on Jul 18, 2007 12:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Z-bo

I'm assuming this is about the Z-bo trade. Losing Z-bo and buying out Francis looks bad on paper.

by Jumbo on Jul 18, 2007 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

except

every other sports writer/talking head has praised the Blazers for ridding themselves of the "Jailblazer" era, and the zbo trade was a big nail in that coffin.

by mcmillion on Jul 18, 2007 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

plus...

he has the knicks at 4.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 18, 2007 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Geez

And to think this guy is from Portland and used to write for Oregonlive.com.

ROTUNDITYDOTNET

by damir on Jul 18, 2007 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't you read Canzano?

The standards aren't that high.

by grimc on Jul 18, 2007 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo!

'nuff said.

by blazerprophet on Jul 18, 2007 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

makes no sense

i dont see any team on that list that has improved their team for the present and the future any more than the Blazers have.

#1- Greg Oden. The Blazers should be top five for this because he was the biggest prize of the off-season... sheesh

#2- Trading zbo and getting a whole lot of value in return (frye, james jones, rudy, and cap space).

#3- adding a legit starter PG in steve blake.

Houston did what? Drafted Brooks, traded for Mike James. Am I missing something? This is #1 stuff?

ah well, no sense in getting worked up over this guy's list.

by mcmillion on Jul 18, 2007 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rember Houston improved jsut by getting older

Whereas the Blazers are still just really young.

Hollinger is a dolt.

by NWfan on Jul 18, 2007 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

seriously though, Seattles not on that list either

This is not the first time I have wondered who the hell respects this guys judgement and publishes his opinion. The blazers should have made that list just by drafting Oden alone, same with Seattle by getting KD and Green. I have honestly written ESPN multiple times to say how stupid Hollinger is, looks like I will be doing so again.

bobcats #2????? what the hell did they do besides essentially drafting J Rich???

by myemic23 on Jul 18, 2007 12:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Seriously, how do the teams who drafted Oden and Durant not even crack the 50th percentile with this guy? Seriously, Seattle got Durant and Green while Portland got Oden, two other first-rounders, and some excellent second-rounders. Hollinger writes as if the draft didn't even happen.

by bocious on Jul 18, 2007 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Blake signing

okay I just listened to the Daily Dish, and Ford and Hollinger on. They talked about a lot of things, one of which was FA signings he didn't think were good. He said roughly "I don't hate the Steve Blake signing, but I don't understand it."

There's not much to understand, John; the team has limited faith in their point guards and their starter is rumored to be on the trading block, so they landed one of the best PGs in FA with a 2 year contract, a guy who loves the city and who the city likes, and that the team wished it hadn't traded away in the first place.

So I guess that knocked us down about 18 spots.

What I don't understand is a team like Toronto; he hated the Kapano signing, and praised New Orleans for landing former Rapotor Morris Peterson. Shouldn't the Raptors having swapped someone he like for someone he doesn't be considered losers? I guess he just looooves Maceo Baston, Toronto's other addition.

The Kings are #10... because they added Mikki Moore and Spencer Hawes?

Pistons are #14 for adding Stuckey?

I don't get it.

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 1:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger is a stat geek

and his pet stat (PER) emphasizes offense.

We just lost Z-bo. Seattle just lost Ray Allen.

Never mind what we replaced them with...

by EngineerScotty on Jul 18, 2007 1:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Chill, chill, blazerland

The column is a "just for next year" thing. I'm sure he thinks we're on a great path, as does everyone else in the basketball world, and that the Knicks and the Celtics are screwed. In fact, he wrote a long and blistering indictment of Ainge and Isiah the day after the draft for making panic moves that help a little bit short term, but screws their team for years to come.

But next year? We're probably going to take our lumps.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

even by that standard

The Blazers should win more games next year than they did last year.

And there are plenty of teams whose off-season moves (Detroit, Toronto, Washington) will not make them a better team next year. How can he count on internal improvement to make Toronto a better team, but not the Blazers with the return of Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge?

I'm not angry, I'm just baffled.

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I'm not as sure

about it as you are. I mean, it could happen or it might not.

We're returning one starter from our 06-07 campaign, who was a rookie last year. We've lost our leading scorer and rebounder, who was the central focus of our offense, so we've got to scrap our old offense and install a new one. We've got a 19 year old center, who's still very much developing. We haven't addressed our hole at the SF. We have a cluttered and confusing rotation, with multiple players of similar ability at several positions.

These are the kinds of problems it takes teams months, if not years, to get completely nailed down. We made a massive, sweeping change to the old Blazers, and I think KP should be applauded for that. But I wouldn't be shocked if we end up winning 25 games. Although I also wouldn't be shocked if we end up winning 45 games.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually

they're returning 3 starters: Jack, Roy, and Pryzbilla, and they've brought back a former starter in Blake, who started 40 games for Denver last year.

They're losing Udoka (probably) and Randolph, but given what they've added (Steve Blake, Frye, Oden), the possible return to health of LaFrentz and Pryzbilla, and the continued improvement of Aldridge and Roy I just can't see how the Blazers are going to be worse next year.

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, they're returning

Pryz and Jack, but I'm assuming they're not starting.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if they're not starting

wouldn't that imply they were beat out by someone better than they are?

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even if the players are better

you need time to build on court chemistry.

Cmon Matthewcc, you know better than to come up with arguments like this. We've totally gutted our team, and come out with much much better parts. But those parts are both young and have never played together before. How is this shocking that it may take a while for us to get good oncourt chemistry, to find out through trial and error how to best deploy our pieces, all that stuff?

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand that

but worse than last year? I'm not saying they'll make the playoffs, and I've been outspoken that I don't think Oden will have much of an impact until midseason at the earliest, but I just cannot see the Blazers being worse than last year, no matter the adjustment they need to make.

Roy, Jack, Aldridge, Outlaw, Webster, Sergio, LaFrentz and Pryzbilla were all on the team last year, and Blake was on the year before. The only player of consequence they lost was Randolph. While the offensive production at the 4 will likely dip with Aldridge (though he's shown he can be a prolific scorer), the defense should improve by his absence, and the offense may benefit overall as well.

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, you may be right.

But you may be wrong. When you're dealing with this many moving pieces, do you feel all that confident about making that call one way or the other? I sure don't, like I said, I can imagine a 25 win season just as easily as I can imagine a 45 win season. And frankly I don't really care that much either way because I feel strongly that either way, 2008-09 is a 50+ win season.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we actually disagree that much

I'm not 100% certain the Blazers will win more games than last year, but I wouldn't say that about any team in the league.

I am, however, more than sure enough that I don't think they should be included in a 'losers' group. Maybe there's a non-winner-but-not-a-loser group. Either way I'm interested in reading Hollinger's thinking on why he's so confident the Blazers will be worse.

I like Hollinger, I just disagree with a lot of those teams being rank ahead of the Blazers as off-season winners even given his 2007-08 criteria.

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think its impossible to predict

but on paper we sure look better. Randolph WAS THE chemistry killer, he gone

by myemic23 on Jul 18, 2007 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is a full list

of all seasons by centers in league history 19 years old or younger.

http://basketball-reference.com/fc/stats_search.cgi?req=1&sum=0&type=per_g&min=48&fr om_year=1947&to_year=2007&lg1=NBA&lg2=BAA&lg3=ABA&franch=&from_season=1& to_season=-1&from_draft=1947&to_draft=2006&draft_round=&draft_pick=&draft_franch &from_age=0&to_age=19&min_height=0&max_height=99&active&hof=&pos=C& ;c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=0&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=0&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&a mp;c3val=0&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PTS&layout=full

Now it's possible that Oden will have a Moses type immediate impact, but centers develop more slowly than any other players besides point guards. I wouldn't be in a rush to see great production out of him right away.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oden will be 20 by Feb 1st

So, here's the correct list:

http://basketball-reference.com/fc/stats_search.cgi?req=1&sum=0&type=per_g&min=48&fr om_year=1947&to_year=2007&lg1=NBA&lg2=BAA&lg3=ABA&franch=&from_season=1& to_season=-1&from_draft=1947&to_draft=2006&draft_round=&draft_pick=&draft_franch &from_age=0&to_age=20&min_height=82&max_height=99&active&hof=&pos=C&am p;c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=0&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=0&c3stat=&c3comp=gt& amp;c3val=0&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PTS&layout=full

Also, note how few good players are even on the list. Is it really that centers take longer to develop or that they are rare? I'd be shocked if Oden isn't better than Bynum, Curry, or Chandler in his rookie year because he's far more physically gifted than any of those guys.

If Oden plays more than 30 minutes a game, he'll score more than 15 points a game.

by PoliSam on Jul 18, 2007 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL lumps?

I love it that everyone is underestimating our performance next year. We SUCKED last year. The only reason it was acceptable was because we SUCKED EVEN WORSE the year before. I know the rating is based solely on NEXT YEAR. But it's also based on most IMPOROVED over the off-season.

Unless he wants to argue that Portland got WORSE because of Oden, there is no way we don't make this list. And quite frankly I think NY and Boston will SUCK next year. Hollinger is all about stats, but you know what stats miss? Chemistry, team impact, and a variety of important intangibles.

Hollinger will always have an outsiders view of sports. How many Basketball games do you think he has played in? Can he even see the non-verbal communication that is so important to a well run offense? People call it "court vision" or "chemistry" but it's all about being able to predict what a player will do, and trust them to do it. It takes practice, it takes humility, and most of all it takes Basketball IQ.

by mjm6783 on Jul 18, 2007 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I usually like him

But this piece is a riot so far. First off all we should all read his definition of improvement.

"Improvement. That's the name of the game in the offseason, and it comes in all shapes and sizes. Teams can get better in a variety of ways -- through holdover players raising their games, through trimming dead wood from the previous season's roster, or by adding talent through the draft, trades or free agency. And sometimes, it doesn't even take any of that -- it just takes a different general on the sidelines pulling it all together.

...what I want to do today is focus on how those maneuvers affect each team for this coming season in particular.

And if we're only looking at the upcoming season, even a fairly reckless move can have positive short-term effects."

So basically he is saying that he is only looking at what each teams moves will mean for this coming season. With that in mind I can see why he didn't put the blazers on the list. I don't agree with it, as I feel we will be much improved, but I can at least see his point. (losing top score/rebounder, drafting oden would will take 2-3 years to develope, etc...)

Now on to his comments though, that is the funniest part of this peice. And we have to look no further than his #1 improved team, the rockets. Read this!

"Start with the decision to replace Van Gundy with Adelman -- a change in direction that will likely make the team more up-tempo and offensive-minded. They'll miss Van Gundy's defensive genius, but given the offensive stagnation this club showed in 2006-07, it's not a bad trade.

Moreover, hiring Adelman was especially important in this case because it basically adds another player to the roster. Bonzi Wells..."

Yep he is actually saying that getting Bonzi back is a plus for the rockets.

Then he continues on and over values a couple of bench scrubs they got in a trade with San Antonio for some guy named Vassilis Spanoulis. Now I have no clue who Luis Scola and Lackie Butler are, but I find it very hard to believe that San Antonio a team know for very good evaluation of forgein talent would just give up, "one of the best players in Europe for the past half-decade" for Vassilis Spanoulis. Either this guy is good or not, San Antonio knows he is not good enough to beat out Oberto as the back up PF on the Spurs, so what does that tell us? Aparently it tells John that he is the starting PF for the Rockets this year.

Classic EastCoast stuff here. 5 out of 15 are west coast teams.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 1:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Um, his analysis of

the Spanoulis/Scola&Butler trades are right on. Spanoulis is basically a contract San Antone could get off the books immediately, since he decided he was too homesick and wanted to move back to Greece.

Scola is in fact one of the best players in the world not playing for the NBA. He's a scoring power forward, and obviously although a very talented player, not as good as Tim Duncan. He wasn't willing to come over to San Antone to be a backup to TD.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what your telling me

is that the best the spurs could get for him is minor cap relief? Come on, I don't buy it. But hey I am always willing to eat my words if proven wrong. I guess we will wait and see.

Every year for the last 4 or so, someone has picked the Rockets to be much improved, and every year hey dissappoint.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, do your own research

if you don't believe me.

Google Luis Scola and tell me what you find.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

I can google almost any player and find a highlight real that will make us want him. I will wait to see how he does with the Rockets this year, my guess is not that well.

What is the success rate for euro big man in the nba anyone know?

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah hell with it:

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/07/12/rockets-get-luis-scola-from-spurs/
http://www.interbasket.net/players/scola.htm
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?topic=691933

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ya I saw those

I didn't know much about him, still don't, but I can see from the interent he is the next big thing, I can't believe the blazers didn't make a push for him, simply unforgiveable.

From the aol.com story,
"We should never doubt R.C. Buford and Gregg Popovich... but I'm stunned they made this deal. Scola wasn't in their plans, given the melding of Fabricio Oberto in the rotation and the continued brilliance of Tim Duncan. But you'd think they could pull more in return than a guard who has sworn off the NBA and next year's #50something pick. As I said, Scola is a beast. His rights had to have been valuable."

exactly my point, many people seem to think he is very good, yet this is all they could get for him? And since when does 16pts and 5 rebound for a PF, (in his best season) who is 6'9" make you a "beast". Maybe it was because of his great performance in the Olympic gold metal game.(25pt/11reb).

Here is a glowing report about his weaknesses from nba draft.net:
"Weaknesses: Not versatile. Can only play one position, namely power forward and may be a little soft for the position. Probably will have difficulty in defending big PF's. Not possible for him to "steal" some minutes from either C nor SF as he is literally too small for one and too slow/small for the latter. Needs to improve rebounding skills. Good at crushing the boards when running from the wing but not nearly as effective from a stationary position. Must improve upon his 65% free throw shooting." - sounds perfect.

Other comments about him reflect that he needs a good point guard to help him, hopefully they got one in the pipe in rocket town.

Look maybe he pans out, maybe he doesn't that is not the point. The point is, does that move really put them at the top of all the teams in the NBA for improvement over the off-season so far? To me their only real improvement comes from their coach, the rest of the players names in john's piece are just unproved players.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um. Yes.

Did you watch the rockets last year? What were their biggest holes? No one is saying Scola's an allstar. But he's going to produce a lot more offense and post defense than Hayes, and probably about equal rebounding (Hayes is a good rebounder for his size, but he's a 6/7 guy, he can only be relied on so much).

And more importantly, for the purposes of this article, Scola is a man, not a boy, who's been playing professionally for years in the Euroleague. He's ready to come in and play right away, unlike 2007 draft picks who may have much higher ceilings, but probably will have the typical up and down rookie seasons.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oops sorry

didn't mean to come off so acerbic.

The reason Hollinger put them first (and I'd have put them first too) is that they were a team with some of the major pieces already there (Yao and TMac and Battier are fantastic building blocks), but they had some major holes.

Specifically, their starting PF was an undersized 6/7 rebounder, who's pretty decent for such an undersized rebounding specialist, but is better suited to the bench, and their backup PF was a Juwon Howard that actually managed to look even more ineffective than in his "prime". They had no reliable third scorer, and although their bench had some good defensive talent (Mutombo who is still fantastic in short stints), they had no scoring off the bench. None of their point guards were even close to NBA starter quality.

So Scola's not a projected first-team all nba or anything, but he should be a quality starter in the league. It's like if you got Mike Bibby to Cleveland -- just getting a quality starter into a position of insane need for a team is such a huge upgrade, that you have to be really happy with a deal like that, for a team that's already one of the top 6 or 7 teams in the league. Plus on top of that, the Rockets also got some very effective bench pieces and re-got a point guard who suited their system (pretty much like how we got Blake back). And leaving aside Bonzi's personal issues, if he's engaged and can keep his head in the game, is there a better energy/scoring bench guy in the league? Adelman has had history of keeping him productive (remember Bonzi's series against the Spurs with Adelman's Kings in 06?) so if Adelman can get Bonzi to play like 06 again, that's another major asset.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see your point.

I guess john's praise of him just gave off this weird vibe to me of "wow this guy is so good, he will put them over the top".

I do still believe the rockets have major question marks though, especially in the rebounding department. Yao has never been a great rebounder for his size, and rebounding is one of Scola's major weaknesses from the reports I read. Teams may be able to offensive rebound this years rockets right out of the game if they can't answer that question.

But the rockets season always comes down to the health of T Mac and Yao, if they stay healthly all year, or at least most of it, they should be in the thick of the hunt. But I would still pick Phx, dallas, and San An, over them to win it next year.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup exactly.

It's not like they got KG or anything, but they addressed enough weaknesses so it's not crazy to think that they improve by like 7 or 8 games. Which could be enough so that they can avoid a tough first round draw, get home court for the second round, and maybe even make the conference final. That's pretty good off of a few small but smart deals, that are good both short and long term.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd give Houston #1, too

I'm not sure about the Bonzi stuff, but I think Houston really helped themselves all over. Adelman is a fantastic hire, and they're my slight favorites over the Suns to win it all next year.

by matthewcc on Jul 18, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Houston favorites???

Did I miss the memo??? I like Houston but sheesh, maybe if Tmac had EVER gotten out of the first round I would consider houston a possible contender, but favorite?? yikes

by myemic23 on Jul 18, 2007 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, they're MY favorites

They solved a lot of their problems, especially by bringing in Adelman. The whole 'McGrady has never gotten out of the first round thing' is an overrated indicator of future success.

A lot of it also has to do with my belief the other primary contenders in the West are either treading water or getting older: Dallas, Phoenix and San Antonio are not going to be better next year. Houston should be.

And Yao Ming is one of the best centers in the league. Haven't we spent the last 2 months talking about how important dominating centers are to champions?

by matthewcc on Jul 19, 2007 5:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple of things...

Why is the whole Mcgrady not getting out of the first round NOT a good indicator of future success? It's not like he's only been playing for 3 years or something... the guy's been around for 10 years and can't get it done! This is the 3rd team he's been on that has had a legitimate talent as his running mate... he just doesn't have it. I'm not the biggest fan of his (not much of a fan of his at all, really), but he's a superstar for his regular season performances.

And I agree with the primary contenders treading water remark... the problem is that I thought the same thing last summer. Somehow these guys stay healthy and keep their legs.

The real X factor ends up being the coach. You take an experienced coach who has been moderately successful (lots of wins, many playoffs, 0 championships) throughout his career who is known as an offensive coach and you put said coach on an experienced, veteran team that has been primarily defensive minded. I'm not saying that the team won't be able to make adjustments, but I remember the same thing happening in Detroit a couple years back. Out went defensive coach, front office worried about scoring average and brought in a offensive coach, same group of players hasn't been good since. Now I like Adelman as much as the next guy, he's had good teams that are fun to watch and are considered contenders, but I don't see his hiring as an upgrade for the Rockets. I'm just as likely to be wrong as to be right, but I don't see them with a better record or a longer playoff run next year.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 19, 2007 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not big on Houston

but please don't compare Adelman to Saunders, Adelman's about 2000 times better at coaching than Saunders. Adelman is the type of coach that makes a team better where ever he goes. Saunders is a coach that takes over a team that has been winning and makes it worse, or coaches a team with a superstar, with some good backup, and fails to get a playoff win.

Adelman might just make Houston better, but the key players do need to stay healthy. However, I don't see them winning the Championship.

Bingo Bango Bungo

by DetriquesAngst on Jul 19, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

easy reason

if you people stop being so damn loyal for a change.when your 3's are outlaw,jones,and webster ,and you just wasted 12 mil on outlaw it's deserving that they're on the losing side.hey if you people really believe that this current roster is gonna make the playoffs,then i have a apple orchard on my land to sell you.botttom line the blazers could've done more,but they did'nt,i believe udoka was given a slap to his face by management.qnd if outlaw got 12 mil,if i'm udoka i want at least 20 mil.like jscot said in another diary,did i miss something about outlaw.we did'nt do enough to upgrade the 3 bottom line.and that's in itself a failure.where is the perimeter scoring is going to come from,it's not coming from outlaw ,aldridge from 15 in yeah o.k.,roy he's to busy playing daddy,where is the consistent outside threat is ging to come from you tell me.

by fatty on Jul 18, 2007 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

shouldn't not being so damn loyal

be considered being bandwagon-esque?

I'm just sayin...

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 18, 2007 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice fatty...

Roy is too busy playing daddy? WTF is that about?

Roy shot 40% from 3pt land last year if you take away the first month of the season. That is a pretty damn good outside shot. Web can come off the bench and do the same, if not he will not be retained when his rookie deal expires and then guess what? We have a ton of cap room to fill that whole. Why is it that so many people are so short sighted about that fact?

The blazers are set to make a good run for many years. Not this year, sure it is possible that they make the playoffs, but even if they don't, this season is about maturing for all our players. Which is why I said I can understand John not putting the blazers in his top 15 improved teams, even if I don't agree with it.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

does'nt roy have a 5 month old son dude,last i checked he did.and like he tells everyone his son comes 1.st,a very smart dad if you ask me.he'll still be able to shoot a "j'on 8/27/07 the day the players will report for workouts.correct me if i'm wrong,well am i wrong tell me dude.

by fatty on Jul 18, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok yes

he does has a young son, but you make it sound like because of it he can't shoot, which is why I gave you the "wtf".

Oh and even with that son, he was still in Vegas trying to get on the court and hanging with the team.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts exactly

Roy was begging the coaches to let him get out there and play with his teammates, and I believe he stayed in Vegas the whole summer-league. Playing daddy? Well I would hope he is more than just playing daddy, but even daddies have careers. He's really not the first player to have a child, nor is he the first dad to vow to put their child first while still progressing at their job.

Bingo Bango Bungo

by DetriquesAngst on Jul 18, 2007 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto

Players work maybe 4-6 hours per day. Any more than that and you run the risk of overtraining. Those are dream hours worked for a new dad.

The travel schedule, that's a whole different animal but during the summer it's not a factor.

"I'm a buffet of goodness."

by TP43 on Jul 19, 2007 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

okay

How many of those fifteen "winners" will make the playoffs? Five?

ROTUNDITYDOTNET

by damir on Jul 18, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and why is the rockets #1

my world champion play with my bookie this season ,adelman will give a breath of fresh air to a very boring team.they have the best bigman in the world in yao ming.1 of the top 5 defenders in the game in s.battier.and 1 of the best players in the world in t*mac.throw in a.brooks who looks fantastic and you're looking at a championship run in houston.throw in the fact that the spurs never repeat,and i remember when a certain franchise was hitting the skida about 18 years ago.they hired a young no name coach halfway through the season,an ownership change occured and a 1 year later,that team and coach who could'nt get out of the 1st.rd ,that team and coach was the 1989-90 portland trailblazers coached by who r.adelman.my $$$$$ is on houston baby and ming will be m.v.p. of this season book it !!!!!

by fatty on Jul 18, 2007 1:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You're cracking me up!

Let's see, my friend. Ime is going to San Antonio. The Spurs never repeat. And you say that Ime will get two rings before the Blazers win a playoff series. So that means the Blazers won't win a playoff series in the next four years! :-)

Yes, Houston helped themselves a lot, they'll be very dangerous. Adelman was as good as a coach on the floor for us back in the early years, he's the reason Petrie won R.O.Y., and he knows what he's doing.

Do you really think the Blazers haven't helped themselves more than some of those other teams? I don't buy it. We still need a couple of pieces, but last year we needed 4-5 pieces.

by jscot on Jul 18, 2007 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

they will be very good...

until T-mac gets hurt...

then Yao gets hurt...

then Bonzi attacks the crowd or the coach...

then they lose in the 1st round.....again.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 18, 2007 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

jscot the spurs were champions

in 99,03,05,07 never back2back,1 of the reasons why they get no respect,as for portland,if they would've added a proven starter at the 3,not a star but a guy like childress or a s.battier then they would be the talk of the world.outlaw has a lot to prove.at least i've seen j.jones on many occasions hit a wide open "j" that's all i'm saying.

by fatty on Jul 18, 2007 1:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I know

I still hope we're going to make a trade, and that they are counting on Travis to come off the bench while he develops more. I'd love to see them move Martell, JJ, and Pryz for a really good 3 and a draft pick -- but maybe there aren't any available for a decent price.

I'm just laughing at your predictions. :-)

Cause if the Spurs never repeat, then the earliest Ime gets his two rings you are predicting is 2009 and 2011. And you are predicting he gets them before we win a playoff series, which means our earliest playoff series win will be 2012....

by jscot on Jul 18, 2007 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone Please Explain

To me how the Lakers are winners this off=season? If anything, they're marginally improved (that's being generous) with the return of Derek Fisher.

I'm going to take my chill pill now.

by SloppyJoe on Jul 18, 2007 3:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger missed this time

He's a pretty decent writer most of the time, but sometimes he tries to out-clever hismelf. I think that's what he did here. The Lakers, Memphis, Philly, the Kings for crying out loud???!!

Yeah, not a good article.

by leeroyjenkins on Jul 18, 2007 3:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm waiting until training camp starts to ask

how many wins people think the Blazers will get this coming year.

I'm sort of with howling, in I can see the possibility of some regression as the guys learn to play together and I can see an improvement equal to last year - 10 to 12 additional wins.

I'm leaning to the optimistic side. Partly because I can't shake the feeling that Aldridge is going to have the sort of season that has people saying "Zach who?" My biggest reason for thinking the Blazers could slip a little is the fact they have too many players. Paper lineups look great - on paper. But from what I've seen, players (and teams) do best when players are assigned specific roles and understand what those are. I don't see that yet - although I'm hoping Nate already does.

For example - who is our starting SF?

Are the Blazers going with a 3 guard rotation - Blake Roy & Jack? (If so, what does Sergio do?)

Is Webster the 2nd unit SG or SF?

Is Travis our starting SF, our 2nd unit SF or our 2nd unit PF?

What is Frye's role going to be?

What to do about Darius Miles?

(Ok that last one probably isn't that big of a concern. It has to assume Miles actually gets himself in shape to play.)

by timg56 on Jul 18, 2007 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No clue on wins

I know you didn't really ask, but I am also curious to see how many they get. I just can't tell. They have great inside talent, but it's young. I think Aldridge, Frye, and Oden will be better than most front courts in the NBA by the All-Star game. What makes me really nervous is the guards and the wings. Roy is the only clearly above average guard or wing on the roster, and he's not Michael Jordan or LeBron James. Maybe 10 years ago this squad could do some damage, if it played the right kind of defense, but they call they game so tight now that you need more speed on the perimeter than the Blazers currently have.

A 35-40 win season seems like a safe bet, but they could do much worse or better than thaat.

by PoliSam on Jul 18, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It doesnt really matter

who he says the "winners" are. Any of us are just as qualified to say the Blazers were the biggest off season winners.

Greg Oden Rap

by JTDuck22 on Jul 18, 2007 5:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Half those teams

suck and have done nothing to improve their team. What have the Lakers done? NOT trade Kobe?
Kings?
76ers? Adding Thaddeus Young and Jason Smith makes them superheroes?

What a idiot.

Formerly known as Junit3123

by Jason3123 on Jul 18, 2007 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i'll say 9 of the 15 will make it.

1)-rockets
2)-suns
3)-memphis
4)-bulls
5)-pistons
6)-raptors
7)-wizards
8)-knicks
9)-lakers

will all make the playoffs i promise you....
i love the grizzlies stealing darko at 7 mil
great move.will be the most improve team in
the nba in 08...

by fatty on Jul 18, 2007 6:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Darko a steal at 7 mil??

You have ripped the blazers for the whole Joel pryzbilla contract and Darko is in the same area for the same production.

by myemic23 on Jul 18, 2007 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Darko's 21

Joel was 26 when we signed his extension, and he was already at his probable peak.

Plus there's a pretty huge difference between three years 21 million versus 5 years 32 million.

by howlingfantods on Jul 19, 2007 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't hate Hollinger...

He has good articles sometimes, and they always spur on lots of debate. He is wrong a lot, though, because of his over reliance on cold, faceless numbers... and we all know basketball is MUCH more than that. That's why we all wanted Z-Bo gone; in a Hollinger world you're losing all those numbers and in the real world that isn't necessarily the case.

(This might be a poor example because I think he liked that trade, but it's that sort of thinking that pokes holes in his good work)

I could never create or even truly understand many of the equations and formulas he creates, and I appreciate them as part of the puzzle. But Hollinger is a poor talent evaluator, and his opinion on stuff shouldn't be taken as if it came from an expert. Use his PER formula and stuff like that, because those come from solid numbers and are useful, but when Hollinger ventures into opinion-land he isn't very insightful (and often plain WRONG: "Dixon can really defend" for example).

All that said, I got NO idea why Portland wouldn't be on the "Winners" list. We absolutely can't be on the losers list; we had arguably the best off-season of anyone in the league on all 3 categories combined: free agency, trades, and both rounds of the draft. Especially when compared with those who he deemed "Winners"...

Perhaps he feels we go in the "Incomplete" section? Or that NEXT season we won't be much better?

But then he has teams like the Kings on there, and I think us adding Oden trumps Spencer Hawes just a teensy eensie bit. The only conclusion I can see is that he forgot about Portland completely, somehow...

I think Seattle should be on there as well, but I could see an argument that they'll have a worse record next year even if they made great draft picks. But US? Portland? The Portland TRAILBLAZERS? All we did was get better, yo!

It's annoying, but Hollinger don't matter. He isn't DUMB, he's just not smart at actual basketball stuff. Just stats. And he's pretty good at that stuff...

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 18, 2007 6:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger

was the only one who had the Spurs as the top team pretty much the entire second half of the season, taking a lot of heat from fans and other scribblers who thought he was crazy for not listing Dallas first.

Just saying.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey

SOMEBODY around here called Spurs from before day one of the season. I don't know who that could be... :::scratching head and looking skyward::: Hollinger wasn't the ONLY one.

--Dave

by Dave on Jul 18, 2007 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You weren't the only two, either...

as I recall.

by ken on Jul 19, 2007 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to be clear

I'm not talking about projections at the beginning or at the end of the season, what I think is distinctive about Hollinger is that he moved them to the top of his power rankings in the midst of Dallas's historic winning streaks. No one else did that, SI, the other guys at ESPN, various bloggers all were highly critical of Hollinger's approach that moved the Spurs ahead of the Mavs in February of this year.

by howlingfantods on Jul 19, 2007 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is

Hollinger takes a ton of heat from fans and other scribblers, who constantly go on and on about how "numbers aren't everything" and "watch some games, asshat" and so on. But he's right at least as often as guys who go by jes watchin', like the Bill Simmons and Chad Fords of the world, even though he's often right about different things than the things that guys like Chad and Simmons tend to be right about.

But the statheads tend to absorb all the abuse, since their whole shtick is to try to expose things that aren't really that obvious to the naked eye.

Yeah, Hollinger tends to be way too mechanical, and I think the guys who are most insightful are the ones who look at the various stathead approaches but temper those approaches by actually watching the games, but Hollinger really is right a pretty good amount of the time.

Again, the only one who called the Spurs the favorites to win starting in January or February, when everyone else was writing them off as over the hill.

by howlingfantods on Jul 18, 2007 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and for all you blazers guys

who're wondering why i picked memphis,because memphis with conley,gay,gasol,miller,and darko will play a suns style game.and will have no problems scoring,while for all you blazers guys and goofs where is the consistent offense coming from this season? oden i doubt it,roy yeah i can see 18 a game,aldridge another 18 a game.where else outlaw,webster,jack,blake,frye,jones see what i mean.who's going to make up for zbo's 23 ppg out of that mediocre bunch.

by fatty on Jul 18, 2007 7:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i agree on memphis

they will be the most improved team, partly because they had such a bad record last year. Pau being healthy would be a big boost by itself, but when you add Conley and Darko, plus a more experienced Gay (and don't forget Kinsey who was lights out the last month of the season) and they are good for at least a 10 win improvement IMO and possibly more.

As for the Blazers scoring, I think we can realistically hope for these numbers:

PG (Blake-Jack-Serg) 15
SG (Roy-Webster) 28
SF (Jones-Outlaw) 14
PF (Aldridge-Frye-McRob) 26
C (Oden-Przy-Raef)- 15

That adds up to 98 and I could easily see getting a few more ppg out of the PG and SF spots. Also, as Oden gets more comfortable he will score more. I can easily see 20 pts out of the Oden/Joel tandem by midseason. I agree there will be games where the Blazers struggle to score, but I don't think its as big a problem as you suggest.

by jksnake99 on Jul 18, 2007 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you are close

on those numbers, althought I would guess a little different.

PG (Blake-Jack-Serg) 18
Blake starts so he should score about what he did last year in Denver, 8pts. Jack might be gone, but if he stays he backs up Blake imo and is more of a scoring threat with the 2nd team than last year, but still will decrease to 8pts, from less play time. Sergio, if jack stays sergio doesn't get as many mins, and would score even less than last year, 2 pts.

SG (Roy-Webster) 27
Roy, who avg 19 for the last two months of last season will be close to that this season, 19pts. Web will back up Roy and be more of the same imo. He avg 7 last year, my guess is he maybe gets 8pts this year.

SF (Jones-Outlaw) 18
Jones was a great pick up, career 39% from 3pt, avg 6 last year, and 9 the year before with more minutes. My guess is he is the opening day starter, 8pts. Outlaw will eventually take the start duties over for jones, he avg'd almost 10 last year, so I say he does the same thing this year, 10 pts.

PF (Aldridge-Frye-McRob) 26
LMA avg 9pts last year, I hope for a break out year for him, and I think he will do it. My guess is he goes for about 18 a game as the main inside scoring threat. Frye avg 9.5 last year in a down year from his rookie year where he avg 12. My guess is he becomes one of the main scoring threats on the 2nd team, 10pts. Mcrob will see hardly time, 0pts.

C (Oden-Przy-Raef)- 13
Oden will not be an offensive force this season, especially in the 1st half. But he will be good all around, 8pts. Przy I believe will bounce back from last year, he won't get starters mins, but he will get 20 or so a game still, 5pts + shotblocking. Reaf actually avg 4pts last year, he will see very limited time this year unless injuries come up, 0pts.

That gives us 102 a game. I don't think that we will get that high, I am thinking more around 97-98 range, so ofcourse some of our guys will not live up to my expectations.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 19, 2007 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you've hit the nail

on the head.

I'm hoping that Aldridge has the sort of season I'm thinking he's going to have. I can see him coming close to Zach's 23/game and doing so without dominating the ball.

Jsnake's numbers don't look too out of line, except that 28/game out of the SG position may be a bit optimistic. I don't see Brandon averaging more than 16 - 17/game. That means that Webster and Jack have to contribute 11 - 12 per game between them.

by timg56 on Jul 19, 2007 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I see Aldridge having a monster season, where he will replace most if not all of Zach's scoring, but much more efficiently, with fewer touches, and I think he will probably be a better rebounder, too, even with Oden getting a good share of rebounds.

Brandon Roy 007

by TimG on Jul 19, 2007 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Making up the difference

The thought is that the interior defense, the center scoring, and passing out of double teams improves from last year to surpass the Zach's 23 ppg (and his lack of D).

by lama on Jul 19, 2007 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs