If you guys didnt have Raef's contract I would say bake it too. The team is young and everyone is still building an identity on the team. Raef's contract is just too juicy to go to waste. Even if its for a player that expires next year you gotta move Raef. I would be 100% shocked if he was traded for something
Although of course I voted Bake it!, I would approve any constructive use of the 3 guys not playing and Raef that does not interfere with team chemistry. Some 1st round picks of weak teams 4-5 years down the line would be very nice.
BTW..I think the Ed O choice is bullshit. Who doesnt want a good trade?!?...duh I think an interesting question is: What if there is a team that wants to make a trade with POR that DOES NOT include Raef. Should that kind of trade be considered? Roy is the only untouchable in that situation IMO. Does a trade have to include Raef for you to consider it? IMO it has to include Raef to make the trade worthwhile for POR. It will makes KP's decisions easier since he will have a greater body of work to look at. Outlaw would be my choice (sofar) for an attractive player(as in not trash) to pair with Raef in a trade when that time comes....if its a huge trade
Shh... of course my position is the most reasonable. It's me you're talking about. The people who vote for closer-to-MIXUM, though aren't rejecting good trades by not voting for me. They might just be willing to take more risks or getting something closer to equal production in the interests of rolling the dice or of shaking things up. Ed O.
The people who say "Bake it." The point of the "Ed O" choice (which *I* have advocated forever, pfft) is that it's meaningless to say "no trades" or "make a trade." A good GM should always be examining all possibilities and rejecting ones that aren't helpful. It's meaningless to have a general policy on trades. Trades can only be commented on specifically.
lololol, owned I thought MIXUM was just some guy making ridiculous statements to get a rise out of people for his own entertainment, but after this, maybe he truly is as idiotic as he makes himself out to be.
Exactly--I'm more than willing to accept a trade where we lose talent-wise, but we improve our starting lineup, balance and perimeter defense. What I might consider a good trade probably wouldn't be acceptable to most.
I suggest trading Raef for what we oldtimers from LO know as "Halvorson's Island", which is on the market for $19.5 million. It could serve as Paul's local digs and would be a great place for the players to hang out and celebrate winning the Title this summer. http://www.realtytrust.com/properties/detail.html?mls=RMLS&listingid=8088930&pn=1
More LaFrentz talk: http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9199394/Time-to-cash-in-that-golden-ticket,-Blazers- It says "by The Oregonian," but it's posted on foxsports.
Wait a minute. Maybe we're losing sight of the bigger picture, the more human concern involved. Raef's contract is expiring, and he is no longer physically able to play the game to earn a living. How will he feed his family?
True, got my vote. I think that Portland needs to really ask it's self.....does the trade make them better over the long haul both adding the player and adding the money to the cap. I think it has to be a player that is a no brainer, not just a trade to make a trade, it has to make sense for the cap too.
