Why Batum Ain't Starting

Not sure if this has been posted, or not...

http://www.columbian.com/weblogs/blazerbanter/2010/feb/02/notes-02-02-blazers-practice/

 

I would have said about 10 games to get into the flow of things.

 

That and they're purposely trying to limit his minutes, and trying to keep him on the court at the end of the game.

 

He doesn't play the way we want to play.

BNM

 

"Why Batum Ain't Starting"

Cue mediocre man: "Because Nate is an @#$^!*%#".

 

Nate doesn't want Webster to lose confidence by moving him to the bench.

Coming soon to a team near you, the 3 forward line-up.

BNM

 

I'm hopeful for a Martell/Blake trade package deal.

 

Portland Trailblazers: Where we trade players based on conflicts in playing time.

 

I think MM spells it differently however.

 

This hasn't really happened since Zach was traded to free up PT for LaMarcus, but isn't this one of the primary reasons to make a trade - trade your redundant players to address an area of greater need?

Wouldn't trading Webster (and/or Outlaw) and Blake for a back-up banger power forward make sense? It would eliminate PT conflicts and address an area of need. Seems like a logical trade to me.

BNM

 

So am I, but we will likely have to take a lot of draft picks to do it.

 

Power forward, no. Pendergraph and Cunningham are fine for that.

Center- Possibly. Very possibly. Rushing a trade for a deep bench player for this season only is kind of stupid though.

 

It took one game.

 

Yeah...he's good. But as we saw last year, he would have weird stretches of games where he would kind of disappear too. Just get his conditioning good, get into the flow of things. "Starting" isn't the most important thing in the world....just getting his groove back, consistency and win the starting position back is the best plan of action.

 

First off, I agree with the logic. However, if teams are asking for Batum/Rudy for Brendan Haywood, what do you think Webster/Blake would net us? Ha? In that case I'd just keep the guys we have and play smallerball the rest of the year.

Once Outlaw and Roy return, Cunningham, Pendegraph, and either Blake or Bayless will probably hardly play at all, which is too bad. But that's better than giving guys away out of desperation. And who knows, we may have a whole new slew of injuries right around the corner (knocking on wood).

If something reasonable comes up I'd try to make a trade like that. Otherwise I'd laugh, verbally assault the GM and hang up the phone.



As for Batum, if he keeps playing like he's been playing he'll be starting soon enough. In the meantime, at least he's playing in the 4th. Webster's definitely tightened up since Batum returned, but I don't think he's been horrible by any stretch. He does need to get better at performing under pressure though.

 

Who said anything about rushing a trade? I'm not talking about a short term fix (center) to tide us over until our injured players get back. I'm talking about a long term need. We've needed a back-up power forward ever since we traded Zach and made LaMarcus the starting 4. We tried Frye and even a little Ike Diogu. Neither of those worked, so Nate plays Outlaw out of position at the 4.

I'm not looking for a deep bench player, or a short term fix. I'm talking about trading our surplus to get a player that would be a regular part of the rotation now and for years to come.

BNM

 

You mean like Webster is about to become?

 

Nope. He's still a good defender even if his shot isn't falling. He would be more than adequate. I think Outlaw plays a little too much like Batum versus Webster, which is why I favor Webster over Outlaw.

 

There's a thread about trading Webster ASAP.

You don't think that Pendergraph would be a solid backup 4 for the future? I think he could do it.