Too Many Questions
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 1:27 AM PDT
472 comments
You guys provided a lot of great feedback in response to yesterday's plan encapsulating moves that are still potentially available to the Blazers in the post-Hedo world. But people are still having issues with the new era the Blazers are stepping into. In particular many of us are having trouble letting go of the old era and its assumptions. Today's post contains a discussion of some of those assumptions and what has changed to make them no longer applicable.
One of the most critical misunderstandings I'm observing is the interpretation of last year's 54-win campaign. 2008-09 was the Blazers' coming-out party. They crossed a threshold between worlds, leaving behind sad-sack seasons and mediocrity both. The disconnect between those worlds is stark and unforgiving. Trying to survive and progress out of ineptitude or mediocrity is a wholly different game than trying to win big. The Blazers just pulled into the left-hand lane on the freeway. It's either pass or get passed. You can't dawdle. You can't get back into the old folks' lane and decide you'll try again later. Before this year the message has always been "wait". That's done. If you don't start winning now you're not going to win later either. You have to do whatever is necessary short of completely selling out your future in a Celtics-like manner to make that happen. Other than not trading Brandon Roy for a bag of peanuts, the best thing the Blazers can do to ensure winning a ton of games in 2012 and 2013 is to win as many as possible in 2009 and 2010. It's far easier to continue excellence than it is to start it anew, especially among players who have been underperforming.
The argument continues after the jump...
Curiously enough the same line of reasoning that leads to under-appreciating the significance of 54 wins also leads to overestimating the significance of the ordinal position those wins bestowed. "We were fourth in the West, which exceeded expectations" is a phrase frequently used to justify staying the course. The reality of the conference last year was that a whole herd of teams scrambled to define themselves against the others and only the L*kers succeeded. The Blazers could have sneezed and ended up second. They were a game away from finishing fifth and just a few weeks before the end of the season lower seeds were definite possibilities. At minimum the Blazers want to be the team that starts crowding the L*kers. Within a year or so they want to have a legitimate shot of superseding them. That hasn't come close to happening yet and the fourth-place finish doesn't change that fact.
One way of thinking--the kind that stems from the old perspective--says we don't necessarily have to win now because we've already proven a lot. The other way--the new perspective occasioned by contemplating a potential step into the league's elite--says we do need to start winning now because we haven't really proven anything yet. The 35-win teams in the league would love to be Portland right now. Conference Finalists? Not so much.
The dichotomies don't end there. When you're an up-and-coming team potential is at a premium. You get excited about what could happen more than what is happening. Youth points to the future, which is theoretically better than the present, so you esteem it highly. One 40-point performance makes you dream of a 40-point average someday so you love the guy who does that once or twice a season more than the guy who's giving you 13 and 5 every night even if the 40-point man also drops enough goose eggs to make a pool-sized omelet. You value depth without worrying about shape, talent without worrying about role. You're enthused about all of the possible ways you could beat people, never knowing which will actually appear on a given night.
Winning teams flip all of these conventions on their heads. Potential doesn't mean "could be, someday" as much as "isn't now". You want some on your team, of course, but you want it narrowed down to one or two players that you can bring along over time, that you know you'll have space for. You don't want a team bursting with potential, you want a team bursting with production. The 40-point wunderkind loses you far more games than he wins you. You want to be deep enough to survive the season but that depth has to be calculated and maximized. It does you no good to have your third best player at the same position as your superstar. You want guys who are going to fit with your superstar...who will probably produce as much or more on a nightly basis as the more talented guy at the wrong position. You don't worry so much about being able to beat people sixty ways. You know you can only choose one or two per night anyway. The L*kers and Celtics didn't win championships the last couple of years because they had a certain je ne sais quoi. They won because they had a certain je just kicked your butt. Elite teams don't win in this league by surprising people. They win because even though everybody knows exactly what they're going to do nobody can stop it anyway.
The up-and-coming team is like a big hunk of metal. It's heavy. It's impressive. But it makes an unwieldy weapon. The mass and damage potential are there but nobody can swing it hard or quickly enough to make full use of them. Only after the blacksmith forges, tempers, hones, and sharpens it does it achieve maximum utility. Inevitably this involves changing its composition...losing certain attributes so you can accentuate others.
The Blazers are in exactly that situation today. They've got incredible mass but not near enough swinging power. They're the dude with the huge piece of lumber in the kung-fu movies. He looks scary until the more knowledgeable, efficient martial arts master ducks his blows and delivers 92 shots to the jejunum. Then both he and the lumber are on the ground.
Given the situation, moves that didn't make sense two years ago (or even last summer) suddenly do. Simply put, the Blazers still have too many questions surrounding them and they're seeking to compete against teams that have very few. Moves that resolve some of those questions are going to be welcome.
In yesterday's transaction post we talked about a basic core of Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden, Jerryd Bayless, and Nicolas Batum. If you prefer Rudy Fernandez be among that group, having Bayless or Batum become available, I wouldn't argue with you (for the purposes of this post anyway). You could re-create this experiment with any two of the young three staying. The point is, you have a five-man core remaining constant no matter which scenario you posit. The basic question we're asking is, "Which type of supporting cast is going to be better for that core?"
The cast of Rudy Fernandez, Joel Przybilla, Travis Outlaw, and Steve Blake?
Or a cast including Kirk Hinrich, Shane Battier, Tayshaun Prince, or David Lee?
Again, we're talking the type of supporting cast here. If you want to quibble about players, that's fine. Throw in an Andre Miller. Take out a Steve Blake. Whatever makes you happy as long as someone is in the list.
The up-and-coming way of thinking balks at including Rudy and Travis in trade talks, as both of them have talent and potential. It balks at trading youth for age. It balks at including Joel, as he saved our bacon last year and has been helpful since he was signed. But it pays for all of this balking by allowing numerous questions to endure:
- Is Steve Blake the starting point guard?
- Where does Rudy find his minutes?
- How consistently can Travis produce?
- What's the small forward rotation?
- Who has scoring priority, both off the bench (Rudy and Travis) and as a whole (Rudy and Travis fitting in with Roy and Aldridge)?
- Who is the starting center and how many minutes do Joel and Greg need?
- How many of these guys do you get maximum utility out of even in the short term, let alone the long term? (Probably only Blake.)
The new way of thinking is willing to part with some talent and potential in order to firm up the team and diminish the questions. Let's assume the Blazers acquire Hinrich, Battier, and Lee. The answers could look like this:
- Hinrich is the starting point guard.
- Rudy's minutes are a moot point now. Either Batum, Bayless, or Battier gain minutes behind Roy instead of Rudy losing them to Roy.
- Battier produces every night.
- Battier is the starting small forward for the next couple of years, at which time the team makes a decision whether Batum is ready. Martell is probably gone unless he can play off-guard.
- Roy and Aldridge are the team's primary scorers and the weight is on their shoulders. Everyone else is well-suited to play off of them.
- Greg Oden is the starting center. Lee or Aldridge fill in behind but both have utility at power forward so they're not wasted.
- You're now getting maximum, or at least near-maximum, utility out of every player we just named including the ones already on the team. Hinrich might be the exception if Bayless develops but at least you know you're well-insured whether Jerryd blossoms or not.
Maybe these answers aren't exactly right for you. Different ones are possible. But some answers need to be given. You can't consider Rudy an awesome potential talent and then assume him playing 25 minutes per game for the next four years, being happy, and blossoming into that potential. You can't paint Joel Przybilla as critical to this team and still say Greg Oden is going to become a monster starting center without Joel's role becoming less crucial. You can't keep living with the uncertainty of a 6th or 7th man like Travis when you have potential certainty from another source. For that matter you can't keep Batum, Webster, and Outlaw on the same team and assume that in three years they're going to be the answer. The biggest argument against trading one (or more) of them is what you might lose down the road. If you keep them together either somebody is not going to play (so you lost him anyway, in effect) or none of them are ever going to come to the fore, thus leaving you with the same mess three years from now. Perpetuating that situation in the name of potential when options are available that would strengthen the team now would be criminal.
This team needs to be forged and finished. Somebody is going to have to decide who, exactly, comprises the core of this team. At that point any name not on that list has to be considered available if a move would support that core more than the status quo does.
I've said for years that winning teams minimize their questions and decisively answer those they can't minimize. Once upon a time we Blazer fans loved questions because they meant that "Yes!" was at least a possibility in a world full of dismal "No's". We're past that time now. The team is beyond that point. We have plenty of "Yes" factors now. We just need to galvanize them into a cogent argument instead of a cacophony.
Let's answer at least part of this question today. Who is your indispensible core of the team? I limited myself to five players for the sake of this example, so you can as well. Narrow us down to a small group that makes sense and then tell us what general type of player you need to surround your guys.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
9 recs |
472 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Here's one more equally pressing question:
How am I supposed to sleep at night knowing that only a few slender cables are all that keep our beloved MTV Rock N Jock basketball from escaping Earth’s atmosphere
"I take the little gummy bear Flintstones vitamins…I try not to eat the lady. I try not to eat the man. Just give me the car. I try to find the car. Yea, worst case scenario, I eat the lady." - Ron Artest, 2009
by rivetz on Jul 7, 2009 1:30 AM PDT reply actions 8 recs
"I take the little gummy bear Flintstones vitamins…I try not to eat the lady. I try not to eat the man. Just give me the car. I try to find the car. Yea, worst case scenario, I eat the lady." - Ron Artest, 2009
by rivetz on Jul 7, 2009 1:50 AM PDT up reply actions 26 recs
Nice
But let’s try to stay on-topic in the post.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the sort of post that needs to be taken way off topic.
I got the feeling it was more about being overloaded with analogies you needed to get out of your system than any sort of accurate assessment of the Blazers.
Yes, not every young guy on this team is going to get to shine. We’ve just seen Sergio and Channing cut loose and last season it was Jarrett Jack, who is showing he’s a NBA point guard in Indiana. And yes, since not all of these guys can flourish as Blazers, using them in a trade to acquire someone that is a better fit makes sense and is the smart thing to do.
Where you lose me is talk about how everything is changed now and if Portland doesn’t do something they are doomed. That just isn’t so. It is not as if the Blazers are like Seattle from a couple of seasons ago, winning over 50 games, making it to the second round and almost beating a Spurs team that went on to win the title. If anything, they may be more like those Spurs teams.
Wasn’t you who pointed out at the end of the season how much of an impact Greg Oden had? The same Oden that so many here sounded dissappointed and acted as if he was a potential mistake. Well, unless we’ve seen the best Greg has to give, if last season is the ceiling for the minutes and contributions we can expect from Oden, you have to be one hell of a pessimist to believe that Portland is ready to slide back into the pack. By himself, Oden makes the Blazers different. A healthy, more experienced Oden becomes the beast everyone originally predicted. And with that Oden manning the middle, who matches up with Portland?
Ask yourself what differentiates SA and Portland. They have 3 guys they are built around. Portland has three guys. Granted, Brandon Roy is the only one of our big three that has proven he’s an all-star caliber talent who produces night in and night out. But Aldridge is almost there and Oden, with a “dissappointing” rookie performance, has already shown what a dramatic impact he is likely to have. So our big three don’t quite match up to their big three, yet. But there are a couple of other differences that favor us. The first of these is age. Not only our 3 main guys, but the entire team is younger. Meaning they still have their best basketball in front of them. The second is quality of supporting players. Who do you like better? Oberto, Finley, Mason, Bonner and Vaughan or Blake, Pryzbilla, Fernandez, Batum and Outlaw?
I think you’ve drifted pretty far off the reservation here Dave. There is a difference between arguing for giving up some of our guys to acquire one of two better fitting role pieces and saying that without such a move, Portland gets left in the dust.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 20 recs
Our reserves are very good
I would agree with Dave that we do need to make a move to step up to the next level, but nothing nearly as radical as he is proposing.
TimG is right that we already have a better group surrounding our “Big 3” than San Antonio has now, and with the potential to be better than they’ve ever had. Pryz, Outlaw, Rudy, Martell, Bayless – that is a lot of talent and, despite their youth, experience.
Greg is going to need another year to not get into foul trouble frequently, and will probably always be injured some. If we trade Pryz, it could very well mean a step backwards this year. I’d only give him up for a top-flight, not-to-old, point guard.
I’d be more likely to trade Rudy, since I’m not sure we’ll be able to keep into our championship window anyway. If Houston wants to get young and save some money, I’d trade him for Battier. Or, package him with Pryz and Bayless/Outlaw for Devin Harris, Tony Parker or Rajon Rondo.
All that glitters isn't chrome
by hoopla-pdx on Jul 7, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This post is overreaction
at it’s finest. timg56 is right on. Unless our young players regress, we will continue to improve. The only position that needs serious improvement is PG, but even then it could be internal. We don’t need to make a move just to make a move.
Who on our team was scoring 40 points one night and none the next? Batum was the least consistent, but we didn’t really rely on him being an offensive threat. He should continue to improve in this area for years to come, and just an small improvement from him, and Rudy, Oden, and Bayless, will add up for the team.
Relax, Breath, and Enjoy the ride
"It's not who jumps the highest -- it's who wants it the most" Buck Williams
"and if EVERYONE confronted with a tough, disgusting situation pulled out, I don't think I would have been born." Mortimer
by Fund A Mental on Jul 7, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how about SA has 4 championships in the past decade as the main difference...
Dave just summed up in more words than I would use about how I feel about the Blazers roster. The team could have just as easily finished 7th place as they could have finished 3rd place in a strong western conference. Standing pat is not an option if you want to compete. The one thing the team is missing more than anything is a player outside of Brandon who is nails in the 4th quarter. A player who gets hit in the mouth, and doesn’t get phased. To borrow one of my favorite phrases, and one that annoys certain malcontents, a player who will man up when the moment arises. I think Rudy COULD be that guy, but unless Nate starts using Brandon as a Magic Johnson like point, Rudy won’t get on the floor. This belief that players appreciably improve much after their first few years in the league is a misnomer, provided they don’t have an appreciable jump in playing time. I believe the point of view Dave is expressing is realistic.
The cake has been baked, now we need to frost it.
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, the Suns and the Rockets have taken huge steps back, so you CAN stand pat and more than compete in the West next year...
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
not to mention
Denver and New Orleans are just treading water as well. As is Utah, though you can’t expect them to have the injuries they had last year.
Doing nothing this summer we should still be competing for 3rd in the West with Denver and Utah just through the fact that our 4 rookies will be 2nd year guys – the year when players make their biggest jump generally.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your mention of New Orleans
reminded me of when they were young up and comers and threw big money at a less than stellar free agent to get them over the hump in Peja, and have given up on bringing potential players and have seemed to really shoot themselves in the foot in the process. I dont know how much this cautionary tale applies to us, but it may be worth noting.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
I will talk about DeJuan Blair no more forever
by jonestr on Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and then run up against an improved Lakers squad in the WCF and get crane kicked to the noggin
but I see your point. I think we are a lock for the playoffs (barring injury) next year on the decline of Houston and PHX alone. That doesn’t mean we can hurdle the Lakers.
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not a given that they have improved.
Ron Artest may not do well in the offense. His shot selection is still suspect, and there’s always the possibility of chemistry issues.
by Benjamanic on Jul 7, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ariza was more dynamic than Artest.
If anything, if that is the only change the Lakers made, all they did was avoid paying Ariza, and get a decent replacement. If they lose Odom, we will be fighting for first in the West with them and Denver, with our current roster. The West has not improved. Two major teams Rockets, Suns, are on the ropes, and if Duncan is not healthy, SA still won’t be in the hunt. The Kings and Clippers are the biggest question marks, as they have changed a lot. Golden State added Curry. It’s these below .500 teams that will do the most catching up, and take a few wins from the field, but lets hope it pulls the Lakers down a bit rather than us. I don’t think those teams will be obvious playoff threats, just harder to beat on the road.
by wingzeta on Jul 7, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frosting is fine. But don't swap out half your cake
Noone is arguing that the cake isn’t baked, nor that we should leave it without frosting.
I think what the Blazer fans on this site are bristling about is lopping off the top layer of the cake and replacing it with an older, staler cake before frosting it, just because you want to eat the cake now and you don’t want to wait for the cake to cool before frosting it.
Look, everyone here agrees that we need to make a move. What we are resistant to, though, is the type of wholesale moves Dave is talking about. He has kernels of truth in his post, but they are lost in a frothy batter of overreaction.
Yes, we need a PG. Yes, we need a backup 4, yes some consolidation at the 3 would be good. NO, that doesn’t mean bringing in three players. It means bringing in at most two players, and sending out a player or two.
So, trade Travis for a PG (e.g., Hinrich) and sign a PF (Bass). Or trade Travis for a PF (Lee) and sign a PG (Sessions).
That clears a logjam at the three, gives our existing 3s room to develop, and shores up our need at two positions. That, my friends, is frosting.
What Dave is proposing is either rebaking the cake or taking part of the cake that’s already “baked” and replacing it with someone else’s Cake. The latter is way too risky and ignores the progress our baker has already made.
Kermit on the inbounds play, inbounds....
BATES at the horn, HE SCORES!! HE SCORES!!!!
And they are all over Billy Ray Bates! My, oh my!!!
by blazer91 on Jul 7, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Great!
Now all I want is cake.
Does this mean I have to like Diogu now???
by Ike_o_rama! on Jul 7, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec
I think Dave is channeling Whitset this week.
After what this team has accomplished together who wants to trade away a third of what you cheered for?
Then who wants to cheer for the 3 you fought to get where you are? They at the very least weren’t the ones to earn it.
Regarding some specifics:
Even though I’d part with Trout before Rudy, he was a ‘nails’ guy for us. He lead the league in game wining shots by a non-starter. 6 men like that make great teams.
Rudy can and should be able to play behind and alongside Roy. Both can cover 1-3 and can exploit that while on the floor at the same time. If Outlaw goes, Rudy would be he goto guy on the 2nd unit or take ovef that 6th man role. If he isn’t cool with that then we have to re-eval him based on that attitude.
Batum WAS incredibly consistent in his role, he just wasn’t asked to supply much offense – just hit those sweet spot-ups. Even then he still found plenty of guys to dunk on via the baseline. With his mid-range jumper coming along he IS Prince and Pippen incarnate.
We have to see if Martell can regain his form because last year stood to be his real breakout year.
Lee wants to start so him being happy backing up LA isn’t foreseeable.
Tie down the furniture kids, it's time for another ride down Ulcer Gulch!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Blazers?
Fiendin for some footage of Blazers ballin it up?
- Click nameplate, click Web site link.-
by DMKPDX on Jul 7, 2009 9:19 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
how many teams have
two players that are “nails in the 4th”???? Yeah it would be great to have that but I don’t see it as a necessity.
by vullkem116 on Jul 7, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To Build a Dynasty
Here are the Spurs championship rosters, taken from Wikipedia.
San Antonio Spurs 1998–99 NBA Champions
2 Jackson | 4 Kerr | 6 Johnson | 17 Elie | 21 Duncan (Finals MVP) | 25 Kersey | 31 Rose | 32 Elliott | 33 Daniels | 41 Perdue | 50 Robinson | 54 King | Coach Popovich
San Antonio Spurs 2002–03 NBA Champions
3 Jackson | 8 Smith | 9 Parker | 10 Claxton | 12 Bowen | 20 Ginóbili | 21 Duncan (Finals MVP) | 25 Kerr | 31 Rose | 35 Ferry | 42 Willis | 50 Robinson | Coach Popovich
San Antonio Spurs 2004–05 NBA Champions
2 Mohammed | 3 Robinson | 5 Horry | 8 Nesterovic | 9 Parker | 12 Bowen | 14 Udrih | 17 Barry | 20 Ginóbili | 21 Duncan (Finals MVP) | 23 Brown | 34 Massenburg | Coach Popovich
San Antonio Spurs 2006–07 NBA Champions
2 Ely | 4 Finley | 5 Horry | 7 Oberto | 9 Parker (Finals MVP) | 11 Vaughn | 12 Bowen | 14 Udrih | 15 Bonner | 16 Elson | 17 Barry | 20 Ginóbili | 21 Duncan | 33 White | Coach Popovich
When I look at these rosters, I think it’s obvious that the Spurs have been a dynasty not because of the supporting players themselves, but because of their willingness to reshape the landscape of their support with consistent veterans, players like Bruce Bowen, Robert Horry, Michael Finley, Brent Barry, and Steve Kerr. None of these players were in their prime when the spurs grabbed them, but the Spurs knew exactly what they were getting. Particularly, with the players I mentioned and remember, they got some great shooting and great defending, two things you can count on even as players age.
Each year that the Spurs don’t win a championship and probably each year that they do, they look at their roster and say to themselves, “Can we still do it? Of course we can, but we have a small window and we need to act quickly.” Right now you are witnessing the very tender transition from the Spurs being Duncan’s team to Parker’s team. Whether they can pull this off we have yet to see, but they were able to do it going from Robinson to Duncan, and they are trying to do it by acquiring older, more consistent players like Roger Mason, Jr. and Richard Jefferson.
So maybe I like Blake, Joel, Rudy, Nic, and Trav better, but we haven’t won a championship and it doesn’t look like we will if we just sit tight.
by SeanyC on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm still not seeing the right player mentioned in all these "upgrade" talks
What Roy needs is another guy that can create his own shot or facilitate getting a good shot for somebody else.
Battier is a decent role player, but obviously falls short on both of these needs. Hinrich doesn’t seem like much of “get your own shot” player either.
What I see happening is way too much trying to fit a round ball into a square hole. I really haven’t heard of a move that will be significantly better than what an improved Oden, Rudy, and Bayless are likely to bring to the table.
by ralphzillo on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good observation.
It is interesting to note that what many of the fans identified as off season needs to address, namely a PG a PF and better defensive, as not exactly what the Blazer braintrust apparently believes are the team’s biggest needs.
As you – accurately in my opinion – point out, acquiring a third scorer who both can get his own shot and facilitate others, seems to have been at the top of Portland’s needs list. And I agree that none of the guys mentioned by Dave, with the possible exception of Prince, are really known for being able to create for themselves.
So, if we as fans are wrong on identifying team needs and weaknesses, what makes us so certain that Portland has to make a major move this summer?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice one timg
Dave ??? What ? Are you determined to not let this site have a moments rest ? My first response is way off topic: What’s a matter with you ? Maybe time for a retreat, have you had a nice vaction in a while. It’s ok, you got moderators, take a trip. Ok, please don’t ban me for being personal, it’ meant as a friendly suggestion, even if somewhat presumptious. But I quite agree with this chorus of tweaking, not rebuilding the team. As far as your highly directive question: who is our core: well, a big problem is we arent quite sure yet because the many of the guys are young and unestablished: Oden, Batum, Rudy, Bayless… a lot of exciting, promising ROOKIES… a bit of waiting for these guys is not terminal daydreaming, let these guys happen, then we can answer this question. Pryz has been loyal rock – I need compelling reasons for considering him, which I am not seeing. Blake, maybe for a significan’t upgrade, who I would rather add than trade for … thats where I would use the Turk cash. I’m not talking waiting years, but at least till the trading deadline. Yeah, chemistry is not everything, but it sure is something, and we got it. Yeah there is a balance between loyalty, affection for players, and performance and winning. These guys are pretty far from letting us down for trusting in and supporting them. We were picking it up toward the end of the season…. “accelerating”, if you will. And made a respectable showing in their first playoff appearance against a tough Houston team. Perfomance indicative of a fine tuning, not an overhaul. Let’s take a bit longer to figure who our “core” really is, and how big it can be. The bigger the better as far as I’m concerned.
by Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rec this if it was easier on the eyes. Good points anyway.
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, thanks for the feedback...
Didn’t know paragraphs ‘n’ stuff were that critical to people… I can try and “clean it up”. Believe it or not, I’ve been accused by credible sources of being a pretty good writer. I can “play nice”. My typical style here is more my way of “informality”. It’s not like I’m a “serious” basketball authority. I actually don’t get all the fuss about Fatty’s style, perfectly legitimate option of self expression to me.
by Berkeley on Jul 7, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what the heck, I hit enter early I think? weird.
Anyway, it had nothing to do with what you were writing, which I liked and agreed with.
It’s just that, at least for me, reading things on a computer is easy with some space / paragraph breaks. Formatting, not the wirting.
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*writing
holy crap what is wrong with me
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's karma for criticizing someone else's writing.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.—Dune
by Muad'Dib on Jul 7, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see that Dave called for a major revamping of the team.
He identified a core on the current team and a small group of veterans we could add to the team to round us into championship contender status quickly. It’s the right way to go.
There are two paths the Blazers can take to get to championship form: (A) They can tweak and mostly let the young players mature, as some suggest, or (B) They can bring in a couple of solid veterans to open their championship window sooner, as Dave suggests. Those who support option A say that option B would mean sacrificing championships down the road because the vets would be too old to contribute at that point. That argument assumes the Blazers will be unable to add good players to the team in the next few years who will be ready to take-over when the vets decline. That doesn’t make sense to me.
For example, let’s say the Blazers bring Shane Battier to the team. It seems unlikely that both Martell and Nicolas would go out in that deal, but either or both of them, with a few more years of experience — especially with Battier as a mentor — should match or surpass Battier at some point. Jerryd Bayless’ game needs time to develop, assuming it ever does. Kirk Hinrich would give us the best available player at point guard right now and provide Jerryd with that time and a mentor that he needs to replace Hinrich at some point. Perhaps our young point guard and small forward can reach their potential without someone like Hinrich and Battier starting ahead of them for the next two or three years — but it seems more certain that they will get there with two solid vets to show them the way than if they must get there on their own.
Meanwhile, does anyone really think KP will not be able to find via draft or trade at least a couple of great young players to add to the team in the next five or six years? Even 60-win teams get a draft pick each June, and even a team over the cap can still make trades.
If we go with option A, the success path with our current players will produce a classic bell-shaped curve that could lead to one or more championships. But if we go with option B, we could see a broader, flatter success path that rises more steeply and has a longer span at the top.
If we can get Battier and Hinrich, we should do it, even if it means trading Rudy or Joel.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
That chart is so completely and totally misleading
Ya… giving up our young players for 30+ year olds is the way to make us better in years 5-7. Good one. Take a look at your charts… they just don’t add up.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Option A is the result of trading young players for veterans like Battier or Hinrich, Option B is staying with our current players.
by trk on Jul 7, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read the second paragraph again.
As I wrote, the fallacy with the idea that option A is better is that it doesn’t take into account that a team can reload if it goes with option B. With option B, you trade lesser players for better players right now and the team gets to its peak sooner. The team then has time to bring in great young talent, just as San Antonio did.
Dave wrote:
…the best thing the Blazers can do to ensure winning a ton of games in 2012 and 2013 is to win as many as possible in 2009 and 2010. It’s far easier to continue excellence than it is to start it anew, especially among players who have been underperforming.
I believe that. Getting better now means we will be better longer. Option B.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm wondering if you are taking the curves too literally.
The point of them is simply to illustrate that we can have a longer span of success following Dave’s blueprint. Would it have helped if I had made the B curve look like a square?
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
plan A has more payoff towards the end....
your chart shows a quicker start AND a longer run. It’s just misleading is all.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rats, I really want you to like my charts.
How about this one?
.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily
Keeping Martell, Travis, and Nicolas for instance does not necessarily equate to a longer run even if all three are young-ish. You could end up three years from now with none of them developed.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And little or no
direction at that position.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
anything COULD be
you could bring in a vet and he gets injured and you’d be worse off in the short run. Or you could develop a young player and he doesn’t pan out.
The point is, when you trade young potential for old vets, you’re increasing production short term, and decreasing expected production in the long term.
Those charts don’t demonstrate the negative effects of letting go of a Batum, Rudy or Bayless.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't demonstrate the majority of the variable, in fact
Dictated, not read. The management.
by Samsara on Jul 7, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*variables
Dictated, not read. The management.
by Samsara on Jul 7, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if option B isn't available though?
At least not at a price we are willing to pay. If KP and company are being asked to give up 3 of their young players for one veteran glue guy like Battier or a maybe-fit like Wallace, I don’t blame him for saying no. That’s too high a price to pay unless we are getting a bit more premium talent.
I think that is the fallacy going around today, that somehow it’s a choice between standing pat and getting a few veterans on the cheap or at least for a reasonable price. But if Hinrich is gonna cost me Rudy and Blake, I’m gonna pass. If Wallace is gonna cost my Outlaw, Rudy, AND Batum, I’m gonna pass. I"m not unwilling to make deals, but I’m not going to get raked over the coals just to do a deal.
If the choice is A) get veterans guys who are sub-ideal to our needs at the price of gutting our young potential completely, I"ll pick option C) Wait and see if the deals get better.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but it's not news to anyone that you wouldn't make a bad trade.
The problem I see with option A supporters is that almost any deal is bad if it means giving up their favorite players. I love Rudy, but if Hinrich is as much an improvement over Blake as AK1984 says he is, then we need Hinrich more than we need Rudy. If Martell’s foot continues to be a problem, we need Battier more than we need Travis and Jerryd.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I agree with you
Everyone kind of acts like what you do this offseason is something you have to live with for the next 10 years. Sometimes it can be – take the Bulls screwing up their young “core” by way overpaying for a rapidly aging Ben Wallace. But I think some of you are making the other wrong move the Bulls made of overvaluing those young players in trades. Things change as everyone starts to hit their second contract. Maybe you guys will luck out and have an owner willing to pay everyone a bunch to keep ‘em all happy – but you still don’t have all the minutes for those guys. It’s not just a question of developing young players; those guys want and need to be out on the court showing what they can do to deserve that next big contract.
The Bulls judged wrong in trying to bring in one big piece and ended up with someone who was the highest paid player but far from the best on the team, or hardest working, or a good locker room presence. Dave is proposing something different. With the guys he’s suggesting, Brandon would still be The Man, but he’d be surrounded with improved role player vets on shorter contracts or better complimentary players with minutes to keep everyone happy.
The end of the chart isn’t set yet – it only expires sooner if you don’t trust your FO to replace those complimentary players with others as their abilities start to decline.
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Jul 7, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad you jumped in here, wjb1492.
I was going to comment that there seems to be an underlying fear among Blazer fans that what happened to your team may happen to us. Sure, a team has to be careful about trades, but you can’t pass opportunities to improve either, as long as the sum of what results works better than the sum of what was.
Wasn’t the real problem with the Bulls that you traded away Chandler because he and Skiles couldn’t get along, which led to the Wallace acquisition?
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace technically came first,
followed by the Tyson trade, but I’m sure the desire to get rid of Tyson after a subpar season was a huge bonus to the Wallace signing. And he did help us in his first season (Ben Wallace, that is), but imo also led to (or at a minimum contributed greatly) to the collapse the following season – all those stories about locker room rebellion and not playing hard. I think it also led to some of this issues with Luol and Ben not signing extensions as well – maybe they would’ve held out anyway, but playing alongside a FA that the FO broke the bank to bring in, so to speak, and who didn’t produce nearly as much couldn’t have helped.
But I think having so many guys about the same stage in playing careers was a big issue as well. It’s all peachy keen when everyone’s just starting out and so glad to be in the NBA, and suddenly you’re the young team who’s seeing a whole lot of success and people are calling you the next big threat. And then extensions start to roll around, and all of a sudden, instead of salary being determined by draft spot, how much the team values each guy in comparison to the others crawls into the equation. That makes PT much more important, and starting much more important, and that great team chemistry is suddenly gone.
And again, maybe it doesn’t happen to you guys. Maybe certain guys win those starting spots and achieve all that potential you see in them, and maybe those other guys who lost out on starting/minutes are nothing but happy for their teammates and don’t start thinking about how that should be them out there, and maybe other teams are still awed by the untapped potential of guys in spite of their not being able to earn a starting spot and are happy to trade for them or sign them away in free agency. All I know for sure is that the experience of it going the other direction is incredibly painful.
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Jul 7, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There has to be a pecking order.
That’s what makes having a clear leader who is also your best player so important. LaMarcus even acknowledged this indirectly, recently, about Brandon, when he said he would be okay with a smaller contract than Roy gets. Which also points out the importance of your second, third, fourth, etc. players knowing their place on the team.
Your team had no clearly defined pecking order, right?
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's true, to an extent
But it’s not just the order but how much the guys at each rank are going to think they’re worth. And I still think minutes is your biggest issue. Of course, that assumes everyone stays healthy, so maybe minutes works out to be no issue at all.
Like I’ve said, you guys are in a bit of a different situation with an owner willing to go into the tax. Maybe you can afford another year of letting non-core guys duke it out before you decide who to keep and who to not to. All I know is that, having been through the young-up-and-coming phase not too long ago, there are some big pitfalls along the way. I hope you guys can negotiate them better than we did. Not being willing to trade/consolidate unproven young talent for present upgrades did not work for us, but maybe it would have absent the Ben Wallace trade.
Maybe that means you guys already dodged your bullet with Hedo backing out?
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Jul 7, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Kevin Pritchard was primed and ready to pull a John Paxson ...
by signing Hedo Turkoglu to a ludicrous five-year, $50 million contract.
Luckily, though, that locked and loaded weapon — with one bullet in the chamber known simply as Hedo — thankfully misfired and instead took out Bryan Colangeo.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bulls are an example of the problems with both tactics
Paxson undoubtedly screwed up the Chandler deal, but then was too paralyzed and overvalued his talent in 06/07 and 07/08 despite sitting on young talent and a fatty expiring (PJ Brown) to make a move for any of Kobe, KG, or Gasol (admittedly, owners may have squashed this also) and I think it’s clear in hindsight that any of those guys would have drastically helped the team.
People forget that until somehow hitting the Rose jackpot and this recent flurry of roster overhaulin the past year or so, the Bulls were looking doomed to mediocrity for the foreseeable future after Gordon and Deng didn’t blossom into immediate all stars and Thomas never became the defensive game changer he was thought to be. And this was despite getting the king’s ransom of a 2nd overall pick and a 9th overall pick for Eddy Curry to add to their young players in the meantime.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, potential is all fun and great, until it isn’t realized.
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my 5 untouchables
are Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Pryzbilla and Batum.
The first 3 for obvious reasons. Until Oden gets it together and can show that he can stay healthy and out of foul trouble, Joel is untouchable. Yeah, David Lee could probably fit in and play some 5, but I wouldn’t be excited about it. Joel brings the team together and is tenacious on the block, never backing down to star opponents. He’s inspirational. Aside from Blake, he is our veteran. He’s also damn good. He’s even better than David Lee in my opinion. He made some financial sacrifices just to be here and he still sacrifices himself on the court with his hustle and tough play.
I still love Martell and Trav but this Batum kid is impressive. Nobody thought (even after last summer league) that he would be the starting SF. He earned it. He’s 19. Sure he’s french, but aside from that he’s got everything going for him. He compliments any other 4 players on our team and was vastly underutilized last season despite starting. He’ll only get better with time.
As far as additions needed to surround those 5, obviously the point guard needs to be addressed. Apparently these days it’s asking a lot for an oversized and unselfish PG that can get in the paint and hit the open 3? Lastly, I love Brandon Bass at the back-up 4. We need a Buck Williams type that can come in and crush the glass.
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 1:55 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Batum did not win the starting job remember?
Martell won in. He got injured. Travis won it, but didn’t fit into the starting lineup because he’s a scorer (not lobbying for Travis to play start SF). Batum got it by default honestly. I like Batum, and I think he’s got that bit Potential word again. But he’s not the best SF on this team and won’t be next year either unless Martell gets traded.
I think we are over valuing potential here with Batum and thinking he is destined for greatness when we really don’t know what he can do. Can he ever learn to knock down a pull up jumper? Will his ball handling become what it needs to? Will he learn what to do consistantly when he gets to the basket in traffic? Does it even matter since Nate sticks his 3’s in the corner and makes them stay there? Let’s just not forget the old adage that a Webster (or insert other more established SF name here) in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.
I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. - Charles Wesley
by Earl on Jul 7, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
really??
b/c i haven’t seen squat out of martell in the last couple years that leads me to believe that he will be anything. but i have seen it in batum. i saw noticeable improvement in Batum last year, from developing a decent catch and shoot, occasionally putting the ball on the floor and going baseline, and even a couple T-bo-like 1 dribble pull-up shots. Webster gets lumped right in there with batum, as he hasn’t been a consistent performer in the league yet either, and his health is still suspect. I’m not saying martell is worthless, but let’s not act like he is a “more established SF” than batum.
by retirecards51 on Jul 7, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares who the best SF is next year
We need to know who’s going to be the best in a couple years. We aren’t playing for just one season here, folks, even if we are ahead of expectations.
Batum is way more likely than Travis to be the best SF on our team in two years, if he isn’t already next year (counting whole game, not just stats). As for Martell, it all depends on injury status, but given his history, can’t afford to reply on him, either. That’s probably the biggest reason the Hedo signing almost went down. KP and Nate wanted someone to be a “for sure” asset at SF for several years until Batum is that. Other than Batum, we have NO ONE who can start at the three and be a “for sure” asset, and Batum has not YET (I stress YET) proven to be an asset OFFENSIVELY as a starter at SF. I hope Martell is that this year, but HOPE is not a PLAN.
So, again,
Kermit on the inbounds play, inbounds....
BATES at the horn, HE SCORES!! HE SCORES!!!!
And they are all over Billy Ray Bates! My, oh my!!!
by blazer91 on Jul 7, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Core 5
Brandon, Lamarcus, Greg, Batum, Bayless
Would have Rudy over Bayless if not for his playing Roy’s position.
This means you want to target a 1 to play the starter role while bayless develops (Hinrich or Sessions IMO, Sessions makes a better mentor for what we want to do with Bayless but Hinrich can play the role set for the 1 in our offense better) and a 3 to play the starter role while Batum develops (Prince, Battier or Crash IMO in that order, I like Crash the most but the other two would be better mentors for what we’re trying to do with Batum and the concussions scare me)
Lee backing up the 4 and 5 would be great
Przy is my second favorite Blazer, so it would kill me to see him go, but you’re probably right that if Oden doesn’t develop enough to make him less crucial, we’re gonna have bigger problems than Billa can solve
"When jumpers are outlawed only Outlaw will take jumpers"-LoadedOrygun
by DominicanAvenger on Jul 7, 2009 1:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I endorse this core
LaMarcus and Greg make for a versatile bigman lineup who can rebound, score, run, block shots, shoot, work in the post, and defend.
Jerryd and Brandon (theoretically) give us a very explosive back court with two guards who can create off the dribble, shoot (Bayless’s touch will return shortly), handle the ball, pass, get to the rim, and draw fouls. Once Bayless is ready, we’ll have one of the very best FT drawing back courts in the league.
Once Bayless’s shot returns, I actually like putting him in the corner on some sets because he is a good enough shot to space the floor, but can get by his man off the fake and get to the rim.
Batum is a high BBIQ defender with excellent athleticism and grace. I can see him being able to put the ball on the floor, create off the dribble, and pass in the future. Batum will eventually be one of those swiss-army knife players that are capable of doing whatever you need on the court. Eventually, I could see Batum getting spot minutes at the 2 if we needed it.
If Rudy leaves, we lose his shooting, off ball movement, and gunslinging playmaker attitude. While valuable, I think what Batum and Bayless (again, he shot 40% from college three, a skill than translates well) bring to the table are worth more to a half court championship basketball team.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Jul 7, 2009 6:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is my fave five. Here is why Pryz doesn't fit my list
Pryz is a special case. I would be very reluctant to trade him for obvious reasons. However, he is probably our most tradable asset, and at age thirty and facing declining minutes, his value will never be higher than it is now. I would only consider trading him if I thought we had a strong back-up coming in. If he were the key to getting a quality veteran starter at the 1 or the 3 and we had the back-up, that might make sense.
Bayless would fall off my list of five if we could get any of the top young PGs, but I don’t think that is likely.
by upper left corner on Jul 7, 2009 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I approve of the top 5
roy/lma/greg/bayless/batum
I’d be hard pressed to think moving prizbilla was a good idea unless we had at least a capable back up ready for the occasions when greg gets whistled. David lee would work and might agree to being a backup if he were backing up 2 positions. Given that centers don’t play much more than 30 minutes per night, and LMA would average 36, you’d have 12+18 available, or 30 minutes per night for lee, as long as the rotation timing was feasible because you can only have one lee on the court at once, and that necessitates planning the rest cycle for oden and LMA.
I think it makes sense to have one core player at each position. I like Rudy, but his value is maximized by a team that will utilize his entire skill set for as long as he is capable of being on the court. I think he would do incredible on the knicks. If a trade were to be involved in acquiring DL, though a similiar trade would have to be moving prizbilla for it to make sense (to acquire GW?). A shortened rotation is acceptable, getting down to 7-8 players when the supporting players bring the ideal attributes.
by lurtsman on Jul 7, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with you on most points.
I didn’t care for Dave’s suggestion of Battier. I would strongly prefer Prince. Prince has a much more effective offensive game and is a better passer.
Hinrich, Bayless
Roy, Rudy
Prince, Batum, Webster
LMA, Lee, Pendergraph
Oden, Lee, LMA, Pendergraph
To me, that seems like a very strong roster through in a vet 3rd string PG for insurance, and I think you have a winner. Lee is definitely a big drop defensively from Pryz at the 5, but he is an upgrade from Trout and Frye at the 4. He also gives you relentless work on the boards, and a knack for scoring without needing plays called for him. I think Lee would be a good fit with a second team of Bayless, Rudy, Batum, Lee, LMA. That lineup could really pick up the tempo.
by upper left corner on Jul 7, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that even possible or realistic?
I mean, to get Hinrich, Prince, and Lee? How would that ever happen?
by BlazerBen on Jul 7, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bayless hasn't shown he can play PG - AT ALL
It is still highly likely that Bayless will end up having to play his natural position – as a shooting guard. He could be a great back-up to Roy, but his value in that role isn’t all that high.
Maybe he’ll prove me wrong in Summer Leauge, I hope so. Until then, he’s much more in my “trade assets” than “core” list.
All that glitters isn't chrome
by hoopla-pdx on Jul 7, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
seriously.
i dont think bayless is our core at all because his playmaking has not been proven at all in the times he spent on floor
"shaq and zach randolph have the same trainer... "
best one liner i ever heard.
by bowdown on Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly right!
Bayless can be an explosive scorer in this league, driving to the hoop. Maybe even a star. But for this team? Unless we count on Roy to see the court and distribute the ball, probably not. Do we want Roy to be the PG? Not me. I’d much prefer having Hinrich (or someone similar) dishing the ball or taking a good three, maximizing Roy’s ability as another passer and primary scorer. We all know Roy likes to have the ball in his hands, but we’ve also seen teams begin to collapse on him. We need a PG who can deliver the ball, whether to Roy or someone else. And that someone else will probably be a SF. I hope Batum can grow into a scoring threat. He’s worth keeping and adding to the core of three untouchables. I’d like to keep Pryz, too, but will understand if we need to let him go for the right deal. Martell? I love his potential, but the Hedo hunt left me thinking that the brass knows something we don’t about his chances to reclaim his starting spot.
by VTDuck on Jul 7, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would it not be a benefit for Roy
If Bayless was able to score explosively when the opposing defenses collapsed on Roy? If Bayless is scoring as the point guard, does that not take the pressure off of Roy to be the only scorer.
I think the circular logic surrounding the Bayless debate is a little tired.
by BlazerFanFromDenver on Jul 7, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
i don’t remember seeing all this hype for bayless a couple days ago, now all of a sudden he is one of the top young PGs?? I’d much rather have rudy than bayless, as i think to maximize the talent on the roster, you have to consider using roy as the PG and rudy as the 2 (roy is primary offensive ballhandler anyway). when they used this lineup in the rockets series, it consistently produced excellent results (i can remember my friend and i talking about how good that lineup was doing and wondering why we rarely saw it). I’m not saying roy is the primary PG all game, but 4th quarter there isn’t a better lineup than Roy,Rudy,Batum,LA,Oden. Rudy can guard the opposing PG (or Roy), batum on the primary scorer, and the bigs to clean up any mistakes. Rudy actually moves his feet very well defensively, and will start to get a few charging calls as opposed to always being called for a block like last year. with that size, we are tough defensively and offensively (i’ll take my chances with the opposing PG guarding roy or rudy). I’d certainly rather see those 5 guys on the floor at the end of the game as opposed to Hinrich/Miller/overrated PG, roy, batum, LA, and oden. Rudy > hinrich, so why pay kirk 8x as much? Why add david lee when he would be sitting on the bench in crunch time (unless he will play over LA/oden)??
by retirecards51 on Jul 7, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why I had to scratch my head at Dave's 5!
When he was talking about the character with the 40 pts. then nothing, I said to myself ,“Oh, he’s talking about the potential with Bayless.” Then his five includes Bayless, who is almost all potentials right now! He wanted steady, and heady, well that’s Przy.
Does this mean I have to like Diogu now???
by Ike_o_rama! on Jul 7, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who are the core?
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Joel, Batum
Everyone else is fair game provided we get great value in return.
The first three guys are a lock. Even as question marks linger around Oden, you don’t give up on the #1 draft pick before you’re 100% sure he’s not going to work out. By default he’s part of the core and I firmly believe within 2-3 years he’ll be regarded as one of the top centers in the west, if not the league. Allow me to explain my reasons for the other two picks and what I’ve envisioned for this team as I walked to my car high off a game 5 win at the Rose Garden.
Batum:
It’s no secret that defense wins championships in the NBA. Finding good wing defenders is really, really hard in this league. There’s a reason Michael Jordon covets him. His upside is tremendous. Imagine what a few more years to work on his mid-range jumper could do for this team. We don’t need him bombing 3’s. Give me 5-10 off the bench and play tenacious defense. Wait a minute, I just said off the bench didn’t I? In a situation where he could score and play defense, he starts. But unless Oden suddenly turns into an offensive juggernaut (big if), Portland absolutely must find some help for Roy and Aldridge. I don’t think this team needs a shoot first point guard. We need an athletic 3 who can rebound and spread the floor. Someone who you can’t help off of to double LA or Roy. It’s just too easy right now for teams to disrespect Batum’s offensive game because frankly he doesn’t have much in the department yet. I know I’m stating the obvious here but I’ve said all along, it’s Turk – Wallace – Battier. That has been my order of preference. As long as we don’t have to give up Batum to get Wallace.
Joel:
Oden needs a backup. With his history of injury, you can’t afford to have a marshmellow on the bench. Not on this team, right now. Joel is such a hard worker on the boards. Bringing a guy like him off the bench in combination with a Gerald Wallce and LA on the floor would be ridiculous. That’s a hell of a lot of rebounding prowess. Then there’s just a general sense of loyalty that I think he’s entitled to. On many nights without Joel’s intensity I’m almost certain we wouldn’t have won more than 46-48 games. There’s no way in any situation that you get rid of Joel without a really reliable backup 5.
by halo_on on Jul 7, 2009 2:01 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
nice to see we're in agreement
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
It’s no secret that defense wins championships in the NBA. Finding good wing defenders is really, really hard in this league.
This very year both Trevor Ariza and Ron Artest both went for the mid level exception. Meaning pretty much any year we could find someone to fill it. SA found Bowen. Boston got Posey. LAL got Ariza. It’s not really that difficult.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The players are out there, but
getting them to sign with Portland is another story. Artest seems to have taken a discount for the chance to play for a title.
What do you think it would take to get Battier?
by torsoheap on Jul 7, 2009 3:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it'd take Przybilla+
and I’m on the fence as far as that goes. I definitely disagree with Dave no how to go about this.
For me, these players can and should be locked into their position for the next 2-3 years. By getting rid of them you create question marks either in terms of current needs, future needs, or potential talent. Each of these guys represent a significant amount of these things to justify a place on this roster.
PG: Bayless
SG: Roy / Rudy
SF: Batum
PF: Aldridge
C: Oden / Przybilla
You want to be two deep at every position. That means we need to find a starting quality PG right away, a SF that either is ready to go right now or a guy that can defend the bigger SF’s Batum isn’t capable of, and a PF banger type that has some sort of offensive game as well.
What do we have to get these things? Well… plenty of parts.
Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster, Victor Claver, Jeff Pendergraph, Channing Frye (Sign and Trade), $8 million dollars cap space, future draft picks and $3 million dollars of Paul Allen’s money for every trade we make.
I personally think you can take those parts and get the 3 things you need.
To get the PG, an easy example would be Kirk Hinrich. That would take Blake and Outlaw.
To get the PF, an easy example would be Brandon Bass. That would simply take using your cap space (6-6.5 million this season)
To get the SF, an easy example would be James Posey. The Hornets might want be willing to get him off their hands for some combo of a signed and traded Channing Frye and the remaining 2 or 3 million we have in cap space.
That leaves us with:
PG: Hinrich / Bayless
SG: Roy / Rudy
SF: Posey / Batum / Webster
PF: Aldridge / Bass / Pendergraph
C: Oden / Przybilla
At which point you also would want to sign a minimum level point guard (Tyronn Lue, Anthony Carter, Brevin Knight) in case you don’t get what is needed out of Bayless. The rest of those guys on that team, to me at least, are money in the bank.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally aggree!
You want to be two deep at every position.
That means we need to find a starting quality PG right away,
a SF that either is ready to go right now or a guy that can defend the bigger SF’s Batum isn’t capable of,
and a PF banger type that has some sort of offensive game as well.
by spencerbutte on Jul 7, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TEAM basketball!
The strength is in the synergism or chemistry.
It’s how the parts fit and play together. We don’t need to add that “BIG” named player.
We have the core talent already. The Blazers only need to plug in role players except at PG.
The problem is balancing Roy’s need to have the ball in his hands. Is Bayless the answer?
Other teams have that problem. GS with Monta Ellis (Curry the fix?). Atlanta with JJ. etc.
Rudy will be/should be our spark plug 6th man. Each team needs one. That need is part of the core.
The Blazers handled LA very well last year. We will do even better this season with our core maturing.
We need to plug our holes on defense (adding the likes of Bass and Hendrix).
by spencerbutte on Jul 7, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't know Hendrix could ball
But if he can, let’s dig him up!
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jul 7, 2009 8:54 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Richard Hendrix ($100,000 - GS owned)
I’m all for it.
Hendrix’s numbers and overall profile compares favorably with Carlos Boozer’s at the same age, and even though we might not ever become an all-star like Boozer, he could develop into a Paul Millsap type steal if he falls into the second round.
by spencerbutte on Jul 7, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he had great hang time
Infinite sustain. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 7, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
If Kevin Pritchard wants to rectify his mistake of drafting Dante Cunningham, then ...
he should invite Richard Hendrix to training camp as the fourth-string power forward and let him have every chance to beat out the useless Villanova alum. In this scenario, the third-string frontline heading into the season would be a young, undersized duo of Jeff Pendergraph and Hendrix; however, those two would bring efficiency and prowess on the glass to the table.
Regarding Joe Johnson, it’s eery how his setup in Atlanta mirrors that of Brandon Roy in Portland. Basically, Jamal Crawford is in the Rudy Fernandez role, Steve Blake is in the Mike Bibby role, and Jerryd Bayless is in the Jeff Teague role.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would be very happy with your proposed roster
Don’t know if Hinrich or Posey are possible, but that is a nice balanced roster, without sacrificing youth or continuity.
by upper left corner on Jul 7, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I generally agree with your approach, but the problem arises when Cuban matches $6.5M on Bass (which he would do) and Chicago demands more than Blake and Outlaw for Hinrich...
……………………………… and then you’ve got no cap room for NO, let alone the fact that Frye has already been renounced for cap room and is not a tradeable asset.
So it looks REALLY good on paper, but in practice it’s more like this: Offer Brandon Bass $9M per year for 3 years (i.e. too much) and hope Cuban doesn’t match (which he still might).
The end.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bass is an UFA, so Cuban doesn’t have the technical right to match… though Bass may in fact let Dallas try to match.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His agent is claiming a dozen teams inquired about him
Might be just five with real interest, but there is some competition.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bass can be had, it seems like, for considerably less right now.
From ESPN
The Dallas Morning News reports negotiations are ongoing between president of basketball operations Donnie Nelson and Brandon Bass’ agent, Tony Dutt.
The Mavericks’ offer is believed to have been upgraded recently, perhaps to the $3.5 million per year neighborhood, while Bass wants something in the $5 million range. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bass for five million, Outlaw and Blake for Hinrich. More minutes for Rudy, more minutes for Batum, better perimeter D. Bada bing.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
at this point
Id be fully onboard with this move. it’s not like we are hitting a homerun, but we dont need one. we arent getting rid of any of our youngsters, giving us a bit more time to evaluate them, but we are addressing areas of need, and trimming a bit of our SF logjam.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich/Bayless
Roy/Fernandez
Batum/Webster?
LMA/Bass/Graph
Oden/Przybilla
Lots of bigs, lots of wings, good point guard.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be cool with paying him slightly above the MLE
but it looks like we might not even have to do that. Bass is the best value on the market right now. Tell me if you went back in time you wouldn’t have traded Outlaw for a late 1st round pick and used our cap space on Ariza for 5.8 and now Bass for what could easily be another 5.8. Hindsight… 20/20
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bass works for me. Pay him $6M, lock the thread on the team, and let's go to war...
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Dallas Mavericks have just Early Bird rights on Brandon Bass; thus, the most that ...
the team can offer him is a contract with a starting salary equal to the mid-level exception, albeit with hometown annual raises of 10.5% — rather than the 8% other teams can offer him — over five seasons.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Posey sucks. No, really, he does. Ask the fans at AttheHive. He regressed and doesn’t have the ability to play the same defense that he did in Miami and Boston.n
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in one year?
I completely disagree. It’s more about regular season play versus the playoffs. In these playoffs New Orleans was 19 points better defensively with him in the game. 19! You don’t get THAT much worse in one season, you just don’t. He’s set up to be a very good defensive SF that is very good at hitting the long ball. If you’re willing to judge anyone on last years New Orleans team, look at Chris Paul. That kid just flat gave up last year. I’m certainly not going to significantly downgrade Posey after just last year he was looking very good matched up with LBJ. I think Posey is a solid vet SF that wouldn’t cost you very much.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
flat gave up? He was on big time painkillers with a bad knee and he gave it his all.
Go ask Rohan at ATH. Posey is just not the same player that he was.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In one season
I find that extremely hard to believe.
Chris Paul did give up, or if he didn’t he may be the most overrated player on the planet. And no one on that team really tried. It was a gigantic collapse that very well could have cost Scott his job. Even so, they were 19 points better defensively with Posey,
If you’ll take a look at last season, you’ll notice a weird thing. Posey wasn’t anything special at all in the regular season that year either.
http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS8D.HTM
It was him stepping his game up in the playoffs and actually playing the D he’s capable of that made people realize how good he was on that end. Judging him off of last years regular season with a team that occasionally tried, especially a player like Posey who saves himself for the playoffs is a losing proposition.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s losing lateral quickness and was thus having serious issues defending on the perimeter. He was a decent shooter, good defensive rebounder, but really wans’t the same defensively.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it's time to stick a fork in James Posey; he isn't effective anymore.
Frankly, I advocate signing either Ime Udoka or Quinton Ross to a one-year, minimum-level contract if the team can find a taker for Martell Webster. Then again, I’m the guy who’d rejoice if Portland would trade Webster and some assets — such as the Eurotrash triplets of Victor Claver, Joel Freeland, and Petterii Koponen — in a lopsided trade to the Washington Wizards for Mike Miller.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Channing Frye will have his Bird rights renounced to clear cap space, so scratch the last ...
part of your plan. Also, Cablinasian is correct that James Posey is on his last legs nowadays.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Posey is an interesting name
He hasn’t been named in any rumor or even most of the fan’s trade proposal. I think he’s a realistic choice and a good fit (already 32 yr old though)
Funny how people tend to have short memory. Just one year ago Posey was a huge part of the Celtics championship team. Now Ariza and Artest the hot commodites when it comes to defensive experts at wing, and Posey is kind of swept into shadow.
by iverigma2 on Jul 7, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really!
Ariza is a good player, but he is no Prince or Battier (or even Bowen back when he was still allowed to grab peoples jerseys). Artest is toxic. I bet you at least half of the teams in the league eliminated him from consideration because he is a headcase and will throw up ugly jumpers for the fun of it. Good wing defenders are hard to find because I just listed 4 guys and another four did not immediately come to mind.
by da34shadow on Jul 7, 2009 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, if the only guys you refer to as "good wing defenders"
are the top two or three in the league, they’re hard to find, but finding solid defenders on the wing is not a difficult task. In terms of top level guys, Marion is still available, but in terms of solid wing defenders, you can always pick up guys like Quinton Ross, Ime, Bowen (picked up off the scrap heap by SA at first), Mbah a Moute, Dahntay Jones, or Sefolosha. All of those guys have been acquired for basically nothing, and all are considered to be good wing defenders.
like as11 said, it’s not difficult to find a solid wing defender who can chip in 25 mpg.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They also have to punish defenses who leave them
To be useful, they also have to have some way to prevent defenses from sagging off of them and double-teaming the prime offensive guys. Ideally, that means they can hit the 3 or, at least, slash to the basket effectively. The level at which they can do those things, and their lack of disruptiveness (Marion, Artest) determine how valuable they are.
To me Batum fits the bill perfectly, and I’m looking forward to seeing his second year.
All that glitters isn't chrome
by hoopla-pdx on Jul 7, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They do, but shooting open threes is not difficult
Ariza had never shot more than 28% from three before this year. Bowen was a bad 3 point shooter until he decided to focus on shooting the corner 3 and then led the league in 3 point shooting in 2003. Any NBA player should be able to learn to consistently hit an open three.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy
If I can only choose 5, I would run with Roy, LMA, Oden, Batum, and Rudy. As far as the person I’m least willing to let go for the rest of the team, it would be Joel.
I guess I don’t understand the thinking that Rudy is superfluous to this team. I seem to hear a lot of “he’s very talented BUT he plays Brandon’s position,” or something along those lines. From a simple fan’s standpoint, I love watching Roy and Rudy on the floor at the same time. I thought that this season when Roy ran the point and Rudy ran the 2 spot the team looked good. Am I crazy? Do any of the stat-heads (and I mean that in a positive way) have evidence to suggest that the team DOESN’T perform well in that scenario?
I would use any combo of the guys I didn’t mention to acquire a superstar PG such as Harris, CP3 (although I doubt that’s doable, but you get the idea), or the like and go from there. I’m not willing to give up someone as talented as Rudy. Joel is a heck of a center, and counter to Dave’s plan that leaves us with one true (still unproven) center I would roll with one superstar PG and two very good centers. Also, who’s to say Patty Mills or Pendergraph won’t floor us and make a case for those backup spots? Or that it would require both our PGs to get the guy we want?
When you have a talent like Rudy, you don’t give it up unless you’re getting a true superstar, is my feeling.
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 2:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, and Batum appear to be the most talented players on the team, they are the most logical group to keep as the team’s core. The argument that Roy and Rudy “play the same position” and therefor can’t be on the court at the same time just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. In fact, Roy and Rudy’s games complement each other well and the team does better when Roy us paired with Rudy than when he is paired with any other player.
by trk on Jul 7, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes!!!!!!
there are others out there in Blazerland that can see the light…..
by retirecards51 on Jul 7, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Back on topic:
I think many would agree that when you’re talking about a core five, anyone will include Roy/Aldridge/Oden, and the questions surround the remaining two slots, to be alloted to two folks from the Rudy/Batum/Jerryd pool. The interesting point in selecting two from those three (to me) is this: are you selecting based on potential or perceived current value?
I raise this question because it’s awfully tough to make a case against Rudy and Batum. Both fulfill dual criteria. 1) We know they can help this team win right now, and 2) we know they’re attractive pieces to other teams and carry significant value outside the city of Portland. Jerryd fulfills #2, but not #1, unless you want to put money down that he’ll blossom into a significant contributor this year. It’s certainly possible but far from a sure thing and not even necessarily probable.
So using that rationale, I can’t include Jerryd, and I’ve got to go with Rudy and Batum rounding out the five, because they’re contributing now and they could help build this team if an offer too good to refuse came up.
I recognize that the point of the question is to determine who’s the core, but I don’t think that should be synonymous with untradeable. Put more simply, I don’t think there are five untradeables on this team, as good as they are and as dedicated as we should be to the talent we’ve amassed. There might not even be three.
"I take the little gummy bear Flintstones vitamins…I try not to eat the lady. I try not to eat the man. Just give me the car. I try to find the car. Yea, worst case scenario, I eat the lady." - Ron Artest, 2009
by rivetz on Jul 7, 2009 2:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You make a strong and reasonable case, but let me try to make the case for Bayless....
Roy, LMA and GO are obvious.
Batum is #4 in my list because his defense is good now, and he has lots of potential on the offensive side. He is an excellent fit next to Roy.
I agree with you that the question is Rudy or Jerryd. I can’t argue with you about current production. Clearly, Rudy is a proven, productive player, and Jerryd is not, yet.
However, Rudy is much closer to his ceiling than Jerryd. He is 24 and has been a pro for 6 years. Physically, Rudy may be able to add a few pounds of muscle, but that is about it. Rudy, so far, has not shown much ability to create his own shot. His handle is suspect, and he is too thin to finish consistently at the rim. He is great on the alley oops, but that is a play that is unlikely to work more than once or twice a game. He is a smart player and cagey on defense, but overall I would rate him as slightly below average on defense. His lack of strength and average (by NBA standards) lateral quickness make it unlikely that he will ever be much better.
Rudy is almost exclusively a SG. He is not quick enough, nor does he have a good enough handle to ever play significant minutes at PG. He does not have the strength to play much at SF. His inability to play significant minutes at more than one position, combined with the fact that his position is the position of our best player, will make finding him minutes a never ending struggle.
Jerryd, by contrast, has incredible physical tools. With the exception that it would be nice if his arms were a bit longer, he has almost a prototypical PG physique. He is strong, fast, and has outstanding athleticism. Assuming he can find his shot, which given his track record is likely, he is going to become a multi-threat scorer. Able to penetrate, able to hit the pull-up, and able to hit the spot-up. A PG with his size who can do all three of those things is going to be a load to defend. Roy referred to defending him in practice as being like guarding D Wade, that is not faint praise. The real question is can he learn to run a team and make PG decisions? Clearly, the jury is out on this question, and the potential for failure is real. However, given that he is playing next to Roy, he does not need to be Steve Nash to be effective. If he can learn to use the threat of his scoring to create opportunities for his teammates, he should have an excellent chance of being at least adequate.
On the defensive end, Bayless has the tools to become a first rate defender. His combination of strength, speed, and aggression fits the bill. He already shows good footwork. He needs to figure out the hand check rule and needs to earn a bit more respect from the zebras, but he appears to be on the way. He needs plenty of work in terms of recognition and team defense, but much of that is a matter of experience.
I would argue that Bayless because of his youth, physical gifts, and relentless work ethic has a higher ceiling than Rudy, particularly as a defender. Combine this with the fact that he plays our teams position of greatest need, while Rudy plays our position of least need, and I think it is reasonable to conclude that Bayless is potentially more important to the team’s future than Rudy. I’m not saying you are wrong, just that it is an arguable point. To me, it depends on what we would get in return if we traded either away.
by upper left corner on Jul 7, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind..
You’re making a core group of 5 guys. If you disclude Joel, it means you’ve made him tradable.
by halo_on on Jul 7, 2009 2:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I think the five are Roy, LMA, Rudy, Batum, and GO. But I also feel we need to keep Joel for one more year for obvious reasons.
by Cory2669 on Jul 7, 2009 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why I kind of cheated
I would be, as KP was this weekend, “livid” if Joel was traded for anything less than a superstar. The loyalty he’s shown to our organization is amazing, and his value is nigh-unspeakable. His rebounding, toughness, leadership, defense…I could go on. Call me crazy, but if someone brings up the Blazers to me out of the blue, it’s Roy and Joel I think of first.
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loyalty, toughness, leadership
All true!
by VTDuck on Jul 7, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sergio, Frye, LaFrentz, Randolph & Ruffin...
Core of the all-star YMCA league.
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dave, this looks like a lot of backpeddling
after the crazy suggestion of peddling Joel (the most positive influence our young team could have had the last 3 yrs) for Battier. That idea approaches the level of mistake Whitsit made in dealing Brian Grant for Dale Davis. And Davis was a current all-star.
What a mess if Lamarcus and Lee have to play extended minutes at center.
by renaissant on Jul 7, 2009 2:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
jermaine o'neal for dale davis
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
Oneal wanted to play and no one was playing him. he was a wasted asset. We traded garbage for garbage. The mistake was in not letting talent play because he annihilated people in practice and people KNEW how good Oneal was. We just let him waste on the bench because only vets were allowed to play to keep people “happy”.
I strongly suspect we’ll have a few blazers leave over the next year and we’ll see them blow up. The problem is that wouldn’t work with our system because we already have key guys.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The trouble is..
The list is 5 guys, not 6. If you say “we have to keep Joel for another year”, and then list 5 guys, that’s 6 people. See? This is the can’t have your cake and eat it to. The spirit of this discussion is forcing yourself to choose. Who would you rather give up?
Rudy or Batum?
Who is more valuable to Portland if we want to win a championship in the next 2-3 years?
by halo_on on Jul 7, 2009 2:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But that's an arbitary number
I understand the exercise/prompt, but there’s no rule saying KP can only keep 5 guys :P I cheated on the prompt, but KP can theoretically keep the guys I mentioned.
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lamarcus aldridge, brandon roy, greg oden, rudy fernandez, nic batum are my five, with a jerryd bayless as because i’m going to be greedy.
we have a serious hole at starting point
we have a serious hole at starting small forward
and we have a serious hole at backup power forward
david lee is my first choice in free agency, he fills a need at a possible starting small forward (he’s only a center in the d’antoni system) and can play backup minutes at pf and center.
lamar odom would be next on my list. i think we can get him, depending how bad we want him. he’s always been a favorite of mine even in my laker distaste. ron artest was up there, but now that he’s gone that’s moot.
for point guards, that’s tough, and i think our best bet there is through a trade. based on what’s available on the free agent market, it seems to be forward season, the guards are slim pickin.
i’m still high on devin harris, there’s no talk about him moving but, since it’s a trade scenario in my mind, he’s number one priority. then kirk hinrich, but that seems to be off the table. then rajon rondo. i think, for right now, you need to get a free agent asap. the point guard situation can come later, mid-season. this is the NBA, and situations change so fast, maybe devin harris is available mid-season and we can snag him.
if i could be senseless and greedy, my core would balloon to 10 guys who are untradable. let’s get devin harris, david lee, let’s keep eccentric mw, trout, blake…
by richardb on Jul 7, 2009 2:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Roy, Rudy, Nic, LMA, Greg
Bayless, Battier and Joel until his wheels fall off. I feel safe to say that if Rudy goes to start for another NBA team, he blows up Jermaine-style. play Brandon at the 1 and Rudy at the 2 until Bayless is ready for the trial-by-fire, then decide whether Jerryd or Fernandez plays the 6th man role. If Rudy gets sent back to the bench and wants to leave the team at that point, I think thats fair, but get something good for him while he still has value. Battier would be a great mentor for Batum, at least defensively, hopefully speeding his development as well.
I also love David Lee. I can’t see him happy settling for the MLE and a backup role after averaging a double double in the largest media market on Earth. And I can’t see us happy paying any more than the MLE, even if he can back up two positions.
UDOKA!
(formerly my boy, now just fun to say)
by CLRNCE. on Jul 7, 2009 2:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
David Lee can barely defend the 4 let alone the 5
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question of the night, before I sleep..
It’s 2 AM. I’m going to bed soon. But here’s my question for you Blazermaniacs.
Forced to choose between the two packaged in a deal to make us better, who could you give up, Rudy or Batum? I keep seeing Joel being left off every single list. How is Joel not a major, major part of this team with the Oden situation as it is? We’re talking about the immediate future if you ask me, and this team is way WAY worse without Joel than it would be without Rudy. I guarantee it.
by halo_on on Jul 7, 2009 2:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dave's sayin
Joel’s expendable if we pick up Lee. I say “Psh.” To answer your question though, Rudy goes before Batum in any trade for any incoming position.
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would give up Rudy first
and I agree, as said in my post below this, we can’t give up Joel until Oden’s situation is far more clear.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Jul 7, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give up Rudy
First I have a much harder time seeing as a blazer in a few years plus he has a very high trade value
by Cory2669 on Jul 7, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, and feel like expanding on your thought...
Rudy is amazing, maybe too amazing… He’s already more clutch than many starting SGs in this league, and with more minutes he’ll seem even better. He’s over-qualified to be just a backup. I can envision a 6th man award for Rudy when we make our championship runs, but it may be better down the road to trade him and stiffen up a different position while getting a cheaper, average backup. I’d love to keep him around, but it will be progressively tougher every year to justify holding him back.
by hobbyshop_hero on Jul 7, 2009 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ginobili has starter talent
yet comes off the bench for quite a number of games.
by torsoheap on Jul 7, 2009 3:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ginobili is no longer in his prime
and has won enough over his career to be comfortable doing that. We have yet to see an indication that Rudy is okay with those reduced minutes. As he said last week about Turkoglu, he just wants to play and get his minutes.
by kobisportsguy on Jul 7, 2009 5:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
there also isn't an all star '2' starting in front of Ginobli
meaning he still get 32+ minutes per game, including crunch time, and almost all of it at his natural position.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't Rudy get 32+ minutes per game on the Blazers?
It’s not like Rudy would only be able to get minutes when Roy isn’t playing. When Roy and Rudy played together last year the Blazers outscored the opposition by 11.3 points per 48 minutes, which is better than any other player pair combination involving Roy or Rudy.
Roy + Rudy on the court together = win
by trk on Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i didn't say he couldn't
just saying the Ginobli comparison doesn’t really work at all. Rudy can easily get 32 minutes, but it’s by us playing a bunch of non-traditional lineups.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I getting back a Superstar?
If not, then neither. They’re staying here.
If you give me a Superstar, then I believe Dave’s notion of the immediate future comes into play. You keep the guy that’s superb NOW, and give away Nic.
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yet Nic started last year while Rudy did not
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's not a good argument
it was nic vs ….a backup sf
and rudy vs roy
for starter minutes.
rudy IS tradable, but we won’t actively shop him. he’s the piece, that if we need to give him up, absolutely no other option, to get that elite player we’re hoping for (devin harris cough cough), then we let him go
by richardb on Jul 7, 2009 2:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 2:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And sometimes played 8 minutes in the whole game
I believe Rudy has more talent now, though neither has reached their ceiling. I don’t see why Rudy being the deadliest sixth man in the league makes him expendable.
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 2:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed...
but the reason Nic starts is because he fits in the best with our core. We need Rudy’s scoring off the bench but that could easily come from other sources like Outlaw/Webster/Bayless. I didn’t realize Rudy already won the 6th man award – awarded to the deadliest 6th man in the league. Also, if you’re getting a superstar in return, then you need Nic’s teamwork and D more than Rody’s flash and offensive firepower, since I’m assuming by superstar you mean someone that can put it in the bucket.
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that's where we differ
I consider Rudy part of our core. And I feel 100% confident that he will be the best 6th man in the league, sooner than Batum will be “ready” (not my word, quoting other BEdgers).
Also, I don’t think Rudy’s teamwork is an issue. Yes, Nic’s D would be missed, but the thread here is forcing me to give up one or the other, when I’d rather give up neither. I’m focusing on who’s better now, and I think that means Rudy.
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 3:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruuuuuuudy
I know that Rudy is fun to watch, a chaos creator with a flair for the dramatic and excellent shooting ability. He is fully NBA-ready offensiely and the Blazer who looked most like he could handle an expanded role last year.
One of the common themes mentioned on this site is a need to improe our perimeter defense. I think that trading our best (and youngest) perimeter defender while keeping one of the worst is a step in the wrong direction for this team. Add the 4 year age gap and the fact that Batum is already helping our team and I think the choice is easy to make
by momomoses7 on Jul 7, 2009 3:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joel is untradeable right now
come February though…..
Oden clearly isn’t ready to play starters minutes on opening night. I don’t care how great he looks this summer; he’s got to prove it on the court first. We need Joel until we can count on Oden every night. We need to give Oden floor time, but that doesn’t mean trading away Przybilla. I think there will be a lot of variability in the quality of Oden’s play early in the season and we’ll want to be able to sub Joel in when necessary. Hopefully, Oden develops more each game and by the all star break we can risk moving Joel for an upgrade at the 1 or 3.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Jul 7, 2009 2:18 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
+1 billion
I have confidence that Oden is going to be at least a solid player, but you need to have another quality guy until Oden figures out how to stay on the court. If Portland is playing Cleveland and Oden picks up three fouls in the first 25 secs are you go to…David Lee to guard Shaq for the rest of the first half? Really? I guess Portland could pick up Rasho Nesterovic for his six fouls, but I’d rather have Przybilla.
The counter argument is that Przy’s value is as high now as it’ll ever be. When Oden is able to stay on the court for 35 minutes, teams will know that Przy is expendable.
by torsoheap on Jul 7, 2009 3:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Expendable does not mean less value.
So long as two or more teams are interested in Joel (and there will be way more than 2) Joel will have value on the market. How important he is to us is not the point. It’s not like he’s a “cancer” guy that teams willl know is hurting us.
by The Penguin on Jul 7, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely.
It’s absurd to even think about trading Joel right now. Let’s see, what percentages of Blazer games has Greg played in since being drafted? How many times has he been able to stay on the floor for 30 plus minutes per game when he has been able to play? Has he yet – even one time – been in top shape from his pre-draft workout with us to the present? Pritchard has stated that he wanted Greg to work hard this summer to get himself into shape, but don’t you think we should wait until he has shown he can actually do this? Does he even have the mental make-up to play big minutes at a high level in the NBA?
IMO, it’s crazy thinking to be wanting to jettison Joel before these questions are answered. Will they be answered by the trade deadline? Maybe, but we certainly don’t have the answers presently. I take some comfort here in truly believing that KP won’t be dealing Joel anytime soon (unless he somehow brings in another quality center to replace him).
You know – and this is probably crazy thinking given that in today’s NBA players almost have to look at the front of their jersey’s to remind themselves of what team they are currently playing for – but I somehow wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see Joel retire a Portland Trail Blazer.
And oh yeah, my core selection: probably what most everyone else above is saying minus Bayless.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
by TwoDeep on Jul 7, 2009 6:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worth remembering...
We keep speculating on this offseason saying, “Well, let’s just see how things pan out, we have til February.” Keep in mind that KP has publicly stated that in general he doesn’t like midseason moves. Nate agrees with him (and so do I, which I’m quite sure plays a key factor in his decision-making process, of course)
I’m sure that if the right deal came along, the front office would listen. I’m just making the point that we heard a lot of action last February, but we sure didn’t see any. And am I wrong here, or has KP never made a midseason move (apart from the 12th-man Von Wafer deal a year or two back which had a near-minimal impact on the team’s roster?
"I take the little gummy bear Flintstones vitamins…I try not to eat the lady. I try not to eat the man. Just give me the car. I try to find the car. Yea, worst case scenario, I eat the lady." - Ron Artest, 2009
by rivetz on Jul 7, 2009 2:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
good point
although, we also were used to a KP who makes big moves on draft day. This year was different, of course, we weren’t in the lottery. So too could this season/trade deadline be different from years past, we could make a move in February because the cap space is there.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Jul 7, 2009 2:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I didn’t want to overstate it, because I don’t think they’re gun-shy. I think if the right move had been there in February, they would have pulled the trigger. I just think it’s important to draw yet another distinction between this front office and the Trader Bob days, when the regular season was frequently viewed as a convenient extension of the offseason.
"I take the little gummy bear Flintstones vitamins…I try not to eat the lady. I try not to eat the man. Just give me the car. I try to find the car. Yea, worst case scenario, I eat the lady." - Ron Artest, 2009
by rivetz on Jul 7, 2009 2:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I AGREE
i agree with this statement. Bad teams don’t make moves to get better midseason. They trade away good players that effectively make them worse, net them draft picks, cash, and more “potential” players. Therefore, the argument that KP is scared to pull the trigger is premature and not applicable. Outside of this year, there is no other reason he SHOULD have really considered making a trade. Even this year, I was glad to see what we did about our team. Such as:
1. Rudy will take big shots, no matter the outcome
2. Outlaw cannot contribute on a championship team until he becomes a SMALL forward, not powerforward in SF body
3. Roy is arguably the 2nd best shooting guard in the league (not my argument, but he is 3rd)
4. Lamarcus can Ball. After having looked at the stats…he was doing his thing in the playoffs, contributing a myriad of ways.
It seems unlikely that we make a move this offseason, but if KP doesn’t do something by Feb., and the team play suggests we should, THEN you can bash him for overvaluing his players, until then…i don’t think its a valid argument.
by kajuayn on Jul 7, 2009 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy, LMA, Oden...
everyone else is on a different level, but I guess Batum and Bayless would be my next two. Both of them could be perfect fits if they reach their potential. I think you could probably take a chance on guys like that as apposed to someone like Outlaw who’s best case scenario is still not an ideal fit for the team.
PRZYBILLA: There is a good chance Joel will be gone in a year or two anyway. Either from injuries (historically misses about 40% of games) or from contract demands. The Magic couldn’t afford to resign Gortat even after making the finals and despite the fact that he’s younger and cheaper than Joel. I doubt the Blazers will want to resign Joel to a long term contract when he’s over 30, but still demanding a big contract.
FERNANDEZ: Even if he reaches his full potential he’s probably not what the Blazers need. His skill set is limited and at 24 years old he’s probably closer to his ceiling than people realize.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 2:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree about Rudy
There’s no denying he is fun to watch, but I don’t think he’ll ever be the player that is being hyped here. He is a liability on defence, and unless he gets a lot stronger, which I don’t think is likely, that won’t change. As for his ofense, NVE is right, he is limited. What can he do? He’s a decent 3pt shooter (not amazing- lower pct than Blake last year), and he makes good cuts. His mid range juper was lousy, although that is the part of his game I expect will see the most improvement. He had a hard time driving to the basket, another symptom of not being strong. He gets a lot of credit for being a good passer, but his flashy passes are high risk. Despite those flaws in his game, his trade value is very high relative towhat he adds to the team. That is why he is at the top of my list of guys to trade away, assuming we can get a better fit for the team.
Rex is a starter by the 2010 trade deadline. Watch.
by dan_the_man on Jul 7, 2009 3:18 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
He's more than a decent 3pt shooter.
The volume of shots needs to be taken into account along with the fact that he’s new to the NBA. Still, Anthony Morrow was a terrific three point shooter as a rookie and people aren’t going crazy over him. Rudy is overvalued by a lot of people for sure.
Rudy is a poor ball handler, has a lousy mid-range jumper, and is a pretty awful defender. He’s the same age as Outlaw so unless you expect Travis to improve dramatically I wouldn’t hold your breath on Rudy. Hopefully they both prove me wrong.
I think it all depends on what you can get for him. Trade value vs. actual production may be skewed slightly in favor of moving him to a more suitable situation. I also don’t like that he’s already grumbling (If only slightly) about playing time and his role, etc. It feels like minutes could be a problem going forward.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 3:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy is smarter than Outlaw
and is exceptionally good at off the ball movement. Those two things have me placing a higher value on him and a higher belief in his ability to improve.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The notion that Rudy is a liability on defense is simply incorrect
We have direct evidence to refute this common, but erroneous perception. Not only does Rudy play at an above average rate offensively, he holds his opponents to below average performance.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it's all down hill after 24.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope.
But it’s not exactly a steep change in skill either. I seriously doubt Rudy ever becomes more than a mediocre defender and the fact that he can’t drive to the hoop or take his man off the dribble is pretty worrisome. A poor man’s Rip Hamilton is probably what he’s destined to be. Which is pretty great considering he was such a late draft pick.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy isn't Roy, when it comes to isolation offense
but then, isolation basketball is a team weakness anytime except end of periods or in “must score” scenarios.
Rudy, however, understands basketball, plays more than adequate team defense, makes his teammates better, and can hit the open and not so open 3. Further, the claim that Rudy cannot drive to the basket is both erroneous and misleading. He doesn’t force the ball into traffic, regularly takes it to the hole in transition, and is the best off the ball cutter to the basket on the team.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When does Rudy drive to the basket?
I can’t remember ever seeing him take his man off the dribble. Occasionally he slashes to the hoop, but that’s not exactly the same thing. 3pt shooting makes up 63% of all his shots. That’s third highest in the league. Only 15% of his shots are from around the basket and I imagine most of those came in the form of lob dunks from Sergio.
He’s a spot up 3 point shooter. Which is fine, but still a pretty limited role and certainly not essential to the Blazers success.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
those stats are misleading
63% of Rudy’s shots were 3 point attempt because that is the role he was asked (and allowed?) to play. It doesn’t mean he isn’t capable of other things, but he wasn’t exactly given free range to do them very often.
Not saying his BRoy going to the hole, but I suspect he has more game in that area then we’ve seen, especially onthe pick and roll
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He isn't capable of doing other things consistently well.
He was given free range to do what he wanted in Spain and the results were the same.
…the only way to stop Fernández is to make him pay for his relatively limited ball-handling skills, especially with his left, and slashing ability. Indeed, Rudy struggles in pure one-on-one situations if he’s pressured, as it was exposed particularly in the semifinal. Suffering against aggressive on-ball defenses, he struggled trying to get rid of his opponent off the dribble, and given his prominence in Joventut’s offense, it almost cost his team the game.-February 19, 2008
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not much of a problem at all alongside Roy and any competent PG
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your right.
It’s Rudy’s poor defense that kills any chance of him being a permanent match for Roy in the backcourt. The lack of ball handling is a much smaller problem.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not a permanent starting match....
but he’s an absolutely great 6th man in this league, that fits almost ideally with Roy on both ends, allowing Roy to match up with bigger perimeter players that he’s better equipped to defend. It also takes our offensive efficiency through the roof. Over 1.20 points per possession offensively and only giving up 1.00 points per possession. It’s 1000 minutes of great play with inferior teammates than what they’ll have in the future. With Oden getting his legs back and becoming a force, the defense will be plenty taken care of. You can’t throw away the exceptional level of offensive efficiency having both Roy and Rudy on the court at the same time gives you.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That role is necessary...
and the fact he’s able to knock down such a high percentage and at a high quantity, makes him a special player doing what he does. The fact he can get behind his defender for alley oops and the like make him a dynamic threat a defense must account for. He also fits almost perfectly alongside Roy, as has been shown time and again here.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also fits almost perfectly alongside Roy, as has been shown time and again here.
Roy is a weak defender so Rudy makes up for it by being a…. weaker defender. Hardly a “perfect” fit, especially since defense, not offense, is this teams primary weakness and concern.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In time it won't be as much a concern as it is now (Oden+)
you also underrate Rudy’s defensive skills, and how much better Roy is defensively versus bigger guys than smaller quicker guys. You can say we need defense all you want, this team needs to get better offensively as well, as the Rockets series should’ve shown you. We were MUCH MUCH better offensively with Rudy and Roy on the court, and it didn’t cost us much on the defensive end (in fact, in the series the Rudy/Roy was actually VERY good on the defensive end).
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to disagree.
The stats don’t tell the whole story obviously. We were statistically terrific with a lineup of: Blake-Fernandez-Roy-Outlaw-Przybilla. That doesn’t mean you can make a legitimate argument that Outlaw is the perfect PF to pair with Roy, or that those five guys should start.
Rudy and Roy don’t fit together extremely well against most of the playoff teams in the West, despite whatever the stats say. Using five man units as an argument is misleading because you don’t know what the apposing lineups were. Just too many outside factors.
I don’t buy the argument, at all.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using all 5 man units to isolate the pair
on top of taking the player pair numbers, on top of taking the playoff 5 man units, shows that no matter the circumstance, Rudy/Roy was an EXCELLENT on court pairing at the wing. Even versus Houston it proved to be very very successful, unlike nearly everything else we threw out there.
The fact is, I’m not for throwing them out there as a starting unit, but having Rudy be the first guy off the bench. He’s an ideal 6th man in terms of what he’d bring next to Roy in those situations. If defense was the only thing that mattered, I could see where you’re coming from, but that simply isn’t the case. They were SO good offensively, it always more than offset any defensive shortcomings, however, there were almost never defensive shortcomings when they played together (as the 1200+ minutes of evidence indicate – 103 points per 100 possessions, 92 points allowed per 100 possessions ^and that includes the minutes Rudy was mistakenly lined up at point guard).
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're using those stats again.
Doesn’t tell the whole story. Not accurate. Inadmissible in court so to speak.
We lost that series by the way, despite the fact that we ran a better offensive than Houston. It was our defense that killed us, along with the fact that Roy was the only guy who could create for himself. To me Rudy didn’t help in either way.
He’s not an ideal partner next to Roy despite whatever stats you cherry pick from the garbage pile. I could do the same thing with Outlaw and “prove” that he’s perfect as a PF if you slide Aldridge to center.
As a sixth man Rudy is great. Which would be fine except our starting PG is terrible and our SF lineup still has a couple years to go. Sixth men just aren’t that hard to find. Starting point guards are.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 7, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm in total aggreance on the point guard issue
If we can get one of those 8 elite point guards, you move Rudy. If not, he’s more valuable than anything you’re going to get. Small forward simply isn’t a big enough need to justify moving Rudy for just about any of the guys normally mentioned.
I’m also not hand picking stats, I’m using the entirety of the stats with Roy. And that’s what we talk about. How good is Rudy with Roy. Well, how about if we use all the info as a means of finding out? Any other way WOULD be hand picking.
If you take out the first game versus Houston, when Rudy wasn’t starting, we played just as well as Houston. Rudy and Roy were +7 per 48 versus “Western Playoff Contender” in this years playoffs with Rudy as a rookie. You can yell and scream defense from the rooftops, but the fact remains, while on the court, the Rudy/Roy combo played satisfactory defense and elite level offense. I think you do a disservice to yourself by berating Rudy as much as you do. Not acknowledging how good they actually were together, as opposed to some theory (that you’re essentially making up) on how they’d fit together.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the fallacy with your argument.
By the same token that one cannot rely solely on statistics to evaluate the effectiveness of a player, neither can one rely on subjective comments.
Your evaluation of a Rudy/Roy backcourt apparently comes from the comment you posted and your stat of Rudy getting over 60% of his shots from behind the arc. The first source is really nothjing more than an opinion. It could be essentially accurate, but it is not good practice to rely on the opinions of others. The second source is a statistic – exactly what you are telling as11osu is something that doesn’t tell the whole story. If his chosen statistic doesn’t, how are we to believe that yours does?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 8, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.
All stats are not made equal.
I’m saying that five man unit stats are often inaccurate. Just like defensive stats are unreliable, and +/- can often be misleading. Detailed shooting stats on the other hand aren’t terribly influenced by outside factors. Same with free throw% and rebounding rate.
I like statistics just fine. I just don’t like unit statistics because it doesn’t take into account the apposing units, which obviously changes everything.
Travis looks great when he plays PF, because he’s playing PF when the situation allows. Same goes for Roy at SF and Aldridge at center. Doesn’t mean any of them are ideal at that position.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 8, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is much more than just spot up open 3 shooter.
First of all, he shoots that 3 much more like Ray Allen (going full speed off the screen), than any guy just standing wide-wide open in the corner.
Second, he might be not STOPPER defensively. He couldn’t stop elite scorers. Its obvious. But he is also far from being HOLE at the defensive end. He moves his feet very well and his high BB-IQ allows him to READ opposite offense.
While he is average on-ball defender, he is very good team defender.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
A Rudy three is certainly different than a wide open Batum three. I’m not questioning his three point shooting.
I think he’s still a bit of a hole on defense. Maybe that will change as he gets older, but I doubt it considering he’s already 24. It wouldn’t be a problem if the team was built around hiding Rudy’s deficiencies, but it’s not. It’s built around Roy and since Roy is a sub par defender he probably needs to play next to a guy who can cover for him a bit. Take the pressure off, help him conserve energy on defense, etc. Rudy is not that guy.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 8, 2009 2:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seeing as how we have only seen him play one season ...
… in the NBA, don’t you think it is a bit early to write the book on what sort of a defender Fernandez is?
Although I happen to think that steals are overrated when evaluating a player’s defensive abilities, I don’t think there is any denying that Rudy was one of the best at playing the passing lanes and tipping or intercepting the ball. He seems to have good instincts. That tells me that if he works at it, there should be no reason he can’t be a good defender.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 8, 2009 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's 24.
Is it too early to write the book on what type of defender Outlaw is?
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 8, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are much more about league experience than actually age.
Playing against best athletes in the world – its another level at all. Guys are stronger, faster. You need time to adjust and determine your weaknesses. To figure out what you really COULD improve to adjust. Or COULDN’T.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy, Oden, LMA, Rudy, Batum... in that order
I also wouldn’t give up Przy. I think you run into WAY more questions giving him up than keeping him. But that still doesn’t mean he’s any more part of our core than the previous 5 that should be with this team for the next 5-10 years.
Oden and Przy are needed at the 5, with injuries and defense already lacking elsewhere, their stoutness inside is a key to this team winning in the playoffs. LMA and Roy are incredibly obvious, as they’re already PTP’ers, and are only going to get better. Rudy is next, as he’s already a very good player, fits incredibly well with Roy (no matter what propaganda is thrown out by people here), and is only going to get better. He’s the quintessential 6th man in this league, and we’re talking about him like he’s a question. This just in… not a question. Last year our 3rd or 4th best player while a rookie. That my friends is an answer if I’ve ever seen one. Last but not least of the 5 is Batum. Unlike the rest, he’s not nearly as good right this second, but his defensive abilities are going to be a great asset for him someday. If you’re going to wait on someone to show their full potential it should be Batum.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 2:31 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
That's it
From now on, if someone wants me opinion, I’m just going to say reply
see: as11
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 2:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Er...
as11osu
Yet another example of not being eloquent enough to get my point across. Yeesh.
I wanna be Brandon Roy when I grow up!
by dagraffman on Jul 7, 2009 3:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
up to this point, no one has mentioned Blake
in their top 5. He’s probably my #7 behind the other 6 guys being mentioned here. Let’s give him some credit, he runs the offense well and can hit the open 3. He’s all about the team and we liked him so much we went out of our way to bring him back after he was exiled. He can also kick your butt in a cage match. Keep it up Stevie we love you even if you’re expendable.
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
oh, and if...
we do land a stellar PG, he’d be an awesome back-up if Bayless was needed to acquire said PG
My mom babysat Paul Allen
by shwa on Jul 7, 2009 2:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
right on
A realistic way to answer Dave’s question, “Who are the top five players on the team?”, would be to say: Who are the five on the floor at the end of the game? And the answer there has to include Blake.
Oden, Aldridge, Roy, Rudy, and Blake? Add Przybilla and Batum to the shouldn’t-trade list, and there are five guys who could be traded. Too bad we can’t get Utah’s point guard in exchange for Webster and Bayless – but, we can’t. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 7, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty impressed
At how rare it is to see someone misspell Przybilla around here. It pretty much never happens. That’s actually extraordinary.
"I take the little gummy bear Flintstones vitamins…I try not to eat the lady. I try not to eat the man. Just give me the car. I try to find the car. Yea, worst case scenario, I eat the lady." - Ron Artest, 2009
by rivetz on Jul 7, 2009 2:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
we might mess up his name if we trade him
for lamar odem
by richardb on Jul 7, 2009 2:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Rudy, Prizz, Blake, and Bayless in that order
Roy, ODen aldridge, and Batum Very scared to let go
Rudy rocks and scared to let him go to.
"Knowledge will get you from A to B. Creativity will get you anywhere." Einstein
by Garden of ODEN on Jul 7, 2009 3:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Broy, LMA, Oden, Pryz, Rudy… Batum and Martell
Rudy is great, but as a backup he’s being held back. Gonna be hard to keep him happy when he can get more playing time and money elsewhere. Keep him for at least another year. Fit him into our system or let him accrue trade value.
Batum will be good, and I think Martell can regain his 07-08 form. I’d put SF upgrading on the backburner.
We need Pryz as security blanket for another year. Two would be nice.
I love Bayless, but i’d be satisfied with a trade for clear upgrade at PG. Heinrich does not qualify as a clear upgrade.
by hobbyshop_hero on Jul 7, 2009 3:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll do this Chad Ford style
And break our players into “tiers” based on current contributions, potential, and fit
TIER 1- Already excellent and still on the rise
Brandon Roy
LaMarcus Aldridge
TIER 2- Current contributor with extreme potential
Greg Oden
Nicolas Batum
Rudy Fernandez (Although he’s closer to tier 4 than people think, only 6 months younger than Outlaw and with noted defensive deficiencies)
Jerryd Bayless (While his contributions last year were limited, this is the most logical place to put him)
TIER 3- Experienced role players
Joel Pryzbilla
Steve Blake
TIER 4- Young-ish swingmen with both potential and serious question marks
Travis Outlaw
Martell Webster
Many of the arguments in this post seem to be of the relative value of tier 2 to tier 3. We need veteran role players to help our young players win now and grow fully into their potential without abandoning the youth movement to do so. Tiers 2 and 3 also present our most attractive trade assets, as they are somewhat-known commodities whos values are sky-high after a surprising season.
A good model may be the Baby Bulls of a few years ago. In hindsight, how funny is it that Luol Deng was the centerpiece of a trade offer for Kobe Bryant that the L*kers accepted (vetoed by Bryant because he wanted to play with Deng, just for further comedic effect)????? Deng has since fallen off the map due to lack of a defined role in the Bulls’ offense and injuries, while K*be just won finals mvp. While we won’t be able to trade for a superstar of his magnitude (It will be a long time before we see this active of a trade campaign from this good of a player in his prime again… I hope), it shows the benefits of selling high on young talent.
Thus, my 5 man core is:
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Batum, Pryzbilla (in that order)
Roy and Aldridge as primary scorers. Pryzbilla and Oden as a dominant center rotation and insurance policies on each other. Batum to be our “glue guy,” ready to go for 25 points on 15 shots one night and scoring 2 points while locking down our opponents’ best perimeter player the next. It provides us with skilled depth at the scarcest position in the game while leaving holes that are easier to fill.
While I know this list doesn’t include a PG, I did this intentionally with an eye towards personnel trends. It seems that thanks to the rule changes the league is being flooded by PGs who can play effectively. Look at the glut of PGs in this year’s draft, or the perceived lack of interest in free agents Andre Miller and Ramon Sessions despite the fact that both have proven they can be starting point guards in the NBA, Miller at a playoff level. While it is hard as ever to find a truly elite floor general; finding a serviceable starting PG who brings solid skills to the table isn’t terribly difficult and will continue to get easier as this crop of young point guards matures. Our other weakness in this scenario would probably be bench/wing scoring, which may well be the other easiest thing to find in the NBA, and may be solved in-house (just because we could trade Rudy/Martell/Trout doesn’t mean we have to).
Putting both Rudy and Bayless on the block pains me horribly, as they have the potential to be better than most starting backcourts in the league 3-5 years down the road. I also think that while they are both truly unique players, their skill sets are more replicatable than those of our nucleus (we already drafted Patty Mills, right?). Also, putting both in a package could put us in the running for an All-Star caliber player, especially after Rudy’s stellar postseason performance. You have to give something to get something (unless you’re trading for Pau Gasol), and it’s time to make some tough decisions.
by momomoses7 on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Assuming Dave's right
I’m still not convinced that those questions have to be answered this summer. In fact we will know a lot more about what the team has come the trade deadline and the ability to make an unbalanced trae will still be there.
In particular this quote from Dave is an assertion, made without evidence: "You can’t dawdle. You can’t get back into the old folks’ lane and decide you’ll try again later. Before this year the message has always been “wait”. That’s done. If you don’t start winning now you’re not going to win later either." You either believe it or you don’t.
Do I beleive that unless the Blazers do somethingt RIGHT NOW they are doomed to inevitable decline and mediocrity? No, not really.
I agree that talent needs to be consolidated, but I want to know about Bayless, Oden and Martell before making franchise changing decisions, especially when the urge to win now seems to be propelling people to accepting a four years championship window that opens this year, instead of a ten year window that opens next year.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 5:14 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I like it a lot
In fact we will know a lot more about what the team has come the trade deadline and the ability to make an unbalanced trade will still be there.
I agree that talent needs to be consolidated, but I want to know about Bayless, Oden and Martell before making franchise changing decisions
I would go for Kirk right now, than hold on our cap space through Deadline. And only than we should make our LAST MOVE to get over the top, depending on what we’ve got from Gregg’s, Marty’s, Bayless’ and Nic’s development.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure we can not get over the top with this team?
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With Blake as our starting PG?
Absolutely not. With Kirk – possibly. That’s why I want to wait at least until deadline with almost THIS team.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If acquire GW
I’m comfortable with bayless as starting PG. He will surpass Blake this year. Refusing to believe in Bayless is lacking an ability to appreciate delayed gratification in a basketball setting.
by lurtsman on Jul 7, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about 3pt shooting?
Neither GW nor JB have a 3pt touch to spread the floor for Roy.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I’m sure. take a look at the end of the season and the score board as this team was starting to click.
Take a look at the beginning of the season and the beginning of last season. Every time we make a major change to the team, it takes time for the team to understand each other. This leads to slow starts.
Oden should take a major leap forward this year. Full recover from the knee surgery. In better basketball shape, and seriously healthy as well as some basketball experience now.
Batum should be a little bit better.
Aldridge should be a lot better, but will probably be a little bit better.
Rudy will be a little bit better.
Bayless can’t be any worse.
Roy will be a little bit better although he might surprise again an be a lot better. which is just scary as he’s already one of the most underrated players in the NBA by the media. Players like Artest know.
can we get over the top? Absolutely. Beat the lakers and the spurs and it’s ours. Will we? We’ll have to play to find out.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batman may be a whole lot better.
I read Batuum’s Reverse Magazine interview translation. Nate just wanted him to play D and spot up shooting. Now he loosened the noose and going to give Batuum some offensive looks or at least let him play more O. That makes Batman more dangerous and in return makes the team more dangerous. In fact, I’ll go out on the limb and say he might be the piece that takes us over the top.
If Nate gives Rudy more options and let him create for himself and teammates that will make him a whole lot better and will utilize Rudy’s skills that we didn’t get to see last year
If LMA has bench players breathing down his back he might be much better no offense to Travis or Frye.
Bayless was a rookie also last year much like Rudy, Batuum and Greg, him and Mills is a dark horse but we would know by trade dead line.
If and I know too many if’s. all these players are better that will make BRoy better.
Steve had injury problems last year; I think he will be better if the rest of the team is better (improvement breeds improvement).
I can’t wait until we all gel.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be okay with that.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he ate a bad bratwurst.
Because you are correct – it’s a totally unsupported claim.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So much emphasis on any move now seems to be
on what we’re starting with, rather than what the final team would look like, as in, “we’re giving up players X, Y, and Z and ‘only’ getting back A and B? No deal”, when that line of thinking makes no sense at all. This isn’t about maximizing the value of our current roster in terms of trades, but ending up with a final one that competes for titles. Sometimes that means stomaching trades that are less desirable than one you’d want.
For example, it’s thrown around here often that a Blake + cap space deal for Hinrich would potentially work, so now there seems to be a significant portion of posters who refuse to include anything more in a Hinrich deal because it wouldn’t be the best possible deal for us, when realistically, if we have a separate trade for Battier in the works, what does it matter if Outlaw is included in the trade? Having Outlaw as a 3rd string SF isn’t going to be the difference in winning a title.
As far as the exercise, I can’t in good conscience say anyone but Roy and Oden as completely untouchable (although LMA would only be available in my book for a sub-27 established star). I like guys like Nic and Rudy, but in the end, Nic basically played the same role for us as Dahntay Jones did for Denver, and I would never classify him as “untouchable”. As Blazer fans, we talk in one breath about how impressive it is that Nic started this year and then in the next talk about how it’s not who starts the game that matters, but who finishes it without a sense of irony. Nic played maybe a total of 50 meaningful 4th quarter minutes all year. At least last year, Nic was probably the most “replaceable” Blazer.
The rest of the guys just have huge question marks; Travis’s consistency, Rudy’s minutes, Blake’s shot creating, Bayless’s shooting, Webster’s foot, Joel’s fit on the 2nd team with its much more limited offensive options. I’d hate to see all of them go, but at the same time, I wouldn’t call any of them close to untouchable.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 5:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So we can get better by bringing less talent back than we trade away? Not buying it.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 5:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can get better by bringing in players who fit our core better
regardless of whether they’re slightly less “talented”. In the summer of 2004, the Spurs let Hedo Turkoglu walk for nothing. Not that he wasn’t a good player, but it fit their big three better to replace his minutes with a 33 year old Brent Barry. They won titles in two of the next three years.
I’d argue that trading Cato, Plastic Man, Walt Williams, and Brian Shaw for an over the hill Pippen was giving up more talent than we got back, but Pippen fit that team much better.than having those guys did and we were undeniably a better team that following year
Heck, just this past summer we gave away a PG for nothing, and the consensus is that we’ll be a better team because of the roster clarity and because Sergio didn’t “fit”, regardless of where you stand on that issue.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 6:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d argue that trading Cato, Plastic Man, Walt Williams, and Brian Shaw for an over the hill Pippen was giving up more talent than we got back
If that’s the basis for your argument, consider me unsold.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, I didn't make any other points there
but a 34 year old Pippen coming off a piss poor year in Houston was definitely a stud. It’s not like Walt didn’t have basically an identical PER the previous year, Augmon wasn’t one of the best defenders in the league, and Cato wasn’t a solid young center.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I recall, except for Cato, they were swapping old talent, for old talent
not young developing talent for old talent. And Cato wasn’t exactly a proven telent when he left, nor did he become one. Hardly analogoues to swapping Rudy and Travis for a 31 year old Battier.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
28 year old Walt and 30 year old Augmon
compared to 34 year old Pippen. There’s old, and then there’s “old”. Besides, defenders age better than other positions. A 30 year old Battier most likely has 6 to 7 years left as an elite defender (Bowen made an all-defensive team at age 36). When Travis starts to lose his athleticism, is he really going be effective?
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For me
batum was a stopper. I watched him guard chris paul and completely shut him down in person. I’ve watched him guard other players. THe kid is 19, has an offensive game that can still develop and has a defensive game that will be scary in a few years. The potential we saw puts him on the list regardless of starting, not starting, and finishing. I take a risk on him.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree if I "had" to name 5
Nic would be on the list and that he’s worth keeping around, but I don’t buy that he belongs anywhere close to the Oden, Roy, LA level of importance. Just to look at the playoff performance, he was non-existent. Maybe it was a bad matchup, but seeing your minutes go down in every single game, before getting taken completely out of the rotation for game 6 while averaging 2 ppg and more fouls than assists, steals, and rebounds combined isn’t a ringing endorsement.
Even during the season, Nic got a ton of leeway from Blazer fans, including one stretch of going 6 games scoring a total of 3 points. I’m not saying that scoring is the be all/end all or anything, but a similar year from Webster would have had fans calling for him to be shipped out.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Many Blazer's were Non-existant in the play-offs
I don’t think you can judge Batuum by the play-offs or his offensive production. Nate wanted 3pt shooting and D from him and that is what we got for the whole year.
Rudy was un-existent in game six. Travis was un – existent throughout the series. BRoy had a game he didn’t perform in along with LMA.
Nic was a rookie like other rookies playing for Nate. They were on a tight reign. Given a chance Batuum may surpass LMA.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Masterful Post
This really is one of the best NBA blog postings, or articles for that matter, I have read, so I signed up for an account to say that. To say that, but also to add this one piece of perspective to your discussion when talking about who your “indespensable core” is going to be going forward. The NBA, generally speaking, is built around Big 3s. Boston’s obviously, then Kobe-Pau-LO, Duncan-Ginobli-Parker, and sometimes big 2s if their wattage is big enough (Shaq-Kobe), with all of these having 1 dominant franchise player. As a Spurs fan, I have watched the best front office in the NBA (and Pritch’s training ground) consistently bring in players to complement their big 3, getting role players who know what their job is and how to do the dirty work so as to free the stars to win the games, and structure the contracts or acquisitions so to give them flexibility to jettison players when they no longer do enough to help the team win, regardless of how much they have meant to the team and community (ie, Bruce Bowen, the classiest man off the court you will find). There just aren’t enough shots in an NBA game, especially a McMillan-paced game, to feed the development of all of your young talent into contributors, nor for them to contribute even if they did develop. As I can see from the outside, you have a bona-fide superstar in Brandon Roy, your future dominant Big (if he can stop fouling) in Oden, and a third star scorer in Aldridge. That’s your core, and you build around that. I love Batum, and it killed me when ya’ll snatched him from us, and it looks like he’s a keeper as a stopper, which you want to have on a contender. Bayless has the potential to be a dynamite scorer off the bench or as a starter. Outlaw is clutch, which you also always need on a contender. But after the big 3, they are all fungible, and given the right trade for a veteran role player, Battier if you could get him absolutely, or Hinrich would be a perfect fit, they are all tradable. Its a harsh league, and having watched the success of San Antonio, and their drop into getting a little too old by falling in love with their players, there is little room for sentiment in decision making. But the winning makes it all worth it, and it looks like you are right on course to pick up where my Spurs are leaving off. Here’s to your dynasty to come.
by DemonDeaconHead on Jul 7, 2009 5:53 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Great post except------
Do you trade one player off that fits great for another player that fits great if they are both of the same talent In this case Blake and Hindrich? IMO Blake is a good fit and knows the system and works great. When Bayless is ready he can be the starter and Steve can come off the bench.
We would have to give up a lot of players to get Battier because that is what Houston needs, so he depends on what we have to give up to get him.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kirk & Steve are of the same talent?
Why people here are so high on Blake? His best thing is that he doesn’t make many mistakes. But he even don’t try to do something at all…
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 6:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you underrate
the lack of mistake making in nate’s system. Just a couple of mistakes can cost you the game at our pace.
Kirk and Steve are not at the same talent level. Neither are they at the same pay scale. The pay is what stops me from moving them. that and the risk of a new player in a new system. A risk analysis would need to be done by the blazers and a determination of fit is required. Kirk is about the only trade I see out there, that i’ve heard about, that I’d be okay with assuming the blazers did their home work. The move for Turkey glue has me nervous about that. I think that was a flat out dumb move and i HOPE there was a secondary move in the making.
Still, Steve does an excellent job. His minimal mistakes wins us games. he DOES need to risk more. I can’t argue that. The team was learning about taking risks at the end of the season. They learned how to play right, then they started learning how to take the risks. No one, except houston, could stop them when they really got in that groove. We were blowing out teams left and right. Play-offs began and the blazers forgot about taking risks.
Give this team and steve another year to play without mistakes, and then to learn to play without risks again. I think a lot of people will be very surprised what a little stability in the roster can do for them.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with this
he DOES need to risk more. I can’t argue that. The team was learning about taking risks at the end of the season. They learned how to play right, then they started learning how to take the risks.
but not with that
Give this team and steve another year to play without mistakes, and then to learn to play without risks again.
I may OK with Steve on O, but not on D. Kirk is WAY BATTER on the defensive end.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need more "BATTER" in this cake, so I say let's add some Kirk Hinrich to the mix!
Compared to “Captain” Kirk Hinrich, Steve Blake is a mere Corporal. Besides, nobody can hate on those clean, white Converse shoes that Hinrich iss sporting in that photograph.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If this picture is from the last time the Blazers and Bulls played...
Blake had 16 pts, 10 assists 1 turn over, 3 steels.
Kirk had 4pts 3 assists 1 turn over, 1 steel.
The Bulls starting PG Rose had 13pts, 10 assists, 2 turn overs, 1 steel.
Thanks for the pic from the game where Blake outplayed the #1 draft pick and Private Kirk.
Blake we can’t wait to see you do more next year.
by wingzeta on Jul 7, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich people don't get it
When Blake has to step up offensively he can and does, like when Roy was injured, Blake came through with 21pts to lead all Portland scorers, and second in the game to only Paul Pierce. And that Boston Team HAD KEVIN GARNETT!!! On a normal night Blake defers to his teammates Roy, Aldridge, Rudy and Outlaw to provide scoring, while he averages a respectable 11pts, and provides stability a court smarts. Hinrich spent his best years on a lottery team that needed him to be a scoring option, and so he at his best averaged 16pts. If Blake we on a team where he needed to be one of the top 3 scoring options, he could exceed or at least match Kirk’s numbers. He has proven it a number of times, like that last time they played Chicago mentioned in my above reaction to the picture. Roy had an off night and only scored 11pts 3 assists. Blake chipped in 16 and 10 assists. If you think Hinrich will come here and average his career best numbers, when he will be relegated to fourth scoring option, you are living in fantasy world. Hinrich is NOT better than Blake. He has come from a situation more conducive to putting up better numbers in his role, and still his best numbers are only a little better than Blake’s, and Blake has not been a starter as long to have as many opportunities to have his best year, which is very likely in the future if he remains a starter.
by wingzeta on Jul 7, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bulls were a lottery team Kirk's rookie season
and his 5th season (07-08) only – they’ve been to the playoffs the other 4 years, so he did not spend his “best years” on a lottery team by any means.
I’m sure it was tough for Blake to get minutes those first 2 years in Washington, but starting in 05-06 – with the exception of the half season exile in Milwaukee – he’s averaged 26+ minutes per game and started over 90% of his games played in Denver and Portland. So I think you’re overplaying this poor-little-Steve-who-never-got-a-chance card.
The last time they played Chicago was Kirk’s first game back from a 31 game injury layoff, so congrats to Blake on outplaying him that night.
Kirk also plays the role the team needs him to, and has never been more than the 3rd scoring option.
Blake scored a season high of 22 points. Kirk scored a season high of 31 points.
Number of times Blake scored 0 points in a game this season – 2. Number of times Kirk failed to score – 1.
This is a fun game, picking odd things from all over the place and arguing they prove one player is better than the other. It’s also pretty pointless.
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Jul 7, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The point is he went to a lottery team...
where he had to be a third scoring option, so his numbers reflect that. Look at JJack going to a team where he is needed as a scorer. As Chicago moved out of being a lottery team, Kirk was still one of the main scoring options after Gordon and Deng. As far as Blake, my argument is that 07-08 was his first full year as a starter, and even then Jack was getting fourth quarter minutes for some reason. Before that Blake has started because the guy in front of him was injured, or because he won the role, after the coach saw how the team ran better with him while their top guy was injured. Denver was Blake’s first gig as a starter and that was a mid season trade. He played only half a year there, and played well but was in a role where AI had the ball most of the time. Remember when he scored 25pts against the Blazers? He also had a 19pt 14 assist game against the Blazers while with Denver. Again furthering my point that the guy can score when he wants to, but is a team first guy who is looking to help his team WIN night in night out. And he does. Here’s a video I stumbled upon while looking for that info, since people are posting Hinrich highlight reels. http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/steve-blake-typical-mix-by-misiek/15783024
by wingzeta on Jul 8, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
That video has a really lame rap soundtrack with some randy language in it. Just wanted to warn the faint of heart. I didn’t search for the best video, I just happened to come across it. It looks like it was made by some Blake fan in Poland, which made it seem extra amusing.
by wingzeta on Jul 8, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for bring it up
Big bold plus one.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah
“Number of times Blake scored 0 points in a game this season – 2. Number of times Kirk failed to score – 1.” One of those two games was the one where he came back from injury to only play 10min, and then re-injured the shoulder, so I’d call it even, plus Kirk had a 1 pt game too=)
by wingzeta on Jul 8, 2009 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its very significant index
You better argue this
Bulls were a lottery team Kirk’s rookie season
and his 5th season (07-08) only – they’ve been to the playoffs the other 4 years, so he did not spend his "best years" on a lottery team by any means.
I’m sure it was tough for Blake to get minutes those first 2 years in Washington, but starting in 05-06 – with the exception of the half season exile in Milwaukee – he’s averaged 26+ minutes per game and started over 90% of his games played in Denver and Portland. So I think you’re overplaying this poor-little-Steve-who-never-got-a-chance card.
if you can.
And the best quote from that post is:
This is a fun game, picking odd things from all over the place and arguing they prove one player is better than the other. It’s also pretty pointless.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 2:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was late :)
And I’m absolutely agree. Kirk is my primary goal this summer.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not an authority on Kirk.
I was getting my info from most of the bloggers saying the talent level or at least the give ant take to the team is close. Therefore, I guess it depends on who you like. I like Steve; prove me wrong but not with stats and I’ll switch.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'Prove me wrong but not with stats'
What sort of statless ‘proof’ would you like? Shall I prove it through poetry? Voodoo? Vulcan mind-meld? Hinrich is a lot better than Blake. There’s my statless argument.
by samuelleejackson on Jul 7, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Proof through play not stats.
Stats are totally misleading. Watch both of them play in the same situation than make the conclusion. Hindrich is no better than Blake just different upside and different down side. Just pick which human you want and why.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ignorance is bliss
how about the ultimate stat – score? Hinrich can outscore his opponent. Your “eyeball” test fails to account for that simple fact. I have lobbied against picking up Hinrich from a cost/benefit perspective, but you simply cannot make an argument that an inferior player is better than a superior player because of how you think he looks better on the floor.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hindrich was a higher scoring option than Steve.
doesn’t prove anything. Rookies that plays for bad teams has much higher stats than ones that plays for good teams.
Yes ignorance is bliss, but I am just ignorant of BB skills so keep your tongue civil
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
anyone that publicly endorses the eyeball test as superior to quantifiable information
should really appreciate the restraint exhibited here.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say quantifiable information. I said Stats
Stats can be confusing and misleading. Information from other players. information from coaches is quantitiable information as you say but is not stats.
To attempt to retrieve knowledge without the blue book stats is my way of learning. If that turns you off than you don’t have to acknowledge.
hg
by BBK on Jul 8, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prove me wrong but not with stats
How do you propose someone do that, unless you want to spend hours watching film. For every clip or example of some highlight from Kirk or Steve, someone’s going to produce a lowlight. Stats are just a quick and dirty means of encompassing that long process into a few numbers.
And if you’re getting your argument from bloggers, you’re only paying attention to some of the posts, because I see a lot of people acknowledging that Kirk is a better player, but with some of them not wanting to pay more for the increased talent. I only see a few posters arguing that Kirk and Blake are the same – and you know what? They’re making that argument by using cold facts.
So, many Blazers fans believe Kirk is better in a straight talent comparison. Many Bulls fans want to do a trade because they believe Kirk should be starting and Steve is more of a backup in the league. Hollinger said in one of his recent chats that Kirk would be a big upgrade. Career numbers per minute support that. They start to look similar in a pure stats argument when you compare Kirk’s worst season to Blake’s best.
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Jul 7, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shoot, cold "facts" should be cold "stats"
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Jul 7, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is still all opinions.
I wouldn’t mind Hindrich at all; I guess I know Steve can produce in our system and I don’t know abut Hindrich. But, all the Steve bashers want a high profile speedy pt guard like Steve what’s his name Oh Nash. They give the opinion that Hindrich is better. Others like me want a guard that fits the system. So I pick Steve.
Your opinion doesn’t prove me wrong your opinion is different than mine, but neither of us is right or wrong.
I will change my assessment though. You get Hindrich to come over without giving up Steve and let the two of them duke it out. I Kirk win’s he starts and Steve will be back up or visa versa. Of course I don’t know what to do about Jerryd.
I thank you for your feed-back. This is my way of learning. I am not a BB Whiz. I am a homer and I just know about players mostly by what I read. I live out in the country in Central Oregon with dish network. Need I say more? Besides the obvious that I make rash statements, if I get to watch a game I get so caught up in watching and yelling I forget to watch the players.
I still think Steve is better than Hindrich for what he can give the team. I will also say if KP decides Hindrich is what we need, I will support him 100% and in a year or two will be saying he is better than so and so just to old LOL.
Joel has one of the best shooting % in the league, but he only shoots 4 or 5 shots a game. Is he better in actual shooting than someone that shoots a large volume of shots and only gets in the 40% range?
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're basically just told us
that you know almost nothing on this subject but still want to argue? :)
Don’t get me wrong. Best regards.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is true.
I am picking brains where i can know something. but all I have been getting is opinions not fact.
Stats are misleading and do not measure the true worth of the player. You can compare stats between Hindrich and Blake all you want, but that doesn’t prove who is the best. Hindrich plays for Chicago where he was a higher shooting option then Steve does on the Blazers. Steve is a team player. He passes to players that shoots jump shots and consistently miss. His stats on assist could be very misleading. He mostly hands the ball to BRoy to create because that is what Nate wants. That does not mean he can not create. But as I said I don’t know anything about Hindrich, so I can’t compare them in reality and I don’t believe in stats
It was brought to my attention that Hindrich is more dedicated to Defense than Blake that would make him more valuable to the Blazers. The Blazers need D. Hindrich driving inside more often than Blake doesn’t because Steve is used to pass off to BRoy to drive inside. They have been used differently throughout their careers and their Stats are based on how they are used, not how good they are. Therefore, if you rattled off a bunch of meaningless stats to me that doesn’t tell me much. Steve had a hamstring pull and a shoulder injury. Both would change his stats.
hg
by BBK on Jul 8, 2009 4:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on stats. Just read my comment below.
Hindrich plays for Chicago where he was a higher shooting option then Steve does on the Blazers. Steve is a team player.
The same is with Kirk. And btw, hi is Hin_rich. :) Without ‘d’.
Also, he was forced to the bench this year. And he accepts smaller role and played very well backing up both guard spots.
In my opinion, he will be even better, playing 4th man here. Being higher scoring option means less open looks and much more contested shots. But playing alongside Roy – great scorer and willing passer – he would get much more comfortable looks and should actualy increase his %%’s.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 4:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like that idea.
Look, I am not against Hinrich(Thanks for Sp chk) I just didn’t want to trade Steve off for him. I think Steve is very valuable to the team. And I don’t know about Hinrich.
I would love to get both of them on the Blazers team. I would go as far as having Hinrich as starter and Steve back up.
If you look at what both players brings to the table instead of stats than choose from there. So with your input on what Hinrich can do I will say that I have been proven wrong.
I thank you for your response. I feel it gives me some valuable knowledge. k04a it is better to give me knowledge than to agree that I am ignorant.
hg
by BBK on Jul 8, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pleased to help you
I would glad to see both playing for us to. B/c I’m not so high on Rex right now, like others do.
But if I have to give up Steve to get Kirk – I’m fine too.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCaLjttPxVk vs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUD9p9awoog
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
awesome and hilarious sig file Norsk!
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 7, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my favorite clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRxZ-6DYJgU
This clip is pretty sweet, too.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I may have just jumped on the Capt Kirk bandwagon
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Prove me wrong but not with stats"
Ok.
Steve Blake is not as good as Kirk Hinrich, and never will be.
Satisfied?
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jul 7, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate stats myself too.
I prefer to watch games. This is the best way to get info about players in my opinion. Kirk does all that Steve does on O + ability to drive. And his is good-to-great defender.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK. that is what I am talking about. You just proved me wrong
Stats is artifical. Fact’s of playing is the proof I am looking for. We do need more team defense. I am convenced.
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How are statistics artificial?
Yes, stats should be supplemented by scouting and such, but dismissing stats as a way of evaluating players is incredibly closeminded.
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
B/c so much depends on your role with the team.
And b/c stats are so one-sided and incompleted. Read that article to get my point: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4011524
Thats why I’m not buying all that PERs stuff. Give me ALL STATS – than maybe we’ll able to range players somehow.
How could you judge players using such incomplete scheme? How about just smart plays which helps you to win games? Which statistical category covers such params like good screen or box-out? BB is to many-sided game to judge players by simple params like scores, boards and assists.
So, comparing two players using stats as main argument is absurd to me.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 8, 2009 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get me wrong
I love Steve Blake, but we need an upgrade defensively to get to the next level. Kirk brings that. I also think he’s got better court vision than Steve, and maybe a more reliable jumper (though I’d need to check the stats). He’s a leader, too.
by VTDuck on Jul 7, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not high on steve
but low on kirk. nobody in weeks of talk here as convinced me that kirk hinrich is substantially better than blake, and certainly not worth 2x as much. i’d rather keep blake and use roy/rudy as the crunch time guards.
by retirecards51 on Jul 7, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should you change the ingredients when the cake is half baked?
baking time) and Rudy (Utilize To stay on topic, My untouchable five is, Oden (not done baking yet), BRoy, LMA, Batman (More his potential before shipping off)
Anytime you change ingredients you can only assume the taste will be better, and that again depends on the taster. At this stage of the baking you can see the ingredients that aren’t up to par at the time. It is a fact that some ingredients cooks slower than others. That does not mean they have a lesser amount of importance. To take the ingredient out and change it may destroy the final outcome.
It is like changing life partners in the middle of the baking. It takes lots of learning and practice to become a life partner. If you give up early you are not utilizing the final step. You can’t put the icing on until the cake is done. That being said, IMO if you trade your partner for a different partner, you are changing one bad habit for another bad habit, as none of us is a perfect fit. Therefore what is the point of changing. Of course if some of the ingredients doesn’t want to bake with the other ingredients because the ingredient feels it can give more flavor else where than take out the ingredient and try to find one with better flavor or gives the other ingredients a better taste.
I know most thinks Travis will always be half baked LOL. But, what if he is the ingredient that keeps the rest of the ingredients content to finish baking.
Dave, there will always be questions that can’t be answered; you solve one question and two more pops up. That you can’t change. The big question is what ingredient do you change and when do you change it? The answer is depends on the taster and the Chef.
In short changing ingredients doesn’t make it better just different. for that reason, let the ingredients bake and age before you throw the cake away.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 5:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree completely
I like your way of thinking BBK. Why do we need to change the ingredients now? Let it finish baking before we change 7/12 of the team! I don’t see any player out there who is considerably better than who we already have, that another team is willing to let go. We are trying to trade #2 tier players for #1 tier players and other teams won’t be willing to do that. We are only swapping our #2 players for their #2 players in the end, so I say we keep ours.
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
Turkey glue is like icing. The cake isn’t done baking. Too soon.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"efficient martial arts master ducks his blows and delivers 92 shots to the jejunum."
This speaks for itself
"He wanted to come to a winner, Mrs. Turk wanted to go shopping….."
- Upper Left Corner
by 92wastheyear on Jul 7, 2009 6:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And your average 21 year old Marine blows away the 5 best martial artists in the world ...
… at 300 yards.
Dave’s gift at analogy and turn of a nice phrase was at work far more than his analytical skills on this occassion.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you misunderstand
that phrase is code….it is a secret message to yours truly (see the #92 in the quote)…letting me know that Dave values me as a poster above all others (especially Tom). It is clear and unrefutable
"He wanted to come to a winner, Mrs. Turk wanted to go shopping….."
- Upper Left Corner
by 92wastheyear on Jul 7, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will re-phrase.
And your average 21 yr old Marine blows away the 92 best martial artists at 300 yrds.
(although he may require the assistence of his organic supporting fires)
I too value you as a poster, thought not necessarily above all others.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
"He wanted to come to a winner, Mrs. Turk wanted to go shopping….."
- Upper Left Corner
by 92wastheyear on Jul 7, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
-92
Marines can’t hit anything from 300 yards. Maybe a navy seal or an army guy, but not the marines. Didn’t you see Jarhead?
by tominhawaii on Jul 8, 2009 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a sailor (and former Small Arms Petty Officer) ....
I might have agreed with you. That changed when our son became a Marine.
(It gets worse Tom – he’s in Quantico right now, going through OCS. Going to have to live with an officer in the family. At least he’s going to be able to say he not only knows who his mommy and daddy are, but that they are married too.)
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 8, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This conversation is probably better moved to the JD
A few weeks ago a friend, who was in a fraternity in college, and I had a discussion military guys and frat guys. We both agreed that we don’t like them for the most part but give them a pass because they joined when they were young. Then we both agreed that we do not like anyone who doesn’t get out after the first tour (it sort of applies to frat guys too, like the ones who never grow up).
As for marines, I have trouble with the idea of teaching the craziest people in our country how to kill other people.
by tominhawaii on Jul 8, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Until you consider that ...
… there are a lot (as my nephew, who just got back from Afghanistan Sunday, put it) of “assholes with guns” out there that need killing.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 8, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
better them than me
That’s for sure.
by tominhawaii on Jul 8, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What else are you going to do with them?
I guess they could run for Congress…
by MiledAnimal on Jul 8, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If good teams limit how many projects they have, then we're in trouble.
Winning teams flip all of these conventions on their heads. Potential doesn’t mean “could be, someday” as much as “isn’t now”. You want some on your team, of course, but you want it narrowed down to one or two players that you can bring along over time, that you know you’ll have space for. You don’t want a team bursting with potential, you want a team bursting with production.
Of course Brandon Roy is going to be core. And Lamarcus Aldridge as well. Those two players do too much to give them away while holding onto our projects.
But Greg Oden is still a project. For this team to make it, he has to be a project that succeeds, and I believe he will, but that doesn’t make him any less of a project right now.
That leaves one project spot available. And two projects that we would love to keep. As much as I love him, Rudy is still a project. And while Rudy is more polished on the offensive end, there’s no denying that Roy has to play the three for him to get any time on the floor. Now, Roy is not bad at the three, in fact, he’s pretty good. But while our offense does well with them out there together, our defense suffers. We need both to succeed. So, even though he’s not as flashy, nor as polished, the project I would keep is Nicolas Batum. That brings our total number or projects up to two.
The only non-project players left on the team are Steve Blake and Joel Przybilla. Neither of whom I would consider core. Blake, while a great fit on our team, is not good enough to be a core player. Przybilla is good enough, but needing Oden to become Oden means that Przybilla cannot be a core player. Core players don’t get 12-15 minutes a game.
There we have it. I think for this team to take the step from good to great, we only have four core players that should be kept at all costs. That doesn’t mean that I don’t love all of our players. I do. I want to see them stay and become great and win it all. But unless every one of them reaches their potential, it isn’t going to happen. And that’s just not realistic enough to pin championship hopes on.
A championship isn’t everything to me personally. I like these guys. I want them all to stay. But the team’s goal is a championship. Just about every fan shares that goal. If so, then I only see four core players. Only four guys that you simply do not trade away under any circumstances (barring the ridiculous). And looking at it that way, it’s no wonder the Blazers have been trying so hard in free agency and on the phones to other GMs.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Jul 7, 2009 6:40 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed. This is a very good point.
I like Rudy and Joel so much. But they aren’t untouchable if a strong offer is on the table.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 6:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with your analysis entirely. rec’d
by jaywalker on Jul 7, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Dave
Joel was my personal fave throughout the first half of the season. He actually got my vote for mid-season MVP as well as a few other awards.
But that was last season and we didn’t get that championship. We see a potentially dominant center in Greg and we need to be willing to lean on him and expect a little more. That will only happen as we take away his blanky and teach him that he has to learn to not foul.
Rudy is energy. I LOVE his off-the-ball movement and think that was what I enjoy most about his game. Nicky Barnes needs to watch a LOT of game tapes and acquire that trait to his game. He is athletic enough and fresh enough.
by pdxer in dfw on Jul 7, 2009 6:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
All the blazers
need to watch and feed off Rudy’s movement. One of the major reasons I want to keep Rudy is because he brought that movement to the team and I want him to stay at LEAST another year to drive it home more. This team is unstoppable when it moves without the ball.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Well Stated Case Dave, but
I prefer the appraoch detailed in The Penguin’s post “Check the action, KP. The cards will come”
I also wonder how your philosophy of – "Before this year the message has always been “wait”. That’s done." – meshes with the experience we had with our team of the late eighties and early nineties. That squad steadliy emerged as a winner through several seasons of playing together. The only national star on the team was Clyde.
Maybe there’s something to be said for allowing a team with quality young players to age together like a fine wine.
I realize you’re talking about keeping a strong core together, and aren’t necessarily arguing against what I’m talking about, but I agree with the Penguin, that the the greater danger at this point is overreacting and overreaching out of a sense of urgency or even desperation.
by ajinoregon on Jul 7, 2009 7:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oden, Roy, LMA, Batum Bayless
That is my core. Pryzbilla is a great, great player for this team. He sticks up for his teammates and has put a lot of work into his game that goes beyond tangible benefits. However, if he brings back Prince or Battier, I would trade him almost instantaneously. Why? Because either of those players would be locks to put in 30 minutes a night (Pryz will be behind Oden) and they do more to fix a glaring need (perimeter defense) than any of our other players. I think Batum is good, but he will not bring the same amount of experience and current ability as Prince or Battier.
by da34shadow on Jul 7, 2009 7:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Batum...
are the core 4 I would leave as untouchable. Roy and Aldridge because they have arrived, and Oden and Batum on potential.
I would also, if possible, keep Pryzbilla and Blake, Bayless or Fernandez. Pryzbilla and Blake for sure because they would add tough veteran leadership, and they can play as starters if needed or as reserves. I would actually only keep Bayless or Fernandez, both based on potential. I would make a decision who would be the best option as a backup to Roy. Bayless should focus on his outside shot this summer, not PG skills. Fernandez probably has the higher trade value right now, but he is a shooter…hate to give those up. However, I think that is all he will be and he will probably think he is more than that.
The needs are at PG, SF and PF. I like Hinnrich, or if there are any up and coming young point guards out there who have the skills but haven’t reached their potential yet…we will have Blake to hold down the position, but the expectation would be to bring in a player who will be the starter. I really like the Battier and Prince options at SF. If there was a way to make either of these appear in a Blazer uniform, I’d go for it. Batum then, would have a couple years to prepare to take over that position. Lastly, a solid, consistent PF who can defend, rebound and score some, and back up Aldridge would round out our core group.
Lineup:
PG – Hinnrich or ?/Blake
SG – Roy/Bayless or Fernandez
SF – Battier or Prince/Batum
PF – Aldridge/?
C – Oden/Pryzbilla
by fgblazerfan on Jul 7, 2009 7:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree with Dave
Though you make a very eloquent case and interesting read, I don’t agree that we now have to keep 5 players and throw away the rest for perceived “better” talent. Who says the core has to be 5? I say we keep the players who have proven themselves by contributing to the teams success, and those who show signs of it in the future.
Why trade backups for other teams back ups? You think you are going to trade our back ups for starters? In reality, you think the grass is greener on the other side, the other teams player is better than yours. That is a misguided way of thinking, and leads to disloyalty and distrust between the players and management.
Actually, anybody is tradable for the right return. But lets be honest, why trade proven players when trading is always a gamble? Like the post says above, you need to let the players age and develop by playing with each other in the same system for the team to reach its full potential. This isn’t an NBA Fantasy game who you just mix and match players to find the right combination.
Its about growing and playing together that counts in the long run. Don’t over reach or be desparate in an attempt to speed up the baking process. There were 4 rookies on the team last year, 2 of them who never played in the USA . Give them some time to adjust!
I say there are 9 current players that ned to be our core: Roy, LMA, Oden, Rudy, Joel, Blake, Batumn, Bayless, Outlaw. These players have either proven or have the potential to contribute significantly to the success of the team. What you will get in return for them in a trade will be basically be the same talent, so why trade?
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 7:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
core
1). Untouchables:
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Batum, Joel
Wow, a lot of agreement here.
2). Question mark players. Not untouchable, but their capabilities are too uncertain for them to be prime trade material.
Bayless, Martell
3). Tradeable
Outlaw, Blake, Rudy
The reason Rudy should be considered tradeable is if you are serious about trading you have got to be willing to trade a player you would really like to hang onto. Rudy is a great player but he is one of the few on the team whose trade value matches his actual value as a player.
Note that all 3 of the tradeable players are good 3 point shooters so whoever you are trading for had better be a good 3 point shooter.
by lsjogren on Jul 7, 2009 7:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why trade Rudy?
Who are you going to get in return that is better? Labron, Kobe, Howard? Anyone else that another team is willing to part with will be inferior . Why trade a proven talent when you probably won’t get someone as good? You know Rudy’s game, what is strengths and weaknesses are. He is a good team player and fits well, who are you going to find that is better that another team is willing to let go?
No way.
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a whole ton of guys better than Rudy
and worse than LeBron/Kobe/Howard, so I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Point is
Rudy is a very good player, especially considering he is playing in the USA for the first time. If you are going to trade him, you better be getting one of these three. Otherwise, I just don’t see another player who is as good that another team is willing to part with. Remember, the other team is also trying to improve, and thinking they will be giving you somebody inferior in return for Rudy. Rudy is a proven player, so why risk it and just keep him.
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still have no clue what you're talking about
Why would teams be willing to part with those three but not others? You wouldn’t trade Rudy straight up for Harris or Crash? Brooks or Mayo, just to name a few? Why would Rudy somehow be considered the 4th most valuable player in the league?
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldn't...
trade rudy for anyone on that list aside from harris. Mayo wouldn’t fit. brooks? no thanks. crash is okay, but not for rudy… i’m not saying he is the 4th most valuable player, but i wouldn’t trade him just for a name.
by retirecards51 on Jul 7, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have thought about this all year
And still, are you kidding me? Rudy only gets a Kobe, LBJ, or a Howard? There are all stars, there are superstars, and there are super duper stars. Rudy is a boy among men in that respect. For some reason we in PDX put Rudy on a pedestal, Time to get real. He is a trade asset, not along term blazer.
This may piss off all of the women, this may piss off all of the womens men, but in reality you know I am right. Seriously? LBJ, Kobe Howard, you forgot to mention Wade. For Rudy? I’d give my left and right nuts, as well as Roy and Oden for LBJ. Rudy, Phew.
We are talking about a core 4 or 5 here. Those are teams who have a core one or two that we are trying to match.
Cleveland is building a team around one player, as is LA, Not a core of four or five. So get real, Rudy? Really?
by Cory2669 on Jul 7, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Talk about missing the boat
you should take another looksy at that post you replied to, as it has nothing at all to do with what you’re talking about. Rudy is so incredibly under appreciated on this site, especially in comparison to the general consensus about Bayless and Batum. Rudy was our 3rd or 4th best player on the team as a rookie. It’s only going to get better, especially with how well he plays with Roy.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not a fan of Rudy/Roy/Blake backcourt because of perimeter defense issues. However, interestingly, Blake/Rudy/Roy/LMA/Pryz was the most effective 5 man unit for the Blazers last year. http://www.82games.com/0809/0809POR2.HTM And the defensive #s for that unit are actually pretty good.
My biggest issue with this lineup is (per my other post), come playoff time only Roy can create any offense. Blake, Rudy, LMA and Pryz all have to feed off someone else. Despite not being a trout fan, his importance in terms of providing someone else who can create offense was demonstrated in the playoffs when he failed to show up.
I agree that to win in the playoffs you don’t need depth or potential. You need 8 guys that deliver every night and fit together in a way that d “other teams know what you are going to do and they still can’t stop you”. Houston can’t stop you. San Antonio can’t stop you. The Lakers can’t stop you…
Who are those 8 guys and what will we be doing that other teams know about but can’t stop?
I see lots of people answering the former (here are 8 guys with nice stats!) but i don’t see how they fit together in a way that other teams know about but can’t stop…
by seablaz on Jul 7, 2009 7:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The only Play-off
The only play-off you can relate to is every bodies but Steve and Joel’s first experience in the play-offs. It was said all season that this year was just to get a play-off under our belt to get the feel. They haven’t had the time to develop that element that other teams can’t stop.
Rudy didn’t create because of the way he was used as a rookie. That doesn’t mean he can’t. Same goes with Batuum. That is why we need next year to update what the team has learned from the first year.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
trades
“Why trade backups for other teams back ups? You think you are going to trade our back ups for starters? In reality, you think the grass is greener on the other side, the other teams player is better than yours. That is a misguided way of thinking, and leads to disloyalty and distrust between the players and management.”
You may be able to trade backups for starters that are close to the end of their careers.
That would give you a boost for a couple of years, but then they retire and the promising young players you traded away to get them are now playing somewhere else.
That’s why I don’t buy Dave’s argument that winning now is the path to winning later. The above is an example of a scenario where you are winning more now while sacrificing wins further down the road.
by lsjogren on Jul 7, 2009 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hip Hip Harray!!!
This is what I have been trying to express all year long.
You just said it better
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what you're saying Dave
I however disagree with your conclusion or rather I’m in the “depends” catergory.
So, the question I’d have for Rudy is
“Can you be happy on a winning team playing 25 minutes and filling in for injuries?” If not, then you’re likely right in that he’ll need to go. If he is happy, keep him. If he isn’t, let him go. if he’s willing to wait a year, keep him for that year and let him grow in value. How Nate uses him needs to be addressed too.
Pryzbilla:
Oden is sooo not there yet. The team would commit suicide if Oden was the starter off the bat. My understanding with Joel is that he wants to win and he loves this team. Have a frank talk with him about what the future is. If he’s okay with that, don’t you DARE trade a quality man like that. A ring may be more important to him than the playing time and cash. I strongly suspect this is true with Joel. Again, a frank conversation.
Outlaw:
Totally agree. The SF position needs some fixing. Batum is a keeper above and beyond Rudy. Thin this out, get a decent starter in return. I’m okay with an improvement here.
Blake:
I disagree with a need to get rid of blake. I say this because I don’t see an upgrade that I want to pursue based on age/dollar value. I think Bayless may have a couple of years IF he pans out. Hinrich is decent, but I wonder at the cost of him. Blake has been loyal to the blazers, and I feel it’s a back stab of sorts. Additionally I think he’s one of the most underrated players on the team. He provides leadership, a little bit of that ornery streak. You want someone tough and willing to get dirty, I place him in that category with Joel. that said, I’m open to all offers. Most likely I’m not going to be interested.
My concern:
My concern is that the blazers are looking to be active just to be active. Oden will come back stronger. Batum will come back stronger. Bayless will come back stronger. The team will come back stronger doing NOTHING. While it’s true that this game is an arms race of sorts, you see a number of promising teams sink by doing stupid trades and then being stuck with huge dept from them on a player that is now immovable because his one shining year was just that. It was the perfect year in the perfect team with the perfect system. People freak out, drool, and want to sign him. Then they tank.
In a year or two, if we see a part out there that fits, I’m all for over paying to get it. However, with our talent what it is, I don’t see the hurry yet. this team will do better next year without any additions. If oden can actually play… I predict ten more wins. Maybe I’m wrong and it’s only five. I honestly think it’s ten with a strong center presence.
This next year wasn’t the year we were going to take the leap. remember dave? It was the year AFTER this next one. that’s the one we have to be in the finals. that’s the one where we have to be really fighting it out. This year was “make the play-offs and the rest is gravy” next year is “get deeper into the play-offs, prefer west coast finals”. The year AFTER that is the run. Making these trades, this year, for players that may decline in the following year, makes no sense to me. Not if we’re also tying an anchor around our necks.
We were really close this year. ANY team besides Houston or Dallas to start the run would have had a very different outcome for us. LA beat us? no. Denver beat us? no. Hornets? no. No team would have beaten us except for Houston or Dallas. Once we had our play-off legs running, who knows. Maybe we’d have had a chance. maybe Yao wouldn’t have broken his foot and Houston would have won it all. Maybe we’d have been able to beat them and we’d win it all.
I think the realization that we’re knocking at the door has people antsy. they want to jump forward and make moves that don’t make sense or could hurt us down the road. If we tie a boat anchor around our neck and find out that bayless isn’t the answer… the ability to react is less.
That all said, I think the answers to the above questions need to be addressed internally by the blazers. If they know the answers, they should act accordingly. I just don’t think the answer is a 50 million dollar boat anchor. I still think KP had something up his sleeve though, because that seems like such an obvious bad decision. Something else not so obvious must also be going on.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with one exception
We can keep Rudy and Batum, there is room on the team for both. 2 rookies who are playing outside of their home country, give them time to adjust. They are / will be very good and are keepers.
Yes, we shouldn’t be making moves just to make moves. With the Turk scenerio and wanting to pay an overaged role player too much money, my trust in KP has me worried. We should let the cake bake, give it another year to see what we have. If we do NOTHING the players will improve and win more games and get more experience. Don’t be trading away future talent for short term percieved gains in a desparate attempt to win now.
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My keeping or not keeping of Rudy
has to do with whether Rudy can accept the role he’d have to take and whether nate’s use of him will work for Rudy. I think we could keep him for a year, but after that I suspect he’d need to be traded because he IS very good and good players believe they can change the teams to win, not that they have to be on a winning team.
If rudy can play 25 minutes, and if he’s okay, then I want him. If he needs to leave his mark on the stat sheets and record books, and he wants to carry teams… then we keep him a year, and trade him when his value is higher.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post
Everything you said is the way I think it should be.
The Outlaw part is agreeable if I knew the outcome of Webster. And we trade him for the betterment of the team and not because of his reputation.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
We would not have beaten the Lakers. And I have severe doubts we’d have beaten Denver.
by samuelleejackson on Jul 7, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's why they play the games
It would have been interesting to see. Unfortunately we couldn’t get over the hump against Houston. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 8, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy
I consider Rudy tradeable, but I agree it is unlikely that the Blazers would be able to get a good enough player in return to make it worthwhile.
I’m confident the team staff is big enough on Rudy they would only trade him if they really got a heck of a deal.
I think I would trade Rudy for Devin Harris. Between Martell and Bayless the Blazers should have someone to fill the backup 2 spot.
That’s not to say they could get Devin Harris for Rudy. As to the likelihood that they would find an attractive enough trade to give up Rudy I’d say it’s extremely unlikely.
But, as people point out, if you want to acquire a player you want you may have to give up a player you’d really like to hang onto.
by lsjogren on Jul 7, 2009 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm worried about webster
he’s still out with his broken foot after a year. I wonder if he’ll ever play again, or if he does, what ability he’ll have left. Will the foot injury now be a problem in the future? I wanted this kid to play so badly last year, now I think he’s out of the blazer’s future. thank goodness for Batum.
For planning purposes, he’s now off my radar until he shows he can come back and play again.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lsjogren
ratbastird:
Totally agree with your take on Joel.
Pryzbilla was a huge part of them winning 54 games.
Somehow I don’t think it is the right strategy to develop Oden to just throw him into the snake pit and tell him to sink or swim.
If they got David Lee then they wouldn’t need Pryzbilla so much, but why tamper with something that’s working.
by lsjogren on Jul 7, 2009 8:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
exactly
Also, I strongly suspect that the point of David Lee wanting serious playing time is accurate. Joel on the other hand, just wants to win. I want a guy who’s hungry for winning. Eventually, Joel can be the dirty man who takes fouls, technicals, and his wife’s abuse because we won’t need his playing time, but we’ll need the bad boy. (he can point out that he’ll make more by winning a championship due to bonuses and that those offset the technicals).
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about who the core is
but I do know that we can’t lose Joel Przybilla until Oden shows he can be a starter night in and night out. If Oden does show he’s capable of 35+ minutes per game and 70+ games in a season, then it’s only fair to Joel to trade him away. However, Oden has shown he’s capable of about 30 minutes per game when he’s not in foul trouble and he played in just over 60 games last year.
Don’t even consider getting rid of Joel until we know Oden can become something more.
by GMan83201 on Jul 7, 2009 8:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Joel is invaluable
Joel should not be included in our 5 player core. Few, FEW centers in the league play more than 30 minutes a game. In fact Dwight and Yao are the only two that played significant higher than 30 minutes (HAVE YOU SEEN YAO THE LAST 4 YEARS WHEN HE HAS DONE THIS? IT’S TOO MUCH WEAR ON A CENTER’S LEGS) Yao the last 4 years when hes done this?) (Also, look at how much more effective shaq was in less time, with fresher legs). Therefore, I think Pryzbilla should be kept. It is unlikely that even a healthy Oden plays more than 33 minutes a game, leaving at least 14 minutes a game for Pryzbilla at center.
I would chose Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Batum, and Fernandez as my 5.
As a supporting cast, to round out and 8 man rotation, I choose Bayless and Webster or Hinrich and Gerald Wallace. This way we get a slasher (Bayless or Wallace) and a shooter (Webster or Hinrich). A combination of those two as additions to the rotation really help balance the roster and create varied scoring opportunities and options.
by kajuayn on Jul 7, 2009 8:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I´d need historical comparison to buy Dave´s argument. Can anyone tell me about a team I can compare with these 2009 young Blazers?
I don´t know much about NBA basketball, but I think this young team seems to be pretty unique:
1.- Brandon: Top 5 SG, and improving. 2 All Star appearences, plus the rookie and the sophomore teams.
2.- LA: Top 10 PF, and improving. Part of the rookie and the sophomore teams.
3.- Oden: top 15 C, and improving. Part of rookie team. Considered one in a generation.
4.- Rudy: best European player, best ACB player, first no American player to be part of a dunk contest, record of three pointers made by a rookie. Part of the rookie team. He has been improving every year, so I expect him to continue.
5.- Bayless: Las Vegas Summer League MVP.
6.- Batum: Expected to be the next Prince.
Plus Webster and Outlaw, two young solid NBA players.
I also think the Blazers broke some records last season.
Can you tell me a team so young that didn´t change and didn´t have success because didn´t trade?
Can you tell me a team so young that made trades and didn´t have success because they trade?
by amlmart1 on Jul 7, 2009 8:22 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Rec
Good call on noting that while Dave is hitting on his style points, as we tend to expect, he’s almost completely missing on providing insightful, supportable analysis.
I’ve noticed that every now and then we see this. Almost an anti – Dave. My theory? His brother in law is out of work and living with him. Every now and then he sneaks onto Dave’s computer and posts in his name.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope someone is doing the research
Every situation is unique… but it would still give us some interesting insight.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget the Old Blazer Pryz, who is to my mind the #2 per minute rebounder to Dwight Howard...
I’m sure somebody will dig up stats showing that he’s actually #4 or something, but I’ll stand by my subjectivity here…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he’s actually the best rebounder by percentage, when you account for the fact that there are less rebounds available in a Blazer game due to pace.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
use basketball-reference.com’s trb% stat, he had a higher % than Dwight Howard. Of course he doesn’t meet the minutes requirement but he’s still fantastic. And he puts up a nice block% too (though better in the past).
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big 3+3
Roy, Aldridge, Oden + Batum, Rudy, Prz
Prz is the player of these 6 that can be traded, and ultimately will be, due to shrinking minutes, not fitting that well at the 4, limited O, and salary.
by HoopsFan on Jul 7, 2009 8:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My honest assessment of the situation as it presents itself today in my opinion: The team really has too many question marks, and is not ready for a championship as it stands
It’s also pretty unlikely we will become one organically in the short term, as either the minutes won’t be available to keep everyone (happy/productive) and develop him, or someone doesn’t pan out into a championship-caliber starter or at least rotation player.
However, it’s highly important we try to find out who is it we want to keep. Here is where several problems and questions come into play, which fits into the theme outlined by Dave:
- We only have cap space before Roy and LMA (and Oden and…) hopefully get re-signed to nice deals. After the next trade deadline, it’s gone unless we make some really serious and risky financial maneuvers for expiring deals which is not KP’s modus operandi. Acquiring talent regardless of perfect fit is.
- So ideally we would already know exactly right now who is to be part of the future team and who is not. Unfortunately we don’t know in all cases. We have some ideas, but it’s not certain. We know of Travis’ contributions to the team and his limitations. We don’t know if Nic can develop a serious offensive game despite indications that he is a diligent worker and has undeniable natural skills. We don’t know yet if Martell will be able to play an important role since he was injured all last season and before that it looked like a mixed bag of promise and not so constant production (at the moment it looks like the Blazers don’t bank on him, see Hedo talks to shore up a position that is relatively crowded anyway).
- Rudy looks like he is deserving more minutes especially due to his offensive skills late in games, but since he plays the same position as the clear star on the team finding them requires some positional maneuvering and trade-offs like potentially forcing other players to take over roles they are not so comfortable with.
- We can only hope Oden shows next season why he was picked #1. Otherwise the team will not be contending for a title anyway with the production we got last year out of the frontline. Defense wins championships? It helps, but so do second chances and easy buckets around the basket. What Bayno and others are saying about his progress sounds encouraging, but they told nice stories about him last season too. We have to wait and see.
- We are unsure about our future starting point guard. Is Steve good enough to win a championship (some say no, some say yes). Is Bayless more than a scorer, can he lead a team and set up more for his teammates to find them in the optimal position to score themselves? If the answer to one or both of these questions is no, what to do?
- It’s nice that we have LaMarcus, but who backs him up to limit his minutes a bit and keep him healthy for the playoffs? Who helps the center to stay out of foul trouble against quick guards and physical guys, and anchors the helpside play in the second unit? A SF/PF tweener who poses matchup problems, unfortunately on one end of the court for us? A rookie PF? Someone else?
So despite all success last season, there are still a lot of questions surrounding the team. And despite some pretty good themes or trends emerging almost everyone answers them differently.
Competitive situation:
This is another question that is highly debatable. I think some members of our opposition just got a lot stronger. Others disagree. However it’s undeniable that a number of teams stand in the way of the Blazers and a title that are all somewhat qualified to win a title and many of those won’t go away soon. The offseason is far from over, but as it stands we would have to include the Magic, Cavaliers, Celtics as still potential contenders in the East, and the Lakers, Nuggets, potentially Spurs, Jazz (when healthy), Mavericks (working on several acquisitions) in the West. Rockets probably got weaker due to injury issues, but it might be too early to rule them out. Same with the Hornets and their financial concerns. Some of the lesser teams (Warriors, OKC, etc.) at least got stronger via the draft enabling them to steal additional games against other teams if not outright contending for the playoffs. The Suns disintegrating doesn’t really change the competitive landscape other than that teams might land their last remaining stars (Cavs, Knicks), they missed the playoffs last season anyway.
The Blazers so far: Didn’t really get better. Lets be honest, Pendergraph, Cunningham and maybe Mills won’t put up amazing feats in their rookie season, at least not consistently. Oden coming back more dominant than last season is rather a requirement to advance than a luxury – if only to keep his psyche intact. Other players might add a wrinkle or two to their game over the summer (Roy some more midrange game, Travis some stamina, Nic a better outside shot, LaMarcus a left hand, Bayless some playmaking, etc.), but it’s hardly something you can bank on to put us over the top. Realistic expectation: Maybe a second round exit. Maybe WCF. Maybe first round. Depending on matchups, injuries, etc. But I don’t see us marching through the row of competitors listed above. Not next year. And depending on what happens in 2010 with the free agent sweepstakes the future after that is murky. Time to put some distance between the Blazers and some competition, and enable the team to beat the top dogs in a series.
The two ends of the spectrum going forward I can see would be to either put as much available playing time as possible next season into the youngsters no matter if it costs us a few games and maybe a better playoff position. Problem is: Nate and other people on the team get not just measured in developing players but in wins. If the team doesn’t improve from last season to the next one, his position isn’t good. And for KP, he has lost the last major opportunity to make changes to the roster “with house money” without having to move several good young players just to match the salary of a better one who might be an improvement. And the mid-level exception doesn’t buy all teams the player they want, since those players tend to go to contenders and/or major markets.
Or since free agency is starting to dry out we go all-in and trade aggressively some of those young players for more or less older players who have realized their potential already (to some extent). This again poses potential problems: We might acquire the wrong player, who for some reason doesn’t fit in or deliver. The player we traded away might become a star on another team and haunt the Blazers ever since (which is less of a problem if the acquired player performs of course). The window of opportunity is getting smaller if the acquired veteran is significantly older than our core. And so on.
I suppose since we can’t know for sure if everyone of the young players and supporting cast is good enough to win titles in the future, the right and safe way is somewhere in the middle. Not developing our young guys or even driving them out of town would be a crucial mistake. So would be doing nothing just because we are in love with all of them. Or throwing all our money on one player who might not even be the perfect fit just because he is the best player available right now (which is a bit what the Hedo situation was, a bet to win now when the time to win is probably not there yet and he is not enough to stem the window open).
With a bit of luck, we could get one of the remaining (restricted) free agents cheaper than ever. As Hollinger pointed out yesterday they don’t attract big offers at the moment, unlike some of the UFAs which got very rich contracts even with second-tier talent. That likely won’t be enough to put the team over the top, but shore up a problematic position such as the backup PF spot, or just add more talent fitting our window to the team. If the time is right to force a big trade (a la the Gerald Wallace rumor) I don’t know, maybe that situation is not yet there and will get better closer to the end of the summer or event the deadline as pressure on all sides mounts to get something done and the reality that the cap will drop significantly next year making plays at major free agents hard sinks in. Maybe even a major player like LeBron already re-signs, triggering another flurry of action from teams fearing to be left in the cold. The need to advance the team to bring it further away from the dregs of the league and closer to the top is there, just the way to do it right is hard to find.
KP has to find a good balance here. Rather than a chemistry major or a daytrader, the unstable situation requires a quick juggler with the vision and skills to keep all balls moving and none fall to the floor.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 8:36 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
As for Dave's question regarding the core of this team that I somehow overlooked reading his post and writing mine:
1. Brandon. 2. LaMarcus. 3. Greg. 4. Nic. 5. Rudy.
Team needs:
- Starting point guard, Bayless or external.
- Small forward until Nic is ready. A guy who can score and defend. No “no stats” player.
- Big guys to back up Greg and LaMarcus. Lots of them. High skillset is nice, toughness is a requirement.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Blazers didn't get better"
Simple experience and time makes these blazers better without a single move. Based on that, I disagree with your statement.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Didn't really get better" as it stands
Yeah, I think we didn’t – yet – and the opposition did and even the champions did. Frye is better than Pendergraph and Cunningham, so on that position we are even weaker right now. While I like Bayless a lot right now he doesn’t bring more stability than Sergio to the backup position. So another potential problem. I don’t rely on any contribution regarding Webster before I see him play again, and I think neither do the Blazers. Unless Oden comes back next season swinging as young Shaq, if no moves are made I think this team doesn’t come out with the same standings position and wins next year by growing “organically”. However I think a move will be made. There are simply too many roster spots open, and too many question marks left.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never a given
Webster and Sergio got worse after their rookie years. Jack got worse after his second year. Travis never really improved until his 4th year.
You can also look around the league and find guys who didn’t improve on decent rookie campaigns (Julian Wright, Ty Thomas, Ray Felton, Channing, Darius). I’m not saying I wouldn’t bet on them getting better, but it’s never a sure thing.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should've been a fanpost
in all seriousness, though, I agree almost entirely. Standing pat means we’re counting on three positions having huge question marks turn out in our favor in order to be a title team.
At PG, is Blake enough/Can Bayless become an effective creator and shooter?
At SF, can Nic become a decent offensive threat to become a guy we can reasonably expect to chip in double digit points a night while contributing Battier like defense?
At C, can Greg Oden become “Greg Oden” for real and play out those 33-35 mpg at a high level?
Maybe we don’t need all three of these to be settled, but we need at least two of them to turn out swimmingly for us in order to compete for a title, and that’s even before getting into the questions with minutes and roles on the bench and at backup PF like you illustrate above. If we can eliminate one or more of these questions from consideration, why shouldn’t we?
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oden is not going to be a 33-35 minute guy next year or maybe ever...
What he NEEDS to be is an absolute monster for 22-25 minutes — and there has to be a Plan B and Plan C every single night.
Oden is a Human Foul Machine. It’s his style of play and that’s just the way it is.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don’t know yet that he will always be a human foul machine. Biedrins was fouling once every few minutes in his first two years, but he’s harnessed it and learned. Yao was foul prone.
Also, as his star rises, the refs will call him for less borderline calls.
It seems foolish to determine that he will always struggle with fouls. We can judge that in a year or two.
That being said, I’m not in a rush to get rid of Przybilla. Keep him.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't disagree more
Oden got a bit of a raw deal but also picked up a ton of stupid, avoidable fouls hip checking guys on the perimeter. I don’t see why that is “his style of play”. You take out two of those fouls per game and he’s fine.
Other guys who were foul machines early in their careers: Turiaf, Smits, Nick Collison, Longley, Kemp, Kurt Thomas, Al Jefferson, Joel.
I don’t see why those guys were able to learn to stop fouling but Oden can’t, especially after coming off MF surgery this year.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that link was from his second year in the league. It’s an interesting read.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Andris is another good one
Didn’t show up in my BB-R filter for some reason, but writing off a guy as someone who will never play more than 25 mpg due to fouls is just ridiculous. Essentially every semi-decent big has figured out their fouling problems. You really have to dig into the scrubs to find guys that plagued them for their entire careers.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are already better.
Did it occur to you that the other teams traded to get better to keep up with what they know the Blazers will be? Look at the different from the first of the season to the last. We started slow and came on like gangbusters at the end.
Doing nothing until we know what we need in the long term may be the best route.
It seems to me you are saying on one-hand we need to develop and on the other hand we need to quick fix to keep up with the Jones.
San Antonio had to trade because they were falling to fast. The Lakers never really got better, they just traded pawns. It is true that the bottom dwellers are going to be more competitive, but isn’t that what we want. Do you want to win the championship hands down with no competition or do you want to go through the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Sometimes I think I would take the former LOL.
Anyways, we just worry about us and what we can do and don’t try to keep up with the Jones. And that is to give us another year or maybe two.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You argue yourself into a box
Joel is the most proven center the Blazers have. All Greg has right now is “potential”, which in your argument means he doesn’t have “it”. So, by your logic we should trade Greg, not Joel, yet you still contend that we should trade Joel.
It just seems like you have this “we have to do all these moves or be mediocre” mentality. Why can’t we just upgrade the small forward and/or the point guard position without getting rid of our only proven center?
by misterblack on Jul 7, 2009 8:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I hoped people would listen when Dave said it this time.
Do you all want incredible potential, or championships? You don’t get both.
Now is the time you use those “potential” guys to get the guys who are already complete players. Keep a couple “potential” guys to develop for the next few years in order to stay loaded, and ship the rest out for established players.
I’ve never understood the “we can’t trade Batum, he could be the next Tayshaun Prince!” if we’re getting the real Tayshaun in the trade (example, not actual trade right now).
by Free Bayless on Jul 7, 2009 8:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because we want a team for the ages!
Potential turns into realization and actual. I don’t want potential I want that butterfly crawling out of the cocoon as it becomes what it will be. One more year. I don’t want new potential. I want the potential we have to blossom. It’s too soon to leap forward. The cake is still baking.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Jul 7, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I of course like your evaluation.
I feel that we became experienced from the play-offs. Therefore our incredible potential is blooming into championship contenders before our eyes. All the caterpillars didn’t make all the cocoons in one day. It will take different times for the butterflies to emerge. Yesterday’s caterpillar becomes tomorrows butterflies. As soon as they are butterflies they become established.
Dave says we can’t have both. Other than our last year rookies who isn’t established? Plus any established player that quits growing or adding to his game isn’t a champion either(turkglue).
You say we don’t want new caterpillars we want the old ones to become butterflies; I feel they already have.
Next year we can thin out the non –achievers and our duplicates, but this year just let them fly and feast.
hg
by BBK on Jul 7, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just don't leave it in there too long.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 7, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll never have that recipe again. Oh no.
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 8, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll bet you could converse about anything
using only the lyrics to all the tunes you know.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 8, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Core
Roy – of course
Aldridge – of course
Oden – I little iffy but willing to give him more time to make it as slam dunk as roy and aldridge
Batum – I loved what I saw last year, hopefully he keeps the momentum going and dosen’t have a sophmore curse
Those are my four core pieces
Also I Keep Pryzibilla because we don’t know what we have in oden just yet. He isn’t untouchable like the top four but he is just below them in level of importance and leaps and bounds over the others.
Who I would like to add ranked by position
SF
1. Lamar Odom
2. Shane Battier
3. Gerald Wallace
4. Marvin Williams
PG
1. Hinrich
2. Sessions
3. Nash
Backup 4s
1. Brandon Bass
2. Carl Landry
3. Mcdyss
by kwestfan on Jul 7, 2009 8:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No Bayless
JB is an interesting prospect, but no more. He hasn’t even shown he belongs on the NBA. He had about two good games out of probably 20 chances. The guy is pretty far from untouchable. His glaring weakness is he plays one on one and has not shown he can shoot in the NBA. An occasional pass does not prove he can distribute the ball. Right now his upside looks like a spot minute backup. How can he be considered indispensable when he has never even earned a spot in the rotation?
by goblazer1 on Jul 7, 2009 8:47 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
in answer
Only Roy. There are a fair number of PFs that are serviceable. I’d say Aldridge is tradable for a top tier pg or other superstar piece. Aldridge is always going to frustrate with his midrange fadaways and shying away from contact. He is a good starting pf, very young, but not untradable imo. And Oden, well, I probably wouldn’t trade him because I fear his tremendous upside potential, but he is still very raw and there is no guarantee he will become the juggernot we thought we were getting. So, objectively, both are tradable.
by goblazer1 on Jul 7, 2009 9:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Shying from contact?
Did you see that dunk on Dampier?That was nasty!
by We-B-Dunkin on Jul 7, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Constantly
LMA will choose fadaway over drop step 9 out of 10 times, so much that his defenders overplay the fade and leave the drop step open. He makes a fair number of those fadaways, but its not the higher percentage play. He shows he can go up strong, but usually chooses not to.
by goblazer1 on Jul 7, 2009 10:00 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
LMA's turnaround is money.
If you have a weapon like that you use it. True LMA is not a bulldozer like Shaq but if he tried to play that way he would last about a week(not built for it) my point being you have to play to your strengths & pick your spots.If you play like a bull in a china shop all the time your gonna be injured more then healthy.
by We-B-Dunkin on Jul 7, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or you will shoot more FT's
I agree with goblazer1 on LMA. He SHOULD go inside more and launch jumpers less.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 7, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's not money.
Let’s put things in perspective, okay.
FG% On Two-Point Jump Shots (2008-2009 Season)
Dirk Nowitzki (47.4%)
Antonio McDyess (47.3%)
Darius Sogaila (46.2%)
Pau Gaosl (46.0%)
Brandon Bass (45.4%)
Kevin Garnett (45.3%)
Rasheed Wallace (44.4%)
Luis Scola (44.3%)
Chris Bosh (44.2%)
Amar’e Stoudemire (44.2%)
………………………………
LaMarcus Aldridge (41.8%)
http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT7.HTM
Why do people still spout the fallacy that Aldridge is an efficient jump shooter? It’s bogus!
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy, Oden, Aldridge....
The top three are pretty well agreed upon. It’s the final two where the debate lies. And it’s great that we can make very good arguments for including Rudy, Batum, Bayless and Pryzbilla. It means we have some really good options for the team on the court as well as for making big trades. The dilemma is it is still premature to make franchise-changing decisions regarding the players who come after the big 3.
Unless we can make a no-brainer deal, we don’t have to make a big move this summer. I think we can use the first half of next season as a time to answer some of the questions we have. First, and by far the most important, how is Oden going to come out and play in his second season? If he shows great development and proves he can stay on the court for 35 minutes a game, then Joel becomes more expendable at the trade deadline. Second, can we be effective with a Roy and Rudy as our starting guards? Personally I think we can. This would negate the arguments of trading Rudy because he plays the same position as Roy, and then it is a no-brainer that Rudy is one of the core. Third, is Bayless going to make big strides in his game and be our reliable 3rd guard? If so, we will have a deadly three guard rotation, as well the ability for Roy and Rudy to swing to the SF position occasionally. Fourth, how will Batum come out in his second year? Is he ready to be our SF or does he need a couple more years?
Yes we have a lot of cap space and we want to use it to improve the team. But worse would be to force the issue and make a rash or premature move. Yes we are in the fast lane now, but we still must proceed with some caution and in a timely fashion. I say use the first half of next season to see how the cake is coming out. We still have the trade deadline to make a move. And if the cake is coming out brilliantly, maybe we don’t have to do anything!
by socalblazer on Jul 7, 2009 8:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree!
Well said. No need to rush and make hasty decisions. Lets wait and see what we have first.
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really agree with the fundamental premise that the Blazers are a rose bush that needs to be hacked back to the ground so that new healthy shoots can sprout to replace the gangly, inferior bush that will result if no pruning takes place...
There is a STRONG case to be made for taking a fundamentally “let it ride” approach to this team at this point. Now I would like to see David Lee or Brandon Bass added at the cost of nothing but money, don’t get me wrong. Paul Allen is loaded and it’s only money, and as far as I’m concerned the PG situation is fine and the only real deficiency the team has is at the 4 — the jumpshooter Frye out, and in his place, a big that can actually rebound and score in the paint. Lee, Bass, maybe even Millsap — all fine.
BUT FAILING THAT, the real power of the Blazers’ cap situation is that they are UNDER the cap when the rest of the league, almost down to the last team, is over it. And this situation remains effective up until the next trade deadline. Lots of teams can offer their $5.5M or whatever the MLE is to land free agents, and the Blazers’ ability to come up with $9M instead might tip the decision of one mercenary — but the difference is minimal and marginal.
The Blazers have a HUGE advantage in being able to work an unbalanced trade. And the time to do that is not now, when hope springs eternal, even with the crappy teams of the league — but rather towards the actual trade deadline, when teams are falling out of the hunt and grim financial realities are starting to set in. It is then, only then, when teams will start considering making the big salary dumps that the Blazers, and only the Blazers, will be in a position to cash in upon.
I have little confidence in KP to handle this properly. Last year, with a little cleverness, he could have parlayed the RLEC and maybe Travis and a pick into John Salmons and Brad Miller — and I have a hunch the playoffs would have turned out very differently as a result. But the trigger was not pulled and Paul Allen put the insurance cash back into his wallet.
Now the same thing: a valuable EXPIRING ASSET (cap space prior to the trade deadline) will have to be used or else Paul Allen will put the cash back into his wallet. KP has shown an unwillingness to make trades of ANY sort, let alone less than absolutely optimal trades, in-season. Even though the smart play is to wait for the deadline and make the move then, I don’t know if KP has it in him… Thus I am nervous.
Like I say, I’d much rather see another player brought in as a free agent at the cost of nothing but money. Closely related to that desire is a wish NOT to see a scenario when the whole team is dumped to bring in fan dreamboats like Shane “Limited Offense” Battier, Kirk “Blake” Hinrich, or Tayshaun “Batum” Prince. Because we’ve already got those guys, see…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 9:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Playing the "core" game: Roy, LMA, Nic, Oden, Pryz, Rex — in that order.
I’m not sure either Oden or Rex will totally pan out, but there’s no way I’m gonna be bailing for a couple years before I find out…….
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for someone that values low post rucking and the like, you have Oden far too low. If he pans out, we’re going to be great. If he doesn’t, then we’ll be average.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd switch Pryz and Nic
but I agree with you in about every way.
fun fact: per minute, Batum scores more than Battier.
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The new logo looks like Sputnik.
Is Dave secretly pining for the return of Victor Kryhapa?
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jul 7, 2009 9:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We have been "HAD".
dave –
only posted this “pick-your-five” to make us focus on what we already have.
by spencerbutte on Jul 7, 2009 9:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My Core Players
…Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Fernandez, Batum, Bayless…
Players such as Pryzbilla and Blake should only be traded if they supply the team with a backup that plays their respective position.
Players such as Outlaw and Webster should be paired with either Pryzbilla and/or Blake to acquire a top notch player who will start on this team.
My ideal offseason moves go as follows:
- Sign Lee using cap space
- Trade Blake, Outlaw, Webster and/or Picks, Cash, or Rights to unsigned players to Chicago for Hinrich and Tyrus Thomas.
The team has been 2-3 players deep in each position for the past 3 years, with players who play similar games to their starting counterparts. Now that they have identified their core players, they need to bolster one or two positions by sacrificing some of the depth that they have built – Webster and Outlaw.
Portland is in arguably the best position of any team in the leage in that they have 2-3 budding superstars and 3-6 more upper echelon role players that can cary the team on any given night. Add to that their cap availablility and all of a sudden they have the makings to be a scary nasty team.
The only gamble about signing Lee is if he will be content with 25-30 minutes a night coming off of the Bench, and if the production he contributes is sufficient for his salary. Perhaps we all forget that Frye was in the same position Lee was in 3 years ago – a budding star PF. While Lee had a great season in 08-09 – what will that season look like filling in for Aldridge and Oden?
by Jimbob91577 on Jul 7, 2009 9:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Started 3 posts & they all delete half way thru typing! I give up
My 5 Roy,LMA,Oden,Batum,Joel
by We-B-Dunkin on Jul 7, 2009 9:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
OK will try one more time
The reason I keep Batum over Rudy. Nic 19yr old Rook. Rudy 24 Nic is a better defender right now.Yes we want to win right now but I see potential allstar in Nic.I see Rudy as a great scorer but never more then an average player at the defensive end.Even though we want to win now I believe you still have room for developing this kind of talent. Rudy has great trade value & added with Trout & draft picks maybe Blake or Bayless can bring us the PG that can put us over the top. IMHO
by We-B-Dunkin on Jul 7, 2009 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As far as the trades and potential vs. production thing goes...
Whatever happened to the optimism from last season when people were talking about the championship window being multiple years instead of a now or never attitude?
For the last few seasons the team has had goals and has accomplished their stated goals. As a group they have improved dramatically and yeah, some people had to leave in order to get to that point. But now that the team got to the playoffs (the core’s first experience with them) we’ve abandoned all sense and reason.
Our rookies from last season, even though they were rookies are very good players now. Batum’s production on the defensive end isn’t debatable. Rudy’s production on the offensive end isn’t debatable unless you have no regard for things like breaking a rookie record. I don’t think there is any person that would be able to make the argument that what we got out of Rudy last season was his absolute best either; that ceiling is high. Martell’s contributions before his injury was also becoming more a matter of production vs. potential.
As far as I am concerned, yeah there may be pieces out there that fit better for minutes and in their roles, but we don’t have guys that are dissatisfied with the minutes they are getting. From recent interviews, Rudy is happy with how last season went and I’ve heard nothing to give me the impression he wouldn’t be happy to continue in that role. Why should we trade him for someone who may fit a defined role, but doesn’t equal the player we would be losing?
The key thing I see that wasn’t really talked about in Dave’s post is that KP’s draft moves since he’s been in charge have yielded a field of young players that are interchangeable, flexible in what roles they can take on and therefore there is no log-jam until one of them creates it. Since Sergio created one, we know that KP is perfectly willing to encourage their continued success elsewhere.
All the arguments that we need a better PG are out there, but I’m not convinced. We have Bayless who had minimal opportunity to even prove he can be a distributor last season amidst all the times the coaches put him in for instant offense. Yeah we need someone to be the third option in case of injury, but does that require a big trade of anyone who’s name isn’t Outlaw?
We need a backup PF, and we just drafted two guys for that purpose. Pendegraf went to college all four years. He’s NBA ready. Why don’t we all try something really wild and let him and Cunningham have a shot at filling that role? We haven’t even seen them play and they’ve earned a collective dismissal already.
There is one thing I think we are forgetting though. Simply because we got to the playoffs this last season and tied for second in the West, doesn’t mean that we’re going to win it all this season or with any potential trades could. I may be a total homer in this, but I think the guys we have on our roster as it stands – save maybe one or two on the fringe are just as capable now as almost any of the players we could conceivably trade for from the greener side.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jul 7, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
90% agree
Just that there are
more polished productive players out there and if we can trade potential for finished product we should. We will still have plenty of young talent to bake a cake with. But it wouldn’t be so bad to stand pat. My concern though is putting too much on Roy, because that guy will literally play himself to exaustion to try to win. Roy needs help on O. Maybe that comes from the guys we already have?
by goblazer1 on Jul 7, 2009 9:54 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
The main premise of my perspective
can be summed up with Dave’s analogy of the mass vs. honed weapon. I just don’t see a scenario where a team can get to the playoffs unless most of the honing has already been accomplished.
The rest of the honing (support for Roy being an aspect of this process) will happen with the maturation of certain guys like Batum, Rudy, Oden and Bayless. It goes without saying – although I think some people have forgotten which is why I’m saying it now – that all of these were Rookies last year.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jul 7, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The multi-year championship window
for my part at least always assumed some moves would be made this summer. Kind of like saying, “We’re almost to grandma’s house!” knowing there are four corners to go around first. If you get to the second corner and refuse to go around it because you like how the trip is going you’re not going to end up at Grandma’s.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is where we differ then.
I knew moves would be made, and will always be made from one season to the next, but I don’t see wholesale roster changes happening or necessary.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jul 7, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the purpose of the "Who is in your core?" question, I suppose
“Wholesale roster changes” = trading core players
“Moves being made” = trading non-core players
One of the issues I see in the argument overall is that trading any three Blazers not named Shavlik appears to be defined as “wholesale changes”.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It isn't that simple, of course
Rudy offers skills that are not duplicated by anyone on the roster. If you trade him, the reward has to great enough to justify the hole his departure would leave on the roster. For all the “roster balancing” arguments out there, the only position of depth on the roster is SF. The only weaknesses last year, from a net production perspective, were PG and Center. No one is arguing we need to get a new center.
There are “core” players, and there are “role” players not easily replaced. Fernandez makes the team better in a unique way that surpasses most of the upgrades suggested for SF. Most arguing for a change at that position fail to acknowledge that the position was a team strength, last season, and can only get better with simple player development.
Need predicates change. It is perfectly rationale to believe that significant improvement is possible at PG, but most of the other suggested trades/FA signings are marginal at best, except for backup PF.
That is, unless a change in personnel breaks Portland free of the glacial pace disease.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
More like ... We're almost to grandma's house." and from the back seat comes ...
… “Let’s take this shortcut across the pasture. It will get us there 20 minutes sooner.”
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice. I’m not on your side on this argument (I’d like Hinrich), but you have a good point.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we end up doing a deal for hinrich that costs ...
… Blake (or Bayless) and Travis, I can support that. I happen to love Blake, but I think I’d give Hinrich the edge.
However I will once again point out that the weaknesses that keep getting pointed out here do not appear to be the ones the team is concerned about. They might think highly of Hinrich, but it was Turkgolu they went after first.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’ve been talking to Chicago about Hinrich for the last 18 months… I think it’s a matter of coming to an agreement that both teams like. Hopefully the lure of 2010 cap space entices them to dump Kirkk.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This argument should be a Fanpost
I have been saying this all along as well, as you can see from my various responses above. But here you have summed it up exactly the way is should be. Why do we need to trade someone with talent for a back up PF, when we have Pendergraph? A 4 year college guy with proven toughness and rebounding and hussle, who would be happy to be a back up and get any amount of playing time he can. Why dismiss him before he even gets on the court? We need to stick with the plan and let it bake. We have a lot of talent that will improve with time, and playing with each other in the same system for years to come is important.
We should come up with a study of the dynasty teams and see how many of their core / support role players were drafted and developed and how many of them were aquired by trades and FA. I will bet most of the teams made it with “home grown” players.
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forget the study
This would be assuming that all of the teams had the same success at drafting the same level of talent. So comparisions wouldn’t work.
by blazerbill on Jul 7, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine in order of importance: Roy, Oden, LMA, Batum, Bayless.
I personally believe that we need to add Hinrich and another big, preferably Bass. That would resolve two of our biggest deficiencies from last year and leave us with potential to develop.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
okay...I get it...thanks.
I agree with your major premise which I believe is that we need to convert some of our mass of potential into a smaller amount of reality. I like your thinking when it comes to Battier. He is a virtual certainty and a good fit for our team. He allows Batum (or Martell) the chance to develop over the next two years. I also like your thinking when it comes to Hinrich as I think he is a slight upgrade over Blake defensively—However, I prefer to retain Blake as his backup and let Bayless go. If we can add these two players without losing the following guys this year I would be very happy and we would be title contenders:
Roy
Aldridge
Oden
Pryz (absolute must have for 1 more year while Oden answers questions)
Blake (keep for skills, reliability, fit, attitude, experience)
Batum (keep for defense plus offensive potential)
Webster (keep b/c he has great potential but almost zero trade value)
Tradeable are:
Bayless
Outlaw
Rudy
All others on the roster plus other assets such as draft pics and Euros
This could give us a nice roster including:
Oden backup is Pryz
Aldridge
Battier backup is Batum or Webster
Roy backup is Webster or Blake
Hinrich backup is Blake
That gives us 9. We still need a backup PF.
Plus,
by mlsinpdx on Jul 7, 2009 9:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
8-man rotation
Bayless
Roy
Batum
Aldridge
Oden
G/F Backup (6th man)
F/C Backup (Gets 25+ minutes)
PG Backup (I would really like Blake here)
by blazeraider on Jul 7, 2009 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
To those putting Joel in your core 5:
Keep in mind the guy could walk one year from now. I guarantee you there will be at least one team willing to pay him more than the 7.4 he’s scheduled to earn next year, and he could be a full-time starter playing 30-35 minutes a night for half the teams in this league.
Not saying we should trade him now or anything, but if Oden becomes what we all need him to, I think we have to resign ourselves to the fact that we won’t be able to keep Joel around for long.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Unlikely
He showed that he wants to stay here with his last contract. Remember, he could have gone home, but he chose to stick with us. He’s loyal.
by VTDuck on Jul 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joel set a career high for minutes played this past season and gained recognition as a team leader, both in the locker room and among fans...
Judging by current free agent prices his offensive numbers are such that anything over the MLE is probably enough to keep him. And he’s making more than that…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GMs will pay for rebounding, defensive 7 foot 1 guys
and rightly so. Gorcet is getting the full MLE. And Joel is twice the player that guy is.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gorcet is getting the full MLE. And there are no teams to pay him more because everybody is over the cap. Joel already makes more. There ya go.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
next year, over half the teams will have cap space
they aren’t all getting LBJs, Wades, and Bosh’s. Joel can get paid.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joel's already paid.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we'll see
he was loyal because we offered him a good contract for his production, and handed him the keys to the starting job. Now we have Oden, who if all goes according to plan, will cut Joel’s minutes down to the 18-20 per game range. Plus, his contract is running out of time.
Don’t forget it’s a business. If Greg blossms this year, I fully expect Joel to opt out and test the market. Maybe he’ll return to us, maybe not. But if he takes money and an opportunity to start somewhere else, I wouldn’t begrudge him that at all.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that came off harsher than I meant
not to imply that Joel hasn’t been/isn’t loyal to Portland – he has been and continues to be. But circumstances change. Oden turning into Oden would change things. That doesn’t mean Joel would be disloyal by leaving, it means that the situation had changed substantially from what he signed up for, and I wouldn’t begrudge him moving on to a situation that he feels is better for him.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jul 7, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greg's "blossoming" will take the form of effectiveness on the floor on the minutes he is there... But he's always gonna be a foul machine...
The only way Joel’s life significantly changes is if Lee is landed for $10M. Otherwise, he’ll be here for a long time…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree but this is about today not next year
My 5 wil prob. change every year or two
by We-B-Dunkin on Jul 7, 2009 10:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The core
Roy
Fernendez
Aldridge
Oden
Batum
Blake is good enough but expendable. Travis is inconsistent and not particularly well endowed with BBall IQ. Martel can’t stay healthy and his energy is a bit scattered. Joel is solid, but limited offensively. (I almost want to see Joel go just to FORCE Greg into maturing)
If we can get a scrappy 3 who rebounds and is fearless (G Wallace) and a back up PF who will bang and bring energy off the bench (Anderson Varajao/Brandon Bass/Birdman) and get Rudy more minutes, I think we will be a team that can contend for a championship.
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My .02
We have 4 core guys. In order, they are Roy, Oden Aldridge, and Batum.
I don’t consider Martell trade-able, because he has very little value until time tells us where his foot is at, and I don’t consider Bayless trade-able because you can’t trade a lottery pick before you give him some significant PT.
Holding to the line of thinking of the post, everyone else is fair game.
That leave our assets as…
Rudy, Przy, Blake, Outlaw, Claver, Pendergraph, Cunningham, Mills, eurostashes, future draft picks, and cap space.
Rudy and Przy have fairly high value to most teams in the league, and Blake and Outlaw have decent value, as well. the reat is speculative filler.
I think the first thing we do, is chase the pipe dream of Lamar Odom, as he can capably fill in for minutes at the three and four. If we can get him, we move to ship Trout and Blake for Hinrich, or another PG that is a proven defender and can shoot the three. If that becomes anything close to a reach, we stand pat and wait for the season to start and wait for a better opportunity to arise.
If we can’t get Odom, we abandon a FA upgrade at SF, since there simply isn’t much out there, and start looking at what it would take to get Battier or Wallace. I would trade Joel and Trout for either, but not Joel and Rudy. I think those two assets will prove more valuable once the season begins.
If none of this happens, a simple signing of a backup PF is in the works, be it Bass, Lee, McDyess, whoever. Signing Lee to a long term deal would be a mistake, though, without trading Przy, and I’m not convinced that we’d get that much more out of Lee than we get from Przy, as Lee would be a 4th or 5th option (2nd or 3rd as a reserve).
Much as I love our Blazers, we have to realize that the comparisons to LA and Boston are moot. KG and Ray Allen ain’t coming, people, and Gasol, VC, Jefferson or Artest aren’t on the horizon either. That’s why the “stand pat” argument is a valid one. If we are going to “Dynast-up” here soon, we’ll have to do it the way SA did, by developing a cohesive core, and just adding bit, role playing pieces.
by The Penguin on Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The only move I would make is a backup PG for Outlaw...
so that Rudy, Webster and Batum can have more minutes at the three.
People may think I’m nuts here, but I think that in that three-man lineup of small forwards, the odd man out is Batum. I think a healthy Webster combines most of the offensive skill set of Fernandez with most of the defensive skill set of Batum. He would be my starter contingent on his foot being reliable.
That doesn’t mean that Batum wouldn’t see the court though. He’d be the second unit’s SF since Fernandez fits better as a 2 guard for the second unit anyway.
I think a lot of people are not taking into account the fact that the minutes at each position are flexible. I don’t see any reason why Rudy couldn’t see some time at 2 with Roy as the point before the starting unit gets their rest. That would give Rudy more time, which he needs and wouldn’t take away time from the other guys at his position. The only person who would lose some time would be Blake, but then I’m sure the reverse could be done by putting Blake in as the PG with the second unit for a few minutes a game.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jul 7, 2009 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ridiculously compelling writing. great post.
by Ben. on Jul 7, 2009 10:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You're trying for that 20% raise, aren't you?
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Jul 7, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My 5
Roy
Rudy
LaMarcus
Oden
Batum
Roy and Rudy are both capable at point, and a solid backup point who has penetration and passing skills (whether Blake, Bayless, or otherwise) is not that hard to acquire or keep.
In my mind, none of the point guard being discussed in trades right now (Hinrich, Miller). Steve Blake is in the precise mold of numerous championship point guards over the years (doesn’t need shots, runs the system, tough/tenacious competitor, hits open shots, takes care of the ball, high IQ) and has improved every year. He also doesn’t have the kind of game that will suffer much as his athleticism declines with age. Rather, like many of the dinosaurs on the Spurs, he’ll get craftier, smarter, and more confident with each ensuing season. Blake is very much expendable, but looking for an upgrade is a very delicate process in terms of chemistry, finances, and fit (shot distribution, ability to defer to Roy). Unless you can hit a homerun with a truly top tier PG like Chris Paul, stick with Blake and build around the core five listed above.
Finally, the assertion that Rudy cannot fully develop on a team with Roy is entirely false. Ginobili has developed into one of the greats, while being the third option on the spurs. If, as it seems, Oden becomes primarily a defensive/rebounding force who gets his points on clean-up and put-backs, Rudy is a very viable 3rd option behind Roy and LaMarcus. No reason he can’t get 30+ minutes and average 20 ppg.
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable - Song of Myself, Walt Whitman
by sotis on Jul 7, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I see this sentiment everywhere
That Rudy won’t mind being a backup, just like Ginobli. Is it because they’re both white? Foreign? Flail around? Rudy was ok with being a backup this year – as a rookie. I can’t understand why we think he won’t want to be a starter, and soon. He certainly has the talent.
by samuelleejackson on Jul 7, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For reference
Fanpost discussing the differences here.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm trying to remember a title team in the last 20 years
Without a PG who wasn’t a significant upgrade over Blake. The only example I can think of is D-Fish, and those Phil Jackson teams are outliers, as they run the triangle and don’t need a traditional point.
by samuelleejackson on Jul 7, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
traditional point guards without a title:
Kidd
Nash
Stockton
traditional point guards with a title:
…
…
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
I’m not saying we need a a traditional or non-traditional point, I’m saying we need an upgrade from Blake.
by samuelleejackson on Jul 7, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is only 1 untouchable, Brandon Roy
by jksnake99 on Jul 7, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
My 5 - Correction
I meant to say that none of the point guards being discussed in trades right now (Hinrich, Miller) are adequately superior to Blake to risk upsetting the chemisty or a significant financial outlay.
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable - Song of Myself, Walt Whitman
by sotis on Jul 7, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
MARTELL WEBSTER
Im confused why pretty much everyone acts like martell webster should be one of the players gone.I completely disagree.Sure he had injury that kept him out but he really hasnt had health issues other than last year. People dont remember that at the end of the 07-08 season he was playing very well and many people believed that the 08-09 season would be his break out season. He is the best shooter on our team. Sure Nic batum played good last year, but if you look at websters rookie numbers compared to batum’s they are quite similar. I just am not sure why it seems that everyone has given up on our would have been starting small forward. I think were fine at small forward.
by rians10 on Jul 7, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
.......................presuming the injury of Marty isn't a career-ender.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
big presumption?
based on what? If Elton Brand and Trevor Ariza can come back from broken bones in the foot, why is it a reach to presume Martell will be back?
I find most argue against Martell in order to simplify the rationale for moves involving SF. Logical fallacies run rampant.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
logical fallacy? We’re all saying that there is a chance Martell won’t come back, and if he does, he’ll be rusty. I’m failing to see the illogical nature of that argument.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
you said it was “a big presumption…” in response to someone assuming Martell’s injury is not career ending.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it is. Foot injuries that far out on the foot are very risky propositions.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Supposition is not equal to fact.
Yes, Martell has a foot injury. However, there is no reason to believe this is career ending. Name one corollary. Substantiate the prognosis. NBA players return from broken bones in the foot. Name one relevant player that was unable to return from a hairline fracture in a foot bone.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do they usually try to come back after waiting longer than expected, reinjure themselves and then still stay out longer than expected?
None of these things speak to me of a normal foot injury, considering all normal assumptions were wrong.
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
normally i like your stuff
but this article is a little too far out there for me. Does hinrich really make us set at PG? would david lee or millsap type player be willing to come in and play backup PF to LA with a couple minutes as an undersized center? Would we even have the money to pay these guys?
Does it really help the blazers to dump up and coming talent for guys who are known to be less talented, just b/c the known commodity is older? Trading away a guy like Rudy, who has both the skills and the mindset to be a significant player in the league, in order to get a guy like hinrich or battier is the type of move that lead you back down the spiral, not up to the top.
Getting battier would be great, but only if giving up outlaw and/or webster plus cash/picks (no joel, no rudy, no bayless). Battier probably has a couple solid years left, but at best he is a solid defender who is getting old and at worst he WAS a solid defender who IS old. By the time the blazers true window opens, battier will be no more than a 15 minutes off the bench guy, and i don’t see the value in trading away talent for guys that don’t put you into immediate championship contention.
by retirecards51 on Jul 7, 2009 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My indispensible core
would be Roy, Aldridge, Oden…that’s really it. Those are the 3 guys who I don’t think it’s realistically possible to replace.
Now, having said that I highly doubt there’s any available player I’d be willing to trade Batum for. I think he’s too young, with too much promise, and already a solid defender (with great size and athleticism) – I’d be willing to bank that he just might be our starting SF in the future – a guy who could credibly contribute to a deep playoff or championship run.
I also doubt there’s anybody out there I’d want to trade Joel to get. Even beyond his hard-nosed defense and toughness, we NEED Joel as insurance against the worst-case-scenarios with Oden’s health. For different reasons I don’t think I’d move Webster – given his recent health problems I doubt we’d get much value for him. I think we ride with Martell and hope for the best.
What that means is if we can add another guy who would be a “core” player right now (i.e. an immediate starter SF/PG), I’d be willing to move Travis, Blake, Rudy, or Bayless – in that order.
Why Travis? I think he’s had long enough to marinate and prove whether he can be a starting SF on our team – he can’t. Could be a good 6th man going forward, but not better than a healthy Martell, Rudy, or Batum.
Rudy? Well, I think he can contribute A LOT, but in my view he’s definitely expendable. Looking at my “core” guys, Rudy will never surpass Roy, so the best we can hope for is spelling Roy at the SG spot. I don’t think he has the body to be a realistic starting SF, nor the quickness to be our PG. He CAN fill in at those spots, so again could be a good 6th man, but to get a core guy I’d let him go.
Blake? Well, he’s valuable to be sure. Solid, a fair defender, great off the ball, but with him at the point we Roy HAS to handle the ball all the time. I like Brandon with the ball when he’s feeling it, but to RELY on him and have no other option to get the offense started, is just too much physical pressure to put on our superstar – I don’t want Roy breaking down.
Moving Blake though creates a strange problem. He’d be a great 2nd PG, but if we got an upgraded starter with Blake backing him up, where does Jerryd get minutes? Another year riding the pine might stunt Bayless’ growth so if that’s the case I’d move Jerryd. But, having Jerryd as the sole backup is a bit scary – unless the starter is a really young, unquestionable talent (I’m thinking Devin Harris, Jose Calderon, etc).
Bayless? Well, I’d really like to keep him around to see if MAYBE he could develop into our PG of the future; but only if he can get on the floor and be at least semi-productive right away. I think Batum is easier to bank on because he is still contributing right now; if Jerryd is simply a black hole when he gets the ball, we can’t afford to try and develop him.
So, I’d say we need a “core” SF now. He can be older, seasoned, maybe at or just beyond his peak, but still highly productive (i.e. Hedo) and need not necessarily be long-term solution as long as we keep Batum on the team and in the rotation.
We also need a PG, but since Bayless seems to be farther away from prime time, I’d say the guy we get needs to be more of a young (though hopefully experienced) long term guy. I don’t like Nash, Andre Miller, or Kidd (now apparently off the table) for this, because by the time they’d diminished I’m not sure Jerryd would be ready to take over.
We could certainly use another big man banger – but those are a little easier to come by, and in truth maybe Cunningham or Pendergraph might do the trick.
by the_mad_nader on Jul 7, 2009 10:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The core is easy...Roy LMA and Oden
Everyone else is expendable to add to the core. Whatever is left over after trades will be projects to suport the existing core and the additions. Whether it is Batum to play behind and learn from new SF or Rudy to learn behind Roy or Joel to mentor and support Oden and LMA. I think its simple, use the other assets to build on the core whether we have to trade Blake, Bayless, Rudy, Batum, Webster or Joel.
by Matt Daddy on Jul 7, 2009 10:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
will someone with an insider account please go to ESPN.com and find out what this "andre miller to the Pacific Northwest" link is all about please
Thank you
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
FREE AGENCY: Blazers may use cap room on a trade
After being spurned by Hedo Turkoglu, general manager Kevin Pritchard might decide to use the Blazers’ estimated $7.5 million cap room on a financially uneven trade, The Oregonian reports.
The newspaper also reports Pritchard has spoken to Andy Miller, the agent for Andre Miller, and that the Blazers have no interest in David Lee’s price tag.
Andy Miller thinks Andre Miller is a good fit for Portland.
“I think Andre Miller puts them over the top,” Andy Miller said. “They desperately need a starting point guard to take the pressure off Brandon Roy. Andre would be able to control the floor and give that team better direction in the open court. It’s their team, and they’ve made great progress, but at some point, you have to make a leap forward.”
John Hollinger’s Take
Hold on a second, Andy “Miller is a great fast-break point guard, but the Blazers played the league’s second-slowest pace last year. Instead they like to spread the floor with shooters, but Miller shoots 21 percent on 3s for his career. As you can probably tell, I’m not as crazy about the fit as his agent seems to be.”
I hope I can get a bunch of championships, like 15. " - Greg Oden
by mxpx5678 on Jul 7, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CHAMP!
thank you.
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love how ESPN collects subscription revenue to regurgitate this morning's Oregonian...
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
however, a change in pace
is exactly the kind of change that could make this team shine. However, I’d be more inclined to get Sessions, than Miller.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe we have it all wrong, maybe we need a change in coach to better make use of talent
by Sonic Boom on Jul 7, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
which makes me wonder, will Bayless ever get released on a McMillan led team?
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we had more fast breaking in the Sergio/Bayless stretch of games than we did with Blake leading the team.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John Hollinger ignores the fact that LMA runs like a deer (he's probably one of the fastest PFs in the NBA), as can Batum.
They definitely have the potential to run. Miller’s lack of outside shooting is worrisome, though.
by Benjamanic on Jul 7, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
New rumor on Andre Miller to Portland on ESPN Front Page
Any ESPN insiders out there that can summarize
Kermit on the inbounds play, inbounds....
BATES at the horn, HE SCORES!! HE SCORES!!!!
And they are all over Billy Ray Bates! My, oh my!!!
by blazer91 on Jul 7, 2009 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
just did right above your post!
I hope I can get a bunch of championships, like 15. " - Greg Oden
by mxpx5678 on Jul 7, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they took it from Quick’s article in the Oregonian.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3 Spheres
I like the question, but to answer it I’ve got to do what many on the site have already, and break it into a three part question: who’s untouchable? Who’s gonna make me cry? And, who got’s ta go?
My Untouchables are Roy, LMA, Oden, Batum, and Bayless. The first three are the no-brainers, the last two beg an explanation, but I’ll get into that later.
The second sphere carries some emotion, as I really like these guys. They are Joel, Rudy, and Blake.
The third and final group contains some guys that many would at least push into the second sphere. They are Outlaw, Webster, and the end of the bench.
The explanation: I fall into the camp that believes that Oden is our future, and Joel has been a vital stepping stone to getting there. It really stings to let him fall into the second sphere, but Oden is the guy we want in the starting 5 in the Finals. Also, Przybilla’s value will never be higher, so the time to act is now. I think a trade with Houston for Battier would be a brilliant move. They need him, and we could certainly use Battier, whom I’ve always had a great deal of respect for, and would make a fantastic mentor for my number four Untouchable: Nic Batum.
Batum has shown us that he deserves to be a part of this team for a good long time. Without his defensive presence and ability to work well under pressure, we might not have gone as far as we did. He stepped up when we really needed him. For my part, I was devastated when Webster got hurt, then crestfallen when Outlaw failed to bring it. So when Batum came through, I knew that we had struck gold, and the other two SFs were not what I had built them up to be. I admit that his offensive game was lacking last season, I believe that a lot of that was by design. It has come to light that Coach told him to cool it on offense and really focus on being a stopper. I can’t wait to see what the Frenchman can produce with a looser leash.
Speaking of leashes, let’s look at my number 5 Untouchable: Jarryd Bayless. I’ve compared him to a neglected child in a movie that I like, who didn’t get so much as a hug from their doctor father, and the only physical contact they shared was an annual exam. The excitement of this rare touch caused the child’s heart to race, which made the father think that his child suffered from a heart disorder. This is the problem that has been recognized in Bayless: lack of attention. Every time he got on the floor, he was so eager to please that he would flub. Hopefully, this summer will show us what he is really made of, and he can come in to the season and give our starting PG a run for their money.
Which brings us to another of my second sphere players: Steve Blake. I really like the guy, and I can’t understand why he can’t get any respect. I know that his defense leaves much to be desired, and he doesn’t have much of an inside presence, but the man can still contribute. He has shown us that he can recognize his faults and improve upon them. For all we know, he’ll come into the season better than ever. The only problem is he’ll always be good, but I doubt he’ll ever be great. The main reason that I put him in that second sphere, though, is his value on the market compared to his value to the team. We can go the distance without him, but we will never get more on the market. He just had a career year, and there are plenty of teams that would benefit greatly from having him.
Which leaves us with one more guy in that second group, and this one kills me. Rudy Fernandez. Man, he is good! He’s so good that he’s not built to last. The man needs to start, and unless he wants to do that at SF, it won’t happen in PDX. However, I say we keep him around for as long as we can. His value will only go up, up, up. I think if we hang onto him for long enough, we use him in a trade for whatever piece we find ourselves missing. So while I did put him in that second sphere, I don’t think we should take any action involving him until next summer, at the earliest. I really want one more year with El Mago, and more than that, my Dad really wants another year(I bought him a Rudy jersey for Father’s Day)!
Now we come to my third sphere: the dead weight. I’m willing to be wowed by Webster, but come on! How long can we afford to hang our dreams on his busted foot? We need a starting SF now! While I do think Batum is the future; it ain’t the future yet. He needs a season or two off the bench(but with heavy minutes) before I want him in the starting 5 in the Finals. Same problem with Outlaw; he’s not our starter. So at this point, many are saying that we’ve got a logjam at the SF, and they’re right. The folks that say we’ve got too much talent at the SF are…well, I won’t go there. Let’s just say that I’m glad the rest of the league thinks the world of Outlaw. If only we could get some of that to translate to Martell…
At the end of the day, I’ll root for whoever wears the jersey, but thanks for posing the question.
Go Blazers.
by 500dogs on Jul 7, 2009 12:20 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Nice post, Mr. 500 Dogs.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, timbo!
You popped my “rec” cherry!
Don’t worry, I won’t start showing at your bar and scowling at you when you rec other bloggers.
by 500dogs on Jul 7, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"In particular many of us are having trouble"
sounds a lot to me like a passive aggressive way of saying “You guys just don’t get it.” The tone of this thread will probably put me off of BE for a good while. Yes it is a critical moment in Blazer development and absolutely new rules apply. But I think the over-caffeinated calls to nearly rebuild the entire team right now right now ignore the importance of team chemistry and arise out of a need to have something to chatter about. Speculation is just that, and if the tone of BE is going to turn humorless and irritable on where to go from here, count me out.
by Leseid on Jul 7, 2009 12:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very thoughtful, but...
there is one major premise that I disagree with.
Before this year the message has always been “wait”. That’s done. If you don’t start winning now you’re not going to win later either.
We’ve already started winning, and our roster, as it stands now, still has plenty of potential to improve. Oden will get better. Bayless will get better. Outlaw will get better. Webster will (hopefully) get healthy and better. Rudy will get better. Aldridge will get better. Batum will get better. In two years, the youth we would likely trade for a 30 year old vet will probably be better than that vet will be.
by Rockjaw on Jul 7, 2009 12:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's what I've learned:
1. Turkeyglue apparently values getting along with his wife and/or a few bucks over winning. Also he either is or isn’t a liar. In any case his actions during this episode make me even more glad we didn’t get him. Also I suspect Turkeyglue’s wife is very closed-minded. Rejecting a city your husband is interested in moving to before you’ve even visited? Seems shrewish to me. I wonder how she’ll like Toronto’s wintry weather three-quarters of the year. Hope she likes to freeze her butt off.
2. It takes a certain type of person to like Portland. Generally those who value money and exposure over everything else will not want to come here.
3. The Blazers will be fine not getting Hedo Turkeyglue or any of these other B-list Free Agents this offseason. We still have Brandon Roy, LMA, Greg Oden, Marty, Rudy, Bayless and a few other young studs. Our window isn’t next season or the next.
4. It’s kind of fun watching all these teams fight over table scraps. If you think an ancient Rasheed Wallace or Vince Carter is going to put your team over the top, I have a bridge to sell you…
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 7, 2009 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here we go:
1. Don’t blame Hedo’s wife or call her names other than “hot” unless there is some evidence outside of the echo-chamber that is NBA rumor mongering on the web that she had the slightest thing to do with Hedo’s decision.
2. I agree that it takes a certain type of person to like Portland, which is why I LOVE the idea of an internally-developed team making heavy use of Pac-10 draft picks like Pendergraph.
3. The window opened last year. Blazers had 1st Round home court advantage and were a couple games out of 2nd seed. They went 2-2 with the eventual world champions. Stop dreaming small.
4. Agreed that most of the free agents moving aren’t decisive. Blazers just need to make sure the backup 4 is filled. If Pendergraph is the guy, I’m good. If not, they had better damned well get Lee or Bass or Millsap on board… It’s tough rolling the dice on a rook though.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well
1. I can only base conclusions on the info I have. The simple fact that her husband entertained the thought of playing here and she’s on record as saying she prefers Toronto without even visiting tells me something. If all of this is BS, then I’ll apologize here someday and she can completely ignore that just like she will everything else you or I write. As far as the NBA rumor mill, this site wouldn’t exist if it didn’t. So I’m going to continue to comment on NBA rumors.
2. Ok
3. If by the window, you mean making the playoffs then yes. If you thnk this team is anywhere remotely close to ready to compete with the true contenders, I think you are insane.
4. I agree Lee, Bass and Millsap could all help this team. As far as Turkeyglue I never understood how a soft lanky jump shooter who doesn’t play defense was the answer in the first place.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 7, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hedo wouldn't be the first guy ....
…. to make a decision on a new job and then change his mind if his wife sounded less than positive. That’s a family decision and smart folks take into account the opinions of the entire family.
As for it saying something about Mrs. Turkoglu – sure, that she may prefer a larger, more cosmopolitan city over a smaller regional one that has a small town feel. That’s all it says. It is not a test of character. Some people like living out of town in a rural setting or at least with their own yard. Others like living right down town, where you can walk to everything and don’t have to worry about mowing the grass. Some folks like the beach and others the mountains. Some like to hike the back trails and others like bouncing along and speeding through mud holes on ATV’s. Which ever a person prefers is a personal choice. One that they should not be demonized for.
As for Portland being ready to compete with “true contenders” – I like their chances.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although I'm a mover and shaker while you're a cake baker, we 100% agree on this matter.
by AK1984 on Jul 7, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm actually a steely-eyed killer of the deep.
Or at least I used to be at one time.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said on point number 1.
And I agree with everything else.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have just been struck by a lightning bold of reason
Lets do nothing! No one is an appreciable upgrade over who we have. Gerald Wallace isn’t going to be pried away from the Bobcats. No other free agent starters sound appealing. Lets get a Brandon Bass to back up the PF position and get on with the season. It’s not like we’re going to win a championship next year anyway.
OLP is the best thing Canada has given the world outside of maple syrup
by SuperDave on Jul 7, 2009 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't be a wuss. Think big. Take it from me, the Lakers are not that good...........
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you mean other than the fact they are better than us at every spot?
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 7, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why the swept the series with us.
No, wait. They didn’t.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blazers match up very, very, very, very, very well with LAL — who won it all, last I checked.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 7, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now they have not one but two of the most physical wings in the league
Do we still match up well? Not so sure.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's all well and good
to want the championship right now and have to trade into that super caliber team that will take us to the next level, blah blah blah….Whitsitt.
BUT, I would rather have another fun to watch 54 season win, One level playoffs and out season then the slow, painful destruction of a young up and coming team through “gotta have it” trades…we’ve done that, let’s NOT do it again.
So no, if we can’t improve our situation we wait and let some players improve and look at draft and FA next year…cause Darius Miles and Z-Bo and Ruben Patterson and Shawn Kemp are not the answer. RELAX. TAKE A CHILL PILL. CALM THE HECK DOWN….
Wow, relax. Geez.
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on Jul 7, 2009 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On the question of core players.
Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge and Greg Oden.
Those are the three you build around.
Players with the potential to move up to that level or just below (in order of probability):
Martell Webster
Rudy Fernandez
Nic Batum
Jerryd Bayless
Key Role players:
Joel Pryzbilla
Steve Blake
Travis Outlaw
If we already have the three guys we need as the foundation of the team, it seems to me to come down to having one or two complementary players and two or three solid role players.
I’d say that #1 on Portland’s list is a third scorer. A guy who can create for himself and preferablly others as well. (At least until Greg develops enough of an offensive game to be that guy.)
- on the list appears to be someone with experience who is capable of taking charge on the court and doing some of the things that make his teammates more effective.
- sounds like toughness and physicality.
Preferably, you would like to have at least two of those qualities in one player.
Among the non-top three guys at this point in time, Joel alone meets the physicality and toughness qualification. And he is just reaching the point where he understands the game enough and has the self-confidence to start filling the role of veteran presense, helping make his teammates better. I think Blake meets the toughness category and like Joel, he is finally coming into his own as a player. Both guys fit the bill of complementary role players to a tee. That doesn’t mean they are untouchable, but you don’t lightly consider replacing them, unless what you are getting back is so much better. (I’d say that this probably applies more so to Pryzbilla than to Steve.)
Our other role player, Travis, fits the bill of third scoring option. A guy who can create his own shot almost anytime. But has been pointed out numerous times here, there are other aspects of his game that don’t yet meet that of complementary star player. To put it basically, he has yet to show he’s capable of making the guys around him better. He can’t be counted on not to blow his own defensive assignment, let alone know when to cheat and help out someone else and he’s not that good at creating shot opportunities for others. Can he improve? I think so. But it is fair to say that gets more problematic with every passing season.
So that leaves us with Webster, Fernandez, Batum and Bayless as the guys we already have who will be needed to step up to be the near all-star complementary guy. But as Berkeley pointed out above, three of these guys are rookies. Yes, they currently don’t meet the qualifications, but isn’t too early to assume that they won’t. If you figure you have to get that guy right now, he better be on par with a Josh Howard or Battier and he better not cost you much more than two of these four guys (five, if you include Travis).
To fully answer Dave’s question, there are four guys Portland should not even consider trading – Roy, Oden, Aldridge and Pryzbilla. Blake doesn’t go unless it’s for a guy that does more than he does (or you are convinced that Bayless is a bonifide NBA PG). All the others are available, but the return better be well worth it.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jul 7, 2009 1:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dave, thanks for all your hard work but...
You seem to be freaking out a little. We are FINE. David Lee or similar would be a nice post addition, but you don’t trade Joel unless you have to. You seem more worried about the players roles than they are. The Lakers keep adding talent, and only gave up Ariza for Artest because they couldn’t afford to keep him. We can afford our talent, so it would be a shame to give it up for the relatively moderate talents you mention, and loss of youth. Hopefully some news will come out of the Blazers soon, so these kinds of posts can stop for a while.
by wingzeta on Jul 7, 2009 4:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nice, Dave
well said. while i don’t want to see your trades happen, i understand the reasoning now, and if the Blazers went ahead and pulled the trigger on all your suggested acquisitions i feel comfortable saying i’d be pumped for next year. as it stands, though, i like this team too much right now to wish for that many big moves— i’m willing to wait another year or so for the team to leap into contender mode.
by grizzo on Jul 7, 2009 4:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Batum
Just wanted to point out that Batum as been on literally every 5-man list on here (I think). There’s a lot of disagreement on the fifth guy (Przybilla, Rudy, Bayless), but there is total consensus on the top 4.
Keep in mind that everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazers Edge.
by pualo on Jul 7, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I just read the first half of this post
and, unless I missed it, nowhere did I see Caron Butler in our new starting lineup. In KP’s place I would be doing everything possible to land Caron Butler including Batum, Fernandez, 2010 #1 pick and Joel Przybilla. Caron Butler is arguably better than Prince on offence, better than Hedo on defence, better than Wallace in reliability, better than Odom in chemistry and better than any SF currently on the Blazers. Get Butler. By the way, there is not consensus about the top 5, top 4 or even the top 3. Only Roy and Aldridge have proven themselves as key players.
by oregonslee on Jul 7, 2009 6:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and you would be a victim of a quantifiably bad decision
Butler was the anchor of a SF position that was inferior in net production to the Blazer group. As bad as the Wizards were last year, they were worse with Butler on the floor than when he was off. Yet, you would trade a superior defender, superior shooter, an above average big and a 1st round draft pick. Lovely.
by blacknoiseNW on Jul 7, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Butler isn't going anywhere
Enough, guys. It’s not happening.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jul 8, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 is too big a core i think
i’d call the core these 4:
roy, aldridge, oden, batum
batum probably shouldn’t be in the core with the other three but i just can’t get past the fact that i think he’ll be the next tayshaun prince. if the right deal comes along though for say caron butler or gerald wallace, trading batum makes sense.
anyone outside of these 4 should definitely be considered.
by colinmarsh on Jul 7, 2009 6:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
good stuff, dave
terrific article and right on the money. my personal solution is to first make a healthy 7-8 mil offer to millsap, knowing he’s worth it (compared to hedo and lee and gordon at 10), mostly so that utah has to match and really be screwed salary wise. they deserve it. then when utah matches, sign sessions and marvin williams to cut rate contracts in this market. still young, more experienced and rock solid.
we’re not going to win next year anyway, that would be one year to forge a new identity and then off to war as shaq, yao, kobe, duncan, kg, sheed, carter, start to fall apart.
hinrich and battier would be awesome addtions, as would prince and jason maxiell if you could pry them from detroit. they seem clueless at the moment.
by blazersunited on Jul 7, 2009 9:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have opinions!
Roy, LMA, Oden, Batum and Przybilla.
Przybilla isn’t a glue player – he’s like a freaking steel girder of a player. Maybe in a year or two, GO is ready to play 30-35 mpg and we don’t need him. Until then he is incredibly freaking essential and there is no way I even consider trading him for anything that anyone else would find reasonable.
I love Rudy, but he’s a way way better trade chip than Joel. Rudy is somewhat overrated (and no I’m not saying he’s hit his ceiling or can’t do this or that, he’s just thought of very highly) and I think Joel is still underrated. I hope he stays for at least a few years, but he is our best trade chip.
Batum is the future. I don’t even think there’s much risk on his potential. I’m in favor of playing him at least 20-25 minutes, starting or not – doesn’t matter. He has to play more. That means moving Outlaw (and if Martell can’t come back, signing or trading for a SF).
Bayless – I feel like we’ll give him a full year of playing consistent backup and then see, but if he is traded as part of solving our PG quandary, I’d go for it.
by austinpwnz on Jul 7, 2009 10:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is my core.
I’d gladly trade it for a kumquat.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 8, 2009 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Core group does not have to mean 5 players
I believe this is the worst post Dave has ever written.
Our core is seven deep… (in order of importance)
Roy
LA
Greg
Nic
Joel
Rudy
Bayless
With great support pieces and emergency back-ups
Bass (via free agency)
Blake
Travis
Pen
Mills
Give these guys a chance to fill and accept their rolls… In two years, it is a championship team, that is built to last.
by Rick_D on Jul 8, 2009 2:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
One more guy for support / injury emergency
Webster
by Rick_D on Jul 8, 2009 3:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.