BNM's whole argument about why the Blazers will be better than the Nuggets,Spurs and Dallas is based on the assumption that the Blazers are one year older, hence one year better. I mean it's a nice assumption, especially with the talented young players that the Blazers have, but it's not a guarantee. Also the Blazers have pretty much the same team they had last year +plus Andre Miller. Even if their players do improve will their improvements be enough to match the talent that Dallas and the Spurs will be bringing to the table. Spurs added RJ, McDyess, and Dejuan Blair, and they have their injured players coming back healthy. Dallas added Marion and is gonna have a healthy Josh Howard this season. Edit: I will agree that the nuggets probably took a step back by losing Kleiza and the Blazers can probably overtake them, we'll see though. I mean Carmelo is one year better and he's had a taste of success.
Are the nuggets finished with their moves? HELL NO, they r looking at mccant and wally, whom will be prefect replacement for Linas
Which is exactly why I think the Spurs and Mavericks may have trouble staying healthy again this season. Both teams have very old rosters. With age comes decline in production and more frequent injury problems. In addition to injuries, look at the production of guys like Dirk, Kidd and Marion. Their production has been in steady decline for the last 3 - 4 years. BTW, Jason Terry only missed 8 games last season [ not exactly a "major" injury. And, he's the only player on the Dallas roster over the age of 30 who hasn't seen a steady decline in his production. The article you linked was about the entire league. It had all 30 teams lumped together, not separated by conference. If you don't want to discuss the teams in the western conference, why do you keep responding to my posts? I did comment on the Raptors and Wizards in my initial post. The site owners/admins are constantly urging posters in the Blazers forum to participate in the other forums. If I wasn't participating in this thread it would have died after 4 hours and 6 replies. BNM
My comments are based on their current roster. If you want to play the hypothetical game, the Blazers have a ton of tradable assets (young players on cheap contracts, proven players on cheap contracts, expiring contracts, etc.). They could easily pull off a significant trade at any time between now and the trade deadline. But, that doesn't mean we should assume it will happen until it does. Just like we shouldn't assume the Nuggets will sign anyone significant until they do. And Wally would NOT be the perfect replacement for Kleiza. He's a downgrade. BNM
Honestly, I've steered enough Blazers threads towards Raptors-related topics this summer that it doesn't seem fair to complain when the same thing happens here. It's the dead period of the NBA offseason. Off-topic discussion is better than no discussion.
this raptor forum needs the attention. plus, we need as many informed posters like bnm as possible- its keeps everything sane
your 100% correct on the 30 teams but as I initially posted I wanted it to be about Raptors vs other teams in the east. Anyways to your hypothetical game reply, its not hypothetical the nuggests know if they go in the season with their current roster they wont go anywhere, thus they will add players to replace what they lost! Also, the difference between nuggets and blazers is the fact that nuggets have a win mentality vs the blazers who have the let our young guys grow mentality Lastly again as I said I didnt want to be rude and u take it offensively I rather this wouldev been a raptors vs other teams in the east not comparisons between teams in the west.
Your are right, but only half right. I also assume players like Duncan, Kidd, Dirk, etc. will continue to decline as they age. Dirk is the youngest of those three and his production has declined four years in a row. I also don't assume that all of the Spurs key players will be healthy. If they are, they will clearly be in the top two in the Western Conference, possibly challenging the Lakers for the top spot. The problem is, recent history shows us that it's unlikely the Spurs key players will make it through the season without missing a significant number of games. While I don't think it's a given that ALL the young Blazers will continue to improve, I also think it's ridiculous to assume they have all peaked. Roy and Aldridge have both shown steady improvement during each of their three seasons in the league and are still young enough to continue improving. Oden, Batum and Webster are all between 20 and 22. I find it hard to believe that either Oden or Batum have already reached their full potential. Oden is coming off an injury and foul plagued rookie season. He should be in better shape this season and has hopefully learned from his experience as a rookie. Batum is tearing it up in the Eurobasket tournament and looks to have significantly improved his offensive skills. Webster is coming off an injury that kept him out pretty much all of last season. Anything he contributes this year will be a bonus. So, while ALL of their young players may not improve this season, I don't think it's unrealistic to think that at least one, or two of them will. And, as young and inexperienced as they were last season the Blazers still won 54 games and tied for the second best record in the West. Even if all of their young players have peaked (unlikely) and Webster and Miller contribute absolutely nothing (also unlikely), they could once again challenge for the 2nd best record in the West. Yes, the Blazers return all of their top rotation players from last season's 54-win team - plus they added Miller and will have Webster back (likely coming off the bench behind Batum). Nate McMillan has said they will go into the season with the same starting 5 (Przybilla, Aldridge, Batum, Roy and Blake) as last year. That makes their second unit Oden, Outlaw, Webster, Fernandez and Miller. That second unit is better than many teams' starting 5. Supposedly all of those teams had more talent and experience than the Blazers last year, but the Blazers managed to win as many games as the Spurs and Nuggets and four more games than the Mavericks. I have never claimed the Blazers were a lock to finsh 2nd in the West, but I do think they can challenge for the 2nd spot (once again) if San Antonio has any significant injuries. BNM
Knowing they have needs and filling those needs are two different things. The Nuggets right now, with only 10 players signed, have a payroll of nearly $73 million - almost $3 million OVER the luxury tax threshold. The league requires all teams to have at least 13 players under contract at all times during the season. So, even if the Nuggets sign three players at the league minimum, they will be about $5 million over the luxury tax threshold. Stan Kroenke, their principal owner, has already stated he wants to get them BELOW the tax threshold. So, exactly how are they going to add a quality player to replace Kleiza's production AND shed payroll at the same time? Saying they need to improve, and actually improving are two different things. Any player that is as good as Kleiza will cost them a lot more than the league minimum. This makes no sense at all. The Blazers won 54 games last season while their young guys improved. You don't win 54 games in the Western Conference unless you have a winning mentality. The team expects to continue to improve, win more games this year than last, and advance deeper into the play-offs. I did include the Raptors and Wizards in my initial post, but nobody responded to those comments. Is that my fault? I just go where the action is. This type of preseason prediction thread is always entertaining. All the teams have made moves, some have been more active than others (obviously), but nobody knows how well those moves will pan out until they actually start playing the games. I'm a basketball junkie, but with so little actually happening now, all we really have to talk about is speculation on the upcoming season. Given the article that promted this thread, it seemed like as good a place as any to share that speculation. BNM
1) So your saying a young team in the west is gonna b really good this year? that is just funny, lets analyze your statement shall we: the last 3 years who has won the championship? Lakers, Boston, San Antonio why? because they have VETERN all over! Lakers have odom, kobe, gasol, fisher, even andrew bynum! Boston KG, PP, Ray ray, eddie house, Sam Cassel, etc San Antonio Timmy D, Manu, Tony P, etc any of those team young? HELL NO! So how in the blue hell are blazers with one year under the belt and an addition of a PG whos statistically not much different then blake going to be key to them being a power house? You might think Im crazy for saying this BUT if Rockets finally add Pops they will be ahead of Blazers (using your theory!!!) 2) I thank you for remixing this up, it has become very entertaining I appericiate it!
I never said the Blazers would win the championship. You are putting words in my mouth. That's a total strawman argument and not worthy of a response. How is saying that adding a career 3rd stringer with a grand total of 354 minutes of NBA experience to a Yao-less Rockets puts them ahead of the Blazers "using my theory"? The Blazers won more games than the Rockets, with Yao, Artest and Mutombo, last season. So by your "theory" Pops Mensah-Bonsu + Trevor Ariza > Yao Ming + Ron Artest + Dikembe Mutombo. Yeah, right. And don't even try to claim Mensah-Bonsu is some young stud just waiting to explode. He is actually older than the following Portland Trail Blazers: Brandon Roy LaMarcus Aldridge Travis Outlaw Greg Oden Nicolas Batum Rudy Fernandez Martell Webster Jerryd Bayless And, in spite of being older, he has less NBA experience than each and every one of those players. Yeah he's going to put the Rockets over the top. They won't even miss Yao or Artest. Mensah-Bonsu will make Rockets fans forget those guys ever played for them. I think I've mentioned this in just about every post I've made in this thread. Last season, the Blazers tied San Antonio and Denver for the second best record in the Western Conference. So, now all their young players have another year of experience, Oden and Webster are healthy, and they've added Andre Miller - who is significantly better than Steve Blake (PER = 18.6 vs. PER = 14.5). But that doesn't really matter. Miller doesn't replace Blake on the Blazers roster, he replaces Sergio Rodriguez (PER = 12.5). Miller + Blake >> Blake + Rodriguez. So, why exactly is the Blazers challenging for the 2nd best record in the West (again this season) so inconceivable. They did last year, didn't they? Please go back and read what I wrote. I said the Lakers are No. 1, until someone knocks them off, that the Spurs are No. 2, if they can avoid significant injuries, and if the Spurs get hit by injuries, the Blazers could grab the No. 2 spot. Given that they tied for the 2nd best record in the West that season, I don't understand why saying they could do it again, with an added year of experience and an upgrade at PG, is so controversial. BNM
1) Again with my post I meant BEING OLDER AND HAVING VETERNS gets a team to a place they want to be! (hence the lakers and etc refrence) 2) your theory states "because blazers are young and have a year under their belt they are going to get the 2nd seed" so the Trevor Ariza addition and the 2 other Center's they added (who are young with nba experience under their belt) should make them fight for a second seed right? 3) why are you arguing that blazers are gonna do it again? They can't with the west the way it is I just cant picture San Antonio (IF HEALTHY) being anything below the 2nd seed! Your also forgetting that Raptors did the same too (they won 47 games) and now look at them. Just because a team is young and next year they have more experience doesnt guarantee them of getting the second seed (ESPECIALLY if they are fighting with teams over-loaded with All-Stars and Veterns)!
And the three examples you provided won the last three NBA championships. I never said the Blazers were going to win the title this year. I never said they would be better than the Lakers. So, why are you suddenly trying to compare them to the Lakers and the Celtics? Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the Blazers are going to get the 2nd seed. I said, if San Antonio has significant injuries, the Blazers can get the 2nd seed. Don't be absurd. You "conveniently" left out the fact that the Rockets most important player will be out for the entire season. You also are ignoring that they lost another key starter, Ron Artest and replaced him with an inferior player (Trevor Ariza). That would be like the Blazers losing Brandon Roy for the season and replacing LaMarcus Aldridge with Anderson Varejao. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds. And the two other centers they signed are not all that young and they do not have significant NBA experience. David Anderson is 29 and has ZERO NBA experience. Pops Mensah-Bonsu is 25 and has 354 minutes of NBA experience. Do you honestly think these two scrubs can replace the production of Yao Ming and Dikembe Mutombo. Your Rockets/Blazers comparison is beyond ridiculous. The Rockets have lost some very significant players and replaced them with players that are far inferior. The Blazers have not lost anyone of significance. The Blazers got rid of their two worst rotation players, Channing Frye (PER = 10.0) and Sergio Rodriguez (PER = 12.5). They will be replaced in the rotation by Andre Miller and a returning Martell Webster (who will get minutes at the back-up 3, allowing Travis Outlaw to take Frye's minutes at the back-up 4 spot). And I said the EXACT same thing (over, and over, and over...). That 2007 Raptors team wasn't nearly as young, or as good (47 wins in an incredibly weak Eastern Conference <<<<<< 54 wins in a very tough Western Conference) as the 2009 Blazers. Calderon was 25 (older than all but two of the Blazers rotation players last season). Parker was 31, Mo Pete and Garbajosa were both 29, and Rasho was 30. The only GOOD young (under 25) players you had were Bosh and Ford (Bargnani was young, but after 3 years in the league, he's still a below average player). Here's the players the 2007 Raptors had, in their rotation who were under 25: Chris Bosh TJ Ford Andrea Bargnani Joey Graham Heres' the under-25 Blazers from 2009: Brandon Roy LaMarcus Aldridge Travis Outlaw Greg Oden Nicolas Batum Rudy Fernandez Martell Webster Jerryd Bayless Do you REALLY think those two lists compare (especially after you remove TJ Ford and you're down to Bosh, Bargnani and Graham)? You also traded/lost significant pieces from that 47-win team over the next two seasons (Garbajosa, Peterson, Delfino) and made some trades that just didn't work out (Ford/Rasho for J.O.) and totally killed your depth. The Blazers have lost no one of significance, and have added a veteran free agent PG. Your bench last season consisted of: Jason Kopono Joey Graham Roko Ukic Will Solomon Kris Humphries Jake Voskuhl Compare that to the Blazers bench for this season: Andre Miller (or Steve Blake if Miller starts) Gred Oden (or Joel Przybilla if Oden starts) Travis Outlaw Rudy Fernandez Martell Webster Jerryd Bayless Not even close. For the 50th time, I NEVER said it guaranteed the Blazers the 2nd seed. I said if the Spurs suffer significant injuries, the Blazers should once again, be in the fight for the 2nd best record in the Western conference. And guess what, last season the even younger, less experienced Blazers DID successfully fight "with teams over-loaded with All-Stars and Veterns" and managed to win 54 games and tie for the 2nd best record in the West. And, many of those "All-Stars and Veterns" are past their primes, have been in steady decline for years, are injury prone and simply not the same players they were in the past. BNM
