Dave from Blazers edge nails it

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Sug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,991
Likes
55
Points
48
This might be the definitive article of our times as Blazer fans. He basically states the current situation as clearly as one can. We are a group of fans stuck between two ways of thinking, but the most important decision maker is KP. It is time to move from potential to performance. In other words we need to move on from the concept car and put something that is defined on the road.

I strongly urge you to read it, and if you have trouble understanding it you should post some questions.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/7/7/940353/too-many-questions

One of the most critical misunderstandings I'm observing is the interpretation of last year's 54-win campaign. 2008-09 was the Blazers' coming-out party. They crossed a threshold between worlds, leaving behind sad-sack seasons and mediocrity both. The disconnect between those worlds is stark and unforgiving. Trying to survive and progress out of ineptitude or mediocrity is a wholly different game than trying to win big. The Blazers just pulled into the left-hand lane on the freeway. It's either pass or get passed. You can't dawdle. You can't get back into the old folks' lane and decide you'll try again later. Before this year the message has always been "wait". That's done. If you don't start winning now you're not going to win later either. You have to do whatever is necessary short of completely selling out your future in a Celtics-like manner to make that happen. Other than not trading Brandon Roy for a bag of peanuts, the best thing the Blazers can do to ensure winning a ton of games in 2012 and 2013 is to win as many as possible in 2009 and 2010. It's far easier to continue excellence than it is to start it anew, especially among players who have been underperforming.
 
For all of you having trouble understanding what Dave is trying to say, it's that KP should make a fucking move.
 
For all of you having trouble understanding what Dave is trying to say, it's that KP should make a fucking move.

How did Robert Downey Jr. manage to beat you out for the part of Sherlock Holmes?
 
It's what the article says. Please don't derail the thread. The article is brilliantly written, and makes a lot of sense.

Dave has got to be one of the best sports columnists in the Nation. Maybe it's just me. This editorial is fucking brilliant!
 
I read this article this morning and agree completely with the whole thing.

The time for waiting for potential is over. If Portland can make a move with one of the talented players that really don't fit here (Rudy, and Joel) to bring in a valuable player that does fit, they need to do so asap.
 
For all of you having trouble understanding what Dave is trying to say, it's that KP should make a fucking move.

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.
 
I read this article this morning and agree completely with the whole thing.

The time for waiting for potential is over. If Portland can make a move with one of the talented players that really don't fit here (Rudy, and Joel) to bring in a valuable player that does fit, they need to do so asap.

How can you say Joel does not fit here??!??!?
 
For all of you having trouble understanding what Dave is trying to say, it's that KP should make a fucking move.

Actually that is not what it says at all. You are like the big man with the big hunk of wood MM :tsktsk:. You think that simply swinging will be enough, Dave was saying that it is time to shape the metal, give it form and definition. While I find it ironic that you missed the point, I am also not surprised.

This article is about the decisions that sit before the Blazer organization, a fork in the road that leads down two separate ways of thinking. The road on the right is lined with potential, and that road says if you have enough bullets in the chamber you are bound to hit something. The road on the left is lined with performance, and that road says that you need to become a sniper and only with limited ammo, focus, and a clear target can you make it to the championship window.

To say it means that KP should make a fucking move is not only the barbaric interpretation, but it also takes away from Dave's incredible work. This piece is clearly the product of thought, debate, and overall intelligent internal conversation. It should be required reading for all fans, owners, and front office people.
 
Meh. Count me as unimpressed by the article.
 
All we need is a backup PF. That article is way too long for my tastes.
 
Winning teams flip all of these conventions on their heads. Potential doesn't mean "could be, someday" as much as "isn't now".

This is the real key part of the article. The team need a shift in mindset where we act like contenders and not just hope to be contenders. All of KP's decisions should be made with that attitude.
 
For all of you having trouble understanding what Dave is trying to say, it's that KP should make a fucking move.

He can say whatever he wants.

Doesn't make it some sort of "truth".

His notion that you win in the future by winning now, and that in order to win now you have to make moves - even at the expense of future (talent/flexibility) - is what you HAVE to do.

Really? Is this proven?

Don't think so. It is just his opinion.

What did the Lakers do after trading Shaq?

Didn't contend, that's what.

The went back into the "granny lane". They didn't get off the road. They still had Kobe. Still had Odom.

Caught their breath. Made some moves that at the time seemed very small and unimportant. Continued to reach for long-term projects in the draft when it made sense (Bynum) and refused to trade said project for veteran, win-now help. Maintained their flexibility and waited for the right moment to strike.

If they had chased old vets after moving Shaq, they likely would have failed.

If they had chased prime vets that were merely average, they likely would have failed.

Nope, they collected average players without giving up much talent, and role player types that fit well in the triangle, and waiting until they could make a move for an above average talent. Then they struck.

I don't want the Blazers making moves just to make moves. They better be the "right" move. Otherwise, continue collecting "assets" and have wait.
 
Really? Is this proven?

Don't think so. It is just his opinion.

What did the Lakers do after trading Shaq?

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...:drumroll:
 
I don't want the Blazers making moves just to make moves. They better be the "right" move. Otherwise, continue collecting "assets" and have wait.

I don't want them making the "wrong" move either. I would be fine with doing nothing other than adding our draft picks if it prevented us from making a foolish mistake. This team will make considerable advancements by just staying the course. I have a hard time thinking that the "right" move isn't out there somewhere though. There's just too many options, at least the way I see it.

If nothing else, replacing Travis Outlaw with a more defensive-minded and physical presence behind LaMarcus should be the least we accomplish. But hell, maybe we already solved that with the drafting of Cunningham and/or Pendergraph.
 
It's not a bad article, but not exactly a revelation. Various of us have been saying similar things over the past year or so, that the roster needs to be "honed" from a talent-laden but disparate roster to one that is carefully maximized to exploit its best players.

One thing not exactly addressed in that article, but is related to it, is the desire many people to have a nice backup at every position, often thinking of it as a "unit." With discussion of how to balance the "second unit"...who's the scorer on the second unit, who provides the defense, etc. I know I've occasionally fallen into that trap, myself, but I think it's a mistake.

The reserves are not a unit. Except in garbage time, you virtually never pull the entire starting unit and put in five reserves. There's always a mix of starters and reserves and the foundation is: starters stay in as much as possible (because they should be the team's best players) and reserves come in only when necessary to give the starters rest, and that will happen at different times for different positions.

So, it really doesn't matter how well-balanced the "second unit" is. And it's not even important to have a perfect backup point guard, a perfect backup shooting guard, a perfect backup small forward, etc.

The reason this bears mentioning is because one shouldn't resist trading Rudy Fernandez out of concern for who will back up Roy. If, for example, Fernandez, Outlaw, Blake, Webster and Przybilla were all traded for upgrades at small forward and point guard, and Portland could sign David Lee, it would seem to leave the team thin, without a backup center and backup shooting guard.

However, since you don't bring in an entire "second unit," it's actually not a problem. You have two players (Bayless and Batum) to back up three positions. Assuming that the Blazers' starters at PG, SG and SF average 33 minutes per game (conservative), that leaves 45 minutes left at the the three positions. That's 22-23 minutes each for Batum and Bayless...hardly over-working them. Similarly, if we assume that Aldridge and Oden give an average of 30 minutes per game (lower, to account for uncertainty over the minutes Oden will give), that leaves 36 minutes left over. Which means that if Lee essentially backed up both positions, he'd get de-facto starter minutes, but not more than he can realistically handle.

And thus with five good to great starters and three talented reserves, you very effectively account for every minute. Obviously, you need to fill out the rest of the roster with players, but they would be scrubs who play mop-up and emergency minutes that will crop up. The point is not that 8 players will play every moment of the season but that you can effectively apportion the vast majority of the important minutes to your 8 very good players. Which means that a significant portion of Portland's depth is superfluous and shouldn't be considered hard to trade due to leaving a position "not backed up."

Just another part of honing.
 
So you are all agreeing that Lee would be a good aquisition.
 
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).
 
Are you going to ever stop your incessant bitching?

You know if you have something to say about his comment that actually has some substance to argue against what he is saying, then say it. Otherwise I could do without your critique of what he said, as it has little value.
 
The article is good and thought provoking. It is also not quite right. Champions are not built like puzzles. And the team *could* win a championship even if Oden does not pan out. LMA and Roy and others are good enough. But if Oden does not pan out, trading Joel would be an act of monumental stupidity.

The notion that we must consider Rudy/Pryz/Batum trade bait to get a marginal star (Lee or Turkey-Glue quality SF) is wrong. Portland holds enough cards, that it is better to hold than to do a bad deal.

iWatas
 
How can you say Joel does not fit here??!??!?

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top