Why the Blazers Can't Stand Pat
by Dave on Jun 13, 2009 12:12 AM PDT
Email
Print
Like ying follows yang and yang follows ying there's an immutable law that every Blazers trade proposal (and there are plenty in the off-season) is followed by the suggestion that the team stand pat and every list of individual players' strengths must be followed by speculation over their potential trade value. Between all of the teetering and tottering it's hard to figure out where the correct landing point is.
On one hand I empathize with the stand-pat folks. This team is young enough, talented enough, and now successful enough to be considered near-experimental. We've not had many precedents. We aren't sure where this ride will end up. It would be a shame to derail it early and watch it grind to a halt.
I also have great empathy, though somewhat less affinity, for the argument that the players are so likeable that it would be a shame to see them go. My lack of affinity is not because I dislike the players. That's where the great empathy comes from. I love these guys. It always hurts to see a Blazer leave, even if it's a guy like Juan Dixon who was only here a couple years. Once a Blazer, always a Blazer. As soon as someone puts on the uniform they become one of my guys and they stay that way.
Rather the lack of affinity comes from the understanding that this business isn't necessarily about liking people. It's about giving people the best chance to succeed. That's what's fairest for the players, the sport, and the bulk of the fans. It also comes precisely from knowing that I'll continue to like the players after they're gone and from knowing that I'll soon like the new players just as much. There's enough "like" to go around. There aren't enough wins. No matter how my heart aches when a player leaves, sometimes your heart has to hurt in order to grow.
Despite that, I would submit that this team is closer to standing pat than it's been at any time since Clyde Drexler was traded. The Whitsitt years were never about standing pat. Portland hasn't been good enough since until this very year to make standing pat even a faint consideration. We might not have 12 players locked in but I bet you if you polled fans and management alike they'd agree on 3-5 guys who are staying no matter what. Remember a couple years ago when nobody could come to a consensus on whether Zach Randolph, our clear star, should stay or go? We're a lot more settled than we once were.
Nevertheless, though my heart aches for a complete pat-standing roster, my brain says we're not there yet. And my brain is on more solid ground here than my heart is. I can give you a couple solid reasons why.
1. You cannot have LaMarcus Aldridge, Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster, and Nicolas Batum on the same team for long. Last year we got bailed out by Webster's injury. Even then Channing Frye got completely shafted. There just wasn't room for all of those young forwards to get playing time on the same floor. It was Aldridge, Outlaw, and Batum and that was it. I wasn't necessarily happy with Channing rotting because he's got more skill and potential than that. But I understood it. It was completely predictable.
Channing is almost certainly going to be released without receiving anything in return for him. That's an unfortunate situation too but again necessary and predictable.
But here's the question: With Martell returning who's your candidate to get the shaft this year? It's not going to be Aldridge. Do you sit Outlaw? Webster? Batum? Which one gets less than 750 minutes of playing time the entire season so the other two can play?
The correct answer is "none of the above".
You can't do that to any of these players. It would be an utter waste not only of their talents but of their value. I'm not saying having four forwards on the roster is a bad thing. One of those forwards, though, needs to be a dependable, veteran role player who signed up for that spot-position. You can't take three guys who are young, have talent, and need development and stash one away. That guy isn't going to be ready when you need him. He's going to be wilted when you need him. He's going to be demoralized. His game is going to break down. His agent is going to be upset because he's not proving value for his next contract. Splitting the time equally between the three doesn't make the situation better. It compounds it three-fold. Now nobody is getting fully-utilized, developing a rhythm, or blossoming. Plus every coach in the universe would rather play one reliable guy than shuffle three sporadic wild-cards.
Keeping all of them is good for nobody, including them. That's why somebody needs to be moved.
2. You cannot come back with Blake, Rodriguez, and Bayless as your point guard group. There's too little reliability there and too many holes. Most people love Blake. Most people also foresee someone else leading this team into the next decade as the starting point guard. Many folks love Jerryd. Most would admit he's not ready to start. Sergio barely raises an eyebrow anymore even though his game has improved. Yet he still got the backup minutes over Bayless.
This is a hot mess. The position needs definition. The position needs a pecking order that everybody can see. The position needs a plan.
That plan isn't as simple as "Just start Bayless!" or "Let Sergio get his time!" On a winning team you cannot give significant time to a guy just to develop him. Everybody knows what's going on when you do that. Everybody knows that there's a player ahead of that guy who is more productive, more polished, more able to help the team win now. Everybody also knows that you're sitting that guy in favor of this other player who hasn't shown those qualities in the hopes that he will someday. The guy you benched for Mr. Training Wheels is now upset. The team now knows that other agendas are in play besides just winning. This opens the door to all kinds of yuckiness.
Is Steve Blake the starting point guard for this team for the next few years? If so, discussion over. Sign him up and let's go. If not, who is? Where is that guy? How do we get him? Blake's contract has more value right now than it would at almost any other time in history. You have to at least look at taking advantage of that.
How much potential do you see in our back-up point guards? Competing with each other is all well and good but we've seen that for a year now. Is Sergio your future? If so, Jerryd has value on the open market. Is Jerryd the more likely candidate? If so, you need to clear Sergio out of the way. As with the forwards both are young and both need to play at some point. You need to carry three point guards but again one of those has to be fit for that third-guard role.
3. You may eventually have other positional conflicts in Roy and Fernandez and in Oden and Przybilla. These aren't as immediate because there are only two players at each position. But if the value of any of those players is significantly higher now than it will be if they're forced to sit on the bench for 36-38 minutes per game down the road you have to at least test the market.
I'm pretty comfortable that Oden and Przybilla can make a team for the foreseeable future. Rudy and Roy will have to jump positions in order to make it work. That's fine if it works, but if so the pressure to move one of the players at the position they're going to occupy increases.
Even if you set aside all of the arguments about needing veterans, about defense, about needing a talent upgrade or two the fact remains that this roster is not balanced and is not set up to lock into place fully yet. We talk about young talent morphing into greatness a couple years down the road but some of that talent won't have opportunity to become great on this team. Even if every single one of our youngsters became great they'll never get the chance to show it if the roster remains the same. It would be foolish not to take some of that overlapping potential greatness and use it to fill positions where we don't have as much production right now or promise in the future.
You can keep some of these young players. You cannot keep them all. That's why you're going to see moves made in the near future. The question isn't so much whether or not to make them, it's how to make the smart ones.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
239 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
makes alot of sense
at the same time, I feel comfortable standing pat. Youth becomes veteran leadership. On this team I think you have guys willing to play their roles and accept fewer minutes in exchange for greater things. I really believe we have a solid starting five and a solid bench of guys who aren’t going to cry about their minutes. This does take into some consideration, namely Frye and Sergio are gone.
Lets see
Oden/Przybilla
Roy/Rudy
Webster/Batum
Blake/Bayless
Aldridge/Outlaw
That works in my little conception of the team. Batum and Webster have to battle it out, and I see Web starting if 100% healthy. Bayless gets his opportunity to play consistent minutes and show me why the team was so high on him to begin with. Rudy aint starting over Roy although will still get alot of PT as Nate won’t hesitate to play them together. Everything else just sorta pans out.
That also leaves two active roster spots to fill with a Shavlick body and/or a draft pick(s) or some other bench warmers.
So, now I’m convinced the only move the team need make is to trade Sergio and don’t worry about equal value. His departure alone will make the team better (and I like Sergio’s game, it’s just not suited for the Nate system.)
I AM A PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS SUPPORTER.
Will Travis be happy simply backing up LaMarcus for 12-14 minutes per game?
Will Nic and Martell be good with splitting 35 minutes, as Brandon played 13 minutes per game at the SF last year? If they need more minutes at SF, that means less Rudy/Roy.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 13, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
it's both
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
Correct!
Roy doesn’t push the ball. He really can’t. I don’t know why, but he looks very awkward trying to run fast and dribble at the same time. Yet he’s so smooth with the dribble in the half-court.
Nate doesn’t demand his players to race the floor.
"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith
That's a plan I like amlmart.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
I’m not convinced that we’ll ever be a running team. Nate’s Seattle teams were nearly dead last in the league in pace. Will we run opportunistically? Hopefully. We’ll just never be a true run-’n-gun type team.
proud hinrichsheeple
You want an up tempo team
You can always convince Paul Westphal to back out of his contract with the Kings. I hear he likes to keep things fast.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Paul Westphal.....really?
The guy that no one liked in Seattle, the guy who basically let Michael Jordan do whatever he wanted in 1993?
Actually, I shouldn’t be insulting considering who John Paxson hired last summer, but yeesh I thought Petrie was better than that.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
by Ozzie Montana on Jun 13, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
So let me get this straight
Paul Westphal let Michael Jordan do whatever he wanted? I will grant he was not well likedby Gary Payton, but does Vin Baker count?
I’m not a homer here; I’m just not understanding how Westphal’s time in Phx speaks ill of him, and I’m curious what Westphal could do to stop MJ. That would be a beginning argument for why MJ isn’t the greatest of all time.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I recently rewatched the ’93 Finals, and there were a few games when the Suns were letting Jordan get to the rim and have easy layups. This is in stark (pun intended) contrast to what he encountered in the ’93 ECF, facing off against Starks.
It’s not that Westphal’s Suns could have stopped Jordan, it’s that they didn’t hack him at the rim and make him regret coming into the lane. They played pansy basketball for parts of the series.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 13, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I understand the point
I was just making a simple joke that personnel, and somewhat coaching philosophy, dictate how you play.
Apparently I shouldn’t do that next time. LOL
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
heh, I don’t actually mind Nate’s no-breaking offense. It’s efficient… why complain.
proud hinrichsheeple
I don't get it either
That’s why I brought up Westphal. He has a history of efficient FAST offense’s.
The difference is that the Blazers defense isn’t probably that good to sustain the extra possessions that a faster pace game would bring.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Or at least it hasn't been up to now
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Yeah, the Blazer D improved a lot by the end of the year, though… and it was a decently tough schedule. I think we ranked top 4 or 5 in the last six or so weeks of the season. I think if we added Hinrich, it’d be a top 8-10 defense.
proud hinrichsheeple
Always a matter of perspective Cablin
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Actually, I just looked at the Suns' roster from that year
I take it back, even if he wanted to play Jordan physical there wasn’t really anyone who would have stepped up and beaten Jordan up like the Cavs, Knicks, or Pistons did.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
by Ozzie Montana on Jun 13, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah that was my point albeit I did it subtlety
It’s okay, I understand that people want to criticize the Kings coaching search. I’d just rather not discuss that here.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
It should've been the Seattle SuperSonics versus the Chicago Bulls in the ...
1993 NBA Finals. In my mind, Game 7 of the 1993 Western Conference Finals was a sham.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199306050PHO.html
How does a team get 64 free-throw attempts during a game? I want answers!
The 96 version was more fun
Rodman waging a battle with Frank Brickowski just for fun is one of the greatest things I’ve ever seen in the NBA.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
by Ozzie Montana on Jun 14, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions
that was fantastic.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 14, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
will they be happy?
well maybe not the happy happy joy joy of a religious epiphany but I’d imagine they’d accept there roles for the long term good. Also, I agree w/ Amimart below, with depth, there is flexability and a allows Nate to do more things on the court; during a long season, that depth pays off.
I’m really hesitant about trading our guys who accumulated 54 wins last season for a craps roll. I can see some “answer” coming in and ruining what might have been.
I AM A PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS SUPPORTER.
The long term good?
Of the team or the long term good of their careers? I think most people would agree that these are a high character group of guys who are willing to take a bullet for the team … for awhile, but “long term good” of the team is almost mutually exclusive with “long term good” of the player when that player is an unestablished entitiy toiling away under a rookie scale deal.
Emergency depth can be a group of young guys for a little while, but eventually those 10-15 roster spots are probably better occupied by the anthony Johnsons, Earl Watsons and Micheal Ruffins of the world; guys closer to the end of their tether and having already made most of the money they are going to make.
both
Assuming the team does well with this group is a win/win situation. I doubt if any of these guys fill there roles and provide for winning they wont be rewarded with rookie scale salaries.
I AM A PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS SUPPORTER.
Channing Frye did just what you suggest
He didn’t whine about a lack of playing time. He filled his role. The Blazers won 54 games.
And he’s looking at getting nothing from the Blazers and a minimum salary from some other team.
And going with the idea of young guys as seldom-used backups
Channing was largely terrible this year, outside of that last Denver game. Guys under 25/26 simply don’t have the confidence and ability to rack up DNP’s for 5-6 games and then come in and be able to contribute. Too much pressing, too much trying to prove themselves and “earn” those extra minutes.
by Royster on Jun 13, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
which was shown pretty clearly in Jerryd’s play. His numbers were much better with consistent playing time.
Young guys must have consistent minutes. We can’t have a logjam of Martell/Nic/Rudy/Brandon/Travis and expect them all to perform to their potential.
proud hinrichsheeple
Sadly, it's a form of the dreaded "addition by subtraction"
it feels like as Blazer fans that it applies only to cancers like Z-Bo, but even though these guys are good players and good guys, taking one or two out of the mix, even if you get nothing in return could probably help the team.
Sergio alone or Jerryd alone is probably better than Sergio/Jerryd together.
The SF thing is a little more muddled, but I think the same principle applies.
Players don’t play as well without lots of playing time to work out the kinks. Look at Channing and Jerryd. It’s a bigger risk to have a bunch of talented players and not giving them enough playing time to get into a groove than it is to trade two away.
Plus, at some point these guys are professionals. Travis is in a contract year; he doesn’t want to be playing 12 minutes per game. Rudy has said that he wants more than his current slice of minutes, which probably means thirty per game. To truly figure out what we have in Martell, he’s going to need a good chunk of minutes to get into a flow and show what he’s got.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 13, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Unfortunately, no.
My guess is that he will not complain about getting 25-30 mins off the bench, then will walk when his rookie contract expires. Rudy should be starting and playing 35+ minutes a game, and someone will be willing to pay him to, but unless Roy is out of the picture, it’s not gonna happen here.
Trout and either Bayless or Blake should be moved to solidify the PG position this year, then I see Rudy packaged w/a draft pick or another talent in a season or two to land that “star” that will bring the first of many championships to Portland.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jun 13, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
What has Oden done to deserve to start?
On a winning team you cannot give significant time to a guy just to develop him.
Why does that logic apply to Bayless, but not Oden? Oden had a solid rookie season, but it was still pretty ragged.
I think Oden is going to be a more-than-solid player in the future, but he still has a ways to go and I don’t understand why people just pencil him in as the starter.
Well its more a question to Dave
but I guess you replied to my post because I had Oden/Przybilla and not Przybilla/Oden, which wasn’t topical to my comment really. Nevertheless, you make a valid point. Where would the team have been without Joel? All things considered, specifically coming into next season healthy, I’d give the nod to Oden. Oden is the team’s eventual long term answer in the middle. No disrespect to Joel intended at all. I easily could have put down and Przybilla/Oden without change my focus of thought. Sorry if it ruffled your feathers, I do hear what you’re sayin.
I AM A PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS SUPPORTER.
It was more of a general question.
It doesn’t really ruffle my feathers, but I would like to see starting nods given on the basis of merit rather than draft position.
I hope Oden wins the battle during training camp because it’ll prove that he’s working hard, but Portland will be just fine with Przy as the starter. However, if Oden isn’t starting by 2010 then Portland should be pretty worried.
Number one overall pick
It’s that simple, guys taken number 1 make so much money and have so much scrutiny, that to not start them is to invite a lot of unwanted negative attention on the player and the organization. Oden’s injuries have provided some extenuating circumstances, but in the long run he’s got too much raw talent to waste sitting him on the bench as the backup to a center who averages about 5 points per game.
I call shenanigans.
I don’t care if the guy was picked in the zeroth round; he has to prove that he deserves to start with his basketball play.
I can understand that it would look weird if you dropped more than $10M/year a dude to park him on the bench, but Oden’s rookie contract is pretty reasonable.
Basketball should be a meritocracy. Portland was also in the interesting situation of not really needing Oden to be the main dude, unlike OKC who needs all the help they can get.
I understand what you're saying
but there is a difference between Oden and Bayless beyond draft position.
Oden’s major problem was staying in the game whether through injury or foul trouble. While he was in he was mostly very effective. He had a high rebound rate, better offense than Joel, and was an intimidating defensive presence. It was more difficult for the bigger centers to push him around than Joel. He’s just a lot stronger and quicker. Now, I think Joel is still a little bit better, but theres a clear trajectory. Oden will be much better, and very soon. His learning-on-the-job isn’t as costly, either.
Bayless (who I hope is our PG of the future) showed flashes of awesome between long stretches of palm-to-face moments. He turned the ball over, he played more like a shooting guard which we already have two (really good) ones.
We may not have have been satisfied with Oden’s play, but his presence was mostly a sustained positive. This is also jut the nature of the point guard position. The offense goes through him even when Roy is on the floor, and he is required to make quick decisions. If he is not playing well or doing his job right, the entire offense collapses.
I think we need to trade Sergio and give Bayless his minutes and then some, but again, there is a difference.
by matthewcc on Jun 13, 2009 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hear, Hear
I was going to say it a little more simply: Oden started because the team was better with him in than with Joel. Joel was the better player and extremely valuable because he was able to stay out of foul trouble. That made Joel more reliable but the team played at a lower level than with Oden.
also
I think you can look at Batum. He is clearly very, very raw. Yet despite that he plays significant minutes with a positive impact.
In absolute terms, I think Bayless more developed as a basketball player. But relative to their positions, its also clear Batum’s current shortcomings don’t have the same ramifications. A point guards flaws are always going to be more critical than any other position. It’s like being quaterback versus a running back. QBs can take years to put it together, and have to know everything. RBs regularly step in as freshman or rookies and light it up. Their responsibilities are different, and it impacts the average timeframe of their development.
I can't argue with your position
because I agree. Przy is a great rebounder and defender, but is nearly a liability on offense. Oden can be a great rebounder, defender and make the defense pay on offense. It’ll be exciting when he puts it together.
I still think that Oden should come off the bench until he can prove he can stay out of foul trouble.
Does it really matter though?
I still think that Oden should come off the bench until he can prove he can stay out of foul trouble.
Starting or coming off the bench really doesn’t mean anything. Its all about how many minutes you get. I am sure Batum would have rather had Outlaw start and play 15mpg while Batum came of the bench for a solid 25mpg. I am sure Nic would take a benching that gave him 10 extra minutes per game with a smile. I don’t necessarily disagree that Oden should come off the bench, but the fact is that they are going to try and get Oden 30mpg regardless of when he first enters the game. The starting center should be chosen by who best compliments the 4 other starters….
RUDY > MJ
It's partly psychological.
If you just give Oden the starting job without him “earning” it, then you might lose a carrot. I think coming off the bench alleviates some pressure on him as well and he can get some quality minutes in against the other team’s backups.
I agree that the main goal is to get Oden 30 minutes no matter if he starts.
Joel is more than a little bit better
Oden has potential,we just need to give him time in the best situation – which is the bench
rec for you
There isn’t that much of a performance difference between Joel and Greg. Both were pretty good at doing what they do. Joel was a little better due to his superior experience, but he has pretty much hit his ceiling. Greg on the other hand, is on the basement level of his 150 floor estate, and has ridiculous amounts of room to grow. That absolutely has to factor in to playing time distribution at the center position. Especially when the Blazers front office is hitching their championship wagon to Oden, Roy, and Aldridge…
RUDY > MJ
KP has said it and thats all that matters
“Greg is the only player that can get us to that next level. He does things no one else does on this team and when he is on the floor he makes everyone else better.”
Does that mean he starts? Yea. The only way He and Roy and Aldridge develope that chemistry and become comfortable with each other is to play together. Unless we are demoting LMA and RO Y to the bench then how else do we accomplish this.
Love Joel’s game but he is overvalued in this forum. 5pts and 8 rebounds are his career numbers. That is a backup center. Joel just happens to be an excellent backup. He has come a long way in his career but, like was said previously Joel has seen his ceiling.
thank you
for saying “zeroth round”. Oh, and good point too! One other thing to consider for who to start: whose game best compliments Roy and Aldridge? I think Oden’s does.
I'm going to come up with the best line here ever, something really clever.
My understanding is that Nate wont start him until Greg's game justifies it.
But Greg will play many minutes and I expect his offensive impact will be better than Joel’s early on. Then my guess is Nate starts him.
Nate has gone on record supporting your argument; Nic starts until someone takes the spot. Joel starts until someone beats him out.
I love Coach Oldschool for that.
Bedge or go home.
PER is a BS pseudo-stat. You can not compare Centers to Point Guards with a goofy number that a journalist created...
After watching the Lakers very intensely this post-season I’m pretty okay with both Oden and Rex, but that’s a subject for another FanPost…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Then let's use any of the other myriad stats
that show Oden was much better than Bayless. PER isn’t the be all/end all, but it’s a nice distillation of box score stats. It’d be one thing to say we can’t compare the different positions because Bayless had a PER of 16 or 17, but his PER for the season was less than half of Oden’s.
It may be comparing apples to oranges, but it’d be like comparing ripe oranges to rotten crab apples.
There are at least two obvious performance reasons to feature Greg now
1. Greg demands a double team. No center can consistently contain Greg with the ball on the block. This opens up the offense for the shooters to get open shots. Joel does not command the double team.
2. Greg provides the offense with 79% more points than Joel on a 40 minute basis using the last quarter of the season (16.5 vs 9.2). This is a margin that will win most games. He does this with a drop off in defensive rebounds (-2) and a increase in offensive rebounds (+1) while maintaining a great block average (2.1 vs 2.0).
Please stop talking about standing pat
yes out young player most likely will get better next year, but you think no other teams will make trades to get better? Look at how much better Denver did after getting Billups. Houston, SA, Utah, Dallas are just a few teams that could instantly become front runner with a trade or two. Standing pat with this team will be a hugh mistalke. We need to make moves with the intention to win it all this year. There is no one great unbeatable team in NBA now. Don’t waste the chance by waiting for our young players to develop. By that time there might be a SUPER TEAM standing in our way like the Bulls did in front of Drexler’s team in the 90s.
We must stand pat
Although putting “please” at the start is a nice gesture, your request sounds like a demand, one with which I cannot obey. The biggest reason being the site is here for everyone to share their opinion, whether it is approved by you or not.
Thatbeingsaid, allow my to disect your points in order to further my own POV.
- I do think other teams will make trades, although that is no guarantee any will make them better. Look at the Denver-Detroit deal. Did Detroit trade to get better, because they didn’t. Who is Houston going to trade, trade for and why? They were an injured Yao foot from taking the stinkin’ l*kers out. SA needs an overhaul, but also needs Ginobelli healthy? Who they gonna trade to make any drastic improvement? Utah.. yea like who they gonna get for AK, cuz Millsap aint going anywhere. Dallas— pffft case in point why trading for trades sake gains no long-term health. The problem with deal making in todays market comes down to fair value. The PTB aren’t going to get fair value for what they give up. To expect some answer in a player via trade by giving up what worked into 54 wins and sure positive development baffles me.
- Standing pat w/ this team is the smart move. Your thinking that
We need to make moves with the intention to win it all this year
runs opposite to mine, and that’s ok. I just think patience is a virtue and is so for a reason. If KP starts making moves thinking he has to win it all now, the PTB fans better get ready for the after shock of losing because a winning youthful combination with long-term potential was sacrificed for a win now or never philosophy. If there is one difference maker out their I wish I could figure out who would be worth giving up what we know already works. Yea teams rise and fall like Rome and there is always going to be a major rival or three. All the more reason to stand pat and develop a deep core of winners committed to the red and black.
I AM A PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS SUPPORTER.
Sorry for the poor choice of words, English is not my native language.
Would a company in the business world only have executives that pass through its own ladder? To be the best, a company (team) will have to go out and hire the best people. I understand the romance of watching your own players grow up in your own system, but that will take too long and not being ready when opportunities knotted.
Your 3 points
1) Move Outlaw. He has more trade value. Batum is the future SF and Webster can push him this year to become better.
2) Move Sergio. He asked for it, but fill his slot we a defensive PG from this draft. One with all around skills that will push Bayless.
3) Do nothing this year on the third item. It’s not needed and would set the Blazers back.
by spencerbutte on Jun 13, 2009 12:41 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Move Outlaw and Sergio
for what?
Any player you get is going to add to the logjam at some position.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Who's Pat?
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on Jun 13, 2009 12:51 AM PDT reply actions
You have made the best (and possibly the only) compelling argument for a forthcoming trade.
Very well-stated, Dave, and I personally do appreciate the empathy. And I certainly don’t want to see anybody’s career stall or regress while they’re warming a bench in Portland. But, like bow4meow says, if some of the guys don’t mind less substantial roles here than they might find elsewhere in return for the chance to play for a winner in a great atmosphere — at least temporarily — then why force things? I agree that b4m’s roster, above, looks just fine to me, at least for next season. Then we can re-examine things.
Some people seem to think a trade is necessary in order to make the team strong enough to contend. I disagree with that position, since as I see it the Blazers will just continue to improve. May they have the opportunity — these young Turks (not Turkoglus!) — to prove their mettle and bring home the goods to Portland!
"Just kidding"
That's an assumption, though
I’m sure guys like Batum, Rudy, and Jerryd didn’t mind it this year because there was the assumption for them that they were rookies, and so would play more in the future. I don’t remember Sergio complaining about his minutes in 2006/2007 (strangely his best year) despite fewer mpg than he did this year, when he did complain. Back then, he was still operating under the assumption that his role would increase in subsequent years, just like Nic, Rudy and Jerryd are now. Once you take away that assumption, I don’t think “happy to be playing on a winner” is enough to completely divest these guys of their urge to play.
If that doesn’t happen for Nic/Rudy/Jerryd, and they’re still playing 18/25/12 mpg in a year or two, can we be sure they’re still going to be happy doing it? These guys have their own careers and livelihoods to worry about. There’s a reason Wade, LeBron and Bosh don’t all just take $5 million contracts to go play on the same team and win every title. These guys want to lead teams, and they have to set themselves up financially for their post-NBA lives. Same with our guys. They’re all great guys, but they’re no different from 90% of the league. They’re young guns who want to play, not vets willing to sit on the bench and chase that last ring.
vets willing to sit on the bench and chase that -last- next ring
KP needs to add a couple of those, one at PF and another at PG
Ultimate best case PG scenario
is that our three guys understand their future roles: Blake’s minutes progressively go down over the next three years while Bayless’ and Sergio’s go up… We play our PG’s at different times in the regular season, then pick our favorites when the playoffs start, like the L*kers are doing with with Shannon Brown, Farmar, and Derek Fisher. But that’s not going to happen because our young guys want to play now, and deservedly so. But seriously, Sergio is really good. He is a special player, and we don’t have to listen to his empty pleas to get out of Portland if we’re not going to get something good in return. So, that’s my argument for standing pat at PG, just to play a bit of devil’s advocate…
"There goes Brandon Roy... the best there ever was in this game"
If you get into the game splits of last season, it is extremely clear that both Sergio and Bayless.....
….played much better with more minutes. When Nate tried to give both Sergio and Bayless reduced minutes, neither performed well. Both players played better when they were getting a minimum of 12+ minutes per game. I like both guys and would like to be able to keep both. I don’t think it is going to happen.
The team needs to choose, and I think all indications are that the team has more confidence in Bayless’ potential.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Great post.
I think the Blazers are doing great in their schedule of growth. And they have some good assets to develop in short term or to trade.
At a point they need to clarify some things, but I don´t think they´re pressured to take decisions now. I think it´s more a kind of working to take advantage of the best opportunity until things come clear.
I disagree
I’ve been saying just that for a couple of years now. And I believed that the Blazers had that luxury to evaluate and wait it out. IMO, that’s the course that the Blazers took.
That time, IMO, has ended. Decisions have to be made about who stays and who goes. And I would say that this summer is the time for those decisions.
I am almost there...
The risk taking is going to have to start, but does it have to be this summer? I wouldn’t have a problem if KP chose Batum as the guy at the SF and used any combo of Webster, Outlaw, and Bayless to make a deal for a PG. I think he showed in his rookie year what I have been waiting to see from Webster and Outlaw the past three years.
But I would have a problem if Rudy and Batum (and less so Blake) were part of those deals. I don’t see Rudy backing Roy as the problem many people see if Outlaw and Webster are gone. Positions are not as static as they used to be and I could see Batum, Rudy, and Roy being an effective combo for 15-20 minutes a night on offense and defense.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Why trade Bayless?
Bayless has great physical tools a world class work ethic and a very high ceiling. Trading him after 600 minutes of inconsistent PT seems like a real waste. We are going to get a lot less in return than Bayless’ full value if he becomes anything like the player that most think he is capable of becoming.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
It is more a that I think Blake...
Rudy, Roy, and Batum are more known quantities. I was disappointed with what I saw from Bayless if I am honest with myself. Of course I see the potential but he is not a deal breaker for me if we are getting back a known quantity. I am confident Rudy and Batum will be contributors over the long haul. Bayless probably will be but that “probably” makes the difference for me. I am not looking for them to trade him but if they do it better make the team better immediately.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
the absolute latest time
Is 2009-2010 season trade deadline the absolute latest time to make decisions? From the perspective of cap flexibility, is it better or worse than doing it during this summer?
well put
Here’s to packaging Trout while he has value and sending Serg with him. I’ll miss them both, but it’s for the best of the team.
For the 252,525th time don't trade Travis
his value is less reflected in his statistics as it is the chemistry he brings to the team. I’ll argue that til the day the team ends up regretting letting him get away.
I AM A PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS SUPPORTER.
by bow4meow on Jun 13, 2009 5:53 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
He does bring chemistry but...
he will never be what we need: A consistent player, who we can rely on.
by Gfactor34 on Jun 13, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Off-court chemistry is of no value whatsoever.
Professional sports is a business, first and foremost.
For example, someone may be friendly with his co-workers and still be fired due to poor performance. While his co-workers will miss him, that doesn’t mean they’ll slack off on the job and risk losing their gig.
Travis' scoring in the 4th would be missed
and he is the only player on our current roster that can play the 3 and 4. He would be missed in the locker room but that’s it, guys would just miss him, but the locker room wouldn’t take a nose dive. Still bunch a good dudes, like myself. I don’t really buy the chemistry argument. Our locker room is secure for years to come. And I would argue he actually lacks chemistry on the court due to his style of play. His biggest asset is his microwave scoring. Those players are nice to have in the season, but particularly in the play offs, and though his post season this year was lackluster, I believe he would be a successful post season player if given further opportunity.
However, seeing that the only guys that I can see KP moving him for would be a perceived starter, I think we do end up getting better, as I believe we have the talent to fill the gap he would leave.
better question
why does this team need someone to play 3/4?
With Joel/Greg playing nearly 48mpg, Nate isn’t going to a small/fast lineup. And LMA could guard most SFs on a switch
Adding toughness and physicality (remember KP’s #1 offseason goal) means subtracting Outlaw and Sergio
the chemistry argument
I do buy it, especially considering how the lack of chemistry several years back brought the franchise to its knees. Travis may make alot of questionable decisions on the court, but is well liked among his teammates and I believe this does make for a winning attitude across the PTB board.
I AM A PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS SUPPORTER.
Thanks Dave, especially for pointing out that "I don't want to stand pat" doesn't equal "I don't like our team"
I have long been in the camp proclaiming that the next months are a major opportunity to make changes for relatively cheap, and the window closes around the next deadline. In the summer of 2010 or 2011, it would be a bit too late to find out that the team is not set up right (see Storyteller’s post and my comment there). Other teams will improve a lot (until) then. And it will hurt to lose one or two players that have been part of the group now, but it would hurt even more if there came more first round exits and you would have to move more and better/longer tenured players just to make any upgrade then.
Besides the financial arguments for grasping the opportunity, there is also a developmental one: Not everyone will pan out. And right now, this roster is built and discussed based on a lot of assumptions. “We can agree that we are not there yet, but:” Oden could be an All-Star. LaMarcus could be an All-Star. Roy could never be hurt again. Bayless could be the future starting point guard and the next name-your-favorite-star. Same with Sergio. Blake could become a veteran leader like Billups. The next year could be Martell’s break out year. Travis could find his minutes on power forward and win sixth man of the year. Rudy could become too good to keep playing behind Roy forever. We could luck into a high draft pick through some trick KP pulls of in the future. Nate could have the second unit run more. Experience could built toughness. Defensive abilities could develop over time. Yeah, or not. Some of those assumptions will come true, some probably even must (Oden, Roy to some extent) or we will have big problems competing for championships anyway. Some likely won’t. That’s where changing one or two positions so that a clear-cut star(ter) emerge and where you don’t have to wait for “what could be” comes into play.
And as Dave pointed out, once you have that clear starter it becomes easier to define and fill the remaining spots behind him with players not expecting much playing time. If your third-string wing player is hypothetically a Brent Petway/Othyus Jeffers-type D-League/fringe NBA player or a Qynton Ross/Ime Udoka-type veteran whose main job is to be happy in training and protect the Gatorade during the game, but who can also ably protect the perimeter in case of injury or blowout, that’s preferable to a disgruntled player who rightly would expect significant playing time based on his potential. You usually find those end-of-bench guys in the undrafted or drafted late class. The backups backup shouldn’t be a completely washed up guy or draft bust because that kills you once he gets significant playing time via injury, but having three young talented guys none of which deserves DNP-CD and none of which is the absolutely clear-cut starter you would want to see called to the floor in the playoffs isn’t a real luxury either.
So the Blazers really have to ask themselves: On a championships team, which one of these players on the roster can be a starter? Who can be the second and third scorer if Roy is covered? Who is the first player off the bench? Who do you want to have backing up Aldridge? What is the job description of our point guard? Of our small forward? And do we really already have all those players on the roster?
by Norsktroll on Jun 13, 2009 6:56 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Excellent points.
It would be great to have 12 LeBrons on your team, but that isn’t the most efficient roster and there wouldn’t be enough playing time for all of them. You want to have five clearly defined starters, four role players on the bench, two emergency guys and a development dude. People can talk all they want about PG play, but I think Portland really needs a banger – a dude to come off the bench, clear the boards and talk out the trash. It’s too bad that wasn’t Oden last season, but his foul trouble kept him off the court. It would be great if Portland could get a Reggie Evans-type guy.
12 LeBrons would never work
Their large heads would absorb too much oxygen from the arena and suffocate all the fans.
And people say Steve Blake isn’t tough.
by Thadius on Jun 13, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
There's a time to evaluate young talent
and there’s a time to make decisions on young talent. I’d argue that the last couple of years have been about evaluating:
Can Roy lead a team as its star?
Can LaMarcus fulfill his potential?
Can Blake be a non-flashy starting PG?
Can Sergio add consistency to his court sense and passing ability?
Can Outlaw become more than just a jump shooter in the half court?
Etc., etc.
You can evaluate all day long and ask for ‘one year more’, but there comes a time when you have to make decisions, and you’ll lose out on opportunities if you don’t. I’d argue that the time for evaluation on many of the Blazer players is over – the team should know what they’ve got and make a plan for moving forward, including trading or releasing players that don’t fit into the Master Plan.
I’d further argue that if they don’t make decisions this summer, the team either won’t move forward as far as they could and might even take a small step backwards.
Agreed
The Blazer’s coaches and scouts have had 1-3+ years to evaluate what they’ve got, depending on when the player was drafted.
For those who claim “they need more time” for evaluation before making a deal, well, you’re not talent evaluators. You’re just fans
(not that there’s anything wrong with that)
comes a time when you have to make decisions, and you’ll lose out on opportunities if you don’t
I’d argue that KP already let one of these “opportunities” slip by (RLEC, in February) It’s time to get off the pot
I think there is another question to consider.
Will Webster return 100% healthy? He tried once and failed. I’m concerned about his return.
Well put, Norsk
That’s probably the one thing that gets me about the “we always have to stand pat”, the assumption that it’s pointless to acquire a guy because we already have “him” on our roster, e.g. why trade for Prince, we have our own Prince for a tenth the price?
No, we have a guy who could be Prince if he improves every year. I’m not saying he won’t, but given that we’ve seen two perfect examples of players showing some early promise as rooks or second year guys (Jack and Sergio) only to stagnate or regress, you’d think we’d be more aware as fans, of the possibility (probability?) that a couple of these guys won’t fulfill this mythical potential.
At some point, if it improves our team, we have to not worry about if the guy we traded away becomes an all star. I may be in the extreme minority here, but I really just can’t kill Whitsitt for the JO trade. He was making noises about wanting out, our best player played his same position (as well as our main glue guy, and I will kill him for the Kemp trade), so there just weren’t minutes to get him time to develop. In exchange we got a guy to take some of the Shaq load off Sabas. Did it work out? No,but it’s easy to evaluate these things in hindsight. With Pip and Sabonis, we were loaded up for one or two more shots at a ring, and Davis gave us a better chance than Jermaine did.
If we end up trading Rudy for a guy who’s a starter/20+ mpg contributor on a title team, and Rudy becomes an all star, does that make it a bad trade? Say we trade him for Conley, straight up, and Conley starts for us for the next eight years, and we win two titles in that time, while Rudy is a perennial all star in the east? I don’t see that as a bad trade in my book.
"The Grizzlies? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
—Rudy
by MiledAnimal on Jun 13, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Buck up camper!
You’ll be going with Sergio and meeting Rubio there.
by Montavilla Steve on Jun 13, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Memphis is in the West
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Agree with the premise....
that we should not stand pat, I think the timeline to make moves is into the next offseason, not just this summer. The only move which is a foregone conclusion is releasing Frye. And Sergio will probably also go, either for future considerations, a backup PF, or as part of a package in a bigger trade. Then here is how I see each position break down and develop over the next 3-15 months:
PG – Blake/Bayless/rookie vs. trading Blake for an upgrade. If a good deal presents itself this offseason (e.g. a favorable deal for Hinrich, Conley, etc), then we make the deal. If not, we continue into next season with Blake as the starter. Then we can see if Bayless can be our PG of the future. If so, we transition him into the starter and Blake the backup. If not, then we will need to make a move to upgrade, either at the trade deadline next season or next offseason.
SG – Roy/Rudy. End of discussion.
SF – Batum/Webster or Webster/Batum – Again, good arguments can be made to bring in a veteran such as Prince, Artest, Battier, etc. And if a great opportunity comes up, I trust that KP will make the right decision. If not, we let Batum and Webster compete and develop, either or both of which can eventually become above-average to great players.
PF – Aldridge/Outlaw. Outlaw will probably get less minutes unless he earns it with improved defense and rebounding, and perhapos his trade value will diminish somewhat because of it. So again, if KP can work a great deal which includes Outlaw we can make it. If not, he is our backup PF. The biggest downside to this scenario is we lack the “banger” PF.
C- Oden/Pryzbilla or Pryzbilla/Oden.
I believe we can keep Batum, Aldridge, Webster and Outlaw, at least for one more season. We don’t know how well Webster is going to come back and there is always the possibility of more injuries.
In summary, I say release Frye and move Sergio, and then only make a deal this offseason if a great one presents itself. We are dealing from a position of strength in that we have an abundance of young talent, depth, cap space….and KP!!
that we should not stand pat, I think the timeline to make moves is into the next offseason, not just this summer.
It will be extremely difficult to make moves next summer, trading players on small rookie deals without cap space to make it work. Travis and Steve will also be free agents.
proud hinrichsheeple
Unless
the players really desired weren’t available at the trade deadline, but are now available as teams take a closer look at the economic future, at the lower tax threshold and at their bottom line. Some teams, I believe, are going to make unpopular (with their fans) decisions in the name of economics, and Portland is in a position to be able to benefit.
Agreed
Rumor had it that most of our potential trading partners wanted Batum.
I also think that folks are fogetting that taking on a big contract for an aging star would hve reduced our flexibility for years to come.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
The often missed value of a veteran...
I’ve appreciated the need for a veteran in the past for the obvious reasons but this post has revelations as to why having too much youth can be a thorny issue. As an example take the team’s two veteran rotation players, Joel & Blake. Those are the two guys seen mostly likely to accept a bench role long term. Why? Because they’ve had a few contracts and have established their worth in the league. Sure, they want to play, they want to start, they want big minutes, but they know that’s not going to have much effect on how much money they’re going to make in their lives. The young, unproven players know they need minutes to establish their earning potential or by default their earning potential will be relatively low.
Some of the young talent (Sergio, Outlaw, Frye etc.) may be career backups on winning teams but they’re less likely to settle for that fate on a team of players their same age and as Dave says, they’re likely to wilt rather than thrive in accepting that role.
In that case a veteran with lesser talent can actually be more effective.
Good points
Desire for fame and fortune burns hot in the heart of the young. As guys get older they get a more realistic notion of how good they, how much they are worth, and they are more willing to accept their place in a team concept.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions
My 2 Cents
I don’t know why we would assume that Martell deserves a bunch of minutes next season. He missed an entire year with an injury, and the years he did play he was a average player on terrible teams
I know the great debate is Sergio v. Bayless, and that people are crazy if they think either of these guys are fully developed and ready to step in and play minutes. I agree that this is the position that most needs “defining” as you put it. The team isn’t stupid. They’re investing millions of dollars in these guys. According to reports, both Sergio and Bayless are working out like crazy this summer. Don’t think that the team isn’t closely monitoring the situation leading up to the draft. If one player or the other has shown more promise of overcoming their weaknesses, that might sway the decision making, I think.
Don't forget that going into training camp last season,
all of the talk (Outside of Oden) was how good Martell was looking. He was in AMAZING shape, was focusing on lockdown defense, and seemed to be on the verge of a breakout year. Unfortunately the breakout ended up in his foot, not on the floor. I don’t assume he deserves a bunch of minutes, but I won’t be suprised if he comes back and earns them this summer.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jun 13, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
The Best Solution
The ideal situation is Portland trading Sergio + Travis + #24 for a veteran or lottery pick + fillers.
We probably need to give up more if want a quality veteran.
Who is Pat and why can't the Blazers stand him?
Upon reading the headline that’s what I was wondering. Seriously. Perhaps it was Pat Riley, was my initial guess.
There is a big difference between a tweak and major overhaul.
I’m all for one or more small tweaks to improve the roster. I’m not in favor of any of the major trade scenarios I have heard that propose to send multiple young talents for aging stars or near stars.
Trading Blake and sweeteners for Hinrich, or perhaps Conley, makes sense to me because it is a way to improve the team in the short run without sacrificing the long run.
Trading three or four young talents to get T Prince, at age 30, does not make sense to me. Having a short term upgrade at starting small forward is not worth the loss of depth, the lost opportunity to develop Batum /Webster, and will definitely not improve the team 3-7 years down the road.
Outlaw is either going to have to be traded or he is going to have to accept a greatly reduced role. I think folks tend to undervalue what TO provides in terms of bench scoring and an ability to get his own shot. His shot selection improved quite a bit last season. If he would get lost a little less often on defense, and block out a little better on the boards, he is really a nice guy to have on your roster and in your locker room. It would be great to have both Outlaw and a banger so that you can work the match-ups. However, Outlaw’s stats and trade value are going to plummet if he becomes a 12-15 minute undersized back-up PF. If we could get a back-up PF who rebounds, plays solid defense, and can score a little, I think we should.
The PG mess is the position that I think has to be addressed. I think it is likely that both Sergio and Bayless are going to be better than Blake within a year or two. The problem is that the team would be taking a huge and unacceptable risk giving the starting job to either Sergio or Jerryd now. Blake’s shooting is essential to spreading the floor. If Nic made a huge leap on the offensive end, or Martell comes back with both guns blazing, that would help, but for now we either need Blake or some one who is more proven than either Sergio or Jerryd.
Jerryd’s ceiling is too high, and his spring is wound too tight, to let him rot on the bench for another season. Dave and many others have suggested that he needs to “earn his minutes.” Frankly, I am pretty sure that he already has and even more confident that he will demonstrate that fact by the end of fall camp. Bayless’ season stats suck, but a more nuanced look demonstrates that he showed significant and rapid improvement when given more consistent minutes. Trading Bayless now would be very expensive, he has very high potential and limited proven production. We would never get full value for him now
Sergio is in the really difficult spot. If the team was certain that he could play as well as he did in April, it would be tempting to keep him and let him start. But Sergio’s defense is too problematic, and his shooting too inconsistent to risk giving him the starting job. Sergio is entering his contract year, and can’t afford to run the risk of getting bumped to the bench by Bayless. To me, all signs suggest that the team has more confidence in Bayless’ potential than Sergio’s. I think he has to go, and we should get as much value for him as possible.
Dave is right that young, talented guys are not going to be happy sitting forever, and that they will not develop if they do not get a chance to play. However, don’t let that truth, or our own impatience for a Championship, goad us into making short sighted moves that give up too much talent for aging stars.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions 11 recs
Great points, but
are teams really going to firesale talent this summer? You mentioned that we shouldn’t trade young talent for someone Prince, but how else would we get him? Why would Detroit trade him for anything less than market value? They want to win too.
I guess the better question is do we want someone like him. If Portland radically reworks the roster this summer, they risk having a lengthy break-in period and then having to play catch up all year to make the playoffs. If Portland makes just a minor tweak, then they risk stagnating.
I don’t think Portland can continue with Blake, Sergio and Jerryd. One has to go, but I’m not sure which one.
How can a team that has 8 out of 10 rotation players under 25 stagnate?
None of us should confuse keeping the roster largely intact with not improving. Our guys are going to improve significantly through natural development. Many are maturing physically, most are improving skills, and all are gaining an increased understanding of what it takes to win. They are also going to get more used to playing with each other.
GO is the real key. The gap between what he showed and what he can become is huge. All we need is moderate improvement, say staying on the floor for 30 min/game, improved interior defense and better rotations, and slightly increased offensive production per minute so that he averages 15-16 pts and 11-12 rebounds.
Combine GO with improved play from our other three rookies and the return of Martell, and how can this team not be in the hunt for 60 wins and in the mix for the Championship?
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Other teams will start to figure Portland out.
It’s hard to win in the NBA and no one will look past Portland. I think you might be overestimating the growth of Portland’s young players. Not every one gets it and gets better. I’m definitely a fan so I hope you’re wrong, but we shouldn’t automatically assume that everyone is going to get better.
I think Martell is the monkey wrench. It’s not clear how much he can contribute and he might burn too much playing time while Portland figures it out.
I agree that Oden is the key. If he can stay on the floor until he gets tired rather than because he’s in foul trouble, he can dominate the game on the defensive end and contribute on the offensive end.
Player development:
Most players peak athletically at around 25-27.
Most players peak in terms of skill at 27-29.
Most players peak in terms of their understanding of how to win at 30-32.
Overall this results in players being at their best from 27-30.
Again, 8 of our top 10 are under 25. Not every single one of those 8 are going to get substantially better, but most are going to improve quite a bit. Oden, Batum, and Bayless all have a lot of room to grow.
Not sure I understand your skepticism on Martell. Last year, I had Martell picked as the guy most likely to have a breakout year. Apparently, so did KP and a lot of other folks. Assuming his foot holds up, I don’t see any reason to be less optimistic this year. Martell has a great NBA body, above average athleticism, and a great stroke. He needs better confidence, an improved handle, and a true commitment to defense. I think we will know by the trading deadline if Martell is going to be a strong contributor. Care to expand on your skepticism?
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
His foot.
I was worried that he tried to come back a couple of times and then couldn’t go. I read somewhere that foot troubles never really go away because of all the stress they take. I’m not a medical doctor though. Maybe Portland should send him to Phoenix so their training staff can work their magic.
From where will the minutes for Martell come? It might be interesting if Portland goes for a big lineup with Roy/Rudy/Martell on the wings, but minutes for Martell will need to be carved out of Batum’s and Outlaw’s minutes. Is that a good thing? People hate on Travis here, but he can get off his shot under nearly every circumstance and that is valuable.
I just think after the re-injury, they decided to be super cautious
Obviously there is a potential for problems, but that doesn’t mean we should trade him away. Trading him now would mean getting less in return. Better to take the risk and see if he going to be able to take a big step forward like many thought he would last year. Don’t forget, Martell was a #6 pick straight out of High School. He came in with a bit of a chip on his shoulders and wasn’t considered extremely coachable in his first couple of seasons. I think he has matured out of those issues and is ready to soar.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
not enough information
to say about martell’s health.
educated guessing is all we can do. I think the MDs might have botched the surgery.
yet another question mark on a team full of them.
Doubtful
They inserted a connecting screw/nail, which – in theory – should make the fracture more stable than just letting the bones grow together while causing a longer rehab and potential discomfort. It’s just a complicated area to heal. I do think he should not have come back for the Toronto game, but rehab until January/February. But I’m not an orthopedic surgeon either.
exactly
and the key to the success of that surgery is to place the screw in such a way that it does not weaken bone on either side of the fracture. It’s tricky. Because if you get it wrong, you’re in worse shape than if you had just let it heal. Does Martell’s re-injury mean that they botched it? No. Would they tell us if they had? No.
So, as I said, we don’t have enough information. Based on what information we do have, and my general impression of the Blazers med staff, I think there’s a decent chance that they messed up his foot.
Why the lack of confidence in the medical staff?
There has been no word about Martell flying around the country to get other opinions. The only thing we heard was that the bone had not completely filled in after the re-injury and that at the rate it appeared to be healing he needed a bit more time to be certain. He will have had another 4 or 5 months by the time fall camp starts.
by upper left corner on Jun 14, 2009 5:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure they said on Courtside
that Webster has been cleared for all basketball activity, recently. The front office considered having him play in the Vegas league but decided against it (he’s already shown what he can do there, twice. There’s no need to risk his health or further injury, etc)
As I wrote yesterday, this decision tells me that Martell is not going to be a part of any summer trade discussions, because in order to get a fair return for him, you’d want to stick him out there for a week of games and let the opposing scouts see how he’s doing on the court.
The earliest we should expect to see MW dealt is next February, depending on how he looks for the first half of the season.
KP said at the end of the season....
that he thought Martell and Jerryd were the two players most likely to make a big jump over the summer. The comment may have been subterfuge, but on a local radio station I doubt it. If it is an honest expression of his expectations, it is very telling. You are very unlikely to trade highly regarded young prospects who have not produced much but are expected to make a big step forward.
All indications are that Bayless and Webster are going to both get their opportunity this coming fall.
by upper left corner on Jun 14, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
You are very unlikely to trade highly regarded young prospects who have not produced much
Especially if one of them missed the season with a foot injury and and won’t be playing organized 5 on 5 until August
If Bayless shows improvement (or not) at Vegas he could be dealt, I suppose. But by the end of summer league teams have usually made up their minds re: free agents and are working on getting their #1 draft choices signed, etc
He should be getting other opinions!
And if his medical staff was first rate, they would recommend just that.
To answer your question, i consider the re-injury a botch. It’s a delicate surgery in that you are creating additional weakness in the short term to have a stronger bone in the long term. Thus the proper healing of the foot is critical.
Something similar happened to Steve Blake.
And there has been a pattern of general obtuseness and uncertainty about injuries weeks after they occur that you do not see from a lot of seasoned NBA franchises.
So yea, from where I am sitting there is either some incompetence or some ego involved with the Blazers med staff.
Very solid points all around
If you consider resolving the PG and SF positions “tweaks,” I am completly on board with the tweak scenario. But both those positions have to be addressed. I think it would be a significant miscalculation to bring back the same 3 players at either position going into next season.
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
by KP Corleone on Jun 13, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
What is your take on Outlaw?
Can’t see the three PGs coexisting for another season. Would like to see a starter who is a better defender and less one-dimensional offensively. Sergio seems like the odd man out.
What is your take on Outlaw? I think he is productive, but his defensive lapses and lousy rebounding are very frustrating.
If you project our second unit as Bayless, Rudy, Martell, Outlaw and Pryz, that is a nice unit offensively. Bayless is the penetrator. Rudy, Martell and Outlaw are all good spot up shooters. It gives you lots of speed. The question is defense and rebounding. If Outlaw could step it up just a little bit, I would like to have him in this unit. His ability to get his own shot gives Bayless a good bailout option when the clock is running down.
If you bring in a big banger instead of Outlaw, you may have spacing problems. Bayless needs as much room as possible to maximize his skills and as many targets to pass to as possible. If we do go with a banger for rebounding and defense, it needs to be someone who can hit a 10-12 foot J.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
I have to agree with your SF position
Someone has to go, and if that happens to be TO, than we had better hope Mertell is ready to go. TO leaving would also give us what seems to be the needed “prod” to go after a banger PF. My choice would be Bass. Travis as a back up 4 does nothing for me. Travis, he scares me and thrills me all at the same time.
Regardless of the who the eventual starting PG ends up (Hinrich or Blake) Bayless really needs a solid chance at the backup. Sergio, while better right now at the position than Bayless, does not fit the teams style as coached by Nate. Let him go to a team that can let him develop.
Getting a veteran starter would be the most disruptive move
If the Blazers decide to get a veteran starter, this will upset the team the most. Say we acquire a starting SF, then you really only have room for one of our young fellers at that position. If you go for a veteran PG starter, then same deal- only 1 guy gets any minutes.
If on the other hand you go for a veteran backup, you’d better make sure it is the right guy. If this new pickup, can’t get effective minutes then you just made a deal to make a deal.
Question> Do we really know enough about these youngsters to swing for the fences, or should we just try to get on base?
The Martell injury bailed us out last year
Frankly the odds of another injury bailing us out at least to some degree is relatively high. Lets just pray its not Roy/Oden/LMA.
by senormateo on Jun 13, 2009 9:30 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I only recommended this...
because this is what I think about when people talk about having “too much talent”. Depth is crucial in today’s NBA and while I agree that a little better balance of veterans to young guys is probably needed, let’s not get too carried away with the idea that you can have too many young talented guys.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I couldn't stand Pat either
But given that Lafferty hasn’t been with the team in years, perhaps it’s time to get over his career in the broadcast booth?
I am Spartacus and I approved this message
Without you out there, we're nowhere here.
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
lol
Ah yes, those were the days. Glad they are gone!
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 9:47 AM PDT reply actions
What Will Happen
Some players we’re sure of, some we’re not. The ones we’re sure of can be divided into two groups. Roy, Aldridge, and Blake are players whose potential for improvement is rounding off, but because they are solid players and fit Nate’s style of play, they are Keepers. What makes Outlaw, Frey and Rodriguez fall into another group is that they are either consistently inconsistent, like Travis, or unable to play a needed role on the team and showed only little improvement last year. There is a third group of four young players whose positions on the growth curve are not clear, but who appear to have potential for rapid improvement over the next year or two: Oden, Batum, Fernandez, and Bayless.
The first and third groups are Keepers. The first have already earned their place on the team. The third stays around into next year because they already show signs of being key players, like Oden & Batum, or may become so soon, like Webster & Bayless. The third group is also Keepers because you don’t trade players whose value is likely to greatly rise later (See: Jermain O’Neil) unless you can be sure that the player you get in return will develop likewise. The second group are the Traders.
Portland’s clear needs next year are 1) a reliable back-up PG and 2) a tenacious PF. I predict that Bayless will be the single most improved player on the team and solve the first problem. He’ll either show or go before the trade deadline in 2010. The second problem is the one the Blazer’s will solve through a trade, packaging some Traders and possibly the #24 draft pick for some veteran muscle and gonads. And Webster’s recovery will make help us forget Outlaw. This is how the season will begin. If the team does not show the expected growth and stalls, adjustments can be made mid-season.
And that’s the truth.
I think the ghost of the J. O'neil tradie gets invoked way to often
as a cautionary tale against letting go of youth. Rather, that trade was about bringing in a “proven veteran with muscle” in Dale Davis. Everyone wants to mitigate the chance of undervaluing your own trade chip and overvaluing the trade target, but there will be some risk inherent to roster manipulation, and depending on where a team is at, putting the onus of player development on another team in rebuilding mode while reaping the benefits of a player in his prime is a legitimate strategy.
You just have to make sure you are valuing the right skills and that the acquired player has those skills. The problem with the J. O’Neil trade is that the Blazers gave starter minutes to an inferior Dale Davis. Had they simply given those starter minutes to O’Neil, the Blazers would have been a different, and better team. That was bad talent evaluation. I don’t see this management group making the same mistake. They are far too sophisticated.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 13, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Polite disagreement
What happened with O’Neil is an excellent example of the point I argued in my post just above.
Aging stars, or near stars (28-30+), are the most expensive acquisitions. They have rep because they have produced. When you trade potential for proven, you almost always have to pay a lot more potential. In certain situations where you have a glaring need, or a very specific need, this may make sense. But when you are trying to put your team in position to challenge for a Championship for the next ten years, trading lots of potential for short term upgrades doesn’t make much sense.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course there is always a balance between short term gain and long term development
but you would have to be an idiot to give up more than you get back. The O’Neil trade was stupid because the guy the Blazers gave up was better than the guy they got back. However, the basic premise remains sound. Instead of invoking the O’Neil example, look at the Garnett and Allen examples as trades well done. The premise is always sound as long as the players make sense.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 13, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Analogies are useful in analogous situations.
And I agree with blacknoiseNW that this management group is too astute a judge of talent to trade away emerging stars for short-term gain, i.e., a proven veteran with just a few years left. Whether or not Batum, Webster, Bayless and Fernandez are really emerging stars that will help this team will become evident this year. Until the Blazers better know what they’ve got, they won’t trade them.
by Trutherlizer on Jun 14, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Great post Dave....
In the NBA, if you are standing still, you are falling behind. This roster simply isn’t finalized, too many young players and overlapping talent. Trades need to be made for the sake of the Blazers and for the sake of some of the players. I love all of our guys, which is why I don’t want to see the Travis/Sergio’s of the team get the shaft when there simply isn’t enough minutes to go around…
RUDY > MJ
Overlapping talent... well said myemic23
We really need to have the role players to have the skills that fit the role. Dave is exactly right in the need to improve our roster and add more experience. The window is wide open for us to jump into the championship fight. If you look at some of the play in these finals…. I mean these teams just aren’t that much better than us.
If we wait too long to improve through trades/FA’s then say Roy goes down with a injury just when everyone else “developes” the opportunity may be lost forever.
Even this season if we had traded for Gerald Wallace we very well could have been good enough to get at least to the conference finals. We will never know…this year. That said if KP pulls the trigger on a trade or signs a big FA I have to believe he will make the right move. Seems to be a pretty good judge of player/character.
Exactly
Look at my other team, the Cavs. They were having a great season. They had an expiring deal. They had a chance to win a championship – and they froze. They sat on Wally’s contract. And they were one piece short.
The Blazers, obviously, are in a very different phase of their development. But the same lesson applies. You can’t stand pat just because you have a solid team. Given the opportunity, you HAVE to improve the roster. You HAVE to get value out of the guys you have rather than letting them rot away on the bench.
What happens this summer will go a very long way (together with the development of Bayless, Rudy, and Oden) in determining whether the Blazers are an annual playoff team or an annual championship contender.
Great post, Dave.
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
by KP Corleone on Jun 13, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Standing still should not be mistaken for not improving
When 8 out of 10 rotation players are under 25, you are going to improve through natural development. I’m not saying that some specific tweaks don’t need to be made, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
the problem is that every team that is a threat to the blazers has young improving players as well...
The difference is that most have veterans to accelerate the youngins learning curve, the blazers, for the most part, don’t. Look at the L*kers, Kobe isn’t getting any worse this summer, Ariza, Walton, Farmar, Brown, Bynum all stand to get better. Look at the Nuggets, Billups is still holding strong, and Melo, Smith, Kleiza, and nene are going to get better and now have significant playoff experience to boot. This is true for dang near every team, either they are improving or they are rebuilding. Even the ancient Spurs have Parker, Manu, Hill, and Mason who stand to improve(barring injuries). We can’t expect our players to develop and improve at a faster rate than most other players across the league. Its a marathon and most of the teams ahead of us are jogging steadily along and getting closer to that finish line. There is two ways to try and catch up, hope that you can speed your development up to a sprint, or you can look for that (non-cheating)shortcut through the woods that cuts some of the distance between you and other competitors. Maybe if you are really lucky, you find the shortcut that pops you flat out ahead of everyone else,
Developing players can be a crapshoot, all young players could get better, but non are guaranteed to. Every year there is a player that you expected had reached his ceiling that grows significantly. On the other hand, every year there are players who are expected to be better but for whatever reason, they aren’t. For instance, between Martell, Outlaw, and Batum, You would think each would improve. But there is no way that each player can have a better season than their last, there simply isn’t enough minutes. Somebody is going to see their minutes go down, which effects confidence, chemistry, and most importantly, trade value. How are you going to feel if Sergio comes in and takes Bayless’s backup minutes. Bayless’s value and development is now stunted. The same is true if Bayless takes Sergio’s backup minutes, now Sergio is unhappy and his trade value is that of a 3rd stringer, which isn’t fair value. Something has to give at the 1 and 3 positions.
RUDY > MJ
Both the Lakers and Denver have far fewer players under 25 and more guys over 30
Kobe is probably at his peak right now. It may take a couple of years but he is going to start sliding. Fisher is just about toast. Odom is 30 and a lot of his production is based on athleticism.
Billups is probably past his prime. Melo and KMart and Nene are all over 25 and not likely to make dramatic improvements.
I just don’t buy the argument that LA’s or Denver’s position is analogous to ours. I don’t think there has ever been a team that was this good and this young. Can you think of any?
Patience is still advised. Teaks are important, but I don’t think we need dramatic trades.
by upper left corner on Jun 13, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Regarding Manu
Manu is 32 I believe
Having him listed as an up and comer is probably inaccurate
"You're welcome friend
I love you."
- Tom "Dragline" inHawaii
by 92wastheyear on Jun 13, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
true
I listed him not so much because of age, but because of injury. He wasnt himself. To think he won’t be better next year barring injuries doesn’t make sense to me. And the Spurs might have beat us in the playoffs without him, but we will never know….
RUDY > MJ
Agreed
if the Spurs can somehow get fully healthy seasons from Manu and Timmy (big ifs), you can pretty much pencil them in for the WCF next year. Even playing on one leg, Duncan still put up video game numbers against Dallas in the first round. Add those two and a typical Spurs draftee who can contribute at one of the big man positions or the wing, and they’ll be pretty stacked.
For all the fuss that was made over his signing there, Ime has been a pretty unqualified bust for them. He was expected to pretty much take over for Bowen by the end of this year, and, despite Bowen having his minutes severely cut back, Ime was only averaging 15 mpg. Hard to imagine that, even with Manu hurt, they planned to have Finley playing nearly 30 mpg.
You stated above that players....
peak at ages 27-30 and peak in understanding of how to win at 30-32. But now in this argument being over 25 is a negative? Denver and LA gained significant advantages on the blazers by going deep into the playoffs. I don’t want to be the Chicago Bulls 2.0 because we sat on a bunch of young talent fail early in the playoffs and never made the adjustments necessary to maximize that talent and bring it to another level. Potential doesn’t win championships, bottom line.
At a certain point, you turn that potential into a known quantity and make your run. The blazers have the luxury of being able to not only turn potential into known quantities, they can do that while retaining plenty of young potential for the future. We don’t have to sacrifice the future to make the current team a contender. But if KP sits on his hands much longer, he will lose the leverage he has worked so hard over the last 3 years to gain. KP has cap space and hoards of young, valuable assets at the palm of his hand, stand pat for another year and much of that leverage is gone. The time to field teams full of potential is over, the time to consolidate and add experience is now. KP is smart enough to do so while keeping the long term in mind. Batum and Bayless need mentors, and Roy needs help. Those answers won’t be solved with minor tweaks….
RUDY > MJ
We may like these players personally
but I think most bloggers participating on this site can prioritize among players/positions.
I understand the argument that at team can only stock so many “starter” caliber players at one position before someone, and the team, begins to suffer from lack of development caused by lack of playing time.
Take both these principles, and I think the general consensus is that Outlaw and Sergio are the most expendable, and point guard is the position that could benefit from a new starter the most (making Blake either the 2nd guard or also expendable).
However, the small forward argument that Dave presented suffers from grouping Aldridge in with Outlaw, Webster and Batum. The latter three can start at SF, but would not be viable starters at PF. Aldridge is not a viable starter at SF. The logjam that Dave describes among Batum/Webster/Outlaw does exist, but the complications come from a small ball lineup with Roy getting time at the 3, rather than Aldridge.
I see more of a minutes issue at SG than I do at SF, especially if Webster realizes his potential as a very effective scoring SF and adequate defender. Batum, as a 20-year old, would not be compromised by 15-18 mpg, giving Webster up to 30 mpg. However, if Roy eats into SF minutes (giving Rudy more minutes at the 2), then both Webster and Batum could lose some minutes.
However, if the small ball unit COULD see Webster at the 4, with Aldridge at the 5, there may be some more minutes there, and we also need to acknowledge that the depth at the 2/3 positions is a team strength – allowing starters even as good as Roy to play reduced minutes during the regular season and mitigating those nagging injuries that will occur and will cause most players to miss at least a few games.
This speculation, of course, doesn’t account for Outlaw. He needs to go, for his own sake at the very least. He will never start on this team.
Also, I think Roy should pick up more minutes playing alongside Rudy in the backcourt, cutting Blake/Bayless/3rd PG minutes rather than SF minutes. Obviously this would be match up dependent, but there are significant minutes available for Roy (or Rudy) to guard PGs such as D. Williams, Derek Fisher and Billups.
small ball unit COULD see Webster at the 4, with Aldridge at the 5
But why do this when you have two centers who are deserving of 25+ mpg? If Oden improves and stays out of foul trouble (like we all hope he can) and as long as Joel/Greb stay healthy, there should be no need for LMA to play center
Roy/Rudy is a logjam waiting to happen, but that really shouldn’t be the focus of this offseason. If Rudy comes along like we all expect, he’s going to be a huge trading chip in 18-24 months. This offseason is the time to jettison Sergio and Outlaw to upgrade the starting PG and backup PF position (i.e. add toughness and veteran experience)
This season, only 2 of the top 15 5-man units (min played) had someone other than Oden or Prz
at the 5; that someone was Aldridge, of course. But small ball has its place evidenced by the /- of those Prz/Oden-less units (36 when Outlaw was at the 4; only +7 when Outlaw was at the 3 and Frye was at the 4, mitigated somewhat by a difference in minutes (91 to 79)).
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 14, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
and next season
we should see more of Greg (knock on wood)
(Rhetorical question: When Frye and LMA were in there together, who was the center? Answer: it doesn’t matter now, because Channing won’t be back, anyway)
I’m not expecting heavy doses of Travis at the 4 and LMA at the 5, going forward. Greg/Joel won’t have enough minutes to go around as it is, and (I’m hoping at least) that Travis wil be “moved along” in lieu of a real backup PF to play behind LMA
But what if the other team plays a small lineup (like Don Nelson, etc)? Then dump it into Oden and punish ‘em. There’s no point in matching up to the other guy’s lineups during the regular season, just “play your game” (as Dr. Jack likes to say) and make them adjust to you
The big thing I take away from Dave's post...
Is that if you stand pat, there just aren’t enough minutes to go around.
There are only a total of 240 minutes available each game (48 minutes x 5 positions = 240). Estimating conservatively, if Roy and LMA each get ~35 minutes, Rudy gets 30, Oden gets 25, and Pryzbilla gets 20, you have 95 minutes left to split among Blake, Bayless, Webster, Outlaw, and Batum (assuming Sergio is gone). That’s an average of 19 minutes per player; for perspective, Batum played 18.4 last year. Clearly they’re not all going to average 19 mpg, so at least one player will be ’Frye’d. (All of this is further compounded if we bring in any rookies).
If Outlaw ends up being the odd man out, what does that do for his trade value? And while he may not make any noise or cause any problems in his reduced role, will he really have the same cohesive effect on the locker room if he’s unhappy about his minutes? I’m not saying he necessarily won’t, but I also don’t think it’s a given.
Now obviously injuries will happen, but I don’t think you can (or even want to) assume that we’ll have another year where one player is out for the entire year, another is out for ~20 games (Oden), and another is out for ~15 (Blake).
So how do we find minutes for all of these guys if we don’t at least make 1-2 trades?
Personal opinion (which will mean little around here I suspect)
Is that the Blazers would be wise to dump Blake and Outlaw for Hinrich if the Bulls agree to it. The Bulls won’t pay the luxury tax, and this would help them re-sign Gordon for whatever amount.
I agree with Dave’s point that they have too much talent. Which is why I can’t see them really trying to get another high end young player. At some point, they need different talent, and older, talent to make up the bits, cracks, and pieces of the roster that don’t currently bring what they need.
There is such a thing as too much talent, and Portland has it. I would suggest that right now the only untouchables are the obvious one’s (Roy, Aldridge, Oden), and that the near untouchables (Przybilla, Fernandez) are the only other’s that remain so. Batum is valuable, but only as a role player in this type of system. The question is how much value he would have next season & beyond.
I think the Blazers would be wise to keep Martell Webster because he can shoot, and they can dangle him as a piece to get back a missing “something” whatever it is.
I’m sure there are plenty of teams that could use Rodriguez, but the Blazers aren’t that team. They won’t get much back for him, and getting a 2nd round pick (I know) is probably the best value they could get. Sergio has no real value around the NBA in terms of actual return. Being stuck between a rock & a hard place is never a good thing for trade value.
Last but not least, enjoyed the piece Dave.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I pretty much agree, although I’d place Batum in with Przybilla in the untouchables, with Rudy outside of the top 5. He complements Roy well.
I want Hinrich.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 13, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Not that I think the Kings would absolutely trade him
But do you think the Blazers would have any interest in Nocioni while moving Webster?
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
No, not really. If we get a new backup power forward, it’ll be a straight 4 in the mold of McDyess, as Brandon referenced. We need toughness and rebounding at that spot.
If that happens, then there aren’t minutes for Nocioni. Roy + Batum will take up at least 40 minutes at the 3.
Plus, I don’t like his game.
proud hinrichsheeple
I had a feeling that's what you'd say
I don’t really covet Webster or Rodriguez, but at the same time, the Kings might consider a deal like that if it saves them money. Not necessarily sure how Noc fits in with Portland though.
I think there are other deals out there the Kings could do just as easily anyway.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I do think Webster will be moved at some point. He wouldn’t be a horrible fit in Sacramento.
proud hinrichsheeple
Yeah
I do think so too. Especially if it’s in favor of Fernandez. Portland has a good problem, but I think too many teams won’t bother doing a deal unless they don’t have to give up too many asset’s.
Unlike RLEC, Portland will not get an All-Star, or near All-Star, or anything beyond a competent role player, in a contract dump. I think Pritchard has to recognize that fact and simply make his roster a palatable reality as opposed to an idealistic one.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I think Pritchard can get a pretty good piece for cap space and a player. It won’t be Chris Paul, but it might be Kirk Hinrich.
proud hinrichsheeple
I think the Bulls would be happy to take his salary and long term commitment off the books
The problem I have with the Blazers is taht with LMA, Oden and Roy, what star believes they will be a star in Portland?
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
the best fit is a defensive guy who thrives on the +/-, the no-stats all star like Battier. I firmly believe Hinrich is that guy.
You’re right. A big star won’t come. It has to be a complementary player.
proud hinrichsheeple
Especially one that's slightly overpaid
Sometimes that’s how it works in these deals. Even with all the talk about firesales happening, they just never came last year. They still might come this summer, but what does that do with a team that could have a viable 12 man rotation? You can play all 12 guys every game significant minutes.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I don't think Webster can realistically be traded
Until the Febrary deadline at the earliest
Sure, his contract could be thrown into another deal to “even things out” but that woold be a waste of a pretty good asset. Martell needs to get out on the court and show the rest of the league that he’s healthy before his trade value is back up to where it was at the end of last summer.
The reports I’ve heard is that he could play right now, so that must mean his foot is fully healed and the doctors have given him the green light to be involved in all basketball activities. The front office has also decided not to put him on the Vegas roster, and that tells me he’s in the Blazer’s plans for next year. Why? Because if the team wanted to “showcase” Marty for a possible July trade, the summer league would be the perfect venue.
If he plays well in November through January and KP wants to make a deal at the deadline, then OK. But for this summer at least, Webster has more value staying on the Portland roster than he would bring in any deal
Players that have been in the league more than 3 years aren't eligible for Summer League
Agreed about Webster’s value. He’s going to have a hard time finding minutes this year. Maybe Nate sticks him in front of Batum just because.
I think the rule is that a team can’t force a player with more than three years experience to go, not that they can’t go. Amare is an example of a guy who went to Vegas to get back into live action after his knee injury.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 14, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s going to have a hard time finding minutes this year
not if Outlaw is dealt, he won’t
(but I know what you’re thinking, Roy slides to SF to make room for Rudy at the 2, etc)
If Nate likes what Webster and Batum are giving him at the defensive end of the floor at the 3, you might find that there will be less minutes for Brandon at SF next year than we saw last year while Marty was out. I know you believe that Rudy is the “superior” player, but Nate looks at other factors like team defense and rebounding when making substitutions, not just PER.
(KP would probably agree with you re: the PER numbers when Roy played SF…but remember, KP hasn’t coached the team since the end of ‘05 and he doesn’t get into Nate’s business)
It's not about PER
I know you believe that Rudy is the "superior" player, but Nate looks at other factors like team defense and rebounding when making substitutions, not just PER.
It’s not about PER at all. It’s about scoring points and not allowing your opponents to score them. Rudy and Roy at the wings outscored their opponents by 12 points per 48 minutes last year. I don’t really care at all what their particular PER’s were when they did it, but that the team is winning (increasing leads, decreasing deficits) when they’re both in the game at the same time.
Martell Webster to get Rudy's minutes
would have to be as good defensively as Rudy is offensively, and that just isn’t happening.
Then he'll have to take Outlaw's minutes
Webster played 28 mpg in 07-08. Batum played 18 mpg last year. If they’re both healthy they should eat up 48 minutes at SF
I still contend that Nate played Roy out of position for portions of ballgames at SF last year out of necessity, and that neither Nate or Brandon is planning for that to be a regular occurence in ’09-10. Against certain teams and certain matchups, perhaps. But Webster/Batum will receive the bulk of the PT at SF, unless KP consolidates the roster and brings in a different SF, which I consider unlikely
Like I told tominhawaii last summer (when he predicted that Rudy would play more PG than Blake) we’ll just have to wait and see how it shakes out in November. You’ve got the stats, but Nate’s still the coach and I’m expectiing that Martell will have a significant role, next fall
If Nate starts playing favorites against the betterment of the team
he should be gone. That’s how this thing works. An inept coach that makes the same mistakes over and over again doesn’t get to keep his job. We’ll have our pick of the very best coaches in the entire league within the next couple of years, and Nate still has a ton of work to do to prove he belongs.
Not playing Rudy so that Webster or Batum can play right now does not equal wins. Rudy next year will depending on Oden’s growth will be either 3a or 3b as far as players go. He’s also a fantastic fit next to Roy. I would think it’s a hard thing to mess up, but we’ll see.
Not playing Rudy so that Webster or Batum can play right now does not equal wins.
It might not matter, if the PG and PF positions are upgraded (as we hope) then you could plug in any of the wing position players alongside Roy and LMA and probably win 55+ games.
Nate’s job won’t be in jeopardy if the team continues it’s upward trend, but now the measuring stick will be playoff success. If Nate thinks that playing Webster and Batum at the SF gives him the best shot at defending (larger) opposing SFs in the post season (instead of using Roy at the 3, etc) he’ll lean in that direction with his rotations.
We already saw how Artest took it at Roy and Batum in the Houston series. If the Blazers were to match up with Denver in the playoffs, who do you think Nate would choose to put on Anthony? (Not Roy, at least not if he can help it.)
Martell’s progress was interrupted by the foot injury, but heading into last season Nate was already talking to him about making the commitment to defend the best players, etc. I don’t think that goal was discarded just because of Roy and Rudy’s success playing in a small lineup while Martell was on the mend. Webster’s only going to get stronger as he matures, and the SF position has some big boys (LeBron, Melo, Turk, etc) who will need to be guarded by someone who can hold his ground against ’em in the postseason.
This is why I want Ariza
I simply have no faith in Martell being able to slow down elite perimeter players. And Batum has his limits in this regard as well. In my opinion if one of these scenarios were to play out it’s Batum that gets cut minutes and not Rudy. Rudy will go 26-30 minutes regardless of the defensive matchups. Roy gets his 38 and whomever our best defender is versus their best perimeter wing is gets the remainder. Against Houston, Batum was pretty close to worthless for us. If that happens again, he shouldn’t play again.
This reminds me of Falsehoop
One of my favorite Dave postings ever. (Which I admit there have been a lot to choose from.)
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
This might be the best line of all
And by the way, as ESPN radio host Colin Cowherd told us yesterday morning, all of Zach’s off-court problems came because he lived in Portland. It’s true that only people in Portland or Indiana get in trouble because there’s nothing to do in either place. P-Town is the most boringest city ever. What person under 26 hasn’t been in trouble with the law multiple times? The students at Western Conservative Theological Baptist Seminary were seen street racing through Mount Tabor last week and the sisters at Mount Angel have a rap sheet six miles long, including being on the fringes of several shootings. Portland really is a hotbed of boredom-induced crime. If we’d just install a mega-mall with a roller coaster inside all of our problems would be solved. You’d be amazed how a few Orange Juliuses keep all the kids out of trouble.
That, or this:
Every second round pick and European player is going to pan out, giving us the deepest roster in the history of forever. We’ll go at least 17 deep. Because of Nate McMillan’s coaching brilliance and Kevin Pritchard’s master plan all 17 of those guys will be happy with their playing time and none of them will score fewer than 15 points per game.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Yea Sergiack was awesome
Satire in the hands of genius always produces classics. I remember how much crap I suggested the Blazers get cap space for Randolph (that and another suggestion on what the Blazers should do with Miles—that wasn’t as well received—I’m not defending that, just laughing at that particular memory).
Good times.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
getting rid of Zbo was KP’s best move.
I always enjoyed satire, especially some of Twain’s.
proud hinrichsheeple
What are you 150 years old?
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
nah, I had an American Lit class. The language was pretty old-school, but the satire was excellent.
proud hinrichsheeple
LOL
Twain was great that way.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I still think Jerryd Fernandez would be the best combination. He might rule the NBA.
proud hinrichsheeple
LOL @ that
He’d be cream colored too.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
He’d have a great beard AND well manicured eyebrows.
Passing, driving, shooting, driving, big, physical, agile, strong, high BBIQ, high intensity, good workout guy… What can Jedy Fernanless not do?
proud hinrichsheeple
Make Sophia happy
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 13, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't find it
I remember laughing very hard at it when it was originally written. (I don’t read Bedge often, but occasionally some stuff sticks out at me. This piece reminded me of that.)
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I would not give you Falsehoop
on this strange and mournful day. – Paul Simon
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
Also no
That Nocioni is not really the tough guy and versatile defensive player people once thought he was is an open secret among fans in the league since his time with the Bulls, much less a secret among GMs and coaches. While he does strike me as a guy Nate wouldn’t be opposed against, yet his contract is so ugly and his limitations so well known that I am surprised the Bulls found a taker for him. I highly doubt KP would want to end up with it. But then again I also thought Charlotte made a mistake getting Diaw and his ugly contract and he actually helped them getting 2 for 1.
Money makes the world go round
Fun little fact. With Salmons trade kicker, the Kings only lose 2.5 million dollars over the life of Noc’s deal as opposed to this upcoming year with Miller & Salmons. If Salmons DOESN’T OPT out, which may happen, than the Kings gain a couple of million.
I’ll take that deal given the tough economy and how many teams were looking to dump salary. The Kings succeeded.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Yes, you are correct in that your opinion is not valued.
You see, on Blazers Edge, we don’t sling our opinions around willy nilly and call that analysis. Au contraire, the carefully crafted prose that we “regulars” post here is based on a nigh interminable scrutiny of objective facts and statistics that we have gathered over the many glorious seasons of our hallowed Trail Blazers. And we don’t simply summarize those myriad inputs in presenting our findings; rather, we sift through them to find the one narrative thread that most illuminates the team’s present situation vis-a-vis its rich history and the uncertain milieu of today’s NBA. So you see, there is really no room for opinion at all.
"Just kidding"
I read your comment
and now I have sarcasm all over my eyes……you should warn people
"You're welcome friend
I love you."
- Tom "Dragline" inHawaii
by 92wastheyear on Jun 13, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Blazers have 3 personnel issues to deal with.
They MUST sort out either (1) or (2) this year. (3) is not as pressing:
1. Logjam/Uncertainty at the SF.
2. Uncertainty at the PG.
3. Softness at backup PF.
And there are many question marks:
1. SF:
Martell’s health AND potential?
Batum’s offensive potential?
Effect on locker room and 4th quarter scoring if Travis is traded?
2. at PG:
How necessary is Steve Blake to chemistry and confidence of starting unit?
Jerryd Bayless??
We know Sergio is not a good fit with Nate, that at least is fairly certain.
Who’s available and who we trade with will likely determine which of these gets sorted. But I am with Dave, one of them at least must be tackled.
We need to lose some of this young talent.
It is time. And that means, to some extent, rolling the dice.
UMMM, it's actually "YIN and YANG"
The Chinese idea that opposite ideas or forces are interconnected and provide balance is yin and yang. Although a lot of people say they have things coming out their “ying yang” which often sounds painful or at least disgusting.
Just being pedantic.
or both
Painful and disgusting
"You're welcome friend
I love you."
- Tom "Dragline" inHawaii
by 92wastheyear on Jun 13, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Also keep in mind that you usually get someone back in a trade.
So if there’s currently not room for two of our players, and we trade them for one or two other people who also need time, then we haven’t solved anything. We either need a 3 for 1, or a 4 for 2, or a trade for future picks, or a trade for someone who doesn’t need to play (but then why would you want them?).
I agree a move must be made, but I I don't care yet
I can’t have an opinion until the finals are over. Too much speculation, not enough tangible fact. I get that speculation turns on a lot of people. Not so much for me.
Fire Mark Mason. He's a dork, and he projects that we are ALL dorks
Fire Brian Wheeler. Homers suck.
Trade Trout, or sign someone reliable to soak up his minutes.
....Now I'm done
Good post, Dave
I’m surprised a big move wasn’t made last summer. We simply wasted an asset in Channing. We stagnated two more at PG in Bayless (somewhat, but rookies learn a lot even when not playing) and especially Sergio. We would have stagnated yet another in Nic if Martell hadn’t been injured.
I don’t see KP wasting that many assets again, if he can avoid it.
Yet, the Martell story is a reminder — it can be very useful to have three quality players at a position. Sometimes, you’ll lose one of them for a long time. So you don’t throw away depth just to avoid wasting assets.
But if you can do a quantity for quality trade, when you have this much depth, you have to do it.
Don’t expect to be able to trade for future first round picks, though, in this economy. The only way that happens is if you are taking a bad salary back in combination with those picks. Nobody wants to take your players, who they have to pay now, in exchange for a future pick that they don’t have to pay now.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
it can be very useful to have three quality players at a position
This is true, as long as they all “buy into” the idea. Typically, one of those three “quality players” is going to sit a majority of the time. And if all three are young vets (playing in their 2nd season, up until their early 30s) you’re going to have a tough sell convincing that one player that he ’s the odd-man out.
I remember folks saying when Blake went down “look at how well Jarrett Jack is playing for Indy, if KP had krpt him around he’d be starting right now instead of Sergio!”
Problem!
If KP had kept JJ around, Jack would’ve been extremely unhappy playing scrub minutes behind Blake, Roy and Rudy for most of the season. Sometimes it’s better to deal those young vets away before they get disgruntled, especially if they’ve had a major role for your team in previous years, when the team was rebuilding, but not yet contending.
And this brings us to Travis Outlaw. Sure, Travis has been a large part of the team’s development and success in the past 3+ years. He provides “instant offense” off the bench (when his jumper is falling) and that’s nothing to be sneezed at. But as everyone knows, heading into last year we were already anticipating a logjam at the SF before Webster broke his foot. And now, we know what Batum can do, and what Rudy brings to the table, and suddenly those 25-30 mpg that Outlaw has grown accustomed to receiving don’t look like they’re gonna be there, unless someone else gets hurt, again (and you can’t “plan” for that)
So that’s what “addition by subtraction” is all about. Yes, you want depth at all positions. (Or at least, you want versatile players who can slide to another position when it’s needed.) But you can’t have too many young vets (re: 2nd year to early 30s) because they all want to play a lot, so they will eventually get paid well when their contracts come due. This is why adding an older veteran or two to a team that is ready to contend makes so much sense. It may look “bad” on the surface to deal away a young player with “unknown potential” for an older guy who may only play for another year or two, but that grizzled vet will help out immensly in at least two ways:
1) he will sit quietly until his name is called, as long as the team is winning and is in a position to go for a title run
2) if he’s the “right kind” of vet (with playoff experience, etc) he’ll help the kids prepare for the playoffs and keep them all focused on the task at hand
So by all means, construct your roster to have depth. Just don’t think that having them all be “young vets” is the best mix. Once you’ve crossed the treshold from building to competing, it’s better to add a few older vets to help balance out the squad.
Frye was not wasted on his contribution to team chemistry and did fulfill a role as backup
You may be correct that his value has dropped for trades but that same factor may enable us to resign him for Outlaw money for 3 years to re-establish himself. He bills himself as a shooter and actually did well the second half of the season (49.5% 2-point). We expected more from him but Outlaw proved the more versatile player. That gave Nate an option which is desirable.
"On a winning team you cannot give significant time to a guy just to develop him."
Pops does it, all the time. Phil does it, all the time. There are many many reasons those two guys are heads and shoulders above the rest of their coaching peers, and this is one of those reasons.
by howlingfantods on Jun 14, 2009 12:51 PM PDT reply actions
Actually, if you read the SBN Spurs blog, they constantly, constantly complain that Popovich won’t develop young players. Tony Parker was the exception.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 14, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh? that was another team that played George Hill 1200 minutes last season?
by howlingfantods on Jun 14, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
would Pop have done that
if Manu was healthy?
I’m sure if Phil and Pop had their druthers, they’d play their vets as much as possible. I remember Ime Udoka saying that in San Antonio, their philosophy is to not give a new player much PT (especially in crucial situations) until they’ve been with the team for at least a year. This is because their team defensive rotations are so complex
But when multiple injuries happen, all those “best laid plans” go right out the window. I’m not saying that Phil and Pop can’t coach up kids, because obviously they can take one or two young guys a year and integrate them into an already veteran squad. But we will never know if Phil or Pop could take an “expansion” roster through a 5 year building plan like Nate has just done, because they will never take a NBA job with that kind of future
also my observation isn't just about young guys
but about the ability of these two coaches to see productive roles for even their oldsters that they’ve never had worked on before.
The lakers win this year partly because Phil decided that Trevor Ariza, a 20% 3 point shooter before this year, was going to become a three point threat. Phil kept on feeding him the shot, and getting him to take them, and trev went from 20% at the start of the year to 35% by the end of the year, and an unholy 48% in the postseason.
by howlingfantods on Jun 14, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Pops really doesn't
even with George Hill, the only rookie to see meaningful minutes in recent memory with SA, he saw his playing time basically evaporate in the stretch run. The difference is that Pops and Phil will define a rotation and stick with it, forcing guys to play through their mistakes. It’s not like he’s starting Farmar over Fisher, but what he’ll do is say, “Jordan, you’re going to play these 15 minutes, regardless of what happens, so you better not screw it up”, whereas Nate will just pull Sergio/Bayless the second they mess up.
I don’t think giving a guy two more minutes of burn in a half would be considered “significant time”, but what Dave is referring to would be benching Blake and running Sergio or Bayless out to start and play 35 mpg because we need to develop them.
Besides, with Hill, he was beating out Jacque Vaughn, which had to be laughably easier even than beating out Sergio.
Neither Pops or Phil ever had to develop a young team
When you start with multiple HOF players it is easier to define rotations. (Yes I know Pops had TD as a rookie, but along side a healthy Admiral that development was assured with 21 points and 12 rebounds for TD and 22 points and 11 rebounds for the Admiral that first year.)
there are plenty of college coaches
who give the vote of confidence to their back-up players. Repeatedly and quickly yanking guys for errors of execution is just plain poor coaching.
Power forward back up
McDyess,Pachulia,Hansbrough,j.Johnson? I think the Blazers should target McDyess and draft Hansbrough and trade for Hinrich in a lopsided trade and trade the rest of the draft picks for future picks. and thats the only players they should target this off season.
Not bad
Making the lopsided Hinrich deal and still having the money to sign McDyess would be a real trick. You might want to run the numbers on that proposal and get back to us? (Maybe if KP resigns Raef for 2010, but I don’t see Chicago wanting to hold onto the RLEC until next summer before they can get their cap relief. You never know, though…)
I don’t know a lot about Psycho T, other than by reputation. He might be an OK fit. But I’ve got my eyes on Dejuan Blair and my newest proposal is to deal Outlaw and Sergio (plus picks) to Indy for Jeff Foster and their #1 pick. Then use that pick to select D-Blair
We might have to look another direction than Hinrich for PG help if this deal was to materialize. But if KP was able to add Foster and Blair to the Blazer’s frontcourt, I’d have to say “mission accomplished” re: his goal of upgrading the team’s toughness and physicality
Love and hate this post
I love that you do what you always do: make us think and generate amazing discussion.
I hate that you force us out of our entrenched perceptions of player-centric focus and into a team-centric need focus that sacrifices players whom I am watching develop and want to continue watching (here).
There are several observations not fully developed so far:
1. Traditional positions are not the direction KP and Nate have said they are moving. Flexibility in forcing match up difficulties are a key to the plan. This means that minutes per position are less important to Nate than using the most effective combination against a particular team. The premium on players who can play multiple parts of the offense is emphasized. Player’s minutes will flow around those combination demands varying between games. Overall minutes might be more equitable and for individual players the opportunity to be major contributors in a particular game or series may mollify the playing of lesser roles in other games or series.
a. The players who demand a double team to defend are going to get the most playing time.
b. The post combination of Oden and Aldridge with Roy overloads the defense to leave the other two positions open. This means we need shooters in those positions. Missing one or more of these players requires additional players who can get his high-percentage shot off against a defender. Reserves must be able to shoot. Sergio and Bayless will define their contributions by first hitting their shots.
c. The Orlando offense is a case in point. It is unorthodox and that causes teams to be mismatched against them. It is not an offense I believe works for the Blazers but it illustrated the value of players able to play multiple positions (Turk, ’Shard, Peitrus, Lee).
d. This works on defense as well. Being able to switch on screens improves perimeter defense immensely. Flexibility is a key.
2. The time-line for development may not demand a championship this year. I hear you (Dave) arguing that this is the year because those windows close quickly and I cannot disagree. However, the MVP of the Blazers is KP, in my opinion, and thus I believe KP will maximize the talent flow every year as needed. I don’t see that window as immediate as you do. Greg’s development is critical and without that development we will be just another good team. So the time line revolves around that development. The acquisition of shooters and the team chemistry maintenance and the continued progress of B-Roy and LMA and continued improvement in team perimeter defense are all probable with several options.
That does not mean standing pat. It means that the traditional ways we look at team needs may be flawed. “In KP we trust” is shared by most here. It is exciting and sad to see what happens next.
So thank you for the needed perspectives. Here’s hoping the solution is not as drastic as you envision (losing Rudy).
So, where does Joel fit into this scenario?
Since Pryzbilla can only play one position on defense, and he obviously will never be the kind of offensive player that forces a double-team, you’d think that Joel would be given a reduced role in Nate’s “system” as you’ve outlined above
But as we all know, Pryz is critical to the team’s success, especially on the defensive end. (and on offense he set screens and is ready to catch pick-and-roll passes going towards the hoop, as well as keep the ball alive on missed shots, etc)
So, even if an opposing coach inserted a lineup with 4 guards and a forward, I don’t necessarily see Nate sitting Joel/Greg down and running out a “matching set” of Blazer players.
Now, that’s an extreme example, and I think what you’re gettng at relates more to “wing” players rather than the PG or center positions, anyway. What I don’t want to see is the Blazers contiinue to draft or acquire skinny players who are 6’5" to 6’9" and can switch on everything. Sure, you always need SGs and SFs (quality >>> quantity) but not at the expense of having some quality PFs when playoff time rolls around.
The ‘09 Blazer roster had 4 guys (Frye, Shav, Diogu and Ruffin) who were basically worthless. Don’t get me wrong, they belong in the NBA, but during the regular season they basically sat around and watched Travis get the “traditional” backup PF minutes, then come playoff time the Blazer’s frontcourt was outplayed by the Rockets (a lot of this was due to Ming, but it sure helped Adelman that he had Landry and Hayes backing up Scola) To counter this size/toughness, Nate only had LMA, Travis and Frye (meanwhile, his centers were kept busy with Yao) and when push came to shove (ref: 4th quarter, game 4) the Rockets kicked butt and took the series
So, while I understand that “blending the traditional roles” works in theory during the regular season, don’t show me any small lineups and gimmicks during the post season. You’ve gotta be able to defend, and get the stop. That means possession of the basketball after your opponent misses the shot. The Blazers did that very well during the regular season (thanks to Joel, mostly) but Pryz couldn’t front Ming and still get all of those boards, and it cost Portland a one-round-and-out back in April
I do see Joel's minutes declining this year
Without Oden’s injuries last year they would have declined last year. Joel was critical because Greg was not available or hampered. When Greg was healthy and had fouls left he played at the end of games.
The center and PF I lump together as “bigs”. I would expect LMA to play 500-700 minutes in a small lineup this year (i.e w/o Greg or Joel). But my point is that it does depend on matchups. Some teams/games require Greg or Joel every minute. Other teams/games demand more 3 point shooters to catchup much of the game. The point is the flexibility is key for coach to choose. Rebounding is a team focus in my view. Whether Joel and Greg get 15 rebounds or 20 combined is less important than that 5 or 6 others get at least 5 or 6. As the team matures is it unreasonable to expect this? Frye and Randolph and Diogu/Ruffin didn’t produce much because others were playing better. Frye did contribute in the minutes he had and was critical at moments with Greg and Joel in foul trouble. Most of the games he was simply not needed at PF. His center minutes were brutal but better than many 3rd string centers would produce on any other team.
I expect Steve Blake’s time to decline as well once we have others who can stroke the 3. Steve could not stop the quick PG teams either and Jerryd’s expected improvement will add both defense and penetration to our arsenal. Again it should depend somewhat on what team we are playing and the game situation.
Nate has said he wants other teams to have to match up to us. If he can establish a lineup that keeps others out of their own rhythm don’t we gain the advantage? If he can be fluid in games to move more pieces than the opposition might that lead to an advantage for a few more wins?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
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
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
