# Juan Dixon traded for Fred Jones



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I am hearing this has just been consummated.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

where from?


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

what?

link plz


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Here's the link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2775131


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Rock and roll.


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

See ya Juan on one. Ive always hated that schmuck.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Yep I heard it too . . .


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

As Marv Albert says...

YES!!! YES!!!

Very stoked about this move.

PBF


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thats what, 5 "local kids"? Ime, Dickau, Brandon, Webster and Fred?

We trying for the "all NW team" or something?


----------



## blazers2285 (May 2, 2005)

good trade nice pr move freddy plays d


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


I believe that the team (read: Nate) wasn't terribly happy with Dixons attitude.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


I think it was simply a issue of Juan asking to be traded. He didn't want to be here so this move was made to keep him from becoming a lockeroom cancer. The Blazers get a similar player...slightly worse shooter but better defender IMO who has hometown ties and my help sell a few tickets to loyal Duck fans. Pretty much a wash IMO or maybe slightly in Ptown's favor.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

I gotta say I don't get it either. Unless Jones is a stellar defender, he shoots worse than Dixon, so I dunno.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

I'm sure Dixon was angry about not getting minutes. So that's probably contributed to his trade...


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


I would like some perspective on this too. We trade away an inconsistant, short shooting guard, but who has moments of tremendous scoring ability, for a short (and fat?) shooting guard guy who can't shoot, and doesn't appear to have a role on this team--other than being a happy bench warmer. I know Juan wasn't worth much, but I'm not sure I get the point with this trade. Why bother?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Dixon is going to help the Raptors in the Playoffs, that's for sure.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Toronto native Magloire is probably a little mad he wasnt involved in this deal. :biggrin:


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> I think it was simply a issue of Juan asking to be traded. He didn't want to be here so this move was made to keep him from becoming a lockeroom cancer. The Blazers get a similar player...slightly worse shooter but better defender IMO who has hometown ties and my help sell a few tickets to loyal Duck fans. Pretty much a wash IMO or maybe slightly in Ptown's favor.



I agree with this. Freddy doesn't shoot as well as Dixon so we could have problems scoring from the outside. However, he's more athletic and it definitely will help our 2nd unit get out on the break. We can have Sergio, Freddy, Travis, and Aldridge all flying up and down the court. That could be a lot of fun to watch.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

I would've kept Dixon.


----------



## blazers2285 (May 2, 2005)

Jones is heaver and can dunk first of all. and he plays better d-fence. Dixon wanted out you could tell when they talked to him about the trade deadline. Why keep a guy who wants out. Nice to have jones back in oregon If you look at his stats he has been consistently playing better as of late. I could see him and sergio being a good pair along with martel and lamarcus and travis. I don't love this trade but i dont hate it


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

You guys gotta remember that Portland was VERY high on Fred Jones out of college. Fred Jones is a class act, has hometown ties and is very solid defender. He's not a great shooter but the guy is a slasher who isn't afraid to take it to the rack. Outlaw could learn a lot from him. I love this trade.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Todd said:


> I would've kept Dixon.


He didn't want to be here, saw that his position on the team was being eliminated, had a falling out with the coach, and asked to be traded.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


Jones is more athletic and a better defender, he can guard the 1 and the 2 and is fine with being the designated energy guy off the bench.

Juan is a better shooter, but cannot finish like Jones can. 

Jones can run with both Roy and Sergio and will energize the team far better than Juan.

A minor deal, yes. But a positive move.


----------



## blazers2285 (May 2, 2005)

Yea lets keep dixon so he rots on the bench for the rest of the season. If jones sucks it up we can just sit him. But I remeber one game when he murdered us so will see. I think its worth a chance.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Well, they must have really wanted Jones because they just added 3+ million onto the 88-89 payroll to get him.


----------



## Mr_B (Mar 6, 2004)

blue32 said:


> I'm sure Dixon was angry about not getting minutes. So that's probably contributed to his trade...


its going to be hard for him to get time here as well with the way Mo pete and Parker been playing the way I see it this move was just a cap dump we need help with rebounding so from a Toronto perspective this trade don't make much sense other than to clear some space


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

So stoked for this deal! I am very glad to see Dixon go. He just couldn't comprehend what a good shot was. He needed to just be a spot up shooter,but he thought he was MJ. Freddie, won't force anything, and IIRC was getting better with the 3 in the his last years with the Pacers. He will play much better defense, get into the passing lanes, and can finish like none other. This is a great PR move and a better basketball move. Freddie and Outlaw on the break is going to make our bench THAT much stronger.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


Statistically, Fred trails Juan slightly, he flat out can't shoot .387/.317 (I don't know where people get the idea he can), has less experience, shows less court sense IMO, hasn't played in a meaningful game since the game against us on Dec. 22nd, and despite what some people keep saying he's actually an inch shorter than Juan.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/fred_jones/index.html

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/juan_dixon/index.html

Factor in Juan's rapport with the team and Fred's lack of it throughout his career and this looks like a damaging move for the outcome of this season.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


My take:
1. Juan wasnt happy here.
2. Jones wasnt happy in Toronto.
3. Juan is an East Coast guy.
4. Jones is a native Oregonian.
5. Juan is a slightly better shooter *in our system* than Jones is *in Torontos system*. Both may fit better in their new teams systems.
6. Juan has a personality conflict with Nate.
7. Jones is bulkier, plays better defense, and finishes at the rim MUCH better than Juan.

Yes, it is a small move if you look at height and shooting %, but it is potentially a very big move if you look at chemistry, perimeter defense, slashing, and local fan appeal. Easily worth the added $.

PBF


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ron Hoskins, Getty Images/NBAE


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Juan being listed as 6'3" is like how Damon was listed as 5'11". Neither is even close to their actual height.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Now, it's time for 11th hour Magloire negotiations...


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

blazers2285 said:


> If you look at his stats he has been consistently playing better as of late.


LOL :lol: 

If you look at his stats you'll see he hasn't been playing AT ALL as of late:

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/fred_jones/game_by_game_stats.html


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Someone please explain this one to me. Is Jones a better defender? I doubt he can shoot any better than Dixon (and probably not as well). I'm not getting this one. There's hardly any difference between these guys, and Jones is only slightly younger.


Yes, he is a good defender. Much better than Dixon.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Now, it's time for 11th hour Magloire negotiations...


Without knowing anything about Joels injury, I would be REALLY cautious about trading Magloire right now.

PBF


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Without knowing anything about Joels injury, I would be REALLY cautious about trading Magloire right now.
> 
> PBF


XRay negative, MRI pending.

I'd still do a Magloire deal, and Per Jason Quick (on The Fan), so would Portland.

Aaron McKie & Chris Mihm discussions are still being had. I'm guessing Portland is trying to squeeze a pick out of LA or something.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Good move I think. It's one more step to being an up tempo team. Jones would thrive in an up and down type offense. Sergio, Jones, Webster, Outlaw, Aldridge....That teams flies up and down the floor.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

I support this move only because Juan wanted out. I think it's a wash overall (and I generally won't support a move that doesn't actually improve the team, but chemistry does matter), Juan is certainly a better shooter, but Fred is a better defender. I liked Juan, and hope he does well in Toronto. 

Him being a player from Oregon doesn't matter to me (hell I'm an OSU grad, I probably should hold it against him!), but I know some will like that so I can see that being a benefit for management.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Does anyone know what type of guy Fred Jones is?


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

ProudBFan said:


> My take:
> 1. Juan wasnt happy here.
> 2. Jones wasnt happy in Toronto.
> 3. Juan is an East Coast guy.
> ...


2. Except, if I recall correctly, Jones wasn't happy with his PT. That's not
going to change here.
4. So was Damon.... Seriously, if he's not happy with his lack of PT here,
being a local guy is going to make it worse.

I don't like the trade, right now. But I'm willing to have a "wait-and-see" attitude.
I like Fred Jones as a local and a good representative of Oregon, but as a player I'm not sure.

If he does get PT, the over-under is 2 weeks before people start complaining
about taking minutes from Martell (Jones only plays SG).


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

Hap said:


> Juan being listed as 6'3" is like how Damon was listed as 5'11". Neither is even close to their actual height.


Exactly. Dixon might not even be 6 even. I saw him next to JJ at a game and Jack was atleast 3 inches taller than him.


----------



## Mr_B (Mar 6, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Does anyone know what type of guy Fred Jones is?


like everyone said hes a good defender with decent skills and great leaping ability but at the same time hes a terrible shooter and thats mainly cuz his shot is very flat what went wrong in Toronto was he had a hot start for the 1st 15 games playing very well then just fell off started playing bad and worked his way into the doghouse then when Mo pete and Parker started to get it going it was hard for him to get playing time again


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> Without knowing anything about Joels injury, I would be REALLY cautious about trading Magloire right now.
> 
> PBF



yep, better to keep him. nobody is offering anything of value anyway from the looks of it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I like this move a lot. Portland loses a bit of shooting, but gains slashing and defense. The defense part is the clincher.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

BiggaAdams said:


> Exactly. Dixon might not even be 6 even. I saw him next to JJ at a game and Jack was atleast 3 inches taller than him.


I've stood next to Juan Dixon. I'm 6'4" and would say that in shoes, Juan is around 6'1". He's also very thin. Without shoes, he's probably hovering right around the 6' mark. Definitely one of the smallest, in terms of height and weight, two guards in the league.

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Contracts*

Dixon: 
2006-07: 2,550,000
2007-08: 2,550,000

Jones:
2006-07: 3,100,000
2007-08: 3,300,000
2008-09: 3,500,000


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

As I think about this more I think we are going to miss Dixon's shooting. Outside shooting is one of the worst parts of our team. I'm not sure just how much better of a defender Jones is either. The trade is a wash or possibly slightly in Toronto's favor.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

TLo said:


> As I think about this more I think we are going to miss Dixon's shooting. Outside shooting is one of the worst parts of our team. I'm not sure just how much better of a defender Jones is either. The trade is a wash or possibly slightly in Toronto's favor.


A couple things to think about:

Portland has Ime Udoka, Martell Webster (who has to start shooting at some point), and a first round pick in a deep draft.

I agree, though, that this is a step backwards from a shooting standpoint.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Good move I think. It's one more step to being an up tempo team. Jones would thrive in an up and down type offense.


And Dixon wouldn't? My God, Dixon was as quick and energetic as they come; he loved to get out and run. And there were nights when Dixon was the only guy on the Blazers who could hit a shot. For a team weak in shooting (See Martell Webster), this seems like a strange move to me.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

Hello:

Happy with the trade. I don't know about you guys, but I definitely cringed everytime we passed it to Juan Brixon, because it never came back out after that. Anyways, you guys definitely need to give more credit to Jones. He fits in MUCH better with Nate's defensive gameplan, something that Dixon had a hard time following. He's also more of a team player that Juan, and won't shoot it everytime he smells the ball coming his way.


On a side note, is this the first player Portland has ever had on its roster that won the slam dunk contest?


On


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

So what? Dixon showed up offensively every 4 or 5 games? Seriously...He wasn't that good, and he was a craptastic defender, who had an attitude about his playing time and role on the team since last year and griped out loud about it....

It is a minor deal...I am not a huge Fred Jones fan, but he is a local kid, with a good head on his shoulderd...always good for PR and he gives effort defensively and makes up for what he lacks in shooting ability with his athletic ability..

We are talking about a 9th-10th man here...It is a minor deal....


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I never liked Dixon's attitude. He always had a chip on his shoulder. I don't know if Freddy will be different, but I loved the way Jones played at Oregon and I'm hoping he can bring that kind of energy to the Blazers.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Freshtown said:


> On a side note, is this the first player Portland has ever had on its roster that won the slam dunk contest?
> 
> 
> On


Isaiah Rider


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

ryanjend22 said:


> Isaiah Rider


Beat me to it.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Positive: Portland has a guy who can finish on the break at the rim.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

East County kid, played at Barlow High School, went to the U of O. From what I have heard he is a Gym Rat and loves the game. Good addition for a player that really didn't fit into the direction that the team is heading. While not a huge trade, it has to help ticket sales.

Now what is the hold up with Chicago? :biggrin:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i agree that the deal is pretty much irrelevant, other than added salary. jack should really be the one getting backup minutes at 2.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

This is a minor move, but I think a good one. Yes, Dixon can light it up from time to time, but he's also the kind of guy who can shoot his team right out of a game. While his FG% is up slightly this year, he's still inconsistant and has way to many games where he shoots less than 33% from the field.

Since he does little else besides shoot the ball, when his shot isn't falling he doesn't do anything to help his team in other ways.

Jones' number aren't much better, and he shoots the ball worse than Dixon. However, Jones actually plays a little defense. Juan Dixon is one of the worst defenders I've ever seen. When he's in the game, it is like playing 4 on 5 on defense. Taller, stronger (i.e. ALL) shooting guards post him up like he's not even there. They blow by him and attack the rim, or simply shoot over him like he's invisible. Being guarded by Juan Dixon is like having a "Get to the Rim Free Pass" for opposing 2 guards. Even on nights when his shot is falling, I he usually gives up as many or more points at the other end - and when his shot isn't falling, it's just plain ugly out there.

I think that's Nate's biggest gripe with Dixon and why he's been getting fewer minutes as the season progresses. Dixon is definitely NOT a Nate guy. Nate generally cuts veterans some slack, but he still wants them to play defense. Even if Dixon had the right attitude and tried to play good defense, he's simply physically overmached by pretty much every other two guard in the league - and he's not really quick enough to guard the other team's point guard when teamed with Roy in the backcourt.

Fred Jones is no saviour, but he does seem to be a better fit with this coach and this team. If not, no big deal. All we gave up is a medicore, grossly undersized, one dimensional shooting guard. Heck, the team seemed to do quite well last night with Juan's skinny butt riding the pine. It's not like we really needed the guy and he certainly didn't fit into the long range plans of this team. Best to move him before his complaining causes problems in the locker room.

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

30 minutes left...


----------



## sjla2kology101 (Apr 23, 2006)

TLo said:


> As I think about this more I think we are going to miss Dixon's shooting. Outside shooting is one of the worst parts of our team. I'm not sure just how much better of a defender Jones is either. The trade is a wash or possibly slightly in Toronto's favor.



We will see, last night he didn't play and it was are best win of the season so we seemed to manage but it was only one game, I like Fred Jones allot and think he would do better under Nate.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Jones has agreed not to exercise the player option year of his contract, meaning his current deal will expire at the end of the 2007-08 season.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

> The Portland Trail Blazers today acquired guard/forward Fred Jones, a former Oregon Duck, and future considerations from the Toronto Raptors in exchange for guard Juan Dixon. As part of the trade, Jones has agreed not to exercise the player option year of his contract, meaning his current deal will expire at the end of the 2007-08 season.


Interesting from Jones' perspective. I'm not sold on him being a guy who stays in the league after next year, so for him to give up that final year (maybe Toronto is paying him), is interesting. I hope he doesn't end up getting screwed in this.

Also, we get 'future considerations' from the Raptors... Hmm.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm warming to this trade a little more. 

One thing to keep in mind is that Jones hit 87 threes at a 38% clip just two and a half years ago. That was when paired with a healthier Jermaine O'Neal. Basically, a good low post offense created open looks for him which he canned at a reasonably good rate. 

Now let's look at Juan Dixon. Before coming to Portland, he was a 31% three point shooter. Now he's around 37%.

Or look at Ime Udoka. Before Portland he was a complete unknown from three point range. Now it's his entire offensive game. 

Or look at Steve Blake, who shot 41% from three while here, and hasn't come close to that number before or since. 

Or even Damon Stoudamire, who saw his three point shooting sink to a 7 year low after leaving Portland. 

It's quite fashionable to complain about Randolph and the Nate offense, but the fact is he draws a ton of double teams, and consequently creates a ton of open looks around the perimeter. Now he doesn't pass as often as you'd like, but when he does there are open three point shots to be had. 

Is there any guarantee Jones' outside shooting will improve? No. After all, he's also played beside a pretty decent low post guy in Chris Bosh. But given what I've seen from other Blazer shooters, my money is on him being a lot better than he's shown this year so far.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Pacers Team President Donnie Walsh drafted Fred Jones:



Donnie Walsh said:


> "I looked at him and thought this guy's got a chance to go to another level," Walsh said.
> 
> Walsh said Jones will fill a need in the backcourt and is the type of player who can create his own plays. Jones can play both point and shooting guard.
> 
> "He doesn't need screens, he doesn't need help. He can just take it and go," Walsh said.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Jones will stay in the league after next year. He isnt THAT bad.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

'future considerations' <============ what does this mean?


----------



## sjla2kology101 (Apr 23, 2006)

"Jones, in the first year of a three-year, $9.9 million deal with the Raptors, recently missed eight games with a dislocated finger on his right hand." is that why he hasn't played in the last 8 games? :whoknows:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Jones will stay in the league after next year. He isnt THAT bad.


He's struggling for minutes in the league. Guys with more stock than Jones have dropped out of the league after that second contract expired. 

Stranger things have happened.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

I think it was a decent trade if anything just to get Dixon out of here before he did become a negative in the locker room.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I just remember what Freddy was like when he was at Oregon. Really exciting guy. At times he would put the team on his back and carry them. I know he did that quite a bit in his last year with the team. 

Really I'm just excited to have someone who can finish on the break. I don't know if you guys have noticed, but we are TERRIBLE on a 3v2 or 3v1 fast break. So many times I've seen someone make the wrong pass or not pass when they should. I would like to see that change.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Great move by the Blazers. I've always been a fan of Jones' game, and he will fit in perfectly in Portland. It helps that he's a local kid, too, who'se childhood dream, like Dan Dickau and Ime Udoka, was to play for the Blazers. How cool is that that we have three local players on the team all at once? Five, if you stretch "local" to include Washington (Roy, Webster). These are good times to be Blazers fans, I think that we will look back on this trade and consider it a steal.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I think this trade has to do with putting a team together that is all on the same page. Dixon was not and so he had to go. What we saw last night looked like the beginning of a team understanding its parts and not giving up. Anything that undermindes that at this juncture should be terminated.

Egos must be put aside so this team can bond. Good Team trade!

Besides Dixon was lost without Blake.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> Really I'm just excited to have someone who can finish on the break. I don't know if you guys have noticed, but we are TERRIBLE on a 3v2 or 3v1 fast break. So many times I've seen someone make the wrong pass or not pass when they should. I would like to see that change.


Great point. We are literally the worst fast breaking team in the NBA. You can attribute some of that to Nate and Zach, but the truth is that Jack, Outlaw, Dixon and Webster aren't good decision makers/finishers on the break. We probably miss that aspect of Darius Miles more than anything else. 

Adding a guy who can take it strong to the rack on a break can only help this team.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

mook said:


> Great point. We are literally the worst fast breaking team in the NBA. You can attribute some of that to Nate and Zach, but the truth is that Jack, Outlaw, Dixon and Webster aren't good decision makers/finishers on the break. We probably miss that aspect of Darius Miles more than anything else.
> 
> Adding a guy who can take it strong to the rack on a break can only help this team.


Sad as it is, our fast break points have gone way down since Sheed left. How many lobs to Sheed did we have in the late 90's early 00's? Pip to Sheed was a maintstay. 

We have the tools to do that again. Aldridge, Outlaw, and now Jones. We just need the right guys running the break. I think Jones is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Is Fred Jones 6-2 or 6-4? The way these things work, I have a feeling it's the former.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> Sad as it is, our fast break points have gone way down since Sheed left. How many lobs to Sheed did we have in the late 90's early 00's? Pip to Sheed was a maintstay.
> 
> We have the tools to do that again. Aldridge, Outlaw, and now Jones. We just need the right guys running the break. I think Jones is a step in the right direction.


I think that Dallas moment (you know the one) purged our future cache of fast break points.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

NateBishop3 said:


> Sad as it is, our fast break points have gone way down since Sheed left. How many lobs to Sheed did we have in the late 90's early 00's? Pip to Sheed was a maintstay.
> 
> We have the tools to do that again. Aldridge, Outlaw, and now Jones. We just need the right guys running the break. I think Jones is a step in the right direction.


Or, maybe he's just an expiring contract - I think we're renting. We'll see
if we're buying come this off-season.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/blazers/

"Welcome home Freddie."


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I think this is a great move for the Blazers for the reasons stated. The fast break aspect, the strength he brings in his body, and the fact that we have a very good low-post that demands a double team. 

He is better than he has shown, will he be here is a "wait-and-see"? I predict that he will be better here becuse he is "back home", and he probably did not like Toronto as a place to dwell. Given that tose facts he can excell here if he realy wants to.

gatorpops


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I agree it's a solid move.

I'll miss Juan. I think he's a unique player. Despite his flaws, he's an incredibly hard worker who has a lot of confidence... sort of the anti-Webster.

I wish him well in Toronto.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Even Blazers.com lists him at 6-2. I think his vertical/athleticism makes up for his apparent size deficiency. And he's a much bigger guy than Juan, at 225.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

it's similar for both teams in one way, very different in another. similar in the sense that neither player was doing much for their side. but different in that juan appeared to have more of a shot in portland, while fred was lost in the shuffle and (imo) forgotten about in toronto.

honestly, at the end of the day, i think this deal is pretty meaningless. i don't see juan bringing anything to the table that toronto needs, i don't see toronto losing anything that fred was bringing consistently (i.e. nothing?), and vice versa from the portland perspective. at the same time, i was hoping that toronto could find a way to bring value out of fred's game. it just seemed like he conceded to weave cobwebs around himself on the bench and nobody could manage to get through to him. in that way he seemed different than the rest of the team: whereas players like joey graham, mo peterson, tj ford and even chris bosh would thrive on sam mitchell's criticism, fred didn't respond similarly. i'm only going on images and sounds staged throughout the games, but (imo) it seemed like fred would reply to sam's "you're playing terribly out there, fred. i won't play you anymore tonight" with an "i guess i am. you're right. you probably _shouldn't_ play me anymore."

i always thought blame should be distributed to both sides, though (the coaches for not customizing their approach somewhat to fred; fred for not changing somewhat to meet the culture of the team), but it's unfortunately led to this outcome. it's just too bad, imo. maybe fred was never going to fit in toronto regardless, maybe his personality was just so far removed from that of his team that his career couldn't possibly be salvaged as a raptor, but i'm not that weak myself: where there is a will, there is a way (imo). and hopefully fred and portland can find that 'will' now. i think toronto failed miserably in that regard.

in terms of fred as a man off the court, he's always impressed me. he was heavily involved in the community while he was here in TO, even when he wasn't playing, and he always did his work with a smile on his face. a real easy guy to like and respect. i mean, his agent and GM managed to find him a trade in the end, and you know he was being shopped around for awhile, but he never came off as _clamoring_ for a move even though you know _he_ knew that his career had reached a stalemate with the raptors. i guess it's a sad commentary on the state of the game today, but i respect when modern day players can save their teams the distraction of trade demands when their worlds reach that point. good for fred.

in terms of the dislocated finger, i've long subscribed to the conspiracy theory that that was an excuse to sit the man while a trading partner was sought. it was too convenient for me to see fred enter the game last night, the night before the deadline, and even more convenient to see him enter the game _when_ he did (second q)- and before a player, no less, joey graham, who had been ahead of him on the depth chart for months. just too convenient. i imagine if the deadline had been next week, fred would still be out with a 'dislocated finger' today. iow, i doubt the finger was ever much of an issue (but that's just mel gibson & julia roberts for you).

peace


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kudos to KP/SP for removing the one aspect of the deal that made me queasy: his contract. I know it seems minor, but Jones had an extra year on his deal, and the way Portland has been drafting and adding players, we might have had a disgruntled guy whose trade value was down with another year left on his deal. 

Removing that extra year keeps the trade pretty even, and allows us to rent-a-player and see if he fits. 

KP for GM!


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I love the trade. 

Dixon was effective 1 out of 5 games. I hate how streaky he is. I understand "shooting out of a slump," but not for 4 games in a row only to find your stroke for 1. Jones, on the other hand, will always be a decent to good defender that can run a fast break and finish. I'm guessing he's happy to be home and I'm also guessing that he will immediately buy in to what Nate is trying to do here. That alone brings more value than a guy that scores 15-20 pts once every five games, sucks at defense, can't finish at the rim....and wasn't happy here.

A no brainer.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

It's really a good trade.

Jones REALLLLLY wants to be here, apparent by his agreeing not to exercise his option.
Jones is a an above average defender, 10x what Juan was.
Jones can be a decent shooter, though this season he has really struggled.
Jones is incredibly exciting in the open floor. Juan rarely attacked the rim, and for good reason, he is short and small. Jones is bigger, and more explosive.
Did I mention that he really wants to be here and can defend?


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

OMG is wikipedia fast or what
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Jones


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

good riddance Juan....

Thank god.

I love this team! woo!


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

I like the deal. A backcourt of Dixon and Rodriguez, while good on offense, was just brutal defensively. In any case, we don't really need a homeless man's Iverson on a rebuilding team.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

Solid move - even if it means making me root for a Duck.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

KP mentioned it when he joined Eric Marrentette (sic) after draft day. He said

"That's the funny thing about these trades is, we really try to figure out who wants to be here. We make that part of our process now, and we know Freeland can't wait to be here, Sergio wanted to be here, Roy wanted to be here, Aldridge loved Nate and is ready to start working tomorrow to be here. That's a different culture change."

This is a minor trade, but it adds one more guy who wants to be here. That really helps in the locker room... Dixon was unhappy and wanted out, and we replace him with a local guy who is as good as Dixon who wants to be here.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

Check out this video of how his current injury happened. Just insane athleticism and takes it hard to rack. Some people who have been asking for an up tempo game, just one more reason for it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ufF7RphGkT4


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Nice trade. With that extra year cut off, it's basically a no risk move. We get one undersized SG who is a poor defender, a very streaky scorer and a hometown hero in exchange for a more undersized SG who is a very poor defender, only slightly less streaky and potentially disgruntled, for the same price.

The one thing I wonder is why couldn't Mo Pete and Magloire have been included in this deal? Is there no number of second round picks that would make that happen for us?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Statistically, Fred trails Juan slightly, he flat out can't shoot .387/.317 (I don't know where people get the idea he can), has less experience, shows less court sense IMO, hasn't played in a meaningful game since the game against us on Dec. 22nd, and despite what some people keep saying he's actually an inch shorter than Juan.
> 
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/fred_jones/index.html
> 
> ...


Aren't you the one who predicted we would only win 19 games this year? 

Ummmm, that speaks for itself.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Actually, one other thing I'm wondering: Was this the biggest trade of deadline day? If so, talk about much ado about nothing...


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> The one thing I wonder is why couldn't Mo Pete and Magloire have been included in this deal? Is there no number of second round picks that would make that happen for us?



I think if the Raps are still below .500 and playing mediocre, the deal gets done. Then the tides turned for the Raps and now they're sitting 5 games over and MoPete is a part of that.


----------



## speedythief (Jul 16, 2003)

Webster's Dictionary said:


> Check out this video of how his current injury happened. Just insane athleticism and takes it hard to rack. Some people who have been asking for an up tempo game, just one more reason for it.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ufF7RphGkT4


Unfortunately one of Fred's issues is that he gets up in the air before deciding what to do when he gets there and stuff like this happens. His offensive awareness is lacking.

He is a great character guy, and even though things didn't work out for him in Toronto he can still be an effective player in the NBA.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Is Fred going to be out for a while with the injury? Or was that a turf toe injury that kept him inactive?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Positive: Portland has a guy who can finish on the break at the rim.



Yes we do. His name is Travis.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Yes we do. His name is Travis.


He's not where he needs to be. Did you see the Utah game? The Phoenix game?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> The one thing I wonder is why couldn't Mo Pete and Magloire have been included in this deal? Is there no number of second round picks that would make that happen for us?


I don't think Toronto has any interest in Magloire. They are looking to play uptempo and Magloire certainly isn't ideal for that even if he is a hometown guy.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mook said:


> I'm warming to this trade a little more.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that Jones hit 87 threes at a 38% clip just two and a half years ago.
> 
> ...


So Fred gets worse and worse while others get better and better.

Way to pull for the guy.:lol:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Is Fred Jones 6-2 or 6-4? The way these things work, I have a feeling it's the former.


He's an inch shorter than Juan, any way you measure him, but about 8" fatter.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> So Fred gets worse and worse while others get better and better.
> 
> Way to pull for the guy.:lol:


That's not even close to the point he was making.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> He's an inch shorter than Juan, any way you measure him, but about 8" fatter.


So your contention is that Juan is 6-3 (no way), and that Fred Jones is fat?

Where do you stand on this trade? It's so hard to tell...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Foulzilla said:


> I don't think Toronto has any interest in Magloire. They are looking to play uptempo and Magloire certainly isn't ideal for that even if he is a hometown guy.


They do play uptempo, but that doesn't mean everyone on the team has to be a race horse. Chris Bosh specifically requested that the team get a big bruiser for a center this summer, so he wouldn't have to do all that inside dirty work himself. It makes sense that now Toronto values Pete more now that they are winning with him, which kills the deal, but I don't think they'd be unhappy to get Magloire. His expiring contract means that there would be no risk. But alas, it is just wishful thinking.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> But alas, it is just wishful thinking.


Future consideration: Could Toronto possibly pick up Magloire on waivers?


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> So Fred gets worse and worse while others get better and better.
> 
> Way to pull for the guy.:lol:


/golfclap


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

speedythief said:


> Unfortunately one of Fred's issues is that he gets up in the air before deciding what to do when he gets there and stuff like this happens. His offensive awareness is lacking.
> 
> He is a great character guy, and even though things didn't work out for him in Toronto he can still be an effective player in the NBA.


Yeah, I'm not unhappy about this trade at all, but I've heard it said in here that Jones can play the point for us. Umm, no.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Yeah, I'm not unhappy about this trade at all, but I've heard it said in here that Jones can play the point for us. Umm, no.


He can play it late in the game when you are making defensive subs.


----------



## Benis007 (May 23, 2005)

happy to see fred and his salary off the books. i had high hopes for him coming into the season and he had a strong pre season, but it just didnt come together for him in toronto. glad to see us pick up dixon who will provide some shooting, as opposed to very little out of jones most recently.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> Future consideration: Could Toronto possibly pick up Magloire on waivers?


That would be cool. I was expecting Portland to not trade MAgloire, but buy him out instead after the deadline, but with Joel and Raef both injured, I don't see that happening, at least not soon. And either way, it wouldn't get us Mo Pete :boohoo:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

2k said:


> He can play it late in the game when you are making defensive subs.


That's a pretty tiny role, and I think Jack or Roy fills that role much better anyway.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> They do play uptempo, but that doesn't mean everyone on the team has to be a race horse. Chris Bosh specifically requested that the team get a big bruiser for a center this summer, so he wouldn't have to do all that inside dirty work himself. It makes sense that now Toronto values Pete more now that they are winning with him, which kills the deal, but I don't think they'd be unhappy to get Magloire. His expiring contract means that there would be no risk. But alas, it is just wishful thinking.


Toronto already has a solid big man in Nesterovic. Nesterovic is not as strong as Magloire but has a better passing game and a mid range jump shot. With the way that the Raptors play nowadays, Nesterovic is a better fit. We have Bargnani coming off the bench playing centre and Bosh and Garbojosa can both play centre at times making a trade for another big man unlikely.

As for Fred Jones, he played himself out of the rotation in Toronto. He was given plenty of playing time(even started a few games, I think) early on in the season but he did no play well in a stretch of around 10 games. After that, he has been used sparingly and has just not performed well. Surprisingly, he relied on his jumpshot more than his athleticism in Toronto which made a lot of us fans scratching our heads wondering why he wasn't taking it to the basket. Hopefully a change of scenery will give him a fresh start. I think the potential is there, he just needs to play the right way. As for Dixon, I don't think he will be in the Raptors rotation. Raptors' Calderon and Mopete can start at pg and sg for some teams in the league and both of them are coming off the bench in Toronto. I just don't see Dixon getting in front of either of them in the depth chart barring a trade.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Benis007 said:


> happy to see fred and his salary off the books. i had high hopes for him coming into the season and he had a strong pre season, but it just didnt come together for him in toronto. glad to see us pick up dixon who will provide some shooting, as opposed to very little out of jones most recently.


Get used to the fact that Juan Dixon isn't nicknamed "Juan Shotta Minute" for nothing.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/chatradio/

Quick and Patterson on in a few minutes...


----------



## pablinho (Sep 8, 2006)

i watched like 35 Toronto games this year and some from Dixon...(watching spanish crew tbh, except Memphis, the roster sux.) i think you lose in the trading... maybe Jones defends a bit better than Dixon, but Dixon shoot far better than Jones, and Jones this year finished very bad in the penetrations...


Anyway i wish he fits in Portland style.


----------



## Superblaze (Aug 6, 2006)

> i watched like 35 Toronto games this year and some from Dixon...(watching spanish crew tbh, except Memphis, the roster sux.) i think you lose in the trading... maybe Jones defends a bit better than Dixon, but Dixon shoot far better than Jones, and Jones this year finished very bad in the penetrations...
> Anyway i wish he fits in Portland style.


Right....Dixon fits in Portland style


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Sounds like the future consideration is cash to make up the difference in salary so this deal doesnt cost us anymore then keeping Dixon.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Sounds like the future consideration is cash to make up the difference in salary so this deal doesnt cost us anymore then keeping Dixon.


link?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Benis007 said:


> glad to see us pick up dixon who will provide some shooting...


If there is one thing Juan will provide it's PLENTY of shooting. Maybe not a lot of making (some nights yes, most nights no), but PLENTY of shooting.

BNM


----------



## The KiBosh (Feb 17, 2007)

Raps fan here. Give you the skinny on Jones so far this year in tdot. He was brought over in the begining of the season when the raps were going to play the "run and gun" system. He was rated by ESPN as a real canidate for the Most Improved Player award because everyone thought he would break out in this system. Didn't work out that way. He started off as a bit of a chucker. Took some bad shots. Raps tried to play him through it but he just wasn't clicking. When his minutes got reduced so did his defensive intensity. He played his way into being one of the worst defenders on the raps and The Smitch (Toronto's Head Coach) just benched him. He was a DNP coaches deceision several times this season. The guy had a few flashes of what looked liked a good player in him and he still could be but its definetly wasn't gonna happen on the raps. In reading your posts it sounds like you guys think he a good defender... from what I've seen of him this season he's nothing more then below mediocore. Hope that changes for you guys though. The guy does have a LOT of athleticism and COULD be a good player. 
Oh yeah... the guy is a class act though off the court. Never cause any public problems and didn't look unhappy on the bench (though his body language on the court looked like he was disinterested at times).
I realise Dixon is no prize either and this trade looks like just a swapping of two unhappy guys who could turn into cancers in the locker rooms. Any other questions about Jones and the raps just ask.

P.S. So is Juan money on open jumpers? I know he's a decent/good shooter but HOW good? Toronto has no problem generating high FG% shooting opportunities so i'm hopping he might be a help there. Is he really as bad a defender as some of the posts here say? A lot of the Toronto media is saying Dixon>Jones defensively. Also... Any links to portland media talking about the trade would be appreciated. Its always nice to see what the other side has to say.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> That's a pretty tiny role, and I think Jack or Roy fills that role much better anyway.


Jones pretty instantly becomes the best defender on the team for a guy like Iverson. So have Jones on the court with Roy -- Roy plays PG on offense and SG on defense, Jones just the opposite. It could work much like it did with Dixon, swapping the more offensive Dixon for the more defensive Jones.


----------



## The KiBosh (Feb 17, 2007)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Jones pretty instantly becomes the best defender on the team for a guy like Iverson. So have Jones on the court with Roy -- Roy plays PG on offense and SG on defense, Jones just the opposite. It could work much like it did with Dixon, swapping the more offensive Dixon for the more defensive Jones.



Wow... No offense but Jones wouldn't go NEAR iverson when he was playing on the raps... So unless you guys are THAT bad defensively you are GROSLY overestimating his defense. I don't mean this in any mean way. Its just the way it is (or at least has been on the raps). Iverson would shake and bake past Jones faster then Micheal J. Fox in an Iron Chef competition.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

The KiBosh said:


> P.S. So is Juan money on open jumpers? I know he's a decent/good shooter but HOW good?


He's not 'money' but he's above average. I'd say he's slightly better than Fred, but at the same time, there will be stretches where he makes absolutely nothing. He's a streaky guy, but when he's on it's nice to have him off the bench.


The KiBosh said:


> Is he really as bad a defender as some of the posts here say?


Yes. Yes, he is. He's like, 6-0, slightly built, and has real difficulty keeping his man in front of him.



> A lot of the Toronto media is saying Dixon>Jones defensively.


Wishful thinking. I think the trade is Dixon's shooting superiority for Jones' defensive superiority. But neither of these guys are peaches in any respect, and that's why they're both out of the rotation.

Basically, the best/worst thing about Juan is his shooting. He can come in for 6 minutes off the bench and get 4-5 shots up. It's usually feast or famine, and he can get you back into a game or shoot you out of one. 

I like Juan's hunger for taking the shots late in games. He never has any hesitancy about doing that (As evidenced by his history at Maryland).


----------



## The KiBosh (Feb 17, 2007)

Samuel said:


> He's not 'money' but he's above average. I'd say he's slightly better than Fred, but at the same time, there will be stretches where he makes absolutely nothing. He's a streaky guy, but when he's on it's nice to have him off the bench.


I guess having another shooter on the bench doesn't hurt. But if he's streaky I could see him being benched a lot here. We have a lot of consistent shooters here. Hopefully he doesn't cause to much trouble in the locker room if we do have to bench em.


EDIT: Thanks for the info


Samuel said:


> Yes. Yes, he is. He's like, 6-0, slightly built, and has real difficulty keeping his man in front of him.


[/QUOTE]

Is he capable of guarding pg's? Also... Did he play much as a PG in portland? How is he? From what I hear he's a "combo" guard and it might be a nice security blanket to have a 3rd stringer in that position if one of our PG's go down.



Samuel said:


> Wishful thinking. I think the trade is Dixon's shooting superiority for Jones' defensive superiority. But neither of these guys are peaches in any respect, and that's why they're both out of the rotation.
> 
> Basically, the best/worst thing about Juan is his shooting. He can come in for 6 minutes off the bench and get 4-5 shots up. It's usually feast or famine, and he can get you back into a game or shoot you out of one.
> 
> I like Juan's hunger for taking the shots late in games. He never has any hesitancy about doing that (As evidenced by his history at Maryland).


From what I see I think so too. Its just a trade between to 8/9th guys on the depth charts. The trade is a wash... Well with Toronto getting a _slight_ edge because the contract is smaller and shorter.


Edit: Thanks for the info Samuel.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

With Jones not taking his player option year - the contrats are the same length from Portland's point of view, less from Toronto's. I am going to guess that with "future considarations" included the Blazers are probably doing a no-money exchange where Toronto gets out of the last year of Jones's contract. Hopefully it will work better for both players and teams in their new locale.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Jones pretty instantly becomes the best defender on the team for a guy like Iverson. So have Jones on the court with Roy -- Roy plays PG on offense and SG on defense, Jones just the opposite. It could work much like it did with Dixon, swapping the more offensive Dixon for the more defensive Jones.


I feel like we've watched totally different players. I'm with KiBosh on this one. The Fred Jones I've seen is a pretty bad defender in the NBA. Admittedly, most of when I saw him was after the Malice in the Palace when FJ was getting big minutes in Indiana, but I really doubt he's improved it since.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

The KiBosh said:


> P.S. So is Juan money on open jumpers? I know he's a decent/good shooter but HOW good? Toronto has no problem generating high FG% shooting opportunities so i'm hopping he might be a help there. Is he really as bad a defender as some of the posts here say? A lot of the Toronto media is saying Dixon>Jones defensively. Also... Any links to portland media talking about the trade would be appreciated. Its always nice to see what the other side has to say.


Juan is just ok as a spot up shooter, not great. I'd say he's more of a "scorer" than a "shooter". He can drive and has a money pull up jumper from short range, so he can really create offense for himself. Our announcers dubbed him "the Baseline Bandit", for his ability to drive baseline and find high percentage short shots. He can also keep in motion without the ball and find open spots from 10'-15' out. He can hit a 3, but isn't exceptional at it. He's not proficient at creating for others, and doesn't usually look to pass when he is driving with the ball.

And yes, Dixon's defense really is that bad. He isn't that slow, but he seems a lot smaller than his listed height. He absolutely cannot stop opposing 3pt shooters to save his life, and if he tries they drive around him easily. Bigger guys can bully him easily. It's pretty bad.

Dixon's best role is as a scorer playing with the backups. He can create for himself, sometimes in very large bursts, so if the second unit is bereft of scoring ability, you can give it to him and he will often be able to synthesize something. If a coach sends Dixon in motion, so the opposing guard has to chase him around and get tired, then he also can serve that purpose. That's about it. I don't think any halfway decent team would rely on Dixon as a major rotation player if they had a choice, but if you can mask him on defense and use him right on offense, he won't totally embarass you.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

The KiBosh said:


> I guess having another shooter on the bench doesn't hurt. But if he's streaky I could see him being benched a lot here. We have a lot of consistent shooters here. Hopefully he doesn't cause to much trouble in the locker room if we do have to bench em.


I think he'll add an offensive punch like dudleysghost mentioned. He's good at creating offense off the dribble and pulling up. And he's an average SG from the perimeter, so he won't hurt you from 3.




> Is he capable of guarding pg's? Also... Did he play much as a PG in portland? How is he? From what I hear he's a "combo" guard and it might be a nice security blanket to have a 3rd stringer in that position if one of our PG's go down.


He didn't play PG. In the last two years, Coach Nate McMillan would often play our biggest PG with him in the back court and have Dixon match up with the point guard. It's a double edged sword, because most SG's can post up on him pretty easily, and most PGs can take him off the dribble. But guarding the PG, he becomes only pretty bad on defense, not godawful.




> From what I see I think so too. Its just a trade between to 8/9th guys on the depth charts. The trade is a wash... Well with Toronto getting a _slight_ edge because the contract is smaller and shorter.


Fred is opting out his 08-09 option year, and I believe Toronto is paying the difference between Jones' salary and Dixon's. So it's a wash all around.

It's great all around.

- Juan Dixon wanted out of town, and he got it.
- Portland upgraded defensively just a tad, and got someone who can finish on the break (a huge problem for our team).
- Fred Jones was out of favor and needed a second chance.
- A local guy comes home, always a nice story, especially for our franchise's PR.
- Dixon gets to play in the playoffs, something he seems made for. 

Neither guy is going to be the difference, but they can both come in and help.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Samuel said:


> link?


Raptor fans posted that their GM said this in a radio interview so who knows. Makes sense though.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> I feel like we've watched totally different players. I'm with KiBosh on this one. The Fred Jones I've seen is a pretty bad defender in the NBA. Admittedly, most of when I saw him was after the Malice in the Palace when FJ was getting big minutes in Indiana, but I really doubt he's improved it since.



I think we have watched different players. When Jones was in Indy he was, at worst, an average defensive player. I dont know about Toronto because I havent seen him play this year but even going back to his Duck days he's always been decent on the defensive end.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I like this trade.

Sans the fact that I'm a former Duck, Jones could very easily jumpstart his career here and he's much less likely to complain about his role than Dixon.

Dixon was a gunner with not enough bullets. Not to mention, he played poor defense.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

Admittedly I haven't seen him play in a while, shoot, I haven't seen him play a _whole_ lot period. I just remember Carlisle praising Jones as an incredible defender. Did he lose interest? Did he forget how to defend? I don't know, but I remember distinctively Carlisle saying Jones was a great defender.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> Juan being listed as 6'3" is like how Damon was listed as 5'11". Neither is even close to their actual height.


I can buy that theory but clarify something for me if you will.

Does this mean that Yao is really only 6'11" or does the NBA only lie to enhance the value of players you personally dislike? :whoknows:


----------



## statman (Feb 27, 2004)

Careerwise, both have almost the same overall FG% but Jones takes more 3 pointers vs 2 pointers than Dixon which lowers his overall FG%.

Breaking it down into 2 pointers and 3 points, Jones has better career FG% for both:

Jones
2pt .445
3pt .344

Dixon
2pt .403
3pt .336

This year Dixon has better FG%: .455/.364 vs .435/.317

But Jones gets fouled alot more than Dixon (twice as often per shot attempt this year, 1.5 times as often per shot attempt, career).


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

statman said:


> Careerwise, both have almost the same overall FG% but Jones takes more 3 pointers vs 2 pointers than Dixon which lowers his overall FG%.
> 
> Breaking it down into 2 pointers and 3 points, Jones has better career FG% for both:
> 
> ...


Interesting. For their careers, Jones shoots more three pointer AND gets fouled more? Just about every two pointer he takes must be on a drive.


----------



## statman (Feb 27, 2004)

Shoots more 3 pointers compared to 2 pointers yes. Less TOTAL shots though.

Career

Jones
MIN 6592
FGA 1789
2PA 1176
3PA 613
FTA 608
34% of his shots are 3 pointers
FTA per FGA 0.340
Scoring efficiency = 1.04 points per possession (shots + 1/2 FTA)

Dixon
MIN 6342
FGA 2620
2PA 1878
3PA 742
FTA 548
FTA per FGA 0.209
28% of his shots are 3 pointers
Scoring efficiency = 0.99 points per possession (shots + 1/2 FTA)

Both about 82% career FT% btw.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think getting rid of Dixon (Juan Gone)had more to do with his attitude in the locker room and not getting along with Nate then it did with his abilities on the court. With a young upstart team like we have, the last thing we need is a veteran who thinks he's better than he is whining on the bench and in the locker room. That kind of attitude does nothing but bring others down.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

one other thought--Portland has lately had a nice run of over-achieving role players. Przybilla, Dixon, Blake, Udoka--all these acquisitions were better here than advertised. Skinner and Magloire are the only guys in the that kind of role who were the same or worse, and you can argue that although Magloire has underperformed, he came in with higher expectations. 

I don't know if it's Nate's system, where hard workers with less talent are often rewarded, or if it's management's ability to see things in people normally labled "scrub" that others can't. but I'm hoping it happens again with Jones.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Haven't read through the whole thread, but I mentioned the other day that it was my understanding that Dixon requested to be traded but couldn't provide a source for that info.

I read the Oregonian today and it confirmed what I thought. Dixon had quietly asked to be moved because he didn't think he fit into the future plans of the Blazers. It sounds like he wasn't being outspoken about it, but at the same time the whole team knew he wanted to be traded . . .that can't be good for the locker room.

I'm like many on this board, the reason I like the trade is because Dixon wanted out and Jones wants in.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

well overall it was a pathetic deadline day and this trade makes little sense at all.Iwould say portland got the better end of the deal talentwise but position wise it makes little sense,jones will become roy`s backup and few minutes because he cant play pg,at least you could play dixon at the point and sg position.i also think dixon has a better jumpshot but thats here nor there,overall just seems like a nothing transfer really,maybe jones athleticism will come in handy when sergio and himself(2nd team) are on the floor


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm like many on this board, the reason I like the trade is because Dixon wanted out and Jones wants in.


Perfectly said KMD

And it does not hurt that Fred dropped the player option on his 3rd year... so its only $600K more money to the books each year of his NOW 2 remaining years

and if Fred can return to his Indiana form... watch out it will be a steal

BUT if he just improves our defense... bring it on


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> Interesting. For their careers, Jones shoots more three pointer AND gets fouled more? Just about every two pointer he takes must be on a drive.


Good post GB/SM. 
G your comment about the drive makes him a better fit for our team as he can elivate and get to the rim (unlike Dixon) and will get fouled more because of it. This makes Fred Jones a better fit as our low post guy, Zack, demands attention and this gets him open looks out in the corner and he can either shoot the three or drive and finish or get foulded. Not unlike when Miles first came to the Blazers. Shooting 80+% at the line makes his % that much better than Dixons as he gets to use it more.

gatorpops


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

Jones is a VERY athletic slasher, as most people who watched him on Oregon's elite eight team a few years back know. His jumper is streaky and his playing time has been spotty at best during his career. His biggest similarity is that he is slightly undersized for a SG and has no PG skills. But he is not a chucker like Dixon was and plays much better defense.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Jones pretty instantly becomes the best defender on the team for a guy like Iverson.


:lol: 



PorterIn2004 said:


> So have Jones on the court with Roy -- Roy plays PG on offense and SG on defense, Jones just the opposite. It could work much like it did with Dixon, swapping the more offensive Dixon for the more defensive Jones.


Nate said this trade was made primarily so he wouldn't have to switch guards back and forth on offense/defense so nix that idea right off the bat.

As far as Jones ever seeing starting time alongside Roy, Blazers who are better at the SG position than Fat Freddy:

Roy, Udoka, Webster, Jack, Rodriguez, Dickau and Outlaw.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> I don't know if it's Nate's system, where hard workers with less talent are often rewarded, or if it's management's ability to see things in people normally labled "scrub" that others can't. but I'm hoping it happens again with Jones.


It's a good way to rebuild. I think the biggest problem you find with some of these young guys is they come into the league with a sense of entitlement for the position. Nate goes in a different direction, demanding a certain level of performance for his team on the floor. When a player doesn't reach that demanded level, he sits. It's a simple way to coach, and not a lot of explanations are needed. 

From a fan's perspective, it can look mind-bogglingly confusing at times.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

www.starbury.com said:


> well overall it was a pathetic deadline day and this trade makes little sense at all.Iwould say portland got the better end of the deal talentwise but position wise it makes little sense,jones will become roy`s backup and few minutes because he cant play pg,at least you could play dixon at the point and sg position.i also think dixon has a better jumpshot but thats here nor there,overall just seems like a nothing transfer really,maybe jones athleticism will come in handy when sergio and himself(2nd team) are on the floor


I think you got it backwords. Jones can play the 1 better then Dixon. Dixon almost never played PG in Portland. Jones is the more versatile player and his skills fit Roy and Sergio better. He can bring the ball up the court better then Dixon so that fits with Roy and he's a better defender which fits with Sergio.


----------

