Many of us want the GM to make a trade (or to have PA not veto those trades). So let's say a trade is made today. Do you want: a) trades for players that fit better with Roy, and assume that he's staying here and will make it back to "pretty good player", if not All-star, levels (the Miller-for-Crawford types) b) trades with Roy going away, even if for peanuts c) trades that may make us horrible this year, but get young players and draft picks (like trades that leave Dante as our starting C or Patty as our starting PG) d) trades for players that would keep LMA as a focus in an uptempo offense, whether or not Roy stays e) let it bake.
I think B, then C. Priority One is to find a new home for Roy, and Two is to use our assets (Miller, Przy, Camby, draft picks) to get a serious talent infusion
D, ideally. C would be acceptable, as long as the value exchanged is close to equal...the value Portland gets can be more heavily weighted to the future.
None of the above. In another thread I already made a lengthy post regarding the strategy: Keep looking for and making trades that primarily serve the purpose of increasing the overal talent level and youth and contract situations. Be willing to get somewhat worse in the short term in order to achieve that goal, but no tear-downs. Keep this activity up until an opportunity to make a play for a Franchise player happens. This could be years. None of your choices apply. I don't think team is willing to tear it down. So foget that. I don't think the team is willing to sit on their hands. They now realize the sooner they start working on this the better off they will be. Roy has no trade value. Paying a steep price just to be rid of Roy and his contract is a mistake the team won't entertain right now. They shouldn't build around Roy unless and until he is an All-Star again. Doesn't apply to current plans that should be followed. They shouldn't build around LaMarcus. He is not a Franchise Player.
B then D. Loose the 'sulking walker', and then transform the team into a running team featuring LMA. (Only guys that play with purpose (ie like Mathews) should be targeted)
D followed by C as well. I am not ready to declare Brandon Roy done as a basketball player. Brandon tells you stuff straight up, even when it does not paint him in a great light - so I do not think there is an agenda, and we have heard from Brandon that he was told by the doctors that they think he can still play basketball at a high level.
I chose D, but I have to say that I don't think that players that are consistent with that strategy are necessarily going to be a problem as far as fitting with Roy either. Roy needs a PG that can hit consistently from the outside. As long as the guy can also push it on the break, I don't see that as doing anything but help LA's game as well.
I agree with most of the points that Masbee makes, except that there's a gaping hole as to how the Blazers go about getting that elusive franchise player if LA isn't the guy. If you don't tear it down, you can't get him through the draft. If Roy has no value, and it's certainly at an all-time low, then you're not going to trade a former franchise player for a new one. Trading expiring contracts doesn't seem likely to net a real franchise player, particularly in the environment of teams not knowing what the new CBA will hold. That's why I think you have to stick with LA for now and hope that he grows into the franchise guy.
I didn't vote either because my option wasn't listed, but I don't want to make a trade today for a lot of reasons. With Roy out, other players are getting the minutes/opportunity to showcase what they've got and bump up their value. For instance, I'd guess that Rudy is probably valued more today then a few weeks back because he's been playing and producing where as before he was sitting and thought of as a malcontent. I'd rather trade the EC guys (Miller, Joel) or aging vets like Camby with the value coming back in picks closer to the trade deadline when it's known that the playoffs are unattainable... the less time sucking during a season the better as it can be hard to shake a loser mentality. of course I'd always be open to someone making a great offer, but short of that I'd prefer to wait until were bellying up to the trade deadline STOMP
LMA is clearly the best player on the team at this point, and to be honest he still has the potential of being a franchise player. He might come out of this whole thing smelling like a rose. I did a little comparison between ZBO, Sheed, Kemp, and LMA based on a single full season at age 24. http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=dl7Ii
I agree with Masbee. I don't really like any of the choices. I don't feel that LA or Roy (now) have what it takes to be "built" around. And even if they did, I don't really buy into the idea that players need to have completely complementary skills for a particular star. I think it's the coach's job to integrate players into a system that best utilizes the individual talents. This building around stuff sorta seems like pigeonholing players to me. The best trade in my mind would net this team more talented players that are AS level, or at least fringe AS caliber.
Call me a cynic, but I went with "C". I don't see how you can make deals to improve the team's long term outlook without hurting the short term outlook. Losing Miller, Camby, and Joel will sting right now....but it gives the best chance of being a meaningful team in 2012. As far as the team's brain trust is concerned, I actually suspect they will go with "E". No moves until after the lock-out.
Roy may not be done, but he is not going to be the player he was, and with every game from here on out, I fear his game will drop even further. I actually want them to not trade him yet, but do what they can to get him on the court, healthish, and let him show what he is still able to do. Hopefully, he raises his value so that this summer (or during the lockout) he can be traded for something semi-decent. But till then, we need to use whatever chips we have to build for the future. Outside of LMA, Wes and Batum, everyone else should be shopped. Especially Miller, Camby and Joel. No need to lose talent and get nothing in return. And, if we are going to trade Roy in the future, we should trade Miller now, to try and get Roy his mo-jo back.
Could be. or he could have the same definition for "sacking up" as BenDavis with cussing out a homeless person for begging or he could be saying that all of the people that are veterans on this board did not "sack up" when they filled out next of kin papers.
