I don't agree with everything in the article but do with a lot of it though I do think rumors seem to think Rlec isn't worth that much IMO it is worth a lot in this economy. I'm still almost 50-50 we will make a trade before the deadline.
1. Thanks, But No Thanks – Apparently the offers General Manager Kevin Pritchard is receiving is more lunacy than legit when LaFrentz is included. The proposals simply aren't to Portland's liking or of equal benefit. The "Amar'e Stoudemire to Portland" rumor proves this easily. Let's get this right: the Blazers would be giving away their second best player in LaMarcus Aldridge, Jerryd Bayless – a guy whom some in the franchise believe is eventually the future point guard of the team - and LaFrentz's expiring contract. Are the Suns sure they don't want Brandon Roy in the deal while they are at it? ^ This part is interesting.
Their 10 reasons were really just 3 reasons, none of them being very good. How is Raef's contract more valuable this offseason? Adding Buck Williams did not hurt our chemistry, it vaulted us into the finals. I have the same feeling about Gerald Wallace.
That's what I was wondering. The "value" must mean his contract coming off the books saves Portland $$$ Well, for most teams/owners that's great, really doesn't apply to Paul Allen. I've been assuming that the whole Darius Miles saga IMPROVES the odds of RLEC being moved (b/c we won't have flexibility in the FA market) It never dawned on me that it is a reason to KEEP it (save money) Man, if that's the way it goes down . . . I hate Darius Miles.
Why hate on Darius? He's had absolutely nothing to do with any of these medical-related decisions. All he wants to do is ball, party, and bonk his head. Not necessarily in that order.
it is effective in the offseason because we will still be under the cap, and can either sign a decent free agent or do a sign and trade without having to match salarys with 125%.
How is Raef's contract worth more this offseason? If we trade him now, a team gets his contract off the books, plus the savings that come from the insurance payment since Raef missed a minimum of 41 games this year. Even if they are really stretching and saying that the money off the cap will be worth more, they are dead wrong. We'd only have about $6mil in cap flexibility rather than the ability to take back about $12mil if we trade him now. I totally don't understand the point they are making here. Stupid argument. Prior to this year during Pritchard's tenure, the Blazers weren't in the position to make a midseason trade. They were not positioning for a playoff run, nor were they holding an asset like a big expiring contract. This one really doesn't make any sense. This doesn't seem like a reason to NOT make the deal, this just seems like a reason to make sure you make the right deal. Not exactly a compelling reason to "keep LaFrentz's contract." So how exactly is speculation that Raef might not be the one traded a compelling "reason" to keep LaFrentz's contract? Again, I agree with the premise, but I disagree that trading Raef's contact somehow means we have to bring back a "rental." Why couldn't we bring back someone who becomes one of our core for many years down the road? The whole "it's about the future" argument wears thin for me. Yeah - it is about the future. But if you have a chance now to make a move that will help that future, why not do it? Translation: "We couldn't think of a #10, and the Top 9 Reasons just didn't make for a good article." -Pop
