Ok, enough is enough!!!!

by coastrider on May 28, 2008 12:00 AM PDT Comment 22 comments

I got to watch several games last year. I saw some good things, some not so good things. Wanna guess what I saw more than anything else? A TEAM that played TOGETHER!!! Anyone remember about teams playing together?!? Why do we want to bust this team up? Add if you wish, but do not, I REPEAT, do not destroy the chemistry of this team. We have all seen where this leads. Nowhere!!

Get a life, pay attention to what you have. Give our team another year and Trade for need. To do less means you could care less. I think that means you truly do not care.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

WOW!

I thought that I was passionate about this team. This post officially puts me at least #2 behind you. MAD PROPS DUDE!

18 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 0 turnovers, 80% FG, 66% 3PT FG. Can my boy get some love?

by easybig73 on May 28, 2008 12:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree with your let it ride theory

and I would be very disappointed by any major alteration to the roster.

Keep the faith!

LMA's reign as "LaMonster of the Low Post" has just begun!

by LaMarvelous on May 28, 2008 12:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

come on guys

This team is pretty good, might be great eventually, but it can be improved. Saying no to particular trades is fine- KP is in a position to be picky about the moves he makes- but saying “no trades” could lead us to miss out on the move that could put us over the top.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on May 28, 2008 12:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I don’t want Portland to win like Boston did this year, I actually want to see this team we’ve watched struggle and improve succeed. It’s backwards to me to be excited that a player is improving so you can trade him (Travis, Martell, Channing). Portland had nine wins less than Denver, the #8 seed in the playoffs, this year without a player that has been hailed as the next Bill Russell and included in at least one list of probable future Hall of Famers. Greg Oden is quick, athletic, has great size, can run the floor, and will have had more time than an average rookie to mature, work out, and participate in practices with the team. He took his sweet time to heal, and microfracture surgery restores cartilage so it is unlikely that this injury will be a problem in the future. He is expected to make a full recovery, and he’ll be coming back physically stronger. We probably all saw that he gained 30 pounds of muscle. Rudy Fernandez is arguably the best player in Europe and has been called the next Manu Ginobili. I realize that neither of them has played a game in the NBA game yet, but I have faith in this team. I see no reason to break it up. I will continue to assume that a lot of these possible trade scenarios are just to pass the time and make conversation. That just makes more sense to me.

by Junior Del Norte on May 28, 2008 12:40 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

For the record

I am not saying no to any trades period. I am saying no to trades that make no sense and are shortsighted. Every single team in the NBA can be improved. At the end of the day it is in the hands of the organization to make moves, and I have faith in the organization. Portland shouldn’t have to settle for Kirk Hinrich or Chris Duhon or whoever. I think we can do a little better than that. And we all remember what happened when Dallas rushed into a bad trade. Jason Kidd got embarrassed in the playoffs. Don’t forget Shaq to Phoenix. I don’t want anything like that to happen here. Portland isn’t expecting to win a championship immediately and most likely won’t in the next couple years. Hopefully the team will continue to make great strides within that time. And why make any big changes this year when Portland has a ridiculous amount of cap space at the end of the season?

by Junior Del Norte on May 28, 2008 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really

I say yes to trades that make no sense and are shortsighted. Then again, maybe I should consider your point of view. Hmmmm…

Nope, I’m still all for making a trade that makes no sense and is shortsighted.

"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original projectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon

by TubbaDubba on May 28, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering

you seem to be somewhat in favor of nabbing Kirk Hinrich, the point guard with who knows how many prime years left on a non-playoff team seeking an upgrade over him, yes, I would say you are for at least one shortsighted trade of the Jason Kidd-Dallas sort. Yeah, he’s a good player. But I don’t think we have to settle for another team’s leftovers, be it him or Duhon. Remember that Chicago wanted an upgrade before they got the No. 1 pick. Hinrich is younger, though I wouldn’t say significantly faster than Jason Kidd, and Kidd didn’t fare too well against Chris Paul. Yeah, HInrich was a second team all-defensive selection in 2007. So was Kidd. And Kidd is both taller and stronger than HInrich. In fact, the last time Jason Kidd did not make either the first or second all-defensive team was 1998, and he couldn’t help Dallas, a good playoff team, get out of the first round. My point is it seems like a rash decision to go after Kirk Hinrich. Portland will be better next year, no need to give up anything and go after Kirk. He doesn’t seem worth it. It makes sense, so you’ve got me there, but I think it is shortsighted, as is rushing to propose any trade for a player whose stats are better than one of our players. Steve Blake and whoever else should be fine for this season. Sorry for whatever it was that i did to incur your biting sarcasm.

by Junior Del Norte on May 28, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey

I dont realy like Hinrich, but he is way younger than Kidd. If Hinrich would be making 4-5 mill a year then I would take him, until our guys can develope. But there is not alot of PG avalible anyways, so just lets see what out guys can do for 1 more year.

by RipCity on May 28, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In actuality

I do like Kirk Hinrich. My whole point was the team shouldn’t rush into something, as I don’t know if he would be the right fit for this team, at this time, in this conference. Also, reading my last comment, it comes off as more rude than, as I intended it to be, jesting. Sorry to TubbaDubba if you take/took it that way. That’s the problem with text, humor isn’t always conveyed properly. I just wanted to compare two good, not extraordinarily athletic Eastern conference point guards who can see the court and rebound a little (more in Kidd’s case) and score (specifically Hinrich) coming into the West with Parker and Paul, who Portland will have to get past in the playoffs to win a championship. I would feel the same way about BIllups, though obviously Hinrich is younger. Hinrich did say that he was passing on the Olympics to tend to his wedding and spend a lot of time working out, so he could be coming into next season in great shape. In hindsight Kirk wasn’t the best example, and I’d have more faith in him than Calderon maybe, though I never really wanted Jose, nor did I think that could happen. But Hinrich is making 10 million dollars a year on a long contract. He’s not a definite improvement, so I’d hate to be stuck with that. And, TubbaDubba, you have to admit there have been some trades proposed that seem pointless, as in wouldn’t improve the team much, or even some that would possibly be a blow to team chemistry. That’s what I meant by trades that make no sense and are shortsighted. Trades shouldn’t be made for the sake of making them. Yes, it seems obvious, but apparently it always isn’t. And, RipCity, I agree with you. 2009/2010 is when Portland has all the cap space. Waiting a year to make a big move won’t hurt.

by Junior Del Norte on May 28, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey if Blazers want a trade

that improves the team. LeBron for Wafer or McBob. I think that will be enough for the start.

by RipCity on May 28, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't winning the ultimate chemistry builder?

Is seems that most poor teams have poor chemistry (ex. the Knicks), while most good teams have good chemistry (ex. the Hornets). Is there a causal relationship between winning and chemistry or merely a correlation?

by tingeyga on May 28, 2008 12:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Whichever comes first is likely a causal factor

while the whichever comes second could become a likely reinforcing, causal factor. Threshold conditions apply for chemistry. Hate does not breed enthusiasm. Apathy might become good chemistry through wins. The experience could go in a number of different directions for good players. The knicks had a good paper team, but such bad chemistry. There was no entusiasm for being together on the floor. I think you’ve likely got that example backward. It’s hard to say what kind of chemistry the Hornets have. A lot of people on here, me included, think it’s fragile/tepid at best and that winning establishes a good experience for building it. So, in that case you’re probably right that winning creates (or at least distracts from the bad) chemistry. There can’t be a hard fast rule as far as chemistry is concerned.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on May 28, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whichever comes first is likely a causal factor

except in quantum physics when the opposite may be true

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

by 92wastheyear on May 28, 2008 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chemistry is

when peope like each other, and have one goal when they are together. Chemistry is when players understand their roll on the team and dont jump over each others head. Chemistry is when a player understands when he has to sacrafies his way of the game for a team play, and knows when to step up, or to make some one else better by giving him a chance and confidence to make the play. Because in the end the team(chemistry) knows that brining the best in each other will pay off.

by RipCity on May 28, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But...

What if we just traded some of our guys just a LITTLE bit? Just a taste?

I agree, staying put and adding Oden and Rudy and #13 sounds plenty sweet to me, sweet enough to give us all diabetes. If a trade presents itself and it is nice like rice, KP has my permission to make it, but generally I do not feel we NEED to make a deal this offseason because of how young we are and how unknown our core’s actual play on the court still is.

Once we see Oden out there with LMA and Roy, and how this affects the Martells, Outlaws, Blakes, Jacks, Rudys, Sergios, Channings, THEN we see what we need and go get it. We’ll still have excellent young pieces to make trades, plus Raef LaFrentz’s Expiring Contract. That might be ALL we need to get the last piece we need.

And really, right now we’re only GUESSING what the last thing we need is. It might not be an athletic PG. The missing piece might only be extra fingers for all of our championship rings!

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 28, 2008 1:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to quote myself, but, quoting myself from Dave's "Making Me Nervous" entry

I just want to wait and see what we’ve already got before we start plugging and unplugging people. You have to know what you’ve got before you know what needs to be changed. I don’t care how many trade machines you use, you won’t know that until you watch these guys play as a team.

"Besides, AnntheFan will be here any minute to #25 you." T Darkstar

by annthefan on May 28, 2008 1:36 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Pritchard has a good healthy philosophy

He will trade for the right piece, and since he has already put together most of this teamfrom his own decisions and I think he wouldn’t trade too much of that away. I am hoping, He is too savvy to make decisions that would ruin team chemistry

by Garden of ODEN on May 28, 2008 1:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i still want oj

but i am also cool with standing pat and letting it ride for another season. although frye and webster’s contracts will be big cap holds that will have to be dealt with next year…

by BlazerD on May 28, 2008 2:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I’m more about reducing some of our Roster than about actually acquiring someting.

"I got the goose bumps." - Rudy translated by Alamart

by ratbastird on May 28, 2008 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we can extend them

this year to get rid of the cap hold. We should at least do it to Webster, if not both.

by raging WebTed on May 28, 2008 8:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's so easy for we homers

to fall head-over-heels in love with our guys. I feel relief in trusting that Pritchard as a professional won’t let himself fall into that trap. If there is a deal that looks right KP, do it! It won’t take long for most fans to adopt new players as loyally as they once did with the outgoing.

by TwoDeep on May 28, 2008 9:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs