Why Batum Ain't Starting

[ABM]

Not sure if this has been posted, or not...

http://www.columbian.com/weblogs/blazerbanter/2010/feb/02/notes-02-02-blazers-practice/

...Blazers coach Nate McMillan said he will use a starting lineup of Andre Miller, Jerryd Bayless, Martell Webster, LaMarcus Aldridge and Juwan Howard against Utah on Wednesday.

McMillan stated that he has considered making forward Nicolas Batum a starter, but has primarily held off because the Blazers will undergo another lineup change when injured All-Star guard Brandon Roy returns to action.

 

[Buzz Killington]

I would have said about 10 games to get into the flow of things.

 

[The Professional Fan]

That and they're purposely trying to limit his minutes, and trying to keep him on the court at the end of the game.

 

[Boob-No-More]

He doesn't play the way we want to play.

BNM

 

[BBert]

"Why Batum Ain't Starting"

Cue mediocre man: "Because Nate is an @#$^!*%#".

 

[BBert]

He doesn't play the way we want to play.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Nate doesn't want Webster to lose confidence by moving him to the bench.

Coming soon to a team near you, the 3 forward line-up.

BNM

 

[ABM]

Nate doesn't want Webster to lose confidence by moving him to the bench.

Coming soon to a team near you, the 3 forward line-up.

BNM

I'm hopeful for a Martell/Blake trade package deal.

 

[Buzz Killington]

Portland Trailblazers: Where we trade players based on conflicts in playing time.

 

[gatorpops]

"Why Batum Ain't Starting"

Cue mediocre man: "Because Nate is an @#$^!*%#".

I think MM spells it differently however.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Portland Trailblazers: Where we trade players based on conflicts in playing time.

This hasn't really happened since Zach was traded to free up PT for LaMarcus, but isn't this one of the primary reasons to make a trade - trade your redundant players to address an area of greater need?

Wouldn't trading Webster (and/or Outlaw) and Blake for a back-up banger power forward make sense? It would eliminate PT conflicts and address an area of need. Seems like a logical trade to me.

BNM

 

[gatorpops]

I'm hopeful for a Martell/Blake trade package deal.

So am I, but we will likely have to take a lot of draft picks to do it.

 

[Buzz Killington]

This hasn't really happened since Zach was traded to free up PT for LaMarcus, but isn't this one of the primary reasons to make a trade - trade your redundant players to address an area of greater need?

Wouldn't trading Webster (and/or Outlaw) and Blake for a back-up banger power forward make sense? It would eliminate PT conflicts and address an area of need. Seems like a logical trade to me.

BNM

Power forward, no. Pendergraph and Cunningham are fine for that.

Center- Possibly. Very possibly. Rushing a trade for a deep bench player for this season only is kind of stupid though.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I would have said about 10 games to get into the flow of things.

It took one game.

 

[Buzz Killington]

It took one game.

Yeah...he's good. But as we saw last year, he would have weird stretches of games where he would kind of disappear too. Just get his conditioning good, get into the flow of things. "Starting" isn't the most important thing in the world....just getting his groove back, consistency and win the starting position back is the best plan of action.

 

[noknobs]

This hasn't really happened since Zach was traded to free up PT for LaMarcus, but isn't this one of the primary reasons to make a trade - trade your redundant players to address an area of greater need?

Wouldn't trading Webster (and/or Outlaw) and Blake for a back-up banger power forward make sense? It would eliminate PT conflicts and address an area of need. Seems like a logical trade to me.

First off, I agree with the logic. However, if teams are asking for Batum/Rudy for Brendan Haywood, what do you think Webster/Blake would net us? Ha? In that case I'd just keep the guys we have and play smallerball the rest of the year.

Once Outlaw and Roy return, Cunningham, Pendegraph, and either Blake or Bayless will probably hardly play at all, which is too bad. But that's better than giving guys away out of desperation. And who knows, we may have a whole new slew of injuries right around the corner (knocking on wood).

If something reasonable comes up I'd try to make a trade like that. Otherwise I'd laugh, verbally assault the GM and hang up the phone.



As for Batum, if he keeps playing like he's been playing he'll be starting soon enough. In the meantime, at least he's playing in the 4th. Webster's definitely tightened up since Batum returned, but I don't think he's been horrible by any stretch. He does need to get better at performing under pressure though.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Power forward, no. Pendergraph and Cunningham are fine for that.

Center- Possibly. Very possibly. Rushing a trade for a deep bench player for this season only is kind of stupid though.

Who said anything about rushing a trade? I'm not talking about a short term fix (center) to tide us over until our injured players get back. I'm talking about a long term need. We've needed a back-up power forward ever since we traded Zach and made LaMarcus the starting 4. We tried Frye and even a little Ike Diogu. Neither of those worked, so Nate plays Outlaw out of position at the 4.

I'm not looking for a deep bench player, or a short term fix. I'm talking about trading our surplus to get a player that would be a regular part of the rotation now and for years to come.

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Rushing a trade for a deep bench player for this season only is kind of stupid though.

You mean like Webster is about to become?

 

[Buzz Killington]

You mean like Webster is about to become?

Nope. He's still a good defender even if his shot isn't falling. He would be more than adequate. I think Outlaw plays a little too much like Batum versus Webster, which is why I favor Webster over Outlaw.

 

[Buzz Killington]

Who said anything about rushing a trade? I'm not talking about a short term fix (center) to tide us over until our injured players get back. I'm talking about a long term need. We've needed a back-up power forward ever since we traded Zach and made LaMarcus the starting 4. We tried Frye and even a little Ike Diogu. Neither of those worked, so Nate plays Outlaw out of position at the 4.

I'm not looking for a deep bench player, or a short term fix. I'm talking about trading our surplus to get a player that would be a regular part of the rotation now and for years to come.

BNM

There's a thread about trading Webster ASAP.

You don't think that Pendergraph would be a solid backup 4 for the future? I think he could do it.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Who said anything about rushing a trade? I'm not talking about a short term fix (center) to tide us over until our injured players get back. I'm talking about a long term need. We've needed a back-up power forward ever since we traded Zach and made LaMarcus the starting 4. We tried Frye and even a little Ike Diogu. Neither of those worked, so Nate plays Outlaw out of position at the 4.

I'm not looking for a deep bench player, or a short term fix. I'm talking about trading our surplus to get a player that would be a regular part of the rotation now and for years to come.

BNM

So, someone who is better than Pendergraph, and more hard-nosed than LMA/Outlaw.

That shouldn't be that tall of an order....but I am betting it won't happen. My best guess, is that they give Pendergraph an extended try-out, and/or try to get Freeland to come over.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

We've needed a back-up power forward ever since we traded Zach and made LaMarcus the starting 4. We tried Frye and even a little Ike Diogu. Neither of those worked, so Nate plays Outlaw out of position at the 4.
I'm not looking for a deep bench player, or a short term fix. I'm talking about trading our surplus to get a player that would be a regular part of the rotation now and for years to come.

Sounds like a job for Brandon Bass!

 

[Boob-No-More]

First off, I agree with the logic. However, if teams are asking for Batum/Rudy for Brendan Haywood, what do you think Webster/Blake would net us? Ha? In that case I'd just keep the guys we have and play smallerball the rest of the year.

Teams? I've only heard of one team rumored to have asked for Batum/Rudy for Haywood. Obviously, they were trying to take advantage of the Blazers injury situation at center. If that offer even happended, I'm sure it won't be their best offer. They were shooting for the sky and figured the worst Portland could do is say no. As the trade deadline approaches and teams like Washington get closer and closer from being mathmatically elimintaed from the play-offs. I'm sure the offers will get better. Especially for teams looking to cut salary or get under the luxury tax threshold.

In addition to cheap, young talent, draft picks and expiring contracts (Blake and Outlaw), the Blazers are also currently $1,265,626 under the salary cap. Not a lot, but combine it with two expiring contracts totalling over $7.5 million and maybe a cheap young player and a draft pick, and Portland can put together a pretty attractive package for a team looking to shed salary.

Once Outlaw and Roy return, Cunningham, Pendegraph, and either Blake or Bayless will probably hardly play at all, which is too bad. But that's better than giving guys away out of desperation. And who knows, we may have a whole new slew of injuries right around the corner (knocking on wood).

I'm not talking about giving anyone away out of desparation. Exactly the opposite. I'm talking about making the team better and maximizing the return value by trading our redundant pieces to a team desparately looking to dump some salary.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

There's a thread about trading Webster ASAP.

You don't think that Pendergraph would be a solid backup 4 for the future? I think he could do it.

Maybe, maybe not. He hasn't shown me enough to reach that conclusion. He doesn't suck, but he also doesn't do anything particularly well. Sure, he's physical in a chest thumping rah-rah kind of way, but he's not that great of a defender and an average rebounder at best. He'll also be 23 by the end of the season. It's not like he's a 19 or 20-year old kid with a ton of upside.

BNM

 

[Nikolokolus]

Maybe, maybe not. He hasn't shown me enough to reach that conclusion. He doesn't suck, but he also doesn't do anything particularly well. Sure, he's physical in a chest thumping rah-rah kind of way, but he's not that great of a defender and an average rebounder at best. He'll also be 23 by the end of the season. It's not like he's a 19 or 20-year old kid with a ton of upside.

BNM

I'm higher on Cunningham as a backup 3/4 to be honest -- smarter defender, knows how to play Dean's zone, better shooter, better court awareness, more versatile and will probably be more successful as a flex forward than Pendergraph will be as a forward-center.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So, someone who is better than Pendergraph, and more hard-nosed than LMA/Outlaw.

Yes, and I want a BANGER. A guy who rebounds, defends the paint and attacks the rim. No more stretch fours for me. I want a back-up power forward, not another jump shooter.

Pendergraph doesn't suck, but he's not all that good either. He's aggressive, which I like, but for all the bluster, he's not a great defender or rebounder. I know he's a rookie, but as a four year player, with unspectacular college stats, I'm not sure he has much more to give than what we've already seen.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

I'm higher on Cunningham as a backup 3/4 to be honest -- smarter defender, knows how to play Dean's zone, better shooter, better court awareness, more versatile and will probably be more successful as a flex forward than Cunningham will be as a forward-center.

Yep, I had Cunningham ranked much higher than Pendergaph on my "rank our players" thread.

I think he can play spot minutes at the 4 depending on the match-ups, but long term I'd like to see him being Batum's primary back-up at the 3.

BNM