Two Deep vs. Too Deep

[Sedatedfork]

Back in the Sheed era there was the Lakers/Blazers playoff matchup heralded as "Two Deep" (i.e. Shaq & Kobe) vs. "Too Deep" (a talented Blazers team with some very talented players that is so deep that Dunleavy didn't know what to do with the depth).

This Blazers team is VERY deep and is on the verge of the "Too Deep" distinction bestowed on the Dunleavy coached team earlier this decade. I love the way every player is playing on this team, but at some point a trade must be made. The chemistry on this team is great now, but: What happens when Webster is added into the mix? When is the right time to consolidate? Who is expendable? Who should we target? These are the questions that KP must be mulling over as he is eating turkey today (well probably not today but maybe tomorrow on the biggest shopping day of the year!)

With Webster/Batum/Outlaw at SF, this is the area where we are the deepest and can afford to lose an asset. After watching this team the first week of the season, it seemed clear to me that Outlaw is going to be the odd man out. I still think that is true. Outlaw has been playing his ass off this year. He is sharing the ball better. His 3 point shooting is unbelievable. He is still a clutch shooter and good shooter. He can get his shot off on almost anybody. Some times his shot selection causes me to pull my hair out, but he makes a lot of those shots too. He seems to be exerting more effort in rebounding and defense (last night his defense on Wade was very good). Maybe he is playing for a contract, maybe he is just getting better . If traded, he will be missed. But, he should be traded to make room for Batum and Webster.

The team is better off with a Batum-Webster 1-2 punch at SF. Outlaw is a lot more aggressive than Batum, but Batum is no offensive slouch. Batum plays within the offense and doesn't seem to make mistakes. Batum uses his length to his advantage on defense and plays the passing lanes. That is something we don't get from Outlaw. Batum will continue to get better at rebounding and all facets of the game. He obviously is a quick learner. Just compare how he was playing in summer league to right now? And he's only 19 years old! It's shocking to me. Batum and Outlaw have similar body frames and I think Webster and Batum allow the coach to throw a different change of pace at another team. We haven't seen Webster play this year, but he is going to be very motivated this year. He already signed his extension and reportedly has been working very hard to get ready to play. I expect he will be the most consistent outside shooter of the 3. He also is athletic and young and already signed to a long term deal.

I may be wrong, but of the three, it seems like Outlaw is the most expendable. If you trade Outlaw eventually you have to get someone who can help take the offensive load off of Roy and can create their own shot. Rudy is the only other real playmaker on the team.

The target also seems to be clear to me. This team is in need of a true starting PG. Sergio and Blake have both played great this year, but PG is where we need the most upgrade. The target is Hinrich. With the injury his value is at a low. He makes $10 Mill this year, but every year it gets less and more affordable. He can be a good shooter and is a defensive upgrade (assuming he is healthy). If you are trying to consolidate you need to package Outlaw and a PG and maybe a draft pick or filler. Arguments could be made about Sergio vs. Blake -- who is the better backup to Hinrich. But, Blake has to be the outgoing piece since he makes more money. It sucks because we are trading Blake away for the 2nd time... Do you think Chicago would make this trade? This trade gives them a lot of flexibility in 2010 if Ben Gordon bolts this summer. I don't know if it is enough for them and I would be willing to throw in a 1st round pick if needed. From Portland's perspective -- they still have Lafrentz's contract that -- if it expires -- gives the Blazers cap room this summer to pursue another piece. If Hinrich doesn't produce you still have Bayless and Sergio to take some minutes. What you lose is that 2nd player who can create his own shot.

I know that others have been suggesting consolidation for some time, but that time is quickly approaching. If we wait too long we lose a lot of our leverage. This trade makes us a better team and it allows Rudy, Batum, and Webster to get more minutes. Some say let the cake bake. The problem is that we have too many eggs and we need to trade some of our eggs to upgrade our generic store brand sugar for some C&H sugar or Domino's sugar before the eggs start bitching that they aren't being used in the cake.

 

[graybeard]

You have mis-identified the problem with the Trader Bob era Trailblazers. The problem was not that they were too deep, but rather that they were "me first" players who were more interested themselves than playing team ball and winning. I do not see that problem with our current team. Being too deep is like having too much money in the bank... it's complete bullshit. The real problem with that old blazer team was their attitudes.

 

[handiman]

Disagree. Sabonis, Pippen, Sheed, Grant, Smittie, Anthony ... they were the epitomy of team-first players. A few bad apples (Damon, Bonzi, Zach, Rider) make people forget how tight of a unit that was.

 

[Pinwheel1]

You have mis-identified the problem with the Trader Bob era Trailblazers. The problem was not that they were too deep, but rather that they were "me first" players who were more interested themselves than playing team ball and winning. I do not see that problem with our current team. Being too deep is like having too much money in the bank... it's complete bullshit. The real problem with that old blazer team was their attitudes.

Thank you! I thought I was all alone on this.

 

[graybeard]

Disagree. Sabonis, Pippen, Sheed, Grant, Smittie, Anthony ... they were the epitomy of team-first players. A few bad apples (Damon, Bonzi, Zach, Rider) make people forget how tight of a unit that was.

The reason those bad apples were called "cancer's" is because their attitudes invade the rest of the team.

Look, if the problem really was that they had too much talent, the solution would be clear... all you'd have to do is reduce the amount of talent and the team would become instantly better. If that were the case, they would have greatly improved their chances of winning by adding you and me to their roster. Your theory is horribly flawed.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Disagree. Sabonis, Pippen, Sheed, Grant, Smittie, Anthony ... they were the epitomy of team-first players. A few bad apples (Damon, Bonzi, Zach, Rider) make people forget how tight of a unit that was.

Pippen was a team player on the floor, but he always had a selfish attitude off the court. Remember when he refused to go in the end of the game when he played for Chicago, or the way he "welcomed Tont K to the team? or his bitching about management in Chicago, Houston and Portland? As for Grant, he was not there when the problems occured, but he used to give Saboinis the worst looks when he would try to take a rebound from him and Sheed threw a towel in his face. And then you add Damon, Bonzi, Zach, Rider.....

 

[handiman]

Look, if the problem really was that they had too much talent, the solution would be clear... all you'd have to do is reduce the amount of talent and the team would become instantly better.

Huh? Other than a catchy headline, who ever said they had too much talent? Too deep and too much talent are very different things... Their most talented players (Pippen and Sabonis) were well past their prime, and the rest of the group wasn't quite talented enough to overcome LA's [super] star power.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Even Detlef Schrempf used to bitch about things

 

[graybeard]

Huh? Other than a catchy headline, who ever said they had too much talent? Too deep and too much talent are very different things... Their most talented players (Pippen and Sabonis) were well past their prime, and the rest of the group wasn't quite talented enough to overcome LA's [super] star power.

It doesn't matter what I call it. If your theory is that "Too much of (anything) is bad, it is easy to prove or disprove that theory. Simply put it to the test, meaning, reduce the amount of (anything) and see if it improves.

If not talent, just what was that blazer team "too deep" on? I know what they were too deep on, too deep on "me first" attitudes.

 

[Minstrel]

If not talent, just what was that blazer team "too deep" on?

Too deep on merely good players, too light on top-tier stars. In the playoffs, concentrating your talent in your top two or three players is much more valuable than spreading your talent out over ten players. The team wasn't "too talented"...the distribution of their talent wasn't optimal. They went ten deep in good players, but it's far better to have two great players than to have the best eighth and ninth men in the league.

 

[Iwatas]

A selfless team is a great blessing -- and Nate gets at least some of the credit. So do Roy and our Spaniards, for whom a nifty assist counts at least as much as a nifty basket. As the team ages, some players will become more selfish, but I doubt that Oden, Batum, Roy, Rudy or Sergio or Blake are among them. Not sure about LMA.

Outlaw can indeed be traded. He has serious value in the league. Outlaw/Raef/Blake for a very tough defensive PG stud would be great... is that player Hinrich? Not sure.

iWatas

 

[graybeard]

Too deep on merely good players, too light on top-tier stars. In the playoffs, concentrating your talent in your top two or three players is much more valuable than spreading your talent out over ten players. The team wasn't "too talented"...the distribution of their talent wasn't optimal. They went ten deep in good players, but it's far better to have two great players than to have the best eighth and ninth men in the league.

lol... so by your definition, a "too deep" team is too deep on merely good players? I call bullshit on that one. Too many merely good players is just called a mediocre team, not a deep team.

 

[Pinwheel1]

They went ten deep in good players, but it's far better to have two great players than to have the best eighth and ninth men in the league.

No doubt. And i know we have hashed this out over and over in different threads and will continue to. But my take is trading a couple of "good to average" players for 1 good to average player does not meet your criteria. It does not bring us in that player that makes a difference. The Hindrich's and the Mike Millers of the league do not make the difference in the playoffs compared to what we have sitting on the bench. So I say sit and wait for the difference maker, or don't screw with the team.

 

[graybeard]

A selfless team is a great blessing -- and Nate gets at least some of the credit. So do Roy and our Spaniards, for whom a nifty assist counts at least as much as a nifty basket. As the team ages, some players will become more selfish, but I doubt that Oden, Batum, Roy, Rudy or Sergio or Blake are among them. Not sure about LMA.

Outlaw can indeed be traded. He has serious value in the league. Outlaw/Raef/Blake for a very tough defensive PG stud would be great... is that player Hinrich? Not sure.

iWatas

Agreed.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Just because we have a lot of "team first" guys right now, doesn't mean that they will remain happy and team first when their minutes get cut or they fail to secure extensions or decent money because they haven't had enough time to show what they can do on the court.

If this team is going to remain a happy, well-oiled machine then there either needs to be some moves that free up some PT for "deserving" players, or the age distribution of players needs to be changed, so young guys that are sitting can at least see a light at the end of the tunnel as older veterans in the rotation decline and/or are moved. To me a consolidation trade for a "star" (or near star) veteran in his prime (27-30 years old) would go a long ways toward alleviating this looming problem.

I trust KP already knows this and is working to make the right thing happen.

 

[Sedatedfork]

So what are we supposed to do? Just let good players rot on the bench? We are not going to resign everybody -- so now is the time to make a move. Don't get me wrong, I love the team as-is, but players will be content making sacrifices for the team for only so long. Life is short, and an NBA career is even shorter. These players will want to play. I would rather make the move before chemistry problems develop than after they start. I am sure KP will do the right thing. I guess I am just sounding off a little bit about how this team is bittersweet. I love how the players are playing, but deep down I know that some of these players are going to have to pack their bags before the trading deadline.

 

[Dufferduck]

Hasheem Thabeet 7'3" Center UCONN. I wish we could trade a couple of players along with our draft picks to move up and draft the big man from UCONN. I have followed his career in the Big East and he has come along way. His offensive game is "raw" to say the least. Defensively I think this year he will break out and be a major factor. I could see UCONN riding Thabeet deep into the tourney with his definsive pressence alone.

H Thabeet has GREAT footwork. He is silky smooth for a man his heigth and weigth. I would compare his footwork to H Olajuwon's at this point. I would only compare his footwork at this point and nothing else. He has that soccer goalie footwork. Keeps his feet together and is very disciplined in the paint.

I have watched him this year already and you can tell he worked hard this summer. Although still a project, he has progressed nicely in the few years he has been in college.

Hearing the story about Ike being upset having to guard G.O in practice makes the case that we need a big strong body who is not a stiff and can develop into a serviceable back-up center. I think this is the reason we kept the Mountain man as long as we did. Also being a Rookie he has a great attitude and was willing to do whatever it took to get better.

We could clear out some roster space for Batum, Bayless if we were able to send out possibly Outlaw, Blake, Frye our first round pick plus our 4 2nd picks this year. Those are very attractive assets to a struggling team in the lottery just to exchange say pick # 4 for a pick like #17 ?

Also look at how many teams would love to have Pryz right about now. Chicago anyone.??

My offseason moves for 09 would be to thin out the roster. Free up minutes for Batum and Bayless, especially Batum.

Sign the only FA who is worth anything this year, and that would be Hedo Turkoglu. Great spot up perimter shooter. Draft a Center (Maybe Thabeet) and let him develop behind G.O and Joel.

No major tweaking. Just adding a vet who can shoot and a back-up center for the future.

Thoughts ??

 

[KingSpeed]

Why do you think Webster will be the most consistent three point shooter of the three? Both Batum and especially Outlaw are shooting a much higher percentage than Webster did last year.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Why do you think Webster will be the most consistent three point shooter of the three? Both Batum and especially Outlaw are shooting a much higher percentage than Webster did last year.

We haven't seen Webster in this system this year. If he is getting the looks that everyone else is getting I think he will perform very well. Obviously -- we will have to see. The talk from MB and Rice is that his shooting has improved from last year. Batum wasn't thought to be a long range shooter, but has impressed. Outlaw is doing very well so far, but will his shot continue to fall? Not sure. All things being equal, I think Webster will be a better shooter. We'll see though.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I am sure KP will do the right thing.

Niko: "I trust KP already knows this and is working to make the right thing happen" (Quote)

Consensus is..................KP knows best. So if he waits for a while to make sure he is making the best possible decision, are you going to accept that? Or do you want to rush into now because you "THINK" there will be a problem?

I trust KP as well. We will see what he does. I bet he waits until the summer.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Hasheem Thabeet 7'3" Center UCONN. I wish we could trade a couple of players along with our draft picks to move up and draft the big man from UCONN. I have followed his career in the Big East and he has come along way. His offensive game is "raw" to say the least. Defensively I think this year he will break out and be a major factor. I could see UCONN riding Thabeet deep into the tourney with his definsive pressence alone.

H Thabeet has GREAT footwork. He is silky smooth for a man his heigth and weigth. I would compare his footwork to H Olajuwon's at this point. I would only compare his footwork at this point and nothing else. He has that soccer goalie footwork. Keeps his feet together and is very disciplined in the paint.

I have watched him this year already and you can tell he worked hard this summer. Although still a project, he has progressed nicely in the few years he has been in college.

Hearing the story about Ike being upset having to guard G.O in practice makes the case that we need a big strong body who is not a stiff and can develop into a serviceable back-up center. I think this is the reason we kept the Mountain man as long as we did. Also being a Rookie he has a great attitude and was willing to do whatever it took to get better.

We could clear out some roster space for Batum, Bayless if we were able to send out possibly Outlaw, Blake, Frye our first round pick plus our 4 2nd picks this year. Those are very attractive assets to a struggling team in the lottery just to exchange say pick # 4 for a pick like #17 ?

Also look at how many teams would love to have Pryz right about now. Chicago anyone.??

My offseason moves for 09 would be to thin out the roster. Free up minutes for Batum and Bayless, especially Batum.

Sign the only FA who is worth anything this year, and that would be Hedo Turkoglu. Great spot up perimter shooter. Draft a Center (Maybe Thabeet) and let him develop behind G.O and Joel.

No major tweaking. Just adding a vet who can shoot and a back-up center for the future.

Thoughts ??

Man, this kind of post is the best evidence I can think of that we've been following a bad team for a long time.

I like Hasheem Thabeet, he might be a really nice center some day ... and if Greg were 31 or 32 and well established in the league I'd say go for it, 'cause sooner rather than later you're going to need a replacement and it never hurts to start grooming a successor when your franchise big man is going to be entering the twilight of his career, but that isn't the problem, in fact having a super steady 29 year old veteran, 7'1" rebounding machine, as a backup for your 20 year old franchise center is even better because he's got somebody to learn from. The second thing is that Hasheem Thabeet being an almost certain high lottery pick is that there is no way in hell he's going to be happy being a permanent backup to G.O., especially when he's likely going to be good enough to anchor his own team as a big minute starter.

Here's the thing, get over the lottery and the draft for awhile; the answer to getting better (ie. more consistent) is not going to come from getting even younger, and it might be wise not to get attached to anyone not named Brandon, Rudy, Aldridge or Oden; there's a very real possibility that a consolidation trade is going to require one of Nicolas, Jerryd, or some other young guy with a lot of untapped upside to go along with our "unwanted" spare parts.

 

[Minstrel]

lol... so by your definition, a "too deep" team is too deep on merely good players? I call bullshit on that one. Too many merely good players is just called a mediocre team, not a deep team.

A mediocre team has a lot of mediocre players. A team full of good players can be very good (due to the depth) but is unlikely to be the very best team. The 1999-2000 Blazers were actually the exception...they may have been the best team. But the 1999 Blazers and 2001-2003 Blazers weren't the best team despite having a lot of good players.

In the playoffs, you play your best players much more, which puts much more importance on the top end of your depth chart and less importance on the lower end. Having great reserves is therefore less important and their talent gets somewhat "wasted" (since they play fewer minutes). Far better to have more of that talent concentrated in your top players.

 

[graybeard]

A mediocre team has a lot of mediocre players. A team full of good players can be very good (due to the depth) but is unlikely to be the very best team. The 1999-2000 Blazers were actually the exception...they may have been the best team. But the 1999 Blazers and 2001-2003 Blazers weren't the best team despite having a lot of good players.

In the playoffs, you play your best players much more, which puts much more importance on the top end of your depth chart and less importance on the lower end. Having great reserves is therefore less important and their talent gets somewhat "wasted" (since they play fewer minutes). Far better to have more of that talent concentrated in your top players.

Hey Min, I agree with your statement in bold here. My issue was that the title of this thread is "Two deep vs. Too deep. The author implies that the reason that team failed in the playoffs was because they were too deep. Which just isn't true. That team failed from internal problems (me first players). My position is that a team can't have too much talent. A talent laden team will not fail from too much talent or being too deep, but it can fail from other issues (big egos, lack of team concepts, poor coaching, bad attitudes etc...)

 

[Minstrel]

Hey Min, I agree with your statement in bold here. My issue was that the title of this thread is "Two deep vs. Too deep. The author implies that the reason that team failed in the playoffs was because they were too deep. Which just isn't true. That team failed from internal problems (me first players). My position is that a team can't have too much talent. A talent laden team will not fail from too much talent or being too deep, but it can fail from other issues (big egos, lack of team concepts, poor coaching, bad attitudes etc...)

It depends on how you interpret "deep." I agree that you can't have too much talent. However, if your talent is distributed over depth, I think it's fair to call that "too deep" (if you want to simplify it into a catchy phrase). I don't think the current Portland team should get less talented. I think they should trim their depth by converting depth talent into better starting five talent.

 

[handiman]

The author implies that the reason that team failed in the playoffs was because they were too deep.

"Too deep" was simply a humorous headline. There's no such thing as too deep, from a talent perspective. In the vein of the headline, the reason that team lost was because they were not two deep.

That team failed from internal problems (me first players).

I totally disagree. The biggest complaint about the key players on that team were that they weren't selfish enough. Your recollection of the team appears to be strongly influenced by the subsequent period where they began losing. The "too deep" team was a cohesive group, for the most part.

 

[Sedatedfork]

A talent laden team will not fail from too much talent or being too deep, but it can fail from other issues (big egos, lack of team concepts, poor coaching, bad attitudes etc...)

Inherently a team that is laden with too much talent distributed fairly evenly over the entire team will implode. It is just too difficult to manage. If you have a 12 man roster with two 90 rated players, three 80 rated players and then 5 70 rated players and a couple of 50 rated players it is going to be pretty difficult to tell the 2 or 3 70 rated players who would be 6th or 7th men on other teams that they are not going to play or will play less than 10 minutes a night. It is a waste of talent and it creates a situation that could explode. "Too Deep" is a great problem to have, and isn't that hard to rectify, but IMO it is still a problem that should be fixed to contend for a championship.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Inherently a team that is laden with too much talent distributed fairly evenly over the entire team will implode. It is just too difficult to manage. If you have a 12 man roster with two 90 rated players, three 80 rated players and then 5 70 rated players and a couple of 50 rated players it is going to be pretty difficult to tell the 2 or 3 70 rated players who would be 6th or 7th men on other teams that they are not going to play or will play less than 10 minutes a night. It is a waste of talent and it creates a situation that could explode. "Too Deep" is a great problem to have, and isn't that hard to rectify, but IMO it is still a problem that should be fixed to contend for a championship.

Well said.

 

[graybeard]

Inherently a team that is laden with too much talent distributed fairly evenly over the entire team will implode. It is just too difficult to manage. If you have a 12 man roster with two 90 rated players, three 80 rated players and then 5 70 rated players and a couple of 50 rated players it is going to be pretty difficult to tell the 2 or 3 70 rated players who would be 6th or 7th men on other teams that they are not going to play or will play less than 10 minutes a night. It is a waste of talent and it creates a situation that could explode. "Too Deep" is a great problem to have, and isn't that hard to rectify, but IMO it is still a problem that should be fixed to contend for a championship.

That is exactly what I thought you meant, and is exactly what I am addressing. If your theory is correct, then the USA team with so much talent assembled would never win, because they would implode. Of course this is a bad theory and has been proven wrong. The problem is not because of too much talent, it's because of some of the bad attitudes that come with the high talent. There are lot's of talented players that don't let their ego's get in the way of the team, the trick is finding them. That's why you hear KP talking so much about "Culture and Chemistry". In doctor speak: you need to cure the disease, not the symptoms.

 

[Nikolokolus]

That is exactly what I thought you meant, and is exactly what I am addressing. If your theory is correct, then the USA team with so much talent assembled would never win, because they would implode. Of course this is a bad theory and has been proven wrong. The problem is not because of too much talent, it's because of some of the bad attitudes that come with the high talent. There are lot's of talented players that don't let their ego's get in the way of the team, the trick is finding them. That's why you hear KP talking so much about "Culture and Chemistry". In doctor speak: you need to cure the disease, not the symptoms.

You are comparing apples and oranges here, by comparing a voluntary two year commitment not played for money vs. a 9 month per year commitment with millions of dollars in salary at stake based on prior performance -- if you don't get the minutes, you don't get the bucks.

You might be lucky and find a couple of players who would willingly sacrifice millions just to sit on the bench, but chances are they wouldn't be all that talented to begin with. How much fun would it be to know you are good enough to play 35 minutes a night on one team and earn 6 to 8 million per year, or you could play 10 minutes a game and get paid the veteran's minimum on your current team? I don't care how team oriented or unselfish a guy is, that is career suicide to pick the latter option.

 

[graybeard]

You are comparing apples and oranges here, by comparing a voluntary two year commitment not played for money vs. a 9 month per year commitment with millions of dollars in salary at stake based on prior performance -- if you don't get the minutes, you don't get the bucks.

You might be lucky and find a couple of players who would willingly sacrifice millions just to sit on the bench, but chances are they wouldn't be all that talented to begin with. How much fun would it be to know you are good enough to play 35 minutes a night on one team and earn 6 to 8 million per year, or you could play 10 minutes a game and get paid the veteran's minimum on your current team? I don't care how team oriented or unselfish a guy is, that is career suicide to pick the latter option.

Pure horseshit.

Steve Blake
Joel Przybilla
Travis Outlaw
Greg Oden
Martel Webster
and more

All have no problem coming off the bench for the good of the team. Go ahead and tell them they're not good enough to be starters.