# Roy for Durant?



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Would you do it?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I'd take Durant. But it doesnt matter. No one would accept that trade. No one.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I think it's a no brainer you trade for Durant just wondering what others thought.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I suspect I'll be in the minority but no, I don't think I would. Roy's become the face of the franchise and not just any face but probably the best face since Clyde's. Even with Oden and/or Durant in position to step into that role... no, I just wouldn't do it. While Durant may well become the better player, I want to make sure Oden has at least one really good guard with him and as much as Durant's a special player and as much as other players will come along, I'd rather stick with Roy.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

While I love Roy obviously we take that deal and run before Seattle comes back to their senses.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

No way my man! BRoy is the whole package on and off the court.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

I would make that trade in a second. I love Roy and will be happy to have him as a Blazers for years to come but you have to make that trade. One is a star the other a superstar. You only have a handful of SS's in the leauge. It would be like the showtime Lakers with Durant-LMA-Oden. It would never happen but a nice mental picture. 

I am just glad to type Roy-LMA-Oden...

I'll be back, have to go check out the draft lotto again :yay: :yay:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> No way my man! BRoy is the whole package on and off the court.


Thanks HCP -- I'm feeling kinda alone on the island. I mean, he _was_ the R.O.Y. last year. I'd feel pretty sick if that's what Pritchard did, even if it did make the team better on the court.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Mine is by no means the voice of reason, but in one year, Roy has won me over. He is what epitomizes the new Portland Trail Blazers. He will be the face of the franchise for years to come, and I don't want to lose him... for anything.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I'd feel bad, but I'd do it.


----------



## Superblaze (Aug 6, 2006)

I have a autographed Roy jersey so I say keep Roy, although if a deal was actually proposed it would be an insanely tough decision.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Roy is for real.

Frankly, and maybe I just saw his 3 worst games, but Durant doesn't scream superstar to me at all.

He's got a ton of learning to do still.

I probably wouldn't trade Travis for him, let alone Brandon.

That said, I still think our line-up this year will be Sergio, Brandon, Durant, LaMarcus, and Oden.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I'm shocked that Roy is actually leading this. I know most fans overrated their own players, and I think Roy is an awesome player, but Durant has superstar written all over him.

Oden > Durant > Roy...imo


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> I probably wouldn't trade Travis for him


:eek8:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> Oden > Durant > Roy...imo


You are absolutely correct in your opinion.

It's currently tied 11-11. Blazers fans have quite a few homers. Kudos to those brave enough to admit it, at least. 

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I probably wouldn't trade Travis for him, let alone Brandon.


I'm not trying to offend you, but you know how absolutely ridiculous that sounds, right? It is a very ignorant and/or insane opinion.



> That said, I still think our line-up this year will be Sergio, Brandon, Durant, LaMarcus, and Oden.


Huh.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Man, I like Roy too but maybe we're forgetting what good players look like and overrating the one's we have.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> Roy is for real.
> 
> Frankly, and maybe I just saw his 3 worst games, but Durant doesn't scream superstar to me at all.
> 
> ...


I'm taking your post as some extremely subtle humor...


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Wow... tough call.
I voted Brandon just for the sake that he has 'it' on and off the court. Near unanimous ROY.
But thinking about a Durant/LaMarcus/Oden front court is just plain scary. It'll never happen, though, but good debate.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Okay, I suppose I'm a homer, though I'm clear that Durant is likely to be a better player than Roy.

So why did I vote for Roy? It's crazy maybe, but I'm not just rooting for the uniform. I _like_ Roy as a player and, as much as I can tell from never having interacted with him one-on-one, I like him as a person. I want to see the Blazers win a title _with_ Roy. The team dumb-lucked into Oden... or, perhaps as some have said, maybe it's "basketball Karma." I'm not sold on that piece but, to the extent that I think about it, it seems like hugely bad Karma to trade away the guy who was there before the world to receive that first pick.

It's a bit like the rooting for ping pong balls argument, only this time I'm on the other side of it. I realize Durant will almost certainly be the "better player" than Roy when comparing them statistically in a year or two. I don't care. Roy's my guy. It just wouldn't be right to move him for Durant.

LaMarcus? That's a tougher call for me. That said, I still don't think I could pull the trigger on that one, either. If Rodriguez, Roy, Aldridge, and Oden, combined with various other free agents and/or guys brought in via trade and/or the other guys currently on the team can't win a title with KP, PA, and NM at the helm, then so be it and I'll tip my cap to the other guys.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

you can't call this group of blazer fans homers, that's for sure.

i feel bad saying this: if we can get durant for roy, roy who? actually, i didn't. it's a silly question. you take durant and run.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Trading Roy is some serious bad karma...he has "it" on and off the court. It would be a big mistake to trade him. Who would you rather have...T-Mac(KD) or Grant Hill in his prime(BR)?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I picked Roy.

Roy is a team player that makes his teammates better. Durant might turn into a headcase. He might not, but we just don't know.

I would trade Travis for Durant! 

Another thought, if KP is crazy enough to pick Durant, would you trade Roy for Oden? I hate to say it but I would make that trade.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Maybe I'm being a bit of a homer, but this is a tough choice.

No question, Durant is a huge upgrade at the SF spot. Indeed, he has an excellent chance at an all-star caliber career.

So why hesitate? Because we have no one even remotely capable of replacing Roy. If we gut one position to upgrade at another, do we really come out ahead?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> Who would you rather have...T-Mac(KD) or Grant Hill in his prime(BR)?


McGrady. 

Ed O.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Durant for sure. I love Roy and all but Durant is going to be a superstar.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Well I respect that people voting for Roy are basically acknowledging he is not the better player but they are just emotionally attached to him. I understand that view, I can see why people would choose it, but I don't agree with it. Trading Roy does kind of feel like trading in a family member, even though you know deep down it'd help out the rest of the family.

I want the Blazers to be the most dominant basketball team possible that wins the most games possible. That is my goal for the team, championships. This is a no brainer basketball decision in that regard. Hell I'd trade Roy AND LMA for Durant, I wouldn't like it but I'd do it. I'd do it because I believe that gives the team the best chance to win championships.

Seeing these results just makes me glad this board doesn't make the actual decisions for the Blazers.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Draco said:


> Well I respect that people voting for Roy are basically acknowledging he is not the better player but they are just emotionally attached to him. I understand that view, I can see why people would choose it, but I don't agree with it. Trading Roy does kind of feel like trading in a family member, even though you know deep down it'd help out the rest of the family.
> 
> I want the Blazers to be the most dominant basketball team possible that wins the most games possible. That is my goal for the team, championships. This is a no brainer basketball decision in that regard. Hell I'd trade Roy AND LMA for Durant, I wouldn't like it but I'd do it. I'd do it because I believe that gives the team the best chance to win championships.
> 
> *Seeing these results just makes me glad this board doesn't make the actual decisions for the Blazers.*


Seeing as Durant is leading I completely agree with you! I'm not just picking Roy because I'm emotionally attach to him, I think he's a proven while Durant isn't. I'd rather have a all around player rather than a high scorer. There's a good chance Durant is the way to go, but it's not as clear cut as some make out.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I voted Roy because we already know he is a good player. Durant appears that he is going to be better, but really we don't know.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

This is like that morality question: "would you push a man off a bridge to his death to stop a train from killing 5 people?" 

Going purely on the qestion, you gotta say "Yes, I'd rather have Durant on my fantasy basketball team than Roy." When you start thinking about the other stuff: what Roy's been to our frnachise after so short a time, how upset it personally would make me, etc... I go with no.

So I'm not going to answer the poll, because to me, the question is unfair: it will never happen in real life, and the only situation where it could happen (fantasy basketball) isn't real either, so there's nothing at stake. My imaginary city doesn't revolt when I trade Roy; I don't have to explain to them why The New Face of the franchise got traded for The Scoring Machine.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Durant... And everyday of the week. 

Good guys don't make you a championship team, superstars do... duh!?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm definitely a homer... I'll keep Roy.

There are just so many intangibles with this guy that I really value. However, I'd probably come around after a while if the trade happened.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

I voted for Roy. 

Will Durant end up being the better player in the long run? I'm fully confident he'll be the better scorer and seems to have a good all-around game but still, I KNOW Roy's got a good all-around game.

Still, knowing that Durant will probably be the better player in the end, there is another factor in play; loyalty.

Roy started re-igniting the love affair between the Blazers and many of their 'lost' fans. He is well-spoken and a great team representative.

There have been times when we've hoped a player would have some loyalty to the Blazers and perhaps take a slightly lesser deal to stay. By the same token, I want the organization to show some loyalty to players. Some have put themselves in an obvious position to be traded and aren't fan favorites and aren't the face of the franchise; Roy doesn't fit into any of those categories. 

In terms of players that people get the most excited about seeing on the court, I reckon that would be Roy, LMA and Sergio. We have other guys who are good and we enjoy watching but those are the three who have brought more excitement to the Blazers than any other player or group of players in quite some time. Not only that, I believe they are all championship caliber players.

Keep 'em. If we can get Durant some other way, great, but not for Roy.

Gramps...


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

you guys keep saying roy is a great guy like durant is not.

if you dont think durant has "it," you probably never watched texas


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I voted for Roy just to see how it feels like to be a Blazers fan.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Pimped Out said:


> you guys keep saying roy is a great guy like durant is not.
> 
> if you dont think durant has "it," you probably never watched texas




I live in Texas, and watched him nearly every game. I think he is going to be a very good player, but I know Roy will be. That is the single only reason I chose Roy over Durant. I thought Darius Miles would be a good player, I thought Jay Williams would be a good player, I thought Marvin Williams would be a very good player. 


I realize Durant is special, but we already know Roy is a good NBA player. All this being said, I wouldn't be mad if we traded Roy for Durant.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> I voted for Roy just to see how it feels like to be a Blazers fan.



Thank you Mr. Swirsky


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I can totally understand the fans from other teams bagging on this thread, if I saw a "Bargnani for Oden?" post on the Toronto board with the fans split evenly, I'd think they were the biggest homers on the planet.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Are you guys serious? Durant over Roy? lol, thats so f'n crazy.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i don't want to ever hear blazer fans bring up Swirsky again.

we ARE Swirsky.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I voted for Roy as he is more proven as MM said. Besides If I remember from last year, I do not believe hardly ever seeing Roy not get through the first line of defense. That will translate into much inside scoring fromthe two big guys. No one stopped Roy last year he just missed some shots or others that he passed to missed. 

I do not know how Durant will be as an NBA player. Besides we need that guard that can get passed the perrimiter defense. True Durant will score well, but he will have to pass very well too. I go with Roy at this time. A "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

gatopops


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm really surprised so many people voted for Durant. I say keep Roy. He's a leader and although he wont put up the #'s that Durant will, Roy is the type of player that helps teams win championships. He does it all.


----------



## Short Bus Ryder (Jun 8, 2007)

I bet that Roy can bench 185. Why would you want to get rid of Roy, his all around game is very nice and going to get better, he can shut down with D and he wants the shot at the end of the game with confidence. 

He's proven himself to be a NBA player. Durant in the NBA production is speculation.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Verro said:


> I can totally understand the fans from other teams bagging on this thread, if I saw a "Bargnani for Oden?" post on the Toronto board with the fans split evenly, I'd think they were the biggest homers on the planet.


If it was Oden we were talking about as I said earlier in this thread I'd trade Roy, but not for Durant.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Short Bus Ryder said:


> He's proven himself to be a NBA player. Durant in the NBA production is speculation.


in that case, i'll take przybilla over oden. przybilla has proven to be an nba player, a starter for a crappy nba team, no less! what's oden ever done in the nba?


----------



## Short Bus Ryder (Jun 8, 2007)

BuckW4GM said:


> in that case, i'll take przybilla over oden. przybilla has proven to be an nba player, a starter for a crappy nba team, no less! what's oden ever done in the nba?


Well there you proved your point, Apples are redder then oranges. Roy is the start of the new Blazer franchise where his leadership and ability have been proven. You think that with Durant in the line-up we would be better off then with Roy in the line-up? I don't so I guess thats my opinion. Plus getting rid of Roy after his rookie of the year campaign and after changing the heart of most of the fans in this city about this team, for someone who might be the next greatest thing, I don't agree with.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Short Bus Ryder said:


> Well there you proved your point, Apples are redder then oranges.


you clearly used roy's "proven" and durant is not as the reason you picked roy. using your reasoning, i could say the same for przybilla and oden. przybilla is clearly a "proven" player, and oden is not. no apples and oranges there, according to your logic.



> Roy is the start of the new Blazer franchise where his leadership and ability have been proven. *You think that with Durant in the line-up we would be better off then with Roy in the line-up?* I don't so I guess thats my opinion. Plus getting rid of Roy after his rookie of the year campaign and after changing the heart of most of the fans in this city about this team, for someone who might be the next greatest thing, I don't agree with.


yes, and that's all i care about. i believe, without a doubt, that durant will be the better player on any team that he'll play on. he's a franchise type of player. roy has a decent chance to be a 2-3 time all-stars. that's as far as i can hope for roy, which is still damn good, just not the durant kind of good.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

We don't know that Durant is going to be a superstar. Right now he's just got a ton of offensive talent, which could translate into Glenn Robinson.

I'd keep Roy, for the sake of balance. I don't like Durant as a SF along with Aldridge and Oden...it would leave us very weak at guard.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> We don't know that Durant is going to be a superstar. Right now he's just got a ton of offensive talent, which could translate into Glenn Robinson.


we don't. just like we don't know if oden is going to be a superstar. what we do know is, about unanimously, all the basketball experts projects both durant and oden to be superstars. of course, oden could turn into a ben wallace. no?

there's always risk involve in trading a proven player for an unproven player. in a case of a low risk, high reward situation, i think you almost always have to make that decision.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Pimped Out said:


> you guys keep saying roy is a great guy like durant is not.
> 
> if you dont think durant has "it," you probably never watched texas


I'm actually surprised there aren't more posts trying for this angle. My response is that Durant very much seems like he's got "it" and, even more, that he's probably a "Pritchard guy" in terms of team culture, etc. I'd love to have him on the team.

That said, Pritchard is trying to develop a culture and family-feel, like the Spurs have, and pulling Roy out would gut that process. The players have to feel that they aren't just viewed as fantasy chess pieces. Remember the mess things were for awhile in San Antonio when there was all that talk of moving Parker for Kidd? The locker room was divided and the team took several weeks to settle down, at least according to media reports at the time. Maybe I'll try digging up team records during that stretch later to see what effects there might've been on the court.

Anyway, as I said before, I'm not willing to just root for the uniform. I want Roy, Aldridge, Rodriguez, and Oden to all be Blazers for a very long time and if "HQ" can't put a team around them that brings home a championship or three, so be it.

Or said another way, sending Roy out in a trade would be ball-park as frustrating as bringing Kobe in via trade. Should a Roy for Kobe trade ever happen.... Fortunately, that seems pretty unlikely.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

BuckW4GM said:


> in that case, i'll take przybilla over oden. przybilla has proven to be an nba player, a starter for a crappy nba team, no less! what's oden ever done in the nba?


Now you're comparing Roy to Przybilla. Roy has a much better all around game than Joel does. I see the point that you're trying to make, but it's just not effective.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Now you're comparing Roy to Przybilla. Roy has a much better all around game than Joel does. I see the point that you're trying to make, but it's just not effective.


Right. That's more like asking if we'd be willing to trade, Webster, Jones, or Outlaw for Durant and _most_ of us, I'm betting, would do that.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm not trying to offend you, but you know how absolutely ridiculous that sounds, right? It is a very ignorant and/or insane opinion.
> 
> Ed O.


No offense taken but whether my opinion is ignorant, insane...is merely YOUR opinion, which could just as easily be ignorant or insane.

To explain my opinion further I'll re-iterate I'v only watched Durant play 3 games. He was nothing special game-wise, and especially team-wise, in any of them. This is all I can base my opinion on since I place absolutely no value at all in media opinions. Had I watched all his games I might very well think differently, but that's not the case.

He can score, I'll give him that, but at times looked lost and unfamiliar with his teammates. His defense was way below NBA standards, which without great improvement will keep him from being anything special in the long run.

I've seen no indication he can make the players around him better. I suspect the opposite.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You are absolutely correct in your opinion.
> 
> It's currently tied 11-11. Blazers fans have quite a few homers. Kudos to those brave enough to admit it, at least.
> 
> Ed O.


Now it's 35-35. How on Earth can 35 people be so wrong?

Roy is a solid player, he may make an all star team or two, especially if we start winning 50-60 games a year. Durant is a hall of fame player.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Now you're comparing Roy to Przybilla. Roy has a much better all around game than Joel does. I see the point that you're trying to make, but it's just not effective.


no. if you read the post i was replying to, my point would be effective just the same. the reason argued for wanting roy over durant is because roy is "proven" and that durant is not. i take it "proven" means roy has shown to be a good player in the league after 1 year. durant is not "proven" since he has not play 1 game in the league to show whether not not he's a good player.

applying this logoc, przybilla has "proven" that he's a good player (at one point). he's a capable starting center on several teams. oden, otoh, has not played a single game in the league, so he's not "proven". if the reason for picking roy over durant is because roy is "proven", then i can use the same logic in picking przybilla (or any "proven" player) over oden.

i'm not comparing roy to przybilla. i could use any other players who has "proven" as much as roy has, and apply it to this logic and the results would still be the same. it is faulty logic.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one....
This poll is worthless.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> We don't know that Durant is going to be a superstar. Right now he's just got a ton of offensive talent, which could translate into Glenn Robinson.


If Oden, Durant, Roy, or any player suffers multiple knee injuries/surgeries in their pro career (like GR did), it stands to reason they won't be as good as they are projected. Without the knee issues, I'm sure Robinson would have been a franchise type player.

I love Roy's game and that he's a Blazer, but trading him for Durant would be a step up. Durant, LaMarcus, and Oden would seem to be a devastating front line that could rate right up there with any ever put together.

STOMP


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Fork said:


> Now it's 35-35. How on Earth can 35 people be so wrong?


you must ask? it is simple: you take the "proven" player over the unproven player. there you go.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Right. That's more like asking if we'd be willing to trade, Webster, Jones, or Outlaw for Durant and _most_ of us, I'm betting, would do that.


what's not what i asked. but that's the equivalent to what the answer was.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Roy's a better clutch player in the NBA.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> No offense taken but whether my opinion is ignorant, insane...is merely YOUR opinion, which could just as easily be ignorant or insane.


No. For at least two reasons:

1. I have seen him play more than three times. My opinion is more informed than yours. It might still be wrong, of course, but you are being honest in how little you've seen him, and your lack of information demonstrates your ignorance. It might still be right, I suppose, but it's based in ignorance.

2. My opinion is not mine alone. I can't imagine there are many people who would not trade Travis Outlaw for Kevin Durant. 

Is it possible that, in your ignorance, you see something in Durant that almost no one else on the planet can see clearly? Yes. 

More likely, though, you're totally wrong and I can't see much to base it on other than your ignorance or (temporary, presumably) insanity.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Now it's 35-35. How on Earth can 35 people be so wrong?
> 
> Roy is a solid player, he may make an all star team or two, especially if we start winning 50-60 games a year. Durant is a hall of fame player.


I am not convinced Durant is quite at THAT level (although I know that many are), but I agree with your general sentiment.

It's too bad this isn't a public poll, because I half suspect that it's non-Blazers fans voting for Roy to make us look silly.

Ed O.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Ed O said:


> It's too bad this isn't a public poll, because I half suspect that it's non-Blazers fans voting for Roy to make us look silly.
> 
> Ed O.


you know, i was thinking of that. i refused to believe we have so many swirsky on this forum.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Blazers fans have quite a few homers. Kudos to those brave enough to admit it, at least.
> 
> Ed O.


I'd be curious to see a good definition of homerism. A few minutes of seaching the web didn't turn much up for me.

I'm wondering about it because while there's clearly the "our players are better than any other players" aspect of it, it seems like there might be room for an alternate definition that's all about the uniform, regardless of who's wearing it -- not that I think it'd be abhorrent to root for Durant in a Blazer uniform. But by the same token, I'm not thinking that most Blazers' players are better than Durant, including Roy. I just want Roy more for reasons of team chemistry, unity, and sense of family. I don't need or want Paul Allen to turn the Blazers into the NW basketball version of the Yankees. Arguably he's already tried that path and moving Roy even for James seems like a step backwards to me, foolish as that may sound to many of you.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> you must ask? it is simple: you take the "proven" player over the unproven player. there you go.


If we had gotten the 2nd pick, would you not have traded Aldridge for Oden? After all, Aldridge is more 'proven' than Oden. 

Roy has proven that he's a very good player, but EVERYONE who does this stuff for a living projects Durant to be a hall of fame player. There is not a single GM in the league, K. Pritchard included, who would take Roy over Durant, even after Roy's rookie season.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> Roy's a better clutch player in the NBA.


That seems like a strange thing to say after zero games played by Durant.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

I picked Durant, just because that's the sane thing to do. Personally, I think Roy would do so much more for us as far as intagibles and leadership. I have this weird feeling Durant will be the next T-mac or Carter. A guy that fills up the stat sheets, but just doesn't have the leadership qualities to make teams a winner.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> It's too bad this isn't a public poll, because I half suspect that it's non-Blazers fans voting for Roy to make us look silly.


Yeah thats what I thought too, but after reading all the replies here I'm not so sure. I understand some people have an emotional attachment to Roy now, but I still think it would be a no-brainer to trade him for Durant myself.

I'm sure there are some people who voted just for that reason though.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> No. For at least two reasons:
> 
> 1. I have seen him play more than three times. My opinion is more informed than yours. It might still be wrong, of course, but you are being honest in how little you've seen him, and your lack of information demonstrates your ignorance. It might still be right, I suppose, but it's based in ignorance.
> 
> ...


Sorry Maris but though we're in agreement on this poll, I'm absolutely with Ed on this one. You've stated before that you don't follow college ball very much and even that you tend toward underestimating rookies. That necessarily creates blind spots, I think.

Mostly I share some of those blind spots. For example, I doubt I watch any more college ball than you do, likely less. Still, I can't help but notice that pretty much every year there are new stars that enter the league and _most_ of the time the media predictions are pretty accurate, especially when it's this unanimous.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Fork said:


> If we had gotten the 2nd pick, would you not have traded Aldridge for Oden? After all, Aldridge is more 'proven' than Oden.
> 
> Roy has proven that he's a very good player, but EVERYONE who does this stuff for a living projects Durant to be a hall of fame player. There is not a single GM in the league, K. Pritchard included, who would take Roy over Durant, even after Roy's rookie season.


sorry, i should have put a smilie in. if you read my earlier replies in this thread, you'd know that i was being sarcastic.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

magnifier said:


> I have this weird feeling Durant will be the next T-mac or Carter.


i'll take a young T-mac over roy in a blink of an eye.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Interesting question, clearly divides the house here doesn't it? 

To me, you keep Roy. He is a proven commodity, and we know he fits where we are headed.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> sorry, i should have put a smilie in. if you read my earlier replies in this thread, you'd know that i was being sarcastic.


Sorry Buck, I don't read.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> i'll take a young T-mac over roy in a blink of an eye.


I disagree. Let's go with some of the best leaders in the NBA and exclude Jordan because he was a phenom. Duncan, Bird, Magic, and even Russell were the explosive scorers like Wilkens, Tmac and Carter. But those guys had the B-Ball IQ of a Wizard on the court. They knew how to make others better. Players like Melo, Carter, Wilkens and T-mac are explosive scorers but aren't team leaders.

I'd take Roy over T-mac, especially on the team we have assembled now.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

magnifier said:


> I disagree. Let's go with some of the best leaders in the NBA and exclude Jordan because he was a phenom. Duncan, Bird, Magic, and even Russell were the explosive scorers like Wilkens, Tmac and Carter. But those guys had the B-Ball IQ of a Wizard on the court. They knew how to make others better. Players like Melo, Carter, Wilkens and T-mac are explosive scorers but aren't team leaders.
> 
> I'd take Roy over T-mac, especially on the team we have assembled now.


when i evaluate a player to be better than another player, i factor in everything that's relevant to helping a team win. whatever that includes. and T-mac is the player i'd pick. easy choice.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> when i evaluate a player to be better than another player, i factor in everything that's relevant to helping a team win. whatever that includes. and T-mac is the player i'd pick. easy choice.


Yes because T-mac, with Yao Ming and Battier are doing so well right now. If T-mac's value was like you said, They would be doing much better. I personally think Roy would help their team better.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

magnifier said:


> Yes because T-mac, with Yao Ming and Battier are doing so well right now.


You say that like they DIDN'T do well. They might be the sixth- or seventh-best team in the whole NBA...

Ed O.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

magnifier said:


> Yes because T-mac, with Yao Ming and Battier are doing so well right now. If T-mac's value was like you said, They would be doing much better. I personally think Roy would help their team better.


i did say i would pick a _young_ T-mac over Roy. and yes, T-mac and his team did considerably much better than roy's team. fair evaluation?


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> i did say i would pick a _young_ T-mac over Roy. and yes, T-mac and his team did considerably much better than roy's team. fair evaluation?


Considering the talent, I'd say no. Houston didn't make it past the first round and they have the league's best center, one of the best scorers and one of the best intagible hardworking role players (Battier).

Just wait until next season. I expect the Blazers to have a better record than Houston.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

magnifier said:


> Just wait until next season. I expect the Blazers to have a better record than Houston.


i hope you're right, but i won't count on it. although i fully believe we'll make the playoffs. i believed that even before we got oden, albeit it was a little wishful thinking.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> i hope you're right, but i won't count on it. although i fully believe we'll make the playoffs. i believed that even before we got oden, albeit it was a little wishful thinking.


I think KP has some tricks up his sleeve and we get some serious talent in return. Without the wishlist I expect KP to make, I see us being the 7th seed. If KP does what I think he's going to do, We will be the 4th best team, but actually the 3rd seed.

We win the division, but SAS will have a better record.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

As a poster who has never raved so much about a Blazer player in Summer league games, who has started several Roy threads, and given him big props, etc...

I would trade Roy for Durant in a NY second. So fast it would create a vortex.

It is a hugely lopsided trade, and I can't imagine why the voting is even. Insane.

Hell, Roy would tell the team they would be stupid to pass up that deal.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Fork said:


> That seems like a strange thing to say after zero games played by Durant.


That's exactly my point.

It seems a whole lot of people here want to make this a black and white issue which it can't possibly be as no one can see into the future or even guarantee how Durant will play in the NBA. You just can't know.

And calling other Blazer fans Swirsky? Both lame and stupid, though I'm not sure which one to label it first. I think Roy has certain intangibles that are hard to replace, and I'm certainly not one of those intangible guys (as I was rooting against Ammo for the very same reason). I say we save all the anger involved for Roy v Durant for about five years from now when we see how Durant compares.

Besides, there's a chance we get Durant anyways.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

I've definitely grown to be a huge Blazer Fan, and even if Zach gets traded, I'll continue to be. I don't know if I'm torn on this poll because I've developed some sort of homerism as well. Despite the fact that Brandon Roy is a perfect fit for the Blazers, you have to trade him for a guy like Durant. It's sort of like how Miami traded half of their team (Caron Butler, Lamar Odom, Brian Grant) for Shaq after they made a very impressive showing in the playoffs. Brandon Roy could very well end up being a top 10 player in the league in the next 5 years, but Kevin Durant could be a top 10 player in NBA history.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I voted for Roy - and it was a pure emotional choice. I was brought up that one must be able to go to sleep at night feeling good about myself. Will Durant be a better player than Roy? Very likely. Will it be a good basketball decision? Very likely. But if I, as a Blazers fan consider myself part of the "family" - Roy is the representation of what the Blazers want to be - smart, unselfish, capable. The act of trading him after he became the face of the franchise and symbolizes everything that the team talks about (culture) will work for the smart and capable parts - but will not work for the unselfish part. Personally, I will not be able to live with this kind of decision.

This could change in time. Maybe Roy will no longer "be" the Blazers, maybe he will want to be traded - but until this happens - I can not see trading Roy.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> And calling other Blazer fans Swirsky? Both lame and stupid, though I'm not sure which one to label it first.


why do you take offense to being called Swirsky? a lot of blazer fans were outraged that swirsky voted bargnani for ROY. he was lebeled a homer by blazer fans and by fans from other teams alike. even raptors fans admitted it was a homeric move by swirsky. if you were to say you would rather have roy than durant, i'd bet everything that most non-blazer fans would call you a homer, too.

swirsky = homer
homer = swirsky

it's not so bad.

roy's true value lies in his potential and future, as he has only proven his worth in only 1 year in the nba so far. his one year was promising, no doubt. but he didn't proved to be any better than a lot of other players. yet, i would still take roy over a lot of the players that had a better season than roy had last year. again, his value lies in his bright future.

durant's true value also lies in his potential and future. unlike roy, durant has not played 1 year in the nba to prove how well his skills will translate over in the nba. also unlike roy, durant's potential is far higher than roy's, according to almost all basketball experts. durant's future is projected to be much bright than roy's. both of their true value lies in the future. i'd take the guy with the brighter future, if that's not obvious enough.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

andalusian said:


> I voted for Roy - and it was a pure emotional choice. I was brought up that one must be able to go to sleep at night feeling good about myself. Will Durant be a better player than Roy? Very likely. Will it be a good basketball decision? Very likely. But if I, as a Blazers fan consider myself part of the "family" - Roy is the representation of what the Blazers want to be - smart, unselfish, capable. The act of trading him after he became the face of the franchise and symbolizes everything that the team talks about (culture) will work for the smart and capable parts - but will not work for the unselfish part. Personally, I will not be able to live with this kind of decision.
> 
> This could change in time. Maybe Roy will no longer "be" the Blazers, maybe he will want to be traded - but until this happens - I can not see trading Roy.


now, don't take this in any way as negative, because i don't think it is, even if i disagrees with its principle. earlier, someone asked the real definition of "homer". i think this is it. when fans wanting the team to make moves base on emotion rather than common sense. i think this is what's happening with most of the votes for roy. i don't think it's wrong or bad in any way, as each fan root in their own way. i just disagree with it, and i hope management does too.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Fork said:


> Now it's 35-35. *How on Earth can 35 people be so wrong?*
> 
> Roy is a solid player, he may make an all star team or two, especially if we start winning 50-60 games a year. Durant is a hall of fame player.


That is so funny!! :lol:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

blue32 said:


> Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one....
> This poll is worthless.


The same could be said of this forum,,so why are you here?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> why do you take offense to being called Swirsky?


1. Swirsky is generally agreed by all to be an idiot.

2. He also was claiming Bargnani was a better player than Roy, which most of us voting for Roy aren't doing.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> As a poster who has never raved so much about a Blazer player in Summer league games, who has started several Roy threads, and given him big props, etc...
> 
> I would trade Roy for Durant in a NY second. So fast it would create a vortex.
> 
> ...


Yes any GM in their right mind wouldn't pass up Roy for Durant, which is why I voted for Durant. BUT... Sometimes the intangibles and leadership Roty brings will glue everything together. Like I've said in the past, you can't have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I think Oden and Durant are HEAD CHIEF material and Roy is like a chief, but works like an Indian.

Roy can live under Oden's shadow. I'm still not sold that Durant could.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> why do you take offense to being called Swirsky? a lot of blazer fans were outraged that swirsky voted bargnani for ROY. he was lebeled a homer by blazer fans and by fans from other teams alike. even raptors fans admitted it was a homeric move by swirsky. if you were to say you would rather have roy than durant, i'd bet everything that most non-blazer fans would call you a homer, too.
> 
> swirsky = homer
> homer = swirsky
> ...


Because Swirsky was called a Swirsky for screwing up a national-level ballot as to the rookie of the year. Swirsky goes beyond being a homer. There's a time for homerism in hypotheticals, in feeling a connection to certain players. And then there's a time for being a dumb ***. That is a Swirsky. The question isn't who is the better player or more appropriately who will be the better player. I think most of the people who voted for Roy would state that Durant probably, though not definitively, will be the better player. The question is would you trade Roy for the chance to pick Durant. And quite honestly given the way everything is going with the team, I just wouldn't. I also don't buy your argument comparing Joel to Roy in the hypothetical trade because you're simply trying to be technical (which is great for lawyers). It's not just that Roy is a proven player, Roy is a proven player with intangible assets such as leadership and his ability to perform in the clutch ALONG WITH potential to become something much more than that.

My only question on Durant becoming great will be how the refs respond to him. If they start giving him Jordan-esque treatment then look out.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BuckW4GM said:


> now, don't take this in any way as negative, because i don't think it is, even if i disagrees with its principle. earlier, someone asked the real definition of "homer". i think this is it. when fans wanting the team to make moves base on emotion rather than common sense. i think this is what's happening with most of the votes for roy. i don't think it's wrong or bad in any way, as each fan root in their own way. i just disagree with it, and i hope management does too.


I too think it would be a no brainer to make this hypothetical trade. But a homer in my book is not someone who makes a decision based on emotion. To me a homer is someone who says that Roy is better than Durant or, to use another example since it is hard to say how good a pro Durant is, Roy is better than Lebron . . . all those trade ideas where fans want to trade junk for all stars I think displays "homer" thinking.

To say that they wouldn't make the trade based on emotion just means they really like the player and rooting for that player and would be sad to see them go. Just like those wanting to trade Sheed because although he might help the team they hate his guts.

I know Ime has limited value and not being a homer about what he is worth, but given his life story, I'm really hoping he finds a place on this team . . . even if it means a young prospect doesn't have a roster spot.

Anyways those are my thoughts.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

BuckW4GM said:


> now, don't take this in any way as negative, because i don't think it is, even if i disagrees with its principle. earlier, someone asked the real definition of "homer". i think this is it. when fans wanting the team to make moves base on emotion rather than common sense. i think this is what's happening with most of the votes for roy. i don't think it's wrong or bad in any way, as each fan root in their own way. i just disagree with it, and i hope management does too.


I think that someone that is a homer will say that Roy will be better than Durant no matter what. I think Roy matters more to this franchise than Durant despite the fact that Durant will very likely be a better player - at least from what we know so far.

Roy matters more to Portland at this point because of the strange thing that happened to this team - a real connection between a team and a "captive" local market ruined by the jail blazers era and the fact that Roy is the symbol of the return of the love affair. I think Aldridge will be a better player than Roy when all is said and done - and if I had to vote about Aldridge for Durant - I would have voted for Durant despite the fact that I love Aldridge as a player.

So - while this was an emotional vote - it does have some rational behind it - even if it is not well justified from a pure, cold business perspective (or pure basketball talent perspective).

The Whitsitt era was a pure, rational business era for Portland from a basketball talent perspective. You acquired talent over anything else. It brought Portland to the Western conference finals (twice) but it ignored culture, it ignored the way the team mashed and it lost the connection between the team and the fan base. 

For me, if the team flip flops on the face of the franchise, if it shows me that it is willing to dump anyone for a prettier dress on a new girl - I have to ask myself if I care to be emotionally involved with this team?


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

I cant believe what I am hearing here. How did 43 people vote to keep Roy over Durant? Its crazy. The posts that arent purely homerism state that Roy is more proven. How? After 1 season in the NBA? He won the ROY in one of the weakest rookie classes in recent memory. Its not like he is this veteran leader who has done it year in and year out. He didnt even play a complete season last year!

Listen, I like Roy a lot and think he will be a good player, but he isnt even in the same league as Durant, and I am a skeptic of players not yet in the NBA. If you think they are the same in terms of talent let me ask you this, what can Roy give you that Durant cant?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> now, don't take this in any way as negative, because i don't think it is, even if i disagrees with its principle. earlier, someone asked the real definition of "homer". i think this is it. when fans wanting the team to make moves base on emotion rather than common sense. i think this is what's happening with most of the votes for roy. i don't think it's wrong or bad in any way, as each fan root in their own way. i just disagree with it, and i hope management does too.


You may not agree but I'm of the opinion that decisions based purely on "logic" or "common sense" without taking into account things like emotions often result in poor decision making.

Take, as exhibit A, the years under Bob Whitsitt. Yes, those teams were very good, but there were clearly chemistry issues and he treated the roster like a fantasy league roster. Teams like the Spurs and the Mavericks also have a lot of good players, but there's also a stronger sense of team than these old Blazers teams had.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> I cant believe what I am hearing here. How did 43 people vote to keep Roy over Durant? Its crazy. The posts that arent purely homerism state that Roy is more proven. How? After 1 season in the NBA? He won the ROY in one of the weakest rookie classes in recent memory. Its not like he is this veteran leader who has done it year in and year out. He didnt even play a complete season last year!
> 
> Listen, I like Roy a lot and think he will be a good player, but he isnt even in the same league as Durant, and I am a skeptic of players not yet in the NBA. If you think they are the same in terms of talent let me ask you this, what can Roy give you that Durant cant?


Not comparing Roy to Magic, but... Would you trade Magic for Wilkens? Durant could be just another stat sheet filler. Magic didn't need to score to be a superstar, I think Roy will be in the same mold. I could see Roy having an average of 16 points, 6 boards and 6 assists, yet being more important to his team's success then a 30 point scorer, IMO.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> I cant believe what I am hearing here. How did 43 people vote to keep Roy over Durant? Its crazy. The posts that arent purely homerism state that Roy is more proven. How? After 1 season in the NBA? He won the ROY in one of the weakest rookie classes in recent memory. Its not like he is this veteran leader who has done it year in and year out. He didnt even play a complete season last year!
> 
> Listen, I like Roy a lot and think he will be a good player, but he isnt even in the same league as Durant, and I am a skeptic of players not yet in the NBA. If you think they are the same in terms of talent let me ask you this, what can Roy give you that Durant cant?


I _don't_ think they are the same in talent -- I'm clear that Durant will almost certainly have better numbers and be more of a star. And still, I'll stick with Roy for the reasons Andalusian, KMD, and others have listed. Perhaps not being a Blazers fan you've missed what it's been like here the last decade or so?


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I _don't_ think they are the same in talent -- I'm clear that Durant will almost certainly have better numbers and be more of a star. And still, I'll stick with Roy for the reasons Andalusian, KMD, and others have listed. Perhaps not being a Blazers fan you've missed what it's been like here the last decade or so?


Classic post. I totally agree. I am 1,000% sure that Durant will be the way better player in the eyes of the public, but us fans will see the true value that Roy gives us.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

magnifier said:


> Not comparing Roy to Magic, but... Would you trade Magic for Wilkens? Durant could be just another stat sheet filler. Magic didn't need to score to be a superstar, I think Roy will be in the same mold. I could see Roy having an average of 16 points, 6 boards and 6 assists, yet being more important to his team's success then a 30 point scorer, IMO.


And _that_ is an excellent point as well. Durant had mind boggling numbers for points and rebounds but how many assists did he have in March?


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> And _that_ is an excellent point as well. Durant had mind boggling numbers for points and rebounds but how many assists did he have in March?


Also, I see Durant as a guy that needs the spotlight. There is no possible way in my mind that Durant and Oden could co-exist. I'm sure many would disagree with me, but I've seen it too many times before. Two many chiefs theory.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> Because Swirsky was called a Swirsky for screwing up a national-level ballot as to the rookie of the year. Swirsky goes beyond being a homer.


that's all a Swirsky is to me, a homer. i don't know him so i can't say if he's a dumb**** or not. all i know from his voting was, he's a homer. that's all i intended for it to mean. if you felt it was more than that, then i'm sorry.



> I also don't buy your argument comparing Joel to Roy in the hypothetical trade because you're simply trying to be technical (which is great for lawyers). It's not just that Roy is a proven player, Roy is a proven player with intangible assets such as leadership and his ability to perform in the clutch ALONG WITH potential to become something much more than that.


a player is either good or he's not to me. there's all kind of scales, of course, but you get the idea. roy is a good player. his leadership, shooting, ball handling, liked by teammates, all that good stuffs, is already factored in when i said roy's a good player. he has proven all that in his first year, a good player.

durant was a great college player. he hasn't proven that he's a good nba player yet because he hasn't gotten the chance to. but he IS projected to be a great player. he is, by all accounts from basketball experts, to have higher potential than what roy's potential was projected to be. 

so far, what roy has over durant is that he has already proven that he is a good nba player. but this cannot be used against durant because he wasn't able to do what roy did (proved that's he's a good nba player). that, to me, is not enough to take roy over durant given durant's much higher potential.



> My only question on Durant becoming great will be how the refs respond to him. If they start giving him Jordan-esque treatment then look out.


i don't believe in that star treatment stuff. i think it does occur in some ways but for the most part, it's just the better player with an aggressive offensive game that get the calls. aggressive players with good offensive skills tend to be stars.

durant will get a lot of calls because he's a good player that has the ability to draw a lot of fouls.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

First of all, dont ever compare Roy to Magic. If Roy came to the Blazers in his rookie year and played center in the NBA finals and score 30 pts, then I might humor a comparison. 

Now to the meat of your rebuttal. I understand your point, I think you just have too much Blazer love for Roy. He is good dont get me wrong, but he doesnt have that dominate thru passing type of game. Not like Chris Paul or JKidd for example. And just to make my point, he averaged 4 assists per game last year. That was in 35 min/game. That is not exactly all-star gurad material.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> durant was a great college player. he hasn't proven that he's a good nba player yet because he hasn't gotten the chance to. but he IS projected to be a great player. he is, by all accounts from basketball experts, to have higher potential than what roy's potential was projected to be.


Well many expected Roy to do much worse last season, yet he proved them all wrong. B-Ball IQ is very valuable, plus he is about as cool as a bag of ice. Nothing throws him off. I'd take that over a bunch of writers thinking he's the next big thing.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> First of all, dont ever compare Roy to Magic. If Roy came to the Blazers in his rookie year and played center in the NBA finals and score 30 pts, then I might humor a comparison.
> 
> Now to the meat of your rebuttal. I understand your point, I think you just have too much Blazer love for Roy. He is good dont get me wrong, but he doesnt have that dominate thru passing type of game. Not like Chris Paul or JKidd for example. And just to make my point, he averaged 4 assists per game last year. That was in 35 min/game. That is not exactly all-star gurad material.


The comparison isn't Magic vs. Roy. It's Magic vs. Wilkens. Wilkens was giving you 35 points a game and 10 rebounds. Would you trade Magic for Wilkens?


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I _don't_ think they are the same in talent -- I'm clear that Durant will almost certainly have better numbers and be more of a star. And still, I'll stick with Roy for the reasons Andalusian, KMD, and others have listed. Perhaps not being a Blazers fan you've missed what it's been like here the last decade or so?



This is basically my point. You guys have such a bad time for a long time and such a-holes on your team, when you finally get a young promissing nice guy, you overvalue him. He is the savior of the franchise! Well thats fine, unless you are talking about trading him for potentially the best 1-2 punch since Kobe and Shaq. 

And to address the too many chefs argument, Kobe and Shaq got a long together for long enough to win 3 almost 4 titles. Seeing as that is more than the Blazers have in their history, I think it is a gamble worth taking. Also if the Lakers front office wasnt so full of pussies, they probably could have coexisted together even longer.

EDIT: After reading my post I feel bad for taking a cheap shot at the Blazers franchise, I apologize.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

magnifier said:


> Also, I see Durant as a guy that needs the spotlight. There is no possible way in my mind that Durant and Oden could co-exist. I'm sure many would disagree with me, but I've seen it too many times before. Two many chiefs theory.


I hear you and yeah, it's possible, but I'll disagree about how likely it is. If nothing else, Oden seems humble enough that he'd defer, much the way Kareem did with Magic. There are an awful lot of great duos throughout NBA history -- Jordan and Pippen, Stockton and Malone, and arguably Parker and Duncan now. It seems to me that even Durant is fairly humble and I'm even more confident about Oden, Aldridge, Rodriguez, Roy, and most of the rest of the current Blazers (Randolph and Magloire being the potential exceptions as they both seem to want to be "The Men" in ways that sometimes hurt the team). I suspect they could make it work and it would certainly be worth a try... save that I'm not willing to cut the heart out of the team by trading Roy.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> But a homer in my book is not someone who makes a decision based on emotion. To me a homer is someone who says that Roy is better than Durant or, to use another example since it is hard to say how good a pro Durant is, Roy is better than Lebron . . . all those trade ideas where fans want to trade junk for all stars I think displays "homer" thinking.


doesn't that requires emotional attachment for one to feel that way? or is it just pure ignorance to you? i don't know. i'm leaning towards emotional rather than ignorance. but i guess it could be both.



> To say that they wouldn't make the trade based on emotion just means they really like the player and rooting for that player and would be sad to see them go. Just like those wanting to trade Sheed because although he might help the team they hate his guts.


i don't think being emotional excludes being rational. i like roy. i like aldridge. i would be sad to see both go. but i'd trade either of them for lebron. i'd still be sad to see them go, but i'll also be happy that we improve the team's chances of winning. 

ultimately, as a fan, that's all i care. who can help the team win more.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

magnifier said:


> The comparison isn't Magic vs. Roy. It's Magic vs. Wilkens. Wilkens was giving you 35 points a game and 10 rebounds. Would you trade Magic for Wilkens?



Fair enough. I wouldnt trade Magic for anybody in the history of the NBA, even Jordan. Homerism? Maybe. Im not above it either, but Magic physically could do things that Jordan could not, like for insance playing center in the NBA finals his rookie season . . . and winning the game.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> This is basically my point. You guys have such a bad time for a long time and such a-holes on your team, when you finally get a young promissing nice guy, you overvalue him. He is the savior of the franchise! Well thats fine, unless you are talking about trading him for potentially the best 1-2 punch since Kobe and Shaq.


Meh. I think it's fine regardless, which I'm sure you'll be ready to take as making your point but even so, remember that you _might_ not be right.




> EDIT: After reading my post I feel bad for taking a cheap shot at the Blazers franchise, I apologize.


No worries. It's been a good conversation, regardless, and I'm glad enough to have non-Blazers fans here as long as they aren't trolling, which I don't think you are.

:cheers:


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> Fair enough. I wouldnt trade Magic for anybody in the history of the NBA, even Jordan. Homerism? Maybe. Im not above it either, but Magic physically could do things that Jordan could not, like for insance playing center in the NBA finals his rookie season . . . and winning the game.


Now you get it. Because you've seen the magic in "Magic" silly pun. You have a completely different evaluation on him. I mean think about it. You just said that you wouldn't trade Magic for arguably the best player all time.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

magnifier said:


> Well many expected Roy to do much worse last season, yet he proved them all wrong. B-Ball IQ is very valuable, plus he is about as cool as a bag of ice. Nothing throws him off. I'd take that over a bunch of writers thinking he's the next big thing.



I dont think your first statement is true, last year scouts had him as high as the 2nd overall pick and the #1 guard in the draft. Maybe they didnt expect the ROY, but it was a weak class.

Clutch performance is very important, and something that wont show up in workouts or stats. I will agree with you there. And as I said in a previous post, I am usually a skeptic of players not yet in the NBA. But have you seen Durant shoot? Its pretty.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> ultimately, as a fan, that's all i care. who can help the team win more.


And ultimately, that's where the divide is for many of us. Sure, I like the idea of winning games. But man, if knuckleheads like Bonzi Wells had led Portland to a championship, it'd've felt mighty hollow to me. I _don't_ want to win at all costs.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I hear you and yeah, it's possible, but I'll disagree about how likely it is. If nothing else, Oden seems humble enough that he'd defer, much the way Kareem did with Magic. There are an awful lot of great duos throughout NBA history -- Jordan and Pippen, Stockton and Malone, and arguably Parker and Duncan now. It seems to me that even Durant is fairly humble and I'm even more confident about Oden, Aldridge, Rodriguez, Roy, and most of the rest of the current Blazers (Randolph and Magloire being the potential exceptions as they both seem to want to be "The Men" in ways that sometimes hurt the team). I suspect they could make it work and it would certainly be worth a try... save that I'm not willing to cut the heart out of the team by trading Roy.


Of course anything is possible regarding two stars co-existing. Personally I like the sound of Roy and Oden and the big two. Then add Aldridge in the mix and you have a big three that could possibly give you doubles in points, rebounds and assists. (I mean this hypothetically: Oden 18/12/3, Aldridge 16/8/2, Roy 16/6/6)


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Honestly, I can't believe this poll is even close.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

PorterIn2004 said:


> You may not agree but I'm of the opinion that decisions based purely on "logic" or "common sense" without taking into account things like emotions often result in poor decision making.


in a business sense, i fully believe that rational decisions always must be used. emotional decisions be damned. might it backfire sometimes? sure. but i go with the percentages. that's business. basketball is a sport, but should be ran in a business-like manner to maximize it's effiency.



> Take, as exhibit A, the years under Bob Whitsitt. Yes, those teams were very good, but there were clearly chemistry issues and he treated the roster like a fantasy league roster. Teams like the Spurs and the Mavericks also have a lot of good players, but there's also a stronger sense of team than these old Blazers teams had.


team chemistry is all part of making decisions through being rational, not emotional. you weigh everything. looking back there were mistakes made, but it wasn't because of a lack of an emotional value in the decision making process, imo. it was just bad decisions.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Honestly, I can't believe this poll is even close.


Okay, I can believe that it's close, I'm just disappointed that homerism is blinding people from seeing that Durant is an elite-level prospect that only comes around every few years.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

magnifier said:


> The comparison isn't Magic vs. Roy. It's Magic vs. Wilkens. Wilkens was giving you 35 points a game and 10 rebounds. Would you trade Magic for Wilkens?


it's kind of a silly question though, because while roy will never APPROACH magic's greatness, durant could end up better than wilkens.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

This poll is a run-away for Durant on any other board.

I have a feeling that even a large majority of Sonic fans would vote Durant over the local boy, Roy.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

magnifier said:


> I am 1,000% sure that Durant will be the way better player in the eyes of the public, but us fans will see the true value that Roy gives us.


if durant is a way better player than roy, roy's better buy me something nice for me to think he has more value on the blazers than durant would.

i hear this "he's a more valuable player, but he's not better," and i just don't understand it. media use that a lot as reasons for the mvp voting. a better player, is a better player, is a better player. a better player will bring you more wins. which means he's more valuable. if he doesn't bring you more win, he's less valuable than the guy he was traded for. obviously, it's difficult to compare two players worth against each other if they're on two different teams, but that's why you use conjectures and projections to predict their values against one another. is it totally accurate? no, but it gets the job done for the most part. simple enough to me.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

I voted to keep Roy. This will be his team, even when we pick oden it will still be Roy's team. I do not know why he is such a match made in heaven for this organization, but he is and you just should not mess with that. And I understand that Durant will win multiple scoring titles.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

magnifier said:


> Well many expected Roy to do much worse last season, yet he proved them all wrong. B-Ball IQ is very valuable, plus he is about as cool as a bag of ice. Nothing throws him off. I'd take that over a bunch of writers thinking he's the next big thing.


i think roy did better than most expected him to do, i agree. but his game and his numbers still doesn't put him up among the star sg of the league. if all roy can produce from now on is last season's production, he'll just be a good player, nowhere near all-star caliber. like i said before, his true value lies in his future. same for durant, only durant's future is looking a lot brighter.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the player i actually am reminded most of when i see oden play is a very young patrick ewing. ewing was a defensive dominator, explosive off his feet, athletic and a developing offensive game. i'm convinced that had he gone to the knicks and bernard king recovered to his prior self, ewing would have had a better career (he was a great player nonetheless of course), focusing more on his defensive presence, his rebounding, and his post game, instead of becoming the knicks primary offensive weapon needed to create offense. to me, oden being thrust into the #1 scoring spot offensively puts him in a similar risk, and having durant next to him actually makes both players that much more impossing, and improves both their prospects long term. the city will embrace a winning team, and durant gives you a better chance at winning.

as for not proving anything yet, no rookies have ever proved themselves in the nba before playing in the nba. a gm's job is to assess talent and make the right moves to get the right pieces together (understanding character and chemistry matter too). there's a talent disparity here by most accounts. and there's a fit as well. you're looking to build a championship team. durant appears to further that goal, despite how hard it might be to lose roy.

and NEVER get too emotionally attached to a player, because we're too often let down, even by the ones we think we know.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

no way! maybe for oden but not for kevin.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

kflo said:


> it's kind of a silly question though, because while roy will never APPROACH magic's greatness, durant could end up better than wilkens.


Ding, Ding, Ding... yet he questioned the Lakers fan for his view On Magic. 

Awesome, just awesome... I guess you guys call that a Swirsky right.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Honestly, all of this "I KNOW Roy is a good NBA player, I don't know whether Durant will be, I thought Kwame Brown/Michael Olowakandi/whoever would be really good" just seems like an attempt to rationalize a position one knows is wrong, objectively, for the sake of emotion.

I have more respect for people who lay it out there as an emotional decision, over those who try to mask it as a rational decision, as though the _team_ would be better off with Roy over Durant.

Durant is clearly the better talent. By leaps and bounds. This isn't Rudy Gay versus Brandon Roy. This is like Kobe Bryant versus Michael Finley. There's just no comparison in terms of ability. Durant will almost certainly be a much more valuable player and, even before he proves it, is much more valuable than Roy even as a prospect.

I like Roy a lot, and would wish him well on Seattle if we could get Durant for him in a fit of Seattle madness. He has a nice smile and seems like a good guy. Durant also seems like a nice guy and he has a lot more talent.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

^^^ Great post


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BuckW4GM said:


> ultimately, as a fan, that's all i care. who can help the team win more.



I guess that is my point. Just because someone has different priorities than you, doesn't mean they are a homer.

If I as a fan, want to root for only good character guys, win or lose, v. winning moe with bad character guys . . . that isn't a homer thing, that is just a differnet take on what I want out a professional organization.

So to say they should not trade for Durant because Brandon represent what Portland is all about a makes our franchise proud is not a homer thing to me, it is a priority thing . . . IMO.

To say that they should not trade Brandon for Lebron because Brandon is better and has more upside is a homer thing.

FYI- I'm actually more of win baby win person myself . . . to a point.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I guess that is my point. Just because someone has different priorities than you, doesn't mean they are a homer.


that's the thing. i view fans who are emotional rather than rational when judging talents, whether it be on their own team or other teams, as homers. does it denotes as a negative, i don't think so. it simply is just another point of view. a homer is a homer. a homer isn't bad.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BuckW4GM said:


> that's the thing. i view fans who are emotional rather than rational when judging talents, whether it be on their own team or other teams, as homers. does it denotes as a negative, i don't think so. it simply is just another point of view. a homer is a homer. a homer isn't bad.


I get it and we just see it differently. I'm very emotional about the Blazers and certain players. There are certain players I would never want on this team whether or not it made the team better. 

But I am not a homer. :biggrin:

Edit: In fact I think I am rationale about judging talent, but emotional about whether I would want to make the trade.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Homerism is a subjective term. Leave it at that. 

However, I feel that a lot of this emmotion vs. rational debate is just stupid. People only become emmotionally attached to players because they make their franchise better. You never see people saying, "this guy cost us 10 games last year but I love him and never want him to leave." Its all about making the team better and winning games.

I know there are guys on the Lakers that I overvalue (luke Walton) because I love their personality and their game. But I would not hesitate a second to trade them if it meant more wins or championships for the club.

Franchise > any player


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Roy is for real.
> 
> Frankly, and maybe I just saw his 3 worst games, but *Durant doesn't scream superstar to me at all.*
> 
> ...


You never cease to amaze me.

Do you watch basketball outside of the Blazers?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

elcap15 said:


> Its all about making the team better and winning games.


:cheers: 

to a lakers fan :eek8:


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

I guess its only in LA, but I thought the goal of any competition was to win.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> No. For at least two reasons:
> 
> 1. I have seen him play more than three times. My opinion is more informed than yours. It might still be wrong, of course, but you are being honest in how little you've seen him, and your lack of information demonstrates your ignorance. It might still be right, I suppose, but it's based in ignorance.
> 
> ...


Although you've seen him more than me, perhaps you've only seen his best games and I've only seen his worst, which would make you ignorant of his weaknesses and me ignorant of his strengths. All college players are a risk because all they can really show in so few games is "potential".

The key to our disagreement is the question posed by this thread.

Would I DRAFT Durant over Roy, knowing only what each had done in college?

Absolutely.

But *trade* (where you are giving someone in return as opposed to just choosing a new player) the runaway rookie of the year, a guy who's proven to be the long-sought-after leader of this team, and one the team is ready to follow to hell and back, for a huge offensive talent who may never mesh with the team, who may never learn how to play defense, who has shown little inclination to play a "team" game, who may actually make those around him worse by needing the ball too much?

Never.

Offensive superstars have never impressed me and there are dozens who have never take their team anywhere special.

To go all the way you need guys like Ime and Travis, who fill the gaps between your stars.

Had we traded Twardzik and Gross for Dr. J in '77 odds are pretty good this town would never have even made it to the finals.


I think this is a silly thread because:

A. Roy is considered untouchable by KP.

B. As someone else pointed out it would destroy the team's trust in management.

C. I firmly believe that KP's goal is to get Oden AND Durant, and keep Roy, LaMarcus and Sergio also. I certainly won't bet against that happening.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I love Roy, but I think if we made this swap, it would not be long before we also love Durant just as much. Fans tend to be irrationally sentimental about the players right up until the day they are traded, and then it fades...


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> To go all the way you need guys like Ime and Travis, who fill the gaps between your stars.


Ha HA ha. You mean the gaps in the bench?



MARIS61 said:


> C. I firmly believe that KP's goal is to get Oden AND Durant, and keep Roy, LaMarcus and Sergio also. I certainly won't bet against that happening.


I would bet against that happening.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> You never cease to amaze me.
> 
> Do you watch basketball outside of the Blazers?


Yeah, quite a bit.

But I mainly watch REAL basketball, played by the worlds most talented ADULT players, playing against other talented adult players.

Mostly NBA, but I like to catch European leagues when I can, and the Olympics because it's the Olympics and there's a huge amount of pride on the line for the players.

College ball is pretty boring for me, as it and it's players lack consistency, their gaps in game knowledge and their shortcomings in skill-sets irritate me, the politics and recruiting games stack the same old teams every year, and parity does not exist in any sense.

It is at best many thousands of kids trying to learn how to play the game, competing with about 10 kids who already know how.

Pretty hard to know if any of them are for real until they're drafted. Most of them will end up becoming veterinarians, salesmen, or a drain on society.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

elcap15 said:


> I guess its only in LA, but I thought the goal of any competition was to win.


winning is nice. but having friendly players is nicer... to some, i guess.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

elcap15 said:


> Fair enough. I wouldnt trade Magic for anybody in the history of the NBA, even Jordan. Homerism? Maybe. Im not above it either, but Magic physically could do things that Jordan could not, like for insance playing center in the NBA finals his rookie season . . . and winning the game.


That was impressive, but get over it. Not impressive as you make it out to be. I'm sure if Jordan was 6'9" he could do the same thing. Jordan didn't have a hall of fame center and he won more championships. Comparing Magic to Jordan is ridiculous.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> That was impressive, but get over it. Not impressive as you make it out to be. I'm sure if Jordan was 6'9" he could do the same thing. Jordan didn't have a hall of fame center and he won more championships. Comparing Magic to Jordan is ridiculous.


no, it's not. the guy's pretty good, too.

if magic had jordan's hops, he could dunk from the freethrow line. he didn't. and jordan wasn't 6'9". couldn't play center.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> no, it's not. the guy's pretty good, too.
> 
> if magic had jordan's hops, he could dunk from the freethrow line. he didn't. and jordan wasn't 6'9". couldn't play center.


I'm not bashing Magic, I'm just saying he wasn't as good as Jordan. Magic was one of the top 3 PG's of all-time. But, he has loads more talent around him then Jordan.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Jordan didn't have a hall of fame center and he won more championships. Comparing Magic to Jordan is ridiculous.


I agree.

Jordan never approached the kind of overall game Magic had.

Never came within shouting distance of it.

Jordan was an awesome INDIVIDUAL talent. With Pippen's help, he *carried* scrubs along with him to victory.

Magic had so much talent in every single facet of the game that it was absorbed by his teammates. Each of them became so much better just by being on the court with him.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm not bashing Magic, I'm just saying he wasn't as good as Jordan.


and i agree. i just don't think the two are so far off to say it's ridiculous to compared them.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Yeah, quite a bit.
> 
> But I mainly watch REAL basketball, played by the worlds most talented ADULT players, playing against other talented adult players.
> 
> ...


College basketball is REAL basketball.

Its where all (or most) of your favorite players that are in the NBA today were recognized for their talents to be able to play in the NBA.

This isn't about how good all 365 NCAA teams players are. Its about the best of the best and who is going to be the best NBA players. Durant was the only POY as a Freshman ever and averaged 26ppg and 11 boards per game and his stats were even better in league play.

You may not like to watch college hoops, but please don't make outlandishly dumb comments about players that are coming from college if you haven't seen them play. It's pretty ignorant.

Oh, and Travis Outlaw has never lived up to his potential and most likely never will and Ime Udoka is probably my favorite Blazer, but reality is, he's a 6th man at best.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I haven't read all 10 pages, but basically I feel that Brandon Roy is the kind of guy that helps win Championships. He does everything. He passes, he rebounds, he plays defense and he's clutch. He may not have the overall talent level that Durant does, but he is a winner. Plain and simple. Brandon Roy may or may not be a hall of famer when it's all said and done, but I don't think that's the right question to be asking. The RIGHT question is, how many championship rings will he have?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

NateBishop3 said:


> I haven't read all 10 pages, but basically I feel that Brandon Roy is the kind of guy that helps win Championships. He does everything. He passes, he rebounds, he plays defense and he's clutch. He may not have the overall talent level that Durant does, but he is a winner. Plain and simple. Brandon Roy may or may not be a hall of famer when it's all said and done, but I don't think that's the right question to be asking. The RIGHT question is, how many championship rings will he have?


copout. :biggrin:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> I haven't read all 10 pages, but basically I feel that Brandon Roy is the kind of guy that helps win Championships. He does everything. He passes, he rebounds, he plays defense and he's clutch. He may not have the overall talent level that Durant does, but he is a winner. Plain and simple. Brandon Roy may or may not be a hall of famer when it's all said and done, but I don't think that's the right question to be asking. The RIGHT question is, how many championship rings will he have?


Exactly.

He's a sure thing, and he's what we've supposedly been seeking for decades.

Playing style and position aside, but just the way he handles himself and the way the team follows his lead, reminds me of Magic.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Magic was one of the top 3 PG's of all-time.


The only point guard that can remotely challenge Magic Johnson in talent is Oscar Robertson. Magic is either the best or second-best point guard and an easy top-ten player of all-time. I think Jordan was better, but comparing Magic to Jordan isn't ridiculous.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Magic and Jordan's styles are so different it is a really hard comparison. No one could score like Jordan, he changed the game. No one could pass like Magic. Magic had more facets to his game (being 6'9" he could play center or pt guard) Jordan did things with the ball that no one did before him and he did it hi and above better than anyone else.


I didnt mean to derail this thread. But if you guys want to talk about Magic Ill be here all night.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

I also want to say that everyone is talking about Roy's all around game. He averaged 4.4 boards and 4 assists per game last year in 35 minutes. Thats nothing to scoff at but it isnt exactly superstardom, franchise saving numbers either.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

elcap15 said:


> I also want to say that everyone is talking about Roy's all around game. He averaged 4.4 boards and 4 assists per game last year in 35 minutes. Thats nothing to scoff at but it isnt exactly superstardom, franchise saving numbers either.


I don't know why you keep putting words in everyone's mouth, referring to him as a "savior" or "franchise saving numbers". I don't think anyone has used those words. He's got an all-around game. Just admit it and move on.

By the way, Magic was an awesome passer. Travelled like hell. I think he and Vlade went to the same school. And Jordan was about 10X better as an individual player. But then again Jordan also came around a few years later. Players always seem to do better stats-wise in the future (with the exception of MLB pitchers).


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> The only point guard that can remotely challenge Magic Johnson in talent is Oscar Robertson. Magic is either the best or second-best point guard and an easy top-ten player of all-time. I think Jordan was better, but comparing Magic to Jordan isn't ridiculous.


If were talking about true, pure, point guards my list would go:

1. John Stockton
2. Magic Johnson
3. Oscar Robertson


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

elcap15 said:


> Magic and Jordan's styles are so different it is a really hard comparison. No one could score like Jordan, he changed the game. No one could pass like Magic. Magic had more facets to his game (being 6'9" he could play center or pt guard) Jordan did things with the ball that no one did before him and he did it hi and above better than anyone else.
> 
> 
> I didnt mean to derail this thread. But if you guys want to talk about Magic Ill be here all night.


Magic had so many more options to pass the ball to than Jordan did. I mean looking back and comparing rosters its just silly. I'm sure Jordan could of easily burden some of the scoring load had it been necessary.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> If were talking about true, pure, point guards my list would go:
> 
> 1. John Stockton
> 2. Magic Johnson
> 3. Oscar Robertson


That makes no sense, really. You're penalizing Magic and Robertson for being able to do more things than Stockton. "Pure point guard" is just code for "I want to rank Stockton higher." Magic and Robertson were clearly far, far better players. They were point guards. Ergo, they were superior point guards to Stockton. The fact that they were unique and more versatile is a point in their favour. Stockton doesn't get credit for being a worse rebounder and scorer.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

elcap15 said:


> I also want to say that everyone is talking about Roy's all around game. He averaged 4.4 boards and 4 assists per game last year in 35 minutes. Thats nothing to scoff at but it isnt exactly superstardom, franchise saving numbers either.


It's not superstardom, and Roy doesn't project to be one, but it's quite a nice all-around game for a rookie. If he never develops, he's already an above average starter in the NBA. If he develops, 16/4/4 is a very nice base to start from. 20/6/6, with good defene, would be one of the most complete players in the game, and it's not unreasonable given his first year numbers.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> That makes no sense, really. You're penalizing Magic and Robertson for being able to do more things than Stockton. "Pure point guard" is just code for "I want to rank Stockton higher." Magic and Robertson were clearly far, far better players. They were point guards. Ergo, they were superior point guards to Stockton. The fact that they were unique and more versatile is a point in their favour. Stockton doesn't get credit for being a worse rebounder and scorer.


Scoring and rebounding isn't the first thing that I look at when I look at point guards. In fact, those are probably the two least important stats when it comes to point guards. I want a guy who can distribute the ball to other players that can score. Its not like Stockton was a slouch at scoring either. Stockton has more assists and more steals than any other player in NBA history. If it wasn't for Jordan he'd have a couple rings on his finger. Robertson played in an era where he could average a triple-double easily because there wasn't any other good point guards and he was much bigger than any other point guard.

I'd probably put Steve Nash right now higher than Robertson.

Of course this is all matter of opinion. Like I'm sure your entitled to.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Scoring and rebounding isn't the first thing that I look at when I look at point guards. In fact, those are probably the two least important stats when it comes to point guards.


Scoring, passing and rebounding are valuable from all players. Magic Johnson was just as good, if not better, as a distributor and was a better scorer and far better rebounder. Robertson was perhaps slightly behind the other two as a distributor, but a far better scorer than either and a far better rebounder than Stockton. Both were clearly better players, which pushes Stockton to third at best in terms of all-time point guards.

Your logic is akin to saying that Reggie Miller was a greater "pure shooting guard" than Michael Jordan, because he only shot the ball and was a better shooter than Jordan, and therefore ranking Miller ahead of Jordan on an all-time shooting guards list.



> I'd probably put Steve Nash right now higher than Robertson.


And Dan Dickau, I'm sure. He's much purer a point guard, since he passes and doesn't really score or rebound. 



> Of course this is all matter of opinion. Like I'm sure your entitled to.


Of course. Everyone is entitled to an opinion...I never suggested otherwise. I simply don't think you've adequately supported yours, but there's no law that says you have to.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think the heavy Roy voting is due to several factors that have been stated; proven, clutch, leader .... 
…but I think there is another reason. There is a much greater attachment to Roy from Blazer fans than most fans have to their star simply because of the situation in which Roy arose. This is a team that made the playoffs for decades straight, we weren't used to losing, and then everything tanked. The team started getting arrested and in trouble right and left, and the losses kept piling up. Many Blazer fans were pained by the collapse of a once proud franchise and it began to feel like all hope was lost.

Enter Roy

He was really the first shining beacon of a better tomorrow. Now we are on the precipice of having our Rip City back in action with the emergence of Aldridge and Sergio as well as the lighting strike of Oden. We have pinned our hopes of future glory on Roy leading this young team, making him not only valuable on the court, but a valuable icon representing a promising tomorrow.




I voted for Durant, but I can certainly understand the attachment to Roy, and I came close to voting for his as well. The Blazers Rock!!!


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

No!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Scoring, passing and rebounding are valuable from all players. Magic Johnson was just as good, if not better, as a distributor and was a better scorer and far better rebounder. Robertson was perhaps slightly behind the other two as a distributor, but a far better scorer than either and a far better rebounder than Stockton. Both were clearly better players, which pushes Stockton to third at best in terms of all-time point guards.


Point guards generally don't hang out under the basket where it is important that they be a good rebounder. Scoring is nice out of a point guard, but I think FG% is much more important. You want to see your point guard has the ability to score, but you also don't want to take away from the team concept and one of the point guards main objectives: Distributing the ball.



> Your logic is akin to saying that Reggie Miller was a greater "pure shooting guard" than Michael Jordan, because he only shot the ball and was a better shooter than Jordan, and therefore ranking Miller ahead of Jordan on an all-time shooting guards list.


No, it doesn't. I don't see how it correlates at all. Reggie Miller was a good 'shooting' guard, but just because the word 'shooting' is attached to the position "shooting guard" doesn't mean that the best player at that position is the best shooter. Just like with point guards, the best point guard isn't the guy who scores the most points. As I have never eluded to either.



> Of course. Everyone is entitled to an opinion...I never suggested otherwise. I simply don't think you've adequately supported yours, but there's no law that says you have to.


I have adequately supported my opinion, I'd say more than you have throughout the thread regarding this issue. Your first post was about as cut and dry as could be and didn't really give me any insight except for the fact that you thought I was wrong. I have stated my position on why I think the guys I picked belong where I think they do. You have not.


----------



## oregonducks444 (Jun 15, 2007)

I just tipped the scales can we make the trade now?


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

oregonducks444 said:


> I just tipped the scales can we make the trade now?


I tipped it back to 50/50.

I cant believe someone had the nerve to post this. Seriously, Roy isnt going anywhere. He's already been deemed untouchable.

And even if we did get Durant that would only cause issues in the locker room IMHO.

Durant will demand shots in order to be successful. Roy doesn't. Granted Roy will never post 50 (most likely) but he is going to be a much better team player in comparison to durant who will inevitably demand a large amount of touches per game.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Point guards generally don't hang out under the basket where it is important that they be a good rebounder. Scoring is nice out of a point guard, but I think FG% is much more important.


Neither point applies. Neither Magic nor Robertson "hung out under the basket." Both scored at very high efficiency.



> No, it doesn't. I don't see how it correlates at all.


It correlates very well. In both cases, it's boiling down the position to a single aspect and trying to rank players by that single aspect. As a shooter, Miller was better, but Jordan had everything. Similarly, as a passer, Stockton might have been slightly better than Robertson (not better than Magic, though) but Robertson and Magic had the complete package.



> I have adequately supported my opinion, I'd say more than you have throughout the thread regarding this issue. Your first post was about as cut and dry as could be and didn't really give me any insight except for the fact that you thought I was wrong.


No, I explained _why_ you were wrong. There were two far better point guards, and an evaluation of their entire games as basketball players shows that conclusively. Both Robertson and Magic were top-notch distributors, just as Stockton was. On top of that, both could score better than Stockton (including scoring efficiency into the equation) and both could rebound much, much better than Stockton (despite the fact that none of them played around the basket primarily).

"Pure point guard" is a cop-out for "Yes, Magic and Robertson were obviously better, but I've carefully crafted a point guard description that Stockton fits best."


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

seriously, when did durant become a cancer?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Neither point applies. Neither Magic nor Robertson "hung out under the basket." Both scored at very high efficiency.


Magic played multiple positions not just point guard, he played several positions with much more of an opportunity to grab boards. Neither of us have ever seen Oscar Roberston play so who knows whether he got his rebounds under the basket or not. All I know was that he was a 6'5" PG in a generation where that was a rarity. Obviously his rebounds would be up.



> It correlates very well. In both cases, it's boiling down the position to a single aspect and trying to rank players by that single aspect. As a shooter, Miller was better, but Jordan had everything. Similarly, as a passer, Stockton might have been slightly better than Robertson (not better than Magic, though) but Robertson and Magic had the complete package.


Except for the fact that I don't bank on a single aspect of a point guards game for me to deem him successful. Stockton was a great passer, could score when necessary and was a great defender. Magic was a good player, don't get me wrong. But, he wasn't a primarily only a point guard for his whole career.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Magic played multiple positions not just point guard, he played several positions with much more of an opportunity to grab boards. Neither of us have ever seen Oscar Roberston play so who knows whether he got his rebounds under the basket or not. All I know was that he was a 6'5" PG in a generation where that was a rarity. Obviously his rebounds would be up.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that I don't bank on a single aspect of a point guards game for me to deem him successful. Stockton was a great passer, could score when necessary and was a great defender. Magic was a good player, don't get me wrong. But, he wasn't a primarily only a point guard for his whole career.


magic was primarily a pg for his whole career. and "good" is quite the disservice. 

it's frankly pretty ludicrous to put stockton on the same level as magic and oscar (no less ahead of them), 2 players who were unquestionably among the 3 best players in the league for almost their entire careers. and believe me, that's no disrespect to stockton. he just didn't have the same on-court impact. and it was obvious. 

personally, i like buck williams over tim duncan at the pf, because duncan plays some center, and buck rebounds, defends and shoots a high %, things i want from my pf. and he could score when necessary. duncan does these other unnecessary things for a pf. 

and stockton was a good defender, not a great one. never a great on-ball defender. was a great team defender.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That makes no sense, really. You're penalizing Magic and Robertson for being able to do more things than Stockton. "Pure point guard" is just code for "I want to rank Stockton higher." Magic and Robertson were clearly far, far better players. They were point guards. Ergo, they were superior point guards to Stockton. The fact that they were unique and more versatile is a point in their favour. Stockton doesn't get credit for being a worse rebounder and scorer.



As someone old enough to have actually seen Robertson play, I have to disagree. For most of his career, Oscar was *not* a PG in the current sense of the word. Early in his career, he was notoriously bad at feeding the post. He was much better at moving the ball around on the perimeter, but many of his assists were simply a function of his being smart enough to hit the open man when he was triple teamed!

Yes, the assist totals were often impressive - but they were a fortuitous afterthought. Keep in mind that this was an era when *Wilt* twice finished near the top of the league in assists! It was only in his dotage that the desire for a ring started to outweigh his ego and he began *looking* for assists. 

Not that Oscar wasn't a great PLAYER - but it is misleading to pigeonhole him based on current practices.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Give it up, Zags.

Magic became a Laker 7 years before you were born and retired when you were 5.

Argue about something you know about.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Pimped Out said:


> seriously, when did durant become a cancer?


He's not cancer, but isn't going to take the blazers where they need to go IMO.

Texas' exit in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament is a perfect example. Roy seems to be a little more clutch at this point without as much upside as Durant. However, Roy fits the blazers system and community better than Durant would.

i still think Durant will end up an All-Star, but i don't think the blazers need Durant as much as they need Roy because of Roy's versatility and leadership that he brings to the team. Durant will bring points, but will demand the rock too much.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Give it up, Zags.
> 
> Magic became a Laker 7 years before you were born and retired when you were 5.
> 
> Argue about something you know about.


You have no concept of anything related to the value of NBA players and yet you post absurd comments in threads about drafts and trades every chance you get.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> You have no concept of anything related to the value of NBA players and yet you post absurd comments in threads about drafts and trades every chance you get.


Again, argue about something you know about.

Pretty clear it's not basketball stars of the previous century.

If you watch college ball you could probably hold your own there.

Or, if you know nothing about anything just keep throwing around childish insults you can't substantiate.

Sticks and stones...:biggrin:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> You have no concept of anything related to the value of NBA players and yet you post absurd comments in threads about drafts and trades every chance you get.


You mis-typed, so I'll correct it for you.

_I've got at least 30 more years experience than you do watching NBA players and I post comments in absurd threads about drafts and trades every chance I get._


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

My dad has 30 more years of experience watching hoops than I do and I still know 10 times more than he does.

Not an insult that was just speaking the truth. Anytime someone says they wouldn't trade Outlaw for Durant, they need to follow hoops a little more closely.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> My dad has 30 more years of experience watching hoops than I do and I still know 10 times more than he does.
> 
> Not an insult that was just speaking the truth. Anytime someone says they wouldn't trade Outlaw for Durant, they need to follow hoops a little more closely.


Maybe it just means they are more observant than you and others, or value different criteria than you since they have followed the game for 30 yrs more than you.

Just curious, and not meant as an insult, but who ties your Dad's shoes for him?


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Wow anyone who said no, please lets be realistic. There is absolutely no way the Blazers could get #2 without giving up Oden not even for Roy and Aldridge plus future picks.
If they could they would drive Roy to Seattle personally for Durant.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Maybe it just means they are more observant than you and others, or value different criteria than you since they have followed the game for 30 yrs more than you.
> 
> Just curious, and not meant as an insult, but who ties your Dad's shoes for him?


He wears velcro? What does that have to do with anything.

The people I'm debating with in this thread haven't seen the game for 30 years.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Five5even said:


> He's not cancer, but isn't going to take the blazers where they need to go IMO.
> 
> Texas' exit in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament is a perfect example. Roy seems to be a little more clutch at this point without as much upside as Durant. However, Roy fits the blazers system and community better than Durant would.
> 
> i still think Durant will end up an All-Star, but i don't think the blazers need Durant as much as they need Roy because of Roy's versatility and leadership that he brings to the team. Durant will bring points, but will demand the rock too much.


LOL

So Durant gets blamed because he took Texas only to the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament as a 18 year old?

Do you want to reroll Roys college career?

Good Lord how can anyone say with a straight face that Roy is better for the Blazers or that they wouldn't/shouldn't do that, quit being delusional. Roy may be nice but he was certainly not special last season and only ROY in a pathetic rookie class.

From an outsiders perspective I wouldn't even give you say Barbosa for Roy in a trade, I also wouldn't trade a top 7 (maybe even lottery overall) pick in this draft for Roy.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Man I have to post the link to this thread on another board so we can share a good laugh that almost 50% of over 100 voters would rather have ROY than DURANT.

Thats like saying you would rather have Joe Johnson than Dirk Nowitzki.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Amareca said:


> Man I have to post the link to this thread on another board so we can share a good laugh that almost 50% of over 100 voters would rather have ROY than DURANT.
> 
> Thats like saying you would rather have Joe Johnson than Dirk Nowitzki.


This is funny. You're one of the biggest homers on these boards and you're calling us out? :biggrin:

Our fans may be total homers, but at least their not embarrassing trolls like you.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Man I have to post the link to this thread on another board so we can share a good laugh that almost 50% of over 100 voters would rather have ROY than DURANT.
> 
> Thats like saying you would rather have Joe Johnson than Dirk Nowitzki.


Do you really want to turn this into a discussion about a big Kraut who swallows his own tongue under pressure? 

See.....being rude isn't all that hard.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Wow anyone who said no, please lets be realistic. There is absolutely no way the Blazers could get #2 without giving up Oden not even for Roy and Aldridge plus future picks.
> If they could they would drive Roy to Seattle personally for Durant.


I'm as big a Durant fan as anybody, but lets get real.

A GM would need to be blasted on Yukon Jack and peyote to turn down Roy + LaMarcus for Durant.


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

OMG. Worst Proposal In History.

Jessica Alba Looks Good, She has Skills. Would you trade her for your Mom? I guess Not.

Same for Brandon.

Brandon Is the Face of this Franchise. Where's the Heart of the Management? So, Next year Beasley's gonna come. Will We trade Durant for Him? 

C'mon guys, Be Realistic, This Ain't no computer Game.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

PhilK said:


> OMG. Worst Proposal In History.
> 
> Jessica Alba Looks Good, She has Skills. Would you trade her for your Mom? I guess Not.
> 
> ...


and this is basketball. as in, entertainment value? you go on to bring jessica alba and moms, then say this is no computer games. hilarious.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Five5even said:


> He's not cancer, but isn't going to take the blazers where they need to go IMO.
> 
> Texas' exit in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament is a perfect example. Roy seems to be a little more clutch at this point without as much upside as Durant. However, Roy fits the blazers system and community better than Durant would.
> 
> i still think Durant will end up an All-Star, but i don't think the blazers need Durant as much as they need Roy because of Roy's versatility and leadership that he brings to the team. Durant will bring points, but will demand the rock too much.


where the hell did roy lead the huskies his freshman year? he scored 6 points per game off the bench and the huskies didnt even sniff the ncaa tournament. They didnt even finish the season sniffing .500
his senior year he led the huskies an entire one round further than durant did his freshman season and the huskies werent starting 4 freshmen and a sophomore.
maybe if durant disappeared against USC you would have a point, but he dropped 30 and was the only longhorn that looked capable of doing anything on the court during that game.
Durant came up big time and time again throughout the season, carrying the longhorns down the stretch with huge second halves. He was the vocal leader of the team as a freshman and a damn good one at that. he had some of his best games against the best competition he faced, including a close loss in the Big XII title game against the jayhawks.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> and this is basketball. as in, entertainment value? you go on to bring jessica alba and moms, then say this is no computer games. hilarious.



This is no computer game, as in constant juggling of the roster can backfire on you - even if you are improving on paper.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

PhilK said:


> Jessica Alba Looks Good, She has Skills. Would you trade her for your Mom? I guess Not.


NBA is a business, every player has the chance of getting traded. Comparing a player's relationship with the organization with family relationship is quite inaccurate.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> This is no computer game, as in constant juggling of the roster can backfire on you - even if you are improving on paper.


and it absolutely makes sense with his comparison of picking durant over roy as picking jessica alba over my mother. some people are too much. when did brandon roy become my brother?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> This is no computer game, as in constant juggling of the roster can backfire on you - even if you are improving on paper.


and becoming too sentimentally attached to your players can backfire too when you refuse to make deals which make your team better.


----------

