Rebuilding isn't pretty. A GM has to look at his team and decide if it needs to be done, and then it becomes about how to do it. Or if there's a trade out there for the guy who can put you over the top, he's got to decide to do that. I see a lot of criticism of Cho for his inaction. But why is inaction a bad thing? If the object is to rebuild, then losing to get draft picks is part of the plan. There's nothing wrong with being loyal to guys like LMA and Roy who have big contracts and who helped the team win 50+ games in the past seasons. If Jalen Rose's contract was tradeable, then so is Roy's. No doubt there are teams out there who'd take a chance on Roy, who's still better than half the players in the league and who could end up playing another 5-10 years. You could have gotten Vince Carter for him, yay. The thing is, to rebuild, you can't do it overnight unless you luck into a top draft pick who turns into a Tim Duncan or Derrick Rose. Anyone see that happening? Rebuilding isn't about spending Paul Allen's money, it's about gaining cap flexibility. Cap flexibility is about turning expiring deals into expiring deals so when you do have a young player coming off rookie contract you can afford him, and when some other team wants to shed a big contract and a talented player that goes along with it, you're in the game. If you're over the cap/threshold with big contracts, you can only deal with other teams over the cap/threshold and for big contracts. It might not be a bad strategy, but you are going to be limited to how many teams you can really trade with. We've already seen what happens when injuries occur and the team trades young players away for stopgap replacement players. What once was a bright future is on the dim side, to say the least. Newly appointed GMs sometimes appear afraid to pull the trigger. Maybe they have a longer term plan in place, and maybe their plan can't be executed in a single draft or trading deadline. It may be harsh, but "let it bake" may now mean to ride out the bad contracts and try for a big score in the lottery. To do that, you're not going to trade big contracts for big contracts unless they expire quickly. You're going to see RLEC actually expire. And Joel's contract next, and so on.
Kind of reminds me of Ed Whelan and the burnt biscuit award. I wonder how many of those the Blazers would have earned by now.
"Let it bake" was a mistake at the time, and things would have had to work out JUST right for it to be a success. Sort of like aiming the plane towards the airport and hoping that it makes it there without the pilot steering. At this point, though? There's no huge rush. The team is mediocre, but it still has some good pieces. Ideally Miller and Joel and/or Camby are moved for assets that can help the team in the future, but there's no need to make those moves right now. Ed O.
"Let it bake" was only a mistake if he was passing on deals that would have improved the team. A lot of fans over the past several years were agitating for a trade, any trade. They just wanted to see some action. I would definitely say "Let it bake" is smart if the only possible deals reduced the value of the roster. Maybe you need to take some wild gambles (ones that are more likely to reduce the value of your roster with a slim chance of really improving it) if your roster is poor in talent. That wasn't the case for the Blazers until, maybe, now. The rosters of the past few years, I would definitely say that letting the roster improve internally (as players got older and closer to their prime) was superior to making trades just to make trades. If Pritchard was turning down chances to make the hallowed "consolidation trade," then yes, "let it bake" was a mistake. In any case, I do agree with Ed that there's no urgency now. The team may as well take a little time to take stock of what they have in Roy and Aldridge (as both of their games seem to be changing with the circumstances).
We gave away all of our edible ingredients. Spanish Chocolate, Trout, Von Wafer... Hard to stomach what we've got left.
