Really? I have seen a ton of players come into the league straight out of high school and do well within 3 years, and a lot of those players had a rough year or two before they got it going. Why does Batum get a pass? In fact, I find it quite disturbing. Even if a young player isn't playing well they should have good effort statistics.
The problem is we can't make a decision for the long term until we have an idea what the new CBA will look like. Once the owners decide what they're going to give up and what has to stick, we don't know whether dumping contracts/players will help us.
Only way to win now is for Brandon to go away so the "real" players can get their minutes and work on putting together some type of chemistry before the season is over. It takes 3 months for a starting lineup to get comfortable with each other. We're 16 games into the season and we're still trying to figure out who to start on a nightly basis [thanks Nate for being so frickin' stupid as to not start Wesley against the Hornets and the Nets....grow some balls, Nate, and sit Roy, and never let him play more than 15 minutes in a game (and that's 5 minutes too much)]
In the abstract, rebuild/retool is the way to go. As a practical matter, it won't be that simple. It is very possible the team will just coast until the new CBA is agreed upon, then blow the team up. If they were aggressive about it, they should be able to turn Miller/Camby/Joel's contract into something useful. Does Cho have the experience/willingness/permission to do so?
Yup. But I have a feeling that even with that uncertainty, there will be some teams looking to shed longterm contracts for expirings, especially if a hard-cap gets into the next bargaining agreement with no way of dumping existing deals.
The last bit is the million dollar question and only Paul (Bert, Larry, Hat-Guy?) knows the answer to it.
I agree with Nik difficult to rebuild with Roy and Aldridge contracts although if some team overvalued Aldridge and offered us something like a really good young player and a top five draft pick, I would consider that. Agree with Fez that future should be planned without Oden; I think our biggest need is a strong, athletic, aggressive big. I guess in general, i am in favor of rebuild on the fly, can't really stomach being the worst team in the league again. So I'm not really in favor of dealing Miller, Pryzbilla or Camby unless we get real value back. We do have four rookies on the roster; work on improving them; even if they don't fit they may have some trade value if played. Either variant of rebuilding really shouldn't include Rudy; what's the point, might as well release him tomorrow. I think the GM should be patient and wait for a trade that really helps, if not, don't trade.
At this point its a rebuild year with Rudy being so fragile and we don't know how Przy will play when he comes back.
An outsider's POV, if you don't mind. The Blazers suffered a number of serious injuries last season. They came into that season with an embarrassment of riches (depth), and the team fought to remain competitive by trading that depth for guys who could fill in for the short term. The continued injury stream to Oden and Joel's inability to play so far has exposed those moves. Seriously, the Blazers are starting a guy 36 years old and another who's 34. Camby just isn't a prime time player anymore. He may be putting up decent rebounding stats, but he's really bad on defense except against guys who stand in the post. He's useless as a help defender anymore, and that's what made him good when he was young. Przybilla is getting up there as well, he's 31 years old. 31 isn't so old that he is unlikely to contribute, and his game never really was such an athletic above the rim kind. He should still be a pretty good player, recovered from injury and all. So the Blazers move Camby to the bench and start Joel again and all of a sudden the Blazers are a bit improved version of the team in years' past (minus Oden). You don't have that Blake guy that fans didn't really like, you have Miller who's an upgrade. Otherwise the starters are the same group that could realistically go on a tear and win 10 straight; they've done it before. The Blazers are still very deep at the SG/SF positions, though a little small at SF beyond Batum. I don't see a need to blow up the team, just a little retooling would go a long way. If the season is a lost one, take advantage of it by putting the ball back in Roy's hands and get the ball to Batum as much as possible so he can develop.
Greatly Appreciated, these fans are going Might as well Sell the team to Seattle while were busy blowing it up!
Everything you say is true, which is why I think we should be trading Joel, Camby, and Miller for some younger talent that will help for the next four or five years, instead of the next one or two years. If the Iggy trade was really on the table, I'd jump on that in a second.
That's right. When we first got Camby, I checked a Clipper board and they said that Camby is great at rebounding but overrated at defense. I think after all those injuries in his career, he has learned self-preservation, selectively choosing his moments of defense.
It's not age, it's years in the league that are usually important. A 22 year old rookie isn't going to be as comfortable as a good 21 year old 3rd year player. I like Nic. I want him to succeed. But not even matching Sean Marks stats in a game given 3 times the minutes is an absolutely horrible sign. Then to follow that up with an even worse performance. This is the year he should be blowing up. Instead he is fading. I would love to believe it's the coach holding him back. But I am afraid that the only thing holding Batum back from being the player I would like him to be is Batum himself. Which just plain sucks. However, Batum makes almost no money at all. Even if he was a valuable trading piece he would have to be part of a mult-player deal to bring back even moderate value. That's why he most likely won't get traded. His performance to dollar ratio is pretty good.
I think in general fans tend to overstate the extent of "being in a rebuilding phase" or "being in a go-for-it phase" as though they're entirely distinct with clear (and different) mandates in each case. I think the goal of pretty much every front office is (and should be) taking the talent on hand and improving it. Yes, there are some considerations given to where in the competition cycle you are, how much short-term gain you want versus how much long-term gain...but I think those considerations are usually a lot smaller than popularly conceived. In light of that, I don't think blowing it up (or tearing it down, depending on the metaphor you prefer for an extreme, long-term make-over) is really an option being considered. I think that Cho will first see where Roy is, what his perhaps new level of play is and then determine what moves make the team better from here. Not from a torn-down-to-the-foundations base in a couple of years. As things stand right now, Portland is a mediocre team that might squeak into the playoffs if things broke their way. In my opinion, history shows that that is closer to a championship-caliber team than a team with some cap space, a top lottery pick and little to no talent. Teams rarely jump from terrible to great in one off-season, or even two, from adding superstars via free agency or draft picks. I think Portland will probably start from the foundation they already have (Aldridge, Batum, whatever Roy proves to be) and build from there. They may deal older players in recognition that they are now further from title contention than they seemed to be a few months ago, but I don't think there is going to be a "tear it down" (rebuild) or "status quo" (win now) debate internally. I think business proceeds as usual: make any trade that makes the team better, reject any trade that doesn't.
I don't think this is possible. For all our warts, the team 2 years ago and even last year, was pretty well balanced. It had an identity and guys knew their roles. This current version seems in disarray, with half the roster better suited for up-tempo play and the aging star relegated to strictly being a slow paced player. We don't have the rebounders and shooters to be a dangerous halfcourt team, and worse, we dont have an elite playmaker anymore. So, we could commit to being more up-tempo, but that's also a face this team has never been. Who knows how it would play out. Plus, your alienate your best player. I think we're screwed.
How am I alienating your best player by suggesting they put the ball in his hands and run plays through him?
It was a continuation of thought if the team commits to playing faster paced. If that happens, Roy wouldn't have the ball in his hands as much. Maybe I should have broken up the paragraph, so it was more clear. If they do like you suggest, imo it plays out like the first part of my post stated. Or like how the last 3 games have produced since Roy returned and the pace has slowed.
