No, he's a bench player stuck in a starters role. Plus, Quick never specified whether it was a bench player now, or a bench player when everyone's health.
?What!?! Your deranged thinking only advances my thoughts on your stance towards Hinrich and J. Chill. Don't get me wrong they are both good players, but not any MAJOR upgrade over what we have already. Portland has a phenomenal bench that's young and talented and has thus far displayed great chemistry. Regardless of how much of an "upgrade" Chill and Hinrich might be, I have to wonder if the risk is worth the payout. Consider higher salaries, older players, and unknown chemistry for an "upgrade" at SF and/or PG that is questionable to a rather large number of Blazer fans. I don't know if it's worth it, especially if we have to deal Outlaw or (even worse) Bayless to get Hinrich and/or J Chill.
I think Childress is a major upgrade on our small forwards currently (though Batum has the potential to be better in a few years). I can't agree with Nikolokolus that I'd rather have Childress over Butler, but I do love me some J-Chill. Excellent defender, good passer, very efficient non-volume scorer, good rebounder. He does everything well, but nothing at an elite level. That's basically the platonic complementary player. On a team that could be loaded with stars and scorers, a guy who doesn't need the ball to be effective and contributes in every phase of the game (including perimeter defense, a major current weakness) would be quite a huge benefit. And he's a smart player. No real way to quantify that, but it's nice to have players you trust not to make a bad decision in pressure situations.
What was it in Childress' three years that impressed you more than Outlaw/Bayless/Webster? You are nuts. Childress is a soft player who is intelligent, but gives you no outstanding abilities. Not a starter on a good team.
You're right, there's no doubt that Butler is a superior player than Childress, but could Butler be effective if he was the 3rd or 4th option on offense? Would he be as productive? Childress could be as productive, but not necessarily in the scoring column. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Nik on this one, but I can see what he's saying. Childress might be a better FIT than Butler.
I assume you mean Batum, and I answered that question: Excellent defender, good passer, very efficient non-volume scorer, good rebounder. He does everything well, but nothing at an elite level. That's basically the platonic complementary player. On a team that could be loaded with stars and scorers, a guy who doesn't need the ball to be effective and contributes in every phase of the game (including perimeter defense, a major current weakness) would be quite a huge benefit. And he's a smart player. No real way to quantify that, but it's nice to have players you trust not to make a bad decision in pressure situations. Random rhetoric without a shred of evidence. Childress has actually played four years in the league and improved every year, starting from a very solid basis: 2004-05: 15.2 PER 2005-06: 15.8 PER 2006-07: 16.2 PER 2007-08: 17.8 PER PER is normalized such that 15.0 is what the average starter scores. In addition, PER doesn't account for defense in any meaningful way and pretty much all observers agree that Childress is a very good defensive player. So he's even further above average as a starter. Your analysis of him sounds like you value nothing but points per game.
Agreed....on a team like Portland which already has players ready to step up and be established stars...they would benifit greatly from the "intangible" type player. Who does the work and doesn't mess up the flow of the game...and doesn't need recognition. Glue guys are essential to any team. Battier isn't great in all parts of the game but very solid to good in many...and does it quietly. I can't think of any team that wouldn't want guys like them on thier team... All hail the blue collar player!!!
If I were the Wiz, I would focus on Kevin Durant. That guy is not going to stay in OKC. He was born in DC, and let's face it when it comes down to OKC they have Westbrook and Green to sign again. Can they afford all three?
Yes they can, and even if they couldn't, Durant would obviously be the first one signed out of the three. But this is like saying Indiana should focus on Greg Oden because he grew up there.
You call me deranged, but you don't want me take you wrong? OK. As for them being a MAJOR upgrade, I don't know if I'd put it an CAPS!!, but yeah I would call both a 'major' (lowercase) upgrade over who we currently employ at the small forward and point guard positions. And as Natebishop correctly surmised, I don't want Childress over Butler because I think he's a better individual talent (I don't -- Caron Butler is helluva player) I just think Butler creates some potential problems with too many mouths to feed and not enough shots to go around for him, Brandon, LMA and GO. Childress on the other hand doesn't need plays drawn up for him to be effective, he generates a lot of garbage points off of offensive rebounds, foulshots, and has already made his career off of being a "blend" guy, he also brings good perimeter D, to a team that is woefully deficient in that department. Hinrich I'd want for most of the same reasons I would want Childress; he's a tough nosed defender, a "decent" shooter, a good half-court facilitator and would probably be fine as a number 4 or 5 option on offense. I don't see the risk. Both of their salaries (or potential salary in Childress' case, which will probably be roughly the MLE) are mostly commensurate with their abilities and age. Furthermore, I actually like the fact that Hinrich is 27 and a veteran, Childress is 25 or so -- you don't typically win with a team full of rookie scale guys (The Blazers being a notable aberration). As for concerns about chemistry, the only time I worry about a player disrupting a team is when you are adding guys that are either known as difficult or have typically been focal points of their previous team's offense, or otherwise need a lot of touches to be effective. Lastly, as for this "large number of Blazer fans" seeing either as questionable that sounds pretty speculative on your part. I do agree that I wouldn't give up Bayless, since I think he's probably an ideal candidate to play backup point guard for the next couple of years and if he proves himself capable of being a starter it wouldn't be any big deal to trade Kirk or possibly move him to backup (though that would make him a pretty expensive backup like Joel) and while I like Travis as a person, if he were the price to acquire Childress, that's a no brainer; you make that deal and don't look back.
What is it I like about Childress? Oh, I don't know maybe it was his ridiculously high field goal percentage, ability to rebound, and play good perimeter defense. I'm not sure how you can say a guy who makes his living off of hustle plays and playing around the basket is "soft." Travis and Martell on the other hand, with their tendency to take perimeter shots and fairly anemic rebound rates put them in far more danger of being labeled soft. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/players/hollinger?playerId=2373 Look, I don't want to fall into the trap of pumping up Childress beyond what he really is -- and I can feel myself tending to over-defend him a little -- but he's a very good player who I think would fit in beautifully with this team because of his smarts, his age, and his style of play, that's all.
I agree Nik. I think Blazer fans are getting too caught up in "youth youth youth" and it's not good. You are not "old" if you're 27. This team has plenty of youth. What they need now is some older players to help put us over the top. By "older", I mean guys who have been in the league for 5-7 years and have seen some things. Guys like Joel Przybilla. Would you guys consider Joel "old"?
I do not want to debate the pros and cons of individual players such as Childress, but I do want to address the seeming gist of your argument that what we need is players to complement the players of the core we already have. A few years ago the Lakers (sorry had to name them) had a player that played for many years on their very good teams (and they had him at the generosity of we Oregonians). His name was AC Green. He never over shadowed the other stars on those teams but just complemented them so very well. Bobby Gross for the championship Blazers was such a player. These kind of players are just the "grease" that makes the machine go. I do think that a Childress could be that kind of player as well. I do not watch enough other teams play so my opinion is suspect as to which player is a good "grease" type player but we do need one or two. Do the kids on the bench fit that kind of player(s)? g
I think Batum could be one. One guy who I would love to get is Turiaf. I watched him last night against the Hornets and I was impressed. The guy is tough. He would be an ideal backup power forward for this team. He rebounds, he blocks shots, and he plays solid defense. He shut David West down. I think this team needs a little more grit. I want some guys who won't back down. I watched the Warriors man handle the Hornets last night, and I was left thinking "I wish we did that more." I wonder if we could work something out with Golden State. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2754~2015~3025&teams=22~22~9~9~9~9&te=&cash= This gives them a point guard who would flourish in Golden State's up-tempo offense, with all their shooters spotting up. They get Outlaw, who would also do well with Nelly, and maybe Channing could get something going there as well. At worst, they get three expiring deals so they could get under the cap. Bayless/Blake Roy/Rudy Jackson/Batum/Webster Aldridge/Turiaf Oden/Przybilla Another trade I'm interested in... http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2015~3025&teams=22~20~4~22~20~4~20&te=&cash= I'm building on the rumors that the Sixers are having buyers remorse on Brand. We make a deal that moves Brand out of Philly and puts him back in Chicago. We get Andre Miller and the Sixers get Hughes, RLEC, and Sergio. Hughes expires in another season, which would clear some decent cap space for them. We get Gooden and Miller. Miller/Bayless/Blake Roy/Rudy Batum/Webster Aldridge/Gooden Oden/Przybilla
