Why is everyone wanting a trade?
by jpaulson on Aug 27, 2009 2:00 AM PDT
Email
PrintAm I the only person who thinks that the Blazer lineup is just fine the way it is? The Blazers arguably have one of the deepest rotations in the league, but that does not seem to be enough for a large portion of the fans who post on blazers edge.
The main players who are ripped apart by the masses that is Blazers edge seems to be Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, and Jerryd Bayless. Why is it that we (I’m generalizing) think that we need to trade to be successful?
Steve Blake is now the second string point guard, regardless of whether he starts or not. He is more than capable to play this role. He was the main point guard on our beloved 54 win team. Having him as the backup to Andre Miller is going to be amazing (again regardless of who starts, Blake will receive backup minutes). This is a monstrous upgrade! Andre is more than likely the better point guard than Blake, so there is a plus; Blazers upgraded the primary point guard position. Now, Blake will be replacing Sergio for the second string point guard position; this is an extremely good upgrade! Now, at all times, there will be a competent and extremely capable point guard on the floor at all times. Both Andre and Blake have their strong points and working with both of them in different situations will bring stability in both the first and second unit. I felt that with Sergio coming off the bench, the Blazers did not have the stability and focus that they will surely have now.
Jerryd Bayless is extremely under-developed, and is sometimes questioned at whether or not he has what it takes to become a “true” point guard. The thing is, Bayless is very young, and has a lot to work on, but his potential is great. It is not hurting the blazers at all having him on the roster. The blazers are simply waiting it out see whether or not he will be able to develop in the player that the Blazers need him to be. He is extremely talented for what he is (a third string point guard). Many will argue that without playing time he will most likely never develop, and I agree that it is going to be hard for him to develop without seeing adequate playing time. If I was Bayless, I’m not, but if I were, I would use this time study and dissect games (kind of like Webster reportedly did according to the article posted earlier). With two other solid point guards in Andre and Blake, Bayless should be able to learn, or at least see, what it is he is going to have to do, or what it is he is going to be expected to do, just by watching what the other players accomplish. I definitely think that miller should be able to have a pretty good impact on Bayless as long as Bayless is willing to put in the time learn. Another thing, a lot of the basis on Bayless’ short comings was based on summer league. That is ridiculous. Summer league is completely different. I’m not trying to make excuses for Bayless; I agree that he played like crap during the summer league, although I do not believe he was out played by Pooh Jetter like some may have you believe.
Travis Outlaw is one of the more widely agreed upon players that we as the fans feel the need to get rid of. Outlaws’ minutes will more than likely see a bit of a ding this season; however i doubt it will as much as everyone (generalizing again) predicts. Outlaw is going to have a very important role this season, and that is backing Aldridge at the four. His main reason for people wanting to see him go (besides rebounding, which is not as important with Greg and Joel, and his defense) is everyone’s assumption that he can’t handle that position. I strongly disagree; I feel he plays this position better than he does at the three. Outlaw could probably be outplayed by a good portion of the starting power forwards in the league, but so do most reseverves (besides teams like Utah who are fortunate enough to have Boozer/Millsap). Besides, the newly acquired DC will be able to fill this role in the future. Also, Outlaw is going to be very important picking up the slack at the three position behind Batum. There is no guarantee that Webster is going to be brilliant the way many think he will be. Until Webster can prove what he can do, an appropriate assumption would be that Outlaw will need to play some minutes at the three, at least at first.
My main point, question, and reasoning for writing this is: Can the Blazers succeed with the lineup they have? Or is it completely necessary to acquire some other piece to make this team legitimate contenders. I for one, feel that with the lineup as is, we are serious contenders in the west, and one of the few teams that can and will challenge the Lakers this coming season. The Blazers have greatly improved over the off-season by ridding a few unnecessary players and adding a veteran point guard, but also, they are another year older (in this case, unlike the spurs, it is a good thing).
71 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Let's start the season. It seems like we have been going over this ground for months now.
In fact, we have. We need to find other things to talk about for the next 5 weeks.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 27, 2009 2:25 AM PDT reply actions
Reasons people want a trade
(not that I agree with them, but I understand them)
1. The Houston series highlighted a weakness — we could have used a backup PF who was a tough and strong defender and rebounder. We still don’t have one. People want a trade to resolve that issue, and are willing to give up some of the assets you mentioned to do so.
2. People are disappointed in Travis because A) he had a lousy playoff series B) he has weaknesses in his game that have always been there but were magnified in that playoff series C) they are assuming he was serious and not joking when he tweeted that his goal is to get out of this world money D) they don’t think he’ll be happy with a reduced role, and so will be disruptive. (Note that some of this is just amateur psychologists trying to guess what another person who they hardly know is thinking, and guessing how he will react in a new situation.)
3. People want Travis to be traded because they think he will leave in free agency next year anyway, so we should get something for him.
4. People want Steve to be traded (there’s not a lot in this camp) because A) some think Nate loves him so much that he won’t play Andre as much as they think Nate should play Andre (amateur psych. again) B) some think Steve needs to go so Jerryd can get PT and develop C) they think he’s going to leave in free agency so we should trade him while we can get something for him.
5. Some people may not want Steve or Travis to be traded, but are willing to do so because they are not seen as vital to our success this coming year, and they have expiring contracts so could be valuable trade assets in upgrading some position (backup PF, or whatever).
6. Lots of people want Jerryd to be traded because A) they’ve decided he is egotistical (amateur psych) B) they don’t think he has the mental outlook to become a PG (amateur psych) C) they don’t think he has the skills to become a PG, and they have a mystical view of PGing that it can’t be learned, you either have it or you don’t D) they think he has trade value (see #5 about Steve and Travis above) without being at all vital to our success this year E) they think he will become a cancer/disruptive if he doesn’t get PT this year (amateur psych).
Notice that many (but not all) of the reasons people want a trade are based on amateur psychology. We all do it — as an amateur psychologist I’m high on Jerryd’s motivation and intensity turning him into an outstanding PG. Also, the amateur psychologists (of all stripes) can point to statements and actions that appear to support our conclusions.
So I don’t use the term “amateur psychologists” to say that those who advocate trades for these reasons are necessarily mistaken, or to denigrate their reasoning or logic. It is just to say that there should be a measure of uncertainty about such conclusions, because we all have limited knowledge of the people involved and the way they respond in certain situations. And because of that, many (but again, not all) of the reasons people want a trade are conclusions which bear a measure of uncertainty.
Of course, there is one more reason that people want a trade — there are no games to talk about. But that won’t change anything — once the season starts, even if the team is winning, players will have bad games from time to time, and someone who has wanted to trade that player will say, “See? I TOLD YOU!!!” Trade posts probably happen almost as much during the season as during the summer.
Get used to it, and shrug it off. In the last couple of years, we’ve done the Von Wafer trade, the Jarrett+pick for Bayless+Diogu trade, the Diogu for Ruffin trade, the Dallas draft pick exchange, and the Sergio trade. (I’ve probably left out one or two.) But a total of 6-8 trades.
During that same time period, there have been eight million, seven hundred and forty two thousand, three hundred and eight fanposts discussing or proposing possible trades, nine hundred and sixty seven thousand and twelve fanshots (people ignored Dave’s suggestion to put them in fanshots), and one hundred and fifty three million (plus change) comments discussing or proposing possible trades. Latest estimates are that approximately one posting on Bedge (out of 163 million) actually hit on the details of a real KP trade before he pulled the trigger.
Very nice fanpost, good analysis of the players and what they bring. Presumably a trade of said players would fill some of the gaps left by their departing, or there would be no point in the trade, but it is still good to stop and remember what you lose if you trade them.
It won’t do a bit of good. People will read it, perhaps comment, perhaps start a lively discussion — and within 24 hours, the trade talk will be rolling along as always. No harm. KP is discussing trades with other GMs all the time, too.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Aug 27, 2009 3:51 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
I think the Houston series exposed another major weakness
which may or may not have been solved with Andre, in that we have absolutely no one other than Brandon who can semi-reliably break down a defense and create a shot for someone else (and even Brandon’s distribution became basically a non-factor). LaMarcus and Trout are decent iso-ing up (although an elite defender can shut Trout down), but in general, if they’re making a move, they’re going to be the one taking the shot. Our offense really looked awful with the fringe offensive players like Batum essentially completely taken out of the game.
The other issue I got from that series was Nate’s overreliance on Blake. I definitely don’t think Sergio or Bayless was better, but just that Blake simply wasn’t effective for 39 minutes every night. I’d like to play Brandon 48 minutes every night, but guys need to rest, and it seems like Blake started to get a little gassed at the end of some of those games. Even though he may have been worse, I’d rather have had Blake playing 34-35 mpg, and Sergio at 6-7 mpg to allow Blake to play at a higher level at the end of the game when we needed him. He’s a decent player, but just not a guy who should be playing nearly 40 mpg player during the playoffs.
I think you are right
both on the fact we needed to be overreliant on Brandon offensively, and we were overreliant on Steve at the point.
But those aren’t relevant to the trade talk, really. Andre solves the latter, and may solve the former. And most current trade discussions aren’t about solving the former, either, but about backup PF. Everyone seems to think the overreliance on Brandon offensively has been solved.
I’m not sure it has. But I’m hoping that A) Andre helps with it B) Greg becomes enough of an offensive threat to create defensive fissures that we can exploit C) Nic becomes more of an offensive threat D) LaMarcus improves offensively E) Rudy becomes more than a spot up shooter and alley oop dunker. Probably not all of those will happen, but there’s a good chance a couple of them will, and that will be enough to put us into contention for WCF, anyway.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Right, my point being that
there were flaws exposed that may or may not have been solved with Andre, hence the continued trade talk.
Like leeroy says below, I don’t think we NEED a trade to win a championship with this exact roster, but I think there are probably ways we could improve our chances, and my desire for the Blazers to win a titlle in general exceeds my desire to win a title with this exact group of guys.
I wasn't going to comment because
I wanted to avoid getting into yet another discussion about whether we should trade Outlaw, Bayless, or Blake. But i like your approach of answering the basic question – why do people want to trade, rather than arguing whether we should or should not trade one of these players. I’m pretty sure this thread will soon go that direction, but first I’ll follow your lead and just answer the fundamental question.
I’ll be a little more basic than your excellent answers – people want to trade to make the team better.
It has been correctly stated many times that this young team will be better next year without any trades at all. It’s logical to expect the most improvement from last year’s rookies – Oden, Batum, Rudy, and Bayless, and players on a path toward greatness – hopefully Roy and LMA. But every player can continue to improve (Blake had his best year last year) and some people also expect significant improvement from Webster (4 years experience) and Outlaw (6 years experience).
It can be argued that we will improve more than most other teams simply because we were one of the youngest teams. But why should we limit our team’s improvement to only what is possible from our existing players? The teams we are competing with are not imposing that limit on themselves.
We certainly weren’t going to pass up the opportunity to improve the team by adding a free agent (Miller). So why would we pass up the opportunity to improve the team through a trade? Why simply let the cake bake if we can improve the quality of the ingredients and perhaps shorten the cooking time?
We have been collecting talent for several years using a ‘best available player" approach, and have rapidly improved the team. But I feel that now is the time to start filling the holes at our weakest positions to take the next step and become a real contender. We currently have a serious hole at backup PF/C because we only have three experienced big men, and only one of them can effectively play PF. We are very exposed if we have injuries at either PF or C. Outlaw fills in at backup PF, but doesn’t provide the rebounding or low post threat of a traditional power forward. He couldn’t step up to a starting PF role, or a backup C role if we lost one of our three bigs to an injury.
We are also going to be way over the salary cap starting next summer. That means we will realistically only have the Mid Level Exception to attract free agents, and that exception may be eliminated in the new CBA. In that case we would have almost no way to obtain high quality free agents. We are also not going to have lottery picks in the draft unless they are obtained through trades. Hence, it is particularly important if we intend to maintain or improve the team’s talent level to not let our own free agents walk away for nothing in return. Even if we don’t want to keep the player, we need him as a trade asset if we are to obtain quality players in the future.
Outlaw and Blake will be unrestricted free agents next summer. So unless we intend to try to re-sign them we should trade them this year, else they walk away leaving us nothing in return. Outlaw should attract MLE level FA offers, so do we want to re-sign him, and would he want to stay, if we only have 10-12 minutes for him at backup PF? Blake should be less in demand and cheaper to re-sign if we want to retain him as a backup (or even starting) PG or to trade him later.
In the long term PG will become a problem again because of Miller’s age. We may be able to fill that slot internally with Bayless, or even possibly Rudy. But an alternative would be to acquire another PG this year or next by trading some combination of our existing PG’s and perhaps Webster or Rudy.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 27, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"People want to trade to make the team better"
That pretty much sums it up….
by Storyteller on Aug 27, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well yes, but there's plenty of room to argue about what constitutes "better."
Better this year or in five years? Better inside or on the perimeter?/ Better on ball defense or team defense?
And so on. Your “better” may well be my “worse”.
Not to mention that for every amateur psychologist out there, there are even more amateur talent evaluators.
long term PG
I’m not saying they will fix it all, But don’t forget about Kopenen or Patty mills Plus we also have Bayless already on the roster. I’m just saying, we might already have that PG of the future.
by billyjoejack on Aug 29, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Good points, jscot
If I could add one more:
It’s one thing to have veteran depth – guys who are what they are and you know what you’re getting. The Blazers’ depth is a little different in that it includes a lot of youth and guys who are still developing. So one of the arguments for consolidating the rotation through a trade or two is that it will allow the younger guys to get more PT so that they have the chance to continue the development. Harkening back, in some ways, to the days when Jermaine O’Neal couldn’t get off the bench behind Wallace and Grant.
So one of the arguments for trading Outlaw is that it will open up more PT for Webster and Batum (or perhaps even Cunningham). One of the arguments for trading Blake is that it will give Bayless the PT that he needs to develop. It is, of course, not a given that these young guys will actually get better with more time on the court, but some are willing to roll the dice based on potential.
How about there are just not a enough minutes to go around
and that is going to screw with chemistry plus we still need a true backup PF
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
"True backup PF" was #1 on the list I gave
“Screwed up chemistry” is amateur psychology — guessing at the mental/emotional reactions of players you don’t know. Not that you are wrong, but we can’t know that the minute crunch will screw with chemistry. It may just enhance competition for places. I suspect we’ll find out, because no one trade is going to really alleviate the minutes crunch. We have a minutes crunch everywhere except PF — and we have it there if you count Travis as a PF.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
wouldn't you agree though that players need to know their roles and chemistry is best when those roles are clearly defined?
with a team full of young players who are trying to get a foothold in this league, establish themselves, or just make it to the next contract, its a stretch to assume that these guys are going to be ok with a season full of DNP’s (because 2 or 3 of them surely will). I suppose its an assumption either way but its far more likely that a minute crunch will not be a good thing.
I think you saw a perfect example here last season in Channing Fry and you’ve surely seen it countless other times following the NBA. Now, did Channing make a big stink about it and did it affect his play? No, and pretty much (he gave pretty candid interviews last season on 1080). Either way, it was pretty obvious he couldn’t wait to get out of here once he figured out his role on this team (it didn’t exist). We got nothing for him, which I can see a certain benefit to ($$$),but I can see how people would see that as a negative. Channing had a bad year and now he’s gone and the blazers got no tangible assets in return.
I don’t think it takes a licensed psychologist to see/hear/read about a guy like Bayless, what he sees his role to be and what it WILL be this season to figure out that he’s not going to be a happy camper. I suppose its amateur to assume he will become a “cancer” but surely everyone can agree that its not the best situation for him or any young player.
Sergio keeps popping up in my head…
The Blazers as a whole are far more like my wife than like me in the sense of their physicality on defense.
-Dave
All valid points
But I think we could say with pretty good confidence that Channing did not disrupt team chemistry.
So it is an unproven assumption that the minutes crunch will disrupt chemistry. It may, it may not. There is probably more evidence that it will than evidence that it will not.
If you want to argue that the minutes crunch will result in wasted assets (such as Channing), you are right (barring injuries dispersing the minutes crunch, of course). That is a virtual certainty. But it isn’t certain that it will bring chemistry problems, and especially on-court chemistry problems that affect play.
It’s a risk either way. If you trade away your depth, you are vulnerable to the risk of injuries. If you don’t, you are vulnerable to the risk of unhappy players and wasted assets.
The obvious solution is to do nothing about the minutes crunch unless you get a quantity for quality trade opportunity that fits your weak spots. Those don’t come along every day.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Aug 27, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
To jump in here
I think it’s less an issue of chemistry and more an issue of how valuable a guy can be in such a sporadic, uncertain role. Young players have seemed to be disproportionately bad at being able to come in after not playing for a week or two and contributing meaningful minutes.
I think we’d all agree that Channing is a more “talented” player than Brian Scalabrine, but if you had swapped their places would Channing have been able to jump in after Powe got hurt in the playoffs and keep his team in it like Scal did? That Rockets matchup was screaming for someone of Channing’s skillset to drag Yao out of the middle and open up the lane, but Channing was completely ineffective while he was in. Now, who’s to say another 6’10 PF/C with a jump shot like PJ Brown or Joe Smith would have fared any better, but I tend to think they would have.
THe thing is, young players who aren’t playing regularly seem to be at best hit or miss, and since you’re only going to be playing guys 10-12 in emergencies it’s more important to just have guys who can come in, play within the offense and soak up minutes until your stars can win the game. Upside there isn’t that important because you’ll never be asking these guys to win games for you anyways. Hence someone like Kurt Thomas or Lindsey Hunter may be more valuable than someone like Bayless or Channing if they’re never going to play anyways.
by Royster on Aug 27, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good points
So we add another risk to the situation — that the guys you have aren’t going to be good at spot roles, whereas there are guys who are known to be good at that.
And the risk in trading for those guys is you risk trading away a guy who could be much more than that down the road — think Bayless, for instance.
So you make that trade (or don’t) based on your assessment of the risks.
This is the thing about sideline GMs. Usually, we think about one or two of these factors/risks, or just ask, “Who is the better, more talented player?” Someone who actually does the job has to ask all of these other questions, factor it all in, and then, make a decision.
To be good at it, you have to be able to factor everything in, and then make the best decision based on the probabilities, since nothing is certain. Occasionally the deal comes along that you know is perfect, but usually there are risks in any deal. But on the flip side, you can’t drift into analysis paralysis, where you are so busy analyzing everything down to the nth degree that you can never come to a decision.
I don’t think I could do the job. I’d fall into the latter trap too often.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
RT: we...just ask, "Who is the better, more talented player?"
The better question is…which new player would most help the current roster win a championship, without significantly reducing the odds of winning titles in the future?
As we saw during the Whitsitt era, accumulating the most “talent” does not necessarily result in reaching the finals. Finding the “missing piece” to fill a specific role is going to become more important in the coming years. Roster “tweaks” will be more necessary than roster makeovers
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Psychology
You are a fine amateur psychologist. So much so, in fact, that I believe you are a real psychologist. I bet you have a grant from OHSU to dissect and comment on bloggers’ true feelings, stuff they don’t even yet realize themselves. I bet you even have your computer relaxed out upon a long leather couch.
If I’m wrong, and you are not an real psychologist posing as an amateur psychologist, whose job it is to monitor and comment on the blogs in very insightful ways, what is it you do for a living which affords so much time to this endeavor?
Honestly, I love reading your analysis…it is my favorite of any of the commentors. I just wish I had your time frame….and I did major in psychology in college (until I switched to philosophy), and then went to medical school. ugh.
I'm in IT
So I often Bedge while the computer is working. And I’m really, really good at multitasking. Kind of bizarre.
But I also sometimes disappear from Bedge for a while while working 80-100 hour weeks. I did it for about three months in April, May, & June. That means I have a lot of slack at other times.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
So you are saying BE would not have any traffic or sponsorship revenue if there were a trade discussion moratorium?
You are suggesting the board might actually be back to the point when 3 months of research carefully presented and supported in a fanpost is not drowned out in 15 minutes by the next 1000 fanposts about trades?
You opine that we could return to reason-based dialogue? How very visionary of you!
And nice synopsis.
Nice work.
So much logic. Laid out perfectly.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 29, 2009 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions
God damn, Scot, that's brilliant stuff.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Welcome to my fan club
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
yah
i definitely understand about people being bored and needing something to do in the off season. that is basically why i wrote this. that, and i am sitting at work with nothing to do. but i was more interested in whether people thought that a trade was necessary for the success of this season. There were lots of reasons for the unsuccessful series with houston; a lot of it probably had something to with the nerves in that first game. it was the first time in the post season for the majority of the players on the team. It was kind of like a learning experience for everyone i guess. also, i would have to say, that the blazers did not match up well with the houston rockets. i think it was a tie between houston and dallas for the two teams that i really did not want to see the blazers match up with. its also hard to say that the power forward postion was what got them, scolla was hitting his shots with aldridge in the game. I think the main thing was the inability to match up with yao, which made it easy for scolla to do his thing. also fast point guards gives the blazers problems. has that changed?
Is a trade necessary to be successful?
I don’t think so.
A trade could improve our chances, though.
The most compelling reason I can see for pursuing a trade is we are thin at the 4-5. I’m entirely comfortable with going into a game or series with Greg/Joel at the 5, LMA at the 4, and Travis or Pendergraph backing up LMA situationally — usually Travis, but Pend if the situation and matchups demand someone stronger.
What I am absolutely not comfortable with is going into a series with Greg, Joel, or LaMarcus out injured. Especially LaMarcus. If one of the centers goes down, and the other can give us 30-35 mpg (I’m optimistic either could if needed by playoff time this year), LMA can provide backup cover. But Travis is a tweener, and you don’t want to rely on a tweener and/or a rookie to give you 30 mpg at PF.
So the only compelling reason (to me) to make a trade is injury cover for our big men. Whether an adequate guy can be found who can be acquired for a price we should be willing to pay is another question.
Insurance is nice to have, but you have to evaluate:
1. How great are the risks you are covering (what’s the probabilities of losing a big man to injury at playoff time, and which one)?
2. What it will cost you if those risks materialize (how bad would it be if we lost a big man)?
3. How much coverage will the insurance really provide (how much would it really help to have Joe Smith or whoever if we lose one of our big men)?
4. How much does the insurance cost (which players/picks would we have to give up to get this insurance big man, and how much do you value them)?
The answer to the question, should we trade, depends on how you answer those four questions.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Aug 27, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Injuries to our three bigs is also my most compelling reason to consider a trade this year.
An injury doesn’t have to occur during the playoffs to impact our chances in the playoffs. A 2-4 week injury during the season could be more than enough to cost us home court advantage and/or a more favorable seeding position against weaker teams,
i think the questions you pose are reasonable, but also quite easy to answer with the exception of who exactly might be available to us in a trade. But in the spirit of keeping this thread about why we might want to trade, rather than should we trade anyone in particular, i will refrain from answering those questions now. :)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 27, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Right again.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
That brings up a good question...
If we would have drawn Dallas in the first round instead of Houston… and lost… would we still think we need the same things we are after now? We most likely wouldn’t have lost because of a percieved need for a “banger” but probably from a lack of exterior defense. I know that is just speculation but it would have been a different story.
I’m not saying we would have lost but this thought ties into the fact that we may be hoping to fill “needs” based on too narrow of a sample of games.
I am convinced that we could be a stronger team in the playoffs with a defensive, rebounding 4-5 but am a little concerned about overreacting to a season that from afar looks like over-achievement.
I sure respect and appreciate the insight that folks like you and jscot give. I’ve learned alot from this forum… thanks.
This was a reply to jpaulson above...
…I’m not so good at figuring out how to make them show in the right place…
Every team has weaknesses and strengths
The key is to make sure your strengths are stronger than theirs, and your weaknesses are less weak — or at least, that you win enough battles to win the war.
You are right about Houston/Dallas. Those who focus on the Houston series are mistaken. It was just one series against one team, and we weren’t destroyed. All other things being equal, we would beat that Houston team this year, because we have strengthened at the point, and we have strengthened the whole team with playoff experience. We would still have the same weakness at backup PF, but it wouldn’t matter as much, because our young players, having been through it once, would be more ready and play better. 9 of the top 10 players have playoff experience (only Martell doesn’t). And we would have stronger PG play.
Now, that series did expose some of our weaknesses. But you don’t have to fix all of your weaknesses to be a much better team. And you can also get better by further strengthening your strengths. The more you can fix your weaknesses, the better, of course. But you have to balance the cost.
For me, Milsap/Miller was six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both strengthened a weakness. Hedo was different — he further strengthened some strengths (playmaking, passing, clutch scoring). Any of the three would have made us a significantly better team, IMO, and that’s without internal development.
You don’t have to fix “the weakness that cost you the game/series” to win it next time. You just don’t. All you have to do is fix enough weaknesses, or develop enough strengths, to overcome whatever weaknesses remain. It is a fallacy to think that one weakness made you lose. The one that made you lose is just the one that fans noticed the most — perhaps because it was the one that really did cost you more than the others, or perhaps because fans don’t know that much.
Multiple weaknesses cost us against Houston:
1. Inexperience killed us in the first game, especially.
2. Unprepared to stop Yao in game 1.
3. Lack of reliable backup PG play.
4. Lack of consistent offensive threat outside of Roy and Aldridge.
5. Inability of Blake to be a threat on offense.
6. Inability to effectively shut down Brooks.
etc.
It also would have been really, really helpful to have a really solid backup PF. But we shouldn’t tunnel vision on that.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
I think the Blazers can/will be successful with their current roster.
However, I do think there are some areas that need to be addressed.
It seems like we need a backup PF who can rebound, and also play center in case of injury. This could be filled with an older player who is looking at his last contract, or with a younger player who we think can be Oden’s backup too after Pryz leaves us.
We need a long term solution at PG. Miller was a great short term solution, but he won’t be around for the majority of our window. Bayless might be the answer, but we just don’t know yet. Rudy or Brandon might be able to fill some of the PG minutes, but last season neither were particularly effective there, especially defensively.
We have too many skilled SFs/SGs. Right now everyone who needs time isn’t going to get it. Outlaw seems like he’s the most likely to sacrifice, but I’m not sure that will be enough. Rudy is looking like he’s of starting quality, and definitely worthy of 30+ minutes, neither of which will happen on the current version of the Blazers. Webster was earned significant minutes two years ago, if he is back at full strength he’ll get some of them. Most people think Batum is the long term answer at SF, which mean he’ll need to double his minutes from last year. Yikes! I think this is the main reason most people see a trade as forthcoming.
Everybody wants a trade simply because they are bored and there is nothing to do
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
We could talk about the Ducks getting clobbered on the gridiron...
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Can they succeed with the guys they have? Sure
Can they be a lot better by upgrading a few key positions? Sure.
Blazer Fan
I think a lot of people who, like you, don't feel a need for a trade
simply don’t write posts because not wanting to do anything leaves us little to write about.
Simple
You very rarely get better in the NBA by doing nothing. Look at Boston, San Antonio, Cleveland, Lakers…None of these teams said “we’re just gonna wait and we know we’ll be better in 2-3 years.”
They all continued to tweak the roster and make improvements where ever possible.
The idea that the team just needs to mature and then all of a sudden they’ll win a championship is not likely at all.
Doesn’t mean you have to trade everyone, but making small adjustments (like trading Sergio and picking up A.MIller), could make a huge difference.
This doesn’t mean you HAVE to trade just to trade. But you always want to improve, so why not talk about improving the weak parts of the team?
A lot of times it is due to boredom, but on the flip side of the coin, many people fall in love with the players and don’t want to trade anyone, which in my opinion is equally bad as the people who think we should trade everyone.
Let's trade Outlaw & Bayless for an upgrade at PF.
Maybe a banger who can rebound. It would be nice if we could get Kirk Hinrich as soon as we’re allowed to trade Andre Miller.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I'm still on the opion
That a signficant player, wether it be Rudy, Batumn, or Outlaw will fall out of the rotation,
and be traded for a signficant banger PF.
I agree about a trade, but
I don’t think it will be Rudy or Batum. IMO, the Blazers’ mgmt is very dedicated to their process of building a team. Picking up Rudy and Batum as late 1st rounders means 4 years of service for a measly 5.5 to 6 million apiece. Once the Blazers sign JP and probably someone else (to bring the roster to 14) once the Euro cap holds drop off, there really won’t be much cap space left so a lop-sided trade won’t be that significant. I just don’t see how Rudy and Nic’s measly 1.2 million/year will be beneficial in a trade. Plus, these are the guys they scouted and wanted. Why trade them instead of develop them? If one of them is unhappy and vocal about it and disrupting the team like Sergio reportedly was then maybe.
I expect Outlaw to finally be the guy on the trading block for real assuming Nic and Martell stay healthy and play well. Although he may perform better at PF that some people think, he won’t get a ton of minutes or probably have a lot of responsibility (meaning if he has a bad game it will impact the team less than it has in the past). Travis isn’t a role player IMO. I believe he’d be happier on a lesser team with a bigger role than on a contender with a limited role.
I’m definitely with you on the banger PF. Hopefully, by the trade deadline, we will have one. LMA is great. I love the guy, but if you are going to have a starting PF with his skill set, you need a banger as a backup. I’m actually hoping that the Blazers will pick a banger right before the season starts at the vet minimum. Someone who will ride the bench but can step in and contribute if Travis is unsuitable at PF.
The great thing about Rudy and Nic is they have contributed to the team from day 1, and cost almost nothing. They are not All-Stars or dominant forces yet, but 1.2 million – What a bargain!!!!!
I believe the team can be successful as assembled...
While I see the need for more strength at the back up 4 I also wonder if occassionally too much emphasis is put on 6 games at the end of last season. Were we exposed against the Rockets or was it just a tough match up for an inexperienced young team? Do we have holes going forward or did we just slump at a very unfortunate time? I tend to think both may be true.
Andre Miller…who I admit I wasn’t in favor of getting… combined with Steve at PG turned that position from a weakness to an undeniable strength. Andre + Bayless = a HUGE question mark for me. If Miller just happens to not “fit in” and all we had was Bayless to back him up I would be very uncomfortable. Therefore a trade of Blake seems completely out of the question to me right now. I haven’t given up on Jarryd but do not think he’s ready for a major role at this time.
The often discussed Outlaw plus “?” for a banger PF could help us considerably. Especially if GO or Pryz have injury problems. It could also backfire if Webster has re-occuring foot issues or if the “?” involved in the trade is Steve… IMO
Nice approach to this question jpaulson…REC
I agree mostly
But I feel that last year we got kinda lucky and other teams got complacent vs us. That is why we had so many come from behind victories last year. We were actually getting our butts kicked but got enough juice going to pull out a win. Is that a good thing for us or a bad reflection of other teams? I say both, but dont expect us to come from behind like that always. This year, to be what you say we have, we have to come out hardcore every game and play like its our last. I still say we win 54 – 60 games, But we will have to work harder than last year to accomplish it.
The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!
by cavejunctionblazer on Aug 27, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions
Wait and see.
A trade at some point is likely just because we are too deep. And with the return of Martell Webster and the PT requirements of Andre Miller, this issue is not going away.
Going in to last season, we were in a similar place. The consensus on here seemed to be, wait and see. Rudy was an unknown. Oden. Bayless. And then Martell’s injury threw Batum in to the mix.
This year the unknown is Andre Miller, and how he affects the chemistry. Which may mean reevaluating Rudy and Bayless in that context. Martell Webster has become an unknown as well.
I think Nate and KP are hoping for what happens on the court to decide it.
Blake, Bayless and Outlaw are the obvious candidates for a trade. But I think Rudy and Martell have to be considered as well. Rudy’s value in the league may outstrip his value and fit with the Blazers. The market may drive that decision. And Martell’s opportunity with Portland may simply be limited with the rise of Nicolas Batum. If we are left with Travis and Martell fighting for a back-up role, it is not clear to me which of those guys the Blazers will go with.
Well, I can't speak for "everyone"
But here are some reasons why I propose trades
First of all, this is nothing new to me. I was playing “arm-chair GM” before a lot of you were born. And not just for the Blazers. Before the late ‘80s (internet era) it was “water-cooler” talk. Nothing has changed, it’s just now a lot more people are “listening” to my suggestions. But my motivation remains the same, I want to see the ballclub improved to the point that they win a championship. I don’t really have “favorite” players, I recognize they all have tremendous athletic ability and they are fun to watch do what they do, but at the end of the day (for me) it’s always going to be about how the team does. If a Blazer player is traded, I don’t really keep an eye on his career, anymore. When a new Blazer is acquired, he’s my guy, regardless of his past affiliation.
(I realize that not all fans are like this, some folks like certain players more than teams—they don’t root for “laundry”—I get that. But when it comes to the NBA, I’ve been a “Blazer fan” since 1970)
Basketball rosters and depth charts are fairly easy to handicap, there’s only 12 players and 5 basic positions. (it’s a little harder being an arm-chair GM for a 25-man baseball roster and darn near impossible with a 53-man NFL roster…) You can lay out the roundball starters and 2nd string on a piece of paper in a matter of seconds. It’s easy to chat about when you meet a Blazer fan (“the Blazers need help at the backup PG” etc) Not everyone will agree, but at least we all know what we’re talking about, to some degree
I’ve observed a lot of NBA basketball over the years, and come to some conclusions that appear to be “constants” regardless of team of era. One of these axioms is that playoff basketball is more intense and physical than regular season hoops. No huge surprise, right? There’s more on the line, and usually the refs “let ’em play” and the players decide the outcome. I’ve also observed that the teams who have the more agressive players and playing-styles tend to get the benefit of the calls (there are other factors, but I’m not going to digress…)
With this in mind, what kind of roster should a team build, if they want to have playoff success? A running/finese team, or a team that will slow the pace down, grab, push, foul hard and dare the refs to make every call? This is not a question of what style you’d like to see, but what kind of philosophy wins the ultimate prize, the majority of the time? In my experience, it’s the grind-it-out, tough-minded defensive teams that bring home the hardware, in June.
So, when I looked over the Blazer’s roster last winter, I saw 2 big men (Joel, Greg) who fit this criteria and several who didn’t. LMA I can live with at PF, he’s talented and is getting less “soft” as time goes by. Frye and Outlaw were the weakest links, because they seemed unlikely to “stick their noses in there” when the playoff battles seperated the men from the pretty boys. So (when it became clear the Blazers would be a playoff team) I proposed trades last February to “harden” the roster at the backup PF position. Not because I “hate” Channing or Travis, but because I like to watch the Blazers win.
Of course KP made no roster “adjustments” and the team played well down the stretch and won 54 games. This was great, but there were still some tell-tale signs along the way that the front-court depth wasn’t going to get the job done in the post-season. Then after the final game the “seedings” were determined and as soon as we knew the Rockets were going to be the first round opponent my first response in the game thread was “crap!” I remembered the regular season games against Houston and knew they were the worst-possible matchup that Portland could’ve drawn in any round.
When it came time to predict the outcome of round 1 I chose the Rockets in 6 (not because I wanted it to happen, I was just trying to be intellectually honest.) The result of the series played out like I suspected it would, and the worst period of time was game 4, quarter 4 when the Blazers were out-scrapped to the tune of 11-2 rebounds and blew a double-digit lead to lose by a point. That “was” the series, more so than game 1 or 6, in my mind.
After the playoffs KP and Nate made comments about upgrading the “toughness and physicality” of the roster and I nodded my head. “We” were on the same page. In the draft they had the opportunity to draft DeJuan Blair, but passed and took two other PFs. Good idea, but Pend/‘Ham shouldn’t be considered “immediate” help for the 2010 post season.
Then in July they went after Hedo, which was curious. Turk’s not really a tough player, more of a finese playmaker. But it doesn’t matter because he went to Toronto. Making an offer to Millsap made a lot of sense, even though it would’ve created a minute’s crunch at the PF-C positions—still, that’s a better place to have “too much” depth than at the wing positions, to my way of thinking. But Utah matched Millsap’s offer and Portland signed Miller. Love that idea, another veteran PG to push Blake into playing ‘reserve" minutes, where he’s better suited.
But the backup PF depth remains unresolved, and (to cut this short) I will continue to propose deals that I feel will address this issue. Not because Outlaw is a “bad” player, but because the team’s success will be determined by playoff wins and teams tend to get over in the postseason when they have multple tough-minded big men who will do the dirty work necessary to get that extra possession in the 4th quarter, when it counts the most.
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Aug 27, 2009 3:49 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Smart man!
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Funny ridiculous Outlaw quotes
we as the fans feel the need to get rid of
the newly acquired DC will be able to fill this role in the future.
very important picking up the slack at the three position behind Batum.
Bwahahahahaha….
Get rid of? I think most people think that we can use him in a trade where we can get something much better back from. Not get rid of.
Dante Cunningham? Remember that guy who killed in the Summer League and is now sitting on a bench with almost no way to crack the top 10? DC didn’t even kill in the Summer League, he played adequately, and that is about all she wrote on that one.
Behind Nic? Or did you mean Nic has an important spot place-holding in the starting line-up so that way we have offensive fire-power in the second unit? Most reserves are outplayed by starters, and most reserves outplay Batum.
"The faster you begin an opponent’s blow-out, the more shots everyone will get." - El Blog Ilusorio de Rudy
"The cake was a lie..." -blazeraddict
by TheOdenator on Aug 27, 2009 4:16 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
thanks
that was my first post on here, and i got a lot of really good feed back; i appreciate it. maybe i will post again some time once there is more to right about…
Judging from the BE fanbase
It doesn’t seem like as a community we are asking for a trade. We wanted a true starting point guard….we got one, so there is no need to trade Blake now, as we already have the upgrade we needed.
A lot of people did want to trade Trout, but all of that has died off.
I’m fine with keeping Bayless too…if he pans out, then great…if not, then he didn’t hurt us by being the 3rd string pg.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
Correct attitude on The Rex.
Time will tell. Bonanza or no big whoop… Patience.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Trout needs to go, seriously
bye Travis and good luck. I mean it, did you see his new workout video thing. What the hell was that about? All he was doing was shooting and dribbling, WITHOUT ANY DEFENDERS. I could put out the exact same ‘workout’, how about doing all those things with a defender on him? Then I might be impressed but then again scoring was never really a problem for Travis, its his defense and rebounding that worries me. I guess that he’s all about the cash, well you’ll never get me contributing to any of his future contracts. By the way what the heck is he still doing in Mississippi, shouldn’t he be back at Portland already?
In Starkville
there aren’t too many people who could defend him. Like, none. After all, there aren’t many in the NBA, either.
He could work on D, but there is probably no one there who would challenge him.
I hope he’s doing some drills that will help him with positioning, etc., on defense and rebounding. But that wouldn’t make good video.
There was one thing I saw on the video that I liked — forward motion towards the basket. When he was pulling up for jumpers, they were straight up, and it looks like he is working on actually going to the hoop. We could use more of that from him.
I expect any real progress on defense or rebounding will come when he gets back to Portland and finds some real players and coaches to work with.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
It was what 4mins. long?..
I doubt that was his entire workout. I warm up for ten minutes before my real workouts. If you video taped 4mins of that and called it my workout I’d look pretty soft but the rest of the workout is where the fun starts.
Quite the negative vibe you’re puttin’ out there.
That thing rubbed me the wrong way, but then again, I have joined the Travis Must Go club.
Sorry Annie.
I still love ya.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
You let a silly homemade four minute video impact you?
You know better than that.
I just thought it was nice to see Travis in the gym during the summer for once. Any real improvement will come, if it is going to, through workouts back in Portland once he returns. If he’s hitting the weights to build up his strength, and actually coming in with a little conditioning this year, he’s going to be way ahead of normal.
Against whom will he be practicing boxing out and rebounding technique in Starkville?
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Thank You for saying
What I have been saying all along. I like our roster. Its young, very talented and gets along.
We added Martel and Miller, subtracted Sergio and Channing and got a couple of serviceable backups in Cunningham and Pendergraph. If one of those two develops into a “tough” inside player, or Oden starts playing starter minutes due to better health and knowledge we are going to be just fine. We matched up poorly with two teams in the West, and sadly we played one of them. Houston won’t be the same team next year, and while the Lakers added Artest, they lost Ariza and got older. I think this team is brimming with confidence and has a chip on its shoulders. I want to see what happens and how this team reacts. Its the closest thing the nba has to a family. I say that having watched NBA basketball for 45 years. In that time, I have never seen a team that was as tight as this one. NEVER.
Good conversation and question, as usual.
It’s a good, basic question. And really good responses.
1. No trade has to be done for a successful season.
However,
2. There aren’t enough minutes for rotation players and I’m not confident that CoachMac will go with 8 (and no more than 9) in his rotation.
3. It’s a deep bench … absolutely … with some talent and potential and that won’t last given Blake and Outlaw in their final year of contract.
Maximize the talent, maximize the minutes, maximize current depth—and make a trade.
The “who to get” in trade is a different matter, but it’s at least a 2 or 3 for 1.
I agree with a lot of the reasons stated here
But the one that stands out to me above all other is that if any one of Joel, Greg or LMA get injured, we are absolutely totally screwed.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I don't believe we can go more than a couple games into next season without another PF.
If one of the three Bigs gets injured we end up with Travis at PF (starting if LMA is the one injured) for probably 28-35 minutes a game. I wouldn’t want that and I wouldn’t want LMA playing center for 16-20 minutes a game either if GO or Joel is injured. So I think it is essential we add another Big that has some experience. Remember last year we had Frye, Randolph, and Diogu/Ruffin.
Nate said after we signed Miller that “there were two things we wanted to add, a ball handler and a physical forward.” KP tried to sign Milsap, and reportedly (according to Quick) tried to come to an agreement with David Lee (nixed by NY according to Quick), just before we signed Miller. So pretty obviously KP/Nate doesn’t consider either of the rookies the “physical forward” they wanted to add.
Yet despite this obvious need we haven’t filled, KP has said he doesn’t expect any more moves this summer (which I tend to believe since it would have to be a trade since we have almost no cap space now, or a free agent for the veteran’s minimum salary). I also don’t see any free agent PF’s mysteriously remaining unsigned and available, even though their agents know we will have $2.7M in cap space at the start of the season.
So how can there be such an apparent lack of activity, unless KP has some sort of deal waiting for that $2.7M in salary cap space that will be available on the first day of the season? I think we may see something happen as soon as that cap space is available.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 30, 2009 1:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Either the cap space, or some sort of trade pre-deadline
You summed up my reasoning pretty well, too.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Bayless
Trade Bayless now…you know who also was untradeable with lots of potential..Sergio
by Good Time Sports Report on Aug 29, 2009 8:46 PM PDT reply actions
A trade will happen, but we can afford patience...
I take Nate and KP at their word, that this is the roster we’ll start the season with (and a great roster it is), but I’d be surprised if we didn’t make a trade before the deadline this year. But I think we need to see a few months of games before we really know (a) who to trade, and (b) who to target in return.
1) We probably will still need a physical 4/5 vet, like Nate’s been asking for. We tried to get Milsap, which would have been perfect, IMO. Big guys like that may be available from a team dumping salary for the free agent 2010 market. But nobody is thinking that way now… And first, I’d like to see if DC and JP can give us solid backup minutes before stating that the 4/5 backup vet is our target come Feb.
2) Travis and Blake have expiring contracts. Their value to other teams increases as the season moves on, and we get closer to FA 2010. But should we trade them? I’m not sure we can say that yet. If Martell is healthy, and Batum plays like he did this summer AND if DC or JP can play the backup 4, then Travis is the guy that makes the most sense for us to deal (trade from a position of strength). But that’s a lot of IF’s, particularly Martell’s health.
3) IMO, the only way Blake will be traded is if (a) Bayless begins to excel, and show that he is learning from Andre, or (b) we need his salary to make the trade work. But I really don’t see Blake going anywhere.
4) Conversely, if Bayless doesn’t start to show his promise, I could see him being moved.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
