Inaction is not proactive. Sorry. Proactivity is not ALWAYS a good idea (sometimes it makes sense not to make a move) but it's not accurate to redefine what proactive means. Ed O.
Starters- Blake, Roy, Martell, LMA, Oden Bench- Rudy, Travis, Joel These are the players who would play in the playoffs when games are spaced out and rotations are cut to 8 deep We could easily trade Sergio or Frye if an offer is available, if not they are an asset to have available for injuries or a change of pace off the bench. Bayless and Batum don't need minutes this year or next. Junk- Raef, Diogu, Shlavik I guess I agree with both arguments; we don't need to make an immediate trade during this season or next. But if we get an opportunity to grab a high quality starter we are in a position to give up depth and down the road have Bayless/Batum slide into those spots.
The reason every GM would like to have KP's problem is because it's much better to have lots of talent than to have not much talent. That doesn't mean there's not a problem with the current roster or that other GMs would simply leave it alone. The idea is not to get less talented, but to re-arrange the talent to be more top heavy. Most championship level teams have had one to three transcendent talents, a few more good players and then filled out the roster with players who don't kill you. Teams that have won championships with a balanced roster are rare and none of them established dynasties. Reducing the talent level on the bench to increase the talent level of our top few players makes Portland more likely to win championships. That's definitely what history shows.
I look at it as also a value proposition...soon we'll have a few guys (Bayless, Frye, maybe Sergio or Blake and Batum, Diogu) who will be racking up DNP-CDs like it's cool. Yet there are plenty of teams in the league where those guys would be borderline starters, all of them are on rookie or small deals (a couple of which are expiring), and each still have a lot of upside. I'm willing to drop Bayless and Batum from this conversation, since they are rookies and understand they may not get minutes b/c of established guys in front of them. But that leaves the following that most would say are in "at least willing to consider trading" group... Blake, Outlaw, Webster, Sergio, Frye, Diogu, Joel I personally think that Rudy and Joel are about untouchable, due to filling a need for big minutes at key positions (behind and with Roy, and behind Oden). If we get rid of Joel, we're in the same position we were last year....when our starting center goes out, we're quite small and not defensive-minded. Most of us think that either Outlaw or Webster is the cat's pajamas. Most agree that both deserve minutes. I think Sergio is a 1/2 season away from being our 25mpg PG. If Frye or Diogu could be traded for a 2012 draft pick or a "huge project upside" guy (like Ibaka, Ajinca, etc), I think it should be done for cap issues and getting value for our surplus. I also am of the opinion that consolidation would be good for someone like Nash or Kidd, b/c they'll help us this year (and maybe next) while mentoring our young PGs. I think it'll be tough to "get to the next level" of championship with our guys learning on the fly. If you can get a guy like that on a semi-salary dump/semi-blow-it-up deal, I think you almost have to. And I'm definitely one of those that think we can get really deep into the playoffs THIS year.
I havent weighed in on this topic yet but I think that this is definately a great topic and one that should have some serious dialogue. My thoughts on the matter are as follows: I am with those that say consolidation is in order. I agree with what everyone has said up till now with regards to consolidating but I pose this question to those who say let the cake bake and play everyone. Does anyone remember the team we had that lost to the Lakers in 2000 game 7 of the WCF??? Players in the game off the top of my head: PG Damon/G. Anthony SG:S. Smith/B. Wells/ S. Augmon SF: Pippen, Shrempf PF: Sheed/B. Grant C: Sabonis/Jermaine Oneal Although roles were rather well defined, players were not happy with lack of playing time. Damon hated deferring to Anthony in the 4th quarter. Grant and Sheed always were splitting time. Remember Detleff, after that year Whitsitt said we needed even more talent and traded Grant for Kemp and Oneal for Dale Davis making matters worse. Detleff complained and eventually retired that next year saying we were a major mess. We had a long losing streak that next year, players were not playing as a team but for themself. Whitsitt was run out of town. Without something being done, we would be looking eye to eye with that 2000 team with loads of talent, ill defined roles, and players bickering IMO. Consolidate secondary talent to improve your 1st line talent is the way to go.
The Harris example kind of makes my point. You still would have 3 point guards and Bayless would still be unhappy as third string. (Dallas was not going to take 2 PG's from us) So now you are probably going to say well we would not have traded for Bayless if we had Harris. Doesn't matter, KP would have grabbed someone else with talent. He will always make moves to add lots of young talent. He is too good of a GM. I am not debating that Harris would have been a good addition, he would have. But you are always going to have your "so called problem" of people not being happy. The San Antonio scenario of having happy Vets on the end of the bench doesn't work either if you have injuries. As you can see from this year. They are just lucky the injuries are not for the whole season.
Maybe. But how would you increase the talent level of our top few players? That would be Oden, Roy, and Aldridge. I can't envision us making a deal that would net us a player better than any of them. The fact of the matter is our team has got terrific talent throughout the roster. It's been quite some time, but the old Bill Russell led Celtics had balanced rosters and they established the greatest dynasty ever seen in the NBA.
There was no free agency. There were significantly fewer teams in the NBA. Players often had off-season jobs to make ends meet. The reality of the NBA today renders the old Celtics teams irrelevant in terms of team-building. Ed O.
Good example but I disagree with the conclusion. The problem was with trading Grant and Jermaine in the first place. They should of "let it bake" ! Whitsett kept tinkering. He screwed up what he had.
So you'd prefer to have inferior players, like Blake rather than Harris, because of the inevitability of too much talent? I don't buy that line of reasoning. Ed O.
Increasing Sergio's minutes and role is not inaction. Wanting to bring Webster back into the fold before making any decisions is not inaction. Having Oden or Travis come off the bench instead of starting is not inaction. Just because they're not or are not going to make a deal doesn't mean they're not being proactive. Trading for players is not the only way to proactively better the team. Providing and observing your CURRENT players in different or increasing roles is one way of actively trying to bettering your team, right?
Yes it does. Waiting and seeing is exactly the OPPOSITE of a proactive attitude. The things you're talking about are coaching decisions and don't really have much to do with a proactive general mangement mindset. Ed O.
Not even close to what i said. I already stated I agree with a move if it is the right one. My arguement is not to make a trade to thin the bench to make our bench players happy. Harris would have been great on this team. What I am saying is you will always have unhappy players
Such a deal would have to involve one of them. Roy, Outlaw and Bayless for Dwyane Wade. Aldridge and Outlaw for Chris Bosh. Deals of that sort, where you trade up on one of our top players by including other, lesser but valuable players with them. Also, improving our fourth or fifth man would fit what I was talking about. Even if the team doesn't try to upgrade on Roy or Aldridge, dealing, say, Outlaw, Bayless and Batum for a Devin Harris would make a lot of sense and make the team much more deadly in the playoffs. I'm not saying any of those specific deals is possible, but I think a deal of that sort is possible. I have a lot of trust in Pritchard that he can find creative deals that involve turning some of the excess good players we have into a single, better player.
There's no reason to make a deal JUST to make bench players happy... that's addition by subtraction, and addition by subtraction is almost always a mistake. Making bench players happier, though, by reducing the number of deserving players from, say, 12, to, say, 10 CAN be a part of a reason to make a trade. That we will add more good players in another year or two doesn't really impact that. Ed O.
What?! The Harris deal was a 3 team deal at last season's trade deadline. Regardless of who of our guys would have gone out (unknown, but a bunch of guys would have been shipped out), KP would have had the draft (option to do it differently) and the summer to iron out the remaining roster issues.
I think you are 100% wrong here. There is a difference between being proactive and being patient. If Tmac had been patient he would be playing with Dwight Howard right now. If Vince had been patient he might still be with Bosh instead of in New Jersey waiting to be traded so they can afford Lebron. You don't have to be constantly making moves and appeasing the fans to be proactive.
Huh? The point I was making is that a balanced roster absolutely can establish a dynasty. It doesn't matter at what point in time the Celtics did it. The fact of the matter is that they did indeed do it.
This is a terrible trade. Absolutely disgustingly lopsided. Bayless and Batum were considered top 5 talents in the draft by some and then you throw in bargain contract like Outlaw??? I wouldn't trade Batum straight up for Harris. He has that much more potential. I can't remember the last 19-year-old I've seen with that high of a BB IQ. Then combine his length,athleticism, and efficient shooting. Call it ultimate homerism, but I've watched a lot of basketball in my life and players like Batum are about as rare as you'll find.
Fascinating. I suspect New Jersey fans would poo-poo the trade as insufficient for Harris. Bayless and Batum weren't considered top-five talents by most and neither of them are surefire excellent players. I like them both as prospects, but they both have plenty of risk. If Batum never develops a consistent shot or excellent slashing abilities, he'll be Mickeal Pietrus. Bayless could well end up a non-elite, short shooting guard. These are not my predictions for them, but they are certainly risky. Meanwhile Devin Harris is establishing himself this season as a top young point guard...a true point guard who can also fill up the basket. And he plays great defense. If he keeps it up, he'll soon be an untouchable player. If this trade were made, both sides would stand the chance to lose big or win big. But for Portland, a team that is sitting so close to a championship-level team, maximizing the certainty of their top-end talent is more important.
