Nate McMillan blocked a trade

[Mediocre Man]

What about Fyre? Of all the players he was one I wouldn't have mind seeing traded. He hasn't done much this year so he's the last one I'd think the coaches would want to keep, but who knows.

I thin kit's safe to say the reason Frye wasn't going to be traded is because like you, no one else around the league thinks he has done anything.

 

[maxiep]

Tonight, KOIN was quoting KP as saying that PA didn't want to make a deal......that he wanted to "go to war" with the team we have.

It is getting to the point nobody knows what to believe....which is probably the point.

GM's lie. When you let assets like we had go unused, of course you're going to have to make up a backstory. If PA didn't want to make a deal and everyone in the front office was in general agreement, then we could have just been receivers of phone calls. Instead, KP was dialing like a telemarketer paid on commission.

 

[maxiep]

I think it was either Outlaw or Batum. I don't think there's much of a market for Blake.

It's not that there was a market for Blake; it's that he has a $4.25MM salary slot who could only be replaced in a deal by Outlaw or LMA, both of whom command more value than Blake. Think cap filler for a larger contract to obtain a better PG. Blake doesn't have huge market value, but his steadiness is highly valued by the coaching staff even though his upside is limited.

 

[STOMP]

What about Fyre? Of all the players he was one I wouldn't have mind seeing traded. He hasn't done much this year so he's the last one I'd think the coaches would want to keep, but who knows.

It could be that Oden's recent knee trouble effectively cancelled any Frye trade talks

STOMP

 

[SodaPopinski]

It's obviously Outlaw. Nate is so blindly loyal to that player it's not even funny. Despite the fact that Travis has one of the worst points-per-shot, adjusted field goal percentage and +/- stats on the team, he continues to average the fourth most minutes. Did I mention his ridiculously low rebounding output and the fact that he is probably one of our worst weak-side and help defenders?

-Pop

 

[blazerboy30]

Yea but not by much.

What? We're on pace to improve by about 10 games per season, for 3 seasons, with those two. That is well into the "by much" category.

Those two you mention are the only ones who show up every night. They are also the only guys who have really been improving from year to year while maintaining a consistency from game to game. That is the problem. Those two show up almost every night (like 99% of them) and then it's a crap shoot on who else shows up, if anybody.

This is a completely separate argument from whether or not they have improved since Roy and LMA got here.

 

[RR7]

It's obviously Outlaw. Nate is so blindly loyal to that player it's not even funny. Despite the fact that Travis has one of the worst points-per-shot, adjusted field goal percentage and +/- stats on the team, he continues to average the fourth most minutes. Did I mention his ridiculously low rebounding output and the fact that he is probably one of our worst weak-side and help defenders?

-Pop

Who plays over him, then?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I vote Outlaw too, becaue everybody in the locker room loves him and he helps bail us out in the 4th. I can't see anyone seriously demanding Blake, and supposedly Pritchard himself was dead set against trading Batum. And I really don't think Nate is in love with Sergio.

 

[Mediocre Man]

It was blake!!!!

 

[SodaPopinski]

Who plays over him, then?

Well isn't that sort of the point of a trade? To bring back a small forward who would theoretically improve the production at that position?

If you're asking it as a defense of Nate's decision to play him based on what we had available on our current roster, I would argue that Batum has certainly earned more time on the floor, especially during those long stretches where Travis is stinking up the joint.

-Pop

 

[Shooter]

In fact, in at least one instance there was great difference of opinion about dealing away a certain Blazer. In the end, the coaching staff won out and the deal wasn’t made. The coaches just didn’t want to part with him.

You mean Pritchard wanted to trade one of our young players, and the coaches wouldn't let him? Wasn't it just yesterday that KP said he didn't want to trade any of our young guys?

Ah, yes, that old KP is a master of double-talk.

 

[alex42083]

It's obviously Outlaw. Nate is so blindly loyal to that player it's not even funny. Despite the fact that Travis has one of the worst points-per-shot, adjusted field goal percentage and +/- stats on the team, he continues to average the fourth most minutes. Did I mention his ridiculously low rebounding output and the fact that he is probably one of our worst weak-side and help defenders?

-Pop

If true, I'd say Travis as well. Though that would essentially kill any deal we were looking at since Travis was mentioned in nearly every rumor.

 

[Masbee]

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/there-was-almost-a-blazer-trade



Coaching staff. But "Nate" draws more attention to the thread.

If the report was true,

and, if it was Nate driving it,

I would guess one of the vets: Blake, Outlaw, Joel.

Nate is sick of young players. And, Nate depends (too much imo) on Outlaw to bail out the offense, such as it is.

 

[Shooter]

Nate is sick of young players . . .

You sure? He starts Batum, and plays Roy and Aldridge major minutes.

 

[SodaPopinski]

If this is true, you can pretty safely assume that it wasn't Blake that McMillan was insisting we hold on to:

However, Blazers coach Nate McMillan reportedly wasn't too confident about his starting point guard situation; according to reports, Portland considered the addition of Andre Miller.

-Pop

 

[gambitnut]

My source says the real reason we didn't get Gerald Wallace is not because KP wouldn't give Charlotte Batum, but because Nate wouldn't give them local boy Shavlik Randolph.

 

[Masbee]

You sure? He starts Batum, and plays Roy and Aldridge major minutes.

Webster is out.

Roy is not a Small Forward.

Travis failed as a starting Small Forward.

What other options did the GM leave the coach?

Roy and Aldridge are mature young players that know how to play. They can and will get better, but they are already better than most. No brainer there.

 

[GoBlazersGo]

My source says the real reason we didn't get Gerald Wallace is not because KP wouldn't give Charlotte Batum, but because Nate wouldn't give them local boy Shavlik Randolph.

Please tell me that you simply forgot the green font (to denote sarcasm)... !?

You've abso-fucking-lutely gotta be shittin' me, right!?

 

[tlongII]

If this is true, and I doubt that it is, I would guess that the player was Bayless since he has a personal relationship with him.

 

[roydezlaw]

It's obviously Outlaw. Nate is so blindly loyal to that player it's not even funny. Despite the fact that Travis has one of the worst points-per-shot, adjusted field goal percentage and +/- stats on the team, he continues to average the fourth most minutes. Did I mention his ridiculously low rebounding output and the fact that he is probably one of our worst weak-side and help defenders?

-Pop

True...but LaMarcus is worse points-per-shot and LaMarcus pulls down fewer defensive rebounds per 36 minutes than Travis.

 

[BBert]

So which of the "youngins" do you guys think Nate balked on?

Nicolas, Jerryd, Sergio, Travis ... Channing wink?

Blake.

 

[bobf]

Batum -- I'm glad he blocked it.

 

[BBert]

If the coaching staff (re Nate) dissuaded KP from trading a certain player, it would not have been Batum or Bayless or Rudy, because KP wasn't about to trade one of them in the first place. I could buy that it might be Outlaw, since Travis has saved Nate's bacon more than a few times with late-game heroics, but I still think it's probably Blake. If true.