# are we done dealing?



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

we still have frye, outlaw, and webster....we figured 2 outta those 3 would be gone by the end of the night, now its likely none of them are....are we gonna make a deal for the small forward we want or keep what we have for atleast another year?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

i think we should keep. we're goooood right now.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I could see some small tinkering, I don't think we do anything major.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

we still need to consolidate a bit, a 2 for 1 would be nice.


----------



## Short Bus Ryder (Jun 8, 2007)

I would imagine that they would let it play out for a min. and make another move before the trade deadline or sooner.

But we'll see what KP has to say.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

According to KP, he is very happy with the lineup. So I doubt there will be any major moves in the summer.

I am happy with the lineup too. I can't wait for the fall to see how it will do.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm thinking a small 2 for 1 to get a Vet SF.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

He said he's happy with 1-10. 

I think a chance sergio is gonna get dealt....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I agree. I think Koponen by coming over early before the draft and showing a commitment to prep for summer league stepped above Sergio, who is declining Summerleague, on my depth chart


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Balian said:


> According to KP, he is very happy with the lineup. So I doubt there will be any major moves in the summer.
> 
> I am happy with the lineup too. I can't wait for the fall to see how it will do.


Keep in mind the roster he's got in mind _may_ not be the roster we've got in mind -- there may already be deals made that they can't talk about and that haven't leaked yet.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Sergio has got to go at some point. I think we are holding on to Webster and Outlaw at least until the deadline to see how they develop. If one of them does not perform well them we trade them at the deadline with Raef and maybe Sergio + future picks.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Battier and a future first for Outlaw
Josh Howard?
Childress?

Battier seemed to be the best pick, but I'm always surprised by how average his stats are. I really doubt we make any moves, or at least not until waiting to see how the current mix gels.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I would like to see a trade involving Sergio and either Webster or Outlaw. 

Right now, assuming the trades go through, our roster looks like this:

Bayless, Blake, Sergio
Roy, Rudy
Outlaw, Webster, Batum
Aldridge, Diogu, Frye
Oden, Przybilla

That leaves us with 2 free spots, and a glut of point guards, small forwards, and power forwards. Realistically, we could sit Batum on the IR all season and it would be fine. He seems dead set on playing next season, so that would probably be the best move for him.

Here are some questions that I have before determining who should go. 

Is Diogu ready to be the primary backup at power forward or do we still need Channing Frye? 

Is Batum ready to contribute or should we keep the Outlaw/Webster tandem and put Batum on the IR?

Is Sergio worth keeping around or should we move him and bring in Koponen? 

Personally, I would like to move Sergio and either Outlaw or Webster. Free up some minutes for Rudy and add Petteri to the roster. He's worked very hard and I think he deserves a shot. I'd like to hold onto Frye, but I'm wondering if he's too similar to Aldridge to keep on the roster. 

The problem is this, we have too many young talented players and eventually we'll have to pay the piper. We need to consolidate this talent.

I'm thinking a trade of Webster, Sergio, and Frye should be able to net us something nice. 

How about Raef LaFrentz, Martell Webster, Channing Frye, and Sergio for Shawn Marion? 

Marion comes off the books next summer, we could decide then if there was someone worth trying to sign or if we wanted to re-sign him. Marion is only 30 and I think he's exactly the kind of veteran this team needs. He has maybe 5-6 more good years, and then as he's on his way out you've still got Outlaw and Batum. 

Roster would look like this:

Bayless, Blake, Koponen
Roy, Rudy
Marion, Outlaw, Batum
Aldridge, Diogu
Oden, Przybilla


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

NateBishop3 said:


> Bayless, Blake, Sergio
> Roy, Rudy
> Outlaw, Webster, Batum
> Aldridge, Diogu, Frye
> Oden, Przybilla


My guess is that it looks more like this...

Blake/Bayless/Koponen
Roy/Rudy
Outlaw/Webster
LMA/Frye/Diogu
Oden/Przybilla

IR: Raef, Sergio, Signed Scrub
Stashed in Europe: Batum, Freeland, that screwball Center from Turkey we got today...


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

If we get rid of Martell, and don't re-sign Jones, we lose our dead on 3-point shooters...which reallly saved our *** last year on many times. With Oden in the post, we are gonna need those guys that can hit the outside shot. 

I'm not too much a fan of Matrix to be honest. And if he decides to go for the bling, he may put us in a premature position of bad cap space.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

-I don't think Diogu has proven himself yet, but Quick said on 1080 that KP tried to bring him to Portland back when he was with Golden State. Maybe he will become the 2008-2009 version of Channing Frye? He hasn't proven himself as much as Frye yet, so don't look for Ike to take the reigns quite yet.

-No, Batum is not ready to contribute yet. He's NBDL fodder, at best.

-Marion will not become a Blazer. He wouldn't fit in with this roster - he wants to be THE MAN. Portland doesn't need that.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Xericx said:


> If we get rid of Martell, and don't re-sign Jones, we lose our dead on 3-point shooters...which reallly saved our *** last year on many times. With Oden in the post, we are gonna need those guys that can hit the outside shot.
> 
> I'm not too much a fan of Matrix to be honest. And if he decides to go for the bling, he may put us in a premature position of bad cap space.


Don't forget Rudy! And, apparently, Bayless is a pretty good shooter from deep. Blake isn't bad from deep, Roy's working on it this summer, Outlaw can hit the 3 in a pinch, and even Frye's knocked down a few 3's in his time.

The loss of Jones will be felt on the court - not necessarily as a shooter. He was great about telling guys where to go on the floor and spacing the court. Little things like that will be missed with a younger roster.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wastro said:


> Don't forget Rudy! And, apparently, Bayless is a pretty good shooter from deep. Blake isn't bad from deep, Roy's working on it this summer, Outlaw can hit the 3 in a pinch, and even Frye's knocked down a few 3's in his time.
> 
> The loss of Jones will be felt on the court - not necessarily as a shooter. He was great about telling guys where to go on the floor and spacing the court. Little things like that will be missed with a younger roster.


Yeah, but they seem more transitional shooters, not spot up ones. Don't kid yourselves....I think Martell is pretty essential as an outside threat to keep defenders honest on our post game.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Xericx said:


> Yeah, but they seem more transitional shooters, not spot up ones. Don't kid yourselves....I think Martell is pretty essential as an outside threat to keep defenders honest on our post game.


Good point on the transitional-vs.-spot-up shooters differences.

I think KP will keep that in mind this summer, especially when it comes to possibly bringing Jones back into the fold. It's not just Oden, either; if LMA continues his acclimation to the post, that will free up outside shooters even more often.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Yeah, if Martell can be a GREAT 3-point shooter, that will put a stop to double and triple teams on Oden. Then the backboards get broken. :banana:


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

We're fine as is for now. Let Outlaw, Webster, and Frye play with Rudy and Oden and see how they fit.


----------



## Miracle Max (Jul 2, 2006)

I don't think we are done dealing, but I think we are getting close. The one x-factor we are missing is a bit of veteran leadership. Don't forget, we are still the youngest team in the league. With Jones testing free agency we will get even younger. I think KP still has at least one more move up his sleeve prior to the start of training camp.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

think how deadly martell would be this year if he became a GREAT 3 point shooter.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> think how deadly martell would be this year if he became a GREAT 3 point shooter.


With two legit post threats....him sitting on the 3 point line will actually be useful now.


----------



## RetroBlazers (Jun 29, 2003)

i think we should trade for marco jaric...just so we can have his fiance adriana lima sitting in the stands at home games.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Yeah, but they seem more transitional shooters, not spot up ones. Don't kid yourselves....I think Martell is pretty essential as an outside threat to keep defenders honest on our post game.


Jones is as good as gone anyway. Martell never struck me as the best spot up shooter either. I think he's better as a pull up guy. He's the kind of shooter you need to run screens for. 



> I'm not too much a fan of Matrix to be honest. And if he decides to go for the bling, he may put us in a premature position of bad cap space.


He's as good as any unrestricted free agent available in 2009. If I read things right, he could have been a free agent this season but chose to put it off until next summer. So we still get the cap space, or we could choose to re-sign him. If we choose to let him go, we'd be in the same situation that Blazersedge said we'd be in. They said that Jack, Martell, and Frye were going to need to be delt with before next summer if we hoped to have cap space. Jack is gone, if you move Frye and Tell for Marion you will solve that issue. 

I still think that Sergio and either Tell or Outlaw need to go. What would you guys think of moving two of those three and then targeting James Posey as a free agent this summer?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

come on, we have Steve Blake's wifey!


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

yeah we should sign posey and deal outlaw, that would be sick!!!!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> I still think that Sergio and either Tell or Outlaw need to go. What would you guys think of moving two of those three and then targeting James Posey as a free agent this summer?


I'd rather have Martell or Outlaw than Posey to be honest. The only SF I'd really like on this team with "vet" experience that could help is Shane Battier. I don't know....name some other guys.....a guy like Tayshaun Prince would be awesome too. 

I don't think there's the absolute need to choose.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Two vets that I would love to add would be Posey and Kurt Thomas. They would give us some nice experience and some toughness. Posey would be first on my list though.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> yeah we should sign posey and deal outlaw, that would be sick!!!!


except in 3 years, when Posey's on crutches and Outlaw is still getting better.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

There's no way Boston is letting go of Posey after what he did for them.. Getting that kind of player though down the line would be GREAT. Maybe Battier in a few years..


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> I'd rather have Martell or Outlaw than Posey to be honest. The only SF I'd really like on this team with "vet" experience that could help is Shane Battier. I don't know....name some other guys.....a guy like Tayshaun Prince would be awesome too.
> 
> I don't think there's the absolute need to choose.


Eric, we can't just have 12-15 super talented young players on our roster dude. At some point that talent needs to be addressed. I mentioned posey because I think he could be had for mid-level type money. Detroit seemed hesitant to move Prince for anything less than one of our best players. 

I really think this team is ready to compete. If we add some vets with experience to the roster it could really help put us over the top. Guys like Posey, Kurt Thomas, etc. I just don't want to see Webster or Frye leave for nothing. I'd like to get some decent value for them.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> except in 3 years, when Posey's on crutches and Outlaw is still getting better.


webster will be getting better and we still would have a pretty good sf like prince if we dealt outlaw


----------



## PDXshelbyGT (May 24, 2007)

ehizzy3 said:


> webster will be getting better and we still would have a pretty good sf like prince if we dealt outlaw


A trade of PRINCE & McDyess

for


Raef's expiring + Webster + Frye


is an "accepted trade" at realgm.com


(I started a thread on this one)


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> Eric, we can't just have 12-15 super talented young players on our roster dude. At some point that talent needs to be addressed. I mentioned posey because I think he could be had for mid-level type money. Detroit seemed hesitant to move Prince for anything less than one of our best players.
> 
> I really think this team is ready to compete. If we add some vets with experience to the roster it could really help put us over the top. Guys like Posey, Kurt Thomas, etc. I just don't want to see Webster or Frye leave for nothing. I'd like to get some decent value for them.


But Martell fills a need over the long term of a good 3-point shooter, that is around the same age as the nucleus of the entire team. Just because Posey and Kurt Thomas happened to be on a team with KG/Ray Allen and Paul Pierce and they made them look spectacular doesn't mean they are super experienced. You put Martell on that team, and same thing happens IMO. 

I would trade them for a defensive minded SF that is young. To me, Posey and Kurt Thomas probably won't be in the league in 5 years and aren't worth it for Martell. The upgrade is slight and the price is too great.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> except in 3 years, when Posey's on crutches and Outlaw is still getting better.


We're either going to commit to Outlaw long term, or Webster. We can't have both. It's just not possible. We're either moving one or the other. Tell isn't going to play shooting guard because we have Rudy and Roy. So what do you do? I say move Tell and Sergio, sign Posey, put Batum on the IR. Your SF lineup looks like Posey/Outlaw/Batum. When Posey is on his way out you're either starting Outlaw or Batum. Sounds like a solid plan to me.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> webster will be getting better and we still would have a pretty good sf like prince if we dealt outlaw


I thought it would just be for Travis Outlaw? For me, its not worth the short gains when we haven't even made the playoffs yet.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> We're either going to commit to Outlaw long term, or Webster. We can't have both. It's just not possible. We're either moving one or the other. Tell isn't going to play shooting guard because we have Rudy and Roy. So what do you do? I say move Tell and Sergio, sign Posey, put Batum on the IR. Your SF lineup looks like Posey/Outlaw/Batum. When Posey is on his way out you're either starting Outlaw or Batum. Sounds like a solid plan to me.


To me, Outlaw and Batum seem redundant in a way, so I would choose to move Outlaw. If we had James Jones, then Martell would probably be more expendable. Just a matter of flexibility. 

And who's our 3-point threat?

Defense and 3-point shooting was the difference in this year's NBA finals. Martell is improving on both counts. Outlaw is decent at both....but he can get streaky. Martell plays more in the system IMO, especially with talent around him, whereas Outlaw may force the issue.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> But Martell fills a need over the long term of a good 3-point shooter, that is around the same age as the nucleus of the entire team. Just because Posey and Kurt Thomas happened to be on a team with KG/Ray Allen and Paul Pierce and they made them look spectacular doesn't mean they are super experienced. You put Martell on that team, and same thing happens IMO.
> 
> I would trade them for a defensive minded SF that is young. To me, Posey and Kurt Thomas probably won't be in the league in 5 years and aren't worth it for Martell. The upgrade is slight and the price is too great.


You're not understanding what I'm sayin Eric. I didn't say trade Tell FOR Posey, I said we need to trade Tell and SIGN Posey. Thomas wasn't on the Celtics, he was San Antonio I think. Here's the problem though, Tell is a free agent next summer. Has he played well enough to warrant a decent extension? I think that either Outlaw or Tell will need to be gone after this season, why not expedite the problem? If we can move Tell, Sergio, and maybe Frye for something decent, then I say do it and sign someone like Posey and/or Kurt Thomas to fill in some holes for the time being. You're only out maybe the mid-level exception.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

NateBishop3 said:


> We're either going to commit to Outlaw long term, or Webster. We can't have both. It's just not possible. We're either moving one or the other. Tell isn't going to play shooting guard because we have Rudy and Roy. So what do you do? I say move Tell and Sergio, sign Posey, put Batum on the IR. Your SF lineup looks like Posey/Outlaw/Batum. When Posey is on his way out you're either starting Outlaw or Batum. Sounds like a solid plan to me.


i say move outlaw sergio try and get prince


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

deal frye and sign kurt thomas could be a smart move


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> You're not understanding what I'm sayin Eric. I didn't say trade Tell FOR Posey, I said we need to trade Tell and SIGN Posey. Thomas wasn't on the Celtics, he was San Antonio I think. Here's the problem though, Tell is a free agent next summer. Has he played well enough to warrant a decent extension? I think that either Outlaw or Tell will need to be gone after this season, why not expedite the problem? If we can move Tell, Sergio, and maybe Frye for something decent, then I say do it and sign someone like Posey and/or Kurt Thomas to fill in some holes for the time being. You're only out maybe the mid-level exception.


Who would we trade Martell for that's decent? Not even a player...position and need wise? If we're signing Posey....why bother trading Martell?...for what, an expiring contract? What a waste. 

If its a choice between Martell and Outlaw, I trade Outlaw. I like the guy and think he's versatile, but I think Martell is a better choice due to his 3-point shooting. I liked his strides in defense last year one-on-one.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> To me, Outlaw and Batum seem redundant in a way, so I would choose to move Outlaw. If we had James Jones, then Martell would probably be more expendable. Just a matter of flexibility.
> 
> And who's our 3-point threat?
> 
> Defense and 3-point shooting was the difference in this year's NBA finals. Martell is improving on both counts. Outlaw is decent at both....but he can get streaky. Martell plays more in the system IMO, especially with talent around him, whereas Outlaw may force the issue.


Ok, then trade Outlaw, Sergio, and Frye. The reason why I said Tell is because Outlaw is already signed to a nice affordable contract. Tell will be a free agent and it's hard to say what kind of money he will go after.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

how hard would it be to get gerald wallace or luol deng?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> Ok, then trade Outlaw, Sergio, and Frye. The reason why I said Tell is because Outlaw is already signed to a nice affordable contract. Tell will be a free agent and it's hard to say what kind of money he will go after.


Yeah, Outlaw is cheap. 

HOWEER, don't we have some cap flexibility to keep both? I never read the BlazersEdge article...but without Miles' contract, Raef's contract going out and the fact we hold the Bird rights or whatever on our players, aren't we pretty good to keep them all? I don't think Martell will command huge dollars...maybe he will..but what team will pay him that dollar with all the talent at that position in the league?

I mean, really, what team is going to say.."we need to offer Martell Webster 8 million dollars a year".


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Outlaw fits the contractually into the supposed goal of having cap space next Summer.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Outlaw fits the contractually into the supposed goal of having cap space next Summer.


to do what? We got our point guard and other positions are pretty loaded. KP seemed happy and content with the roster as is now. Time to compete. 

they'll tweak I think...but overall....damn we good!


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> how hard would it be to get gerald wallace or luol deng?


How badly do we need an all-star at every position?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Well even though we have Paul Allen as Owner, we still have to start paying guys.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Well even though we have Paul Allen as Owner, we still have to start paying guys.


Sure, is Martell Webster going to demand alot more than these mystery FA veterans we're going to get? I see all these excuses to get rid of Martell. First he sucks. Then he plays better. Now its against some cap problem. then we clear cap space with Miles'. Then its another problem. 

I think we can afford to stay the course now.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

LameR said:


> How badly do we need an all-star at every position?


yeah thats true..were gonna have to choose webster or outlaw, and if we choose webster we can trade for someone pretty good with outlaw


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> yeah thats true..were gonna have to choose webster or outlaw, and if we choose webster we can trade for someone pretty good with outlaw


at what position?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I still think we need a banger/physical backup PF..which is why I was disappointed we traded Darrell Arthur & Dorsey away. I personally think we are still a tad soft at the 4.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> at what position?


well small forward is probably going to be the weakest pos depth wise..


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> well small forward is probably going to be the weakest pos depth wise..


Well, if we keep webster, we're fine in that department, no? I think Webster will get better and fills some needs we need on this team. I would rather spend money to keep him than go out and test Free Agent waters unless there is something spectacular out there. 

Outlaw and Batum seem redundant to me for some reason....they seem a bit similar from Batum's highlights.....


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Well, if we keep webster, we're fine in that department, no? I think Webster will get better and fills some needs we need on this team. I would rather spend money to keep him than go out and test Free Agent waters unless there is something spectacular out there.
> 
> Outlaw and Batum seem redundant to me for some reason....they seem a bit similar from Batum's highlights.....


you think webster and batum will be fine? we could trade outlaw and frye for a banger? but thats to much value for a banger..and who would you get? i still think we should sign posey he will bring toughness and vet experience to the team


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Read the article from Blazersedge Eric. Seriously, read it. It's really informative, and I learned things I never knew before.

Frye, Webster, and Jack would have all been restricted free agents in 2009. The kicker is this, until we had either signed them or cute them loose, they put a cap hold on us for like twice as much money as they're making right now. So like, Webster would put a cap hold on us for 8 million. You get where I'm going now? Read the article.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> you think webster and batum will be fine? we could trade outlaw and frye for a banger? but thats to much value for a banger..and who would you get? i still think we should sign posey he will bring toughness and vet experience to the team


I think he would:

1. Go for the most money for the rest of his career
2. Go to the team with the greatest chance of winning it all


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Sure, is Martell Webster going to demand alot more than these mystery FA veterans we're going to get? I see all these excuses to get rid of Martell. First he sucks. Then he plays better. Now its against some cap problem. then we clear cap space with Miles'. Then its another problem.
> 
> I think we can afford to stay the course now.


We probably can afford to stay the course... but if KP isn't trying to continually improve the team, then he isn't doing his job. Part of it is being at least somewaht fiscally responsible. It's not a matter of Martel demanding more it's a matter of sheling out for Oden, LMa and Roy. Cap room can be used for more than signing FA's too.

And it;'s not some kind of conspiracy plat to get Martel on the fast train out of town. It's a fact that the team has been talking about cap flexibility next summer. and It's a fact that Travis gives more flexibility next summer than Martel. Travis Team option for around $5mil. Martel RFA witha cap hold of about 8mil. Simple math, just following the facts.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> I think he would:
> 
> 1. Go for the most money for the rest of his career
> 2. Go to the team with the greatest chance of winning it all


i don't get this reply


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> Read the article from Blazersedge Eric. Seriously, read it. It's really informative, and I learned things I never knew before.
> 
> Frye, Webster, and Jack would have all been restricted free agents in 2009. The kicker is this, until we had either signed them or cute them loose, they put a cap hold on us for like twice as much money as they're making right now. So like, Webster would put a cap hold on us for 8 million. You get where I'm going now? Read the article.


I would if I could find the thread. Hard to navigate!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> i don't get this reply


Posey boosted his stock. He wants to be set for life, so he's going to demand the most money. Teams like the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs will offer bigger dollars to get his services.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Posey boosted his stock. He wants to be set for life, so he's going to demand the most money. Teams like the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs will offer bigger dollars to get his services.


maybe, i think i would pay pretty big for posey


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Cap hold for a 1st rounder is 300% of their prior contract season IIRC.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Schilly said:


> We probably can afford to stay the course... but if KP isn't trying to continually improve the team, then he isn't doing his job. Part of it is being at least somewaht fiscally responsible. It's not a matter of Martel demanding more it's a matter of sheling out for Oden, LMa and Roy. Cap room can be used for more than signing FA's too.
> 
> And it;'s not some kind of conspiracy plat to get Martel on the fast train out of town. It's a fact that the team has been talking about cap flexibility next summer. and It's a fact that Travis gives more flexibility next summer than Martel. Travis Team option for around $5mil. Martel RFA witha cap hold of about 8mil. Simple math, just following the facts.


Yeah, today's press conference he said he was happy with Players 1-10. What if they come to terms with Martell before then? With James Jones opting out, doesn't it make it more feasible? Also, with Jack being traded, that takes his cap hold off right? where's the damn article.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Xericx said:


> If we get rid of Martell, and don't re-sign Jones, we lose our dead on 3-point shooters...which reallly saved our *** last year on many times. With Oden in the post, we are gonna need those guys that can hit the outside shot.
> 
> I'm not too much a fan of Matrix to be honest. And if he decides to go for the bling, he may put us in a premature position of bad cap space.



I think Rudy, Bayless, and hopefully the improvement of Webster will more than make up the outside shooting we lost in Jones.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ehizzy3 said:


> maybe, i think i would pay pretty big for posey


for 5 years?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Balian said:


> I think Rudy, Bayless, and hopefully the improvement of Webster will more than make up the outside shooting we lost in Jones.


If we keep Webster, I am confidnet with our 3pt shooting.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> for 5 years?


no, 3 years..by then i hope batum would be ready for minutes


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Posey boosted his stock. He wants to be set for life, so he's going to demand the most money. Teams like the Lakers, Spurs, Mavs will offer bigger dollars to get his services.


Those teams couldn't offer anything more than we could. The mid-level exception is about the highest dollar value.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> Those teams couldn't offer anything more than we could. The mid-level exception is about the highest dollar value.


Then why would he go to Portland over teams that can win now or even the team he just won a ring with?


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Then why would he go to Portland over teams that can win now or even the team he just won a ring with?


Two words.

Greg.

Oden.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Then why would he go to Portland over teams that can win now or even the team he just won a ring with?


he might not..but we still need to go after him IMO..


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

He probably wouldn't. HE gravy trained from one title team to another already.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> Two words.
> 
> Greg.
> 
> Oden.


Hmmm....I just don't see him as a huge upgrade over Jones/Webster, especially considering his age. He's been very fotunate being a role player on some very good/loaded teams though. I think Jones on the Celts would have probably fared as well or better.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I don't get all this talk of trades. Not only are we loaded with talent at every position, but that talent is well balanced. The only real problem we have is that we have too many players who will want minutes, but they can suck it up. 

At this point, I would be fine with trading or even cutting Sergio and Raef, let Raef's contract expire next offseason, and let the kids play. We bring over Kop as our third string PG, and we are very well stacked for this year and for the future.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

GOD said:


> I don't get all this talk of trades. Not only are we loaded with talent at every position, but that talent is well balanced. The only real problem we have is that we have too many players who will want minutes, but they can suck it up.
> 
> At this point, I would be fine with trading or even cutting Sergio and Raef, let Raef's contract expire next offseason, and let the kids play. We bring over Kop as our third string PG, and we are very well stacked for this year and for the future.


I agree, but apparently there is a real need to financially????

boo to that. Just win!

over-tinkering our roster was the downfall of the late 90s/early 2000s blazers. The "need" to get established vets like Damon Stoudamire, Dale Davis, and all that mess.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

No need for any trades until at least next year's trade deadline....and one thing Dave @ Blazers Edge forgot was that in all likelyhood, and deal for a RFA\UFA player would be very likley as a sign & trade....so "capholds" may not be as big of a deal...either way though one of Webster\Outlaw will likely go in the future...


BTW, start looking at prospective FA SF.....


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

maybe we could try and get pietrus?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I'd prefer someone like Raja Bell. That would be sweet.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd like 1 consolidation trade to get a more savvy SF as a starting player. Trade Travis or Martell and Sergio see what you can get. I'm not a big fan of 10+ deep teams.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> I agree, but apparently there is a real need to financially????
> 
> boo to that. Just win!
> 
> over-tinkering our roster was the downfall of the late 90s/early 2000s blazers. The "need" to get established vets like Damon Stoudamire, Dale Davis, and all that mess.


Screw the cap space in 09 plan. We have all the talent we need. We still have 4 picks next year and 3 the following, tons of tradable assets we can use next year if we want to get a vet, and the MLE. 

I was excited about cap room a while back, but with the PG spot now taken care of (I hope) I just don't think that trading away our talent will pay off next summer. 

Just look at what we have.

PG: Bayless (should be an excellent starter soon)/ Blake (excellent backup who does not make mistakes

SG: Roy (All-Star) / Rudy (Great shooter, slasher, assist man and athlete)

SF: Outlaw (Grade A athlete who can shoot and is clutch) / Webster (A pure shooter who can score in bunches)

PF: Aldridge (Future All-Star), Frye (a finesse shooting big) /Ike (an excellent 3rd stringer)

C: Oden (GOD) / Przybilla (Best defensive backup in the league)



Holy Cow!! add Kop as a third string PG and we are friggen set!!!!!!!


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

GOD said:


> Screw the cap space in 09 plan. We have all the talent we need. We still have 4 picks next year and 3 the following, tons of tradable assets we can use next year if we want to get a vet, and the MLE.
> 
> I was excited about cap room a while back, but with the PG spot now taken care of (I hope) I just don't think that trading away our talent will pay off next summer.
> 
> ...


yeah, this is true...i just hope we can develop batum because webster and outlaw are inconsistant and falling back on batum would be nice. or a free agent signing...we need to make sure we can lock up all of our franchise players


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

ehizzy3 said:


> yeah, this is true...i just hope we can develop batum because webster and outlaw are inconsistant and falling back on batum would be nice. or a free agent signing...we need to make sure we can lock up all of our franchise players


Well, to tell you the truth, I am super excited about Bayless, but not so much about Batum. Part of that is that I just don't know enough about him, but part is his poor shooting and I don;t like to pronounce his name.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

GOD said:


> Well, to tell you the truth, I am super excited about Bayless, but not so much about Batum. Part of that is that I just don't know enough about him, but part is his poor shooting and I don;t like to pronounce his name.


i am super excited about both. poor shooting? i thought he had a pretty good shot?? anyway im so excited bayless is the perfect fit IMO


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Schilly said:


> I'd like 1 consolidation trade to get a more savvy SF as a starting player. Trade Travis or Martell and Sergio see what you can get. I'm not a big fan of 10+ deep teams.


I don't think we're "10 deep". 

We have a big 3 in Roy, LMA and Oden. Then we have the complimentary starting PG, a solid veteran PG, a versatile euro guard, a spot up 3 point shooter, a combo 3/4 that can block shots and attack the basket, a young and hardworking PF that can shoot the outside shot and a tough defensive-minded backup C. 

The team hasn't changed, its still our big 3 with a host of complimentary players. The only thing we don't have is age and experience, but that will come as the team develops.


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

NateBishop3 said:


> I would like to see a trade involving Sergio and either Webster or Outlaw.
> 
> Right now, assuming the trades go through, our roster looks like this:
> 
> ...



I sincerely hope all the trading is over and done with until next season's trade deadline. And GOD forbid any trade thoughts about bringing in Mariion! He would simply and single-handedly destroy everything KP has been setting up. Not to nit-pick, the Blazer roster now looks like this:

PG	Blake/Sergio/Bayless
SG	Roy/Fernandez
SF	Webster/Outlaw/Batum
PF	Aldridge/Frye/Diogu
C	Oden/Pryzbilla/LaFrents

You forgot to include Raef, so the Blazers have only one open slot.

Also, there is no such thing as the IR anymore. The IR hasn't existed for over a year now.

To address your questions, Frye is going to be the primary back-up to Aldridge; they have much the same type of game. Diogu brings another dimension to the PF position because he is a low-post banger and is suppose to be a glutton for rebounds. I think he could work well along side Joel. Batum is probably not yet ready, but also brings another dimension to the SF position because he is suppose to work well without the ball, be a good passer and is a strong slashing SF. Sergio is probably worth keeping around for awhile because injuries do occur. The Blazers still have one free roster slot to sign Koponen, if he shows improvement and future potential in the summer league, and he could spend a large part of the season in the NBDL. For the near future, at least until next season's trade deadline, you don't want to give up either Webster or Outlaw. Outlaw's athletecism, "clutchness" and 6th man talent should mean he is a keeper for another couple of seasons. And Webster needs to be re-evaluated on his off-season improvement. His spot-up 3-point shooting is still an asset and probably more important to the team now that Jones has opted out.

The Blazers don't need any other vets because they are making their own. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being young ... if you are good. And the Blazers, with the addition of Oden, Fernandez, and Bayless are going to be FREAKING GREAT!

JAFO


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

wastro said:


> Don't forget Rudy! And, apparently, Bayless is a pretty good shooter from deep. Blake isn't bad from deep, Roy's working on it this summer, Outlaw can hit the 3 in a pinch, and even Frye's knocked down a few 3's in his time.
> 
> The loss of Jones will be felt on the court - not necessarily as a shooter. He was great about telling guys where to go on the floor and spacing the court. Little things like that will be missed with a younger roster.


Don't forget Oden ala Sabas. He, too, has been working on his 3-point shot.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Blake | Bayless
Roy | Rudy
Webster | Outlaw
Aldridge | Frye
Oden | Pryzbilla

Sergio, LaFrentz, Diogu, Kaponen, Batum round out the 15 man roster. Everything works perfectly! I LOVE OUR TEAM!


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i thinkwe stand pat and let others offer...i like team alot...maybe we trade raef and anothe r piece at trade dealine but i think we are fine


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Even if Raef doesn't get traded this summer or by next february and is allowed to walk, it still gives Portland tremendous flexibility in being able to do trades, and sign and trades that don't require a dollar for dollar match. Honestly I can't even think of who we should or could add next year or over the summer that would be some kind of "over the top" piece, at the very least I guess we get to find out if Travis really can play the 3 full time, if Martell has a long term future with the team, and if Bayless is going to develop quickly enough to give a meaningful contribution in the next two years.

It blows my mind (both good and bad) that we are _essentially_ adding 3 top 10 rookies to the team next year.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I don't think we are trading Raef. Paul Allen and KP both made it clear they want cap space for next year. Maybe not neccesarily for a free agent, but maybe to take on more salary on a trade, or to re-sign our players.

Raef is a good locker room guy and won't complain. He is a solid vet, imo. But we will always have the option to trade his contract if the right trade comes up.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> I'd rather have Martell or Outlaw than Posey to be honest. The only SF I'd really like on this team with "vet" experience that could help is Shane Battier. I don't know....name some other guys.....a guy like Tayshaun Prince would be awesome too.


Josh Childress. An all-around "glue guy" like Battier. Doesn't shoot from the perimeter as well, but a better ball-handler and passer. And a tough defender, rebounder and efficient scorer like Battier.

Childress is younger than Battier, but has been in the league long enough to count as a "veteran" IMO.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Josh Childress. An all-around "glue guy" like Battier. Doesn't shoot from the perimeter as well, but a better ball-handler and passer. And a tough defender, rebounder and efficient scorer like Battier.
> 
> Childress is younger than Battier, but has been in the league long enough to count as a "veteran" IMO.


Childress would probably start from day one, too, because I think that his game fits in better with the other starters... and in the long run if Bayless is an offensive force at the 1, Josh would be even wiser as the starter at the 3.

Another reason that it makes sense is that Atlanta is in pretty good shape at the small forward spot with Marvin Williams and Josh Smith.

Speaking of Josh Smith... does anyone think he might be a target of the Blazers at some point? HE would be an interesting small forward for this team.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Childress would probably start from day one, too, because I think that his game fits in better with the other starters... and in the long run if Bayless is an offensive force at the 1, Josh would be even wiser as the starter at the 3.
> 
> Another reason that it makes sense is that Atlanta is in pretty good shape at the small forward spot with Marvin Williams and Josh Smith.
> 
> ...


I like Josh Childress A LOT on this team, but what to do with the glut of Frye, Outlaw, Webster? I don't think you can really upgrade at the 1 with Bayless and Blake there, can't upgrade at the 2, 4, or 5. Only spot you can really upgrade at is the 3, which would then be pointless to acquire Childress unless we traded both Outlaw and Webster for 1 starting small forward, then traded Sergio and others for Childress. It's hard to see anything happening there, but I think he's a terrific player and would be a terrific fit. He does everything better than Webster and Outlaw except shoot. 

Josh Smith would be a very interesting guy to have at the small forward spot, he can't shoot worth a lick though and most Hawks fans consider him to be exclusively a power forward these days. He's like a super upgraded version of AK-47.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Only spot you can really upgrade at is the 3, which would then be pointless to acquire Childress unless we traded both Outlaw and Webster for 1 starting small forward, then traded Sergio and others for Childress.


The idea is to trade for Childress as the long-term starter. Not as a backup to some other trade acquisition. 

He's not a star, but his overall skills and per-minute productivity suggest that he'd be a championship-level support player. With Roy, Aldridge and Oden as likely future stars and Bayless as a possible good player or even star, the team hardly needs to try and acquire a star small forward. Players like Iguodala, Deng and Josh Smith, while I'd love to have any of them, seem less likely to be acquireable.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> The idea is to trade for Childress as the long-term starter. Not as a backup to some other trade acquisition.
> 
> He's not a star, but his overall skills and per-minute productivity suggest that he'd be a championship-level support player. With Roy, Aldridge and Oden as likely future stars and Bayless as a possible good player or even star, the team hardly needs to try and acquire a star small forward. Players like Iguodala, Deng and Josh Smith, while I'd love to have any of them, seem less likely to be acquireable.


Totally understand, but Outlaw alone probably has more value than Childress. Would we trade Travis for Josh? I really doubt it. Not to mention we'd have to do a 3 way to have ATL give us Josh since they already have a glut of SFs. I just don't see the Blazers giving up Webster or Outlaw to get Josh. Both are better shooters which we are going to miss with James Jones likely not coming back, especially if Batum ends up staying.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Totally understand, but Outlaw alone probably has more value than Childress.


I disagree with that a lot. I think Outlaw is overrated by Blazers fans due to his exciting game and the fact that we've been waiting so long for him to do anything. I think he's a useful player with still-untapped potential, but Childress is much better than him now and not much older (Childress is 24, Outlaw is 23). And, by contrast, I think Childress is underrated because his game isn't flashy. His production is slightly better than Outlaw's, his consistency is far, far better and his defense is far, far better. As an overall package, even considering age, I think Childress is the superior player.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I think Outlaw has more value around the league than Childress.

That doesn't mean he is better though. I probably don't know enough about Childress to make an educated guess, so i won't.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I disagree with that a lot. I think Outlaw is overrated by Blazers fans due to his exciting game and the fact that we've been waiting so long for him to do anything. I think he's a useful player with still-untapped potential, but Childress is much better than him now and not much older (Childress is 24, Outlaw is 23). And, by contrast, I think Childress is underrated because his game isn't flashy. His production is slightly better than Outlaw's, his consistency is far, far better and his defense is far, far better. As an overall package, even considering age, I think Childress is the superior player.


I don't disagree that Childress is a better player than Outlaw, but I can bet that Outlaw's value is significantly higher. I don't think we make any deals for a while, we are a little deeper than normal but we won't change a thing if Pritchard and Allen are adamant that they want cap space in 09.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd be stoked if we could add Childress. I've liked him for awhile now.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

The talent disparity between Childress and Outlaw isn't significant enough to make a move for Childress. I don't think there's much of a difference, especially not enough to make a trade where we'd be trading away Outlaw who is the longest tenured Blazer and has great chemistry with the current team. It seems to me like that would just be making a trade for the sake of making one.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> The talent disparity between Childress and Outlaw isn't significant enough to make a move for Childress. I don't think there's much of a difference, especially not enough to make a trade where we'd be trading away Outlaw who is the longest tenured Blazer and has great chemistry with the current team. It seems to me like that would just be making a trade for the sake of making one.


Well, the reason to make it is because Childress fits better with the starting lineup, in my opinion. Outlaw is a more dynamic, though highly inconsistent, scorer. I think that talent is less valuable in an offense with Roy, Oden and Aldridge (without even considering, yet, what Bayless with provide in scoring punch).

Childress is not a dynamic scorer, but he's an efficient one in limited chances, and has a great all-around game...much better passer and ball-handler than Outlaw, similar rebounder and a far better defender. While Outlaw is a good spark off the bench, Childress is the ideal compliment to the stars of the team.

In terms of "intangibles," Childress is quite obviously a smarter player, too. While it's impossible to say what that's worth, I'd be much more confident that Childress would make the right decision with the ball in a crucial, late-game posession than Outlaw.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Well, the reason to make it is because Childress fits better with the starting lineup, in my opinion. Outlaw is a more dynamic, though highly inconsistent, scorer. I think that talent is less valuable in an offense with Roy, Oden and Aldridge (without even considering, yet, what Bayless with provide in scoring punch).
> 
> Childress is not a dynamic scorer, but he's an efficient one in limited chances, and has a great all-around game...much better passer and ball-handler than Outlaw, similar rebounder and a far better defender. While Outlaw is a good spark off the bench, Childress is the ideal compliment to the stars of the team.
> 
> In terms of "intangibles," Childress is quite obviously a smarter player, too. While it's impossible to say what that's worth, I'd be much more confident that Childress would make the right decision with the ball in a crucial, late-game posession than Outlaw.


I agree with pretty much everything that you say here. The catch is, you also illustrate why I would rather move Webster. Childress would be an upgrade as a starter - but I question whether Webster could be an effective replacement for Outlaw off the bench. 

Once Rudy adapts to the NBA, he may be the dynamic bench scorer we need and render the whole discussion moot. The question is how long that may take.


----------

