David Lee turned down Blazers offer

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
"They felt I'd fit in perfectly with LaMarcus and Aldridge,"
Click to expand...

Sounds like we have a very high quality backup PF - just not sure who is the starter and who is the backup.

Does LaMarcus start and Aldridge backup or is it vice-versa? :dunno:

Gramps... :grin:
 
Hmmm. And he turned it down because of PT. Most people on the board were saying the same thing. Where would he fit? 10-12 minutes at backup PF and then maybe another 12-15 at C. Sounds like Lee wants 30+ minutes a game.
 
I never wanted Lee, so Aldridge obviously.
 
I think Lee did what was in his best interest and so did the Blazers. All in all I'm kind of glad things turned out the way they did; this team was hurting in the worst way when it came to another facilitator and was exposed badly as a very one-dimensional team in the playoffs.
 
David Lee said:
"They felt I'd fit in perfectly with LaMarcus and Aldridge"
Click to expand...
bright boy!
magnifier661 said:
In all fairness, I think Lee knows his playing time would be minimum. Seriously, Lee is a great muscle down low, but would you rather have Lee or Aldridge playing the majority of minutes?
Click to expand...
To be sure Lee's minutes in Portland would have been limited in 2009-10, but given age and circumstances I expect this to be Joel's last year in Portland. Since LA has the ability to guard most 4's and 5's and Greg seems strictly a 5, it probably makes more sense to have the 3rd Big be a pure PF then C so that any combination of the three can work. I'd rather have more of a defender then Lee as that backup Big, but I think that down the line he would have been able to get the minutes he wanted.

Here's to Freeland being worthy of those minutes :cheers:

STOMP
 
Nikolokolus said:
I think Lee did what was in his best interest and so did the Blazers. All in all I'm kind of glad things turned out the way they did; this team was hurting in the worst way when it came to another facilitator and was exposed badly as a very one-dimensional team in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

You're right. Our #1 need is having another facilitator other than Roy on this team. Although I think Fernandez is and can be a great facilitator, I think we need him to be the #1 scoring option off the bench.

Our second need is muscle at the PF spot, but honestly, I think it's not even as important as having a solid PG coming off the bench.
 
David Lee doesn't play a lick of defense. It's exactly the opposite of what we need from a backup four. Not only that, but he can't play the five effectively in this league. Lee would have caused chemistry problems because of his time demands. LMA and Joel are both playing for contracts, and the more minutes we can give both of them, the happier they'll be.

Lee sounds like a Whitsitt acquisition, not a Pritchard one. I'm happy we went with Miller.
 
STOMP said:
bright boy!

To be sure Lee's minutes in Portland would have been limited in 2009-10, but given age and circumstances I expect this to be Joel's last year in Portland. Since LA has the ability to guard most 4's and 5's and Greg seems strictly a 5, it probably makes more sense to have the 3rd Big be a pure PF then C so that any combination of the three can work. I'd rather have more of a defender then Lee as that backup Big, but I think that down the line he would have been able to get the minutes he wanted.

Here's to Freeland being worthy of those minutes :cheers:

STOMP
Click to expand...

Do you really think this will be Pryzbilla's last season in Portland? I just don't know about that... But in all fairness, I think having role playing muscle coming off the bench is a lot easier to find, than a nice PG.
 
maxiep said:
David Lee doesn't play a lick of defense. It's exactly the opposite of what we need from a backup four. Not only that, but he can't play the five effectively in this league. Lee would have caused chemistry problems because of his time demands. LMA and Joel are both playing for contracts, and the more minutes we can give both of them, the happier they'll be.

Lee sounds like a Whitsitt acquisition, not a Pritchard one. I'm happy we went with Miller.
Click to expand...

He went with Miller after Lee turned them down. That makes Miller choice number 4 now.
 
maxiep said:
David Lee doesn't play a lick of defense. It's exactly the opposite of what we need from a backup four. Not only that, but he can't play the five effectively in this league. Lee would have caused chemistry problems because of his time demands. LMA and Joel are both playing for contracts, and the more minutes we can give both of them, the happier they'll be.

Lee sounds like a Whitsitt acquisition, not a Pritchard one. I'm happy we went with Miller.
Click to expand...

You call it a Whitsitt acquisition, Pritchard was ready to commit to Lee at an apparent number of 4 years 28 mil. What if Lee would have bited? Would that transaction looked poorly on KP in your eyes?
 
RoyIsClutch07 said:
You call it a Whitsitt acquisition, Pritchard was ready to commit to Lee at an apparent number of 4 years 28 mil. What if Lee would have bited? Would that transaction looked poorly on KP in your eyes?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing New York would have matched that number, and that's probably the reason Lee rejected it. He's getting $7 million next year, and he'll try the market in 2010 as an unrestricted free agent.
 
PapaG said:
I'm guessing New York would have matched that number, and that's probably the reason Lee rejected it. He's getting $7 million next year, and he'll try the market in 2010 as an unrestricted free agent.
Click to expand...

Good point
 
it's_GO_time said:
If true . . . just how far down was Andre on the list of free agents to go after?
Click to expand...

Andre was a stray dawg desperately looking for a taker and home. It took some of his own elbow grease, salesman ship to get the blazers to commit their money to him. And it worked!
 
it's_GO_time said:
If true . . . just how far down was Andre on the list of free agents to go after?
Click to expand...

At least 4th, but in my mind, he's the player who fills the biggest need from last year's roster.

It's odd that KP would go after both Millsap and Lee; then again, LMA still isn't signed, so maybe KP was looking for a PF replacement after next year? :ghoti:
 
PapaG said:
At least 4th, but in my mind, he's the player who fills the biggest need from last year's roster.

It's odd that KP would go after both Millsap and Lee; then again, LMA still isn't signed, so maybe KP was looking for a PF replacement after next year? :ghoti:
Click to expand...

I disagree because Lee wasn't a "low post" scorer. Our biggest need was having someone coming off the bench able to post you up down low. Milsap filled that need.
 
He would have been a great addition to our squad if he was willing to come off the bench.
 
magnifier661 said:
I disagree because Lee wasn't a "low post" scorer. Our biggest need was having someone coming off the bench able to post you up down low. Milsap filled that need.
Click to expand...

I feel the biggest need was upgrading the back-up PG spot. Sergio was a disaster, and Bayless is not a PG.
 
PapaG said:
I feel the biggest need was upgrading the back-up PG spot. Sergio was a disaster, and Bayless is not a PG.
Click to expand...

Oh my mistake. That was in response to the need for a "big man" off the bench. I totally agree about the PG need more than anything.
 
RoyIsClutch07 said:
You call it a Whitsitt acquisition, Pritchard was ready to commit to Lee at an apparent number of 4 years 28 mil. What if Lee would have bited? Would that transaction looked poorly on KP in your eyes?
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't like the potential Turkuglu acquisition and I didn't like the potential Lee acquisition. I did like the Millsap signing and I think Andre Miller will work out well for us.

I'm allowed to disagree with the Blazer Brain Trust. Our second unit needs defense and leadership. We have plenty of shooting.
 
it's_GO_time said:
If true . . . just how far down was Andre on the list of free agents to go after?
Click to expand...

We had talked about an acquisition that if we didn't make at the trade deadline, we would acquire that player in the summer, either via FA or a trade. I believe Andre Miller was that player and I believe we had a deal in place with Philly in case we signed someone else with our cap space.

In other words, he was far down the FA acquistion list, but was high on our priority list.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I think Lee did what was in his best interest and so did the Blazers. All in all I'm kind of glad things turned out the way they did; this team was hurting in the worst way when it came to another facilitator and was exposed badly as a very one-dimensional team in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Lee signing with the Blazers would have led to more moves IMO.

Signing Miller with their cap space was low on the Blazers priority list because it doesn't give the team as many options with the remaining players.

See: Sign Miller (as we have done),

Now we have Miller, Blake and Bayless at the point. We could look to move Blake, except that Bayless was a disaster at the point during summer league - not ready to be a backup. As well, Blake is the best 3pt shooter. Moving him, considering his modest trade value, seems likely to be unhelpful.

Now we have Aldridge, Outlaw, Howard and Cunningham at the 4 spot. I don't want to see a lot of Howard and Cunningham. We have no other options at the 4 spot, so trading Outlaw is not a good idea right now.

So, we are "stuck" with Blake and Outlaw, both in contract years, who won't have much if any trade value after this summer.

We have Oden and Joel at center. Can't trade Joel as the next best true big on the roster is Howard.

Bayless has little trade value until he proves he belongs. Webster has no value until he proves he is worth his contract. Roy/Aldridge/Oden are untouchable.

That leaves Rudy as the player who A) has decent trade value and B) the Blazers could work around losing. Rudy and Travis for backup PF? Rudy and Travis for a young PG? The downside of this is that the Blazers like Rudy, he is on a cheap contract for 3 more years, and if he blows up this year his trade value could skyrocket. They are real reluctant to make this move.

Now, if either Milsap or Lee were obtained:

Blazers are thin at PG.

Blazers have Lee (or Milsap), Aldridge, Oden, Joel and Travis as players that deserve big minutes. Seems bad. It is not.

Joel is coming off his best season and has good trade value as a starting caliber Center who won't rock any team's boat by taking shots from an established star.

So, now the Blazers have Joel as trade bait. Outlaw as well as a big rotation of Aldridge/Oden/Lee (or Milsap) is what would work well anyway. Blake if PGs are coming back. Rudy for a star. That is a lot for KP to work with.

Miller was still floating out there. A sign and trade with Philly might have worked out. So, Miller AND Lee was within easy reach, with the possibility for even more.

Lee screwed it up because he couldn't see into the future and couldn't figure out the obvious (ie, that Outlaw and Joel would be gone within one year if he came on board).
 
PapaG said:
Lee signing with the Blazers would have led to the Knicks matching the offer IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. 28m/4 years is great value, but it would have massively eaten into their cap space in 2010, they possibly wouldn't even have been able to offer one max deal. I don't think Walsh would have screwed that 3 year plan just for David Lee.
 
axs88 said:
I'm not sure. 28m/4 years is great value, but it would have massively eaten into their cap space in 2010, they possibly wouldn't even have been able to offer one max deal. I don't think Walsh would have screwed that 3 year plan just for David Lee.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I'm guessing that Lee wanted more flexibility next summer. The fact that the Knicks are giving him a one/$7 million deal instead of just the QO tells me that the Knicks do value him and will likely keep him next summer.

In other words, I don't think the "fit" issue was Lee's problem. I think it was more the money being offered, and once the Knicks said they would give him "one year" of the Blazer offer, it made sense for him to take that year and try it all over as a UFA next summer.

If the Blazers were serious about getting Lee, they would have given him a Hedo-type offer to mull over. Perhaps part of the low-ball offer was to force the Knicks into an early decision, but once Lee declined, the point was moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top