Dave from Blazers edge nails it

[Masbee]

The Lakers might be the worst example you could have picked. First off the Lakers had just won three titles with Shaq and Kobe. The two had personality conflicts and their egos drove that team apart. They didn't have any young talent at the time because they finished with a high winning %. The championship run was over because they had failed to win the ring for two years.

The Lakers were lucky to get Gasol and everyone knows it, on top of that if Derek Fisher's daughter did not fall sick with cancer they would not be where they are today. The Lakers rise back to the top is an anomaly, and it is not a model to follow. That is unless you know of a team that is willing to give you a top 5 NBA center for nothing...

Luck is always a part of it.

Weren't we "lucky" that Chicago loved Tyrus Thomas and Minny loved Foye?

Of course we were. Very, very, very lucky.

Don't ever forget that.

As for the Lakers, point is, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I was disputing the notion that in order to "win" later, you HAVE TO win now.

No you don't.

The Lakers won, then partly tore it down, and didn't win. That didn't prevent them them from winning later after "luck" gave them Gasol. (They worked hard to have the flexibility to make the deal when it presented itself - that is making your own luck - you won't win the lottery if you don't buy tickets) Not contending didn't destroy Kobe and Odom and all the role players from winning later. Including players that had never won previously.

I dispute the notion that there is momentum in winning that carries over year to year to year.

Good teams seem to win year after year because they have the best players - NOT because they have a "culture" of winning or history of winning.

Look at the Celtics. 3 guys that each had one (one!) good run in the past, and lots of blah years, get together and immediately kick ass. Why? What about all that losing?

Or how about the Orlando Magic. Who on that team did squat before? Nobody, that's who.

 

[B-Roy]

Completely off topic. Hehe.

 

[oldmangrouch]

For those of you who disagree with the article, I have one simple question: at what point does "later" become "now"????

 

[maxiep]

For those of you who disagree with the article, I have one simple question: at what point does "later" become "now"????

Two to three years.

 

[Mediocre Man]

For those of you who disagree with the article, I have one simple question: at what point does "later" become "now"????

That question has been asked before, and no one can ever seem to answer it.

Last year it was so and so is only ??? old

And this year it is so and so is only ??? (year older)

 

[maxiep]

I have yet to see a verified deal we could have executed after the draft that would have made us markedly better.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Two to three years.

From when Maxie?

Not to be combative.

Travis has been in the league 6 years
Blake has been in the league 6 years
Webster has been in the league 3 years (playing)

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Again, a "move " for the sake of a "move" is not right. Only a move that helps the team. For some reason, there is this view that dozens of advantageous trades are just sitting there and KP isn't doing a thing about it. Anyone who thinks like that is clearly out of tune with reality and should get off the meth.

Of greater concern to me is the idea that only "the perfect move" should be made. There likely are multiple moves available that would be beneficial to the team, but are not a quintessential "Pritch-slap." I could very well be wrong, but my perception is that a desire for a home-run is preventing singles.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Of greater concern to me is the idea that only "the perfect move" should be made. There likely are multiple moves available that would be beneficial to the team, but are not a quintessential "Pritch-slap." I could very well be wrong, but my perception is that a desire for a home-run is preventing singles.

I used that analogy somewhere else, but said a sac fly that scores a run is the same as a home run. And a bases loaded walk with the score tied in the bottom of the ninth is just as good as a grand slam.

 

[BIG Q]

Because if Oden improves the way I believe he will, Joel is only going to get about 10 to 14 minutes a night here. We can get some other guy for a fraction of Joel's salary to do that. I think it would be more benificial to have Greg's backup also be a potential backup for LA. Joel can't do that.

Really, Joel could start for a ton of teams and I am certain interest in him is very high. If you want to bring in a quality player you have to give up a quality player you don't absolutely need.. Joel fits this criteria.

It's not that Joel is crappy, or I want him gone. I don't. But Portland's future, for good or ill, is with Oden. For me, the future is now.

Unless we are "dumping" Joel this year for something far better, it would be pointless to get rid of him later. I don't care if you can get a back up center for far less, which I disagree with (Diop, Nazr), Portland will be over the cap for the next decade. If you are trading some collection of Joel, Rudy, Blake, Webster, Outlaw, etc for that missing piece (third scorer, facilitator at a position of need) we might as well keep Joel. I don't care if he makes $7 mil per. If he is not getting you the upgrade in trade then it is stupid to trade him for Battier. Battier is not a third scorer or facilitator. He is just an aging defender thrown into a mix of five other wings. But Oden/Joel gives us an advantage at the center position on most nights, why weaken that for duplication elsewhere?

Whether Joel or Rudy can start for many other teams is irrelevant. It seems Battier, Odom and Hinrich can start on many teams, but do not. We can afford that luxury with a player or two as well. I am certain that Rudy will eventually need to be traded just like Drazen 20 years ago. But we do not need to waste him on Battier, who would be a luxury type of player on a vet laden team. Rudy, or any of our tradeable assets need to be traded to fullfill our needs;

Third scorer
Facilitator of offense
Banger/rebounder PF

This is what we need to be looking for.

 

[Stevenson]

For all of you having trouble understanding what Dave is trying to say, it's that KP should make a fucking move.

Bro, he can't force Hedo to sign, he can't make Shaq want to come here.

 

[maxiep]

From when Maxie?

Not to be combative.

Travis has been in the league 6 years
Blake has been in the league 6 years
Webster has been in the league 3 years (playing)

As you know, I think Blake is as good as he's ever going to be and I think Travis is best used as a trade asset. I have real hope for Webs that he can be an impact player. I think he was looking great before he got hurt.

My point is that our window was viewed to be open a couple of years ahead of schedule. It's still closing at the same time, it's just going to be opened wider for a longer time.

Dave asked for a core. Here's mine:

The keystones: Roy, LMA, GO

Solid bench building blocks: Joel, Rudy

The wildcards: Nico, Webs, Bayless

I'd move Webs for the right deal, as well as Bayless. Everyone else is tradable. In fact, I'd love a consolidation trade. However, I'm not interested in trading away our young players with upside for a marginal improvement. I think our youngsters have more upside than we could achieve in a trade for the players we've been discussing.

 

[illmatic99]

Outside of Aldridge and Oden, I think Nic has a higher upside than anyone else on our team. I don't believe as very likely to be traded as a result.

 

[Minstrel]

I used that analogy somewhere else, but said a sac fly that scores a run is the same as a home run. And a bases loaded walk with the score tied in the bottom of the ninth is just as good as a grand slam.

The reason a sac fly or walk is as good as a home run in that situation is because you know you need only one run. If Portland were on LA's or Boston's level, already top-tier title contenders and just needed one little boost, then they could settle for the sacrifice fly or walk (like Boston did with 'Sheed or LA did with Artest over Ariza).

Portland doesn't know it needs only one run. It's more like the team is trailing close or tied in the 5th or 6th inning. Is a bases-loaded walk or sac fly still as good as a home run or double, in that situation? No, because you don't know how many runs you're going to need to win the game.

Thus, I think your analogy is flawed. A sacrifice fly or walk is better than nothing, but the hitter should be looking to do the most damage he can in that situation, to give his team the best chance possible to win in the end.

 

[Ed O]

Two to three years.

I agree.

I really don't think that Portland would have won a title this year with Hedo... and I don't think that Kirk or Lee or Battier would get us there, either.

Portland's core is Roy/Aldridge/Oden, and it's young. Most of the other parts we have on the roster are young, as well... and they SHOULD improve as a group (even if some get hurt or some get worse) over time.

I have been 100% in favor of adding a piece or pieces to the team with the cap space we have because it would not (or would merely minimally) impact the talent we have on the team... the talent that got us 54 wins with the second-youngest roster in the NBA.

Even if the team backslides a bit--and I think it's possible in spite of my optimism about the team--this year, I don't think that the team should stay the course of building on the core and looking for deals that make the team better in the LONG run... not in focusing on the next couple of years.

As for the column itself... *shrug*. It was fine. Nothing spectacular nor groundbreaking.

Ed O.

 

[Tince]

I mostly agree with the article, but think a consolidation trade should have been made last year.

Here's how I see it:

High Readiness, High Certainty
Roy (Improving)
Aldridge (Improving)
Oden (Improving)
Pryz (Not Improving)

Medium Readiness, High Certainty
Rudy (Improving)
Batum (Improving)
Blake (Not Improving)

Potential (Uncertainty)
Bayless
Outlaw

Mediocrity
Webster
All of our rookies

Some of my choices are definitely quibblable but it forms a basis for the conversation. The plan now must be to replace the players of medium readiness who are not improving, players with potential, and mediocre players with another high readiness, high certainty player (Crash, Battier, Miller...). That's the course we're on - we need a consolidation trade.

p.s. really there needs to be categories for redundancy (which is why David Lee might not be a great idea).

The only two people you labeled "not improving" just had the best seasons of their career. I bet a year ago you would have said they weren't going to improve either.

 

[Mediocre Man]

The reason a sac fly or walk is as good as a home run in that situation is because you know you need only one run. If Portland were on LA's or Boston's level, already top-tier title contenders and just needed one little boost, then they could settle for the sacrifice fly or walk (like Boston did with 'Sheed or LA did with Artest over Ariza).

Portland doesn't know it needs only one run. It's more like the team is trailing close or tied in the 5th or 6th inning. Is a bases-loaded walk or sac fly still as good as a home run or double, in that situation? No, because you don't know how many runs you're going to need to win the game.

Thus, I think your analogy is flawed. A sacrifice fly or walk is better than nothing, but the hitter should be looking to do the most damage he can in that situation, to give his team the best chance possible to win in the end.

I think you are right if you look at it as the only move this year to win it all. I don't think the Blazers are only a player away. So I guess my analogy is that adding a piece this year to get us better going forward is the right move. Use Battier. He wouldn;t be considered by many to be as good of an addition as say Harris or Rondo or whatever, but he would be an incredible addition. That's what I mean by sac fly. If winning this year is adding a great piece to help us win in the future then a sac fly is all we need. KP isn;t going to get a HR with Paul or Williams.

 

[Ed O]

The only two people you labeled "not improving" just had the best seasons of their career. I bet a year ago you would have said they weren't going to improve either.

If someone had said it they would have been correct, systematically. I don't think that teams can rely on improvement from their late-20's role players.

Your comment seems like someone looking down at the pair of sixes that have just been rolled and saying, "I bet you didn't predict a pair of sixes."

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

I think you are right if you look at it as the only move this year to win it all. I don't think the Blazers are only a player away. So I guess my analogy is that adding a piece this year to get us better going forward is the right move.

I'd like to add a player also. No point leaving chips on the table (the analogies and metaphors are flyying fast and furious). But I'd rather go after high-impact possibilities first and work my way down to the low-impact ones.

And I like Battier a lot, but I view him as a "win now" player. If you think you're one role-player away (and that player is a perimeter player), then Battier is a great choice. However, he's declining and in a couple of seasons he won't be a "championship role-player" (by which I mean, the kind of complementary player that really enhances a great team), he'll just be a mediocre bench player. That's a problem, since the team's prime contention window is probably two seasons away.

I agree that Pritchard shouldn't waste time on impossible scenarios, but I doubt that he is. I do think he should go after the most impactful realistic player. You don't know exactly how good this team will be in two seasons...it may turn out that you needed the extra base hit this summer, and not the sacrifice fly.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Two to three years.

Fair enough. Just remember that in 2-3 years we won't have this chance to use surplus cap space to facilitate a deal.

 

[LittleAlex]

Unless we are "dumping" Joel this year for something far better, it would be pointless to get rid of him later. I don't care if you can get a back up center for far less, which I disagree with (Diop, Nazr), Portland will be over the cap for the next decade. If you are trading some collection of Joel, Rudy, Blake, Webster, Outlaw, etc for that missing piece (third scorer, facilitator at a position of need) we might as well keep Joel. I don't care if he makes $7 mil per. If he is not getting you the upgrade in trade then it is stupid to trade him for Battier. Battier is not a third scorer or facilitator. He is just an aging defender thrown into a mix of five other wings. But Oden/Joel gives us an advantage at the center position on most nights, why weaken that for duplication elsewhere?

Whether Joel or Rudy can start for many other teams is irrelevant. It seems Battier, Odom and Hinrich can start on many teams, but do not. We can afford that luxury with a player or two as well. I am certain that Rudy will eventually need to be traded just like Drazen 20 years ago. But we do not need to waste him on Battier, who would be a luxury type of player on a vet laden team. Rudy, or any of our tradeable assets need to be traded to fullfill our needs;

Third scorer
Facilitator of offense
Banger/rebounder PF

This is what we need to be looking for.

Did you not read all of my suggested trades?

You didn't because I didn't make any. I never suggested that Portland trade Joel for Battier, Odom or Hinrich.

I am saying that if Portland can make a move to bring in a player that Portland needs, and the asking price is Joel they shouldn't turn the offer down out of hand. Joel is a nice to have, not a absolutely needed.

I don't not pretend to know what is being offered out there.

My reasoning is if Portland brings in a quality player who can play both power forward and center that player is of more value to Portland then a quality player who can only play center. Is this something you disagree with? And no, I don't really have anyone in particular in mind. This is all hypothetical.

 

[maxiep]

Fair enough. Just remember that in 2-3 years we won't have this chance to use surplus cap space to facilitate a deal.

But we'll have other assets (expiring deals, exceptions, sign and trades, draft picks).

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm honestly tired of the debate. KP is going to do what he feels is necessary. Whether we agree with him or not, it really is irrelevant. We can go round and round on this one, but it's not going to change a thing.

 

[Wheels]

I'm honestly tired of the debate. KP is going to do what he feels is necessary. Whether we agree with him or not, it really is irrelevant. We can go round and round on this one, but it's not going to change a thing.

dang dizzle, words of advice from Bishop well taken.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm honestly tired of the debate. KP is going to do what he feels is necessary. Whether we agree with him or not, it really is irrelevant. We can go round and round on this one, but it's not going to change a thing.

So time to shut the forum down til the new season starts? What will we all do when we're at work?

 

[Boise Blazer]

So time to shut the forum down til the new season starts? What will we all do when we're at work?

Dont even joke about that! Coming to work would damn near pointless. Other than the whole money to pay bills thing.

 

[Natebishop3]

So time to shut the forum down til the new season starts? What will we all do when we're at work?

It frees up time to debate other important things.

Should we change our uniform?

How much would it cost to get Rebecca Haarlow to post for Playboy?

Does Kevin Pritchard secretly have a crazy witch hiding in the rafters of the Rose Garden giving him advice, like in the movie Robin Hood with Kevin Costner?

Does John Canzano chrome his dome?

Is Nate McMillan really just a big softy?

 

[Tince]

If someone had said it they would have been correct, systematically. I don't think that teams can rely on improvement from their late-20's role players.

Your comment seems like someone looking down at the pair of sixes that have just been rolled and saying, "I bet you didn't predict a pair of sixes."

Ed O.

I don't buy that analogy at all. It would be more like someone rolling two dice that add up to 8, and him telling me that the next roll won't be higher. Yeah, it's more likely it won't be, but there a plenty of combination that would be incorrect. If he said it as fact, I would point out and he shouldn't be so certain.

Someone saying the odds of Joel improving is the same chances as someone rolling two 6's (3%), means that the odds of both of them having their best season last year (which did happen) is well less than 1%.

I would not be surprised if Blake has the best season of his career next year. Even if he doesn't, I expect him to improve his game on some areas and mature as a player.

 

[Ed O]

I don't buy that analogy at all. It would be more like someone rolling two dice that add up to 8, and him telling me that the next roll won't be higher. Yeah, it's more likely it won't be, but there a plenty of combination that would be incorrect. If he said it as fact, I would point out and he shouldn't be so certain.

I don't think that anyone can make ANY prediction and consider it a "fact". Even historical analysis is open enough to interpretation that it's tough to establish facts based on what's happened. The question to me, then, is when someone makes predictions are their predictions likely.

A pair of sixes is definitely extreme, but your paragraph still makes my point: the odds of getting nine or higher on a roll of a pair of dice is 5/18... less than 33%. If we do a single toss, or a series of tosses, if I keep telling you that the total won't be more than eight I will be right most of the time.

If a person has to say, based on those odds, whether the player is going to get better or not, I think it's safe to say that the person should say he will not.

Ed O.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

Potential (Uncertainty)
Bayless
Outlaw

Mediocrity
Webster
All of our rookies

How can you have Outlaw as "Potential" and uncertain? We've had the guy for what, six years? Yes, he has improved some aspects of his game but he is a defensive liability (most of the time), rebounds like crap (most of the time) and has highly suspect Bball IQ (all of the time).

I'd relegate him to Mediocrity at best.

Gramps...