Summing Up the Trade Deadline
by Dave on Feb 20, 2009 12:30 AM PST
Email
PrintAfter six-digit page views in the last two days plus multiple posts and fanposts with God-knows-how-many comments (many impassioned and questioning) it's time to sort out the trade deadline doings, box them up, and put them away in the closet until next year...or at least until summer.
For those who are sick of all this talk, consider this the end of it for now. We're placing a moratorium on any trade proposals for the next two weeks, even in the sidebar. And I hope after that we'll all be concentrating on the playoff run more than the summer. It's time to give it a rest.
But before we do I think we need an explanation for this Ruffin-Tumble week. After thinking for a while, talking to some people, and crunching some numbers I hope I have some helpful perspective. After all, that's why we get paid the big buc...oh wait, that's Truehoop. What I meant was that's why we get all the pretty gir...no. I guess that would be GoldenStateofMind. Well, that's why TominHawaii sends us big, mushy love notes and macadamia nuts, OK?
I think it's become apparent to most observers that this team is good, but not yet ready. The record is going to be fine. The Blazers will almost certainly make the playoffs this year. The guys on this team are as talented and likeable as they ever were. But there are holes here. Defense is a major one, somewhat in terms of individual defenders but especially with regards to team defense and in-your-face, take-charge, take-this-game toughness. It's just not there, nor is the defensive production. The Blazers lack a consistent, "pop-type" scorer outside of Brandon Roy. Lamarcus Aldridge produces points but he doesn't punish with his offense. Oden isn't there yet and may not be for a while. Outlaw and Rudy aren't consistent. Bayless' overall game isn't ready for prime-time, let alone playoff time. There's a lot of "someday" there but the now is shaky. What's more, it's hard to develop that "someday" without more solid, veteran leadership to guide the way.
The Blazers have done well so far, but it's reasonable to assume they're going to have a hard fight down the stretch. It's also pretty much guaranteed that when they make the playoffs whatever opponent they face is going to steal their cute little heart-shaped cookies, crush them into powder, stuff them down their collective shorts, and give the Blazers a vicious, crumb-filled wedgy of embarrassment.
You know this. I know this. We can assume that Kevin Pritchard knows this too. If the chemistry and talent were right most of these problems could be addressed by a trade. Many were suggested in the past week. Why didn't they happen? How can you see those needs, be this tantalizingly close to addressing them, and not pull the trigger?
Unlike some folks, I do not think this comes from a lack of perception or courage on management's part. We haven't seen anything so far to indicate that. Besides provocative and personal explanations are seldom the right ones.
The most basic reason we didn't see a deal is probably that nothing suitable was offered. I'm sure we could have made a trade that helped this year, but it's apparent that Kevin Pritchard's definition of suitable goes beyond that.
The criteria that have been stated or implied are these:
- Addresses a need
- Doesn't disrupt the current chemistry
- Doesn't mortgage the future financially out of proportion to the benefit achieved
- Doesn't cost us talent that we suspect will be key later on
As much as I want to take the next step early, looking at that list I'm hard pressed to argue with any of it. In fact I support it to the letter.
There were several players rumored to be available who could fulfill the need part. The sticking point no doubt came with the latter three criteria.
Vince Carter needs to score to flourish. His contract also gets awful in the next couple years. Plus he's already in his 30's. This brings up chemistry and financial issues.
Richard Jefferson also has a hefty contract and there's some question whether he'd address our need having been injured and (if he were traded) playing for his third team in the last year.
John Salmons and Brad Miller would have helped but there's little room for Miller to play and Salmons plays his best as the #1 option (and gets cranky otherwise).
I believe there were other players speculated on that could have fulfilled at least the first three criteria. Caron Butler might have been one, Gerald Wallace another. Chris Bosh would have been a no-brainer. But there's no evidence that any of these were offered at a reasonable price (or at all). My hunch is the Blazers were invested in protecting not only their Big Three but Rudy Fernandez, Jerryd Bayless, and Nicolas Batum as well. And rightly so. Even if Butler, Wallace, or someone similar was under discussion, once those young names were off the table the phones probably went dead.
Some trades were unsuitable. Some suitable trades weren't doable. If rumors can be believed we seemed to get into an in-between situation with New Jersey where we said to them, "We'll overlook the drawbacks of taking Carter on our end if you make a deal that knocks our socks off." Apparently no footwear was moved.
I don't think the explanation needs to get any more complicated than that. These kind of deals would have been nearly unprecedented in the first place. They were always a long shot. Seeming so close doesn't improve the odds. Missing the lottery by just one number on each ball is still missing the lottery. That will happen the vast majority of the time.
A second explanation which has been offered for our lack of moves is that our trading assets, even Raef LaFrentz's Expiring Contract (which effectively disappeared yesterday at noon), will still be powerful this summer while the economic situation will still be weak for many teams. Obviously that's a calculated risk. The benefit from Raef's contract maxes out at around $7 million as things stand. It was worth $12 million yesterday. On paper that's a significant loss in value. If the Blazers can appeal and get Darius Miles' contract back off the books (an unprecedented step, but then again the contract going back on was unprecedented as well) then full value is achieved. If the league economy does worsen then more value could possibly be achieved. But the explanation doesn't have to be entirely flimsy even if neither of those things happen. It depends on the player you want, who has him, and what they need.
An example: One player not mentioned above is Chicago's Luol Deng. Deng is the right age and would appear to have a nice skill set to fit in with the Blazers. He's been underperforming with Chicago and his contract is long. That's an issue for the Bulls if they're disappointed with him but not for the Blazers if they're encouraged. Deng is also a Base Year Compensation player this year. The Bulls know enough of his value that they're not going to give him away solo. They're going to make you take on another contract, such as the oft-mentioned Kirk Hinrich's, to get him. I wrestled with the trade machine for hours trying to come up with a reasonable way to make that work. I was twisting contracts into pretzels, dumping free players on the Grizzlies, painting Super Trout capes on Travis so the Bulls would like him more...nothing worked. There was simply no way to do that deal now even with the RLEC in its full glory.
Yet lo and behold, the Bulls pick up John Salmons, who has many of the same qualities as Deng and plays the same position but comes at a much cheaper price. And Deng's BYC status disappears on July 1st as the new fiscal year begins. After that date Deng's and Hinrich's contracts total a cool $19 million. The Blazers won't have that kind of contractual clout in disposable players alone. But throw in that $7 million in cap space and guess what? Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, and a qualifying-offered Channing Frye Martell Webster make the match. Should the Blazers need to sweeten the deal with their own draftee or someone else's acquired via that Ruffin trade exception they can do so. In this case $7 million this summer IS actually worth more than $12 million was yesterday.
That's not to say every situation conforms to this mold, but that one does and there may be others.
I feel pretty comfortable saying that if a clear championship move--or even a clear accelerating-towards-a-championship-and-sticking-there move--had been there yesterday it would have been made. The lack of movement almost certainly signifies that such a move wasn't plausible. At the least it signifies that the Blazer brass thought the odds of such a move being available in the summer were sufficiently high enough to cause them to stand pat for now.
I cannot tell you if that was the correct assessment, nor if not making a major deal was the right move. History will show. Championships have been lost through inaction as well as action, and that's a worry. On the other hand this team is still in an embryonic state. It has a solid decade of chances, as currently constructed. There's plenty of time left.
I feel pretty confident in saying a move is needed before the Blazers grow into greatness. I'd also bet you a box of macadamia nuts that we're going to see movement this summer. As I've said before repeatedly, this batch of players and contracts have been set up for exactly this purpose. I don't think the Blazers will stand pat forever. I don't think more draft-day wizardry will provide what the team needs right now either. Those who advocate for a significant veteran acquisition are probably going to get their wish. But as the Hornets and Bucks (among others) can tell you, it's important to acquire the right guy because buyer's remorse is painful, especially at 14,000,000 untradeable dollars per year.
Until proven differently, I'm going to assume that this what management is working on.
Had we gotten our mitts on Vince Carter, John Salmons, or Richard Jefferson I would be just as excited as anyone else to see how things turned out. I would be looking forward to more wins and easier wins down the stretch this year and at least the possibility of advancing to the second round of the playoffs. At the same time a voice in the back of my mind would be saying, "I guess there weren't any better deals available. And I hope this works out OK, because we're pretty much done now." It would be a good feeling, but not the best feeling, let alone the most assured and confident. I'm willing to ride out the last couple months of this year with what we've got, knowing that it's pretty good even in this unfinished state, in order for a chance at that best, most assured feeling later on. Not too much later on at this point, I hope. We'll have to see.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
198 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good to see you here early!
Now here’s the broom and dustpan. Go ahead and clean up the place before everybody else gets here. I’ll be in the kitchen preparing the goodies.
—Dave
I wonder if he read it
Kirk and Deng for Trout, Blake, and Frye would make us championship contenders no? And would it allow the Bulls to resign Gordon?
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Feb 20, 2009 12:44 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not really making any judgments
about whether the Bulls would take that deal. I’d guess not…that they’d insist on Rudy being thrown in as well. But this is the kind of deal that was being speculated in most cases yesterday. The point being that such a deal could also be made this summer quite plausibly…in some cases a deal that couldn’t have been made yesterday.
I would think the Blazers made out well if that deal went down. Quite well in fact. The Bulls would have to really value Outlaw or really value the savings or the Blazers would have to throw in lots of picks to make that happen otherwise.
However I don’t see Salmons and Deng having a happy time together.
—Dave
As a bulls & bkazers fan, after the bulls got Salmons, I was hoping to spin Deng & Hinrich to the Blazers for RLEC to get Amare
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine
Who wouldn’t have done this trade? Maybe the suns, now that Amare’s happy playing D’Antoni-ball again.
corrections... "blazers" fan ...
suns get: tyrus, sergio, RLEC
bulls get: amare, trout
blazers get: deng, hinrich
I could clean this place all night
but they’re just gonna wake up and trash the joint in the morning. It’s what they do.
by goonerluke on Feb 20, 2009 12:49 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Dave I can't be reading this correctly
Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, and a qualifying-offered Channing Frye make the match.
We can’t possibly extend the qualifying-offer to Frye. When I have looked at the figures giving him the qualifying offer wipes out half of that seven million in cap space, and if he doesn’t accept it right away it wipes out all the cap space until he does. Not to mention his play this year hasn’t been worth a two milion dollar a year contract.
Am I missing something?
This is what Lucas would do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aPkIE2qK0
by 123_G.O._RipCity on Feb 20, 2009 12:51 AM PST reply actions
I don't know how that all ended up in block quotes
My bad
This is what Lucas would do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0aPkIE2qK0
by 123_G.O._RipCity on Feb 20, 2009 12:52 AM PST up reply actions
Or maybe
you’re not. Let me crunch the numbers.
The QO doesn’t count triple if it’s accepted. Hold tight.
—Dave
Yeah, Channing Frye's qualifying offer would be worth just $4,264,761 to him.
Frye, moreover, would have a no-trade clause if he signed the one-year qualifying offer.
For this season, Robert Swift is an exact example of that situation. Vladimir Radmanovic was once an example of that, too, which occurred in his final season with the Seattle SuperSonics.
Change it to Marty and you have it.
Which I have done. That is assuming that you didn’t take Frye. It’s a little complicated, but doable.
—Dave
The point being
that contract can still be valuable if it’s applied to the right guy in the right way.
—Dave
The problem was
that I read Storyteller’s numbers wrong. All of the contracts were added in and I assumed that the optional ones were not.
—Dave
Kevin Pritchard could conceivably pull a Donnie Nelson and use Raef LaFrentz in ...
a manner similar to that of Keith Van Horn last season. That might really, really upset David Stern, although sticking it to him would be absolutely hilarious in my book.
Wasn't this our time to do that?
Maybe I’m missing something . . . .
We can’t do much with Raef anymore, can we? Not until after July 1.
put a body on 'em
but not until July 1, right?
Wasn’t the Van Horn deal something where he hadn’t officially retired – not injured like Raef – but for all effective purposes he was invisible for roster purposes. In fact, maybe he wasn’t even on the 15-man roster at the time . . .
I should look it up to figure it out. I think it was a more extreme situation than Raef’s. Here it is:
"The fallback scenario is Dallas agreeing to sign-and-trade Keith Van Horn in George’s place, capitalizing on the fact that the Mavericks still hold Van Horn’s rights and the fact that Van Horn has not submitted official retirement papers to the league office since he last played in 2005-06.
“Players who are signed-and-traded are required to receive a three-year contract, but only the first year must be guaranteed. Dallas could thus create an expiring-contract effect with Van Horn to match George’s expiring contract, which is the main reason New Jersey is so adamant about having George in the deal.”
- ESPN archives
I don’t understand the “still hold his rights” part if he didn’t have a contact. Couldn’t he sign with anyone? (Mavs too, for the trade).
put a body on 'em
The Portland Trail Blazers will own Raef LaFrentz's Bird rights this ...
off-season, so it’s the only team that could use him in such a manner.
However, such a move couldn’t be made until either on or after 7/8/2009 — which is at the end of the July moratorium used to calculate the salary cap and luxury tax figures for the upcoming fiscal year — so you’re partly correct in that regard.
if we resign Raef
just to trade him I don’t think most other teams will be very excited about taking on this contract – whatever it is – for the whole year just for trade filler.
put a body on 'em
Technically he would sign a three year contract with only the first year guaranteed
Thanks Storyteller. It’s a little loophole in the collective bargaining agreement, that the league is almost certainly to close in the next one in 2011.
We might even be able to do such a move with not just Raef but three other veteran players we still hold the free agent rights to (don’t know if they are Bird rights) and it would be legal: Chris Dudley. Detlef Schrempf. Voshon Lennard.
Yet that is theoretical while only Raef is a real option. I wouldn’t totally discount that the Blazers might even like to bring him back as a veteran locker room presence for the minimum salary if he wants to continue to play either.
If the Blazers would use him in a sign and trade the NBA could grumble all day long, but since it accepted Keith Van Horn and Aaron McKie in such deals it could do nothing against the “RLEC 2010” if Raef would be willing to do it and report to his new team. It could be a chip that comes into play in a situation where the Blazers have to match a big contract which can’t be reasonably achieved with other players or an expiring deal is more attractive to the other side.
(Other teams could do the same move with their expired veterans they still hold the rights to.)
Brandon is one of those quiet assassins. - Chris Paul
I understand, respect, and agree with the Portland Trail Blazers' front office decision to not overpay for ...
someone like Gerald Wallace or Richard Jefferson, although it pains me to have witnessed Raef LaFrentz’s heavily insured expiring contract not put to good use.
Regardless of my desire to finagle LaFrentz into either Kirk Hinrich or Mike Miller, a small, simple move of the big Iowan and Channing Frye to the Indiana Pacers for Rasho Nesterovic and Jeff Foster would’ve solved two humongous problems (i.e., depth at center and defensive fortitude at the backup power forward spot) that’ve plauged the Trail Blazers all season.
Heck, a second-round exist would be much more exciting to watch than a first-round exit.
I like standing pat better than that scenario
Rasho’s expiring deal is fine, but then we would be stuck with Fosters $6M for two more years after this one. No thanks. I say keep the room.
put a body on 'em
I, however, believe Jeff Foster's defensive fortitude and rebounding prowess is exactly what the ...
Portland Trail Blazers need at the backup power forward spot, so my feeling is he’s paid accordingly.
it's funny. i too think jeff foster would be a great pickup, but im utterly flummoxed
by the value you put on mike miller. i just don’t get it at all. i think he’s a terrible player who will get worse fast. cnn/si put him on their anti all-star team because they believe he’s having such a bad year. no one has ever said he can play defense. he’s become gunshy about his alleged specialty, shooting the 3. he’s also ugly and competes for worst hair in the league.
so i’m mystified.
ignacio
"he's also ugly and competes for worst hair in the league [...] so i’m mystified."
There’s your answer to that question. :<)
by AK1984 on Feb 20, 2009 2:12 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
AK's lookin fiiiiiiiiiiiine with that wool knit cap.
i’m a heterosexual male but i say AK> Miller in the looks department easy. Mike is butt-ugly.
"I saw him in the face"
by RoodiePhirnandizz on Feb 20, 2009 3:00 AM PST up reply actions
I'll agree that Miller is far uglier looking than
AK.
I’m betting AK’s jumpshot is even looking nicer than MM’s these days. (afterall he has plenty of time to perfect it)
hakkaa päälle !
I'd say it is not a matter of the deal being a good one or not ...
… (sounds ok to me), but one of availability and also – as Dave has illustrated – one of value compared to what might be possible over the summer.
My feeling is that Indiana likes what Foster brings and his deal is not really a bad one. I don’t know their salary situation off the top of my head, so I can’t evaluate how much they would benefit from Raef’s contract. (Note how Cleveland does not get the same benefit from Szcerbiak’s contract expiring as Portland does from Raef’s.)
hakkaa päälle !
That would have been fine
if the cap space was going to be completely gone and we couldn’t do anything better.
But since we’ll still have cap space this summer, and potentially until the trade deadline next year, a move like that would have zapped the chance of doing better.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I value the mid-level exception, the bi-annual exception, the trade exception, the draft rights to ...
Joel Freeland and Petteri Koponen, and the team’s 2009 first-round draft pick more than somewhere around $7,000,000 in cap space.
Those exceptions
can’t be used to facilitate salary matching on a trade (except for the trade exception in a limited way).
Something significant happens on draft day, as usual, would be my guess.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Those exceptions would have to be renounced to get under the salary cap, however.
The only one that could be retained is the traded player exception, although that would come at the cost of not extending Channing Frye a one-year, $4,264,761 qualifying offer — which would have a cap hold thrice that amount — as well as renouncing Raef LaFrentz’s Bird rights.
People still working the trades out of their systems I see
To be expected I suppose, but I am ready to move on for the remainder of this year.
Whenever we get eliminated in the playoffs then I’ll start the C3 rumors . . . . .
Deng – Salmons: Maybe some conflict, but I see Salmons could slide to SG w/o much hiccup.
put a body on 'em
Thank you Mr. Pritchard not forcing a premature trade. Well done.
This team has been performing as well as we dared hope, and they deserve this vote of confidence. I do feel an allegiance to this team, which is tha way it should be. But I totally appreciate that changes are not made without a compelling justification. It’s not like we are a trade away from a championship. I enjoy our roster, seeing their success, seeing them love being a part of the team we love rooting for. I’m in no hurry to ship out one of my favorite player’s, who has been a part of our current success, and I sympathize with other fans with other favorites, who want to see them have a chance to show what they can do. I am sometimes dissappointed in fans who seem to me to show a lack of appreciation of our players who are giving their best to contribute to the team. Of course they are welcome to their opinions, and speculating on what might be is a fundamental passtime for the fans. I expect changes will be made, but I was in no hurry to see them at this time, so I just shut up, and let the speculation rage. It’s not like I have the all the answers, and I learn from reading the viewpoints of others, many more knowledgeable than I am on the NBA. I am just personally relieved that our team is still in tack, and remain optimistic for our future.
by Berkeley on Feb 20, 2009 1:11 AM PST reply actions 6 recs
Well said.
It seems to me that, at every position, we have at least one player, sometimes two or three, who are in the process of improving their games. I appreciate that some of them may not fully develop in limited minutes on the Blazer bench, but as long as these guys work hard — and they do — and enjoy being a part of the team — and they do seem to — I’m for maintaining the status quo.
Most teams have a mix of players who are still growing, are at their peaks, or are on the downside of their careers. For them, the status quo means drafting a replacement for one of the over-the-hill players, with no real change expected in wins and losses. In the case of the Blazers, the status quo means giving a lot of talented young guys time to keep growing, with the very reasonable expectation of a continually improving win/loss record.
People seem to think that they know exactly what a player like LaMarcus Aldridge will amount to, but I doubt it. A number of the guys on the Blazer’s roster may end up pleasantly surprising everybody, and to me, it’s much more gratifying to see this team develop than to see half of them traded away for some ringer who might or might not put the Blazers over the top for a short while.
I have been struck by the highly negative, often angry, attacks of some posters, including some who’ve been here a long time, toward some of the Blazers or toward Nate or KP. I’m not going to try to tell people how they should express their fandom. However, I will suggest that those who are not fully enjoying the ride we’re on right now may be missing out on something rare and, yes, wonderful, that they may never see again in their lives.
by CatMan2 on Feb 20, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Amen to you and Berk
What would we do if Batum’s ceiling is 2x Prince instead of = Prince. How many times does the other team have what looks like a "done deal fast break" and Batum takes it off the glass like it was nothing – he totally amazes me sometimes. Nate sees him everyday in practice and he’s in the starting unit for a good reason.
GO
THE TEACHER ......come into my classroom "THE PAINT" for some tutelage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The rancor reflected in that remark I won't dignify with comment. But I'll address your general attitude of hopeless negativism." – Everett "O Brother, where art Thou?"
What I don't understand
so perhaps someone can explain, is how 1) we can trade Ike for Ruffin when salaries don’t match 2) how we got a trade exception for doing so and 3) how the amount of that exception is determined.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
3-way trade
at least that is my personal theory, not necessarily grounded in Tom Penn-like, dizzying CBA knowledge.
put a body on 'em
I think it went like this: Sacramento already had or got their own traded player exception in that deal with Chicago (for Brad Miller?). Then they turned around, and in a “completely separate” deal they used it (at least partially) to absorb Ike’s salary. On top of that, the Blazers gave them cash to compensate them for their troubles with Ike’s bigger salary, reportedly 1 million, which is a transaction that is independent of any salary matching.
For more on trade exceptions in “non-simultaneous deals”, see here http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q69
Brandon is one of those quiet assassins. - Chris Paul
I just hope that there wasn't a deal out there that made sense....
It would be a shame if KP got cold feet(or Nate and his staff if you listen to Jaynes). It just seems like KP would have gotten something in the form of a veteran with playoff experience. It is what it is though, getting to the playoffs was a success before the season, and the Blazers look poised to do that. Even if they are torn apart in 4 or 5 games after limping in down the stretch…
RUDY > MJ
We won't know for sure
what was really available, until KP writes a book in 20 years.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Because Quick
is always told exactly what is going on….
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I suspect Jaynes
has one source. Probably the garbage man gives him the bits of paper that have gone through the shredders, and he spends his retirement trying to piece things together.
KP actually pays the garbage man to give the bits to Dwight, and spends 10 minutes a day creating different documents to shred for Dwight’s amusement.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Feb 20, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Who I'm wondering about
is Paul Allen. Some youngsters might not recall that PA vetoed a trade for D Miles back in the Whitsett era. Can"t find my original post – with quotes – but did find one from Feb. 2007. Dr. Dave (where is he, BTW???) asked if we trusted KP to make the right decisions (and KP wasn’t yet named the GM) and my reply was:
I guess I trust them to do their research and make the best decisions they can, but I always worry that P.A. may [throw in] that proverbial monkey wrench. Now he got us Sergio against the “research” (?) of Nash, Patterson, & Pritchard, but he also vetoed trades for Miles which could have solved a number of problems. But on the whole I’d rather he’d keep his fingers out of the pot.
So it could be that there was a good trade on the table and Allen said, “No. I really like player x and don’t want to trade him.” I don’t know if one argues with PA or not.
I didn’t see mention of the rights to Freeland or Kopponen in the discussions (of which I didn’t read all) – are those rights pretty useless?
"Paul Allen ... summed it up best and that is, lets go to war with this team and see what they’re about." - KP, 02/19/09
I suspect that KP argues with Paul Allen
He’s undoubtedly earned the right to.
But he doesn’t necessarily win those arguments.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I'll bet Allen rarely overrules KP.
He’s smart enough to have given KP the GM job so he’s smart enough to let him make the big decisions. I’m guessing Allen likes being involved — why else would he own the team? — and that he asks questions and raises issues and possibilities during their meetings, but I would be surprised if he has ever felt so strongly about a player or trade that he’s gone against KP.
Someone will mention Sergio, but all Allen did, as I recall, was simply OK the expenditure of funds to get Sergio from the Suns, not insist that the deal be done. That’s not overruling KP, just giving him more options. I have a feeling the two men get along famously and work very well together.
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
No override on Sergio
- Allen simply said “spend the money” to buy the higher pick when KP, et.al., had said no, don’t – he might still be available when it’s our turn. Don’t know if it was because PA really wanted Sergio or if it was " if you want him let’s make sure we get him – it’s only money."
"Paul Allen ... summed it up best and that is, lets go to war with this team and see what they’re about." - KP, 02/19/09
It was only money three years ago.
Now it’s a rapidly declining portfolio.
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, and
Freeland’s rights are starting to look like they are worth something. I expect him to come over this year, rather than sign a long term Euro contract. Maybe play some in Idaho, maybe fill the Shav role. Injury cover at 4-5.
Koponen’s rights are probably worth more to us than anyone else. We can afford to wait.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Saw on the channel 8 sports report...
a clip of KP and in it he said that he spoke with Paul Allen at dinner Wednesday night (day before deadline) and PA said he wanted to go into battle with the guys they already have.
Now I don’t doubt that if KP got an offer that knocked his socks off he couldn’t have changed PA’s mind, but it gives an indication of the directon PA wanted to go.
by antediluvian on Feb 20, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions
Canzano is right (OWWW!)
It hurt to type that . . . .
This is Travis’ time to step up. I want him to do it so he and Brandon can be buds, and since he started here. One would think he could fix the rebounding inconsistency with some self-conscious effort, but I just don’t think he can change the slow feet on defense.
put a body on 'em
here's a factor which may have complicated matters
namely: i have a feeling travis might really struggle if traded to a team in a big city with an impatient hardnosed coach. he’s been in portland since high school, surviving the influence of zach randolph, darius miles and in particular reuben patterson, who was rumored to really bully the younger players. in some ways it’s as if this is only his 3rd actual year. the blazers have been very patient with him, but his game remains flawed — albeit brilliant at times (and i am one who believes this clutch-shooting business is a rare and valuable gift.)
but rod thorn might not see him as a potential starter at all — perhaps wisely so. and so thorn might, taking into account outlaw’s emotional fragility and so on, ask for more. more as in rudy or bayless or batum. nate coaches like a maniac to get the best out of travis. that really might not be so easy to duplicate.
in other words, superficially outlaw’s might look intriguing, but the lack of defense is not exactly a secret, and the rest of the package which equals travis makes him quite a gamble.
all that said, here in portland, nate can’t say “we really need a bucket. go get one” to lamarcus, rudy, blake, martell (in the past), batum, oden, bayless — no one on the team other than outlaw and roy. and up to this point, by the “game-winning shot” stats as noted by truehoop’s henry abbott, outlaw comes through with big shots at an uncanny rate. roy is not quite as good, but he too is much better than say lebron, kobe, vince carter or d. wade. this is why we feel so confident in close games.
maybe they won’t keep it up. (a “game-winning shot” in this metric is a 2 or 3 pt shot with less than 24 seconds left, our team behind by 2 or tied. most of the superstars hit these shots at about 25%. travis is 6 for 7. brandon in the last 2 years is (i believe, since ny) 5/8.)
no doubt at some point they’ll each miss a few, but thus far they’ve been extraordinary. i’m not sure travis would be able to mentally ground himself in the same way, wanting to come through for his teammates and close friends, if he found himself in toronto or new jersey, or in charlotte being judged by larry brown.
ignacio
by ignacio on Feb 20, 2009 2:07 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Travis wasn't going to be traded to NJ
Travis is a potentially very valuable piece of our long term plans. He might be traded for another long term piece (Wallace, Jefferson, whatever), but he wasn’t going to be traded to NJ for a short term boost (Carter). That would violate KP’s whole philosophy. He only wanted Carter if it didn’t cost us a long term valuable asset, and even then, he wanted a future asset (that G.S. pick).
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I disagree about Outlaw's long-term value for the Blazers
Outlaw is a huge liability on defense and there are a lot of weaknesses in his game that he probably won’t ever be able to fix. Batum and Webster both seem to have more potential than Outlaw at the SF position, and Joel Freeland likely has more potential than Outlaw in the backup PF role. Factor in trades and new draft picks and I can see the Blazers in a few years becoming so stacked that Outlaw wouldn’t even be able to get a spot in the rotation.
For a playoff team
If ya find yourself in a game that you’re struggling to score in, having the luxury of bringing in a sometimes UNSTOPPABLE scorer like Outlaw could make a big difference.
I agree— I don’t think he’ll ever have the focus to get the rotations down on either end of the court, and the same lack of focus make him a guy you don’t want to HAVE to play 25-30 minutes. But if you keep him as an off the bench scorer who can really explode some games (and he’s proven himself to be maybe the most clutch bench player in the NBA), you got an extremely valuable weapon that (for now) is very cheap.
I like Webster and Batum much more than Outlaw. But, neither of them can score at will against any defender in the NBA. Some nights, we need a guy like Outlaw and every team wishes they had a guy like him.
He won’t be a star, he’ll always frustrate because he could be more than a bench streak scorer, but he’ll win a game or two for us in the playoffs. I wouldn’t mind having a guy like that for forever.
Mortimer
Exactly what I meant
Although I am still optimistic that some of the frustrations will improve.
He’s passing a little more this year, and coming up with some good defensive stops at key times, on occasion.
There’s potential long term value there, and it isn’t going to be traded lightly for short termism. For long term benefit, sure, very possible.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Maybe Outlaw is learning or practising things that he can do now because this team is more versatile than it was last year.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
I don't know
I think Travis would do pretty well in a system that ran. He just doesn’t fit into our “3” role and I have a feeling that Nate might want someone who is a little tougher at the 4. Don’t get me wrong, I would be heart broken if we lost him but I don’t know how well he truly fits in. I totally agree that he is just killer in the 4th but maybe if we could get a 3 who could give us four consistent quarters (sorry Trout), we would not need to hit so many high pressure 4th quarter shots.
"Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey
by TheObjectiveMike&Mike on Feb 20, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
I'll miss you, RLEC.
I never had that jersey made, and it’s probably for the best. nonetheless, farewell. Be strong out there.
Oh, yes, i know you are still with us. but you are rather pointless now … so so long …
Rudyculize: The act of Rudy making others look slow, dim and generally oafish.
http://www.myspace.com/y5k
McRuffian will be...
a great Blazer
or the greatest Blazer?
by Peteyhasnohead on Feb 20, 2009 3:24 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Why cut him?
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
So we can put someone useful on the roster?
See today’s JD.
There is no charge for awesomeness. Or attractiveness.
by EngineerScotty on Feb 20, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
I like this post, but I'm not sure how much it clarifies or answers any questions.
This doesn’t explain why management didn’t try to clear up the logjam btwn. Sergio and Bayless. We could’ve included one of these players (IMO Sergio) with RLEC or without RLEC for cash or another egg-mcmuffin. I agree with you that this team will most likely make the playoffs. However, we are short-changing ourselves into thinking everything management did was giddy. It wasn’t. These final 30 games could’ve improved either Bayless’s or Sergio’s skills significantly. If anything, Pritchard should’ve traded and risked one of these players. It would’ve filled in pieces of the picture needed for this offseason.
Both of those players
are in KP’s mind worth more than cash or egg mcmuffins. You don’t dump a player just because, when he has potentially high trade value later. You only trade him if you are getting something worth getting.
And the Bayless/Sergio salary comparison is irrelevant at this point. Neither makes enough to drive decisions.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
To stunt development?
I’m missing the point of having Bayless sit right now. Completely missing it.
by hotstuffdb22 on Feb 20, 2009 6:45 AM PST up reply actions
hes a rookie
There have been plenty of great players that barely played there rookie season. Its not that big of a deal. Right now Bayless is a much better scorer then Sergio however Sergio is a much better PURE POINT GUARD, thats why he plays with the second unit cause those guys need point guard to pass them the ball, not a point guard that chucks it every time the touch the ball.
No way Sergio is a much better *pure point guard.* I agree that Sergio has some skills that are better than Bayless, but these skills are not so great that they should stunt Bayless's development.
Bayless doesn’t chuck it up everytime. You must have missed his recent assist stats (8 against OKC). This demonstrates my point. We’ve seen a lot more improvement in Bayless in the short time we’ve had him, thus why don’t we continue to develop him?
by hotstuffdb22 on Feb 20, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions
The point of Bayless sitting
is that
1. We are trying to make the playoffs with a decent seed.
2. Nate believes that Sergio is better-equipped to help us do that right now.
3. It’s only his rookie year, so it isn’t going to seriously stunt his development to sit the rest of the year (if that happens).
The kid is so young. A year from now, if he’s still sitting and not getting any PT, I’ll be concerned about stunting his development. Now?
We know what we have, we’ve seen it in several games. You don’t throw that away for a mcmuffin.
We also know what he is now, we’ve seen that in several games, too — a very raw rookie who can be very bad at times. You don’t risk your playoff chances by trading away Sergio this year unless you are getting a lot more than a mcmuffin.
Blake’s shoulder isn’t 100%, so it would have been very risky to trade either of these guys unless the deal was really good.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Good points.
IMO – We make the playoffs with or without both Sergio and Bayless. I don’t think they are critical elements to our success this year. I’m speaking from a development perspective with the remarks above and think the risk/reward ratio right now is high for Bayless. I agree from the experience point, but I don’t think this wins the day for Sergio. Too many mistakes, more defensively than offensively.
I do think this move stunts Bayless’s growth. It hurts the kid’s confidence. Perhaps, this is a good thing in the end. I mean, if it weren’t for Bush banning stem cell research, we would never had figured out how to make an embryo from an adult skin cell.
At times I feel like the Blazers are running a darwinian farm league, but without the mutation and selection factor. We just keep breeding and breeding, but never want to select.
by hotstuffdb22 on Feb 20, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
As jscot point out in his first reply to you ...
… you sort of have the chicken before the egg (to continue on your embryo theme).
As a GM, you don’t look at your roster and say, “Gee, I have 3 PG’s, maybe I should trade one.” or “I want my lotto pick to get more PT, so I’m going to make a trade so my coach has no choice but to play my guy.” That may be how some fans think, but not a smart GM.
A smart GM identifies needs, evaluates who might fill those needs, and if the opportunity arises, decides if the cost of getting one of those players is worth the cost. A really smart GM, like KP, goes even further and positions himself to take advantage of someone else’s trade and pick up an extra bonus or two.
It is not an issue of Sergio being expendable or Bayless needing PT. It is a question of determining if what’s out there is worth the cost.
hakkaa päälle !
We also can't forget
Is still an asset even if some fans do not see him as a long term solution. If he is buried on the bench, than his trade value plummets. I have a feeling that the brass see Bayless as a long term project so we just need to be patient and let him take his rookie lumps. He’ll get his minutes when he earns them and he WILL earn them from what everyone says about his work ethic. Maybe they want to keep him on the bench so they don’t have to pay a security guard at the gym with all the extra hours he puts in.
"Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey
by TheObjectiveMike&Mike on Feb 20, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
The pecking order depends on a lot of variables,
not just who we fans like. Part of the equation is experience. Sergio has more of it than Jerryd. Part of the experience factor is having earned the right to more minutes if all other factors are roughly equal, which I think is the situation here. Jerryd is better than Sergio at some things. Sergio is better than Jerryd at others. They are roughly equal that way. But Sergio has more experience, so he gets the nod. That may change next year, assuming both players are still with the team.
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
One thing I don't like with Nate is he doesn't reward steady improvement.
From my perspective, Bayless has improved dramatically this year in just a few games (NJ etc.). Sergio has improved too (thanks philthyanimal and sergioftw), I just don’t think as much as Bayless. Also, I think the team feeds off of Bayless’s intensity a lot more – this is an intangible stat.
Pryzbilla/Oden is another case. I think Oden should’ve been back on the bench ‘way back when’ – he never learned from his mistakes – hopefully he’ll do better in march/april.
by hotstuffdb22 on Feb 20, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
Oden's learned a ton
How many times has he had the ball stripped in the last month, compared to his first month. He’s fouling less, playing smarter and starting to be a slight offensive factor. Now he might have been able to learn that from the bench, but since his mistakes now are mostly in dumb fouls, he in effect is learning from the bench. Joel get’s a fair share of playing time and adds a veteran presence to the bench that we wouldn’t have if we swapped Joel for Oden.
Something more on the Ruffin deal that bears repeating: Sending Ike and cash to Sacramento helped to push trough the Kings-Bulls trade and prevented Salmons from going to one of our direct competitors
Allegedly Houston was highly interested in him to resolve their situation with McGrady and get him as a “stopgap” while T-Mac is out. The deal for Lowry they ended up doing was nice for their future but didn’t really address that.
So was Dallas, who offered Stackhouse and pieces. And San Antonio, who even offered Udoka and Bowen according to ESPN.
This deal looks very minor, but it could help the Blazers not just financially through the saved tax and the traded player exception to maybe be used later, but also by preventing direct playoff competitors from becoming better.
Brandon is one of those quiet assassins. - Chris Paul
I wonder, under the assumption that your comment is true and that all GMs realize this, how much
of an effect our reputation around the league is worsened b/c of our constant “check-mate” moves. Of course we benefit, but don’t others catch on and eventually either follow the same strategy or not deal with us? I’d think we would have some negative reputation(s) as a result, but I suppose that’s the case in any business.
by hotstuffdb22 on Feb 20, 2009 4:07 AM PST up reply actions
If others could figure out what other teams are doing
they might well make moves to block them.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I still dont understand this argument
that people make that we could ruin our reputation around the league. It is the so unbelivebly stupid, that it just bottles my mind that people think like that. ( Yes i said bottles!) No one in there right mind wont trade with us because we blocked another team from making a trade, or because we decided not to trade with them in the past. If we have assets that they want then they will trade with us. Look at Mini and memphis, they both last year made terribley stupid trades with the Laker and Celtics, they basicly gave away all stars. It pissed off a lot of teams but however this year teams still decided to trade with them.
I don't, either
I wasn’t saying that. Any team would gladly block any other team’s moves if they knew what they were and thought it was to their advantage to do so.
Does anyone have any doubts as to why Ainge signed Darius and played him in preseason? They had not one roster spot available for him, not one. I can just about guarantee Danny got a ruling from the league on preseason games before he ever signed Darius. And despite what Adrian WhatsHisFace said, that KP knew, but didn’t want others to know, I bet the word went around the rest of the league about those preseason games. Ainge would have told others.
Ainge wants a championship this year AND next year, and he knew if we had all that cap space, we were a threat next year. So he did what he could to block us. KP knows it.
But if Ainge offered a deal that would make us better, KP would do it in a heartbeat.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Negative reputations are usually the result of
someone not playing according to the rules or acting in an unethical manner.
While it is possible for others to become envious of KP, the amount of negativity that might create is minor (and in the end probably self-defeating) compared to the benefits gained from Pritchards actions. If others start to copy his methods, no big deal. They still will have to be as good or better at them than Pritchard is. If some, out of envy, refuse to deal with Pritchard, they are likely to find they’ve screwed themselves more than KP. In the end, most GM’s are more likely to act out of self-interest and not any personal or professional jealosy.
hakkaa päälle !
To be honest
When I looked at why as a fan I was so eager for a trade, I think the Memphis game summed it up. This team is so frustrating as a no defense, jump shooting, pull it out at the end team sort of side show. At some point as a fan, that looses its appeal. it would be different if we lost by simply playing our philosophy like Golden State. They run and gun and play their game. The Blazers, however, do not play the game as they advertise it. They slow the ball down, get into the paint, put pressure on teams, and play defense – or so they say. Instead they slow the ball down, isolate BRoy for paint points otherwise they chuck it up, and they certainly don’t beat down opponents with defense. At least they rebound!
I guess what I’m saying is that while I enjoy the team, I also don’t enjoy them. In fact, I have distinctly lost some of my motivation in watching them play because while there appaears to be Chemistry there certainly is no team yet. We don’t have a style, we haven’t figured it out. I was looking for the veteran who would add just enough added dimension to pull this team together. Instead, most of our promise still sits on the bench and we have to endure poor first halves and desperation last 5 minutes.
by Sonic Boom on Feb 20, 2009 4:54 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Yes but
I think Dave’s point was that we are not just looking for “a veteran” we are looking for the right veteran. I don’t know if VC or Jefferson was the right trade for defense. Wallace could have fit in pretty nice but we would have been giving up one of our better defenders in Batum which would have been almost a wash. As fired up as I was for a trade yesterday, and I was FIRED up, I think our patience will pan out. Or I’m drinking the coo aid… either way.
"Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey
by TheObjectiveMike&Mike on Feb 20, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
It's kind of like axing a question
"Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey
by TheObjectiveMike&Mike on Feb 20, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
How many times do you complainers need to be reminded
that our players are young? They’re each developing their skills and learning how to do all the things that will make them a powerful team. It’s tough to see them with a 33-20 record and not think that a veteran could make us a contender this season, but that’s just us being impatient. They would be a contender this season if they could bring-in LeBron and CP3 for RLEC and filler; otherwise, no.
I can understand being impatient, but what’s wrong with enjoying what we have? You and other fans like you are even becoming disenchanted with the team? I would say you’ve lost your perspective.
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Do you not know the difference between a complaint and a critique?
Nobody dislikes the team, but it’s certainly a frustrating thing to watch these guys on defense. It’s terribly ugly.
Last year we were a pretty 41-41.
I’ll take an ugly 33-20 any day.
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
We're all drinking the same champagne, Boom.
The difference is that I’m enjoying mine and you’re complaining that it’s not Dom Perignon.
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
I do.
And your comment would fall under the complaint category.
Saying they play ugly defense is a critque. Telling us how frustrating you find it is a complaint.
hakkaa päälle !
Gotta think there was some concern about Wallace's ability to contribute ASAP
coming off his injury and such…
my biggest feeling though has little to do with basketball and more with PA over-riding view of the economy and what factor that has to play – - I think he sees a summertime fire sale looming, and frankly I’m more concerned about how the contracting economy is going to effect my personal bottom line than his…He’ll likely be fine, ay?
"..[Travis Outlaw] could jump, grab a rafter, eat a sandwich, and then dunk.."
tmundal 12/30/07
I think your on to something
That is definitely how i percieved this trade deadline. Paul Allen sees the economic condition to continue to worsen through the summer. It might even be a more desperate time for a lot of franchises. That is when we can really go bargain hunting.
"Paul Allen ... summed it up best, and that is, let's go to war with this team and see what they're about."
by ripcityinSantiago on Feb 20, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions
I wish you would step back from that ledge my friends!
blah blah blah that you been livin in
aaaaand
if you do not want to see me again, i would understaaaaaaaaaaaaaand
Blazer Fan
I... I know I probably shouldn't, but...
I want to rec this
I´s very very difficult to get a good trade when you have a lot and you don´t want to give up a part of it, but accumulate more and more.
We only offered Frye, Sergio and Lafrentz. How can you keep up a conversation with another GM who tells you can´t play all your players, you have not playing time time for all of them, it´s not fair and it isn´t reasonable.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
Questions for Amlmart
Greetings from across the ocean! Two questions, since I always value your posts (yes, especially the fart posts):
(1) So, are you upset about the Blazers not wanting to give up more of their booty? If so, what would you have liked to see?
(2) I’m sure you’ve already explained this, but what is the meaning of your signature, with all of the 16’s?
Thank you, BlazersAx, I feel flattered.
What I´m saying is that there was a very difficult context to get a good trade. It´s true RLEC was a great asset. The negative context is that we had no excuses for rejecting a trade involving our bench players. How can you explain to another team general manager and owner that they give a great starter player but they can´t touch your bench without risking that they think you want to rob them, in the sport area, because you´re rich and they´re poor. Try to make them eat that one.
I´m happy standing pat, but I would have liked to get Caron Butler or Tyson Prince for RLEC and any other player out of the big three, Rudy and Batum. And if I think it more I even could have sent one of the last two.
My signature was born in preseason. Nate and KP talked about the 15=16 motto, meaning 15 players together=playoffs. I thought some people could create conflicts sooner or later talking about Sergio and Bayless, as happened last season with the Jack-Sergio wars. So I made my motto with their jersey numbers.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
Snake, your persistent bitterness over no trade
is starting to make me laugh. Seriously, you sound like a man whose wife just ran off with his girlfriend.
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I'm upset
I think Pritchard made a mistake. I could be wrong. It seemed to me that RLEC was our chance to get better, but it required some risk, and Pritchard wasn’t willing to take that risk. Don’t begrudge me my opinion.
Boomshakalaka
It's just that we're worried about you.
You seem to be in a bad place right now, and you could probably use a little help getting through whatever it is you’re going through. At first we thought it was just a temporary phase, but as the posts have accumulated, we’ve become seriously concerned. Well, it may help you to realize that others have, at times, struggled in the same way.
Just know that if you ever want to talk about things, you’ve got friends right here to share your troubles with. So don’t hold back — tell us what’s really on your mind. We’ll accept you as you are, no matter what. A heavy burden is made light when many hands join together.
Things will get better before too long. Just try to keep your chin up and keep a little bit of hope alive. Yes, things may appear bleak today, and it’s not easy to pick yourself by the boot straps. But what comes down must go back up. And remember, it’s always darkest before the dawn. And finally, don’t forget that time is a great healer.
Best,
CatMan2
haha
I still don’t get the idea that only a depressed individual would question the logic of his favorite team, but I enjoyed the cartoon, so thanks for that.
Boomshakalaka
That should hold you until the Blazers
make it to the Western Conference finals next season. If not, let me know!
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
LMA and Roy were both risks
Injury problems in college, plus drafting Foye when we didn’t want him to force Minny to trade with us and not Houston.
Almost every deal KP has made has involved a level of risk and scandalous roguery. Just because he doesn’t do a major in-season trade this year doesn’t mean he is risk averse. He just didn’t wanna trade anyone that the other teams wanted.
That is a good thing, since he believes in the player he didn’t wanna trade, and KP has been right about every player we have on the team.
I don’t get the doubt, when he hasn’t steered us wrong yet, and VC and Jefferson aren’t that attractive of options. And Gerald Wallace woulda’ involved Batum or more.
If you think staying pat is such a bad move, doesn’t that make it the risky choice? Getting VC or Jefferson would be the MUCH safer option if ya ask me, since you know they’ll help us in the short term. KP is betting that the guys we already got will help us more than VC and Jeffy will later on, and that is the risky choice.
Unless a deal would make us capable of beating the Lakers in the WCF, then it wasn’t a good deal for this current team. We got too many guys we are waiting to see what they become, and we know it will be sumthin’ good. VC (the guy I think was easiest to get) wouldn’t make us a team that could reach the Finals, and would ruin quite a bit of flexibility we’ll still have this summer to try to find a better deal.
Not making a deal and waiting for a better one in the summer is risky in itself. KP has been a maverick risk taker before, I don’t see that it changed because he didn’t make one move at one trade deadline when he can do the same sort of move a few months later.
The only way not moving RLEC would be a mistake is if we were still gonna be over the cap and would get no benefit out of RLEC expiring except for Paul Allen saving money. That isn’t the case.
Mortimer
I think KP
is risk averse in mid-season. But I don’t think it is because he is afraid, but because that is his philosophy.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Maybe if I send him the video I made of the two
getting it on together, it would cheer him up.
Then again, maybe not.
hakkaa päälle !
I see that as a good thing
Look where his zero risk moves have gotten us today.
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Feb 20, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
its served him well, no question about it
It is my belief that we’ll need to take a risk at some point. It was by belief that this deadline would have been a good time to do so. Fortunately, it wasn’t his last opportunity to do so, but I fear it may have been his best.
Boomshakalaka
Ultimately I'm ok with us not making a move if a great one wasn't there to be made
and frankly the only one I liked was the deal for Amare. I don’t think RJeff is much better than Martell and see that as a sideways move, Carter’s contract is terrible and he’s kind of a candy-ass, and Crash just has crazy flukey injuries – and I don’t think he’s been quite the same after the last concussion. Beware of athletes with multiple concussions is alls I gots to say. Even though he is one of my two favorite non-blazers.
But I’ll be very very disappointed if we don’t acquire a major piece this summer. As the team is constituted, I think second round is our most likely ceiling. We need at least one other player at Roy’s level of production for us to really move up to being a contender, and the capspace created this summer seems like the best opportunity we’ll have to get that piece for a long time to come.
My first thought after yesterday
was were going with the original plan and will get a player this summer. Thinking about it though it still might just be to soon to go after that one piece to push us over the top. What one piece does Portland truely need at this point? Its easy to say upgrade at pg or a bonafide stud at sf. Is pg and sf really the area we need to address? We have a couple young bucks that may very well be the role players in the starting lineup that we need. After yesterday I think I will just kick back read other peoples thoughts enjoy the speculation regardless of where it leads and let things fall into place the way they have been destined too. Im not sure the grass will really be greener this summer.
I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.
""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."
Summer 2009 Free Agent Class
These are only the ones who won’t make you totally throw up. Not that much to choose from. I guess trading will be the only realistic possibility.
Ben Gordon
Jason Kidd
JR Smith
Allen Iverson
Rasheed Wallace
Ron Artest
Lamar Odom
Trevor Ariza
Devin Harris (restricted ?)
Chris Wilcox
Joe Smith
Andre Miller
Grant Hill
Drew Gooden
Shawn Marion
Carlos Boozer (player option)
Mehmet Okur
Trading or cutting is the only option
we can’t take on more without giving some up
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions
Ariza?
what kind of FA is he?
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions
Unrestricted, but it would take a lot to get him out of LA
Brandon is one of those quiet assassins. - Chris Paul
He loves it there, huh?
I’m obviously too lazy to look up his contract; also too lazy to look up his three point pecentages. But maybe not that much of a long-term upgrade over Batum anyway.
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
Plus the Lxkers love him as well.
They will match or exceed any offer for him, in my opinion. – Elgin
Since when do we need to ponder to froth? - jscot
I'll be interested to see how Jerry Buss spends money
this is a team, thinning if not thin at center, that just sent away Chris Mihm for nothings but savings
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
Give him a big offer
Just to make the Lakers waste their money.
FYI - Ime is also a UFA this summer.
I love Ime and think he might be the answer to defensive improvement.
However I am with Dragonage in believing that we probably have the guys we want at SF already.
hakkaa päälle !
Ime ain't good enough to play over Webster or Batum
Ime was nice for when we had him on the team, but if we’re still playing a guy at Ime’s level of production by next year, we’re not that good still.
(I mean, obviously we’ll be good, but we’ll be very weak at the SF position still)
Ime’s time for this Portland team is gone. It was nice while it lasted, but we just need more than he can give.
Mortimer
I don't think
we’re trying for free agency. I suspect the best way to get a player this summer is asymmetric trade (send out 5 million in contracts, take back 12 million type thing).
by howlingfantods on Feb 20, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Yep
Unless they really believe that the players they have are the answer, and all we need is a backup PF or something. Then, we could go after Bass or someone in free agency.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I recently read something about
some guy called LaFence or RaFretz that will be available this summer. Maybe Portland can sign him.
Sessions?
I heard on a radio interview that he’s a restricted FA. Maybe give him a ridiculous offer sheet that Milwaukee won’t be able to match?
Making a ridiculous offer in order to acquire a free agent is almost never the right move
no matter how good it looks on paper. Ask GSW, LAC, and PHI.
by howlingfantods on Feb 20, 2009 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
As much as I hate Odom
He would be an amazing fit for us.
Karma
by Sabonis4Ever on Feb 20, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
In other words:
stay the course!
The inbound to McGinnis, drives, stops, pumps, shoots, short, no good...AND THE GAME IS OVER! ~ Bill Schonely
by SandbergOnSports on Feb 20, 2009 9:32 AM PST reply actions
I think the assumption
that getting any of the guys we’ve talked about would take us to the playoffs and into the second round is not a good one. It’s in no way assured that we would go that far, then imagine. We get richard jefferson, he gets injured, thats it. No travis, no whoever. Or Jefferson could have just underperformed. Nobody seemed worth the long term cost.
and if travis gets hurt?
Rip City Baby...People have no idea what is coming.
Follow my twitter www.twitter.com/PDXBlazersFTW, @PDXBlazersFTW. Lots of random Blazer Posts from links I find around the blogosphere.
less risky
travis makes 3.6 million this year and next, then is off the books. jefferson makes 14 million this year, next year, and the year after.
if travis gets hurt or proves not to be the answer, he’s very tradeable, and even if not, we have cap flexibiltity to pursue other options. If Jefferson gets hurt or proves ineffictive, we have a 14 million per year albatross hanging around are neck, and much less ability to do anything to improve.
Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.
But wait!
This all means that Raef is still ours. He’s coming back next month and will be the plug that fills ALL of our front line holes, leading the Blazers to playoff glory with key contributions off the bench and proving KP to be the amazing genius we merely trust in at the moment.
Spanish Main: The point of departure for enormous wealth in the form of gold, silver, gems, spices, hardwoods, hides, alley-oops, assists and three pointers.
Ben G! Dave is calling you on the carpet!!!!! Civil War!!!!
Unlike some folks, I do not think this comes from a lack of perception or courage on management’s part.
Yes on Proposition #9 (RLEC must go!!!!)
Conspiracy
All of the rumors over the past few days were a conspiracy designed to bump up the page views on this site. KP loves this site and believes that it is the best source for Blazer info, so he wanted to help it out. Thanks KP! Now everyone keep clicking on those ads for SB Nation gear, “how I turned $1 million in real estate into $25 cash”, etc., and all will be well in the universe.
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on Feb 20, 2009 11:14 AM PST reply actions
Luol Deng?????
Uhhhhh, what am I missing? “Deng is underperfroming in Chicago, but the Blazers might want him”
Why? Deng is terrible. So is Heinrich. Neither of those guys are better than what we already have.
Ok, so Deng isnt terrible. But he aint worth what he gets paid.
Your telling me Town and Country is the place to get my new ride??...hehuha
Yeah, I heard of them.
ooh. I like Deng a lot
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
As a 3rd/4th option
He’d probably be pretty terrific for us.
Smart player, makes nice cuts to the basket, smart defender, long n’ lanky… he’s a co-star, not a headliner like Chicago wanted him to be. He’s also had injury problems that have held him back, but I don’t think they are things that will hassle him long term.
We can afford his deal, and having an all-round star role player like him at SF would be awesome.
Hinrich, I’m not crazy about, but he’s ah’ight. I’d love Deng though.
Mortimer
I respectfully disagree.
There’s a lot of “someday” there but the now is shaky. What’s more, it’s hard to develop that “someday” without more solid, veteran leadership to guide the way.
I keep hearing this kind of sentiment. “You’ll never learn without a Veteran there to help your young guys improve.”
There is never an proof offered for this kind of statement. You’re just supposed to accept it as a truism. the thing is, this statement flies in the face of what this team is already accomplishing. To say that Brandon, LaMarcus, Travis, and the other young players on our team have not improved dramatically over the last three years is to deny reality in a way so intense as to border on delusional.
Veteran leadership: We’ve already got it in Joel. In spades. Could we use more? Sure. But development is coming. And quickly. VERY quickly. Brandon’s already playing like a superstar. LaMarcus may lack a little fire, but his numbers are comparable at this point in his career to those of guys like KG and Karl Malone. He will learn to dominate. It will take time. But it would take time even if there were more vets on the team. (In fact, it would probably take even longer, because those vets would be eating into his minutes!)
“Where is Portland going to get its Veteran Leadership?”
I allege it’s going to come from the players who are already here. Brandon. Travis. LaMarcus. And perhaps most importantly, that ultimate Veteran over on the sidelines, coach Nate. There are FOUR rookies on this team making meaningful contributions. And they’re 4th overall in the west. Will they get bounced out in the first round of the playoffs? Sure. Probably. But that would happen even with another Vet on the team. But that won’t happen NEXT year.
Look out, NBA, another year with NO CHANGES, and this team is going to be a FORCE.
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
by Majikj0n on Feb 20, 2009 11:19 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Or a veteran could get
impatient with rookie mistakes, lash out in the press and ruin any chemistry that does exist.
I think Portland has the pieces in place, but needs some sort of overriding philosophy on offense and defense. I don’t think you can build a sustainable offense on isolation plays and last-second heaves and I know for sure that you won’t get very far if you can’t defend the perimeter and pick-and-roll plays. Maybe Portland should’ve packaged the RLEC to Boston for Thibodeau. You can trade for coaches in the NFL so why not in the Association?
They're learning.
That’s really my main point. Do they still have deficiencies? Certainly.
I think the critical question to ask, however is: “Are the team’s deficiencies the same today as they were a year ago?”
To that, I think you have to say a resounding, NO. The level of play for this team in general has elevated significantly in the last year. Unforced turnovers are way down. Rebounding is way up. Team defense, while still not great, is leaps and bounds above where is has been previously. Transition play has made PHENOMENAL improvement in the last year, both offensively and defensively.
How has that happened when all of our key additions (Batum, Bayless, Rudy, Oden) over last season are rookies? It’s because the others on our team, Brandon, Travis, LMA, Blake, are continuing to improve and develop and learn.
In short, we’re playing at a higher level because the team’s core is turning into experienced vets right in front of our eyes. And at a nearly unprecedented pace. (Most young players, after all, are on teams where they don’t get anything close to the burn that our guys are getting.)
Don’t be impatient. At this rate, our guys are going to have the savvy of 10-year vets when they’re in their 5th seasons. This effectively opens our championship window an additional 5 years. How could that possibly be a bad thing for a Blazer fan?
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
I agree that the team has improved from last season
and it’s great that Portland has found a way to win while developing four rookies, but are they learning to play in the right system? Is the “problem” with Portland’s defense one of philosophy/coaching, a lack of ability by the players (not executing the coach’s philosophy) or a lack of effort?
To this...
…I think the correct answer is none of the above.
At this point, it’s not that the guys don’t know what they’re supposed to be doing, or that they’re not trying or that they have a problem with the “philosophy”.
It’s that what they’re doing is still new. So it’s not automatic yet. It requires a little thought. When Batum is on the weak side baseline and the offensive player drives to the bucket, he has to take that half-second to think, “Okay, the guy is driving, and Joel is going to have to rotate to cover him which means I need to move over here to seal off Joel’s man and box out for the rebound”. He knows the answer to this. It just takes him a half-second to process it. The problem is, in the NBA that half-second is enough for the offensive player to step into the lane and get position, leaving him open for a dunk.
In time, Nicolas will not have to think this out. He’ll just automatically move to the right spot, and the offensive player will be boxed out, and the team defense will not break down. This will take time and practice in real-game situations. But I don’t really know that having another Veteran there is going to help Nicolas process the situation any faster. He (and the rest of our players, not to pick on Icolas too much) just need to repeat it so many times that it’s automatic.
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
I would fold your answer into
“lack of ability” and agree with everything else you wrote. I don’t think Carter is going to make Travis a better defender and Hinrich isn’t going to help Oden keep his hands up. They just need to play a lot more which is why I cringe when Nate takes Oden out early. Why not let him foul out?
Okay, I could accept that...
…with the caveat that it’s not “lack of ability” in the sense that it’s something they will NEVER be able to do, just something they’re not able to do right now.
But they will get there.
As to Nate’s substitution patterns… Yeah, I agree that it might be nice to just leave Oden in there and let him foul out. But on the other hand, that’s NOT how things are going to work forever. When Oden becomes more essential to our team’s success, picking up 3 fouls in the second quarter is going to get him benched until the second half. If Nate doesn’t treat him that way now, it’s going to be confusing to Greg in a year or two when he starts doing that. Better to get Greg used to it now, rather than having him need to make another adjustment later on.
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
Though I do recall James Jones directing traffic nicely...
by MiledAnimal on Feb 20, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
Sure...
…and it’s certainly true that the guys need to be more vocal on defense. Nate has addressed this directly at least once that I recall.
On the other hand, depending on one single Veteran to do this is something of a crutch. This is a task that ideally every member of the team needs to be capable of. IMO they’re going to get there faster in a trial by fire than they would by depending on a single vet to do all their thinking for them. It’s just a little painful to watch sometimes. When it all clicks, however, it’s going to be glorious to watch.
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
You can tell by the W's, Dubya
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
My feelings about mid-point additions of veterans are colored
by Rod Strickland. Ughh
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
Detlef fit right in, didn't he?
but I think he was an off-season signing. Seattle cut him and Trader Bob added him to the Former Sonics Retirement Community he was building at the Rose Garden
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Feb 20, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I meant when he came back mid-season the year after "retiring".
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
OK
But a lot of the things that peopel complain about when critiquing this team—defensive cohesiveness, killer instinct, intensity, knowing when and how to expend energy—are exactly the things that veterans know how to do. We’re almost certainly going to feel the lack of veteran players (or really ANYONE who’s been to the playoffs) when we hit the post-season.
—Dave
No argument whatsoever.
You’re right, a Veteran would help us be better right now. But at what cost down the road?
We’re likely to get slaughtered in the playoffs this year. (I hope we don’t, of course, but I’m mentally prepared for an ugly first-round series sweep against the likes of Houston, New Orleans, or Dallas)
That’s going to make us tougher and more focused next year. The more humiliating the defeat, the greater the motivation to improve will be. Getting a Veteran to ease our pain might even be counter-productive in this regard.
I guess I’m just a willing to wait a little longer for the glory days—but it’s my firm belief that those glory days are going to be all the better (and more numerous) for having gotten there in our own time and in our own way; not by trying to fit some conventional ideal of how it’s supposed to be done.
This team is unique in how much young talent it has. I’ve can’t think of any other basketball franchise that’s ever had this much young promise all together at once. To expect us to approach things “The same old way” as the teams that came before us is to ignore the marvelous and unprecedented opportunity that KP and PA have given us with this very special group of guys.
I’m prepared to take my lumps for now, for one more season, with eyes on the prize for next year and for years beyond.
Go Blazers!
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
by Majikj0n on Feb 20, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Dave, your commentary is still the primary reason I come to BE.
This column should be made mandatory reading.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Feb 20, 2009 11:33 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
What I want to know
is did Dave write this post before the deadline, and just sub in the names mentioned in rumors afterwards before posting it?
I bet Dave had about 5 different things to post, all ready and waiting, depending on what KP did.
Kind of like the newspapers that prepare obituaries in advance for famous people, and every few years someone accidentally runs one early….
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Looks nice in here. I think I'll come in to warm up.
Yes, wonderful commentary Dave. I really appreciate you!
K. ’nough with the love fest.
What I’m most curious about is particularly Portland’s plans at the Point Guard position.
We’ll need to decide what we’re doing with Steve by the 30th of June. This means we’ll either need to make a trade for a better point guard after the season ends but before this date; then decline the team option for Steve. The other option if we don’t secure a better player is to pick up his team option and then either utilize Steve in an outgoing deal or deal away either Sergio or Bayless and moving Steve to the reserve role.
After the season there may be definite upgrades available for us. However players such as Mike Bibby, Raymond Felton, Ben Gordon, Ramon Sessions, Nate Robinson and Andre Miller can’t be sought after until after they become free agents, after the July moratorium. That’s too bad as all of these guards have the potential of playing well off of Brandon Roy. Personally my favorites are Ramon Sessions or Andre Miller. The rest just aren’t enough of an upgrade or the steady hand and low cost that comes with keeping Blake.
There’s a number of issues with trying to acquire either Miller or Sessions, none of which are insurmountable if Portland’s management gets creative. Still a bit risky though, especially to acquire Andre Miller. Pritchard may be forced to renounce Frye; decline the team options for Blake, Outlaw, or both; leave one or all of our Euros in Europe; stash some or all of our second rounders in Europe; or, trade away our first rounder to get far enough under the cap to sign Miller. Too risky. Kevin Pritchard likes to make his own luck and not leave so much up to chance.
Ramon Sessions is another beast all together. He’s a restricted free agent having played on a two year contract. Teams can only offer a contract starting at the mid-level exception amount. The second year can increase by a maximum of 8. This allows Milwaukee to match using their mid-level exception. Where it gets interesting is that teams under the salary cap, which Portland will be would be able to offer a 3rd year at a much higher rate than Milwaukee’s maximum 8 limit (as they’re not going to be under the salary cap). Of course it depends on how Portland values Sessions and how far under the cap we can get. For instance, should Portland renounce Channing Frye, not bring over Freeland or Koponen, stash all of our 2nd rounders overseas, and trade away our draft pick for a future pick, we should have approx. $8M in salary cap space. This becomes an advantage. In that third year we could up Sessions’ salary to the neighborhood of $10M and if we choose to an additional year/s at 7% increases. There will be other teams out there that could do the same though. Again, it’s a big risk to count on this.
Now if Kevin Pritchard could pry away Tony Parker, Jose Calderon, Rodney Stuckey, or Kirk Hinrich via a trade after the season ends that would be perfect. The likelihood of one of these players, other than Hinrich, being available though is slim. I like Kirk but I’d rather then focus on bringing in a top-notch wing player than making this my first move.
It’s going to be fun seeing how Kevin Pritchard goes about improving our point guard play!
by Crimson the Cat on Feb 20, 2009 1:31 PM PST reply actions
We might see a sign and trade for Sessions
We might just go with the guys we have.
Freeland and Koponen have a cap hold equal to the salary they would get, so it doesn’t matter if we bring them over or not, as long as we retain their rights.
Milwaukie can match anything we offer Sessions, because he is a restricted free agent. It doesn’t matter if they are over the cap or not.
We might be looking at Hinrich and Deng. That deal was almost impossible this year because Deng is BYC, but in the summer, it won’t be.
If we are going to sign one of those free agent PGs (Bibby, etc.) it will all be agreed in private in June, and we will renounce whoever we need to renounce to get the cap space to do it.
There will almost certainly be a trade on draft day again, maybe more than one.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I like that there wasn't a trade
I rode that broom all season. My thinking is that no one was going to make the Blazers a Finals team so why not see what these young guys can do together. They’ll have a year of playing together under their belts and playoff experience. I can only think this team will get better once everyone gets healthy and KP will have more data to evaluate his players.
I’m hoping KP’s speech that he believes in this team and wants to see what they can do will inspire the players.
"I determined early in my career, the only important statistic in basketball is the final score." Bill Russell
well done dave well done KP
from an entertainment standpoint it wouldve been fun to see a new guy (other than the ruff man), just as it was fun and kind of addicting to talk about all the possibilities out there. bottom line though, when a team plays past expectations this much and is this young it really doesnt make any sense to make a deadline trade.
I am starting the coalition to BRING BACK IKE.
Chemistry > middle of the pack veterans
I’ll admit that for a second I got caught up in wondering what we could accomplish this season with a NC or RJ. Then reality set in and I realized that:
a.) we’re in great shape right where we’re at
and
b.) long after the honeymoon wears off we’d be stuck with an aging middle of the pack veteran at $ 15-17 mil/year for the next couple seasons.
I have to admit I’m baffled at the people who are freaking out. I don’t understand you.
Blazer Fan
We still don't know what we are going to get out of our current starting SF,
…since he’s played a total of five minutes this season. The biggest thing about the non-trade may be that Martell IS expected to be contributing quality minutes sooner than later. I would have expected KP to pull the trigger on a lot of those trades if they thought Webster would be a non-factor for the rest of the season and the playoffs….
That being said, I very much agree that keeping this team as-is was probably the best long-term. Fans need to be patient. This team never had any chance of going deep in the playoffs, nor should they be expected to. They will get into the playoffs, win a game or two, lose in the first round, and come out of the playoffs a team that has seen what it takes to be champions.
With a minor consolidation of talent , a tweak here and there, Rip City will be ready to challenge for a Western Conference title in the next season or two. We as fans have been so starved for something to believe in, it’s hard not to get as patient as an eight year old waiting for the rest of the family to arrive to open Christmas Presents. We just have to relax and enjoy the ride.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Feb 20, 2009 2:34 PM PST reply actions
There is no way that Deng
is worth losing Webster, Outlaw and Blake! That would be so foolish man! As of right now, we live and die by the 3pt shot. If Rudy struggles from deep then we need Blake but I don’t expect Blake to be here next year so with Blake gone and Webster traded, who will spread the floor? Don’t underestimate shooters! If, I mean WHEN Webster gets back, I am sure that you will see a much improved team.Besides I don’t think that Deng is that much better than Travis. The only significant differance is rebounding. With Deng’s inability to hit 3’s, we might as well get David Lee instead.
Deng is a MUCH better all-round player than Outlaw
Good passer, smart player off the ball, good defender, just as long and lanky but uses it more effectively, good mid-range game, can score inside…
Deng is a totally different level of all-round player than Outlaw. Outlaw can only score. Deng can do that and everything else.
If we can buy Deng cheap, we’d all be very happy. He is the opposite of Outlaw, because he is multidimensional… and that’s the sort of players playoff teams need. You gotta seriously compensate for Outlaw’s shortcomings defensively, with his focus, with his decision making. You can trust Deng to make the right play and know where his guy is on defense.
That’s big for a good team.
Mortimer
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: Boston works in a half-court football snap after winning the tip
- Judging the choices for the Eastern Conference All-Star team reserves
- Judging the choices for the Western Conference All-Star team reserves
- Jeremy Lin draws inspiration from Tim Tebow
- Stephen Jackson is already tired of Milwaukee
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
