Berger: Center Decision Coming Soon
Ken Berger of CBS Sports writes...
-----------------------
Trail Blazers executives remain in wait-and-see mode as they closely monitor the team’s performance with 6-9 Juwan Howard – drafted the same year as assistant coach Monty Williams – starting at center after the loss of Greg Oden and Joel Pryzbilla. GM Kevin Pritchard and assistant GM Tom Penn are traveling with the team on its current East Coast trip, and rival execs expect the Blazers’ brain trust to soon make a recommendation to ownership about whether to trade for a big man or ride it out with Howard. The Wizards’ Haywood, whose $6 million contract expires after the season, would be a major upgrade. Haywood also would be a close match in a deal that included point guard Andre Miller. But as noted above, any move by the Wizards to acquire a point guard is hamstrung by the uncertainty surrounding Arenas’ suspension and criminal sentence.
-----------------------
-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
about 2 years ago
Ben Golliver
158 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Dont need to trade!
With Randolf gone there is a open spot, in new york they have too many centers, Darko is asking for a buy out, he is a 7 foot 270 lb center and former 2nd pick with something to prove.
That'd be an interesting experiment.
One I would like to undertake when the Blazers have two healthy centers and don’t have to rely on him to play significant minutes on a nightly basis.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
the open spot is gone
the roster exemption was only until Rudy and Nic were still injured. Portland’s roster is now “locked in” at 15, and KP would have to release Mills to sign another FA
So it’s either a trade, or ride it out with 4 healthy big men and 8 “perimeter players” for the rest of the season
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
shav was our hardship exemtion
we dont have it anymore
bayless leaves over my dead body
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52 #4 #24
Washington Huskies=2011 Rose Bowl Champions
by thomasikehara on Jan 20, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
meh
Meh is used to describe any and every word possible, including:
Yes
No
maybe
kind of
never
always
ok
alright
no thank you
yes please
if you want
whatever
If you wnat
i dont want to really
well
shut up
i dont really care
no honestly, i dont care…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meh
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
really? Howard?
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
It's one of those affectations we see a lot of, along with wow and a couple of others (such as "really").
I don’t get why people want to use stuff like this. It lacks originality while trying to give the impression of being in with popular vernacular.
I realize I am swimming up stream, but I think people should practice writing properly.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 20, 2010 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Whiticism is not dead.
Maybe not exactly present here, but i’m sure it is alive somewhere.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Maybe not, but it's important to note the key element to this whole discussion.
I was first with the obvious response. Nah nah, nah nah, nah, nah.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
Should have stuck with your first instinct.
It’s at least a classic.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Nate, maybe?
http://www.lyricsondemand.com/soundtracks/s/thesoundofmusiclyrics/ihaveconfidencelyrics.html
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
meh
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
yep
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
jobs don't come easily these days . . .
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
Not to be an alarmist...
…but what if Super Juwan gets injured? The Blazers would be stupid not to make a deal if they find one that makes sense in the short AND long run.
Don't trade Miller for a short term fix at center.
Does this move get us deeper into the playoffs this year? Then what is the point? I am assuming both our centers come back next season, although I haven’t heard much on Joel’s prognosis. No one has said his injury is career-ending yet, have they?
His kind of injury is fairly serious. Especially given his age. The doting 30 yr old!! Really though
a ruptured patellar tendon is not an easy one to “come back from”.
Yikes...talk about not making it to or far in the playoffs...one way is to get rid of Miller.
We have plenty of 3 point shooters. Trade Steve!! His contract is expiring and the Wizards won’t have to worry about their point guard situation then!!!
What makes you think Washington
would trade Haywood for Blake? Why would they?
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
makes more sense than Miller...
they want cap room I am pretty sure.
Why trade an expiring contract at center
for an expiring at PG?
Salaries don’t match, anyway, with Blake.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
trade outlaw and blake
then we will have an open slot for shav to come back
bayless leaves over my dead body
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52 #4 #24
Washington Huskies=2011 Rose Bowl Champions
by thomasikehara on Jan 20, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Why should Washington do that?
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
Cash I can see
since it isn’t my money.
How much do you want to give up for a three month rental? A pick and the right to re-sign Blake and Outlaw?
Only if you’ve already decided to let both of those guys go, IMO.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
Not Outlaw
Are you kidding? Have people not realized how important it is to have a guy like Outlaw on the floor for the Blazers?
Stop the Outlaw hate.
not hating big shot trav
just brainstorming ways to get hayword without giving up miller
bayless leaves over my dead body
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52 #4 #24
Washington Huskies=2011 Rose Bowl Champions
by thomasikehara on Jan 20, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Here is logic at it's finest.
It’s poor form to trash players you like but ok to trash the ones you think are that valuable.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Why is Outlaw important on the floor?
Because we have no one left to jack long 2’s with 17 seconds left on the shot clock? Because he was such a quality rebounder? Because his defense was so stellar, at least when compared to the terrible D we get from Webster and Batum? Because Outlaw had one of those rare Einstein-like basketball IQ’s?
Oh yeah, because he is Roy’s friend. MEH!
Trade Outlaw. Don’t re-sign him and don’t let him go w/o getting something back.
Not named Andre Miller.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
We can't
Salaries don’t match and although we have the cap room (since we have a huge increase coming after this season for Roy/LMA), they don’t.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Blake + Outlaw would work
but I agree with jscot, what would be the Wiz’ “motivation” to deal Haywood’s expiring contract to just acquire other ECs?
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Since Outlaw can't play
it would help them lose more games and get a few more ping-pong balls, maybe.
They won’t do it unless it makes them better in future. Do they have a couple million more in salary they want to dump? Then, maybe, but they would want picks as well.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
I would be mad.
Keep Juwan.
"What I´m sure about is that I never had a gun. For gunfights I have the Playstation."
~Rudy Fernandez
We'd have a decent chance of signing haywood next year.
Joel wont be ready until the all-star break next year, and even then, his effectiveness is a big question mark.
Haywood would be a great addition in my eyes…I’m a little worried that he’s a paycheck player, though. He’s magically at his career peek in rebounding rate… in a contract year. Yikes.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
you'd want to find out how hungry he is for a ring
before resigning him this summer
If you look at things for Washington’s perspective, it all depends on Arenas’ status, and which direction the team wants to go, now. I don’t think they would value Miller unless they think he can help them reach the playoffs (“anything’s possible” in the EC, but the Wiz are a grease fire right now, everybody wants out) If I’m Grunfield I want to acquire good/young/cheap players, and he’d be asking for Bayless, Rudy, Batum, etc. KP has to resist the urge to deal any of those guys, unless he’s getting all-star talent in return (and that’s not what Haywood is)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
How do you determine "how hungry" he is?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
interviews
psych screens, they’re done with draft choices
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Ignoring the likelihood of them being able to do that ....
…. with a guy already under contract, why do you think an interview will give the Blazers what they need to know?
A more likely scenerio is to talk to previous coaches and organizational people. However even here Portland would be rather limited, as Haywood has only played for one team and it isn’t all that likely that current Wizards staff are going to speak poorly about a guy they are considering to trade.
They could maybe ask Eddie Jordan. I wouldn’t bother with Michael Jordan, as he’s the guy that traded for him.
As an aside – the impression I have of Haywood is he’s a talented player but he seems to have a fair amount of Eric Dampier in him.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
I believe I said "before signing him this summer"
There’s no need to interview Haywood before a mid-season trade…you either make the deal or you don’t. Then, if he becomes part of the team during the 2nd half of the season there would be plenty of opportunity to find out how full his “passion bucket” is, first hand.
OTOH, if the Blazers were interested in signing Haywood as a FA this summer (which I doubt) that’s when the front office should put on the full court press and find out what really motivates him, before offering him guaranteed money. (Similar to the dinner in Vegas with Andre, last July)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I don't think Juwann is the mix for a trade. And I HOPE
Miller isn’t either. Does anyone WATCH the Blazers play with and without Miller????
indeed, trade blake, and, uhh, hmm
draft picks and euros?
bayless leaves over my dead body
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52 #4 #24
Washington Huskies=2011 Rose Bowl Champions
by thomasikehara on Jan 20, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
Sure
I watch The Blazers so I can see Andre Miller
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 21, 2010 7:57 AM PST up reply actions
Of course Juwan is in the mix
If we’re getting a center back, or if we’re getting a player that will greatly help us this year, of course Juwan is in the mix.
If we were to swing a deal for Chris Bosh and Juwan’s salary was the little bit needed to match, he’d be traded.
If we were to swing a deal of Travis or Steve plus a pick for Haywood, and Juwan’s salary were needed, of course we’d include him.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
My guess is 90% chance we pick up another center
In the offseason if not this winter. Chances are slim Joel makes it back for training camp and from past experience Greg is a wild card. We have a handful of redundant assets and a glaring need, I know everyone’s attached to our young players but let’s be realistic here…
Far as Haywood-for-Miller goes, not sure why the Wizards make that trade.
They think they can void Arenas's deal
In which case they need a PG.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
yeah, but...
You’d think they’re leaning towards blowing the whole thing up. Miller seems to logically fit more with a contender, either this season or next.
I still like Turiaf
for now, and later
not sure what Nellie would want for Ronny, though
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
bring in Rasho!
or Francisco! or Oberto! basically anyone former spurs center will do( they know how to win!)
the few, the proud, the blazers
I like Rasho
OK...so girls in movies where guys wear hockey masks have a better survival rate than the average Blazer player. - Dave
Haywood a "Major" upgrade?
I’m sorry, but I’m just not seeing it. Sure his rebounds are up this year, but who’s to say that’s going to continue? He’s not really an offensive threat outside of getting putbacks. His defense is alright, but it’s not outstanding in any way. Basically the only “major” upgrade I’m seeing here is the an upgrade in height. While that is important, it’s not worth making a deal for a short term fix. I think the Blazers can probably do better just hanging on to what they have this year and maybe trying to get a third center in the offseason.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
i thought this until i looked at his stats
he is averaging a double double and is number 4 in the league in blocks. just the other game he had 20 boards
bayless leaves over my dead body
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52 #4 #24
Washington Huskies=2011 Rose Bowl Champions
by thomasikehara on Jan 20, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, he's having some big games. And yes, he is better than Howard.
But lets look at raw stats here and see just HOW much better he is.
Haywood: 33.9 mpg,, 9.7 ppg., 10.7 rpg., 2.2 bpg., 53.8 FG%., 63.5 FT%
Howard: 20.0 mpg., 5.5 ppg., 4.0 rpg., 0.2 bpg., 56.2 FG%., 78.9 FT%
Now what do those stats look like per 36 min?
Haywood: 10.3 ppg., 11.3 rpg., 2.3 bpg.
Howard: 9.9 ppg., 7.3 rpg., 0.4 bpg.
This tells me that Haywood is only significantly better at getting blocks. He’s rebounding better too, for sure. But his rebound rate is more than 3 per game better than any season he has ever had. Not to mention this is a contract year, so who’s to say this won’t come back down to earth next year?
Again, I’m not saying he’s not an upgrade. I just don’t think he’s as big of one as some of you seem to think.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
4 extra rebounds per 36 min
is very significant. That’s roughly the difference between Channing Frye & Shaq.
Juwan Howard
can’t hold a candle to Brendan Haywood right now. It’s not even close.
#52
Against the "true" centers, yes.
The real seven footers with a post game are a big, big problem for Juwan. Just be glad there aren’t very many of them in the NBA anymore.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
Juwan has been our worst player
by adjusted +/- this year, by a long shot. Haywood has been the Wizards’ best.
#52
Maybe, but their win shares are about the same.
Both pretty small. Again, Haywood has a slight 3.6 to 1.3 advantage.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
Whoops. I was looking at the wrong statistic there.
Bigger difference than I thought.
Supports that Haywood is better than Howard. Again, not something I am arguing.
Still not worth trading for a guy who is a FA next year and isn’t a guarantee to sign.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
I think I agree here, if it costs us Miller
but if you know Joel’s going to take more than a year to recover and you’re pretty sure you want to and can re-sign Haywood, then its a deal you certainly consider.
#52
If you can get Haywood to agree to a long-term deal at a decent price...
…I can get with that. Even if I think it’s a bit lopsided in their favor. Haywood as a backup to Oden (and hopefully, eventually to Joel) would be a nice fit for the Blazers.
But with the uncertainty around both of Portland’s centers future, some things have to be done. I just think it’s a bit unnecessary to jettison Miller for someone who may not be here past May.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
I don't think he's worth Miller
but Blake and Juwan? In a second.
#52
I agree with this
but it’s the same point that Jscot raised above — why would Washington make that trade? Blake’s EC means nothing to them since Haywood is expiring and Juwon doesn’t do them any favors.
"One of the bright spots of the young season has been rookie point guard Jonny Flynn, whose name sounds like he should be the lead character in a Broadway Musical. "What are you doing here, Jonny Flynn?" "Why I'm here to court trouble, and woo a girl, and build the most fantastical contraption the world has ever seen!" -- Dave, Game 7 Blazers versus Timberwolves preview
by BlazersOrBust on Jan 20, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
There'd have to be a pick or two, probably some cash
Realistically, if Washington is planning on blowing up the team anyways, Haywood isn’t going to be a part of their future, anyways.
#52
Who says they are planning on blowing up the team?
Sounds to me that a lot of people are jumping to conclusions.
They just resigned Antwan Jameson to an extension the year before. I believe Caron Butler has 2 or 3 years left. I think Foye and Miller, along with Haywood, expire after this season.
Except for Arenas’ contract, Washington isn’t in all that bad of shape. If anything, the incident with Gilbert might actually be to the team’s benefit, if they can shed his deal. No reason to break the rest of it up.
I also think that people are too quickly assuming that Arenas will be gone. Washington may be able to use the detrimental behavior clause to terminate the contract, but they would likely be breaking new ground. Any good lawyer should be able to show that the league has been far less harsh with more serious events (this depending on the specific details of what occured with Arenas). Personally, I doubt the Wiz can just get rid of him.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
That is much more than slight
I don’t think you understand win shares. Andrew Bogut has a 2.7, Al Horford 5.5, Emeka Okafor 3.2, Dwight Howard 5.9.
Haywood is quite good in the category, whereas Howard is terrible. To be fair to Howard, though, he didn’t play the first quarter of the season.
of potential playoff teams in the West
We will currently have a huge problem matching up with the following frontcourts:
1) Lakers (Pau and Bynum would demolish Juwan)
2) Nuggets (Nene too strong for either Juwan or LaMarcus)
3) Memphis (Z-Bo and Marc Gasol)
4) Spurs (Duncan)
That’s potentially 4/7 of the non-Blazers west playoff teams. It’s also likely the 1+2+4 seeds or 1+3+4 seeds, which means we’d be highly likely to run into them in the first round of the playoffs, since we’ll definitely be in the bottom half of the bracket. And it doesn’t work to say that we were able to do it without our bigs in the regular season. IN the playoffs, those mismatches are exploited every single night. Teams don’t forget to attack your weakness in the middle like they do in the regular season.
I only support this
If we really think Pryz is done and we know we can resign Haywood. Don’t want to give up Dre for half a year from Haywood.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Or if we think it might take Joel a year or more to come back
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
Yes, Bayless is the wild card here
He has come far enough that, in the long run, losing Andre could be addition by subtraction.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
in the long run, it could be
in the short run, trading Miller would make us a worse team.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
Depends on what we get back
and how other players (Bayless, Blake, Rudy) respond to the increased PT.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
If that's the case, might as well wait to sign him as an FA.
No need to trade away a valuable asset for someone who may or may not stick around. I just hope Joel’s gonna be ok. Everything I hear about him sounds bad, though.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
Agree with both of those points
Always supporting Greg Oden.
Free AK1984.
by blazeraddict on Jan 20, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
I love the way Miller plays!
As a matter of fact, I think the teams ball movement is as good as I’ve seen it in years. More players are touching the ball and getting involved than when Roy had the ball in his hands all the time. Besides, look at the message that the team would be sending to the rest of the leagues free agents. Miller is a game changer while Haywood is serviceable at best.
2-4 the who
The message they would be sending
is that we need a center.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
If the Blazers cared about what others thougth in the NBA
Then they would not have sent the Miles e-mail.
we have jerryd bayless
who needs a center?
"There are a few teams you have to watch out for in the fourth quarter."
"Yeah, but Portland definitely is not one of them."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters at the end of the third quarter with the Hornets leading 74-59. Portland later ends up winning 97-89.
"They don't mind him shooting that shot at all. Rudy Fernandez is not that great of a 3pt shooter."
-New Orleans Hornets broadcasters right after a Rudy Fernandez missed 3pter. Rudy Fernandez finished the game with three 3pters on six attempts.
I don't get it - can someone explain?
Why are we dealing for a big man now when that would just create more problems next year when Przy and Oden come back?
he has an expiring contract
bayless leaves over my dead body
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52 #4 #24
Washington Huskies=2011 Rose Bowl Champions
by thomasikehara on Jan 20, 2010 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
Does this mean he can opt out if he wants to and go to another team for more money? Would anyone take him if he is injured?
I am confused as well.
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
i was refering to hayword
bayless leaves over my dead body
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52 #4 #24
Washington Huskies=2011 Rose Bowl Champions
by thomasikehara on Jan 20, 2010 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
We have to be realistic about Joel's injury.
It’s one of the worst knee injuries you can have. Rupturing a tendon. Not to mention he’s got a lot of NBA miles on his body and will most likely be 30 years old by the time he can get back.
The most likely scenario would be Joel coming back half way into next year and being a shell of his former self.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
30 is not old.
Even in the NBA.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
His game isn't predicated on athleticism, though
but on toughness, effort, positioning, and technique.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
I like Andre Miller a lot...
but if it’s true that Joel won’t be back next year, we definitely need another center.
The Blazers need another center....
Are any of us certain that this is the last time Oden is injured? If you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
This is not a quick fix, it is a long term investment in the future of this team.
No disrespect to Miller, but he isn’t going to play to many more years, if that’s what it takes, pull the trigger.
He would fill in nicely while Arenas is away for Washington.
Bayless is only going to get better with more playing time.
No disrespect to Juwan or Jeff , they just arent 7 feet tall. But they are both great back ups to LA.
Facts that the Blazers should have based the decision making on this summer for the final roster spot…
1. I love Greg, but you can only count him as half a position, and if you get that much consider yourself lucky.
2. Roy still leads the team in assists, even with the addition of Miller this season. How perimeter players fit with Roy is more important than any individual stats.
3. Nate does NOT play rookie pg’s
I can part with Andre, Martell and Patty without losing sleep.
Travis or Steve, that would be harder to accept.
Small ball does not win championships.....
Go Blazers !!
Wow. I agreed with wit most everything thing you said, except the conclusions you drew from what you said . . .
1. Yes the Blazers need another C.
2. Yes, Haywood would fit well and could be a long term part of this team
3. Miller won’t be around for more than 2 years, he isn’t a major part of our “future”. He isn’t ANY part of our “future”
HOWEVER
Andre and Martell are hugely important parts of THIS team (and Martell is important to future Blazer teams). Andre is far and away our best PG. He is becoming more comfortable in his role, we play much better as a team when he is on the floor, and he is a great basketball teacher/mentor to Jerryd Bayless (our future PG). He even is playing well off of Roy, like it or not.
Martell has been absolutely killer the past couple months and he is finally showing what we were all hoping we’d see from him last year. He shoots a pretty 3 ball, he gets after it defensively, he rebounds a bit, he fits perfectly into his “role”, and he is only 24 (or 23?)!!!!
Meanwhile, Outlaw doesn’t play good defense, doesn’t rebound, doesn’t know his “role”, still gets confused on both ends of the floor, and we play worse as a team when we have Travis on the floor (ususally). Blake’s only value is that he doesn’t turn the ball over much and can hit the 3. Thats it. We get better ball movement and a more dynamic offense with both Bayless and Miller in. And I won’t even talk about which of our PGs have the ability to make an entry pass to the post (hint; not Blake).
So, in conclusion:
I can part with Steve, Travis, and Patty without losing sleep.
Andre or Martell, that would be harder to accept.
it's pretty apparent
We need to carry 3 legitimate centers on the roster due to injury concerns not only this year but going forward and not 5 guards.
where do you get a third center?
This team was very lucky to already have a guy as good as Joel Przybilla who could so capably back up Greg when he was drafted. We are the only team I can think of that has two legitimate centers besides Orlando (and both ours are hurt). Other than that, most teams seem to run something of a three big rotation, where one of the players is a 4/5 (the Lakers have Pau go from 4 with Bynum to 5 with Odom, the Nuggets have Birdman Martin and Nene who are pretty interchangeable). I don’t think we could get 3 legitimate centers for a reasonable price.
From Washington, or maybe even Miami
we are trying to beat the Nugs and L@kers !!
Small ball does not win championships.....
Go Blazers !!
i understand in the short term
but Scorcho said “going forward.” How are you going to get the money to pay for a valuable commodity like a quality center to sit behind two other guys at that position, and also how are you going to convince him that being an emergency center is a good use of his time?
If Mr Allen wants championships,
he and KP are going to have to get over their obsession with pg’s, that Nate isn’t going to play.
This is not a short term problem. In 3 seasons the combination of Oden/Pryz, has remained healthy all season once. That’s 1 for 6 total, and not a very good average.
Choosing Oden was not a mistake, not planning accordingly was.
Small ball does not win championships.....
Go Blazers !!
is this possible?
blake + outlaw for haywood + mcguire
they release one of the players, and we re-sign them gary payton style.
May we infer from this press release
That a deal is in the offing? If the Blazers did not have an opportunity, seems that there would be little cause for an executive decision.
I think a deal is likely.
The Nate/KP brain trust is going to make this call based on the logjam. They don’t want to give anyone up, but there is a downside to keeping everyone. How big that downside is, only they know.
I just hope they are realistic about the strains the limited playing time places on the backcourt.
"The only 'Advanced Metric' that matters is what you see with your eyes." -Timbo, Nov., 2009.
like adding Haywood, don't like losing Miller
Losing Miller will hurt our chances this year, perhaps as much or more than adding Haywood helps them. It may be a better move in the long run if we end up keeping Haywood on however, so I can see it from angle. Plus, having Steve (it would be a given he would be back next year if we move Miller) and Bayless as our two PGs does provide a very different look with both of them, which is good. It also helps solve the logjam at the 2, since Bayless will start getting most his time at the 1 again, opening things up for Rudy.
I just find it ironic that making a move (getting Haywood), which would be perceived as a short term fix for this year, actually might hurt us this year, if Miller is the cost.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Jan 20, 2010 2:48 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I think a lot of people still haven't figured out that Portland's not winning a title this year.
As such, they want to find any way they can to improve the team. And the biggest weakness for this team right now is definitely the center position.
And most people here are right that Portland will need to do something by opening night next season to fix that. Oden will probably be back 100% by then, but Joel almost certainly won’t and he may not be ready for a few months after that even. With Oden’s injury history (related, unfounded or not) it just makes sense for Portland to get some kind of insurance in case he goes down again.
Haywood would be a good addition to the team and would fit very well as a backup to Oden. This is just the wrong way to go about getting him.
Yes! Yes! In the face!
it's hard for KP to look Nate and Brandon in the eye
and not get them big man help for the playoffs
that may not mean Haywood, and Miller may not be dealt, but it’s not “what the fans think” that drives these decisions, it’s “rewarding” the players and coaching staff for keeping their heads above water through all the adversity. They’ve put the team in a position to compete in post season, the least that the front office can do is try to send them some help (without blowing up the future, of course)
Besides, restructuring the roster to add a PF/C and remove a 1 wing (at least) needed to be done before the injuries to Greg/Joel. The trading deadline just adds some urgency to this process
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I believe it is time to put to rest ...
… the storyline of Portland needing to add a rebounding PF.
The performance of Howard, Cunningham and particularly Jeff Pendergraph have driven a stake through that one.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Amen
adding another 4 at this point is not needed, especially in a trade. moving Rudy or Bayless or Miller to get a backup 4 would be ridiculously stupid. we’ve got backup 4s coming out of our eyeballs – stretch 4’s, tough 4’s, old 4’s, young 4’s, 4’s are all over the roster.
We need a 5.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
In the long run
a 4/5 would be a better acquisition than a straight 5 (assuming Joel is coming back).
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
A shotblocker, who can knock down an open jumper
Ronny Turiaf comes to mind…ideally, you want a guy who could play alongside of Greg/Joel when they’re healthy, and “replace” them when they’re not. Gortat, Haywood or Dalembert don’t really fit this description
Brad Miller isn’t a shot blocker, but he could play alongside Oden, Przy or LMA. I don’t like Brad’s expiring contract for Portland right now, but this summer he might be worth pursuing with the MLE
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Maybe more than Miller/Haywood?
It does seem a little odd to do just a one for one, giving up on Miller after only 1/2 a season. What if the Wizards are truly throwing in the towel and they are looking to deal Butler along with Haywood? This works on realgm: Outlaw, Webster, Miller for Butler and Haywood. I’d do that, but I’m not sure Washington would.
That would leave us with Batum and Fernandez as our only 3’s? Bayless as a consistent 1 with Fernandez then backing him up at the 2 if needed? Outlaw and Webster are too valuable to give up together.
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
butler is a 3
not saying I’d do the trade, but it doesn’t leave us terribly unbalanced or exposed, except at point, where Nate hasn’t shown much confidence in Bayless to run the show, so we’d likely be in for heavy doses of Blake.
No, Butler would be our starting 3, backed up by Batum and Cunningham.
At the other positions, You’d have Haywood and Howard at the 5, Aldridge and Pendergraph at the 4, Butler, Batum and Cunningham at the 3, Roy and Fernandez at the 2, and Blake, Bayless, and Mills at the 1. With Prz and Oden on the reserve list, this leaves us with 14 players. We rent Haywood for 3-4 months, but get to keep Butler for at least 2 more years.
by Wilber Flatch on Jan 20, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
Butler and Batum would seriously clash as to who would start, Fernandez would not be alright as the backup two, Haywood for 3-4 month’s would work . . . clashing with Batum and Fernandez might not be the best idea.
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
if Washington is blowing everything up
why would they give up an expiring contract big to take on a point guard with at least a year left? It doesn’t make any sense. What appeal does Andre Miller have to them? The whole thing is kind of strange.
I agree
Any trade that is essentially Miller for Haywood would likely have to have a 3rd team to facilitate the trade. They would likely want an expiring contract equal to Haywoods, and a draft pick. Or a smaller expiring and a young player on their rookie deal. I don’t see a trade for Haywood happening that makes sense for the blazers. They would likely have to offer either Steve or Outlaw, plus one of our 1st or 2nd year players, and I doubt Pendy or Cunningham would be enough.
I am on board with people who dont want to see Miller traded for a stop gap big for the season. That increase the chances of the Blazers going into next season with absolutely nothing to show from the RLEC and free agency. That would be an epic fail by KP. I think you keep Miller and work a trade with Outlaw’s or Blakes expiring contract. Neither player are all that likely to be back next season, and if KP did want them back, he could sign them with the MLE (if we are eligible to get one?) I don’t think we need a starting center, we just need a guy that can cut Howards minutes in half while providing rebounding and adequate defense. just another big body should another blazer big go down. Blake or outlaw should be able to get that done, with my preference being Blake…
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
Reasons Washington might do it
1. They don’t really have a PG right now.
2. “Blowing it up” doesn’t mean getting cap space unless they can void Arenas’ contract, which is iffy. They just aren’t going to have cap space.
3. They are likely to lose Haywood for nothing. This would let them get something for him.
4. They would expect to either A) get a draft pick (and probably cash) thrown in or B) have it be a four player deal where they dump another contract on us in exchange for one of our expiring contracts. In other words, Miller for Haywood might be the headliner, but the deal would be broader than that.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
Indy can't get enough of 'em
or so I’ve heard
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
This will probably get me in some serious trouble, but...
How about Rudy and Blake for Haywood?
In one go, you rebalance your entire rotation: You get a 3-guard rotation, plus spot minutes from Webster and Mills; you have Webster and Batum at SF (with some Cunningham sprinkled in, and Outlaw when he returns); and 3 main bigs – LA, Haywood, Juwan, with some Pendergraph (and again possibly Outlaw).
Yes, you give up a lot of potential and excitement in Rudy (and significant value in Blake as well), but let’s be honest: at this point Rudy’s actual contribution in terms of wins is pretty limited, and he can only get so much PT with Roy and Miller playing 35+MPG. Essentially, we have to pick between Rudy and Bayless, unless we go to the 3-guard lineup, which will kill us in the playoffs.
Now, I’m not sure which one is more valuable at this point, but I think that if we trade Blake we need to keep Bayless. Also, Bayless has a lot more future potential on the team as long as Roy is around, as he’s getting more and more comfortable playing a slightly more traditional 1.
by gidons on Jan 20, 2010 3:22 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Your idea makes too much sense
Don’t go crowding the issue with logic.
I think this is the kind of deal the Wiz would be looking for
Expiring contract + promising young player on cheap contract or a draft pick. I personally don’t think you give away Rudy to rent a center for 40 games. If you think you can resign Haywood and that he would be happy backing up Greg for a few years, maybe. But that is a big if for me…
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
i think it's smart to assume Joel won't contribute for the Blazers again
The worst case there is that you bring in a guy like Haywood, and Joel comes back relatively close to full strength halfway through next season. We’ll be able to move Joel as an expiring contract at the next trade deadline anyway, so the worst that happens is you are carrying three potentially productive centers for a few months.
I know this is hard on Joel, who’s been a warrior and very loyal to the team, but it’s a hard, hard business.
I have thought for some time
that Rudy is the player most likely to be traded. Because he has good value in the league, and because he is a poor fit with our slow it down and give the ball to Brandon offense.
Rudy would benefit from an offense that relies on passing and movement, because those are his strengths.
Although his presence and injuries have changed the dynamic, the difficulty in adapting to Andre Miller is more evidence that this team is not inclined to play team offense.
"The only 'Advanced Metric' that matters is what you see with your eyes." -Timbo, Nov., 2009.
Isn't playing to Bayless's needs also in our repertoire?
wouldn’t Rudy be a perfect fit when Bayless is in at the 1, in both 2 and 3 positions?
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
No 3 for you!
Rudy simply cannot defend 3’s in this league. He doesn’t have enough ball-handling to play the 1 on offense, or quickness to defend most 1’s. This sticks him squarely in a traditional 2 role, unless specific matchups materialize (e.g. against the Warriors). He would fit perfectly in a team like Phoenix, where his speed, shooting and passing would be ideal; but he has a limited – not small, just limited – value in Portland.
So Bayless as a 1 is not in the scriptures?
When you have Bayless at the one and Roy at the 2 the fast paced game that Phoenix plays is exactly where we’d be . . . Bayless is not one to sit back and Roy can play at both 2 or 3 as can Fernandez. Having both their abilities to switch in between positions at the two and the three while playing a second unit fast paced ball is invaluable.
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
Have you been watching the Blazers recently?
As in, over the last 3 years? Your argument has at least three huge holes:
1. Bayless is fast, and strong, and loves getting out on the break. But he doesn’t have anywhere near the skill of Nash or Kidd in terms of decision making on the break. He’s working on improving his reads in the set offense, and he’s doing a decent job finding people off the drive, but that’s not enough to be a leader of a running team. Rudy loves to run, but can’t lead the break. Roy almost never runs, though I’d love for him to do it more. Given that, the only lineup that would make sense for running would include Miller, and Rudy OR Bayless. Playing with all 3 is suicidal on defense.
2. In fact, the Blazers got to play quite a bit of Miller/Bayless/Martell/Aldridge, all of whom are at least theoretically eager to run. Despite that, they haven’t run much. Partly it’s because YOU NEED THE BALL TO RUN (sorry for yelling).
You get the ball by turning it over – which the Blazers are not so great at – or by rebounding. If your two running forwards – Martell and LA – are shouldering most of the rebounding load, they can’t get out on the break. Of course, you could also run after made baskets, but that takes enormous commitment on the part of the entire team, including the coaching staff.
3. Which brings us to the last, and maybe most glaring, reason why the Blazers aren’t running more. We keep hearing about Nate wanting the team to “push push push” etc., but it’s not enough to talk about it. You have to plan it, learn it, practice it, and be committed to it. Players have to know exactly what to do and when; they need to know where their teammates are, and where they’ll be 3 seconds from now; they need to know that their coach won’t rip them for gambling sometimes.
All of this simply isn’t the case in Portland. Yes, Brandon likes to play slow and methodical, but on the other hand I saw a lot of him at Washington, and that team was committed to running, based on tremendous pressure defense and good rebounding. Even though he wasn’t the finisher on most plays, that didn’t stop the rest of the team from running. Therefore I will put the onus for this one squarely on Nate’s shoulders, and only partially on Roy’s. In fact, Nate only had one running team – Seattle in 2004 I think? – and they simply had the perfect personnel for it, and pretty much did it in spite of Nate (led by Ray Allen), not because of him.
Good argument
You could have done without the title and first sentence though. No need to make it personal.
good reply
1) Bayless is not Nash. Suicidal seems a bit harsh. I understand that running includes the bigs. I actually am not a big fan of Bayless but was trying to make some sense of what we have to play with functionally (meaning who we have now). Rudy is an amateur. But he can learn: you must give him credit for steals. If we lose Miller, as above stated, we would certainly need Fernandez to step up as a leader in fast breaks.
2) I think if you look at stats Fernandez is actually quite good at steals . . . which means we’ get the ball’.
3) agree completely with your third point. Nate needs to be particular and step up. But who are we to coach?
My only digression (totally unnecessary) is that I have been watching the Blazers for a very long time. Bayless has only been a factor in the very, very, recent dynamic . . . so you can’t really call me on that.
"I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous"
Jacques Derrida
Rudy is worth so much more, I don't think this can be overstated
If the Wiz add an unprotected lottery coice to that deal, then maybe
Don’t add Rudy to deals unless there’s an outstanding return, because KP won’t
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yup. Trading a promising young player for a backup center
who has reached his peak? Let’s see, I think we’ve seen this movie before.
Too much future value given up
for too little future value in return.
If A) we don’t expect Joel back for more than a year and B) we sign Haywood to an extension, then this makes sense. But you don’t give up Rudy for a guy who might walk away in a few months or is going to be surplus to requirements at the start of next year.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
Trading Miller just because the salaries are close doesn't make basketball sense
The Blazers have plenty of 3 point shooters. What they don’t have (besides a healthy center) is the ability to facilitate that they get with Miller. You know, ball movement, everyone getting involved, that type of thing. Maybe when he returns, Oden might want to have a teammate (like Miller) that’s willing to pass him the ball. I would think the Blazer brass, sans McMillan, would have a little more sense than that. The idea is to go to the next level. Not repeat last year. All last year proved was that the team had enough talent to get bounced in the first round of the playoffs. Trade someone with the skills that are duplicated.
Vanilla Godzilla Light
How about Blake for Zaza Pachulia? Zaza is getting no playing time in Atlanta and the Hawks are in need of 3 point shooting? Pachulia hustles and rebounds well. The salaries match up and Pachulia is only 25 so with more PT he can keep developing.
I was thinking about Pach yesterday.
He would be a serviceable C this year, and a fine 3rd option next year. I’d do it. I have no qualms with losing Steve Blake either!
Miller for Haywood makes good sense
We free up the logjam at point, get rid of a potential malcontent, Miller gets to dominate the ball and is happy, and get our backup center.
Plus, I just don’t like Miller. I’ll be upfront about it.
by jamon51 on Jan 20, 2010 8:41 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Finally.
Plus, I just don’t like Miller. I’ll be upfront about it.
At least you admit. I feel like half the people here feel the same way about the guy, and I just don’t get it. So he’s a little cranky and a little rough around the edges . . . big deal! He is far from a malcontent.
How quickly memory fades. Four years ago this team was full of malcotents. Z-Bo, Miles, Bonzi, Qyntel, blah, blah, blah. Miller would have been viewed as a saint if he was on those teams.
There isn’t a player on our current roster that I DON’T like. From Roy to Oden to Outlaw to Patty Mills. I love them all.
But I am realistic enough to realize that not all of them have equal value basketball-wise. This team could trade Outlaw and Blake and not even notice. Losing Miller at this point would be a huge shot to the ‘W’ column.
by StuckeyDuck on Jan 20, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And then Obama can claim it is creating jobs.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
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.
