The one plausible case for keeping the Blazer roster intact
I was bumbling around last night trying to figure out if there’s any real reason at all for bringing this entire Portland group, as it stands now, into training camp intact.
I mean, Kevin Pritchard seems so adamant about it. I’ve made it clear all the way through that I think it’s a mistake, but as we all know, Mr. Pritchard is a little smarter than me. For me, though, it’s too many players and not enough minutes. Too much potential for not only disgruntled players (and don’t forget, the players might be fine if it wasn’t for their agents in their ear all the time), but for a problem in developing young players because they don’t get playing time.
Anyway, here’s the best I can do at figuring out what the Blazers are going to do. Portland found itself in a sticky situation this summer — lots of cap room and nowhere to spend it. That left the Trail Blazers in a situation of looking for an unbalanced trade, where they could give up things like cap space and draft picks for a real live player.
Contending teams don’t want to waste open cap space. Eventually, Portland used the space on Andre Miller, which may or may not have been a great move. But here’s my ultimate point:
Next summer several teams will have cap space, in the long-awaited year when LeBron, D-Wade and Chris Bosh are going to be free agents. Some of those teams are going to be disappointed. And they’re going to be sitting around late next July with cap space and nobody to spend it on.
So the Blazers, by holding on to all these guys, could be in a position where they could turn some of the spare players into first-round picks. At this point in the team’s development, perhaps that’s the long-range goal: to get a future first that would help balance out the roster in a couple of years.
I guess. But in the short term, all those playing-time puzzles are going to make it very difficult for Coach Nate McMillan.
NBA, Trail Blazers | Dwight Jaynes | July 28, 2009
Dwight Jaynes, Kevin Pritchard, Nate McMillan, NBA free agents, Portland Trail Blazers
One more year of “wait and see- we’ll definitely shed some roster NEXT deadline”.
I’ve been hearing that for 18 months now, and several different checkpoints have come and gone.
KP is a great judge of talent, but he’s shown this summer that he isn’t decisive. He’s too scared of making an imperfect move, so it keeps him from doing anything at all. He’s carefully hoarded all these “chips” to maintain “flexibility”, but now he’s too in love with all of them to even let the obvious ones go.
He’s spent so much time trying to build the perfect roster for making trades, but in the process he decided the roster was too perfect to change. He’s going to screw this up if we go into this season with all of these players. We need to shed at least 2 guys, and I vote for Outlaw and Bayless.
Since he’s already let both of their trade values plummet by holding on a year too long, he may as well trade them both at $.50 to make a combined $1.00 and get a good backup 4.
Definently a logjam of guys and not nearly enough minutes for all…
But is that a good enough reason to trade? While I agree that agents may be barking for more time, that is a secondary thing for the team to consider. What is best for the team and organization will always be first.
A big problem in this is most of these guys are very very young and it is difficult to fully assess. How good is Martell? Batum? Bayless? How much will Rudy and Oden improve? Will LA take his game to an undeniable all-star level?
Kinda hard to pull the trigger when your still unsure of what you really have…Time will reveal what emerges, and in the meantime some players will not get the minutes they want
and life goes on…
Pne more thing I would like to add:
Pritchard’s philosophy has always been to go after the best player and then have Nate sort it out on the court. Yah it can create headaches, but I think it is better than the old traditional way of doing things.
For example, We gave up Moses Malone cause we had Walton. We lost the flip to pick Hakeem so instead of taking the next best player (Jordan) we take Bowie. We let Jermaine O’neal go cause we had Raheed. More recently, We pass on taking Chris Paul cause we have Telfair.
Although the players may complain, I prefer what Pritchard is doing. In time one or more of our current players will emerge as a ‘fit’ for us…time will tell.
I would rather hold on too long than let go too soon
Trader205,
So let me get this straight, you want to trade two players at half price for one player at full price. .5(Outlaw) + .5(Bayless) = 1(backup PF). Brilliant?
In doing this you have traded away our current backup power forward for a backup power forward of equal value to him and you have thrown in Bayless as a bonus. You also have greatly reduced the teams flexibility because both of these players can play multiple positions (no small asset).
In a addition you have brought in another player who will definitely need and expect playing time, especially since you paid a premium for him. I am not sure you are solving a whole lot of playing time issues here.
Also, since the salaries have to match, you are not saving salary (i.e. you get one at the price you were paying for two). Actually, this move is likely to end up costing you more when you pick up the additional player to fill the roster spot.
And, this says nothing about team chemistry. I believe that both Bayless and Outlaw have important friends on the team. (Greg and Brandon)
There are some very good reasons why KP does what he does. PLEASE, if I may say this loud and clear, the grass is not always greener on the other side.
It would be helpful to know who we are trading for. And I mean the NAME of the player we are going to get! If we make a trade in order to solve a problem, and we do not even consider who we are going to get in the trade, and what the results of having that player on the roster are going to be, then we may be hurting ourselves more than helping ourselves.
We have to ask ourselves, does this specific trade solve the problems we were attempting to solve in making the trade? Are we going to create any new weaknesses or problems? In the scenario mentioned above, it would save a lot of money to keep Outlaw (equal value), and cut Bayless. And this says nothing of Pendergraph and Cunningham. McMillan said yesterday that he would feel comfortable playing these guys this year.
Eric,
Good thoughtful post, but I have several issues:
* You asked about chemistry, but this sort of trade is ALL about chemistry. Your approach is more like trying to get the best collection of baseball cards.
* The back-up PF would clearly be considered an upgrade over Outlaw (at the 4), or the trade wouldn’t be made.
* Of course KP would know WHO he is trading for before doing it.
I’m not disagreeing with the thrust of your argument, just those small points….
I just don’t see the playing time being an issue. The rookies and Bayless are odd men out and Blake/Outlaw take a hit in their minutes. There will likely be a trade if this becomes a problem and there will definitely be injuries, overtimes, blowouts, etc.
We all love to hype the young guys and talk about their potential but then quickly want to turn around, bail on half of them, and trade a bundle of them for some 10 mpg backup power forward.
This is a big boy league and it will sort itself out. If someone is playing well enough to demand more time, it will happen at the expense of others. This is a good thing. It breeds competition and makes the best players mentally and physically rise to the top.
Last year Oden and Webster got hurt and we didn’t miss a beat… because we had depth.
Keep them all. It might be a difficult assignment for Nate, but every coach in the league will tell you that is a problem they would love to have.
Good point – part of that depth was an unknown rookie (Batum). So if Batum had never played, no one would have complained.
In that respect it was a lucky situation.
Too much talent? Many teams might like that problem.
Houston, Orlando, Phoenix, Utah and others suffered from injuries to name players last year. They might have liked to have Fernandez, Outlaw, Batum, Blake, Miller, Webster, Bayless, etc. ready to step up.
Did anyone hear John Canzano yesterday say that Jarret Jack is not that far off from Andre Miller, and that blazers should have just held onto Jack. Is the bald one smoking PCP now?
Clownzano has bought into the hype of his award. I quit listening to him. He is a muck-raker who has to preface interviews or stories with “I covered Bob Knight and Tark.” Dwight should definitely take over for the Clown. I can’t listen to Isaac and big Suck either.
Yeah, when is Canzano out of here? BTW, what award? I gave him my annual POS award, but I didn’t know it had received much media coverage….
Correction:
I should comment that at least Canzano deserves credit for exposing himself with the stupid opinions he throws out there. I wasn’t a big fan of the Miller signing, but I still recognize what Miller brings. And I like Jack fine. But anyone who sees Jack as providing what Miller will obviously has a very shallow understanding of all of this, and has done us the favor of relieving us of needing to consider his analyses seriously.
The Clown got a national sports writer of the year award voted on by his fellow writers.
I agree 110 percent. Dwight needs to take over Canzano’s spot, because it sucks listening to sports radio at between 3-6 pm
I’m with the guys who don’t necessarily see plenty of talent as a problem–they are mostly very young players and are still finding out where they fit in “reality” in the pecking order as opposed to where they think they fit. Competition for playing time is good, right?
It’s safe to say that KP never has two eyes on the basketball court. One of them is always on the bottom line.
Another point: The brutal economy is catching up to the NBA. Those teams under the cap will be sitting pretty, and those with bloated contracts will be crying and bleeding. Stand pat, stay the course, rough waters ahead.
Dwight, I think you make a really good point. If the team (and Nate) can make it work with all the hungry talent next year, the Blazers could get some great long term security for cheaper young talent in drafts to go with their 2-3 potential max, or near max-, deal players.
I have been pretty harsh on Bayless when I’ve posted on here (I compared him to Marbury right before Marbury went all wacko, for example). So with this preface, I say this SERIOUSLY, not just as a pot shot at Bayless:
Bayless would be the classic malcontent, causing trouble and complaining. SO, would sending him to Idaho in the NBDL be a solution?
* Bayless would get lots of minutes, albeit versus summer league level talent, to work on playing the point. He’d do well enough to keep his confidence up (no laughs!).
* He would be mad as hell about the NBDL, but not about his minutes there, and I believe he’d compete. He’d think he was too good for the NBDL (just like he was too good for the summer league and probably everywhere else he’s been) but once out on the court he’d want to beat those guys.
* If he complains and whines, he’ll be doing it from Idaho and no one up here will hear it or care. If his selfish attitude and colossal ego cause chemistry problems and lead to a team dropping in the standings, that team will be the Stampede.
* For those who think he will develop, he’ll get 30 (NBDL) minutes a night and the Blazers will still hold his rights.
* For those who want depth and insurance from injury, he can be flown in on Allen’s jet ASAP if needed. A cargo vessel could ship his ego over a day or two later.
Is this a semi-solution?
btw…about jarret jack. I really dont care for canzano, but I did really like jarret jack in portland. Seems like some reporters have intimated that him and McMillan didn’t get along. I dont know what the deal was but I always thought he was a hard-nosed, hard-working player. I dont know if he’s entirely comparable to Miller, but I think I would take him over blake.
I’d take him over Blake on my pick-up team at Club Sport, but not to run this Trailblazers team.
+ 1 On JJ. I liked him, seemed a team oriented guy.
Dwight,
Good looking ahead.
I’m thought for a few years that a time will come when this team should do some 2-for-1 trades or otherwise condense talent into fewer bodies and/or future assets (ie draft picks).
Teams being put together go with the crowd approach; teams who have arrived and know players’ roles get rid of the surplus and get role players who know their roles. The Blazers are somewhat in between, and this is compounded by having players like Martell, whose health is uncertain.
I believe I’ve just summarized the proper lens to view the topic through. I think YOU just did a great job of looking down the road through that or a similar lens.
And I do think the team is young enough to hold onto an extra guy or two for one more, or 1/2 more, year.