What would it take for the Blazers to get Rose?

by MiledAnimal on May 26, 2008 12:20 AM PDT

It seems every GM holding an NBA lotto pick is talking about dealing it. Apparently, there isn't a lot of love for this year's batch of fine young cannibals available for needy teams. Even Pat Riley and John Paxson are saying they'll listen to offers.

What's going on here? Are the GMs thinking they need veterans instead of rookies? Are the top picks really not as good as they've been hyped? (Well, that one is a no-brainer anyway.) Or have team owners over-extended themselves in real estate and autos and need to trim costs by not adding any first-round picks to their rosters?

Whatever the reason, there is opportunity amid the chaos for the Blazers. I'm proposing KP trade for the #1 pick and draft Derrick Rose, for the following reasons:

If so many lottery GMs are trying to deal their picks, the value of those picks on the market is low. That means we won't have to give up nearly as much to get the #1 pick as we would if demand were high for high picks this year.
We have too many players under contract for next season and need to trim the roster.
We have good, young, inexpensive players that other teams want.
Our team is already young, so adding another young talent like Rose will only delay the opening of our championship window a little more while he matures. If he's as good as projected, he'll be worth the wait. Our window isn't projected to open for a couple more years anyway.
Steve Blake runs the team well, so Rose can take time to learn how to play PG before eventually taking over the starting job.

The only caveat is what it will take to pry the #1 pick from Chicago. We don't want to give up Oden, Roy, or Aldridge, and it's unlikely KP would trade Rudy if he agrees to sign with us. That makes things tough, but most of us are probably fine with that. I'm willing to deal anyone else to get Rose: Przybilla, Outlaw, Webster, Blake, Frye, and yes, even Von Wafer.

Within those parameters, is there any way to do this deal?

Please note: I'm not asking whether we should do this deal. I just want to know whether it could be done without including our Big Four.

Gentlemen, start your ESPN trade machines!

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well sure...

I agree. DO NOT trade the big three. Period. (LaBron the ONLY exception) In that case I might very well agree to talks about getting that first pick or the 2nd, But as good as Rose is and as bad as I/we want him, I’m not sure it’s best for the team in the long run to turn our back on the concept of team by trading most of the team away. The JailBlazers era is officially over and that was phase one of the rebuilding. Phase two is to build a foundation of winning basketball. Check. The final phase is to build a championship team. I think a level of loyalty must be shown. The number one reason being we want our big three to be loyal to us and this team when their contracts expire. If we can get the number one pick without completely gutting the team (a few players, future picks and money) (((which is super unlikely))) then go for it. Otherwise I don’t think it’s wise.

by Blazersaurus on May 26, 2008 12:39 AM PDT 0 recs

and Chris Paul

As tough as it would be, I would give any Blazers besides Oden for Paul.

by JasonT on May 26, 2008 1:25 AM PDT up 0 recs

For #1?

It’d take one of our big three without exception. A cheaper alternative (relatively) is to not go after Rose, but Mayo. But we might have to go as high as #3 to get him. I’m thinking the ‘Wolves would love to get out from under Antoine Walker’s horrible contract (as I have posted in a couple of other places), but do we really want Mayo that badly? But in taking that contract, we would not have to give up nearly as much.

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 26, 2008 5:18 AM PDT 0 recs

This is rather laughable

You want to know what it would take to get Rose?

All you have to do is go back a year and ask what it would have taken for Portland to trade the rights to draft Oden.

by moldorf on May 26, 2008 8:37 AM PDT 1 recs

yeah

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 26, 2008 10:12 AM PDT up 0 recs

Pritchard did listen to a trade regarding Oden

He said so himself.

The story goes, (if I remember it right) a western conference team offered an older, multiple, major all-star for the #1. No one ever said officially who it was, but it was assumed that it was Garnett. (Before his trade to Boston.)
Pritchard said that he went home to think about it. He went to work the next day and everyone concluded that the ONLY player that Oden would be traded for would have to be LaBron.

by parkinglotj on May 26, 2008 10:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

Retain not only the big 3

but Rudy as well and still wrestle the Rose pick away from Chicago? Fantasies can be fun.

by TwoDeep on May 26, 2008 9:48 AM PDT 0 recs

getting Rose

The mere suggestion that we could get Rose without trading one of the big 3 is completely absurd. Its one thing to argue that Rose is not worth giving up one of the big 3 (I’d disagree, but that’s what makes this site fun), but to even get a call back from the Bulls you’d have to offer Aldridge+something.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on May 26, 2008 10:37 AM PDT 0 recs