Jefferson is incredibly average. Adding an average player is nice but hardly a big deal. A healthy Ginobili will make a significant difference. The most likely scenario is that they all improve. There are fairly well-established career paths, a bell curve of production and until their primes, they'll be ascending that bell curve unless they're outliers. Just Oden getting back his explosiveness and playing more minutes could offset the return of Ginobili. Oden was a very good player last season, he just didn't play enough. Playing more and playing better will make him an impact player. Offsetting Jefferson just requires that Batum improve a bit. Bayless and Rudy improving would just be gravy or would make up for Oden not improving much. But I quite expect Oden to improve a lot. His efficiency last season was remarkable considering he was lacking some of his explosiveness.
I also said this which I imagine you like better: But I still think it could be this: Kobe is possibly the most skilled player of all time but he is also one of the games biggest enigmas. One thing Kobe isn't is a great leader with tremendous personal charisma. He just finally stopped getting in his own way. We'll see if Kobe can keep it together if Ron can't keep his together. Sooner or later Ron will lose it before that contract is up. That will be a real test of Kobe's supposed new found leadership. Phil Jackson is the greatest hope for LA with Artest. I have incredible faith in PJ's player ego management. But by Phil's own admission Kobe is the toughest guy he's ever had to coach. EDIT: P.S. From a Laker hating standpoint Kobe is the greatest NBA villain ever.
Right on Minstrel I think you are spot on regarding Oden. The man couldn't do serious leg lifting until about 3 weeks ago. Now he is training constantly. I think by the seasons end people will see a #1 draft pick. By 2010/11 I expect we will see a MONSTER.
The one with issues is Artest, everyone else is in harmony over there. I love Artest's attitude though, I don't want a soft team.
It's all about the context. In a vacum, Jefferson, Blair, and Haislip are unimpressive. Compared to the paper thin bench the Spurs had before, they are an upgrade. If Jefferson is merely league average, it gives them more flexibility with Gino's minutes, and improves the odds of having him at 100% when the play-offs roll around. As you (correctly) point out, getting Ginobili (and Duncan) healthy is the real issue. Jefferson, et al are just a means to getting there.
Good points. I still want to see how DeJuan Blair does even just for next year and the playoffs to see if he was worth taking a flyer on in the 2nd round.
Laker fans always act strangely if you say anything other then Kobe is...well...dare I say...Jesus... It's no longer enough to merely say he is the most skilled basketball player on the planet.
I agree, which is why I said adding an average player is nice. That wasn't sarcasm...no team has 12 players who are average or better, so adding an average player will always be a benefit. But, to put the gain in context...if Batum improves just a bit, going from a bit below average in production to around average or even a bit more, then Portland will have gained just as much (Jefferson over his replacement last year vs. Batum over his inferior version last year). Portland only needs a small gain from Batum to "even out" that gain from San Antonio. So, it's not that San Antonio didn't help themselves. It's that Portland doesn't need a lot from Batum to equal it. They will need more significant improvements from someone else to "even out" a healthy Ginobili. Personally, I believe they'll get it from Oden.
Ok, I complained about that? I don't know any laker fans that had problems with the spare compliments you gave us.
I agree with that. It's not necessarily the top teams in the West that got a lot better, but the overall West improved. The bottom feeders like OKC, the Clips, and probably even Memphis (as much as I hate to admit that), might not be rollovers like they were. Even with the roster we have, I'd be disappointed if we didn't duplicate another top-four finish and get HCA in the first round.
If you consider 6-30-2010 "soon", then, yeah, Blazers will lose their cap space "soon". Until the Spurs sign these other players, they haven't improved all that much yet. They talked about Sheed to the Spurs too. How did that work out? Anybody can throw a bunch of names around.
Hmm, so "young" bottom-feeders like Memphis, OKC, and Minnesota will because their youth gets better, but a "young" good team like Portland doesn't improve as it gets older? I'll also echo Minstrel and point out that I expect Greg Oden will be a much, much better player this season. Some weird logic in this thread. If LA loses Odom, they are worse than they were last year regardless of Artest. San Antonio is an aging team with a declining superstar who brought in an average player, Denver is much the same except Billups has more miles on him, Houston will be average at best, New Orleans certainly didn't improve, Golden State is a crapshoot, PHX looks to be worse, Dallas is the same team but one year older, the Clippers do look better, and Utah still has done nothing to improve their defense and will likely lose Millsap. By standing pat, Portland improves IMO, and the summer has just started.
the other thing comparing Portland to the Spurs is that the oldest rotation level players on Portland are Joel (30) and Blake (29), and they aren't exactly the main cogs of the club. The standard rise-fall of players over their careers suggest that Duncan (33) and Ginobili (32) are on different bell curve paths then most of the young Blazers. Certainly twisted ankles, tweaked backs, pulled hamstrings and the like are more problematic for guys post 30, especially those with the sort miles on them as TD and Manu. At the start of next season they are possibly a more talented club then the Blazers, but how much will that talent be on the floor? Will Pop be resting key guys on the 2nd nights of back to backs? How will their older guys be doing come the playoffs? STOMP
That's because it is based on observation, not abstract logic. Getting from "awful" to "mediocre" is easier than getting from "medicocre" to "good". Getting from "good" to "contender" is even tougher...and a challenge most teams fail. To put it another way, the Thunder have a much better chance of improving by 10 wins, than we do of improving another 5. That may not seem "logical", but it is the way things work.
Yes, but that doesn't mean Portland isn't getting better. By that logic, the Spurs also aren't getting better because it is equally true that the Thunder have a much better chance of improving by 10 wins than San Antonio does of improving by another 5. What you're saying is that the amount you need to improve for each extra marginal win increases as you get more wins. That's equally true for all the teams of Portland's "tier" (San Antonio, Denver, Houston had Yao not been lost for the season). If you are willing to say San Antonio "improved" despite the fact that they may not reap a ton of extra wins on top of last season's total, then why wouldn't you say the same about Portland considering that the vast majority of rookies see substantial gains in year 2?
Context. SA underachieved last season due to injuries. Fixing a flat tire on your Mercedes doesn't "improve" the car, it just lets it perform the way it was supposed to. (the Celts are in the same boat) Compare that to the L*kers, Cavs, Nugs, or Magic. They pretty much maxed out their performance last season, and can only get better by making changes. The Blazers reached their full potential last season, perhaps even overachieved. In that sense, their situation is more comparable to the Cavs or Magic.
You think our players have reached their full potential? Last year, I think we just scratched the surface of what this team can do.
The point being that 10 more wins for them or let's be nice and give them 15 more wins which would be awesome still only puts them at 38 wins. If we win 5 more we are at 59 which is very solid. The divide between the top 9 and the bottom 6 teams is pretty wide. The Suns had 46 then it was Golden State 29, Minny & Memphis 24, OKC 23, LAC 19, and Sacto 17. I just don't see any of the bottom six other than Golden State getting into the playoffs.
That doesn't exempt them from the fact that each marginal win is tougher to get. They'll improve due to getting Ginobili back healthy, but that still likely won't translate into a ton more wins. Similarly for Portland, they'll improve due to Oden being fully recovered and Oden, Bayless, Batum and Rudy likely improving from year 1 to year 2. It just doesn't mean that they'll get a lot more wins. This isn't related to the main point we were discussing, but I wanted to address it. Your comment here seems like a contrarian standpoint, rather than a fact-based one. Portland had the second-best point differential in the West and the fourth-best point differential in the NBA. Point differential tends to better reflect team ability than win total (because win totals can be unduly influenced by a lot of "lucky" 1-3 points wins or losses). If anything, Portland underperformed. Their point differential was absolutely elite, but they finished tied with Denver, San Antonio and Houston and ended up with the #4 seed.
I predicted 55 wins last year if all went right on the injury front. They missed Greg for 20 games and Blake for a short stretch, but overall the core guys were healthy by NBA standards (*note* I'm not forgetting about Webster...I just don't think much of him). In that sense, the team was probably able to achieve close to their potential for last season. It would be well outside of the statistical norm for a quality young team (given health) to plateau (let alone regress) after consistently improving as the Blazers have done the last few years, but everyone has an opinion. STOMP
