Safest and Cheapest option

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Pinwheel1

Pinwheel1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
23,418
Likes
15,983
Points
113
Still comes down to John Salmons for Frye. Certainly not the Home run we would all like, but i don't see much down side. We give up nothing and get a guy who in his last 5 games has one game where he scored 23pts, 1 game with 11 assisits, one game with 7 rebounds, and one game with 5 TO's. Nothing to get too excited about but he can definitely shoot the ball. And right now with Webster out we need it in the starting line up.

Not seeing the down side
 
if thats real.... it should have been done already considering how bad frye is and teh fact our other deals are falling faster then the pistons.
 
MIXUM said:
if thats real.... it should have been done already considering how bad frye is and teh fact our other deals are falling faster then the pistons.
Click to expand...

Even if it is real, waiting is the best option so we can see if a better SF can be had (Wallace/Butler...). KP has played his game to the end, playing everyone off everyone else. Now we are finally at the point in time that we get to see if it paid off. Hopefully, for something better than Salmons. Hopefully, for better players that also condenses our rotation. Hopefully...
 
The downside is that John Salmons isn't very good, and adding a fourth not-that-good SF to the mix (along with Travis, Nic, and Martell) will just make a mess of the rotation.

Salmons can put up good numbers when he is "the man" on a horrible team, but as soon as he becomes a second or third or fourth option (which is what he should be, given his talent) he stops producing. On this team he would be the third option, at best, which means he won't contribute much. That's a deal that doesn't help us; it's not worth the potential damage to team chemistry.

SR
 
safe and cheap usually doesn't get you rings.
 
I agree with Stepping Razor. That looks too much like making a trade to make a trade, which is definitely not KP's MO.

If KP can't make a deal that will help the team, not over the next 3 months, over the long term, and that does not involve giving up key players, then stand pat. This is a good team and all indications are they will get better. Hardly panic time, and the one poster who is panicking is sure to hate any trade the team actually makes, so no need to worry about him/her.
 
Safest and cheapest is to keep Trav and not make a trade.
 
Stepping Razor said:
The downside is that John Salmons isn't very good, and adding a fourth not-that-good SF to the mix (along with Travis, Nic, and Martell) will just make a mess of the rotation.

Salmons can put up good numbers when he is "the man" on a horrible team, but as soon as he becomes a second or third or fourth option (which is what he should be, given his talent) he stops producing. On this team he would be the third option, at best, which means he won't contribute much. That's a deal that doesn't help us; it's not worth the potential damage to team chemistry.

SR
Click to expand...

Travis is a PF. Webster is still hurt. If he wasn't we wouldn't need the trade. Nic can get enough minutes where he can still develope. And Salmons can shoot the thee better than Jefferson, Wallace and Butler. Is he better than those three? No way. But far from "not that good" Is this a temporary fix? I would say yes. But what do we lose?
 
Pinwheel1 said:
That is what i am saying. keep Trav and Nic, yet still get help for now.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. You bring in Vince Carter who only has 2 years on his deal, and IMO that happens to be about the ideal amount of time to develope Batum. Vince Carter would take a load off of Roy, he would bring some attitude that the team desperately needs, and a guy who can finish on the break with the best of them, another thing this team desperately needs. A lot of people talk about Travis and his clutch shooting, but if you have paid attention to the league over the last decade, you knkow that Vince has hit a hell of a lot of clutch shots as well. Probably more than Travis by a ways.
 
No thank you to Salmons. I dislike him more than Carter and Jefferson, and our rotation would be crazy, WAY to big if we give up a non rotation player and get up someone who will want to be in the rotation... that owuld make 12 ppl that want to be in it and feel they deserve to be in it (once Webs gets back).
 
You folks amaze me. You talk about the Blazer players like they are members of a 65 win team, and we can't afford to get rid of any of them. The Blazers are so far from that. The cake is baked, and cooling on the counter. We need some frosting. Maybe 2 types, and the Blazers contend. Then, fortuantely for us, this is the type of cake that the longer it sits on the counter, the better it gets.
 
hasoos said:
I don't agree. You bring in Vince Carter who only has 2 years on his deal, and IMO that happens to be about the ideal amount of time to develope Batum. Vince Carter would take a load off of Roy, he would bring some attitude that the team desperately needs, and a guy who can finish on the break with the best of them, another thing this team desperately needs. A lot of people talk about Travis and his clutch shooting, but if you have paid attention to the league over the last decade, you knkow that Vince has hit a hell of a lot of clutch shots as well. Probably more than Travis by a ways.
Click to expand...


Actually, Carter has 2/$37+ mil, plus a $4 mil buyout on his last season. Twenty something games this season and two additional seasons of carter would cost Portland a minimum of $45 mil, plus lux tax. No thanks.
 
BIG Q said:
Actually, Carter has 2/$37+ mil, plus a $4 mil buyout on his last season. Twenty something games this season and two additional seasons of carter would cost Portland a minimum of $45 mil, plus lux tax. No thanks.
Click to expand...


Are you watching the Blazers for them to win, or to monitor their luxury tax situation. IMO that is Paul Allens problem. I could give a rats ass about it. If he wants to pay less, he will. If Portlands goal is to win a ring, you have to bring in talent, and talent costs money.
 
From Mark Stein today in regards to Salmons:

There is another complication for interested parties: Sources revealed Tuesday that Salmons has a 15 percent trade kicker in his contract that would require the team that acquires him to pay him a bonus of nearly $2 million and add that figure to its payroll. Salmons otherwise would rank as one of the league's better bargains, earning just $5.1 million this season while averaging 18.3 points and shooting 47.2 percent from the field and 41.8 percent on 3-pointers.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know what it is about his game that I don't like. He just doesn't do it for me.
 
hasoos said:
You folks amaze me. You talk about the Blazer players like they are members of a 65 win team, and we can't afford to get rid of any of them. The Blazers are so far from that. The cake is baked, and cooling on the counter. We need some frosting. Maybe 2 types, and the Blazers contend. Then, fortuantely for us, this is the type of cake that the longer it sits on the counter, the better it gets.
Click to expand...

Look I said it was a cheap and safe option, not the best. But lets face it Jefferson, Carter, Butler, and Wallace have all played on some shitty teams with good players. Bringing one in does not guarantee anything. Yes i would roll the dice on one of them, but I would prefer the REC be our big asset. Just in case.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Look I said it was a cheap and safe option, not the best. But lets face it Jefferson, Carter, Butler, and Wallace have all played on some shitty teams with good players. Bringing one in does not guarantee anything. Yes i would roll the dice on one of them, but I would prefer the REC be our big asset. Just in case.
Click to expand...


Except for one thing. All of the players you have mentioned, have been productive on more than one team, more than one situation, through out their careers. The whole fact they have been productive every place they have played, gives a much higher chance of success. Your chance of success with Travis Outlaw playing SF is 1 out of every 4 games. Vince shows up every night. Butler shows up every night. Wallace shows up every night. Jefferson shows up every night. Every single one of the players you have mentioned, are what I would call a "Tier 2" star. They are not top level. They should not be expected to carry a team alone. That is why they would bring them here. To be a #2 or 3 option with Roy being #1, and the other being Aldridge.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Look I said it was a cheap and safe option, not the best. But lets face it Jefferson, Carter, Butler, and Wallace have all played on some shitty teams with good players. Bringing one in does not guarantee anything. Yes i would roll the dice on one of them, but I would prefer the REC be our big asset. Just in case.
Click to expand...


See my post above. $7 million isnt "cheap".
 
hasoos said:
Except for one thing. All of the players you have mentioned, have been productive on more than one team, more than one situation, through out their careers. The whole fact they have been productive every place they have played, gives a much higher chance of success. Your chance of success with Travis Outlaw playing SF is 1 out of every 4 games. Vince shows up every night. Butler shows up every night. Wallace shows up every night. Jefferson shows up every night. Every single one of the players you have mentioned, are what I would call a "Tier 2" star. They are not top level. They should not be expected to carry a team alone. That is why they would bring them here. To be a #2 or 3 option with Roy being #1, and the other being Aldridge.
Click to expand...



Technically i agree with you. And i would like to add one of them. But still there is no guarantee. The last two years Vince and Jefferson and Kidd played together they brought it every night and still were not very good.

Travis coming to play "1 out of 4 games" sounds like Mixum. An exageration. Plus as stated before he is our BU pF not our starting SF. But again I would trade him for Butler.
 
Anyone who says that Salmons is not an upgrade over what we have is kidding themselves. He's definately third on my list behind Butler and Wallace, but don't sell the guy short. He's gotten better and better, shoots a good percentage from the field and three, is a pretty good defender and is pretty tough to boot.

He could be a very nice piece to add to this team that helps us win this year, but doesn't sacrifice much in the future. If that option is on the table, and Butler and Wallace are not or are too expensive, I say do it.
 
Webster's Dictionary said:
Anyone who says that Salmons is not an upgrade over what we have is kidding themselves. He's definately third on my list behind Butler and Wallace, but don't sell the guy short. He's gotten better and better, shoots a good percentage from the field and three, is a pretty good defender and is pretty tough to boot.

He could be a very nice piece to add to this team that helps us win this year, but doesn't sacrifice much in the future. If that option is on the table, and Butler and Wallace are not or are too expensive, I say do it.
Click to expand...

San Antonio is trying to get Salmons. If they do i have a feeling this thread will re appear in june.
 
noknobs said:
Salmons is having some back issues right now, don't know if that will hurt his trade value or not. Don't think it's real serious but the allstar break doesn't appear to have helped him much. He missed practice yesterday and he's day-to-day, like a certain someone else.

http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/1633060.html?mi_rss=Kings/NBA
Click to expand...

Hmm.. Salmons played in the last game before the break last Wednesday, and had a week to recover and is still injured and might not play? Maybe the Kings don't want him to get injured before trading him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top