Venting

[Minstrel]

You're usually better than this. I wrote how everything this summer was of his action or inaction, including the entire Miles situation. That's why it's relevant. I'm not "throwing stuff against the wall", I'm showing how, step-by-step since the Zach trade, he's been plugging away towards "CapSpace '09", including retiring and releasing Miles. So it blew up in his face? It was an unintended consequence of a move he made, but it was a move he made. And got outfoxed by first Ainge and then Wallace.

That makes no sense at all. Pritchard was born. You can trace everything that happened this summer back to that. Not his fault, but it did happen and without that, none of this would have happened.

Obviously there's a chain of causality linking everything that has happened. I thought the point was identifying mistakes in that chain of causality, not just "something happened in the past and without that, things would be different today."

I did read it. It was Outlaw's BYC, as well as Harris's PPP.

Yes? Which has nothing to do with Pritchard's willingness or unwillingness to deal Outlaw. Simply an issue that made a deal tough.

His also says "a concrete deal wasn't on the table. So you're saying first that:and when I point out three articles that say it was on the table--in one form or another--you come back with (changing the subject): It's not conjecture. Three reputable reporters wrote that it was on the table.

Wrong, kiddo. Three reporters said there were rumoured talks about such a deal. None of them said any deal was "on the table" (a phrase that means a deal that just requires the participant in question to take or reject). None of your three articles says that there was a deal agreed to by everyone but Pritchard, that he turned down.

I think it's pretty clear that for Jack, Outlaw and Frye Devin Harris could be our PG. All three said this.

No, actually none of them said this. All of them said that "sources said" the three teams were discussing a deal. Not that any specific deal had been agreed to and Pritchard rejected. And your "star" piece of evidence, the Eggers' article, explicitly says that no deal was in existence because it was difficult due to Harris' PPP and Outlaw's BYC status.

Why did you throw in Ha?

My mistake. I read your post through once, then hit Reply and edited down what I quoted from you to better focus my responses. When I wrote my responses, I thought you had mentioned Ha.

Why is Bayless a lock to improve and Telfair still flailing in Minny?

I explicitly said A. none of the players are a lock to improve and B. Bayless has relatively high wash out risk.

What does Rudy have that Khryapa doesn't, except a lower draft pick, older age? Less minutes? Batum played as much last year as Khryapa did his rookie year. But he was jettisoned for LMA and hasn't progressed at all.How do you classify "certain washouts?" Picks after 15? 2nd-rounders? Euros?

This is your main question, asked several times, so I'll answer it once here. The difference is performance. Telfair, Monia, Khryapa were all utterly awful in their first seasons. Oden, Batum and Rudy were not. That is the difference. It's nothing predictive by nationality (pretty bizarre attempt at implying racism...where do Fernandez, Batum, Monia and Khryapa come from again?) or draft slot.

And I was 100% consistent. I pointed out that Bayless was awful in his rookie season, so might indeed not be an NBA-caliber talent. However, what gives me hope is that he was 2 years younger than Monia and Khryapa and he got way too few minutes to really evaluate.

You're actually proving my point--that good players progress, not necessarily young ones. Telfair's younger than Rudy, but I think Rudy will be better. BECAUSE HE'S A BETTER PLAYER.

Of course being better means you're better. The point is that there's a pretty standard development curve by age that MOST pro athletes follow. Starting out higher or lower doesn't mean you do or don't progress. The main exception, which I was trying to highlight, is that if you are not even NBA-caliber than the development curve for pro athletes may not apply. But Oden, Batum and Rudy seem pretty clearly NBA-caliber. Based on their performance (not draft slot or nationality), Monia, Khryapa and Telfair were not clearly NBA-caliber.

Exceptions to every rule exist, but they don't invalidate the rule or what should be the expected return. Most pro athletes develop by a bell curve, steeper gains the further they are from their prime, diminishing gains as they approach their primes, stable performance during their primes, gradual decline as they move just past their primes and then steeper declines as they get further away from their primes until they have to retire.

Will any or all of these players end up not following this path? Possible, just not the likeliest case.

 

[BrianFromWA]

This is getting long, I'll try to break it up. And Crimson, I just saw your response now--it had been buried behind Minstrel's. I'm not ignoring your post.

That makes no sense at all. Pritchard was born. You can trace everything that happened this summer back to that. Not his fault, but it did happen and without that, none of this would have happened.
Obviously there's a chain of causality linking everything that has happened. I thought the point was identifying mistakes in that chain of causality, not just "something happened in the past and without that, things would be different today."

My only reason for bringing that up was this: Crimson implied (at least, that's how I read the post) that this summer was complicated, and we should give KP some slack. My point was that, yes, it is a complicated summer--and fruitless so far. And everything was of KP's doing. You can't say that "Wallace screwed us", or "Cap dropped, and he couldn't have foreseen that", or whatever. KP has, since and including the Zach deal, targeted "CapSpace '09" as the way to best improve the team--even at the short-term detriment of wins from playing younger and less accomplished players.

Wrong, kiddo. Three reporters said there were rumoured talks about such a deal. None of them said any deal was "on the table" (a phrase that means a deal that just requires the participant in question to take or reject). None of your three articles says that there was a deal agreed to by everyone but Pritchard, that he turned down.
No, actually none of them said this. All of them said that "sources said" the three teams were discussing a deal. Not that any specific deal had been agreed to and Pritchard rejected. And your "star" piece of evidence, the Eggers' article, explicitly says that no deal was in existence because it was difficult due to Harris' PPP and Outlaw's BYC status.

??? I had 3 pieces of "evidence", really just the first 3 articles I pulled off of Google. If you'd like I could try to find more. The Eggers one only said the trade would've been difficult in a POR/NJ swap. The other two stories report a trade that would've worked under CBA including the BYC and PPP. The Eggers article wouldn't have been the "star" anyway, since it was basically a post-mortem a week or more after the deadline, while the other two were reporting on the fly almost a month earlier. Woj has basically broken every trade and free agent signing in the last two weeks, but we can't trust what he reports that his sources say about the Blazers? Maybe I'm not following proper logic on this, but basically all of the same players were traded between NJ and Dallas two weeks after the rumors about Portland's involvement. (not including the Van Horn fancy footwork to make the numbers match up) Which means one of two things only to me: NJ wanted Harris instead of Jack/Frye/Outlaw/picks (which would not be KP's fault, unless he wasn't going to sweeten the deal for NJ--though I doubt it, since people at the time this broke were already saying KP would be fleeced for accepting that deal), or that KP backed out. That's about it. If you think that the deal wasn't on the table, I don't know what to say.

My mistake. I read your post through once, then hit Reply and edited down what I quoted from you to better focus my responses. When I wrote my responses, I thought you had mentioned Ha.

No worries.

This is your main question, asked several times, so I'll answer it once here. The difference is performance. Telfair, Monia, Khryapa were all utterly awful in their first seasons. Oden, Batum and Rudy were not. That is the difference. It's nothing predictive by nationality (pretty bizarre attempt at implying racism...where do Fernandez, Batum, Monia and Khryapa come from again?) or draft slot.

Uh, no racism implied here. I pointed out our last 6 years of draft picks, the positions they were drafted to play in, the slot of the players, and then correlated that with our 2009 summer needs. Batum's not the same race as Rudy. Spain isn't the same as Russia. Portland's made a history of drafting overseas players with late first-round picks? Since they're the players we've had, and they haven't progressed, that was the point I was making, not furthering some xenophobic agenda. But you're asserting that it's predictive by age, which I'm attempting to debunk.
As for the performance difference: Telfair went from a 10PER as an 19y/o rookie to a 13 as a 20y/o second-year PG. Then he was traded for Roy. (Good trade, in case I had to say it). But instead of continuing his progression from about-average NBA starting PG, he went 8, 10, 10 in his next 3 years. Why didn't he progress? At 20, he was about an average NBA PG. At 23, he's a cautionary tale. Khryapa went from a 9PER as a rookie to 11.5--decent progress, including across-the-board improvement in almost every category. Traded to CHI, and went 9, 10, out-of-the-league. Why didn't he continue to progress? Monia was horrible, I'll give you that, so I'll discount him from this exercise. Jack went from a 12 to 14.5, then regressed to a 13, then got traded, then had another 13. Where's the progression there? Certainly he's an NBA-caliber player? Outlaw's gone 16 (in limited min), 15, 13, 15, 15, 15. Steady improvement from an NBA-caliber player there? He went from likely starting SF to 6th-man extraordinaire to likely backup PF with 12 mpg. Where's the improvement from being young and NBA-caliber? Sergio went 14, 9, 12. And it was reported that he was working out very hard last summer with John Townsend. Where's the improvement there from being young and having good rookie years? Webster's gone 12, 10, 12, inj. Should we be seeing improvement from him? If ANY of these players had progressed on your bell curve, we wouldn't be talking about needed a PG, SF or backup PF. As it is, they haven't, and it seems that putting our hopes for getting to a championship anytime soon on "internal improvement" is a riskier proposition than KP's "CapSpace '09!" initiative.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What's your point?

This was my take. My original thought. Why would I post this in another poster's thread? If I wanted to discuss their take, I'd do it there. I wanted to discuss my thoughts and not his, however similar they may be.

My point was that most of what you posted had been rebutted in another, similar post. You are more than welcome to write whatever you'd like, but I notice that no one repping that poster, or you has yet said a word about what I posted in rebuttal to my points (except Minstrel). I just would like to have a discussion about why it's "immature" and "ignorant" to not think like you (or that poster).

You weren't ecstatic with what the team accomplished last season?

Nope. IMHO, we were better than a NOH team that won 57 games (iirc) and made it to the 2nd round, and I said that in October. I still think that, with either a change in coaching philosophy, lineup (tied to coaching philosophy) or a better use of RLEC, we would have accomplished that.

No, your perception of history and observations are what make you believe you're right.

I've spent hours and pages proving that most of my "immature" and "air raid siren" ramblings were pretty well grounded in facts and logic. Not many others on either side have.
Look, you said earlier something to the effect of "if we don't make a good use of the cap space I'll be disappointed". My point is that some of us had that sentiment at the trade deadline, with RLEC. And then we were told to "wait until summer". Now, it looks as if we'll have to pin our capspace hopes to a lopsided trade during the season b/c the summer plan was a risky one that didn't turn out. You seem to be saying that you're going to feel exactly like the people your OP was about when/if we don't use the cap space this summer, but bashing them for being on that bandwagon earlier than you got there.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

First, pretty much all trades/FA signings carry an element of risk. Grant Hill was a great player and a great "character" guy...and his FA contract still turned out to be one of the worst in history because of an injury. You will never make the "right" move (or "investment", if you prefer) if you are constantly paranoid about making the "wrong" move.

But, IMO, the degree of risk is lower, because, with free agency, you can interview the player, work him out, and you don't have to give up any assets.

Second, there is way too much revisionist history/sour grapes at work here. Everytime a rival team trades for a player, or makes a FA signing, some Blazer fans start proclaiming "that guy is a bum, and we don't want him anyway!"

I see what you're saying, but I don't think I'm doing that here. I think Portland's been fairly consistent thus far. From their actions they're looking at players with Playoff experience that are either entering or in their primes. Vince Carter doesn't qualify IMO. His high-production shelf life seems to be on the verge of expiration. Richard Jefferson would seem like a player that Portland missed out on, as well as Ariza. That was the cost for putting all of our eggs in the Hedo basket. Some might not agree with how heavy their interest was with Hedo, but personally, I like that they have particular players in mind that they believe are the best fit and will focus solely on them, even if that means we miss out on the next best fits. I don't want them settling.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

How does Roy getting a 5th year, player option or otherwise, give him leverage over the team versus not being under contact at all that season?

Because, if we don't extend his extension further, we won't know what his mindset will be until possibly the eleventh hour of that fourth season. If he wanted to he could decline his 5th-year option on June 30th and leave us high and dry. It's not likely, but it's got to be a consideration. We have to be then prepared for that. We might miss out on potential mid-season trades or draft day deals because of this uncertainty. We could be in a holding pattern for the entire season until he makes his decision and I don't like this.

He assumes control and that doesn't benefit the team.

 

[PapaG]

Because, if we don't extend his extension further, we won't know what his mindset will be until possibly the eleventh hour of that fourth season. If he wanted to he could decline his 5th-year option on June 30th and leave us high and dry. It's not likely, but it's got to be a consideration. We have to be then prepared for that. We might miss out on potential mid-season trades or draft day deals because of this uncertainty. We could be in a holding pattern for the entire season until he makes his decision and I don't like this.

He assumes control and that doesn't benefit the team.

How is that any different than giving him 4 years without an option? Or is Portland just assuming that he'll walk after 4 years as an unrestricted free agent, so they'll look to trade him in Year 4 of the contract at the trade deadline?

I don't get it. Many elite players have a PO at the end of their contract. Not giving Roy one 5 years from now because it may hamstring you, which any final year of a deal is going to do, seems like a very bad business decision. I honestly don't know what you're talking about at this point other than Roy, if he stays in Portland, will likely get much more than the max offered now by the cap in what would have been Year 5 of his deal.

 

[Minstrel]

KP has, since and including the Zach deal, targeted "CapSpace '09" as the way to best improve the team--even at the short-term detriment of wins from playing younger and less accomplished players.

I don't agree with this at all. He targeted 2009 as a chance to potentially add a piece. Cap space was a speculative asset from the start, which means it was never sure to net anything but the chance that it could made it valuable. I've seen nothing to suggest that using cap space in 2009 was what he considered the BEST way to improve the team.

??? I had 3 pieces of "evidence", really just the first 3 articles I pulled off of Google. If you'd like I could try to find more. The Eggers one only said the trade would've been difficult in a POR/NJ swap. The other two stories report a trade that would've worked under CBA including the BYC and PPP. The Eggers article wouldn't have been the "star" anyway, since it was basically a post-mortem a week or more after the deadline, while the other two were reporting on the fly almost a month earlier. Woj has basically broken every trade and free agent signing in the last two weeks, but we can't trust what he reports that his sources say about the Blazers? Maybe I'm not following proper logic on this, but basically all of the same players were traded between NJ and Dallas two weeks after the rumors about Portland's involvement. (not including the Van Horn fancy footwork to make the numbers match up) Which means one of two things only to me: NJ wanted Harris instead of Jack/Frye/Outlaw/picks (which would not be KP's fault, unless he wasn't going to sweeten the deal for NJ--though I doubt it, since people at the time this broke were already saying KP would be fleeced for accepting that deal), or that KP backed out. That's about it. If you think that the deal wasn't on the table, I don't know what to say.

I assumed you considered the Eggers article the biggest deal, because you explicitly mentioned his "source." If that wasn't the case, fine. That wasn't an important thing, whether it was the "star" piece of evidence or not.

My point is that all of those articles A. reference rumours ("sources say" tell us nothing about how credible the report is) and B. only reference discussions, not finished deals that Pritchard could have taken but chose to walk away from.

From what I've read, discussions happen all the time, but that doesn't mean a deal is close or on the table (again, meaning that Pritchard just had to accept it for it to happen). The way you and others use this rumour, it is phrased as a fact that Pritchard could have had Harris for Jack, Frye and Outlaw. I don't think it is anything like a fact. I'm willing to believe that there were talks and those names were all involved, but there's no way to know whether, for example, Pritchard suggested it and Dallas and New Jersey said no way or those players were involved but to close the deal New Jersey wanted Aldridge, etc. Rumoured talks are remarkably different from "Pritchard turned down Harris for Jack, Outlaw and Frye."

Uh, no racism implied here. I pointed out our last 6 years of draft picks, the positions they were drafted to play in, the slot of the players, and then correlated that with our 2009 summer needs. Batum's not the same race as Rudy. Spain isn't the same as Russia. Portland's made a history of drafting overseas players with late first-round picks? Since they're the players we've had, and they haven't progressed, that was the point I was making, not furthering some xenophobic agenda.

I meant that it seemed like you implied racism on my part, when you asked what makes a wash-out and asked (among other possibilities) "Euros?" Which made no sense to me, since I had two Euros on the "wash-out" side and two Euros on the "non-wash-out" side. I have no idea why you even brought region into it.

As for the performance difference: Telfair went from a 10PER as an 19y/o rookie to a 13 as a 20y/o second-year PG. Then he was traded for Roy. (Good trade, in case I had to say it). But instead of continuing his progression from about-average NBA starting PG, he went 8, 10, 10 in his next 3 years. Why didn't he progress?

Because all players don't follow the average path. That's why I've been consistently saying that improvement is not guaranteed. My point is the expected value. The overwhelming probability is that they will improve. It's very well-established that the average prime (in athletics don't require specialized small body types) for pro athletes is somewhere between 27 and 32 and that players tend to improve (with diminishing returns the closer they get) up to that prime and tend to decline (with accelerating effects, the further they get) as they move away from that prime. In fact, I'm almost baffled that you're unwilling to accept that that is the typical path.

Will every athlete follow that path? Of course not. But you base expectations on the average development path unless there is particular reason to believe certain players are anomalies. If you have a reason to believe Oden, Fernandez, Batum or Bayless are likely exceptions, feel free to tell me. Otherwise, to me, the default expectation is that they'll improve...quite a bit when they are far away from age 27 (or so) and less and less as they get close to age 27 (or so).

Throwing out a handful of anecdotal exceptions in no way invalidates that. It just shows that the rule isn't guaranteed, which I've said many times by now.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Which wouldn't be a problem, aside from the fact that it's complicated entirely due to KP's action/inaction.

So, Brandon plays no part in this. He should just be rewarded anything he wants? Even more than what Chris Paul received last year in a better economic climate.

And, Hedo was the one who reneged on the verbal agreement at the eleventh hour, but it's Pritchard's fault that Portland isn't more cosmopolitan and doesn't have enough Turkish culture?

From trading Zach for Rudy and "CapSpace '09!"

Wait you're not happy with this move? Really? Why don't you keep Zach Randolph and a disgruntled Lamarcus Aldridge. I'll take the emerging Aldridge, Fernadez, the locker room presence of Frye and Jones, and whoever we sign/trade for this season with our cap space. That choice sure worked out well so far for New York and Los Angeles.

to releasing Miles and allowing another team to sign him and screw us, rather than hanging on to him and telling him never to show up again (the Jerome James plan)

Where is it stated that we could just keep Miles on the roster and remove his salary from our cap earlier than the end of next season? Isn't what we did the only way we could attempt to remove his salary early?

to not trading Jack and Outlaw and Frye for Harris two years ago

I keep hearing this. Where is this stated that this was offered. I'm not doubting you, but in my good conscience, I can't provide opinions on things not having more proof than anonymous internet posters saying something is fact. It doesn't even make sense that Dallas would prefer Jack, Frye, and Outlaw to Kidd. You're talking about Dallas receiving the three worst talents in that deal. Why would they have done that? If that was a deal on the table, and we didn't act, I agree, that's a poor decision.

to not using "the greatest expiring contract in history" to trade for an upgrade this February

Sorry. Not interested in Vince Carter if it meant we lose one of our young talents or we take back a bad contract. I don't want to trade Batum for Gerald Wallace. Richard Jefferson would have been nice, but in retrospect, I'm not crazy with the amount of his contract in relation to the amount of production we'd receive.

Again, we shouldn't be settling or taking unnecessary risks. Not with the fantastic team we already have.

It's these things that people like me get frustrated about when people like you forget them, and blast us for being "irrational", "impatient" and "ignorant".

First off, I didn't forget these things. I forgot to include Brandon's extension, but even that I explained isn't a worrisome issue for me.

Oh, and I never labeled anyone irrational or ignorant, did I?

As far as internal improvement, the stories we heard reported by the Blazer and Oregonian media stated that the two hardest workers last year were Bayless and Sergio. Sergio is no longer with us and Bayless got around 9mpg (inflated a bit by the stretch where Blake was down--otherwise it amounted to garbage time). But now we're supposed to just assume that young players + summertime = instant improvement?

That's just not true. Brandon, Lamarcus, and Steve both worked hard during the offseason and paid off tremendously. I remember reading articles about them throughout the summer. Greg was a different story due to his surgery. Nic's experience in summer league and Rudy's contributions for Spain all played a part in their development.

And just because Sergio's no longer with us, doesn't mean that his efforts throughout the offseason didn't show up on the court. He was a better player than the year before and he was a reason why Portland was successful last year. It's not his fault his style of play doesn't translate well in Coach Nate's system.

Do you think George Hill is improving for the Spurs? Or Brooks for the Rockets? Farmar and Vujacic? Seriously, is there something in the water in Tualatin that improves our players more than other teams?

Big difference.

Hill, Brooks, Farmar, and Vujacic aren't the promising talents that Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Roy, Fernandez, and Bayless. Nor does San Antonio, Los Angeles, or Houston have as many top-tier maturing players that we do.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

... Webster hasn't improved very much. Outlaw is another guy who hasn't taken that big step in his overall game.

I'm mainly excited about the improvements of Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Roy, Fernadez, and Bayless. I'm still intrigued with what Webster will become. I don't have high hopes, but when healthy, I do see him as a solid reserve and yet another tradable asset.

Outlaw I'm ready to move. In fact, if we don't replace him with a superior defending, rebounding, and tougher forward this offseason I'll be disappointed. But, I'm pretty certain we will. I'm crossing my fingers until Friday.

So if Bayless, Batum, Oden and Fernandez all prgress at their rate then that would be a bad thing.

The trajectory of Outlaw has really tailed off. The same can be said for Webster, but not as much. He still has promise. While Roy has already skyrocketed up the talent charts, and his improvements will be less noticeable, I do envision him learning how to pick apart defenses even better and playmake more for his teammates. I honestly expect Aldridge to take his game from borderline to legitimate All-Star levels next season. Oden, Batum, and Fernandez's rate of progression should be dramatically better than what we've seen from either Outlaw or Webster. They've each already showed considerable more talents and consistency than typical rookies. Because of this, and comparing to other similarly above-average rookies, their rate of progression should be sharply escalated next season.

Portland had a chance to add a PROVEN NBA player for virtually nothing and didn't do it.

Again. Keep seeing this. The rumored deals were ones where we either give up Rudy or Nic or we take back a bad contract. That's not virtually nothing. If we could have added Vince Carter or Gerald Wallace for nothing I would advocate for that. I don't think that's what offered. Even the trading for Lee shows that NJ was wanting someone of value back. Unfortunately for us, we have such promising young players, Vince (for Rudy) and Gerald (for Nic) just aren't young, cheap, or good enough to give them up IMO.

They claimed it was because of the wonderful deals they could get after the year because more teams would be in financial ruins. Now they are saying if they don't sign someone it's no big deal because more teams will be in financial ruins at the trade deadline.

What are they supposed to say? It's up to us to read between the line. It's up to them to paint the prettiest picture possible. It's up to them to get us excited and sell ticket, flick on the televisions, and buy up the merchandise.

What I hear when they say all those fluffy things is, "we couldn't find a deal yet that brings us the right player with the right contract at the right stage in his career." I'd rather we do nothing then bring in the wrong player with the wrong contract and at the wrong stage in his career.

There is no mention of Blake, Outlaw, Webster. Those are the players that need to be upgraded.

But let's not forget, that in Free Agency days, we're actually in like day 5 or 6, given that we had to wait for the free agency period to truly begin and now have had to wait for the week long matching period. It seems like forever but we've only formally been able to deal with two free agents so far. Baby steps. We've got to try and land one of these big fishes first. Then we can move Outlaw. I'd like to move Blake as well, and I would assume if deal can be made, we will. But, don't forget that we could upgrade our perimeter play by bringing in someone like Felton to back up Blake. This is the first thought that came to my head, but the point is that by upgrading Blake's backup we will also improve the team.

I do want to move Blake though. His contract is ending and he's got value in the league. I'd rather not let him walk for nothing like we did with Channing, although I understand why we needed to do this.

As for Carters contract, it is the same length as Webster's, and having it wouldn't have hindered us in any way.

We'd be paying Vince Carter $16M this next season, $18M the next, and $19M in the third season. Portland has to pay Webster $4M this season, $5M the next, and $5M in the third season. Are we getting four times the production from Carter next season? No, but we'd certainly get a huge increase in production. However, Vince is going to be 33 headed into next year's Playoffs. 34 the next and then 35 in his final year. It's pretty foolish IMO to pay this much to Vince when you feel that you have a) Nic Batum coming on strong and b) major assets with cap space and tradable assets to find something better. Reason, to me, says that we'll find a better option elsewhere. We don't need to jump at this big risk/big reward deal. Orlando did.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I'd love to. Miles was being paid by insurance, and would be until the contract ran out. There was no reason to cut/retire/release/whatever Miles before this summer. I'm not saying he could've foreseen it, I'm saying that pushing for the medical retirement early last year opened the door to being screwed. If the medical retirement would've been processed in, say, April, we don't have this problem and we have 16M in cap space. Again, I'm not saying he should've foreseen it, but it was his doing.

Wait. If we would have waited until April, then Miles still would have had the next two seasons to find a team to play 10 games for. He would have and his salary would be placed back on the books, and we risk then paying twice as much due to the luxury tax then involved, considering the loads of salary we'd then have in place. Portland did the smart thing by trying to remove the cap hit as quickly as possible. This way if it came back at least we wouldn't be paying twice as much for him.

So Kerry Eggers' source doesn't count. Adrian Wojnarowski makes things up Vecsey-style now? Mark Stein? Is Canzano the only one we can trust to report now?

The Kerry Eggers article does not state at all what was truly on the table to get Harris from Dallas. And where the heck in the Awoj article does it state that Portland declined to go through with that package? How do you know it wasn't New Jersey or Dallas that nixed the trade? The article by Stein doesn't support you either. There's nothing definitive. Did you blindly ignore the comment that was made that NJ was hesitant to not get back the best young player in the deal as well? Doesn't it make more sense that we didn't get Harris, not because we wouldn't give up our youngins, but because NJ didn't want our youngins and wanted Dallas's?

Geez. Did you actually read those articles or am I the one that's missing something?

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Outstanding find.


I would much rather have Jarre....er wait, I mean Channin....er wait, I mean Travis that Devin Harris and Brandon Bass.

Good thing KP doesn't overvalue his guys.

Then again, we didn't hear that directly from KP, it wasn't recorded or notarized, so it didn't happen

Did you actually read those articles? None of them ever stated that it was POR that nixed the deals. Yet, it's ok to knock Pritchard? Wow. You guys are reaching for ways to slam the guy it seems to me.

I suppose you missed the fact that NJ was also having concerns about not receiving the best young player in the deal. It sure makes more sense that NJ wasn't excited with a deal surrounded by Travis Outlaw and instead preferred Devin Harris. Sure seems more logical to me, and that connection is just as much substantiated by the article/s.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Did you actually read those articles? None of them ever stated that it was POR that nixed the deals. Yet, it's ok to knock Pritchard? Wow. You guys are reaching for ways to slam the guy it seems to me.

I suppose you missed the fact that NJ was also having concerns about not receiving the best young player in the deal. It sure makes more sense that NJ wasn't excited with a deal surrounded by Travis Outlaw and instead preferred Devin Harris. Sure seems more logical to me, and that connection is just as much substantiated by the article/s.

I didn't need to read the articles.


I do realize though that KP hasn't come out and said it was fact, or that is wasn't documented in triplicate and notarized though.


The only trade talks, or near trades that ever happen are the ones that actually are consumated. We get it.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

My point was that, yes, it is a complicated summer--and fruitless so far. And everything was of KP's doing. You can't say that "Wallace screwed us", or "Cap dropped, and he couldn't have foreseen that", or whatever. KP has, since and including the Zach deal, targeted "CapSpace '09" as the way to best improve the team--even at the short-term detriment of wins from playing younger and less accomplished players.

Pritchard brought us to the point we're at, yes. But, where he's brought us isn't a bad place, as you seem to intimate. By drafting Brandon Roy, you're going to eventually have to deal with an extension. He's doing that and he's doing so responsibly. By escaping from Zach Randolph - the player and the contract - we're now in a position to have both Rudy Fernandez, a more advanced Lamarcus Aldridge, and the cap space to attempt and bring in more talent (Hedo, Millsap, and ???). Do you hear youself? Your complaints seem baseless. I'm happy with the fact that we have the opportunity to bring in a player through FA/lopsided trade than be stuck with Zach Randolph. I'm happy that we're going to, eventually, lock up Roy and Aldridge to a long term extension. These are issues, but they're issues that come with making wise decisions, and because of this track record, it's safe to say they're issues that will be soon resolved in some beneficial way.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

My point was that most of what you posted had been rebutted in another, similar post. You are more than welcome to write whatever you'd like, but I notice that no one repping that poster, or you has yet said a word about what I posted in rebuttal to my points (except Minstrel). I just would like to have a discussion about why it's "immature" and "ignorant" to not think like you (or that poster).

I'm so confused. You're noticing that I didn't say a word about what you posted in rubuttal where? Here? I've commented about all of your thoughts in this thread. There? I didn't even pay attention to the comments made over there. Do I have to? I don't see your point.

When did I say you, or those that think like you, are immature or ignorant? I don't think that. I'm just puzzled and frustrated that more people don't think like me. That's all. I'm simply trying to understand, and I'm still yet to, where this disdain for Portland's management is coming from. You all seem to know where the smoking gun is and I can't find it!

Nope. IMHO, we were better than a NOH team that won 57 games (iirc) and made it to the 2nd round, and I said that in October. I still think that, with either a change in coaching philosophy, lineup (tied to coaching philosophy) or a better use of RLEC, we would have accomplished that.

Wow. I don't know what to say. IMO, you have unreasonable expectations. You also either underestimated how good Houston is or overestimated how good Portland was. They're young man. It takes a goober amount of realized talent to become the best or one of the best. We were close, but not that close. I hope that doesn't offend you.

I've spent hours and pages proving that most of my "immature" and "air raid siren" ramblings were pretty well grounded in facts and logic. Not many others on either side have.

I appreciate that, but nothing that you've posted has swayed me. So, either I'm blinded by homerism, your ramblings aren't grounded in logic/fact, or the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Look, you said earlier something to the effect of "if we don't make a good use of the cap space I'll be disappointed". My point is that some of us had that sentiment at the trade deadline, with RLEC. And then we were told to "wait until summer". Now, it looks as if we'll have to pin our capspace hopes to a lopsided trade during the season b/c the summer plan was a risky one that didn't turn out. You seem to be saying that you're going to feel exactly like the people your OP was about when/if we don't use the cap space this summer, but bashing them for being on that bandwagon earlier than you got there.

No. You've got it all wrong. I'll be disappointed that something wonderful didn't materialize with RLEC, 2009 Free Agency, and/or a lopsided trade, but I also understand that the blame isn't necessarily on Pritchard. I can be disappointed we couldn't do anything with those assets to improve the team but at the same time realize it was not because we didn't try, but more because what was then available just didn't work with the team's overall philosophies.

Put it this way. I can be disappointed that my Dad forgot my birthday, but also understand that certain circumstances were the cause of him forgetting. Maybe that's not the best analogy, but damn, this thread pooped me out.

Hey, at least, I feel better by venting. Thanks!

 

[PapaG]

Never has a thread been more appropriately titled.

 

[BrianFromWA]

That's easy. I read the articles, and you're the one that's missing something.

The Eggers article doesn't state what was "truly on the table". I get that, and acknowledged it to Minstrel. His is the after-action report a month later. It was just the first one that popped up on Google. There are more. The Woj article was the first, chronologically, on Wednesday morning the 30th. The night previously, Chris Broussard had reported that talks were in the "advanced stage". Thursday afternoon they were "pretty much dead".

As for how I know who nixed it? That one's kind of easy, too, if you apply a bit of logic.
1) Dallas wanted Kidd. Dallas got Kidd. Dallas was willing to trade Harris and whoever else it took to make it happen.

The Mavs' biggest reservation isn't sacrificing Harris, who signed a contract extension over the summer. Sources maintain that Dallas, while reluctant to part with one of Cuban's favorite players and its point guard of the future after signing Harris to, has been resigned for some time to losing Harris if it meant getting Kidd back. Stein, Feb.13

They ended up doing so. I surmise that they don't care where Harris went (whether to POR to NJ) as long as Kidd came back. So I'm pretty confident in my assessment that DAL didn't "nix the trade".
2) Perhaps NJ decided they would rather have:
Player Age PPG RPG APG FG%
Devin Harris 24 14.4 2.3 5.3 48.3
Gana Diop 26 3.0 5.2 0.5 58.3
Trenton Hassell 28 2.1 1.2 0.7 46.3
Moe Ager 24 1.3 0.3 0.3 18.5
Keith Van Horn* 32 N/A N/A N/A N/A

rather than the Jack/Outlaw/Frye/draft picks/cash package. It's their right to do so. I don't think that's the case, however, since Stein's source said

Some reluctance from the Blazers, sources said, is one of the factors that has stalled the talks

since "the biggest obstacle for New Jersey and Dallas to either moving or acquiring Kidd -- (is) finding the third team they needed to broaden the deal"--not that NJ wanted Harris and only Harris for Kidd. Why would there be reluctance from KP to give up Jack, Frye and Outlaw for a stud young PG?

In addition to the short-term concerns about the ankle injury that has sidelined Harris, Blazers general manager Kevin Pritchard told The Oregonian newspaper last week that "we're not making any trades" to break up a roster of youngsters that rebounded from Greg Oden's season-ending injury to rank as the biggest surprise team so far in a league filled with surprise teams. Sources say Portland has been shopping Jack on his own, but parting with three or four players is something else, with guard Sergio Rodriguez also potentially involved. Outlaw's development, furthermore, is one of the stories of the Blazers' season.

Here's just a sample. Henry Abbott says that the deal he heard from multiple sources didn't make sense on Jan 30, but after some digging found it "might really have legs." Of course, nothing conclusive yet.
The NY Sun article on Thursday the 1st that said

In other words, when news of a deal gets leaked out to several New Jersey-based press members involving the Nets getting back several good young ones, two first-round picks, and significant cap relief, one has to wonder about the genesis of such reports. In particular, one has to wonder if the Nets aren't trying to drive up the price for Kidd

Sounds to me a lot like the Jack/Frye/Outlaw/picks package was Thorn's DREAM offer, and the one that the Nets were leaking hoping to get something close. The logic "jump" then, is that if that's what they were leaking, that's something they would've taken.

Katy Brown talked to Pritchard and McMillan Tuesday night after the "rumor" first came out. It sounds a lot like they were getting called by NJ and DAL and turned down the trade for various reasons.

So, all semantic B.S. aside, it seems like you're telling me that, in the face of all this "proof", you and Minstrel don't think that the offer involving the principals of Jack/Frye/Outlaw/Cash/Picks for Harris was ever "on the table", and that if it was, that KP didn't turn it down--NJ did, and that blaming KP for a mistake he didn't make is ignorant and immature. Is that the crux of your argument?

I, on the other hand, think that this deal WAS offered to KP, with principals as reported, and that they didn't want "make any trades" because "They like their team as it stands right now and I don’t think they want to take a chance on messing with the team chemistry in any way". And in doing so, kept us without even a mediocre PG for the next 18 months, when we could've had an All-Star PG for the price of two people no longer on our team and Outlaw. And I think that all the "proof" is on my side.

 

[Minstrel]

So, all semantic B.S. aside, it seems like you're telling me that, in the face of all this "proof"

I love how you say "semantic BS aside" and then go on to label all your speculations over a bunch of uncertain reports "proof." That's some well-done semantic gymnastics!

you and Minstrel don't think that the offer involving the principals of Jack/Frye/Outlaw/Cash/Picks for Harris was ever "on the table", and that if it was, that KP didn't turn it down--NJ did, and that blaming KP for a mistake he didn't make is ignorant and immature. Is that the crux of your argument?

No, at least not for me. My argument is that none of us KNOW what precisely the offers were and who ended up turning it down (if it even got to a "accept/reject" stage). I'm sure Kidd, Harris, Outlaw, Jack and Frye were all involved in the discussions, but how close a deal got, what unreported players might have been involved in the talks and/or who ended up not wanting to deal is entirely conjecture.

I'm not terribly interested in conjecturing in the absence of knowledge. You are. That's fine. I'm just not willing to accept your conjectures (Pritchard could have had Harris for Outlaw, Frye and Jack but turned it down) as a historical fact.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

How is that any different than giving him 4 years without an option? Or is Portland just assuming that he'll walk after 4 years as an unrestricted free agent, so they'll look to trade him in Year 4 of the contract at the trade deadline?

I don't get it. Many elite players have a PO at the end of their contract. Not giving Roy one 5 years from now because it may hamstring you, which any final year of a deal is going to do, seems like a very bad business decision. I honestly don't know what you're talking about at this point other than Roy, if he stays in Portland, will likely get much more than the max offered now by the cap in what would have been Year 5 of his deal.

I thought I explained it. If Brandon has a player option for that final season, he could decline it, become a free agent, and potentially walk from us to head to another team. We wouldn't know what his intentions were possibly until June 30th of that summer. We would be forced to make moves, such as drafting another two guard or trading for one in case he were to walk. We could keep a disgruntled Rudy Fernandez longer than we'd like out of fear that Brandon may leave early. The organization would be left in limbo, some what, because of Roy holding the all the cards.

If the team has Brandon under contract through the fifth season, they can begin preparing for life after Brandon on their terms. We can decide to trade Brandon at the deadline prior to his contract ending. We wouldn't likely be able to do this because another team wouldn't be interested in him not knowing if he'd be an expiring contract or under contract for at least another season.

I think I rehashed my thoughts in the same way so I'm sure you won't get what I'm saying, and I'm guessing that has more to do with me not being able to formulate my thoughts well on this issue.

 

[PapaG]

I thought I explained it. If Brandon has a player option for that final season, he could decline it, become a free agent, and potentially walk from us to head to another team. We wouldn't know what his intentions were possibly until June 30th of that summer. We would be forced to make moves, such as drafting another two guard or trading for one in case he were to walk. We could keep a disgruntled Rudy Fernandez longer than we'd like out of fear that Brandon may leave early. The organization would be left in limbo, some what, because of Roy holding the all the cards.

If the team has Brandon under contract through the fifth season, they can begin preparing for life after Brandon on their terms. We can decide to trade Brandon at the deadline prior to his contract ending. We wouldn't likely be able to do this because another team wouldn't be interested in him not knowing if he'd be an expiring contract or under contract for at least another season.

I think I rehashed my thoughts in the same way so I'm sure you won't get what I'm saying, and I'm guessing that has more to do with me not being able to formulate my thoughts well on this issue.

Every team with a star player deals with this. Hell, Kobe Bryant could have opted out of his contract this summer. I didn't see LA panicking over it this year, and I didn't see LA refusing to give him a PO in his contract when he signed it. You are acting like other teams don't deal with this regarding their star players. Both Boozer and Okur could have opted out this summer. I didn't see Utah in full meltdown mode, did I?

You are making an argument that no other team in the league has made over their franchise player wanting a player option. So you're right, I STILL don't understand what you're saying. If Roy opts out, he'll be a UFA. If he gets 4 years with no PO, he'll be a UFA. Are you saying the Blazers won't offer him if he gets a PO, but they will if he doesn't get a PO?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Pritchard brought us to the point we're at, yes. But, where he's brought us isn't a bad place, as you seem to intimate.

Wasting assets that come along once a decade or so (or once in "history", as KP said) is not a good place to be, for any business.

By drafting Brandon Roy, you're going to eventually have to deal with an extension. He's doing that and he's doing so responsibly.

Almost everyone with a source in the organization says that KP would've given Roy the Max/Max on July 8, and that PA is stopping it. I'm not blaming KP for not signing Roy at all.

By escaping from Zach Randolph - the player and the contract - we're now in a position to have both Rudy Fernandez, a more advanced Lamarcus Aldridge, and the cap space to attempt and bring in more talent (Hedo, Millsap, and ???). Do you hear youself? Your complaints seem baseless.

Why? Because you don't understand them, or why I am complaining about them?

I'm happy with the fact that we have the opportunity to bring in a player through FA/lopsided trade than be stuck with Zach Randolph.

Me too! Unfortunatly, you're basing your optimism on something that I don't share: the ability to make a change to our team mid-season, and the inherent risks involved in RFA.

I'm happy that we're going to, eventually, lock up Roy and Aldridge to a long term extension.

Me too!

These are issues, but they're issues that come with making wise decisions, and because of this track record, it's safe to say they're issues that will be soon resolved in some beneficial way.

The bolded is the point I've been going after. If you want to do the whole "IKPIT--it will soon be resolved in some beneficial way" that's fine, and no one's stopping you. What I (speaking for myself) have been posting about is your contention in the OP that people like me have "lost perspective", that we were "big winners in past offseasons", that we've made "smart, calculated decisions (and can) for the foreseeable future", and then this doozy:

So, shit, have a little restraint before you spout off about how our team is doing zilch. Show a little appreciation and even a little respect for the job they've done. And, maybe open your eyes to realize that they are indeed refining the team, just not at your pace, but at their pace. And really, isn't that how it should be?

.

I've shown how our team has done "zilch" aside from the draft, while acknowledging that up until this year they've done great things in the draft. And my posts have been to show that, just the opposite of what you intimate, that my eyes are open and my mouth is questioning, while you're "spouting" that we should all trust in KP and his time spent refining because of the job he's done in the past. And as far as I'm concerned, KP isn't paying a dime to watch the team, and I am. Several dimes, for that matter. So to have my opinions discounted and "vented" against because I'm seen to spout about impatience, when it should be that I need to "open my eyes" and wait for their pace--yeah, that's going to cause a mountain of stuff to come back, since I think that facts are on my side and you're using Ostrich Rhetoric (some might call it Kool-Aid, but I won't).

 

[Mediocre Man]

Every team with a star player deals with this. Hell, Kobe Bryant could have opted out of his contract this summer. I didn't see LA panicking over it this year, and I didn't see LA refusing to give him a PO in his contract when he signed it. You are acting like other teams don't deal with this regarding their star players. Both Boozer and Okur could have opted out this summer. I didn't see Utah in full meltdown mode, did I?

You are making an argument that no other team in the league has made over their franchise player wanting a player option. So you're right, I STILL don't understand what you're saying. If Roy opts out, he'll be a UFA. If he gets 4 years with no PO, he'll be a UFA. Are you saying the Blazers won't offer him if he gets a PO, but they will if he doesn't get a PO?

Some people might not believe this, but LA might have a bit more to offer a multi millionaire young black man than Portland does.

 

[PapaG]

Some people might not believe this, but LA might have a bit more to offer a multi millionaire young black man than Portland does.

Primarily, more money and more years as a UFA, just like any other team holding a player's Bird Rights, as Portland will with Roy.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I love how you say "semantic BS aside" and then go on to label all your speculations over a bunch of uncertain reports "proof." That's some well-done semantic gymnastics!

Thanks! The semantic BS was anything drawing away from the point that this deal was or wasn't on the table, and that KP did or didn't say no. Bringing up "uncertain reports" and "proof" is another semantic detour from the issue, imho. And the reports were real reports.

No, at least not for me. My argument is that none of us KNOW what precisely the offers were and who ended up turning it down (if it even got to a "accept/reject" stage). I'm sure Kidd, Harris, Outlaw, Jack and Frye were all involved in the discussions, but how close a deal got, what unreported players might have been involved in the talks and/or who ended up not wanting to deal is entirely conjecture. I'm not terribly interested in conjecturing in the absence of knowledge. You are. That's fine. I'm just not willing to accept your conjectures (Pritchard could have had Harris for Outlaw, Frye and Jack but turned it down) as a historical fact.

So, what? You're sure that Kidd, Harris, Outlaw, Jack and Frye were involved in the discussions, and that the principals from the other teams were traded, and our guys stayed in Portland. Those are the things you're sure of, and/or are facts. Yet you cannot make the leap of logic to think that, in the face of all the reporting over this; the info leaked to newspaper reporters (not "columnists"); the direct quotes from Thorn, KP, and Nate; that KP didn't have the chance to trade Jack/Outlaw/Frye/Picks and have Harris come to POR? Really? If so, then I can understand why you think KP is blameless in this.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

The Eggers article doesn't state what was "truly on the table". I get that, and acknowledged it to Minstrel. His is the after-action report a month later. It was just the first one that popped up on Google.

Then why bring it up? It didn't state who was on the table or that Portland was the one that nixed the deal. So what was in the article that you feel is pertinent to your contention that Portland did, in fact, decline a deal to send those Portland players to DAL for Harris?

The Woj article was the first, chronologically, on Wednesday morning the 30th.

Again that article also didn't state that it was Portland that declined a deal to send those Portland players to DAL for Harris.

The night previously, Chris Broussard had reported that talks were in the "advanced stage". Thursday afternoon they were "pretty much dead".

No where does it show that Pritchard declined a deal to send those Portland players to DAL for Harris.

As for how I know who nixed it? That one's kind of easy, too, if you apply a bit of logic.

Ah. I get it. Now that you realize that those articles don't at all convincingly prove your logical assumptions, you're going to connect the dots for me. So we're agreed that those articles don't, at all, prove that it was Pritch that declined the package, something you promoted and then posted several links to prove? Cool.

1) Dallas wanted Kidd. Dallas got Kidd. Dallas was willing to trade Harris and whoever else it took to make it happen. They ended up doing so. I surmise that they don't care where Harris went (whether to POR to NJ) as long as Kidd came back. So I'm pretty confident in my assessment that DAL didn't "nix the trade".

Disagreed. Dallas has an incentive to move Harris out of the WC. I do agree that they're not likely to have been the culprit though. But, they could be.

rather than the Jack/Outlaw/Frye/draft picks/cash package.

Lost me. I thought it was just Jack, Outlaw and Frye. Now we're also offering draft picks and cash? Which draft picks? How much cash? I guess I should go back and read, but I won't 'cause I'm lazy, I don't remember it being THAT substantial of an offer, but even if it was, that doesn't help convince me. If I'm NJ, I want the best player in the deal, not an infinite number of lesser players.

It's their right to do so. I don't think that's the case, however, since Stein's source said since "the biggest obstacle for New Jersey and Dallas to either moving or acquiring Kidd -- (is) finding the third team they needed to broaden the deal"--not that NJ wanted Harris and only Harris for Kidd. Why would there be reluctance from KP to give up Jack, Frye and Outlaw for a stud young PG?

Here's what Stein wrote:

Yet another potential snag here is that the Nets naturally hope to come out of a Kidd deal with at least one young star. The closest thing to a young star in the scenarios discussed so far -- Harris -- would be going to Portland.

So, come again?

I'm done looking through the articles. You're coming up with your own conclusions based off of hearsay, assumptions and smoke screens. I don't do that unless I feel sure of it. Let's just say, after what you've presented, I'm even more sure that NJ was more interested in Harris than what we could offer.

You vilify Pritchard all you want. At this point, I don't care. I vented. I'm good now.

So, all semantic B.S. aside, it seems like you're telling me that, in the face of all this "proof", you and Minstrel don't think that the offer involving the principals of Jack/Frye/Outlaw/Cash/Picks for Harris was ever "on the table", and that if it was, that KP didn't turn it down--NJ did, and that blaming KP for a mistake he didn't make is ignorant and immature. Is that the crux of your argument?

You keep saying this. That's not the crux of my argument, no.

And I think that all the "proof" is on my side.

Ok.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm glad you got to vent
I'm now certain that this was a venting exercise for you, and not a logical discussion about a topic on a team we love, so I feel a bit worse about wasting my time but a bit better that you feel better. Joke's on me, I guess. Hearsay! Assumptions! Smoke Screens! KP didn't say that he wasn't going to trade, even though he and Nate say that NJ and DAL came to them! Enjoy Ostrich Rhetoric! Bake It!

 

[Minstrel]

So, what? You're sure that Kidd, Harris, Outlaw, Jack and Frye were involved in the discussions, and that the principals from the other teams were traded, and our guys stayed in Portland. Those are the things you're sure of, and/or are facts

Those I'm willing to believe, yes. Talks happen all the time, often to no end. It's not hard to believe that Pritchard got involved with talks and that at least those three Portland players were part of the talks.

Yet you cannot make the leap of logic to think that, in the face of all the reporting over this; the info leaked to newspaper reporters (not "columnists"); the direct quotes from Thorn, KP, and Nate; that KP didn't have the chance to trade Jack/Outlaw/Frye/Picks and have Harris come to POR?

It's not a logical leap, first of all. It's a leap of complete speculation. The fact that the best, most famous player involved (Kidd) and the best young asset (Harris) ended up traded isn't at all hard to believe. That doesn't logically imply that Portland (offering three mediocre at best players) was also involved in a finished deal.

Portland's contribution to the deal is the least valuable...the obvious logical assumption is not that the entity offering the least (Portland) rejected the deal, but that the entity offering the least was cut out of the deal. Or that the entity offering the least was requested to up their offer (for example, add in Aldridge who had somewhat less value then than now), and that made it too much.

You're free to believe that New Jersey was ready to trade Harris for Outlaw, Frye and Jack (I'm leaving out Dallas since they'd be unaffected by that and that's what the deal would boil down to in effect for New Jersey and Portland). I don't believe that New Jersey would consider such a deal and I don't find the reports that "talks took place" compelling that New Jersey was prepared to do just that.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Fair enough. I can't believe you say "complete speculation". The "leaks" from NJ that that was the starter deal, meant to drive up the price...the national love for Outlaw...KP quoted reluctance to make a deal...the speculation in the NY article that Outlaw was better than Harris straight up? (Let's not forget, Harris had just twisted an ankle) All of which were reported in national media? NONE of that even makes you think it was a deal? What would? I'm beginning to think MM is right...when it comes to KP, he's perfect unless the bad trade actually goes through, and even then it becomes a "he knows more than you, so shush" game.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I'm beginning to think MM is right

Welcome into the light. That darkness must have been scary

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Hell, Kobe Bryant could have opted out of his contract this summer. I didn't see LA panicking over it this year, and I didn't see LA refusing to give him a PO in his contract when he signed it.

How long did it take for Kobe's negotiations? Was it quick an easy? I don't know. I remember LA and Kobe being at odds for different reasons over the years. Could one of those reasons be related to his contract? I'm not sure. In the end Kobe got his player-option. In the end Brandon might get his. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to negotiate against that? Or, was this not really a negotiation, but Roy's receivership of a blank check.

It's a negotiation. He's asking for more than his contemporaries from last year. That requires some thought.

Both Boozer and Okur could have opted out this summer. I didn't see Utah in full meltdown mode, did I?

So because Utah did it, we should? They also dragged their feet and then low-balled Millsap. Was that a good move? Look, player options are just that, they're for the benefit of the player. All I'm saying is that Portland should explore all of their options and the ramifications of those options. That is all.

If Roy opts out, he'll be a UFA. If he gets 4 years with no PO, he'll be a UFA. Are you saying the Blazers won't offer him if he gets a PO, but they will if he doesn't get a PO?

I'm saying that being under contract for 4-years is more beneficial to the team than being under contract for a 4-year w/PO for 5th. There's uncertainly on our part as to what will happen with the PO. There's less uncertainty without the PO.

 

[Minstrel]

Fair enough. I can't believe you say "complete speculation". The "leaks" from NJ that that was the starter deal, meant to drive up the price...the national love for Outlaw...KP quoted reluctance to make a deal...the speculation in the NY article that Outlaw was better than Harris straight up? (Let's not forget, Harris had just twisted an ankle) All of which were reported in national media? NONE of that even makes you think it was a deal? What would?

A trade speculation that made sense for both teams or one of the GMs involved saying that that deal was available but Portland decided not to do it. Even then (in the first case, not the second), I still wouldn't consider it a fact, but I'd be more willing to believe that it may have happened.

I'm beginning to think MM is right...when it comes to KP, he's perfect unless the bad trade actually goes through, and even then it becomes a "he knows more than you, so shush" game.

You can think any bitter, passive aggressive thing you like in frustration over not having your speculations validated as fact.

I don't think Pritchard is anything like perfect, I just find it silly to use a trade rumour as a strike against him. Suppose the reason he was "reluctant" was because New Jersey ultimately wanted Aldridge to be added in to the package, but that didn't get leaked (leaks are surprisingly non-thorough at news reporting, oddly enough). Would Pritchard still have been silly to be resistant?

And no, I'm not saying Aldridge WAS involved, I'm saying that there is far too much unknown to use that as evidence one way or the other. You can speculate to your heart's content. I'm simply not willing to accept your speculations as fact.