This Blazers team...

[tlongII]

Pritchard has been proactive his entire time in Portland and I'd expect that he is more closely aligned with those of us who believe in consolidation and proactivity than with those of you who don't want to break up this championship-level team this year.

Ed O.

I don't think so. I've heard KP say just before the season that all we need to do is "let the cake bake" now. I think that is the right strategy to have at this time. We have all the pieces we need on the team. The only thing it lacks is experience. Experience only comes over time.

 

[e_blazer]

I think that KP has always indicated that he believes in the Spurs model of team construction: Three stars that you build around with solid supporting players. The unusual thing about the Blazers is that they may well already have their core of three stars in place and simply have to wait for them to mature into championship contenders. In the mean time, they've got a multitude of other young players that have potential to be impact players. The questions, IMO, are:

1. Is our core of Oden, Roy and Aldridge good enough or should we be looking to upgrade it by trading one or more of them in a package for a proven superstar?

2. Can you really develop all of the young talent on the roster to its maximum potential when minutes are spread so thinly?

3. While the multitude of players approach is good for the grind of the regular season, it doesn't work as well in the playoffs when contenders typically shorten their rotations. Who gets left out of the playoff rotation in the current second unit?

4. Is their a GM in the league who wouldn't want to have KP's "problems" with too much talent?

 

[oldmangrouch]

I couldn't agree more. And to be quite honest, I think we have to grab a title as soon as we can. I love Oden, but I don't know how long he's going to last physically. He may have a long career, but he then again he may not. To build the team for "down the road" ignores the fact that we have a very good team right now and we should "seize the moment." Jabbar won a title in his rookie year with the Bucks, and I don't see why Oden couldn't do the same on a much deeper team.

Not to be pedantic, but......

Jabbar did NOT win the title as a rook. The Bucks were a deep, young team - but they fell short. They won the title in Kareem's 2nd season by trading for Oscar Robertson.

Kareem didn't have GO's health concerns, but the Bucks still moved agressively to improve.

 

[bodyman5001]

1. Is our core of Oden, Roy and Aldridge good enough or should we be looking to upgrade it by trading one or more of them in a package for a proven superstar?

Hell yes, and HELL no.

 

[Shooter]

Should we go to "make NO trades" on #2? I don't think so.

The point of all those Pritchard trades was to build a good team. We now have a good team. Mission accomplished.

Does that mean we'll never make another trade? Of course not. But to keep endlessly tinkering with a team when you don't need to is a recipe for a disaster. Let's be thankful for the great core group of players we have and let them get used to playing with each other. This is a team that is going to get better very fast. It's going to be very scary come playoff time. That's exactly the way we want it.

 

[Masbee]

I disagree for a few reasons. In the playoffs minutes get consolidated into the club's better players... it's better to have a better 5th guy then a sweet 11th & 12th man who are reduced to clapping. And if your 15th guy has the most desirable contract maybe ever... people tend to speculate. Portland is loaded with desirable players and assets.

I also doubt you can keep everyone happy. Guys hopefully do and say the right things, as thats part of being a professional. But professionals are generally out for money and respect, not feel good stories. They need to play to meet their goals. Maybe through juggling injuries and enjoying a winning vibe the club can avoid the obvious looming minutes crunch tension that comes with good players sitting throughout this season. But thats not a sure thing. Sell high buy low... if the value of your quality lessor players is likely going to fade due to inaction, doesn't it follow to sell now while their value is high?

The club is always in a state of flux. Embrace it

STOMP

Yep. Been saying/thinking similar stuff for while through all the "bake the cake" era. Haven't change my mind yet. We are only a few games into the season and we already have Bayless and Diogu stewing on the bench about his lack of opportunity, Sergio making trade demands, and if we stay healthy it will only get much, much worse as Oden plays more minutes and Webster comes back.

Doing a trade for Devin Harris (for example) would have slashed our depth at the bottom of the bench, but relieved a lot of the pressure building this season for minutes. If KP can't find a trade he likes soon, depending on team health, he may have to make an interim trade (player for pick, player for injured player with useful contract) type deal, just to keep the peace.

 

[Shooter]

If KP can't find a trade he likes soon, depending on team health, he may have to make an interim trade (player for pick, player for injured player with useful contract) type deal, just to keep the peace.

Every GM in the league would like to have KP's problem. Which is exactly why KP shouldn't be trying to solve this "problem."

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Pritchard has been proactive his entire time in Portland and I'd expect that he is more closely aligned with those of us who believe in consolidation and proactivity than with those of you who don't want to break up this championship-level team this year.

You can be proactive and still not make a significant deal. For instance, making the decision to NOT make a move so that an increased role is made for Sergio, Rudy, Martell, Nic, and Travis is being proactive, just not in the way we all envision.

I believe Steve Blake, Brandon Roy, Martell Webster, Lamarcus Aldridge, and Joel Przybilla all could and possibly should play less minutes. Brandon, Joel, and LA so that they're not wasted by the time we get to the Playoffs.

A rotation of:

Steve Blake 20 /Sergio Rodriguez 28
Brandon Roy 24 / Rudy Fernandez 24
Nic Batum 18 / Martell Webster 18 / Brandon Roy 6 / Travis Outlaw 6
Lamarcus Aldridge 32 / Travis Outlaw 16
Greg Oden 28 / Joel Przybilla 18 / Lamarcus Aldridge 2

... would have our veterans rested come April.

Our best players would receive increased minutes in the Playoffs.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

... if Pritch and Nate decide that a move is to be made, and if the perfect players aren't attainable, I hope they decide to move young talent for more young talent. I don't want to see the likes of a James Jones at this point being brought it. I want more draft picks or more unproven talent instead.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

The other thing we may be overlooking is the communication style that Pritch has is one that's very convincing.

None of know really what's be said behind the scenes. We do know it's working.

Sergio's the perfect example. Problem surfaces. Problem solved, apparently.

Maybe KP acknowledged that Nate hadn't given Sergio a long enough leash in the past. But then also explained that it was up to Sergio to give Nate a reason to stick with him by playing Nate's way as well.

I would imagine KP explained that the Blazers feel he's a very special player. That they've invested a lot of time and resources into making him a part of the team. They're not going to give him up unless they bring back an equally special player. If he wants to start for this team, or have the opportunity to start for another team via a trade, then it's also on him to perform. End of story. This puts it back on Sergio. Either way Portland wins by gaining an even better PG or by trading for a more substantial player.

Personally, I think Sergio wants to be here. I'm betting the team does too.

 

[Ed O]

You can be proactive and still not make a significant deal. For instance, making the decision to NOT make a move so that an increased role is made for Sergio, Rudy, Martell, Nic, and Travis is being proactive, just not in the way we all envision.

Inaction is not proactive. Sorry.

Proactivity is not ALWAYS a good idea (sometimes it makes sense not to make a move) but it's not accurate to redefine what proactive means.

Ed O.

 

[Draco]

Starters- Blake, Roy, Martell, LMA, Oden
Bench- Rudy, Travis, Joel
These are the players who would play in the playoffs when games are spaced out and rotations are cut to 8 deep

We could easily trade Sergio or Frye if an offer is available, if not they are an asset to have available for injuries or a change of pace off the bench. Bayless and Batum don't need minutes this year or next.

Junk- Raef, Diogu, Shlavik

I guess I agree with both arguments; we don't need to make an immediate trade during this season or next. But if we get an opportunity to grab a high quality starter we are in a position to give up depth and down the road have Bayless/Batum slide into those spots.

 

[Minstrel]

Every GM in the league would like to have KP's problem. Which is exactly why KP shouldn't be trying to solve this "problem."

The reason every GM would like to have KP's problem is because it's much better to have lots of talent than to have not much talent. That doesn't mean there's not a problem with the current roster or that other GMs would simply leave it alone. The idea is not to get less talented, but to re-arrange the talent to be more top heavy. Most championship level teams have had one to three transcendent talents, a few more good players and then filled out the roster with players who don't kill you. Teams that have won championships with a balanced roster are rare and none of them established dynasties.

Reducing the talent level on the bench to increase the talent level of our top few players makes Portland more likely to win championships. That's definitely what history shows.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I look at it as also a value proposition...soon we'll have a few guys (Bayless, Frye, maybe Sergio or Blake and Batum, Diogu) who will be racking up DNP-CDs like it's cool. Yet there are plenty of teams in the league where those guys would be borderline starters, all of them are on rookie or small deals (a couple of which are expiring), and each still have a lot of upside.

I'm willing to drop Bayless and Batum from this conversation, since they are rookies and understand they may not get minutes b/c of established guys in front of them. But that leaves the following that most would say are in "at least willing to consider trading" group...

Blake, Outlaw, Webster, Sergio, Frye, Diogu, Joel

I personally think that Rudy and Joel are about untouchable, due to filling a need for big minutes at key positions (behind and with Roy, and behind Oden). If we get rid of Joel, we're in the same position we were last year....when our starting center goes out, we're quite small and not defensive-minded.

Most of us think that either Outlaw or Webster is the cat's pajamas. Most agree that both deserve minutes.

I think Sergio is a 1/2 season away from being our 25mpg PG.

If Frye or Diogu could be traded for a 2012 draft pick or a "huge project upside" guy (like Ibaka, Ajinca, etc), I think it should be done for cap issues and getting value for our surplus. I also am of the opinion that consolidation would be good for someone like Nash or Kidd, b/c they'll help us this year (and maybe next) while mentoring our young PGs. I think it'll be tough to "get to the next level" of championship with our guys learning on the fly. If you can get a guy like that on a semi-salary dump/semi-blow-it-up deal, I think you almost have to.

And I'm definitely one of those that think we can get really deep into the playoffs THIS year.

 

[Blazer4life]

I havent weighed in on this topic yet but I think that this is definately a great topic and one that should have some serious dialogue. My thoughts on the matter are as follows:

I am with those that say consolidation is in order. I agree with what everyone has said up till now with regards to consolidating but I pose this question to those who say let the cake bake and play everyone. Does anyone remember the team we had that lost to the Lakers in 2000 game 7 of the WCF???

Players in the game off the top of my head:
PG Damon/G. Anthony
SG:S. Smith/B. Wells/ S. Augmon
SF: Pippen, Shrempf
PF: Sheed/B. Grant
C: Sabonis/Jermaine Oneal

Although roles were rather well defined, players were not happy with lack of playing time. Damon hated deferring to Anthony in the 4th quarter. Grant and Sheed always were splitting time. Remember Detleff, after that year Whitsitt said we needed even more talent and traded Grant for Kemp and Oneal for Dale Davis making matters worse. Detleff complained and eventually retired that next year saying we were a major mess. We had a long losing streak that next year, players were not playing as a team but for themself. Whitsitt was run out of town. Without something being done, we would be looking eye to eye with that 2000 team with loads of talent, ill defined roles, and players bickering IMO. Consolidate secondary talent to improve your 1st line talent is the way to go.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Yep. Been saying/thinking similar stuff for while through all the "bake the cake" era. Haven't change my mind yet. We are only a few games into the season and we already have Bayless and Diogu stewing on the bench about his lack of opportunity, Sergio making trade demands, and if we stay healthy it will only get much, much worse as Oden plays more minutes and Webster comes back.

Doing a trade for Devin Harris (for example) would have slashed our depth at the bottom of the bench, but relieved a lot of the pressure building this season for minutes. If KP can't find a trade he likes soon, depending on team health, he may have to make an interim trade (player for pick, player for injured player with useful contract) type deal, just to keep the peace.

The Harris example kind of makes my point. You still would have 3 point guards and Bayless would still be unhappy as third string. (Dallas was not going to take 2 PG's from us) So now you are probably going to say well we would not have traded for Bayless if we had Harris. Doesn't matter, KP would have grabbed someone else with talent. He will always make moves to add lots of young talent. He is too good of a GM. I am not debating that Harris would have been a good addition, he would have. But you are always going to have your "so called problem" of people not being happy. The San Antonio scenario of having happy Vets on the end of the bench doesn't work either if you have injuries. As you can see from this year. They are just lucky the injuries are not for the whole season.

 

[tlongII]

The reason every GM would like to have KP's problem is because it's much better to have lots of talent than to have not much talent. That doesn't mean there's not a problem with the current roster or that other GMs would simply leave it alone. The idea is not to get less talented, but to re-arrange the talent to be more top heavy. Most championship level teams have had one to three transcendent talents, a few more good players and then filled out the roster with players who don't kill you. Teams that have won championships with a balanced roster are rare and none of them established dynasties.

Reducing the talent level on the bench to increase the talent level of our top few players makes Portland more likely to win championships. That's definitely what history shows.

Maybe. But how would you increase the talent level of our top few players? That would be Oden, Roy, and Aldridge. I can't envision us making a deal that would net us a player better than any of them. The fact of the matter is our team has got terrific talent throughout the roster. It's been quite some time, but the old Bill Russell led Celtics had balanced rosters and they established the greatest dynasty ever seen in the NBA.

 

[Ed O]

Maybe. But how would you increase the talent level of our top few players? That would be Oden, Roy, and Aldridge. I can't envision us making a deal that would net us a player better than any of them. The fact of the matter is our team has got terrific talent throughout the roster. It's been quite some time, but the old Bill Russell led Celtics had balanced rosters and they established the greatest dynasty ever seen in the NBA.

There was no free agency. There were significantly fewer teams in the NBA. Players often had off-season jobs to make ends meet.

The reality of the NBA today renders the old Celtics teams irrelevant in terms of team-building.

Ed O.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I havent weighed in on this topic yet but I think that this is definately a great topic and one that should have some serious dialogue. My thoughts on the matter are as follows:

I am with those that say consolidation is in order. I agree with what everyone has said up till now with regards to consolidating but I pose this question to those who say let the cake bake and play everyone. Does anyone remember the team we had that lost to the Lakers in 2000 game 7 of the WCF???

Players in the game off the top of my head:
PG Damon/G. Anthony
SG:S. Smith/B. Wells/ S. Augmon
SF: Pippen, Shrempf
PF: Sheed/B. Grant
C: Sabonis/Jermaine Oneal

Although roles were rather well defined, players were not happy with lack of playing time. Damon hated deferring to Anthony in the 4th quarter. Grant and Sheed always were splitting time. Remember Detleff, after that year Whitsitt said we needed even more talent and traded Grant for Kemp and Oneal for Dale Davis making matters worse. Detleff complained and eventually retired that next year saying we were a major mess. We had a long losing streak that next year, players were not playing as a team but for themself. Whitsitt was run out of town. Without something being done, we would be looking eye to eye with that 2000 team with loads of talent, ill defined roles, and players bickering IMO. Consolidate secondary talent to improve your 1st line talent is the way to go.

Good example but I disagree with the conclusion. The problem was with trading Grant and Jermaine in the first place. They should of "let it bake" ! Whitsett kept tinkering. He screwed up what he had.

 

[Ed O]

The Harris example kind of makes my point. You still would have 3 point guards and Bayless would still be unhappy as third string. (Dallas was not going to take 2 PG's from us) So now you are probably going to say well we would not have traded for Bayless if we had Harris. Doesn't matter, KP would have grabbed someone else with talent. He will always make moves to add lots of young talent. He is too good of a GM. I am not debating that Harris would have been a good addition, he would have. But you are always going to have your "so called problem" of people not being happy. The San Antonio scenario of having happy Vets on the end of the bench doesn't work either if you have injuries. As you can see from this year. They are just lucky the injuries are not for the whole season.

So you'd prefer to have inferior players, like Blake rather than Harris, because of the inevitability of too much talent?

I don't buy that line of reasoning.

Ed O.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Inaction is not proactive.

Increasing Sergio's minutes and role is not inaction. Wanting to bring Webster back into the fold before making any decisions is not inaction. Having Oden or Travis come off the bench instead of starting is not inaction.

Just because they're not or are not going to make a deal doesn't mean they're not being proactive.

Trading for players is not the only way to proactively better the team. Providing and observing your CURRENT players in different or increasing roles is one way of actively trying to bettering your team, right?

 

[Ed O]

Increasing Sergio's minutes and role is not inaction. Wanting to bring Webster back into the fold before making any decisions is not inaction. Having Oden or Travis come off the bench instead of starting is not inaction.

Just because they're not or are not going to make a deal doesn't mean they're not being proactive.

Yes it does. Waiting and seeing is exactly the OPPOSITE of a proactive attitude.

The things you're talking about are coaching decisions and don't really have much to do with a proactive general mangement mindset.

Ed O.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Not even close to what i said. I already stated I agree with a move if it is the right one. My arguement is not to make a trade to thin the bench to make our bench players happy. Harris would have been great on this team. What I am saying is you will always have unhappy players

 

[Minstrel]

Maybe. But how would you increase the talent level of our top few players? That would be Oden, Roy, and Aldridge. I can't envision us making a deal that would net us a player better than any of them.

Such a deal would have to involve one of them. Roy, Outlaw and Bayless for Dwyane Wade. Aldridge and Outlaw for Chris Bosh. Deals of that sort, where you trade up on one of our top players by including other, lesser but valuable players with them.

Also, improving our fourth or fifth man would fit what I was talking about. Even if the team doesn't try to upgrade on Roy or Aldridge, dealing, say, Outlaw, Bayless and Batum for a Devin Harris would make a lot of sense and make the team much more deadly in the playoffs.

I'm not saying any of those specific deals is possible, but I think a deal of that sort is possible. I have a lot of trust in Pritchard that he can find creative deals that involve turning some of the excess good players we have into a single, better player.

 

[Ed O]

Not even close to what i said. I already stated I agree with a move if it is the right one. My arguement is not to make a trade to thin the bench to make our bench players happy. Harris would have been great on this team. What I am saying is you will always have unhappy players

There's no reason to make a deal JUST to make bench players happy... that's addition by subtraction, and addition by subtraction is almost always a mistake.

Making bench players happier, though, by reducing the number of deserving players from, say, 12, to, say, 10 CAN be a part of a reason to make a trade. That we will add more good players in another year or two doesn't really impact that.

Ed O.

 

[Masbee]

The Harris example kind of makes my point. You still would have 3 point guards and Bayless would still be unhappy as third string. (Dallas was not going to take 2 PG's from us) So now you are probably going to say well we would not have traded for Bayless if we had Harris. Doesn't matter, KP would have grabbed someone else with talent. He will always make moves to add lots of young talent. He is too good of a GM. I am not debating that Harris would have been a good addition, he would have. But you are always going to have your "so called problem" of people not being happy. The San Antonio scenario of having happy Vets on the end of the bench doesn't work either if you have injuries. As you can see from this year. They are just lucky the injuries are not for the whole season.

What?!

The Harris deal was a 3 team deal at last season's trade deadline. Regardless of who of our guys would have gone out (unknown, but a bunch of guys would have been shipped out), KP would have had the draft (option to do it differently) and the summer to iron out the remaining roster issues.

 

[Jurassic]

Yes it does. Waiting and seeing is exactly the OPPOSITE of a proactive attitude.

The things you're talking about are coaching decisions and don't really have much to do with a proactive general mangement mindset.

Ed O.

I think you are 100% wrong here. There is a difference between being proactive and being patient. If Tmac had been patient he would be playing with Dwight Howard right now. If Vince had been patient he might still be with Bosh instead of in New Jersey waiting to be traded so they can afford Lebron.

You don't have to be constantly making moves and appeasing the fans to be proactive.

 

[tlongII]

There was no free agency. There were significantly fewer teams in the NBA. Players often had off-season jobs to make ends meet.

The reality of the NBA today renders the old Celtics teams irrelevant in terms of team-building.

Ed O.

Huh?

The point I was making is that a balanced roster absolutely can establish a dynasty. It doesn't matter at what point in time the Celtics did it. The fact of the matter is that they did indeed do it.

 

[Pontius]

Outlaw, Bayless and Batum for a Devin Harris would make a lot of sense and make the team much more deadly in the playoffs.

This is a terrible trade. Absolutely disgustingly lopsided. Bayless and Batum were considered top 5 talents in the draft by some and then you throw in bargain contract like Outlaw???

I wouldn't trade Batum straight up for Harris. He has that much more potential. I can't remember the last 19-year-old I've seen with that high of a BB IQ. Then combine his length,athleticism, and efficient shooting. Call it ultimate homerism, but I've watched a lot of basketball in my life and players like Batum are about as rare as you'll find.

 

[Minstrel]

This is a terrible trade. Absolutely disgustingly lopsided. Bayless and Batum were considered top 5 talents in the draft by some and then you throw in bargain contract like Outlaw???

Fascinating. I suspect New Jersey fans would poo-poo the trade as insufficient for Harris.

Bayless and Batum weren't considered top-five talents by most and neither of them are surefire excellent players. I like them both as prospects, but they both have plenty of risk. If Batum never develops a consistent shot or excellent slashing abilities, he'll be Mickeal Pietrus. Bayless could well end up a non-elite, short shooting guard. These are not my predictions for them, but they are certainly risky. Meanwhile Devin Harris is establishing himself this season as a top young point guard...a true point guard who can also fill up the basket. And he plays great defense. If he keeps it up, he'll soon be an untouchable player.

If this trade were made, both sides would stand the chance to lose big or win big. But for Portland, a team that is sitting so close to a championship-level team, maximizing the certainty of their top-end talent is more important.