Calling My Shot Now: A Blazer Trade That Works
I don't normally do this, but I've been watching some of the comments on the OLive Blazers Blog and this blog, and I have yet to see anyone propose this trade.
Unlike most of the trade ideas out there, this trade is not a big splash... because I don't think the Blazers need a big splash.
Wishing we're going to lucky with ping-pong balls two years in a row is just that -- wishful thinking. Plus, our potential championship window is somewhere in the next 4-7 years, IMO, so we don't need to spend more time developing another young player. So that rules out Rose/Beasley/Mayo. I never liked Mayo anyway, and now I especially don't after these USC eligibility stories have hit the light of day. (Not that they should come as a surprise to anyone after the flap with Reggie Bush.) Not that Mayo or Beasley or Rose aren't talented, but I don't see them meeting our needs or fitting our ... wait for it.... culture.
So you know that whoever KP goes after is going to be a Culture Guy, someone who "gets it" (I love when people say that... gets what exactly?) and who can be a stabilizing influence on our young core. Someone who doesn't need the ball at all times, but can still dictate the flow of the game on offense and defense. They need to be able to penetrate and kick, and play competent defense. But they also need to have that competitive fire, that hunger to win.
And while you don't want a washed-up veteran desperate for one last hurrah, it wouldn't hurt to have one that is in the latter stages of his career, who still has 3 years or so of high level of play left in order to compete for a championship, but who won't have to play max minutes in order for your team to have a chance to win, a la Allen Iverson. Someone who would be a good mentor to our other promising young PG, Sergio Rodriguez, and who could then theoretically scale back his minutes if/when Sergio becomes the starter. Someone good enough to step in and start right away, and mature enough to relinquish that role if it becomes in the team's best interests. Someone whose game speaks louder than his mouth or his posse.
Someone like Andre Miller.
Think about it... when was the last time you heard about an incident (on or off the court) with Andre Miller?
Now think about this year's Philadelphia team, that took the mighty Detroit Pistons to six games on nothing but grit and hustle. Everyone involved in that team will tell you it couldn't have happened without Andre Miller.
Knowing that you always have to give up something of value to get something of value, this trade will hurt in the offseason, but 10-15 games in, we'll feel a big enough difference.
Here's my proposed trade (Trade Machine certified):
Portland gives up:
Jarrett Jack,
Steve Blake,
the rights to Petteri Koponen,
a combination of cash/picks
(this is the part that really hurts for me)
and Channing Frye.
Portland receives: Andre Miller.
Sacramento gives up:
Shareef Abdur Rahim,
Sacramento receives:
Jarrett Jack
Channing Frye
Philadelpia gives up:
Andre Miller
Philadelphia receives:
Steve Blake
Petteri Koponen
Shareef Abdur-Rahim
cash/picks
Lets start with the obvious...
Why does Portland do this trade?
First, they get the competent, veteran point guard that they need. He's not a big name, but he plays with big game, and he's had a fair number of pressure moments in his career. And they get him for two years, which should give both sides enough time to feel things out for the future. If Sergio is ready to start, or if the team wants to hand the starting PG role to B-Roy, then Miller can come off the bench. I don't see this becoming a problem for him, because he's been in so many bad situations, he'll be hungry to play for a winner. Andre Miller also represents the best characteristics of both Jack and Blake without as many of their negatives: Steady and quiet like Blake, but more willing to assert himself in the offense when needed like Jack (without the deadly turnovers and dives of confidence). The part that would hurt would be giving up the backup production/insurance of Channing Frye, but I think you won't need to rely on his and/or Aldridge's scoring production quite as much once you factor in the scoring of Rudy Fernandez and whatever garbage points you get from G. Oden (which will be more than you think).
Why does Sacramento do this trade?
In Channing Frye, they get a combo low-block scorer and jump-shooter, and a calming locker room influence, either to help temper Ron Artest, or if he bolts as a FA, as an insurance piece to build around along with Kevin Martin. True they would have a glut of combo guards and swingmen by adding Jack to the mix, but John Salmons isn't going to be with them forever and Anthony Carter clearly isn't the answer. This way they get a promising young PG in Jack. And they get to dump salary by letting Abdur-Rahim go. Plus young flexible guards and passing forwards (like Frye and G/Fs Martin and Artest) are integral to the type of creative offense that Theus is probably trying to implement. And with a young coach trying to establish credibility, a little competition at the G and F spots oughta get the best out of his roster, rather than just a few guys in set roles.
now the harder one...
Why does Philadelphia do this trade?
Because as good as Andre Miller, Samuel Dalembert and Andre Iguodala are, you're not going to be contending with them anytime soon. Miller is, at best, a stopgap solution, and even though he played valiantly against Detroit, Philly fans will turn on him in a minute if they don't continue to make progress. I could definitely see Miller instructing his agent to get him a contender, and Portland would definitely fit the bill. Plus, whether the Sixers even want to keep their core together might be a moot question if they can't resign Iguodala, their top FA right now. If Iguodala bolts, they'll be forced the blow the thing up anyway. Doing this trade ensures that they don't let BOTH Andres walk for nothing. And in return they get two younger, cheaper PGs in Blake and Koponen (one veteran, one project), and a low-block scorer in Abdur-Rahim.
So this is the trade that I think Kevin Pritchard will make. Or at least will attempt to make, contigent upon whether or not Philadelphia is willing to part with Andre Miller.
Am I the next Nostradamus? Or Nostradummy?
your thoughts...
0 recs |
48
comments
Comments
but Channing hates Sacramento
he even said so in his blog!
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on May 12, 2008 10:50 PM PDT 0 recs
Yeah...
that would be interesting to say the least.
by Gargen on
May 12, 2008 10:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yeah that's true
but he did finally get to meet Kevin Johnson during his bid for mayor, so maybe he would warm up to the idea.
If I look at it emotionally, there is no way I would do this trade because for a PR standpoint, Channing Frye is GOLD, pure gold.
by JelaniGNatural on
May 13, 2008 7:22 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Let's see....
We give up our starting PG, a backup PG/SG, our backup PF and a possible future PG for a Possible Stopgap Solution? Hrmmm…all this to help 2 other teams? Call me silly
but I cannot see where gutting our team is going to help us.
by coastrider on May 12, 2008 11:19 PM PDT 0 recs
you are right on
First off, Jarrett Jack is better than Andre Miller straight-up at just 1/8th the cost. Jack’s biggest drawback, his turnovers, are lower than Miller’s over their career – .0785 to/min for Miller vs .0722 to/min for Jack.
Jack is 24, Miller is 32. He’ll be retired by the time we’re ready to really win.
M, period. Fresh, comma.
by manzell on
May 13, 2008 12:02 AM PDT
up
0 recs
uhhh....
reading the posts, I’m being convinced by my fellow BE-ers that this is a bad trade, but there is just no way Jack is better than Miller straight up. No way no how.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on
May 13, 2008 12:16 AM PDT
up
0 recs
agreed
but by the time we are championship-ready, i’d bet jack would be better
Woof
by Charles Barkley McLovin on
May 13, 2008 2:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Especially...
If Jack keeps improving at the rate he did over the last year…
RUDY > MJ
by myemic23 on
May 13, 2008 11:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I understand this too
it’s definitely risky, but we both know you have to trade at least one of our guards to make room for Rudy. And as much as we love Channing Frye, he struggled to get PT without Oden on the floor. Not saying he didn’t DESERVE the PT, I’m just saying, there wasn’t a ton of room for him.
I would’ve only done it for Jarrett and not Blake, but you have get the salaries to line up.
by JelaniGNatural on
May 13, 2008 7:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I wouldn't do it....
I’ll be the first person to admit that I think JJ and Channing are two of Portland’s most expendable players, but I don’t do the trade for two major reasons….
1. We’d be giving away too many trading chips in this particular trade.
2. Bringing in Miller would be bringing in a point guard who is starting to enter the twilight of his career, and would really only give us 2 good years of play. He will be fading at the same time our core group ought to be entering the prime years of their careers…In two years, everybody including myself will be complaining and wondering about our point guard situation just like we are doing now.
Touching on point #1, what is each piece that Portland would be giving up really worth?
If Jarrett Jack was in this years draft, I figure he’d be worth a late first round, maybe early 2nd round pick. If Steve Blake was in this years draft, I’d have to believe he would be a first round pick. Koponan was in fact a first round pick last year. We know that $3 Million is worth a first round pick…Phoenix knows this too :) And Channing Frye is worth a first round pick too. Because Channing is a front-line player, he probably still has lottery pick value.
So the equivilent of 3 1st round picks, Cash that could by a 1st round pick, and a borderline 1st/2nd round pick all in exchange for two years of an above average point guard who is going to have to be replaced when the rest of the team is entering their prime. I would pass on this trade…That being said, if Andre Miller was 27 years old, I would probably do it.
Can I buy you a fish sandwich?
by silkybrown on May 12, 2008 11:23 PM PDT 0 recs
This is how I feel about that trade:

Trade Freeland!
by rockingharder on May 12, 2008 11:28 PM PDT 0 recs
BAD trade
1. Miller is 32 and has maybe a few years left in the tank.
2. His comtract is only for 1 more year @ $10mill and if we do want him we can wait until he is a UFA in 09 when we will have a lot of capspace to sign him for a lot less. His current contract is the last big payday and we could sign him for $6-7mill/year after he is a UFA but by then he will be 34 and will be nothing but a backup.
If we had a time machine and went back 7-8 years he would be perfect but with his age and salary situation its not a good fit.
by SpyderRyder on May 13, 2008 12:05 AM PDT 0 recs
Miller
shot eight percent from the three point line this year. Durring the playoffs he made zero three point attempts (and I saw him shoot a few).
Andre Miller is great and everything, just not for this team. Jack shoots 34% from the three point line and he can get to the basket.
If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley
by Winchester on May 13, 2008 12:14 AM PDT 0 recs
the demise of jarret jack
happened in Denver a few seasons ago. End of the game, close game, denver was our rival then for they took our spot in the playoffs then and we were winning the game, should’ve won that game, but Jack got the ball picked, stripped, by one Andre Miller
uwe blab
by midget on May 13, 2008 1:00 AM PDT 0 recs
A few seasons ago, Jack would have been a rookie.
I would hardly call that a demise. I’m not saying Jack is great. But he is a decent bench player, and we shouldn’t just give those away for a guy who will die from old age on the court.
One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
"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
May 13, 2008 5:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
who is a winner
can’t really shoot it, which i would want my PG to be able to do, but he can win and we have some talented bigs that need the ball. He can do this. He’s a veteran, has been through battles, took a young Philly team farther than anyone thought. and is a good guy off the floor, on the court, he’s tough and has earned respect throughout the league…I would be happy with him leading our team, i bet Nate would like his game, and he can groom our next pg…
uwe blab
by midget on May 13, 2008 1:04 AM PDT 0 recs
He...
is not a winner. He lost in the first round. I would like a PG who could take us a little further than the first round.
Stealing the ball from Jarret Jack is not really anything too special. I’m willing to bet that half the starting point guards in the league have stolen the ball from him. We would be way better off drafting Westbrook and calling it a day.
I love Miller btw, but we are looking for a guy who can take us over the top. He feels a little too much like the poor man’s Jason Kidd.
If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley
by Winchester on
May 13, 2008 2:06 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I remember
a certain PG who played up north, his first few years he sucked.
He turned the ball over, he couldn’t shoot, he was known for having an attitude and was really plain jane on the court. No one thought he was leader. Of course, that guy went on to be the best player in that franchises history and a certain hall-of-famer.
No, we’ve got a guy who is a decent shooter, is thought of as a good guy with a good attitude and is the emotional leader of the team. When he gets on the court, he provides exactly what the team needs – solid defense, a willingness to pass the ball, and perhaps the ONLY player on the team who does not settle for jump shots. He doesn’t have a big contract or a big ego. I don’t understand why anyone would want to get rid of this guy.
M, period. Fresh, comma.
by manzell on
May 14, 2008 11:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That Really Made Me Pro-Jack
It is so strange to like everyone on the team.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on
May 15, 2008 12:09 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I was all for it
When I thought you were talking about Steve Nash. Now I’m not so sure.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on May 13, 2008 1:36 AM PDT 0 recs
Your shot..
Was a brick…. Nice try though.
Miller is a lot more valuable to Philadelphia than you think.
Everytime Raef checks into a game, an angel gets its wings.
by Outlaw is Rejector on May 13, 2008 3:25 AM PDT 1 recs
this is about what I thought I'd get...
SpyderRyder… if you’re right about only 1 year then it does make sense, however… the Trade Machine says 2 years… maybe it’s not re-calibrated from this season’s trade deadline. If there is only 1 year left, then I see where you’re coming from. I wouldn’t do this trade if there were only 1 year left. So if that’s the case, then ignore everything I just said. But if the Trade Machine is right, then ignore the last two sentences.
Silkybrown,
I can also understand your side of it… it is giving up a lot. And let me be the first to say that losing any of these three guys (Jack, Blake, Frye) would be difficult. I’m just saying… you gotta give something to gain something. And unless you’re trading for an ELITE PG which I don’t see happening, what you want is someone who is an upgrade from Blake with many/most of the same qualities so that when Sergio, in the mold of, say, Tony Parker, finally comes into his own and becomes reliable, your guy will be comfortable coming off the bench.
For those who think his age is too big of a deterrent… remember, I said in the beginning, we’re not trying to make a big splash.
(Now would I rather have either CP3 or D.WIlliams over Andre Miller? Obviously. But unless CP3 himself holds the team hostage and forces a trade, which he is far too classy to do, I don’t see that happening. And NO is going to be able to match whatever we offer him. I just don’t see free agency as a reliable way to build your team.)
The other thing I said is that you don’t WANT another guard around the same age. With the exception of the two PGs I just mentioned (who everybody wants) most young PGs are going to have the same issues that our young triumvirate have. What you need is someone who is competent and competitive who can pave the way for the next PG.
Tominhawaii: Steve Nash is two years OLDER than Andre Miller.
FWIW, if KP (or somebody else) can find a better trade, I’m all for it… just don’t forget the culture factor and the grooming-our-PG factor. Great PGs are rarely found all polished and ready to go, they’re developed. (Case in point… Chauncey Billups was just a journeyman combo guard until he got to Detroit and won a chip.)
by JelaniGNatural on May 13, 2008 7:15 AM PDT 0 recs
My Wife Told Me to Stop Being Gay
But I judge talent on looks alone. So I gotta go with Nash’s dreamy hair. He could get 20-30 minutes a night and mentor Sergio. Of course, Sergio would never learn to play defense if we did that.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on
May 13, 2008 12:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Here's the real problem with this scenario...
As fans it’s truly challenging to put yourself in the other team’s position. Fanocentricity is a very difficult influence to overcome.
I don’t buy the explanation as to why Philly would do this trade. I doubt they see themselves as not contending any time soon in the week East. More likely they feel they are a player or two away and this trade offers zero hope of helping them get there.
This trade certainly wouldn’t qualify as a “blowing up the team to get better in the long run” nor would it qualify as improving them in the near term. They get a borderline starting pg, an overpriced albatross and a Finnish teenager who has only played in remote European minor leagues?
I wouldn’t mind doing this trade so much if I were Portland or Sac but I couldn’t sell it to the fan base if I were Philly.
by LaughingJon on May 13, 2008 7:29 AM PDT 0 recs
yeah, I feel you about Philly
that’s why I’m hoping that they can’t resign Iguodala. If they resign Iguodala then this whole thing is moot.
but I do think it does qualify as “blowing the team up to get better in the long run” ... think about it. LONG run means in two years Reef will have an expiring contract worth 6-7M per year. Think that won’t be attractive for Philly? I mean obviously if yuo’re them you’d rather have Miller than Blake/Koponen, but if it’s obvious the current group is going to cut it, the standard response (especially for a new GM like Ed Stefanski) is to cut your losses and position yourself to be in play in two years. It’s called buying yourself some time.
by JelaniGNatural on
May 13, 2008 7:41 AM PDT
up
0 recs
At least Dave won't accuse you
of coming up with yet another homer trade that the other team(s) would laugh at.
There is such a thing as going to far the other way.
You’re not a Sacto or Philly fan, are you? Just asking…
by MiledAnimal on May 13, 2008 10:09 AM PDT 0 recs
touche
... no, I’m a Blazer fan for real… though I did cheer for Philly against Detroit, but that had more to do with Mo Cheeks than anything else.
by JelaniGNatural on
May 13, 2008 10:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Nostradummy
Sorry, but I would have a hard time doing Blake for Miller straight up. Or Frye for Miller. Now you’re telling me BOTH and Jack AND Kopenen AND cash AND picks?!?
No offense, but allow me to introduce a summation of Andre Miller’s current value, courtesy of Nostradamus himself
“Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here.”
It's a WAR, and we're bringin' the BOOM!
by prezofdeath on May 13, 2008 10:37 AM PDT 0 recs
You could have had me
if you hadn’t tossed in the finland kid.
He is better than Sergio and about the same age if not a little younger.
I like the move because it thins out things and in two years the finland kid would be ready for the starting role. Outlaw can play PF and SF and Roy/Rudy/Miller will make our guard rotations with some time to throw the finland kid a bone his first year and then more time opening up in the second year.
I know that no one pays attention to the Finland kid, so he’ll just have to prove me right in the summer league. With no sergio there, he should be allowed to play his natural position and should do extremely well.
Here's to being hated. Come on #1 pick!
by ratbastird on May 13, 2008 11:02 AM PDT 0 recs
fair point
but if you don’t toss in Koponen there’s no way Philly even THINKS about doing the deal, because then you’re pretty much trading Miller for Blake straight up.
You might be right about him being better than Sergio, but he’s too much of a wild card to factor in the Blazers plans yet, IMO. Next year, maybe this is a different discussion.
by JelaniGNatural on
May 13, 2008 11:06 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
after all there is the unlikely chance I’ll be wrong.
Here's to being hated. Come on #1 pick!
by ratbastird on
May 13, 2008 11:29 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Is the Finland Kid
Playing in the Olympics? Not that I think their team is good enough to make it, but I had to ask.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on
May 13, 2008 12:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
okay, now I reveal my true intentions
Now that I’ve gotten enough attention, let me drop the real nugget of wisdom from this trade scenario…
Obviously I’ve made a case for Andre Miller. Some can see it, most don’t. That’s fine with me. I do get a small amount of enjoyment just from, as MiledAnimal intuited, going the other way. I’m not hell-bent on the Blazers acquiring Andre Miller.
However… the next time somebody suggests “yet another homer trade that another team would laugh at” ... run it through the Trade Machine. If it would work under the cap, then it will be accepted.
BUT—that’s only the first step.
Then look at the trade from the other perspective… why would the other team WANT to do this trade? Because one-sided trades only help one team, they rarely actually HAPPEN (Pau Gasol notwithstanding.)
If you can come up with several good reasons why each side might actually want to consummate the trade, then congratulations, you have a real live trade scenario.
Otherwise, all you have is wishful thinking.
And for the record… I am more in favor of standing pat and letting our guys develop than trading away guys just to make a deal. I really like our guys… ALL of them. Even Josh McRoberts.
(okay I don’t really care about Von Wafer, but still.)
But this is the offseason, and offseasons are for making guesses. All I’m saying is if the Blazers were to make a trade for a PG, it would be for somebody like Miller. (I was originally going to say Kirk Hinrich, but there’s no WAY you could pry him from Chicago.)
by JelaniGNatural on May 13, 2008 11:02 AM PDT 0 recs
i disagree about Gasol
It was actually a smart move by memphis.
they weren’t going anywhere and they had some young talent and Gasol wasn’t the leader they needed. So they traded. They have Marc Gasol who has been reported as the second best player in the euroleague. (pretty sure I saw that somewhere and I raised an eyebrow)
They thudded this season and have a chance to get lucky in the draft again.
That will be two future key pieces. They already have Rudy.
The timberwolves kept KG for a long time and never made it out of the first round, and really that’s where memphis was going if they didn’t do this trade… Rudy and Gasol may have eventually kept them in the first round purgatory.
So… it was an insane move because of how good it made the lakers, but really not as bad of a move as others like to make it. It simply was looking three years down the road and realizing that tomorrow was NOT coming today.
Here's to being hated. Come on #1 pick!
by ratbastird on
May 13, 2008 11:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
It was smart to trade Gasol
but I have to believe they could have gotten more than they did.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on
May 13, 2008 11:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Why?
To assume that you have to assume that Wallace panicked (or is an idiot). All the stories about how he could have gotten more came from sports writers who had deadlines to meet and blank space to fill. So they pull out team rosters and log on to realGM and come up with technically plausible trade scenarios. None of which means those deals were ever really out there.
The reasonable conclusion is that Memphis had only two options – go with the Laker trade, or wait until the summer and see if a better deal might be available. If they had chosen the latter option, then they may not have been able to get a large expiring contract like Kwame Brown’s, which was an important aspect of the deal for Memphis.
by timg56 on
May 13, 2008 12:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I did indeed assume...
Wallace panicked (and is an idiot).
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on
May 13, 2008 12:26 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm with the other guys
They are rebuilding. Everyone wanted them to get back someone with similar talent to Gasol and they weren’t going to get any. They got the expiring contract, that dude that LA drafted last year, the other Gasol, and another pick. Wallace said afterwards that they looked at it like they got 3 first round draft picks out of the deal. That’s how I see it.
I think a bunch of GM’s afterwards realized they could have had Gasol for cheap, so they said they offered something better. I don’t think it was about offering something better, it was about meeting the needs of Memphis.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on
May 13, 2008 12:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
see this is exactly the point of my posting this whole trade scenario
... and maybe my throwing in the line about Gasol obscured the point that I was trying to make.
When making a trade, you as a GM have to make the deal that you think best fits your need, regardless of the perceived value of the parties involved.
Most of the responses I saw about my proposed Andre Miller trade were negative based either on the size of his contract, his age, or whether or not Portland would get equal value for what they’re giving up.
I say screw equal value… equal value is a myth. Practically speaking, there is no such thing as equal value, superstar or not. These are human beings, not CDs or video games or vacuum cleaners or Happy Meals or any other physical good that can be easily quantified and assigned monetary value. Equal value is in the eye of the beholder.
So you should evaluate a trade based not on “is player A worth players X, Y and Z” but “will this trade make our team better, either in the short term or the long term.”
The Shaq trade is a great example… everyone can now safely pile on Steve Kerr and say the Shaq trade was a bad idea, but if Boris Diaw and Amare and yes, even Steve Nash would’ve played better toward the end of Game 4 or 5 (whichever it was when they had that rash of turnovers and Diaw threw the pass out of bounds) then PHX might have beaten SA and then suddenly Steve Kerr would be a hero and a visionary.
My point is that answering the question of will the trade make the team better or not is a really difficult question to answer, and none of us are fully equipped to answer that question … that’s why we’re fans and KP is the GM.
But the lazy response is to ignore the question altogether and just look at it like it’s a fantasy team… Player Y is better in every statistical category than player W, so therefore Player Y is more valuable, therefore we should get Player Y and avoid Player W.
Again, I’m not hellbent on Andre Miller. I’m just saying that if we really think we need an upgrade at PG, there is no generic Point Guard Upgrade Player to be found. We must look at real live actual NBA players and make decisions about who we think would be the best fit - here’s the clincher - among players that can realistically be had.
by JelaniGNatural on
May 13, 2008 3:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Exactly
A couple of months ago on Chad Ford’s podcast with Donnie Walsh, Walsh said you have to evaluate trades whether they are fair or not. He said if your mentality is to win a trade, then the other guy might not trade with you again.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on
May 13, 2008 3:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Marc Gasol
was the MVP of the ACB this year, finishing solidly ahead of our boy in both the players’ and the coaches’ votes, for what that’s worth. http://www.fiba.com/pages/eng/fc/news/lateNews/arti.asp?newsid=24707 He also earned 11 Player of the Week awards this season, surpassing the former ACB record of 10 held by none other than our own Arvydas Sabonis. Gasol is no slouch and no throw-in to the Gasol deal. (Hehehehe!)
by BlazersOrBust on
May 14, 2008 8:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Gasol might be the steal of the Gasol deal
If Gasol keeps improving and can translate his big man game to the NBA, Gasol might help Memphis forget about Gasol and make people quit saying they got nothing for Gasol, when in fact they got Gasol, and he’s tearing up the Euro-league!
But can Gasol live up to Gasol’s Grizzly legacy? Is Gasol’s beard as scraggly as Gasol’s? SO MANY QUESTIONS.
When Gasol does good, does the headline say NOW WE’RE COOKING WITH GASOLINE. Or, GASOLINE UP 20 POINTS, 10 REBOUNDS! Those are lame if they do say that and they should be ashamed.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on
May 14, 2008 11:31 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I dislike the proposed trade.
If it fills a need, if it fills a rebuilding situation. And my goal is to fill and rebuild and I am not going to be shortsighted.
- Isiah Thomas
by JTDuck22 on May 13, 2008 12:30 PM PDT 0 recs
The age is what gets me
1 year, two years, it’s all the same: it’s renting a guy to play a position we have a need for and we have no one to replace him in 2 years. Andre Miller is good, everyone can like him. But, I like him from afar as he can’t shoot worth a ding dong DANG and is older than beans n’ toast. We got no one to groom, which if we did would make the trade make more sense, and he’s not really an off the ball player to fit with Roy. I dunno… like him, don’t like giving up who we’re giving up, and even if Philly likes the deal I don’t think it fits us.
I think standing pat and letting Roy be the main playmaker is the best bet in this deal.
Plus it’s unfair to Blake to trade him after he signed with us and he’s a perfect backup PG, and Frye has made enemies in Sacramento that shall haunt him to his grave. We send him there, he’s a dead man. We can’t ethically do that to either dude.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on May 14, 2008 12:49 AM PDT 0 recs
Good Point
I never thought of it this way. We have culture contracts with a few guys. I don’t care what anyone says, there are guys on the roster now, who may have more value towards the culture, than they do towards the championship goals. They are all also smart enough to know, that culture will not keep them on the roster. They have to improve their play to reach the championship goal.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on
May 14, 2008 2:12 AM PDT
up
0 recs
We had a culture contract
with Freddie Jones too, and we pretty much tossed him out on the scrap heap. That made me sad for him.
by BlazersOrBust on
May 14, 2008 8:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah
I used to be a jerk about there here. I’m still sad about it. Hopefully we’ll get to see him playing in D’Antoni’s system.
"Reality is for people who can't handle Blazers Edge." - MiledAnimal
by tominhawaii on
May 14, 2008 9:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs











