How Much Is Too Much?

by TwoDeep on May 23, 2008 9:52 AM PDT Comment 46 comments

..... to get Rose that is.

First, I'd like to offer this opinion: Rose will end up being a better point guard than either Paul or Williams. He simply has so many outstanding skills. Also - and I don't know how significant this is - Paul or Williams were never considered or discussed (that I recall) as top 2 selections in their draft.

For the sake of this FanPost, I'll make two assumptions: 1). KP would like to make a stab at acquiring Rose, and 2). he is not willing to part with Roy or Oden to do so. Keep in mind this quote from Pritchard: "To get into the first two picks, you'll have to give up an all star and a pretty good starter".

So, the question is: how much would we be willing to give up to get Rose? Here are some possibilities:

a - Rudy, Outlaw and #13

b - Aldridge, Outaw and #13

c - Aldridge, Rudy and #13

d - Aldridge, Rudy, Outlaw and #13

e - Aldridge, Rudy and Outlaw minus #13

Of course there are many other combinations we could offer, but excluding Roy and Oden I think Aldridge, Rudy and Outlaw represent our most valuable trading commodities.

Personally, I'd do 'a' in a heartbeat, although it would hurt to give up Travis. But I'm not so sure about those other proposals involving Aldridge. Give up LaMarcus?! How could we, although I'm of the opinion that Rose will end up being more outstanding at his position than Aldridge will at his. And, although considerable emphasis is placed on high quality bigs, I know quality PG's are highly valued as well.

I strongly suspect we'd have to throw in one of our big 3 to have any chance at Rose. I think 'e' may have some merit as we'd still have the 13th pick to draft another power forward.

I'd do 'a' for sure. "d" is too much. I'd seriously consider the others.

Am I nuts?

0 recs | Comment 46 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

all of the above

I don’t think we need rose to be successful. I don’t think we need that good of a point guard at all. Infact I believe we can win it all with Steve Blake as the starting point guard on this team. Now would it be nice to upgrade at the point? Yes of course, and I would expect KP to look into what it would take to do so. But I am not on the bandwagon of getting an ALL-STAR point guard for this team. We simply don’t need it with ROY, LMA, ODEN, and RUDY. A quality point, who can hit the 3, run the half court offense, play respectable defense, and hit his free throws is all I ask for, and ironically that is just what Steve Blake is. Move Jack, get a better back up, and this team will win 50+ games next year.

by usmcr3049 on May 23, 2008 10:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't lose too much sleep

if we lost Aldridge. He is really awesome and everything, but Frye showed that he could GAME when he got minutes late in the season. I’d like to see him on the floor more often, one way or the other

by 50backflips on May 23, 2008 10:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I would not like to put both Aldridge and Trout in a trade.

It never rains for everibody´s pleasure.

by amlmart1 on May 23, 2008 10:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Let it be said that I'm not for this...

But I think equal value is Aldridge, JACK and the #13 to Miami for the #2. Chicago would have to pick Beasley first.

But I think that Pritchard will find another PG with experience.

But Jack actually would fit nicely in Miami. I don’t think Chicago would do it, but at #2 Miami might.

by parkinglotj on May 23, 2008 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Paul was frequently discussed as a top 2 selection

Many thought that Atlanta should have taken him, given their need at PG.

But the 2005 draft is a cautionary tale: Many more basketball pundits thought that the best prospect that year wasn’t Paul or DW, but the guy that Atlanta did draft—Marvin Williams of UNC. Like Rose, he was a freshman who played in the NCAA title game. (Unlike Rose, his team won, and unlike Rose, he was the sixth man of that team). While MW was acknowledged to be raw, he was dripping with potential.

Three years later, and Marvin has yet to become a consistent NBA player. I wouldn’t write him off yet, as he’s still pretty young, he’s shown improvement, and he had a injury that cost him much of his rookie year—but just like a certain other player from Seattle whose initials are “MW”; I doubt Williams will ever be the equal of Paul.

But prior to the 05 draft, he was that year’s “Next Kevin Garnett” or whatever.

And to be honest, many in Portland were hoping Atlanta or Milwaukee would take Paul, so we could grab either Bogut or MW. Our PG of the future was Sebastian Telfair, and we all knew it. (Most of us, anyway—a few pundits correctly picked that Paul would be better than Telfair, but few knew how thoroughly Sebastian would tank). Martell became plan B when it became clear that Bogut and Williams would both be gone by the time the #3 pick rolled around. The Jazz wanted the other Williams (Deron), so we made a deal. An unwise one, as it turned out.

But hey—we got Roy, we got LMA, and we got Oden. No need to worry about Paul-to-Chandler; GO will just make Tyson eat the ball. :)

by EngineerScotty on May 23, 2008 10:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not that Rose won't probably be good...

But his value has DEFINITELY risen because teams like us passed on Deron and Paul, and both of those PGs are spectacular at young ages and lead their teams deep into the playoffs. That has made everyone really focus on PG play, and no one wants to make the same mistake.

Not that Rose won’t be good, but it has (to me) certainly made him maybe a bigger deal than before…

For better or worse. You want the next Paul, but if you’re viewing him as the #1 because of Chris Paul and not because of Derrick Rose, then you might be making a mistake. Of course… I still think he should be #1 over Beasley, right now. It’s like not wanting to miss out on the Next Jordan™. Chris Paul’s Q-rating is pretty damn high right now, so it’s kinda sorta the same thing. Missing the next Paul is worse than getting the ‘Next Paul™’ and him being a slight disappointment.

I mean, who knows how good any of these kids will be. The best player could go #15. Second round. We know some players will be good but it isn’t AS can’t miss as last year.

I wouldn’t do LMA for Rose because I think LMA + Oden + Roy is better than Paul, Kobe, Lebron, anyone. They fit together perfectly and all like each other. None will leave us for NY or LA. We might sometimes make too much of the chemistry, as if they all play tiddlywinks with each other all day, but it was a big reason they were good so soon and they all have room to get a LOT better—especially LMA and Oden. I need to see how they play together, how their chemistry is.

You try for a deal for Rose only if you think Roy isn’t a great floor general or playmaker. I think he is awesome and will be one of the best in the league at both. If you like Roy, why would we need Rose? He takes Roy’s place. Roy could play with him, sure, but can Rose play with Roy? Rose needs more shooters around him, just as Roy/LMA/Oden do. It would maybe be amazingly successful, but both dudes need the ball to do what they do, and I like the ball in Roy’s hands. As much as possible.

I’d rather we get a PG who caters to the big 3 and can hit an open shot and play defense. Fill in your own personal favorite.

I think we got the #1 pick the exact right year and don’t need this one. Star role players like Devin Harris, Calderon, Hinrich, name your favorite, is what we need.

Mortimer

PS: Don’t misconstrue this as me saying Rose sucks or will be a bust, because I don’t think or know that. Just saying the public perception of PG play is at a fever where PG play is being overrated. It’s important, but probably not THE most important to fill with the best player.

by Mortimer on May 23, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You try for a deal for Rose only if you think Roy isn’t a great floor general or playmaker. I think he is awesome and will be one of the best in the league at both.

I agree. Wanting to get Rose is more of a concern about Roy than about Aldridge… even if Aldridge is the easier guy to trade. I love your confidence in Roy. I hope you are right! I’d consider Rose to bean insurance policy against the possibility that Roy can’t be a championship caliber floor general and playmaker. Say there’s a 60% chance that if Roy is the best guard on the Blazers, the Blazers can win a championship and a 40% chance that Rose is, then there’s a .84% chance that one of them is “Championship Caliber. ” Of course, that’s assuming independence… playing together may improve or worsen their Blazers overall guard play, but you get the point..

by PoliSam on May 23, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aldridge is going to be an All-Star

I know everyone is all over Rose’s jockstrap right now, but nobody knows if how he’ll play against NBA competition. Keep LMA. I’d probably do ‘a’ though.

by leeroyjenkins on May 23, 2008 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rose played in conference USA

For one year. I don’t buy the hype.

by Sabonis4Ever on May 23, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't get over how badly he and his team choked in the Tourney

I’m not going to say that one incident means Rose won’t be a stud in the NBA, but it makes me wonder. Not only did he miss the FT’s but he couldn’t seem to rally his team around him.

by leeroyjenkins on May 23, 2008 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

but he still led his team to within inches of a title, as a freshman.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on May 23, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

touche

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on May 23, 2008 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You think Rose will be better than Deron and Paul?

looking back don’t you think Paul should have been the firs pick? I wouldn’t give up LaMarcus striaght across for him, especialy since we have rudy coming over and the thought of moving roy to point and rudy to shoting guard makes a load more sence to me than getting rid of LaMarcus….however a Rudy, Outlaw, this and next years pick I would probably do.

by Blazermaniac77 on May 23, 2008 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Paul>Rose>Deron 5 years from now.

One man’s opinion.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on May 23, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would do "A"

However they wouldn’t. Don’t trade LMA and IMO Rose will be nowhere close to Paul. CP3 should have been the MVP and you think Rose will be better?!?

Sometimes I feel like I'm going in different directions...

by porterfan30 on May 23, 2008 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We dont need Rose

A)I would consider it, but probably decline
B)No
C)No!
D)No!!!
E)No!!

You may have to give up an all-star to get Rose, but that doesn’t mean that it would be a smart move t make. Historically, top 2 draft prospects have around a 50% chance of getting to the all-star game at least once in their career. Also, the chance of them becoming all-stars has been decreasing because players are being drafted at younger ages and there is more competition for spots at the all-star game(more teams/players in the league than there used to be). Does it really make sense to give up an all-star level player for someone who has less than a 50% chance of ever playing at that level?

by trk on May 23, 2008 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If we go with the assumption

that he’ll be better than Paul and Williams we should be willing to give up anything Chicago wants outside of Roy and Oden. The answer would be “all of the above if necessary”.

—Dave

by Dave on May 23, 2008 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That's one big assumption however.

by timg56 on May 23, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

but to me it seems fair to take a fanpost the way it’s meant, including whatever assumptions lead into the question at hand. Otherwise every post becomes another version of “Yes he is/No he’s not”. It’s like each fanpost is its own little world. TwoDeep says Rose could turn out better than Paul or Williams. I’m posting in his world, so that’s the way it is for purposes of this discussion.

If I knew for sure Rose would be better…that’s BETTER, mind you…than Paul or Williams I would give up anything outside of Roy or Oden to get him.

—Dave

by Dave on May 23, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose versus Paul

I think we ought to try to put Rose in perspective. To say a guy is going to be better than Chris Paul when he has never faced NBA-level competition seems more than a little premature. Chris Paul has been absolutely phenomenal. Statistically, what he has done so early in his career has been almost unprecedented. To expect that any top PG pick is going to exceed that is, in my opinion, going way overboard.

Bear in mind that even Deron Williams didn’t do a whole lot in his first season. Rose is highly unlikely to come in and dominate the league within his first year or two.

by Harry Manback on May 23, 2008 11:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

the rundown

a) Bulls hang up and have a good, long laugh
b) That’s a lot to give up, but I would certainly consider it.
c) I’d rather include Travis than Rudy, but I’d consider this one also.
d) Not even I would do this one
e) I wouldn’t do this either.

Can we please stop making arguments like “No to Rose because he’s unproven?” Of course he’s unproven. So is Greg Oden, but KP reportedly could have gotten KG+Foye or Paul Pierce + 5th pick for him and didn’t do it. This is about how good we think he’ll be, not next year, not in two years but down the road.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on May 23, 2008 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The "unproven" argument is somewhat ironic

when many, many people are already madly in love with Rudy Fernandez.

However it does hold water a little bit when you consider trading LMA, for instance, who both has talent as has started to show it. But you’re right that in and of itself that’s only a caution, not a bar, to acquiring players. LeBron James was completely unproven when he was drafted too.

—Dave

by Dave on May 23, 2008 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rudy has the best track record

amongst all incoming players for being proven. Rudy is clearly on of the best if not the best player in the European league this year. It is also widely believed that the European leauges are better the US college BB. Evidence, is shown in international BB competition such as the olympics: the eurpoean teams are closing the gapo with NBA players and College players are being left off of US fielded teams.

Sure no player coming in next year is yet proven, including Oden Rudy Rose or Beasely. However Rudy has the best resume coming into the league, while Oden is clearly the best prospect (by a wide-margin).

That being said, I think overall Rudy is the surer bet over Rose, though both players have great potential and Rose’s may be higher. The only difference is that Rose has potential in a position where we have greater need than does Rudy. We won’t know which players will be better until they ar 4-5 years in the league. We know very well wha twe have in LmA, Trout, Webster, and Jack, those are known comodities. Oden and Rudy lesser known comodities, but are better known (By our Organization at least) than player in this years draft. Honestly, Rudy and #13 is probably a more equal trade for the rights to Rose. But his will never happen, because outside the Blazers, nobody is scouting Rudy and he is not on the radar like Rose is. Therefore Rose will be overvalued and Rudy undervalued. Thus all the above listed trade greatly undervalue are somewhat known commodities while greatly over valuing an unknown, which doesn’t fit KP’s principle of buying low and selling high.

by NWfan on May 23, 2008 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, based solely on the competition each has faced you'd have to give Rudy the advantage

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on May 23, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

except with the assumption that Rose plays a position that we have greater need at. Based on interviews he has given, Roy seems to prefer playing PG to playing SG, and I think he plays very well at the PG position. It seems like the main reason that why we have been playing Roy at the SG position is that we have a logjam at the PG position right now and don’t have many players who are effective at the SG position.

by trk on May 23, 2008 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's one thing to be wildly enthusiastic about the guys we draft.

We get them for free, without giving up anything to anyone else. They’re our draft picks. But to give proven guys up for unproven worries me. I wouldn’t give up Aldridge for Rudy if we had to. I might not give him up for Oden at this point either. Sometimes it works out okay, like when we gave up Randolph for Aldridge’s playing time (I admit, I was a little worried then). Most of the time it doesn’t work out so nice, which is why you don’t see many GM’s doing this. Rose will more than likely be great. And if we would have been able to draft him, I would have been ecstatic.

If we knew how good he was going to be, then the process becomes much simpler. If we knew for sure Rose was going to be better than Chris Paul, then giving up Aldridge becomes easier (not easy, but easier).

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 23, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exaclty

A rookie point guard is guard is going to take at least 2 years to develop. LMA already had 2 years of development.

Three

by tominhawaii on May 23, 2008 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, we have to decide what his value is based on little to no info

I think that’s the point we’re trying to make.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on May 23, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

trade crippled Oden for Rose

Przybilla should be our starting center. Oden walks like an old man. Get value out of him before the league pukes up all the Oden koolaid it drank.

Where have all the flowers gone?

by bilingual octopus on May 23, 2008 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dave,

how about just posting a poll?

Forget the trade scenarios – simply pick who you would rather have – Aldridge or Rose.

by timg56 on May 23, 2008 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There are reasons why many expect rose to go #1.

To me, he was extremely impressive in his play this year, but here are a some comments by others that I recently read which say it better than I could:

” A breath taking athlete …. terrific size for a PG …..blinding speed …... dazzeling dunker …. likely to be the most athletic PG in the league for years to come …. a point guard in the true sense of the word …. knows how to run a team and raise level of his teammates … rare ability to create passing lanes …. excellent handle on the ball …. doesn’t get rattled easily … deadly on fast break ….. powerful leaper …. cat like quickness … hits foul shots at a good rate … tough as nails competitor … good decision maker …. excellent rebounder due to his size, strength and tenacity … a relentless defender with quick hands and length …. gets low and can lock his man down on defense …. et cetera

Comparing him to Chris Paul? Well, Paul is small.

by TwoDeep on May 23, 2008 12:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, he's good, but why rock the boat?

This boat is sailing for complete dominance. We could make Dave, Amlmart, or Tominhawaii our starting PG and still dominate. Unless they’d take Outlaw, Jack, #13 pick, our 2nd round picks, and next year’s 1st round pick, I’d stay put.

Current team + Greg + Rudy = Blazers losing narrowly to the Spurs in the 2008-2009 Western Conference Finals. Book it.

by prezofdeath on May 23, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

I don’t get back on D because I’m too fat to bend over and slap my hands on the floor.

Three

by tominhawaii on May 23, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was born the same year of MJ.

That´s all my basketball package. I bet for Dave to PG.

It never rains for everibody´s pleasure.

by amlmart1 on May 23, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to compare LeBron to Rose

Trying to find a way to get Rose or Beasley is about the same as trying to find a way to get LeBron. It is not going to happen.

Two

by tominhawaii on May 23, 2008 2:50 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Finally, some sense

If the Blazers traded the pick we used to get Oden for Ray Allen, and Seattle’s draft pick, Paul Allen, KP, and Nate would all be history. The fans would have revolted.

So why does anyone think the Blazers can take Rose from the Bulls? Allow the full force of reality to strike thee, O dreamer.

Current team + Greg + Rudy = Blazers losing narrowly to the Spurs in the 2008-2009 Western Conference Finals. Book it.

by prezofdeath on May 23, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nah...I actually proposed that trade(not in here)

Why not? You would have gotten Durant and Ray Allen. This is not the same scenario, though.

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

by 92wastheyear on May 23, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

PS....I am not in favor getting Rose

for the prices stated above

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

by 92wastheyear on May 23, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KP Said it Best

He said it would take an all star to get Rose. How many of those do the Blazers have on the roster?

Three

by tominhawaii on May 23, 2008 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the deal:

KP has accumulated a fairly tall heap of talent …. enough so that we could give a bunch away to get Rose (Aldridge, Outlaw, Rudy, #13) and still not have decimated our talent level. We’d still have Roy, Oden, Rose (a pretty substantial big 3) plus Webster, Frye, Pryz, Sergio, Jones and the rest. Not every team has enough talent depth to make this move.

by TwoDeep on May 23, 2008 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's Fair

But what is the point of trading one of the big three to make a new big three that will only make the team younger and less experienced?

Three

by tominhawaii on May 23, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No to all ABCDE

I would only give up Jack, Raef, JJ33 and the 13th pick. They could have anyone of these players or all and the 13th pick for Rose. But thats all I would part with.That gives them two exipring contracts plus a young player. and if they didn,t want that deal I would hang up.In other words Just keep what we have and stay pat at least for one more year.

by billyjoejack on May 23, 2008 5:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs