The realities of non-attachment

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 1:17 AM PDT Comment 41 comments

At the start of this season, I think that KP and Nate made it very clear that this year was about evaluation. The fact that we can even mutter the word "playoffs" with a straight face is a testament to the growth of this whole organization. AS much as our youngs progressed this year I think the one who may have grown the most might be Nate McMillon.
This year he started with a fantastic relationship with the GM and that has led to him "letting go" of the reigns. I cant remember one player calling him Sarge this year.
Anyways, My original point is that as much as we have lived and loved the effort and development of these young players, i cant shake the feeling that we may see numerous players gone.
Here are the list I wouldnt be surprised to see go:

Travis - He is NOT a Nate guy. Nate and KP value basketball IQ WAY over physical ability......but I know a few Gm's that dont.

Martell - see above description

Channing - lacking in IQ AND physical ability.

Jack - sure It's nice to have a guy who knows how to attack the rim, but wouldnt you like one who can play well in all facets of the game?

Sergio - Man, I personally love him as a player and cant wait to see him on a non Nate coached team. Throw him to the free and easy Don Nelson.

Alright, I know that Im gonna catch a ton of flack for this but....
LaMarcus Aldridge - I love this guy but at the end of the day If KP thinks he can lure an proven NBA vet-leader, who has a few miles left on the odometer, to this up and coming team.......he'll pull the trigger. I think that nate would loke to have a big man who can really pass out of the double team. One that see's the floor like a point guard. There are so may teams that may need to change directions and if this year is any indication of the testicular fortitude of GM's then you have to be ready at any time.

So, I write this with the feeling that as much as I truly love these players and the hard work they've put in as Blazers.........I trust KP and I believe that he has a 2-4 year goal of winning it all.

do you really think it's gonna be with the guys we have and through the draft?

non-attachment here we come.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

One of the realities

of having a team like this one is that at least half the team will be gone in a couple of years. As you identify the tricky part is figuring which half! We're not in a place yet where we can afford to fall in love with players just because they're ours.

--Dave

by Dave on Apr 2, 2008 1:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In fact all of my favorite Blazers got traded

Clyde
Terry
Calvin Natt
Rashweed
Drazen
Darnell Valentine
Duck
even Zachy

Hey, Im not complaining

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 1:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but that was AT THE END...

The thought of trading LMA for an "NBA vet-leader who has a few miles left in the tank" would severly change the public perception of KP. Who would be attainable and worth LMA's upside? That is ludacris to WANT or be open to changing the timeline of this team. B.Roy isn't ready to peak yet, no way ODEN is ready to peak yet (he hasn't even played), and LMA is hugely improved over his first full-season. NOPE, won't happen. Hows that for attachement.

Also, just because a player "ISN'T A NATE/KP GUY" doesn't mean they are going to be traded now. IF that player fills a necessity on this team and if they work in with the timeline of the Big-3's prime and our budget around those players, then we could see guys like Outlaw and Martell playing with the Blazers for 5 or 6 more seasons. Travis's hoops IQ may not be the greatest, but he is a playmaker that our entire second unit could be structured around.

Martell IS a Nate-guy... no matter what way you look at it. Just because he wasn't drafted by Nate, doesn't mean that he isn't one of Nate's guys. Martell has known Nate since he was 13 years old, Martell was on an AAU hoops team back then with Mac-10's son. Martell's hoops IQ has shown to be much improved this year, as are his intensity on defense and toughness. He does still need improvement on his handles and more consistency on his shot, but it is finally clear that this was his true transition year into the NBA. Finally we do know that Martell is an NBA-level baller. Keep him.

by Scotty the Mastermind on Apr 2, 2008 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice....

I like what your saying.
What I have in Mind for LMA is a Chris Bosh....Tracey McGrady.....Michael Redd....Lamar Odom + more, kind of deal.
The timeline I see is 2-4 years. Im just saying that I think he's the one of the "Big 3" that could be used to lure the finishing touch on a championship caliber team.

All Im saying is that it is my opinion that Travis and Martell have something really special that other teams might want.......potential.
Sometimes you have to trade potential in order to secure someone who can effect the culture of this team. This team already has great chemistry off the court. On the court, there are so many signs of immaturity.

Nate made his name in this league doing all of the intangibles and working his butt off night in and night out.
He learned how to take minimal talent and turn it into maximum output. I believe that Travis and Martell are the exact opposite. Maximum talent minimal output, few intangibles.
Neither of these guys are a bust.
Theyre assets.

jans

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This Diary is a Year Early

I think Jack is the only one who has a chance of leaving. Sergio is staying for Rudy and everyone else has too much potential to trade away until KP figures out how they will play with Oden.

I'm tominhawaii and I approved this message.

by tominhawaii on Apr 2, 2008 2:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Doubt it

Sergio is not "staying for Sergio." What kind of reasoning is that? If Rudy needs a Spanish companion while in Portland then he can hire a maid. He doesn't need Sergio. This is the NBA, for crying out loud, not some sort of slumber party.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on Apr 2, 2008 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dead on

Sergion is not staying for Sergio... He is staying for Rudy.

Roy on the left wing. He shoots... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!! THE SHOT IS GOOD! IT'S GOOOOOD!!! THE PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS!!!

by JTDuck22 on Apr 2, 2008 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KP

KP pretty much said in a Quick chat that he had another year to help with Rudy but it didn't mean he had a free pass. No reasoning at all, I heard it straight from the GM.

I'm tominhawaii and I approved this message.

by tominhawaii on Apr 2, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I was trying to say is

That KP stayed pat this year to evaluate who will be along for the championship ride.
I think that all of the young players I mentioned have been evaluated. Which means to me that KP will start putting together the team he REALLY wants to see.

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's happenin Jans!

Didn't make it to a game in Denver this year ... but I'll get back on that train anywhere.

Anyway, I agree with your overall sentiment here, but I think you're talking to the wrong fan base (for the most part). We are infamous for overvaluing our players. In the end I agree that some will go this year, but I also agree with tom that they have to see how LMA works and plays well with Oden ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 6:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Lamarcus

I can't quite image KP trading Lamarcus. On the other hand, I just wonder if he included LA in a trade to get Rose would he do it. Every time I think about not drafting Paul I get heartburn. My solace is that we probably wouldn't have ended up with Oden if we had. But the irony is how bad the drafting was before Kevin. Telfair cost us both Al Jefferson, who the Blazers might have chosen instead of T, and Chris Paul or Deron Williams if Telfair wasn't already on the roster. Horrible prospect evaluation. We ended up with a shooting guard who can't consistently make the big shot and a point guard who can't handle the ball or pass it. KP did convert, miraculously, Telfair into Roy, but as much as I love him I'd still rather have Chris Paul. So, passing on the two best PG prospects of the decade (giving one to a division rival) we are now desperate for a PG even though our roster is littered with them. My thought is that we don't get one with out sacrifice. I would say that Trout is the primary trade piece because he proved he had some upside this year. But if I could get an all star point guard, I would trade anyone but Oden. That said, I think KP will try to upgrade the point guard position to solid but not spectacular, but still build the team around the big three.

by tfairch on Apr 2, 2008 8:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Devin Harris

Would you deal Jack and Outlaw and draft choices to NJ for Harris?

by two4larue on Apr 2, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I would...

As long as I was confident that Rudy could provide the necessary firepower off the bench, and I would definitely do it if it didn't involve our first round pick. As it is though, I don't think that trade would work under the salary cap come draft time when Harris' contract jumps up to 10 million.

by The Graduate on Apr 2, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

without a doubt

Harris would be great here.

by BlazerD on Apr 2, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no way

I just see no way that KP trades ROY, LMA, or ODEN. These 3, are the big 3. KP has been talking since the draft about Portland having the true twin towers, growing them together and watching them dominate during their primes together. Unless LBJ is involved I just don't see it happening. Maybe after next year when LMA avg over 20 ppg and along with Oden achors a defense that is vastly improved which helps lead this team to the playoffs more fans will understand how special this run for Portland can be if we keep these 3 together.

Picture this. The Laker teams of early 2000, they had Shaq, the most dominate big man in the game, and they had Kobe, who was quickly becoming the best 2 guard in the game. But they always were abused by teams who had good power forwards, which is why our Blazers played them so well. Well this Blazer team will have Oden, who just might become the most dominate big man, and Roy, who is not kobe, but he is close to what kobe was back then, (look at the stats of Kobe back then, Roy is good people, don't take him for granted). Now you add LMA to that, who can become what KG was early in his career, (before you crusify me, look at KG's stats and compare them to LMA, they are pretty close, except that KG came out of HS, which is why he is one the greatest) Add even a poor man's KG to that laker team and they win 6 titles instead of only 3.

We are coming into a special special time as Blazer fans, lets enjoy the ride and pray for health to all our players.

by usmcr3049 on Apr 2, 2008 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

LMA stay?

Well, I feel like you could mention KG and LMA in the same sentence if you were talking about LMA's potential on the offensive end. KG is the best defender in the league, never mind the intangibles.
LMA has been absolutely abused this year on the defensive end.
I know there has been talk about what a great on ball defender he is.........but I have seen nothing but regression in that department (this year)

I love LMA, Im just saying that when you have a GM with a vision of banners, built to last like San Antonio, then you have be creative with all of your assets.

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You misunderstand me

KG is a great defender, now. But when he first came into the league he was abused on the defensive end as well. He grew into the player he is today, and I believe, more importantly, KP and Nate believe that LMA can grow into a KG type player as well. His potential is very very high, most "experts" had him as the Blazers best player this year, instead of Brandon Roy, which show how highly he is thought of around the league.

You don't give up a player like that for a Dale Davis vet who is on his last legs, especially when this team is no where near it's championship window.

The day may come where the Blazers trade LMA, but I can't see them doing it for anything less than a superstar at the moment, even then it would have to be the right superstar who is very young, which just don't grow on trees.

by usmcr3049 on Apr 2, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LMA = KG?

Im here to say that I love me some LMA.
In fact he's my favorite player on my favorite team.
I just dont think he will EVER be anything close to having the impact of KG.
LMA is a good looking player who happens to get lots of playing time on a very mediocre, young NBA team. Gm's LOVE POTENTIAL and If we could net a player who already has the saavy were looking for wouldnt you do it?
If he was on Detroit he might never get off the bench. Would he steal time from Maxiell? McDyess?
This doesnt even factor in the fact that we have to extend Roy and LMA the same year. then Oden a year after.
KP is a very smart guy and I trust him with our beloved team.
I think he can see the big picture and has a plan that will probably shake up a lot of Blazer fans.

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uhhh....

KG was also a young player getting tons of time on mediocre club. In fact, how many good teams has he ever played on? Not many.

He's ten years older than LMA and you're trying to compare their games now?

Bo knows hoops but you don't.

by BlazerD on Apr 2, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From: dont know hoops.

KG was widely considered the top player in the league by his peers over the last ten years.
I know there are many man-crushes here put if you think that LaMarcus has a chance to be what KG is then that is your opinion. I have seen 25 years of young players being compared to hall of fame players
and I love LMA but I cant shake the feeling that he will be a "good" player in this league. possibly great. Not Hall of Famer.
There is a certain "eye of the tiger" that players have when you know they will be legendary. Oden has it. Roy could work to get it. LMA would have to seriously transform into someone else to be in this category.

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so

you think that if Detroit had a chance to Get LMA for McDyess, they would not do it. I know that the Blazers would not trade LMA for McDyess, and Maxiell together.

by RipCity on Apr 2, 2008 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aldridge:

a young, big, long player who can shoot, defend and run the floor. KP would have a hard time improving on him ... he's gonna stay.

Subtracting the Big 3, I feel the only REAL trade value we have left are Outlaw and Rudy (the 13th pick might have some appreciable value). Some teams may covet Blake and Pryz for backup spots but would unlikely give up a quality player or high pick to get them.

Sooo, would offering Travis, Rudy and the #13 pick be enough to get us a shot at Rose? Maybe, since some believe Rudy would go in the top 5 if he had been in the draft this year. Or those 3 probably would be enough to get an already on-board quality point guard from another team. Would KP do it? Well, actually Rudy is expendable because we already have our 2 guard. I think he'd hate giving up Outlaw and so would I. I think it's within reason that KP would consider such a move for Rose. For a veteran player? It would depend on just who it was.

My opinion only: I'd rather get Rose than Chris Paul.

Another opinion: Steph Curry has absolutely the most lightening release of any player I've ever seen! I used to think Doug Collins had a quick release but it wasn't even close to Curry's. Remember how people said Martell had a quick release (which I never bought into). Well, his shot is in slow mo compared to Curry's. Oh, I have a point to make here: As a basketball skill, I think a super quick release is very high on the list (being able to hit 'em is pretty important too <grin>. Even with quick defenders, it makes it so hard to get to that player in time to bother his shot. Yep, I'd give up some talent to acquire that guy too. He'll likely be special.

by TwoDeep on Apr 2, 2008 9:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

rudy

I would have a hard time giving up Rudy, if only because I want to watch him play in a Blazer uniform, as feel the excitment he brings. Ya I am a homer.

Anyway, For me I would rather keep our #1 use in on a player like Westbrook, and then trade Jack and Frye for a back up 4 that can rebound, than give up Rudy, jack and our #1. Unless it would get us Paul or Rose, which I think is out of the question, unless NY wins the 1st or 2nd pick and Thomas is still their GM, then anything is possible.

But think of it this way, which of these teams would be better Next year?

PG: Blake, Westbrook, Sergio
SG: Roy, Rudy
SF: Webster, Outlaw, Jones
PF: LMA, Player to be named, McRob?
C: Oden, Joel

PG: Rose, Blake, Sergio
SG: Roy, webster
SF: Webster, Jones, Roy
PF: LMA, McRob?
C: Oden, Joel

I think the starting 5 of the second team would be much better, but the bench would be almost non-exsistant. Blake, Joel, Jones and maybe Sergio? Over all I like the first team better because of the depth on the second unit, with Rudy, Outlaw, Westbrook, Joel, Jones, and a brusing PF. Sure over time that will get trimmed down and some players will leave, maybe even Rudy, but for next season it would be very exciting and it would give the Blazers more options in future trades, as well as keeping their current plan of Cap space in 09.

My point is I don't think we need a top point guard to win a championship. I think we just need someone a little bit better than Steve. Really if you look at Steve he is almost perfect for our PG spot, his only area of sub-par play is defense, (and athletisim if you want to call that one too). He can hit the open three, and set up the offense very well. Sure getting a Rose, or Paul would be fantastic, but I don't think we need to break the team up trying to get a guy like that.

by usmcr3049 on Apr 2, 2008 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love Rudy

just as much as the next guy, and I cannot wait to see him in a Blazers uniform. That being said, I would take lineup number 2 for a couple reasons:

Depth can be acquired. (think James Jones, etc.)
Picking up Rose in that deal would not affect cap room.
Some of that veteran, depth help could be picked up in 2009.

No way that whoever has the second pick would take that offer though- so no worries, I welcome Rudy with very open arms. As good as Rudy could be in the NBA, there is no way that he (nor any other trade piece) has the upside of Rose.

by The Graduate on Apr 2, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

cap room

My guess is that to get Rose in that deal, we would have to take at least one bad contract in return, which would put at least a dent in our cap room for 09. No Gm would trade Rose for Outlaw/Frye + our #1 straight across. We would get Rose + bad contract player #1.

by usmcr3049 on Apr 2, 2008 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose over Paul?

Rose looks really good, but he's still unproven in the Association, and he's more of a shoot-first guy. You'd take an unproven guy over the best PG on the planet who's only 22?

I agree that Curry looks good. He'd be great as an insta-scorer off the bench. But in watching him play I would worry about his defense at the next level. I think he'll have trouble getting consistent NBA minutes for this reason ... unless he really improves ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Paul is small.

Rose isn't. Some time back I remember KP talking about how he liked big guards. He already has one of them in Roy ... Rose would complete the deal.

by TwoDeep on Apr 2, 2008 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey TwoDeep...

Do you remember his dad's quick release? Like father like son. Dell Curry used to come off screens and just chuck the ball up. This video isn't the best example, but it is still pretty quick here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TugEEfe0gds&NR=1

by The Graduate on Apr 2, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right ...

he could fire the ball quickly. Hmmm, wonder if he taught his son that early on or if it's in the genes?

by TwoDeep on Apr 2, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah Steffen Cury

that guy looks like Monta Ellis, and also like a quicker Roy. But I heard on the radio that he is staying in college.

by RipCity on Apr 2, 2008 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No way to LA, DJ

he's currently listed as "Not getting traded for anything short of LeBron", the same status that Roy and Oden carry.

I could very easily see everyone else as a chip, but not LA. Besides, "a proven NBA-vet leader"... like who?

Here are the problems with that. 1) Roy is our leader. He is the man. 2) You lose years if you go older, and with Aldridge's upside, why would you do it? 3) Who? Name a 4 who you would trade LA for... With the exception of Bosh and Boozer (who are both just slightly more experienced), the rest are either too old, too young, too selfish, or not as good. And frequently Aldridge is likened to Bosh. How would we improve by trading him? Also, we'll see how often he gets doubled when Oden is on the opposite side...

"Competition is a process or variety of habitual behavior that grows out of a habit of mind." -Willard Beecher

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Apr 2, 2008 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I feel you

and, I think that LMA is not untradable.
He is a very large asset to a GM who has a championship in mind. I think that the talent level and ceiling have been evaluated and there will be moves made. Roy? the foundation. Oden? the big picture? Lamarcus, he's nice but there are so many great players in this league that can score AND defend well AND bring saavy. You just never know who will come available.
LaMarcus has to get some serious attitude and muscle to become a player who belongs in the paint in this league.
I dont think any trade involving LMA will happen this offseason, it all matters what chemistry looks like.

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would totally agree IF...

Aldridge was a fifth year player and had peaked. But he's not and he hasn't. And judging by the last 2 months there is LOTS more to come. He has been better down low, better blocking shots, and even stealing the ball.

On top of all that, he's still on his rookie contract.

If he doesn't improve in the next 3 years, you're right, he's expendable.

There's no way he's tradeable right now though.

"Competition is a process or variety of habitual behavior that grows out of a habit of mind." -Willard Beecher

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Apr 2, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Im certainly not saying that LMA is expendable

iM saying that to build a championship squad you have to have all the pieces in order. LMA might be the key of getting us the piece that pushes us over the top. Or he might be that piece.
Remember when everyone in the league wanted Channing Frye? I bet Isaiah wishes he would have traded him then.
We dont need to trade LaMarcus now. Im just saying that I believe that he is on the list of assets to turn this thing into a championship team.
Player or trade.
He might be at the top of this trade potential.
Not player potential but trade.

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only 4 to trade LMA for is ...

Amare Stoudemire. But this will only happen becasue the Suns cheap owner wants Lma while still on his rookie contract instead of paying Amare. So this won't happen but that is the only 4 worth Lma.

Amare is not as prone to play D as Lma but has better offensive, albeit with less range. Otherwise I think they are comparable only because LMa is younger and less damaged (knees).

by NWfan on Apr 2, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doubt that

Amare would not work nearly as well with Oden as LA. LA has a lot of range, he is a prototype of who you would have play alongside Oden.

Not to mention Amare's knees are sketchy.

This whole LA is tradeable argument is just ridiculous.

I hear trader bob might be getting another team soon, DJ...

by BlazerD on Apr 2, 2008 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reality IS attachment

at least for some of us. For whatever reason(s) we become attached to certain players (as we do to other humans). Surely men get as attached to players as women do (see sergioftw.) And it hurts when they're no longer important to the team.

What do the rest of you think? Can you keep from getting attached?

"Aldridge is LaMonster, as anyone can see..." - ClipperSteve, 03/24/08

by jorga on Apr 2, 2008 3:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It is emotional.

I think the way many people don't get attached is through many of the ways we've been seeing. How many trade Jack, Trade Frye, and other diaries have there been lately? Instead of looking at the players we have and saying, "how can these guys work together," they've been seen as problems for the team, and (arguably) considered a net negative. Emotions are involved both ways. Either we love them and want them to say, or hate them and want them to leave. The latter may in fact be a result of one deciding that the player wont be with the team in the future, and it is easier to see them go if we decide that we just didn't like them anyways.

But I'm with you. Having been through a season with these players, I am sad at the prospect of losing even one of them, even though the reality is that we most certainly will. All we can do is wish them the best and let them know that they were loved when they return. And by this time next year, we will be doing the same thing again. The 2007-2008 Portland Trailblazers are soon to be no more as we knew them. But the 2008-2009 Portland Trailblazers will come soon, and ease the pain of our loss.

"It just showed once again that half the world doesn't know how the other three quarters live." -P.G. Wodehouse

by T Darkstar on Apr 2, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

theres a word

i first saw last year on the seattle mariners lookout landing site: rosterbation. some here just rosterbate all night and all day. they never run out of fantasies.

ignacio

by ignacio on Apr 2, 2008 4:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Chuckle. Good one.

by annthefan on Apr 2, 2008 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't feel attached

But I believe this team needs time playing together and growing. The Thrilla improved greatly this year. Steve improved this year. Jones improved. Perhaps only Jack regressed.

There is no way I see LMA being traded at this time. He is young along with our core and they are not in need of an NBA vet but the experience to become NBA vets.

The player I also think is not even near traded is Martell. His heart and determination have kicked in big time and he will shoot up next year.

by lee3022 on Apr 2, 2008 11:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs