Weekend Trade Drawer!
Because it's been a long amount of time since anybody has posted some cockamamie trade proposal, I've decided to reignite this simmering flame by fueling the fire with my following four-team, eleven-player trade proposal.
FROM CHICAGO
Kirk Hinrich ($9,500,000)
Outgoing Salaries: $9,500,000
FROM NEW JERSEY
Trenton Hassell ($4,350,000)
Brook Lopez ($2,255,880)
Outgoing Salaries: $6,605,880
FROM OKLAHOMA CITY
Nick Collison ($6,250,000)
Outgoing Salaries: $6,250,000
FROM PORTLAND
LaMarcus Aldridge ($5,844,827)
Steve Blake ($4,000,000)
Travis Outlaw ($3,600,000)
Jerryd Bayless ($2,143,080)
Victor Claver (Draft Rights) {$1,012,900 Cap Hold}
Joel Freeland (Draft Rights) {$824,200 Cap Hold}
Petteri Koponen (Draft Rights) {$824,200 Cap Hold}
Outgoing Salaries: $15,587,907
TO CHICAGO
Steve Blake ($4,000,000)
Victor Claver (Draft Rights) {$1,012,900 Cap Hold}
Joel Freeland (Draft Rights) {$824,200 Cap Hold}
Petteri Koponen (Draft Rights) {$824,200 Cap Hold}
Incoming Salaries: $4,000,000
TO NEW JERSEY
LaMarcus Aldridge ($5,844,827)
Travis Outlaw ($3,600,000) {Acquired With Trade Exception}
Incoming Salaries: $5,844,827
TO OKLAHOMA CITY
Trenton Hassell ($4,350,000)
Jerryd Bayless ($2,143,080)
Incoming Salaries: $6,493,080
TO PORTLAND
Kirk Hinrich ($9,500,000)
Nick Collison ($6,250,000)
Brook Lopez ($2,255,880)
Incoming Salaries: $18,005,880
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=nkymyg
For the Chicago Bulls, Jerry Reinsdorf slashes payroll both now and for the summer of 2010 -- in which local legend Dwyane Wade will be an unrestricted free-agent -- by trading Kirk Hinrich for a cost-effective downgrade Steve Blake. The Bulls acquire some future assets, too, which is through the draft rights to a few foreigners (i.e., Victor Claver, Joel Freeland, & Petteri Koponen).
For the New Jersey Nets, the team would solidifiy the forward positions with LaMarcus Aldridge and Travis Outlaw. Because the possibility of LeBron James signing there next summer is a long shot, this'd be a much quicker and less risky way to retool the ballclub. Meanwhile, though, the Nets would be a bit weak at center, although Tony Battie, Josh Boone, and Sean Williams could hold down the fort for one season.
For the Oklahoma City Thunder, Sam Presti would save face in the community by dealing disgruntled Nick Collison, whose feud with asinine sports radio talk show host Jim Traber is amusing stuff. In return for Collison, Presti would receive a scrub with an expiring contract (i.e., Trenton Hassell) and a young prospect project combo guard (i.e., Jerryd Bayless) who'd receive playing time behind Russell Westbrook.
Bayless, who barely has more potential than the injury prone washout Shaun Livingston, would be lucky to play with a tall, defensive-minded point forward in Kyle Weaver. Heck, I can't even think of two more appropriately skilled backup wings than Weaver and Thabo Sefolosha for the fatally flawed Bayless to play next to on a second unit. Bayless, who can't run the point to save his life and is an overaggressive dunderhead on defense, would get his deficiencies masked by playing next to two smart, high BBIQ players like Weaver and Sefolosha.
For the Portland Trail Blazers, it's 100% about embracing tried-and-true traditional basketball. The vision of a present-day "Twin Towers" frontline built around two legitimate 7-footers, Greg Oden and Brook Lopez, would make me jump for joy and even cry tears of happy like G.O.B. (i.e., Arrested Development reference).
Also, I needn't explain in detail as to how Kirk Hinrich is astronomically superior to Steve Blake. For those of whom who appreciate first-class, five-star perimeter defense, you know by now how Hinrich is to filet mignon as Blake is to ground beef.
Oden and Joel Przybilla split time at center, while Lopez -- who, as a rookie last season, had a 62.2% eFG% on inside shots (i.e., 61% of his field-goal attempts) and a 39.0% eFG% on jump shots (i.e., 39% of his field-goal attempts) -- and Collison would split time at power forward. Y'know, I'm sick and tired of this inefficient pick-and-pop junk with power soft forwards like LaMarcus Aldridge and Travis Outlaw. When did Charmin become NBA sponsers? Man, I sure didn't get the memo.
Yet, a team with an ultra-efficient back-to-the-basket post-up threat on the low block who'd also excel in side screen-and-roll plays via the two-man game with Andre Miller (i.e., Oden) -- as well as a sweet pick-and-roll and occasional pick-and-pop option along the high-post who can also stick a 15-foot baseline jumper (i.e., Lopez) -- would need a head coach who could properly utilize their skills; that isn't Nate McMillan's forte.
Instead of the high-low zone offense, a team featuring a big frontline of Oden and Lopez, a spot-up shooter on offense at the 3, a well-rounded offensive player at the 2, and a pure point guard at the 1 would work best with a 3-outside/2-inside motion offense that focuses heavily on the pick-and-roll. There's one man who could successfully run it, too, and his name is Jeff Van Gundy.
http://www.coachesclipboard.net/MotionOffense.html
In 1999, Van Gundy led the New York Knicks to the NBA Finals with a frontline featuring old-fashioned center Patrick Ewing, stout man-to-man defender and face-up jump shooter Kurt Thomas, gritty backup center Chris Dudley, and stud weakside help defender Marcus Camby. Because Ewing was unavailable for the 1999 NBA Finals due to injury, the Knicks had no real shot of shutting down the San Antonio Spurs and its Twin Towers duo of David Robinson and Tim Duncan.
All in all, a 10-man rotation of Joel Przybilla (20 m.p.g.), Brook Lopez (32 m.p.g.), Nicolas Batum (16 m.p.g.), Brandon Roy (40 m.p.g.), Kirk Hinrich (20 m.p.g.), Greg Oden (28 m.p.g.), Nick Collison (16 m.p.g.), Martell Webster (16 m.p.g.), Rudy Fernandez (24 m.p.g.), and Andre Miller (28 m.p.g.) -- with Van Gundy at the helm, as well as benchwarmers in Jeff Pendergraph, Dante Cunningham, and three minimum-level veterans (e.g., Ime Udoka, Keith Bogans, and Brevin Knight or Tyronn Lue) filling out the roster -- may have a real chance at usurping the Los Angeles Lakers in the playoffs and playing for a ring in the 2010 NBA Finals.
0 recs |
79 comments
Comments
Comprehansive
but it needs a poll, Roto Sensai
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Aug 23, 2009 9:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ha Ha No
Blake, Bayless, Euros for Hinrich – Sure why not
Trout for Collison – Will do
Lamarcus for Lopez – No
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Aug 23, 2009 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would like to figure out a way
To get Danny Granger on our team, the guy wants to be Batman (<a href="http://" >hes building his own batcave) He would fit perfectly in Portland.
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Aug 23, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I give up
The article is on yahoo.
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Aug 23, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
are we short on Batcaves in Portland?
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Aug 23, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There can never be enough Batcaves
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Aug 23, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nic Batum = Batman already
But I agree, I wanted Danny Granger to become a free agent this offseason and was very disappointed when he re-signed with the Pacers.
by Norsktroll on Aug 23, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree Batum has the closer name
but does he have the ambitions to spend his millions on an acctual Bat Cave
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Aug 23, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
finally someone has the guts to ask the important questions!
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Aug 23, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Thanks.
$10M to a 20 minute backup?
I’m not convinced that LMA has hit his peak, nor am I convinced Lopez’ skillset is better suited for PF.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Aug 23, 2009 9:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you on one part, with that being Brook Lopez is best suited to play center. After Lopez ...
moved from power forward to center upon leaving behind college at Stanford and his twin brother, Robin, for greener pastures in the NBA with New Jersey, his offensive efficiency improved a fair amount. There weren’t any other substantial changes, though, and his pace-adjusted/per-minute reboudning numbers both offensively and defensively stayed practically the same through the transition.
In the correctt system, however, Lopez may thrive as a power forward, with his performance being that of a poor man’s Tim Duncan from the late-‘90s/early-’00s. Stylistically, the similarities between Lopez and Duncan — especially regarding the mechanical, yet oddly smooth moves on offense — are clearly there.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dumb
Flushing away our title hopes for twin tower?!?!
by The Mallorcan Rocket on Aug 23, 2009 9:52 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
That's right. Pryz to start at SF
He’s a good defender…right?
by parkinglotj on Aug 23, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a sidebar, it seems to me that nationwide a majority of people still criminally underrate Brook Lopez.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
True.
He is terrific, but I still wouldn’t trade him for Aldridge. It’s a lateral move at best and probably sets the team back another year.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 23, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There would definitely be a transition period, particularly if a new coach was brought in to teach ...
a frontline of Greg Oden and Brook Lopez effectively. Also, trading LaMarcus Aldridge and firing Nate McMillan could cause actual issues with on-court chemisty. I wouldn’t worry too much about Aldridge in the long run — as gettting rid of a power soft forward is a net positive — although dumping McMillan would be an altogether different animal.
As much as off-court chemisty is flat-out hackneyed tripe — with Travis Outlaw’s chummy relationship with everyone being a prime example of that — on-court chemistry between players is a definite factor. A few guys may not take to Jeff Van Gundy — particularly Brandon Roy, who’d be my main concern — while Oden and Lopez would need time to adjust to playing alongside each other.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
two pretty good soft power fowards met in the finals this year
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Aug 23, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Orlando Magic had a gimmicky, yet successful system led by an amazing coach in ...
Stan Van Gundy, while neither Pau Gasol nor Lamar Odom are truly soft players. Gasol gets a bad rap for whatever reason, even though he’s effective at center; plus, Odom is a perfect fit as the weakside high-post facilitator in the triangle offense.
I don’t understand why people feel Odom is soft, especially since he plays solid defense — at least when he’s focused out there on the court — and gawdy rebounding numbers when given starter minutes.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the soft one
is stan van. the only NBA coach i want to see in portland less then nate
fire nate before its too late
by pipgras on Aug 23, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Dunleavy
been there, done that. Don’t want seconds
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Aug 24, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honka said two soft power forwards "met" in the finals last year.
Doubt he was referring to the Lakers’ Pau AND Odom. I would bet he meant Pau and Rashard Lewis. Although you could say that Lewis is only a power forward in SVG’s aforementioned “gimmicky” system and wouldn’t necessarily be considered soft at his natural position (SF).
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
by GonzoFan on Aug 24, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that is what I was saying
And I’d say Gasol is soft, though a fantastic player. And whatever Rashard’s natural position is, and whatever offense he was playing in, he was playing power forward on a team that made it to the finals, beating teams with more traditional PFs. And the Finals were very close.
Some of my views about this are colored by the successful 89-92 Blazer teams, where we had a traditional PF in Buck Williams but a center with a then unique offensive game in Duckworth. They worked well together; I think LA and Oden can do the same.
Lamar Odom is a fine defender. How much time does he spend in the low post on offense? These are players, not positions
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Aug 25, 2009 6:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lopez already brings more to the table than Aldridge, and he's several years younger
He’s a more efficient scorer and a much better presence on the defensive end (was among the league leaders in block rate). He’s not a perfect fit on the Blazers (and its irrelevant because NJ won’t trade him) but he’s got substantially higher trade value than Aldridge.
by jksnake99 on Aug 23, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Per actual trade value, we can only speculate who values whom more than others. Between ...
LaMarcus Aldridge and Brook Lopez, however, I also believe Lopez wins out in the minds of most front office exectuvies due to age, contract status, and natural position.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you here AK1984
Brooks as a center may be more valuable than Lma as a PF, but as considering both players as a 4 Lma is a better bet. The Blazers clearly don’t need a center, so why consider Brooks as a 5. Brooks has less value for the Blazers, but not to other teams.
by NWfan on Aug 23, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
He’s more efficient as a scorer, yes, but then again, just about every center is more efficient than a power forward due to their proximity to the basket. This is a logical fallacy in my eyes to try and compare them apples to apples. I would argue that Lopez would struggle to be as equally efficient if he were paired against quicker power forwards, not to mention naturally being further away from the basket more often.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Aug 23, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do agree that Brook Lopez's efficiency numbers would likely drop a couple percentage ...
points if he moved back to power forward like he played in college. Yet, as long as Lopez kept his FG% at 50% and his TS% at 55%, he’d still be way more efficient than LaMarcus Aldridge as a power forward.
Lopez already is almost equal to Aldridge when it comes to shooting jumpers — as Lopez had a 39% eFG% on mid-range field-goal attempts last season in comparison to Aldridge’s 41.6% eFG% on those same type of field-goal attempts — and, moreover, is way more effective at the pick-and-roll and at drawing fouls.
Truth be told, I believe that Lopez could be an effective power forward in the NBA with the right instruction. It’s an unlikely scenario, though, but I still think it’d be interesting to watch unfold at some point in time down the line.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why not just go for Amar’e?
Peep the sig.
by 12sharks on Aug 23, 2009 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amar'e Stoudemire is a lazy, no-good bum on defense.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with everything you just said. (except about the block rate.)
Aldridge has a significantly higher PER, making him (by one measure at least) a more productive offensive player. The fact that Lopez has a block rate of 5 is pretty meaningless. Aldridge had a rate of 4.7 his rookie year, but you couldn’t convince me he’s not a better defender now. It’s the most meaningless stat ever.
Lopez was the second best player on a team that was pretty terrible. Aldridge was the second best player on a team that did tremendously well. The idea that Lopez has “substantially higher trade value” is incredibly baseless. Unless you’ve talked with a bunch of GM’s around the league that’s a pretty silly statement to make.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 23, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The first two sentences in your last paragraph include some faulty logic. The New Jersey ...
Nets had a worse team than the Portland Trail Blazers ’cause its role players were a collection of subpar bums. Beyond Devin Harris, Vince Carter, and Lopez, nobody on that team was even average according to PER.
Plus, Brandon Roy — who carried the Trail Blazers to a large extent last season — is one level above Harris and two levels above Carter at this point in time. Roy definitely deserves a bundle of credit for the recent strides that’ve been made by Portland.
Aside from that, though, the trade value question regarding Aldridge and Lopez is a tough one. I, however, think it’s safe to assume neither Portland nor New Jersey would agree to my above trade proposal, for each organization highly values its own players in Aldridge and Lopez.
Across the NBA, it’d be a somewhat similar story. Much of it would depend on positional need, since teams like the Toronto Raptors or the Phoenix Suns would rather have Lopez and teams such as the Orlando Magic or the San Antonio Spurs would rather Aldridge.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can buy that.
I just don’t see Lopez carrying a team the same way other elite centers can. If he’s significantly better than Aldridge, then the Nets would be going deep in the playoffs. A top center should have a bigger impact than that, but he doesn’t. He can’t really take over a game and he doesn’t completely lock down the middle. He can make an impact on both ends of the floor, but I’ve never seen him absolutely dominate.
Having said that, I do think they are pretty close in value. I don’t know how high his ceiling is going to be, but if he improves at all he should be solid. I think Lopez has an advantage simply because he plays center. I would give Aldridge the edge on talent at this point. It’s going to be interesting to see if Aldridge can take advantage of his speed now that Miller is on the team.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 23, 2009 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brook Lopez was a 20 year old rookie last season
He’s well on his way to being an all-star and a two way presence. His interior defense and interior post presence is, to me, a lot more important than Aldridge’s unquestionably far superior versatility, speed and athleticism. I don’t think he was much better than Aldridge last year— but I do think he was a little better— and he’s younger, cheaper and plays the premium position.
by jksnake99 on Aug 23, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Age is a factor for sure.
It’s not always a straight progression however. Lopez still has to show that he can improve. Okafor for example, didn’t change much after winning Rookie of the Year.
I think Lopez is a great defender. Not on the same level as Joel or Oden (IMO), but certainly better overall than Aldridge. It’s a little unfair to compare them, just because Aldridge doesn’t play some position and doesn’t have the same job description. I think consistency is his main problem. If he can play at the same level that he was for that terrific stretch last year, I think he could end up being one of the best players in the league period. He was so dominate durring some of those games on both ends. I’ve never seen Lopez take over a game like that, although I guess I’m not watching a ton of Nets games either.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 23, 2009 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
some fair points
Block Rate is admittedly an extremely poor overall measure of defensive ability but here I think it captures the fact that Lopez is an excellent interior defender and shot changer, which I think is very valuable. I personally haven’t seen any improvement (if anything I’ve seen regression) in Aldridge’s interior defense since his rookie year.
Also, you make the case well that I shouldn’t have used the phrase "substantially higher trade value" because I don’t have any NBA GMs on my speed dial. I’ll amend my statement to: "if I were a GM, I’d be willing to give up a lot more to get Lopez— who had an excellent rookie campaign as a 20 year old Center— than Aldridge, who is a very versatile, useful and talented player but is limited (and in my opinion will continue to be) by a penchant for the 20 foot jumper and an unwillingness or inability (I’m not sure which) to play quality interior defense. "
by jksnake99 on Aug 23, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As do some locals...
…regarding LaMarcus Aldridge… Then again that same group also overrates Kirk…
by Ilikeemall on Aug 24, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Chicago would trade Blake for Hinrich
Portland would have already done this.
by boppitywop on Aug 23, 2009 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not sure about this
Blake brings intangibles to the Blazers. He’s a competitor and a winner.
Besides, Nate has to sign off on trades. I think Nate has a lot of respect for Steve.
by Blazin' on Aug 23, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
please give up
on the dream of captain kirk
fire nate before its too late
by pipgras on Aug 23, 2009 10:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ah AK your Hinrich love has reached comical proportions!
JVG makes me laugh as well, every time I think of him holding on for dear life to Zo I can’t help but chuckle. Thank you for this comic relief it has made my day.
He did it! Yes he did!
by We-B-Dunkin on Aug 23, 2009 11:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
God thats funny!
Like Charles Oakley needed his help,the Oak was a stud.
He did it! Yes he did!
by We-B-Dunkin on Aug 23, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahahahaha
this is a joke right?? why would anyone want to get rid of aldridge? he is going to be one of the top power forwards in the league. ridiculous. wow. if you are going make up some trade schemes atleast make them good, like some how giving up blake outlaw and bayless (i do like all these guys though) for chris paul. that would be alright with me lol. chris paul and brandon roy…. hmmm can you imagine? but that would never happen cause it would just be unfair to every other team lol.
by jpaulson on Aug 23, 2009 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
TBD
Aldridge is missing a piece or two. Interior play. Rebounding. The mental side of the game and his position. Until he develops these, I think it is premature to say that he will be one of the top power forwards in the league. Soft, jump shooting PFs are just not that valuable.
by Blazin' on Aug 23, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he averages 7.5 a game
thats not to bad since the blazers have 2 great rebounding centers. between oden and pryzbilla they average almost 16 rebounds a game. and now there is good rebounding point guard added to the lineup. how is a finesse player a bad thing? i would say that duncan is a bit of a finesse power forward, or a jump shooter and he is pretty valuable. its not that they are not that valuable its that you personally would prefer him to be more of a banger or thrasher. and he is slowly getting there. but i like his style the way that it is. he spreads the floor, and he can get his shot up over anybody. what about nowitski. he is a shooter. he is valuable(i personally hate him, but he is still good, and valuable). the thing is, aldridge averages over 18 a game, and 7.5 rebounds a game and his low post game is improving and he is only 24. i expect great things from him. and to trade him would be a huge mistake.
by jpaulson on Aug 24, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dirk is a special case
Because of his ability to hit threes and get to the FT line, he’s able to be an efficient scorer (.568 True Shooting ) despite being a jump shooter. Because Aldridge doesn’t hit threes or get to the FT line much, his penchant for the 20 footer makes him much less efficient (.529 TS). Dirk’s also an exceptional defensive rebounder, though Aldridge is a much superior offensive rebounder.
As for Duncan, while he does have a bank shot and can shoot it a bit, he has too much interior scoring ability and is too stout an interior defender to be called a finesse player. Duncan, by the way, has been essentially playing Center since David Robinson retired. I know you weren’t comparing LMA to Duncan (one of the games all time greats) in terms of ability, but I thought I’d throw that out there.
Its not that Aldridge is a finesse player that limits him offensively, its the inability to expand his range to the more efficient 3 point shot, or (preferably) draw more fouls and take fewer 18-20 footers. More important than offense though, is that Aldridge must continue to improve his rebounding (as he did after the all-star break last year) and improve his interior D. If he doesn’t do that (and the fact that he hasn’t done it in 3 years is a concern though he clearly still has time), he’ll be a David West— a very good player but not a #2 player on a title team— rather than the in-prime Rasheed Wallace (minus the temper and the infatuation with the 3 ball) caliber player we would all love for him to become.
by jksnake99 on Aug 24, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just think that he is on the right track
to becoming a great power forward. he is still young and needs to fine tune parts of his game. i think i am excited to see how he plays this year more than any other player on the team(its a toss up between him and oden). i think he has the potential to do some great things this year.
by jpaulson on Aug 24, 2009 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have any problem with LMA as the Blazer's PF
as long as he doesn’t have a younger and “softer” PF backing him up
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Aug 24, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should've said
younger and/or “softer” PF
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Aug 24, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soft forward not bad
Let me remind everyone that the current NBA player witht he most rings is a soft Forward, Robert Horry. Horry seemed to be a key cog in systems that included a monster center: Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan. Yes I know Duncan is a PF but when he is playing with Horry then Duncan is the center. So having a soft forward isn’t necessarily a killer to ones team. IN fact all the good PF’s in the league tend ot have some distance in their offensive arsenal. I agree I’d like to see Lma play more on the inside but his outside game is stellar right now.
Now for AK1984’s trade, I’m not all that into it. Why because mostly i think trading Lma for Brooks is a downgrade. I don’t think Brook’s would look nearly as productive playing alongside Oden/Pryz. I think Lma is a goto scorer inside (espcieally when single covered) and out. I am not sure the same can be said for Brooks. Does Brooks have an open court running game? Defense may be a wash we can’t possibly know as Brooks hasn’t guarded PF’s yet. Now we would have more flexibility at the 5, but I’d feel the Blazers give up something on offense in this deal. Basically, the Blazers would be mostly getting defensive improvement with Hinrich over Blake and an honest backup 4 with Collison for Trout.
I think there is too much to gamble on in this trade as we’d be gambling on Brooks production as a 4 versus Lma. Yes Brooks is a better 5 than Lma but I don’t like the risk involved. And further more I wish that Hinrich would just retire so that way I don’t ever have to hear anymore trade proposals for him to replace Blake.
by NWfan on Aug 23, 2009 12:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Brook, not Brooks.
Brook Lopez, to be exact.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Aug 23, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no no no no no
and no the Blazers won’t give up Aldridge
by rolo_poloo on Aug 23, 2009 2:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Since we are also improving other franchises here: If Wade is clever and really wants more titles, he should NOT opt out next season
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/heat.jsp
Then the Heat would have over $20 million to sign LeBron or Bosh, and re-sign Wade in 2011 when he has Bird rights. Eastern Conference dominance.
by Norsktroll on Aug 23, 2009 4:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Forget it, he already has Bird rights in 2010. But it still might make sense in order to be able to first lock up an external free agent.
by Norsktroll on Aug 23, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
and not because we would trade bayless
bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo
by thomasikehara on Aug 23, 2009 5:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, you get an "A" for effort
but there are several areas about this deal that are non-starters
NJ is not going to trade Lopez, not even for LMA and Trav. Brook is too cheap and too good, and they won’t want any part of Aldridge’s upcoming extension, heading into the LeBron sweepstakes
The “good ship Hinrich” sailed away last February, when KP sat on RLEC and let it expire. Then Ben Gordon signed with Detroit, so Cap’n Kirk will remain a Bull
LMA and Blake aren’t untouchable, but they’re only going “away” in a blockbuster deal if there’s superstar talent coming in return. Lopez and Hinrich are nice, but they aren’t on that level. So, stick with Outlaw for Collison (and add Bayless, if you must) but I still like your Jeff Foster 3-way proposal with NJ better
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Aug 23, 2009 6:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this was more of a pie in the sky pipe dream. It's my Chris Paul, for example.
Realistically, though, Jeff Foster or Nick Collison are my number one targets at this moment.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What makes you think Collison is available?
I’d much rather have Foster, but I’d settle for Collison.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 23, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With everything that's happened in Oklahoma City lately surrounding Nick Collison, I can see ...
Sam Presti moving him for public relations purposes. That, in conjuction with Collison not looking to be in the team’s long-term plans, gives me pause to ponder that he may become available at a fair price.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 23, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I really want to know is which white guy will you be proposing to trade Brandon Roy for?
It’s only a matter of time.
by raoulduke on Aug 23, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't trade Brandon Roy.
Even if the New Orleans Hornets offered Chris Paul for Brandon Roy, I’d decline the trade due to the impact that Roy has had on the Portland Trail Blazers thus far during his career and in the community.
Also, y’all must take into account that I’m a Washington Huskies fan. That, therefore, blinds my judgement a bit in that regard. Of course, the Hornets would never make that offer; yet, I felt I must make that hypothetical proposal known to show my position on this issue.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 24, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now, if we're to go the Caucasian route, I wouldn't swap Brandon Roy out for a prime ...
Larry Bird. As we can see here, ethnicity isn’t an issue. I’ve knocked numerous American-born Caucasian basketball players over the past few years—especially Luke Ridnour.
In fact, here’s some comments of mine about Ridnour from way back in March of 2008.
“Regarding Luke Ridnour, his trade value is next to nil […] Hell, as long as Ridnour can bring back a scrub who’s got an expiring contract (e.g., Malik Rose) in return for him this summer, then I’ll be satisfied with the deal.
Anyhow, it’s too bad that a lot of people displace their anger over Luke "The Golden Boy" Ridnour’s failure upon Earl Watson. As it is, Watson doesn’t deserve that vitriol from those tools; instead, Ridnour should be the one who receives their contempt."
http://sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=1798
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 24, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, one of my offseason fears
was that Nate would clamour to get Luke back, and use him in tandem with Blake
I’m a Duck, FWIW, Brandon’s the only H*skey I can bring myself to root for! (Well, I guess I rooted for Warren Moon back when he QB’d the Vikings…)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Aug 24, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was Wally Walker and Rick Sund who championed Luke Ridnour, while Nate ...
McMillan was high on Antonio Daniels. Honestly, I’m surprised that Ridnour didn’t end up with the Atlanta Hawks — where Sund is the GM nowadays — but that team traded for Jamal Crawford of all people.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 24, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
I<3LMA
The NBA: Where amazingly bad officiating happens, is encouraged, and rewarded.
by Dirty Socks on Aug 24, 2009 12:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Pointless waste of pixels
It ain’t going to happen.
I really like the part where you give up Blake, Bayless, and all the Euros for a $10 mil back-up PG and a 28 year old back-up PF. Nice way to plan for the future.
By the way AK, I gotta ask. You love Hinrich, Miller, Foster, and now Collison. Is it just coincidence that all of these guys are WHITE? Just asking. I’m not accusing you of anything, but it does seem odd in a league that is 90+% African American or African, and many of the other 10% are Euros, that you keep falling in love with born and bred white Americans. Just curious to hear your take.
by upper left corner on Aug 24, 2009 8:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You forgot about Brooke Lopez, Robert Swift, and Joel Przybilla.
There seems to be a disproportionate number of comments about certain players that you could lump into a particular demographic. I think we all have a personal preferences in players that might not translate into production on the basketball court.
I will say however, that SOME American born white guys do seem to share the same mentality about basketball. This might have something to do with a perceived lack of athleticism. White guys who are successful could be learning at an early age that they have to outwork guys on the court or they won’t be able to compete. Does that make sense? Like Jeff Foster is not the quickest guy in the world so he has to make up for his lack of athleticism by doing a bunch of the dirty work. Sometime I think when the game comes easy to people, like Vince Carter for instance, they might get a little complacent about certain things. The only way guys like Przybilla could make a name for themselves is doing the kind of stuff most players aren’t willing to do, working hard on D, rebounding, etc.
It’s entirely possible that AK just loves that sort of player, and there just happens to be a disproportionate number of white dudes who play that way.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 24, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brook Lopez is only half white, just fyi
Father is a black Cuban.
I agree with your thoughts about the type of player AK likes— the less athletic, scrappy guys. Except for Mike Miller— AK just likes him for the hair.
by jksnake99 on Aug 24, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, I like Mike Miller for a tad bit more than just his hairstyle.
I, however, do like Robert Swift ’cause of his very unique appearance.
It’s not about the red hair, either, as I’ve got no love for Brian Scalabrine.
Y’know, the NBA hasn’t had anyone as eye-popping as Swift since, oh, Cherokee Parks.
Yeah, that explains it.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 24, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry...
it’s hard for me to tell because I don’t see color. I just see human beings. Seriously though, I suspected as much, but he’s still technically “white”. If we’re talking about a subconscious preference to players that we can relate too, then Lopez looking very much like your average Caucasian makes sense.
Mike Miller has terrible hair. He’s a great shooter, too bad he decided to stop doing that last season. Some should slap him across the face like they do in cartoons. Get a hold of yourself! Shoot some damn threes!
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 24, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
obama is half white too but is considered black
Jason Kidd is probably whiter than me but it´s also considered black.
American culture towards color is quite complicated.
by Falcao on Aug 24, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it bothers me when people call Barack Obama "black" due to it being semantically ...
incorrect. Obama is neither white nor black, but rather African-American. I’m also probably one of the few people out there who neither loves nor hates Obama, for my feelings toward him as a politician are pretty much in the middle somewhere.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 24, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya usually get treated and responded to based on how ya look
WE know he is a mix of white and black (which almost all American ‘blacks’ are), and specifically we know his mother is white and his father black, BUT he looks like a ‘regular’ American black. So, people see him as black.
Mo—
by Mortimer on Aug 27, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are still lazy, athletic white guys, with Chase Budinger being one of them. Oddly, I'm high ...
on Budinger for both tangible and superficial reasons. Tangibly, Budinger has the inherent abilities of Dan Majerle crossed with Brent Barry; that’s offensive versatility that’s not found in too many players.
Superficially, though, Budinger’s appearance eerily resembles former Alice in Chains frontman Layne Staley, so the volleyball standout is like a living doppelgänger of the deceased Seattle music legend.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 24, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You notice one of those guys I'd trade is none other than Steve Blake, who's a Caucasian American.
I don’t dislike Blake the same way I abhor Luke Ridnour — who was a joke compared to Antonio Daniels and Earl Watson, although it was almost impossible to convince Seattle SuperSonics fans back then that the local “Golden Boy” was more Dan Dickau than Steve Nash — however, his softness on defense is an enormous detractor for me.
As it stands, Blake gets a slight pass ‘cause he at least plays fundamentally sound defense — although he isn’t capable of doing anything worthwhile on that end of the court, which is similar to Brian Russell at FS with the Seattle Seahawks — on the other hand, Jerryd Bayless is just so infuriatingly piss-poor due to his overaggressive, foul-prone defense that it’s easy to detest his ineptitude with a fervent passion.
I’m also one of the most vocal Greg Oden advocates to be found around who isn’t an actual Portland Trail Blazers fan. The reason for my staunch support of Oden is due to him being a legit 7-footer who’s got the potential of becoming a two-way superstar and franchise cornerstone, which is so long as he’s healthy at his peak.
The same can’t be said for LaMarcus Aldridge, who’s overrated by a sizable majority of Portland fans. For as much as I harp on Aldridge, I’ll stand right by Oden. More importantly, however, I’ll 100% defend Oden being selected ahead of Kevin Durant in the 2007 NBA Draft, which’ll hopefully settle itself once both men are retired 15 years from now and the big guy sports the ring(s).
Beyond Jeff Foster and Nick Collison, my third choice for a backup power forward is Kurt Thomas. As with Foster and Collison, Thomas is known for his defensive fortitude off of the bench. The only reason I rank Thomas behind those two is that I wouldn’t be comfortable with him playing center for extended minutes if Oden or Joel Przybilla miss time due to injury.
Oh, and with regards to Mike Miller, I’ll admit he’s soft defensively. As it is, the reason I like Miller is ‘cause he’s an unselfish, efficient scorer with a well-rounded game on offense. It, by the way, boggles my mind that Minnesota T’wolves fans drug Miller’s name through the mud for his play last season, since guys like Randy Foye and Sebastian Telfair who screwed up that team.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 24, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
c´mon join me
Draft the Stache!
lol
jk
by Falcao on Aug 24, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This guy should read his own quote...
…about stupid people having stupid ideas.
by GTsmookie on Aug 24, 2009 4:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs























