I don't remember the joke completely. what happened to 9? 7 8 9. something like that.

Victor Claver is a stud muffin, that casey vid of him talking is just great. the ladies will love him - i love him. 

I am listening to Joe Satriani right now. excellent guitar player. Him and Buckethead are the best. Top 3 best guitar players? let's hear it.

Who all is going to summer league? 

Converse, brethren. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4312837&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines

The NBA has warned it's team that after falling about $1 million this year (to 57.7 million), the salary cap could plumment next summer to as low as 50.4 to 53.6 million, putting a damper on the 2010 free agent bonanza (and possibly leading to some early unexpected extensions THIS summer?).

Could this possibly help Portland in it's quest to find an unbalanced trade?  Maybe.  Consider the case of some random team trying to shed salary for the summer of 2010 and assuming they need to be about 17 million under the cap to offer a max deal.  So they have been thinking all along they need to get down to around $40 million in salaries (assuming a 57 million cap number).  But bam, now the cap is predicted to drop 3.5 to 7 million below that level.  All of a sudden, they could see themselves need to shed an extra chunk of change to clear that coveted space.  Could this be an opportunity for Portland to swoop in this summer or before the deadline and grab a player that might otherwise have never been made available?

Who knows, but it seems at least plausible, doesn't it?

im not sure if we can do much better then this. if we want to upgrade at pg and sf in one trade

Continue reading this post »

There's a lot of talk now that the majority of the better UFA's have signed that there is no time pressure on the Blazers and they could make lopsided trades up until the deadline mid-season. I can't dispute that this is technically true but I also think there's a very serious risk if they choose to do this.

priority number one for the blazers should absolutely be acquiring upgrades at either the point or small forward. they need to take advantage of the cap room they have. to be blunt if the blazers net nothing out of RLEC and their 2009 cap space then i would consider this an abject failure on the part of Kevin Pritchard.

however there is another concern looming for the blazers which i also think they need to address this summer and that is the upcoming RFA status of brandon roy and lamarcus aldridge. if the blazers choose not to negotiate extensions for these two they would be able to match offers received next summer but don't think it's impossible that one of the two would receive an offer that the blazers would refuse. there are a number of reasons why 2010 will be quite different than many other FA periods.

a large number of teams have targeted the 2010 offseason as their opportunity to chase the big big names - lebron james, dwayne wade,  chris bosh. in fact all of the following teams have less than 30 million in guaranteed money post 2010:

atlanta

chicago

new jersey

houston

minnesota

new york

miami

memphis

portland* (player option for przybilla )

oklahoma city

NOTE: These numbers are based on hoopshype which while probably not 100% accurate gives a picture of how many more teams have caproom as opposed to say this offseason.

that's a whole lot of suitors at the ball for the big 3 guys mentioned above. a lot of people are getting left at the altar next season. and when teams are left at the altar they many times they go for the next best thing and will do anything to get it. moreover lamarcus while probably a step below chris bosh, is a very nice player and next year with so many teams with FA money to spend it's going to be a player's market.

in short, the likelihood that a player like lamarcus would get offered a max contract is pretty high in my estimation. now there's no question in my mind that the blazers are willing to pay max money to roy. but are they willing to pay the same for lamarcus? i don't think that's a certainty. for one lamarcus should absolutely not make the same money as roy and two lamarcus really isn't a max contract stature player.

i think this is the summer to extend both players but the trades need to happen before as the extensions will take the team well over the cap.

Over the last few days especially, we on Blazer's Edge have thrown a lot of trade ideas out there. I've heard a lot of "team X would never do that" or "not Batum". So, how much value does each Blazer player actually have to the Blazers (NOT other teams)? No doubt, there will be a lot of disagreement, but here is my personal opinion.

Continue reading this post »

Signing Hedo Turkoglu would have definitely opened up the championship window, not only for this year, but probably for the next 10 years. Yeah the Blazers would have over paid, but it would have really helped Greg Oden and LaMarcus Aldridge to develop down low. Hedo's ability to penetrate and find the passing lanes for Dwight Howard and company is something that is sorely lacking on this Blazer team. I wrote a blog around the 1rst pleading to KP not to sign Hedo, and for good reason, it would be overpaying. But when Paul Allen said "Go for it", he really meant go for it! Don't worry about the money, if we’re stuck with a bad contract in 3 years, we can just buy him out if need be. So for all the Trail Blazer fans who thought we would have been stuck with a guy out of his prime, not wanting to come off the bench, no way. In reality Hedo would have started for 2 or 3 more years, and in that time the Blazers would have really developed Oden to a point that he would have become a dominant force with or without Hedo. Then at that point Batum would have push Hedo out of the way to really develop. So as the news broke that Hedo was their primary goal I realized the bigger picture, and the thought behind Paul Allen's comments. Break open the championship window, pay the extra dollars, and will take the loss of Hedo's contract later as part of opening that window sooner than later. Its a great decision on Allen's part, and shows his dedication to the team and drive for a championship. I have to say, I applaud him and what he has meant for our organization.

 I think over the last 3 years, we've only seen great basketball moves that have had great reward from Kevin Pritchard. But the closer you get to your prize the smaller the impact the moves have. Your margin dwindles with every step you get closer, and that’s not a bad thing, that means that your almost there. For all the hopes of Chris Paul or Devin Harris, which are ideal considering age, position and talent, reality is that its not going to happen without giving up a major piece.

 While this news of Hedo rejecting the Blazers offer is a bit more painful than I ever thought it would be. Thoughts of him allowing Greg Oden to grow and succeed really got my imagination running wild. Dwight Howard is no better than Greg, just has had better people around him to assist him.(imo) Going forward though I think the Blazer bigwigs have realized what is needed for this team to grow, either externally or internally. That is another playmaker and someone that can get Oden the ball where he can succeed. Now we know its not Hedo, but other playmakers like a Sessions, or Nash come to mind. They will make Oden much better and are worth going after.

 With that said, I think one thing has to happen within the organization though, that is the decision to really let Rudy develop. Here is someone that makes players better, does get the ball to Oden when he has a chance and has that ability. I think Nate has to take it upon himself to let Rudy have the ball more, and let him create with the ball. Whether that’s with the pick and roll or off screens, he has that ability to drive and find people; he has to be used correctly though.

 If the Blazers do get that sought after free agent or lopsided trade, great! But I think its time we moved off the Outlaw train of one on one, with no ability to create for others. This team is too good to have an isolation type player like Outlaw who can't make others better. Its the "Allan Iverson Affect" and it really can destroy a team and their ability to grow. Just look at what he did to the Pistons, everyone just gave up, and I'm not saying Outlaw is a cancer or anything to that affect. Rather his style isn't condusive to making all the players around him any better. That is the Blazers advantage, they have 8 or 9 solid players, 7 players that could be starters in the league. If the style of play is isolations, then what good is it to have a deep bench and so many quality players. We might as well package them all up and make a big trade, instead of letting them waste away as they watch Outlaw shoot a contested 20 footer. Its up to McMillan to change the focal point of the offense, so if we face a team like the Rockets again (doesn't look like it happen) then we are prepared to go to more options than just Roy. It isn't about having veterans (in part it is) but the offense is on Nate, and the sooner he realizes that, the better the Blazers will be.

 Considering the talent on the team, doing the right move and having someone like Rudy be the focal point of the second unit could be all this team needs to really flourish, along with the developement of Oden of course.  I would love to see a trade or great free agent acquisition, which is looking more unlikely. But the reality is, if Oden, Batum and Rudy develop, who were all “Rookies” last year just at a decent pace, this team will be vastly improved.  I think this will either be Nate McMillan’s finest moment as the Blazers coach or the beginning to the end this coming year. It is the coach’s role to develop the team and how they play. Veterans or not, you have to know what type of style will bring out the best in a player.  I love Nate, but it really is do or die time for him, cause if you think about it, If Phil Jackson or Greg Popavich had this talent, do you think they would want more veterans?

Your thoughts?

I know, I know there is probably a more appropriate thread already created - but I can't find it and I just have to vent about the same response I hear everytime Captain Kirk is mentioned.  It's goes something like this:

 "Sure, Hinrich might be a little bit better - but he gets paid more than twice as much as Blake and his $10M contract would be a burden."

According to Storyteller site, Hinrich makes $9.5M for the upcoming season, $9M for 10-11, and $8M in 11-12.  Blake's $4M contract expires after the upcoming season.  What happens then? If Blake is as others have suggested 80% of the player that Hinrich is; he's not going to settle for the chicken scratch that he previously made.  Even if you assume a "nice guy" discount a three-year contract of $5-$6M/ annually would be on the low end.  Right?  Or wrong? (take the poll, below)

Much focus is on what to do with the cap & upgrading if you can with a SF that can also play back-up PF (see links to recent discussions on: Gerald Wallace, Lamar Odom, Marvin Williams, Shane Battier, Shawn Marion) , but unless Devin Harris falls into your lap the Blazers second move should be to pull the trigger on the Hinrich-Blake/Outlaw swap rumored to be available so that Chicago can make their play for Wade in 2010.

After reading through Dave's most recent post and a number of responses to it, I got to thinking about a couple of things: The first being the free agents and trade options now rumored to be available, and the second being who is already on the team and their perceived value vs. their apparent NBA value. Obviously as fans, the players currently on the team are generally going to be over-valued, but is that only in the sense of their value to other teams around the NBA?

For nearly a decade here in Portland we watched as one talented team after another fell short, until the organization finally imploded into five years of downright crap. Egos, anger, drug addictions, you name it and the players had it. New management set about correcting the problem with a pledge which, however we derided it, has slowly come to pass. The team is now filled with players who are not only talented and committed, but nearly from top to bottom are just good guys who really care about each other. This team is, in large part, growing up together, learning the game and shocking the league for the past two years. Who can possibly estimate the value of a chemistry like that?

If you've ever played basketball in a league, you know it's the team that has been together the longest that often has the best chance of winning, often toppling teams who apparently are much more athletically gifted. Their familiarity with each other, and ability to push each other, comes through as an incredibly valuable commodity.

I'd say from what I've read on here the opinions are split about equally here between keeping the team pretty much intact, at least as we start next season, and making a splash in trades or free agency. The argument for the former generally centers around allowing the talent of our players to develop, while the latter says we need more consistent production, and veteran savvy to help us through the rigours of an NBA season, especially the playoffs.

I'm not knocking either of those views, but I wonder whether the veteran savvy of one or two additional players can overcome the familiarity our players are building together.

You can debate endlessly about what the team should do, and I don't think there is a question that the team will (and should) do something, but I believe Portland currently possess something potentially far more valuable than a big-name free agent (if you ever could have called Hedo Turkoglu that); they have a team chemistry that, by most accounts, supersedes that seen in nearly any other team in the NBA. Can the monetary or talent value of such a thing truly be counted?

What are your thoughts? Can Portland continue to advance on the backs of the talent improvement of their existing core and the chemistry and family atmosphere of the surrounding players? Is talent or 'fit' more important in bringing in new players, or trading existing players? If you assume that chemistry is more valuable than the talents of a player like Turkoglu, then how do you fill the existing holes and keep the chemistry intact?

Do you think Paul Allen is a fan of business bestsellers? Larry Miller from his time at Nike? Kevin Pritchard?

Whoever it might be, I see quite a number of similarities between the approach of the Blazers organization to prepare for a rise to the top and a stay there, and what the author Jim Collins recommends in his two popular books "Built to Last - Successful Habits of Visionary Companies" (1994), written together with Stanford professor Jerry Porras and helped by a number of student researchers, and "Good to Great - Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't" (2001), written after a consultant told a stunned Collins his first book was pretty much useless for companies that were not always already leaders in their field.

Without recapping all details, here are some key findings from the books (some established in Built to Last, then expanded upon in Good To Great to the 7 principles below). Some similarities to the Blazers? I would say so.

1. "Level 5 Leadership": Leaders who are humble, but driven to do what's best for the company.

"A paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will."

Even people not appreciating all traits of KP & Co. would have to admit that is pretty accurate. And doesn't that sound exactly like BRoy?

2. "First Who, Then What": Get the right people on the bus first, get them in the right seats, then figure out where to go/what to do. 

Yup. That building strategy seems to be in effect both regarding the on-court product as well as the organization itself.

3. "Confront the Brutal Facts": Honestly assess the situation for what it is, yet at the same time never give up hope.

A business/leadership concept known as the "Stockdale Paradox" after a long-term prisoner of war in Vietnam. When asked who didn't make it out of prison camp, Stockdale replied:

"Oh, that’s easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, 'We're going to be out by Christmas.' And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they'd say, 'We're going to be out by Easter.' And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart."

"This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."

Maybe an area where the Blazers are currently still lacking a bit, although you could use examples like the Zach Randolph trade to argue they can "face the facts" of an unpleasant situation.

4. "The Hedgehog Concept"

Three overlapping circles: (1) What makes you money? (2) What could you be best in the world at? (3) What lights your fire?

Highly important from a business perspective, forcing a company to focus its resources on what it does best and not on everything it could do somewhat good. Very effectively e.g. employed by GE which gets out of markets it can't get a top position in, and by companies like the case study example Kimberly-Clark that completely changed the purpose/focus of their business over the years as a result of such an analysis. Same e.g. with Nokia, who started out as a very unfocused manufacturer of paper, tires, rubber boots and computer monitors. Yup, that cellphone company.

For the Blazers as a team maybe not that applicable. The mission is clear, and they can't completely change the "on court product" to make the team play table tennis or soccer because a player would also be good at this. From an organizational standpoint, a concept that could e.g. help them to define how to best improve the experience and value for their fans and sponsors, and focus their resources effectively.

5. "Culture of Discipline"

If you look at the coaches, the meticulous scouting, the kind of players the Blazers bring in, I would say from a distance it is accurate they do try to create such a culture.

6. "Technology Accelerators": Using technology to accelerate growth (within the hedgehog concept)

Another thing the Blazers definitely do. From advanced proprietary stats, to videotaping even practices, to the team plane, to employing a sleep consultant.

7. "The Flywheel": Keeping the process of 1-6 going, especially through the additive effect of many small initiatives.

Organization/Community: Events, effective PR, podcasts and radio and TV, acquiring likable players (see "right people on the bus"), being open to the media and the fans, etc.

Team: That remains a bit to be seen, if the Blazers are able to fill the roster with players who do all the little things well and fulfill their role however small it may be, and replenish it if they lose people.

Your thoughts? Are the Blazers on a "Good to Great" path of development to become a team that can reach the top and stay there? Does such a concept even apply to a fast-paced environment like sports with many unpredictable factors and success having to be regained every season at least regarding the team on the floor?

- - -

Short note on the research how these concepts were developed: The authors did a kind of backwards analysis, figuring out which companies fulfilled their definition of success over long timeframes as opposed to a comparable company that went on the wrong path at some inflection point, and then looked for what all those successful companies have in common. Thus the discovered principles are rather a correlation, not necessarily the causation. Also some of the identified companies must have diverged from their path of success recently (e.g. the authors picked Merck over Pfizer in their first book, and Good to Great features now all but bankrupt companies Fannie Mae and Circuit City as two examples). A common critique to the organizational principles outlined in Collins' research is that he overstates the importance of leadership in running a successful organization, although he explicitly states many companies he found to be successful are not run by charismatic wheeling and dealing leaders often depicted in the press and are rather "boring" businesses that just have very good day to day operations.

So I'll leave a lot of this to the cap gurus and the folks inclined to really do the research, but Mike Barrett on the radio got me to thinking. The assumption here is that this is our last chance, after this year cap space is gone for a long time. Is that true?

Next year:

D Miles comes off the books 9M

Outlaw expires 5M

Blake expires 6M

Joel opts out. 7M

Even with Roy and LMA signed to long term agreements, there is cap space there, a lot of it.

Am I wrong?

douglast in a comment below did the heavy lifting:

I was about to post this.

I re-ran the numbers and was surprised by what I found. Here you go:

Players:
LaMarcus 12,000,000 (assumes extension starting at that amount. if not extended, his cap hold is over 14 mil)
Brandon 13,500,000 (assumes max extension. alternate cap hold amount is 11,732,448)
Martell 4,773,218
Greg Oden 6,760,524
Bayless 2,292,600
Rudy 1,246,680
Nicolas 1,196,760

Euros:
Claver 1,088,800
Freeland 886,000
Koponen 886,000

Roster Charges:
player 11 473,604
player 12 473,604

This totals 45,577,790. Or about 12-13 million under the cap. not enough for a max player, but certainly enough for the next tier of players after that.