Blazers Rightly Decide The Kids Are All Right (Columbian)

[ABM]

This piece pretty much goes over everything that has already been hashed an rehashed in here. He does cite some examples from Chicago and Dallas, FWIW...............


From: Brian Hendrickson - The Columbian

TUALATIN, Ore. — There was a buzz rushing through the Rose Garden Wednesday night that made it difficult to believe that anything other than a blockbuster deal was on the brink of completion.

The names of former NBA All-Stars and franchise cornerstones were circulating. And if the trades that had already been completed were an accurate baseline for the market’s value, the Portland Trail Blazers appeared to be in a realistic position to complete a major trade. It may have been as simple as the Blazers saying “yes.”

So sure, the “no” they gave teams on Thursday was shocking — for a moment. But once the emotion wore off, it became clear that it was the right answer. Because lost in the speculation and rumors were a few simple facts.

The Blazers are 33-20 and on pace for a 50-win season.

They are the second-youngest team in the NBA, with a ceiling that has not yet come into view.

And they have no glaring needs.

So why mess with that? Kevin Pritchard was apparently wondering the same thing on Thursday when negotiations continued until the final minute before the Blazers’ general manager made the call to stand pat.

“We’re effectively the youngest team in the league, and we have 33 wins at this time,” Pritchard said. “It’s hard for me to say it’s logical to make a big change.”

But the emotions generated from potential trades and big names often clouds that perspective, and people forget how those changes can knock a team off course. But look over the last two seasons and you will find examples of good trades that turned bad................

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Great article by Hendrickson!

Every fan should read this one.

 

[SodaPopinski]

And they have no glaring needs.

Totally disagree with this statement. Perimeter defense, a reliable scorer behind Brandon Roy, some battle-tested leadership ... those are just a few.

-Pop

 

[maxiep]

The Good is the enemy of The Best. 33 wins is great. If you can set yourself up for something much bigger, you do it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yeah, LA last year said "hey, we have a minor hole in the middle here, but we're on pace for 52 wins and a playoff spot, let's just ride it out".

Wait, they didn't. They said "let's trade our 11th man, a 9M expiring contract, an overseas 2nd rounder, and 2 late 1st draft picks for an All-Star."

Voila, Finals. I didn't hear until afterwards the questions of "how does Bynum develop if Pau's here"?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Wait, they didn't. They said "let's trade our 11th man, a 9M expiring contract, an overseas 2nd rounder, and 2 late 1st draft picks for an All-Star."

Are you implying there was a deal like that out there for Pritchard and he turned it down?

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Yeah, LA last year said "hey, we have a minor hole in the middle here, but we're on pace for 52 wins and a playoff spot, let's just ride it out".

Wait, they didn't. They said "let's trade our 11th man, a 9M expiring contract, an overseas 2nd rounder, and 2 late 1st draft picks for an All-Star."

Voila, Finals. I didn't hear until afterwards the questions of "how does Bynum develop if Pau's here"?

Problem is we didnt get an offer like that. Teams didnt want our 11th man or our draft picks... they wanted Rudy, Bayless, and Batum.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Why, again, is 50 wins some magic number? Why not want 54? Or HCA? Or winning the division?

As KP said, we're "overachieving". Fine (I disagree, but that's a different matter entirely). If we're "overachieving", who's doing it? Roy's an All-Star, just like last year. LMA's about the same, as is Joel and Blake. Bayless is the 3rd PG, people in here thing Sergio's horrible, and Batum gets 15mpg. Ike and Frye were disappointing. Webster's been injured. Oden's been up and down.

Are Outlaw and Rudy what's causing this team to "overachieve"? Statistically and observationally I can't see it. So how are we overachieving? Sure, we're the 2nd-youngest team in the league. I get it. We're also one of the most talented 1-15 teams in the league. We're also one of the more dominant home teams in the league, except when we're playing scrub teams, it seems. We still haven't won a road game against a >.500 WC team, iirc. We don't play good team defense, and that's not going to change with Blake and Outlaw getting 30mpg each.

We're only "overachieving" if you bought into low expectations (of course, you could turn that around and say we're only underachieving if I had ridiculous expectations). Why, other than we tanked at the end last year, would you not think we should be a mid-tier playoff team this year? If we hadn't tanked last year and ended up with 45-46 games, would you guys be predicting 47/48/50? Or would you be looking at our team and saying "we have a Top 10 player in Roy, 3 really good bigs in Oden, Joel and LMA, with Rudy and Outlaw off the bench" and look around for which teams in the league could compare with that? Not many.

But we're scrambling around, 4-3 in February and not looking anything like the team we were in December and early January. Our rotations don't reflect the "let it bake" philosophy our team is espousing (Batum and Bayless) and they aren't improving very much in our weak areas (consistent effort, wing rebounding, perimeter defense, P&R offensively and defensively), and playing poorly against teams that are well below .500. "Overachieving" was the excuse for why we ended up 8 games out of the playoffs last year, when at one point we were the 5th seed. Now I'm hearing it again, and don't like it compared to our recent history that many don't seem to want to look at.

 

[SodaPopinski]

Why, again, is 50 wins some magic number? Why not want 54? Or HCA? Or winning the division?

As KP said, we're "overachieving". Fine (I disagree, but that's a different matter entirely). If we're "overachieving", who's doing it? Roy's an All-Star, just like last year. LMA's about the same, as is Joel and Blake. Bayless is the 3rd PG, people in here thing Sergio's horrible, and Batum gets 15mpg. Ike and Frye were disappointing. Webster's been injured. Oden's been up and down.

Are Outlaw and Rudy what's causing this team to "overachieve"? Statistically and observationally I can't see it. So how are we overachieving? Sure, we're the 2nd-youngest team in the league. I get it. We're also one of the most talented 1-15 teams in the league. We're also one of the more dominant home teams in the league, except when we're playing scrub teams, it seems. We still haven't won a road game against a >.500 WC team, iirc. We don't play good team defense, and that's not going to change with Blake and Outlaw getting 30mpg each.

We're only "overachieving" if you bought into low expectations (of course, you could turn that around and say we're only underachieving if I had ridiculous expectations). Why, other than we tanked at the end last year, would you not think we should be a mid-tier playoff team this year? If we hadn't tanked last year and ended up with 45-46 games, would you guys be predicting 47/48/50? Or would you be looking at our team and saying "we have a Top 10 player in Roy, 3 really good bigs in Oden, Joel and LMA, with Rudy and Outlaw off the bench" and look around for which teams in the league could compare with that? Not many.

But we're scrambling around, 4-3 in February and not looking anything like the team we were in December and early January. Our rotations don't reflect the "let it bake" philosophy our team is espousing (Batum and Bayless) and they aren't improving very much in our weak areas (consistent effort, wing rebounding, perimeter defense, P&R offensively and defensively), and playing poorly against teams that are well below .500. "Overachieving" was the excuse for why we ended up 8 games out of the playoffs last year, when at one point we were the 5th seed. Now I'm hearing it again, and don't like it compared to our recent history that many don't seem to want to look at.

Amen, brother. Too many fans and members of the organization are looking at the fact we are currently 4th in the West without looking at many of the signs that point to some recent slippage. Couple that with the fact that our competition for a playoff spot are suddenly upping their game, and I don't think making the playoffs this year is a foregone conclusion like many on here do.

-Pop

 

[gatorpops]

Problem is we didnt get an offer like that. Teams didnt want our 11th man or our draft picks... they wanted Rudy, Bayless, and Batum.

Of course no one knows but I believe that Batum will be the best of the three you mentioned.

I do not remember, except for Roy who was a four year college guy, any that have as much poise as this kid. I would never have given him up except for a younger outstanding player in return. We did not have that if reports are accurate.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Yeah, LA last year said "hey, we have a minor hole in the middle here, but we're on pace for 52 wins and a playoff spot, let's just ride it out".

Wait, they didn't. They said "let's trade our 11th man, a 9M expiring contract, an overseas 2nd rounder, and 2 late 1st draft picks for an All-Star."

Voila, Finals. I didn't hear until afterwards the questions of "how does Bynum develop if Pau's here"?

I agree. Go big or go home.

This was probably the only time we were able to make a big move to add talent without losing something valuable in return. But somehow we feel good with this core group...I guess this is what its going to be.

 

[PapaG]

I agree. Go big or go home.

This was probably the only time we were able to make a big move to add talent without losing something valuable in return. But somehow we feel good with this core group...I guess this is what its going to be.

Obviously there was nothing "big" out there, so KP went home. So what's the problem?

 

[alex42083]

Why, again, is 50 wins some magic number? Why not want 54? Or HCA? Or winning the division?

As KP said, we're "overachieving". Fine (I disagree, but that's a different matter entirely). If we're "overachieving", who's doing it? Roy's an All-Star, just like last year. LMA's about the same, as is Joel and Blake. Bayless is the 3rd PG, people in here thing Sergio's horrible, and Batum gets 15mpg. Ike and Frye were disappointing. Webster's been injured. Oden's been up and down.

Are Outlaw and Rudy what's causing this team to "overachieve"? Statistically and observationally I can't see it. So how are we overachieving? Sure, we're the 2nd-youngest team in the league. I get it. We're also one of the most talented 1-15 teams in the league. We're also one of the more dominant home teams in the league, except when we're playing scrub teams, it seems. We still haven't won a road game against a >.500 WC team, iirc. We don't play good team defense, and that's not going to change with Blake and Outlaw getting 30mpg each.

We're only "overachieving" if you bought into low expectations (of course, you could turn that around and say we're only underachieving if I had ridiculous expectations). Why, other than we tanked at the end last year, would you not think we should be a mid-tier playoff team this year? If we hadn't tanked last year and ended up with 45-46 games, would you guys be predicting 47/48/50? Or would you be looking at our team and saying "we have a Top 10 player in Roy, 3 really good bigs in Oden, Joel and LMA, with Rudy and Outlaw off the bench" and look around for which teams in the league could compare with that? Not many.

But we're scrambling around, 4-3 in February and not looking anything like the team we were in December and early January. Our rotations don't reflect the "let it bake" philosophy our team is espousing (Batum and Bayless) and they aren't improving very much in our weak areas (consistent effort, wing rebounding, perimeter defense, P&R offensively and defensively), and playing poorly against teams that are well below .500. "Overachieving" was the excuse for why we ended up 8 games out of the playoffs last year, when at one point we were the 5th seed. Now I'm hearing it again, and don't like it compared to our recent history that many don't seem to want to look at.

Agreed. Good post.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I agree that if we decide this is the team we want now and in the future we might as well put our future out on the court together.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Obviously there was nothing "big" out there, so KP went home. So what's the problem?

That's not confirmed. There might have been something big, but KP decided to go home.

 

[LittleAlex]

Why, again, is 50 wins some magic number? Why not want 54? Or HCA? Or winning the division?

As KP said, we're "overachieving". Fine (I disagree, but that's a different matter entirely). If we're "overachieving", who's doing it? Roy's an All-Star, just like last year. LMA's about the same, as is Joel and Blake. Bayless is the 3rd PG, people in here thing Sergio's horrible, and Batum gets 15mpg. Ike and Frye were disappointing. Webster's been injured. Oden's been up and down.

Are Outlaw and Rudy what's causing this team to "overachieve"? Statistically and observationally I can't see it. So how are we overachieving? Sure, we're the 2nd-youngest team in the league. I get it. We're also one of the most talented 1-15 teams in the league. We're also one of the more dominant home teams in the league, except when we're playing scrub teams, it seems. We still haven't won a road game against a >.500 WC team, iirc. We don't play good team defense, and that's not going to change with Blake and Outlaw getting 30mpg each.

We're only "overachieving" if you bought into low expectations (of course, you could turn that around and say we're only underachieving if I had ridiculous expectations). Why, other than we tanked at the end last year, would you not think we should be a mid-tier playoff team this year? If we hadn't tanked last year and ended up with 45-46 games, would you guys be predicting 47/48/50? Or would you be looking at our team and saying "we have a Top 10 player in Roy, 3 really good bigs in Oden, Joel and LMA, with Rudy and Outlaw off the bench" and look around for which teams in the league could compare with that? Not many.

But we're scrambling around, 4-3 in February and not looking anything like the team we were in December and early January. Our rotations don't reflect the "let it bake" philosophy our team is espousing (Batum and Bayless) and they aren't improving very much in our weak areas (consistent effort, wing rebounding, perimeter defense, P&R offensively and defensively), and playing poorly against teams that are well below .500. "Overachieving" was the excuse for why we ended up 8 games out of the playoffs last year, when at one point we were the 5th seed. Now I'm hearing it again, and don't like it compared to our recent history that many don't seem to want to look at.

This is truth.