In Retrospect, If The Trade Deadline Were Tomorrow..

[Tortimer]

Should I really remind you that we get 13PPG per game from Travis and 11 PPG from Steve Blake - night in, night out?

As this team goes forward - offense will not be a problem - Batum will get better, Rudy will become more consistent and Oden will learn to stay on the court longer (even if the impossible happens he does not improve his skills on offense - something I just can not see - he is too smart and his work ethic is good enough to ensure he will become a much more skilled offensive weapon) - thus more scoring from the Center position (love Joel - but his offense is gravy - Oden on the other hand will have consistent offensive output that you can count on).

Nic has the tools to be a better offensive player than Wallace - with his quickness, wing-span and nose for rebounds.

This team really needs to worry about the long-term solution in the PG spot and a better backup PF. The funny thing is that with the rights to Freeland and Kopo and Bayless on the roster - the Blazers might already have these "missing" pieces. Scary scary team.

I agree with you 100%. If Bayless isn't going to develop into our future PG I think we will need to sign a FA PG this summer. I still think we need a banger defender backup PF more then anything except maybe PG if Bayless isn't going to be our future PG. I still have faith and think Bayless will be our starting PG though.

 

[hasoos]

I agree with you 100%. If Bayless isn't going to develop into our future PG I think we will need to sign a FA PG this summer. I still think we need a banger defender backup PF more then anything except maybe PG if Bayless isn't going to be our future PG. I still have faith and think Bayless will be our starting PG though.

Aaah I see how it is. We can give Outlaw 6 years, Martell 4+ years to develope, but when it comes to Bayless, he has to produce in less than a season.

 

[Tortimer]

Aaah I see how it is. We can give Outlaw 6 years, Martell 4+ years to develope, but when it comes to Bayless, he has to produce in less than a season.

No, I'm not picking on Bayless. Actually I'm a huge Bayless fan and think he is going to develop into a great PG for the Blazers and will fit really well with Roy.

 

[Tortimer]

Aaah I see how it is. We can give Outlaw 6 years, Martell 4+ years to develope, but when it comes to Bayless, he has to produce in less than a season.

I'm just saying if KP and Nate don't think Bayless isn't the right fit for our future PG we need to maybe sign a FA PG this summer. I actually think KP and Nate like Bayless and he is our future starting PG.

 

[hasoos]

I'm just saying if KP and Nate don't think Bayless isn't the right fit for our future PG we need to maybe sign a FA PG this summer. I actually think KP and Nate like Bayless and he is our future starting PG.

Yea I think the same. I just think he needs a summer with coaches working with him to get his comfort level up so he doesn't play so tentative. More like when he was getting regular minutes.

 

[Ed O]

I don't think that anything between the trade deadline and now has much impact on how I feel. I would have preferred us to get some value for RLEC at that point, but I trust that KP was not offered anything that made sense.

I didn't advocate a trade just for this year, but instead for the next couple. I think that Gerald Wallace is a significant improvement on Batum at this point and, even though I am excited about Batum's future, I would be surprised if Wallace isn't a better player over the next four years or so.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Aaah I see how it is. We can give Outlaw 6 years, Martell 4+ years to develope, but when it comes to Bayless, he has to produce in less than a season.

If this was 4 years ago, I think you'd see more patience by fans in giving Bayless time to develop. The team then was terrible, and the only thing to look forward to was the future. At this point in time, unless KP thinks Bayless will become an elite PG, I have no problem if he is a part of a deal that would net the Blazers an upgrade at PG. The difference between your two scenarios is that the team is ready to compete for a title, if not now, than certainly next season.

 

[hasoos]

If this was 4 years ago, I think you'd see more patience by fans in giving Bayless time to develop. The team then was terrible, and the only thing to look forward to was the future. At this point in time, unless KP thinks Bayless will become an elite PG, I have no problem if he is a part of a deal that would net the Blazers an upgrade at PG. The difference between your two scenarios is that the team is ready to compete for a title, if not now, than certainly next season.

Your paragraph is rather generic. If they traded him for a guy that is an upgrade to "Blake" then I think your flat out crazy. There are a lot of PG better than Blake that would be an "upgrade", and moving him now, would be a mistake for a guy that is merely an upgrade to Blake? That is crazy talk. No the upgrade would have to be significant. Like Mo Williams/top 10 PG type significant. Otherwise, I would just rather ride it out.

 

[PapaG]

Your paragraph is rather generic. If they traded him for a guy that is an upgrade to "Blake" then I think your flat out crazy. There are a lot of PG better than Blake that would be an "upgrade", and moving him now, would be a mistake for a guy that is merely an upgrade to Blake? That is crazy talk. No the upgrade would have to be significant. Like Mo Williams/top 10 PG type significant. Otherwise, I would just rather ride it out.

I don't have any known specifics to talk about. It's generic because Bayless won't be given the same playing time to develop that Outlaw and Webster were given simply because the team is much better now. I think of Bayless as more Jermaine O'Neal than Martell Webster, in terms of how his development will likely be handled by the team.

I would only move him if it meant getting somebody that the team feels will help the team win right now over the current roster. I wouldn't trade him just to trade him, if that's what you thought I meant.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Did people not watch the Houston game?

Not one guy on the team had the experience (or perhaps the respect) to stand up and tell the team to get their heads out of their collective rectums. They needed somebody to kick them in the ass and remind them that HCA was still in reach, and that they couldn't afford a night off.

Sure, you can point to the comeback wins over the Grizz and Spurs and say "lesson learned'.....but is it? Will the kids remember in the face of the pressure and excitement of their first play-offs?

 

[oldmangrouch]

Your paragraph is rather generic. If they traded him for a guy that is an upgrade to "Blake" then I think your flat out crazy. There are a lot of PG better than Blake that would be an "upgrade", and moving him now, would be a mistake for a guy that is merely an upgrade to Blake? That is crazy talk. No the upgrade would have to be significant. Like Mo Williams/top 10 PG type significant. Otherwise, I would just rather ride it out.

This is a very cogent argument - IF you assume that Bayless' ego/feelings are more important than the team.

Heck, I *like* Bayless...but at the point he stands in the way of the team succeeding...."F" him and the Sundevil he rode in on!

 

[tlongII]

Miller's entire body of work supports that he's significantly better than Blake. This is one of Blake's best years (14.6 PER), and he's still below Miller's career average PER (18.0) and Miller's PER this year (18.8). Plus, Miller is a much better defender, which further widens the gap.

I'd rather get a young player in the off-season, like Ramon Sessions, but Miller would be a great add, IMO, because he'd function as a bridge for a couple of season until Bayless is ready. A good defender at the point guard spot would do wonder for the team's defense, plus he's a much better distributor than Blake. Blake is a better shooter, but I'll take Miller's overall betterness over Blake's single advantage as a shooter.

As for the trade deadline, my position has always been "I don't know." All I know is media gossip about what was available, and many of those reports contradict each other. I assume that if there was a clear upgrade opportunity, without hurting the team's future, KP would have taken it. If Richard Jefferson was all that was available, I have no problems with Pritchard passing on that. If Batum was required to get Carter or Wallace, I'm glad he passed.

Miller gets those numbers on bad teams. You have to discount the numbers because of that.

 

[KingSpeed]

andre miller or gerald wallace.... hell yes. R Jeff maybe and carter prob not

batum is still way too limited on offense. we will need scoring in the playoffs. the problem is, we live and die by 2 players. Roy and Aldridge. We need a consistent 3rd scorer who gets us 15 every night. Thats not batum. The reason we get behind so much is cause we dont havea steady 3rd option who can score. it will show in the playoffs. i just hope it doesnt show too much.

Outlaw is our third scorer and he's been very effective as that.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Miller gets those numbers on bad teams. You have to discount the numbers because of that.

PER has nothing to do with how good or bad the team is. It is a measure of individual effeciency...period. That is precisely why some people are critical of it. They jump to the conclusion that if a team is struggling, all 12 players on that team must suck.

Basketball is a team sport. Even the worst teams can have 1 or 2 good players.

 

[KingSpeed]

And I'm fine with us standing pat. I got a little excited about the Carter deal but if it was my choice back in February, I wouldn't have made a deal and I don't regret KPs decision now.

 

[Minstrel]

Miller gets those numbers on bad teams. You have to discount the numbers because of that.

No, you don't. That's certainly one way people try to reach the conclusion they want to about players they don't like, though.

This argument makes even less sense when talking about a pass-first point guard. Having bad teammates padded his assist totals? Sure. if anything, you have to upgrade his numbers...he had (arguably) poor teammates and still managed to help them score baskets, thus generating assists.

 

[tlongII]

PER has nothing to do with how good or bad the team is. It is a measure of individual effeciency...period. That is precisely why some people are critical of it. They jump to the conclusion that if a team is struggling, all 12 players on that team must suck.

Basketball is a team sport. Even the worst teams can have 1 or 2 good players.

Baloney. PER certainly is impacted by the players you play with.

 

[tlongII]

No, you don't. That's certainly one way people try to reach the conclusion they want to about players they don't like, though.

This argument makes even less sense when talking about a pass-first point guard. Having bad teammates padded his assist totals? Sure. if anything, you have to upgrade his numbers...he had (arguably) poor teammates and still managed to help them score baskets, thus generating assists.

If you're the only player on your team that can dish the ball you're going to have higher assist totals. Simple as that.

 

[Minstrel]

If you're the only player on your team that can dish the ball you're going to have higher assist totals. Simple as that.

Simple, but extremely unconvincing. If that were true, there would be lots of point guards who put up the numbers Miller does, and there aren't.

 

[tlongII]

Simple, but extremely unconvincing. If that were true, there would be lots of point guards who put up the numbers Miller does, and there aren't.

Hey, he's got talent. I'm not saying he sucks. But the fact of the matter is that your assists totals would be impacted in a situation like that. All you need is some finishers and he's got some on Philly in Iggy, etc. Blake doesn't get those kind of assist totals because B-Roy is the distributor for much of the time here.

 

[MARIS61]

Bake it!

 

[Stevenson]

Hard to imagine that we would have had a much better record than we do now, no matter who he could have brought in.

Once again, in KP we trust.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Hard to imagine that we would have had a much better record than we do now, no matter who he could have brought in.

Once again, in KP we trust.

It wouldn't need to be "much" better. Right now, 1 more win would have us ahead of Houston and SA, instead of a 3 way tie. 3 more wins might have meant the divisional title.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

If KP thinks he has a realistic chance of getting an upgrade at PG this summer, and any pre-deadline trade would have eliminated that chance, or made it less likely; then I'm OK with no trade.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Hey, he's got talent. I'm not saying he sucks. But the fact of the matter is that your assists totals would be impacted in a situation like that. All you need is some finishers and he's got some on Philly in Iggy, etc. Blake doesn't get those kind of assist totals because B-Roy is the distributor for much of the time here.

So Andre Iguodala averaging 5.2 assists per game is different from B-Roy's 5.2 assists per game how?

Taken from Hollinger's analysis of Miller at espn.com http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?playerId=557

Miller has always been able to score in the paint and was especially good last year, making 58.9 percent of his shots in the immediate basket area; with three-quarters of his shots coming from inside ten feet, his erratic long-range jumper (3-for-34 on 3-pointers) didn't hold him back much.

Meanwhile he operated as more of a scorer and less of a passer than in previous seasons. His pure point rating was only 25th among point guards, but he finished the year ninth in PER thanks to his improved prowess as a scorer. Miller was also 11th among point guards in rebound rate, another nice bonus.

Scouting report: Miller might be the league's craftiest post player, so it's unfortunate that he's only 6-3. He kills smaller guards on the left block by using head fakes, quick spins, and a lethal up-and-under move, and he's very good at using the glass on short-range shots. Teams are reluctant to double him down there because he's such a good passer.

Sounds like a the description of a pretty talented player to me?

I'm not saying get Miller at all costs, but I wouldn't bat an eye if KP offered him a MLE+ deal for 2 or 3 years; it's a risk at his age, but his game has never been predicated on lighting quick speed and he could be the perfect 'bridge' player while Bayless (I guess?) grows into the role when Andre is winding down.

 

[gambitnut]

If the trade deadline were tomorrow, I wouldn't make a trade, too close to the end of the season.

I was willing to make a trade at the trade deadline, but only if we could find a player that wouldn't be keeping Batum and Webster on the bench for four or five years, would be a good mix with our team, would give us something we needed and wouldn't cost more than Raef, Outlaw, Randolph and Diogu/Ruffin, and draft picks. I wasn't sure that there was a trade that would meet all of those requirements available to us. I'm quite satisfied with the way things have turned out and the development of Batum.

 

[anonymous gambler]

I think Wallace or Butler would be good value for Batum. I seriously think people overvalue Batum, like they did Sergio last year- yes, he could conceivably be another Pippen, but he could also never develop into as good a player as Wallace or Butler. Had we gotten either Wallace or Butler- our work of making a championship contender would have been essentially done- we'd have 3 young all-star or near all-star players with Oden yet to develop.

We wasted Raef's contract.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we could have kept both Blake and Outlaw, had we traded for Wallace...and have still had the mid level exception available to sign a point guard had we wanted to.

 

[PapaG]

I think Wallace or Butler would be good value for Batum. I seriously think people overvalue Batum, like they did Sergio last year- yes, he could conceivably be another Pippen, but he could also never develop into as good a player as Wallace or Butler. Had we gotten either Wallace or Butler- our work of making a championship contender would have been essentially done- we'd have 3 young all-star or near all-star players with Oden yet to develop.

We wasted Raef's contract.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we could have kept both Blake and Outlaw, had we traded for Wallace...and have still had the mid level exception available to sign a point guard had we wanted to.

Butler >>> Wallace and Butler has a better contract at this point.

Comparing them invalidates your entire post IMO.

 

[PapaG]

It wouldn't need to be "much" better. Right now, 1 more win would have us ahead of Houston and SA, instead of a 3 way tie. 3 more wins might have meant the divisional title.

Or, chemistry fails and the team ends up in the 8th spot.

I'd take any match-up in the first round outside of LA right now.

 

[Ed O]

Butler >>> Wallace and Butler has a better contract at this point.

Comparing them invalidates your entire post IMO.

I don't follow that logic.

Even assuming Butler is much better than Wallace (and Wallace is a superior defender, IMO, and would be more likely to thrive as a third offensive option than Butler)... why does Butler being better than Wallace invalidate his post?

It's conceivable that he thinks that EITHER would have been a good acquisition, even at the cost of Batum. That you might think Butler would have been a superior get to Butler doesn't mean that his whole opinion and point is invalid.

Ed O.