The Case for Making a Trade Now
I'm normally not the kind of person who thinks the Blazers should be making trades. I think continuity is undervalued in the NBA and that it's usually better, all things being equal, to allow your young guys to grow and develop within your system than constantly try to find an external fix. I also should stress that I don't think the Blazers *need* to make a trade. I'm not at all panicked by the way they've started the season.
That said, I think a fairly compelling case can be made that the Blazers should be actively exploring trade options early in the season. Maybe not right now, but at least as soon as Dec. 15 passes and recently signed free agents become eligible for trades. Here's why:
- The Blazers have two major rotation players (Travis Outlaw and Steve Blake) who have expiring contracts. It is highly unlikely that the Blazers will re-sign both of these players at season's end. Blake may be re-signed, depending on the circumstances, but Outlaw almost surely will not be. If we don't sign them (or trade them by the trading deadline), we will get no value for them.
- Outlaw in particular may have more trade value right now than he will at any point in the season. He's playing extremely well. If he goes into a slump (which he's prone to do), his value will diminish.
- McMillan clearly doesn't know what to do with Blake at the moment. He doesn't seem to have the heart to move him to the bench, but he also needs Miller to play the point. The result is a bizarre lineup where Blake plays shooting guard for much of the game, a role he's not really suited for--offensively or defensively.
- Having Blake play off-guard takes minutes away from Rudy Fernandez, who is starting to give off the early signs of being disgruntled. Moving Blake may be necessary if we wish to keep both Miller and Fernandez (which I think we should).
- We also have another promising guard who deserves playing time (Jerryd Bayless). Moving Blake would free up time for Bayless to get regular minutes. I realize this is a recurring debate here, but for the record, I think Bayless will be a quality combo guard in the NBA. He just needs regular playing time to get comfortable out there. Sometimes you have to take a risk on a player. Giving Bayless the 4th most guard minutes on the team is a relatively small risk in the grand scheme of things.
- It is unlikely that McMillan can keep Blake in the starting lineup for long, but as long as he's there, his trade value will be higher. If he's relegated to a bench role (which seems inevitable), his trade value may decline.
- If we're going to make a trade at some point (and the contract situation strongly suggests we will), it is better to make the trade sooner than later. Whenever new players arrive, there is an adjustment period. It is better to get that adjustment period over now than shakeup the team's rotation later in the season. If you make the trade now, the new guys will be well-integrated into the system by playoff time.
So to sum up, it is very likely that Outlaw and/or Blake will be traded (or at least seriously shopped) at some point this season. The trade value for both players (at least as players--not contracts) is unlikely to ever be as high as it is right now. So if we're going to trade them later, why not trade them now and give the team more time to adjust to whatever the new rotation will be? Now obviously I don't think KP should pull the trigger on just any trade. If he doesn't think he can get anyone of real value, then there's no point making the trade. Also, if there's reason to believe that Outlaw and Blake's expiring contracts will be of significantly more value near the trading deadline than now (so much so that it makes up for their loss in trade value as players), then it might be worth waiting. If I were KP, though, I'd be putting feelers out there right now and seeing what I might potentially be able to get (either now or after Dec. 15) in exchange for Outlaw and Blake.
3 recs |
66 comments
| Add comment
Comments
yeah, but...
I don’t disagree on some of your key points, but something I’ve noticed lately is that a lot of Bedgers have been promoting the idea of trading away Miller, Blake, Outlaw, Bayless, and others without talking about who we’d be getting back and why that would make us a better basketball team.
Yes, Outlaw could leave as an unrestricted FA this summer, as could Blake. But who would we get back right now for them that would make us better now an in the future? Both of these players have been extremely valuable to the Blazers. It kind of sounds like we’re trading two or more valuable role-players just for the fun of it, and likely getting a long contract for a bench player in return.
In the summer, we’ll have the MLE and I believe also the bi-annual exception to sign free agents. Would maybe we be better off with Blake and Outlaw this year, and a free agent signing this summer?
I would like to hear some ideas about the player or players we’d be targeting, and why having them would make the Blazers better than they are with the outgoing player(s).
by matthewcc on Nov 10, 2009 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
completely agree
That’s why I wrote: “Now obviously I don’t think KP should pull the trigger on just any trade. If he doesn’t think he can get anyone of real value, then there’s no point making the trade.”
Making a trade only makes sense if the incoming value is at least as good as the outgoing, especially on a contending team. If we can’t get that, then it’s better to just hold pat and let them walk.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure if this is a realistic option...
but why not trade Outlaw/Blake for cash? The assumption being that we’d have more $$$ to sign Batum next summer and others…
by hotstuffdb22 on Nov 10, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if it was possible
PA does not have a cash shortage. Losing Out/Blake and getting nothing in return would seriously hurt the team. The case for trading them is not an insult to them, just that we may be able to receive a very good player in return with a longer contract. If they expire and we do not resign them with bird rights, we will lose the opportunity to be so far over the salary cap, and holding onto that possibility lets us keep more situations for acquiring stars open. I’ll trust KP to make the right call. If McMill keeps going with this 3 guard line up we may see more value in these players, even if only slightly, and some lottery bound teams more willing to make a deal for expiring contracts to get in on the 2010 blockbusters. KP will figure it out, but for now I love the new line up because it has done a massively better job of establishing an offensive rythem and getting the ball into the post.
by lurtsman on Nov 10, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would like the lineup better with Rudy or Martell
but who knows maybe the team is spotlighting Blake to upgrade his trade value. I don’t really think so but it has been done.
"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-
by We-B-Dunkin on Nov 10, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but...
I don’t disagree on some of your key points, but something I’ve noticed lately is that a lot of Bedgers have been promoting the idea of trading away Miller, Blake, Outlaw, Bayless, and others without talking about who we’d be getting back and why that would make us a better basketball team.
Yes, Outlaw could leave as an unrestricted FA this summer, as could Blake. But who would we get back right now for them that would make us better now an in the future? Both of these players have been extremely valuable to the Blazers. It kind of sounds like we’re trading two or more valuable role-players just for the fun of it, and likely getting a long contract for a bench player in return.
In the summer, we’ll have the MLE and I believe also the bi-annual exception to sign free agents. Would maybe we be better off with Blake and Outlaw this year, and a free agent signing this summer?
I would like to hear some ideas about the player or players we’d be targeting, and why having them would make the Blazers better than they are with the outgoing player(s).
by matthewcc on Nov 10, 2009 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's not a new player but GERALD WALLACE
He may not have the superior outside game but he’s a tough defensive minded slasher that can score from anywhere inside the three point line. The other night he put up a 20+ pt 20 rb night. Tell me we wouldn’t be undefeated at this point if Webster or Outlaw, were putting up numbers like that. Rice makes a deal out of Outlaw pulling down any boards.
I may be in the minority but my dream trade would be Outlaw and Rudy for Wallace. Rudy’s talents just aren’t being used with such a deep team. The guy isn’t really that young and needs to be a starter, or sixth man at the S.G position in my opinion. Wallace can play the backup 4 and Bayless would see more minutes with the backup 2 spot being free.
To me consolidation means taking your excess numbers and getting more talent and skill at one position. Trading Blake Miller or Bayless for a SF to me would only cause more of a logjam in the Roster. Roy might get more minutes at the p.g. position but what happens if he goes down for a stretch in season.
If SF is the position in question then the Blazers need to trade the other players that are in question at that position. Trading a P.G. would only create more problems, there was a reason KP got a P.G. this offseason, right? If Blake doesn’t like his role at the end of the season then he could walk. Kopenan is still overseas and Mills will be available. Blake’s potential salary next year will be around the MLE so if he does then K.P. can get someone else. Rudy may end up being a stud but I think it has been shown that a starting backcourt of Rudy-Roy would be a challange the Blazer’s don’t have time to take on. Both players don’t seem to be as productive when playing the S.F. position so in my opinion that leaves one option.
by BlazerKuttn on Nov 10, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed re: consolidation
but I don’t see a scenario where Charlotte trades Wallace. He’s easily there best player and is having an all-star level season so far. Even with Rudy on the table, I don’t think they’d part with him now.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How does one have an All-Star season ....
…. six to seven games into the season?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 10, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By playing really well for six games
All I was saying is that Wallace has played really well so far. He’s a 6’7’’ small-forward and he’s leading the league in rebounding. If he keeps performing at anywhere near that level, he’ll be an all-star this season (he was a borderline all-star last year). We only get him if Charlotte’s management goes into firesale mode.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Martell is a better fit
I don’t see Wallace being a role player.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 10, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
?
Wallace IS a role player. That’s why Charlotte is terrible and has a hard time scoring the ball. It would be like making Battier or Prince the go to guy on a bad team. You can’t take a really great third banana and make him the go to guy.
He’s still a great player though. I would argue that he’s CONSIDERABLY better than anyone on our roster not named Brandon Roy.
His long list of injuries might make me think twice about signing him, not his fit or talent.
by Nick Van Excellent on Nov 11, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I remember reading last year that Larry Brown really likes GW
so until Larry goes (and who knows how soon that will be?) Crash stays
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 10, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy isn't really that young?
Spoken like a 16 year old.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 10, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace is a nice fantasy
Wallace on the Blazers almost certainly will not happen, but the combination of a bizarre ownership group and Larry Brown means anything is possible…
by PoliSam on Nov 10, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a waste of time. Why? Not believe in KP? Blake? Outlaw? as team players, out to win a championship!
by prof.mike on Nov 10, 2009 9:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's not about belief
It’s about maximizing assets. Outlaw is a good player, but if we’re not going to re-sign him (and all signs point to that), it is worth trying get someone of value for him.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious...
exactly what signs suggest we won’t re-sign Outlaw? Do you think he’ll want too much money? I think if he was made an offer similar to Martells ($20 millionish over 4 years) or slightly higher, he might take it. I just don’t see the demand being that high around the league in overpaying for a bench player. He hasn’t proven to be a quality starter when given the chance so it is unlikely he’ll receive starter money. After the Lebron Sweepstakes, all signs point to some belt-tightening around the league next year. I could be wrong, someone might gamble on him….if he walks, he walks but in the meantime we should just make the most of him (on the court) and not necessarily trade him mid-season.
I guess the case could be made that Cunningham would be his replacement but he is unproven. Cheap for now but unproven (1 game does not count!). I think he has the potential but we’ll have to let the season play out.
I like Outlaw but I’m not necessarily an Outlaw-honk. If we indeed have a legit shot at a title this year, I think he has shown to be a necessary component.
"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman
by clinchmobb on Nov 10, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We've just got too many guys at the 3
With Batum and Webster signed long term and Roy/Rudy also playing the three-spot, there just isn’t much room for Outlaw. Plus, we’re not going to have cap space because of all the extensions. Financially it just doesn’t seem to make sense to keep Outlaw.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's been playing most of his time at the 4.
and is the only guy on the team that can play both the 3 and the 4 (with possible exception of Cunningham). With Batum out (and status unknown when he comes back), we are pretty thin at the 3 and resorting to using guys like Roy/Rudy who don’t fit the role as well as Outlaw (he not perfect either but arguably better).
If we don’t have the cap space now (as you said), then we won’t have it if we add another guaranteed salary either. So the financial argument doesn’t work there unless a we get rid of an existing guaranteed salary.
I am no salary guru but I don’t see a financial burden on keeping him through the season and using the MLE on him (at roughly $5.5 – 5.8 million). Either way, any reasonable offer to him would still keep us under the luxury tax…
"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman
by clinchmobb on Nov 10, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you raise a good point
Outlaw has been playing much of his minutes at the 4. If we were to trade him we’d either have to 1) get another guy who can play the 4 in return, or 2) rely on Howard and Pendergraph to fill that void.
I think the team will probably first look to trade Outlaw for someone who can play the 4. But if a deal presents itself for someone (say, Hinrich) who doesn’t play the four, the Blazers may risk using Howard/Pendergraph as a stopgap. It depends on how good that player we’re getting is.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Outlaw on this team but didn't he make the statement he was looking for a big contract next year
Im sure if he wants to play for the money he’s earning now the Blazers would love to resign him next offseason. The problem is the four 2nd-year players on the roster that are going to want to get paid just like Outlaw when their chance comes.
Judging from statements I read and listened too via podcast it seems the Blazer’s are trying to turn a profit. Or at least not loose Millions every year. If Mr. Allen wants to go into Luxury tax land just to keep his groomed talent then there wouldn’t be an issue. It appears that he may have learned his lesson that you can’t buy a NBA championship. Either the refs won’t allow it or the league won’t. Im not convinced the league didn’t know, and or be a part of, Donaghy and others.
That being said if Outlaw isn’t the guy at S.F. then he can’t get paid like he wants to. It’s apparent he not the guy when he’s the longest tenured Blazer and still can’t get in the starting lineup.
by BlazerKuttn on Nov 10, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Outlaw on this team but didn't he make the statement he was looking for a big contract next year
Im sure if he wants to play for the money he’s earning now the Blazers would love to resign him next offseason. The problem is the four 2nd-year players on the roster that are going to want to get paid just like Outlaw when their chance comes.
Judging from statements I read and listened too via podcast it seems the Blazer’s are trying to turn a profit. Or at least not loose Millions every year. If Mr. Allen wants to go into Luxury tax land just to keep his groomed talent then there wouldn’t be an issue. It appears that he may have learned his lesson that you can’t buy a NBA championship. Either the refs won’t allow it or the league won’t. Im not convinced the league didn’t know, and or be a part of, Donaghy and others.
That being said if Outlaw isn’t the guy at S.F. then he can’t get paid like he wants to. It’s apparent he not the guy when he’s the longest tenured Blazer and still can’t get in the starting lineup.
by BlazerKuttn on Nov 10, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They are only going to give big contracts to starters next year...
and he ain’t a starter. I hope Outlaw is coming around to this thought, as well. He can get near starter minutes at the 3 and the 4 (and a reasonably good salary) by coming off the bench here or go to another team and not get the minutes (and the same salary). Seriously, what teams would start him at the 3 or the 4? And by reasonably good salary, I mean MLE range.
"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman
by clinchmobb on Nov 10, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my question is who out there do you want that you could get for outlaw and blake
and don’t say a good pg or a some kind of sf. give me a name
by Daddygr33nJeans on Nov 10, 2009 9:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Here are two names:
Here are two names off the top of my head.
First name is Brandon Bass. When Rashard Lewis comes back, Bass will basically be the third-string PF on Orlando. Given that Orlando could use a SF like Outlaw (who is a major upgrade over Matt Barnes), they might be willing to do an Outlaw for Bass deal straight up. Bass would be good in the backup 4 spot for us.
Second name is the one always bandied about: Kirk Hinrich. Chicago may be willing to part with him to free up cap space for the off-season (to make a push of D-Wade or Bosh). Hinrich would be a major improvement over Blake at point and is young enough to be our long term starter after Miller leaves. That trade would, of course, not solve the Bayless situation and would force us to rely on Howard/Pendergraph as the backup 4, but it might still be worth doing. Hinrich is good.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to create a discussion:
Orlando starts Mickael Pietrus at SF. Barnes is a backup. And while I think Trout is an upgrade over Barnes talent wise, Barnes brings a lot to the table that Orlando doesn’t have. Scoring they have.
Hinrich is a great player, but if we have him and Miller, Bayless won’t see a stitch of time. Not even one minute, and you still have an issue with minutes for Rudy. I dont think that answer solves any of your issues. Also he will be 30 going on 31 when Miller’s contract runs out. Not sure if that is young enough.
by GreatOden'sRaven on Nov 10, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but
I realize Barnes isn’t the starter, but I wasn’t assuming that Outlaw would take over starting duties, just that he’d be an upgrade over Barnes as their backup SF. Given that Bass is behind both Lewis and Anderson in the their rotation at PF, they might be willing to swap Outlaw for Bass (their salaries are about the same).
As for Hinrich, as I noted in my first comment, I agree that he wouldn’t solve the Bayless problem. But he would give us a potential long term solution at PG and provide much needed perimiter defensive skills. I think Hinrich is plenty young enough to be a relatively long term solution at PG. He has many good years left and our championship window is already open. He’ll certainly be playing long enough to allow us to groom a prospect as a his replacement.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Q:
Isn’t the Vanilla Gorilla’s contract expiring at the end of this year also?
....formerly GonzoFan. Now, this has been a message from "The People's Alliance to Continue to Encourage Greg Oden on his Path to Dominance"
by bforsythe on Nov 10, 2009 9:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
He has a player option for next year
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 10, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And is likely to take it
Since it pays him $7.4 million (his best salary to date, why leave that on the table), he probably wouldn’t get more on the open market, and in 2011 the market might be less crowded for a last long-term contract. He might reconsider also if the Blazers already offer him a longer deal that gives him a better total, but right now I would assume he plays it out.
But slowly things happen that they cannot help and the Blazers Fellowship of the Ring begins to break apart
by Norsktroll on Nov 10, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
And there’s no way the Blazers trade Przybilla this year unless they are getting a really talented 4/5 in return.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought I'd heard that Przybilla had already said he was opting out.
by JordanLeDoux on Nov 10, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that Joel is a Rational Profit-Maximizing Capitalist and that he will not opt out.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Nov 10, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He will opt out
It’s all about timing …
1. There are a lot of teams gunning for LeBron / Wade etc., and many of them will be left holding the bag with money to spend.
2. Centers get paid. If you’re 7 feet tall and can rebound, you will get paid.
3. Human nature craves security — Joel will be willing to give up 1 year at $7.4 million to get 3-4 years starting at $6-7 million (or so). Especially when you consider anything could happen the next year — he could get hurt, or Oden could get all the playing time, etc.
To sum up, when someone has the opportunity to lock up a long term deal which starts at about the same salary as the 1 year they are giving up — they will do it — everytime.
by zbrum on Nov 10, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And here is why I think things will turn out differently...
1. There are only A FEW teams clearing cap space to chase superstars.
2. A serviceable Center like Pryz (and I love him) is not a consolation prize for failing to land LeBron James or Dwayne Wade. The Knicks are not going to say, “Gol darn it, LBJ is staying, so I guess we’ll settle for Joel Przybilla at $9M/5 years.”
3. Humans do crave security, which is why Joel will want to stay in a place he likes, playing for a team he likes, fulfilling a role he understands.
4. Pryz is gonna make more money next year ($7.5M) than the Mid-Level Exemption that most teams will have to play with ($6.5M-ish). It makes no sense for him to flush a million dollars.
5. Pryz is actually making ballpark what the market would indicate for a Center of his stature. He is appreciated by his team and there is no reason to think that he won’t be extended by them at a comparable rate a year hence.
It makes no sense for Pryz to terminate early, make less money, and move to a city he likes less, to perform a role which may or may not be suitable or realistic for him.
Humans do, in fact, crave certainty and security, which is why he is not opting out…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Nov 10, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
exactly
I agree with every word of this. I’d be shocked in Przybilla opts out.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The comparable market-value player from this last FA class was Marcin Gortat, who got MLE.
I think the free agent who is going to be chased is D.J. Mbenga of the Lakers, a 7-footer currently making about $1M, something like that.
The Lakers are in no position to match for him and he will have suitors.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Nov 10, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Security
Ok, you convinced me of a few things — most notably that Pryz is no consolation for a team who doesn’t get LeBron. My bad.
But …
I think “flushing” $1m to guarantee the next 3-4 years is worth it to most players, there’s just too much on the line to risk injury, loss of playing time, declining skills, etc., don’t you think?
by zbrum on Nov 10, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if the price is right
I can see the Blazers offering to extend Przybilla after the season. If he’s comfortable here and okay with playing out his career as a backup (or injury insurance starter), he may be willing to sign an extension for a price the Blazers can live with.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
to clarify ...
I think the most likely scenario is that he opts out, and then the Blazers extend him 3 years or so. I don’t think he’s leaving, just that he will take the earliest chance he gets to guarantee his future salary, even if next year is a $1m paycut.
If he doesn’t opt out, then the Blazers would probably also extend him after the next year, like you say. But, there always the chance …
by zbrum on Nov 10, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
didn’t see your second comment before I replied. I agree that this is a plausible scenario.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 10, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You overrate
DJ Mbenga
Then again pretty much all Lakers fans do.
"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane
by MadBlaze on Nov 10, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And Gortat is much much younger than Joel
True, big men get paid. But big men over 30 often have to settle for declining contracts. Even West had to, and he was in his mid-twenties.
But slowly things happen that they cannot help and the Blazers Fellowship of the Ring begins to break apart
by Norsktroll on Nov 10, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been making these points since the All-Star break last season.
But everyone just replies that I shouldn’t worry, etc.
It’s not about worrying. It’s about cashing in when the price is highest.
by JordanLeDoux on Nov 10, 2009 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
that's because you think like a GM
most fans just want to enjoy the games and hear about the transactions when there’s a press conference
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 10, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but most fans demanding trades
assign unreasonable values to the guys they want to trade. I don’t think anyone in the NBA values non-starters like Bayless, Outlaw, Rudy, etc. as much as the pseudo-GMs on Blazersedge.
by truk on Nov 10, 2009 11:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that works both ways
Travis’ “haters” might say “nobody wants Outlaw” but then coach Demopolous goes on Talkin Ball (this summer) and says that “every team” in the league has contacted the Blazers about Travis
It’s a balancing act. A player’s trade value is dependent on what another team is willing to give up to get him. There are all kinds of factors. His contract. The roster of the other team, and what they think they need. What kind of system they run, and how the player might “fit” into that style. No trade proposal is perfect, but the best ones will take all of these factors into account.
Sometimes we get surprised, like the Gasol for Kwame deal. No one could have predicted that beforehand, so (to me) that makes these “arm-chair” GM trade ideas at least feasible. Not all fans want to think about potential deals everyday, but for others the ongoing goal is to “improve the team” and that’s a constantly moving target.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 11, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Henry Abbott at TrueHoop
actually did predict Gasol-for-Kwame
by kickbrass on Nov 13, 2009 9:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fanpost I want to see: THE CASE FOR WINNING A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP NOW AND REPLACING FREE AGENTS LEAVING WITH FREE AGENTS COMING...
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Nov 10, 2009 12:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, do it Timbo! Do it!
"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman
by clinchmobb on Nov 10, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure I could make a strong case for
Outlaw not being the kind of backup power forward who will help any team win a world championship
but that doesn’t mean he won’t have trade value, up until mid-February
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 10, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Have you done a study on the back-up power forwards of the last 10 champions and decided that Travis just won’t due?
Seriously, if we don’t win a championship this year, it probably won’t be because of a failure to upgrade the back-up power forward spot from Travis, who has legitimate NBA skills like shooting, and, well, somethimes other things, but mostly shooting.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Nov 11, 2009 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sasha Pavlovic can sure shoot, too
but that doesn’t mean I want him backing up LMA in a playoff series
Rebounding. Team defense. Boxing out. Scrapping for loose balls. That’s what Portland needs from their backup PF. A guy like Carl Landry who can also defend centers when necessary would be golden. Corner 3 pointers and out-of-control drives that lead to off-balanced jumpers and turnovers? Those I can do without.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 11, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your missing the point
Travis Outlaw might not be your ideal NBA back-up 4, but that doesn’t really matter. He can be effective when used correctly, so he’s a matchup problem for the other team. The other point is that no back-up 4 EVER was the reason an NBA team won or lost a championship. It’s just not that important.
You ask your reserves to give you capable minutes, and maybe do one thing really well and some other things passably. Travis meets that criteria. He was involved in the 6th man of the year talks last year, and there’s no reason to think last year was a fluke. He was one of the most effective back-ups in the league, and he was at his most effective while playing the 4. Travis is not a problem for this team.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Nov 11, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
apples and oranges
I’m not debating if Outlaw can be an effective regular season backup PF. He is doing what he does, alternating between good shooting nights and not so good.
My concern (which goes back to last spring) is that he’s not the best backup PF option in a playoff series where “Rebounding. Team defense. Boxing out. Scrapping for loose balls” are more critical. Every possession is magnified, break downs in these areas become the difference between the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.
Add to the fact that Travis’ contract is expiring and that there has been more “speculation” that he won’t be resigned by the Blazers and less “news” from the team that retaining him is high on their priority list, a mid-season deal to acquire that backup “banger” for the playoffs continues to make sense.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 12, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like the back up PF you are seeking...
…is Joel Prybila…
by Ilikeemall on Nov 11, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I meant to say Chuck Hayes
not Carl Landry
If it’s possible for Joel and Greg to be on the court together and for the offense to not stall (due to spacing) and they can stay out of combined foul trouble, then I’d be all for that twin towers lineup, especially in the post season
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 12, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Knicks are in a full clearance sale mode right now.
Gallinari is the only safe player on the roster.
I would love to see some sort of a deal bringing Darko here……
by ifrclone on Nov 10, 2009 1:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Outlaw, Blake, future 1st rounder for Rudy Gay
by rolo_poloo on Nov 10, 2009 10:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Line up would be
Miller
Roy
Gay
Aldridge
Oden
by rolo_poloo on Nov 10, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
without reading through this thread
Can someone tell me why anyone would want non-starters from the Blazers? Why would you expect them to start for another team? Outlaw probably has the most value, imo, and the only teams that would give up a starter for him + change are the Warriors and the Clippers. Good luck with that.
No matter what the Blazer fandom wants to think: Rudy, Bayless, Martell, Blake are not worth all that much.
by truk on Nov 10, 2009 11:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Rudy >>> all the other bench players
His contract is low, for 4 years. He’s talented, and charismatic
There’s almost no way Portland can get equal value for Fernandez in a deal, unless he’s combined with another Blazer player who has a medium-large salary in exchange for a “special fit” young stud player from another team. Never say never—if Rudy complains about his role it could force KP’s hand—hopefully that will never happen, but it sure wouldn’t be the first time (Petrovic, etc)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 11, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that is a lonely opinion...
saying…
No matter what the Blazer fandom wants to think: Rudy, Bayless, Martell, Blake are not worth all that much
is the opposite of “Blazer fandom”… Those guys all have value in the NBA… maybe not as big contract, impact players but “not worth all that much” is pretty extreme.
by Ilikeemall on Nov 11, 2009 10:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















