Trade Batum

I love Roy, but honestly he can't stop anyone! Let's be real about that! LOL

Batum is nearly as soft as LMA.

I'm tired of softies on this team.

 

You have to be reasonable. Not everyone can be as hard and tough as you. It's an unrealistic standard.

 

This actually made me Lol

 

not at small forward(and really not at all). cunningham likely hasn't even played that position in his basketball career(he didn't in college and hasn't in the pros).

 

Batum plays good positional defense. His defensive weakness if his lack of strength. He'll always be a weakling.

 

Batum gives people trouble on the defensive end because of his length and quickness. He isn't going to be going out and suddenly bulking up, that wont happen. His defense doesn't rely on him overpowering the person he is gaurding, its his ability to stop the ball from getting into the players hands and when it does his quick ability to swipe at the ball and use his long arm span to make the person put up a contested shot.

 

Yes, we covered that. He's a good defender. But he also gets pushed around a lot. Look, he's a good player with some upside- I don't deny that. I just think it's he we would have to trade if we wanted a good PG for the future.

 

This team obviously needs more Dante Cunningham and fat rookies, and less LaMarcus Aldridge and Nic Batum.

 

BP, I see your point in the concept that to get a really good PG we would probably have to trade Batum. I think you are probably correct, and are being realistic. People are tending to forget that a very good Blazer asset is Claver over in Europe (if Rudy hasn't talked him out of giving the NBA a try). If we could get a very good, young PG, I think it would be worth it to include Batum. I don't think DC can cover quicker players the way Nic can, and DC is mostly a small PG not a SF, but without giving up something, the Blazers aren't likely to get much. We need a good young PG.

 

I like it that you're thinking boldly. When I translate the above from your logic into mine, here's what I see inside my mind.

Assumptions
1. We have a GM who cannot trade an inferior player for a superior player. He only has the talent to trade an equal for an equal. We can't come out ahead in a trade.
2. We should keep our top X players.
3. In our situation, X = 3.
4. Our top 4 players in order are Roy, Oden, Aldridge, and Batum.
5. Below our top 4 players, our players aren't good enough for our GM to get a good player.
6. We do not have a perfect roster.

Therefore (with step no. that the consequence follows from)
6. Since we do not have a perfect roster, we should make a trade.
1. Since we cannot come out ahead in a trade, we must trade a top player to get a top player.
5. The only players our GM can trade to get a good player are our top 4 players.
4. The player we trade will be Roy, Oden, Aldridge, or Batum.
2, 3. We can't trade the first 3, so the player we trade must be Batum.

Conclusion
Since we choose not to get a GM who can make trades in our favor, we must trade Batum.

Can't argue with impeccable logic, eh?

 

If this is the logic driving your OP, I'm thinking you're dead wrong. Pretty much every guy gains strength as they get into their mid-20s... thats just how physiology works. He'll probably never be a bruiser like Cunningham, but he will get significantly stronger. Chances are that Batum is going no where else soon so this will be an interesting aspect of his development to keep tabs on.

STOMP

 

OK. I LMAO too!

.....you are referring to my prowess prior to my injury, of course!

 

I suspect you may be right about not trading Batum. I think that both Cunningham & Batum will improve. I also think that, in time, Cunningham will be our starting SF and Batum's trade value may not be as high as it is right now.

 

You're on people for their ability to "think?" I find that amazingly ironic.

As for your point that we have better replacements for Batum than any of our other starters, you're high. Dante is a power forward, Martell is a headcase, Rudy is too small and frail to play at small forward, and Nic is our best perimeter defender -- the team's weakest area on defense. If you want a replacement for Miller or at backup center, worry about that in another year, but team's aren't going to be parting with their elite point guards or big men even for Nic. If we want replacements then they will probably come through the draft or maybe in the form of Petteri a year down the line at point.

Hell, I'd go so far to say that of all the players on this team the only truly untouchables are Roy and Nic.

 

I would bet the house that Cunningham will never be our starting SF, if you paid attention when watching the team you'd notice he played PF. He didn't play SF at all this past season. You might as well say we should trade Oden since Bayless will be a starter someday.

 

Not true at all. He played a lot of SF and it's his natural position. He's going to be a pretty player in this league. Maybe not an all-star, but a good player.

 

Baloney. Let's look at starter replacements...

If we lose:

Oden, we have an aging Camby and an injured Godzilla. That's not too bad, actually.

LA, we have Pendegraph and Howard

Roy, we have Rudy & Bayless

Miller, we have (maybe) Miles.

Batum, we have Cunningham and Webster.

Clearly, we can stand to lose Batum more so than any other starter.

And please don;t insult me with "Bayless is a PG" crap.

 

http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR11.HTM

Sorry but your just making facts up again. Cunningham played PF exclusively in 20 different lineups.

Martell Webster played 25 minutes at PF on a unit with Miller-Bayless-Roy-Webster-Howard. I sure wouldn't say Martell can play PF even though he played far more at that position than Cunningham did at SF.

 

Let me ask this:

Would you trade Batum & Rudy for Tony Parker?