# Rudy: "In a final, there is no such thing as pain"



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Come on, KP. Work your magic. Get this dude to Portland.

http://trailblazerscentercourt.blogspot.com/2008/04/rudy-fernandez-i-think-that-in-final.html



> At one point in the third quarter, Fernandez got fouled going to the basket and doubled over in pain. Nonetheless, he went to the foul line, swished both free throws, and then came back on the next possession to hit a triple. Akasvayu never recovered.
> 
> "I think that in a final, there is no such thing as pain," Fernandez said afterward.


:worthy: RUDY

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

:cheers:


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Sounds like he's got a little Brandon in him? This team can defintely use a little more of that.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Eh, I'm not sold on Rudy. I really question how well he'll fit with the team.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

nikolokolus said:


> Sounds like he's got a little Brandon in him?


Photoshop anyone?



















-Pop


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

B-Roy said:


> Eh, I'm not sold on Rudy.


:lol: :rofl:

-Pop


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Eh, I'm not sold on Rudy. I really question how well he'll fit with the team.


I guess that depends on who you consider to be a part of our future team.

He would certainly make Jarrett odd man out.


----------



## ironcrotch (Apr 20, 2006)

B-Roy said:


> Eh, I'm not sold on Rudy. I really question how well he'll fit with the team.


I feel the same way with this Greg Oden guy I keep hearing about.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I'm sold with Rudy. We go through stretches of no offense, and just one person dribbling until there is 5 seconds on the clock left and run a pick and roll and get a ****ty shot off.

Rudy will change that. He might be the best pure scorer on our team come next year. He needs to work on D and then learn the NBA and his teammates and he will be fine. I give him half the year until he works himself into the starting lineup.

I just hope we don't do a major trade and mess up chemistry and what we have going. I'd rather keep the team exactly how it is and add Rudy and Oden then do a huge trade of 3 of our players and our pick for a PG and a huge contract... or a SF or somethin'. I really love our team....

Get me one of the PGs from the draft and let him back up Blake next year and lets see what he has got, imo.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

ironcrotch said:


> I feel the same way with this Greg Oden guy I keep hearing about.


Certainly. I may be the only guy on this board who feels we should trade Rudy. He's good, no doubt, but don't really need any more scorers. We need role players. Someone whose going to play defense, someone whose going to do the little things. I don't know, Rudy would be that spark off the bench, but we don't really need that. We already have Outlaw. And how many minutes is Nate going to give him?

I know he's good, but I am unsure of how he'll fit with the current team.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^Unless a trade comes up in where we can pick up Rose or a player like a Ellis caliber.. maybe Devin Harris, i don't expect Rudy to go anywhere. Specially not for a Conley type player... or a Mike Miller, Andre Miller and people like that. He will be much more valuable to us. 

Give the guy a chance to see how he fits and work from there, imo.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^Unless a trade comes up in where we can pick up Rose or a player like a Ellis caliber.. maybe Devin Harris, i don't expect Rudy to go anywhere. Specially not for a Conley type player... or a Mike Miller, Andre Miller and people like that. He will be much more valuable to us.
> 
> Give the guy a chance to see how he fits and work from there, imo.


If it turns out that he does play really well. He's still going to be a reserve. He's a SG, simple as that, and we're never going to start him over Roy. Rudy seems like a guy with a lot of pride, and I wonder how he'll take to being a reserve for his Portland career. 

I just don't think we need more scorers. I'm sorry, but that's how I see Rudy: A prolific scorer. Is that good? Sure, but not for this team.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Considering that we score under 100ppg i think a scorer would help us a lot. He can also pass well, and rebound and steal, on top of shooting better than anyone on our team. Having a player that will consistently drain shots if Roy creates or Oden and LMA get doubled to kick out will be very beneficial in my eyes.

And I think it is possible to work Roy and Rudy together. Either Rudy at 2 and Roy at 3 or Rudy at 2 and Roy at 1. And even if he does not start, he will end up playing lots of minutes.. like Jack does, imo.

Also, Roy does seem to get injured a lot, imagine how nice it would be to have a guy like Rudy fillin' in for roy if he went down.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> If it turns out that he does play really well. He's still going to be a reserve. He's a SG, simple as that, and we're never going to start him over Roy. Rudy seems like a guy with a lot of pride, and I wonder how he'll take to being a reserve for his Portland career.
> 
> I just don't think we need more scorers. I'm sorry, but that's how I see Rudy: A prolific scorer. Is that good? Sure, but not for this team.


Actually this team does need a prolific scorer. We need that guy who is a day to day threat to score in bunches.

I know the love for Roy is great in here, and it is deserved. Rudy is on a similar talent level. So I wouldn't yet decree him as a backup if he plays good. Sure he could be overhyped, he might be underhyped as well.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Schilly said:


> Actually this team does need a prolific scorer. We need that guy who is a day to day threat to score in bunches.
> 
> I know the love for Roy is great in here, and it is deserved. Rudy is on a similar talent level. So I wouldn't yet decree him as a backup if he plays good. Sure he could be overhyped, he might be underhyped as well.


How about that guy named Oden? Roy+Aldridge+Oden is enough. Besides, Aldridge will be that guy who is a day to day threat. He has already become the main offensive threat since the all-star break, mainly because he's improving greatly. Once Oden gets in there, it's going to be even easier for Aldridge to score. I also see the coaches working with Outlaw and Webster to become more consistent during the offseason. 

As for the situtation between Roy and Rudy, both Roy and Rudy are SGs. Yes, Roy will get some time at the point, but the bulk of his minutes will still be at the SG. Lets assume Rudy is as good of a scorer as Roy. Then it still wouldn't make sense to have him in the lineup. It's like bringing in KG when you already have TD. (Maybe that wasn't the best example, I'd love to have both, but you know what I mean) You don't need that. I think what Portland needs the most is just role players that back up the three stars.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> Considering that we score under 100ppg i think a scorer would help us a lot. He can also pass well, and rebound and steal, on top of shooting better than anyone on our team. Having a player that will consistently drain shots if Roy creates or Oden and LMA get doubled to kick out will be very beneficial in my eyes.
> 
> And I think it is possible to work Roy and Rudy together. Either Rudy at 2 and Roy at 3 or Rudy at 2 and Roy at 1. And even if he does not start, he will end up playing lots of minutes.. like Jack does, imo.


It's hard to say how well Rudy will play in the NBA. Sure, he looks good in Europe, but rarely does talent elsewhere really transfer into instant greatness in the NBA. You can't say that just because he's a good shooter in Europe, he's going to be a good one in the NBA. Granted, he most likely will be a great shooter, I can't really say the same for the other aspects of his game, especially defense.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Rudy and Roy can co-exist. Quite easily. I can envision Rudy taking on a Manu-type role with the Blazers. First guy off the bench and also a guy who finishes games. I'd envision a Rudy/Roy backcourt in the fourth quarter of close games. Brandon at the point and Rudy off the ball.

Oh and by the way - calling Brandon a "scorer" is inaccurate. I'd call him a "playmaker." A guy who creates either shots for himself or shots for teammates. Which is a perfect role when you're bringing in an assassin like Rudy.

-Pop


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I understand where you are coming from. Which is why i would want to see how he fits before even thinking about trading him.

But i do think a good shooter in europe will translate to a good shooter in the NBA. Well maybe not just an above average one, but an amazing sharp shooter like Rudy should transfer to the NBA and continue being a great shooter no problem, in my opinion.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

B-Roy said:


> Certainly. I may be the only guy on this board who feels we should trade Rudy. He's good, no doubt, but don't really need any more scorers. We need role players. Someone whose going to play defense, someone whose going to do the little things. I don't know, Rudy would be that spark off the bench, but we don't really need that. We already have Outlaw. And how many minutes is Nate going to give him?
> 
> I know he's good, but I am unsure of how he'll fit with the current team.


I tell you one thing: he will fit in A LOT better than Jarrett Jack. Rudy can play SG and SF. He can dribble and distribute the ball too. Playing Roy and Rudy as guards during the 4th is not out of the question either. 

On the fast break, he has a better motor than anyone on the Blazers right now. We need that. I can envision Oden with an outlet pass to Rudy along with Aldridge on a fast break. Aldridge is the best transitional big man in the league. The dude can run. Imagine Rudy with Aldridge along with an uptempo point guard.

We desperately need to improve our fast break game. We struggle on offense because we don't get easy baskets on fast breaks like other teams. Right now, we live and die on our outside shots. Its great when our outside shots are falling but its biblically ugly when they are not, IE the San Antonio an Sacramento game.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

SodaPopinski said:


> Rudy and Roy can co-exist. Quite easily. I can envision Rudy taking on a Manu-type role with the Blazers. First guy off the bench and also a guy who finishes games. I'd envision a Rudy/Roy backcourt in the fourth quarter of close games. Brandon at the point and Rudy off the ball.
> 
> Oh and by the way - calling Brandon a "scorer" is inaccurate. I'd call him a "playmaker." A guy who creates either shots for himself or shots for teammates. Which is a perfect role when you're bringing in an assassin like Rudy.
> 
> -Pop


I never called Brandon a scorer. I will say though, that Brandon is a playmaker that can score at will. However, bringing Rudy in is simply unnecessary. We have Aldridge and we're getting Oden. We simply don't need a team of stars. We need people who are going to be compliments to our stars. Rudy isn't going to make his teammates any better. Portland has bigger needs like getting a better PG or improving our perimeter defense. I feel the rights to Rudy could be used to bring in players that can help us with our needs.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Balian said:


> I tell you one thing: he will fit in A LOT better than Jarrett Jack. Rudy can play SG and SF. He can dribble and distribute the ball too. Playing Roy and Rudy as guards during the 4th is not out of the question either.


Sure. Jack can leave as well. That ultimately doesn't matter if KP wants to bring in a new PG. Roy/Blake/PG/Webster can fill our backcourt well enough, while each can be given enough minutes to work with. Hell, even Sergio could play a little.

And no, I don't think Rudy can play SF. For one, he's not tall enough. Second, most SFs would have a field day shooting around his defense.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> I understand where you are coming from. Which is why i would want to see how he fits before even thinking about trading him.
> 
> But i do think a good shooter in europe will translate to a good shooter in the NBA. Well maybe not just an above average one, but an amazing sharp shooter like Rudy should transfer to the NBA and continue being a great shooter no problem, in my opinion.


Yes, we could try and see how well he plays. But if he doesn't get enough minutes, or if he doesn't play well enough, his trade value will go down. It would be kind of a risk.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I don't understand how you think bringing in Rudy is unncessary.

We aren't that good at offense as a team. Bringing in a scorer is going to be really helpful. Webster and Jones are our 2 shooters right now, and both of them are inconsistent, and Jones might not even be back next year. We go through droughts of not being able to score and Rudy would help with that.

Bringing in Oden will draw lots of double teams, and allow our shooters to get wide open looks, which is what Rudy will be perfect for.

And no offense, but how do you know Rudy does not make his teammates better? From what i saw, he has great court vision and passing skills, and his offense opens up shots for others.

But Rudy doesn't really need to make others better. Thats not really what we are bringing him in for.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> I don't understand how you think bringing in Rudy is unncessary.
> 
> We aren't that good at offense as a team. Bringing in a scorer is going to be really helpful. Webster and Jones are our 2 shooters right now, and both of them are inconsistent, and Jones might not even be back next year. We go through droughts of not being able to score and Rudy would help with that.
> 
> ...


How many minutes would Rudy play as opposed to Webster, Jones and Outlaw? Yes, Oden will draw double teams, which mean Aldridge will have a much easier time scoring. (Btw, I would count Aldridge and Frye shooters as well, based on how well they hit the outside jumper.) 

So, what are we bringing him in for? Shooting? As of right now, we're just a bunch of jump shooters anyways. Just about everyone on the team are shooters, including our big men ffs. If you want a scorer that will help us score more, bring in someone who can get to the basket as opposed to taking random jumpshots.

And what's to say Rudy won't be subject to the same shooting slumps that have plagued our young shooters?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

We are bringing Rudy over because he is an elite talent. Simple as that. 

He is a great shooter and one of the best playmakers in the Euroleague(Averaging over 4apg in a league where it is notoriously hard to get assists).


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Rudy can get to the basket. He can get in there, finish or pass it off, and shoot. He is a better shooter than Jones and Webster, so while every single player goes through some dry spells, and he won't be an exception, he will be fine in the NBA at shooting.

And i think Rudy will play more than Jones, and less than Webster until probably half way through the year. Once he gets english down better and adjusts to our play style and the NBA game, he will be producing like crazy.

Watch his game highlights that are linked here. Watch mixes on YouTube. Check out his box scores. Rudy isn't just a shooter. He will definitely get to the rim. Think Manu Ginobli with less defense but a better jump shot.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> We are bringing Rudy over because he is an elite talent. Simple as that.
> 
> He is a great shooter and one of the best playmakers in the Euroleague(Averaging over 4apg in a league where it is notoriously hard to get assists).


Whatever, I'm the type that would rather see teams filling needs as opposed to bringing in random flashy players. 

I don't want to become Denver.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Rudy is more of a combo guard than a SG/SF, I don't know where the idea that he could spend time at the SF in the NBA came from but it's a horrible one. He's smaller than Roy, who everyone considers a combo guard. While Rudy isn't the strongest ball handler, like Roy he creates shots for himself and others as evidenced by being 1st in scoring and 5th in assists per game in the ACB, as well as being the 2nd in assists per game on his team in the ULEB cup series.

The question going forward is do 2 combo guards equal a PG and SG, and in the case of Roy and Rudy I think it's both yes and no. Offensively I think they'd be fine, both can shoot, drive, and pass with the only real question being how much of the ball handling load Rudy will be able to share. On defense it's a mixed bag, they'd have a size advantage defensively but would likely give up some penetration to opposing PGs.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea, but It won't be that bad with Oden, LMA and Joel down there. 

And I think most peopls are saying put Rudy at 2 and Roy at 3, not Rudy at 3... even though i heard the 2 Mikes talk about if Rudy can come in here and win the starting SF spot right off the bat, and Rice said yes. I don't agree with that because he won't be a SF for one, and 2, I highly doubt that he will win a starting job without knowing English well and with being too skinny, and without getting a feel for the NBA game first.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

I can guarantee that he is better than Jack, I expect Jack and Outlaw or Frye to be gone after this year in a trade and Jones leaving Via Free Agency. At one point this team needs to trim the roster so our players can get PT and develop, the Blazers should consolidate and improve the core. I think we might have the pieces to swing a trade for Andre Miller after this season. 

Blazers Send: Darius Miles (who will be waived due to injury), Jarret Jack, Channing Frye, +13th pick in 2008

Blazers Recieve: Andre Miller, Calvin Booth.

Sixers get younger and more talented to go along with Igudolla, Young, Lou Williams. This trade would give them a good 7 player lineup with potential to improve. Frye and Dalembert should work well together.

Blazers would have a great starting lineup: 
Miller, Rudy or Roy, Roy or Webster, LaMarcus, Oden

And then have Blake, Outlaw and Pryzbilla round out the 9 man rotation.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> Yea, but It won't be that bad with Oden, LMA and Joel down there.
> 
> And I think most peopls are saying put Rudy at 2 and Roy at 3, not Rudy at 3... even though i heard the 2 Mikes talk about if Rudy can come in here and win the starting SF spot right off the bat, and Rice said yes. I don't agree with that because he won't be a SF for one, and 2, I highly doubt that he will win a starting job without knowing English well and with being too skinny, and without getting a feel for the NBA game first.


Roy won't be able to guard other 3s. Which is why we need a better, more versatile defender.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

BlazerFanFoLife said:


> I can guarantee that he is better than Jack, I expect Jack and Outlaw or Frye to be gone after this year in a trade and Jones leaving Via Free Agency. At one point this team needs to trim the roster so our players can get PT and develop, the Blazers should consolidate and improve the core. I think we might have the pieces to swing a trade for Andre Miller after this season.
> 
> Blazers Send: Darius Miles (who will be waived due to injury), Jarret Jack, Channing Frye, +13th pick in 2008
> 
> ...


I've said this before, but you can't offer Portland's random **** and expect teams to give up good players in return.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

I'd rather not see Roy starting as an undersized 3 either, ideally I'd like to see a 9 man rotation of:

(Blake or drafted/traded for PG)/Roy
Roy/Rudy
Webster/Jones
Aldridge/Frye
Oden/Pryz

with the 10-12man being manned by Blake(if we get a starting PG), a PF/C willing to give 6 hard fouls, and a back up wing.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Rudy and Roy can co-exist. Quite easily. I can envision Rudy taking on a Manu-type role with the Blazers. First guy off the bench and also a guy who finishes games. I'd envision a Rudy/Roy backcourt in the fourth quarter of close games. Brandon at the point and Rudy off the ball.
> 
> Oh and by the way - calling Brandon a "scorer" is inaccurate. I'd call him a "playmaker." A guy who creates either shots for himself or shots for teammates. Which is a perfect role when you're bringing in an assassin like Rudy.
> 
> -Pop


This post makes the most sense to me of any within this debate. Fernandez should be able to log 20 to 30 minutes pretty easily, all at SG, without "pushing" Roy out of position or reducing his minutes or effectiveness.

Most everyone agrees they should be fine on offense with Roy at PG, the question is defense. The answer is go with a zone. With at least two of Oden, Aldridge, Przybilla, and Outlaw also on the court, there should be a long shot blocker handy enough most of the time.

Then with Roy at SF there's concern about defense, too. For those who haven't been paying attention, Roy's already logged quite a few pretty successful minutes at SF this year with Jack at SG and Blake at the point. Having Fernandez at SG _might_ hurt them a bit defensively for a bit but that should be more than made up for at the offensive end. And remember, Fernandez doesn't even need to touch the ball to be a factor on offense -- he's like Jones in that teams _have_ to keep someone on him, which helps open up the floor for everyone else.

Roy should be able to start at SG, play roughly half his minutes there, split the other half between PG and SF, play close to 40 minutes a night, and no other team in the league will be as strong at that position inside of a couple of years. Given that the same may well be true at center as well, the team should be a great shape.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

^^^

I wouldn't worry about Brandon on defense against point guards. I think we'll probably play a defense with him in there where we force everything to the baseline and into the teeth of an Oden/Aldridge front line. That's how San Antonio played defense when they had Duncan/Robinson.

As for the argument (basically the one that B-Roy is making) that we'll have too many cooks in the kitchen, I suggest you look at the Championship-years San Antonio again. Having multiple guys who can take over offensively allows you to prevent long scoring lapses. It gives a coach many options. The only danger is when you've got big egos to go along with those scorers, and I don't foresee that being a problem with guys like Oden, Roy, Aldridge and Rudy.

-Pop


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

SodaPopinski said:


> ^^^
> 
> I wouldn't worry about Brandon on defense against point guards. I think we'll probably play a defense with him in there where we force everything to the baseline and into the teeth of an Oden/Aldridge front line. That's how San Antonio played defense when they had Duncan/Robinson.
> 
> ...


At first I thought you said cocks, which made no sense to me as I tried to figure out what you were trying to say. Although, I would assume it works metaphorically. :wink:

Anyways, I just feel as if we have enough options as it is. I really don't feel scoring is going to be much of an issue next year, and Rudy's rights could be used to improve other aspects of the team, such as perimeter defense.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> At first I thought you said cocks, which made no sense to me as I tried to figure out what you were trying to say. Although, I would assume it works metaphorically. :wink:
> 
> Anyways, I just feel as if we have enough options as it is. I really don't feel scoring is going to be much of an issue next year, and Rudy's rights could be used to improve other aspects of the team, such as perimeter defense.



I think that at least part of your point is that Oden's presence will improve things offensively. While I don't disagree, I think his impact on the defense will be greater. Thus, while I'd love to see this team improve its perimeter defense, given that Oden will be improving defense all around and that Webster and Outlaw both seem to be growing as defenders, I'm more concerned about the scoring droughts this team so often has.

Maybe this comes down to the classic defense wins championships vs. offense wins championships? I'd guess we can agree we need both and for me, offense is more fun to watch (if all other things are equal, which I think they might be and which you seem much less convinced about).


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I think that at least part of your point is that Oden's presence will improve things offensively. While I don't disagree, I think his impact on the defense will be greater. Thus, while I'd love to see this team improve its perimeter defense, given that Oden will be improving defense all around and that Webster and Outlaw both seem to be growing as defenders, I'm more concerned about the scoring droughts this team so often has.
> 
> Maybe this comes down to the classic defense wins championships vs. offense wins championships? I'd guess we can agree we need both and for me, offense is more fun to watch (if all other things are equal, which I think they might be and which you seem much less convinced about).


Well, I'm convinced that Outlaw/Webster/Blake/Roy will be able to score when called upon to. Rudy will have much less of an impact (and will be more expendable) if (and they will) Outlaw and Webster start shaping up to be consistent shooters. At this point, I would rather build on our existing players rather than bringing in a whole new project.

Yes, Oden will change the nature of our defense. Players will have a harder time getting easy hoops. However, that doesn't change the fact that guys will still be able to shoot 3s and hit long jumpers since we don't really have a physical outside defender. You seem to think Webster and Outlaw will become better defenders, and while I won't disagree, I still feel a better defender is more useful than a scorer. (Considering we have enough)

Yes, offense and defense are most certainly necessary to win a championship (unless your Detroit, damn you Detroit!) I also agree that offense is funner to watch. But pure offense won't win anything. Yes, GSW and Denver are fun to watch, but they'll never win a championship with their current teams. In my opinion, Portland lacks the balance, and needs more defense.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> I've said this before, but you can't offer Portland's random **** and expect teams to give up good players in return.


If Philly isn't expecting to extend Miller past next year this trade makes much more sense than you imagine. Since Myles comes right off the salery it frees up lots of salary for the upcoming season. Miller makes 10 million next year, while Jack, Frye add up to only 5 million.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

BlazerFanFoLife said:


> If Philly isn't expecting to extend Miller past next year this trade makes much more sense than you imagine. Since Myles comes right off the salery it frees up lots of salary for the upcoming season. Miller makes 10 million next year, while Jack, Frye add up to only 5 million.


Miller is their second best player. Whose going to play PG? I doubt anyone would weigh Jack and Frye over Miller, regardless of how much he earns.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Well, I'm convinced that Outlaw/Webster/Blake/Roy will be able to score when called upon to.


Are you basing that on this year's results or on the improvement you expect them to make in the off-season?

It seems to me the Blazers have lost a _lot_ of games this season due to one or two quarters where they couldn't seem to score. I don't have stats in front of me but it seems like many games have gone something like: 23, 27, 12, 24, resulting in a 86 to 95 loss. It seems to me that Fernandez fixes a bunch of that and that, really, his defense against SGs can't be that much worse than Jack's has been -- Jack _might_ have an edge basketball IQ (from a defensive perspective, anyway), but I'll bet he gives up most of that to Fernandez's better height.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

For what it's worth, B-Roy, I _do_ appreciate your point. It's just a more conservative one than I'd take, especially since we don't really know what we have in Fernandez, save that we all seem to agree he's likely to be a strong offensive player. If it really turns out that he and Roy can't play together effectively or that it's clear, once he's added, that we need a defensive stopper more than we need what he provides, a move can always be made then. 

This team _should_ crack the playoffs just by having the core a year older and Oden joining them, whatever Fernandez brings (or doesn't). There's still time to tinker after he gets here.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Having a good defensive presence in the middle and a good rebounder improves your defense all over the floor. Our guards will be able to play more aggressive defense and give ball-handlers less space because they won't have to worry as much about guys going around them. Having Oden back there will give them the luxury of knowing they've got a security blanket if someone drives around them.

Adding Rudy, IMO, gives us a much needed offensive option that we haven't had before, and that's a guy who plays fearlessly on that end of the court. He's got that moxie to take a big shot or to go to the basket, whereas you've seen guys like Travis and Martell and Jarrett pass up shots. I don't think you'll see Rudy do that. And sometimes you need guys like that. A smart offensive player who plays instinctively rather than overanalyzing a possession. Not everyone has that skill. I think Rudy does and will be an asset to us in close games when everyone tightens up.

Additionally, Rudy has a knack for scoring quickly before a defense gets set, and that's also something we've been missing.

Those two things will make us a much more potent offensive team.

And I believe our perimeter defense will be shored up by adding an anchor to the middle that will deter penetration.

-Pop


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Having a good defensive presence in the middle and a good rebounder improves your defense all over the floor. Our guards will be able to play more aggressive defense and give ball-handlers less space because they won't have to worry as much about guys going around them. Having Oden back there will give them the luxury of knowing they've got a security blanket if someone drives around them.
> 
> Adding Rudy, IMO, gives us a much needed offensive option that we haven't had before, and that's a guy who plays fearlessly on that end of the court. He's got that moxie to take a big shot or to go to the basket, whereas you've seen guys like Travis and Martell and Jarrett pass up shots. I don't think you'll see Rudy do that. And sometimes you need guys like that. A smart offensive player who plays instinctively rather than overanalyzing a possession. Not everyone has that skill. I think Rudy does and will be an asset to us in close games when everyone tightens up.
> 
> ...


Agreed. We're on the same page this time, Pop. :biggrin:


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Are you basing that on this year's results or on the improvement you expect them to make in the off-season?
> 
> It seems to me the Blazers have lost a _lot_ of games this season due to one or two quarters where they couldn't seem to score. I don't have stats in front of me but it seems like many games have gone something like: 23, 27, 12, 24, resulting in a 86 to 95 loss. It seems to me that Fernandez fixes a bunch of that and that, really, his defense against SGs can't be that much worse than Jack's has been -- Jack _might_ have an edge basketball IQ (from a defensive perspective, anyway), but I'll bet he gives up most of that to Fernandez's better height.


I'm basing this on the improvment they have made from last year, both in scoring percentage as well as points per game, and I do expect them to improve even more during the off season.

Rudy, however good he may be, is also quite young. What's to say he won't also suffer from the shooting droughts that have hit both Webster and Outlaw?

Anyways, yeah, we have lost a bunch of games that we should have won due to not being able to score. But that's just a result of this team being young. (The only players you can consistently count on are Aldridge and Roy) They'll get better as they mature. At least, that's what I believe. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm NOT advocating for Jack. I want him to leave as well. I just think it might be better to bring in someone other than Rudy.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I'd like to at least see one more year of player evaluation before KP moves into full on consolidation mode; and that means bringing Rudy over and seeing how he fits in playing alongside Brandon, or how he functions coming in off the bench. If it proves to be problematic, but Rudy shows flashes of greatness and it becomes obvious that he needs to go somewhere else to flourish then I think that only gives KP more latitude in trade scenarios that might present themselves for that lock-down defensive PG, or a high quality SF.

Short term I think it's pretty plain that Jack is going to be moved this offseason and if that means he's packaged with our draft pick(s) and/or other players in an attempt to move up in the draft or bring in a veteran upgrade at PG, then so be it.

For KP to not even give Rudy a full season to see how fits, when there seems to be so much potential, would be incredibly dumb.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

SodaPopinski said:


> Having a good defensive presence in the middle and a good rebounder improves your defense all over the floor. Our guards will be able to play more aggressive defense and give ball-handlers less space because they won't have to worry as much about guys going around them. Having Oden back there will give them the luxury of knowing they've got a security blanket if someone drives around them.
> 
> *Adding Rudy, IMO, gives us a much needed offensive option that we haven't had before, and that's a guy who plays fearlessly on that end of the court. He's got that moxie to take a big shot or to go to the basket, whereas you've seen guys like Travis and Martell and Jarrett pass up shots. I don't think you'll see Rudy do that. And sometimes you need guys like that. A smart offensive player who plays instinctively rather than overanalyzing a possession. Not everyone has that skill. I think Rudy does and will be an asset to us in close games when everyone tightens up.*
> Additionally, Rudy has a knack for scoring quickly before a defense gets set, and that's also something we've been missing.
> ...


That's the thing, we really don't know much about Rudy other than a few clips on Youtube or one or two games. The only thing we can really be sure about is that he CAN shoot. 

Given the time, I feel Webster and Outlaw we be the main shooters.

Look, Rudy is good, but he's seriously being overhyped by Blazer fans.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

nikolokolus said:


> I'd like to at least see one more year of player evaluation before KP moves into full on consolidation mode; and that means bringing Rudy over and seeing how he fits in playing alongside Brandon, or how he functions coming in off the bench. If it proves to be problematic, but Rudy shows flashes of greatness and it becomes obvious that he needs to go somewhere else to flourish then I think that only gives KP more latitude in trade scenarios that might present themselves for that lock-down defensive PG, or a high quality SF.
> 
> Short term I think it's pretty plain that Jack is going to be moved this offseason and if that means he's packaged with our draft pick(s) and/or other players in an attempt to move up in the draft or bring in a veteran upgrade at PG, then so be it.
> 
> For KP to not even give Rudy a full season to see how fits, when there seems to be so much potential, would be incredibly dumb.


Yes, a year of evaulation would probably be ideal. I'm not saying we should definately trade him, but I'm very open to trading his rights if the right offer comes along, even if it isn't the maximum we could get for him.

It's just most people here are hyping him as this huge player that will be able to contribute bunches right off the bat. I just don't think he's going to be like that.

With that said, I do think KP will keep him. Whether he becomes a key player, is yet to be seen.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> That's the thing, we really don't know much about Rudy other than a few clips on Youtube or one or two games. The only thing we can really be sure about is that he CAN shoot.
> 
> Given the time, I feel Webster and Outlaw we be the main shooters.
> 
> Look, Rudy is good, but he's seriously being overhyped by Blazer fans.


It's _not_ just Blazers fans, though. If you like I'll try to find links but multiple sources that seem to be completely independent (but who really knows what all Allen owns?) of both each other and the Blazers have stated repeatedly that Rudy Fernandez _is_ the best basketball player in the world not currently playing in the NBA. That says to me better than Rose, Beasley, Mayo, etc. That says would be the Number One Pick this year. I don't know about you but that's enough for me to want to take a look. Sure it _might_ not work, but if it does....


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> It's _not_ just Blazers fans, though. If you like I'll try to find links but multiple sources that seem to be completely independent (but who really knows what all Allen owns?) of both each other and the Blazers have stated repeatedly that Rudy Fernandez _is_ the best basketball player in the world not currently playing in the NBA. That says to me better than Rose, Beasley, Mayo, etc. That says would be the Number One Pick this year. I don't know about you but that's enough for me to want to take a look. Sure it _might_ not work, but if it does....


What? Better than Rose or Beasley? Nonsense. I would have to say European competition makes him look better than he is. 

I'm only hesitant because he seems like an onesided SG. If we were lacking in the SG position, I'd say bring it on. But we're not lacking, we have Roy. 

We have to weigh the benefits of Rudy coming of the bench as opposed to the upgrade at PG or SF we could get for trading him.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

B-Roy said:


> We have to weigh the benefits of Rudy coming of the bench as opposed to the upgrade at PG or SF we could get for trading him.


Right ... after they've had a solid year or so to evaluate how he fits in on this team. If he's a complete bust and his value turn out not to be very high, then it's still not exactly a lot of money or time wasted since he was drafted so low in the first round ... he's got to be a better backup SG than Jack right?


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

nikolokolus said:


> Right ... after they've had a solid year or so to evaluate how he fits in on this team. If he's a complete bust and his value turn out not to be very high, then it's still not exactly a lot of money or time wasted since he was drafted so low in the first round ... he's got to be a better backup SG than Jack right?


If he has a bad year, his value drops right? That's why I'm open to trading him NOW, when his value is high. You know, we could actually get something decent if we package his rights along with some other stuff. -.- Not the random improbable trades that usually float around this forum. Because along with Aldridge, Roy and Oden, Fernandez probably has the highest trade value right now.

I'd give SG minutes to Webster since Jack is most likely leaving. That leaves more minutes for Outlaw and Jones. (If he decides to return.)


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm willing to trust guys like KP and the Blazers European scouts and guys who have actually watched the kid play (even people not affilliated with the Blazers). They all rave about the guy and say he is a can't-miss NBA prospect.

Look - with where we got him in the draft (late first round), he will be a minor impact on our books. And furthermore - to that end - if we were to trade him (like you suggest), we certainly wouldn't be able to get much for him in the de facto dollar-for-dollar trade market. At least not under the rules of the CBA.

But if you're right, and he's a bust, you can come on here and gloat and say you knew it all along. But if we're right, and the kid is an absolute joy to watch and plays at a torrid pace and scores in bunches and helps us win games, we won't even mind if we just forget about this little debate and you enjoy the show with the rest of us. :biggrin:

-Pop


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> What? Better than Rose or Beasley? Nonsense. I would have to say European competition makes him look better than he is.


To be clear, _I'm_ not making that claim -- it's come from various media sources, mostly in the U.S., from writers who should be taking the level of competition into account. They might be wrong. Heck, they're probably wrong. But if he's even worthy of a top 5 pick....



> I'm only hesitant because he seems like an onesided SG. If we were lacking in the SG position, I'd say bring it on. But we're not lacking, we have Roy.


Okay, but one of Roy's greatest assets is his ability to play muliple positions. That's largely taken away from him right now because there _is_ no other worthwhile SG on this roster. It's like having an amazing utility infielder but no 2nd baseman.



> We have to weigh the benefits of Rudy coming of the bench as opposed to the upgrade at PG or SF we could get for trading him.


I agree this team needs an upgrade at PG. It seems to me that some combination of this year's pick, Jack, Webster or Outlaw, and Outlaw or Frye (potentially plus 2nd round picks and guys like Freeland) should be enough to get that. Heck, the pick by itself might get that if Westbrook falls and is as good as some claim him to be.

As for SF, I'm think that either Webster or Outlaw (presuming one is part of a trade for a PG) with Jones and Roy provides a lot of options there and they can always work to land a SF down the road -- it's not that long before Pritchard and Penn's Big Free Agent Signing might happen. I'm not holding my breath but it's at least another possibility.

Mostly, though, it seems to me that Fernandez is too special a player to not give a serious chance.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

SodaPopinski said:


> I'm willing to trust guys like KP and the Blazers European scouts and guys who have actually watched the kid play (even people not affilliated with the Blazers). They all rave about the guy and say he is a can't-miss NBA prospect.
> 
> Look - with where we got him in the draft (late first round), he will be a minor impact on our books. And furthermore - to that end - if we were to trade him (like you suggest), we certainly wouldn't be able to get much for him in the de facto dollar-for-dollar trade market. At least not under the rules of the CBA.
> 
> ...


If he ends up becoming a pivotal player and helps us get a better record, then I'm all for it. Of course I'd like to see the Blazers flourish.

I'm just a "bit" more skeptical than the rest of the Blazer fans, who seem to be jumping on the bandwagon and ****ting their pants everytime someone says Rudy Fernandez.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> To be clear, _I'm_ not making that claim -- it's come from various media sources, mostly in the U.S., from writers who should be taking the level of competition into account. They might be wrong. Heck, they're probably wrong. But if he's even worthy of a top 5 pick....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roy/Webster/Outlaw/Jones

Roy at SG/PG
Webster at SF/SG
Outlaw at SF/PF
Jones at SF

I don't know what it'll take get an upgrade at the PG, but offering Fernandez would most certainly help get a better deal.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

B-Roy said:


> If he ends up becoming a pivotal player and helps us get a better record, then I'm all for it. Of course I'd like to see the Blazers flourish.
> 
> I'm just a "bit" more skeptical than the rest of the Blazer fans, who seem to be jumping on the bandwagon and ****ting their pants everytime someone says Rudy Fernandez.


Nobody says you have to jump for the joy at the thought of the guy, but trading him is ridiculous. I challenge you to suggest one obtainable guy for about $1 million per year who is going to come in and be this awesome defensive stopper you suggest.

This isn't baseball. You can't just trade talent for talent without dealing with the financials. Unless you're under the cap, which we aren't.

-Pop


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

SodaPopinski said:


> Nobody says you have to jump for the joy at the thought of the guy, but trading him is ridiculous. I challenge you to suggest one obtainable guy for about $1 million per year who is going to come in and be this awesome defensive stopper you suggest.
> 
> This isn't baseball. You can't just trade talent for talent without dealing with the financials. Unless you're under the cap, which we aren't.
> 
> -Pop


Of course we'd have to package him! Sheesh!

I thought that was obvious.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Roy/Webster/Outlaw/Jones
> 
> Roy at SG/PG
> Webster at SF/SG
> ...


I hear you, though it seems to me you're discounting the fact that Roy's already played pretty successfully at SF this year -- some of the best runs the Blazers have put together have been with Blake, Jack, and Roy on the floor together.

And as I said, I think a decent PG should be possible to land without touching those guys. How 'bout this:

this year's pick, a 2nd rounder or two, Jack, Frye, and potentially LaFrentz's contract and/or cash. There are a lot of teams with tighter financial constraints than the Blazers have -- Allen's pocket book is one of the few tactical advantages this team has.


Regardless, it seems like we're all pretty well agreed that giving Fernandez a season isn't a bad idea. Heck, his presence (and Oden's)_might_ help Rodriguez return to effective play and the team will be better able to fly up the court.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I hear you, though it seems to me you're discounting the fact that Roy's already played pretty successfully at SF this year -- some of the best runs the Blazers have put together have been with Blake, Jack, and Roy on the floor together.
> 
> And as I said, I think a decent PG should be possible to land without touching those guys. How 'bout this:
> 
> ...


Maybe, but offering Raef+Fernandez to a rebuilding (or potentially rebuilding) team could get us a really good veteran. Just throwing it out there.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

What if we could trade Rudy for Devin Harris or Jose Calderon? I don't think B-Roy is saying Rudy isn't going to be good, but rather he's not a proven superstud, and with all the hype right now we could possibly trade him for a guy who plays a position where we are more in need of an upgrade.

That should be something KP considers (he should at least listen to ALL offers), but I don't think he should try to move Rudy just because we aren't sure how he will fit. Can he play effectively with Roy? If so, then great. If not, he will still be able to come off the bench, and I don't think he will lose value as an asset because of it. If he is as good as we hope, that value will show, even in backup minutes, and other teams will still covet it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Lets assume Rudy is as good of a scorer as Roy. Then it still wouldn't make sense to have him in the lineup. It's like bringing in KG when you already have TD


yeah what sort of idiot would want to see that?

seriously... if Rudy is as good of a scorer as Roy at SG then the Blazers have struck gold. Roy has proven his ability to run the point. Concerns that some here have is that if he is supposed to be both the guy bringing up the ball/creating *and* a 20 point per game guy he might get worn out. Having seen more then a few guys pull that off I think this is a silly thing to stress on, but with Rudy capable and ready to finish plays/make shots (as we're supposing here) then BR has the luxury of reeling his scoring game in a bit when paired with Rudy. I don't think KP is blowing smoke when he waxes about the possibilities of these two being the future starting Blazer backcourt.



> That's the thing, we really don't know much about Rudy other than a few clips on Youtube or one or two games. The only thing we can really be sure about is that he CAN shoot.


yet you're here telling us that he won't make his teammates better and calling him a weak defender... is it only okay to speculate out your bum if you're taking a pessimistic view? 

The few youtube links may be the limits of your information, but we've many posters who've chimed in claiming to have seen much more. Each one seems very excited about what he will bring to the club. And of course the GM blushes and gushes about the possibilities like he's holding all the cards and is about to pull everyone's chips to his side of the table. Reading into this I'm guessing Rudy & Roy will be the starting backcourt sooner then later... like next season.

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

dudleysghost said:


> *What if we could trade Rudy for Devin Harris or Jose Calderon? I don't think B-Roy is saying Rudy isn't going to be good, but rather he's not a proven superstud, and with all the hype right now we could possibly trade him for a guy who plays a position where we are more in need of an upgrade.*
> That should be something KP considers (he should at least listen to ALL offers), but I don't think he should try to move Rudy just because we aren't sure how he will fit. Can he play effectively with Roy? If so, then great. If not, he will still be able to come off the bench, and I don't think he will lose value as an asset because of it. If he is as good as we hope, that value will show, even in backup minutes, and other teams will still covet it.


That's exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> *yeah what sort of idiot would want to see that?*
> 
> seriously... if Rudy is as good of a scorer as Roy at SG then the Blazers have struck absolute gold. Roy has proven his ability to run the point. Concerns that some here have is that if he is supposed to be both the guy bringing up the ball/creating *and* a 20 point per game guy he might get worn out. Having seen more then a few guys pull that off I think this is a silly thing to stress on, but with Rudy capable and ready to finish plays/make shots (as we're supposing here) then BR has the luxury of reeling his scoring game in a bit when paired with Rudy. I don't think KP is blowing smoke when he waxes about the possibilities of these two being the future starting Blazer backcourt.
> 
> ...


I noted that it wasn't the best example. A better one might be the PG situation in Toronto.

From what I've seen (a couple games, some highlights) that's what I get. Yes, KP will know more than I do, but who cares? I'm not really questioning whether or not he's good, just how good of a fit he'd be in Portland as opposed to what we could get for him. I'm certainly not completely counting out the fact that he could be a superstar player, nor am I saying he won't flourish in Portland.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Reading into this I'm guessing Rudy & Roy will be the starting backcourt sooner then later... like next season.
> 
> STOMP


I'm right there with you, STOMP, as usual. However, (and somewhat in B-Roy's defense), I'd _still_ want the Blazers to add another guard like Harris. Maybe that's Westbrook -- it might actually help for it to be a rookie (if he can really bring it defensively) who's less likely to sweat coming in off the bench. A guard rotation of someone like that with Roy, Fernandez, and Blake (and perhaps Webster in a pinch) seems really solid and prepared for virtually any situation in the backcourt.

I'd hope that Pritchard could find such a player without having to use Rudy as part of the trade. I can't express how much I'm looking forward to having a decent second option at SG -- we've got that at every _single_ other position and twice over:

PG -- Blake, Roy, Jack, Rodriguez
SG -- Roy, Jack, Wafer
SF -- Webster, Jones, Outlaw, Roy
PF -- Aldridge, Frye, Outlaw, LaFrentz, McRoberts
C -- Oden, Przybilla, Aldridge, LaFrentz

Looking at that, I'd take LaFrentz at either PF or C ahead of Jack at SG. Heck, I can't imagine how little McMillan must think of Wafer for him to not be getting _some_ time ahead of Jack, if only for a better size match up.

Fernandez makes the SG position one of incredible strength, presuming his game transfers at anything like a decent exchange rate.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I'm right there with you, STOMP, as usual.  However, (and somewhat in B-Roy's defense), I'd _still_ want the Blazers to add another guard like Harris. Maybe that's Westbrook -- it might actually help for it to be a rookie (if he can really bring it defensively) who's less likely to sweat coming in off the bench. A guard rotation of someone like that with Roy, Fernandez, and Blake (and perhaps Webster in a pinch) seems really solid and prepared for virtually any situation in the backcourt.
> 
> I'd hope that Pritchard could find such a player without having to use Rudy as part of the trade. I can't express how much I'm looking forward to having a decent second option at SG -- we've got that at every _single_ other position and twice over:
> 
> ...


See, that depends on how well of an "upgrade" you'd want. If you only wanted to move up a couple spots in the draft and draft a project, then you probably won't need to offer Rudy. If you really want a proven player, then you would probably have to offer something of more value. ie:Fernandez.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> I noted that it wasn't the best example. A better one might be the PG situation in Toronto.


TJ and Jose are small by PG standards. Which one of those two has proven his ability to excell at SG the way Brandon has proven his ability at the point? Heck Brandon has played very well at the 1 & the 3... which only touches on why your Toronto comparison is an even a worse example then the TD and KG one.



> From what I've seen (a couple games, some highlights) that's what I get. Yes, KP will know more than I do, but who cares? I'm not really questioning whether or not he's good, just how good of a fit he'd be in Portland as opposed to what we could get for him. I'm certainly not completely counting out the fact that he could be a superstar player, nor am I saying he won't flourish in Portland.


that doesn't address the quotes of yours I relayed. You said he is a bad defender and that he wouldn't make his teammates better. Later you relayed you really don't know much about him other then that he can shoot. 

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> I noted that it wasn't the best example. A better one might be the PG situation in Toronto.


That might well be a better example -- let's look at it. It's a position of great strength when both guys are healthy. Now, Ford's pretty inarguably a greater health risk than Roy, but with that heel I think there's some cause to want greater depth.

More than the heel or other health concerns, though, neither JC nor TJ are reasonable options at any position but PG. Roy _is_ a viable option at not just two positions but three -- he can create match-up nightmares for other teams if the point of playmaking stays in his hands but keeps shifting from PG to SG to SF, to someone else's hands (like back to Blake or even Fernandez for that matter).

Yes, Roy may give up something defensively sometimes at PG or SF, but that's mostly solved by playing a zone and/or double-teaming. And when that doesn't do it, put either Roy or Fernandez at SG and the other on the bench for awhile.

I think Roy's pretty easily the single most important player to this team's success right now and he's forced to play a _lot_ of minutes. Wouldn't it be great to get him a reasonable break?

I get that this team could use upgrades in the starting line-up and that it might be a bummer to have one of your four or five best players coming in off the bench. However, it seems to work for the Spurs and, as STOMP has pointed out, Fernandez and Roy might really be starting together effectively.

I _do_ understand that Fernandez might have more value to this team in trade than on the court, much as it true for Jack from my perspective. The lack of depth at SG has just been killing me so maybe that's why I feel so impassioned about it? Regardless, I think I've said my fill on this one.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> TJ and Jose are small by PG standards. Which one of those two has proven his ability to excell at SG the way Brandon has proven his ability at the point? Heck Brandon has played very well at the 1 & the 3... which only touches on why your Toronto comparison is an even a worse example then the TD and KG one.
> 
> 
> that doesn't address the quotes of yours I relayed. You said he is a bad defender and that he wouldn't make his teammates better. Later you relayed you really don't know much about him other then that he can shoot.
> ...


I said I didn't know much about him as a whole. From what I've seen, that's what I got. Obviously, I havn't watched all the games he's played in, but everyone seems to be talking about how this guy is an amazing shooter. 

Sure Brandon can play the point, but having a starting backcourt of Roy/Rudy would mean the bulk of Roy's minutes go into chasing around smaller, more versatile players. Could he do that? Possibly. Would it be ideal? Definately not.

I was just trying to say having 2 good players playing the same position is not as ideal as having 2 good players playing different positions. You don't need to twist around everything I say.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> That might well be a better example -- let's look at it. It's a position of great strength when both guys are healthy. Now, Ford's pretty inarguably a greater health risk than Roy, but with that heel I think there's some cause to want greater depth.
> 
> More than the heel or other health concerns, though, neither JC nor TJ are reasonable options at any position but PG. Roy _is_ a viable option at not just two positions but three -- he can create match-up nightmares for other teams if the point of playmaking stays in his hands but keeps shifting from PG to SG to SF, to someone else's hands (like back to Blake or even Fernandez for that matter).
> 
> ...


By doing so, your changing your defense to match your player's best strengths, and not changing it to adapt to what sort of line-up the opponent uses.

Yes, it might work, but a backcourt with a true PG has a higher chance of succeeding, which is why I tend to look to that option instead.

You know, with the Spurs, Manu could easily be starting. And it's kind of twisted around because Manu enters three minutes into the game anyways and plays starter minutes. Papovich just likes Manu coming off the bench.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^But Roy can play the 1, 2 and 3.

Bringing in Fernandez is a can't lose situation. Tiny contract but huge hype. Going to bring instant scoring off the bench. The guy is giving up huge money to come play in the NBA. I don't see how this is a bad thing. Why would we want to trade somebody with so much potential at so little cost?

There are other players on our roster that we can use to trade for a PG, or up in the draft.

I understand your arguement. We don't need Fernandez and Roy because they play the same position. And we can use Fernandez in obtaining a PG or SF (which i really don't think we need at all) that will give us an upgrade. But the risk vs. reward for Fernandez is something you just cannot pass up AT LEAST before seeing how he works with the team. And if his stock falls, that is a risk you MUST take considering how small his contract is. It really won't cost that much at all if he is a bust (which he won't be... he might not live up to the hype, but he will be a damn good player).

Fernandez can create for others and score. He can co-exist with Brandon and play in the second unit. If Brandon goes down he is there. Beautiful situation man, KP is a genious. Has he led you astray yet? look in what situation the Blazers are in... one of the best futures in the NBA.

Blake | Westbrook (maybe..just putting that name out there so i can have a backup there)
Roy | Rudy
Webster | Outlaw
Aldridge | Frye
Oden | Pryzbilla

how can you not love that??? That has defense and offense on the 1st and 2nd unit. Capable PGs on both units, creaters and shooters, along with defensive post presense for shot alterations. That, my friend, is a championship roster, imo.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would deal Rudy for Devin Harris, but not for Calderon. 

The recent failure of European players is overshadowing the fact that Rudy is, by far, the best European player since Manu(Who, BTW, came into the NBA as a skinny guy). You are also forgetting the fact that European competition is better than NCAA competition. 

I wouldnt be against trading Rudy, but I dont see any real options. We could probably move him along with #13 to secure Jerryd Bayless, but I am far less sold on him than Rudy. As for veterans, I would want a awesome young player like Harris or Granger. Who would you want in return B-Roy?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Sure Brandon can play the point, but having a starting backcourt of Roy/Rudy would mean the bulk of Roy's minutes go into chasing around smaller, more versatile defenders. Could he do that? Possibly. Would it be ideal? Definately not.


you've already correctly noted that BR is taller then Rudy... he's got more length and weight as well. So why do you have him chasing the other team's PG for most of the night? Besides that, I expect to see a 3 guard rotation with Blake off the bench. He'll be at least the co-PG with Roy (like he has been this year) but he'll certainly be the one guarding the other teams smaller guy regardless of whether he's in with Rudy or Brandon. If these three are to be the main guards who get minutes, only 15-20 minutes a night would Roy be potencially guarding the other team's PG and quite likely that duty goes primarily to Rudy.

I completely disagree with your assessment that this is not an ideal situation. 

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I would deal Rudy for Devin Harris, but not for Calderon.
> 
> The recent failure of European players is overshadowing the fact that Rudy is, by far, the best European player since Manu(Who, BTW, came into the NBA as a skinny guy). You are also forgetting the fact that European competition is better than NCAA competition.
> 
> I wouldnt be against trading Rudy, but I dont see any real options. We could probably move him along with #13 to secure Jerryd Bayless, but I am far less sold on him than Rudy. As for veterans, I would want a awesome young player like Harris or Granger. Who would you want in return B-Roy?


I would definately consider both Granger and Harris. Young and talented. Maybe Calderon, but I'm not sure. Monta Ellis comes to mind, but that's probably out of the picture.

To be frank, if Devin Harris was offered, I'd pull the trigger right away.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> you've already correctly noted that BR is taller then Rudy... he's got more length and weight as well. So why do you have him chasing the other team's PG for most of the night? Besides that, I expect to see a 3 guard rotation with Blake off the bench. When he's in there with Rudy or Roy, he'll be at least the co-PG with Roy (like he has been this year) but he'll certainly be the one guarding the other teams smaller guy. If these three are to be the main guards who get minutes, only 15-20 minutes a night would Roy be potencially guarding the other team's PG.
> 
> I completely disagree with your assessment that this is not an ideal situation.
> 
> STOMP


You and I don't see eye to eye, and that's perfectally fine. 

I guess I just like players playeing a specific position, while branching out once in awhile. 

I want a good upgrade, and I'm more than willing to trade Rudy if the right offer comes along. I guess that's just how I see it.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^But Roy can play the 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> Bringing in Fernandez is a can't lose situation. Tiny contract but huge hype. Going to bring instant scoring off the bench. The guy is giving up huge money to come play in the NBA. I don't see how this is a bad thing. Why would we want to trade somebody with so much potential at so little cost?
> 
> ...


Whatever, that's fine, and that's probably what's going to happen. Not going to say that I like it though. I'd much rather have a better PG then have Rudy and then have Roy soak up heavy PG minutes.

By the way, who (if any) would you be willing to trade Rudy for? Anyone at all?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> You know, with the Spurs, Manu could easily be starting. And it's kind of twisted around because Manu enters three minutes into the game anyways and plays starter minutes.


Manu is averaging just over 30 minutes for the first time in his career

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/emanuel_ginobili/career_stats.html

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> Manu is averaging just over 30 minutes for the first time in his career
> 
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/emanuel_ginobili/career_stats.html
> 
> STOMP


He's also had 29.4 and 29.6. Call it what you want, but Manu is a starter disguised as a reserve.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Whatever, that's fine, and that's probably what's going to happen. Not going to say that I like it though. I'd much rather have a better PG then have Rudy and then have Roy soak up heavy PG minutes.


I definitely understand you.

I lean both ways. I would love to have Rudy on our team, and think him and Roy can end up starting and it would be sick.

But if a trade came around to seriously upgrade our PG position, i'd probably do it. So i see it both ways bro. I understand your arguement and it makes sense.

KP won't always make everyone happy, everyone has different ideas. I wanted us to draft Morrison and stuff like that. I'm happy KP is the GM though. What a steal he got for Rudy. You have to at least admit that...

And i agree about Manu. He is a starter comin' off the bench. Somethin' that i think rudy will do also. He will play with Roy about 15-20 minutes a game, imo, and be out there all the time while Roy isn't (10 minutes a game maybe?). Rudy and Pryzbilla and Roy and Oden... awesome dude.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> I would definately consider both Granger and Harris. Young and talented. Maybe Calderon, but I'm not sure. Monta Ellis comes to mind, but that's probably out of the picture.
> 
> To be frank, if Devin Harris was offered, I'd pull the trigger right away.


Thing is, Granger, Harris and Ellis are would never be dealt for Rudy. Both Harris and Granger are the lone bright spots on their struggling teams, and are looked at as the 'future'. Ellis has proven too much far too quickly to be dealt for Rudy. 

I bet we could get Calderon, but I dont want us to. He is extremley overrated, and everyone just zones in on his apg rates and doesnt look at the rest of his game. He is a terrible defender, has shot something like under 140 FT's this season(TERRIBLE) and will command an inordinate amount of $.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> I definitely understand you.
> 
> I lean both ways. I would love to have Rudy on our team, and think him and Roy can end up starting and it would be sick.
> 
> ...


Would you trade Rudy for anyone? Or would it take a LeBron to convince you?

I trust KP will make the correct decision, and if he keeps Rudy, so be it. 

I am, however, exited about Oden. Very high expectations. Really hoping he plays well.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^^WEll, it would be like Outlaw, first, cash, rudy and a future 1st for ellis or harris.



> Would you trade Rudy for anyone? Or would it take a LeBron to convince you?


didn't i just say in my post if there was a trade involving Rudy that would seriously upgrade our PG position that i'd probably do it? lol...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> He's also had 29.4 and 29.6. Call it what you want, but Manu is a starter disguised as a reserve.


30 minutes is well under what most starters who aren't limited role players average though and dude is a star. His situation is probably best described as an anomaly

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> You and I don't see eye to eye, and that's perfectally fine.
> 
> I guess I just like players playeing a specific position, while branching out once in awhile.
> 
> I want a good upgrade, and I'm more than willing to trade Rudy if the right offer comes along. I guess that's just how I see it.


Ah ha! That's one of the main issues here, maybe -- I'm all over having guys who can play multiple positions well, as it Pritchard from what he's said in the past. I can maybe see exceptions for the 1 and the 5, but I think two combo guards as good as Roy and Fernadez are _might_ really be fine together. More than that, though, I want to be able to mess with other teams by putting Roy in at various positions, including against smaller PGs (forcing other teams to either play him with their PG, their SG {creating a mis-match for Fernandez} or to go with two SGs).

Heck, I can even imagine Oden playing some 4 with Przybilla at the 5. Talk about a match-up nightmare for the other team!


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^^WEll, it would be like Outlaw, first, cash, rudy and a future 1st for ellis or harris.
> 
> 
> 
> didn't i just say in my post if there was a trade involving Rudy that would seriously upgrade our PG position that i'd probably do it? lol...


I was looking for specifics, but yeah. 

I would expect Harris to cost less than Ellis though.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Ah ha! That's one of the main issues here, maybe -- I'm all over having guys who can play multiple positions well, as it Pritchard from what he's said in the past. I can maybe see exceptions for the 1 and the 5, but I think two combo guards as good as Roy and Fernadez are _might_ really be fine together. More than that, though, I want to be able to mess with other teams by putting Roy in at various positions, including against smaller PGs (forcing other teams to either play him with their PG, their SG {creating a mis-match for Fernandez} or to go with two SGs).
> 
> Heck, I can even imagine Oden playing some 4 with Przybilla at the 5. Talk about a match-up nightmare for the other team!


Yeah, sometimes throughout the season I was thinking what would happen if Nate played Frye at the SF while having Aldridge at PF and JP at C. Not realistic thinking, more of just wondering what it would be like.

I'm not saying Roy/Fernandez won't work, it's just having a real point tends to have a higher success rate in most places.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Yeah, sometimes throughout the season I was thinking what would happen if Nate played Frye at the SF while having Aldridge at PF and JP at C. Not realistic thinking, more of just wondering what it would be like.
> 
> I'm not saying Roy/Fernandez won't work, it's just having a real point tends to have a higher success rate in most places.



I hear you. And that said, I think Blake is already as "real" a point as most of the NBA championship PGs have been the last several decades -- Armstrong, Kerr, Paxon, Johnson, Fisher, etc. Parker is the only PG who's really coming to mind that we could all agree on is a top level PG.

That said, I completely understand having someone better than Blake is ideal but I'm not convinced that your starting 5 need to be your best 5 players. During the Drexler years there were stretches when guys like Robinson and Ainge were probably better players than, say, Duckworth or perhaps even Kersey. I'm using them as an example just because most of us (myself included) are probably more familiar with that team than with details of championship teams from years gone by. I'd just bet, without looking it up, that those Bulls teams had guys coming off the bench at positions like PG, SG, and PF who were generally regarded as better than Cartwright, Wennington, and whomever else they had starting at center.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I hear you. And that said, I think Blake is already as "real" a point as most of the NBA championship PGs have been the last several decades -- Armstrong, Kerr, Paxon, Johnson, Fisher, etc. Parker is the only PG who's really coming to mind that we could all agree on is a top level PG.
> 
> That said, I completely understand having someone better than Blake is ideal but *I'm not convinced that your starting 5 need to be your best 5 players.* During the Drexler years there were stretches when guys like Robinson and Ainge were probably better players than, say, Duckworth or perhaps even Kersey. I'm using them as an example just because most of us (myself included) are probably more familiar with that team than with details of championship teams from years gone by. I'd just bet, without looking it up, that those Bulls teams had guys coming off the bench at positions like PG, SG, and PF who were generally regarded as better than Cartwright, Wennington, and whomever else they had starting at center.


Course not, even now, I could argue Outlaw is better than Webster despite Webster getting the start.

The thing with Blake, is that I just don't feel he has the "IT" factor. Other point guards have always had that one deadly thing they did really well. If he just shot better or drives to the basket more, I wouldn't complain about him. I just wish Steve Blake was more of a threat. There's been games where he's been deadly, but just not many. Regardless, I still think PG is our weakest position.

By the way, you forgot Billups.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> I may be the only guy on this board who feels we should trade Rudy.


you're not. from what i've read and seen of rudy's game, he's a straight up sg. sg also happens to be the best position that roy plays. roy can definately play at pg and even sf, but i'd rather he play sg most of the time. that won't leave much time for rudy. 

as much as i'm excited to see rudy in portland, i'd be more excited if we can package him to significantly upgrade at pg or sf. i think rudy's going to be good. i'm just unsure he'll be the best fit for us.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

STOMP said:


> TJ and Jose are small by PG standards.


tj ford is definately small. but at 6'3" and 210 pounds, calderon is small for a pg?!

normally you like to jump all over posters for misquoting a player "real" size, i'd figured you'd know calderon has good size for a pg.

btw, if we package rudy and other fillers for calderon, i think that would be a great trade for us. doubtful if toronto would do it though.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

BuckW4GM said:


> tj ford is definately small. but at 6'3" and 210 pounds, calderon is small for a pg?!
> 
> normally you like to jump all over posters for misquoting a player "real" size, i'd figured you'd know calderon has good size for a pg.
> 
> btw, if we package rudy and other fillers for calderon, i think that would be a great trade for us. doubtful if toronto would do it though.


They might, they really don't need both Ford and Calderon. Rudy would also fit into the jump shooting style of Toronto.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> tj ford is definately small. but at 6'3" and 210 pounds, calderon is small for a pg?!
> 
> normally you like to jump all over posters for misquoting a player "real" size, i'd figured you'd know calderon has good size for a pg.


Are you jumping all over me now? I'm not sure...

anyways, I point out true heights and dimensions of players so we can compare apples to apples, not what player A wishes to be listed at. And since Calderon didn't attend a pre-draft camp, I've no idea how accurate his league listing is... I'm sure you're aware that those listing vary wildly. I do know that he is dwarfed by Roy who is 6'5 and he looks smaller then Jack who is just over 6'2. But I'll give you this, I shouldn't have said Calderon is small for a PG, he seems average sized. 

If he could guard SGs the Raptors would have quite a backcourt with a super quick slasher and a great jumpshooter... but as I've observed on a few occasions, Calderon isn't much of a defender of PGs let alone SGs. Thats why there is so much speculation that he or Ford will be dealt. 

STOMP


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

STOMP said:


> anyways, I point out true heights and dimensions of players so we can compare apples to apples, not what player A wishes to be listed at. And since Calderon didn't attend a pre-draft camp, I've no idea how accurate his league listing is... I'm sure you're aware that those listing vary wildly. I do know that he is dwarfed by Roy who is 6'5 and he looks smaller then Jack who is just over 6'2. But I'll give you this, I shouldn't have said Calderon is small for a PG, he seems average sized.


i'm awared that all the popular sites (espn, nba.com, si, etc.) all exaggerate heights of almost every players. i think they take players' height in shoes and round them up. i never understood why they don't just list their height w/o shoes, as shoes varies in thickness. in the end, i think it all evens out because just about every players' height are exaggerated. every players' height is added by 1 inch, it seems. so when doing players comparison height, i don't think it's way off to use the height listed on those sites.

as for calderon's height, i watched when he played for his national team and 6'3" was his listed height. i'm not sure if they exaggerate heights over there too. even so, the average height for nba pgs is probably 6'2" (and this is off heights listed on espn). i'm comfortable saying calderon is taller than that, exaggerated or not.



> If he could guard SGs the Raptors would have quite a backcourt with a super quick slasher and a great jumpshooter... but as I've observed on a few occasions, Calderon isn't much of a defender of PGs let alone SGs. Thats why there is so much speculation that he or Ford will be dealt.


ford and calderon are both quality starting pgs. i think the main reason why toronto would trade one of them is to upgrade at a different posistion.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> as for calderon's height, i watched when he played for his national team and 6'3" was his listed height. i'm not sure if they exaggerate heights over there too. even so, the average height for nba pgs is probably 6'2" (and this is off heights listed on espn). i'm comfortable saying calderon is taller than that, exaggerated or not.


http://www.nbadraft.net/admincp/profiles/rudyfernandez.html

Rudy measured under 6'5 barefoot, so yes they exaggerate in Europe too. And if Calderon is 6'2ish, by your opinion and mine he's about an average sized NBA PG. 

I could compile a list if you want. 


> ford and calderon are both quality starting pgs. i think the main reason why toronto would trade one of them is to upgrade at a different posistion.


since my point was that those two don't have the talent/size/ability to swing to other positions (like Roy can), it seems you're preaching to the choir here.

STOMP


----------

