I have a hunch that Pritchard is setting up the big trade...

by Bump22 on Nov 14, 2009 6:28 AM PST

7-3 is good, no matter how you slice it. Three road wins consecutively is a leap for this team, period. You could have had the 94 Washington Bullets on the floor for the last three road contests and this would not sway my opinion.

That being said, a problem looms apparent with this team and that is the logjam of a mess that is the Blazers roster. Nate has always had the daunting task of divvying minutes to a bottomless roster of talent., however, this year is much different. The addition of Andre Miller and emergence of Martell Webster combined with the unexpected insertion of Jerryd Bayless have gave birth to conundrums galore.

Some have went on record with the notion that Kevin Pritchard is "conditioning" Andre Miller for a trade. The Blazer nation has screamed for the exportation of any combination of Steve Blake, Trout, Webster and Bayless. The return compensation ranging anywhere from Lebron James/Chris Paul to any expiring contract and a bag of chips. When you now factor in the return of Nicolas Batum during the home stretch of what is, barring a face plant of epic proportions, undoubtedly a playoff run. It becomes apparent and universally recognized. This roster needs to be whittled down.

I won't get into the myriad of possible trades that could materialize. But I will mention a few thinking points I have. I will leave them open ended so that we can (hopefully) have a nice discussion about them.

#1 - It is possible that Nate is building up Andre Miller for a trade. I think this is unlikely. Andre Miller has added an element and veteran presence that has been sorely lacking. There were major questions on how his addition would affect Roy and the team overall with his push-the-ball-upcourt style. From my untrained eye, he has made everybody around him better. Roy's element just hasn't presented itself. He will take over 4th quarters when needed. I will go out on a limb and say that with the sudden insertion and increase in Bayless playing time, Pritch may be trying to ship Blake for a needed banger in the post off the bench.

#2 - Rudy or Martell?? or both? This is the logjam that is really handcuffing Rudy and his development. How long before Rudy becomes truly disgruntled? This will just get uglier when Batum come back. Martell is a very good player and I don't think you would suffer (dare I say) by trading Rudy. Either way, it is inevitable that some team will cherry pick the talent off this roster. I would not be opposed to trading Rudy/Batum and Trout in exchange for a gritty banger off the bench @ the 4. Bayless development on defense is a key to watch.

All in all it is a very befuddling situation. But it is necessary that this team get a rotation set in stone and let it marinate earlier than later. I am looking forward to how it will materialize.

Tweet Comment 38 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Wow!

I would not be opposed to trading Rudy/Batum and Trout in exchange for a gritty banger off the bench @ the 4.

Sticking the needle in his arm, the man says, "This is really what I need."

The best players only try to, "do it all," themselves when it is a playoff necessity or, on occasion, to put on a show. There is no need to belabor the point!

by KINGofMACct on Nov 14, 2009 6:45 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

I know I am in the minority

But Rudy seems to be struggling with his rhythm…the situation is playing away from his strengths and he definitely doesn’t want to be a bench player.. He will leave when he becomes a FA.. at some point we are going to have to get value for him and at this rate his value is depreciating.. Martell will benefit from more minutes… and IMO will only get better… Webster has been out of basketball a year and is already paralelling Rudys effectiveness….

People seem to believe Trout is a good option as a buzzer beater guy just because he can get a shot off on anybody… Regardless of his prowess and shooting %, his decisions when he has the ball in his hands leaves a lot to be desired..

"You can lose lots of money chasing women, but you will NEVER lose women chasing money. " - Mr.Landis

by Bump22 on Nov 14, 2009 7:26 AM PST via mobile up reply actions

Rudy is under contract through the 2112 season, and will be a RFA after that

It isn’t about what Rudy wants. He is a phenomenal bargain under his current contract, and the Blazers would be hard pressed to get equal value in a trade because he is so cheap.

Batum is our best perimeter defender at age twenty one and has shown a lot of flashes on the offensive end and you want to trade him?

No offense, but that is, IMHO, crazy talk.

Trade Trout and Blake for a quality 4-5 for the playoffs, but don’t talk about trading Rudy, or especially Batum.

by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 8:18 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

Oops! Make that 2012.

2112 would be sort of like indentured servitude. Free Rudy!

by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 8:31 AM PST up reply actions

Stop these posts!

sorry there is just no one we could get who would be better than what we have!

by prof.mike on Nov 14, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions

Agreed

I’m happy with the team. Anyone who wants to trade bayless is welcome to keep their opinions to themselves or expose themselves as the laker fans they are.

by lurtsman on Nov 14, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions

Doesn't matter.

The world ends in ’12. Saw it on a movie trailer.

I am Spartacus and I approved this message

by EngineerScotty on Nov 14, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions

Since Batum is out for the year, virtually

We are only one injury away from being a little thin.

Odds are high that we’ll have more than one injury through the year.

No, I don’t see any need to whittle down the roster. If Brandon sprains an ankle and is out for two weeks like CP3 just did, what then?

Well, then we’ll want Rudy around, and we probably won’t play a three guard lineup at all. Which means Martell will get lots of minutes, too. And Bayless will provide a few minutes.

What if Rudy is out for a week with swine flu? Well, Jerryd will be our only backup at guard, which means we’ll again play less of the three guard lineup, and Martell will get more PT.

What if Blake goes out? Same scenario, more minutes for all the role players.

What if one of our centers bangs his knee and is out for ten games? Why, the other center will probably play a few more minutes, and LMA will play some center, and Travis won’t play any small forward at all — which means more minutes for Martell and Rudy at the 3.

If Nic weren’t out, we might want to whittle down the roster if we could get a 2 for 1 trade that would help us. But when you already have one key rotation player out long term, that looks a little more iffy.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 14, 2009 6:58 AM PST reply actions

What if one of our centers bangs his knee and is out for ten games?

What if he’s out for more than 10 games, are you satisfied with a frontcourt of LMA, Howard and/or Outlaw? And what if both centers get in early foul trouble during a playoff game?

I don’t agree with deadling Rudy or Batum willy-nilly. But there are some decent backup 4/5 who could be had for Travis’ expiring contract and + capspace

Great line from Dave last night about Trout finishing the bottle! Sure it’s hyperbole, but no one can deny there’s an element of truth in it. That loose-cannon shooting approach is just the kind of behavior that gets you beat in the postseason

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 14, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions

What you propose

is NOT what the OP proposed. He’s proposing whittling down the roster. This is not the time to do that, unless we want to find ourselves dependent on long minutes from Jerryd or Dante if someone goes down.

You propose rebalancing the roster, which is eminently reasonable.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 14, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions

I would deal Rudy if a "blockbuster" move became available

but obviously that would be for more than a backup PF/C. It would have to be a Gasol-Billups kind of “no-brainer” deal. The odds of this happening are slim, but KP has positioned himself (slightly under the cap, the lopsided “2 for 1” option is still open, etc) to have an opportunity to make this kind of trade, if it presents itself

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 14, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions

That's true

Though the cap space is not relevant. In any big name trade, the salaries changing hands will be high enough that the 125% rule is going to be more important than the cap space. You can’t combine the cap space and the 125%, I believe.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 16, 2009 12:11 AM PST up reply actions

who is that banger?

I don’t get to follow the rest of the league as much as I would like, but in an ideal world what does that perfect 2 for 1 look like? Who would you target?

by BeaconHill on Nov 14, 2009 7:07 AM PST reply actions

I like ronnie turiaf

bayless leaves over my dead body
thanks for starting Andre

by thomasikehara on Nov 14, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions

getting a 'banger' is overrated

This became a meme over the summer and congealed into sort of accepted fact. But we already have Prybzilla and Oden, and Aldridge leaves something like 13 minutes a game available at the four.

Seeing as Outlaw is very effective with limited minutes at the four, what kind of minutes is this guy going to get? I’m not sure what we get out of this. Diogu was a banger, and not that bad of one. He couldn’t crack the lineup.

Do we really feel like we’re serioulsy lacking in interior offense? With Oden setting up deep, and guys like Miller, Roy, Bayless I just don’t see the advantage of having a plodder in there jamming things up.

You don’t trade a guy like Rudy for someone who gets 8 garbage minutes a game.

by matthewcc on Nov 14, 2009 8:08 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

i agree

I sometimes think about trading outlaw for a banger, then my alter ego tells me we are already one of the best rebounding teams in the league and outlaw needs to stay a blazer for life

bayless leaves over my dead body
thanks for starting Andre

by thomasikehara on Nov 14, 2009 8:14 AM PST up reply actions

I also think there are important spacing issues

If we get a banger, it better be a guy who can play next to Pryz. It should also be a guy who can spread the floor a little bit. If Bayless solidifies his spot in the rotation, you have a PG who makes a living through penetrating and kicking out. Trout with his ability to hit from the corner and act as a bailout option is a good fit.

by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions

mc dyess

would have been a nice pickup

by Yawnie on Nov 14, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions

he was my #1 FA, but I doubted Antonio would regard PDX as his #1 destination

then, after signing McDyess I wanted KP to take the remaining capspace and make an unbalanced trade to upgrade the PG position…of course I didn’t forsee Batum getting hurt

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 14, 2009 10:02 PM PST up reply actions

This became a meme over the summer and congealed into sort of accepted fact.

McMillian said in July that the team was in need of a “beast of a 4”. That’s why Portland made the toxic offer to Millsap. Juwan Howard doesn’t fill that role, so the need is still there.

The “banger meme” wasn’t invented by Bedgers

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 14, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions

And yet the Blazers passed three times on the perfect man for the role.

by Bskey on Nov 15, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions

The real need at 4

Is a player who is efficient with low usage (like Scola)

by Sound_Automatic on Nov 14, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions

I think we are lacking in interior offense.

Aldridge is great but he settles for jumpshots too much. Miller and Roy are the only perimeter players who can penetrate. Bayless can also do it but he tends to be a general liability on the floor and isn’t playing much anyway. Oden sits on the bench for about half the game.

There’s obviously no problem in the rebounding department with Oden and Pryz, but I think it would be nice to have a guy with a semi-reliable post game backing up Aldridge or playing with him when going small. This is a jumpshooting team that rarely gets fast break points. I don’t have time to look up the stats, but they seem to get beat in points in the paint entirely too often. I don’t know who should be shipped for whom, but more inside game couldn’t hurt.

Keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed.

by Benjamanic on Nov 27, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions

I agree that we need to concolidate...

However, I don’t see where we would consolidate too. We could use a better back-up power forward who could play minutes at center if an injury occurred…but that’s not someone who you trade Rudy for. We could use a reliable high percentage scorer off the bench, but that’s not the type of player that’s easily available.

At this point, I just don’t see anything available that’s worth trading what we have. However, it is something to keep an eye on. As players continue to develop, and as we continue to identify team weaknesses, a worthwhile trade might be available.

by Gelvalst on Nov 14, 2009 8:24 AM PST reply actions

We should have just drafted Blair

beats a dead horse

by wilsonpdx on Nov 14, 2009 8:43 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

A backup PF banger is what you have

when your backup PF can’t shoot and ruins your offensive flow.

Who clamors for gritty defensive pgs that can’t shoot, or pass, or dribble?
(University of Wisconsin, but that’s about it)

Name championship teams that have heavily relied on short,fat, defensively challenged PFs to come in and rebound for ten minutes a game.

dinasour type of guys choir boys

by mittsabishy on Nov 14, 2009 10:02 AM PST reply actions

The only players who should be considered for trades

are Outlaw, Blake, and maybe Bayless. Outlaw and Blake are expiring deals and good players, which makes them very valueable, and Bayless is beeming with potential. However I don’t see who we would trade them for that would be much of an upgrade over what we have currently. Many people suggest getting a “banger” type 4, but who is out there that is available? I only see deals like Hilton Armstrong from the Hornets who want to trim more salary, but he is not an upgrade over Outlaw at the back up 4. If that is all that is out there then the Blazers need to just stand pat and Nate needs to deal with the minutes crunch.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Nov 14, 2009 10:21 AM PST reply actions

Great Post

I’ve been in the minority when it comes to trading Batum, but I think the Blazers need to jettison him and Rudy. Their European commitment will keep them injured and the Olympics are right in the middle of the open championship window.

by tominhawaii on Nov 14, 2009 10:25 AM PST reply actions

Boo!

Players I would trade before Batum:
Martell
Travis
Steve
Andre
LaMarcus (yeah, I said it)
Joel
rudy
cunnidergraph

by Sound_Automatic on Nov 14, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions

Batum is off limits, bro

Trade Trout?

Sure. OK. Go ahead. Do it. For a banger glass eating backup four. Throw in Blake or Bayless? Maybe. Depends on the deal.

But honestly, I don’t see a trade coming. Blake is playing in the freaking starting lineup, for goodness sakes. And the current starting lineup is 5-0. Undefeated. Why would AA GM want to mess with that? So no, Blake is going to stay for the foreseeable future, and that means at least until next summer.

Martell? don’t see him being traded either. The only one that might be traded is Trout and maybe Bayless. But the likely return on those guys is far less than their value to the Blazers, so, honestly, I just don’t see a trade coming up anytime soon.

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine, US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)

by Love on Nov 14, 2009 10:29 AM PST reply actions

i think it's more fun when we name names...

i am definitely not sold on this, and i don’t think it qualifies as a “big trade”, but the only one i can really think of that would be a great backup at the 4 is udonis haslem. other than that, there are players like turiaf and david lee (but he’s going to need $$ after this year), but i would probably just rather stay put.

by ljm42 on Nov 14, 2009 10:34 AM PST reply actions

My theory

we aren’t going to give up assets for a player that cannot spread the floor.

At least a solid midrange game seems to be a prerequisite for a 4 in our offense.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Nov 14, 2009 10:39 AM PST reply actions

You know,

That is a very good point. And we’ve already got excellent low post scorers in Oden and Aldridge. (Although admittedly Aldridge has a ways to go in this department.)

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine, US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)

by Love on Nov 14, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions