Oregonian Goes Crazy

by Dave on Apr 8, 2007 12:30 AM PDT in News

There are three long articles covering the Blazers over at the O-Live site.

First, a look at Brandon and last night's game.

The most interesting news there is that Ime is also really dragging and could be put into a reduced role or shut down. We've got nothing left of our starting lineup really: Przybilla, Aldridge, Randolph, Miles, Udoka, LaFrentz all either out or battling injury. That's every frontcourt player we started the year with outside of Magloire and Outlaw.

Next a great article by JQ about Jamaal's future with the Blazers.

Click here

There's a ton of positive stuff about him but the itch in the back of my head also tells me to beware the guy who shines right at the end of the contract year...no matter what the causes. The reduced role wasn't his fault and of course he's playing well now, but still.

Finally an intriguing article by newcomer to the beat Geoffrey C. Arnold. He covers the new NBA rule changes limiting draftee workouts. Kevin Pritchard talked about this a little bit in this week's Quick Chat but this spells it out...and KP seems none too happy about the changes either. Great article.

Click here

They say the changes are to restore the importance of the pre-draft camps but it seems like that boat has already sailed in our information age. Everybody in every field wants specific information...advertisers, financial wizards, doctors, scientists, you name it. Generalities have all but gone out the window. Why should basketball be different? This seems a little like the NBA forcing archaism in the name of faux-parity and preserving its own institutions.

Good stuff by the Oregonian all around.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I find it amusing

that Mitch Cupcheck thinks the new rules are great, read: Needs all the help he can get

and KP doesn't like the new draft camp rules, read: feasts on the stupidity of other GM's.

We will still draft well I think, I trust our braintrust to think outside the box, and also not outthink themselves too much if that makes sense.

Shan was eloquent/Kris was intelligent/ the R was all the above with added elements.

by JPop on Apr 8, 2007 2:11 AM PDT reply actions

I think what you mean is

trust our management to have a smokin' draft like last year!!!

I really liked KP's comment, "I want to outwork other people." Maybe we can throw that in Blazerhopeful's diary.

Regarding Jamaal, I really do have to appreciate that he didn't become a Ruben Patterson-like problem this year. He didn't have to be a nice 'keep-it-in-house' type of guy but he was, and no matter how much I love 'Magloirable' and 'A Player for the Ages' I have to appreciate him for not being a distraction.

I'm the smartest guy I know, just ask me.

by shenanigans on Apr 8, 2007 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions

I think the new rules will help the teams . . .

. . . that scout very smartly, et avec tres travail d'ardor (and with very hard work).
Going into the tryouts, a team is now gonna have to have a short list;
they can't just try everyone out willy-nilly starting with private workouts in Orlando.
I think some lazy GMs are gonna get caught with their pants down,
with too many prospective candidates to properly analyze going into
the four-week window wherein private workouts are allowed.
I trust Pritchard and his team have already done enough short-listing
that such a limited window will be plenty ample to arrive at the right pick;
I do NOT similarly trust Billy King, Dolan/Isiah, McHale, Ainge, or any team with
a front office in transition/turnover/disarray (Kings, Hawks, Sonics, maybe more).

If anything is unfair about these new rules, it is that it clamps down on
the strategies of misdirection--making teams think you're interested in someone
you don't ACTUALLY want, or masking your desire for who you DO want,
so as to protect your true pick, and to scare teams into trades to protect their pick.
The window of private workouts will necessitate focusing in your actual interests,
and (as the article mentions) taking part in multi-team workouts,
so teams will have to be a little bit more transparent about who they actually want,
and not have the time to fake interest in players they don't want.

Tell 'em Large Marge sent ya.

by QualityPie on Apr 8, 2007 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions

True,

but he couldn't 'afford' to be a distraction this year.

I'm very relieved to read of the several reasons not to retain Magloire. Hurrah!

We don't need him on our team. After signing a contract, it's unlikely he would be happy playing a medium to minor role behind Joel and/or LaMarcus.

by TwoDeep on Apr 8, 2007 8:03 AM PDT reply actions

Mag and other rambles

I was very irked at mag at the beginning of the season. I've been very impressed with him during this last half. I agree he does NOT play well with randolph. We already have too many black holes. He HAS been bringing leadership and has been an EXCELLENT example.

Pryz has been injured and was injured last year. He also didn't perform very well this year. For all the above reason I would like Mag on our team next year. I think Zach will need to be moved for it to work, though. Also, nothing will need to be wrong with aldridge. crossing fingers

We need a veteran with leadership and hunger and we have that in mag. Zach's hunger is for himself. Mag's seems to be for the team (with some normal hunger for self because he doesn't want to sit on the sidelines and watch, but be a part of it.)

I also like that we've had players that are so happy to stay. It means that we can pay them less which means we can retain affordable talent and be better positioned for winning.

I am very proud of this team. I don't know that they'll make my 35 wins (webster and jack performed a little under what i was expecting... webster a bit actually, but he's young still), but they've fought hard. They've changed the culture. They refuse to roll over. We're tired and short handed and still fighting to win even though it's a long shot.

I love that about this team. That's all i've ever asked. Winning is great, but being a team I can be proud of is more important. I think you feel those wins more and it's that much more personal. I'm going to savor that upcoming championship. Just a few more moves/trades/drafts away from making it happen.

I've been impressed and i hope someone with the blazers do read these posts.

I'm glad paul allen didn't let the blazers go and i hope when it's time, that he'll be willing to spend the big money again. But spend it, this time, for the right reasons and on the right people. I don't want to buy a championship... i want to earn it.

I'm done. I'm just very happy with our team and I needed to shout that out.

by ratbastird on Apr 8, 2007 11:59 AM PDT reply actions

Nice post.

I full heartedly agree that this has been a great year for this franchise. Im very happy too.
Im afriad that I dont agree with your stance on Mags and Zach.
I dont understand where the idea of Mags being a veteran LEADER came from. Mags is no leader. He may body people up the way a big (immobile) man should but he is nowhere close to being a leader. If you read the comments from our young core of players they all refer to Zach as the leader. they almost never refer to Mags.
To say that Zach's hunger is for himself is insulting the competitive nature of a hard nosed basketball player. Mags seems to be for the team? These guys are competitors, everybody wants to win. Ive only been to two games this year and there were at least 5 times that Mags didnt even join the team in the huddle. Meanwhile Zach is in street clothes after surgery and I see him in the huddle with the guys.
I like both of these guys but I would really love to see Mags move on. We need Veteran leadership, but Mags is certainly not the answer.

by DropstepJ on Apr 8, 2007 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions

very nice writing

It makes me want Jamaal to stick around. It would be nice to have that security sitting on the bench. But, would her really take, and would we offer him, the entire MLE? I think just his attitude alone is shows a positive role model for our youngsters.

I'm mixed about the draft rules changes. I agree with what most of K.P. has to say. I think a happy compromise would be to allow teams to at least interview players face-to-face, maybe even in a neutral location, as early as they want and still limit the physical workouts to after the pre-draft camp. Or, get rid of the current playoff format, make it 4 teams from each conference, maybe 6 w/two wild card series, put the first round back to 5 games and move on from there. Then, move the pre-draft camp forward allowing for more time for personal workouts between the camp and the draft.

I know the playoff scenario won't happen. The NBA makes too much money with the 3 month long playoffs. But, it would be nice. I LOATHE seeing sub .500 teams fighting for playoff positions. I hate having to feel like i have to defend the NBA when non-basketball fans start picking on that.

written by the Blazer Thoughts artist formely known as "Scott R"

by saregister on Apr 8, 2007 12:24 PM PDT reply actions

I'm pretty happy

you guys aren't acting in a Blazer's General Manager role.

I'm certain there is no way we will sign Magloire. Do you not remember how unhappy he was with his former team when he didn't think he was getting enough minutes? Do you really think his acceptance/tolerance for low playing time for most of this year had to do with anything other than he having to toe-the-line to enhance his chances of signing a decent contract when the season concludes?

Get real. Mags would be cancer to our team if he weren't handed a major role in next years line-up. And with the young talented players on hand, with a stated management goal of wanting to run, why would the Blazers want to employ as a major player, a slow footed klutz with hands of stone?

Yes, Blazer management has recently been espousing Mag's contributions; but likely it's in an effort to get some sign and trade value from him. Or maybe they are just saying thank you by building him up a little to improve his chances at a good contract from another team.

Thankfully, Jason Quick's article verifies to me that the Blazer's have a multitude of reason's for not retaining him.

by TwoDeep on Apr 8, 2007 2:31 PM PDT reply actions

Still, it's nice to see him raise his . . .

. . . his sign-and-trade value.
If his value to other teams moves into the realm above the mid-level exception,
we'll get offers from anyone not under the cap by at least the amount they'd pay Mags.
That can only help us.

Too bad the Mags/Zach pairing is such a proven and obvious failure,
thereby nullifying any chance of trading the two as a package,
with Mags as bait for someone to take Zach off our hands for a fair return package.
Their incompatibility totally ruins that possibility.

Tell 'em Large Marge sent ya.

by QualityPie on Apr 8, 2007 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions

agree wholeheartedly

i can't imagine people talking about moving randolph in order to make it work for magloire. that is simply ridiculous. how can we possibly justify giving magloire or whole MLE.... that would mean we'd be paying over 10 million for two very very average centers (pryz and mags). please please don't resign him.

by ssa400 on Apr 8, 2007 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I just want to move randolph period...

that's all

by ratbastird on Apr 8, 2007 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't Agree

Mags played well next to LMA. Mags/ZBO is a no go, but what is ZBO is gone by say draft time. Pryzbilla is a walking injury, and no center in the draft, other than Oden, is ready to pound in the NBA yet (Includes Hibbert/Noah) so who would be available to play center? With ZBO gone LMA would be a 4 with Lafrentz and Trout backing him up. If we drafted someone like Hibbert and Pryzbilla went down again we would have a rookie (probably Hibbert) starting who doesn't have NBA strength yet, and would get eaten alive by large or atheletic centers.

Now is Mags the ultimate answer? No, but he could be a stop gap. Should we trade ZBO just to make room for Mags? Definitely No. If we got a semi-legit offer for ZBO that could get rid of his K and allow LMA to slide to the 4? I would be listening, and if the deal left us with a little hole at the 5 because LMA slid over the possibility of signing Mags is part of the thinking.

Part of the fun with this team over the offseason is going to be that the direction is not set in stone. If one was to chart ever possible course this team could take given the players that it has, a first round pick, and the current management team there would be too many to count. So saying there is "no way" we will do this or that we are definitely going to do something else isn't really a very good answer to any question.

by TearsforDuckworth on Apr 8, 2007 6:54 PM PDT reply actions

I am surprisingly unsure

Re-signing Mags... I've written about this a bit before, and I've definately been tough on Mali Mali, but I find myself ALMOST considering a cheapish (for a healthy center) re-signing. Something I never thought possible just a few weeks ago...

With all our injuries, he has kinda saved us. Remember last season when we had NO center except for Brian Skinner and Ha? And for a while not even Skinner, before we traded for him? Oye... We wouldn't have done as "well" as we're doing now since LMA and Z-Bo are out. (Not to mention Pryzbilla). As insurance, Mags has been pretty good actually! He gets lots of rebounds, has bodied up pretty good against the big centers like Eddy Curry, and when he doesn't shuffle his feet without dribbling and actually catches the pass he's got some good go-to post moves to throw at the defender (but not the touch to finish as much as he should). BUT... this is as insurance.

On a healthy squad, I can't see room for Magloire. Not in a role we all don't think he'd be happy in... as a back up. I don't think any of us liked him as a back up, and while he's played TONS better as a starter, I'm not SO blown away to think he'd be good as a permanent fixture on the team.

Lots could change and I could see how some trades and moves making it more acceptable to sign Magloire, but I don't know. With Pryz, Aldridge, Z-Bo, Raef, do we have room for Magloire? Even if somehow we move Z-Bo, will the playing time he wants be there?

I don't know if the financial security of a multi-year deal will make him accept a backup role (until it's contract time again). The guys who run the team have a better feel for that than I. I do know I'm glad we got him now, as he's the only real center and he is good enough to be a starter on the right team. I just don't think we're the right team for him...

The silver lining is that he has dramatically improved his value both as a trading chip and on the free market. I am happy for him about that (I always want guys to get their contract), and happy for us cause we could still "use" him. He can just point to his stats with starters minutes... prolly averaging a double double with at least a block a game.

Good for him, hopefully good for us. I can see scenarios where it makes sense to re-sign him. But the Blazers aren't in any of those scenarios currently.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Apr 9, 2007 12:37 AM PDT reply actions