Have you guys seen this from Henry Abbott?

Skip down to the end where he (and David Thorpe) come up with a couple of trade suggestions.

Anybody here willing to make those trades?

Not me.  Not by a country mile.  Why gut the team for James? 

No worries though. By the time Cleveland would have to start considering trading him, Portland will be so good that we won't need LeBron.

 

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-36-98/No-Longer-Cute--LeBron-James--Flirtation-with-New-York.html?post=true

 

FNL was a show I tried to catch every week for the past two seasons.  I felt it had a lot of interesting story lines coming out of the simple premise of a small town Texas high school football team.  It was my understanding that it was picked up again this season.  In fact one of my coworkers said that her nephew got the part as the new quarterback.

In a related question - would you consider it a disadvantage or advantage to have a series that dealt with high school students, knowing that at some point you would have to bring in a new group of actors and risk losing your audience when their favorite character "graduated" from the show?

Other shows I like to watch:

Chuck

The Unit

Primeavil

Survivor

Heroes (thought not as much as last season)

Lost (if I can get caught back up).

 

 

 

 

Did anybody note some of the players the Sixer's renounced over the summer?

Rick Mahorn
Derrick McKey
Rodney Rogers

That's a lot of talent....

 

                                    .... for an oldtimer's game.

How is it a team keeps the rights to player long after they've quite playing.  I know about the Keith van Horn and Aaron McKie deals, but all three of the guys above stopped playing long before these two.

Another question - What is the advantage (or the reason) to renounce them now?

 

 

 

 

Which players do you think might be the sleepers in the draft?   The next Tony Parker or Tyshaun Prince or Josh Howard?

For the purposes of this question, consider a sleeper to be someone who gets drafted outside the top ten and ends up making the rotation next season and/or is a starter by year three.

My list:

Chris Douglas-Roberts

Roy Hibbert

Brandon Rush

Courtney Lee

Jason Thompson

possible list makers:

Kyle Weaver

Mario Chalmers

 

Note: by the definition above, Martell is not a sleeper, nor is Travis.  Jack however is borderline.  Were he still the starter, I'd put him in this category.  That he isn't means he just misses.

 

 

 

Both Draft Express and Hoops Hype have Portland taking Darren Collison at #13.  I don't get it.  HoopsHype says Collison is a role player at the NBA level and uses Earl Watson as a comparison player.  Seriously, who here thinks Earl Watson is the answer for Portland as our staring PG?  I wouldn't trade Jack or Blake for Watson.

Here are some of the guys listed below Collison:

Nick Batum  6-8  SF  (Rudy Gay)
CDR         6-6  SG  (Jerry Stackhouse)
Tyler Hansbourgh  6-9  PF  (Luis Scola)
Richard Hendrix   6-9  PF  (Paul Milsap)
Courtney Lee 6-5 SG  (Anthony Carter)

I select any one of these guys before I go with Collison.  (Unless it's Nick Collison we are talking about.)

Poll

Who would you take at 13

8%

Collison

8 votes

21%

Batum

19 votes

13%

Douglas-Roberts

12 votes

24%

Hansbourgh

22 votes

1%

Hendrix

1 votes

0%

Lee

0 votes

30%

some one else

27 votes

89 votes | Poll has closed

I was watching the feed from the Kings broadcast last night and saw something interesting.  The announcers were talking about Portland and their age and how in just a few years they may be the team to beat in the west.  They then posted a graphic listing the ppg average and age of

Roy
Aldridge
Outlaw
Webster

All are 23 or under and all are averaging in double figures.  Jack just misses the list, as he's averaging just under 10 points a game.  How many other teams would like to have Portland's problem?  Who else in the league could field a starting 5 that is 23 or younger and averaged 65 - 75 points per game?  And we haven't even added Oden to the mix yet.

I understand getting frustrated during a game.  We all want to see our team go out there and win every game.  Who doesn't want to see the end of our bench playing the 4th quarter of every game because our starters have built up an insurmountable lead.  I know I get frustrated.  Last night it was LaMarcus again.  He was letting Mikki Moore pretty much dictate where on the floor his shots would come from.  Now Moore is actually a pretty good defender, but Aldridge should be getting his shot where he wants it at least half of the time even against a good defender.  Still, as frustrated as I might get watching a game, I don't let it carry over to the next day.  I don't rant about how we should trade Aldridge because he's never going to develop into the greatest basketball player in the history of the game.  

The same applies to every other player on the team.  I groan when Martell misses wide open 3 pt looks.  Or when Jack and Blake hesitate and then pass on good shots, or Channing Frye and LaMarcus wave at guys penetrating the lane rather than moving their feet, or Aldridge, Jack and Outlaw hold on to the ball for a few seconds while they think, instead of knowing what they are going to do within a second of receiving it.  But that doesn't keep me from seeing what a wonderful group guys we have.  Not just wonderful as people, but as talented basketball players.  

I realize that most of what frustrates me from these guys can be fixed with experience, meaning all I have to do is be patient and I will see what might end up being one of the best teams ever assembled.  I don't think that's too much to expect of Trailblazer fans.  At a minimum, we should all remember that less than two years ago we were watching a 21 win team whose core was built on Randolph, Miles and Telfair.  That we've come so far so fast is truely amazing.  

On the assumption that at least some folks out there think a little tweaking of the roster might be of benefit, who do you think we could add?

The rebounder & enforcer off the bench?

A starting PG?

A perimeter defender (who preferrably shoots three's)?

Let's not propose trading for Chris Paul or some other top player.  Try to stick with someone who might actually be available.

After a few minutes thought, I have trouble coming up with anybody.  There is also the little problem (for me at least) of deciding who we move to make room for someone new.

For example can you name someone who fit's the first need?  I don't think Karl Malone is coming out of retirement (nor Buck Williams).  Brian Grant's knees are toast.  Who out there fits the description?  David Lee definitely fits the rebounding part, but I have no idea if he does the latter.  Plus it appears Isiah is not totally bonkers, as he's refusing to listen to any deal that includes Lee.  

Utah isn't going to let Millsap go.  There is Reggie Evans in Philadelphia, but do you really want to trade, say Channing Frye for Evans?  Danny Fortson anybody?  Didn't think so.  Going back to Utah there is Matt Harpring.  He might be an ok addition, but there is those nagging issues of why would the Jazz trade him and is it worth it to trade a young asset for an old one.  

Right now, about the only guy I can think of who is a good rebounder and who make the punks backpedel like an All-Pro cornerback is Antonio "slow down Kevin, I want to talk to you" McDyess.  I don't see him being available, but he's the only one who seems to come even close to justifying giving up a couple of our guys for.

What do you think?  Any names out there you can think of that would make us a better team?

BlazersOrBust asked this question in another diary.  A question I was also pondering this morning.  What does Portland need in terms of bringing on new players?

Before the season started a consensus list looked something like this:

1. A quality PG - a significant number of folks (Sergio fanatics excepted) thought we lacked a bonifide starting PG among the 4 guys on the roster.
2. A starting SF - the hole at the 3 spot was a close second (if not #1) to being considered Portland's biggest need.  
3. A shutdown perimeter defender - this is sort of a 2a.
4. A bruising rebound machine off the bench.

With the exception of the first one, I pretty much agreed with this analysis.  Now, I'm having a hard time saying it still applies.

We seem to be doing fine at PG.  Blake is supplying steady play and is playing well off the ball when Brandon takes over ball handling duties.  Jack has done decently coming off the bench and Sergio is showing some improvement in the areas Nate wants.

It is also tough to argue we need a SF.  Martell has stepped up his game from last year and while still having lots of room for improvement, he's also showing he looks like he belongs.  Meanwhile Travis seems to be blooming right before our eyes and Jones has been a very plesant surprise so far.

We are still lacking a lock down man-man defender.  But out of Roy, Webster, Outlaw and Jones (and perhaps Rudy next season), who do you get rid of?  Also to consider is the possibility of improvement from the guys we have.  Outlaw in particular could become All Defensive team in a couple years if he works at it.

There are still a lot of calls for a rebounder off the bench (including mine up until a couple of weeks or so ago).  But realistically, we have that guy in Oden.  Also, Channing Frye is starting to show a desire to grab rebounds.

Therefore, I would now argue that there isn't much for Portland to consider in regard to revamping the roster.  If we have any problem, it may be that we have too many guys deserving playing time.  But that's not the question before us.  The question is, what player or type of player do you think Portland should add?

Poll

What does Portland need?

20%

A quality PG

16 votes

6%

A SF

5 votes

18%

A perimeter defender (as in bring back Ime)

15 votes

50%

A physical rebounder off the bench

40 votes

5%

something else (like a veteran _____ )

4 votes

80 votes | Poll has closed

Some more coverage from outside Portland.  Not only is a nice piece about the Blazer's (they give some focus on Blake, who is sort of a local, having played at Maryland and then for the Wizards), but it gets little things like Outlaw's name right.

For some of you, the most interesting part is found in the next to last paragraph.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2007/12/blazers_are_burning.html

Two questions rescued from the weekly spam
2. "In the NBA preview in SI, you quote a scout saying that Rasheed Wallace has the highest basketball IQ in the league. Is that for real? What does he mean? I've always liked Sheed and continue to mourn the 2000 Western Conference finals Game 7, but I never thought of him as much smarter basketball-wise than others, especially when it comes to shot selection. What's behind the scout's assessment? And how could he be smarter basketball-wise than Steve Nash or Tim Duncan or Jason Kidd?"
-- Aaron Brenner, New York

Here is your answer from the NBA advance scout:

"Rasheed really understands the subtle nuances of the game.

"He really understands defensive schemes, situations and rotations. He is like a coach on the floor offensively and defensively in how he verbally communicates with his teammates. He is always calling out situations. He knows how to use his body and length to negate a smaller player's quickness and his agility and timing to bother bigger players. He knows just when to time a double-team, get around a guy to front the post, or play behind and reach in at the last second. He understands using angles.

"Offensively, like many players, he will force the occasional three-point shot. But he really gets spacing, recognizes mismatches and is willing to make the extra pass. He is incredibly unselfish in this regard. He willingly looks for others as much as his own. He doesn't worry about his stats, and he gets it that on teams that win consistently, the players don't [focus on their own numbers]."