Too Many Questions
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 1:27 AM PDT
474 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 Today's post contains a discussion of some of those assumptions and what has changed to make them no longer applicable.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 |
474 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