The Przybilla File
by Dave on Jul 9, 2009 2:10 AM PDT
140 comments
With all of the trade talk and playoff talk and general future talk going on, it's time to take a serious look at one of Portland's more important players, Joel Przybilla.
Przybilla's importance on the court is one of the more obvious things about this team. The Blazers won 54 games last year despite Greg Oden's injuries, inexperience, foul trouble, and what have you. The Blazers excelled despite being congenitally incapable of handling opposing screen plays. The Blazers rebounded like Portland teams of yore, being able to stand proud in the company of frontlines like Walton-Lucas-Gross and Duckworth-Williams-Kersey. All of this was due in large part to the contributions of Joel Przybilla. He shut down the lane. He cleaned up the boards. He spoke up in huddles. He stared down opponents. He even hit a bunch of his free throws for Pete's sake. The Blazers didn't have anyone quite like him.
Przybilla not only enhances the texture of the team, he fits into its context. He's a defensive rebounder and defender on a roster short of both. He's a pick-setter. He's a blue-collar worker. He's just the right kind of guy to set the bar for Greg Oden. He won't give up the starting job without a fight but when he does give it up he'll play just as hard off the bench. He's a great culture guy, a true professional who has done everything asked of him. As such he's a fine example for the team.
That's one definition of Joel's importance. Another is looming alongside of it, however.
In addition to being one of last year's biggest keys on the court, Joel is rapidly turning into one of this year's keys to roster movement.
The Blazers are going to be in the business of making moves this year. Every sign we're seeing is pointing that way. The timing is right. The cap space is right. The need is there. The list of players available to move, however, is fairly small. Most players on the roster are either too valuable or not valuable enough to trade. Przybilla is one of those in the middle ground. And of those, he's the only big man and one of the only players with a contract hefty enough to balance a move for a veteran with talent. Regardless of talent or roster context his name nearly automatically goes on the list of potential trade candidates for those reasons alone.
With the growth and evolution of the team we're also on the cusp of contextual changes. One is Greg Oden's eventual progression, which we've mentioned numerous times in conjunction with Joel's future value. The latest news about the Blazers possibly pursuing Paul Millsap heralds another such change. For the money he gets and the presumed talent he'll bring Millsap cannot play 15 minutes per game behind LaMarcus Aldridge for the next four years. It's possible that Aldridge could be traded, but the fact that Millsap was not the first option on Portland's plate would seem to contraindicate that. If sending LMA out was the plan a replacement power forward would have been the first thought of the summer, not the third. Eyeballs fall next on Przybilla. Millsap is not a center but he's a reasonable candidate for pairing with Aldridge on the court. The minutes he'd get would certainly be Joel's, at least when averaged out over time. Greg Oden may sit for stretches of a particular game but the Blazers are not going to give up on that experiment over the long haul. One can say, "You can never have too many big men" but a frontcourt with Oden, Przybilla, Aldridge, and Millsap just doesn't work long-term. Somebody's going to be sitting...an asset better translated into help at another position.
Perhaps the most important determining factor may be Joel's contract status. He has a player's option for 2010-11. We've heard that he's leaning towards opting out. That would make sense given the evolution we've just detailed. It would make even more sense considering that the summer of 2010 will probably include several bidders for free agents. Most will be after stars but some of those will walk away empty-handed. They're going to be looking to spend that money somewhere. Even with the forecast of impending cap Armageddon there's a chance that a legit center could make money next year. Opting out would mean that Joel is either hoping to get paid significantly more than the $7.4 million owed in his final year or he's looking to get paid longer. Either one could be an issue for the Blazers. Offering $10 million to Paul Millsap in the one year when you have use-it-or-lose-it cap space is one thing. Offering the same to Joel Przybilla as a reserve is another. You could tie up $20 million in your reserve frontcourt alone, and that's before you consider your max or near-max level starters at power forward and center. Tying up your entire basic cap filling two positions is not likely to pass the fiscal prudence test. Even if Joel doesn't opt out the Blazers would face this situation the season following. The only way they don't have to surmount this challenge is if Joel and his agent can't find anyone to offer him a multi-year deal at his current rate or higher. That seems improbable. And the higher you regard Joel the more improbable it seems.
At some point the Blazers may find themselves needing to get value out of Joel before he leaves or before his playing time diminishes. If he truly intends to opt-out after this season, that point may be soon.
The key question is, "At what point to the important trade factors surrounding Joel outweigh the important on-court factors?" I'm not certain that answer is clear yet. It will depend on two things. First, whether Portland can address its needs by other means, either free agency or trading other players or evolution of its own players. Odds are that some of that will happen but that holes will remain. Second, Joel's status will depend on Greg Oden's progress. Summer reports almost always paint rosy pictures. We won't truly know until the season nears. The organization might know sooner but I'm guessing they're in wait and see mode as well.
If the right offer came along I believe Portland might be willing to take a gamble on those issues now. I don't think it would be their first choice but I believe they could be talked into it. Judging by the lack of buzz and the ever-changing plans the offers don't see that good right now, however.
I'd guess that the Blazers will have no problem holding off until December, January, or maybe even February to make this particular decision, even if they know for sure they'll have to wrestle with Joel's contract issues come July. Oden's progress, and thus Joel's criticality, can be more fairly judged a couple months into the season. The trade prospects might be better then too. Portland could well look to raid a team who thought their season was going to go well but were disabused of that notion after eight weeks of actual play.
Either way, Pryzbilla's status, role, and possible involvement in trades will be one of the points of interest in the coming season. He might be the only guy on the team who's legitimately straddling the "sign him forever" and "trade him" lines. Only two things will definitively address this issue: Joel signing a contract extension or a trade going down. We may have to wait a while for either of those to happen.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
140 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Thanks for the late post, Dave.
Gives me something to stay awake to.
I love Przybilla, and I don’t want to see him go. Only case in which I’m okay with it is at the trade deadline, if GO has demonstrated that he is healthy, consistent, fouling less and playing better. Then we still have to get something danged good (probably a PG, cause I think Batum covers SF fine). I want to see him stick around at least for the rest of this year.
by austinpwnz on Jul 9, 2009 2:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So Joel is not a candidate to get some of those "banger PF" minutes?
Why not? Joel has the agility to match with most PF’s in the league. He has already played a few minutes alongside Oden. What would Millsap provide beyond what Joel does already? An additional 4pnts per 20 minutes? As Oden earns more minutes, won’t he be providing those points?
Because we have Joel the interest in a scoring SF like Turkoglu made sense. And likewise why Odom makes more sense than Millsap.
by renaissant on Jul 9, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no need for me to reiterate my position on this issue.
by AK1984 on Jul 9, 2009 2:26 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Every bit as much as Roy...
… Pryzbilla is the heart and soul of this Trailblazers team. Ultimately, he is not worth as much in NBA currency as Roy, of course. But he is among the upper tier players in the NBA whose worth for the intangibles exceeds his stat line.
1. He is the team enforcer. It was rarely mentioned last year, but when an opposing player took a cheap shot at a Portland player while Joel was on the floor, within a few seconds, the cheap shot player would be lying flat in the general vicinity of Joel, who would be looking somewhere else with an angelic countenance.
2. He was at the same time the trash-talk damper. While Joel occasionally (see #1) would need to get in the face of a player on the opposing team, when Joel’s teammates would edge toward trash-talking territory, Joel would get himself alongside his teammate and get the teammate’s head back into the team game.
3. Joel apparently is satisfied with playing behind Oden for the good of the team. In the later years of their careers, Tree Rollins and Diktembe Mutombo were pillars of their teams because, while they could excel while on the floor for limited minutes, they were happy to take less than half the minutes at their position and not fume while sitting on the bench for the remaining minutes. That is a rare quality in the NBA. Generally, players who give quality minutes want more time, and when they get more time, they want more time still, and if they don’t get it, they turn into bench/locker room cancers.
It is no secret why Joel succeeded in his pre-season goal of last year to play in all 82 regular-season games. The reason: Oden’s presence meant fewer games where Pryzbilla had to stay on the floor for 30 minutes. Joel is still a strong and durable player, but when he has to play a lot of 30-minute games, that is when he goes down with an injury. Moving all that weight around (his and the strong center he generally will be covering who will be leaning on him every time down the floor) takes a toll, and Joel really thrives when his minutes are kept in the 20 minute per game range.
Therefore, from a basketball point of view, although Dave’s other points are valid, he misses the mark with the comment, "Joel’s status will depend on Greg Oden’s progress. " Joel is the rare player who remains valuable even when the player in front of him in the rotation thrives. In fact, he is almost as valuable averaging ten minutes a game as he is when injuries, fouls, and game situations force him to play 30+ minutes per game. How many other players in the NBA have that quality? The only question is, therefore, a non-basketball one: can to Blazers afford to take up the salary cap space that the next renewal of Pryzbilla’s contract will demand? Can a player spending ten to twenty minutes on the floor on average be worth a fifth of the team’s total salary allocation? In Joel’s case, I think his overall worth justifies it.
by monkeysuncle on Jul 9, 2009 2:42 AM PDT reply actions 9 recs
Joel should be a Blazer forever
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jul 9, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whereas I can agree about Joel's trade value ...
… I just wonder about the wisdom of hacking one head off our two-headed monster center. He’s the BEST backup center in basketball and gives out second unit a backbone like no other possible could.
He’s THE culture guy.
He IS a veteran that plays and acts like a vet.
He’s exactly the kind of player we’d trade FOR (except he has very little offensive firepower).
I wish Joel had a little brother that was a Point Guard.
Rudyculize: The act of Rudy making others look slow, dim and generally oafish.
http://www.myspace.com/y5k
by Y5k on Jul 9, 2009 2:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If Joel is happy with his minutes diminishing as the year goes by then keep him.
However if we sign say, Millsap, it’s going to be hard to split minutes between the 4 and keep them all happy.
In a perfect world, they would be happy with 28/20 in both positions. The NBA world is far from perfect though.
I’m in the camp where I really do not want to see Joel go, but if the right deal comes along I think you take a chance on Oden and give up the Vanilla Gorilla (for good return only and only if we’ve got another legit frontcourt player, such as Sap.)
I do hope Joel is still a Blazer when I go to the opening game. Honestly, I would not be surprised with Joel saying that he’s fine with his minutes dropping. He really is that cool of a guy. At the same time, couldn’t fault him for wanting to play more.
When it comes down to it, I only want Joel traded if that’s what he wants.
If Joel is traded, can you imagine the reception he’d get at his first return to the Garden? Louder than any non Blazer has ever gotten I think.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 2:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He's easily the most popular Blazer
…since maybe Arvydas.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
by jamon51 on Jul 9, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep them all
and use them for different purposes:
Joel – for playing Big D against Big Skilled Bigs (Duncan, Shaq).
Millsap – for offensive purposes and hustle against weaker oposing front-courts.
Its not about playing time per/game. Its about playing in different games against different opponents.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 3:17 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
+1
Versatility.
Darwin (paraphrased): It is not the strongest organism that survives, but the most able to adapt.
Rudyculize: The act of Rudy making others look slow, dim and generally oafish.
http://www.myspace.com/y5k
by Y5k on Jul 9, 2009 3:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it depends on Joel
Would he accept that small defensive we-call-you-if-we-need role almost like Horry and Bowen did their last couple of years with Spurs?
He should be very loyal to all the organization to do it. But it would be SO GREAT if it will.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 3:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mention versatility
That to me is a big weakness for us.
Back Court – At the end of the game, Roy takes the ball up the court & the PG slides to the 2, essentially as a spot up shooter. While Blake is a good shooter, we don’t have anyone who can decently defend the 2 spot, if need be. This is one of the reasons I think McMillan would prefer a larger PG. Versatility between defending the two guard spots is very important & we don’t exactly provide it in spades. If Rudy is playing at the end of games(Roy, Rudy at the 1 and 2 respectively), sometimes we can get away with it, at other times Rudy can be a liability defensively against 2’s as well.
Front Court – A versatile front court, is why the Lakers won the championship. Two players specifically… Pau Gasol, not only effectively but can dominate both the PF & C positions. LaMar Odom, like Gasol, can play two positions(SF & PF) at a high level. These two players were the keys to their success. It allowed them to win with an inconsistent young center(Bynum) & place very average guards around Kobe(Fisher, Farmar & Vujacic). We don’t have someone who can play both the 4 & 5 nearly as effective as Pau Gasol, same goes with us not having an Odom type who can play both the 3 & 4. We don’t have near the versatility of the Lakers front court & that is why we need more production from our guards besides Roy.
Przybilla should not be mentioned in the same sentence as versatility, even though I just did ;)
Patience :)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jul 9, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with your comments about the L@kers
Having a front-court of Oden, LMA, and Milsap, with Pendergraph for limited minutes, would give us more flexibility.
We could go huge with all three guys on the court at the same time, or we could go small with LMA at 5, Milsap at the 4. LMA struggled when paired with Trout at the four, but Milsap is strong on the boards and a much better defender than Trout.
Ideally, we would need a low cost emergency back-up 5 in case of serious foul trouble or injury.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Instead of Millsap
Versatility wise(maybe not toughness), we would be better off in my opinion with an Odom or Diaw type backing up both the 3 & 4. Then find a guy who will be a developmental project center(to learn behind Przybilla & Oden), to eventually backup both the 4 & 5.
But if we went your route, I would not mind having Ryan Hollins as that "low cost emergency back-up 5 ".
Patience :)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jul 9, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Odom is 30, and has a reputation for taking a lot of nights off.
Millsap, 24, is a tireless worker, and a better fit in terms of age and chemistry.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Millsap will play 4
We still have Outlaw to sub at the 3 and 4 both if called upon. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 9, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy guards the 2
Blake guards the 1. They switch only on offense.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
by jamon51 on Jul 9, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait wait wait ...
… What I meant by versatility is that Przybilla offers an outstanding backup to Oden, a root that lets others grow around him. If you are talking about getting a more versatile backup center, ala Yao Ming (if he were not broken and not a backup), that’s fine, but those are rare birds.
I see LaMarcus blossoming into a end-of-the-game clutch shooter next year.
(book it?)
Rudyculize: The act of Rudy making others look slow, dim and generally oafish.
http://www.myspace.com/y5k
by Y5k on Jul 9, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything i wanted to say on the matter has already been said.
Joel truly is that rare kind of player, the team guy, the enforcer, the veteran and I would hate too lose him. If he has to be traded, at least wait until the season starts and we can see where Oden is in his development
Call Brandon Roy by his real nicknames: The Natural and Roybot. Lets put an end to "B-Roy"
by #7TheNatural on Jul 9, 2009 3:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
William Faulkner once said...
"In writing, you must kill your darlings"
I think the same holds true for NBA general managers.
Joel Przybilla is an awesome, incredible force. A true beast that any team would be happy to have and probably my second favorite player on the roster. At the same time I think it would be a terrible mistake for the Blazers not to trade him. There is currently (as far as I know) no playoff team that employs a postseason front court rotation with four legit bigs. Orlando is about to let one of theirs walk despite the fact they just made a finals appearance and are probably still the best team in the east.
Just like a good author knows when to sacrifice a great passage or line to make their book better, a good general manager knows when to sacrifice a great player to make his team better. At the end of the day Joel’s net value in a trade is probably greater than his value on the court. Signing Milsap would make the decision a no-brainer. A team with extreme depth in the frontcourt and a mediocre PG is not going to be better than a team with normal depth and an ideal starting PG.
It’s not about the player, it’s about the team.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 3:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but what Faulkner meant by that was ...
… if something is fabulous, but it throws off everything else, get rid of it.
Iverson is that kind of “darling.”
Z-Bo is that kind of “darling.”
Joel Przybilla is not.
Rudyculize: The act of Rudy making others look slow, dim and generally oafish.
http://www.myspace.com/y5k
by Y5k on Jul 9, 2009 3:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a fair opinion.
I happen to disagree.
Joel is fabulous player for sure. Unfortunately, keeping him could throw off our attempt to improve the PG spot. There are all only so many assets you have to trade and Joel’s value as the third or fourth big pales in comparison to his value as a trading chip to secure an ideal starting PG.
It would be the same thing if you had Chris Paul and Tony Parker on the same team. If you desperatly needed a center it would be silly to keep both those guys and not pursue a trade.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 3:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said it last night so there's no reason to say it again. But,
since the notion of moving Joel still persists here, I will say it again.
We can not afford to lose Joel.
Joel will opt out next summer (to maximize his $$$), we will match any offers, and he will choose to stay. We will match his best offer (we have Bird rights and will be way over the cap anyway) because Oden is forever going to be one twisted knee away from another micro-fracture surgery or an extended injury absence. Joel is almost indispensable to keep us afloat and still get to a good playoff position if we lose Oden for several months in the regular season. Plus we will always want to reasonably limit Oden’s minutes in the regular season, and his fouls will make certain of that for several more years anyway. We will need Joel for as long as he remains effective, and you can almost never get a backup center like Joel in a trade. Joel will choose to stay because the fans love him here, he will get more respect and adulation here than anywhere else, and there will be no criticism or expectation of him contributing more on offense than he already does. I suspect Joel realizes he has reached his potential and doesn’t feel a need to play 35 minutes as a starter. In fact, the less minutes he has to play the longer he can stay in the league and keep making a great living.
When I heard about the proposed deal for Millsap tonight, I was stunned. I see no way to get Millsap more than 18 minutes a night (with LMA playing 30 minutes at PF and perhaps 5 minutes at C). LMA isn’t a SF or an effective Center, and Millsap is neither a SF or a Center. This can only mean that LMA or Millsap (after Dec) would have to be moved. LMA is going to get a near max contract (from someone if not us) so it makes less sense to give Millsap $50M as LMA’s 18 minute backup than it would be to match whatever Joel can get. Oden MUST have a backup and we couldn’t find a better fitting backup than Joel at any price. We can get a backup PF much cheaper than $50M. My concern is that all of this is going to mess with LMA’s head. He is very determined to become an all-star, already feels like a 3rd wheel behind Roy and Oden, and I think he will demand to move if he doesn’t see the commitment from the Blazers. The rumored Millsap deal strikes me as panic by KP, and resembles Trader Bob collecting talent without considering what it does to the team chemistry.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 9, 2009 4:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Unless you thing Aldridge is going to be the next KG
You may as well throw our championship dreams out the window if Oden doesn’t pan out & we have to rely on Joel as a starter.
Patience :)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jul 9, 2009 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bigs
I’m just curious, how many true bigs have the successful playoff teams had in the last few years? LA seems to have plenty and Bynum isn’t reliable. Yao and Dwight Howard both had solid backups. The Celtics had a good rotation of bigs last year too. Beyond that I haven’t followed rosters and rotations well enough to know, I just wonder if having one true center (who is anything but reliable) and a couple 4’s is really enough.
I really don’t like the idea of LMA at the 5 again, not with our lack of rebounding and defense at other positions. He has good range but with our lineup of shooters I’d think we want a ‘banger’ inside, not another guy who can hit from the outside. And can you imagine what would happen to our offense if Oden gets into foul trouble, we shift LMA over to cover for him, and he starts fouling too? Pretty soon we’ll be sending Roy out there all by himself!
by JonathanPDX on Jul 9, 2009 4:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Three.
It’s always three, with one or two bench players getting garbage time minutes (less than 10mpg). It’s simply the best way to maximize your production. Occasionally teams go small to maximize matchups, just like we do with Outlaw, so not all the minutes are filled with true bigs either. Sometimes a small forward slides over to the PF spot. Batum, Outlaw, and Pendergraph could all play PF for short periods of time, so technically we would have five guys who could fill that spot and three guys who culd play center (Oden, LMA, Milsap). That’s a very deep rotation even without Joel.
LA: Gasol(40.5), Odom(32), Bynum (17.4)
Boston: Garnett(38), Perkins(25), Powe(11.5)
San Antonio: Duncan(36), Oberto(20), Elson(11.5)
Miami: Shaq(33), Haslem(29.5), Mourning (10.8)
Detroit: B.Wallace(40.2), R.Wallace(35), Okur(11.5)
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing with each of those teams
is that their “three bigs” almost exclusively exist of one guy who can only play C, one guy who can only play PF, and one guy who can swing between the two. Miami would be considered the exception, but during that year, Mourning was also making only $1 million. Some of the teams have more tweeners than pure centers, but exclusively there are no teams with multiple guys that can only play C.
It’s not that we don’t have three solid bigs right now, it’s that their makeup is all wrong to fill the minutes. Aldridge could fill that PF/C role, but there’s simply no way that Joel or Greg could play effectively together on a regular basis. I love Joel, but I would feel much better with a Millsap, Oden, Aldridge rotation up front than with a Aldridge, Joel, Oden rotation.
by Royster on Jul 9, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
There were times in the playoffs when the Blazers would have really benefited by being able to play Oden and Joel together. Unfortunately neither could play PF and it didn’t work well offensively. When Aldridge into into foul trouble it was a problem.
With Millsap, Oden and Aldridge you have a completely mixable three man rotation. Stick any two of those guys on the curt and you don’t hurt for offense or rebounding. There isn’t a playoff team in the West that could give you major problems with a front court of Millsap, Aldridge, and Batum. Those three guys are completely fine defensively against anyone so long as Yao stays injured and Shaq stays in the East.
I would almost trade Przybilla straight up for Millsap. Getting Millsap for nothing and having the option of moving Joel for a PG would be unbelievable.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Joel and Greg were actually somewhat liabilities
in that series. History had shown that going small on Houston was the way to throw Yao off his game, but because Frye was so terrible and Outlaw would get straight beasted by Scola and Landry we simply didn’t have that option. If you swap Millsap out for one of them then you can play a lineup with multiple guys who can hit a 15 footer and draw Yao away from the basket without automatically conceding domination on the boards.
by Royster on Jul 9, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need an Odom or Diaw type
Who can effectively backup both the 3 & 4.
Patience :)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jul 9, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gerald Wallace.
Who you could probably get for Joel and Outlaw. Przybilla is a Larry Brown type player and Okafor would be better off playing PF.
That team would be amazing and super deep. You would have like a billion lineup options.
Blake/Bayless/Mills
Roy/Rudy/Webster/Wallace/Bayless
Wallace/Batum/Webster/Roy
Aldridge/Milsap/Wallace/Pendergraph
Oden/Aldridge/Milsap
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ehh
Wallace is not “had-able” he is not on the block.
Patience :)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jul 9, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Says the Bobcats beat writer.
They also denied trying to sell the team. They also denied trying to trade Morrison.
Things happen.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes Sense
I see your point and the more I think about it, the more I like it. If there’s already a chance to lose Joel after this season then all the more reason to put something in place for the future. I’m a huge fan of Joel but you’re right, when Oden gets his fouling under control a guy like Millsap would be more useful.
I’d trade all Outlaws ugly jumpers (they go in, but it’s hard to watch) for some Millsap putbacks and offensive boards.
by JonathanPDX on Jul 9, 2009 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missing something here, I think
First, I should say that I don’t want to trade Joel unless it brings us a great player.
But I am NOT concerned about LMA at center for 10-15 mpg.
In the past, when we had Aldridge at center, we usually had Travis or Channing at PF. That meant that you had a rebounding deficit at both positions, at least on the defensive boards. That was a formula for trouble.
What Dave is suggesting is that, if Joel is traded, it would be because we have Millsap (or Lee) at PF. Now, LMA at center with Travis at PF is a rebounding nightmare. You wake up at night in a cold sweat after games where that happened.
But slide LMA to center and have Millsap next to him at PF? Sure, against some centers, LaMarcus will be somewhat overmatched, although usually that lineup would be against reserve centers. But Millsap would be superior on the boards to virtually every PF, especially reserve PFs.
An LMA/Millsap/Batum front line would be decent on the boards. Nic is going to be constantly improving on his rebounding as he gets older and builds strength.
And offensively, Millsap gives you an inside threat while Aldridge can either be in the low post on the other side or move out for the free throw line jumper to unclog the middle.
I’m not wanting to see Joel go, but an LMA/Millsap 5-4 tandem would be effective.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Jul 9, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Some of your fear about rebounding with LMA at center...
would be alleviated by the fact you would have Millsap on the floor with him. He is a post defender and a strong rebounder who can play in the post on offense as well. I don’t think you trade Joel if Bass is the guy but if you get Millsap it certainly begs the questions Dave is asking. A rotation of Aldridge, Millsap, and Oden would be more versatile and you would not run the risk of Millsap or Aldridge or both being unhappy.
Those reasons are not enough for me to be in favor of a Joel trade. The assumption would be that the trade brings in a veteran, starter quality SF or PG that makes the team better immediately.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Jul 9, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oregon-live reported
Millsap said he would play be OK playing behind LMA, so he is aware of less playing time.
hg
by BBK on Jul 9, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can LMA become a small forward.
Can you imagine having Rudy (pg), BRoy, LMA, Millsap and GO as a starting 5. who do you leave uncovered to dbl team. Oden would be the least effective offensive player unless you try to leave him like they did Joel. LMA is getting better at the 3. If not, we have BRoy and Rudy. To me that would be one awesome line-up.
This would be just for short spurts to give Millsap more minutes. You could have Millsap sub for LMA and LMA moves over to sub for Batuum. Than when LMA needs a breather you could either bring back Batuum or Martell or Travis or Cunningham.
hg
by BBK on Jul 9, 2009 5:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How LMA is supposed to defend opposing wings?
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 5:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good question
LMA does reasonably well at moving his feet when guarding smaller players on switches. Whether or not he could adequately defend most SFs is an open question. I think he could do well against SFs who don’t drive much. His length would be very bothersome to guys who live off jumpers. On the other hand, I think he would really struggle against someone like G Wallace who can take it to the rim. Again, his length would be an asset, but not if guys were totally blowing by him.
I do know that LMA would give the Blazers a huge mismatch on the offensive end. He could shoot over SFs with ease, and overpower them in isolation plays in the low post.
I think it could work in certain situations and match-ups, but doubt that it would work consistently. I think some experimentation would make sense.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 6:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My concern was D
I only meant that as short term to give millsap more time.
Regards to G Wallace, he can fly by everybody on our team. When he goes to the rim he still has Millsap and Greg to contend with. That is one heck of a wall.
I can see you could only do that with certain teams. We could also do that with our twin towers, instead of taking LMA out, move him to the three; you would still have the same effect. How about if you slide BRoy to pt and put Batuum, Travis or Martell as the 2?
I am getting carried away.
hg
by BBK on Jul 9, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
Other experiment could be quicker lineup with
PG (Kirk or Blake, whatever), Rudy, Roy, Millsap, LMA.
Terrible matchup for most opponents to guard too.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But its all works only in certain situations, sure.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Flexibility is a good thing. I like the thought of being able to go huge, or go small and fast.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Hope
is that we are in a similar position to that of the Orlando Magic in regards to Marcin Gortat at the end of this season. If Greg is able to fulfill his potential then we should hopefully be in a position where retaining as efficient and expensive a player as Joel would be unnecessary. This assumes that he does indeed opt out which I consider likely but not assured.
In an ideal world Greg’s ascension to the realm of legitimate starting center would occur so quickly that Joel can be seen as ancillary before the trade deadline and can be included in a deal with capspace and some other pieces for a transformational player. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Greg could instill enough confidence in the coaching staff/management in such a short time and it seems unlikely that we are going to be that patient with our capspace.
I would say scenario no.1has a 50% chance of happening while scenario no.2 is more like 1%.
by MadBlaze on Jul 9, 2009 5:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't taking that route mean that we get nothing for our most tradable asset?
That makes little sense to me. We either need to resign Pryz, or we need to trade him. Just letting him walk next summer seems like a no-no.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 6:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Asset maximization
Nice job, Dave. You did a really excellent job of illustrating the “Pryz conundrum.”
Almost everybody agrees that Pryz is a great fit for the Blazers.
The problem is three-fold:
1) Can we afford the cap room to pay him? Pryz is likely to opt out next summer. He is probably going to want a four or five year deal in the 8-10 million range. That is a lot of money to sink into a back-up who only plays one position. As an aside, the same could be said for Milsap, but Milsap is much more of an offensive force, and he is only 24, as opposed to Pryz being 30.
2) Can we afford to let him walk? Obviously, not. We either need to resign him next year, and deal with the cap consequences down the road, or we need to trade him before we run the risk of loosing him.
3) If we were to trade him, when would be the best time and circumstance in which to do so? We can’t trade Pryz unless we have an adequate back-up for GO.
If we sign Milsap, we have an interesting question, would LMA and Milsap be an effective front court pairing? I’m not sure. LMA has struggled as a “5,” when paired with Outlaw at the “4.” Our interior defense and rebounding deteriorated badly. However, Milsap is no Trout. Pairing LMA and Milsap might work well. LMA gives the Blazers a mismatch against most 5s, because he is so fast and can shoot so well from the outside. Milsap is a beast on the boards. A second unit of Bayless, Rudy, Martell, Milsap and LMA would be extremely quick. Clearly we would likely loose some of our rebounding dominance and weaken our interior defense, but our offense would be much better.
Pryz trade value is at its peak right now, but likely to decline fairly quickly as he gets past 30, and as his production declines with reduced PT. Pryz also had his first injury free year last year and that increases his value. If team management can land Milsap, it may very well make sense to trade Pryz now, from the stand point of maximizing our assets, even though it makes little sense to do so from a basketball point of view. If you can’t afford to re-sign him next summer, it makes sense to trade him now.
Of coarse, it depends on what the team could get in return. Seems obvious to me that we would need a quality starting PG for a deal to make sense. It seems extremely likely that Chicago would trade Hinrich for Pryz and Blake, with some sort of additional piece coming back from Chicago. Is that enough? I’m not sure. Could we do better for Pryz? I don’t know. How about Pryz, Blake, and Outlaw?
I do know that a basic principle of economics is “buy low, sell high.” Pryz will never have greater value than he has right now. At a minimum, we need to consider the possibilities.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 6:19 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Joel isn't going to leave us.
This is the perfect situation for him. He will opt out and get some nice big offers, so we will have to pay him more, but in the end he isn’t going to leave. If he went somewhere else with a big contract the fans and his new team will have higher expectations. Joel has to know he has reached the peak of his performance. If he stays here our expectations are that he simply continue to perform as he has in the past, but probably for less minutes each year as Oden matures. i.e. less pressure on him and he is comfortable here – else he wouldn’t have signed on again the last time he was a free agent. In fact, the less he has to play the happier we will be, because it means Oden is staying in games and staying healthy.
The less he plays the longer Joel can stay in the league, help us, and collect the big bucks. He is a rock solid 7’1" defender off the bench, which is a critical advantage to a championship team. You just don’t get many chances to acquire a guy like that. We may lose some offense when Oden is out, but we won’t lose our defense in the middle. When Oden gets in early foul trouble, Joel will be there for extra minutes that night. When Oden twists an ankle, Joel will be there for extra duty for a few weeks. And if Oden is out for several months during the regular season, Joel will help us not lose too much ground in playoff position until Oden is back. But when Oden can play the big minutes Joel will never complain and still give us 100% in his minutes. It’s a unique situation to have the center position covered like that. Joel will finish his career in Portland unless we do something stupid.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 9, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is all true.
If Millsap and Joel are happy being on a championship team with less minutes. We can keep them both.
hg
by BBK on Jul 9, 2009 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mention it above
Would he (Joel) accept that small defensive we-call-you-if-we-need role almost like Horry and Bowen did their last couple of years with Spurs?
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are missing my point, we may not be able to afford Pryz, and he may choose to leave.
I agree that Pryz is a good fit for the Blazers and vice-versa.
The point that I, and Dave, are trying to make, is that if Portland shells out $9 million for Milsap, we probably can’t afford to shell out another $8-10 million for Pryz, especially on the kind of five year deal he is likely to be looking for.
We are going to have $30 million/yr tied up in extending Roy and Aldridge. In 2012 we are going to need to resign Oden probably for near max money. Throw in Rudy, Bayless and Batum in 2012, and we are going to be in luxury tax hell for as long as the big three remain in Portland. Paul Allen has shown a willingness to subsidize a winner, but I am sure there have to be limits. Is he willing to pay $40 million in tax on top of operating the team at a loss? I doubt it. Besides, even if Allen is willing to incur losses of that magnitude, the team needs to fill out a roster and it will be tough to do if we are massively over the tax threshold.
Furthermore, I think you are underestimating the chances that Pryz might leave. If we have Milsap, and Greg progresses as expected (hoped), Pryz is looking at no more than 10-15 minutes of PT. Athletes are competitive, and Pryz may choose to go elsewhere for more PT. Your argument about why he would stay makes sense, but Pryz may not see it the same way.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we agree that we can't afford all four of the bigs.
So what does Millsap give us beyond the 10-12 minutes that LMA must rest? He is not a center (6’8). LMA’s strongest position is PF, definitely not center. So to play Millsap reasonable minutes (34-36) LMA must play out of position half of his minutes. So LMA’s play is weaker while he is at center (and he replaces a stronger Joel), and he is replaced by Millsap who is weaker than LMA at PF. We get weaker at center and PF. It’s a lose-lose.
Secondly, we have an exceedingly strong center combination now. If we get rid of Joel (someone has to go because we can’t afford all four guys), we are likely to end up with LMA playing center for extended periods of time because Greg is either in foul trouble or hurt. It is unacceptable to rely on LMA in those instances. So this is another loss.
The only gain, is that we get a backup PF for 10-12 minutes while LMA is resting on the bench. But the losses more than offset that gain. We can get a backup PF for those 10-12 minutes for less than $50M and still have some cap left to help out a trade for SF or PG.
If Millsap was big enough to play both center and PF, then he would be more valuable than Joel. But since he isn’t, Joel is the only one that we can rely upon to give us big minutes at center if Greg can’t. So unless one thinks that Millsap is a better player than LMA, and wants to trade LMA, I think this is bad move that will only create turmoil and bad chemistry, especially for LMA who is being asked to play out of position for what?
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 9, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are both 4/5's.
Pau Gasol plays center all the time and he’s not any more suited for it than Aldridge. Same goes for Chuck Hayes (6’ 5.5"), Jason Maxiel(6’ 5") Reggie Evans(6’ 7.5"), Al Horford (6’ 8.75"), Emeka Okafor (6’ 8.75"), Al Jefferson (6’ 8.5"), Ronny Turiaf (6’ 8"), etc.
Aldridge is taller than all those guys and matches up just fine with virtually every backup center in the West. Milsap played minutes at center for Utah and did exceptionally well, including defensively. He’s also the exact same height as Al Jefferson, who works just fine at center.
No one would be playing out of position.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does that mean you would trade Joel for Hayes, Maxiel, Evans, Horford, Okafor, Jefferson, Turiaf?
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 9, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
some of them yes.
Horford=yes
Okafor=yes
Jefferson=yes
Maxiel=no
Evan=no
Hayes=no
Turiaf=no
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See my comment to you about mismatches elswhere in this thread.
I hear you about Pryz, and understand your reluctance to see him leave.
But you must see that Millsap is a strong rebounder, a good defender, and a much bigger offensive threat than Joel. The guy averaged over 16 points/game when he started in place of Boozer. Millsap is a huge upgrade as a rebounder and defender over either Frye or Trout.
Just because LMA’s best position is PF, doesn’t mean that there may be advantages to using his skills elsewhere if it gives us an advantage.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand you see the possibility that LMA could play SF, but I don't agree that's a great idea.
LMA is certainly not a natural 3-4 swing player. He doesn’t have a 3-point shot, isn’t a strong passer, and he doesn’t handle the ball well enough to go around quick small forwards. His offense would be reduced to hoisting long 2-pt jumpers. He may be able to use his length to defend some small forwards, but the quick guys will get around him. All that said, I’m sure there would be favorable outcomes some times, but LMA is going to be most valuable when playing his natural position PF against slower, and often shorter PF’s. Surely you would agree with that?
I also agree that he can play center against smaller, or slower 2nd string centers, and that is effective and sometimes advantageous for 6-8 minutes a game. But if you get rid of Joel then LMA would have to play center at least 20 minutes a game (I can’t see Oden averaging over 28 minutes a game for at least another year or maybe two) and what do you do when Oden is injured for a couple weeks with a twisted ankle, or in those games when gets 2 fouls in the first 3 minutes and ends up playing 20 minutes for the whole game. So I simply don’t believe you can use LMA as a full time backup center, and Millsap is worse than LMA as a center. Hence, trading Joel is not an option because Oden hasn’t done anything to suggest that he can be a 35 minute per game center for 70 games a season yet. Joel is a necessary insurance policy, but he is also the best backup center in the league, in my opinion.
Aside from that, what does Millsap actually give us besides backing up LMA for 10-12 minutes a game? I would rather have Joel’s rebounding and defense at backup center than LMA’s scoring at backup center. So when LMA has to move to center (in place of Joel) to make room for Millsap to play another 20 minutes a game, we lose effectiveness at center, in my opinion. And when Millsap takes those minutes from LMA at PF, we also lose effectiveness at PF because I believe LMA is a better PF than Millsap. So by making those 20 minutes for Millsap we lose at both PF and Center, vs LMA and Joel at their natural positions. i.e. Millsaps only net positive benefit is the 10-12 minutes he plays at PF when LMA must rest on the bench, and he is a net negative for the other 20 minutes he plays. It isn’t that Millsap is a bad player, it’s that I believe we already have a better PF and we have almost the best possible fit at backup center in Joel. I’m also almost certain that there will be trouble (with LMA) if we try to push him around to make room for a guy to replace him at his natural PF position. LMA wants badly to be an all-star and he isn’t going to get there playing a lot of time at SF or Center.
I’d much rather get Bass (we should have went after McDyess who signed with SA for only $5M/3yrs) for about $25M to back up LMA at PF and use the remaining $5M in cap space to help facilitate a trade for a SF to replace Trout, or another PG.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 9, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What a point?
I also agree that he can play center against smaller, or slower 2nd string centers, and that is effective and sometimes advantageous for 6-8 minutes a game. But if you get rid of Joel then LMA would have to play center at least 20 minutes a game (I can’t see Oden averaging over 28 minutes a game for at least another year or maybe two) and what do you do when Oden is injured for a couple weeks with a twisted ankle, or in those games when gets 2 fouls in the first 3 minutes and ends up playing 20 minutes for the whole game.
So why we couldn’t KEEP THEM ALL? All 4 guys? For that exactly purpose! To have flexibility and depth…
If we have Oden for 30 min we better have Millsap backing up both PF-C positions. If not – we should use Joel more that given night.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anybody have an analysis of this?
LMA has struggled as a "5,"
Are there any stats on how Aldridge has done while playing center?
Aside from that, I think you make a good point that Aldridge at 5 and Millsap at 4 could be a stronger combo. Also coaching decisions would make a difference — don’t play Aldridge at center against Shaq, but do play him in situations you know he can handle.
by Kaboomm on Jul 9, 2009 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like against Dallas last year
Wonder how Aldridge will be able to hold him self against the polish hammer.
Patience :)
by TheGreatDane17 on Jul 9, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oden and injuries
I’d like to see Oden play 70+ games before I let Joel go.
The Blazers can also trade Millsaps in the middle of the season. Since he’s their third or fourth choice, perhaps they see him as an asset rather than a core piece.
by PoliSam on Jul 9, 2009 6:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
wouldn’t he be BYC and thus difficult to trade?
draft the stache
by Cablinasian on Jul 9, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard they were going to front load the deal potentially to scare off Utah.
Is this not possible?
Yes! Yes! In the face!
by LeafHawk on Jul 9, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The CBA allows a 17.5% signing bonus. Yeah, Utah would be scared off.
Millsap would still be difficult to trade due to Base Year Compensation restrictions. Basically, if a player gets a big raise, then it’s hard to trade them until the next fiscal year.
draft the stache
by Cablinasian on Jul 9, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this year, next year, whenever
I think the minutes issues are not that big of a deal for one season. Long term, Millsaps would want more than 15-20 minutes, but I’m sure he’d live with a smaller role for one season.
by PoliSam on Jul 9, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's take our 2nd best player, who is on the cusp of becoming an all-star PF,
and have him play about half of his minutes (18) out-of-position at SF, where he lacks ball handling, 3-pt shooting, and defensive quickness, so we can bring in a less-skilled PF and get him 30 minutes. OK, maybe not. So lets take our budding all-star PF and play him out-of-position at center, where he has less size, toughness, and rebounding skills than our best-in-the-league backup center, so we can bring in a less-skilled PF and get him 30 minutes. Yeah, that’s a plan.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 9, 2009 7:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Aldridge can play center easy.
He would be playing against 2nd unit centers for playoff teams in the West, which include:
Pau Gasol
Chris Anderson
Brandon Bass
Antonio McDyess
Chuck Hayes
Hilton Armstrong
Mehmet Okur
No one would have to play out of position. It would not be a problem.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, lets talk it
So we basically have 48+48=96 mins for 4 guys, right?
Lets give LMA his 36 mins. 96-36=60 to spend.
Millsap gets 12 mins right under LMA. 60-12=48 to spend between Oden, Joel & Millsap.
If Oden can handle 30 mins – we don’t need Joel at all (I mean leave him on the bench that geven night). Millsap gets 48-30=18 additional minutes (12+18=30 combine) to produce great numbers Joel couldn’t give us by any circumstances.
If Oden failed or we have bad matchup (Duncan, Shaq, etc) – Oden plays less, Millsap plays less. Joel gets his minutes.
We’ll have GREAT flexibility there. Also we would be well injury-protected.
Rudy & Nic
by k04a on Jul 9, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention Pendergraph...
or the fact that McMillan talked to Batum about playing minutes at PF in the second unit.
Last season’s playoffs broke down like this:
I think Oden can easily handle 30 minutes a game, especially since he wouldn’t have to guard Yao. Even without Przybilla we would have 5 potential PF, and 3 guys who can play center. That’s incredibly deep.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oden can handle 30 minutes a game
but he can’t stay on the court that long anyway.
by MavetheGreat on Jul 9, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An in-shape Oden, with whatever improved perimeter defense Pryz brings us
should be able to stay on the court for 30. If the theoretical pryz trade doesn’t bring us improved perimeter defense I would be against it as well, but improved D = less guys getting to Oden = less fouls.
by Terminator X on Jul 9, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Improved perimeter defense?
I’d say that’s far from a sure thing. The current rules favor quick guards so much that there are very few guys in the league who can stay in front of their man consistently without fouling. Oden will foul this season nearly as much as he did last season.
by MavetheGreat on Jul 9, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true.
It’s not about stopping your guy. It’s about moving him into help defense, making him go left, taking his favorite spots away, etc.
Improving the perimeter defense is probably the easiest way to help Oden stay out of foul trouble.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you, but I think you are oversimplifying
NBA ball is all about mismatches.
Experimenting with LMA at SF in certain match-ups has real potential. LMA would be able to shoot over almost all SFs with ease. He would also be able to overpower them in the post. How well he could defend SFs is an open question. He moves his feet pretty well. He probably couldn’t hand with SFs who drive the ball well, but his length would likely bother a lot of guys.
Likewise, LMA is a mismatch for most opposing centers, he is simple way too fast. Playing LMA in a smaller line-up of LMA, Milsap, Rudy, Martell, and Bayless would be interesting. That is an extremely fast group that would be good at increasing the tempo.
Line-up flexibility is a good thing. It gives Nate options when the opposing teams defense is giving us trouble. It gives us ways to respond to injuries.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another Take
After the Blazers brass lost out on Turkoglu, they tried to trade for a SF. The logical candidates = Prince (Detroit), Battier (Houston), Wallace (Charlotte), and Butler (Washington). What would each of those teams want in return? Detroit has Kwame Brown as its center (that’s it!). Houston doesn’t have a center (Yao is out). Charlotte has Okafor (who is better suited to play PF) and a bunch of stiffs (Diop, Mohammed and Ajinca). Washington has Hayward. To trade its SF, each of these teams wouldn’t even start talking about a trade without Pryzbilla being involved. The Blazers brass now knows (if they didn’t know beforehand) that they will have to trade Przybilla if they want to acquire a SF on their list. To set up the trade, they need to acquire a third big, which brings us to Milsap.
by Turnout on Jul 9, 2009 7:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sounds about right
1) Team management seems focused on trying to get a better starting 3. Hopefully, that is not a sign that Martell’s foot is not healing.
2) It is possible that they have a plan for a trade to upgrade the 1, after the first transaction is finished, but there have been rumblings that suggest they are not really prioritizing the 1. Hopefully that means they have a lot of confidence in Bayless as the eventual starter, sooner rather than later.
3) Having failed to get Turkoglu, they seem to be focusing on the other need which is a back-up power forward who would fit into the front-court rotation in a way that would make a Pryz trade possible.
4) As you suggest, Pryz is by far the most valuable trade asset we have outside of the young’ins the team seems unwilling to trade. Pryz seems to be the price of a solid starting 3, or perhaps a starting PG that we don’t know about.
by upper left corner on Jul 9, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Front line versatility
As other have noted — Love Joel, but ideal would be to have a third big that can play both PF and C. McDyess would have been a good target. Wonder if we tried for him.
The Hedo (a big SF) move offered other front line match-up options, when one of the bigs was resting. Sliding LMA over to center and Hedo as PF when Greg was resting, or sliding Hedo to PF when LMA was resting. [Something like what we all wished Travis would be].
Depending on which big we get, both Joel and Travis’ role on the Blazers could shrivel away. For the right player I could see us trading them both away. As intangibles: Joel gave us heart, toughness and nastiness; and Travis gave us 2nd unit and fourth quarter scoring. Would look for these intangibles as well in whoever we targeted.
by FromAfar on Jul 9, 2009 7:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If we do indeed sign a big I have no doubt Travis will be leaving us.
Unless Webster is much farther from coming back than we think. At this moment Martell has virtually no trade value, so it would have to be Travis. I just hope teams wouldn’t demand Batum. This is assuming we go for a PG.
Another deal obviously would be a starting SF upgrade, in which case I also see Outlaw being the main piece.
As for Joel, like I’ve said I do NOT want to trade him. But if we sign Millsap and the right deal is out there for us I say it’s probably best to go for it. Joel deserves better than playing garbage time minutes, unless he insists that he’s ok with his playing time being low most nights assuming all goes well with Oden.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Package of Joel + Travis + $9M of imbalance = $20M to work with
Travis’ can be waived next year. Add $9M of imbalance into the mix, and the partner team could shed up to $13M in 2010 salary. There’s got to be some teams out there who would send us the right players adding up to $20M. Getting Joel and Travis in return is not shabby either.
Maybe Tyson Chandler + someone (say MoPete or Posey) from the Hornets?
or Jamison (defense cant be worse than Hedo’s) + someone (DeShawn Stevenson) from the Wizards?
by FromAfar on Jul 9, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we don't have $9 million if we're signing Milsap
by boppitywop on Jul 9, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats right.
This would have been pre-Millsap (assuming we actually get him);
or could be post-Millsap if Utah matches.
by FromAfar on Jul 9, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
McDyess?
McDyess is 6’9". Millsap is 6’8". Why would one kill us at C and the other be acceptable (assuming we’d be putting them up against substitute centers, not Duncan/Howard types)?
by Garfield on Jul 9, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I follow
Dont have a problem with either Millsap or McDyess. McDyess was a free agent and was available, wondered if we tried for him. Millsap is RFA and it might cost us a lot to put a package that is out of reach for Utah to match.
by FromAfar on Jul 9, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps I misunderstood you
It looked to me like you were suggesting Millsap was not a player who could play PF/C and McDyess was, and I just wanted to point out that they’re basically the same size (and both would have problems against the taller Cs in the league).
by Garfield on Jul 10, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the deal..
Hoping for Oden to be a double-double guy and avoid foul trouble this season is asking a lot. But that’s basically what he needs to show the Blazers before you even discuss the idea of trading Joel mid-season. So, as the article implies, an aweful lot of Portland’s future depends on GO more than anyone else on the team.
by halo_on on Jul 9, 2009 7:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't really think it's asking too much for Greg to start racking up double doubles in 25-28 minutes a game.
This summer he’s actually got to work on leg conditioning. Something he really couldn’t do last summer. He’s going to be faster, more nimble and better with his footwork this year.
Something like 12/10/2/2 is not asking too much from him. Especially if Bayless, Roy, and/or Steve have been or will be working on running the PnR this summer, specifically with Oden I hope once training camp/practices begin.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Signing Milsap equals Pryzbilla eventually leaving...
the Blazers. Am I right? Can’t see how we can have both guys with near 10 mil. per season of salary. Probably better to have a backup PF who can play some center, than a backup who can’t really play some PF.
Great article Dave, thanks for the insight!
by fgblazerfan on Jul 9, 2009 8:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The way I look at it, Aldridge at 10-15 minutes of center is not going to hurt this team.
It’s not uncommon at all for teams to play their starting PF at C for spot minutes.
Boozer did it at Utah and it worked despite him being a much worse defender than LMA. Why did this work? The same reason it would work here. His PF was Paul Millsap.
Aldridge has legit center height, couple him with Millsap and we’d be perfectly fine. It’s not like there are many centers out there that we really need to worry about against Aldridge. If we get back post concussion Aldridge I would have no worries with him at center. He’s a good defender.
As for Millsap, the guy can defend against bigger guys. I mean, he’s blocked a Shaq dunk head on. How many guys can say that? Especially at his size.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
trade
Trade pryz? Sure, if you can get Chris Paul for him.
by lsjogren on Jul 9, 2009 8:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Its like people don't even read the post, just the headline.
No one has disputed that Prz makes huge, important contributions to the team.
The questions are:
Will he opt out at the end of this year?
If he does opt out, will he cost too much for his age / role on the Blazers, causing us to get nothing in return?
Does offering him in a trade now enable the Blazers to patch a bigger hole than the one left by him?
I think it depends on the parameters of the trade (obviously) but you have to consider pretty much everything when you’re trying to construct a championship team.
by Free Bayless on Jul 9, 2009 8:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, if Przybilla becomes unhappy due to low minutes it's better to get something than nothing.
If Oden reaches even half of his potential Przybilla becomes less and less valuable to us. Not to other teams though. If we risk trying to resign him to play a limited role he might get more money and playing time elsewhere.
My feelings will remain as that it’s more up to him. If he really says he’s happy then keep him. If he’s concerned about his playing time and feels like it’s time he moves on then do whats good for both him and us and make a trade.
I don’t think there’s a single Blazer fan who WANTS Joel to go, but it’s important to consider the possibility if we do indeed sign a guy like Millsap. And even without a signing, if Oden breaks out Joel’s role gets smaller and smaller, something people need to remember.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a long season.
Even if Oden’s play improves dramatically, wear and tear on his body is a major concern during the regular season. Joel will get his minutes. Milsap is not a center and LMA doesn’t have the bulk to play center except when the Blazers are going small.
by Benjamanic on Jul 9, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about his emotional attachment to the team?
I’d wager that he likes it in Portland and won’t demand a contract that could hurt the team’s ability to be a serious contender.
by Benjamanic on Jul 9, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd guess his ability to take care of his family by maximizing his limited years of earning would trump team loyalty.
But its really just a guess, we don’t know what he’ll do.
by Free Bayless on Jul 9, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep the big lug!
and trade for a PG instead. Something like this: http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=km62sj
by swellsort on Jul 9, 2009 8:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Przybilla is the man.
This is the hardest of all dilemmas because there is no one on this team that best personifies all that is The Blazers. We all want the best for Joel and if that means him going out and trying to get a huge contract next year, so be it. However, I would not put it past Joel to once again put the team above himself, and winning above money (more money, that is). Nothing would make me happier than if the Blazers reached a lifetime agreement with Joel that allows him to retire as a Blazer without breaking the bank.
He is a character guy that you could put your trust in and know you would not get burned. I will tell you one thing. If I were going to war, I would want this guy in the trenches with me.
by mlsinpdx on Jul 9, 2009 8:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Joel is a great long term fit...
…other than the money. As Oden improves and his minutes grow, Joel’s will decrease as his age increases. Along the way, even as a backup, Joel will be a vital part of this team’s run at multiple championships. We gotta keep him if he wants to stay.
by mlsinpdx on Jul 9, 2009 8:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
one thing about it
As far as Joel’s trade value being maximum right now: It is true that as players get older they eventually are no longer an asset and they may get a good offer elsewhere to play out the later years of their career, in which you don’t get to benefit from the last years of their career.
On the other hand, that is a fact of life with all players. As time goes on, at some point the player is no longer an asset.
The Blazers are in the unusual situation this year in that their only players they are losing toa ge or free agency are ones that they aren’t particularly interested in keeping anyway.
But we should keep in mind that is an unusually fortunate situation. And, they also have the good fortune that in the future when they lose good players to retirement or free agency, if all these young players they have pan out to a reasonable degree, well they will pan out to a reasonable degree.
So, it does make sense to consider trading your good players when their trade value is at its highest, but there are a lot of factors that point toward keeping a guy like Pryz.
It makes sense to some degree to look out to the longer term future. But it also makes sense to pay most attention to the immediate future. In other words, “one season at a time”.
Pryz was a huge contributor last year, and there is every reason to believe he is nearly as crucial to the team next year as last. I think that is what has to carry the most weight.
by lsjogren on Jul 9, 2009 8:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
whoops
geez
And, they also have the good fortune that in the future when they lose good players to retirement or free agency, if all these young players they have pan out to a reasonable degree, they will have a competitive playoff team for years to come.
by lsjogren on Jul 9, 2009 8:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bigs get injured. Trading him is a bad idea.
Losing Joel Przybilla would not make our team better. We don’t yet know whether Oden will remain healthy or whether Pendergraf (Sp?) is legit. It is a strong possibility that the Blazers lose a big to injury for a significant stretch of the season.
What back-up big could fill Joel’s shoes? Players who could possibly do so include Gortat or Dalembert; Gortat has been signed and Dalembert has a rep as a d-bag. Good centers are in short supply and it’s unlikely that a team would be willing to part with one.
Joel is good enough to start on some teams and did an excellent job as a starter. Plus there are the intangibles he brings. I think Joel is the heart and soul of this team and would be extremely disappointed to see him wearing another uniform.
by Benjamanic on Jul 9, 2009 8:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Really, which is better: value to the team's actual play or trade value?
I’d pick the former.
by Benjamanic on Jul 9, 2009 8:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But there comes a point in some cases...
in that the value to the play drops significantly for the team who has the player compared to the value to the team that wants the player.
The better Oden gets, the less valuable Pryzbilla’s play becomes for us, and the more valuable he becomes in a trade for us.
And yes injuries happen but you sign real cheap guys for injury insurance. Przybilla is better than that.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But where do you get cheap bigs whose play is decent? You get what you pay for.
They’re not having good luck with getting free agents in spite of 54 wins and the PTBs don’t need more rookies.
by Benjamanic on Jul 9, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Throw ins with a trade, undrafteds, salary swaps.
No team needs rookies, but sometimes they can be the answer. All of this really depends on whether or not we land Millsap though.
And I do see your point and understand it. Millsap helps the team though. To play him you have to take away minutes from Aldridge, and let Aldridge grab some minutes at center which he can certainly do against most teams in the league, especially with Millsap in there with him. If we count on Oden getting up to 28-30 minutes a game then Przybilla becomes more and more expendable when his small role can be filled by a lesser player.
I don’t like trading away players because they’re “too good” but in Joels case unless he is happy doing that the guy will be so much more valuable to another team than us. I’d prefer keeping him believe me, but his value for us drops and with teams like Houston needing a guy like him infinitely more than we would his trade value jumps big time. So if you can get something for him now rather than nothing later you have to consider it.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose you're right, but there would need to be a decent backup center in the deal to merit serious
Conventional wisdom is that you don’t trade big for small.
by Benjamanic on Jul 9, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right as well.
Any replacement wouldn’t be as good as Przybilla as far as a center goes. It’s just that assuming we sign Millsap and all goes well with Oden there’s less and less to replace for us at Przybilla’s role.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
grass
“He’s exactly the kind of player we’d trade FOR (except he has very little offensive firepower).”
Something I hope the blazer brass keep in mind. I’m sure it’s hard to avoid the “greener grass” syndrome.
by lsjogren on Jul 9, 2009 8:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to keep everyone.
I like our players a lot. The problem is that the Blazers’ are trying to win games. I agree, trading Joel to simply free up space is a terrible idea. The depth at Center is worth having. But if given the option between a backup center who will average 12 minutes a game or a clear cut starting SF or PG, I think it would be wiser to go for a clear cut starter. Having a good starter is more important than having insurance on the bench.
So don’t trade Joel because of minutes, or because of logjams. If there is going to be a trade, get a player who will contribute what this team needs. Wish I knew who that could be though.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Jul 9, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
one other thing
As I understand it, in 10/11 Pryz has the option to play one more year or sign with another team.
If the Blazers trade him, the team that acquires him will likewise only have a lock on him for one year as well, right?
So, to the extent that his long-term value to the Blazers may be limited by the fact that he is only committed to one more year, then his long-term value to another team would be limited by that very same issue.
So would that not mean that people may be overestimating his trade value?
On the other hand, if he were traded to a team to be its starting center, then they might be in a position to be more confident that they could afford the large salary they might have to offer him in order to re sign him.
by lsjogren on Jul 9, 2009 9:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
If he’s getting 10 minutes a game here it’s hard to imagine he’d jump at the opportunity to resign here for what he would be worth to us, which would not be much if things work out the way people are discussing in this thread.
However, if he goes to a team who really needs his services because they don’t have an Oden or LMA or Millsap* then both he and the organization could have much more confidence that they could get a deal done that satisfies both parties.
by Bskey on Jul 9, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pryz is Untouchable
I say they only way he leaves the Blazers is if he asks to go. He is too valuable for on the court play, leadership, and toughness. Not to mention off the court character. Remember, he signed here because he and his family like Portland. It’s not all about the money with Joel.
by byodensbeard on Jul 9, 2009 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dave,
It seems like you are talking yourself into a lot of things these days. What gives? I can hardly read your posts anymore.
by MavetheGreat on Jul 9, 2009 9:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If I remember correctly.
He’s been mulling the idea of trading Joel since we drafted Oden. Joel probably won’t be resigned in two years anyway so it makes some sense.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
and things are now beginning to come to a head. The Blazers are going to have to choose whether Joel is in their long-term plans or whether they want to trade him and get value out of him. Letting him potentially for nothing walk doesn’t make sense so if they’re not prepared to offer a significant contract they have to look at the options available.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 9, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't ask me
what’s up with the Yoda sentence in there.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 9, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still
Oden still has at least another year of weaning to go before he can stay out of foul trouble long enough to not handicap us if we don’t have a legitimate backup. He was in foul trouble nearly every game off the bench last season. To think that he will have made vast improvements in that over the offseason is drinking some extra strength kool-aid. Further, we wouldn’t have been talking about Joel’s importance how we have if he his minutes hadn’t been anything but excellent.
I don’t think whatever benefit from trading Joel we get outweighs the cost of the hole at the center position he leaves. Maybe in a couple years when Oden has gotten his legs under him, but not yet.
by MavetheGreat on Jul 9, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Milsap is a legit backup center.
Just like other undersized guys like Jason Maxiel, Al Jefferson, Brandon Bass, Chuck Hayes, etc. There is no Western conference center besides Bynum that would give him significant problems in the playoffs. In fact, the overall production from a borderline all-star like Milsap is probably greater than a one dimensional defense player like Przybilla. The lack up flexibility in the front court hurt us in the playoffs last year. We would be better off having one true 5 and two 4/5’s.
If Oden can get one less foul a game he can probably stay on the court at least an extra 8 minutes. That alone would put him at enough minutes to make Joel obsolete. Adding a defensive minded PG, or another wing stopper would improve the perimeter defense enough that Oden probably wouldn’t be faced with the same foul problems anyway. A lot of Oden’s problem was trying to stop guys who had blown by Blake, Sergio, Rudy, and Roy.
Shore up the perimeter defense and a lot of Oden’s foul trouble disappears.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you in theory
But the Rondo’s of the league weren’t just blowing by our guys last year, they were blowing by everyone. A lot of their troublesome penetration comes from pick and rolls. I’m not sure Hinrich or anyone else will solve that problem.
by MavetheGreat on Jul 9, 2009 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it will solve everything.
But it should help. Oden just needs to cut one or two silly fouls a game and everything will be fine.
If having a good defensive PG didn’t matter then Nash would have won a ring by now and people would be dying to get their hands on Monta Ellis. Why not have Blake just wait at the other end of the court if he doesn’t contribute on defense anyway?
And to clarify, I think trading Joel only makes sense if the Blazers swing some sort of deal for Milsap. Otherwise I would be happy to keep him forever. The fact that Milsap is the Blazers second choice probably indicates they were planning on keeping Joel, but you got to roll with the punches.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 9, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In a couple years
Oden should be ready and the hole Joel leaves will be less significant. I’m not sure his departure is a sure bet anyway. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t he offered more money a couple years ago, but chose to stay with us?
by MavetheGreat on Jul 9, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as "The Real Greg" hasn't arrived yet, Joel will be going nowhere. And even then it's questionable.
KP constantly includes him in the list when he talks about players who bring veteran experience to the team. With him gone for whatever other positional upgrade, the next best options to play center are LaMarcus (that will happen from time to time in a small lineup like it did last year), Pendergraph (who at 6’10"" the Blazers have listed as a PF/C if you look at our summer league roster), and maybe an emergency center like the yet to be acquired Millsap/Bass or one of our summer league candidates (Akindele/Padgett/someone to be invited to training camp). That sounds workable, but really isn’t if Greg should go down with injury even if it’s just another sprained ankle or bruised knee for three weeks. Then your backup’s backup gets major minutes, and that is when it gets dangerous, especially when he plays on the wrong position.
As much as Joel might have trade value (judging from some reactions I think his value is higher to us than to most other teams), he can’t be let go right now. The free agent market for younger quality centers has been all but swept empty (Gortat to the Mavs, Pachulia back to the Hawks, Varejao back to the Cavaliers). The Blazers didn’t draft a real center (as said above I would qualify Pendergraph as a reserve option, but not for the first backup spot) or look to acquire one, so moving a center that was not part of their plan going into the summer. The Blazers might want to bring back Raef as another big backup PF/C, but that would be a pretty weird move and nothing to really rely your backup strategy on.
So in short, I don’t see Joel on the move. If he opts out next year, that is a risk the Blazers have to face then and reevaluate the situation. I like Millsap, but that he is a bit too good and too expensive to be playing 15-20 backup minutes at PF is part of the assessment the Blazers need to make. If they feel that is overkill, they should go with Bass or accept that someone won’t play as much as his salary would suggest.
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 9, 2009 9:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Great thoughts
I agree. I do not see Pryzy going this year with or without Millsaps. Greg isn’t ready. He has a long way to go defensively. He has not proved he can play extending minutes when healthy. He has not proved he can play a season while healthy. LaMarcus and Millsaps are still developing defense players. Without Joel, it’s very unlikely that the Blazers will be able to compete for the title in the West next year. If moving Joel makes sense for maximizing the long term value of the roster, then just move him later.
Also, isn’t the concern about Joel opting out a bit overdone? It doesn’t seem like anyone walks away without the team getting something. More importantly, given the financial situation facing the league when Joel would be facing the opt-out decision, I’m not sure he could get more money on the open market. In other words, I don’t see his trade value depreciating at an unacceptable rate.
I can see Joel be traded next off-season or the one after that, but not this one.
by PoliSam on Jul 9, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would we get rid of billa?
Joel is the ultimate bangger he gets the job done no matter how hard he has to work. Joel is the rock and glue of this team. We could not have done nearly as much last season if we didn’t have Joel. There is no reason to throw away what Joel brings to the table because no one that we can get now has the heart, leadership capabilities, and backbone that Joel has.
by true2trout on Jul 9, 2009 12:32 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Unless G.O. is allowed 12 fouls next year....
Why screw up the best center tag team in the game? For what, another small forward?!? They don’t have enough at that spot as it is?? Sending Joel out of town would be a huge mistake HUGE! Gets my blood boiling just thinking about it! GRRRRR
2-4 the who
by 24thewho on Jul 9, 2009 12:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
