Yes, darkhelmit (aka shamelessblazer) we remember your Iggy posts. A couple of points: Brandon can't guard point guards, How do you "know" Philly is higher on Young than Iguodala (sources?) And what makes you think they are in any hurry to get rid of Iggy?
1. But Batum and Iggy both can. I've seen it 100X before, player X is a fantastic defensive player while young, then they learn to score, now they have a bad D rep (Iggy, DHarris especially). If Iggy's role was to play great defense he'd do it, and he's among the best in the league at it when drive. Rudy does a decent job against the quicker guys too. Don't get me wrong, we wouldn't be the fastest defense in the league, but we'd be the longest, most athletic, and most muscular. We could also play a very stingy 3-2 zone with the quickness and instincts of Roy/Rudy/Batum/Iggy/Webster on the perimeter and Aldridge/Oden/Pryz inside. Teams would have to shoot incredible to beat us or attempt off balance mid-range jumpers all game (most inefficient shot in BBall). It'd be a bumpin D. 2. Read the boards [deleted]. They have infatuation with Young because he's young. The guy played very well as an 19 YO rookie, he just needs some time. They've rebounded on Iggy but for a while were very down on him (with that huge deal). 3. Did I ever say they were in a hurry to get rid of Iggy? I don't think this is realistic, but it's what we were talking about. Unless I see the owners financial statements I couldn't tell you if they were in a hurry to get rid of Iggy (and neither could you!). I think a more reasonable trade is probably Blake/Outlaw for Miller (and I would endorse that) or if KP were really smooth Blake/Frye for Miller (Frye and Iggy are best buds).
It's simply not realistic to have a SF or SG chasing around quick PGs for the duration of the game. Guys like Tony Parker or Deron Williams would simply tire out Batum or Rudy by the second quarter. Yes, it works under spot situations, and you could probably go to it a couple times a game, but it will really hurt your team if you don't have a shorter player who can consistently keep up with those quick pesky guards. A little butthurt are we? Just because the "boards" are infatuated with Young over Iggy, does not mean that the actual front office feels the same way. I personally feel they would be idiots to let either player go, but hey, what do I know. Which is probably why this won't happen. Miller is a free agent though. Do you want to lose the flexibility you get with Blake and Outlaw's TOs?
What I don't get is why Philly would even consider a trade if they had to throw in either Thad or Iggy. Raef's contract is like what? 12 million? Well Andre Miller's is 10 million. So why would they trade an expiring contract for a slightly better expiring contract plus give up a player that is of much better value and production than the players being recieved? Thad is the team's only true SF. Iguodala is a tweener between 2/3. I would like to get one of their backup PF's(like Speights) and ship Outlaw out.
He is BYC, but if you are to trust the ESPN Trade machine the Blazers could move Sergio, Travis and Raef (Quicks two rotation players and Raef) for Iggy and Miller (Quicks Eastern Conference Small Forward and PG), and have the trade pass. I can't imagine that Philly wants to trade a guy already who they thought so highly off that they just extended him 6 years, but maybe they've decide that cap room flexibility and building around Young is a more prudent way to go.
The only viable reason I see, is that maybe Philly has changed their mind and decided that Iggy isn't the piece they want to build around after signing him to his extension. 2010 is the big free agent sweepstakes year, if they moved Iggy and added Raef , Travis and Sergio, all three would be cleared by 2010 getting rid of all of Millers and Iggys current cap space. Of course that means the Sixers would need to be sure they would be in the market for a max type player to add to Young and whatever is left on that roster. Seems like a far fetched idea to me, but I guess you never know.
The only thing I can think of is that they don't think the pairing of Brand and Iggy is a good one and is unlikely to work itself out. Thad Young proabably has more upside than Iguodala and is considerably cheaper in the short run and is a more natural fit at the 3 than Iggy who sort of has a 2/3 body like Brandon. What is it? 18 days to go? We'll know soon enough.
I had forgot about Brand being on that roster. Honestly, if you are replacing a player the easiest position to do that is probably at the 2 spot. If IGGY isn't seen as the 2 of the future, I could see Philly building with Young, Brand, Dalembert and whatever FA they can get (Wade, Redd, or maybe Joe Johnson). Seems feasible to me, but why even extend Andre if they had a feeling he wasn't a long term piece.
I don't know the particulars of Philly's dealing with Miller. Did they try to extend him? If so, then my guess it's because he's still shown himself to be very productive (which his numbers suggest he is) and with limited options to replace him through free agency you go with what you've got sometimes. Just look at the Kings giving Beno "Freaking" Udrih the full MLE for five years, starting quality point guards are hard to come by in the in NBA.
AI and Roy do have about the same core frame but Iggy's got much longer arms making him effectively bigger. The 6ers have issues spreading the court as neither AI, Thad Young, and especially Miller are good outside shooters. I think a better outside shooting PG and a high post Big would help balance things out as Brand and Dalembert both want the low block. I could see them having interest in Blake, Bayless, Rudy, Webster, and Frye as possible adds. Miller seems the obvious guy they'd seek to replace as he's aging, but I don't think KP will have that much interest in him as he's stated his preference for outside shooters surrounding Greg and Roy. He also recently was quoted saying he preferred not shaking things up midseason... this would seem especially true with things going as well as they've been. It seems like a real longshot that any of Phili's more desirable pieces would be moved since they're young and under contract. A deal with them seems very unlikely STOMP
I don't think Quick did say that. I think he said something that everybody has interpreted as that (perhaps a starter at our two weakest positions?) but he never actually came out and said that, did he (serious question)? Suppose he didn't actually mean that. Suppose what he said was two players at positions of need. One of those positions of need might be backup PF. As many people have pointed out, the Sixers are VERY unlikely to give up either Iguodala or Young (unless they think that the Iggy of early in the season was the REAL Iggy and they want to sell high) but I think they'd be HAPPY to offload Brand. So how about this: RLEC + Blake + Travis + Channing for Miller and Brand After all, Travis and Channing are currently our backup PFs of note... Now, this looks very lopsided for us UNLESS Brand is more or less dead weight (bad contract and injury-reduced) in which case we might not want him. Or it might just be the case that Brand is seen as the previous GM's gamble and Stefanski wants to start afresh in the next cycle, so would be happy to just pretend that they never signed him. But they have reason to think highly of Travis in Philly: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kzq4ozGwoOM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kzq4ozGwoOM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Yes he did say it. He was very explicit in stating that it was two non-starter Blazers in the rotatation + RLEC for a point guard and a small forward that he felt would push the Blazers into that championship contender level. Now whether or not the two players being discussed are themselves starters or both "stars" or one is good and the other is very good is still in question. Frankly, I'm not going to hold my breath that KP will make a deal and this deal in particular; there are an awful lot of variables between now and February 19th that have to shake out a certain way for anything to come to pass (eg. the trading partner in question getting a better deal, the Blazers getting a better deal, cold feet, etc.)
Are you SURE? I know that he was explicit about the Blazer part (non-starters, rotation, RLEC included) but I think he was cagey about the positions played by the other team's players [a phrase like "positions of need"]).
Positive. Here's the link, listen for yourself http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2009/01/jason_quick_chat_1.html Fast forward to the 21:30 mark to hear trade talk, the specific reference to the Eastern team starts at the 23:30 minute mark.
