clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Could the Portland Trail Blazers Use Gerald Green?

In this edition of the Blazer's Edge Mailbag: At what price would a Gerald Green trade be worth considering for the Blazers? How deep will Portland's bench rotation go this season? Could sanctioned broadcast streams soon supplant Portland's local TV deal?

Brian Spurlock-USA TODAY Sports

Monday Mailbag arrives now!


I have heard rumors that the suns are looking to trade Gerald green for multiple second rounders, because of their log jam in the backcourt. Although we are lacking in 2nd round picks, do you think he would make for a good addition to the blazers and do you think the blazers could offer enough for him without giving up our starters?


It's an interesting idea.

Pros of Gerald Green:

1. Though his three-point shooting has been up and down throughout his career, he shot a high-water 40% last season in a full 82 games. More than half of his shots came from that range.

2. Ditto his scoring pace. He's coming off a career year.

3. During that year he hung around north of Wesley Matthews in scoring land, south of Damian Lillard...not a bad addition for the Blazers.

4. He'd provide pop off the bench and he's accustomed to playing in that role.

5. He plays small forward, a position with room to grow in Portland.

6. He's cheap, making $3.5 million this year.

7. He's 28 with 7 years of experience under his belt...right in Portland's sweet spot.

Cons of Gerald Green:

1. He's not been consistent year-to-year and usually not within a given season either. He can be great or a non-factor. This is true even on offense. Last year was stellar but he's put up serious stinkers.

2. He's not known for defense.

3. He may not be much of a system guy. He seems most comfortable when far a no-no for anyone not named Damian Lillard in Portland's offense. (And even for Lillard, only upon occasion.)

4. He's not stuck anywhere. If Phoenix trades him he'll join his 8th NBA team in 7 years (plus 3 overseas squads in 2 years of service abroad). When the only franchise to hold you more than a year is the one who spent a first-round pick on you in the first place, people start to ask questions.

5. Can Will Barton be Gerald Green soon anyway?

If the Blazers could get him for a low cost like you suggest--bottom rotation guys--he'd be worth the risk. They could use the pop and absorb any of his deficiencies. If it didn't work out, no harm at that price point. I'd trade any of the reserve big forwards for him. Unless they really loved Thomas Robinson and Allen Crabbe I'm not sure why Phoenix would do that, though.


Considering that the Blazers have made moves to improve their bench this season and the growth of Will Barton and CJ, is it time to use 10 player rotation or should we just stick again to 8 players like last year? Also, which players are you willing to put in those rotation spots?


The intent is to play more players this year. But you know what they say about good intentions, right?

The Blazers will get mileage out of Chris Kaman. As long as he's healthy he'll be steady. They won't be ashamed putting Steve Blake on the floor. Including the starters, that's 7 players. Everything after that is a crap shoot.

Some of those rolls are going to come up money. It's hard to imagine the next 6 players in line all falling apart. The question is, will enough of those players come through enough of the time to create a solid 10-man rotation?

Dorell Wright should be a regular part of the lineup but hasn't performed that well in Portland. If you can figure out the Thomas Robinson-Joel Freeland-Meyers Leonard triangle you are a better man that I. Assuming you're not into Victor Claver or Allen Crabbe, that leaves the Wonder Kids--Will Barton and CJ McCollum--carrying the torch for this hypothetically deep bench crew.

The Blazers will hope one or both of those young wings contribute regularly this season. But if you're going 10 deep you have to ask where Barton and McCollum play. If Will's a small forward and CJ a shooting guard we're good to go. But if both play guard they're either taking away each other's minutes or Blake's.

Can the Blazers find 3-4 guys out of this question-mark group to play on a given night? Of course. Can they find 3-4 to come through every night? Probably not. You'll see guys in and out of the rotation based on their play and game situations.

In this day and age you cannot ask a professional coach to give up on wins. That's how his performance is judged, his legacy established, his livelihood maintained. The Blazers are expected to perform well this year, if not join the league's elite. Nowhere will the pressure of those expectations fall harder than on Coach Stotts. In theory he can design plenty of rotation options. In the crucible of a 48-minute game he has to go with the guys who give him the best chance to win. For the Trail Blazers, that's still the starters and a couple select bench guys on most nights. The leash might not pull quite as hard as it did last year, but the Blazers will end up closer to a short bench than a predictable 10-man rotation.

Hey Dave,

So with this new deal coming up, there's been talking about a possible new streaming option coming out soon. With the league pass auto-pay refund option ending at the end of October, I'm getting a bit itchy about whether this is real or not? Have you heard any more news recently? Do you think this might actually happen? At this point, I'm pretty much desperate to throw my money at anyone but league pass in order to watch games.

Slightly off point, since this is a separate deal from Comcast, would blackouts still be an issue in Oregon?


I doubt we'd hear much news on a new method of transmission until all parties were on the brink of a deal for the exact reason you're getting at: people would hold back paying their dollars until they see if the new bargain is better than the old. If the negotiations fell through the league and its current carries could be out money. That tends to make everybody unhappy. Once talks come to a conclusion the news will break quickly. Until then we can only guess.

Nevertheless I wouldn't hold my breath. New terms won't take effect this year. When the new deal is announced it's unlikely that streaming would be designed to undercut local revenue streams. (Imagine the fury of the Lakers given their multi-billion-dollar television broadcast deal.) Just because something is allowed in theory doesn't mean the league would agree to it. Carriers can't broadcast games that the league doesn't sign off on. I'm no expert in the field but blackout radii will probably remain in effect for the near future.

Take comfort, though. In another 10-15 years everybody will be streaming everything. At that point you can bid local carriers goodbye. Of course the NBA and its fancy new streaming broadcast partners will figure that if you were paying $50 per month to local carriers for their games you should willing to pay that even after the provider changes. At that point you'll still be shelling out $50 per month. It'll just go to different recipients.

Thanks to everybody writing in. We'll try to get through most of the backlog of questions before the season starts. Meanwhile keep those Mailbag questions coming to!

--Dave / @DaveDeckard @Blazersedge