Minute Crunch

by Winchester on May 18, 2008 6:28 PM PDT Comment 73 comments

There are a lot of people advocating that the Blazers stay with their current roster this coming season. I say that these people are taking crazy pills. We already have a ten man rotation (nine if you don’t count Sergio), and we have two guys coming in who should be getting starters minutes. Our playing time per game looked like this. How are we going to add Rudy and Greg without making some trades?

A minimum of 50 minutes has to be shaved off this chart in order to successfully play Oden and Rudy (not to mention our 13th pick). How exactly are you going to do that without making any trades? Realistically I think two or three people need to go. The question is who.

Martell said a couple really interesting things on the radio the other day. First he mentioned that Nate wants him to play some shooting guard and maybe a little point next year. Later while describing Rudy, Webster calls him a point guard. When the host tries to correct him, saying Rudy is a shooting guard, Martell sounds a little surprised and says something like, “I don’t know, I think Brandon has that position locked up”. Is that not a crazy statement?

1. How could Martell not know what position Rudy plays?

2. Why would Nate tell Webster he is going to get minutes at SG and PG if Jack and Rudy will already be sharing playing time with Roy? Who needs four shooting guards?

3. Is Rudy our starting PG next year? I don’t care how many points Chris Paul scores, he will still be posted up like crazy on the other end.

4. Jack is basically gone right?

Poll

Who goes?

Jarrett Jack

95 votes

Travis Outlaw

1 votes

Martell Webster

6 votes

Joel Przybilla

1 votes

Steve Blake

3 votes

Channing Frye

3 votes

James Jones

13 votes

A, B, and F

23 votes

145 votes | Poll has closed

6 recs | Comment 73 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i think that

-Jarett wont be here
-Pryzbillas minutes will drasticaly shrink with oden coming in
-blakes minutes will shrink
-roy will play more point
-and one of Frye/Jones/outlaw has to go, unless they plan to not play Jones at all. to me it makes most sense that outlaw would leave, as unpopular is it is to say that. it would allow room for webster to grow, give minutes to jones and posibly some minuts at Sf for rudy. And it would give frye his minutes as well with his improvement.

by raging WebTed on May 18, 2008 6:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

except that...

Outlaw plays SF and PF. Aldridge can play PF and C as can Frye. Oden plays center as does pryz. So that’s far too much piling up in that area. If you get rid of Frye (BOOO) and use Outlaw, it makes more sense because PF would only be two deep and SF would only be three deep instead of four deep in PF and C so good players get no time. If Frye could play SF then I’d want to keep him because he was improving towards the end of the season. Outlaw has talent but his BBIQ is soooo low…. sigh.

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

by ratbastird on May 18, 2008 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with your minutes reductions

and I think Martell, Outlaw and Jones will fight for minutes with each other. And Roy and Rudy likely can play SF at times as well. I do not think one has to go besides Jack (and Jack because he is the 4th SG). We don’t need/want a player in return for Jack so a 1st round pick next year? Maybe from a team that is in decline such as the Mavericks. Depth is not a bad thing. Jones will be ok with a reduced role on a contender. Injuries will get him time as well as other players outside of the rotation.

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 18, 2008 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just give Greg and Rudy rollover minutes

They are good even during the next month.

"I never worried if there would be an earthquake or something in Oregon, but now I can do." amlmart1

by Sabonis4Ever on May 18, 2008 7:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice Chart.

Thanks for visually laying out what I’ve been talking about and WHY I’ve been advocating a trade. For me it’s not about the talent coming in, but in making roster room. Honestly, I’d love to do some trades that get us some number one picks in the future, or position us to get some first round picks (that’s what I meant).

I think Webster was just messing with people. There’s NO WAY he’ll be a PG. Rudy may play point, and frankly I think that would be a good position for him this year until he beefs up. He’s rather slender. Seattle moved durant to the SG position because of that in order to protect him and moving Rudy to PG with Roy at shooting would probably not be such a bad move. Yeah, defense will be weak, but offense will CRUSH.

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

by ratbastird on May 18, 2008 7:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What I hope Webby meant...

I really hope Webster meant that he would be bringing the ball up the court occasionally to lighten the load for Roy and Rudy. It would be kind like the Bulls backcourt (for the second three-peat) where Harper, Jordan and Pippen all split running the offense, while having defensive flexibility because all three of them rotate their matchups.

I mean Paul is so quick that he can’t be stopped by anyone. For Parker is quick as well and neither one of them can guard the other. I doubt theres any player that can really hope to do much more than they do to eachother. BUT a big guard can disrupt their perimeter shooting, while using their length to help funnel into Oden/LMA/Pryz, which seems to be the most you can do.

In addition we’d have three such players to utilize for this task, so as not to wear any particular player out too much.

Anyway, it seems great on paper, but there are a lot of unaccounted real-life factors that will remain unknown until next training camp, at which point Nate will be asking himself “who the heck am I going to PLAY?!”

by Devenex on May 18, 2008 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I think it’s because both Roy and Rudy may be at their best running off of screens. If you start both of them and make on the PG, you take away a great weapon, if Martell is just going to stand at the 3 point line anyway, might as well give him the ball at the top of the key to hit players coming of screens.

Joel Freeland=Stud

by hightide on May 18, 2008 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Triangle Offense

I wonder if Nate is thinking about implementing a triangle type offense (like Jordan’s Bulls used). The Triangle Offense is very effective (it helped Phil Jackson’s teams win 9 championships), but is somewhat complicated and can take a while to learn. Ball-handling duties are distributed among the players more than in most other offensive systems (where the PG has the ball most of the time), so to use this offense with maximum effectiveness, players have to be both smart and versatile.

Brandon Roy is perfect for this type of offense, since he is a smart, unselfish player who has experience playing at the 1, 2 and 3. Rudy should be very good in a triangle offense as well, for similar reasons. Webster and Aldridge would both be pretty good in this system if they improved their ball handling skills (and Nate asked both of them to work on that over the summer). It doesn’t seem like a center needs to be as versatile as the other players in this system as long he can be a low-post threat and pass out of double teams. Oden should be able to do that. Since we are planning on keeping the core together for a long time, there will be plenty of time to learn this system and develop the necessary teamwork to make it effective.

If the Blazers do plan on implementing this type of offense, I think a good next step would be to hire Scottie Pippen as an assistant coach. I have read that he is planing on getting into coaching, and Phil Jackson has said that of all the players he has coached Pippen learned the Triangle the fastest and understood it the best.

by trk on May 19, 2008 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You Had Me 'Till Pippen

I didn’t like his “Coach Pip” junk he pulled back in the day with the Blazers. My self talk is that at some point he would try to undermine Coach Nate, and I for one will not stand for that. If Pip wants to pull that crap, he’s going to have to deal with me getting upset about it and thinking he’s a fart knocker.

But I do like the idea of stealing a little of the triangle offense for some half court sets. That’s a swell idea, thanks for sharing.

Hello, I am tominhawaii, think of me as the irritating tobacco ads of Blazer's Edge.

by tominhawaii on May 19, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tex Winter is the key to the triangle

Tex literally wrote a book on the triangle offense and really was the brains on the bench. He is retired and in his mid-80s now so he may be kind of hard to get.

Also of note is that in the one instance of a team trying to implement the triangle offense without Tex on the staff was the Jason Kidd Mavericks (version 1.0) which was a failure. While this may have been as much a cause of the feud between Kidd and Jim Jackson over Toni Braxton, but the fact remains that no team in the modern era has been successful with the triangle without the blessing of Tex.

by tingeyga on May 20, 2008 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought Tex

Was still working for the Lakers. Obviously it would be great if we could get him, but he doesn’t seem to be available.

by trk on May 20, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Lakers Website

Doesn’t have him as a member of the staff:
http://www.nba.com/lakers/roster/index.html

by tingeyga on May 20, 2008 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I thought I heard he still works as a “consultant” if that means anything in this day and age.

Hello, I am tominhawaii, think of me as the irritating tobacco ads of Blazer's Edge.

by tominhawaii on May 20, 2008 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I realize this is a segue but I clicked on the link

in tingeyga’s post and noticed a Shawn Kemp highlight video in the right hand column. Wow. I’d forgotten that he was pretty incredible. It’s sad that he ruined himself so completely.

"We comin along." Travis Outlaw

by annthefan on May 23, 2008 3:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like this idea

We definitely have the talent to pull it off although I can’t see nate going this direction because VERY few people really seem to know or use the triangle offense.

Pulling in pippen might help, but i strongly suspect we won’t be doing this. A shame too. Triangle and our team… we’d kill.

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

by ratbastird on May 20, 2008 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Very few people really seem to know or use the triangle offense"

Thats true. I can only think of one player on our team who has experience playing in a Triangle Offense. That player is: Von Wafer

by trk on May 20, 2008 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joel, JJ, Blake, and James Jones.

Those four will have fewer minutes than they did this past season,
fewer enough for Oden and Rudy to get their minutes.

Remember, JJ, Jones, Frye, Webster, and Blake all have contracts that expire after next season.
A minutes-crunch scenario is bearable when it’s only for one season.
Roster thinning through letting players go fills the bill, and can be done a year from now.

Patience.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on May 18, 2008 7:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And I should add: Roy.

He needs his minutes thinned to avoid wear and tear.
For how deep our roster is, there’s no reason for him to keep playing such heavy minutes.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on May 18, 2008 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Defiantly

Roy seemed really beaten down at the end of the year. Saying that it was hard to get up in the morning because there was nothing to play for (very un-Roy). Roy needs a cut down on minutes bad, like 32 or 34 mpg I’d say. No reason to break the engine before we are even in the race.

Joel Freeland=Stud

by hightide on May 18, 2008 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

totally agree HighTide

Note to KP & Nate: HighTide & QP at Bedge have voiced a very important concern. Please decrease Mr. Roy’s MPG.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on May 19, 2008 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why let good players go

when they have value?

If we trade, pick up some garbage or some good and some future picks, then it works well for us.

Frye will also see reduced minutes as he played PF and Center. Oden/Pryz will eat into the time he would have received at Center or Aldridge would have received at center.

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

by ratbastird on May 19, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As one who is advocating little roster change,

Obviously, the minutes pie is not going to be divided the same way. Of a total of 240 minutes per game, the division is going to look something like this:

10 man rotation

Derrick Rose – 30 minutes
Brandon Roy – 38 minutes
Rudy Fernandez – 25 minutes
Steve Blake – 8 minutes

Travis Outlaw – 30 minutes
Lamarcus Aldridge – 38 minutes
Martell Webster – 20 minutes
Channing Frye – 5 minutes

Greg Oden – 28 minutes
Joel Przybilla – 15 minutes

Jack, Jones, Sergio, Raef and McBob are our insurance policies.

For those who are doubters (you’ll see Tuesday), slide Steve Blake into Rose’s position, and Jack into Blake’s position. This group did very well without Oden and Rudy, both of whom will add much needed assets to the Blazers. I don’t see much of a need to go and get anyone at this point.

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 18, 2008 7:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree except Brandon should get fewer minutes

And Martell should get more. About an 8 minute swing each way.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on May 19, 2008 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if webster gets 8 more minutes..

That means Oultlaws miutes would have to be shrunk or be traded

by raging WebTed on May 20, 2008 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting colors picked

Why is LMA red, is this about the anger that he shows every so often?

I’d be upset if I were Frye…pea green. Yuck.

You must love Pryzbilla, such a coooool blue.

But seriously, what’s up about Sergio? Is he traded already? He’s almost completely off the graph.

And…that color on Martel really goes with that snazzy coat he wears to games.

Oh and thanks for the work. A picture is worth a thousand words.

by parkinglotj on May 18, 2008 7:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A picture is worth a thousand words.

That means Mortimer dowsn’t have to post at ll….just his signature

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on May 18, 2008 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like your chart!

I think a 10 man rotation and some depth beyond is not bad. We used a 10 man rotation in 1976-1977 and that turned out pretty well.

Jack is the odd man out because he plays shooting guard and if Webster plays some there as well he would be 4th or 5th (Blake) on the depth chart. I do not see Jack playing PG for us next year. Remember that Coach Nate is all about matchup problems for the other team so two 6-6 guards and a 6-11 small forward (LaMarcus – remember last year’s plan?) would freak other teams out of their game plans. In other words rotations will shift with opponents. Coach Nate also preaches inside out offense so penetration is not the essential it might be for other teams.

I also think we are short one center (see my fanpost above). And McRoberts may improve enough to get occasional minutes at PF.

by lee3022 on May 18, 2008 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree we need to shave it down

even though Detroit would not go for it I can keep dreaming of this scenario: Bye Bye Travis, Jack, Frye and 13th pick. Hello Tayshaun Prince.

Divide the minutes up among these 10 players.

Point Guard- Blake, Sergio, Roy
Shooting Guard- Roy, Rudy, Martell
Small Forward- Tayshaun, Webster, Jones
Power Forward- Lamarcus, Tayshaun
Center-Greg, Joel

This is a 10 player rotation and a VERY solid one at that. As much as I love Frye, Jack and Travis this proposed lineup would be very flexible and dangerous.

I'm going to have to let you go. Too much flax seed in my morning shake.

by oderiferous emanations 74 on May 18, 2008 11:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm afraid that is too much to give up for Mr. Prince

And I’m afraid Mr. Prince is going to go all Kirilenko on us and start getting nagging injuries all the time.

I’d rather keep Outlaw and let him develop. Soon he’ll be better than Prince ever was. And Prince will be in decline.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on May 19, 2008 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem in trading for prince is our window.

Realistically, we are not contenders for another couple of years while our guys develop. Then, when we hit that championship window, we’re going to be there for years. Prince would make us better right now, but he is not going to last through that window. I don’t like the idea off giving up a piece who may be a significant part of that window (Outlaw) for someone who wont make it through it (Prince).

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 19, 2008 5:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is the best lookiing pie chart I've ever seen!

Drool.

by TwoDeep on May 19, 2008 7:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Webster prolly meant

Nate wants Martell to be able to initiate the offense through him in addition to the PG and Roy, which would require Marty working on his dribbling (very important for his game) and passing. It’s just better to have a SF who can do more than just shoot, and Nate just meant having plays go THROUGH Martell, and not just end there. That’s more than reasonable to hope for a good player, I believe.

As far as minutes go, Frye and Pryzzle get a big cut for Oden, and Jack and Blake get a big cut for Rudy. I don’t think it’ll be a big problem, but the minutes crunch will hurt Jack’s trade value and that would be a negative. Plus, James Jones likely becomes a 10-15 minute guy, instead of a 20+ dude.

We all love Frye the Guye, but we gotta wonder if he’ll be happy being an eternal back up and injury spot filler for the Blazers. He just won’t be able to get a lot of consistent minutes in the long run on this team.

I think we got plenty of minutes for the right players.

Thanks for doing this pie chart, it really helps realistically see how it’ll be split up.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 19, 2008 11:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why worry about a minute crunch?

That’s a problem for the players and the coaching staff. Trust me, most teams would love to be in a position to have more players than they havve minutes for. Why? Because it creates competition. Players are more likely to put in the extra effort it takes to earn those minutes. And this is good why? Because it’s learning how to give the extra effort that ultimately separates champions from almost rans.

If Greg Oden averages 30 minutes a game, some of those will come from Joel’s bucket. I suspect a good number may also come from the SF & PG buckets, as minutes often depend on matchups. Portland could conceivably go to a 3 guard rotation. Blake, Jack, Rudy, Sergio will have to compete to determine which two share court time with Brandon. (I also wouldn’t mind seeing a couple minutes of Roy’s time shaved off.) Webster, Travis and Jones are going to have to duke it out for time at SF. One of these guys is not going to be seeing a lot of playing time. Frye is going to have to watch that he doesn’t loose time to Outlaw at PF.

One thing minutes per game averages don’t reflect is number of games played. Jones averaged 22 minutes, but there were a number of games he wasn’t available. It’s a variable we can’t account for. Then there is the simple fact that sitting on the bench doesn’t kill anyone. These guys know that not every one can start, nor everyone play significant minutes. Sometimes you just have to work hard, be patient and be ready when an opportunity presents itself. A good example is Julian Wright. Even though he was a first round pick, he was pretty much an after thought for most of the season. Yet he gets an opportunity for some playing time in the playoffs and makes the most of it. Whomever on the Blazers comes out on the short end of the competition for PT needs to realize that changing that situation is still, to some degree, within their control. As an example, I expect Sergio’s minutes to drop. But should he get in a game, it will be up to him to make it impossible for Nate to pull him from the lineup.

by timg56 on May 19, 2008 2:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I am not a fan of this so called "competition"

Would you have jordan compete with someone else for playing time? not if you wanted to keep him.

competition happens when players are on the same skill plane. Generally this means you do not have a superstar player because this is NOT something you’d do to an all star or super star caliber player.

Competition is BAD for chemistry. Look back at our last teams that had “competition for an example of this.

Competition is bad because it means that roles are not clearly established/defined. Pecking order is important because everyone knows and understands their role. Why do you think nate went with key people. He established the pecking order, and everyone knew it. I submit that if you have “competition” after the first ten games, your team is in trouble because it doesn’t know what it’s doing. If you have “competition” at ALL during your season, then you’re not a championship team.

Also… Players are either competitive or they’re not. If they are, then putting up a road block to them playing will not increase or decrease that fire because it’s already there.

In summary… “competition” = bad.

that’s my opinion and it’s not changing, unless tom agrees with me, and in that case he’s wrong.

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

by ratbastird on May 19, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree and I don't agree

I’m pretty sure Oden and Pryz will know their roles. I think Rudy will need a reality check, to see that he may be the best player in Europe, but if he wants to be the starting shooting guard, he’s got to compete with Roy for it. (I actually think Roy will slide to point guard) Anyhow, I think you always want your rookies competing for playing time. You don’t want your stars to become complacent.

Hello, I am tominhawaii, think of me as the irritating tobacco ads of Blazer's Edge.

by tominhawaii on May 19, 2008 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Areas of issues

will really be at the SF and PG positions. If they compete Roy and Rudy instead of having them work together, I’m goign to be ticked. I say Rudy to the PG position. I still can’t see Roy running the point full time.

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

by ratbastird on May 20, 2008 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OT--- Ratmandu!!!

“naw they’re going down.

If they don’t I’ll pull a fatty except I won’t because I’d break my ban by the next day.”

I believe you owe me something there ratbastird….

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

by bow4meow on May 19, 2008 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was wrong... see dave's NO post!

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

by ratbastird on May 20, 2008 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love Frye. But I think

he has to go. A lot of teams would like to have him, and if we can get a starting quality PG for him, I think we need to do it.

My favorite teams are the Blazers and any team that is playing the Lakers.

by OCBlazerFan1 on May 19, 2008 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No Way

To make a serious run at a championship, you need at least four bigs that can play. If LMA gets in foul trouble, we don’t want Outlaw in there banging with the opponents starting power forward.

Hello, I am tominhawaii, think of me as the irritating tobacco ads of Blazer's Edge.

by tominhawaii on May 19, 2008 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I would reluctantly rather trade Outlaw than Frye at this point. However, if it’s a deal-breaker not to have Frye instead of Outlaw, then I’m willing to deal Frye (it’s not like Channing is untouchable)

by Storyteller on May 19, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

I have a feeling things aren’t going down like that for another year. Any trades this year is just to create more playing time for the guards. I think KP and Nate want to see how Frye can play a whole year in his natural position. If he spends an entire year as the back up PF, it will only increase his trade value for the Blazer’s free agent summer.

Hello, I am tominhawaii, think of me as the irritating tobacco ads of Blazer's Edge.

by tominhawaii on May 19, 2008 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

And while I like Frye a lot, he is the 4th big on the team and won’t be able to get much more minutes. He has more value than being the last big in the rotation, and if we moved him in a trade for a piece we need (defensive stopper, or a good PG) than we’d have to do it. We can find another decent PF who will be okay coming off the bench and filling in for the main dudes.

We need 4 bigs, and perhaps Channing’s perimeter oriented game will fit Pryzzle and Oden really well when LMA rests, but that still won’t be many minutes and I’m skeptical of a young, good player’s willingness to forgo millions of salary dollars because he just simply won’t have a chance to show what he can do more than 15 minutes a night. If we use his value to help get a PG and use a MLE or small trade to get a decent, 15-mins-a-night PF/C, I think it would help the team overall more.

I’d hate to lose Frye the Guye, though. He’s as cool as a cool purse filled with the coolest soda ever made, with an awesome twisty straw and cool ice cubes keeping the cool soda cool in the purse, which is cool as well. Even though purses aren’t made for drinking cool soda out of, it’s just cool that Frye is GOING there with his coolness.

I also agree with TiH, that a Frye trade is more likely next year after we see how the rotation and Oden shakes out.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 19, 2008 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am too lazy to go find the exact comment and reply to it,

but good point whoever mentioned the competition. You don’t see the Spurs competing within the team. Each guy has a role. Same with Lakers, Hornets, etc. etc.
I saw competition on the Rockets, and look where it got them—nowhere.

Nate has to evaluate what he’s got early in the season and set the roles. Players get better over summer; rarely do they change during the season, with some exceptions (Travis after his big shot in MEmphis, for one). But generally, you should know your role within a few weeks of the season starting, in my opinion anyway.

Thanks PA, KP, Nate, BRoy, LMA, GO, 'Tell, Trout, JJ's, Buffet, Blake (not Blakey), Thrilla Hundred-dolla Billa, McBob (just 'cuz you're cool), Sergio (just 'cuz you've got flash), and Raef (ummm...just 'cuz)....and Dean Demo, Maurice, Monty (You rock Monty!), Bill Bayno (good luck with your new job), Bobby, Jay, and everyone else I'm forgetting (scouts, other front office people) who made the Return of Rip City possible, including the media (Mike B., Casey, Dave, Ben). And tominhawaii. Can't forget him.

by prezofdeath on May 19, 2008 10:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rudy

Why does everyone automatically assume that Fernandez will sign this year?

by BrewDude on May 19, 2008 10:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Because KP and his crew went to Spain

to be with Rudy, and they wen out to dinner together and someone who saw them told me that they were singing.

More seriously talking, Rudy state his will to come and he asked KP to keep silence about his final decision, and the message from Blazers is we are keeping silence because Rudy doesn´t want talks about this matter until ACB finish. Then you add that no one team in Europe is trying to sign Rudy for next year, while they are trying to sign Marc Gasol and even NBA players (I´ve read that Unicaja would ask Blazers about SAergio, etc). How does it sound?.

It never rains for everibody´s pleasure.

by amlmart1 on May 20, 2008 2:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unicaja would ask the Blazers about Sergio?

I don’t understand this, Amlmart. Sergio will almost certainly be a Blazer for the next two seasons—I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t exercise their team options for those two years. So what could Unicaja offer the Blazers so that they wouldn’t exercise the team option for 08-09, making Sergio a free agent and allowing him to sign in Spain? “Future considerations” with the Blazers or something?

by BlazersOrBust on May 20, 2008 4:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have read something about it recently (I can´t find now where).

Only something like “they would ask about his situation” in a comment in a sport newspaper while talking about other more sure trades coming (like Marc Gasol future and other proposal trades can be found now in the media). I didn´t consider that comment was enough serious to talk here about it. I only mentioned it because the media talk about any possibility, and now it is not surprising that european teams think to get NBA Players. In this context, when Rudy is not in any rumors about trades in Europe it means that is generally accepted that he won´t stay in Europe next year. It seems they consider more possible to get Sergio.

It never rains for everibody´s pleasure.

by amlmart1 on May 20, 2008 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey amlmart,

I’d like to know what you think of the amount and quality of basketball-related news and analysis available to you in Spain and/or Europe. Do you read sports papers and magazines or get your news online? Does the Euro sports media cover the NBA well? What about local high school teams? (Or whatever the Spanish/Euro equivalent of high school is.) How would you rate Euro basketball news and analysis to American basketball news and analysis?

by MiledAnimal on May 20, 2008 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

HI Animal,

I haven´t followed basketball in Spain or Europe untill I came to BE in January. Sometimes a saw a game or I read something. Sometimes I saw a NBA game too. Now I don´t usually read sport newspapers, sometimes a little bit more online to come to BE with something to share.
The amount and quality of basketball-related news and analysis available in Spain and Europe can´t be compared with the NBA ones. The Euro sports media cover the NBA at a very simple level, mostly talking about european players or NBA stars. There are some good specialize magazines, probably at the same American level or made by the same people.
High school teams?. I don´t know anything valuable.
How would you rate Euro basketball news and analysis to American basketball news and analysis?. Time of caverns comes to my mind.

It never rains for everibody´s pleasure.

by amlmart1 on May 20, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Time of caverns? Let me guess what you mean by that

It’s empty, dark, lonely. Am I right?

by MiledAnimal on May 20, 2008 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, all that and also primitive.

It never rains for everibody´s pleasure.

by amlmart1 on May 20, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"No woman looks ugly by light of torch"

"I never worried if there would be an earthquake or something in Oregon, but now I can do." amlmart1

by Sabonis4Ever on May 20, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why shave three guys this year?

Rudy may or may not come over. If he comes, he may or may not adjust immediately to the NBA game. Do you get rid of guys now to get him minutes when you could just as easily lose those guys next year after he actually plays a game?

Depth in the frontcourt – we lost a bunch of games this year because we didn’t have depth at the center/PF position. This year it will be a strength of this team and the response is to get rid of it?

The next fanpost will be someone bemoaning the injury prone nature of Oden/LMA/Roy. You have to have depth to win a championship. Finley is sitting on the Spurs bench because Udoka is producing. Do they get rid of him this off-season because he isn’t getting minutes?

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 19, 2008 10:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the difference

is that Finley is old. Ime is pretty old as well. You can’t develop young guys if they don’t play. At some point you have to say, “I’m sorry, but Jack just turns the ball over too much . I don’t know why he does it, and I love his crazy eyebrows, but he has to go.”

If you want to put a veteran on the bench great. But don’t tell me that keeping a young guy who wants to play and knows he can get minutes on another team is a good idea. It lowers his trade value and makes him angry, which in turn hurts the teams chemistry.

Depth is fine, but a 14 man rotation is crazy talk.

If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley

by Winchester on May 20, 2008 1:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not talking about a 14 man rotation

I just think buying Rudy this summer is too early. It will be clear by the time the trading deadline comes up next February (or maybe earlier in the season) and that is when the move is made. Clearing assets this summer is a bigger risk than Portland needs to make while they are not a championship contender. If we were seriously talking championship next year, I would be on board with a clearing out of any combo of Frye, Jack, Webster, Outlaw, Sergio, and the pick to fill our needs. But adding Oden and Rudy gives you the ability to see how guys progress in the off-season and then make your moves.

Of course if the offer you can’t refuse comes up you pull the trigger but a risky trade for unproven players isn’t going to happen just to clear up some minutes for guys to play.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 24, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't want to agree

But I do. I’m OK with Jack being trade this summer but it would also suck to find out that he learned how to run the break and avoid stepping out of bounds in the off season. I think it is important for Sergio to be here for Rudy in the beginning, just to help with the language barrier. If he fails to improve, I’m happy to see him go around the trade deadline next year.

My guess is that none of this speculation matters. Either KP will pick the 13th pick or he will do some crazy trade on draft day that no one saw coming. I doubt there was a single diary last year before the draft, about trading Zach for Frye and an expiring-ish contract.

Four

by tominhawaii on May 25, 2008 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jack didn't step out of bounds...

on the sideline for quite a few games at the end of this season. He already had the reputation though so it lives on, I get it. I can’t tell you exactly the moment of the last time but I would say he was obviously aware he needed to stop and did. I don’t remember Travis doing it as much toward the end of the season as he did early on either.

Thus trading Jack would be the biggest gaffe in Blazer history.

(That last statement is more than hyperbole…)

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 25, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Crunch converges at small forward

With Oden coming in, all of LMA’s minutes will come at power forward. If Frye stays as backup 4 and emergency 5, which is prudent until we’re sure Odens knee is good to go, then Outlaw’s minutes are pushed to the 3. Now we’ve got Webster, Jones and Outlaw sharing the 3. But that’s not all. If Rudy is as good as people hope, he’s going to play more than 12 minutes a game as Roy’s backup. They’re going to be on the court together. This means either Roy plays some point or, if we pick up a starting point guard, we go small and either Roy or Rudy play some 3. That’s up to four proven players and maybe Rudy sharing 48 small forward minutes. There’s a lot of variables and injuries happen but that scenario is cumbersome. Winchester is right on though i’m less confident about the resolution.

by underhill on May 20, 2008 6:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jones

I don’t see a problem with Jones rotting on the bench or just coming in for 10 minutes a game to give the other guys some rest, bomb, some threes, or a change of pace. He was injured too much last year to realistically expect him to play too much, but he’s a perfect gunner off the bench. I could see him staying for a while, but he’ll probably leave after next year. Maybe even this year, if he thinks he can get more money from another team. He does realize what is building in Portland and might want to stick around.

Hello, I am tominhawaii, think of me as the irritating tobacco ads of Blazer's Edge.

by tominhawaii on May 20, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Possible 10-man rotation

Starters: Roy/Fernandez/Jones/Aldridge/Oden
White Unit: Blake/Webster/Outlaw/Frye/Przybilla

Sergio & Jack can be traded for future first round picks.

This would not only give us a great starting lineup, it would also give us a very strong 2nd unit that can be counted on to play significant minutes so we don’t wear out our starters too much. All of the rotation players would have a chance to play consistent minutes with consistent roles.

by trk on May 20, 2008 12:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I like the look of that team

Roy/Rudy/Jones/LMA/Oden starting. The tradable pieces would have to be Sergio (no minutes anyway), Jack(give minutes to Rudy) and Outlaw(most tradeable commodity outside our Big3).

KP said we need to get more athletic at 1 and 2 and bring in some shooters to open up the court for our big 3… to me that means Jack and Sergio have to go. Trade up to get Westbrook for D and get some obscure Euro to sit in the corner to drain 3s all day and keep Rudy company with Sergio gone. Navarro?

by LMA on May 22, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No to Navarro

No volleyball players on the Blazers.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 24, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nate has a secret plan

His secret plan is to make sure every game goes to overtime.

With 265 (53*5) player-minutes per game to divide up instead of the standard 240, ain’t gonna be nobody complaining about no playing time. (The triple-negative strikes again). With our team used to the longer games, it will be easy for us to a) get chalupas, and b) take out the other team in the extra session.

Plus, expect Oden to foul out by halftime. :)

by EngineerScotty on May 20, 2008 2:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Lets Hope

That Oden has 20 points and 20 rebounds by the time he fouls out. Maybe Nate can also persuade some players to get ejected, that is another option.

by alexfoster on May 24, 2008 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What they Blazers Are Saying

We’re adding Oden and Fernandez, and the scouts think Fernandez would be a top 10 pick this year. The Blazers scouts peg him as a sweet shooting 2 guard who can play some PG down stream and make an immediate contribution now. McMillan would like to add a vet to his mix, and then we have the draft pick. Pritchard is freeing cap space, but needs to move LaFrentz to have that flexibility for 09. This indicates we won’t be adding a starting vet, but a good role player – because starters simply cost too much – and that would affect the cap space Pritchard wants next year. At the same time, Fernandez isn’t giving up the $2 million to $3 million he can make in Europe for the Rookie salary to sit on the bench or play 10 minutes a game either. The Blazers must have reassured him – which implies that they intend to use Roy, Blake and Fernandez in a three guard rotation – which will leave only 8 – 10 minutes for a fourth guard. At the same time, there’s no room on the front line, as Oden, Przybilla, Aldridge and Frye will take most of that playing time. This leaves SF. For Outlaw to play, he will have to move over and that will affect Jones and Webster. However, he can also play the PF position, which makes him more valuable than Webster.

Now, if they stick with this draft, the bottom line is that if we listen to the brass, they intend to add 4 players. Oden, Fernandez, a role playing vet, and then the new draftee. This, in turn, dictates that they will move 4 players.

To understand what their focus is, we need to look at whether or not the addition of Rudy means that the Blazers will move Roy to point, and believe they can make him their point guard of the future. If so, then they’‘ll likely wheel and deal to move up the board to get the best SF – who seems, by concensus, to be Galinari – currently projected as high as 6. And, if they throw either Jack/Rodriquez into the equation, along with Webster, then they could well get there. Of course, if they’ think SF’s like Alexander etc. are just as good, then they can sit at the 11 – 15 spot and have their choice of several.

If, on the other hand, you are serious about a PG. Then you’d have the problem of two new players in the guard rotation – along with Blake and Roy. And I just can’t see dealing Blake right now until the new PG is effective. Yet, he has to play, and that would cut heavily into Fernandez’s time. Which is why I come back to the thought that the PG position will be dealt with next summer because if you plug a vet in, you can then trade Blake out at that time as a part of such a deal. Granted, you could trade him now for another vet – but then, that gets back to cap space.

Of course, given that Pritchard got Roy and Aldridge one year, and Oden and Fernandez and Jones the next, he could make me look like a complete fool by the time he does his magic tricks. After all, he’s got LaFrentz, Blake/Jack/Rodriquez and Outlaw or Webster and the pick fall available – for the right deal. And he does know how to deal.

by Eben Calder on May 25, 2008 9:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Galinari

Would adding Galinari be a significant improvement over Webster, who knows the system and is working on improving his game this summer?

Four

by tominhawaii on May 25, 2008 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Galinari

after watching his youtube videos, I think D.G. looks too slow to play the 3, and will probably end up at the 4, which we have locked down. If we draft at 13 I could see us taking Batum (SF) and leaving him in Europe for another year or two.

What if there is a run on centers – any of Koufas, McGee, Speights, Jordan could go top 12 if they have outstanding workouts – and it pushes D.J. Augustin to us. Would we take him? Is he too Damon Stoudamire?

by goonerluke on May 25, 2008 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

There is no Dewey Cox on the Bedge to support drafting a short guy.

Four

by tominhawaii on May 25, 2008 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't want to move LaFrentz if you want flexibility

To keep the flexibility, you have to keep him. If you trade him you have to bring in another big contract which will eat into your cap space. Unless of course you are trading expiring contracts with another team.

Also Rudy and Oden already have spots on the roster. Rudy takes over for Darius from last year and Oden had a spot last year so no clearing has to take place. Von Wafer leaves and opens a spot for your pick which means you only have to clear one spot for a veteran if that is the direction you are going. Realistically, you would want to clear more if that is the move they choose to make but they technically only need to make room for one player by removing one player from the roster. (Jones not exercising his option would also clear a roster spot.)

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on May 25, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gallinari

I don’t really have the answer to that. He’s 6’10”, young, but apparently very skilled and ranked by almost all the mock drafts higher than any other SF. Would he be ranked over Webster? Hard to say. What we do know is that the Blazers have targeted this position for improvement – regardless of who we have now – and perhaps that’s the answer. Although, if you package players and Webster and the pick, maybe you do get the SF they’re looking for. Much like if you package Blake, the other players we don’t now need, and the pick, you might get a better PG. I’ll leave it up to Kevin. Like I said, he may make a fool of everybody. Last year was a classic. Maybe Oden was a no-brainer, but what he did in the bottom of the draft not only got Jones, but Fernandez, and today, that high pick is believed to be – at least in Europe – as good or better than Gallinari – or any other Europeon . That was a very smart move – just like Roy and Aldridge. .

by Eben Calder on May 25, 2008 12:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs