Blazers Won't Take Free Agency Lying Down (Columbian)

From: Brian Hendrickson - The Columbian

 

It will be really interesting to see how KP plays this part of GMing.

He knows he needs to upgrade a couple of possitions in PG and SF. Without trading anyone SF would make the most sense to "upgrade" because that is where we are youngest, however PG is probably where we are weakest. Questions in my mind that will be fun to see KP answer

1. Does KP add 1 big name like Miller or Hedo, or a couple of smaller ones like Sessions and McDyess?

2. If KP adds a "starter" like Miller or Hedo does he trim the roster at that possition, or simply create a logjam?

3. Does he pull off a sign and trade? I have been having some fun this off season listening to KP speak. He mentioned in an interview that he didn't want to lose the talent he has been building to move up in the draft to take someone based on potential. To me that means maybe he is saving them for a sign and trade or out right trade of a vet.

4. Does he make a move for a restricted FA, or simply target UFA's. It's his first attempt at playing with this much money, so we really don't know.

 

Well at least he didn't entitle it "Blazers won't be taking free agency bent over".

 

Why not both?

I'm guessing we might see a lopsided trade to get one guy and then a "splash" made to sign a higher level free agent. Theoretically a sign and trade could be done in one case to get a guy like Miller, and then the balance of the money could spent on a guy like McDyess, or a starting quality 3.

I keep trying to run through possible names and pairings of players that would seem to be complimentary.

FA Kidd, trade for Wallace
Trade for Hinrich, Sign Turkoglu
Sign Miller, trade for Prince ...

Mix and match to your heart's content

 

Yeah, I agree with you. I was just pinting out soe basic options.

 

Not to be too much of a cynic, but chasing RFAs is mostly a sham. You make your bid on a player, his original team matches, and both GMs have political cover. The original GM can say "we didn't overpay - that was his established market price", while the other GM can say "hey, we TRIED to make moves - it just didn't work out!"

If a GM is serious about getting something done, he will focus on UFAs. Even if he lacks the capspace for a straight bidding war, he can try to leverage a S&T.

 

I completely agree. The other side of the coin is, often when retained, restricted free agents are unahappy and end up leaving anyhow. They wouldn't have got to be a restricted free agent unless the relationship between them and the team had become frayed anyhow.

 

Well, if there is a chance they will not match and this is the guy you want, as might be the case with Sessions - it is worth a try, I suspect.

 

I thought about what you said, and I am not so sure. Because if you make an offer to an RFA, and you have to go through the whole process of the other team either matching or not matching, you are burning time where other teams are signing free agents without that problem. By the time you find out your screwed, most of the good free agents could be gone.

 

A couple of things can happen though.

If the offer is structured right it could end up hurting the team that matches it (Hassell)

Also a good chance for a sign and trade, especially if the player or agent tells the team he would like to leave.

 

This is the most encouraging sentence from that article. I had this underlying fear of KP just passing on free agency to "let it bake" organically.

 

He needs to subtract from the roster as well. This is what I fear KP can't do.

 

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

This is what I hate about Pritchard. He's the most disingenuous GM we've ever had. It was barely three months ago--when he wasn't able to pull off a trade by the deadline--that he said he was committed to our young core, and that he really loved our young guys and believed in them, and that we just had to let them grow together, blah, blah, blah. Now, when he is unable to snag any high profile rookies, he wants us to believe that building through free agency was his plan all along.

Pritchard is an excellent GM, but he's as slippery as hell. I'd never buy a used car from him.

 

I believe it's a combination of the two:

1) Yes, the young core of this team needs to continue to grow together.

2) It will still take some veteran skill/leadership to help take the team to the next level.

I believe Pritchard was ready to deal before last season's TD. However, he wasn't ready to include Batum in any of the proposed deals. At that point in time, Travis wasn't enough to swing the deals. However, that "may" not be the case now. Personally speaking, if the right veteran is offered, I see no reason why Pritchard can't/wouldn't include Outlaw, Blake, Channing, Bayless, and/or Martell, etc. in any potential deals.

I don't believe Pritchard was talking out the side of his neck at all. GMs generally treat each season as a clear slate. The Blazers were ousted in the 1st Round. Therefore, upgrades need to be made. It's apparent that the upgrades need to be made via trades or through free agency.

 

You don't see a difference between mid-season strategy and post-season strategy? I don't think it's disingenuous at all to stick with your core for the home stretch of a breakout season, but later retool and upgrade the roster after the season is over.

 

I agree and I hope KP doesn't sit by and watch...as we all have been doing the last week (Shaq, VC, Jefferson and soon Amare).

 

I disagree. One more scorer last year and that Houston series would not have been so rough. A Jefferson or Carter means Brandon Roy is no longer tag teamed by Artest and Battier, and not double and triple teamed.

 

I tend to think his approach to free agency and trading this summer will ultimately be seen as calculating and creative as his first draft as GM was.
I believe he has a plan and players he has targeted.
I believe he has been working developing these personel moves for months.
I see his draft choices and strategy.....dumping salary and drafting a first rounder he can stash in Europe....as part of a larger plan to make more money available for adding veteran players.

 

KP's mantra was always to go get the guys he want. This team will have cap space for exactly one summer. This one. If there is a guy he wants - it would be stupid not to do the best in his power to go get him - even if it means waiting. Assume that Sessions is THE guy. Should he just say - screw it, I am not going to try, I am going to offer money to someone I only want as a fall-back because there is a chance I will not get the guy I really really want?

The ability to make big trades taking more salary than sending will be out there even if he loses the guy he really wants through RFA offer. Again - this is all under the assumption that there is an RFA that is identified as THE guy the team wants.

You always try to go for the best option and have alternative plans if it does not happen. It is exactly what he did with Rudy. He could have said "he will never come over, he will get more money in Europe", so instead of taking him where I can (24) - I will just choose someome else that is my fall-back position...

It is clear he did not do it - and I suspect - that if there is an RFA he really wants as his #1 option - he will go for it.

 

It takes two to tango, and right now it feels like we're the ugly girl who thinks she's hot standing in the corner waiting for the captain of the football team to ask her to dance. No one wants to deal with us.