Yet another Jason Quick Podcast follow up fanpost.
by The Cactus Leaguer on Jan 30, 2009 4:30 PM PST
65 comments
It looks like we’re trying to set a record in here for the most fanposts on the same topic (Jason Quick podcast – Eastern Conference trade possibilities), so I thought I’d do my part... but this fanpost deals only within the realm of financial possibilities. And it's my first fanpost, so go easy on me.
JQ mentioned a SF and PG from an Eastern Conference team, in exchange for RLEC and two nonstarting rotation players.
Let’s assume the following:
1. The two rotation players are Travis Outlaw and Sergio Rodriguez; and
2. The other team is trying to dump salary (meaning an incoming player with a significant salary will be on a multiyear deal). Here are the trade possibilities that work, using the ESPN trade machine:
Atlanta – none (Mike Bibby is on the last year of his deal; no other salaries add up).
Boston – Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo (ha!); Pierce and Eddie House (ha!).
Charlotte – Gerald Wallace and Raymond Felton (plus a scrub to make salaries match); Gerald Wallace and DJ Augustin (plus a scrub).
Chicago – Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich; Andres Nocioni and Kirk Hinrich.
Cleveland – Lebron James and Daniel Gibson (ha!).
Detroit – none (Iverson is on the last year of his deal; no other salaries add up).
Indiana – Mike Dunleavy and TJ Ford; Mike Dunleavy and Jamaal Tinsley.
Miami – none (Shawn Marion is on the last year of his deal; no other salaries add up).
Milwaukee – Richard Jefferson and Luke Ridnour; Richard Jefferson and Tyronn Lue
New Jersey – Vince Carter and Devin Harris (and we would toss in a scrub to make salaries match); Bobby Simmons and Devin Harris; Vince Carter and Keyon Dooling.
New York – none (PG & SF salaries don’t add up).
Orlando – Rashard Lewis and JJ Redick/Anthony Johnson.
Philadelphia – Andre Iguodala and Andre Miller.
Toronto – none (PG & SF salaries don’t add up).
Washington – none (PG/SF salaries don’t add up because Mike James can’t be traded)
So, there you have it. The most likely scenarios to me would be Wallace/Felton, Deng/Hinrich, Jefferson/Ridnour, and possibly (but not as likely) Simmons/Harris. What do you think?
1 recs |
65 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Since we're beating a dead horse . . .
I really feel like Crittenton / Jamison is it. A gut feeling with no good explanation. I wish I wasn’t at work right now, I have been all friggin’ day, I would run the trade machine . . .
The Dude abides
by noaher on Jan 30, 2009 4:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
But why would we want Jamison?
He can score, which we don’t need, and is one of the worst defenders in the league at either the SF or PF position.
And Crittenton has good size and is a decent prospect I guess… but when do we play him, and why? If we’re gonna have a big PG who is learning to be a PG, I’d rather it be Bayless.
Jamison isn’t a very good fit, at all, I’d say.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Jan 30, 2009 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Since this is supposed to be for a SF, wouldn’t it be for Caron Butler, if we’re dealing with the Bullets? I’d kill for him, especially over Jamison… but that’s the precise reason we wouldn’t be able to get him, of course.
Where do ya see Jamison playing? Over LMA?
Morty
by Mortimer on Jan 30, 2009 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe with LMA?
"Hightide was the only "Yes" vote" - parkinglotj
Joel Freeland=Stud
by hightide on Jan 30, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly.
I admit it, I just Jamison and have for years. I could see him playing SF with LMA at PF. There’s no reason he can’t be a serviceable team-defender. I agree with your points – all except being on of the worst defenders in the league at SF or PF, but the mighty Mortimer has spoken . . .
The Dude abides
by noaher on Jan 30, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I ain't trying to talk down or anything like someone else here
Remember how little resistance he gave LMA down low the other night? Jamison defends like that every night, he doesn’t put his body in the way of his guy and he’s small for a PF.
And as a SF, he’s too slow laterally and up n’ down the court… that’s why he plays PF instead these days, because (like Outlaw) you can mask his slowness by putting him up against usually slower PFs.
Jamison is a very good scorer, I just don’t see why we’d want a guy who is only worthwhile offensively, and not dominantly so, when our offense is so good and our perimeter defense so bad.
I do apologize if I came across as condescending.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Jan 30, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not particularly condescending . . .
but your kind of a big deal around here. Like I said, I just love Jamison and have for years. i think sticking him at SF would be sweet . . . Bayless, Roy, Jamison, Aldridge, Oden. We’re all fans here. You make good points, I don’t really disagree at all. I just have a man-crush on Jamison and want to see him on MY team. It’s fantasy stuff really. If I had to bet on it, I wouldn’t it. Just having fun. In the words of the Joker “Why so serious?!”
The Dude abides
by noaher on Jan 30, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, that's cool
I just wanted to make sure you didn’t think I was belittling your opinion because I think I’m a bigshot on a fan message board. That’d be pretty lame of me, and I’d hate for that to be how it looks.
Man, with Jamison, we sure wouldn’t want for points. And, he has a good post game when he sticks to it.
I couldn’t ever really disagree with someone who has a Big Lebowski quote in his sig. WE’RE ON THE SAME SIDE NOW, FRIENDS FOREVER.
Morty
by Mortimer on Jan 30, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As a SF?
Or with LMA as a center?
We’d be even worse defensively than we are now, and then have a guy at SF who needs shots to do anything effective for your team. And, old. Expensive to boot.
Maybe, if we didn’t have LMA, and Oden was a defensive anchor, we could get away with another Z-Bo level bad defender, but we have LMA, and Oden isn’t Oden yet.
I dunno.
morty
by Mortimer on Jan 30, 2009 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
Just throwing it out there to see if I could draw the ire of the great mortimer. I guess if Nate felt that he could run an effective zone with Jamison, LMA and Oden/Przy I would be down, but that probably wouldn’t work.
"Hightide was the only "Yes" vote" - parkinglotj
Joel Freeland=Stud
by hightide on Jan 30, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where is the Mo Williams/LeBron James choice?
by thomasikehara on Jan 30, 2009 4:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
or AI/Tayshaun Prince?
"Hightide was the only "Yes" vote" - parkinglotj
Joel Freeland=Stud
by hightide on Jan 30, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Outlaw not likely to be traded
IMHO
Besides how often do trades happen where two guys are exchanged for the exact same position players?
Too much rampant speculation on this
Rooo-D!
by truls on Jan 30, 2009 5:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
unless they decide that
Outlaw plays best as a PF…so maybe that’s what they would be thinking.
by Gelvalst on Jan 30, 2009 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, you did ask for it.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
by blzrfan on Jan 30, 2009 5:41 PM PST reply actions 5 recs
+1
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Jan 30, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
looks more like a camel than a horse.
If you agree with me: Good, I like being agreeable.
If you [think you] don't agree with me: You really do agree with me. You just haven't realized that I use sarcasm alot, so whatever you didn't agree with, take the opposite of it, and that's what I really mean.
by prezofdeath on Jan 30, 2009 10:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Plz! the none option!
".. is gumby an alien?"
by staylost on Jan 30, 2009 5:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I believe Quick said
one of the incoming players is a former all-star. That narrows down your list significantly.
by grimc on Jan 30, 2009 6:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That was something the mysterious Confucius said
Quick just said the second piece added in to sweeten the deal would push the Blazers into future championship contention and that it would be a small forward and a point guard.
by Norsktroll on Jan 30, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Clarifications
I only listed trades that WORK on the trade machine:
-Crittenden cannot be traded at this time because of a trade restriction.
-The only way Jamison works is if you load up on positions that were not mentioned in the podcast (SG/PF/C)
-AI + Tayshaun, Mo Williams + Lebron… they don’t work on the trade machine, but please feel free to speculate about those deals. :-)
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Jan 30, 2009 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was able to get AI and Maxiell to work
Than realized that Quick mentioned SF explicitly. Tayshaun could work, but it would have to include Joel, which I think is probably still a no go at this point.
"Hightide was the only "Yes" vote" - parkinglotj
Joel Freeland=Stud
by hightide on Jan 30, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace and Felton for Rudy, Sergio and Raef... continue reading for ridiculously long analysis
Why are we assuming a salary dump or that the two players are Outlaw and Sergio?
If there is a trade out there that makes us a legit contender, my guess is that even if it is a salary dump, we will have to give away better reserves than Outlaw and Sergio. My guess is that either we are losing one of: Webster, Fernandez or Bayless.
Second, a lot of the trades don’t match the “sweetener” test. The player needs to add a little more intrigue to the deal, but would not be the major part of the deal. Additionally, listening the in inflection of his voice, Quick has little doubt that both players would be starters.
Based on this, lets look at who we have been rumored to be after that play either the PG or SF position:
Kirk Hinrich: If you were interested in acquiring Hinrich and suddenly Deng was also a part of the trade, would you use the word “sweetener” the describe the development? Doubtful. He is the better player in that trade. Quick probably would have described it as: an original rumor that has expanded to a much larger trade.
Vince Carter: See “Kirk Hinrich” despite the Blazers greatest desires, we have only been rumored to acquire Vince Carter. Calling an All-Star PG a “sweetener” would be ridiculous… and if the trade didn’t require a starter, we would already be holding the press conference.
Butler/Jamison: I don’t think there have been legitimate rumors outside of “Check out what I did on Trade Machine!” threads. Additionally, I don’t see a PG that works salary wise and would be a “sweetener.” Crit’s contract is too small to match in a LaFrentz deal… and if Jason Quick views Mike James as a sweetener… he is never allowed to make me coffee.
Calderon: Toronto likes him too much. Kapono and Moon aren’t sweeteners. Trades don’t work with his BYC.
Nate Robinson: In some twisted way, I could see Al Harrington being viewed as a “sweetener” fortunately, LaFrentz and our two cheapest rotation players are still too expensive for that trade to work. Additionally, I doubt Quick would consider us contenders with that lineup. Whew.
Andre Miller: Iguodala or Young would be much more than a sweetener… and we couldn’t do either of those trades for just LaFrentz and two reserves.
Mike Conley – Once again, Rudy Gay wouldn’t be a “sweetener.” Additionally, Raef’s expiring wouldn’t be a part of that trade (as much as getting the two of those would be sweet)
I feel confident that I can eliminate all of those possibilities because they don’t match how Quick described it. Now I’ll eliminate the teams that either 1) would have no interest in trading their SF/PG combo, or we haven’t been linked to them.
Cleveland – Wouldn’t trade/No link
Orlando – Wouldn’t trade/No link
Boston – Wouldn’t trade/No link
Indiana – Wouldn’t trade/No link (Dunleavy/Tinsley doesn’t make us contenders)
Detroit – Wouldn’t trade/No link
This leaves just a few teams who we have been linked to in the past and have a “sweeter” type player.
1. Hinrich – I already eliminate Hinrich/Deng, but for a team lacking perimeter defense, I could see Andres Nocioni being viewed as a “sweetener.” It makes sense that Chicago would want to move both of them as they are looking to build around Rose and Deng. I am not sure if in Quick’s mind, this trade would make us title contenders. I certainly don’t think that.
2. Jefferson – With Redd going down, I could see the interest in moving Jefferson. I could see either Sessions or Ridnour being viewed as a “sweetener.” Sessions for his talent and Ridnour for the Nate/Ducks connection. If it is Ridnour, I just wonder why Milwaukee would have hesitated to offer him before. With Redd out and Sessions an UNrestricted free agent, my gut tells me that if the deal is for Milwaukee, then Sessions is the PG.
3. Gerald Wallace – I could Raymond Felton being a sweetener. A one year rental who would be our obvious starter in the short term and a Restricted free agent at the end of the year. DJ Augustin is Charlotte’s PG, but moving Felton would create the need for a backup PG. If KP asked about Wallace and the demand was Rudy Fernandez, I would likely turn it down. If the trade were sweetened to “Wallace and Felton for Rudy, Sergio and Raef” I would wince, but I might just have to pull the trigger.
The original trade rumors were before the J-Rich trade. I could see the injury to Wallace bringing Charlotte back to the table. They have no intention of keeping Felton, and are looking for a player like Rudy.
If the trade went through, the Blazers would be a huge threat for a Championship:
C: Oden/Przybilla
PF: Aldridge/Outlaw
SF: Wallace/Batum
SG: Roy/Webster
PG: Felton/Blake/Bayless
Wallace and Felton would start, Bayless would backup the PG and SG positions until Blake was healthy and then would backup SG when he returned. At the end of the season, Martell Webster would be the back SG, and Portland would get to decide between Felton (RFA) and Blake (Team Option) who they would want to split time at PG with Bayless.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 30, 2009 7:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i would be BEYOND suprized if KP traded Rudy
He is a fan favorite, a cash cow, and generally considered a top ten rookie, if not top five. I would peg the chances of him being traded at about 0.5%
The end is in the beginning and yet I go on....
-Beckett
by eyeotiger on Jan 30, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When the trade nets you Gerald Wallace and Ray Felton
Granted this isn’t an “immediate and emphatic… Yes!” type trade, but really look at the team. For as talented as Rudy is, he is used much more for his 3P shooting. We aren’t using him as a ball-handler or distributor. While he is excellent, his current role with the team could arguably be better filled by Martell Webster since Webster is an excellent 3P shooter and a better defender.
You aren’t getting scrubs back either. Gerald Wallace is a borderline all-star in his mid 20’s. He would be our best perimeter defender, would give us a wing who can handle the ball, a veteran presence and would solve a lot of our “toughness” questions.
You hate to lose Rudy, but I think this is the trade that fits best with what Jason Quick was describing.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 30, 2009 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, I agree that the chances pf trading Rudy are very slim.
His upside is ridiculous, and KP knows his value, so unless were getting Devin Harris or Tayshaun Prince ( or other VERY high impact player ) I don’t see him getting traded.
by dario argento on Jan 31, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you.
Rudy hasn’t even really shown even 50% of his game so far this season. The idea that we would trade Rudy when we spent so much time trying to get him here in the first place and he has not been a disappointment is just totally irrational. The only conceivable reason would be to trade him at this point for his percieved high value, however that is neglecting the fact that he’s a rookie and thus as he continues to adjust his game to the NBA style of play his game will become more well-rounded and that value will increase.
But for what logical reason do you make a trade based on nothing but maximum value when realistically that person is much more valuable to the team here than his salary could bring back in value or talent?
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 30, 2009 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So because his perceived value’s obvious to everyone we shouldn’t trade on its behalf?
"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan
by 12sharks on Jan 31, 2009 12:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree whole completely with you analysis...
And disagree completely with the conclusion.
If I understand your argument correctly, (1) You oppose trading Fernandez; (2) If you ever would consider trading Fernandez, you wait for his value to increase and then you trade him
I can’t argue the first point. There will be individuals who are adamant that this roster stay intact. I see a trade that shores up our weakness… I go for it. Gerald Wallace would give us a SF; who rebounds; gets to the hoop, is tough; a good perimeter defender and young enough to compete with the rest of the Blazers through their championship run. Rudy can’t fill those roles.
With respect to your argument that you hold on to Fernandez so that his value increases, that may not be accurate. Based on the composition of the Blazers roster, waiting to trade Rudy will require giving away much more in a trade than one would hope.
Assume for the sake of argument that if Rudy becomes an All-star and you are looking to move him for a starter because Roy is blocking him, a comparable All-star SF or PG will be making around $14M-$16M.
This season, to trade Rudy for a $14M player, you could pair LaFrentz with Rudy.
Following next season, Portland will be well over the cap (Roy, Aldridge and Oden receive extensions.) Once over the cap Portland can only receive 125% of the contracts back that they send out.
If at that point, you want to trade Rudy for a $14M player, who have to pair Rudy with several key Blazer reserves in order to just get close to the salary. In 2010, to trade Rudy for a SF or PG who makes $14M, you would have to trade Rudy ($1.5M) Przybilla ($7,4M) and Martell Webster (4.8M). Because they will be over the cap, the Blazers will have to trade three rotation players to acquire a starter, rather than trading one of them now along with Raef’s contract. I’m having a difficult time articulating this point… Hopefully you can see why it is better to trade on Rudy’s perceived value which you can pair it with a huge expiring contract, rather than to wait for that value to improve, at which time, the salary situation requires you to trade away 3-4 key rotation players to consolidate into one or two players of comparable value.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 31, 2009 12:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No,
Actually I was trying to say that trading a player simply because of the market value isn’t a good idea.
I’m not opposed to trading players in order to shore up a weakness, however if you trade Fernandez aren’t you just moving that weakness to another position? Say we do shore up the SF position ( something that I’m not convinced is even necessary ) what do we replace Rudy and his strengths at the SG position with?
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 31, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes: Rudy is going nowhere
Getting him to actually come here was a monumental undertaking and a MAJOR accomplishment. And he has in no way been a disappointment. In fact, he’s exceeded expectations for his rookie NBA season. KP and Paul Allen would slit their wrists before they traded Rudy Fernandez.
Of course, if LeBron were involved…but we’re talking reality, not fantasy.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Jan 31, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'd be just fine for a Rudy for Lebron exchange!
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 31, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Felton over Blake?
Why? I think Blake fits this team better, is a much better 3pt shooter, an equal defender, and commits fewer turnovers. Maybe management is concerned about the long term effects of Blake’s injury, or the short term needs.
by crakarjack on Jan 30, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that depends on your vision of the team
This is why I view Felton as a “sweetener” it is very possible that Portland would release him as a RFA if he didn’t work. Then again, the team would have the option to sign a 24 y/o above average PG to a long term contract and let him, Blake and/or Bayless battle it out for the position. They could also use him in a sign and trade.
Assuming that you have Gerald Wallace as your SF, I think that Felton would be a much better PG to have on the floor. First, he is a much better play maker which is what you want if you have four other scorers on the floor. He can set up a big man in the post which will really help Oden’s game. He can actually penetrate which is much more advantageous if you have a good rebounding SF like Wallace.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 31, 2009 1:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who is the 3-point shooter to spread the floor?
If Wallace and Felton are starting at the three and the 1 respectively, defenses would sag into the paint. The Blazers’ whole scheme is to keep defenses honest with Martell and Blake hanging out on the perimeter ready to receive passes.
I admit I haven’t watched Felton and Wallace much. They were certainly impressive in the Bobcats’ recent win over the Blazers—especially Wallace. But I’m not sure Felton makes sense for the Blazers at this point. Sergio seems better for our first unit, and in time Bayless should be better as the back-up point/ combo guard.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Jan 31, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Defenses sag on us already
When you reflect on the play this season, do defenses normally keep a man on Batum/Blake, or do we rely on both of them to hit the open 3P shot when defenses sag?
Granted, if the trade went down, the offense would change. Gerald Wallace would be a waste if he was asked to camp out in the corner. Since he would be a SF who can handle the ball, we wouldn’t have to have an offense that requires the SF to camp out in the corner.
Here are a few of the offensive set we can run:
1) Pick-n-Roll: Finally. Oden’s back the the basket game is coming along, but in the games that Oden has truly shined, he was receiving passes while rolling to the basket. With a true play maker in Felton who is capable of running the pick-n-roll, Oden’s numbers could quickly look like Tyson Chandler’s last season.
2) Side Picks: If Portland can run the pick-n-roll, they can take advantage of an empty paint. With Aldridge’s ability to shoot outside jumpers, and Felton’s effectiveness on the pick-n-roll, many times, opposing PF’s will have to guard Aldridge out near the perimeter and Centers will have to jump out on the pick-n-roll. This leaves the paint WIDE OPEN. If only Portland had good slashers on the wing who could handle the ball… HELLO ROY AND WALLACE. With and open paint, defending the pick-n-roll up top, Roy and Wallace can come off of screens set by Aldridge and wreak havoc in the paint. Obviously the offensive tempo would increase if defenses are defending the pick-n-roll while you are executing an additional pick on the wing.
3) Posting up wings: Again based on the premise that Oden and Aldridge can draw defenders from the paint in an initial set, Wallace and Roy can post up their defenders. Kevin Durant and Kevin Martin would have a long night trying to defend our wings in the post. If Aldridge’s man stays in the post, we let Aldridge shoot the open jumper (with two excellent rebounders in Oden and Wallace) If Oden’s mandoesn’t come out for the pick-n-roll, we have PG’s trying to get around Oden’s while Felton is in the paint against the opposing center… that while lead to constant foul trouble for opposing centers.
4) If we make a trade for Wallace and Felton, our starting lineup would be so good that the Blazers would no longer run two separate “units” the 3P threat on the floor would usually be Outlaw or Webster (substituting for Aldridge, Wallace or Roy). With one of those 3P threats, the Blazer could run their usual: Feed Oden in the post; wait for the double team; kick the ball out to the perimeter for the open shot.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 31, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True, Felton might be better to fit a Wallace infused offense,
but Blake fits our system right now better with his low turnovers and deadly outside shooting. If Felton started over Blake I think it would be a sign we are re-tooling the offense.
by dario argento on Jan 31, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Best Analysis Yet
This is the best analysis I’ve read so far. Fairly realistic and partially addresses one of the things that I’ve been thinking a lot about which is what’s the hold up?
@Salem Stephen: Great analysis. When you look at the various trade ideas that have been bandied about, some of them are so obviously advantageous to the Blazers that no sweetener would be needed. The press conference would have happened by now.
So what would be the hold up on the Blazer’s end? Here are the possibilities:
- Financial concerns — The economy does suck. Likely we are taking back a large contract.
- Chemistry concerns — Will the players fit in? Do they have any past indiscretions?
- The price — The player(s) we have to give up.
While I think the financial concerns are still a factor, I doubt it would hold up the team from making a deal that would substantially improve the team.
Chemistry concerns may be something that gives the Blazers pause, but I don’t see how a sweetener would make it more likely to want to make the trade.
I seems most likely that the other team is asking for one of the players the Blazers are reluctant to give up. The sweetener is an attempt to get the Blazers to give up something they don’t want to give up right now.
Because of this, I find most of the scenarios that include only Travis and Sergio to seem unlikely. I think the Blazers like both, but if you’re getting back a point guard and a small forward that are starters, then you make the deal.
It is most likely that the the other team is asking for Rudy, Pryzbilla or Bayless. My gut says it is Rudy. So Rudy and Travis for a small forward and point guard.
by grigs on Jan 31, 2009 8:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I just dont see Rudy being traded - at all
Just not going to hapen this year…
by The Thinker on Jan 31, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For a deal that acquires a starting PG and SF...
I could easily see him being traded. Put yourself in the mind of Kevin Pritchard. Thus far, done almost everything right. All of his trades have been good for the Blazers. The one err to this point was a trade that he did not execute.
Last year, the original version of the Jason Kidd trade was a three way deal that sent Harris and expiring contracts to Portland, and Portland sent Outlaw, Frye and their first round pick to New Jersey. Pritchard ultimately turned the deal down because he didn’t want to lose such high caliber reserves.
Fast forward to the this season, Harris is a star and two of the three pieces (Frye and draft pick (Bayless)) are out of the rotation (though Bayless is playing now.) Suppose once again that Pritchard has an offer on the table for a starting SF and PG. You really can’t see a scenario where he elects to trade a talented reserve player for two starters? I certainly can. He may not want to, but I could definitely see a scenario in which Rudy is ultimately traded this season, no matter how big of a fan favorite he is.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 31, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still don't think that trade was ever REALLY on the table for Portland.
GM’s leak trade rumors all the time to spark interest from other teams, and the Blazers front office commented on the rumor that they had not been contacted by either the Nets or the Mavs regarding the 3-way trade when the news broke about the rumor.
by dario argento on Jan 31, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Usually I would dismiss it as fake, except for the source
The individual who broke the rumor was our beloved Yahoo Sports Writer, Adr**n W*******ski. While I am not a fan of his, with his reports about the Blazers and Miles situation, I do find his reporting accurate (no matter how unflattering for the Blazers) I also think he knows someone in the organization that will not shut up.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-kiddtrade013008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Keep in mind, the Devin Harris last winter was no where near the player he is in New Jersey.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 31, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So the Nets were ready to replace Jason Kidd with Jarett Jack? Hahahahha
Devin Harris was better than Jack already last year by a lot, having appeared in the finals with very solid performances. Also Devean George said no, so even if such a deal ever existed you can’t just blame KP.
by Norsktroll on Jan 31, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the premise that it has to be the price...
Though the price might not necessarily be the talent of the players involved. (Again… poorly worded allow me to explain) Raef’s contract is a unique one in that insurance pays for 80% of it. As a result, teams that trade for him would prefer to acquire him as early as possible (every two weeks is another $1M in insurance payments that the new team will not receive.)
I could see a situation where Portland would have a deal on the table where they are required to give up little talent, but they feel that there may be a better deal out there so they don’t execute the trade… hoping to find a better deal. In this case, a “sweetener” wouldn’t be to “pry away an elite talent” but rather to convince the Blazers to forego the opportunity of finding a better deal so that the other team can acquire a large portion of Raef’s insurance payments.
That being said, I believe that your premise is far more likely. My gut feeling is that it is Rudy, and Portland may just be waiting for a time closer to when Martell gets back so that he will have an adequate replacement for Rudy.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 31, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trading Rudy, or even looking for an opportune time to trade him
Makes no logical sense to me whatsoever, unless you simply ignore all the efforts it took to get him here, the buildup by the team around him and his performance for the team thus far.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 31, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why are we assuming a salary dump or that the two players are Outlaw and Sergio?
I’m assuming a salary dump because that is the logical reason from someone taking on RLEC. Trading RLEC for, say, Mike Bibby is just stupid (for Atlanta).
The two players don’t have to be Outlaw and Sergio… the main point of my analysis was to look at who is most likely to come here from the other teams, not who is leaving. Yeah you could plug in Rudy I guess but the main financial piece is RLEC and Rudy doesn’t affect the overall financial equation much within the context of the deal. Mostly I was just tired of reading about trades that do not work or make sense like Caron Butler, Shawn Marion, etc.
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Jan 31, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Butler / James
Mike James can be traded from how i see it. He was aquired Dec. 10th, and cannot be traded from two months. If Portland trade goes down Dec 10th it would fit.
Butler is a better fit then jamison and mike james contract would come off the books,
is there a reason the sweetner cannot be a draft pick, or player rights? (just curious if quick said something about it being a player?)
by gavin on Jan 30, 2009 7:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
opps....
i meant Feb 10th for two months.
by gavin on Jan 30, 2009 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still don't think that fits with what Quick said...
First, have there ever been actual rumors about Butler? Second, would you ever describe Mike James as a sweetener?
by Salem Stephen on Jan 30, 2009 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And why on Earth would we need a Butler deal ‘sweetened’?
"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan
by 12sharks on Jan 31, 2009 12:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't... which is exactly why this isn't the trade
Ostensibly the glut of threads are to determine what trade Jason Quick was referring to. According to Quick, the trade is about a player that Portland had been linked to in the past and the team has now “sweetened” the trade by adding another player.
If there was a trade for for Caron Butler that went dead on Portland’s end… adding Mike James would not make Portland MORE interested. Since the scenario of adding Mike James doesn’t make sense, it obviously isn’t the scenario that Quick was referring to.
Thus, while Portland would be thrilled to trade Raef, and two reserves for Caron Butler and Mike James, since it doesn’t comport with the trade scenario Quick is talking about, there is no chance that a Caron Butler trade is the purported actual trade that Portland is working on.
by Salem Stephen on Jan 31, 2009 1:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Butler
former all star small forward, seems to fit. Defensive player, and with Washington looking to cut cap its plausible.
I dont see james as sweetener but thats why i was curious about if it could be an added pick on top.
james fits because hes got a large contract coming off the books.
by gavin on Jan 30, 2009 8:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Those Criteria were Mike Rice's...
Sorry… Confucius’s prediction and not associated with any purported trade talks.
Quick said that the trade was for:
A player that Blazers have had interest in and have talked about in the past;
On a team in the Eastern Conference;
The deal has been sweetened to include another player;
That other player (In Quick’s mind) puts the Blazers in the conversation of a championship contender;
They would fill the holes at PG and SF (it sounds like players fill both starting spots, not just one);
Would be for Raef and two rotation players (no starters)
by Salem Stephen on Jan 30, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I missed something
but your description PEFECTLY matches Philly.
Miller (who we have discussed before)
and Iguodala.
That would be NICE!!! iggy is a great d player and can hit a few jumpers and will crash the boards.
Miller is a pass first player who isnt afraid to score. kinda like Blake but you know.. better
I'm afraid Chiekh Samb's kids are going to be born ducking
by GreatOden'sRaven on Jan 31, 2009 1:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
it's with Atlanta
for Bibby & Williams
the Blazers have had discussions for over a year with Atlanta about Bibby, and the Hawks have just recently started sopping Williams.
For the hawks this is all financial. The ownership there is the pits
by moldorf on Jan 31, 2009 1:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I fear it could be (and the guys on RealGM agree), but I don't like it. Never a fan of Bibby, and Williams is a SF/PF tweener like Travis
I want the Chicago, Bucks or Charlotte deal. Maybe Wizards or New Jersey if that would be on the table which I doubt especially regarding Harris.
by Norsktroll on Jan 31, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
key difference
Williams actually has a BBIQ
by Bust a Bucket on Jan 31, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I got a question
I know Atlanta has the NBA rights to Childress still… can they TRADE those rights?
I’m sure Childress would leave Greece to be a starting SF for the Blazers, and make around MLE money.
I do not want Mike Bibby. He adds nothing we need, and is annoying, and can shoot you out of a game. No sir.
Morty
by Mortimer on Feb 1, 2009 4:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they could, then we would have to make him a qualifying offer to make him a restricted free agent
But his old ATL salary or current Greek salary wouldn’t count for cap purposes. Yet Atlanta has a little cap space. You might be onto something. It works for Bibby alone with Raef and a number of add-ins. Even the standard combo Raef, Travis/Channing, Sergio would work despite that being about 2 million more salary than Bibby alone.
by Norsktroll on Feb 1, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
