Fuck it! Let the damn thing Bake.

[Crimson the Cat]

As for just continuing to 'let it bake,' that's certainly an option, and if KP decides to do that this will still be a good team, but probably not a great team.

I'm not almost leaning toward GOD's Bake It approach. It's just damn hard to make changes with a current team that's also still changing. I just don't know what we have yet.

The improvements of Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Webster, Fernandez, and Bayless are likely to be significant. These players will be able to consistently sustain the flashes of goodness we saw throughout the year more next year. It's not a stretch to picture this team as second-seed material that should be able to get into the first round.

I completely agree about our starting point guard position, but also would like to entertain the thought of an internal change instead of external. Playing more Rudy and Brandon together with Blake backing them up might just be the ticket.

I see small moves, but nothing jaw dropping.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

To keep a constant infusion of young talent coming into the organization. You don't just build one team, shut off the talent pipeline and wait for that team to reach their mid-30s before you start looking for more players. If Pritchard is successful at finding good young talent every year, it allows the team to have replacements as players depart due to trades, free agent defections, injuries or age. In addition, the young talent can either be used in trade or can replace established players that you can trade for an upgrade elsewhere.

Every addition doesn't have to be aimed at being a crucial part of the next championship team. Draftees can add to depth and be the next wave. Or be trade bait. More talent is always good.

At some point, it's time to actually make said upgrade - still waiting.

Yes, more talent is good (not always good), but at some point you need to trade for players that are very good instead of players that may become very good.

If it's use our resource for draft or trade, we should trade. I agree that we can do both - but again, I'm still waiting.

 

[crandc]

Look, no one knows what KP has up his sleeve. But to take a hypothetical, since it's been raised. The Blazers deal for a #10 pick, say. Then package the pick and a player to get the guy they want. I mean, there are all kinds of ways to deal if you have the savvy and the bucks. Also, please remember, Portland is one of the few teams that would be able to take on a bad contract if another team insists (for example, unlikely, but if the Hornets would only trade Chris Paul if the Blazers took Stojakovic's big contract off their hands).

I agree that the core of this team is very sound. There is not a lot they need and many of them (back up power forward, for example) are role players who do not take a lot to land. Also they will have Webster back next year and reportedly raring to go. The one big weakness is starting point guard; I agree that (so far) all 3 of the pg's have been backup types. Blake is decent but the team could improve there. So a team with a lot of assets and one big weakness is hardly in a bad position.

Look at the bright side. The front page of the SF Chronicle sports section had a banner headline that the Warriors admit they don't even know who's in charge, with the lottery May 14.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I suppose my approach would be this. We don't HAVE to do anything. We listen and something knocks our socks off, we pounce. Otherwise, we take the approach to build from within. This puts the negotiating power strongly on our side.

 

[Reep]

I agree with you on the having somebody besides Sergio and PK in the fold. The thing about the baggage though, is there is talk that their is a player available if you will take the financial baggage. That guy is Chris Paul, but you would have to take a bad contract or two along with it. There have been several rumors, and the whole fact they tried to trade Tyson Chandler, tends to speak to this. New Orleans has 70 million dollars on the books for a team that got whiped out in the first round and underachieved. I think there is an opportunity there, but the question is, how much would it cost.

Sure, if you can get CP3 then you have to. I just don't buy it. Chandler is an overpaid walking injury--of course they want to unload him. CP3 is the heart of the franchise and a top five NBA player. If you trade him, then you might as well sell the team. I can't see any way in the world NO trades CP3.

 

[anonymous gambler]

Simple. In fact "Letting it bake" has already cost us. If we had Gerald Wallace or Caron Butler, we'd still be playing this postseason. We are paying for our inaction right now. Even KP has acknowledged this. His point, which is very debatable, is that we will have more net wins down the road by our current inaction.

What he said!

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Simple. In fact "Letting it bake" has already cost us. If we had Gerald Wallace or Caron Butler, we'd still be playing this postseason. We are paying for our inaction right now. Even KP has acknowledged this. His point, which is very debatable, is that we will have more net wins down the road by our current inaction.

So is the goal to make it to the 2nd round THIS season or win as many championships as possible? If we're going after the latter, which we are, you don't make those moves if you feel the players you're sending out give you a better chance at that goal then the player/s you're getting back.

 

[oldmangrouch]

There are a number of options this off-season. Here is how I would rate them in order of preference.

1) Use trades/cap space to bring in a vet or 2 and make the team a serious contender.

2) Have KP work his draft-day magic and at least add a valuable asset.

3) Blow the team up and start over.

4) Load the entire team, coaching staff, and front office onto Blazerone and fly it into the RG.

5) Worldwide pandemic. Civilization collapses. Packs of Zombies roam the street, battling flocks of mutant vultures for the chance to devour the dead.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
427) Let it bake!

 

[alex42083]

I just don't want another prospect that we have to develop, unless it's someone like Rubio who even I'm not as sold on as some. KP said in his Courtside interview that he knows we need some experience on the team, so hopefully he's able to work his magic and take advantage of this summer.

I'd be disappointed if we didn't do anything to bring in a top rotation player with the cap space we have, and the terrible teams willing to cut salary.

 

[Nikolokolus]

So is the goal to make it to the 2nd round THIS season or win as many championships as possible? If we're going after the latter, which we are, you don't make those moves if you feel the players you're sending out give you a better chance at that goal then the player/s you're getting back.

Even with just organic growth and improvement from the guys currently on this team I don't see it as a legitimate championship contender: Way too perimeter oriented, not enough veteran leadership (which you need in the playoffs), not enough post scoring (LMA was adequate, but Greg might never be a consistent 18 ppg, back to the basket scorer) and not enough toughness (way too many nice guys, not balanced with the 2 or 3 hard-asses every team needs -- and Bayless doesn't count).

 

[MAS RipCity]

To keep a constant infusion of young talent coming into the organization. You don't just build one team, shut off the talent pipeline and wait for that team to reach their mid-30s before you start looking for more players. If Pritchard is successful at finding good young talent every year, it allows the team to have replacements as players depart due to trades, free agent defections, injuries or age. In addition, the young talent can either be used in trade or can replace established players that you can trade for an upgrade elsewhere.

Every addition doesn't have to be aimed at being a crucial part of the next championship team. Draftees can add to depth and be the next wave. Or be trade bait. More talent is always good.

QFT
That was one of the reasons our early 90's teams died out was because we had no young talent after the vets got older.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I suppose my approach would be this. We don't HAVE to do anything. We listen and something knocks our socks off, we pounce. Otherwise, we take the approach to build from within. This puts the negotiating power strongly on our side.

Spoken like a true cat.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Not true. The Blazers have cap space, which they can use similarly to the RLEC...to match salary on a bad contract. They also have expiring contracts in Blake and Outlaw, who also happen to be useful players. A team trading with the Blazers could trade for Blake and Outlaw, get two useful role-players for one season, and trim $16 million from their cap by next off-season...$8 million of it instantly.

That's a major trading chip, IMO.

It sounds like the Blazer will pick up the options on Blake and Outlaw . . . which I believe is a two year option.

But I agree, I think Blake and Outlaw are good trading chips . . . "good value" as I say (while drunk off my ass) during fanatsy draft.

 

[hasoos]

To keep a constant infusion of young talent coming into the organization. You don't just build one team, shut off the talent pipeline and wait for that team to reach their mid-30s before you start looking for more players. If Pritchard is successful at finding good young talent every year, it allows the team to have replacements as players depart due to trades, free agent defections, injuries or age. In addition, the young talent can either be used in trade or can replace established players that you can trade for an upgrade elsewhere.

Every addition doesn't have to be aimed at being a crucial part of the next championship team. Draftees can add to depth and be the next wave. Or be trade bait. More talent is always good.

I would like to correct you. More impact talent is good. If the talent you bring in is mediocre, you just end up with a really deep mediocre team. Right now, the Blazers are a really deep mediocre team. For example, when Sergio and Bayless got minutes there was not let off. But at the same time, there was no increase in team impact though either, so the net gain was little. The fact are, that high level talent wins in this league. The trades you want are multiple generic run of the mill players for a higher level talent.

The average players can be replaced easily, and now that the salary caps are starting to leave a lot of free agents looking for teams late in the year, they are easy to replace with a known quantity. For instance, late last year, we could have signed Joe Smith. I can guarantee you he is better than any of our reserve forwards on the team, instantly.

I find more and more lately that I am worried about KP's "overloyalty" to the players on the team than anything else. When it comes to trades, the only thing he has going for him are draft day trades for picks. When it comes to bringing in veterans, he really has nothing to run on. Maybe he never will, it might not be his stick.

 

[Minstrel]

I would like to correct you. More impact talent is good. If the talent you bring in is mediocre, you just end up with a really deep mediocre team.

I don't mean "talent" in the generic sense, like you and I are basketball talent, just crappy talent. I meant "talent" as in talented. In other words, good players.

Right now, the Blazers are a really deep mediocre team.

Not really. Roy, Aldridge and Przybilla/Oden (combined) give Portland some top production at those three positions. Point guard and small forward (Blake and Batum) are essentially average players. Three positions near the top of the league and two average players is an excellent starting five.

Rudy and Outlaw are both excellent reserves.

Portland is a talented team.

Bayless is a potential impact talent, even if he isn't currently an impact player. Newly drafted players are rarely impact players, but they shouldn't be expected to be. Portland already has a good set of players who are impact or close to being impact players. Drafted players should be for depth (depth is for giving some good minutes when your impact players rest, not necessarily for impact themselves) and the chance that they can develop into impact players in the future, when you need players to fill in holes created by players leaving.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Even with just organic growth and improvement from the guys currently on this team I don't see it as a legitimate championship contender: Way too perimeter oriented, not enough veteran leadership (which you need in the playoffs), not enough post scoring (LMA was adequate, but Greg might never be a consistent 18 ppg, back to the basket scorer) and not enough toughness (way too many nice guys, not balanced with the 2 or 3 hard-asses every team needs -- and Bayless doesn't count).

Lost the stats now, but we shot the same percentage of outside shots that the World Champions (Boston) did last year. We are not "too perimeter oriented." I also strongly suspect that Oden will improve our inside potency next season - we are a legit championship contender.

It actually blows my mind sometimes. If we had a playoff matchup with just about any other team than Houston, we'd be in the second round of the playoffs, and excelling.

 

[Minstrel]

It actually blows my mind sometimes. If we had a playoff matchup with just about any other team than Houston, we'd be in the second round of the playoffs, and excelling.

Had James Posey made a free throw at the end of the Hornets' final regular season game, Portland would have been the #3 seed, played the Hornets in round 1 and Denver in round 2.

I think that would have meant a Portland first-round series win and a good fight with Denver for a chance to go to the WCF.

So close.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

So is the goal to make it to the 2nd round THIS season or win as many championships as possible? If we're going after the latter, which we are, you don't make those moves if you feel the players you're sending out give you a better chance at that goal then the player/s you're getting back.

Your assumption that the two are mutually exclusive is silly - but we do know that we wasted a championship opportunity this year. If I was advocating bringing in someone who was 36 to play a role, your argument MIGHT have some merit. I'm not, and it doesn't.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Lost the stats now, but we shot the same percentage of outside shots that the World Champions (Boston) did last year. We are not "too perimeter oriented." I also strongly suspect that Oden will improve our inside potency next season - we are a legit championship contender.

It actually blows my mind sometimes. If we had a playoff matchup with just about any other team than Houston, we'd be in the second round of the playoffs, and excelling.

It's really got nothing to do with how this team matched up against the Rockets (although it certainly magnified the holes we suspected this team had).

Furthermore, the main differences between the Celtics and the Blazers is the fact that the Cs had a legitimate top 5 big man in KG and the best defense in the league. In addition, their inside game setup their outside game, (the Blazers do it the other way around) not to mention the fact that they have 3, maybe 4, guys who can create off the dribble versus the Blazers who have 1 or maybe 2 if you count Travis (though he tends to only create for himself and those are usually long range 2 pointers; the worst shot in basketball).

I think this team is close to having the parts needed to be a legitimate championship contending team, but right now they are probably 2 or 3 years and 2 or 3 pieces short of completing the puzzle ... and part of that puzzle isn't just potential and raw talent maturing, it's the right 'personality' and a certain "je ne sais quois" -- that indefinable quality is sort of like pornography, I can't define what it is, but I know it when I see it. For instance, the Cavs have "it", the Lakers have "it", the Nuggets have "it".