The Lakers might be the worst example you could have picked. First off the Lakers had just won three titles with Shaq and Kobe. The two had personality conflicts and their egos drove that team apart. They didn't have any young talent at the time because they finished with a high winning %. The championship run was over because they had failed to win the ring for two years. The Lakers were lucky to get Gasol and everyone knows it, on top of that if Derek Fisher's daughter did not fall sick with cancer they would not be where they are today. The Lakers rise back to the top is an anomaly, and it is not a model to follow. That is unless you know of a team that is willing to give you a top 5 NBA center for nothing...
I don't want them making the "wrong" move either. I would be fine with doing nothing other than adding our draft picks if it prevented us from making a foolish mistake. This team will make considerable advancements by just staying the course. I have a hard time thinking that the "right" move isn't out there somewhere though. There's just too many options, at least the way I see it. If nothing else, replacing Travis Outlaw with a more defensive-minded and physical presence behind LaMarcus should be the least we accomplish. But hell, maybe we already solved that with the drafting of Cunningham and/or Pendergraph.
It's not a bad article, but not exactly a revelation. Various of us have been saying similar things over the past year or so, that the roster needs to be "honed" from a talent-laden but disparate roster to one that is carefully maximized to exploit its best players. One thing not exactly addressed in that article, but is related to it, is the desire many people to have a nice backup at every position, often thinking of it as a "unit." With discussion of how to balance the "second unit"...who's the scorer on the second unit, who provides the defense, etc. I know I've occasionally fallen into that trap, myself, but I think it's a mistake. The reserves are not a unit. Except in garbage time, you virtually never pull the entire starting unit and put in five reserves. There's always a mix of starters and reserves and the foundation is: starters stay in as much as possible (because they should be the team's best players) and reserves come in only when necessary to give the starters rest, and that will happen at different times for different positions. So, it really doesn't matter how well-balanced the "second unit" is. And it's not even important to have a perfect backup point guard, a perfect backup shooting guard, a perfect backup small forward, etc. The reason this bears mentioning is because one shouldn't resist trading Rudy Fernandez out of concern for who will back up Roy. If, for example, Fernandez, Outlaw, Blake, Webster and Przybilla were all traded for upgrades at small forward and point guard, and Portland could sign David Lee, it would seem to leave the team thin, without a backup center and backup shooting guard. However, since you don't bring in an entire "second unit," it's actually not a problem. You have two players (Bayless and Batum) to back up three positions. Assuming that the Blazers' starters at PG, SG and SF average 33 minutes per game (conservative), that leaves 45 minutes left at the the three positions. That's 22-23 minutes each for Batum and Bayless...hardly over-working them. Similarly, if we assume that Aldridge and Oden give an average of 30 minutes per game (lower, to account for uncertainty over the minutes Oden will give), that leaves 36 minutes left over. Which means that if Lee essentially backed up both positions, he'd get de-facto starter minutes, but not more than he can realistically handle. And thus with five good to great starters and three talented reserves, you very effectively account for every minute. Obviously, you need to fill out the rest of the roster with players, but they would be scrubs who play mop-up and emergency minutes that will crop up. The point is not that 8 players will play every moment of the season but that you can effectively apportion the vast majority of the important minutes to your 8 very good players. Which means that a significant portion of Portland's depth is superfluous and shouldn't be considered hard to trade due to leaving a position "not backed up." Just another part of honing.
I mostly agree with the article, but think a consolidation trade should have been made last year. Here's how I see it: High Readiness, High Certainty Roy (Improving) Aldridge (Improving) Oden (Improving) Pryz (Not Improving) Medium Readiness, High Certainty Rudy (Improving) Batum (Improving) Blake (Not Improving) Potential (Uncertainty) Bayless Outlaw Mediocrity Webster All of our rookies Some of my choices are definitely quibblable but it forms a basis for the conversation. The plan now must be to replace the players of medium readiness who are not improving, players with potential, and mediocre players with another high readiness, high certainty player (Crash, Battier, Miller...). That's the course we're on - we need a consolidation trade. p.s. really there needs to be categories for redundancy (which is why David Lee might not be a great idea).
You know if you have something to say about his comment that actually has some substance to argue against what he is saying, then say it. Otherwise I could do without your critique of what he said, as it has little value.
The article is good and thought provoking. It is also not quite right. Champions are not built like puzzles. And the team *could* win a championship even if Oden does not pan out. LMA and Roy and others are good enough. But if Oden does not pan out, trading Joel would be an act of monumental stupidity. The notion that we must consider Rudy/Pryz/Batum trade bait to get a marginal star (Lee or Turkey-Glue quality SF) is wrong. Portland holds enough cards, that it is better to hold than to do a bad deal. iWatas
Because if Oden improves the way I believe he will, Joel is only going to get about 10 to 14 minutes a night here. We can get some other guy for a fraction of Joel's salary to do that. I think it would be more benificial to have Greg's backup also be a potential backup for LA. Joel can't do that. Really, Joel could start for a ton of teams and I am certain interest in him is very high. If you want to bring in a quality player you have to give up a quality player you don't absolutely need.. Joel fits this criteria. It's not that Joel is crappy, or I want him gone. I don't. But Portland's future, for good or ill, is with Oden. For me, the future is now.
Luck is always a part of it. Weren't we "lucky" that Chicago loved Tyrus Thomas and Minny loved Foye? Of course we were. Very, very, very lucky. Don't ever forget that. As for the Lakers, point is, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I was disputing the notion that in order to "win" later, you HAVE TO win now. No you don't. The Lakers won, then partly tore it down, and didn't win. That didn't prevent them them from winning later after "luck" gave them Gasol. (They worked hard to have the flexibility to make the deal when it presented itself - that is making your own luck - you won't win the lottery if you don't buy tickets) Not contending didn't destroy Kobe and Odom and all the role players from winning later. Including players that had never won previously. I dispute the notion that there is momentum in winning that carries over year to year to year. Good teams seem to win year after year because they have the best players - NOT because they have a "culture" of winning or history of winning. Look at the Celtics. 3 guys that each had one (one!) good run in the past, and lots of blah years, get together and immediately kick ass. Why? What about all that losing? Or how about the Orlando Magic. Who on that team did squat before? Nobody, that's who.
For those of you who disagree with the article, I have one simple question: at what point does "later" become "now"????
That question has been asked before, and no one can ever seem to answer it. Last year it was so and so is only ??? old And this year it is so and so is only ??? (year older)
I have yet to see a verified deal we could have executed after the draft that would have made us markedly better.
From when Maxie? Not to be combative. Travis has been in the league 6 years Blake has been in the league 6 years Webster has been in the league 3 years (playing)
Of greater concern to me is the idea that only "the perfect move" should be made. There likely are multiple moves available that would be beneficial to the team, but are not a quintessential "Pritch-slap." I could very well be wrong, but my perception is that a desire for a home-run is preventing singles.
I used that analogy somewhere else, but said a sac fly that scores a run is the same as a home run. And a bases loaded walk with the score tied in the bottom of the ninth is just as good as a grand slam.
Unless we are "dumping" Joel this year for something far better, it would be pointless to get rid of him later. I don't care if you can get a back up center for far less, which I disagree with (Diop, Nazr), Portland will be over the cap for the next decade. If you are trading some collection of Joel, Rudy, Blake, Webster, Outlaw, etc for that missing piece (third scorer, facilitator at a position of need) we might as well keep Joel. I don't care if he makes $7 mil per. If he is not getting you the upgrade in trade then it is stupid to trade him for Battier. Battier is not a third scorer or facilitator. He is just an aging defender thrown into a mix of five other wings. But Oden/Joel gives us an advantage at the center position on most nights, why weaken that for duplication elsewhere? Whether Joel or Rudy can start for many other teams is irrelevant. It seems Battier, Odom and Hinrich can start on many teams, but do not. We can afford that luxury with a player or two as well. I am certain that Rudy will eventually need to be traded just like Drazen 20 years ago. But we do not need to waste him on Battier, who would be a luxury type of player on a vet laden team. Rudy, or any of our tradeable assets need to be traded to fullfill our needs; Third scorer Facilitator of offense Banger/rebounder PF This is what we need to be looking for.
