So KP is planning on picking Blake and Outlaw back up.

Yes that would be me. Same obnoxius, intolerable, arrogant (and some times lovable) ass!

 

Maybe, God forbid, Travis or Blake demand a trade.

 

I'd like Hedo, but I don't like anyone enough to overpay them. I think we'll take the same approach the Spurs have taken with their contracts. Sign your best player to the max, and having everyone fall in line behind that. We have 0 bad contracts (outside of Miles), and I can't see KP taking on his first bad contract this season, or anytime soon for that matter.

 

Like who? Ron Artest, Hedo, Shawn Marion, Andre Miller..we could possibly even have enough to pick up a secondary player like Nate Robinson, Brandon Bass, or Birdman.

I'll bet KPs strategy is to first try and make a lop-sided trade, so he can go out and target a player he wants, and not be limited by the free agent field, if he can't work out a deal, maybe he'll cut one or the other...but who knows...he seems to really be in love with them.

 

Yeah, I'd be thrilled to have Marion- Batum can back him up and develop some semblance of an offensive game. I'd also be happy with Turkoglu or Artest at the 3 spot- each of these three would be a huge improvement- odds are pretty darn good we could sign one of these and still have room for a veteran pg.

Boozer or Milsap would necessitate a trade eventually- maybe Aldridge for Devin Harris?- but would add a ton of talent to the team. Odom would be nice if the price was right- mostly as a backup at the 4 and 3.

Kobe makes us the best team in the NBA- though admittedly a long shot.

At the point- Andre Miller would a much better point than Blake, Sessions looks very promising and is relatively cheap.

 

IMO, anything over 6 million a year for Marion would be grossly overpaying him. With your plan, we would also have Webster rotting somewhere on the bench, or trying to trade him with next to no leverage. So we'd be wasting 3 good assets for 1 system player who hasn't proven anything outside being a disgruntled, inconsistent small forward over the last two years.

Artest, while quite the talent, is a major liability. He does his own thing, and always wanted to be #1 when it comes to offensive priority. Plus, he needs a coach that will look the other way and just let him do his own thing (not Nate). Though I suppose most people who would really want Artest, wouldn't mind seeing Nate gone. Most importantly, Artest wants to stay in Houston, and I have no reason to believe he'd leave unless we overpaid for him.

Giving up Blake and Outlaw, in the hopes we could sign a PF, that then in turn we could hope another team would trade an elite PG, sounds like we're play fantasy basketball. Why would we want to keep rolling the dice and taking major risks on a team that is built to win? You make desperate moves like this when your window is closing, not right before it opens.

Sessions may be promising, but I don't know what makes you think he'll be "cheap". The guy will want 8 million a year, despite not being able to hit a 3 to save his life. Not to mention he couldn't beat out Luke Ridnour for the starting job this past season. He is totally unproven, and has only been able to put up good stats at the end of the year once his team was out of the playoff hunt.

I like Turk and Andre Miller, but not for more than 7 million a year with standard raises. We don't need to free up more cap room for any FA out there, unless we want to overpay for them and handcuff our future roster flexibility.

 

I don't think he's in love with them, he just realizes their value to this team is much greater than the value of the FA market this summer. If you think there is a chance either of them are going to be let go, you're mistaken. I'll give you 5:1 odds on any bet that he doesn't waive them for nothing.

 

He had some bad games but it was his first time in the playoffs. Give him a break. The Lakers failed to show up in the Finals last season and now they might win it all. Hope not, course.

 

You're on. One penny to your nickel.

 

Deal!

 

Blake and Outlaw to be extended

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/06/pritchard_says_blazers_will_ex.html

I am not surprised, but not very pleased either.

 

In a players whole career they will only play a few playoff games. We really can't wait for a guy to play 20 playoff games before he gets a feel for it.

It was Roy's first playoff games too.

 

If Roy had had a bad series, would it be time to trade him since he'd have proven not to have what it takes to help a team in the playoffs?

 

6 years experience vs 3 years.

Look, I like Outlaw. I can handle the fact that he wasn't Mr consistency during the regular season, as many reserves have that problem - but I am not going to ignore the fact he looked helpless against play-off caliber defense. As long as he is our best scorer on the bench, we have a problem.

No offense, but do you *ever* think players should be held accountable for not playing well?

 

I think you're a little confused. I was questioning the logic of a single playoff series proving that Outlaw is useless in the playoffs. That's terrible logic.

Your post has nothing to do with what I said. He's played against "playoff caliber" defenses many times during the regular season and either lit them up or been useless. He's inconsistent and prone to being great or crap.

Your implied claim that I'm simply an apologist for players is pretty silly, considering I'm one of the least enamoured posters here of Martell Webster and have often been accused of being an "Outlaw-hater." I tend to keep emotions out of my evaluations...that makes people who are either really high or really low on players due to emotions perceive me as being on the "opposite side."

I have consistently maintained that Outlaw is a solid reserve, a luxury as a scorer off the bench, but too inconsistent and too weak on defense to be a starter for a championship-caliber team. One bad playoff series isn't going to change that evaluation, and it would be completely illogical for it to do so.

 

Yes. Very few teams have consistent go-to guys off the bench. Consistent go-to guys tend to be starters. Outlaw's PER (basically dead average) suggests that he contributes consistently enough to be a useful player. Coming off the bench, for only about $4 million in salary, that's a good value for money.

Granted. One bad series. A 7 game sample isn't a useful way to make personnel decisions. If he had had a great series, would you have flipped your opinion on him and be advocating that he be kept and played a lot?

Generally because he's one of the few Blazers on the court capable of creating his own shot. He's a reserve, so he's rarely on the floor with both Roy and Aldridge. Once you get past those two, the Blazers have no one else who can consistently create their own shot except Outlaw.

Now, my opinion is that Oden will become someone who can consistently create his own offense. I think Bayless will, too, though that may not be next season. I think Rudy and Batum might. But in 2008-09, Outlaw was the only player who could outside of Roy and Aldridge. McMillan used him accordingly.

 

You can send me my penny in the mail!

 

I will concede that my last comment was flippant and needless. Sorry.

As for Outlaw - we actually are in 95% agreement about him. I even agree with the dangers of small sample size. That said, the Houston series did impact how I see a couple of our players - notably Outlaw and Blake. They are 2 of the 3 most experienced guys in our rotation, and they simply didn't play that way.

 

the maximum that can be offered to sessions is the midlevel- though we can offer bigger increases than Milwaukee can.

and we have no future roster flexibility- after this year, it's just the midlevel.

Webster and Batum would be backups until one of them could beat out the new small forward.

I think we could get both Turk and Miller if we let go of Blake and Outlaw- it's a trade up-