According to Berger... Blazer trades depend on Roy

I don't know why, but this struck me as a bit like saying, "My house got flooded six years ago, as a home owner I'm not interested in that again for awhile." Sometimes circumstances are beyond simple or quick fixes. Before it was a roster of overpaid head-cases that killed the team's public image (and ultimately more damning couldn't win the big one) now it's a roster built on players with brittle knees. Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like we're close to being in the same fix we were a few years ago for completely different reasons -- it might be time to move to a different house (so to speak).

 

That knee specialist in LA (El Attrache I think?) said that there wasn't a surgery that could fix his problems, because there's no mensical cartilage left in his knees ... that's not hearsay, that's not conjecture, that's a real doctor, who looked at his MRIs and delivered a prognosis.

 

I tend to agree with this, but only if they make the right moves this season. For instance if they simply look to get "talent" as an "asset" to make the team better in the future than we have the potential to go down the 21 win season road. If they actually fill needs using trades than we will not see a terrible dip and should be back in the playoffs next year or even this season. So what do we need?

If you are going to trade Joel/Miller/Camby then you need a PG & Center/Big Bad Rebounding MAMAJAMMA of a PF. The PG better be pretty dang good. We just need a defensive minded rebounding center with more tread on the tires, or a big ass PF that gets rebounds like a made man. I think it could be done.

 

That is also not a change from last season when Roy was an all-star.

 

I don't think this is the same situation as 6 years ago. There is no cancer that you have to remove immediately regardless of what you get in return. They will target their core, and they will make trades to try to improve for the near futrue (like next year) If they can't improve with trades then it will take longer (through the draft) but at least they will have a 500 ball club instead of the worst ball club.(Unlike the last go around)

 

I think the confusion is that Roy has looked bad and good. (Miles just looked bad after his surgery and he depended soley on his leaping ability). But Roy has had games where is was a huge asset. (Phoenix) So it isn't a matter of his knees getting better than they are now, but a question of exactly how are they right now.

 

Do you have no understanding of this? It's an accumulation thing, the more he wears and plays on the knees the worse they get, arthritis sets it and gets worse, and the other cartilage, the articular on the bone, starts wearing out. It's not rocket science.

 

The deal is that perhaps after he rests them for a few weeks or more then he can perhaps practice and play a game o two, then they just start getting bad again, this pattern is not going to change.

 

And yet we have also heard from Roy that the Doctors told him he can still play high-level basketball...

There is simply not enough information for any of us to really make a proper analysis...

 

Of course, that leads to the question of what "high-level basketball" means. Just playing in the NBA is incredibly high-level. The doctors may not have been saying anything more than "you can still play in the NBA."

If they said he can still be a top player in the NBA, that would be different.

 

I don't doubt that your scenario is a strong possibilty, but none-the-less it is a guess. And right now we are all just guessing. And that's a problem.

 

So all we trade is an expiring contract in February, and we get a vet and a young prospect back? I don't think it'll be that easy. If a team is giving up a youngster, they'll want one back, no?

 

No, otherwise trades wouldn't happen, if teams wanted to get back the same thing they were trading. The idea is for teams at different places in the success cycle to trade different types of assets. A team at or near championship level trading young players/prospects for good veterans. The team with title aspirations (hopefully) gets players who can contribute immediately and push them over the hump and the team who's rebuilding/retooling (hopefully) gets players who will be contributing value in time for that franchise's next good team.

 

In other words, not enough information to really make a definite proclamation - which is exactly I said.

Anyone, other than Roy, the Doctors directly treating him on the Blazers FO making these proclamations is just speculating....

 

I wasn't arguing, just noting.

And, as I noted, even Roy/doctor proclamations can be pretty insubstantial.

 

So now we come full circle to the Clinton "It depends what your definition of..."

This is so Blazer fan it is just sad. I remember way back when Roy's talus bone was an issue we heard the same gloom and doom. When his hammy was hurt he was going to miss the rest of the season.

There are two things that are consistent in the injury history of Brandon Roy. The first being that fans in Portland are hyper sensitive to injuries and they take it very personally when players get hurt. The second is that Brandon Roy is always very slow at returning from injury because he is very cautious. He approaches recovery much like he plays the game, at a turtles pace. If the past is any indicator than everything is pretty normal. People are freaking out calling for gloom and doom, and meanwhile Roy is taking his time getting better and feeling comfortable playing again.

 

How is that full circle? Did we start on "What is the definition of...?"

In the past, Roy didn't look this bad on the court. Not due to any injury he eventually recovered from. I think there's legitimate reason to be pessimistic about Roy's basketball future but I certainly haven't taken it personally. In fact, I think the vilification of Roy is pretty silly. I still don't expect Roy to ever be a star/superstar again, though. Apparently having no meniscus in either knee combined with how hobbled he's looked (compared to the old Roy, not compared to the average human) on the floor is more than a little concerning.

 

I think you oversimplify. Are you suggesting a San Antonio team - for argument's sake - that wanted a little extra depth upfront in the form of Joel, would be willing to give up a veteran and a young building block, and not insist on Rudy or Batum in return? Teams want to capitalize on championship windows, but don't want to get suddenly older, either, if they can avoid it.

 

For some reason, I just now took a look at Kerry Eggers' column on Roy in last week's Portland Tribune. I don't recall seeing it posted here before, but if it was, sorry for being redundant. It's a pretty good read and a good synopsis of where things stand as far as his future.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=129281859655830300