Unconventional wisdom

by CatMan2 on Jun 19, 2008 3:20 PM PDT

So I go away for a few days to an undisclosed location and upon returning find that, once again, many of us are calling for trades to remedy one or more imagined weaknesses. According to the conventional wisdom:

(1) We need to upgrade the starting PG

(2) We need to upgrade the starting SF

(3) We need more experienced players

(4) We need tougher players

(5) We need better perimeter defense

(6) There won't be enough minutes to go around next year

I'm not going to exhaustively dissect each of these points. You can make good arguments for all of them. However, I believe we could see reasonable improvement in all cases with, at most, some minor roster fiddling. Here's why:

To (1) and (2), I say you don't have to dominate at every position to win. In particular, you don't have to have an all-star at PG if you play good team basketball and have other players who can shoot, pass, and penetrate effectively. Surely we have people already on the team, previously drafted, or obtainable at #13 this year who are good enough.

To (3), I say experience may be over-rated. Stockton and Malone had lots of experience, for what good it did them. We just need talented guys that work hard to win. Regardless, the Blazers are not getting younger -- they're maturing and they're hungry to get into the post-season.

As for (4), I am not worried that the team is too nice or too soft. These Blazers are competitors, and they want to win. I was proud of how our guys reacted to physical play and bullying tactics this year. Outlaw and Webster, for example, both showed a tendency to get even instead of getting mad. Our team is coming back with confidence and bigger, stronger bodies. And really, can you imagine anyone intimidating Greg Oden?

Point (5) is often stated in terms of the need to prevent easy penetration for layups or dunks. With Oden in the middle, opposing teams will find it more difficult to finish around the hoop. I don't recall a lot of teams beating us by bombing away from the 3-pt line, so I'd guess that our overall defense will be at least decent next year. Besides, this is an area that Nate really stresses, and if the team is willing to work hard at it, they will see good results.

The final point, (6), is definitely true, but it shouldn't concern us greatly. If players have talent, work hard, and are willing to accept narrower roles, fewer minutes, and possibly less money than they might get elsewhere in order to be part of a great team and win a championship, then it's a no-brainer to keep them. If, on the other hand, they'd rather start or play more or make more money, then more power to them, and we can certainly accommodate them through trades or letting them go as free agents. Meanwhile, I trust KP to keep the pipeline filled with new young talent and quality veterans.

Here, then, are my predictions for the team through draft day. They are based on the hope that the Blazers management demonstrates some unconventional wisdom and does not tamper overly much with the team:

* Wafer will not be re-signed. He seems like a good guy and is not untalented, but we have better options. Along with Miles' slot, that gives us at least two positions to fill.

* Rudy joins the team. Ole!

* Koponen is signed, and will play in the D-League with McRoberts. Both these guys could be important to us in a year or two. Petteri seems to have the talent and work ethic to succeed in the NBA, but needs to face better competition than he did in Finland. If we don't sign him now he may be lost to a long-term Euro contract. Josh is an intriguing prospect. He has an uncommon skill set, but so far hasn't demonstrated the seriousness you would hope for. We can certainly give him one more year to develop. If Frye finds the buffet is tastier elsewhere, McRoberts might be our guy behind Aldridge.

* If James Jones re-signs, the #13 pick will be used for a Euro-player, that African prodigy, or somebody else we can keep on ice. Alternatively, KP might be able to trade #13 for a good future first-rounder. I'd like James to stay with the team if he wants to be here. I do worry about his unpredictable knee injury status. Ultimately, I trust that KP can evaluate the risks and benefits and offer him what makes sense for the Blazers.

* If Jones does not re-sign, we use the #13 pick for a forward who would join the roster this year, maybe Rush.

* If any other player is to be traded, then it is Jack, along with the #13, in order to get somebody they really like this year, either a guard or a forward. I think Jack will improve his game, and I'm not averse to keeping him. However, I was struck by some of his comments this year, indicating to me that he is not exactly the team-first kind of guy we say we want.

I don't have any idea what KP will do with the second-round picks we have, but I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

Next season, barring serious injuries to the principal cast, I predict Greg stomps, Rudy romps, and the young and talented but year-older and considerably hungrier Blazers wreak havoc in the west and ascend to the NBA throne.

Sorry to go over 75 words.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Which words of Jack's are you thinking of?

I think your list is pretty much spot on, and I agree with almost everything. But you said “However, I was struck by some of his comments this year, indicating to me that he is not exactly the team-first kind of guy we say we want.” Which words are those?

The ones that jump to my mind are the time he went to the Coach with the concern he was not being used most effectively. I readily acknowledge that I do not remember everything (or as my wife would say: “Or for that matter anything! Now get those dishes done!”) and there may be other words of which I need reminded.

But I didn’t think that the afore-mentioned conversation showed any personality traits we do not want. Jack and Nate have had a close relationship, and it takes leadership skills to be able to approach the coach and suggest a better use for one’s self. That kind of confidence and straightforwardness is not the same in my book as selfishness. And McMillan took Jack’s advice, and Jack improved his game in the latter half of the season.

It would have been much different if McMillan turned down the advice and Jack gave up and whined the rest of the year. That would have been a red light, that we have seen often before. But that’s not what happened.

I think people have been disappointed with Jack this last year, since he has not grown nearly as much as Roy, Aldridge or Outlaw have. But Jack has done some things remarkably well. His failures are ones that can be corrected with experience (He’s only been in the league 3 years) and his skill set is exactly what we are looking for in a PG.

Maybe I’m going overboard in my defense of Jack (and I don’t want to hijack your thread by any means), but I think someone needs to stand up for him when no one else will. I think giving up Jack would be a mistake, for a lot of the same reasons you mentioned above, so I thought my 1/2 Mortimer-length post was warranted.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"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 Jun 19, 2008 4:19 PM PDT reply actions

I don't feel too strongly about Jack, but ...

there were a number of times he just rubbed me the wrong way. When he was interviewed by Rebecca during or just after the game, it seemed that he always wanted it to be about him, not the team.

On one occasion, he was asked something like, “So do you think people were surprised that you were able to come back after being down by 20 with 15 minutes to go?” Jarrett replied along the lines of, “Well, I take pride in my ability to work hard when the chips are down. I’m always going to give 100%”. Now, I basically fabricated this little snippet of “conversation”, but that is really the kind of thing I noticed him saying. Not, “Well, we aren’t the kind of team that gives up when the going gets tough”. Not, “Well, Brandon and LaMarcus made some key plays down the stretch, and I was able to get to the hoop and draw some fouls, too.”

If the guy would just quit tooting his own horn and work on correcting some of the weaker aspects of his game, he’d be just fine.

by CatMan2 on Jun 19, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Fair enough.

I understand what it is like when the little things a person says grate against me. And depending on how we are disposed to that person, those kinda things change in importance. With a positive impression of him, those kind of things are easily ignored. With a negative impression of him, those are words that simply confirm our feelings. When one is ambivalent, not feeling strongly one way or the other, as you are, I can see these things slowly affecting the way one would think.

It always helps me understand things better when I know where people are coming from.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"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 Jun 19, 2008 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I seriously remember sayin'

to my wife during a game….in the Garden ….”Trade him…..trade him now….during the game…right freakin’ now!” This was after one his crucial momentum killing TO’s (can’t remember if it was a “jump pass” or a “step on the side line”) with the obligitory hanging of the head. I was just fed up. I have kinda cooled down about it since them. I still think he should be traded if possible with the #13 but …I am not gonna kill myself if it doesn’t happen.

PS I also don’t think that Sergio should be(or should havebeen) getting his minutes either. Just that we need to get someone better…headier.

GO says " Sir, you fornicated vertically…observe the consequences!

by 92wastheyear on Jun 19, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions

I Don't Know Jack

And I don’t like Jack, but I can say:
a) I’m really not a fan of Jack. I don’t like his careless mistakes – I don’t see those going away as I do with Outlaw (with my rose-colored Outlaw glasses, of course) or anything else.
b) (and this is the reason I’m commenting) I don’t hold ANY stock in anything ANY player has to say before, during or after a game. None. They’re trained to give bland, team-first responses to bland, softball questions from the time they’re scouted and it is such a piss on journalism that I find the whole charade laughable. That said, I don’t care what Jack says in interviews any more than I care what Roy or Oden do. Perhaps you can read between the lines, but that’s a subjective attitude, in which case, refer to point A.

"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan

by 12sharks on Jun 20, 2008 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Jack giveth and Jack taketh away

I’m not a big fan of his, but to be honest, he has played an important role in some of the Blazer victories. As has been pointed out, he has also contributed to some of our defeats. I think It’s possible that his turnovers are mainly due to his mental state rather than to a fundamental problem in execution. Maybe he gets too caught up in trying to make the perfect play, or in trying to demonstrate his ability, for example. I think Jack sees himself as a potential all-star, but ironically, his need to prove that to himself and everyone else may be causing his erratic play. Maybe a light will go on, and he’ll just go with the flow and actually get to that level. I don’t know.

I think you’re right about the general lack of substance in interviews, but that’s kind of why Jack’s remarks bother me. He doesn’t really repeat the company lines about the team so much. Rather, he tends to brag about his own effectiveness and what a great influence he is in the locker room. I get the sense he has some serious problem with his self-image. However, I’m not a shrink, so maybe this all just reflects my own insanity.

by CatMan2 on Jun 20, 2008 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions

Great post catman2

Toro feces ego id.

by Kampeska on Jun 19, 2008 4:47 PM PDT reply actions

predictions?

Is Dave going to run one a prediction contest next week? I’ve got my money on trade….

by kennetha on Jun 19, 2008 5:37 PM PDT reply actions

This is so much better than all the junior GM posts

we’ve seen.

by timg56 on Jun 19, 2008 6:04 PM PDT reply actions

so damn true!

awesome post catman2, couldnt have said better myself!

by Enigmah on Jun 19, 2008 7:10 PM PDT reply actions

One Point

The only point that I might disagree with is the comment that “if players are willing” to play fewer minutes and make less money”. It’s their career, and their money, and the only way that they can affect their career and what they make is to play and improve. 8 – 10 – players always get most of the minutes. I wouldn’t expect any player to want to collect less money, sit on the bench, and play little, if they were young and still had their career in front of them. Older players who have played long enough to have reached their potential might be satsified to get a check and play out their careers with a team – but not a younger player who is still finding out just how good they can be. Further, this is a different draft than the ones we’ve had for some years. We have three players who could start anywhere, and the rotation and bench are talented. We no longer have numerous needs to fill, so drafting multiple players as KP’s done in the past is not a priority. Indeed, it makes little sense to either keep adding rookies and future projects when the pipeline and bench we have is already full, nor to keep players on the bench to contribute only a few minutes, if they have value to other teams, and can be packaged to acquire talent that can play and improve the over-all team. At this point we can use quality, not quantity, which is why I suspect that KP’s focus is on this fact. My thought is that the only way we will, for example, keep our 4 picks, is if KP cannot find a way to trade up, or get an established vet. And, if he can do that, then a part of that package will likely be a player or two already in the rotation. Which is fine. It’s hard, for example, to see how Sergio, having been reduced to only 8 – 10 minutes last year, will get any minutes at all this year given Fernandez. So what would we keep him for? It’s equally hard to see how Jones would get any playing time, given Outlaw and Webster at SF, and Frye and Aldridge at PF. It never hurts to move a few players to improve, and keep in mind that it’s always relatively easy to add bench players if an when we need them, just as we added Blake and Jones last year. Over the next 15 months, the combination of the #13, the 3#2’s, and the cap space will give us our best opportunity for years to add quality. After that, it becomes an issue of high draft picks/salary pickups/ and trades. It’s for this reason that no matter how comfortable we are, we can’t simply ignore this fact, and not do whatever it takes to try to add some quality. if KP can pull it off, that he’ll add at least two players capable of giving us perhaps one more solid starter, and a strong player off the bench to supplement what we have.

by Eben Calder on Jun 20, 2008 5:28 AM PDT reply actions

The key word is "if"

I don’t think I said that the Blazers would be able to keep everybody they want or that we fans want them to keep. So, if a player wants to go somewhere else for any reason at all - maybe he doesn’t like the rain or the relative lack of ethnic diversity - then they should arrange a trade if possible, or the player can simply walk when his contract is up. How is this a problem for us?

KP has shown an ability to assess and acquire good talent, and I expect him to continue doing so. It’s probably true that a rookie with enough ability to crack the rotation on many teams will end up on the bench or in D-League if he signs with Portland. However, young players generally don’t have a choice in the matter. And, while they’re on the team, they may find an opportunity to contribute and prove their worth. Injuries are a reality in the NBA, and they often afford young players the chance to show what they can do.

Consider Channing Frye. He has stated that he wants to be here and that he is comfortable with his role. Will he ever start while Aldridge is healthy? Very doubtful, but chances are Aldridge is not always going to be physically able to play. And then I’ll be very happy that we have Frye to step in. If Frye changes his mind about things, then by all means trade him.

Sergio is not going to be happy if he can’t get more minutes this year. So what Sergio has to do is work his tail off and impress Nate in practice to the extent that Nate has to give him more minutes. If he can’t do that, then I suspect Sergio will ask to be traded. (I don’t know when his contract expires.)

I guess my point regarding the roster logjam is that things will naturally sort themselves out. I don’t see a need to make sweeping changes in anticipation of a problem that can be dealt with on a case by case basis when necessary.

If KP could actually trade some of our guys other than Roy, Aldridge and Oden and get a genuine star PG or SF with plenty of good years left, then it’s certainly worth consideration. However, it doesn’t seem that those kinds of players are available in those kinds of deals.

by CatMan2 on Jun 20, 2008 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions