Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread (Merged)

[MickZagger]

Reading through this thread is giving me flashbacks to about 5 years ago when I was reading through the garbage on Oregonlive forums. A lot of you are grown ass men, yet you come to internet message boards spewing garbage that I'm not even sure you yourself believe with sole intent of trying to get on other posters nerves. Then you argue tooth and nail about it like you actually believe what your writing out. The gimmick is cute I guess. . . If that's what floats your boat, then more power to ya.

 

[MikeDC]

Re: Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread

I just looked at the Bulls Forum and saw a thread about whether not having a good starting SG tall enough to guard other SGs hurts the Bulls. What's your take on this? From a distance, I can see how that could be a problem, but I don't watch them enough to know if it really is a problem. A few bridges seem to have been burned with Gordon anyway. I might try to work out a sign and trade with him or just let him go, hope for a good draft pick and use it at C or SG, get another good pick next draft and use cap space to fill any remaining holes. That won't win them many games in the meantime, but I'm not sure they will anyway as the team in currently constructed. Rose is great, but they don't have enough players that fit around him.

I don't know why our announcer kept calling Thabo French, but I'd love to force him to. I like to have three players at each position, so I'd like to get a third SG, especially one that can play defense. I think Thabo would look great in a Blazer uniform. Haven't figured out the best way to do that though. What do you think of the Blazers? Are there any players you would like to see on the Bulls, other than Roy, Aldridge and Oden?

Three guys is a lot. At least having three good ones. NBA players are tricky, and if you start piling them up without clear roles, they get ticked off and go bad. That's been part of the Bulls problem.

I don't know if bridges are burned with Gordon or not. I don't think he's an awful defender and I don't think simply being tall makes that much difference. I don't see much difference between Gordon and Michael Redd or Ray Allen defensively, for example. They aren't going to be the strength of your defense, but on a well-constructed team, they can be part of a good defense.

The Bulls are not a well constructed team.

I'd prefer to keep Gordon going forward and trade Kirk, who's really a lot more of a PG, and is wasted not starting for some team, and Hughes, who just sucks. In the grand scheme of things, finding a SG better than Gordon is not that easy. So keep him.

The Bulls big problems are:
1. No size or defensive awareness up front. Tyrus might be ok next to a big guy who could defend the basket and let Tyrus freelance. But I have my doubts. Sometimes he gets after it, sometimes not. Gooden might be ok next to a big guy who could defend the basket, but he won't bring any blocks. Good rebounder though. Noah... good rebounder, brings nothing else at the moment. Gray is awful. Nocioni's hustle is finally not covering up the fact he's one of the NBA's worst defenders. He might be better if he trusted his teammates, which he doesn't. All in all, a complete trainwreck.

2. The Bulls don't have the personnel, but Vinnie Del Negro is clueless. Thabo's playing good? Bench him? Larry Hughes complains and acts selfish? Start him. Take your only two scorers (Rose and Gordon) out for long stretches? Check. Play Gooden and Nocioni or Gray together? Check. Install a streetball offense when you should be teaching Rose the NBA game? Check. Make sure your system has no use for the $71M SF you just signed? Check. Field a defense that leaves the players routinely audibly asking each other who's guarding who? Check.

About the Blazers? Look at the Bulls and think about how bad things could get.

You guys are fine with
1- Blake, Bayless
2- Roy, Rudy
3- Batum, Outlaw
4- LMA, Frye
5- Oden, Przy

I don't think much of Sergio for your offense, and I think Bayless is lot more like Gordon (a SG) than a PG. So that's the only real problem I see. Were I you, I'd consider a guy like Hinrich, because he brings some veteran-ness you could, indeed use, and he could probably come cheap and make a tangible difference now.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Three guys is a lot. At least having three good ones. NBA players are tricky, and if you start piling them up without clear roles, they get ticked off and go bad. That's been part of the Bulls problem.

I don't know if bridges are burned with Gordon or not. I don't think he's an awful defender and I don't think simply being tall makes that much difference. I don't see much difference between Gordon and Michael Redd or Ray Allen defensively, for example. They aren't going to be the strength of your defense, but on a well-constructed team, they can be part of a good defense.

The Bulls are not a well constructed team.

I'd prefer to keep Gordon going forward and trade Kirk, who's really a lot more of a PG, and is wasted not starting for some team, and Hughes, who just sucks. In the grand scheme of things, finding a SG better than Gordon is not that easy. So keep him.

The Bulls big problems are:
1. No size or defensive awareness up front. Tyrus might be ok next to a big guy who could defend the basket and let Tyrus freelance. But I have my doubts. Sometimes he gets after it, sometimes not. Gooden might be ok next to a big guy who could defend the basket, but he won't bring any blocks. Good rebounder though. Noah... good rebounder, brings nothing else at the moment. Gray is awful. Nocioni's hustle is finally not covering up the fact he's one of the NBA's worst defenders. He might be better if he trusted his teammates, which he doesn't. All in all, a complete trainwreck.

2. The Bulls don't have the personnel, but Vinnie Del Negro is clueless. Thabo's playing good? Bench him? Larry Hughes complains and acts selfish? Start him. Take your only two scorers (Rose and Gordon) out for long stretches? Check. Play Gooden and Nocioni or Gray together? Check. Install a streetball offense when you should be teaching Rose the NBA game? Check. Make sure your system has no use for the $71M SF you just signed? Check. Field a defense that leaves the players routinely audibly asking each other who's guarding who? Check.

About the Blazers? Look at the Bulls and think about how bad things could get.

You guys are fine with
1- Blake, Bayless
2- Roy, Rudy
3- Batum, Outlaw
4- LMA, Frye
5- Oden, Przy

I don't think much of Sergio for your offense, and I think Bayless is lot more like Gordon (a SG) than a PG. So that's the only real problem I see. Were I you, I'd consider a guy like Hinrich, because he brings some veteran-ness you could, indeed use, and he could probably come cheap and make a tangible difference now.

Great post!

 

[Tortimer]

Re: Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread

Three guys is a lot. At least having three good ones. NBA players are tricky, and if you start piling them up without clear roles, they get ticked off and go bad. That's been part of the Bulls problem.

I don't know if bridges are burned with Gordon or not. I don't think he's an awful defender and I don't think simply being tall makes that much difference. I don't see much difference between Gordon and Michael Redd or Ray Allen defensively, for example. They aren't going to be the strength of your defense, but on a well-constructed team, they can be part of a good defense.

The Bulls are not a well constructed team.

I'd prefer to keep Gordon going forward and trade Kirk, who's really a lot more of a PG, and is wasted not starting for some team, and Hughes, who just sucks. In the grand scheme of things, finding a SG better than Gordon is not that easy. So keep him.

The Bulls big problems are:
1. No size or defensive awareness up front. Tyrus might be ok next to a big guy who could defend the basket and let Tyrus freelance. But I have my doubts. Sometimes he gets after it, sometimes not. Gooden might be ok next to a big guy who could defend the basket, but he won't bring any blocks. Good rebounder though. Noah... good rebounder, brings nothing else at the moment. Gray is awful. Nocioni's hustle is finally not covering up the fact he's one of the NBA's worst defenders. He might be better if he trusted his teammates, which he doesn't. All in all, a complete trainwreck.

2. The Bulls don't have the personnel, but Vinnie Del Negro is clueless. Thabo's playing good? Bench him? Larry Hughes complains and acts selfish? Start him. Take your only two scorers (Rose and Gordon) out for long stretches? Check. Play Gooden and Nocioni or Gray together? Check. Install a streetball offense when you should be teaching Rose the NBA game? Check. Make sure your system has no use for the $71M SF you just signed? Check. Field a defense that leaves the players routinely audibly asking each other who's guarding who? Check.

About the Blazers? Look at the Bulls and think about how bad things could get.

You guys are fine with
1- Blake, Bayless
2- Roy, Rudy
3- Batum, Outlaw
4- LMA, Frye
5- Oden, Przy

I don't think much of Sergio for your offense, and I think Bayless is lot more like Gordon (a SG) than a PG. So that's the only real problem I see. Were I you, I'd consider a guy like Hinrich, because he brings some veteran-ness you could, indeed use, and he could probably come cheap and make a tangible difference now.

Great post. The Blazers also have Webster coming back soon I hope. I also see Bayless as the perfect PG to play next to Roy. I wouldn't be against trading for Hinrich but not sure he would help us that much but if he was cheap enough I guess you couldn't go wrong.

 

[crandc]

I have to back RR7 on this. Going to the race card is beyond absurd Maris. I get that there are Nates bashers out there (for which i don't understand) but seriously that statement is ignorant.

It's absurd. Blake and Przybilla are a lot "whiter" than Sergio. Clearly Nate trusts them. And Oden is on a very short leash; if he's "white" he's got a hell of a suntan.

Back to the game, the stupid Bulls announcers kept saying "Charles Outlaw" early on. At least by the end of the game they sure knew his name!

 

[Natebishop3]

Two indisputable facts:

Sergio can't shoot.

Sergio can't defend.

Sure, he can pass (as Maris likes to point to in every thread) but what good is a point guard who can't shoot and can't defend? His passing becomes moot because teams start to sag off him (like last night) and he is forced to shoot (like last night) and he misses (like last night).

Jerryd Bayless is far superior to Sergio at scoring, at defense, and at finding big men on a fast break. How many times have we seen Bayless hit LMA for a dunk in the past week or so? Bayless pushes the ball. He gets into the paint more, which leads to more dunks for guys like Oden and Aldrdige. Sergio likes to dribble around the perimeter and wait for someone to cut (IE Rudy)

At this point I'm really just preaching to the choir because the only person who vehemently defends Sergio is Maris, and (as nik pointed out) he's just trolling us.

 

[MikeDC]

Re: Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread

Great post. The Blazers also have Webster coming back soon I hope. I also see Bayless as the perfect PG to play next to Roy. I wouldn't be against trading for Hinrich but not sure he would help us that much but if he was cheap enough I guess you couldn't go wrong.

Yikes, I forgot about Webster. He seems sort of like a poor-man's Glen Rice from the little I've seen of him. But he was coming along.

I think my biggest question with him would be who loses minutes to put him on the court?

• Batum looks like a better defender and you aren't really hurt for scoring. And he's just starting a cheap rookie deal.
• He's a better shooter than Outlaw, but Travis is more athletic and better all-around from what I've seen. He's also a guy who, from what I've read, is pretty popular in the locker room.

So when I look at those two, I don't know that I see a huge amount of room for Webster to play. And, back to my original post, one "lesson" I take from watching the Bulls these last couple years is that having big controversies is harmful to the team and its players. I'd pick one of those guys and move him. It'd either be Webster, because I think he's the least good of the three, or Outlaw because a year down the road you have to think about re-signing him, and he'll probably be more expensive. Is he good enough that you'll feel good about him long-term for you at the three? Are any of them?

That's the flip side... like I said, I like all three of them, but I don't know that any of them is really an upper echelon sort of SF. I look at Oden, LMA, Rudy and Roy and think those guys are either are or will be way above average. Bayless could be, but just personally I think it's asking a lot to develop both him and Rudy as 1/2 players at the same time, and to me Rudy is clearly better. So I suppose I'd at least consider making Bayless available if it got me a really solid 3.

 

[blue32]

^^ problem solved, we rotate Webs and Batum, and keep Outlaw at the 4, rotating with Aldridge.

 

[drexlersdad]

Re: Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread

Yikes, I forgot about Webster. He seems sort of like a poor-man's Glen Rice from the little I've seen of him. But he was coming along.

I think my biggest question with him would be who loses minutes to put him on the court?

• Batum looks like a better defender and you aren't really hurt for scoring. And he's just starting a cheap rookie deal.
• He's a better shooter than Outlaw, but Travis is more athletic and better all-around from what I've seen. He's also a guy who, from what I've read, is pretty popular in the locker room.

So when I look at those two, I don't know that I see a huge amount of room for Webster to play. And, back to my original post, one "lesson" I take from watching the Bulls these last couple years is that having big controversies is harmful to the team and its players. I'd pick one of those guys and move him. It'd either be Webster, because I think he's the least good of the three, or Outlaw because a year down the road you have to think about re-signing him, and he'll probably be more expensive. Is he good enough that you'll feel good about him long-term for you at the three? Are any of them?

That's the flip side... like I said, I like all three of them, but I don't know that any of them is really an upper echelon sort of SF. I look at Oden, LMA, Rudy and Roy and think those guys are either are or will be way above average. Bayless could be, but just personally I think it's asking a lot to develop both him and Rudy as 1/2 players at the same time, and to me Rudy is clearly better. So I suppose I'd at least consider making Bayless available if it got me a really solid 3.

i think the consensus around here is that Martell has a much better all around game than outlaw. martell can be a little inconsistent, but he can absolutely EXPLODE offensively at times. and he is a better defender than outlaw, better bball iq, better passer, ballhandler, etc.

travis is more athletic no doubt, but youtube martell webster dunk and you will find some NASTY throw downs over people, in traffic. he just hasnt really put it all together to the point where he can be consistent enough.

 

[Denny Crane]

MikeDC talked about the failures of the Bulls with a similar (too many players, too much depth) situation. A different situation which may apply to Webster is what happened to Deng. He was playing out of his mind for a stretch, got injured, missed a bunch of playing time, and hasn't come back anywhere near his former skills. I mean, the guy was shooting 58% or something like that from the SF spot until late in the season (49 wins), and his jumper was automatic.

All I'm suggesting is that only time will tell if Webster can come back to his former self and continue building his game from where he was. He may have to build on his game from where it is, which is something quite less.

 

[Natebishop3]

MikeDC talked about the failures of the Bulls with a similar (too many players, too much depth) situation. A different situation which may apply to Webster is what happened to Deng. He was playing out of his mind for a stretch, got injured, missed a bunch of playing time, and hasn't come back anywhere near his former skills. I mean, the guy was shooting 58% or something like that from the SF spot until late in the season (49 wins), and his jumper was automatic.

All I'm suggesting is that only time will tell if Webster can come back to his former self and continue building his game from where he was. He may have to build on his game from where it is, which is something quite less.

No way of telling at this point. Really, we'd like to just have him back. The guy can't get healthy. It's concerning.

 

[mook]

Nice posts, MikeDC. I agree that there just doesn't seem to be the minutes for Martell that he probably needs, and that's a problem for a couple of players here. We really need a consolidating trade that offloads some pretty good players for one really, really good player.

One thought I'm pondering is if it'd make sense to trade Fernandez (and filler) for Deng. Both guys have tons of talent and upside, but neither seems to be playing that great in the current system. I realize you haven't given up on Gordon, but really, what better fit for a point guard like Rose is there than a lights-out three point shooter who loves to dunk on lobs? You add a steady, mature presence like Fernandez to that team and it'd push the Bulls a long way toward rebuilding.

A lot of Blazer fans would consider it heresy to trade Rudy, and frankly I'm not sure that Rudy doesn't wind up being the better player. But I see Bayless and Roy as our future at the guard spots, and if my choice is 28 mpg of Rudy or 38 mpg of Deng, I'd rather have Deng.

 

[mook]

Re: Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread

i think the consensus around here is that Martell has a much better all around game than outlaw. martell can be a little inconsistent, but he can absolutely EXPLODE offensively at times. and he is a better defender than outlaw, better bball iq, better passer, ballhandler, etc.

travis is more athletic no doubt, but youtube martell webster dunk and you will find some NASTY throw downs over people, in traffic. he just hasnt really put it all together to the point where he can be consistent enough.

The debate of Outlaw vs Martell at SF is soooo 2007. It's pretty much over now. Outlaw sucks as a starting SF (I was wrong in arguing for it last year).

But the truth is Webster was one of the worst starting small forwards in the league last year too. He apparently showed signs of progress over the summer, but I was not excited at all about the idea of him returning to the starting job.

The big question right now is how long before Batum is actually going to develop into a quality SF. He's already better than either Outlaw or Webster, but that's a pretty low bar to set. And given his freaky length, his ability to finish in the open court, and his defense, it's pretty clear he's going to be pretty good. But will he be a top 15 SF? And if so, when?

I love Batum, but I also don't want to pin our hopes on a 19 year old late first round rookie's development. I'd rather bring in a veteran, quality SF like Deng, and let Batum come off the bench until he can become more consistent.

 

[Natebishop3]

Nice posts, MikeDC. I agree that there just doesn't seem to be the minutes for Martell that he probably needs, and that's a problem for a couple of players here. We really need a consolidating trade that offloads some pretty good players for one really, really good player.

One thought I'm pondering is if it'd make sense to trade Fernandez (and filler) for Deng. Both guys have tons of talent and upside, but neither seems to be playing that great in the current system. I realize you haven't given up on Gordon, but really, what better fit for a point guard like Rose is there than a lights-out three point shooter who loves to dunk on lobs? You add a steady, mature presence like Fernandez to that team and it'd push the Bulls a long way toward rebuilding.

A lot of Blazer fans would consider it heresy to trade Rudy, and frankly I'm not sure that Rudy doesn't wind up being the better player. But I see Bayless and Roy as our future at the guard spots, and if my choice is 28 mpg of Rudy or 38 mpg of Deng, I'd rather have Deng.

I think it's another example of McMillain having a negative impact on a player's game.

 

[MikeDC]

Nice posts, MikeDC. I agree that there just doesn't seem to be the minutes for Martell that he probably needs, and that's a problem for a couple of players here. We really need a consolidating trade that offloads some pretty good players for one really, really good player.

One thought I'm pondering is if it'd make sense to trade Fernandez (and filler) for Deng. Both guys have tons of talent and upside, but neither seems to be playing that great in the current system. I realize you haven't given up on Gordon, but really, what better fit for a point guard like Rose is there than a lights-out three point shooter who loves to dunk on lobs? You add a steady, mature presence like Fernandez to that team and it'd push the Bulls a long way toward rebuilding.

A lot of Blazer fans would consider it heresy to trade Rudy, and frankly I'm not sure that Rudy doesn't wind up being the better player. But I see Bayless and Roy as our future at the guard spots, and if my choice is 28 mpg of Rudy or 38 mpg of Deng, I'd rather have Deng.

I'd pull the trigger on that without question. I didn't think it was worth asking for Rudy. (I like him a lot)

Except, and this is the pain it is to be a Bulls fan... because we've got such as messed up roster situation, what can we do with Gordon then but let him walk. He can nix any trade at the moment, so there's very few situations in which we could get something in return for him.

So trading Deng for Rudy probably amounts to trading Deng and Gordon for Rudy. Which isn't exactly a stellar return.

If the Bulls could figure out a reasonable trade for Gordon, perhaps it'd make sense, but without that it'd just be trading two players for one. and we already don't have enough players.

 

[hasoos]

You know there is always one solution to playing time problems. It's called playing better. Maybe if our first 2 depth levels of PG were actually fighting through screens defensivly and not leaving our big men out to dry on switches, then they would get more playing time. Blake does a better job than Sergio. Bayless does better defensivly than both of them, easily. Once he gets into the flow offensivly, which is getting better it looks like every time he steps on the court, this will be a moot question. The reason you don't get playing time is simple. Your not as good.

Bayless is better.

 

[hasoos]

Also I forgot to add above, mad props for Travis and his game. I know I am one of his detractors, but I give credit when it is due. He played great last night. I have alluded to this before, but I believe he has a problem getting comfortable offensivly when he plays SF. Last night he started at PF, found his comfort zone, and then as you know, when he is on, its lights on. Maybe Nate is figuring that out, because his production has been up as of late since Frye and Diogu hit the pine for good.

 

[MIXUM]

get a starting sf for sergi and webster. batum backs up at sf. outlaw backsup at pf.....bayless at pg

 

[hasoos]

By the way, I didn't notice if anybody talked about Rudy's foot injury? Anybody know how serious it is?

 

[MIXUM]

wasnt it his knee?

 

[mook]

I'd pull the trigger on that without question. I didn't think it was worth asking for Rudy. (I like him a lot)

Except, and this is the pain it is to be a Bulls fan... because we've got such as messed up roster situation, what can we do with Gordon then but let him walk. He can nix any trade at the moment, so there's very few situations in which we could get something in return for him.

So trading Deng for Rudy probably amounts to trading Deng and Gordon for Rudy. Which isn't exactly a stellar return.

If the Bulls could figure out a reasonable trade for Gordon, perhaps it'd make sense, but without that it'd just be trading two players for one. and we already don't have enough players.

Yeah, I see your point. I really like Rudy too, so much so that I think at some point he's going to realize he just can't reach his potential on a team as stacked as ours is. I see a situation similar to what happened back when Michael Redd was Ray Allen's backup. The Bucks just weren't able to maximize the talents of either guy.

I'm a big Blazers fan, but I'm also a big fan of a few individual players. I was actually happy for Rasheed to see him go, because I knew he'd have much greater success in Detroit. As a Blazer fan, I'd be disappointed to see Rudy go, but I'd probably follow him for the rest of his career no matter what team he went on.

I'll hate to see him go, but when we eventually do our big consolidation trade, I think Rudy will probably be part of the package.

 

[alex42083]

I'll hate to see him go, but when we eventually do our big consolidation trade, I think Rudy will probably be part of the package.

I disagree... that'd be such a huge mistake to trade Rudy away. His impact goes far beyond what he gives us on the court, which is already great.
And with how much of a priority KP and the team made to bring him out here, it would take a lot more IMO for KP to give him away just for consolidation purposes. You won't find many guys with Rudy's talent who will accept the backup SG role and is capable to start if Roy is injured.

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah, I see your point. I really like Rudy too, so much so that I think at some point he's going to realize he just can't reach his potential on a team as stacked as ours is. I see a situation similar to what happened back when Michael Redd was Ray Allen's backup. The Bucks just weren't able to maximize the talents of either guy.

As a counter-example, Manu Ginobili has seemed content with coming off the bench...the combination of playing for a winner, being given as much credit as any starter not named Duncan and being paid like a starter seems to have kept him satisfied. That is hopefully the route Portland would go with Fernandez.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Reading through this thread is giving me flashbacks to about 5 years ago when I was reading through the garbage on Oregonlive forums. A lot of you are grown ass men, yet you come to internet message boards spewing garbage that I'm not even sure you yourself believe with sole intent of trying to get on other posters nerves. Then you argue tooth and nail about it like you actually believe what your writing out. The gimmick is cute I guess. . . If that's what floats your boat, then more power to ya.

What folats your boat? Becuase the only time you seem to post is to take a shot at someone or complain.

 

[mook]

I disagree... that'd be such a huge mistake to trade Rudy away. His impact goes far beyond what he gives us on the court, which is already great.
And with how much of a priority KP and the team made to bring him out here, it would take a lot more IMO for KP to give him away just for consolidation purposes. You won't find many guys with Rudy's talent who will accept the backup SG role and is capable to start if Roy is injured.

Oh, I don't think we'll "give him away." I think he'll be a cornerstone of a major trade. A lot of NBA fans are going to look at whatever the trade winds up being and saying, "I can't believe Portland got ___ for a bunch of no-names," much like Miami got Shaq in a deal that included Butler. Turned out Butler was a huge piece in that trade (even if LA didn't realize it).

I suspect a lot of GM's see Rudy the same way we do--a guy with Manu Ginobili-level potential (at a minimum). On a rookie salary with years to develop, he's going to be worth a nice premium if we decide to trade him.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Re: Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread

I don't think much of Sergio for your offense, and I think Bayless is lot more like Gordon (a SG) than a PG. So that's the only real problem I see. Were I you, I'd consider a guy like Hinrich, because he brings some veteran-ness you could, indeed use, and he could probably come cheap and make a tangible difference now.

So don't laugh, but do you consider Hinrich an upgrade from Blake? Or should I ask, how much of an upgrade?

Because, this year, Blake has really developed a chemistry with the first unit.

 

[Natebishop3]

Re: Blazers @ Chicago Game Thread

So don't laugh, but do you consider Hinrich an upgrade from Blake? Or should I ask, how much of an upgrade?

Because, this year, Blake has really developed a chemistry with the first unit.

I think that Blake has really developed as a shooter with the first unit, but he's still not a first-rate point guard. The guy can score. I think he has been stellar in that regard. I just don't think his defense or passing is up to snuff.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Oh, I don't think we'll "give him away." I think he'll be a cornerstone of a major trade. A lot of NBA fans are going to look at whatever the trade winds up being and saying, "I can't believe Portland got ___ for a bunch of no-names," much like Miami got Shaq in a deal that included Butler. Turned out Butler was a huge piece in that trade (even if LA didn't realize it).

I suspect a lot of GM's see Rudy the same way we do--a guy with Manu Ginobili-level potential (at a minimum). On a rookie salary with years to develop, he's going to be worth a nice premium if we decide to trade him.

Mook, you and I have been on the same page about Rudy for a while (I hope taht doesn't discredit your thoughts)

Rudy is too small to play SF and isn't a PG. So to play him with Roy means moving Roy to a different position, which I think is a mistake unless it's the last few minutes of a game.

I understand that you aren't saying get rid of Rudy or look to trade him. But if the Blazers are going to go after a big name PG or SF, that team will want talent in return . . . young talent because they are probably rebuilding. And Rudy could be the big piece in Ptd to get the next established starter in Ptd.

Having said that, I love Rudy, his game and attitude, off and on the court.

 

[Ed O]

I disagree... that'd be such a huge mistake to trade Rudy away. His impact goes far beyond what he gives us on the court, which is already great.

What is his impact "beyond what he gives us on the court"? I don't follow.

Ed O.

 

[Natebishop3]

Mook, you and I have been on the same page about Rudy for a while (I hope taht doesn't discredit your thoughts)

Rudy is too small to play SF and isn't a PG. So to play him with Roy means moving Roy to a different position, which I think is a mistake unless it's the last few minutes of a game.

I understand that you aren't saying get rid of Rudy or look to trade him. But if the Blazers are going to go after a big name PG or SF, that team will want talent in return . . . young talent because they are probably rebuilding. And Rudy could be the big piece in Ptd to get the next established starter in Ptd.

Having said that, I love Rudy, his game and attitude, off and on the court.

Here's something I don't understand... why can't Rudy play point guard? How is Rudy any different than Bayless? Obviously Bayless has been a "point guard" his whole life, but they both have a scorers mentality, in fact I'd say Rudy has more of a pass-first mentality than Bayless does. Why can't Roy and Rudy co-exist?