Holding on to assets or percepieved assets to long.

by Cabbol on Feb 4, 2012 8:23 AM PST

This seems to be an on going issue with the blazers franchise. The team does not maximize value and move guys when their trade value is highest, especially when those players are not in the long term plans of the team. A long list of players had perceived value, rudy, Bayless, oden, even miller. Now none of these guys got movd in a manner that returned us much value. In the case of Rudy and bayless we simple waited too long. My question is why did we not see the real value before the rest of the league did. We had the advantage. Now look at a team like okl, who moved green at a high value got a nice quality center, then green goes out for a year with a long term injury. Now what did okl know about green? The fact is they timed the move perfectly. I think we are about to make the same mistake with Wallace, camby and Felton. All three have value, especially Wallace. We cannot afford to make this mistake again. Is this an issue of our team being owned by a corporate run system that cannot move in a timely fashion? Can the blazers ever be decisive enough to strike when an opportunity presents itself? We need a bold move and I simple have or seen that from the allen/miller/Nate run organization.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Gerald Wallace, Marcus Camby, and Raymond Felton don't necessarily fit the criteria you're going for here.

The only current Blazer who fit this criteria is Nicolas Batum, who I’d argue has now been held onto for too long.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Feb 4, 2012 8:29 AM PST reply actions

But

Batum Is in the blazers long term plans then it’s ok we didn’t move him. Right now it seems the value of batum is still very high around the league, just not high to our coach. If batum is not valued by Nate then it is in our best interest to move him or get rid of Nate. As foe Wallace he does have value to a contender and must be moved at the deadline. I still believe a package of Wallace Felton camby expiring contracts could pull a great asset from a contender in a big market who want to make a run this year and free up space next year.

by Cabbol on Feb 4, 2012 10:16 AM PST up reply actions

I would argue that Felton does not hold much value except as a expiring contract.

But Marcus and Gerald would generally be sought by many teams.

Heck, let’s make a nice package and get a Nash or whatnot. Throw in a Babbitt to make it all work.

"If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind."

by thankyouforblaze on Feb 4, 2012 11:00 PM PST up reply actions

There's no indication that Batum's value is all that high around the league.

He was shopped, but it appears we could not get a decent front line player in return – so he’s stayed here. Wallace and Felton, in turn, were available to every other team last year just as Miller was two years prior. No team was willing to pay Miller more than $7 million the year we signed him, and now he’s 3 years older, and any team that was interested could’ve cut the same deal we cut for Wallace and/or Felton. But they didn’t. I suspect you value these players more than the other GM’s do, which is why we have yet to trade them. You suspect – but don’t know – like the rest of us. Swapping deck chairs on the Titanic for deck chairs on the Normandy still gets you a sinking boat. Our problem is we need players at the PG and the Pivot – and those are the most expensive and hard to fill positions.

by ebenc on Feb 4, 2012 10:39 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Cap room

Has high value as well to certain markets. You have 3 quality players expiring. Look at those three from the lakers point of view. Would they be willing to trade gasol for Wallace Felton and camby for a run this year AND freeing enough space to sign a Howard or williams next? We can then move gasol and batum to gs for curry and Beidrens. All three players have good value for a team making a run and the lakers must do something for Kobe. That trade fills so many positions and makes them contented this year with flexibility next, that is huge! Cap space for us is not as valuable as for big market teams. Right now they neither have flex or are in contention. The blazers have shown they don’t use expiring contracts. It would be incredible stupid not to get value out of those three contracts. Even if we have to eat a contract, it’s fine as no one big will sign here. So purely on player value your right those players don’t have huge value, but to the right big market team they are playoff dollar games this year and freedom next.

by Cabbol on Feb 4, 2012 10:52 AM PST up reply actions

Here's an alternate theory

Name one franchise that consistently trades away their young players on rookie contracts for established young stars.

Answer. None of them do. Because it makes no fiscal or competitive sense.

dinasour type of guys choir boys

by mittsabishy on Feb 4, 2012 3:03 PM PST reply actions

Yeah I agree

I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_4.html#ixzz1IE4sPu16

by Tyler Durrden on Feb 5, 2012 7:45 AM PST via mobile up reply actions

yep

by poorwebguy on Feb 5, 2012 12:30 PM PST up reply actions

I kind of agree.

Seems like a rule of thumb that if the fan base WANTS a player traded, then his value has plummeted and is essentially of little worth (see, for example, Randolph and Sergio). And the reverse is probably true as well: if the fan base is UNhappy with a trade, then it was probably well-timed in that max value was obtained (see, for example, Bayless (maybe) and Andre (maybe)).

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Feb 4, 2012 6:01 PM PST reply actions

Exactly

Wallace should be traded right after we have a few home games. The top of his popularity. Management are just not that agressive. They will get caught up in the hot play just like the fans. Cho was on it. He wanted to trade Roy while his value was at his highest. That is how you build a championship..

by Cabbol on Feb 4, 2012 7:01 PM PST up reply actions

haha

No he didn’t.

dinasour type of guys choir boys

by mittsabishy on Feb 4, 2012 10:55 PM PST up reply actions

"Cho was on it. He wanted to trade Roy while his value was at his highest."

What?

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Feb 4, 2012 11:25 PM PST up reply actions

Really?

Cho wasn’t here when Roy’s value was the “highest”. And in any case, the fan base was not ready to trade the franchise player, anymore than most were ready to amnesty Roy “before” he made the decision to medically retire. I would also comment that LA may value cap space, but swapping Gasol for Wallace, Felton and Camby doesn’t necessarily guarantee them a title. They would upgrade the SF slot, downgrade the PF slot, and then have Felton. The Blazers, in turn, would have Gasol at center, but no PG at all to play. Leaving them with one very expensive hole to fill.

by ebenc on Feb 5, 2012 4:57 AM PST up reply actions

By the time Rich Cho got here, Roy had negative trade value due to his contract and injuries.

So yeah, I’m not sure why Cabbol made that comment. That’s why I quoted him and responded with an exclamatory “What?” in reply.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Feb 6, 2012 2:57 AM PST up reply actions

But

It’s long term thinking. The trade gives the lakers the playoff games to make a little revenue, it then frees them up to sign the long term piece. What we give up is playoff revenue for a shot at a pgtf. We are not winning this year. 1 and done without making a long term move is the worst result for us this year. Cap room for us is useless, we aren’t getting someone big to come here. You trade cap room, playoff game revenue and quality players for pgtf. Trades are not just about the players.

by Cabbol on Feb 5, 2012 8:04 AM PST reply actions