Venting

[PapaG]

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.

Not really, unless you don't plan on keeping him for more than 4 years since his "contemporaries" got a 4th year PO. Again, you're not making sense.

Chris Paul - 3 years with a 4th year PO
Deron Williams - 3 years with a 4th year PO

Are there other "contemporaries" you were talking about from last season?

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.

What other options are there?

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.

And I'm saying offer him a 5th year with no PO and call his bluff. That said, I'm done with this. Your grasp of why his "contemporaries" signed what they signed, as well as what they actually signed, is an indication about the seriousness of your viewpoint.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Not really, unless you don't plan on keeping him for more than 4 years since his "contemporaries" got a 4th year PO. Again, you're not making sense.

I didn't realize that they had POs. I'm not sure why I didn't notice that.

And I'm saying offer him a 5th year with no PO and call his bluff.

I would be down with that, unless the sticking point is the fifth year, which it sounds like it is. I thought it was that he wanted a PO for that fifth season.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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.

Wait, so now you're saying that in Feb 2008, Harris to POR with the package to NJ and Kidd to DAL (as the principals) didn't make sense? To whom? I submit that it made sense for everyone at the time (and almost any media you read from then--ESPN, papers, blogs, etc--backs up my claim on this), and that KP didn't make the deal for the reason that he was quoted as saying: he didn't want to make any trades messing with chemistry.

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

I don't see how it's bitter or passive. The aggression came in finding mountains of reports, articles, leaks, words from KP's mouth. Your acknowledgment or not of that isn't for me to worry about.

I don't think Pritchard is anything like perfect, I just find it silly to use a trade rumour as a strike against him.

Of course you do, because you're neglecting the entire rest of my OP that this is a continuation of a trend by KP that resulted in this summer being "complicated" and (in my words) fruitless so far. The speculation comes from saying "if he'd have pulled the trigger, we'd be better"; though I doubt you'll find many that argue with that. Instead, you and Crimson tried to defend KP's action or inaction, and jumped on this trade scenario in particular to ridicule as "rumor", when in reality there's a lot that substantiates the speculation I'm proposing as likely (as opposed to any LMA rumor--which no one EVER heard or reported.) At least Crimson said he just wanted to vent--you seem to be trying to debate this as rumor and smoke, when really the "strike against him" is his complete inability (so far in his tenure) to utilize "tools" or "chips" to make the team better, b/c of his stated and quoted reticence to make a trade mid-season and his plan for making a move in a volatile and risky free agency period. those are my strikes against him. This Kidd trade that you've latched onto in hopes that discrediting, and therefore absolving KP,

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?

Why wouldn't it be leaked? If it was a "rumor", even just a dumb Canzano/Sam Smith-esque rumor, it would most like have been heard and debunked. If a star's name is attached, the leaks dry up? Why is it so hard to fathom that NJ and DAL called us up (reported), NJ leaked what they wanted (reported), and we just didn't play ball for whatever reason (KP and Nate's quotes)? Why is that so difficult, in the face of hindsight, all the info available, and KP's direct quotes?

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.

The great thing is that I don't need to speculate. It's in black and white. Our roster is in black and white. You don't need to accept "my speculations" as fact. The facts are that KP hasn't made a trade outside of draft day for anyone other than Von Wafer and Michael Ruffin. He's had "the greatest expiring contract in history" and a boatload of young, cheap players. His quoted philosophy is not to make midseason trades, and that he was targeting CapSpace '09. So to say that the summer is "complicated" is true, but the assertion that we the immature, ignorant fans shouldn't be bashing KP (seconded and repped by posters on this thread and the "overreacting" thread) is laughable since it's completely and utterly of his own inaction and action.

 

[hasoos]

How soon people forget. By not moving Raef, this team went on a fucking sweet run to end the season. Hell at that point we were all wondering whether Portland would make the Playoffs. We did, and IMO, we took on and competed well against the second best team in the West (IMO). The cost, from what the rumors revealed, was sky high to get a return on Raef. NJ/Vince and Charlotte/Wallace all required we give up one of our talented young players and/or take back an unwanted player. Why would we do this? To win one Playoff series? Two? I'm not convinced that you let go of truly special assets, such as Rudy or Nic, unless you're sure it brings you a championship. Adding Vince Carter, in the end, for me, just doesn't guarantee a championship, not with the then uncertainties at that time with Oden, Nic, Rudy, and Jerryd's rate of progression and lack of toughness/defensive ability in the front and back court. In my opinion, taking the wait-and-see approach made more sense and still does. And by waiting, it's pretty apparent to me that we found out that our young guys are going to be studs and that we shouldn't give them up unless we're getting back an All Star level player entering or in their prime.




Having Brandon locked up would be sweet, but not under his terms. He may be a stud, but he's not running the franchise. Besides we didn't lose Hedo because Brandon wasn't extended the first tick-tock of July and it hasn't apparently hurt our chances at signing Millsap.



Yeah. Because Portland is known for being unprepared. If you believe Pritchard went into this offseason with their sole and only plan being Operation: Turk, then I don't know what to say. They seem like an overly thorough bunch that lost their primary target. The only other player I think they would've targeted that they missed out on was Ariza thus far. The rest I'm not convinced they wanted anything to do with, given that they'd have to move valuable assets. And, it's the right choice, considering we'll likely walk away with someone through free agency that will help the team for years to come without giving up anyone before we're ready to give them up.



Did Kobe recruit Artest? Did Ming do the same for Ariza? Did Bosh wait patiently for Turk? Granted it could be helpful, I suppose, but players, and their agents, know who is on our team and under contract. This argument against Portland seems silly to me.



1. You're not even sure of your statement, yet you're using it to support your argument that our management is unprofessional.

2. That you're attributing KP's untucked shirt, is this even true!?!, to our piss-poor offseason is hilarious to me.

3. I've been self-employed since I was 16. I've "done business".

So say you. I watched Richard Jefferson get traded for a stale bag of popcorn which is going to be cut. I watched Vince Carter get traded for a good first round draft pick and a few role players. It is obvious that we could have made a deal but didn't. Because Outlaw or some other easily replaceable player was over valued.

As for your statement about recruiting you bet your ass they did recruit. I can guarantee you that Kobe had say in the Artest deal and talked with him, and I can guarantee you that Phil Jackson (Who IS a respected recruiter) talked to him too. Team leaders are always brought in to recruit players to come on board in almost every situation, the one situation they are not is when there are no team leaders with credibility left on the team. Do you honestly believe that any players are brought into LA without Kobe being brought into it?

Trevor Ariza didn't need recruited for Houston because he was alrady pissed that Ron Artest was picked over him. He spoke with his contract, and probably way too soon. Secondly, Trevor Ariza isn't a star. When recruiting stars you work at it. When recruiting role players, you don't have to go so far. It helps, but lets face it, role players are easily replaceable.

And yes, KP looked like shit when he went to meet Hedo. Why the fuck would I make that up? What do I have to gain from it? I am sure the media clips are still out there, so if you are going to refute it, go watch the tape and then you will see. He looked like he just walked out of hell. When you want your organization to appear professional, it starts from the top down.

 

[Minstrel]

Wait, so now you're saying that in Feb 2008, Harris to POR with the package to NJ and Kidd to DAL (as the principals) didn't make sense? To whom?

For New Jersey. The media may have talked up Outlaw's value, but to anyone who looked at slightly sophisticated statistics, it was clear that he was nothing special. Three mediocre players (Jack and Frye arguably sub-mediocre) do not equal a highly-valued young point guard.

I don't see how it's bitter or passive.

"You don't agree with me, thus you must be a blind KP lover!!!11!1111"

Sounds bitter to me. The "passive aggressive" part came by not explicitly saying it like that, but implying it by saying "Wow, I guess MM was right...etc etc." Hope that clears it up.

Of course you do, because you're neglecting the entire rest of my OP that this is a continuation of a trend by KP that resulted in this summer being "complicated" and (in my words) fruitless so far.

I'm not. I just don't think a trade rumour that none of us know (but some of us pretend to know) was actually true is a solid piece to your "case."

you seem to be trying to debate this as rumor and smoke
...
This Kidd trade that you've latched onto in hopes that discrediting, and therefore absolving KP

You're incorrect. I wasn't arguing with your overall "case" (though I don't agree with it, but I've argued it enough in the past that I don't feel like going through it again). I simply inquired about a few things you mentioned that I wanted to discuss in more detail. In other words, I wasn't trying to "latch on" to a small part to distract from your fancy, grand case. I was simply debating the parts I actually found a little interesting, for one reason or another.

You don't wear "poor, put-upon victim" well. I'm not out to get you or try to use tricks to discredit your precious case. Nor am I trying to "absolve" Pritchard. I think his accomplishments in team-building to this point speak for themselves and he'll ultimately by judged by how much his teams win. I have no vested interest in whether Pritchard is seen as a success or failure. I simply disagreed with some of your "points." Don't get angry at me if you can't defend them.

Why wouldn't it be leaked?

Because "leaks" by their very nature, are unpredictable and unreliable. All sorts of pertinent information can be left out by "leaks."

The great thing is that I don't need to speculate. It's in black and white. Our roster is in black and white.

I didn't say you speculated about the roster. I'm saying your analysis of Portland's involvement in the Kidd/Harris deal is speculation. About that, you do need to speculate because we don't have the facts.

The rest seems directed at Crimson, because it doesn't relate to anything I have said.

 

[BrianFromWA]

If it seems as if I'm angry, or bitter, or passive aggressive, I assure you it's not the case. If it comes across that way, my apologies. I'm not trying to be a victim of anything. Back to the topic.

I don't pretend to know or not know any more about rumors than the next guy. I don't have "sources". What I do have is almost a dozen media outlets of varying reliability reporting that these "talks" were going on. That, coupled with KP's quote from that night about "not wanting to make trades", seems sufficient for me. If it doesn't for you--again, if I'm not going to change your mind that's fine with me.

The whole "fancy, grand case" that seems to be at issue here--the rebuttal to Crimson's "So, shit, have a little restraint before you spout off about how our team is doing zilch"--I don't quite see how it's not germane to bring up how the team doing zilch is nothing new; it's been KP's quoted m.o. since the day he took over as GM. And now seems as good a time as any to bring up criticisms about his philosophy and plans, especially since people like me were criticized at the deadline for the inaction. And his lack of making a single trade outside of draft day (other than Wafer and Ruffin) is directly responsible for the "complicated" and fruitless summer so far.

If you want to say that the Harris offer was never on the table, fine. No Carter or Hinrich or Jefferson "rumors" were actually on the table, fine. I just find it much harder to believe your contention that KP's never had a good enough trade on the table to pull the trigger on than my assertion that he's never gone through with ones that, especially in hindsight, seem like big mistakes not to make. That's where I'll move the discussion to, to keep it a discussion.

 

[Minstrel]

Odd, my post got half-eaten. I'll re-post the full version:

I don't pretend to know or not know any more about rumors than the next guy. I don't have "sources". What I do have is almost a dozen media outlets of varying reliability reporting that these "talks" were going on. That, coupled with KP's quote from that night about "not wanting to make trades", seems sufficient for me. If it doesn't for you--again, if I'm not going to change your mind that's fine with me.

I agree that that's pretty solid evidence that "talks" happened. Where we apparently diverge is whether those talks materialized into a Harris for Outlaw/Frye/Jack deal that Pritchard walked away from. It's possible, but not the likeliest scenario in my opinion, and thus I am not willing to string Pritchard up for it.

If I really did believe that Pritchard had that deal available and turned it down, I'd definitely say he fucked up. Badly. I don't say, "Well, he knows more than us" to excuse decisions that make no sense. I simply don't think that talks and speculation about what those talks yielded equals a known bad decision. He may have made a bad decision, but I don't believe we know what was ultimately presented to him if anything.

I just find it much harder to believe your contention that KP's never had a good enough trade on the table to pull the trigger on than my assertion that he's never gone through with ones that, especially in hindsight, seem like big mistakes not to make. That's where I'll move the discussion to, to keep it a discussion.

I haven't necessarily made that contention. My position has been that I don't see the point in evaluating Pritchard on deal we think he could have made, since we can't know whether they were even options. I absolutely believe in evaluating him by decisions we know he did make.

Maybe I should be more expansive on how I believe an executive or leader should be evaluated. I believe that there's a micro and macro level that need to be considered.

The micro level is looking at each decision he makes and determining whether you like the process illustrated by those decisions and whether you think that, based on the information at the time, they were rational decisions. A classic example of "process rather than results" is blackjack: if a person (not the dealer, who knows what she needs to beat) is dealt two face cards (20) and hits...that's bad process, because it's clear that the odds are overwhelmingly against him. He may get an ace, a fantastic result, but it was still bad decision-making...at least on that micro level. You want to see good process, because if you have that, the results will tend to reflect that over the long-term.

The macro level is what the person accomplishes over the time you're evaluating her. This is the bottom line analysis and, ultimately, the only thing that counts...but hard to use over short stretches of time, which is why it isn't the only important analysis. If you are ultimately unsuccessful, it doesn't really matter if your "process" is throwing darts or careful research and cold logic. If you fail over the long-term, it means your process, good as it may have seemed, left something crucial out.

So, applying this to Pritchard: on the micro level, I've liked his process. I think he's valued superior talent over reaching for need, he's chosen to accept risk for higher reward and he's largely tried to optimize his assets. The main exception to this (and one I criticized him for) was the Zach Randolph deal. I don't believe he maximized that asset. The main perceived exception is RLEC, but I don't share that perception. I think Pritchard did try to maximize it and use it in a deal, but it turned out to be less valuable than he hoped. We have "reports" of his trying to work all sorts of deals, from Stoudemire to Shaq to Carter, etc. The result wasn't good, but without knowing precisely what deals he had available, I have no quarrels with the process.

On the macro level, he's taken arguably the worst roster in basketball and re-made it into arguably the best (when factoring in both the present and future value), and it took him only a few years. This kind of transformation in team fortunes is pretty remarkable and uncommon. So far, on the macro level, he's a massive success. Of course, when it comes time to evaluate his entire career (whenever he leaves Portland), how much these teams won and how many, if any, titles were won will be the bottom line. But we aren't there yet. For now, the macro level analysis definitely looks really positive for him.

So that is my "big picture" look at Pritchard. I think he's been very successful and his process, so far, suggests to me that it wasn't luck, so I predict continued success for him. But, obviously, he needs to continue to show good process and continued overall results. I don't claim Pritchard is a good GM because I like him. I like him because I think he's a good GM. So there's nothing blind about it, to me. My view of him is favourable because I think he's earned it. If he starts making mistakes, my view of him will change accordingly.

 

[PapaG]

I didn't realize that they had POs. I'm not sure why I didn't notice that.



I would be down with that, unless the sticking point is the fifth year, which it sounds like it is. I thought it was that he wanted a PO for that fifth season.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but you missed some basic facts aligned to why people may be upset about the Roy negotiations.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I see what you're saying about "micro vs. macro", and for the most part I can understand your positions (though I don't fully agree).

So, applying this to Pritchard: on the micro level, I've liked his process. I think he's valued superior talent over reaching for need, he's chosen to accept risk for higher reward and he's largely tried to optimize his assets. The main exception to this (and one I criticized him for) was the Zach Randolph deal. I don't believe he maximized that asset. The main perceived exception is RLEC, but I don't share that perception. I think Pritchard did try to maximize it and use it in a deal, but it turned out to be less valuable than he hoped. We have "reports" of his trying to work all sorts of deals, from Stoudemire to Shaq to Carter, etc. The result wasn't good, but without knowing precisely what deals he had available, I have no quarrels with the process.

On the macro level, he's taken arguably the worst roster in basketball and re-made it into arguably the best (when factoring in both the present and future value), and it took him only a few years. This kind of transformation in team fortunes is pretty remarkable and uncommon. So far, on the macro level, he's a massive success. Of course, when it comes time to evaluate his entire career (whenever he leaves Portland), how much these teams won and how many, if any, titles were won will be the bottom line. But we aren't there yet. For now, the macro level analysis definitely looks really positive for him.

So that is my "big picture" look at Pritchard. I think he's been very successful and his process, so far, suggests to me that it wasn't luck, so I predict continued success for him. But, obviously, he needs to continue to show good process and continued overall results. I don't claim Pritchard is a good GM because I like him. I like him because I think he's a good GM. So there's nothing blind about it, to me. My view of him is favourable because I think he's earned it. If he starts making mistakes, my view of him will change accordingly.

I guess my "big picture" look at Pritchard would look something like this: To use your casino analogy--he may have the game of blackjack (player evaluation and drafting) down pat. Great process, great results, walking away from the table up 10k every time he plays. But what we've seen over the past couple of seasons (based on rumors and reporting, if not cold hard facts) has shown a propensity to blow some of those winnings--RLEC, "cap space"--on games he isn't as good on or are much riskier (mid-season trades, free agency). So instead of being up 10k walking out of the casino (more than 54 wins, maybe a trip to the 2nd round or WCF) he's walking out with 5k (54 wins and a 1st round loss). Since most Portland fans haven't walked out of the casino with money in years (21 wins, no playoff wins, etc.) they're ecstatic with 54 and the playoffs. But looking at his job holistically, I think there's enough evidence (though I know you disagree) around that there have been deals available that he hasn't taken (I'm talking specifically about VC, Hinrich, and Harris) that would have significantly upgraded the team and kept us at that 10k or higher level at a relatively small cost. Sure, we can't expect perfection. Yes, I'd rather he have 54 wins than 21. Yes, I know it's uncommon to go from 21 to 54 in a few short years. But I think that KP's skill in other games is working to the detriment of the team, and it's being shown in his CapSpace 09 plan and his stated reticence to trade his players.

 

[Tince]

I see what you're saying about "micro vs. macro", and for the most part I can understand your positions (though I don't fully agree).


I guess my "big picture" look at Pritchard would look something like this: To use your casino analogy--he may have the game of blackjack (player evaluation and drafting) down pat. Great process, great results, walking away from the table up 10k every time he plays. But what we've seen over the past couple of seasons (based on rumors and reporting, if not cold hard facts) has shown a propensity to blow some of those winnings--RLEC, "cap space"--on games he isn't as good on or are much riskier (mid-season trades, free agency). So instead of being up 10k walking out of the casino (more than 54 wins, maybe a trip to the 2nd round or WCF) he's walking out with 5k (54 wins and a 1st round loss). Since most Portland fans haven't walked out of the casino with money in years (21 wins, no playoff wins, etc.) they're ecstatic with 54 and the playoffs. But looking at his job holistically, I think there's enough evidence (though I know you disagree) around that there have been deals available that he hasn't taken (I'm talking specifically about VC, Hinrich, and Harris) that would have significantly upgraded the team and kept us at that 10k or higher level at a relatively small cost. Sure, we can't expect perfection. Yes, I'd rather he have 54 wins than 21. Yes, I know it's uncommon to go from 21 to 54 in a few short years. But I think that KP's skill in other games is working to the detriment of the team, and it's being shown in his CapSpace 09 plan and his stated reticence to trade his players.

I hear this a lot, but I don't know if I buy it. Last year at the trade deadline, we were on pace to win something like 49 games and lots of people were saying we needed to make a trade if we wanted to vault ourselves into a team that could get home court, and maybe just to make the playoffs. Well, we stayed with the same team, continued to gel, and finished tied for 2nd in the West.

Adding more talent doesn't always result in a better outcome. This team clearly had a great understanding of their roles and a good amount of chemistry, adding a guy like VC could have really shaken that all up. Not to mention, that we would have had to given up a young contributor to rent out his services for a couple years.

 

[LittleAlex]

I hear this a lot, but I don't know if I buy it. Last year at the trade deadline, we were on pace to win something like 49 games and lots of people were saying we needed to make a trade if we wanted to vault ourselves into a team that could get home court, and maybe just to make the playoffs. Well, we stayed with the same team, continued to gel, and finished tied for 2nd in the West.

Adding more talent doesn't always result in a better outcome. This team clearly had a great understanding of their roles and a good amount of chemistry, adding a guy like VC could have really shaken that all up. Not to mention, that we would have had to given up a young contributor to rent out his services for a couple years.

Portland wasn't 2nd in the west, nor tied for it other then by record. They got the 4th seed, primarily because they couldn't beat even shitty teams in their division on the road consistently.

I am tired of hear how they were tied for 2nd best in the west. They were not. There are tie breakers for a reason, and Portland's division record was not up to snuff.

They were one of the best teams in the west, but not second.

 

[Minstrel]

Portland wasn't 2nd in the west, nor tied for it other then by record. They got the 4th seed, primarily because they couldn't beat even shitty teams in their division on the road consistently.

I am tired of hear how they were tied for 2nd best in the west. They were not. There are tie breakers for a reason, and Portland's division record was not up to snuff.

They were one of the best teams in the west, but not second.

They did have the second-best point differential in the West. They may not have gotten the second seed, but it's arguable as to whether they were or were not the second-best team.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but you missed some basic facts aligned to why people may be upset about the Roy negotiations.

Oh goody. I couldn't rest before I had your benefit of the doubt. Whatever. You couldn't appear more full of yourself. It's as if you're presuming I care how you feel.

I missed a fact that those 4th years were POs. It doesn't change that I don't understand why the fans are in an uproar over this. He did offer the same amount to Roy as Paul and Williams received last year. He's wanting more and Portland's correct in wondering if that's in the best interest of the team. Is the hold up that it's a 5th year? Is it that it's a player option for a 5th year? is it the amount of the 5th year? Who knows except for those close to Roy and the organization.

That there's been a snag in the negotiations isn't shocking to me, nor does it make me find fault with either side. They're both doing what's best for themselves.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I hear this a lot, but I don't know if I buy it. Last year at the trade deadline, we were on pace to win something like 49 games and lots of people were saying we needed to make a trade if we wanted to vault ourselves into a team that could get home court, and maybe just to make the playoffs. Well, we stayed with the same team, continued to gel, and finished tied for 2nd in the West.

Adding more talent doesn't always result in a better outcome. This team clearly had a great understanding of their roles and a good amount of chemistry, adding a guy like VC could have really shaken that all up. Not to mention, that we would have had to given up a young contributor to rent out his services for a couple years.

First, I'm not sure that we would've had to "give up a young contributor". The big rumor going around was RLEC (only!) for VC AND 2 first round picks. But let's set that aside, since it's unverified.

Let's say that someone wanted Bayless, or Outlaw, or Batum for that "two year rental" of VC or Jefferson or Wallace. How long is Bayless or Outlaw or Batum or Rudy going to be around for? Granted, having their RFA rights is very helpful to keeping them around, but look at the roster turnover from the last couple of years. We've gotten rid of Telfair, Zach, Jack, Blake (then got him back), Frye, James Jones, Ime, Sergio. Martell would be where Frye is today if he hadn't gotten lucky and signed his extension back when they thought he'd play last year. ALL of those guys were "young contributors with value". They just happened to be ditched on draft day or not have a new contract offered. The only ones who seem "safe" are Oden, Roy, and LMA--for good reason.

Let's establish a couple of points, though. Vince Carter was significantly better than any SF we had last year, and any one we had the year before, and any one currently on our roster. Boston seemed to think that giving up young players and picks for a 2-3 year "rental" of Garnett and Allen was a good deal, and they won a championship. Did their chemistry change? You betcha? For the better? Well, rings do that, or so I've heard.

Maybe (and I hope so) Bayless and Batum will blossom into all-stars or close at the 1 and 3 positions and lock us into a dynasty for a long time. According to his quotes, KP didn't want to trade any of his players when asked about it during the Kidd-Harris trade timeframe. Of the players discussed that KP didn't want to trade, only Travis is around 17 months later, and I don't know that too many of us would lament that if we had Harris or Kidd. Who's to say Bayless or Batum or Rudy will be around in 2 years?

Adding more talent doesn't always result in a better outcome. This team clearly had a great understanding of their roles and a good amount of chemistry, adding a guy like VC could have really shaken that all up.

Yes, VC could have shaken it up and changed roles, so that instead of Travis and his 39% clutch shooting we could've had VC and his 50% clutch shooting taking shots in the 4th quarter. Or maybe with his pure passer rating five times that of Travis he could've been on the floor more. Or his drawn foul% three times that of Blake might've contributed to a better 4th-quarter lineup. Or just playing more than Batum, and not having to worry about crunch time b/c we're already up a bunch. And with the associated wins, maybe celebratory parties lead to more fun and comraderie in the locker room. I don't know, though.

 

[Tince]

First, I'm not sure that we would've had to "give up a young contributor". The big rumor going around was RLEC (only!) for VC AND 2 first round picks. But let's set that aside, since it's unverified.

Let's say that someone wanted Bayless, or Outlaw, or Batum for that "two year rental" of VC or Jefferson or Wallace. How long is Bayless or Outlaw or Batum or Rudy going to be around for? Granted, having their RFA rights is very helpful to keeping them around, but look at the roster turnover from the last couple of years. We've gotten rid of Telfair, Zach, Jack, Blake (then got him back), Frye, James Jones, Ime, Sergio. Martell would be where Frye is today if he hadn't gotten lucky and signed his extension back when they thought he'd play last year. ALL of those guys were "young contributors with value". They just happened to be ditched on draft day or not have a new contract offered. The only ones who seem "safe" are Oden, Roy, and LMA--for good reason.

Let's establish a couple of points, though. Vince Carter was significantly better than any SF we had last year, and any one we had the year before, and any one currently on our roster. Boston seemed to think that giving up young players and picks for a 2-3 year "rental" of Garnett and Allen was a good deal, and they won a championship. Did their chemistry change? You betcha? For the better? Well, rings do that, or so I've heard.

Maybe (and I hope so) Bayless and Batum will blossom into all-stars or close at the 1 and 3 positions and lock us into a dynasty for a long time. According to his quotes, KP didn't want to trade any of his players when asked about it during the Kidd-Harris trade timeframe. Of the players discussed that KP didn't want to trade, only Travis is around 17 months later, and I don't know that too many of us would lament that if we had Harris or Kidd. Who's to say Bayless or Batum or Rudy will be around in 2 years?



Yes, VC could have shaken it up and changed roles, so that instead of Travis and his 39% clutch shooting we could've had VC and his 50% clutch shooting taking shots in the 4th quarter. Or maybe with his pure passer rating five times that of Travis he could've been on the floor more. Or his drawn foul% three times that of Blake might've contributed to a better 4th-quarter lineup. Or just playing more than Batum, and not having to worry about crunch time b/c we're already up a bunch. And with the associated wins, maybe celebratory parties lead to more fun and comraderie in the locker room. I don't know, though.

I think you're missing my point. Maybe VC would be more valuable to us now than Batum. However, when VC has no knees and our championship window opens up, I know I'd much rather have Batum on our roster. Again, just a personal preference. I'm not as big on trying to force the issue like the Baby Bulls did getting Ben Wallace.

Your point about VC brings up the possible positive outcomes. You dismiss any chances that he takes shots away from Roy. Or it causes us to go inside even less, and that changes the way we play. Chemistry is a delicate thing. The upside of VC was that he would have brought us to 56 wins and the second round. The down side is that chemistry would have been ruined, we would have still lost in the first round, and most importantly, 2 years from now, we'd have nothing to show for it.

We'll never know either way.

 

[BrianFromWA]

We'll never know either way.

Now this I can agree with!

 

[Tince]

Portland wasn't 2nd in the west, nor tied for it other then by record. They got the 4th seed, primarily because they couldn't beat even shitty teams in their division on the road consistently.

I am tired of hear how they were tied for 2nd best in the west. They were not. There are tie breakers for a reason, and Portland's division record was not up to snuff.

They were one of the best teams in the west, but not second.

Ok, I'll edit my post to clarify we finished tied for the 2nd best record in the West. Would that make you happy?

If you want to believe that those tie-breakers are any reflection of how good a team is vs another, you are mistaken. If you want to look at record, strength of schedule, etc, I'd be happy to look up where Portland finished in the league.

 

[Tince]

Now this I can agree with!

I knew we had to agree on something!

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I watched Richard Jefferson get traded for a stale bag of popcorn which is going to be cut.

Let's look at this. We would have been under the cap when the deal went down I believe, so we'd have to match the salary exactly with either our salary cap space or contracts. We would have had to wait, I believe, until July 8th to also make a move, for our salary cap space to be known and used. Since we were below the cap, we'd have to include another $6.5M in salary heading to MIL. Since MIL only took back players that, at most, were under contract for one season, I'm assuming their asking price would be Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw. And even then with the San Antonio deal because Bowen's contract isn't fully guaranteed they take back less in salary than what we could do. Uh, no thanks. San Antonio can have him.

Prior to July 1st, but after the trade deadline, we would have been above the salary cap, so we'd only need to send $9.9M their way. That's still Blake and Outlaw, plus another $1.7M. Which player do you propose we add to that? No one. It doesn't make sense for Portland.

The only time Jefferson may have made sense was at the trade deadline, when we could send Lafrentz in exchange for him. At this point, that sounds good. But he's not a perfect fit. I can see why they'd rather pursue other opportunities. I'd much prefer Marvin Williams, Ramon Sessions, David Lee, or several other players that can be had through trade. It's July 17th. We've been held up by the Turk fiasco and the Millsap matching game. There's plenty of time left to improve the team IMO. And, the risk of turning down Jefferson was worthwhile, at least for this fan.

I watched Vince Carter get traded for a good first round draft pick and a few role players.

Rudy Fernandez, as I understand it, was the asking price and reason why we didn't move for Carter. Rudy is not replaceable. I'm down with trading him, but only for the right player. I don't want to lose him just to rent Carter for one or two good seasons, especially when the rest of our pieces aren't realistically ready to contend with Los Angeles, Boston, and Cleveland.

I can guarantee you that Kobe had say in the Artest deal and talked with him, and I can guarantee you that Phil Jackson (Who IS a respected recruiter) talked to him too.

You can guarantee that Kobe recruited him? Ok. Not sure how some of you are so sure of what is happening behind the scenes. You're all very lucky.

Oh, and I would hope to god the coach would be assisting in recruiting free agents ... you know, just how Nate flew to Orlando to wine and dine Turk.

Do you honestly believe that any players are brought into LA without Kobe being brought into it?

It seems reasonable that Kobe was asked his opinion I suppose. I don't recall Kobe being there at the airport when Artest landed at LAX or hearing of him being a part of a conference call. Evidently you've got insider info though.

And yes, KP looked like shit when he went to meet Hedo. Why the fuck would I make that up? What do I have to gain from it?

I'm not refuting your opinion. It's yours. I believe you're exaggerating though. I'm sure he didn't look quite as "shitty" or "zombie-like" as you're making out.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think you're missing my point. Maybe VC would be more valuable to us now than Batum. However, when VC has no knees and our championship window opens up, I know I'd much rather have Batum on our roster. Again, just a personal preference. I'm not as big on trying to force the issue like the Baby Bulls did getting Ben Wallace.

The point I was making is: how do you know Batum'll be on the roster in two years, even IF we didn't trade him for Vince? That's why I brought up the Harris rumor. KP really liked Jack, Frye and Outlaw and didn't want to make trades in Feb 08. Fast forward to today, two of those players aren't on the team and the third isn't exactly untouchable. So saying "he might've helped, but in three years he'll be horrible and I'd rather have Batum" isn't exactly the only set of possible outcomes.

Your point about VC brings up the possible positive outcomes. You dismiss any chances that he takes shots away from Roy. Or it causes us to go inside even less, and that changes the way we play. Chemistry is a delicate thing. The upside of VC was that he would have brought us to 56 wins and the second round. The down side is that chemistry would have been ruined, we would have still lost in the first round, and most importantly, 2 years from now, we'd have nothing to show for it.

We'll never know either way.

Let's not get crazy. The upside of Vince was WCF against the L*kers and a chance for the Finals. That wasn't an option for our team as constructed last April. And the downside WAS that he might've pulled the team apart, but I don't think he's ever had that effect on a team he was traded to.

 

[Tince]

Let's not get crazy. The upside of Vince was WCF against the L*kers and a chance for the Finals. That wasn't an option for our team as constructed last April. And the downside WAS that he might've pulled the team apart, but I don't think he's ever had that effect on a team he was traded to.

He's played with some real talented players in his career, and I don't believe he's ever got to the conference finals. I'm not sure how many times he's got to the 2nd round.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

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!

I'm all for logical discussions. But I can also tell when your line of thinking and mine will not ever coincide, at least not on this particular issue. I can only spend so much time in these discussions. At some point it's just screaming at a brick wall.

Oh, and I'm not being close-minded. I'm actually being very open-minded. I also don't subscribe to favoring the "bake it" approach. I acknowledge that it is an approach that is possibly better than making certain moves that take the team far from their philosophical approach in building/maintaining a successful basketball franchise though.

 

[LittleAlex]

Ok, I'll edit my post to clarify we finished tied for the 2nd best record in the West. Would that make you happy?

If you want to believe that those tie-breakers are any reflection of how good a team is vs another, you are mistaken. If you want to look at record, strength of schedule, etc, I'd be happy to look up where Portland finished in the league.

Really? Division record is meaningless compared to over-all record?

That is an interesting take.

I know you make a living at evaluating players, so I won't argue with you about that sort of thing.

But this isn't about player evaluation.

Portland had a horrible road record versus the western conference, especially versus playoff contenders (2 and 11 I believe). They had a worse division record then Denver. Not sure how that makes them just as good as Denver. In games against the exact same competition they came up short. To my mind that means they weren't tied with Denver.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I think you're missing my point. Maybe VC would be more valuable to us now than Batum. However, when VC has no knees and our championship window opens up, I know I'd much rather have Batum on our roster. Again, just a personal preference. I'm not as big on trying to force the issue like the Baby Bulls did getting Ben Wallace.

<snip>

We'll never know either way.

You're right, there is no way to know for sure.

It seems to me, however, that there is something missing from your equation. If you are correct - if adding veteran help won't make us contenders - then that creates a whole new problem. If our window really doesn't open for a few years (and for the record, I disagree), what makes you believe that all our young players will *still be here*?

Rudy is already greasing his own skids. If Batum becomes a star, he might want out too. Bayless could easily wind up like Sergio and demand a trade to a team where he is a better fit. Even Roy is showing the first symptoms of "looking out for #1" disease.

To be blunt, I believe we will be lucky if 4-5 years from now we have even 4 players off the current team.

If people want me to be patient and "let it bake", they first need to assure me that when and if it does "bake", I at least get a taste!

 

[Tince]

Really? Division record is meaningless compared to over-all record?

That is an interesting take.

I know you make a living at evaluating players, so I won't argue with you about that sort of thing.

But this isn't about player evaluation.

Portland had a horrible road record versus the western conference, especially versus playoff contenders (2 and 11 I believe). They had a worse division record then Denver. Not sure how that makes them just as good as Denver. In games against the exact same competition they came up short. To my mind that means they weren't tied with Denver.

I think "meaningless" is too strong. However, picking 3 common opponents (division record) to determine which is better, doesn't mean anything. I promise you I could find 3 common opponents that Portland had a better record against compared to San Antonio and Denver. In determining playoff seeding, it make logical sense to go to conference or division record. I believe Portland tied for the 5th best record in the league, that is impressive no matter how you slice it.

I don't make (all) of my mortgage payment based off of the scouting service I work for, and I hope I didn't come across as a know-it-all because that's what I get paid to do. I feel lucky to have access/time to watch players/plays in a short time frame that help me evaluate players. I'm just lucky to have the tools and opportunity to to something like that.

 

[PapaG]

Oh goody. I couldn't rest before I had your benefit of the doubt. Whatever. You couldn't appear more full of yourself. It's as if you're presuming I care how you feel.

I missed a fact that those 4th years were POs. It doesn't change that I don't understand why the fans are in an uproar over this. He did offer the same amount to Roy as Paul and Williams received last year. He's wanting more and Portland's correct in wondering if that's in the best interest of the team. Is the hold up that it's a 5th year? Is it that it's a player option for a 5th year? is it the amount of the 5th year? Who knows except for those close to Roy and the organization.

That there's been a snag in the negotiations isn't shocking to me, nor does it make me find fault with either side. They're both doing what's best for themselves.

Says the guy with a 3000 word rambling rant for which he dedicated an entire thread. That's not being full of yourself at all.

You seem to be the one in an uproar, and your lack of basic facts surrounding the Paul/Williams extensions seems odd when I consider the thousands of words you've written in this thread criticizing how others view the summer.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Says the guy with a 3000 word rambling rant for which he dedicated an entire thread. That's not being full of yourself at all.

So by writing a lengthy post detailing why I feel certain fans are unfairly criticizing Blazers' management makes me full of myself. If that's how it came off that wasn't my intention. I simply saw and heard a growing resentment that didn't add up to me and I voiced my opinion about that.

You, though, felt it necessary, in some self-serving way, to excuse me from a mistake. I wouldn't do that and can't stand those that do.

You seem to be the one in an uproar, and your lack of basic facts surrounding the Paul/Williams extensions seems odd when I consider the thousands of words you've written in this thread criticizing how others view the summer.

You keep stating "facts", as if I was wrong about numerous ones. I was incorrect about this one fact, that those players have player-options in their fourth contract year. That you want to continually point out a simple oversight that doesn't in anyway contradict my initial opinion, nor does it diminish my take that Pritchard isn't blundering up these negotiations, only solidifies my thoughts of you. Which is too bad, as I had always enjoyed and respected your thoughts.

So answer me this, how does my misinterpretation of the PO of their contracts make my impressions of others' impressions odd?

 

[PapaG]

So by writing a lengthy post detailing why I feel certain fans are unfairly criticizing Blazers' management makes me full of myself. If that's how it came off that wasn't my intention. I simply saw and heard a growing resentment that didn't add up to me and I voiced my opinion about that.

You, though, felt it necessary, in some self-serving way, to excuse me from a mistake. I wouldn't do that and can't stand those that do.



You keep stating "facts", as if I was wrong about numerous ones. I was incorrect about this one fact, that those players have player-options in their fourth contract year. That you want to continually point out a simple oversight that doesn't in anyway contradict my initial opinion, nor does it diminish my take that Pritchard isn't blundering up these negotiations, only solidifies my thoughts of you. Which is too bad, as I had always enjoyed and respected your thoughts.

So answer me this, how does my misinterpretation of the PO of their contracts make my impressions of others' impressions odd?

No thanks, no more for me in this thread. I respect your posts, you just seem extremely emotional in this thread. I said you were "full of yourself" and provided a goofy example (we ALL start threads dedicated to our words, don't we?) only because you first accused me of being "full of myself". I thought you'd be able to laugh at yourself, as I did at myself when reading your above post. I'll also admit I chuckled a bit at the seriousness I derived from the post.

Take it easy, I'm sure we'll discuss other topics in the future!

 

[Crimson the Cat]

No thanks, no more for me in this thread. I respect your posts, you just seem extremely emotional in this thread. I said you were "full of yourself" and provided a goofy example (we ALL start threads dedicated to our words, don't we?) only because you first accused me of being "full of myself". I thought you'd be able to laugh at yourself, as I did at myself when reading your above post. I'll also admit I chuckled a bit at the seriousness I derived from the post.

I'm an emotional person when it comes to my passions in life. I can get reactionary to a fault at times. It struck me as odd that you'd continually point out, falsely I might add, an inaccuracy and then to proceed to excuse my behavior. It rubbed me the wrong way, as you can see.

Take it easy, I'm sure we'll discuss other topics in the future!

You too.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Between RLEC and not having Brandon locked up to be the team leadership present to bring in free agents, it comes across to me as somebody who is overly confident running the show, because they weren't prepared properly this year for the events that transpired. Anybody who is bringing in free agents to join a team knows that you have team leaders meet them and try to recruit them. That didn't happen here. If I remember right, it was KP and Tom Penn at the airport, both of them looked like they had both been at a strip club for 3 days, and KP was still tucking in his shirt. Give me a fucking break and demonstrate some professionality. If you don't see what's wrong with that, then you probably haven't done business before.

It doesn't appear Pritchard's lack of preparedness and sloppy dress hurt him in signing Andre Miller, fucking over Utah, adding two quality players in Claver and Cunningham, keeping Koponen and Freeland, and, all the while not giving up any assets.