Portland wasn't 2nd in the west, nor tied for it other then by record. They got the 4th seed, primarily because they couldn't beat even shitty teams in their division on the road consistently. I am tired of hear how they were tied for 2nd best in the west. They were not. There are tie breakers for a reason, and Portland's division record was not up to snuff. They were one of the best teams in the west, but not second.
They did have the second-best point differential in the West. They may not have gotten the second seed, but it's arguable as to whether they were or were not the second-best team.
Oh goody. I couldn't rest before I had your benefit of the doubt. Whatever. You couldn't appear more full of yourself. It's as if you're presuming I care how you feel. I missed a fact that those 4th years were POs. It doesn't change that I don't understand why the fans are in an uproar over this. He did offer the same amount to Roy as Paul and Williams received last year. He's wanting more and Portland's correct in wondering if that's in the best interest of the team. Is the hold up that it's a 5th year? Is it that it's a player option for a 5th year? is it the amount of the 5th year? Who knows except for those close to Roy and the organization. That there's been a snag in the negotiations isn't shocking to me, nor does it make me find fault with either side. They're both doing what's best for themselves.
First, I'm not sure that we would've had to "give up a young contributor". The big rumor going around was RLEC (only!) for VC AND 2 first round picks. But let's set that aside, since it's unverified. Let's say that someone wanted Bayless, or Outlaw, or Batum for that "two year rental" of VC or Jefferson or Wallace. How long is Bayless or Outlaw or Batum or Rudy going to be around for? Granted, having their RFA rights is very helpful to keeping them around, but look at the roster turnover from the last couple of years. We've gotten rid of Telfair, Zach, Jack, Blake (then got him back), Frye, James Jones, Ime, Sergio. Martell would be where Frye is today if he hadn't gotten lucky and signed his extension back when they thought he'd play last year. ALL of those guys were "young contributors with value". They just happened to be ditched on draft day or not have a new contract offered. The only ones who seem "safe" are Oden, Roy, and LMA--for good reason. Let's establish a couple of points, though. Vince Carter was significantly better than any SF we had last year, and any one we had the year before, and any one currently on our roster. Boston seemed to think that giving up young players and picks for a 2-3 year "rental" of Garnett and Allen was a good deal, and they won a championship. Did their chemistry change? You betcha? For the better? Well, rings do that, or so I've heard. Maybe (and I hope so) Bayless and Batum will blossom into all-stars or close at the 1 and 3 positions and lock us into a dynasty for a long time. According to his quotes, KP didn't want to trade any of his players when asked about it during the Kidd-Harris trade timeframe. Of the players discussed that KP didn't want to trade, only Travis is around 17 months later, and I don't know that too many of us would lament that if we had Harris or Kidd. Who's to say Bayless or Batum or Rudy will be around in 2 years? Yes, VC could have shaken it up and changed roles, so that instead of Travis and his 39% clutch shooting we could've had VC and his 50% clutch shooting taking shots in the 4th quarter. Or maybe with his pure passer rating five times that of Travis he could've been on the floor more. Or his drawn foul% three times that of Blake might've contributed to a better 4th-quarter lineup. Or just playing more than Batum, and not having to worry about crunch time b/c we're already up a bunch. And with the associated wins, maybe celebratory parties lead to more fun and comraderie in the locker room. I don't know, though.
I think you're missing my point. Maybe VC would be more valuable to us now than Batum. However, when VC has no knees and our championship window opens up, I know I'd much rather have Batum on our roster. Again, just a personal preference. I'm not as big on trying to force the issue like the Baby Bulls did getting Ben Wallace. Your point about VC brings up the possible positive outcomes. You dismiss any chances that he takes shots away from Roy. Or it causes us to go inside even less, and that changes the way we play. Chemistry is a delicate thing. The upside of VC was that he would have brought us to 56 wins and the second round. The down side is that chemistry would have been ruined, we would have still lost in the first round, and most importantly, 2 years from now, we'd have nothing to show for it. We'll never know either way.
Ok, I'll edit my post to clarify we finished tied for the 2nd best record in the West. Would that make you happy? If you want to believe that those tie-breakers are any reflection of how good a team is vs another, you are mistaken. If you want to look at record, strength of schedule, etc, I'd be happy to look up where Portland finished in the league.
Let's look at this. We would have been under the cap when the deal went down I believe, so we'd have to match the salary exactly with either our salary cap space or contracts. We would have had to wait, I believe, until July 8th to also make a move, for our salary cap space to be known and used. Since we were below the cap, we'd have to include another $6.5M in salary heading to MIL. Since MIL only took back players that, at most, were under contract for one season, I'm assuming their asking price would be Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw. And even then with the San Antonio deal because Bowen's contract isn't fully guaranteed they take back less in salary than what we could do. Uh, no thanks. San Antonio can have him. Prior to July 1st, but after the trade deadline, we would have been above the salary cap, so we'd only need to send $9.9M their way. That's still Blake and Outlaw, plus another $1.7M. Which player do you propose we add to that? No one. It doesn't make sense for Portland. The only time Jefferson may have made sense was at the trade deadline, when we could send Lafrentz in exchange for him. At this point, that sounds good. But he's not a perfect fit. I can see why they'd rather pursue other opportunities. I'd much prefer Marvin Williams, Ramon Sessions, David Lee, or several other players that can be had through trade. It's July 17th. We've been held up by the Turk fiasco and the Millsap matching game. There's plenty of time left to improve the team IMO. And, the risk of turning down Jefferson was worthwhile, at least for this fan. Rudy Fernandez, as I understand it, was the asking price and reason why we didn't move for Carter. Rudy is not replaceable. I'm down with trading him, but only for the right player. I don't want to lose him just to rent Carter for one or two good seasons, especially when the rest of our pieces aren't realistically ready to contend with Los Angeles, Boston, and Cleveland. You can guarantee that Kobe recruited him? Ok. Not sure how some of you are so sure of what is happening behind the scenes. You're all very lucky. Oh, and I would hope to god the coach would be assisting in recruiting free agents ... you know, just how Nate flew to Orlando to wine and dine Turk. It seems reasonable that Kobe was asked his opinion I suppose. I don't recall Kobe being there at the airport when Artest landed at LAX or hearing of him being a part of a conference call. Evidently you've got insider info though. I'm not refuting your opinion. It's yours. I believe you're exaggerating though. I'm sure he didn't look quite as "shitty" or "zombie-like" as you're making out.
The point I was making is: how do you know Batum'll be on the roster in two years, even IF we didn't trade him for Vince? That's why I brought up the Harris rumor. KP really liked Jack, Frye and Outlaw and didn't want to make trades in Feb 08. Fast forward to today, two of those players aren't on the team and the third isn't exactly untouchable. So saying "he might've helped, but in three years he'll be horrible and I'd rather have Batum" isn't exactly the only set of possible outcomes. Let's not get crazy. The upside of Vince was WCF against the L*kers and a chance for the Finals. That wasn't an option for our team as constructed last April. And the downside WAS that he might've pulled the team apart, but I don't think he's ever had that effect on a team he was traded to.
He's played with some real talented players in his career, and I don't believe he's ever got to the conference finals. I'm not sure how many times he's got to the 2nd round.
I'm all for logical discussions. But I can also tell when your line of thinking and mine will not ever coincide, at least not on this particular issue. I can only spend so much time in these discussions. At some point it's just screaming at a brick wall. Oh, and I'm not being close-minded. I'm actually being very open-minded. I also don't subscribe to favoring the "bake it" approach. I acknowledge that it is an approach that is possibly better than making certain moves that take the team far from their philosophical approach in building/maintaining a successful basketball franchise though.
Really? Division record is meaningless compared to over-all record? That is an interesting take. I know you make a living at evaluating players, so I won't argue with you about that sort of thing. But this isn't about player evaluation. Portland had a horrible road record versus the western conference, especially versus playoff contenders (2 and 11 I believe). They had a worse division record then Denver. Not sure how that makes them just as good as Denver. In games against the exact same competition they came up short. To my mind that means they weren't tied with Denver.
You're right, there is no way to know for sure. It seems to me, however, that there is something missing from your equation. If you are correct - if adding veteran help won't make us contenders - then that creates a whole new problem. If our window really doesn't open for a few years (and for the record, I disagree), what makes you believe that all our young players will *still be here*? Rudy is already greasing his own skids. If Batum becomes a star, he might want out too. Bayless could easily wind up like Sergio and demand a trade to a team where he is a better fit. Even Roy is showing the first symptoms of "looking out for #1" disease. To be blunt, I believe we will be lucky if 4-5 years from now we have even 4 players off the current team. If people want me to be patient and "let it bake", they first need to assure me that when and if it does "bake", I at least get a taste!
I think "meaningless" is too strong. However, picking 3 common opponents (division record) to determine which is better, doesn't mean anything. I promise you I could find 3 common opponents that Portland had a better record against compared to San Antonio and Denver. In determining playoff seeding, it make logical sense to go to conference or division record. I believe Portland tied for the 5th best record in the league, that is impressive no matter how you slice it. I don't make (all) of my mortgage payment based off of the scouting service I work for, and I hope I didn't come across as a know-it-all because that's what I get paid to do. I feel lucky to have access/time to watch players/plays in a short time frame that help me evaluate players. I'm just lucky to have the tools and opportunity to to something like that.
Says the guy with a 3000 word rambling rant for which he dedicated an entire thread. That's not being full of yourself at all. You seem to be the one in an uproar, and your lack of basic facts surrounding the Paul/Williams extensions seems odd when I consider the thousands of words you've written in this thread criticizing how others view the summer.
So by writing a lengthy post detailing why I feel certain fans are unfairly criticizing Blazers' management makes me full of myself. If that's how it came off that wasn't my intention. I simply saw and heard a growing resentment that didn't add up to me and I voiced my opinion about that. You, though, felt it necessary, in some self-serving way, to excuse me from a mistake. I wouldn't do that and can't stand those that do. You keep stating "facts", as if I was wrong about numerous ones. I was incorrect about this one fact, that those players have player-options in their fourth contract year. That you want to continually point out a simple oversight that doesn't in anyway contradict my initial opinion, nor does it diminish my take that Pritchard isn't blundering up these negotiations, only solidifies my thoughts of you. Which is too bad, as I had always enjoyed and respected your thoughts. So answer me this, how does my misinterpretation of the PO of their contracts make my impressions of others' impressions odd?
No thanks, no more for me in this thread. I respect your posts, you just seem extremely emotional in this thread. I said you were "full of yourself" and provided a goofy example (we ALL start threads dedicated to our words, don't we?) only because you first accused me of being "full of myself". I thought you'd be able to laugh at yourself, as I did at myself when reading your above post. I'll also admit I chuckled a bit at the seriousness I derived from the post. Take it easy, I'm sure we'll discuss other topics in the future!
I'm an emotional person when it comes to my passions in life. I can get reactionary to a fault at times. It struck me as odd that you'd continually point out, falsely I might add, an inaccuracy and then to proceed to excuse my behavior. It rubbed me the wrong way, as you can see. You too.
It doesn't appear Pritchard's lack of preparedness and sloppy dress hurt him in signing Andre Miller, fucking over Utah, adding two quality players in Claver and Cunningham, keeping Koponen and Freeland, and, all the while not giving up any assets.
