Blazersedge Mailbag: June 2nd, 2010
Time to do more mailbag catching up! As always submit your questions to blazersub@yahoo.com. I read every one and do my best to get all I can onto the main page here. Please put "Mailbag" somewhere in the subject line to make it easy for me.
Hopefully our big men all come back healthy. Oden, Przybilla, and Camby are all among the league leaders in rebounding. Aldridge isn't as effective rebounding, but brings more offense. With the history of injuries to our big men, I would like to see Portlandeither pick up another top level rebounder, or either teach Aldridge the art of rebounding or trade him and assets for a power forward that brings both offense and tenacious rebounding. We have had an edge as for rebounding, however if we become even better, that will put the pressure on other teams and also keep us in games when our offense isn't being effective. I feel the key to a championship stars with domination inside. Your thoughts?
Inside dominance, particularly on the boards, is one of the paths to success in this league...a path that until the disastrous mid-2000's was a Blazer hallmark. It's been nice to see a resurgence in the current era, though that has been blunted by injuries to some of the big men you mentioned. I'd say great rebounding raises your floor more than your ceiling. Rebounding alone isn't enough to take you to the highest echelon. But if you are a great rebounding team there are only so many bad things that can happen to you. The extra points you get on the offensive boards and the points you deny the opponent on the other end tend to even out parts of your game that aren't working on a given night. You have to be pretty bad in other aspects of the game to ruin great rebounding.
I look at the roster situation a little differently than you've laid out. If the Blazers can get at least two of those centers operational (particularly if one is Oden) they are free to go with a more new-age, diverse power forward and perhaps skimp on rebounding at some other positions. Having Oden, Przybilla, and Camby allows you to absorb Aldridge and to take advantage of his strengths without worrying if he's a little shy in the rebounding department. To get another power rebounder would almost be overkill, especially since those guys traditionally work in the low post on offense. If your entrée is sweet already you don't want to prepare a sweet orange sauce to pour over it then add a sweet herb like basil and serve caramelized onions right next to it. You need some saltiness, some sourness, other things to complement the dish. At a certain point you won't even taste that extra sweet thing you added. That's what adding a monster rebounder would do to this lineup, provided the centers are healthy. I would like to see Portland cultivate a tough, bulky, rebounding power forward off the bench. It would add a different look. Plus that back-up center situation isn't going to remain the same forever. Perhaps Cunningham or Pendergraph could fill the bill?
Which of the following would most likely to happen?
1 Lebron sign and trade with Portland... If so, what players should be included?
2 Trade for #3 pick along with Devin Harris for future picks, current picks... LMA,Rudy and fillers? then draft favors....3 Swap PFs and filler with Toronto for bosh...?
This is a little like asking which of the following would be most likely:
1. Scientists discover the moon really is made of cheese. We send a giant magnifying glass into orbit, build a space elevator, manufacture giant skinny forks, and all have fondue.
2. David Stern admits that NBA results are a predetermined hoax propagated by ex-deputy Commissioner Russ Granik who took over the entire league office with his powers of mind control and unbearable charisma.
3. I become a L*kers blogger. After actually killing Sasha Vujacic, Kobe Bryant invites me to join the team. I hit the series-winning shot in the Finals, Phil Jackson is so impressed he backs out of the picture so I can marry Jeanie Buss, and I carry Luke Walton's love child to term...a fine lad whom we name Pookie Walton-Deckard III.
Since you asked me to choose the most likely I'd have to say #2 but you have to get rid of Portland getting the third pick. I think the Blazers could manufacture ways to get Harris easier than they could get either of the superstars. But now that New Jersey is not getting Wall I don't really think that's likely. Sign and trades are always a wild card but it's not likely that Portland is on LeBron's or Bosh's radar.
Portland doesn't have to make this kind of deal to get better, though. Were a bona fide, productive star available you could start talking about Aldridge's prospects for growth and his worth to the team. But anything short of a money-in-the-bank player wouldn't get Portland to move any of their Big Four. If hay is to be made it's in looking at the Rudys, the Baylesses, the Websters, the Przybillas of the world and asking what those assets could bring in return. Could you get a really good player who is just now starting to decline, a guy who will give you 4-5 good years a la Buck Williams back in the late 80's? Could you reset some of those contracts into nice rookies? Could you turn two or three promising young players into one really promising one that you know fits? Four of your five starting positions are already locked up so you're talking a starting point guard or a really nice reserve player or two...a killer sixth man maybe.
Even more likely is a minor move involving one of those players for a tune-up acquisition. How much better would the Blazers be if either reserve guard position were locked down? This team could get better by obtaining a player that could both back up and fill in for Brandon Roy while manning both ends of the floor. Of course some would argue that Fernandez or Bayless will be that guy, and maybe they're right. But if you're going to see a move chances are it'll be in this vein.
The point is, the Blazers don't need to blow up the ship and rebuild at this point. They just need to nudge the rudder a little. Everyone loves the idea of an ultra-name player coming onboard but when you count the cost, aiming for a targeted, smart move with less flash keeps the team more on course.
It seems fairly clear that we do not currently have our "point guard of the future". Andre Miller seems to be doing well, and is finding a way to fit in along side Brandon, but he's too old to be our long term solution. We also have Bayless, but he isn't yet showing that he can be the starting point guard we need in the near future, or at least soon enough to replace Miller. What do you see us doing at the point guard position, and urgent do you think that situation is?
One of the main bonuses of having Miller onboard is that he buys the Blazers time to answer this very question. The question is pressing but not urgent. If Portland goes another year, perhaps even two, with 'Dre at the helm they'll be OK. Not having to make an immediate move gives the Blazers more options.
Portland seems determined to solve this issue via the draft, as they acquire a point guard prospect each year. Exactly zero of those have worked out so far, though obviously a couple experiments are ongoing. I wouldn't be surprised to see them continue this tack but I've grown cynical enough to wish they wouldn't. The Blazers don't have five years to wait for a guy to develop. OK...technically they do but they will have short-changed a couple of early opportunities in their growth curve by doing so.
Another option will be looking at the players the Blazers already have. Bayless, Fernandez, Mills, Koponen, and the no-true-PG lineup are all options. This option depends not only on the skills of the prospective point guards but on the players that surround them. We just talked about not needing as much rebounding from LaMarcus Aldridge because we have centers to handle it. What do we really need from a point guard? That depends on what Roy and Batum can handle. It could also depend on the Oden effect. We don't know the answers to those questions yet. We don't even know if we need a true point guard. However I will say that if we do need one the potential of the current roster is dicey. It's not a basket in which I'd be comfortable resting all my eggs.
The opposite tactic to the draft would be finding a ready-made, high-level point guard. (Andre Miller is one of those but as you mentioned he's a short-timer.) With half the roster out it's hard to gauge the entire effect but in general the team played more consistently with a guy like Miller at the helm than in previous seasons with less experienced or less talented point guards. As we mentioned with rebounding above, maybe the ceiling wasn't that much higher but the floor was. The problems with this approach are three. These kind of guards usually aren't available at an age to make them the long-term answer here. It's a guard-oriented league right now and they're prized. When they are available they cost you a pretty penny in trade. They also carry hefty contracts, which makes them a hard sell financially. As much as I'd like to find a high-level guy just entering his prime who can be acquired cheaply and paid reasonably I just don't see it happening.
I could see the Blazers replacing Miller with another career-finishing point guard every 2-3 years, particularly if the other players develop a solid identity as a unit. Very few teams have five players remain the same for entire eras. Usually there are 3-4 stalwarts and other players rotate in and out. Maybe point guard isn't as crucial as we think and a veteran guy with skill and enough minutes left in him to start is enough.
The last option is the one I find most likely: using some of your current assets to bet on an guy who could become a starter but would also make a fine back-up...probably because he's somebody's back-up or borderline starter now. At a minimum you solidify the position behind Miller and you're still able to employ any of the above tactics. But maybe the promise you see will blossom. You could also get guys closer to their primes on this basis. We're talking about players like Beno Udrih or Jarrett Jack who could be acquired reasonably and don't put any more pressure on the books than an MLE player would. If you're looking for a true long-term solution, it's probably going to come from this category.
As a old Duck and a Portlander, I have a sentimental attachment to having players with Portland and Oregon (and not just UO) connections here -- Ime, Dickau, Jones, Jackson etc. I always wanted the Blazers to pick up Terrell Brandon and AC Greene, for example. Do you think the Rockets would be interested in say, Fernandez and Bayless for Aaron Brooks? Would he even work in Nate's system? I know he and Brandon go way back but do they get along? Would the salary numbers work out? Do you think that's an option worth pursuing? he's become more of a scorer than an assists guy lately; could he and Roy co exist in the backcourt? How's his defense? Shoot, maybe we should just go after all the Seattle guys; like that story in Sports Illustrated (was it?) showed, there's quite a lot of Seattle talent around the league. Too bad they don't have an NBA team anymore.
There are so many layers to this question! I'll try to cover it.
I applaud your loyalty to the local guys. I like to see Oregon players do well too. I loved everything Terrell Brandon did because he went to my high school and led us to the State Championship. WOOT! However I am not in favor of acquiring local guys per se, be it through the draft or trade. People argue it will sell tickets but my guess is that winning sells tickets and everything else is a distant second. (Which is different than saying I'd sacrifice anything just to win, so let's not go there.) If the non-local guy is better, get the non-local guy and personally recommend the local guy to the other GM. The other thing--and this is also true when people say that they wouldn't like the team as much if we traded for LeBron James--is that once a guy puts on a Blazers uniform he becomes local. Once King James suited up in crimson and black, threw down a dunk, scored 40, and won a game or two he'd be one of the most beloved Blazers of all time. Think of all of the iconic figures from Blazer lore: Clyde Drexler, Bill Walton, Maurice Lucas, Terry Porter, Kiki Vandeweghe, Jack Ramsay, even the Schonz himself. These guy ARE Portland, even more than the players you mentioned. All of them started somewhere else first, though. None of them grew up in Oregon.
As far as the Brooks thing, I don't think the Rockets deal him for that package unless they definitively determine that they don't like him and Kevin Martin on the same roster. That'll probably take another year at least. Even then, would they really think Rudy and/or Jerryd fit better with Martin?
If the Blazers wanted Brooks they should have drafted him. They went with Rudy instead. Brooks has some of the same issues as Nate Robinson, who we discussed in the last mailbag. He's a smaller guard. His defense is suspect and has become more so as he's played a bigger role. He likes scoring, as you mentioned. I would infinitely prefer Brooks to Robinson but I don't think he's the right fit at the right cost. He is still on his rookie deal, which makes his cap imprint tiny for now. But it's likely that in addition to talent the Rockets would make you take a contract back in return to get him. If you did acquire him you'd need to play to his strengths which brings up the very valid Roy-Brooks question you mentioned. I believe the Blazers want to speed up anyway so theoretically it's not an insurmountable issue but it would sure take some juggling to figure out a happy middle ground where both could touch the ball and play at the tempo they prefer.
If we got an all-Seattle team I'd speculate that the Blazers should just fire their entire scouting crew and stick to guys that Paul Allen has scouted personally.
I've been thinking about Blake and Outlaw and wondering what type of contract offers they will receive. As the Blazers struggled in some games to score points, especially the "second" unit, I fondly remembered Outlaw creating his own shot and making key baskets in the fourth quarter and Blake hitting some key 3's. Two questions: where do you think Blake and Outlaw fit into the free agent sphere this summer, and would the Blazers consider bringing either of them back?
(These questions are especially prompted by my noticing how several of the playoff teams (teams Blazers must beat in future playoffs) have fairly dynamic scorers and/or defenders coming off the bench and playing important roles/i.e., "game-changers").
Both Blake and Outlaw will be playing in the league next year. I don't see either getting huge raises. Blake made $4 million this season which will be about his max. Outlaw made $3.6 million. I can see a team going higher than that but I don't see him as more than an MLE-level player at this point. Likely someone will consider him a cheap gamble.
In neither case would I favor a return to the Blazers, at least not unless the landscape changes dramatically. The future of this team is forward, not back. I would deem Blake the more likely candidate but only if Bayless is traded. Portland definitely doesn't need that three-PG mush we witnessed last year. Jerryd has played well enough to be the second point guard until it's shown his skills don't fit or will be valued more elsewhere. Blake isn't good enough to supplant him and isn't bad enough to play behind him (in essence not playing). If Jerryd goes and Rudy isn't capable of backing up Miller we can talk. Until then Blake just makes a mess.
While I can see the argument for Travis as a reserve power forward and shot self-creator he's getting expensive to play behind a guy who rightfully should hog almost all the minutes at the position. There's no room at center or small forward to sneak in other minutes either. But even if there were, I'm of the belief that the Travis experiment is done in Portland. The Blazers had him for six years. He was healthy the majority of that time. He grew, of course, but he never achieved the level of reliable contributor. The Blazers don't need more unreliability.
This is also my answer to the "game-changer" assertion. Blake could change games very occasionally. Outlaw probably earned the full "occasionally" designation, maybe a smidgen more. But neither one would change the game every night. That's the kind of player Portland needs more of, in the post-season or otherwise. Fernandez and Bayless, Batum and Webster, Aldridge and Oden...all of these guys can change games here and there. The Blazers are waiting for all of them to get more consistent. Nicolas and LaMarcus are close. None of the others are. Throwing another random player in the mix like Outlaw--a guy who won't get enough minutes to work out of that randomness and who hasn't shown that much less randomness no matter how many minutes he's gotten--isn't a prescription for success.
Keep those questions coming to blazersub@yahoo.com!
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
woo mailbag!
PRS talked about Blake and Outlaw in the last day or two and came to similar conclusions as you did, Dave. Interesting.
I would argue, in response to your paragraph, that when Oden is playing (and healthy, yes lots of conditions) that he’s just about an every-game changer. His defensive presence and small-but-growing post arsenal completely change how the Blazers play and how other teams have to approach us.
I suppose there’s no clear-cut definition of ‘changing a game’, but whatever it is, I think a healthy Oden like we saw back in November definitely does it.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Sorry, not PRS, but Rip City Project.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
The reserve player we need might be a shooter
But perhaps that can be a rookie draftee.
But i am puzzled about this:
If we got an all-Seattle team I’d speculate that the Blazers should just fire their entire scouting crew and stick to guys that Paul Allen has scouted personally.
You mean he doesn’t scout every pick personally? What are those extra jets in the fleet for then? :-)
Go Generals!
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21... I know...
"'Five Dollar Foot-long' is one of the best songs. That's a hot song. You've got the FreeCreditReport.com, and then 'Five Dollar Foot-long' comes on. When 'Five Dollar Foot-long' comes on, they should play that in the club. They should play all those in the club."
~ Ron Artest (link: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-090515)
by FibonacciSequence on Jun 2, 2010 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm intrigued by Udrih
But his salary is somewhat questionable. 6.5 million next year for someone who to me seems like Blake 2.0 starts to make me less intrigued.
Also you mentioned the Blazers going forward not back, then talk about bringing back J Jack who was lambasted for making bone-headed mistakes while he was here (Sound like anyone else we know?). Slight hypocrisy there?
Having said that I think I’d rather have Jack than Udrih as his offensive stats are better and the difference in D seems negligible. Oh and he’s 2 million cheaper…..
Conley, Collison, Hinrich all seem like better options to me though.
2011 staring lineup: #11, #7, #88, #12, #52 Reserves: #6, #21, #4, #33, #31, #20, #8
Brooks?
It is interesting that fans continue to suggest trade after trade for other young PGs who are not significantly better than the young PG we already have.
Look at Brooks’ stats for his first three years, after a four year career at Oregon:
PER: 13.1, 12.9, 16.0
TS%: .535, .524, 549
AST%: 23.5, 20.2, 25.6
TO%: 15.1, 12.7, 13.7
3PT%: .330, ,366, .398
Compare those stats to Bayless’ after a “one and done” career at UA. Bayless only has two seasons rather than three, so in order to show the trend in his development I have given his stats from this seasons Playoffs as a substitute for a third season. Certainly this involves a small sample size, but my point is to illustrate the trend in Bayless’ development:
PER: 8.2, 14.3, 15.5
TS%: .487, .534, .536
AST%: 18.2, 22.3, 27.8
TO%: 19.3, 13.8, 9.6
3PT%: .259, .315, .407
Basically, Bayless is even or ahead of where Brooks was after his second season in nearly every statistical category. Bayless had a rough rookie season, but that is not surprising given his one year of college and trying to make the switch from SG to PG.
I certainly don’t think that Brooks is a significant upgrade from Bayless, and I think there are a lot of reasons to believe that Bayless will ultimately be the better player. Brooks is very small and lacks the strength that will ultimately allow Bayless to be a much better defender (and rebounder) particularly in situations where he needs to defend larger players on switches. Brooks is blazing fast, but has less ability to draw contact and get to the line.
Brooks is 25, and probably close to being fully developed. Bayless is 21, and has a lot further to go. I think it is reasonable to think his ultimate ceiling is probably higher than Brooks’. Bayless continues to be under-appreciated by a significant portion of the Blazer fan base.
by upper left corner on Jun 2, 2010 6:18 AM PDT reply actions
I am not a stats man, so I will take your word for it</b?
Therefore, I do agree with you on your position of JBay over Brooks. Also, We have a half way developed Mills that could get as good or better then Brooks, so why trade and pay more money when we have two players in the making.
Another option although slim is that Batum is reported to going to get playing time at PG for the French National team being as how Parker is not going to play. I have no idea how that will turn out, but if Batum can be a SM fatilitater or PG then the stress for a super PG is less important.
In short I agree with U, I was just adding some of my opinions.
hg
by BBK on Jun 2, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it is more about "playmaking" than "a playmaker"
I think Roy, Bayless, and Batum could be very effective together given a season or two together.
Folks seem very hung up on the PG/SG distinction. I see it more as a matter of function, rather than position. I would rather see the team have three guys who can both score and distribute the ball than one classic, pass first, PG. It makes it a lot harder for the opponents to double team.
by upper left corner on Jun 2, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I am not a Master at determining this
This does sound good to me though, I will digest that information and ponder on it.
Mind you, that does not mean I will agree with U. It just means that I don’t know LOL.
hg
OK!! I will agree with stipulations!
All three would have to b good off the dribble and bringing the ball down the court in a fast break.
On thinking, I remembered in the championship year, we had more fast breaks then any team in history so they say, because then they didn’t keep stats on Fast Breaks. The main thing was that Bill didn’t care who was open for a break away pass, it could be Twardzik, L Train, or Gross, they could all take it down the floor and lead a fast break. That would go along with what you are saying. And that I would agree on.
Greg isn’t the passer that Bill was yet but he could get better.
hg
by BBK on Jun 2, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Not to mention that very few guys that are small like Brooks and rely so much on athleticism
make any impact past the age of 30. Mighty Mouse is a good example. I like the long term outlook of Bayless better than Brooks and when you factor in Bayless’ obscene work ethic you have to think he will be a decent player in the future.
.This
“The last option is the one I find most likely: using some of your current assets to bet on an guy who could become a starter but would also make a fine back-up…probably because he’s somebody’s back-up or borderline starter now.”
Yes, yes; but the guy you’re describing happens to be Ray Felton. He fits Nates style to a Tee (hard nosed, low turn-over guy that bangs hard on bigger guards.), he’s unrestricted and he has practically no risk save the unforseen. He’s a baller and he is a long-term solution just entering his prime; much superior to Jarrett J. or Benno U.
I wouldn't mind Felton either.
He would have ot realize he won’t play much he first year though.
Yes, he's not yet the caliber of Andre
Still, I wouldn’t mind picking up Jarrett Jack as a backup. He’s quality!
I'm changing my name to:
Pookie Walton-Deckard III. Happy hump day. Carry on.
"I come to you now, at the turn of the tide." -- Brandon "Gandalf" Roy, April 24th, 2010
If the non-local guy is better, get the non-local guy and personally recommend the local guy to the other GM.
Classic.
"I come to you now, at the turn of the tide." -- Brandon "Gandalf" Roy, April 24th, 2010
the most important take-away I got from reading this was...
it is crimson red on the blazer jersey?
picture me rollin'
As a old Duck and a Portlander, I have a sentimental attachment to having players with Portland and Oregon
If you’re looking for a former Duck PG, then Luke Rodnour is a FA who could be pursued with the MLE, next month
I’ve got UO ties, but I’d rather spend the MLE money elsewhere
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
in regards to the PG question...
I think for the formula on how to manage our roster and acquire players that fit us (especially in relation to a PG), we should look nor further than our arch-nemesis Los Angeles Lakers. While I hate them and Kobe with the fire of a thousands suns, they are contenders every year by having stars and rotating players around them.
In the Shaq/Kobe days it was the SF – Rick Fox, Glen Rice, and others all filled the same role – a guy that could hit open shots, not be a total liability on defense, and could make the right pass. They also did it with PFs – Horace Grant, Karl Malone and others rotated onto the roster – guys that would rebound all day, didn’t demand the ball, and were physical/tough.
Right now – look at Derek Fisher. Totally gets abused on defense, doesn’t get to the rim or penetrate at all, doesn’t make nifty passes….all he does is play tough and knock down open shots, especially 3s. He’s not a game-changer for them, but he generally gets the job done. His weaknesses are hidden by the strengths of his teammates.
To me, that’s what the Blazers need to do with a PG. That player doesn’t need to be a playmaker-extraordinaire a la Nash or Paul or DWill. He needs to knock down open threes, make the extra pass, and stay in front of his man on defense.
That’s why I was such a proponent of getting Hinrich last offseason – while I agree he’s overpaid he does all of those things very well
by rip_city_swagger on Jun 2, 2010 10:37 AM PDT reply actions
Don't forget Big Shot Rob - He killed!
One of my all-time favorite players.
while I don't disagree with your logic,
(Your especially spot on about Derek Fisher) the Blazer situation is more remote than the Laker’s situation of having Kobe and Shaq. In Kobe you have, perhaps, the biggest difference maker in the NBA and Shaq was perhaps the best low post player ever to have played the game. Two superstars to feed off from and an offensive system that allows the passing lanes to be close and unified. Kobe simply adds several dimensions to any team. In part hitting the open shot, was because of all the attention these players demanded. No offense to Roy, but he is simply not in the same league as a Kobe or Lebron.
We used this option (more readily) in the 2008-2009 season and did OK, but the next level was not reached when the playoffs were applied.
It is fair to say that this is still our most realistic option, but we could still be left wanting a “floor general” to round out the team in a more traditional fashion. Of course getting both bangs for the buck (having a floor general who can hit open shots) would be the ultimate compliment.
I agree
my whole thing was that we have a core (a la Kobe/Shaq or Kobe/Gasol) in Roy and Aldridge (with Oden and Batum being right there too) – and all we have to do is keep a competent PG who can do those things to be a really good team, it doesn’t have to be a star like Paul or Nash playing that position for us
I thought about it a lot – and (with BRoy 100%) – would you rather have Andre Miller (horrible shooter, good penetrator and floor leader), or let’s say, Hinrich (really good defender, knock-down shooter). As much as I like Dre, I think Hinrich would better play with our starters
by rip_city_swagger on Jun 2, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
triangle offense
it’s easier for L*A to get by with Fish at PG alongside K*be, because of the system they run
similar to the Bulls, who did pretty well with Hodges, Paxson, Kerr and Armstrong playing alongside MJ
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I like your BIG FOUR comment!!!
I also agree with rip_city_swagger when it comes to the point guard ?. I think the Blazers could also use Batum as a point forward.
Dave I've got to respectfully disagree with your last statement
I am predicating this on the fact that Rudy will be gone at the beginning of next year, he is one of the very few Blazers valued more by other teams than he is worth. That’s just the simple truth.
But even if he were here, which sounds more comfortable to you Jerryd and Blake or Blake and Rudy running the 1 2 interchangeably on the second unit or Rudy and Jerryd? I think most people would prefer Blake and Jerryd over any other combination. A jerryd drive to a Blake kick out? Money.
But the biggest reason is that we have no positional back-up that I think any of us feel comfortable with at starting PG, and Blake can do it, and cheaply. (For those worried about Blake taking over for Miller or something, not happening, I mean we even went so far as to trade Blake, and in any case Miller has earned that starting role, no question).
Alright on to the more difficult position, getting Outlaw back. Outlaw has a lot of value as spice, something different, a change of pace. Someone who can get their’s without relying on other players. We don’t really have that on the team. Some point to Cunningham as a cheap version of Outlaw, but he can’t create and just hits open shots. Cunningham’s on ball defense, while not as bad as Juwan or Pendy’s is still not great nor an asset, for the money the Blazers are paying him, yes he is a value player, but he’s not anybody I’d like to see hit the floor on a healthy Blazer team.
Outlaw’s defense was never horrible, did he use his gifts to their full potential? Heck no, I mean seriously heck no. But he had the gifts to use, and his on ball defense was never bad, did he get lost on team defense? Absolutely. Does Cunningham get lost on team defense? No. But he just literally does not have the body to contain an NBA player on defense.
Obviously on the offense Travis is a sparkplug, and Dante cannot compete with his offensive ability. Even if Dante reached his full max potential, would he ever reach 6-man of the year status? No. Travis was getting votes last year before he got injured. Even at his current level Travis is a better player than Dante will ever be, yes he’s frustrating, yes he needs to rebound better, yes he needs to be more just generally aware on the court, but he is a cheap upgrade at a position we need help at. Plus chemistry… and interviews. Oh Travis interviews, awesome.
These are guys that can be had cheaply, and would improve our team. While other players might be better, its impossible to say that these guys would hurt the team. They would provide definite upgrades at positions that we need help at, so I would say if they can be had cheaply, we should get them both. And I guess the Rudy thing would just make something of a log-jam, even with him this team gets better with Outlaw and Blake.
You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him. -Junior of Deadspin on 'scrappy' players
Minutes.
he would take every single minute from Juwan, Pendy, and Cunningham which is about 12-15 a game. Blake would get his minutes where Rudy is right now.
Another game changer would be great, no question but right now it is cheaper and smarter for the Blazers to make their improvements on the bench, instead of the starting line-up. We shouldn’t feel ecstatic when our bench keeps a +/- of 0 for the game, our bench should be beating other teams, and give our starters a chance to rest and keep them from injury.
You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him. -Junior of Deadspin on 'scrappy' players
Travis Outlaw is gone from Portland, with the Trail Blazer franchise being 100% better for it. That's that.
If the goal is to upgrade the backup wing positions, then let’s hope management deals Martell Webster and Rudy Fernandez — even if its for a less than desirable return, as roster purging is a form of consolidation — subsequently thereafter, the MLE could be used in free agency to sign an unselfish, offensively efficient (i.e., the antithesis of a me-first, simple-minded chucker in Outlaw) in Mike Miller, who’d form an awesome three-man wing rotation with Nicolas Batum and Brandon Roy.
my thoughts exactly
the answer is not to continue loading the roster with more average and inconsistent options. Instead, we need to consolidate to the point that we have a rock solid 7 to 8 man rotation. I also like the idea of Mike Miller on this team. For a guard/forward he gets a decent amount of rebounds, and he gets assists too. Plus, imagine going with a lineup of: Roy, Mike Miller, Batum, Aldridge, Oden. I think that could present match-up problems due to the size and offensive abilities of that group.
I can't argue with a line up like this
As a matter of fact it looks tempting…however, IMO, it still reverts back to a team identity that likely does not get us to the next level.
Most people think that our bench play was weak this year and that the wing position was the culprit..That is reasonable logic given the inconsistency we have always had in this area….. My contention is that, according to KP, this team is evolving. (they actually had little choice). So what are we evolving to? Is it another perimeter team that lives and dies with the outside shot or do we move on and look at our weaknesses? Sometimes making a longer term commitment to the fundamentals of defense and offense won’t get immediate results, but they will allow you to build the foundation necessary to be a more complete team. This fundamental foundation is what the best teams can always fall back on when things don’t go as planned. Examples: disarming your game plan,shots don’t fall, shutting down your stars, forcing you into offensive options you may not have, etc
I’ll agree that this team is not in the most desirable position to make such bold moves, but the questions and weaknesses are looming. (Oden , the inside game, lack of penetration, offensive predictability, lack of a transition game, defensive commitment, etc.)
I do not see a wing oriented offense as the fix to this teams woes. Maybe a seasons worth of claim, but after that all bets are off.
I apologize for the extra stuff and I do not see an issue with upgrading the wing position. I just don’t want to rely on the inside-outside game as our only approach to offense. It gets us back to a predictability state, needs to have an inside scorer, and tends to be more effective in a motion (or transition) offense. (which we don’t do….Note; we do the kick-out/bailout spot up 3’s)
Don’t get me wrong, the spot up 3 is a potent offensive weapon that can be difficult to defend, but if the shots don’t fall, and your game plan depends on it…you’re done (especially if you’ve left defense as an afterthought.)
I disagree on both points
I’d rather have Jerryd and Rudy than Jerryd and Blake. I know everyone’s down on Rudy right now, but I still think he’s the perfect spark plug off the bench for this team. It’s at least worth seeing what happens next year. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that every player will always be perfectly happy with their role at all times. So he thinks he should get more time, no big deal.
And Dante is a better player than Outlaw already, and a MUCH better fit for this team as a hustle guy who can knock down a J. He will probably never be the scorer that Outlaw is, but I don’t think scoring is our biggest need off the bench (again, Rudy & Jerryd).
The good news is
I’ll only have to read responses about how misunderstood Travis Outlaw’s skillset was for another 45 days, or so. After that, he’ll be signed with another NBA team and only mentioned by Bedgers as a footnote from the Blazer’s rebuilding period of 2003-2008
The danger with resigning Blake is that Nate would once again over-rely on Steve and Bayless would be shuttled back to marginal minutes. I still think SB could be a nice backup PG if he was only given 15-20 mpg. Unfortunately, with MicMillian there is no way he’s keeping #2 on the bench for 28-33 mpg
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Outlaw disappeared against Houston
I have no reason to believe that his presence on the team again helps the team move forward in the playoffs…..
"It's Our Time":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99POVJfglY

by 
































