Here's my theory on why we ended up with Raymond Felton instead of Steve Nash or Tony Parker. I'll bet that the Suns and Spurs demanded Batum as part of the deal and Portland wasn't willing to let him go. It may be just that simple. Felton was the best pt. guard we could get without giving up Batum.
I must have missed something, weren't you hating the moves on draft day? Regarding the thread, I agree with what you said. Not overly excited about the move, but I think it was the right move.
Felton is on a second tier for sure, for PG's, but even Chris Paul or whatever isn't going to make ths current team a contender.
Well, I've thought about it a lot. Here's some things to consider: 1. The Blazers were desperate to move Dre before or during the draft because his contract becomes guaranteed before July 1st. Most teams knew this, which severely hampered Portland's bargaining position. It's never good to go into negotiations when the other guy knows that you have your back against the wall. 2. The Blazers knew they had to make the deal before his contract was guaranteed because it was either trade him now and get something, or possibly lose him for nothing as the lockout might completely kill the trade market beyond this point. 3. Most offers that we heard about, IE Parker, Nelson, etc, involved Nic Batum and it seems the team was unwilling to make that move. I don't blame them because personally I don't like Parker or Nelson. What I didn't like was that I felt like we got bent over a barrel by Denver. They knew they had the upper hand, so they fleeced us. They got Dre, they got Hamilton, and supposedly they bullied us into passing on Faried. That may or may not be true, but it seems like they knew they had an advantage and they really took us to town. With that said, we had to get younger at point guard, and it was apparent that Dre wasn't going to fit our window. Neither does Camby for that matter, so I expect to see Camby traded if that's at all possible this summer. I'm hoping that we still have some moves up our sleeves this summer to strengthen our bench, lock in a solid backup four, and hopefully get Oden re-signed for a reasonable price.
Thanks for the explanation, that is alot to go over but you analysis makes sense. I'm used to the KP deals too where he comes out with what the Blazers want and usually some potential players too. In this deal we got what we wanted but had to give up those potential players. My thought is that Miller doesn't have the value we think. How many more years does Miller have and I doubt his bird rights are worth much. Felton's bird rights are important because Blazers may very much want to resign him. I don't think Denver makes the trade straight up . . . but who knows. Charlotte caved in the end.
I think Dre has value, especially with his 7+ million expiring contract next season, but I think the lockout weighed heavily on this decision. Felton isn't a bad player, and he's still pretty young, but I guess I just don't like helping a division rival and giving up more than I think Felton was worth. In the end, Faried and Hamilton might end up being busts and Nolan Smith could be the best point guard selected outside of the lottery. Who knows, but I just feel like we were bullied by the Nuggets.
I agree with your analysis, NateBishop3, and I think it was due to an incorrect approach by Portland. Miller's main value was the savings possible for some team by not exercising his contract; so it seems the Blazers should have been targeting teams who needed savings, possibly including Camby and looking for teams wanting to unload a longterm contract. Instead they targeted teams who had another PG that the Blazers were interested in, teams that would probably exercise Miller's option. If they decided they could not get Miller back if a team released him, then maybe that was the best approach. But I think their approach guaranteed they would not get much back in value. I think they could have been more imaginative; I missed KP here,his picks may not have always been the best but he knew how to swing deals.
Actually, he wasn't. Andre Miller was the best PG would could get without giving up Batum. Our inexperienced GM felt pressure to move Miller's expiring contract and gave up way to much and made a division rival better in the process. The thing is, unless the lockout lasts beyond the trade deadline, if the team he just picked up Miller's team option, he could have also been moved as an expiring contract at the trade deadline. They would have had a second chance, and perhaps better offers had they just kept Miller. At the very least, they would have a better PG for whatever portion of the upcoming season actually happens. This is what happens when you have a college scout with no experience making trades as your acting GM on draft day. You get worse and make one of your rivals better. Yes, we still have Batum, but we could have had Batum, Miller and Faried, which I would take any day over Batum, Felton and Smith. BNM
And that's why I was unhappy with the trade in the first place. It is what it is, and Felton might end up being a boon for us, but I just don't like how the deal was handled. It felt like a guy who just inherited his dad's business and wanted to make a big splash right off the bat. But hey, maybe it wasn't Buchanan at all. This could also be the work of Miller, who hasn't shown much intelligence when it comes to basketball operations either.
It seems to me that we made an educated guess that Smith could/would be as good for the Blazers as Dre and Faried would/could be. That seems to be the choice made and we are able to get younger at PG as well. We gave up Rudy and Dre for Felton and Smith. I think that will work out best for the team as management seems to think.
Or PA. After all he is the final say on these matters. Since I am a lowly Shipping Coordinator and he is a multi billionaire my guess is most would take his expertise over mine.
On the bright side, we still have the most overvalued player of the last 5 years on our team, and he can continue to produce nothing again this year, and then get traded for a second round pick next year, just as we did for our then overvalued Rudy.
Well ... that would certainly fall into line with our recent history of typically holding onto guys until their value is depressed.
I dunno, seemed like the issue with SA wasn't our lack of desire to include Batum, but their wanting us to take Jefferson. Also, them finding a deal they liked more with Indiana.
I remember hearing some chatter that Bickerstaff was pushing for Felton, as well. Bickerstaff had coached Felton and was quite high on his potential.
Felton is in the exact same situation as Dre. He's also expiring. Basically we traded for a lockout shortened season of Felton and the chance to resign him. The best point guard we could have gotten without giving up Batum is Dre. Unfortunately, we traded for Felton.
I agree we didn't have to give up Batum, so we really couldn't have done much better than Felton. The attractive part of trading for a non-guaranteed contract, or an expiring contract, is you dump a player that is not worth what they are being paid. I think all of us have some concerns about Felton's game, his shooting efficiency, his passing ability. But that is the reason we were able to get him for so little, because he has problems. Yet he has been an acceptable starter before and has the potential of improving, you can't ask for more from a player entering his prime unless you are willing to give up quality talent in return. If you believe Miller had value as an expiring contract in the upcoming season, well Felton will have that exact same expiring contract value. We didn't have to eat a bad contract in the trade, which could be critically important if we are able to get amnesty relief for Roy. This will give the team more options when we know the details of a new CBA. If we had eaten a huge Richard Jefferson contract to get a 29 year old PG who is also on a huge contract, and given up our best young asset with long-term potential then our new incoming GM would have very little flexibility. Right now we only have Matthews, LaMarcus, and Roy guaranteed to be on the roster next summer. One unlikely but possible problem with acquiring Felton is not having full bird rights. He is in the second year of his contract he signed with NY. If he blows up and has a huge all-star type year for us the max we could offer him is a small raise over his current ~$7 million.
FYI, from what I hear, your theory is one of a couple reasons Portland dealt for Felton. One, certainly while Portland clears out some of the "excess talent" that has built up in the rotation (i.e. Rudy, who was unhappy and would be better off with more minutes in a faster, open offense), they did not want to part with someone who can be a Super #6 who is so versatile. They were worried about filling one hole and opening another. The other guys they liked were older and on, what the team felt, was the downside of their careers. Age and injuries were catching up to the other guys they liked. So, they not only cost more, there was more risk involved. Felton cost less, and there was less risk, and the potential for future growth, since Felton is only 27. Overall, I think this is fair reasoning. It was certainly not my first choice, but as I step back and consider the whole picture, I like it more and more.
This is my one concern. You say it's unlikely, but honestly, I could see this happening. If Felton has a solid season, I could see it becoming an issue retaining him. There are a lot of potential PG's out there that could be available, but building a connection/repertoire is important. Depending how the new CBA works out.......... I mean, if it were to continue as it is, but they allow for declaring a "franchise player".... It's conceivable both Felton and Oden are valued FA's, and one or both could entertain leaving, and we could be SOL. That seems unlikely given Oden's health and Felton's stature at this time, but I'm an optimist, so I'd like to think it's possible. And if it does work out that way, it means the 2011-12 season was very kind to the Blazers.
