With a potential acquisition of Gerald Wallace that means Batum will never see the court with Webster healthy. Do you make the trade for "Crash" and hurt Batum's development or do you stand pat and look for a PG? One thing that Gerald brings, like Travis, he can play PF. He started most of last season at the four and put up nearly 20/10. His post defense is very strong despite only being 6'7"-6'8". Wallace/Webster/Batum - McMillan has his hands full trying to find time for these guys, if it were to happen.
why so quick to write off Nic? Batum is already showing far more defensive ability then Martell ever has and he's shooting a better percentage from 3's then Martell did last year. I don't see MW as nearly the lock for minutes that many here do. Rating him as a decent player at this point is being generous. STOMP
I make the deal and assume McMillan is smart enough to mix and match a bit. A ton of players on the Blazers can play multiple positions. There's no reason why Batum and Wallace couldn't be on the floor together at times. Or Batum and Webster, or Webster and Wallace. Wallace as the starter, Webster as the primary reserve and Batum as the developing prospect who gets time mixed and matched with other players would be a perfectly good situation. Basically, I'd envision the following (I'm assuming the deal would send away LaFrentz, Outlaw and Frye): Four guard rotation: Roy, Fernandez, Blake, Bayless Four forward rotation: Aldridge, Wallace, Webster, Batum Two center rotation: Oden, Przybilla With Roy's ability to pass and Wallace's and Batum's ability to play spot minutes at the 4, I think you can basically use any combination of guards at a time and any combination of forwards at a time. You don't have to be strictly constrained by type of guard and type of forward. And that sets up a nice, tight ten man rotation.
I totally agree. I would actually like to see Batum as the primary backup. Something, IMO, he is ready for. Package Webster with LaFrentz (and Sergio?) for an upgrade at the point.
There will be more minutes for Batum IF Wallace and Webster are on the team compared to IF Webster, Outlaw, and Frye are on the team. Wallace can slide up to four too. If we were to do it (I'd include Blake to add incentive for Charlotte and start Bayless...or Rudy and play Bayless), everyone freaks out about a rookie PG, no one about a rookie SG with a "vet" PG, so play Roy at point with Bayless as our "rookie" SG. Accelerate the change, if we make changes for the future, get everyone used to each other and throw out the band-aids (such as Blake). Sure it may make Nate a little pissed, but it would be better for the team long-term. And LB would love Blake as a PG who will do what he's told (when he gets pissed at Augustin or Felton). I would actually play Wallace as a 30 mpg reserve personally. I don't see him fitting into a deliberate offense extremely well (like our starters) but he'd be awesome as a defensive energy guy off the bench. I just love the thought of a second unit consisting of Sergio, Rudy, and Wallace (with Batum spot minutes) it'd be so much fun to watch and could play crazy zones. Blake/Frye/Outlaw (three guys LB would probably like) for Wallace... Roy/Sergio Bayless/Rudy (Rudy still gets the bulk) Webster/Wallace/Batum Aldridge/Wallace Oden/Pryzbilla that's a nasty 9 man rotation with spot minutes for Batum. Fuel the future! If Roy and Rudy play at least 60 mpg combined then we'd only have to rely on Sergio and Bayless for 36 mpg. Would probably be good to have a reserve behind them, though I'd be nervous Nate would use them way too much.
Funny how we were glad to see Aldridge, Roy, and now Oden, Batum, and Rudy get lots of minutes in their rookie year, but dont want to Bayless to start. Not saying that we dont have better options now.
Well, let's look at this a little bit. One of the worst teams in the league is looking at trading it's best player whom they just signed to a contract. Doesn't that tell you a little bit about Wallace? If he was a good team player, they wouldn't be shopping him. Pass.
I wouldn't read too much into anything with the Bobbies; The owner is reportedly looking to shop the team, so payroll owed is something of a consideration (especially for a team that has trouble filling its arena) and Larry Brown is notorious for wanting to tinker with his roster when he takes a team over. Who knows, maybe there is an issue with Wallace, but my guess would be that they realize they aren't going anywhere good with the lineup they have and are already committed to pretty weighty contracts for Okafor and Richardson -- Crash at 10 million per year seriously cuts into their ability to fill some of the gaping holes in their roster (primarily picking up a true center or somebody that can play solid power forward while Okafor continues to toil away out of position at the 5).
Where does this rumor stem from? Is it only Blazersedge or has someone heard any word from somewhere else?
For the record, Wallace puts up some of his best numbers when he's on the floor in a small lineup, playing PF alongside Emeka Okafor at center. Depending on the matchup he can play the undersized 4 that is becoming so popular in this league.
"legit" rumor (whatever that means) http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/th...llace_is_potentially_perfect_for_golden_state
i want to know why everyone feels the need for two different line-ups. most of the good teams run an eight man rotation with a ninth in special circumstances. so say we sent out Outlaw, Raef, Frye, for Wallace. where does that leave us? PG- Blake, Sergio, Bayless SG- Roy, Rudy SF- Webster, Batum, Wallace PF- Aldridge, Ike C- Oden, Prizz Obiviously Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Prizz, and Rudy would be your main five. Who are the other three? Basically what i'm saying is, we still have the same problem (a good problem) of playing time as i don't think it would be the 3 SF's.
Get the best players you can and go with it. I mean if we were able to get a player like K*be, that wasn't actually a rapist, and it meant less time for Roy you do it.
Sounds crazy... but I think I would rather play Batum then Wallace. We need to get rid of Blake, Sergio and Outlaw for a good veteran PG.
I'm with STOMP and Ty. If both Webster and Batum had been drafted this year at their current talent level, there wouldn't even be a debate. Webster is clearly an inferior player. Sure, Webster has far prettier form to his jumper, but you don't get bonus points for nice form. Batum is taller, longer, a better defender (at 19!), a better rebounder, has more upside, has a better handle and is a more aggressive finisher in the open court. And he doesn't appear to have any of the psychological baggage Webster does. Webster disappears for long stretches if nobody get him the ball position to take the spotup jumper. Batum doesn't need the ball at all to be valuable. I've been waiting for years for Outlaw or Webster to become Batum. I always liked Outlaw more than Webster, but that debate doesn't matter anymore. The future is Batum. Now, how does Nate balance Wallace with Batum/Outlaw/Webster this year? Clearly, Wallace starts. Outlaw will get more minutes at backup PF. And Webster and Batum will have to jostle over the table scraps. This year, my money is on Nate choosing Webster over Batum, just because he usually goes with the veterans when he has a choice. I have far more faith in KP's ability to recognize talent, though, and I think we'll see some moves later this year and over the summer to move Webster and establish Batum as the clear backup to Wallace.
