If Utah doesn't match

[handiman]

I don't think it's so much an afterthought as it is awareness of the fact that he is one of our most valuable trade assets

If we end up trying to move him to make room for Millsap, we'll get very little in return. As I said previously, the offers will all be lowball ones, knowing we don't have room for Pryz.

 

[Minstrel]

Rudy for Devin is a ONE for ONE swap, that's not very far fetched at all. Przy (best backup big in the league), Outlaw (top 5 6th man) and Bayless (08 lotto pick) for Sessions is WAY overpaying.

You're missing my point. Last off-season, I was told that Rudy for Harris was WAY overpaying.

Przybilla is a solid player (being the BEST backup is not a qualification...his overall value as a player is what matters), Outlaw is a solid player (same comment as Przybilla) and Bayless is a nice prospect (one I like a lot, but is very far from assured to be a good/great NBA player).

Sessions is already above average for a starting point guard and was only 22 last season, so has plenty of upside.

You can't simply "add up" the total value of the players in a three-for-one (a hundred average players does not equal one prime Shaq). Concentrating talent in one player is much more impactful, so the three players have to have a bit more total value for it to even be credible.

Sessions is easily the best player of the four as far as I'm concerned and history has shown that in swaps of quality for quantity, the team getting the quality almost always wins the deal long-term.

 

[Ed O]

I don't agree at all with that logic.

Let's say three teams want Joel. Assume all of the teams know the Blazers "don't have room" for Joel.

Why would they not offer whatever made sense to improve their team? They're going to NOT add a piece that they need because the Blazers have a lot of depth in the front court?

Maybe one team would lowball them, and if there were no other bidders then Portland might have to ("have" to) settle for less-than-fair value. But if team #1 offers a lowball offer, why wouldn't the second team offer a bit more, since it would still be a good deal for them? And then either team #1 or #3 could offer more.

Teams naturally pay attention to the value a player has to his present team when they make offers, but I would bet a dollar to a donut that most trades are made because of the value to the NEW team that the player represents.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Exactly my problem with the Millsap signing. If it's a choice between he and Pryz, I think Pryz brings more to the table and at a more reasonable price. Millsap is a glorified garbage player... Certainly valuable, but not at starter's salary with bench minutes. Trying to make him fit minimizes everyone else's effectiveness, forces them to play out of position, cuts their minutes, etc.

So Millsap is a "glorified garbage player", but Joel isn't?

Really?

I'm not in favor of trading Joel unless we could get a significant amount of value for him, but I think that Millsap is a better player than Joel by a fair margin and given their respective ages I expect that difference to only widen with time.

Ed O.

 

[MAS RipCity]

I guess we value players differently..I'd say Sessions is prolly the 3rd best player in the deal, and easily 4th once we see how Bayless looks this year.
You want to talk about finding players before they become stars..step right up Jerryd Bayless, you're the next contest on....

 

[Minstrel]

I guess we value players differently..I'd say Sessions is prolly the 3rd best player in the deal, and easily 4th once we see how Bayless looks this year.

Yes, clearly we value the players hugely differently.

You want to talk about finding players before they become stars..step right up Jerryd Bayless, you're the next contest on....

Bayless is a prospect who hasn't had any success at all in the NBA. His rookie season was atrocious and he had a PER of around 8. Granted, he was young and didn't get a big role...but Sessions was only a year older as a rookie, also didn't get a big role and had a very strong PER.

Bayless could be a star, yes. Sessions has a much higher chance considering he's much closer to that level and is still young.

 

[B-Roy]

Bayless is a prospect who hasn't had any success at all in the NBA. His rookie season was atrocious and he had a PER of around 8. Granted, he was young and didn't get a big role...but Sessions was only a year older as a rookie, also didn't get a big role and had a very strong PER.

Minstrel, that's just wrong. In his rookie season, Sessions was a D-league call up in January who, at first, played very sparingly (like Bayless) and was largely unproductive. HOWEVER, in the last month or so, Milwaukee gave up and Sessions started playing a huge role on the team. He averaged 35+ MPG and impressed Milwaukee. Bayless has never had that opportunity to prove himself. Even when Blake went down, Bayless only played around 20 or so MPG.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, that's just wrong. In his rookie season, Sessions was a D-league call up in January who, at first, played very sparingly (like Bayless) and was largely unproductive. HOWEVER, in the last month or so, Milwaukee gave up and Sessions started playing a huge role on the team. He averaged 35+ MPG and impressed Milwaukee. Bayless has never had that opportunity to prove himself. Even when Blake went down, Bayless only played around 20 or so MPG.

Granted that Sessions got games with many more minutes, but he still played sporadically. It's true that Bayless hasn't had a full opportunity to prove himself, but that's why I call him a "pure prospect." He might as well still be the guy the Blazers drafted last year (in terms of analysis...I'm sure he's more advanced in development)...we have no extra read on his NBA future, really, then we did at the time of his drafting. He's still all "tools" and not (NBA) performance.

Sessions is not in the same class. He's not a "prospect," he's actually a good player and young enough to have substantial upside. That was my point.

 

[Idog1976]

Exactly my problem with the Millsap signing. If it's a choice between he and Pryz, I think Pryz brings more to the table and at a more reasonable price. Millsap is a glorified garbage player... Certainly valuable, but not at starter's salary with bench minutes. Trying to make him fit minimizes everyone else's effectiveness, forces them to play out of position, cuts their minutes, etc.

Joel is probably not as good a backup center as LMA is. You forget that Joel played with LMA as his 4 where as LMA played with Outlaw/Frye as his 4. The drop off from Oden to LMA is not nearly as steep as from LMA to Frye/Outlaw.

Joel may bring toughness, leadership, grit and rebounding but one thing he brings precisely 0 of is offense. He can't hit a shot and his only real points come of put backs and the rare pick and roll dunk feed under the hoop. LMA may not be the rebounder that Joel is but with Millsap playing the 4 he doesn't have to be and LMA is FAR better of an offensive player at the 5 then Joel ever dreamed about being. You are basically getting a small downgrade at backup center for rebounds and defense and a massive upgrade on offense. You also are getting a massive upgrade at scoring, defense and rebounding over Frye and even Oulaw sans the scoring upgrade. It would be such a massive improvement in our big man rotation to have LMA/Oden/Millsap/Pendergraph/Cunningham as opposed to Oden/Joel/LMA/Frye/Outlaw it's hardly comparable. If Oden did go down LMA at the 5 and Millsap at PF still gives us one of the best starting lineups in the league and we would really only have trouble with Shaq, Howard and possibly Bynum if he was healthy and effective both big ifs.

Really it would be lunacy to keep Joel playing 8 minutes a game if he was lucky. or 18 minutes a game if we were VERY unlucky (injury/continued fould trouble with Oden both of which I think will be far less this year due to being in shape). It's not worth it to keep Joel as insurance at the 5 instead of bringing in Battier as certainty at the SF.

 

[B-Roy]

Granted that Sessions got games with many more minutes, but he still played sporadically. It's true that Bayless hasn't had a full opportunity to prove himself, but that's why I call him a "pure prospect." He might as well still be the guy the Blazers drafted last year (in terms of analysis...I'm sure he's more advanced in development)...we have no extra read on his NBA future, really, then we did at the time of his drafting. He's still all "tools" and not (NBA) performance.

Sessions is not in the same class. He's not a "prospect," he's actually a good player and young enough to have substantial upside. That was my point.

He wasn't played sporadically in the end, he consistently started and played huge minutes. I remember him playing 44 minutes once, 37 minutes the next night, etc.. When he was given Bayless minutes, he played like....well....Bayless, and that dropped his season averages (He was a beast at the end of his rookie season). When he was given huge minutes and no leash, he played great.

Bayless has not had the luxury that Sessions had, because the Blazers were a playoff bound team, and McMillan would be stupid to change the lineup that had worked all season.

I truly believe, that if Bayless was given the same opportunity that Sessions had, he would be MUCH more productive. We even caught a slight glimpse when Blake went out.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Let's say I have a pile of auto parts sitting in my garage. A talented mechanic *might* be able to assemble those parts into a Porsche. Then somebodt comes along and offers me a fully functional Mercedes in exchange for those parts. Should I say "no", just because I have developed some sort of emotional attachement to that pile of parts?

In a trade for someone like Sessions, Bayless is NOT a deal killer. Not even close.

 

[Minstrel]

He wasn't played sporadically in the end, he consistently started and played huge minutes. I remember him playing 44 minutes once, 37 minutes the next night, etc.. When he was given Bayless minutes, he played like....well....Bayless, and that dropped his season averages (He was a beast at the end of his rookie season). When he was given huge minutes and no leash, he played great.

He played 17 games from January on, and 27 MPG. I agree that almost all of them came in a burst, but it doesn't seem all that dissimilar to the "burst" of playing time that Bayless got when Blake was hurt, when he got around 20 MPG. The difference is, Sessions was really good during that burst of opportunity and Bayless merely "showed flashes."

I truly believe, that if Bayless was given the same opportunity that Sessions had, he would be MUCH more productive. We even caught a slight glimpse when Blake went out.

I also believe Bayless would have had a much better season had he been given more opportunity. But it's still all projection. With Sessions, it isn't.

 

[B-Roy]

He played 17 games from January on, and 27 MPG. I agree that almost all of them came in a burst, but it doesn't seem all that dissimilar to the "burst" of playing time that Bayless got when Blake was hurt, when he got around 20 MPG. The difference is, Sessions was really good during that burst of opportunity and Bayless merely "showed flashes."

You can't compare both opportunities.

Bayless was still playing behind Sergio because of McMillan's rotation. He averaged ~22 MPG.

Sessions started all the games he played and averaged ~35 MPG. There was no one in front or behind him.

I really wish I could find Session's 07-08 game logs, Sessions played like crap for 9 or so games, got injured, came back, started, and played great.

 

[Minstrel]

You can't compare both opportunities.

Bayless was still playing behind Sergio because of McMillan's rotation. He averaged ~22 MPG.

Sessions started all the games he played and averaged ~35 MPG. There was no one in front or behind him.

Why can't we compare them? Was the psychological impact of "coming off the bench" disastrous to his play? Had he been "the starter," he would have been lights-out?

The opportunities can certainly be compared. They weren't identical, obviously, but Bayless did get a sustained opportunity of significant minutes per game and was merely off and on. Sessions, when given a sustained opportunity, flourished a lot. I don't think the 13 minute per game difference was the difference between "good in flashes" and "consistently very good."

 

[illmatic99]

I really wish I could find Session's 07-08 game logs, Sessions played like crap for 9 or so games, got injured, came back, started, and played great.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4333/gamelog;_ylt=AhtvZaCz6ds88kfaMOoKcvm3PaB4?year=2007

 

[Ed O]

I really wish I could find Session's 07-08 game logs, Sessions played like crap for 9 or so games, got injured, came back, started, and played great.

I don't think your memory is quite accurate.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pgl.cgi?player=sessira01&year=2008

Ed O.

 

[STOMP]

My number one priority this offseason is to move Outlaw. Period. That guy has got to go.

If all three of the current SFs are still on the club and healthy, I expect Martell to be 3rd in the minutes rotation. I really don't understand what posters recall that would lead them to believe he'd provide them any less frustration then Travis. Dude has shown very little.

to the thread question, If Utah doesn't match (like Ed said) we laugh like schoolgirls about adding a stud to the lineup at one of the few remaining positions of need. While another move (likely involving Joel) is needed to maximize the club's potential, that move doesn't need to happen immediately. Portland can go into the season with size and depth galore able to physically pound teams into submission. No question that as is + Millsap the club is better then last years... I'd think 60 wins would definitely be possible if they fared well with injuries.

STOMP

 

[B-Roy]

Why can't we compare them? Was the psychological impact of "coming off the bench" disastrous to his play? Had he been "the starter," he would have been lights-out?

The opportunities can certainly be compared. They weren't identical, obviously, but Bayless did get a sustained opportunity of significant minutes per game and was merely off and on. Sessions, when given a sustained opportunity, flourished a lot. I don't think the 13 minute per game difference was the difference between "good in flashes" and "consistently very good."

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jerryd_bayless/game_by_game_stats.html

Look at Bayless's game log for when Blake went out. He was still being played sporadically, 32 minutes one night, 14 minutes the next. When he actually played, he was a good player and drew a ton of fouls.

 

[B-Roy]

I don't think your memory is quite accurate.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pgl.cgi?player=sessira01&year=2008

Ed O.

My bad, he got called up from the D-League, got injured right away, and then came back.

That actually helps my argument against Minstrel as his play was somewhat sporadic even when playing heavy minutes.

 

[Minstrel]

That actually helps my argument against Minstrel as his play was somewhat sporadic even when playing heavy minutes.

How so? Almost from the first game that he got more than 10 minutes, he was at least solid as a distributor. His game on 3/28 against Orlando was his first game of more than 10 minutes and it was fairly poor. Every game after that, he never dipped below 5 assists. I don't think that game log shows "sporadic performance." It shows a player pretty quickly acclimatizing to NBA competition as he gets real minutes.

 

[B-Roy]

How so? Almost from the first game that he got more than 10 minutes, he was at least solid as a distributor. His game on 3/28 against Orlando was his first game of more than 10 minutes and it was fairly poor. Every game after that, he never dipped below 5 assists. I don't think that game log shows "sporadic performance." It shows a player pretty quickly acclimatizing to NBA competition as he gets real minutes.

His assisting was pretty consistent....just like Bayless's ability to draw fouls. His scoring was sporadic.

His TOs were pretty consistent though.

 

[Idog1976]

If all three of the current SFs are still on the club and healthy, I expect Martell to be 3rd in the minutes rotation. I really don't understand what posters recall that would lead them to believe he'd provide them any less frustration then Travis. Dude has shown very little.

to the thread question, If Utah doesn't match (like Ed said) we laugh like schoolgirls about adding a stud to the lineup at one of the few remaining positions of need. While another move (likely involving Joel) is needed to maximize the club's potential, that move doesn't need to happen immediately. Portland can go into the season with size and depth galore able to physically pound teams into submission. No question that as is + Millsap the club is better then last years... I'd think 60 wins would definitely be possible if they fared well with injuries.

STOMP

I fully expect a vet SF at some point before the Trade Deadline and probably this summer (Please god let it be Battier). I don't expect Martell to suit up for this team at this point. I am one of those that thinks he might be done. Frankly I would rather work out a SF rotation of Rudy/Roy/Batum then ever see Outlaw there again. Also even if Martell recovers I expect Martell to be a net wash with some decent defense and the occasional 3 pt shot and random good quarters (Utah). Whereas with Outlaw I expect momentum killing plays and miscues. Martell sucks but he doesn't kill our team. Outlaw is probably a nice guy and I would like to see him be successful somewhere else. His late game miscues are absolute killers.

 

[Minstrel]

His assisting was pretty consistent....just like Bayless's ability to draw fouls. His scoring was sporadic.

His TOs were pretty consistent though.

Yeah, he was far from a perfect player...but he was just 21 and getting his first real taste of the NBA. My point is not that he played flawlessly...far from it. Just that he performed much better in his first taste of real NBA minutes than Bayless did.

And he's built on that. Yes, Bayless hasn't had that chance yet, but proven performance has a higher value than projected performance.

 

[STOMP]

I fully expect a vet SF at some point before the Trade Deadline and probably this summer (Please god let it be Battier). I don't expect Martell to suit up for this team at this point. I am one of those that thinks he might be done. Frankly I would rather work out a SF rotation of Rudy/Roy/Batum then ever see Outlaw there again. Also even if Martell recovers I expect Martell to be a net wash with some decent defense and the occasional 3 pt shot and random good quarters (Utah). Whereas with Outlaw I expect momentum killing plays and miscues. Martell sucks but he doesn't kill our team. Outlaw is probably a nice guy and I would like to see him be successful somewhere else. His late game miscues are absolute killers.

his late game dunks on KG's head are killers too. He has his plus and minus moments for sure, but in the end the stats consistently show him to be a cut above Martell. His TO's might stick out like a sore spot for you, but he gathers them at almost exactly the same rate as MW... maybe this is one of those absence makes the heart grow fonder things? I'm fine with disagreeing with you here, but I'll also note that not only are the stats in Travis's corner but for some reason Nate plays only one of these two guys in crunch time... and there is a new starter in town.

STOMP

 

[B-Roy]

Yeah, he was far from a perfect player...but he was just 21 and getting his first real taste of the NBA. My point is not that he played flawlessly...far from it. Just that he performed much better in his first taste of real NBA minutes than Bayless did.

Fair enough. "Performed much better" is arguable though given the circumstances.

And he's built on that. Yes, Bayless hasn't had that chance yet, but proven performance has a higher value than projected performance.

I really like both players. I'm just not in favor of getting Sessions when we could have a similar breakout player already on our team, and at a much better price. Needless to say, we disagree on that.

 

[Cake]

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jerryd_bayless/game_by_game_stats.html

Look at Bayless's game log for when Blake went out. He was still being played sporadically, 32 minutes one night, 14 minutes the next. When he actually played, he was a good player and drew a ton of fouls.

Or when he was playing well, he got a more minutes.

 

[Minstrel]

I really like both players. I'm just not in favor of getting Sessions when we could have a similar breakout player already on our team, and at a much better price. Needless to say, we disagree on that.

Well, we apparently don't agree on whether we'd do such a trade. We do agree that Portland could have a "breakout" candidate in Bayless. I just don't think Bayless has a substantially higher ceiling while he has a much lower floor (if he busts). Considering that I think Portland almost already has what it needs to be a title contender, I think there's big value in establishing a point guard floor of "solidly above average" while still having upside at the position.

 

[B-Roy]

Well, we apparently don't agree on whether we'd do such a trade. We do agree that Portland could have a "breakout" candidate in Bayless. I just don't think Bayless has a substantially higher ceiling while he has a much lower floor (if he busts). Considering that I think Portland almost already has what it needs to be a title contender, I think there's big value in establishing a point guard floor of "solidly above average" while still having upside at the position.

That's fair, but if we were to improve the PG position, I'd like a veteran. I don't hate the idea of obtaining Sessions, but like I established before, I'm not ready to give up on Bayless in any way.

Oh, and I don't like what I see from Sessions's defense. I think Bayless will be a lot better in that department, but that's a different argument for a different day.

 

[Idog1976]

his late game dunks on KG's head are killers too. He has his plus and minus moments for sure, but in the end the stats consistently show him to be a cut above Martell. His TO's might stick out like a sore spot for you, but he gathers them at almost exactly the same rate as MW... maybe this is one of those absence makes the heart grow fonder things? I'm fine with disagreeing with you here, but I'll also note that not only are the stats in Travis's corner but for some reason Nate plays only one of these two guys in crunch time... and there is a new starter in town.

STOMP

Well no question Outlaw had his shining moments on offense but not all of his mistakes counted as turn overs for him. From terrible, terrible shots (game 4 wasn't it?) to absolute disappearing acts on the defensive end. Also "not boxing out" isn't a stat but if it were Outlaw would lead the league. He regularly gets out rebounded by the other teams PG for god sake and he's a swingman 3/4? I'm not saying Martell has more talent I just feel he is less of a liability.

Let's put it this way Travis skewed the results of many games but after our 2007/08 season he has been pretty bland with rare outbursts and has shown a knack to often dissapear. Martell would be a non-factor out there but the only mistake I consistently see Martell make was not shooting and over passing. Unfortunately, Outlaw showed he could do that too in the playoffs. I dunno I'm not a Martell fan but Outlaw's miscues always came at the worst times. He also saved our bacon with similar timing. I must have screamed "Oh god NO DON"T TAKE THAT SHOT OUTLAW!" 100 times last year and maybe 30 times he hit it and saved the day. I can't explain it perfectly but I feel like Jack Outlaw's impact on the game isn't measure well by most stats.

 

[STOMP]

Well no question Outlaw had his shining moments on offense but not all of his mistakes counted as turn overs for him.

are they for anyone?

From terrible, terrible shots (game 4 wasn't it?) to absolute disappearing acts on the defensive end. Also "not boxing out" isn't a stat but if it were Outlaw would lead the league. He regularly gets out rebounded by the other teams PG for god sake and he's a swingman 3/4? I'm not saying Martell has more talent I just feel he is less of a liability.

you can feel that way, but the stats don't agree. Martell isn't very good... his rebounding trails Travis and his D is equally poor.

Let's put it this way Travis skewed the results of many games but after our 2007/08 season he has been pretty bland with rare outbursts and has shown a knack to often dissapear. Martell would be a non-factor out there but the only mistake I consistently see Martell make was not shooting and over passing. Unfortunately, Outlaw showed he could do that too in the playoffs. I dunno I'm not a Martell fan but Outlaw's miscues always came at the worst times. He also saved our bacon with similar timing. I must have screamed "Oh god NO DON"T TAKE THAT SHOT OUTLAW!" 100 times last year and maybe 30 times he hit it and saved the day. I can't explain it perfectly but I feel like Jack Outlaw's impact on the game isn't measure well by most stats.

Yeah, everyone hates on that Jack Outlaw guy. As you describe, your dislike for Travis's game isn't really fact based. Facts being what they are though, his TOs (and stats in general) aren't judged any differently then Martell's or anyone elses. He's averaged 1.6 TO's per 36 minutes for his career while Martell is at 1.5. So you might only seem to see Martell overpassing, but dude is turning the ball over at the same rate as the guy you think is a butterfingers. I don't know a better description of Martell's contributions then... "he has been pretty bland with rare outbursts and has shown a knack to often dissapear"... except I'd go with very rare outbursts. Dude isn't good on D, is a very poor ballhandler for a 3, and statistically is in a dead heat with Travis and Nic at shooting the ball which is supposed to be his calling card.

Safe to say I don't expect much of a bump from his return

STOMP