According to Berger... Blazer trades depend on Roy

[Minstrel]

And yet we have also heard from Roy that the Doctors told him he can still play high-level basketball...

Of course, that leads to the question of what "high-level basketball" means. Just playing in the NBA is incredibly high-level. The doctors may not have been saying anything more than "you can still play in the NBA."

If they said he can still be a top player in the NBA, that would be different.

 

[Pinwheel1]

The deal is that perhaps after he rests them for a few weeks or more then he can perhaps practice and play a game o two, then they just start getting bad again, this pattern is not going to change.

I don't doubt that your scenario is a strong possibilty, but none-the-less it is a guess. And right now we are all just guessing. And that's a problem.

 

[Public Defender]

I think the point is to acquire young talent in return for the old guys, not to trade young talent.

Presumably, the trading partner is looking for veteran talent to get them over the hump in the playoffs. We get back a young guy and a crappy contract.

barfo

So all we trade is an expiring contract in February, and we get a vet and a young prospect back? I don't think it'll be that easy. If a team is giving up a youngster, they'll want one back, no?

 

[Minstrel]

So all we trade is an expiring contract in February, and we get a vet and a young prospect back? I don't think it'll be that easy. If a team is giving up a youngster, they'll want one back, no?

No, otherwise trades wouldn't happen, if teams wanted to get back the same thing they were trading. The idea is for teams at different places in the success cycle to trade different types of assets. A team at or near championship level trading young players/prospects for good veterans. The team with title aspirations (hopefully) gets players who can contribute immediately and push them over the hump and the team who's rebuilding/retooling (hopefully) gets players who will be contributing value in time for that franchise's next good team.

 

[andalusian]

Of course, that leads to the question of what "high-level basketball" means. Just playing in the NBA is incredibly high-level. The doctors may not have been saying anything more than "you can still play in the NBA."

If they said he can still be a top player in the NBA, that would be different.

In other words, not enough information to really make a definite proclamation - which is exactly I said.

Anyone, other than Roy, the Doctors directly treating him on the Blazers FO making these proclamations is just speculating....

 

[Minstrel]

In other words, not enough information to really make a definite proclamation - which is exactly I said.

I wasn't arguing, just noting.

Anyone, other than Roy, the Doctors directly treating him on the Blazers FO making these proclamations is just speculating....

And, as I noted, even Roy/doctor proclamations can be pretty insubstantial.

 

[Sug]

Of course, that leads to the question of what "high-level basketball" means. Just playing in the NBA is incredibly high-level. The doctors may not have been saying anything more than "you can still play in the NBA."

If they said he can still be a top player in the NBA, that would be different.

So now we come full circle to the Clinton "It depends what your definition of..."

This is so Blazer fan it is just sad. I remember way back when Roy's talus bone was an issue we heard the same gloom and doom. When his hammy was hurt he was going to miss the rest of the season.

There are two things that are consistent in the injury history of Brandon Roy. The first being that fans in Portland are hyper sensitive to injuries and they take it very personally when players get hurt. The second is that Brandon Roy is always very slow at returning from injury because he is very cautious. He approaches recovery much like he plays the game, at a turtles pace. If the past is any indicator than everything is pretty normal. People are freaking out calling for gloom and doom, and meanwhile Roy is taking his time getting better and feeling comfortable playing again.

 

[Minstrel]

So now we come full circle to the Clinton "It depends what your definition of..."

How is that full circle? Did we start on "What is the definition of...?"

This is so Blazer fan it is just sad. I remember way back when Roy's talus bone was an issue we heard the same gloom and doom. When his hammy was hurt he was going to miss the rest of the season.

There are two things that are consistent in the injury history of Brandon Roy. The first being that fans in Portland are hyper sensitive to injuries and they take it very personally when players get hurt. The second is that Brandon Roy is always very slow at returning from injury because he is very cautious. He approaches recovery much like he plays the game, at a turtles pace. If the past is any indicator than everything is pretty normal. People are freaking out calling for gloom and doom, and meanwhile Roy is taking his time getting better and feeling comfortable playing again.

In the past, Roy didn't look this bad on the court. Not due to any injury he eventually recovered from. I think there's legitimate reason to be pessimistic about Roy's basketball future but I certainly haven't taken it personally. In fact, I think the vilification of Roy is pretty silly. I still don't expect Roy to ever be a star/superstar again, though. Apparently having no meniscus in either knee combined with how hobbled he's looked (compared to the old Roy, not compared to the average human) on the floor is more than a little concerning.

 

[Public Defender]

No, otherwise trades wouldn't happen, if teams wanted to get back the same thing they were trading. The idea is for teams at different places in the success cycle to trade different types of assets. A team at or near championship level trading young players/prospects for good veterans. The team with title aspirations (hopefully) gets players who can contribute immediately and push them over the hump and the team who's rebuilding/retooling (hopefully) gets players who will be contributing value in time for that franchise's next good team.

I think you oversimplify. Are you suggesting a San Antonio team - for argument's sake - that wanted a little extra depth upfront in the form of Joel, would be willing to give up a veteran and a young building block, and not insist on Rudy or Batum in return? Teams want to capitalize on championship windows, but don't want to get suddenly older, either, if they can avoid it.

 

[e_blazer]

For some reason, I just now took a look at Kerry Eggers' column on Roy in last week's Portland Tribune. I don't recall seeing it posted here before, but if it was, sorry for being redundant. It's a pretty good read and a good synopsis of where things stand as far as his future.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=129281859655830300

 

[Minstrel]

I think you oversimplify. Are you suggesting a San Antonio team - for argument's sake - that wanted a little extra depth upfront in the form of Joel, would be willing to give up a veteran and a young building block, and not insist on Rudy or Batum in return? Teams want to capitalize on championship windows, but don't want to get suddenly older, either, if they can avoid it.

Not necessarily San Antonio looking for some depth. I think you're using the least valuable player in order to make your point. Przybilla would indeed be depth. But a team that felt it was a high level point guard or high level big man away from being a true title contender might indeed trade a young player or two (I don't know about "and a veteran") to get Miller or Camby. And that would be perfectly rational (if their evaluation of how close they were to winning a title was correct) as cashing in on a championship when there's a chance is worth a lot of future value.

 

[barfo]

The reason I said we'd get back a young player and a crappy contract is that usually young players don't make nearly as much as Marcus or Joel or Andre make.
That difference is usually made up by a crappy contract (rather than 2 or 3 more young guys, which would of course be preferable). Note I didn't say veteran, although the contract would of course be attached to a veteran - but it would likely be a veteran who was of little to no use, at least to the team trading him.

barfo

 

[oldmangrouch]

I'd be interested in a link/post/hearsay from anyone who thinks Roy's knees will be better in a year than they are now. Much less 4 years from now. We've all seen/heard/read multiple reports from people like Nik's doctor about "no meniscus" and "microfracture won't work" and "degenerative". Even Barrett hasn't come out with a sunshine report on Roy's knees.

You'd think a fanbase that within the last 3 years saw what happened to Darius Miles would be a bit more, uh, realistic about the injury.

What he said.

 

[oldmangrouch]

BTW, to those who say the team doesn't have enough info to make a decision on Roy - have you ever heard of paralysis by analysis?

A person can always find an excuse to hunker down and do nothing.

 

[RoyToy]

Since Mixum didn't provide a link this little nugget wasn't included:

Sources have told CBSSports.com that Roy has a separate, outside insurance policy on his knees that could protect the Blazers — or his new team — depending on the timing and extent of any disability.

Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

 

[Ed O]

Since Mixum didn't provide a link this little nugget wasn't included:



Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

You didn't provide a link, either. What did you leave out due to that?



Ed O.

 

[RoyToy]

You didn't provide a link, either. What did you leave out due to that?



Ed O.

I didn't intentionally leave anything out nor was I accusing Mixum of doing so.

Thanks for playing!

 

[Public Defender]

Barfo -

You're suggesting the Blazers can expect to get a "crappy contract" likely belonging to a veteran who wasn't very useful to his former team (and he'd be useful to the Blazers how exactly?)...

I think that's realistic. Depressing, but realistic.

Minstrel -

You're suggesting that Miller or Camby (and no, I didn't intend to distort things by using Joel in my example, but in retrospect, I can see how you'd guess that) could net the Blazers multiple young players, potentially, without the need for adding Fernandez or Batum.

I think that's not entirely impossible, but unlikely. Tthe Blazers would have to find that perfect trade partner that's close to a championship except for a singular need for a pass-first guard with a suspect outside shot (Miller) or a skinny (he's wiry!) defensive-oriented center (Camby)... and that team also would have sufficient young assets that a.) they were willing to part with, and b.) could be combined to create enough $ to balance out Miller's or Camby's contract (though the trade exception could obviously be used).

I think things aren't as bad (as I'd call them) as barfo outlines, and not as easy as Minstrel suggests. I think in order to get the young assets that Minstrel suggests the Blazers could get - or to avoid the "crappy contract" and "of little use" veteran - that barfo expects, the Blazers would have to attach Fernandez, Batum, or one of the more highly paid players (i.e. Aldridge or Matthews).

I suppose I'm expecting the Blazers are going to want shoot higher than barfo is suggesting, and won't be as lucky (or as creative, perhaps?) as Minstrel believes.