My POR - GSW Trade Proposal
Leaving us with a rotation I'd see like this...
(I'm all for starting Rudy)
PG - Miller/Blake
SG - Roy/Morrow/Udoka*
SF - Rudy/Batum/Cunningham
PF - LMA/Biedrins/Howard/Pendergraph*
C - Oden/Przybilla/Collins*
*IR
Looks like we're short at PG, but I think more minutes could be created for Batum, Morrow, and Cunningham here by letting Roy and/or Rudy assume the 'third string' pg duties. What do y'all think? Be gentle!
about 1 month ago
bforsythe
55 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
wouldnt work
GSW needs absolutely none of the players offered in that trade and ABSOLUTELY need Biedrins. Also, he is worth more than the package you offered…you would get a resounding NO from any GSW fan. Additionally, Biedrins cannnot play PF. he has no offensive skills and is LOST more than 6 feet form the basket
by kajuayn on Oct 16, 2009 3:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Basically, the oonly players that have any real trade value
(that is, one or more of them must be involved in basically any trade)
are:
Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Fernandez, maybe Joel
You can’t just throw together Webster Outlaw Bayless Blake and hope to get anything of good value.
by collectiveshane on Oct 16, 2009 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Travis and Steve will have some value, with their expiring contracts
and Martell’s value will continue to increase as he plays well and stays healthy
KP can make a lopsided trade again, in a few weeks. I doubt he’ll deal Blake, or Webster. But the way Outlaw is playing right now (and the fact that Portland targeted Hedo and Millsap back in July…) I wouldn’t be surprised to see #25 on his way out of town
What team would want Travis? I’d be looking for a trade “partner” who needs bench scoring from the wing and who has an extra veteran backup PF/C that is “too old” for that team’s current situation/direction.
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He managed to get someone to WANT Zbo on a crazy contract
I think he could trade dung for diamonds.
by lurtsman on Oct 16, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't hate this trade...
I like Biedrin’s hustle/rebounding game, but I’m surprised he’s already a 9 mil/year player and that’s a lot to pay for a 12-15 mpg backup PF/C.
I know Don Nelson is unpredictable, but I doubt he’s going to deal Andres (and Morrow) for 2 wings and a shoot-first PG.
I still like my Outlaw-Turiaf trade idea, better. If Don’s crazy enough to deal away one of his few “big” men, let it be Ronny. At least Turiaf’s paid like a backup, and he already has Roy’s endorsement
letting Roy and/or Rudy assume the ‘third string’ pg duties.
Defense, defense, defense. If Nate’s already complaining about the perimeter/transition defense, the “solution” isn’t to make Roy/Rudy play out of position against quicker PGs
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 3:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
oh, and starting Rudy?
not a good idea…he’s already got back spasms, and Roy is on the record that he doesn’t want to guard those large SFs, anymore. If your deal went through as proposed, Batum would start and Cunningham or Udoka would see the floor a lot more than anyone’s expecting them to
Travis needs to go, Webster has looked impressive and should stick around. I don’t see Rudy getting the minutes he got last year (unless B-Roy gets hurt, and nobody wants that)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
defense
I don’t see how you can use defense as a reason for playing Miller or Blake instead of Rudy. Rudy has much more defensive potential than either of those guys.
by trk on Oct 16, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, none of them are good perimeter defenders
but I think the Blazers answered the “can Brandon and Rudy play together in the backcourt?” question the day they signed Andre. If Nate/KP thought that Rudy could guard PGs they could’ve just gone with a 3 guard rotation of Blake-Roy-Rudy this year, and used Bayless as an occasional backup
Suffering from back spasms when you’re 24 is not a good sign, btw. Rudy’s hamstring injury from Eurobasket in August may also still be a lingering issue. I wouldn’t be counting on Fernandez for anything beyond spot minutes, at this point in time
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They answered it with a short term deal.
Miller is insurance in my opinion.
If none of what we really want at guard works out, we’ve still got Miller. That is, to me, a pretty good plan B.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 16, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It isn't like Miller was their first choice
At first they wanted Turkoglu (a SF), even though PG was the weakest position (unless Rudy can play it). When they couldn’t get Turkoglu, they went after Millsap (a PF). Apparently they were also interested in Lee and Odon (more forwards). All throughout this time Nate was talking about how he planned to play Rudy at PG. Only when all those options did the go out and sign and old PG to a 2-year deal. Miller is a temporary addition to the team that was made because the Blazers couldn’t get anyone else.
by trk on Oct 16, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who will be a Blazer longer, Andre or Rudy?
I vote Miller. Portland doesn’t have to deal Rudy before the end of 2013, but i get the feeling he’ll ask to be traded in the next year or two. We’ll see
(Interesting fact from storyteller’s website. Bayless is earning nearly 1 mil$ more per year than Fernandez, for the next 4 seasons. Batum and Rudy’s salaries are nearly identical over the same time period.)
Who’s the big Euro star now? Something’s got to give
http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/09-10salaries.htm
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not like annother team ciukd pay him more than the Blazers are
Rudy and Batum are going to make $1 million less per year than Bayless regardless of what team they are on.
by trk on Oct 16, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it’s a poll, I vote Rudy.
We’ve got $$$ and he is really darn good. Andre will be on his way down by the time we have to drop Rudy.
But if I could have my favorite option we’d keep both.
Rudy fits the owner’s plan to acquire talent, attract foreign players to create fans overseas, and create a broad-er (get it! more broads!) fanbase. Rudy is a entertainment goldmine while Miller is a financial black Friday when it comes to getting casual fans.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 16, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turiaf would be great.
How about Outlaw/Webster/Blake for Turiaf/Jackson.
It works salary wise, and since Jackson is a point forward anyway, he would be fine playing next to Bayless. Blake would be redundant anyway and Bayless would get some burn in a position where he can actually succeed, since he wouldn’t have to be the play-maker all the time. Completely improves the Blazers defense and rebounding and Udoka is insurance in case Jackson loses his mind.
I don’t think the Warriors are going to make any trade unless they can get rid of Jackson’s contract, so if you want Turiaf you might have to take on a little risk with Captain Jack.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't touched the Stephen Jackson issue yet, but in my opinion I believe that a team such as ...
the Miami Heat would be a great spot for him. The Heat already have a true superstar who can keep the locker room in line with Dwayne Wade, room financially to absorb S-Jax’s lengthy contract, and a position in need of improvement at small forward. To me, a straight-up trade of Jackson for Quentin Richardson — who’s got an expiring contract — makes sense for both franchises from an on-court and off-court perspective.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=kqgay2
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want everyone to go to the Heat.
The Blazers goals this off-season were:
A.) To improve perimeter defense.
B.) Add a point forward.
C.) Add a true backup 4.
D.) Add players with playoff experience.
Jackson was an important part of a championship team, he’s a better point forward than Turk, and he’s a great perimeter defender. I’m sure KP will pass, but so far he hasn’t shown the ability to take big risks. He’ll never win a championship that way. Not sure Jackson is the right move, but it certainly would make the team better.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As it is, I'm worried about patching the hole at the backup 4/third-string 5 spot. At the 3, ...
Nicolas Batum and Martell Webster — as well as spot minutes from Rudy Fernandez — can hold down the fort. With Batum, the ballclub has a younger version of Tayshaun Prince; also, Webster gives the team a younger, less refined version of Michael Finley.
Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree targeting Hedo Turkoglu was pure idiocy on behalf of the entire organization. Yet, with that said, signing Andre Miller was a decent risk and, moreover, removed the need for bringing a ball-dominant point forward at the 3. Perimeter and transition defense are still colossal holes on this team, but dismayingly the Kirk Hinrich ship has sailed.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree for the most part.
I think you would HAVE to take Jackson if you wanted Turiaf, maybe even giving up Bayless as well. If you could get them both I think it’s a no brainer, for me at least, trading for Jackson alone is a bit sketchy.
- With Turiaf and Jackson you basically cement everyone’s roles and fix all the major problems. Batum, Jackson, and Udoka is an incredibly potent defensive mix.
- Aldridge and Turiaf are a pretty good tandem.
- With the extra roster spot you could sign Collins which makes a pretty deep triad with Oden and Joel.
Miller/Bayless/Jackson/Roy
Roy/Rudy/Jackson
Jackson/Batum/Udoka
LMA/Turiaf
Oden/Przybilla/Collins
Way more mix and match opportunities and more flexibility regarding lineups. Jackson can play with anyone at three positions.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is everyone..
Overlooking that Steven Jackson WENT INTO THE STANDS AND ASSAULT FANS?!?!?! There is NO WAY that Kevin Prtichard is bringing him ANYWHERE NEAR this team…did we all forget about culture?
Secondly, why would Golden State want bayless? they already have two undersized guards in Monta Ellis and Stephen Curry. He is the last person they would want/ need.
Turiaf would be an excellent addition though. He plays tough, goes after rebounds, can hit the 10-15 footer with decent accuracy. That would be an excellent pick up for us. The problem is, Golden State needs a big point guard and another big 3 in return for jackson that can play the 4. We have outlaw…and blake…deal likely not imminent.
by kajuayn on Oct 18, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my suggested deal yesterday was
To Portland: Turiaf
To Miami: Jackson
To GSW: Outlaw and Q Richardson (Travis + Quentin = 12+ mil in expiring contracts)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 18, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
putting Portland into the middle of that proposal
To Portland: Turiaf
To Miami: SJackson
To the Warriors: Richardson, Outlaw, Tolliver
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yz7pf7v
How could GS turn down over 12 mil$ of expiring contracts?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN's trade machine must have a glitch, 'cause Anthony Tolliver isn't eligible to be traded.
Yet, even if Tolliver — who’s got a non-guaranteed training camp contract and will probably be released in light of Joel Anthony having a guaranteed deals — isn’t included in that proposed trade, it still works from a financial standpoint.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yzc4hf5
I’d question whether or not the Golden State Warriors would agree to that trade proposal, but crazier things have happened in the NBA. Yet, that notwithstanding, I’m not the biggest fan of Ronny Turiaf, since his shot blocking prowess as a strong weakside help defender is negated somewhat by his middling rebounding numbers and so-so man-to-man interior defense. For me, I’d rather have a player like Nick Collison or Jeff Foster over Turiaf; nonetheless, they’re all substantially superior to Travis Outlaw.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just about put Shavlik Randolph into that deal
but I just couldn’t send a guy that nice to play for Don Nelson…
As much as I like the idea of Foster or Collison, I just can’t see KP putting Bayless into a deal with Travis for either one of them. (And that’s what it would take since they both make over 6 mil.) So I’m aiming a little lower, in hopes that I won’t have to watch Outlaw disintegrating into a untradeable asset over the next 3-4 months
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'd settle for Ronny Turiaf.
Anything that gets Travis Outlaw out of town, y’know.
Anyway, Shavlik Randolph should make the Miami Heat squad as its third-string power forward and 15th man. Randolph won’t see too many minutes behind Udonis Haslem and Michael Beasley, though.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the Warriors are going to make any trade unless they can get rid of Jackson’s contract, so if you want Turiaf you might have to take on a little risk with Captain Jack.
I’m not willing to go there. The Blazers are having enough trouble integrating Miller into the offense, adding another ballhandler to the mix might blow Brandon and Nate’s mind. If Stephen Jackson was a superior perimeter defender, then it might mke more sense
But maybe the Warriors will get a big man from another team in exchange for Captain Jack, then they’ll be more amenable to dealing Turiaf for Travis (and sweet’ner) Can anybody smell a 3-way trade? Maybe after the 27th when KP is back “under” the cap?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson is a superior defender.
Better than anyone we got except maybe Batum. Even then it depends on Batum’s development as a defender. Certainly better than Webster, Roy, or Rudy.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree that adding Stephen Jackson to the mix would create quite the quandry ...
on offense at this point in time. No matter the off-court question marks, it’s not worth the risk of creating more on-court chaos by adding a high usage player like Jackson. As two4larue said, Nate McMillan and Brandon Roy might have a rough time adjusting to such an acquisition and all hell could break loose as a result.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah.
If that were true then we should all be hoping Oden and Batum haven’t developed offensively. The other night Miller took like one shot in the first half and Roy still stunk, so I’m not sure the lack of offensive flow has anything to do with anyone but Roy.
Jackson can do what Batum and Webster can’t. He spreads the floor while still being a defensive ace. At some point Batum will take over that role, but that day hasn’t come yet.
As far as Jackson being a gunner, it’s not exactly true. He didn’t take that many three’s in San Antonio. Abut half as many as Rudy does, even though he played more minutes.
It’s all Nelie’s fault.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson being a gunner
I don’t think that’s the main issue. Adding SJ would be putting yet another “player who needs the ball in his hands to effective” into the starting lineup, alongside Roy
The other day Dave said you can’t have “too much talent”? Well, it is possible to have “too many cooks in the kitchen” so to speak. Besides, if Jackson came to Portland he’d have to start and play 30+ mpg, and that’s going to affect how much PT Batum and Rudy get
I just want to see a thinning of the herd at the wing positions and a 4th veteran big man brought in, who can play PF/C better than Howard/Collins in case of injury or foul trouble. The roster as it stands right now doesn’t really need a more-serious adjustment
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 17, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's better than Batum or Rudy...
so I don’t really care. The championship window is open, so you do whatever you have to, to give yourself the best chance of winning as soon as possible. All it takes is one significant injury to Roy and the window is shut.
You DON’T wait for role players to develop. Not at this point. You have a good core of three guys and then you build around them with solid players. If the game plan is to give significant minutes to players so they can develop (other than Oden, because you just can’t find centers) then the Blazers will never win it all. Either Batum and Rudy are read now, which they may be, or they just don’t matter.
Potential is dead.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How good is he really?
As rookies Rudy and Batum were both significantly more efficient offensively than Jackson has ever been in his career. If Jackson can’t learn how to be more efficient on offense, then the Blazers would have no use for him.
by trk on Oct 17, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know that's not true.
A player who has a low usage rate is going to be more efficient simply because he is only given the ball when he is open, or has a high percentage chance of scoring.
Jackson was the focal point of the GSW last season. He was also a starting player on one of the Spurs championship teams. He was MORE statistically efficient last year than he was then, so he hasn’t exactly lost it yet.
Odds are he’s a more complete player than Rudy will ever be. I think Batum has a chance to surpass him, but he’s just not there yet.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most players become more efficient when their usage goes down
Some don’t though. If a player doesn’t know the difference between a good shot and a bad shot, they are going to be inefficient no mater what role you try to put them in.
by trk on Oct 17, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson is not inefficient.
He had a player EFFICIENCY rating of 16.20 last season.
Player Efficiency
-—————————————-
Stephen Jackson: 16.20
Rudy Fernandez: 15.50
Travis Outlaw: 15.15
Nicolas Batum: 12.92
Martell Webster: 11.97 (*2008)
Stephen Jackson was the 10th most efficient small forward in the league last season.
Your whole theory about Jackson being inefficient is crazy talk. :)
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean he had a PER of 16.2
PER mostly values large shot volume and not efficiency. Because of that PER is one of the relatively few statistical metrics that rates Jackson above Rudy and Batum. A better measure of efficiency is offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions):
Roy 123
Rudy 120
Batum 117
Outlaw 111
Webster(2008) 107
Jackson 104
by trk on Oct 17, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope.
Points scored per hundred posesions is the WORST way to judge offensive in this case because it ignores assist%, REB rate, etc.
Jackson was the 10th most efficient SF in the league last season.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you about Rudy, because he's 24
but Batum could become something special, and he’s only 20. If you bring in Jackson that puts Nic on the proverbial shelf, unless Rudy is also moved and Nate plays Batum at backup SG and SF. I can live with Nic splitting time with Martell this year, but if Portland had brought in Hedo, or if KP had traded for another veteran SF who needs to start and play big minutes at the 3 (GWallace, etc) then that would squeeze Batum’s PT and stunt his development—and I think he can contribute a lot on the defensive end to a contending team, while he’s developing his offensive game.
For now, he’s a good complementary player (a “glue” guy according to Brandon, last year) But down the road Nic could be a playmaker—not just a defender and spot up shooter—but someone who can slash and make his teammates better with his passing skills and BBIQ
I don’t want to “pull the plug” on all that potential. I’d rather weed the garden so the little French “tree” has more room to spread out
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 17, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Jackson would be playing SG, PG, and SF, so there would probably be enough time for Batum to develop. You could play Jackson, Roy, and Batum together and it’s still a pretty good defense lineup. It’s not like playing Roy, Rudy, and Batum together.
I feel like Rudy should get moved anyway, because if the Blazers want to improve their perimeter defense then something has to give. But that’s a different conversation.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could play Roy, Rudy, and Batum together and they would do ok on defense
That should at least be a better defensive lineup than Blake/Roy/Batum or Miller/Roy/Batum.
by trk on Oct 17, 2009 2:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blake and Miller are both better at guarding point guards than Rudy.
If they weren’t then Blake would be pointless and Rudy would start.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blake is kind of pointless
I think Rudy will start eventually. He doesn’t have experience playing as a PG though, so he has to learn the position first.
by trk on Oct 17, 2009 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It will never happen.
Rudy is a poor ball handler. That sort of kills any chance of him ever being a PG. He’s not exactly super young either.
At this point, he is what he is, and he’s definitely not a PG.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you say someone who was a rookie last year is what he is
Was Brandon Roy as good as he would ever get during his first year?
by trk on Oct 17, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he's 24.
Roy was an all-star at 24.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 17, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shooting lots of 3's isn't a problem
The more 3’s he shoots the better, as long as he can maintain a reasonable 3P%. The problem is that he is an inefficient volume scorer who turns the ball over at a high rate. Actually, he seems like a player who tries to do too much and should really have a smaller offensive role that he has had so far. If he were on the Blazers they would probably want him to handle the ball less and take fewer and less difficult shots. The question is whether he would be able to successfully adapt to a reduced role like that or would he continue to force up bad shots and be inefficient offensively even in a reduced role.
by trk on Oct 17, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don Nelson might be drunk, but he's not completely s'faced.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 4:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes he is.
Possibly the worst coach in the league. Which is sad.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don Nelson is the worst coach in the NBA, bar none.
Y’know, I’d like to watch a couple of old, spiteful geezers like Nelson and Charley Rosen duke it out in a bar fight.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like him.
I just think he’s really mailed it in these past couple years.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which reminds me...
On May 12, 2009, Van Gundy expressed his desire to eventually return to coaching on ESPN writer Bill Simmons’ podcast, stating he would even consider being an assistant coach.
If Nate has a slow start to the season I would like Gundy to be brought in, at least as an assistant.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 16, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, the tension that Jeff Van Gundy would bring as an assistant would be too problematic.
Dean Demopoulos would be figuratively emasculated and rendered useless as the ballclub’s lead assistant, while Nate McMillan would be looking over his shoulder day and night. I’m cool with canning McMillan if the team flounders this season — which isn’t impossible, especially in light of the porous defense — but I’d patiently wait until the season’s end before making the necessary changes.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way GSW does this trade
Bayless, Outlaw, and Webster don’t have that much value. Morrow has a lot of value as a promising young player who was a rookie last year and has a very cheap contract, and Biedrins has significant value as a productive big man.
by trk on Oct 16, 2009 5:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Andris Biedrins was almost used as the centerpiece of a deal centered around Amar'e Stoudemire, ...
so you’re right on the money about how his trade value is being mightily disrespected in this case. It’s not a big deal, though.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 16, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if ur going to trade
outlaw u need a back to the basket post up PF in return or else it has little value to the team. at the very least its gotta be a player who can create his own shot or else things just get worse for the second team
by Yawnie on Oct 16, 2009 7:23 PM PDT 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
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.
