Bayless trade: Yuck or Yay? (2 Viewers)

[MickZagger]

Which one do you think is a better point guard? Rudy has no handle and Matthews has never been considered a distributor. Bayless may not be a pure point guard, but he CAN pass the ball, and his handle is far superior to either of those players.

I think Rudy and Matthews have as good a handle as Bayless. Rudy's obvious shortcoming is going to the right. I watched Rudy set up the offense during FIBA quite a bit this summer, he looked good doing so. Matthews can also distribute, its not his ideal thing, but I've watched him do it plenty. I think both are just as effective with the rock in their hands setting up the offense as Bayless was.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I think what we've done is basically trade:

Matthews + a small amount of cap space
for
Bayless + mediocre 1st rounder

I can live with that.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't know about Bayless being a better back up PG than Mathews.....maybe regardless Bayless wasn't a good PG either. I have a feeling it's a mute point in that Cho has something up his sleeve for a new PG. Mathews and Rudy were going to need lots of minutes and Bayless was going to be lucky to see 8-10 minutes a game. Hell Roy can play 10 minutes a game as PG.

Armon Johnson might be that point guard up his sleeve.

 

[mook]

I think Portland looked long and hard at what was likelier to be a more valuable trading chip six months or a year from now:

Option 1: A young, promising shooting guard with no perimeter shot buried behind Roy/Matthews/Fernandez, who never really gets a lot of scoring opportunities because of the rise of Oden/Batum, so projects to fizzle in production this year, and also costs whatever team we trade him to $3 mil this year, $4 mil next year, and then is owed a bigger contract

Option 2: A rookie draft pick who lands somewhere between 8 and 16, who gets paid the rookie wage scale for several more years, and gives whatever team we trade it to the flexibility to draft for whatever the hell reason they want.

Say we go after Chauncy Billups because Carmello leaves Denver. Which of those two options is more appealing to Denver? My guess is Denver wants the most flexible, cheapest option, because they will have several years of sucking and Bayless probably doesn't do much to change that, so why pay extra for him?

I'm in the "meh" camp. I think Bayless was going to be traded anyway. Probably at the end of this season, after his value had plummeted. So we cashed in the asset now before risking the value dropping, and to immediately gain flexibility.

I'm mostly "meh" instead of "yay" because I would've hoped for a more valuable pick. But I assume Portland shopped him around and this was the best value they could get.

 

[alex42083]

It's a yuck trade for me, just in terms of what we got in return.. I thought Jerryd might've had more value or could've added a nice piece to a package deal, but maybe that's just the homer in me. But getting rid of him is fine, since I think the experiment of turning him into the backup PG didn't work out.

His energy will be missed though. I'll miss his ability to change the tempo of the game, and his ability to attack the hoop since we have very few attackers and a lot of jump shooters as it is. Oh well..

 

[mook]

Note: I'm not saying Bayless won't blow up this year and somewhat embarrass our management. I think there's actually a decent chance of that, given that he'll be the starting shooting guard playing next to Chris Paul. I'd be all over him if I were into fantasy basketball.

I'm also not saying this is an "addition by subtraction" move. I don't think Bayless was retarding anybody else's growth. I think rather several other players were retarding his growth.

I also don't think Portland really saw him as a viable option at backup PG long-term. I think Johnson showed the team more of those kinds of skills. It's like asking, "Who is a better player--Jamaal Crawford or Derek Fisher?" I think Crawford clearly is. Now ask, "Who is a better point guard--Jamaal Crawford or Derek Fisher?" Well, for the role we need on this particular team, I think you say Fisher. Bayless is Crawford in my analogy, and Johnson is Fisher.

 

[Minstrel]

Option 1: A young, promising shooting guard with no perimeter shot

I know the "shooting guard who can't shoot" has a ring and has gained traction, but it's not exactly true. He went from a 25.9% three-point shooter (not an NBA caliber three-point percentage) to a 31.5% three-point shooter (legitimate but inefficient three-point percentage) from year 1 to year 2. (And for those who like to see trends, he shot 40% from theee-point range in the playoffs last year, but that of course is subject to small sample sizes.)

It's definitely such exaggeration as to be misleading to say he had no perimeter shot. He wasn't a good perimeter shooter yet, but he was approaching average and improving a lot. Whether he'll ever get to legitimately good/excellent at perimeter shooting is an open question, but he wasn't terrible last year and was getting better.

 

[mook]

I know the "shooting guard who can't shoot" has a ring and has gained traction, but it's not exactly true. He went from a 25.9% three-point shooter (not an NBA caliber three-point percentage) to a 31.5% three-point shooter (legitimate but inefficient three-point percentage) from year 1 to year 2. (And for those who like to see trends, he shot 40% from theee-point range in the playoffs last year, but that of course is subject to small sample sizes.)

It's definitely such exaggeration as to be misleading to say he had no perimeter shot. He wasn't a good perimeter shooter yet, but he was approaching average and improving a lot. Whether he'll ever get to legitimately good/excellent at perimeter shooting is an open question, but he wasn't terrible last year and was getting better.

That's probably a fair statement. I'd amend it to something like "a shooting guard with barely serviceable (yet improving) three point range."

Not really my main point, anyway. What I was really going after was that we shouldn't look at Bayless' value vs the pick's value through any prism other than, "How valuable will each be in a future consolidation trade?" If you look at it that way, the deal kind of makes sense.

 

[Minstrel]

Not really my main point, anyway. What I was really going after was that we shouldn't look at Bayless' value vs the pick's value through any prism other than, "How valuable will each be in a future consolidation trade?" If you look at it that way, the deal kind of makes sense.

Yes, but to determine that, one has to make an evaluation as to what Bayless' value will be down the line. Is a late lottery pick/borderline lottery pick going to be more valuable in, say, a year or will Bayless? To answer that now (as a prediction) one has to predict what Bayless will be. To that end, whether Bayless can shoot is germane. Not least because if Bayless' shot continued to improve, he could actually fit alongside Roy. Which either means more quality minutes to raise his trade value, or a new decision as to whether the team needs to make a consolidation deal to address the guard spot alongside Roy.

I wasn't trying to "gotcha," if that's what you thought. I thought it was actually a relevant point to your post.

 

[barfo]

Note: I'm not saying Bayless won't blow up this year and somewhat embarrass our management. I think there's actually a decent chance of that, given that he'll be the starting shooting guard playing next to Chris Paul. I'd be all over him if I were into fantasy basketball.

I'm not sure about that. They've got Marcus Thornton and Bellinelli. It's not so clear to me he'll be starting.

I think I'm happy about this trade. I don't have any hate for Bayless, but I feel about him the same way I felt about Jarrett Jack. A great guy to have if you need someone to bull into the the lane, but not a great overall player and not someone who will be severely missed. And his arms are short.

barfo

 

[Wheels]

one thing I didnt think of. And didnt see mentioned, but it very well could have been.... I remember reading earlier in the Summer that Elliot Williams can provide a lot of the same of what Bayless does but much more defensive potential due to wingspan. Not sure if that played any part in the trade. But I just thought of that.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

one thing I didnt think of. And didnt see mentioned, but it very well could have been.... I remember reading earlier in the Summer that Elliot Williams can provide a lot of the same of what Bayless does but much more defensive potential due to wingspan. Not sure if that played any part in the trade. But I just thought of that.

It could have. Williams almost certainly won't contribute this year. But maybe they felt Bayless wouldn't help much this year either, with the addition of Matthews.

 

[Wheels]

It could have. Williams almost certainly won't contribute this year. But maybe they felt Bayless wouldn't help much this year either, with the addition of Matthews.

yeah and he was drafted later so would be cheaper as well. So maybe they are looking at it as if/when Williams is ready he would offer better of what Bayless did.

 

[Natebishop3]

yeah and he was drafted later so would be cheaper as well. So maybe they are looking at it as if/when Williams is ready he would offer better of what Bayless did.

That's very possible. I believe we've discussed the redundancy of Williams and Bayless before, but I still think we need some clarity on the point guard position. Is Roy taking over the bulk of the ball handling? Is Miller still the distributor that we signed him for? Is Johnson the backup?

 

[mgb]

I'm fine with the trade. We've been trying to force a square piece in a round hole and it just hasn't worked. While it's a bit early to say if what we got was equal to what we gave up, I think it's best for both Bayless and the Blazers that the trade was made.

 

[BlayZa]

it's a meh move for me. im not really bothered either way with it.

i think it's a good move for JB as a player, he should get more time on the new team. the converse of that is im excited to see what the new kids can do - im also assuming it's been enough to facilitate a trade not leaving us short.

OR

there is something bigger in the pipeline...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I don't believe in addition by subtraction. I believe in addition by consolidation. I'm not saying we shouldn't have traded Bayless, I'm saying we should have packaged him with something else for a player we could actually use this season.

Okay, does it help you if you think of this as trading Bayless for Matthews? And a happier Rudy? Because I guarantee you, Rudy will be a lot happier playing alongside an actual PG, which was the difference between his rookie and second year.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Yes, but to determine that, one has to make an evaluation as to what Bayless' value will be down the line. Is a late lottery pick/borderline lottery pick going to be more valuable in, say, a year or will Bayless? To answer that now (as a prediction) one has to predict what Bayless will be. To that end, whether Bayless can shoot is germane. Not least because if Bayless' shot continued to improve, he could actually fit alongside Roy. Which either means more quality minutes to raise his trade value, or a new decision as to whether the team needs to make a consolidation deal to address the guard spot alongside Roy.

To continue the analysis, it's not as if "value" is something Bayless has objectively that will shine through in whatever setting he's placed. Value is a function of how a player performs, which in turn depends greatly on what system he's in. Bayless's value was probably at its apex after his first summer league performance (but even there, not as a PG, because he didn't play it) and declined steadily thereafter, and the more so he was forced to be something he wasn't good at. So even if he blows up now (and I will be amazed if he helps them win - to my mind this is another Willie Green move on Dell Demps's part) that doesn't mean he would've here. (The same was true of Jermaine - I think his value improved massively because Isiah Thomas believed in him and had his reputation invested in him, so was going to see him get good no matter what. That just wouldn't've happened in Portland.)

 

[hasoos]

The way I look at it this says a few things. The team is really happy with Mathews. It also says that they are committing to Rudy, which should make him happier. N.O will probably come in the high lotto for a while, so the draft pick will probably be in the teens.

I guess what I am dissapointed in mostly is I was hoping management would do a many for one higher quality player deal. Now the chances of that happening are much lower.

 

[Ed O]

Okay, does it help you if you think of this as trading Bayless for Matthews?

But it's not. We had both Bayless and Matthews. The trade didn't get us Matthews, and if Matthews was good enough to get as many minutes as he's going to get now, then he should have been pushing Bayless to the bench. Same with Rudy.

And a happier Rudy? Because I guarantee you, Rudy will be a lot happier playing alongside an actual PG, which was the difference between his rookie and second year.

If the Blazers make any moves to make Rudy happier, then the Blazers are not thinking clearly. If the Blazers are moving younger players to make Rudy, who is claiming to be headed back to Spain as soon as he gets the chance, happy then they are just dumb.

"Addition by subtraction" means that the team would have been better off even if the team had received no value.

Does anyone want to argue, with a straight face, that the team would be better if the team just gave Bayless away?

Ed O.

 

[SheedSoNasty]

I really liked him as a basketball player but I always knew he wouldn't really fit in here. It's too bad he wasn't a bit taller... or had a better passing game, I suppose. I'm still on the fence because it really does depend on what we end up doing with the pick and future roster moves.

This is one of the few polls I've seen that has a fairly even distribution of opinions.

 

[andalusian]

Does anyone want to argue, with a straight face, that the team would be better if the team just gave Bayless away?

I certainly would not, but I am not willing to say this trade was bad until we know what happened with it - including the pick/future trades.

I liked JB a lot - but it seems that they think he is not a good enough backup PG or they are really happy with Armon or they have something else in the pipeline or they just did the right thing by him - allowing him to find a better place for his career.

 

[Natebishop3]

But it's not. We had both Bayless and Matthews. The trade didn't get us Matthews, and if Matthews was good enough to get as many minutes as he's going to get now, then he should have been pushing Bayless to the bench. Same with Rudy.



If the Blazers make any moves to make Rudy happier, then the Blazers are not thinking clearly. If the Blazers are moving younger players to make Rudy, who is claiming to be headed back to Spain as soon as he gets the chance, happy then they are just dumb.

"Addition by subtraction" means that the team would have been better off even if the team had received no value.

Does anyone want to argue, with a straight face, that the team would be better if the team just gave Bayless away?

Ed O.

We're on the same wavelength Ed. I really hate the "addition by subtraction" theory, and it's a fallacy to think that moving Bayless for peanuts equals getting Matthews.

I'm also wondering why people think that Rudy suddenly wants to be here. What leads anyone to believe that? His play? That could just as easily mean that Rudy is trying to play his way out of town. Cho and his agent probably explained to him that sulking and poor play will keep his value low, which means he will be stuck in Portland longer.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

My guess is as soon as Bayless found out he was the 5th guard off the bench he let management know he would like to be traded. Unlike Rudy he did it the right way plus Bayless was more expendable than Rudy. Rudy has something every team in the NBA needs which is obviously the ability to spread the floor. The acquisition of Mathews made Bayless expendable. Mathews does everything Bayless does but better and on top of that he has a better outside shot. Mathews gives us so many more options with his ability to play 3 positions.

 

[MickZagger]

But it's not. We had both Bayless and Matthews. The trade didn't get us Matthews, and if Matthews was good enough to get as many minutes as he's going to get now, then he should have been pushing Bayless to the bench. Same with Rudy.

Ed O.

What good is it going to do if we have a 22 year old player trying to figure out his game sulking on the bench behind players who deserve to be out there more?

 

[Ed O]

What good is it going to do if we have a 22 year old player trying to figure out his game sulking on the bench behind players who deserve to be out there more?

What? What indicates he would have been sitting on the bench?

And even if he is: he's 22. He might not help this year, but next year or the next. He was still on his rookie deal, after all. Cheap help.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

I certainly would not, but I am not willing to say this trade was bad until we know what happened with it - including the pick/future trades.

I liked JB a lot - but it seems that they think he is not a good enough backup PG or they are really happy with Armon or they have something else in the pipeline or they just did the right thing by him - allowing him to find a better place for his career.

Fair enough. I think we agree here. The post you were quoting was me questioning whether it was "addition by subtraction" or not.

Ed O.

 

[MickZagger]

What? What indicates he would have been sitting on the bench?

And even if he is: he's 22. He might not help this year, but next year or the next. He was still on his rookie deal, after all. Cheap help.

Ed O.

The announcement that Johnson had moved ahead of him in the rotation. I think Quicky boy reported it.

 

[Ed O]

The announcement that Johnson had moved ahead of him in the rotation. I think Quicky boy reported it.

I think I'd need to see a link for that. I remember something that said he was making progress, but I must have missed where anything said he was the backup PG ahead of Bayless.

Ed O.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think I'd need to see a link for that. I remember something that said he was making progress, but I must have missed where anything said he was the backup PG ahead of Bayless.

Ed O.

It was never anything formal. Jay Allen simply reported that Armon was wearing a black jersey and was exclusively practicing with the second unit during a practice and a lot of inferring ensued.