Rumor: Blazers interested in Rubio?

But what if Frazier can play this same role of making smart decisions, running the offense, etc, the same role that Batum often had as a point-forward and that we wouldn't be getting from any of our current SFs, the same role Rubio would have but for much less money and without having to give back anything in trade?
I've been on the Frazier bandwagon since SL and I think he could play a big role for us. He could play with McCollum or with Dame at the 2. We could have these 3 as the main rotation in the backcourt. Otherwise we'd be somewhat stuck if one of Dame or McCollum sits, without enough playmaking or decision making. Dame and CJ together would make a good backcourt but I think Frazier is our best option behind them, because even just Dame with any of the other swingmen might not be enough in this area.

 

That's way too small of a backcourt.

 

Is there anything else you can harp on or is this all you can say? You sound like a broken record...

 

Let's drop you on your shooting hand, screw up your fingers, and then see how you shoot.

 

Jesus! I didn't know how much this dude is getting paid...

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/minnesota_timberwolves/

How about no...

 

Steve Blake, Wes Matthews, Nic Batum, Joel Przybilla, and LaMarcus Aldridge all seemed to fit ok. With healthy knees on Brandon, that team could have developed into something REALLY good.

 

The whining about this imaginary A/M stat is annoying....

 

Jerryd Bayless was the summer league MVP and then he got the Nick name Jerryd Playless.

 

Lillard is 6-3. McCollum is 6-3.
Frazier is 6-0.

Rubio is 6-5. Big difference!! And he has more talent than Frazier does.

 

If taking on his salary still left you with enough cap space in a year or two from now to get a max player under the new cap, then I would consider it. Would be nice to get Levine as a sweetener.

I don't especially like Rubio's game, but given all the athletic dunk monsters on the roster right now, he might help us get more for our money out of them.

 

I never heard him called that. My favorite nicknames for him were Wally Gator or JRex because of his freakishly short arms.

 

Agreed. End thread... but. Damn that video of the ninja kid in your sig is awesome! whered you dig that up? I must send to a few people.

 

You would hardly expect a man so illy equipped to lead the league (save one) in three point attempts.

 

Yes I remember Wook. Roy with ball, Lamarcus moving out to the side line, Blake setting up down in the corner, Joel to opposite side from Lamarcus, and the other grunt on the court (Travis or Batum) watching from somewhere. Not exactly basketball at it's finest and certainly not in Dr. Jack's play book, part of which he borrowed from Pete Carril.

 

Not with Nate as the coach. They would have never gotten past the 1st round. Nate just could not figure out how to design an offense that used all the talent he was given. Aldridge didn't blossom until Roy was injured and Batum would be forever standing in the corner if Nate was still here. The only other player who seemed to really thrive in the Nate/Roy offense was Blakey - a stand still 3-point shooter who really couldn't score any other way.

BNM

 

I couldn't disagree more. I think if Brandon retires three months earlier, we don't trade Miller, and Nate would have done just fine developing a motion offense built around LaMarcus feasting on lob after lob at the rim in the pick and roll. He spent training camp working on the most efficient offense in the league (say what you like about ISO-Roy, it was efficient as hell), then had the only player on the planet who could possibly thrive in that offense retire out from under him.

 

You, and Nate, are/were both living in the past. Any claim of "most efficient offense in the league" was three seasons old by the time Roy actually retired. Two seasons before Roy retired, we had the 11th most efficient offense in the league and the season before he retired, we were 12th.

So, why didn't Nate develop that motion offense with Aldridge feasting on lobs from Miller in the two seasons before Roy retired - during which Roy missed 52 regular season games and we had a healthy Aldridge and a healthy Andre Miller? When the player your offense is built around misses long stretches of regular season games, you need to adapt, but Nate didn't, he just plugged Bayless, or whoever, into the Roy role and expected to get by until Roy came back. The fact that Nate made no adjustments during the two seasons before Roy retired, and hadn't planned on making any the year Roy did retire, was short sighted and foolishly stubborn.

Even if Roy was healthy (healthy players don't miss 52 regular season games), the rest of the league had figured out how to stop the Roy ISO (it really wasn't that complex). So no, he did not spend training camp working on the most efficient offense in the league. He spent training camp working on a very simplistic offense that was the 12 most efficient in the league, that the rest of the league had figured out how to defend, and was 100% reliant on the health of a player who had missed 52 regular season games over the previous two years and was limited to 23 MPG in the playoffs. Doesn't sound too smart to me.

Yes, Brandon Roy was a great player when healthy, but he missed 17 games two years before he retired and then 35 more the season before he retired. Not only did he miss 35 games the season before he retired, when he did play, his effectiveness was limited. The season before he retired, Brandon Roy only started 23 games and had a PER of 13.9. Please tell me how it makes sense to base your offense completely on the health of a player that was only able to start 23 games over an 82 game schedule, performed below the league average when he did play, and didn't start a single game in the playoffs? Nate deserved to be fired. My only gripe is he should have been fired sooner. If I was Paul Allen, I would have fired him immediately after the Phoenix series when Nate was completely out coached by Alvin Gentry.

BNM

 

Boom!

 

Yibada?

Yibada.