Thinking outside the box

by parkinglotj on Apr 22, 2008 2:03 PM PDT

As I read this article something came to me.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=741401

The key part was:

MICHAEL REDD: C-minus

By his own admission, this was the worst season of Redd's career. He came into training camp in the best shape of his life and full of optimism after spending the summer with Team USA. But the dream season that he envisioned never materialized, and he admitted after the season that he had no chemistry with Krystkowiak, a cloud that continually hung over the team.

MICHAEL RUFFIN: C

Ruffin was signed as a free agent to provide some size and physicality to the team, and while he wasn't called on much, he did provide some of that when his name was called. He suffered through periods of injury and long stretches when he didn't get playing time.

2 of the 3 needs are filled right here.

The price would be steep, but Redd is a great talent. Ruffin is there to make other teams pay for hurting Roy, until Oden can be that player.

LaFrentz, Outlaw and Webster and pick(s) for Redd and a sign-and-traded Ruffin seems to work.

Does anyone know how Nate and him got along with Team USA?

I know that people will post, "Roy and Redd are both SG's, can't be done." That is why I said thinking outside the box.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

NO REDD

NO WAY, NO THANK YOU, NO PLEASE.

I don’t like his game. Maybe if it was pick up style, but for a team with chemistry, Redd is a bad choice. He’s a one man operation going the wrong direction.

Oden is as back as Roy is at this point, so I’m not sure why we’d need Ruffin. Plus, don’t we still have Pryzbilla?

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Apr 22, 2008 2:16 PM PDT 0 recs

Possibility

I have posted before that I would be interested in Redd. Something to always think about is you want to sell high/ buy low and I think this would help us in Redd’s case. I think a backcourt of Redd and Roy would work. I haven’t looked at his salary but I think it is something to consider.

by porterfan30 on Apr 22, 2008 2:25 PM PDT 0 recs

No need to think outside the box.

As long as your box is not a cube. There are many other polyhedrons from which to think inside of. I think inside of this one.

Pritchard is working inside of this one.

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Apr 22, 2008 2:30 PM PDT 0 recs

Morel like Isiah Thomas...

... that box defies logic.

by LMA on Apr 23, 2008 5:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

I see Isaiah in a different polyhedron.

The Square Antiprism.

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Apr 23, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

Redd is a selfish SG who shoots a lot

He’s like the Z-Bo guard, along the lines of Jamal Crawford. He also has a big fat contract with a lot of years left. Milwaukee would love to ship him off.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Apr 22, 2008 2:55 PM PDT 0 recs

Killer contract

His max-type contract is killer, especially because the Blazers will be looking at giving Roy, LMA and Oden $10mil+ contracts soon. Adding his contract to that mix would kill the Blazer’s cap space all by itself.

by tingeyga on Apr 22, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

once again Travis is not going to be traded

"Well now, were you fellas going with all that beer?"

by bow4meow on Apr 22, 2008 4:50 PM PDT 0 recs

Travis is not untouchable

He could easily get traded if the right deal comes up. But definitely not for Redd.

by LMA on Apr 23, 2008 5:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

the only way it could happen

is if the PTB can land a superstar PG …. otherwise, if its just clearing some room for roster space, Trout is back. Its not just I love Travis’ whole shtick, I think he is going to be a fantastic player. He’s not the player he was last year, and he will continue to develope. With his versatility, only a blockbuster deal involving Trout could occur, imho. So I guess we agree?

If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?

by bow4meow on Apr 25, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up 0 recs

Hmmmm

I wonder if “That is why I said thinking outside the box” is how Isiah answered people that said Z-Bo and Curry wouldn’t work together.

It’s not just that Roy/Redd play the same position and deserve/need (respectively) a lot of play time, it’s that it also forces Rudy out of the picture. I’m not against selling high on Trout if something good comes along, but we’re well more than set at SG.

by Gargen on Apr 22, 2008 4:54 PM PDT 0 recs

Webster and Outlaw!

... maybe for CP3 and Lebron

by raging WebTed on Apr 22, 2008 5:23 PM PDT 0 recs

I'd make that trade.

Trade Freeland!

by rockingharder on Apr 22, 2008 6:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

No WAY

Webster is such a cool name, and Lebron has no accent

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Apr 23, 2008 12:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Oy....

Outlaw and Webster could both end up being better players than Michael Redd. They will at least be able to contribute much more to the Blazers with the rest of their careers than Redd will be able to, either on the court or in a much better deal than this one. And Michael Ruffin? Really? Please, keep this one in the box…and bury it.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to Keep Comment Boards Sucka Free"

by bforsythe on Apr 22, 2008 6:48 PM PDT 0 recs

Timecapsule like ...

but without ever digging it up … ever again. Ever.

by bfan on Apr 22, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Redd irritates me

An airhead with sycophantic tendencies. An emotionally crippled offspring of an authoritarian religious ideologue. And a narcissistic, one-dimensional basketball player. Not a team player. Would be anathema to Blazer culture.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on Apr 22, 2008 7:56 PM PDT 0 recs

Don't hold back now...

Tell me what you really think.

by LMA on Apr 23, 2008 4:56 AM PDT up 0 recs

> An emotionally crippled offspring of an authoritarian religious ideologue.

What are you, his psychiatrist?

by MiledAnimal on Apr 23, 2008 10:28 AM PDT up 0 recs

No, he just irritates me

And I wanted to use a bunch of five dollar words.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on Apr 23, 2008 10:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

The last thing we need to do

Is overpay for somebody who was hot stuff on another team because they took all the shots.

by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 22, 2008 8:43 PM PDT 0 recs

Read this and see if you still want Redd

Link

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on Apr 22, 2008 10:35 PM PDT 0 recs

Wow

That ends the debate.

by parkinglotj on Apr 23, 2008 8:50 AM PDT up 0 recs

OK, now that I've flushed you guy's out

Toward the end of the season, Pritchard was interview several times saying he would be “creative” on draft day.

The “stand pat” crowd is not “creative.”

The “draft BPA” crowd is not “creative.”

Pritchard has something up his sleeve.

The points of my post seemed to get right past most of you.

1. Would Redd be an attractive player to Nate because Nate has seen him up close at Team USA? We can differ on how much it would cost Portland to get him, maybe we could get him for McBob and filler. (Tongue firmly in cheek.) 2. Would he “fit”? Some have said that he would not. I can accept that, but even Nate has said that Roy could end up a SF. (I don’t see it, but Nate and Pritch have said it.) 3. Could someone else think of something other than “Let’s get Harris… or Rose!” (By the way, I would love to get either of those guys and have stated so before.)

Who last year saw the Randolph trade coming? Who, the year before, saw anything but “Draft the Stache” as impossible?

I’m not saying that we NEED Redd, I’m not even sure if that would be a good move. I’m just trying to get out of this rut that everyone is in. Like I said, I’m trying to think outside the box.

Please get creative, and don’t be afraid to post.

by parkinglotj on Apr 22, 2008 10:47 PM PDT 0 recs

You want thinking outside of the box?

I’ll give you thinking outside of the box.

I’ve a killer idea for a trade

I’ll give you 2 hints:
1) He is tall
2) He is German

Blazers give up Raef and LaMarcus and get Dirk. We get to trot out Oden, Dirk, Rudy, Roy, and some PG as the starting 5.

Dallas gets accepts that their current core isn’t going to cut it in the new West so they get younger, more athletic and with Kidd and Raef’s contracts coming off the books they have a lot of trade options or have a lot of cap space to play with.

by tingeyga on Apr 23, 2008 1:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

I Like Dirk

but that would put a timeline weirdness on the whole thing. The run isn’t supposed to happen next year (I think it will, actually), but Dirk doesn’t have the longevity of LMA. If LMA doesn’t show toughness in the future, it would be a good trade. If LMA gets tough, we’re better off with him than Dirk (for the long haul). Dirk, for all his goodness, is just not a real winner.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Apr 23, 2008 12:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

Creative?

Here’s some creative options.

1. Two trades, the first moves us up to 6-7, the second moves us into the top 3 picks.
2. Trade Rudy to move way up. If he’s a top 5 pick, combined with our #13, it could put us in the top 2.
3. Trade LMA and Jarrett for Deron Williams. Move up in the draft to pick Love, who says his preferred team would be Portland. Start Oden and Love, with Pryz and Channing as backups. Trade our second rounders and cash for a late first round pick and draft Tyler H, so NC and Duke can fight it out as to who is the first human victory cigar off the bench.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Apr 23, 2008 1:48 AM PDT up 0 recs

Trading Rudy to move up is a realistic possibility

The main difficulty I see with this option is that Rudy is kind of a risk. He is completely unproven. All Euros are a crapshoot because the NBA is a much more demanding league. So even with Rudy’s reputation as “the best player in Euroland” I’m not sure we’ll be able to get a high pick in exchange for just Rudy and our # 13. No way we can move all the way up to # 2. No way Rudy and our # 13 is worth Rose. No way. Probably Westbrook, but not Rose.

Rudy may be viewed by Blazers management as disposable because we already have Roy. And Rudy himself would probably prefer to play for a team that has an obvious vacancy at SG. Rudy could even throw down the gauntlet and tell Pritchard that he won’t sign with the Blazers unless they promise to trade him to a team where he has a better chance of starting.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on Apr 23, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

I agree that

Rudy and #13 wouldn’t get us the #2. But throw in Outlaw and it probably would …....

by TwoDeep on Apr 23, 2008 8:49 AM PDT up 0 recs

My comment

was based on the premise that KP was telling the truth when he said Rudy would be a top five pick this year. If other teams agree, then you are trading a #4-5 and a #13 for a #2. That is not unreasonable.

What did we get when we traded down from #3 to #6? A #27 or something? That’s trading down 3 spots and getting a #27 as compensation for it. If #27 is compensation for 3 spots, then #13 is compensation for 3 spots.

The trade obviously won’t fly if other teams don’t view Rudy that highly, and KP was blowing smoke—which he might have been. But I personally think that Rudy is better than the Euro taken #1 a couple of years ago, and I suspect most GMs think so as well.

I think you are looking at it wrongly. It’s not trading the #13 for the #2, and tossing in Rudy. It’s trading Rudy for the #2, and tossing in the #13 to get it done.

Sure, all Euros are a risk. So are all college players.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Apr 24, 2008 12:49 AM PDT up 0 recs

Draft pick value isn't necessarily linear

I don’t think that you can necessarily say that because the Blazers made a trade to slide down 3 slots and pick up an extra pick means that another team would give up a #2 for the #13 and Rudy (who has the same value of a #5). The Blazers had identified that they wanted Martell and they knew that he was going to be available at #6, so they slid down got the guy they wanted and got an extra pick in the process. Also of importance is at what point do the “can’t miss” draft picks go off the board. This draft seems to be pretty deep in terms of prospects who project to be good players, but other than Beasley, Rose and maybe Mayo, I don’t get the feeling that there are that many potential superstar players in this draft. So teams that are drafting in the superstar zone will need more incentive to slide out of that zone than teams that are already drafting in the “good player” zone will require to change at what point they draft within that zone.

by tingeyga on Apr 24, 2008 1:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

We aren't talking about a #5 pick, though

We’re talking about Rudy Fernandez. If he were in this draft, and you were talking about potential superstars in this draft, a lot of people would include him in that conversation.

We’re talking about trading a possible superstar SG and the #13 for a more likely superstar PG. It’s not an unreasonable proposal. To throw in Travis as well might be too much to give up. And (annthefan notwithstanding), I don’t consider Travis untouchable. But to give up him, Rudy, and a #13 for Rose? Pretty high price, in my book.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Apr 25, 2008 2:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

Out of the box...

New York Knicks- Jarret Jack, Rael LaFrentz, and 13th pick for Jamal Crawford and filler. Jamal Crawford is almost a PG and Brandon Roy is almost a PG. Stranger things have happened.

Chicago Bulls- Jarret Jack, Channing Frye, and 13th pick for Kirk Hinrich. Ignore his large salary and Hinrich basically solves every problem we have at PG.

Atlanta Hawks- Jarret Jack, Martell Webster for Josh Childress. At least we could solve our SF problem.

by Winchester on Apr 23, 2008 3:17 AM PDT 0 recs

Josh Childress

Would be a great fit at the Blazers, long, great defender, plays a role and unselfishly defers to the main guns on offense whilst still getting his share of points. But I’d send Jarret and Raef (expiring contract) for Childress, and future 1st rounders. We need Martell’s outside shooting, plus Atlanta probably aren’t looking to add another swingman.

by LMA on Apr 23, 2008 5:21 AM PDT up 0 recs

When you look at it...

it seems like we don’t really have to wait until 2009 to add a big piece. Raef is just as valuable next year to us in a trade as his cap space would be when he leaves. It so hard to convince free agents to come to a smaller market, it seems like a better deal for us if we can swing a trade or we might end up wasting our cap space.

by Winchester on Apr 23, 2008 12:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

My box is better than yours ...

LaFrentz, Jack, Webster, and Frye for Tracy McGrady.

by bfan on Apr 23, 2008 6:33 AM PDT 0 recs

Brilliant!

I’d even throw in a second rounder or two on that. And cash (not my money, after all).

Perhaps if someone in Portland has something on Adelman, and we can blackmail him to get him to support this, it might happen. Or perhaps we can get the Chinese to say Yao isn’t coming back unless McGrady goes, or something. I’m sure there’s some kind of inducement we can come up with to get Houston to agree with this. I’ll think about it.

The only problem is that we’d have to sit him during the playoffs, because he will never, ever win a playoff series.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Apr 24, 2008 12:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

Redd is Redd-iculous!

I don’t like Michael Redd no ‘mo. I never had a super high opinion of him, but I had him filed in my brain as a good shooter/good player, a Ray Allen-lite (but not too much lighter). I just didn’t watch many Bucks games, and why would I? Bucks fans don’t watch Bucks games (zing).

This year though, I had Charlie Villanueva on my fantasy team, and I watched the Bucks to cheer ol’ baldy on. I got a heaping dose of Redd this season, and I can assure you we want no part of him.

Someone else mentioned it above, and I had mentioned it in game threads: Redd is just a shooting guard version of Z-Bo. Not in the off the court way, but the I-will-shoot-now-and-no-one-else-will type of way. Even if guys are wide open, he doesn’t have any semblance of a good shot, or whatever. Redd is gonna shoot it. Ugh.

When you add in his contract, Michael Redd gets the dreaded DOUBLE UGH.

Unless someone from the trio of Oden/LMA/Frye dies this offseason, Michael Ruffin would be moot on our team. This deal might be thinking outside the box, and I always commend that, but unfortunately it would lock us in a prison of mediocrity afterwards.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Apr 25, 2008 1:55 AM PDT 0 recs

I Redd somewhere that Redd yelled at a teammate for taking shots

that Redd apparently felt belonged to him only.

If Redd is the shooting guard version of Zach, how stupid was the idea to bring Zach to the Bucks?

by MiledAnimal on Apr 25, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

I remembers that

Redd is a big ol’ balding ballhog. Adding Z-Bo to that team would help them offensively if people could learn to share the ball, but it wouldn’t be a much better situation than the Knicks… just a lot less attention paid to the team by the media.

Plus the Bucks were AWFUL, simply AWFUL defensively. Man, adding Z-Bo would almost been hilarious…

One thing I meant to mention was that when I watched Bucks games, I actually found myself getting ANGRY at Michael Redd—and I don’t even get angry at Jack when he pulls a Jarrett. Redd offended me with how he plays, especially since he is supposed to have a nice guy rep. I saw him yelling at guys for taking “his” shot (like you mentioned), not passing to players when open, playing zip zero nada defense, and once he even shot an orphan in the face with a bazooka. He really, really sucked.

In a perfect world, Redd would not be such a poor leader and Z-Bo would be okay passing as well and those two could form a great offensive duo. Sadly, that perfect world only exists in Portland with the Trail Blazers. Other teams gotta suffer with their ‘franchise’ players being lameazoids.

Even though I find Redd ultra annoying to watch now, he still has value and the Bucks should be able to get someone good for him. I don’t know what situation that would be, nor do I care to think about it more than I already have, but the Bucks would likely wanna get out from his mega deal and build around Eazy Yi, Bumbling Bogut, and whoever they draft this year. I dunno.

I think Redd and Z-Bo are equal with what they give a team, but Z-Bo has a lot less value because of his rep… even though I’d say a motivated Z-Bo gives a team more because he can score inside on anyone and he is a good rebounder. He just needs to be in the right situation.

NY and Milwaukee sure ain’t the right situation though.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Apr 25, 2008 12:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

Speaking of Bogut

The Australian press reported today that he may get as much as $75 million on his next contract. All I can say in reply to the Australian press is “Don’t Bogut that joint, my friend.”

by MiledAnimal on Apr 25, 2008 10:20 PM PDT 0 recs