The Problem with Upgrades

by blazersfan50 on May 12, 2008 11:14 AM PDT

The conversations on this site often revolve around upgrading our point guard and small forward spots, namely with Chris Paul and small forward to be named later. I would like to point out a couple problems with these ideas. Firstly, considering the immense success the Hornets have enjoyed this season and the relative youth of their roster, it is highly unlikely that Chris Paul could be swayed to leave for any amount of money. The main purpose of these discussions seems to be finding a way to have 5 all stars in our starting lineup. There are several problems with this. One, is it improbable that we could pry these pieces away from their teams without giving up a substantial amount in return. Also, these players would demand money that would inflate our payroll and restrict our ability to get key role players, an important ingredient to a championship team. Thirdly, these all-stars want touches, and their is only one ball to go around. One could argue that the experiment almost worked with the 2004 L*kers, but they mortaged their immediate future, and used players way past their prime, which is a direction I am not comfortable in going. Role players are a crucial ingredient to a championship team. We have our three future all-stars, what we need is players who can fill in around them, specialists who perform their jobs and do it well. Some specialists: A pass-first, distributing point guard, a.k.a Steve Blake. A dead-eye outside shooter, James Jones and Martell Webster. A lockdown perimeter defender, potentially Webster or Blake (who is very capable against bigger guards), or through the draft (13 is a good spot to draft for need). A bruiser who will fight for rebounds: Przybilla (or Frye or McRoberts after some major hours in the weight room). Filling these needs and maintaining our core of Roy, Aldridge and Oden is a surefire recipe for a championship.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I agree with you.

We need an upgrade at point guard and SF.

Webster should be able to grow into the SF position and will thus be the SF we need.

The point guard issue has not been resolved yet. I don’t need Chris Paul, but I need someone or something more. I like Jose and his ability to run a team as well as international championship experience.

I believe the Finland kid can fill our need, but we’ll see in the Summer league (if he shows strong he has a chance with us, if not then he’s not ready yet).

Rudy might help us out as well.

I also want to shrink the roster to open up playing time.

Sans frye or outlaw
Sans blake and or jack.

I love those guys, but when you have a glut you can run into issues and you can’t develop talent because the two good or mediocre guys are eating up the playing time. I want more of a quality difference between bench and starters except for one or two players. If we had a starter eating up 35 minutes at pg, that gives sergio 13 minutes of playing time to do something instead of six. Good or bad you play him to develop him. As it sits now, 4 -6 minutes is not enough to get a groove.

We don’t have a clear drop of talent at the PG position and thus we have a glut. I’m not convinced Blake is good enough yet. Jake seems to show signs of being good and then makes BONE HEAD plays, which is a reason why I’m no longer sure about him.

Here's to being hated. Come on #1 pick!

by ratbastird on May 12, 2008 12:01 PM PDT 0 recs

Last year Sergio

didn’t seem to play behind either Jack or Blake but behind Roy. His 8.78 minutes were mostly dictated by Roy’s 37.7 minutes. Blake and Jack totalled 57 minutes but neither seemed to play PG. I maintain it was Roy and next year with Rudy Jack and Blake will lose minutes/be traded away while Roy and Sergio will again be reciprocal. I think 35 and 13 is a good split to shoot for.

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 May 13, 2008 2:16 AM PDT up 0 recs

No offense, but look at San Antone having a very tough time with Paul

You used to have to have a Shaq-stopper in the league—-we didn’t (we had an old Sabonis and a too-small Brian Grant) and got smashed.

These days, I think it’s fair to say you need a Paul-stoppa’.
This year against us, he was putting up 20 pts and 12 assists a game, with the exception of a game in December during our hot streak, in which I think we held him to 11 points, 8 assists, and 4 TOs.

But I digress….the point is Blake is good, but he’s not Chris Paul. We need a pesky, quick, tireless guy (think Taurean Green on speed) who can annoy Chris Paul enough to keep him from destroying us. He doesn’t have super good defense, but his offensive game is his defense—he fouls out our bigs! He burns Blake, Oden fouls, and there you go. His defense = get the other team in foul trouble.

We need a Paul stopper. Even if he’s not a great ball handler (Roy can bring it up), we need a guy who can throw Paul (and Deron Williams, Tony Parker, etc. for that matter) off his game.

It's a WAR, and we're bringin' the BOOM!

by prezofdeath on May 12, 2008 12:06 PM PDT 0 recs

Russell Westbrook!

How many times must I repeat myself?!

by MiledAnimal on May 12, 2008 12:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

isn't Westbrook...

that same kid that was getting torched by Derrick Rose during the Final Four?

Blake brings it up on the right, swings it to Webster on the elbow, he moves around the key and passes to the low left block for Aldridge, Aldridge jukes baseline, turns back in and finds Roy cutting down the seam, ROY THROWS IT UP AT THE RIM FOR ODEN WHO THROWS IT DOWN FOR THE TWO HANDED MONSTER JAM!!! BOOM-SHAKA-LAKA!!! -Wheeler '08-'09

i can't wait

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on May 12, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

I thought that was Collison

Westbrook, I heard, actually did a formidable job on Rose.

by Eventine on May 12, 2008 1:50 PM PDT up 0 recs

Under that standard

Mario Chalmers torched Rose! The shot remembered!

by lee3022 on May 13, 2008 2:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

You have it right...

Westbrook did do a fairly good jobon Rose, but then CDR torched Josh Shipp instead.

by The Graduate on May 13, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

25 points, 9 boards (4 offensive), and 4 dimes

That’s Rose’s line for that game.

Equally good was CDR with 28 points.

Memphis played an isolation style offense, typically meaning they go one on one.

If Westbrook was “guarding” either guy, it doesn’t appear that he did well on the stat line. Read any recap, they all rave about how Rose did whatever he wanted and dominated the game. I’m just sayin’.

Also, does anyone know why we call assists dimes? Why don’t we call rebounds nickles?

i can't wait

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on May 13, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

The Problem is

That there is no such thing as a Paul-stoppa’. Your best bet is a Paul-inhibitor.

"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal

by tominhawaii on May 12, 2008 1:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

Get him drunk before they play the Blazers

by Sabonis4Ever on May 12, 2008 2:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

Aren't inhibitors illegal?

by bfan on May 12, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Not for Asthma

"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal

by tominhawaii on May 12, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

Chris Paul has yet to win anything but a first round series.

Let’s at least wait until the Hornets get past the Spurs before annointing him has the greatest player in the game.

by timg56 on May 12, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

once SanAntonia finishes off the Hornets

there will be 50 consecutive posts on Tony Parker, how and why he’s the best, how and why we need to trade our team for him.

book it.

i can't wait

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on May 12, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

Tony Parker and Batum for our Spaniards

by Sabonis4Ever on May 12, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

Vive la France!.

Before you criticize me think a bit.
You will have the double of motives.

by amlmart1 on May 13, 2008 6:25 AM PDT up 0 recs

Paul can be contained (kind of)

You can contain the Hornets via proxy by making Paul be the scorer. Going under screens and staying with the shooters. This only works by having shot blockers in the paint so Paul never gets a clean look at the basket. We have big mobile guys like Oden, Aldridge, and Przybilla so I’m not worried. It takes a team effort on the defensive side rather than just a single defender. Paul may be getting his points, but the Hornets offense has become a one man show in the Spurs series.

The best defense against Paul is actually transition defense. Paul is at his best when he gets to run and create opportunities for others. Scoring points and running back on defense will be half the battle.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on May 12, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well said.

by timg56 on May 13, 2008 5:58 AM PDT up 0 recs

Regarding Upgrades

I’m surprised on one mentioned Window’s Vista. Not all upgrades are an improvement.

"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal

by tominhawaii on May 12, 2008 3:07 PM PDT 0 recs

NIce

by AndrewJ on May 12, 2008 3:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

actually I like Vista. =)

I’m using it right now.

by JelaniGNatural on May 13, 2008 7:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

Shoots

My last job was tech support for DSL, I learned a lot of new cuss words when Vista came out.

"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal

by tominhawaii on May 13, 2008 9:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

Using Chris Paul

as an example of unrealitic expectations seems a poor lead-in to the argument.

I’m sorry, but anybody who ever expected the Blazers had a chance at landing Paul after the 2005 draft is just plain goofy. That was never in the cards. The blazers had their opportunity and chose webster instead. That’s done and over now.

Adding a PG upgrade doesn’t have to mean adding another star or max contract. Kirk Hinrich would be an upgrade and isn’t a star with a max contract. He might actually be a great addition and willing to play team basketball. And he could be labeled a ‘role player’ as well.

I really don’t see a problem. Portland needs to increase talent on their team. That’s not difficult to see. Some of that increase may come naturally with the maturation and development of thier young players. But they’ll still need to make some additions, and there’s no reason to set the standards lower because of a misplaced worry that there’s only one ball.

by moldorf on May 12, 2008 4:07 PM PDT 0 recs

Yes.

The argument seems flawed. We could find an upgrade that would play better defense, not take too many shots, still take care of the ball, not demand too much money, and play better defense some more. This does not have to be Chris Paul. Though that would be nice.

by bfan on May 12, 2008 4:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

I like Hinrich a lot

I think Hinrich could be a good fit - actually a great fit - but he’s in a max contract now and being still in his prime I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that Chicago would give him up.

At least in my proposed trade for Andre Miller there is a reason for Philadelphia to do the trade.

by JelaniGNatural on May 13, 2008 7:33 AM PDT up 0 recs

Hinrich doesn't have a max contract.

It’s about 2/3 of max now, and it’s frontloaded so it drops over time.

And there’s a significant chance that the Bulls trade him, especially considering their imbalance in the backcourt. Part of it will of course depend on who the new coach is. If Portland went after him, it would almost certainly have to be a 3-team trade.

I hated your proposed trade for Miller. For one thing, I don’t think Miller would be a good fit on portland’s roster. He’s ineffective without the ball, and playing with roy would mean he wouldn’t have the ball often. His perimeter shooting weakness means he couldn’t play off Roy like Blake or jack can. Add the fact that he’s 32 and he becomes even less attractive.

Then add the very real possibility…I’d say it’s close to a certainty… that he wouldn’t re-sign with portland, and your trade gives up a slew of significant assets (assets that might actually be used to acquire a long-term PG solution) for a 1 year rental of Andre Miller.

If you’re not catching my drift, I’ll be direct: trading anything of value for Andre Miller is a bad idea for portland.

by moldorf on May 13, 2008 8:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

I would be on board with Hinrich as well...

I firmly belief that this past season makes him expendable to Chicago (especially if a Calderon or a Ford could end up in a Bulls uni via a three-way trade). I also belief that team was in so much turmoil last year that every Bull’s numbers took a dip. He would firmly upgrade the perimeter defense (2nd team all-defensive 06-07- and that’s without the inflating value of steal numbers which means he plays solid defense) and he is perhaps one of the quickest players out there, check the pre-draft measurements. I do worry a bit about his shooting numbers, but without a low post presence opening up the floor, his shots tend to be more challenged. His form looks tremendous though, so I would look for an upswing in percentages within the right system. And yes, to the frontloaded contract… sounds perfect.

I know I am preaching to the choir here, I just wanted to get all that information out, you know? If KP says Hinrich, I am right on board.

by The Graduate on May 13, 2008 9:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

Some objections

1) Hinrich isn’t in a max contract. http://hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm

2) After his woeful performance this season, considering that the Bulls are a mess right now, and further considering that they’re on the hook to Hinrich for another four years and 36.5 mil, I think Chicago would ship him out in a heartbeat if an offer tickled their fancy.

3) For your consideration: Steve Blake: 8.5 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 5.1 APG, 40.8% FG, 40.6% 3PT, 29.9 MPG
Kirk Hinrich: 11.5 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 6.0 APG, 41.4% FG, 35.0% 3PT, 31.7 MPG

It looks to me like Hinrich is a mild upgrade over Blake and a significantly poorer shooter from range. I wouldn’t touch Hinrich unless the Bulls gifted him to us.

by BlazersOrBust on May 13, 2008 8:57 AM PDT up 0 recs

Interesting

first you say that Hinrich just had a bad year, and that’s true. As did just about all the Bulls.

And of course Blake just had one of his best seasons. So comparing those 2 seasons will of course skew the comparison towards Blake.

Things change considerably if you compare last season. Hinrich was far superior to Blake in not only ever shooting stat, but in assists, ast/to ratio, scoring, rebounding..whatever. And Hinrich was deservedly named to the NBA 2nd team defense.

As far as their career numbers, there’s little difference between them. They are about even in TS% and eFG%, with Hinrich being a bit better on FG% and FT%, and Blake slightly better in 3pt%. Hinrich holds the edge in most other stats like scoring and rebounding. He also shoots a lower percentage of jump shots then blake, and has a much higher drawnFoul%.

So while the gap between Hinrich and Blake on the offensive end isn’t huge, it definitely exists, and Hinrich has accomplished that while playing with a team with poor roster balance, no post presence, and an undersized SG. It’s almost certain his numbers would improve playing with Oden, Roy, nad LMA.

And Hinrich is clearly and significantly better then Blake on the defensive end.

by moldorf on May 13, 2008 12:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

My fundamental point was

that I don’t want Hinrich on the Blazers because of his too-large contract. Blake had one of his best seasons, yes—unsurprisingly, it correlated to his first season in the NBA as a full-time starter with a defined role. Bouncing around from team to team and system to system makes comparing this season to the rest of his career apples to oranges.

If you want to laud Hinrich for his offensive accomplishments given roster imbalances and what have you, that’s fine. If you put Blake as a starting PG for multiple years and named him a captain four seasons running like Hinrich has been, then I think their numbers would be very similar. Hinrich’s had the luxury of playing for one team and one system, and he’s been regarded as an integral cog of that system, advantages Blake is only just now beginning to enjoy. Also, Blake just put up his career year playing with a team with, wouldn’t you know it, poor roster balance and no post presence—if Hinrich gets credit for that, so too should Blake. And finally, to say that Hinrich’s numbers would almost certainly increase playing with our big three is a little bit disingenuous, don’t you think? Blake hasn’t played a second with our big three. I’m almost certain that his numbers will increase too.

Look, I’m not arguing that Blake is better than Hinrich. He’s not. But I don’t think he’s so much better that we should trade valuable young players, picks, or expiring contracts to pick up a guy who went in the tank after signing his first huge contract (red flag #1) and alienated virtually every Bulls fan this season, if BlogABull is any indicator, with his combination of lousy play and on-the-court sulking (red flag #2).

by BlazersOrBust on May 13, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

Want an elite PG? Get Rose.

That is the only path toward obtaining a PG who might be as good as CP3. “Pamphlet it.”

Where have all the flowers gone?

by bilingual octopus on May 12, 2008 10:26 PM PDT 0 recs

hahaha

"Could we make a deal right now to make us a 50-win team? No question," Pritchard said. "Will that get us a championship? That’s what we always have to evaluate."

As the great Vonnegut said, more or less... "You are what you pretend to be, so you must be very careful what you pretend to be."

by timbo on Apr 29, 2008 7:33 AM PDT

by ptwnblzr on May 17, 2008 8:36 AM PDT up 0 recs