Kevin Pritchard is he done?

[Nate Dogg]

Lets see what you guys all think with this poll.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Which pole? This one?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[MIXUM]

i think like nate he peaked. to move forward we need a new coach and new gm.

this roster isnt championship material

 

[OddEnormous]

This thread is so disappointing.

I love polls

 

[HailBlazers]

Trade B-Roy while your at it!

 

[Nate Dogg]

Poll is up now. I had some confusing scenarios so I had to start over with the poll.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Poll is up now. I had some confusing scenarios so I had to start over with the poll.

It's still pretty confusing.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

None of the above. If KP doesn't make a move it's because he couldn't make one that made sense for the long term. IKPWT.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

None of the above. If KP doesn't make a move it's because he couldn't make one that made sense for the long term. IKPWT.

What he said!

 

[barfo]

The odd thing about this picture... why is there a checkmark on the Push Bar to Open sign?

barfo

 

[BBert]

None of the above. If KP doesn't make a move it's because he couldn't make one that made sense for the long term. IKPWT.

Yes.

 

[hasoos]

The way I look at it all GM's make mistakes, I just have to hope they learn from it.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't evaluate GMs by imaginary trades that various fans believe could have been made. I evaluate them by the moves they actually make and by the bottom-line results (the quality of the teams they build).

So far, I've liked the moves Pritchard has actually made, except for the Randolph deal. I think the bottom-line results are very much in his favour as I think he inherited arguably the worst/least-promising rosters in the NBA and has built one of the most-promising rosters in the NBA, one that is contending for a playoff spot despite massive injuries.

Maybe the bottom-line results will stop favouring him in the future (as some believe). If that happens, my evaluation of him will change. At this point in time, though, I see no reason to be unhappy with Pritchard. Mid-season trades aren't inherently good...they're only good when they make the team better. The lack of mid-season trades, then, is not inherently bad.

 

[RagingBull04]

I didn't like your selections.

 

[jlprk]

I don't evaluate GMs by imaginary trades that various fans believe could have been made. I evaluate them by the moves they actually make and by the bottom-line results (the quality of the teams they build).

Does that rationale apply to the coach and the trainer? Do you also refuse to judge them on moves they didn't make? --For example, if the trainer hadn't bandaged anyone for 2 years, or if the coach hadn't changed the rotation for 2 years. But, you would say, the actual few bandages were good jobs, and that's all that matters.

Pritchard has made practically no trades for over 2 years, and you say that therefore, any possible moves he could have made must be imaginary. Are you using common sense or wishful thinking? Also, you say you judge him only on the moves he HAS made--well, the ones which have produced nothing outnumber the ones which have panned out--Roy, Aldridge, and Miller.

...The voting option, "Paul Allen has KP so wrapped up around his finger" should of course be transposed.

 

[Minstrel]

Does that rationale apply to the coach and the trainer?

No. Different jobs are evaluated differently.

Pritchard has made practically no trades for over 2 years, and you say that therefore, any possible moves he could have made must be imaginary.

He's made plenty of trades, most of them on draft day.

Also, you say you judge him only on the moves he HAS made

Poor reading comprehension. I said I judge him on the moves he has made and on the bottom-line results, that being the quality of the team he's assembled. While I like the majority of the moves he's made, the results are strongly in his favour, IMO.

well, the ones which have produced nothing outnumber the ones which have panned out--Roy, Aldridge, and Miller.

Batum and Fernandez, too. I'm not hugely enamoured of Fernandez, but I think he's a solid complementary player.

I'd love to see a major consolidation trade, I've been posting about how much that would help for a couple of seasons. However, I'm not going to blast Pritchard for not making one when none of us knows if one that made sense has been available.

 

[maxiep]

None of the above. If KP doesn't make a move it's because he couldn't make one that made sense for the long term. IKPWT.

This. Pritchard has shown he knows what he's doing. I know there are those who have ADD and miss Trader Bob, but we're better off now.

 

[jlprk]

Poor reading comprehension. I said I judge him on the moves he has made and on the bottom-line results, that being the quality of the team he's assembled.

The winning results have come from McMillan, as is proven by the fact that almost the same results occur this season no matter who plays.

I'd love to see a major consolidation trade, I've been posting about how much that would help for a couple of seasons. However, I'm not going to blast Pritchard for not making one when none of us knows if one that made sense has been available.

So you are one of the posters who thinks it's probable that the reason Pritchard hasn't traded for a veteran in his entire stay is that darn it, there just has never been a trade that made sense. All those other GMs found trades to make, but ours just hasn't found one that helps. A new theory has disproven the old common sense. It's best for GMs to sit on their fannies and never make trades.

 

[BGrantFan]

Batum and Fernandez, too. I'm not hugely enamoured of Fernandez, but I think he's a solid complementary player.

I'd say that the Bayless trade has worked out as well. He can penetrate and has a PER over 15 in a secondary role. Brandon Rush has been terrible by comparison.

 

[Minstrel]

The winning results have come from McMillan

You are certainly welcome to that opinion. I believe the player talent is far, far, far more integral to winning than the coach.

as is proven by the fact that almost the same results occur this season no matter who plays.

Or it shows that the team has a pretty deep, good roster, which is what most people believed going into the season. It's nice when perception matches reality.

So you are one of the posters who thinks it's probable that the reason Pritchard hasn't traded for a veteran in his entire stay is that darn it, there just has never been a trade that made sense. All those other GMs found trades to make, but ours just hasn't found one that helps.

Who are all those other GMs who have made clearly beneficial trades over the past few years ("beneficial" meaning "made their team better")?

IMO, a trade that makes sense for Portland would be one that either lands an impact player (veteran or otherwise) that rapidly accelerates the team's championship timetable, even if that player is costly, or else a useful player that doesn't cost Portland a player who has a chance to be important to future title runs. I don't find it surprising at all that such trades are rare and hard to come by, even for good GMs.

A new theory has disproven the old common sense. It's best for GMs to sit on their fannies and never make trades.

No, not a new theory. An obvious tautology: It's good to make good trades and bad to make bad trades.

Some people hold to the rather strange belief that it's always good to make trades, and it doesn't matter whether the trade helps.

 

[Minstrel]

I'd say that the Bayless trade has worked out as well. He can penetrate and has a PER over 15 in a secondary role. Brandon Rush has been terrible by comparison.

I agree. Complete oversight on my part. I loved that trade at the time and still do.

 

[illmatic99]

A stupid thread. Stupid poll.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I'd say that the Bayless trade has worked out as well. He can penetrate and has a PER over 15 in a secondary role. Brandon Rush has been terrible by comparison.

Not sure if I agree. We also gave up Jarret Jack in that trade, and at this point the genuine article is looking better than "Jarret Jack on steroids". Since he has been in the starting lineup the Raptors are playing really well; he is shooting 47% and has cut down on his turnovers. And I think he's a better defender than Bayless. I might go so far as to say that at this point he is a better all around point guard than anyone on the Blazers.

 

[Cake]

Lets see what you guys all think with this poll.

*edited*

 

[EGame]

*edited*

Naughty, naughty.

 

[Cake]

Does that rationale apply to the coach and the trainer? Do you also refuse to judge them on moves they didn't make? --For example, if the trainer hadn't bandaged anyone for 2 years, or if the coach hadn't changed the rotation for 2 years. But, you would say, the actual few bandages were good jobs, and that's all that matters.

Pritchard has made practically no trades for over 2 years, and you say that therefore, any possible moves he could have made must be imaginary. Are you using common sense or wishful thinking? Also, you say you judge him only on the moves he HAS made--well, the ones which have produced nothing outnumber the ones which have panned out--Roy, Aldridge, and Miller.

...The voting option, "Paul Allen has KP so wrapped up around his finger" should of course be transposed.

Nice logic.

What if the trainer only bandaged people when it benefits the team? Or if McMillan only changes the lineup when it benefits the team? That's like only trading when it benefits the team.

I'm sure that if Pritchard WANTED to, he could trade the entire roster tomorrow. Just like McMillan could have 82 different starting lineups and make a substitution every time the ball goes out of bounds. And Jay Jensen could but a bandage, tourniquet, leeches, etc on every player on the roster if he felt like it. But does any of that make the team better? No...not really. Speaking of wishful thinking, all of you people bitching about trades that should be made that aren't even remotely possible is idiotic.

And what exactly are these trades that haven't benefited the team? (Miller wasn't a trade, for one thing.) We actually acquired the following players via trade: Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge, Rudy Fernandez, Jerryd Bayless, Nicolas Batum, Dante Cunningham, Jeff Pendergraph. Wow. That's a lot of our players.

 

[oldguy]

None of the above. If KP doesn't make a move it's because he couldn't make one that made sense for the long term. IKPWT.

This.

Go Blazers

 

[Boob-No-More]

Not sure if I agree. We also gave up Jarret Jack in that trade, and at this point the genuine article is looking better than "Jarret Jack on steroids". Since he has been in the starting lineup the Raptors are playing really well; he is shooting 47% and has cut down on his turnovers. And I think he's a better defender than Bayless. I might go so far as to say that at this point he is a better all around point guard than anyone on the Blazers.

Oh please. Jack has a much lower AST% and a much higher TOV% than Andre Miller. His DRtg of 115 is abysmally bad and makes Andre Miller look like Bruce Bowen by comparison. Miller has 4.1 WS compared to Jack's 2.6. Miller is better and it's not close.

Based on this year's performance, Jack and Bayless is a toss-up. But, given that Bayless is 5 years younger, as 1/7 the NBA experience and has a LOT more upside, I'd do that trade again in a heartbeat. I bet the Pacers wouldn't say the same.

BNM

 

[jlprk]

Nice logic. What if the trainer only bandaged people when it benefits the team? Or if McMillan only changes the lineup when it benefits the team? That's like only trading when it benefits the team.

I'm sure that if Pritchard WANTED to, he could trade the entire roster tomorrow. Just like McMillan could have 82 different starting lineups and make a substitution every time the ball goes out of bounds. And Jay Jensen could but a bandage, tourniquet, leeches, etc on every player on the roster if he felt like it. But does any of that make the team better? No...not really. Speaking of wishful thinking, all of you people bitching about trades that should be made that aren't even remotely possible is idiotic.

And what exactly are these trades that haven't benefited the team? (Miller wasn't a trade, for one thing.) We actually acquired the following players via trade: Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge, Rudy Fernandez, Jerryd Bayless, Nicolas Batum, Dante Cunningham, Jeff Pendergraph. Wow. That's a lot of our players.

Your last paragraph: 7 out of 15 is not at all a lot for a pro team. I wouldn't include Fernandez and Bayless as trades that worked out. Pritchard could replace each with an elder Juwan Howard-like pickup and we'd be better off.

The rest of your post isn't connected to what I said. Obviously, the trainer bandages, and the coach changes the rotation, only when it's good for the team. Yet obviously that will occur more than once every 2 years. Your objection is a non sequitur--it doesn't follow from my post.

Who are all those other GMs who have made clearly beneficial trades over the past few years ("beneficial" meaning "made their team better")? IMO, a trade that makes sense for Portland would be one that either lands an impact player (veteran or otherwise) that rapidly accelerates the team's championship timetable, even if that player is costly, or else a useful player that doesn't cost Portland a player who has a chance to be important to future title runs. I don't find it surprising at all that such trades are rare and hard to come by, even for good GMs.

With your high standards, you are right that a good trade rarely happens. So you don't really believe in trades at the pro level, except maybe one a year for the whole league. Cool. I wish that Pritchard defenders would just come out and say that. I guess my response is, why not save money and fire our GM then? We already have a Business Manager, and a Player Personnel Director who could direct the scouts and the draft. Why do we need a GM if he isn't going to be constantly on the lookout for a good trade? Save some dough!