Making the team marginally better? Or winning a Championship?

[B-Roy]

When I say dominant I mean defensively. Garnett is still better then LMA and Przybilla IIRC had a nearly career ending series of injuries.

My point wasn't that we could replicate their front court. It was that they didn't need dominant bigs to make the finals. (Or beat LeBron) They won with good team defense and a true star. (Rondo) Neither Perkins or Garnett are dominant offensively or defensively.

We'll still have Camby anyways.

You think CP3 + Roy is enough to get a ring. OK, you are entitled to your opinion. I say it takes dominant bigs on the glass/defense probably with a fair amount of interior defense to win against the Heat. You are entitled to your opinion and I will continue to take you seriously even though I think you are dead wrong about this.

Well you (And this isn't my opinion) conceded that trading Oden for Paul will get us to the finals. And any team that makes the finals has a good shot of winning. So you're opinion is the same as mine.

No I think Al Jeff will hurt Utah not as much as Boozer leaving, but I don't think he puts them in contention no. FWIW, Raja is old as well.

So why the hell did Utah make the deal? Shouldn't they just concede because they can't beat the Heat???

 

[Ed O]

I've been thinking something similar (but not quite as passionately. Repped, BTW, for true fanaticism). I always hear how stars win in this league, and we don't have any (except Roy). It makes me think that we're wasting our time going after "safe" players like Miller and Matthews, and drafting similarly (Cunningham, Johnson, Babbitt...). If I were a GM, I think would do nothing but go after high-ceiling, high-potential guys until I've unearthed 2 or 3 who become legit all-stars. I'm tired of "high BBIQ guys"--I want some guys with fire who want to destroy the opponent, and have the athleticism (if perhaps not yet the skill) to do it.

I tend to agree with you in regards to the draft. A team striking out 3/4 of the time and hitting a homer that fourth time is better off than a team that ends up with two singles and a double, IMO. One all-star level player is worth several (maybe an innumerable number of) average starter level players.

Free agency is where you can get solid players, IMO. Matthews is an expensive but safe addition. Steve Blake is a safe addition. Getting stars through free agency is either expensive or impossible, so the only way to do it is through the draft, and that means swinging for the fences, rather than adding players like Pendergraph.

Ed O.

 

[Idog1976]

My point wasn't that we could replicate their front court. It was that they didn't need dominant bigs to make the finals. (Or beat LeBron) They won with good team defense and a true star. (Rondo) Neither Perkins or Garnett are dominant offensively or defensively.

We'll still have Camby anyways.


Well you (And this isn't my opinion) conceded that trading Oden for Paul will get us to the finals. And any team that makes the finals has a good shot of winning. So you're opinion is the same as mine.


So why the hell did Utah make the deal? Shouldn't they just concede because they can't beat the Heat???

I was saying that Paul could conceivably get you to the Finals. I think Oden + LMA + Paul is better then Roy + Paul + LMA. I think team one has a MUCH better chance of winning it all. Let's just agree to disagree. Or even Roy + LMA + Oden + Batum + roleplayers might be better then team two. Obviously Oden's health is everything, but it's not like Roy and Paul are immune to injury. In fact Roy's injuries worry me more. I'm sure we will disagree on that. I freaking LOVE Roy by the way. I just want to see a ring in the next 10 years.

I think Utah should see how they fare after the Al Jeff trade and then figure out what to do from there. I don't think they are going to do better then they have and likely not as well ( I don't see them making the WCF for instance unless a strange bracketing occurs).

I honestly think the Stern Wet Dream Team has possibly so drastically altered the landscape that yes, many teams should in fact concede (look for the post LeBron era to rebuild or ask that their franchise be disolved). I was lobbying for a contraction not long ago of teams that were perennial losers over the past 30 years due to the concentration of talent on so few teams that many teams are glorified NBDL teams.

 

[RR7]

A team striking out 3/4 of the time and hitting a homer that fourth time is better off than a team that ends up with two singles and a double, IMO.
Ed O.

That's a pretty terrible analogy.

 

[KingSpeed]

Am I the only one here with a singular vision of someone in a Blazers uniform hoisting the Larry O'Brien trophy in the next ten years? I can't believe all the posts I see about adding marginal utility to this team and/or gutting our one hope of winning a ring. I'm sorry you can hate it, you can be pissed about it, but the fact is our SOLE hope of winning a ring during the Stern Wet Dream Team era is if we build this team around Oden. Fucking period. Anything else is a just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Sure, we could trade Oden + whoever for Paul, but really unless we are trading Oden for Brook Lopez or Dwight Howard we're just fucking our chances. I mean if you are going to trade Oden you better be trading him to the Timber wolves for unprotected picks from 2015 to 2020 attempting to circumvent the LeBron era.

Honestly does anyone think there is ANY reasonable trade we can do that sends Oden out and results in a championship? I will say right now that NO FUCKING WAY do we win a ring if you trade Oden for Paul so please give me another scenario.

Look probably more then ANYONE on this board I've been horribly, soul crushingly devastated by all of Oden's injuries. I've been a GO backer since day one and have been horrified and dismayed by his injuries.

Let's be honest though. Do you want to win a ring or get marginally better?

I don't know maybe you'd be satisfied by a WCF exit or an 0 - 4 sweep by the Heat if LA implodes? I don't want a finals appearance I had plenty of those with Clyde, I don't want the WCF we've won that and been 7 minutes away just 10 years ago.

I WANT A GOD DAMNED RING.

That means you have to hope, pray, sell your soul, sacrifice goats and whatever else you do to put good energy into Oden getting better and build around him.

The people who constantly knock Oden (Nik I know you kid so I don't mean you) or talk about trading him clearly don't give a fuck about winning during the Heat era. Period.

Please tell me why I'm wrong and what trades you can come up centered around Oden that get us a ring. If you have totally given up on Oden I propose it's time to blow up the team for future unprotected firsts starting in about 2015.

I agree. To me, Oden is the only untouchable on our roster. Please don't trade him.

 

[Minstrel]

A team striking out 3/4 of the time and hitting a homer that fourth time is better off than a team that ends up with two singles and a double, IMO.

A solo homer is always exactly 1 run. A double with two men on base is generally at least 1 run and often 2 runs. Therefore, the expected value of two singles and a double is higher than three strikeouts and a homer.

Where are you going with this, Ed O?

 

[Mediocre Man]

A team striking out 3/4 of the time and hitting a homer that fourth time is better off than a team that ends up with two singles and a double, IMO.

I agree with your point, but not your analogy.

Assuming everyone else strikes out, the team that gets two singles and a double in each inning would beat the team that got a homerun in each inning 18-9. Now conversly, I'd rather have a team hit a grandslam than get two singles and a double.

 

[Minstrel]

Assuming everyone else strikes out, the team that gets two singles and a double in each inning would beat the team that got a homerun in each inning 18-9.

Not exactly. Two singles and a double don't always result in two runs, if the second player who hits a single is slow. Especially if there aren't two outs when the double is hit, so the runner isn't going on contact.

What were talking about? Oh yeah...I've also always advocated going for the high upside prospects in the draft, rather than safer ones. I'll trade a less certain floor for a higher potential ceiling when it comes to draft.

 

[Ed O]

A solo homer is always exactly 1 run. A double with two men on base is generally at least 1 run and often 2 runs. Therefore, the expected value of two singles and a double is higher than three strikeouts and a homer.

Where are you going with this, Ed O?

It's not literal.

An all-star in the NBA (a "home run") is worth WAY more than two rotation guys ("singles") and an average starter (a "double"). NBA rosters can be filled with replacement-level guys, even if the draft results in busts ("strikeouts").

I was playing with the definition of "hitting a home run in the draft" versus playing it safe... I'm sorry that everyone thought I was incapable of doing pretty basic expected run mathematics.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

It's not literal.

I wasn't being serious.

An all-star in the NBA (a "home run") is worth WAY more than two rotation guys ("singles") and an average starter (a "double"). NBA rosters can be filled with replacement-level guys, even if the draft results in busts ("strikeouts").

I agree with you.

I was playing with the definition of "hitting a home run in the draft" versus playing it safe... I'm sorry that everyone thought I was incapable of doing pretty basic expected run mathematics.

You probably think RBIs are a good measure of a GM's drafting.

 

[Ed O]

I wasn't being serious.

Thank you for clarifying. Sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You probably think RBIs are a good measure of a GM's drafting.

For me, it comes down to this: is this a guy you can put in the middle of your lineup to drive in some runs? Or is it a guy you can stick in a late-game situation and have them close the door? Or will the guy be aggressive at the plate and keep the defense on its toes by putting the ball in play? You need the guys who do the little things in the clubhouse that don't show up in the boxscore.

Ed O.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

A solo homer is always exactly 1 run. A double with two men on base is generally at least 1 run and often 2 runs. Therefore, the expected value of two singles and a double is higher than three strikeouts and a homer.

I agree with your point, but not your analogy.

Assuming everyone else strikes out, the team that gets two singles and a double in each inning would beat the team that got a homerun in each inning 18-9. Now conversly, I'd rather have a team hit a grandslam than get two singles and a double.

How 'bout we make it a double and two walks (in that order). Then the analogy works, the point is clear, and everyone is happy. Is that good enough for you mediocre fools?

 

[Minstrel]

How 'bout we make it a double and two walks (in that order). Then the analogy works, the point is clear, and everyone is happy. Is that good enough for you mediocre fools?

Where do I donate to help people like you, born without a sense of humour?

(That was also a joke. I'm alerting you because I don't want to take advantage of your handicap.)

(That previous parenthetical was also a joke.)

(I also understand that you are joking, which is part of my joke. I like to banter.)

*edited*

 

[oldmangrouch]

Short of trading a bunch of bench players for CP3 or Deron (or Howard), the Blazers are not contenders in '11. At this point, the best move might be to just hunker down and wait for the new CBA. Why build a team based on the current landscape, when there is a good possibility you will be slammed with a hard cap that destroys all your work anyway. In the summer of 2012, there is a good chance that many (if not most) teams will be forced into rebuilding mode.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Where do I donate to help people like you, born without a sense of humour?

We're having a telethon. We can't afford TV time (because we don't air humorous commercials, only public service announcements), so it will be on adthe.net. I'll send you a link.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You can run advertisements in the Onion Newspaper.

 

[andalusian]

*edited*

Does your shrink know what you are doing, Minstrel?

You too - Minstrel!

 

[Minstrel]

Does your shrink know what you are doing, Minstrel?

You too - Minstrel!

View attachment 1668

The arrows made me dizzy.

What were we talking about again?

 

[andalusian]

The arrows made me dizzy.

What were we talking about again?

I was not talking to you. I was talking to Minstrel. And Minstrel.

 

[Minstrel]

I was not talking to you. I was talking to Minstrel. And Minstrel.

Okay, sorry. I thought you quoted me, so I was confused. I see now that you were quoting Minstrel.

 

[Mediocre Man]

How 'bout we make it a double and two walks (in that order). Then the analogy works, the point is clear, and everyone is happy. Is that good enough for you mediocre fools?

Wow, what's it like to not have a sense of humor?

 

[Idog1976]

Wow, what's it like to not have a sense of humor?

Oh, oh I know there's a good joke in there somewhere.

I need to call in a pinch hitter...MAXIEP Batter UP!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Wow, what's it like to not have a sense of humor?

It's kind of like not having a sense of smell. Everyone tells me that I'm missing out on a lot, but I have no idea what they're talking about, and I can function just fine without it. Plus, from what I hear (I do have that sense, BTW), a lot of this "humor" stuff stinks, so I'm probably better off missing out on it anyway.

 

[Idog1976]

It's kind of like not having a sense of smell. Everyone tells me that I'm missing out on a lot, but I have no idea what they're talking about, and I can function just fine without it. Plus, from what I hear (I do have that sense, BTW), a lot of this "humor" stuff stinks, so I'm probably better off missing out on it anyway.

It's true especially when you get angry and try and be funny and edgy about someone and are just dead wrong.

 

[Minstrel]

PtldPlatypus fakes a sense of humour quite well. I'll give him that.