As you know, I think Blake is as good as he's ever going to be and I think Travis is best used as a trade asset. I have real hope for Webs that he can be an impact player. I think he was looking great before he got hurt. My point is that our window was viewed to be open a couple of years ahead of schedule. It's still closing at the same time, it's just going to be opened wider for a longer time. Dave asked for a core. Here's mine: The keystones: Roy, LMA, GO Solid bench building blocks: Joel, Rudy The wildcards: Nico, Webs, Bayless I'd move Webs for the right deal, as well as Bayless. Everyone else is tradable. In fact, I'd love a consolidation trade. However, I'm not interested in trading away our young players with upside for a marginal improvement. I think our youngsters have more upside than we could achieve in a trade for the players we've been discussing.
Outside of Aldridge and Oden, I think Nic has a higher upside than anyone else on our team. I don't believe as very likely to be traded as a result.
The reason a sac fly or walk is as good as a home run in that situation is because you know you need only one run. If Portland were on LA's or Boston's level, already top-tier title contenders and just needed one little boost, then they could settle for the sacrifice fly or walk (like Boston did with 'Sheed or LA did with Artest over Ariza). Portland doesn't know it needs only one run. It's more like the team is trailing close or tied in the 5th or 6th inning. Is a bases-loaded walk or sac fly still as good as a home run or double, in that situation? No, because you don't know how many runs you're going to need to win the game. Thus, I think your analogy is flawed. A sacrifice fly or walk is better than nothing, but the hitter should be looking to do the most damage he can in that situation, to give his team the best chance possible to win in the end.
I agree. I really don't think that Portland would have won a title this year with Hedo... and I don't think that Kirk or Lee or Battier would get us there, either. Portland's core is Roy/Aldridge/Oden, and it's young. Most of the other parts we have on the roster are young, as well... and they SHOULD improve as a group (even if some get hurt or some get worse) over time. I have been 100% in favor of adding a piece or pieces to the team with the cap space we have because it would not (or would merely minimally) impact the talent we have on the team... the talent that got us 54 wins with the second-youngest roster in the NBA. Even if the team backslides a bit--and I think it's possible in spite of my optimism about the team--this year, I don't think that the team should stay the course of building on the core and looking for deals that make the team better in the LONG run... not in focusing on the next couple of years. As for the column itself... *shrug*. It was fine. Nothing spectacular nor groundbreaking. Ed O.
The only two people you labeled "not improving" just had the best seasons of their career. I bet a year ago you would have said they weren't going to improve either.
I think you are right if you look at it as the only move this year to win it all. I don't think the Blazers are only a player away. So I guess my analogy is that adding a piece this year to get us better going forward is the right move. Use Battier. He wouldn;t be considered by many to be as good of an addition as say Harris or Rondo or whatever, but he would be an incredible addition. That's what I mean by sac fly. If winning this year is adding a great piece to help us win in the future then a sac fly is all we need. KP isn;t going to get a HR with Paul or Williams.
If someone had said it they would have been correct, systematically. I don't think that teams can rely on improvement from their late-20's role players. Your comment seems like someone looking down at the pair of sixes that have just been rolled and saying, "I bet you didn't predict a pair of sixes." Ed O.
I'd like to add a player also. No point leaving chips on the table (the analogies and metaphors are flyying fast and furious). But I'd rather go after high-impact possibilities first and work my way down to the low-impact ones. And I like Battier a lot, but I view him as a "win now" player. If you think you're one role-player away (and that player is a perimeter player), then Battier is a great choice. However, he's declining and in a couple of seasons he won't be a "championship role-player" (by which I mean, the kind of complementary player that really enhances a great team), he'll just be a mediocre bench player. That's a problem, since the team's prime contention window is probably two seasons away. I agree that Pritchard shouldn't waste time on impossible scenarios, but I doubt that he is. I do think he should go after the most impactful realistic player. You don't know exactly how good this team will be in two seasons...it may turn out that you needed the extra base hit this summer, and not the sacrifice fly.
Fair enough. Just remember that in 2-3 years we won't have this chance to use surplus cap space to facilitate a deal.
Did you not read all of my suggested trades? You didn't because I didn't make any. I never suggested that Portland trade Joel for Battier, Odom or Hinrich. I am saying that if Portland can make a move to bring in a player that Portland needs, and the asking price is Joel they shouldn't turn the offer down out of hand. Joel is a nice to have, not a absolutely needed. I don't not pretend to know what is being offered out there. My reasoning is if Portland brings in a quality player who can play both power forward and center that player is of more value to Portland then a quality player who can only play center. Is this something you disagree with? And no, I don't really have anyone in particular in mind. This is all hypothetical.
I'm honestly tired of the debate. KP is going to do what he feels is necessary. Whether we agree with him or not, it really is irrelevant. We can go round and round on this one, but it's not going to change a thing.
Dont even joke about that! Coming to work would damn near pointless. Other than the whole money to pay bills thing.
It frees up time to debate other important things. Should we change our uniform? How much would it cost to get Rebecca Haarlow to post for Playboy? Does Kevin Pritchard secretly have a crazy witch hiding in the rafters of the Rose Garden giving him advice, like in the movie Robin Hood with Kevin Costner? Does John Canzano chrome his dome? Is Nate McMillan really just a big softy?
I don't buy that analogy at all. It would be more like someone rolling two dice that add up to 8, and him telling me that the next roll won't be higher. Yeah, it's more likely it won't be, but there a plenty of combination that would be incorrect. If he said it as fact, I would point out and he shouldn't be so certain. Someone saying the odds of Joel improving is the same chances as someone rolling two 6's (3%), means that the odds of both of them having their best season last year (which did happen) is well less than 1%. I would not be surprised if Blake has the best season of his career next year. Even if he doesn't, I expect him to improve his game on some areas and mature as a player.
I don't think that anyone can make ANY prediction and consider it a "fact". Even historical analysis is open enough to interpretation that it's tough to establish facts based on what's happened. The question to me, then, is when someone makes predictions are their predictions likely. A pair of sixes is definitely extreme, but your paragraph still makes my point: the odds of getting nine or higher on a roll of a pair of dice is 5/18... less than 33%. If we do a single toss, or a series of tosses, if I keep telling you that the total won't be more than eight I will be right most of the time. If a person has to say, based on those odds, whether the player is going to get better or not, I think it's safe to say that the person should say he will not. Ed O.
How can you have Outlaw as "Potential" and uncertain? We've had the guy for what, six years? Yes, he has improved some aspects of his game but he is a defensive liability (most of the time), rebounds like crap (most of the time) and has highly suspect Bball IQ (all of the time). I'd relegate him to Mediocrity at best. Gramps...
