Gerald Wallace

[Masbee]

What do you all think? Is he a good fit for us at Small Forward?

He is not a 3 pt shooter. But, he has good size, athleticism and defensive ability.

He has not been durable the last few years which is a concern. Does that and the lack of being a 3 pt threat mean we should forget about him?

Do we have better options to pursue? If so, what are they?

Charlotte is looking to shed salary. They are in big trouble financially. The Blazers have the Raef contract which is a HUGE chip for a team in financial dire straights. Wallace is on a big contract. He is not massively overpaid at $9 mil per for 5 more years ($50 mil total), so I think we have to eat another of their bad contracts to solve their biggest problem - finances.

Last night I saw a Charlotte team with a small front line with no depth. Which brings me to their 2nd biggest problem - lack of decent front line players.

We have Joel and Channing. Charlotte already has Okafor, who is a better Joel than Joel, so they don't need him. Frye, on the other hand, would be a terrific style match with Okafor.

Guess who was Frye's coach his rookie season, the season he got a lot of minutes and played well? Yup, that's right, Larry Brown. I think Charlotte would place a lot of value on Frye.

Because of that, and because of their need for financial relief, I wouldn't offer Charlotte much more than a package centered around Raef and Frye for Wallace and a bad contract (Matt Carroll?)

If Wallace is not the right guy for us, then maybe Charlotte can facilitate a 3-team deal for us.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I really like Wallace but really think that we need a good 3PT shooter like Webster to spread the D.

Threefore, keep Web here.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

I think we'll make a run at Grainger. If we can't get him then Miller or Battier. Obviously there are better small forwards but these guys are likely attainable.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I don't get the obsession with Granger, we have enough offensive firepower....Miller, Battier and Webster make much more sense as they are a legit 3-point threat and are spot up shooters....something that is missing from our offense. I don't know what adding a SF that penetrates and attacks the basket and looks to score will do when we already have Bayless, Roy and Rudy that can do that pretty well.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

I don't get the obsession with Granger, we have enough offensive firepower....Miller, Battier and Webster make much more sense as they are a legit 3-point threat and are spot up shooters....something that is missing from our offense. I don't know what adding a SF that penetrates and attacks the basket and looks to score will do when we already have Bayless, Roy and Rudy that can do that pretty well.

Grainger is also a decent defender (better than any SF we have currently). He's also the type of player KP likes, unselfish and team orientated. Getting another veteran that can take even more pressure off the younger guys will help tremendously. I'm not saying he's the perfect fit but he's a good option. Ideally we'd get Prince but unless Detroit tanks I can't see that happening.

 

[Masbee]

I don't get the obsession with Granger, we have enough offensive firepower....Miller, Battier and Webster make much more sense as they are a legit 3-point threat and are spot up shooters....something that is missing from our offense. I don't know what adding a SF that penetrates and attacks the basket and looks to score will do when we already have Bayless, Roy and Rudy that can do that pretty well.

Which of Bayless, Roy or Rudy will be the one slowing down Kobe, Ginobili, Melo, Artest, T-Mac, Durant, Magette, LeBron, Wade, Caron Butler, Pierce, Igudala and on and on and on?

There are a ton of big, strong, fast wing scorers, and most championship teams have a guy that can slow them down a bit, make them take some tougher shots, and occaisionally shut them down.

We don't have that guy.

 

[BenDavis503x]

I like Wallace. Great defender and finisher. I do not like him enough to move anyone on our team for him though. Maybe Outlaw for him straight across. Throw in some picks if need be. I wanna keep Webster though.

 

[Masbee]

I think we'll make a run at Grainger. If we can't get him then Miller or Battier. Obviously there are better small forwards but these guys are likely attainable.

Can we get Granger for the price of Frye and The Contract?

No F'ning way. The price will be MUCH MUCH higher. In fact, I don't think we have the assets to get a deal done with Indy assuming the big 4 are off the table.

So, though Granger might be a better fit and have the long ball and be younger, what would the cost be?

I think too high to even have Granger in the mix of possibilities. Until we get some information out of Indy that changes that equation, ie, injury to Granger, bad play by Granger, financial problems at Indy, Granger demands a trade, etc.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Which of Bayless, Roy or Rudy will be the one slowing down Kobe, Ginobili, Melo, Artest, T-Mac, Durant, Magette, LeBron, Wade, Caron Butler, Pierce, Igudala and on and on and on?

There are a ton of big, strong, fast wing scorers, and most championship teams have a guy that can slow them down a bit, make them take some tougher shots, and occaisionally shut them down.

We don't have that guy.

Webster has improved defensively every year. Someone like Battier would be a much better target due to his high bball IQ, ability to pass and his EXCELLENT defense and clutch play.

 

[BenDavis503x]

I doubt Indy will do any more deals with us after the draft!!

 

[MrJayremmie]

Wallace wouldn't be bad at all. They would probably take an Outlaw/Bayless/1st for him i'd think, or an Outlaw/Raef package.

I'd still rather wait until this off-season for the trade and then look for a vet like Battier or Prince if possible. I want to see how Batum develops, and how Webster looks (once he comes back).

 

[BlazerFanForLife]

Raef and Frye for Wallace may work out... matters what Brown says, I remember that he said Gerald was his favorite player on the team as of now. No point in paying Brown lots of money to coach a shitty team...

 

[Masbee]

Webster has improved defensively every year. Someone like Battier would be a much better target due to his high bball IQ, ability to pass and his EXCELLENT defense and clutch play.

Actually Battier is not a "perfect fit".

He is an excellent defender, I have no doubt about that. And he has proven it over several seasons. That is his best asset.

He can hit the long ball. Though he doesn't take enough shots to keep defenses honest.

But, he is NOT clutch. He has been terrible in the few playoff games he has been in. That is disturbing. Cliffy Part II?

And, his age is a bit of a concern. He just turned 30, thus is on the downward slope of his career, and wouldn't be the long-term answer with our twenty-something core.

I do see Battier as a possible target though, IF the Blazers see Batum as the Future. If they are super high on Batum, Battier can hold the fort down for a couple of years as Batum develops. Then the age thing is less of an issue.

Also, with Battier, I could see the team playing offense/defense at the end of games with Rudy.

Since it seems to be so hard to find a defensive stopper who also can knock down an open 3 (Posey and?), having an offensive closer and a defensive close may be the next best thing.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Wallace isnt worth the price we'd have to pay to get him.

 

[andalusian]

Which of Bayless, Roy or Rudy will be the one slowing down Kobe, Ginobili, Melo, Artest, T-Mac, Durant, Magette, LeBron, Wade, Caron Butler, Pierce, Igudala and on and on and on?

There are a ton of big, strong, fast wing scorers, and most championship teams have a guy that can slow them down a bit, make them take some tougher shots, and occaisionally shut them down.

We don't have that guy.

In a year or two - this will be Batum. Let's face it - no-one shuts down these guys consistently - but Batum has the length, speed and understanding of position defense to get in their way.

I think that the long-term makeup of this team will have Bayless/Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden as the starters with Sergio or Blake/Rudy/Travis or Webster/Frye/Pryzbilla as the 2nd unit.

Batum will be a better defender than Webster (and Travis) and the first unit will have 3 good shooters next to Oden - so I am guessing that he has what we need to have on the court if he continues to grow, hit his jump shots effectively and be a good perimeter defender. He was born to do that job.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

[video=youtube;kVLS_5R_N2E]

His age isn't that much of a concern. He's excellent at defense, an important part at the end of games. He's hit many 3's in crucial situations....he's always going to be a concern in the corner for other teams. Veteran leadership: I don't know if it can be any better.

 

[mook]

I really like Masbee's original idea, assuming Charlotte would bite on it. More quality perimeter shooters is always good, but it's not everything. We'd still have Blake, Roy, Rodriguez, Webster and Outlaw available to hit the three, so we'd have two legit three point threats on the floor at all times.

I watched some of the Charlotte/Laker game last night, and the thing that impressed me about Wallace was that he seemed to have pretty good court awareness and a willingness to pass. (So many of his passes bounced off the lead arms of his teammates, but that wasn't his fault.) He seemed to pick up points in the flow of the game without having every play ran for him, and he was willing to take shots with the clock winding down.

He's a career 48% shooter, so he doesn't take bad shots, and he pulls in a respectable 6 boards a game. And his three ball is 32%--bad, but not Andre Miller bad. Pippen shot the same percent for his career (worse than that in a couple of the Bulls championship teams). Kobe was .305 and .250 in the Lakers' first two championships. I'm not saying Wallace is anywhere near the caliber of those two guys--just that there's a lot more to being a good big swingman than hitting threes at a high percentage. And nearly all the threes he's attempted in his career were taken in the past 2 years, which could be good or bad. Maybe it's good because he's pretty confident in it and would shoot it better on a team where he had open looks.

I don't know that we could get Wallace so cheap though. Look at his PPG over the past 4 years: 11 ppg, 15 ppg, 18 ppg, 19 ppg. That's not the kind of trajectory that typically gets you traded for a backup PF and a big expiring contract.

But you look at Frye and you look at Charlotte, and it's pretty easy to see how he'd fit in there. He might even be a 18/9 power forward on that team. If you look at Frye's per-minute numbers as a starter on our team last year, he's not far off from that.

Trading Frye moves Outlaw back to backup PF, where he does well in the second unit (particularly along side a defensive center like Przybilla). That probably gives Bayless a few more minutes as a backup combo guard, as Rodriguez can play some backup SF in a fast second unit lineup. Maybe it even lets us see if Diagu is ever worth the top 10 pick he cost some other team.

The more I think about it, the more I really like this deal.

 

[Minstrel]

Can we get Granger for the price of Frye and The Contract?

No F'ning way. The price will be MUCH MUCH higher. In fact, I don't think we have the assets to get a deal done with Indy assuming the big 4 are off the table.

I wouldn't take Rudy off the table if Granger were a possibility (as I assume that's the fourth in your"Big Four"). But I suspect one of the Big Three would need to be involved. However, if Indiana could be enticed with a package of something like LaFrentz, Outlaw, Ferandez OR Bayless, and a draft pick, I'd do that.

In any case, I love your Gerald Wallace idea. If they could be enticed to give up Wallace for cap relief and a player like Frye (or even Outlaw), I'd love to do it. He's not perfect, since he isn't a great outside shooter, but he's still a great fit...young enough to fit the core, excellent defense and a productive offensive player.

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

Not massively overpayed? He's under payed.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

In a year or two - this will be Batum. Let's face it - no-one shuts down these guys consistently - but Batum has the length, speed and understanding of position defense to get in their way.

I think that the long-term makeup of this team will have Bayless/Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden as the starters with Sergio or Blake/Rudy/Travis or Webster/Frye/Pryzbilla as the 2nd unit.

Batum will be a better defender than Webster (and Travis) and the first unit will have 3 good shooters next to Oden - so I am guessing that he has what we need to have on the court if he continues to grow, hit his jump shots effectively and be a good perimeter defender. He was born to do that job.

+1

since this post must be at least 3 letters long, I'll say that I was going to post something like this
but it was already well said.

 

[Foulzilla]

I like Wallace the player. I however don't like his durability. If he could be acquired without giving up too much, I'd be happy. I'm not sure if I'd want to give up what he's probably perceived to be worth though simply due to the injury issues.

 

[Masbee]

In a year or two - this will be Batum. Let's face it - no-one shuts down these guys consistently

Yeah. I know. I never said otherwise. Your statement could be construed as a copout though and I want to clarify.

"Nobody stops the stars".

True.

"Nobody stops the stars, so don't bother trying so hard to do it."

False.

I have already pointed out that most championship caliber teams have a quality wing stopper on their roster.

You don't "stop" the star wing. You make things hard on them. Without a quality defender to make them work, even double teaming a star if mostly ineffective. The star has to be funneled into the defensive scheme. Sometimes in a series, one bad game by the star is all you need. Sometimes lowering their effeciency a bit is all you need. Sometimes forcing the star to into too much solo offense is all you need.

In order to do those things you need one of the better defenders on your side. Not a "good enough" defender because they are homegrown on your roster, or because they are "improving every year" like Webster. They must be one of the top defenders in the NBA. We currently have no one on the roster even close.

- but Batum has the length, speed and understanding of position defense to get in their way.

Maybe. Batum is a prospect and hasn't proven anything yet. Until he proves to be an excellent and consistent defender we won't know.

 

[mook]

In a year or two - this will be Batum.

Maybe. Many of us have set similar lofty goals for guys like Telfair, Jack, Webster, Outlaw and Qyntel Woods in the past. (Not just as defensive stoppers--I mean we saw glimpses of talent and extrapolated from there that they would be key parts of our future.) Which was fine back then, because we sucked and we had to gamble that if we had enough youngsters, eventually some of them would pay out.

But that's the thinking of a lottery team. We have to get out of that mindset now. When you are trying to make a push into the second round of the playoffs, you don't hold up the show because you expect a youngster to eventually fill today's need. You go out and fill that hole now if you can, and if the youngster eventually fills that spot you adapt then.

If Batum turns out to be as good as I hope, a guy like Wallace will be easy to trade in two years. Or we trade Batum. Or we trade Outlaw or Webster or Fernandez or whomever to balance out the roster.

The one thing we don't do is stand pat because we think in two years our problem will be solved. Young, talented players are too easy to move, and too many things can change between now and then, for us to wait on a promising young guy like Batum.

 

[Minstrel]

Maybe. Many of us have set similar lofty goals for guys like Telfair, Jack, Webster, Outlaw and Qyntel Woods in the past. (Not just as defensive stoppers--I mean we saw glimpses of talent and extrapolated from there that they would be key parts of our future.) Which was fine back then, because we sucked and we had to gamble that if we had enough youngsters, eventually some of them would pay out.

But that's the thinking of a lottery team. We have to get out of that mindset now. When you are trying to make a push into the second round of the playoffs, you don't hold up the show because you expect a youngster to eventually fill today's need. You go out and fill that hole now if you can, and if the youngster eventually fills that spot you adapt then.

If Batum turns out to be as good as I hope, a guy like Wallace will be easy to trade in two years. Or we trade Batum. Or we trade Outlaw or Webster or Fernandez or whomever to balance out the roster.

The one thing we don't do is stand pat because we think in two years our problem will be solved. Young, talented players are too easy to move, and too many things can change between now and then, for us to wait on a promising young guy like Batum.

+1.

 

[Foulzilla]

Well said Mook. I don't think I can add anything to that.

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

It's not like you're trading for an aging superstar. You're trading for a great defender and scorer who's not in his prime yet. The price will be high.

 

[andalusian]

I am not saying that we should not trade for Wallace if he comes cheap enough - but I am not sold on the idea that he is a huge defensive upgrade given his injury history and the number of games he misses each year...

This team is going to do some kind of talent consolidation sooner or later (sooner, given the cap-space window and Raef's contract - it is going to happen this year or before next year's trade deadline because of this issue - I just question if losing one of the two guys that have a real chance to be stars in the league (Rudy / Bayless) and as such be real bargaining chips down the line if they do not fit with the core (more an issue or possibility with Bayless than Rudy, IMHO).

Personally, I would hate to lose either Bayless or Rudy for Wallace - I just question his real worth given the injury concerns. In 7 years in the league he had only 2 years where he played 70 or more games (70 and 72, to be specific).

I am glad that it is my job to make these decisions...

 

[Masbee]

I am not saying that we should not trade for Wallace if he comes cheap enough - but I am not sold on the idea that he is a huge defensive upgrade given his injury history and the number of games he misses each year...

This team is going to do some kind of talent consolidation sooner or later (sooner, given the cap-space window and Raef's contract - it is going to happen this year or before next year's trade deadline because of this issue - I just question if losing one of the two guys that have a real chance to be stars in the league (Rudy / Bayless) and as such be real bargaining chips down the line if they do not fit with the core (more an issue or possibility with Bayless than Rudy, IMHO).

Personally, I would hate to lose either Bayless or Rudy for Wallace - I just question his real worth given the injury concerns. In 7 years in the league he had only 2 years where he played 70 or more games (70 and 72, to be specific).

I am glad that it is my job to make these decisions...

Well, since my original post never had the Blazers sending out Rudy or Bayless, I don't really know what your argument is.

I will restate the trade proposal:

Raef and Frye for Wallace and Carroll

 

[MrJayremmie]

I think most ANY Blazer fan would do Frye/Raef for Wallace and a contract to match. But it would probably have to be somethin' like... Raef, Frye, Bayless/Outlaw, 1st for Wallace and a bad contract... at least.

 

[andalusian]

Well, since my original post never had the Blazers sending out Rudy or Bayless, I don't really know what your argument is.

You are right. I am sorry. Minstrel suggested Rudy or Bayless - but it was for Granger, not Wallace.

I somehow got it confused now that I am re-reading the thread.

Carry on the good work...

I would hate to lose Frye - but it sure is worth it for Wallace.