What's higher? ...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Nikolokolus

Nikolokolus

There's always next year
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
30,704
Likes
6,198
Points
113
After a strong showing in the playoffs this year (and generally during the season) Jerryd's trade value is probably a fair bit higher than it was at the end of his rookie year. So here's my question: What's higher right now, his value in a trade or his actual longterm value to the Blazers as part of their rotation (most likely at backup shooting guard, with spot minutes at the point)?

I bring this up because there's been a lot of bagging on Rudy for his Houdini act and a lot of us want him gone in a trade this summer, but at this point we'd probably have to pay somebody to take him and we'd be unlikely to get much back in return. So if we're talking about targeting a player to assume the supposed PGOTF role Rudy probably doesn't help us get there, but maybe Jerryd does.

For the sake of argument, let's say you could get Darren Collison and Mo Peterson (or James Posey if they preferred) if you sent Bayless and Joel's expiring to New Orleans.
 
I would do it yes. Collison could also assume that scorers role somewhat.. or hell Rudy might even be decent with an actual PG in the lineup.
 
yuyuza1 said:
Darren Collison wouldn't just be a scorer off the bench, he would be our future mainstay @ PG. Do you guys remember his comments from his predraft workout with Portland?

.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking as well. Just forgot to mention it... take care of two question marks at once :)
 
Bayless is in the same boat as Aldridge in my mind. Perfectly adequate for the role he plays, but certainly expendable in a consolidation trade.

I really don't see how we get Darren Collison. The guy averaged 19 points/9 assists/.485 fg/.425 3fg% as a starter, and he's only a rookie. Would you trade that kind of player for Bayless, even if it allowed you to unload a junk contract? I just don't see it.

We'd probably stand a better chance at making a run at Chris Paul. Trade Roy straight across. Maybe sweeten it by letting them unload a junk contract or two with JPEC.
 
if you can get collison... no brainer

with that said... all depends what happens with rudy and our void at sg. if we cant find anyone... bayless will have to be the solution.
 
mook said:
Bayless is in the same boat as Aldridge in my mind. Perfectly adequate for the role he plays, but certainly expendable in a consolidation trade.

I really don't see how we get Darren Collison. The guy averaged 19 points/9 assists/.485 fg/.425 3fg% as a starter, and he's only a rookie. Would you trade that kind of player for Bayless, even if it allowed you to unload a junk contract? I just don't see it.

We'd probably stand a better chance at making a run at Chris Paul. Trade Roy straight across. Maybe sweeten it by letting them unload a junk contract or two with JPEC.
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but where did you get those 19/9 averages? according to basketball-reference.com he averaged 12.4/5.7 in 28 minutes per game. As for the Roy for Paul swap it wouldn't work because of B-Roy's BYC status next year.
 
Rudy's trade value, and value to our team, are both much higher than Jerryd's is or will be.

Keep both as I'm tired of us throwing away talent for aging vets or someone's flavor of the month.

Trade Nate.
 
My gut feeling says to move Jerryd to SG, and find another way to get another PG. Bayless is one jumpshot away from being very hard to guard.
 
hasoos said:
My gut feeling says to move Jerryd to SG, and find another way to get another PG. Bayless is one jumpshot away from being very hard to guard.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Bayless has become the backup SG of the future; trade Rudy and Martell for a backup point guard.
 
Uncle Ty said:
I'm not really sure. I think his future as a PG is getting bleaker, but he's getting better as a player (if that makes any sense). As I've said before, he fits in with Roy better than he'll fit in with a lot of other SG because of Roy's ability as a playmaker. I'd keep him because I don't think we can get a better player in return. I'd still like to go after Conley or Sessions.
Click to expand...

You nailed exactly what I'm getting at. I think Bayless did prove one thing this year and in this post-season and that is he is an NBA player. This is why I would look at teams like New Orleans, Minnesota, New Jersey, etc. who either have a logjam at point guard or a looming log jam and a need for scoring from the wing or a guy who can get to the hoop. Some team would obviously need to see Jerryd as fitting into a hole on their roster, but still young enough to improve on certain aspects of his game, without holding out hope of him becoming a point guard.
 
I'm probably becoming more and more minority with this, but my view of Bayless is still the same: he'll never be a traditional or "pure" point guard in the NBA, but he can be a fine starting guard alongside Roy. I still don't feel that the team needs a traditional point guard. The team has done a good job of incorporating one in Andre Miller, but they also did very well last year with Blake, who wasn't exactly playing the role of a pure point guard...more of a spot-up shooter.

The only thing that has changed about my outlook with Bayless is that I've become somewhat pessimistic about his shot. I felt he shot the ball well in college and that it would come around for him in the NBA...but it hasn't. I don't think his shot is terminal...there's still some hope, but it's no longer something I count on. That is a bit of a problem. Still, I think that his production relative to his age suggests that he still has some significant gains to be realized to his game. If not his shot, I think finding teammates when the defense collapses on his drives will improve. I've already seen signs of that improving, as he had some nice assists down the stretch and in the playoffs. He'll never run an offense from the top of the key, but I don't think the team needs that out of their guard opposite Roy.

If Bayless were 24 or 25, I'd agree that he's probably never going to be more than a super-sub combo guard. At 21, though, I think he's going to improve significantly and his production was already close to league average for a starter. Therefore, I'm going to vote for his long-term value to Portland being higher than his trade value.

I think Collison is a nice talent, but it bears noting that despite his banner year and the perception that Bayless was disappointing, he was only about 2 PER ahead of Bayless and he's a full year older. I wouldn't hate a Bayless for Collison swap, but I also don't think it's a talent upgrade.
 
I'm with Minstrel on this one. I've long thought that eventually we'd see Bayless-Roy be our poor-man's version of Magic-Byron Scott, if Roy becomes comfortable with accepting the notion of being the PG on offense and SG on defense (and Bayless the inverse). Have Bayless and Roy ever started together? I think it could and will work, if they are given the opportunity to develop the necessary chemistry.

That said, I love Collison, and would be all in favor of getting him as our PGOTF. I'd be happy either way.
 
Minstrel said:
I think Collison is a nice talent, but it bears noting that despite his banner year and the perception that Bayless was disappointing, he was only about 2 PER ahead of Bayless and he's a full year older. I wouldn't hate a Bayless for Collison swap, but I also don't think it's a talent upgrade.
Click to expand...

Talent-wise I'd call it a push ... it's just where Collison appears to have his particular strengths that seems to suggest he might be a better long term fit with his really stellar shooting from distance (he was knock-down at UCLA too). But if anything I think having Miller showed us just how important it is for this team to have a point guard who can initiate offense and set others up. At some point I believe Roy will have to become better at playing off the ball for this team to achieve better floor balance, ball movement and to presumably develop an inside-out philosophy on offense.

Maybe longterm, Bayless is fine as the guy who guards point guards, but otherwise plays like a driving wing on offense with Brandon and maybe even Batum initiating the offense as a point-forward, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a ball dominant 2 guard and multifaceted wing served in that capacity for a successful team, with a spot up shooter playing from the 1 spot, but until and unless Bayless develops some kind of consistency on his long range shots I think he's just kind of a bad fit without those pure point guard skills.
 
Minstrel said:
I'm probably becoming more and more minority with this, but my view of Bayless is still the same: he'll never be a traditional or "pure" point guard in the NBA, but he can be a fine starting guard alongside Roy. I still don't feel that the team needs a traditional point guard. The team has done a good job of incorporating one in Andre Miller, but they also did very well last year with Blake, who wasn't exactly playing the role of a pure point guard...more of a spot-up shooter.

The only thing that has changed about my outlook with Bayless is that I've become somewhat pessimistic about his shot. I felt he shot the ball well in college and that it would come around for him in the NBA...but it hasn't. I don't think his shot is terminal...there's still some hope, but it's no longer something I count on. That is a bit of a problem. Still, I think that his production relative to his age suggests that he still has some significant gains to be realized to his game. If not his shot, I think finding teammates when the defense collapses on his drives will improve. I've already seen signs of that improving, as he had some nice assists down the stretch and in the playoffs. He'll never run an offense from the top of the key, but I don't think the team needs that out of their guard opposite Roy.

If Bayless were 24 or 25, I'd agree that he's probably never going to be more than a super-sub combo guard. At 21, though, I think he's going to improve significantly and his production was already close to league average for a starter. Therefore, I'm going to vote for his long-term value to Portland being higher than his trade value.

I think Collison is a nice talent, but it bears noting that despite his banner year and the perception that Bayless was disappointing, he was only about 2 PER ahead of Bayless and he's a full year older. I wouldn't hate a Bayless for Collison swap, but I also don't think it's a talent upgrade.
Click to expand...
i agree with everything said in this post.
 
rocketeer said:
i agree with everything said in this post.
Click to expand...

you agree with the liking Bayless part? Cause we'll give him and Joel's contract to you for Brooks ;)
 
Wheels said:
you agree with the liking Bayless part? Cause we'll give him and Joel's contract to you for Brooks ;)
Click to expand...

No "we" won't. ;)

Also, rocketeer is a Blazers fan as well as a Rockets fan.
 
i wouldn't like bayless as much on the rockets because he wouldn't be playing next to roy there. if his shot got back to where it was in college, he'd be the perfect kind of player to have next to roy but like minstrel said, at this point it's questionable if it ever gets there.
 
Bayless looks good. He is still very young. I would be willing to move him, but not for Collison who is smaller and older.

Bayless might be a fantastic third guard next year and I would not be surprised if he evolves into an awesome replacement for Miller alongside Roy.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Bayless looks good. He is still very young. I would be willing to move him, but not for Collison who is smaller and older.
Click to expand...

What do "smaller and older" matter if they also accompany "better"? Now, if you don't believe that Collison is better--or a better fit--then that's something else, but age and size should be irrelevent independent of ability to perform.
 
After watching tonight's final playoff performance, I came to a conclusion that both Rudy and Webster are not "half-court" offensive players - they both need a fast-paced, almost hectic style to spot up and hit their 3's. Nate's slow-it-down offense hurts our bench players! Both Rudy and Webster would excell on a New York Knicks team. And neither would on a Celtics team.

With a healthy Oden, we'd have to run a slower-tempo, defense-first gameplan. So maybe we need to replace Webster and Rudy - throw in LMA and go get Chris Bosh.

Bayless, while not a good ball handler needs to do nothing but work on improving his ball handling skills. At this time last year, we were saying that he could not hit the broad side of a barn from the outside. He's obviously worked on his outside shot and I think we saw vast improvement from a year ago. So let's hope he studies Steve Nash tape all summer and dribbles a ball with him all summer long.
 
Uncle Ty said:
I'm not really sure. I think his future as a PG is getting bleaker, but he's getting better as a player (if that makes any sense). As I've said before, he fits in with Roy better than he'll fit in with a lot of other SG because of Roy's ability as a playmaker. I'd keep him because I don't think we can get a better player in return. I'd still like to go after Conley or Sessions.
Click to expand...

I actually think he'd be a nice fit with a guy like Tyreke Evans.
 
Why the hell would you ship Bayless out. He's the only guy that has somewhat of a fire and heart on our team. He pretty much came to play the entire play off series this year... You have to give him more of a chance at the point guard role, much like Chauncey had. It's only his what 2nd or 3rd year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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