I thought it might be easier to have this all in one thread rather than one for each game. Here is Ben Golliver's take on Batum, Freeland and Claver: http://www.blazersedge.com/ He didn't get that excited about Batum's latest play as it was against inferior competition and Batum still having defensive lapses. He really liked Freeland's game and motor against Spain. From just that one game it seems Freeland may just not have the height or reach to play any time at center and it seems he should stick to putbacks and jumpshots. Claver has just been blah throughout the entire tournament.
It's interesting how close some of these forgien teams can play team USA. It makes me wonder how an international team like Lithuania would fare if they were transplanted into the NBA. They don't even have any NBA players. It would be like if the Blazers bench played an NBA all-star team and only lost by 6 points. On Batum, I always thought the Blazers were massively over-paying him. I believe the Blazers will regret not letting him go.
Remember this? Team USA getting it's ass kicked by Greece in 2006. I remember there was one year where team USA didn' even get a bronze. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D1WjZV50Lo
Report on the latest games: http://www.blazersedge.com/2012/8/4...olympics-nicolas-batum-victor-claver-and-joel Pretty much blah although Batum's statistics were good (against a weak team)/
Freeland looked good against Australia until Deng and Pops decided to play one on one. Patty Mills destroyed the GB guards, though.
The USA was 3rd at the World Championships in '06. The US has never failed to get a medal in the Olympics. They came in 6th at the World Championships in 2002.
How would the Blazers benefit from letting their second best player who is still developing and only 23 years old, walk without compensation?
Depends if they could do something better with the money. Our acquisition cost for Batum was very little, but the cost to keep him is much higher than his current worth. That strikes me as a flawed formula. We're not invested in him as many people seem to feel. Letting him walk without compensation isn't really that big of a loss, with how replaceable his production is likely to be.
AK would not have come here. And imagine these nerds freaking out on here if we paid him $10M a year!
Who on here would rather have a 31 year old Andre Kiralenko at $10M a year over 23 year old Nic at $11M?
That way of looking at things is why we [IMO] overspent to keep Batum. Just because there's no one currently available that's as good or better, doesn't mean it's wise to overspend to keep someone that makes an uncompetitive team marginally better. Save the money and improve the team elsewhere. The team is too young to think in terms of immediate replacements.
