Heard this from a friend yesterday who has previous given me some good info and some bad info. I thought it was worth passing on. Rumor: Bickerstaff likes Rudy. He's had the Blazer's video coordinator make a highlight video from 1987 when Dale Ellis joined Seattle (also Nate's rookie season) to show Nate how to better use Rudy. Wants to personally talk to Rudy and try and sell him on suspending his trade demands for now. Thinks Blazers would at least get more for him in a mid season trade. Here is a short bio on Ellis from the year he joined the Sonics: 1986-1987 REGULAR SEASON Ellis went from the end of the Dallas bench to the top of Seattle's scoring chart in one remarkable season. In Dallas he had waited his turn for three seasons behind All-Stars Rolando Blackman and Mark Aguirre, but after an offseason trade sent him to the SuperSonics for Al Wood, Ellis became a starter for Seattle only seven games into the 1986-87 season. He responded with a spectacular year, playing in all 82 games and averaging a team-high 24.9 points. He shot .516 from the floor and .787 from the free-throw line and connected on 86 of 240 three-point attempts. He ranked eighth in the NBA in scoring and was named the league's Most Improved Player at season's end. Ellis competed in the Long Distance Shootout at the NBA All-Star Weekend and finished runner-up to Larry Bird. The Sonics advanced all the way to the Western Conference Finals, which they lost to the Los Angeles Lakers in four games. Ellis led the team with 25.2 points per game in the postseason. While I don't see Rudy being as good as Ellis I don't think Nate has used him in a way to get the most out of what his skill set has to offer.
Nate's rookie year, huh? You'd think he'd remember it. If this is true and it works out, it'd be a nice story.
I don't see how that happens for Rudy unless Bickerstaff is planning to go Gillooly on Roy. Seems, in fact, the more reasonable Ellis comparison is that Rudy breaks out after being traded, like Ellis. barfo
I don't see Rudy as a starter but I do think there are ways to use him more effectively. While I'm not upset that Frye is gone I think it's clear that Nate didn't take advantage of one of his stronger areas of his game. While this is overly black and white, do you force your players to conform to your system or do you adjust your system to take advantage of the individual skill sets of the players? Adelman has always done of a great job of adapting to the strengths of his players while Phil Jackson forces his players to conform to the triangle offense. I've long thought that Nate is a good coach who has needed his version of Tex Winters, not sure if Bernie is his Tex but I hope he can help Nate to be a better coach.
There may be some meat to this rumor; and beyond that, there may be some meat to this entire "Tex Winter" thing, too: Buck, Olpeckia (or whatever his name is), and Bickerstaff all very gently hinted at adjusting Nate's system, showing Nate the weaknesses of it, and helping him fix those weaknesses. This may be a step in that direction: properly using high-risk/high-reward players like Rudy, Bayless, Mills, etc.
Adjusting Nate's system would be excellent. I am not a Nate hater, I think he is a very good coach in some respects (coming out of a time out, spacing the floor, pounding LaMarcus early...) but needs some serious work not only in upping the tempo, but knowing what his players can do. He seems to be still approaching coaching the way he did when we were young and unfocused and he was truly "Sarge." He's going to have to adapt to his changing surroundings or get canned.
I like it! Only downside: we still have to make a consolidating trade or somebody (probably Patty) gets cut.
So in other words, the best young coach (entering his 11th year) in the NBA has been getting it wrong and we had to bring in a whole new support staff to show him how to do it. BRILLIANT!!!!! Isn't this everyone, including McDillon, admitting he's NOT getting it done?
I don't think it makes a difference. Dale Ellis was a starter and had plenty of minutes to get into a groove each game. Bench players don't have that luxury. Besides I really don't think Rudy likes Portland. He obviously prefers a bigger market. And If not bigger, then warmer.
That may indeed be true, but you have no evidence for either. (Unless you do, in which case, present it.)
Wasn't his "wish list" all big markets? The warm weather part was just a guess. I probably should have gone with teams back east that are closer to his home. New York/ Boston to Spain is not a bad flight.
And what about Matthews? Remember, we paid $7,000,000.00 per year for him to play every back-up minute at SG as he is supposed to be the next great SG in the NBA (or so say 99% of the posters here). Whadda we do with him? He be abused at SF as he's way to short to play SF at 6'5 and he's well behind Batum & Cunnungham. So now we keep 5 SG's??? That's the new plan. Plan 93.
No, primarily SF. He was a SF in college. He guarded Carmelo Anthony in the playoffs. Granted he won't be much good against Durant, but that's Batum's job. Besides the fact that you're overestimating how much he's paid (as if it should matter to you), you're making stuff up. Thank Christ you're here to provide the voice of reason. Who's "him"? Rudy, I suppose. Answer: play him at SG on offense and play a lot of zone! Why not? The more the merrier. I say throw 'em out as a unit and see what happens.
1. How do we know it really existed? Maybe it was like Chris Paul's amazing shifting wish-list that strangely vanished after he met with Dell Demps. 2. Even if it was all big markets (is Boston that big? There are plenty bigger that weren't mentioned) and allowing for the sake of argument that this was actually a list that Rudy put together rather than something floated either by his agent or some Spanish tabloid, that doesn't mean he chose them because they were big. I just remember NY, Chicago and Boston. Seems to me the more salient feature of each is lack of quality guard depth. Because, of course, NY, Chicago and Boston are famed warm-weather destinations. Keep reaching.
Not a rhetorical question and not confused. I just don't see a consolidation trade being a "bad" thing, nor am I overly concerned if Patty gets cut or not (If he's sticks that's fine, if he doesn't I'm OK with that too) but maybe you have some insight as to why this would be a negative.
He's saying that we'd have to make a consolidation trade or cut Patty Mills... losing an asset. He's not saying a consolidation trade would be bad. He's saying getting nothing for Mills would be. If, though, we move Rudy for a future first (and, perhaps, a guy we cut), we get to keep Mills without making a consolidation trade. Ed O.
