Will Gerald Wallace Opt Out? And What About Camby???

[e_blazer]

I think both can be kept. If you feel that both have to play small forward, then I agree that paying either to be a backup is a luxury that no team can (intelligently) afford. However, IMO, Batum can play shooting guard perfectly well, so having Batum/Wallace/Aldridge as the starters for shooting guard, small forward and power forward would work well, assuming that this is just a down year for Wallace and not the start of a slide.

That pushes Matthews into a bench role, but I've generally felt that he was a "good reserve" level of player, so I don't consider that a big problem. If the team can acquire a solid point guard (a Ramon Sessions-caliber player, though one that could shoot from the perimeter would be ideal) and a serviceable center, they'd have a pretty strong team. If they can actually manage to find/develop a star point guard or center, they'd have a title contender.

Pretty much my feelings. I think that there's a chance that Aldridge can move to the 5 spot IF the Blazers can find a dominant rebounding PF.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Been hearing you beat this drum a lot lately. Aldridge can fit, but it's not optimal. We need a big who can rebound, rebound, rebound, and pack the paint/block shots. Traditionally a PF or Aldridge does not fit that role. Furthermore, we need a Center so that Aldridge doesn't have to guard the opposing teams C, robbing his energy for the offensive end. In the NBA you need Big Bigs and there's a reason why teams don't give up their center's, they are critical to success.

All true, but if we cannot get a legit center, we move LAM over to center and seek a PF. There are plenty available, but sadly most are restricted free agents and we'd probably have to use a toxic offer to pry them away.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think both can be kept. If you feel that both have to play small forward, then I agree that paying either to be a backup is a luxury that no team can (intelligently) afford. However, IMO, Batum can play shooting guard perfectly well, so having Batum/Wallace/Aldridge as the starters for shooting guard, small forward and power forward would work well, assuming that this is just a down year for Wallace and not the start of a slide.

That pushes Matthews into a bench role, but I've generally felt that he was a "good reserve" level of player, so I don't consider that a big problem. If the team can acquire a solid point guard (a Ramon Sessions-caliber player, though one that could shoot from the perimeter would be ideal) and a serviceable center, they'd have a pretty strong team. If they can actually manage to find/develop a star point guard or center, they'd have a title contender.

I agree as well with this.

 

[B-Roy]

I think both can be kept. If you feel that both have to play small forward, then I agree that paying either to be a backup is a luxury that no team can (intelligently) afford. However, IMO, Batum can play shooting guard perfectly well, so having Batum/Wallace/Aldridge as the starters for shooting guard, small forward and power forward would work well, assuming that this is just a down year for Wallace and not the start of a slide.

That pushes Matthews into a bench role, but I've generally felt that he was a "good reserve" level of player, so I don't consider that a big problem. If the team can acquire a solid point guard (a Ramon Sessions-caliber player, though one that could shoot from the perimeter would be ideal) and a serviceable center, they'd have a pretty strong team. If they can actually manage to find/develop a star point guard or center, they'd have a title contender.

I don't think it's a smart idea to pay Wallace this off season. He'll soon be over the hill and we'll have a bad contract on our hands.

Why would you assume this is just a down year? Athletic wings don't age well and he isn't getting any younger.

 

[oldmangrouch]

We can't afford both Wallace and Batum. One has to go.

They can afford both. What they may not be able to afford is the difference between what Wallace is worth and what he thinks he is worth.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

I'm amazed that anyone would be happy with A.Brooks as our starting PG.

 

[Eastoff]

I'm amazed that anyone would be happy with A.Brooks as our starting PG.

that seemed a little random for this thread.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I guess it is true that since we don't have to worry anymore about paying Oden, that we could pay for both Wallace and Batum. It would be risky to sign Wallace to a three or four year contract, especially considering he has had injury problems in the past. If we could somehow pay that money for a toprate center or point guard that would be a lot better use of the money, so if the Blazers think there is any chance of that they should trade Wallace now. If they can't really get much back for him though, then they might as well wait until summer and see what happens.

I would definitely trade Felton for almost anything just so we can give Smith and Williams a chance to show what they can do.

Camby is a special case for me. He is really a nice guy and attached to his teammates and hates to move. I would only trade him if he agrees to it. I know that NBA is a business but sometimes it pays off over the long run to do the right thing.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'm amazed that anyone would be happy with A.Brooks as our starting PG.

Happy with it? Not necessarily. But our realistic options are limited. I mean, we're never going to end up with Williams or Nash. Hinrich was never a good PG. Kidd and Miller are also getting old and slowing down. I like Augustine, but he's a restricted free agent- although it's a possibility. We might work a trade from Calderon, but the logical choice is Wallace and we'd have to make that deal soon. And would Toronto want Wallace and his player option contract to lose Calderon? Maybe if we threw in a first round pick, and I don't like that idea as we don't have one after next season.

So Brooks seems like a decent option. At least, it's a better one than Failton.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think it's a smart idea to pay Wallace this off season. He'll soon be over the hill and we'll have a bad contract on our hands.

Why would you assume this is just a down year? Athletic wings don't age well and he isn't getting any younger.

I didn't assume it, but it's certainly not cut-and-dry that he's sliding. Last season, he had about a 19 PER for Portland, as strong as his prime seasons. And based on what do you say that athletic wings don't age well? Certainly there have been some that have broken down, but many who have been productive for many years. In baseball, it's become pretty well-established that, contrary to the old belief, players who rely on athleticism and speed actually age better than larger players who rely on power and patience. While you can't conclusively generalize across sports, it wouldn't be at all surprising if the same were true in basketball (that athletic players age better than larger, slower players). I wouldn't just go by "it seems like it would be true" or anecdotal evidence (like "look at what happened to Richard Jefferson").

If you know of a study that has shown this, that would be interesting to see. And, of course, Wallace as an individual has some concerns...he's always been an injury risk. But he's still just 29, so this would be quite early for an age-related slide of great significance. So I disagree that he'll "soon" be over the hill. If he were 32-33, then I'd agree with you. A three-year deal, for example, would take him to about 32, a four year deal would take him to 33...I doubt he'll collapse quickly enough for that to likely be a bad contract.

If he wants a five or six year deal, then I'd let him seek it elsewhere.

 

[Nikolokolus]

My point is, as the #1 option he should be saving/focusing his energy for Offense, it takes a lot to rebound 10 boards a game. Watching the Laker Game Barkley said Portland needs Big's badly and it's true, the rebounding is what killed us and has killed us this season.

Bullshit.

Roy loafed on defense all the time and it hurt the team defensively and accountability. A true top ten player is somebody who plays both ways and does more than just focus on offense. Certainly the Blazers could use a defensive minded big to pair up with LA, but that doesn't excuse him from rebounding, playing defense and setting screens.

 

[HailBlazers]

Certainly the Blazers could use a defensive minded big to pair up with LA, but that doesn't excuse him from rebounding, playing defense and setting screens.

Well No Shit. But don't you think it would benefit our leader in scoring and MPG to have some help on the glass? You don't think LMA has been overworked at all?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Well No Shit. But don't you think it would benefit our leader in scoring and MPG to have some help on the glass? You don't think LMA has been overworked at all?

I think he has, but as a PF you can't take possessions off on the backboards

 

[Nikolokolus]

Well No Shit. But don't you think it would benefit our leader in scoring and MPG to have some help on the glass? You don't think LMA has been overworked at all?

What did I say above? (hint: read the full text of my post).

As for him being "overworked," no, I don't think so. he's not playing 40+ minutes a night like he had to so much of last year. 36-37 minutes is fine, he just needs some better players around him to step up and take some of the attention off of him, so teams get burned doubling him.

 

[MickZagger]

I loved Wallace's game 2 or 3 years ago. I still like it today. But, I sense the wheels falling off shortly. I say we should get what we can for him.