Brad Miller And Salmons to Portland?

[Nikolokolus]

I ask you this as well then. Please answer.

Do you really think he honorably wanted to discuss this trade? Or just post the link, say Martell sucks, say KP sucks and needs to figure out how to pull off the trade, or KP sucks and the whole organization sucks, rather than explain his POV.

I don't know what his psychology is. My guess is that he really is a very genuinely pessimistic and downer kind of person and while I find him frequently grating, I can't say I've ever felt he was posting things just to piss people off -- my best guess is that he hates optimists with a passion and posts accordingly.

 

[BenDavis503]

You know what sucks to me the most about this? MIXUM is a die hard Bills fan too. I LOVE the Bills. Have since I was a little kid.

MIXUM, when I heard that you loved the Bills too, I thought we would be good homies!!!!! I tried to be cool with you. But man. I just don't understand why you have such a bad attitude and always talk crap!!!! As a Bills and Blazer fan to the death... please try to be a little more positive??

 

[BenDavis503]

I don't know what his psychology is. My guess is that he really is a very genuinely pessimistic and downer kind of person and while I find him frequently grating, I can't say I've ever felt he was posting things just to piss people off -- my best guess is that he hates optimists with a passion and posts accordingly.

I think you are right. I just assume he was doing it to piss ppl off and getting a kick out of it. He must just really be that sad\depressed with his life.

I wish you well MIXUM. I am sorry I lost my cool earlier.

 

[MickZagger]

*edited*

 

[illmatic99]

#2: Making dollars match is not that difficult. It took me about 30 seconds to do this one:
Blake, Outlaw, Howard, Joel
for
Salmons, Miller.
Why are people acting like it would take voodoo to make this trade line up? Why take the time to attack MIXUM when it's so easy to figure out on one's own?

Finding one where just the salaries match is not any great feat. The likelihood of finding a reasonable trade idea, one which both teams would agree upon, however, is next to impossible.

 

[Wheels]

Also I would like to point out when you dont get angry you can end up getting along with Posters.. Exhibit A Yayuza/CleBlazer.. him and I used to go at it all the time on O-Live.. although It was more me attacking him. Sorry I was an ass back then.

 

[RR7]

It makes it more difficult when he is expecting to hang on to Joel as well, in his post. Can we work out a reasonable deal while keeping Joel? No suggestion offered, just hey, I can't figure it out, I'm not a GM, but KP should be able to, regardless of whether it is possible or reasonable.

 

[Denny Crane]

I do not think that Miller is washed up. He's certainly not the all star he once was, though.

He sucked for the Kings, then rocked for the Bulls as they made the playoffs then played the Celtics tough.

The reality is that he may not care to play so hard for sucky teams in sucky situations.

The guy can still pass. He puts the ball on the floor amazingly well for a slow old white guy, and he has really nice finesse around the basket.

He's a $12.5M expiring contract, too.

Likewise, I think Salmons would be revitalized at SF where he belongs, and on a team with a couple of outstanding players like Roy and LMA.

I wouldn't count on Miller being more than a 24 MPG player. Salmons can give you 40.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I do not think that Miller is washed up. He's certainly not the all star he once was, though.

He sucked for the Kings, then rocked for the Bulls as they made the playoffs then played the Celtics tough.

The reality is that he may not care to play so hard for sucky teams in sucky situations.

The guy can still pass. He puts the ball on the floor amazingly well for a slow old white guy, and he has really nice finesse around the basket.

He's a $12.5M expiring contract, too.

Likewise, I think Salmons would be revitalized at SF where he belongs, and on a team with a couple of outstanding players like Roy and LMA.

I wouldn't count on Miller being more than a 24 MPG player. Salmons can give you 40.

I tend to agree with pretty much all of your points. Worst case scenario is that Salmons picks up his player option for next season and walks at the end of 2010/11

 

[BenDavis503]

Did you guys read the RealGM threads about Miller and Salmons? Does that not make you think twice at all?

I do like the expiring large contract for Miller though. But I am not going to mortgage our future for it. We already blew the best contract in league history lol why do it again?

 

[Denny Crane]

I tend to agree with pretty much all of your points. Worst case scenario is that Salmons picks up his player option for next season and walks at the end of 2010/11

I forgot to mention he's a decent clutch shooter and can shoot the 3. You guys would really benefit from a C who can make 3's.

 

[blazerboy30]

#1: Why attack MIXUM for posting a link where a trade idea/possibility is discussed? I don't get it.

#2: Making dollars match is not that difficult. It took me about 30 seconds to do this one:
Blake, Outlaw, Howard, Joel
for
Salmons, Miller.
Why are people acting like it would take voodoo to make this trade line up? Why take the time to attack MIXUM when it's so easy to figure out on one's own?

#3: Whether the trade is possible is NOT the same as whether it's a good idea. I think this would be a bad deal for Portland; it doesn't help us that much this year, and I don't think that taking on Salmons' contract would make sense for the Blazers.

Ed O.

Oh, you mean discuss a trade proposal that is nothing close to the one Mixum posted (adding Howard and Joel)?

So you agree that we shouldn't address his posts. And that his posts add nothing to the board or intelligent conversation, and thus are closer to trolling than they are good intentions. I'm glad we agree.

 

[drexlersdad]

i laughed bd503, sorry, its the truth. get a grip man, its just mixum.

 

[drexlersdad]

for

 

[Denny Crane]

i laughed bd503, sorry, its the truth. get a grip man, its just mixum.

trade idea sucks, as has been said. how about........

Incoming Players

Luol Deng
6-9 SF from Duke
18.5 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 2.1 apg in 38.9 minutes

John Salmons
6-6 SG from Miami (FL)
13.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 2.5 apg in 36.7 minutes

Jannero Pargo
0-0 from
4.9 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.9 apg in 11.2 minutes Outgoing Players

Travis Outlaw
6-9 SF from Starkville (HS)
9.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.7 apg in 21.0 minutes

Martell Webster
6-7 SF from Seattle Prep (HS)
8.4 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 0.7 apg in 24.5 minutes

Steve Blake
6-3 PG from Maryland
7.2 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 3.7 apg in 30.1 minutes

Andre Miller
0-0 from
11.2 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.3 apg in 27.2 minutes

That's a pipedream.

Bulls do not want Andre.
Bulls do not want to trade Deng and Salmons and have Martell as their only SF.

Outlaw, Blake, Joel for Miller and Salmons works for the bulls because they get 3 expiring deals in exchange for one.

 

[Wheels]

That's a pipedream.

Bulls do not want Andre.
Bulls do not want to trade Deng and Salmons and have Martell as their only SF.

Outlaw, Blake, Joel for Miller and Salmons works for the bulls because they get 3 expiring deals in exchange for one.

how bout Deng instead of Salmons then?

 

[RR7]

Except Joel isn't an expiring deal, like Salmons, he has a player option. With Salmons playing shitty, maybe he stays in his deal as well, but Joel is probably more likely to, with his injury. So the Bulls would add a tiny bit of salary to next season with that deal. If it was treated specifically as an expiring, then I would want more for 14 million in expirings than Miller and Salmons.

 

[drexlersdad]

for

 

[drexlersdad]

That's a pipedream.

Bulls do not want Andre.
Bulls do not want to trade Deng and Salmons and have Martell as their only SF.

Outlaw, Blake, Joel for Miller and Salmons works for the bulls because they get 3 expiring deals in exchange for one.

joels not expiring

 

[Ed O]

Oh, you mean discuss a trade proposal that is nothing close to the one Mixum posted (adding Howard and Joel)?

Discuss whatever you'd like is fine, but discussing another poster doesn't do anyone any good.

And I don't think that adding Howard and Joel in as cap filler makes the trade markedly different. Outlaw and Blake are the only two guys who would play for the Bulls.

So you agree that we shouldn't address his posts. And that his posts add nothing to the board or intelligent conversation, and thus are closer to trolling than they are good intentions. I'm glad we agree.

He added value by posting a link that I hadn't seen. That's more value than I (and most people here) have done today.

It doesn't make sense to me that he's "merely" a troll, and it makes even less sense that someone who really thinks he is would even be posting in this thread.

Ed O.

 

[BenDavis503]

i laughed bd503, sorry, its the truth. get a grip man, its just mixum.

Sorry. Again, where I am from and where I grew up, we handled punks that pissed us off. I am not used to not being able to handle my shit.

Maybe you are a PapaG... but not me buddy.

 

[Denny Crane]

joels not expiring

My bad. I don't think the Bulls would do the trade then.

 

[BenDavis503]

He added value by posting a link that I hadn't seen. That's more value than I (and most people here) have done today.

It doesn't make sense to me that he's "merely" a troll, and it makes even less sense that someone who really thinks he is would even be posting in this thread.

Ed O.

I think that was a little uncalled for. Not sure why you are defending MIXUM so much. Are you the defender of the weak?

*in case you didn't notice, I am just playing Don't get mad* but i dont think you had to call posters out and say MIXUM is contributing more when he OBVIOUSLY isn't

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Y'know, I often bristle at MIXUM posts, and I periodically wish he would go away, but he has a valid point in this thread--that point being that had any other "respected" poster started an identical thread, the merits of the proposal would have been discussed. Instead however, the majority here chose to focus on the poster instead of the post.

BenDavis, you tell Ed to take his "mod goggles" off, but perhaps you could remove your MIXUM blinders and evaluate his post on its merits...just a thought.

We talk about "honorable intentions", but where is the honorable intent in simply assuming a detrimental purpose for a thread in which none exists. IMO, if we are to exhibit the ideals which we espouse and theoretically value, we would address the content of a post rather than inferring some sort of malicious intent from it.

 

[BenDavis503]

BenDavis, you tell Ed to take his "mod goggles" off, but perhaps you could remove your MIXUM blinders and evaluate his post on its merits...just a thought..

Ok. I will.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Regarding the primary post, I think Miller is a better option than many of us are giving him credit for. Reviewing his game log, his median GmSc for the season is 5.0, and he's had several productive games (obviously not including the last 4). Given our dearth of bigs, he would get decent minutes, and he would help spread the floor (as Denny suggested).

18M incoming (Miller + Salmons) requires 14.4M outgoing--Blake/Outlaw + either Joel or Miller would get there. Would we want to do either version of that deal? Would Chicago?

 

[drexlersdad]

Regarding the primary post, I think Miller is a better option than many of us are giving him credit for. Reviewing his game log, his median GmSc for the season is 5.0, and he's had several productive games (obviously not including the last 4). Given our dearth of bigs, he would get decent minutes, and he would help spread the floor (as Denny suggested).

18M incoming (Miller + Salmons) requires 14.4M outgoing--Blake/Outlaw + either Joel or Miller would get there. Would we want to do either version of that deal? Would Chicago?

as has been said, chicago wants no part of decreasing potential cap room.

 

[Draco]

I got pretty excited when I read this first post. I thought the proposal was Brad Miller and John Salmons, for Andre Miller, Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw. Makes some sense to both teams, swaps talented players that are having down seasons. Perhaps Chicago would get a 3rd team involved such as Miami to take Blake. Very little cap implications as Andre Miller and Salmons make about the same next year and the other contracts expire. I think the Blazers would still have a strong shot at signing Blake or Travis in the offseason.

But it was a fresh look on Blazer roster ideas I had never previously considered.

As I prepared to read the comments I was interested to see what pro's and con's different posters would contribute. Generally I think our forum over values our own assets, but there are always a couple realists that have a fairer balanced view and these are the comments I'm interested in.


I'm mildly annoyed that so many good posters had to resort to name calling Mixum. He did provide value to me so I appreciate it. If you think he's a troll then just ignore him, I personally believe he is quite passionate, only he is overly concerned with the possibilities of negative outcomes.

 

[Denny Crane]

Salmons is the Bulls' starting 2. If he were not on the team, the starting 2 would be Hinrich and the first two guards off the bench would be Pargo and Lindsey Hunter. Both those guys have PER under 10 and Hunter's is like -2. Yes, MINUS TWO.

 

[Denny Crane]

Y'know, I often bristle at MIXUM posts, and I periodically wish he would go away, but he has a valid point in this thread--that point being that had any other "respected" poster started an identical thread, the merits of the proposal would have been discussed. Instead however, the majority here chose to focus on the poster instead of the post.

BenDavis, you tell Ed to take his "mod goggles" off, but perhaps you could remove your MIXUM blinders and evaluate his post on its merits...just a thought.

We talk about "honorable intentions", but where is the honorable intent in simply assuming a detrimental purpose for a thread in which none exists. IMO, if we are to exhibit the ideals which we espouse and theoretically value, we would address the content of a post rather than inferring some sort of malicious intent from it.

I want to speak up on the "honorable intentions" part of our site rules. The intent of the rule is to keep out spammers and the like. To have honorable intent simply means a person wants to be part of the community for the long haul.

A guy can be irritating as all hell, but can still have honorable intentions. A guy who's only intent is to be irritating doesn't have honorable intentions. Make sense?

I prefer we don't have to make such judgments, and when we do, we start with the belief the poster is honorable.