The deal couldn't happen without LaFrentz going to Charlotte. Wallace, as a player, is significantly more valuable than any of the players we're talking about trading. The reason Charlotte would downgrade to someone like Outlaw is because of the salary savings.
Obviously I'm going to be biased as a Bulls fan, but yeah, Kirk is a significantly better player than Blake. If you look at the stats they look similar, but: 1. Kirk is bigger, stronger, and a much better defender. He's not the lock down defender some guys will tell you he is, but he's good and capable of guarding either guard positions. Blake is a trainwreck on defense. 2. Kirk, maybe because he's a preppy looking white boy, is considered "gritty", but he's always seemed (and measured) out as quite athletic and agile to me. He doesn't jump out of the gym, but he's agile and has better speed down the court than Blake. 3. These two factors make Kirk a very good fit for your particular mesh of players. Combining Blake with Bayless or Rudy Fernandez looks like a problem to me. Kirk would be a good fit with either of those guys and give you lots of flexibility. All of this translates into a couple benefits for the Blazers. Neither is the sort of player that can put a team on its back. On a below average to average team (which is how the Blazers are playing right now, although they obviously have the potential to be much more) they're probably about the same. But I don't think Blake can lead an above average team anywhere and I think Kirk can.
How about a 4 team trade with Charlotte, Chicago, and Golden State like http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1981~3028~3030~1994~2754~454~2015~3025~308~1026&teams=22~22~22~4~9~4~9~9~30~22&te=&cash=. We upgrade at PG and SF. Chicago gets out of Kirk's contract and gets a great backup for Rose. Charlotte gets an expiring contract for Wallace and a starting PF. Golden State gets a pass first PG and two young talented forwards.
I'd do it. Do we need to take Thabo and Cedric to balance salaries? I'm not sure they'd make much of an impact with Portland and their contracts don't seem onerous... Getting Kirk and Wallace both would be disruptive to the team right now, but would upgrade us at two of our weaker spots. I like it. I don't think Charlotte gets enough, however. Ed O.
Yeah, we have to take in Thabo and Cedric to balance out salaries. I don't see think it would be an issue if we waived either of them or both. If we want to upgrade PG and SF it seems the beginning of the season is better than the trade deadline. Hopefully they would be able to gel by the 2nd half of of the season or by the playoffs. Charlotte not getting enough was the biggest issue I had with the trade. I wanted to give them a big from Chicago but that seems too much for Chicago to part with. Maybe the rights to one of our draft picks in Europe?
Wallace is actually very effective at the four. He could start at SF and also backup LaMarcus while Webster and Batum would still get some P/T.
Blake isn't a train wreck on defense. He and Batum our probably the best on ball defenders on our team.
blockbuster means people wait around the block to see the player. that player is not kirk hinrich. in fact, if we got kirk, it would be the opposite effect. what blockbuster player is available?
I would say Gerald Wallace would be considered a blockbuster for Portland. The guy put up nearly 20/10 last year and is only 26 years old. Or KP could throw us all a curve ball and land a player that nobody thought would be available.
Gerald Wallace is one of my favorite non Blazers out there. Good, young defender that can slash and occasional get a hot shooting streak in him. He'd be great alongside Roy and the gang.
Blake is one of the team's best on the ball defenders? I disagree a great deal. Roy is not a great defender, but I'd much rather have him on the top perimeter scorer of the opposing team for a critical possession than Blake. Same goes for Fernandez. I suspect Bayless is probably better on the ball, too, but it's hard to know for sure with him since he hasn't played much. I'm certain Oden is a superior on the ball defender, as well, for his position. Blake is very much like Derek Fisher. He hustles and tries hard, which people confuse with defensive prowess, when neither player does a very good job of actually preventing his man from scoring or passing.
Am I the only one who would rather trade Martell than Travis? Travis is a better 3 pt shooter (debatable) Better shot blocker Better rebounder Is more versatile
Is the criteria for best on ball defender predicated to just critical possessions? I would hardly call Rudy a great on ball defender at this point. Nate McMillan has enough faith in Blake's on ball defense to put him on Kobe at times during games last season. If thats not a seal of approval I'm not sure what is.
I haven't read this whole thead, but I have a question. Before Oden's foot injury in the season opener, is there anyone who thought we really needed to make a trade? If (and I realize it's a big "if") Oden comes back healthy and strong and can play the rest of the season, do we really need to trade anyone? I don't think so. I'm in favor of giving it a little time, so we can all see what a difference Oden makes when he gets used to playing with our guys and they get used to playing with him. I think it's going to be a very good team, possibly even a championship team, and I don't want to mess with it just yet.
