# ESPN Radio....Zach + Joel 4 Miller + Artest



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Just had a friend call me and tell me he just heard this on ESPN radio...also just saw it pop up on another board. 

Anyone heard anything like this? 

I assume this means we already have a trade in place to move Artest somewhere else...Houston perhaps.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Just had a friend call me and tell me he just heard this on ESPN radio...also just saw it pop up on another board.
> 
> Anyone heard anything like this?
> 
> I assume this means we already have a trade in place to move Artest somewhere else...Houston perhaps.


Why would we move Artest (character issues aside)? Also, why trade Joel for Miller?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> Why would we move Artest (character issues aside)? Also, why trade Joel for Miller?



Just telling you what I have heard. But I will answer your question with my oppinion. 

Miller is much better offensively then Joel...and having Oden we don't need's Joel's Defense as much anymore...A offensive minded center like Miller would complement Oden well.

As for Artest I would assume we already have a trade lined up to send him somewhere else...Houston perhaps for Battier.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> Why would we move Artest (character issues aside)? Also, why trade Joel for Miller?



Are you kidding me? Miller is a much better center then Joel. He was injured all last year (Not unlike Joel), but for the most part, Miller has been a very solid player with a very cerebral game(He is an excellent passer/scorer). 

As for Artest, I would hope we have a trade lined up for moving him, or we had better have somer real strong leadership elements in place to keep him in line.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

We better have another trade lined up for Artest or KP is done especially if he drafts Durant over Oden and keeps Artest.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Are you kidding me? Miller is a much better center then Joel. He was injured all last year (Not unlike Joel), but for the most part, Miller has been a very solid player with a very cerebral game(He is an excellent passer/scorer).
> 
> As for Artest, I would hope we have a trade lined up for moving him, or we had better have somer real strong leadership elements in place to keep him in line.


As much as I love Joel...has he ever even been close to being a All-star?? Sure Miller is on the decline but he is still better then Joel....both are injury prone so it's a wash their IMO. 

Plus all Miller has to do is pass and score..Oden will take care of the defensive end with help from Lamarcus...Miller can be brought off the bench to provide scoring from the center position. It puts less pressure on Oden to develop a offensive game quickly and allows him to focus on his strengths. 

Who knows if it's true...but all and all I think it's a decent move assuming we move Artest for something decent.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> Why would we move Artest (character issues aside)? Also, why trade Joel for Miller?


While I personally don't care much about off-court issues, Artest's issues frequently directly affect the team on court, and I just don't see any signs of him changing. I certainly hope they have something lined up to do with him if this is true, because I don't think we should take a chance on him with a team this young. I do think a more veteran heavy team should take a chance on him however, so I have hope that if this is true we could find someone to take him.

Miller is much better offensively, but much worse defensively. Both are serious injury magnets. I would guess Sacremento just wants the better defense as they have plenty of other offensive weapons.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I sure hope that the #10 pick is coming back as well, otherwise - I am not sure this is worth it.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I guess I should've phrased that differently. I haven't followed Sac-town much the last year following their decline. I figured Miller would still want to be a starting center. So I'm just not sure how trading one possibly disgruntled center for a probably disgruntled center (at least as soon as Oden starts) makes much sense. You're basically trading Zach for Artest and then if you're trading Artest for, say, Battier, that means you're trading Zach for Battier.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I hope this isn't true. I think there have to be better deals out there for Zach (+ someone else). If this is all we can get for Zach, we might as well keep him.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> I guess I should've phrased that differently. I haven't followed Sac-town much the last year following their decline. I figured Miller would still want to be a starting center. So I'm just not sure how trading one possibly disgruntled center for a probably disgruntled center (at least as soon as Oden starts) makes much sense. You're basically trading Zach for Artest and then if you're trading Artest for, say, Battier, that means you're trading Zach for Battier.


Zach's not worth much more then Battier....if the #10 is included then it's a great deal for Portland IMO.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

The #10 pick must be involved.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Agreed; Zach's contract sucks, and he's just a mini-sheed with all complaining he does at the offensive floor.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Zach's not worth much more then Battier....if the #10 is included then it's a great deal for Portland IMO.


I think so, too.

PBF


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm scratching my head to see who we could get for Artest...

Anyone?


----------



## Trailblazed&Confused (Jun 29, 2006)

I don't see it happening at all in that form. Artest is a public relations nightmare for any team, much less the Blazers. I don't see us doing anything unless a 3rd team gets involved so that Artest never even has a chance of being a Blazer. He is the polar opposite of all that the team has claimed to value. Not a character guy and not a player for the future. I don't see any chance.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BTW, did he say this was a rumor or that it was done?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Trailblazed&Confused said:


> I don't see it happening at all in that form. Artest is a public relations nightmare for any team, much less the Blazers. I don't see us doing anything unless a 3rd team gets involved so that Artest never even has a chance of being a Blazer. He is the polar opposite of all that the team has claimed to value. Not a character guy and not a player for the future. I don't see any chance.


I don't think there's any possibility that Artest stays with the team. Rest assured that KP probably has another deal lined up.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> I hope this isn't true. I think there have to be better deals out there for Zach (+ someone else). If this is all we can get for Zach, we might as well keep him.



Agree


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

There is nothing on espn.com. So far it's a rumor.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I love this deal. Nothing wrong with bringing a little attitude to the team. A little toughness (Artest). He's no less a choir boy than Zach. 

Oden
Miller/Aldridge
Artest
Roy
Jack/Sergio

That my friends is without question a team that could take us to the playoffs, maybe further. This would become a win now situation.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I would do this trade- the heck with Canzano and Quick!

Artest gives us one the best defenders at the 3 and a good offensive player, Brad Miller is worth 2 Pryzibllas. This would give us a very solid front line with Oden/Miller Aldridge/Raef Artest/Outlaw.

Contract-wise- we save some money as Artest has a year left.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Would the #10 and #11 plus someone like Outlaw or Webster be enough for the #2?


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

read over on the o-live forums: 

Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Shane Battier & #10 Pick

Hou: Artest & #37

Sac: Zach & Joel #26


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Any way we could send Artest to Miami?

gatorpops


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

For what it's worth a poster on another board reported the deal as this...seems halfway decent for all teams IMO. 

I don't really like Wally but he is a upgrade over Darius and can provide some outside shooting. He is kinda a wimp on the defensive end but will that matter with a front line of Oden and Lamarcus?

Ok it looks like this:
Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Wally Szczerbiak & #10 Pick

BOS: Artest, Joel & #42

Sac: Zach & Darius #5


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

If Artest did stay... MAN, what a ballsy move by KP. You almost have to give the guy props for trying something that nutty.

I will say this: Artest's value is as low as it's ever been. If he has a year of rehab basketball in him, KP could really have a 'buy low, sell high' situation here.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> For what it's worth a poster on another board reported the deal as this...seems halfway decent for all teams IMO.
> 
> I don't really like Wally but he is a upgrade over Darius and can provide some outside shooting. He is kinda a wimp on the defensive end but will that matter with a front line of Oden and Lamarcus?
> 
> ...


link?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> For what it's worth a poster on another board reported the deal as this...seems halfway decent for all teams IMO.
> 
> I don't really like Wally but he is a upgrade over Darius and can provide some outside shooting. He is kinda a wimp on the defensive end but will that matter with a front line of Oden and Lamarcus?
> 
> ...


I think Ainge would be publicly flogged if he did this trade.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

blue32 said:


> read over on the o-live forums:
> 
> Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Shane Battier & #10 Pick
> 
> ...


If this happens KP should be the leading candidate for executive of the year.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

blue32 said:


> read over on the o-live forums:
> 
> Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Shane Battier & #10 Pick
> 
> ...


I like this deal very much. Seems to meet MM's excited prediction and answers the "if there is a second trade" thought.

gatorpops


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Samuel said:


> link?


Olive I believe...probably just speculation but IMO something definetly may be happening...all kinds of variations are possible though.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

blue32 said:


> read over on the o-live forums:
> 
> Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Shane Battier & #10 Pick
> 
> ...


Not the home run I would have liked, but could be very good. 

Battier is a solid defender and can hit the three. Miller would be a great rotation player with Oden and Aldridge. And the #10 should get a solid player, maybe more if Blazers want to move up by adding value.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

So Boston deals their #5 pick for a troubled Ron Artest, a broken down Joel Przybilla and about 10-15 million in cap savings?

Meanwhile, Sacramento swallows Darius but ends up with the 2 most valuable players in the trade?

I doubt this is for real.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Samuel said:


> If Artest did stay... MAN, what a ballsy move by KP. You almost have to give the guy props for trying something that nutty.
> 
> I will say this: Artest's value is as low as it's ever been. If he has a year of rehab basketball in him, KP could really have a 'buy low, sell high' situation here.



That is very interesting you bring that up. There was a few years ago, you remember Jerry Stackhouse value was very low. He was brought into Detroit by Joe Dumars, who made him a go to guy scoring, and his value skyrocketed. He was able to parlay him into some of the players he used to build their championship team. If Artest was brought in, it would be to take a risk and try to turn him around. 

Another interesting point, I read an article which Artest was interviewed, and he talked about his past decisions, bad decisions he made, about giving up on the team in Indiana much too early, and that he missed the days when he was playing for Rick Carslisle. It gave me the feeling that Artest was looking to revive his career, and turn his life around a bit.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Has anybody checked the possibility of these trades on realgm or the trade machine?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Samuel said:


> So Boston deals their #5 pick for a troubled Ron Artest, a broken down Joel Przybilla and about 10-15 million in cap savings?
> 
> Meanwhile, Sacramento swallows Darius but ends up with the 2 most valuable players in the trade?
> 
> I doubt this is for real.


I somewhat agree...but to make ESPN radio there must be something to it...not that, that means it will happen.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

blue32 said:


> read over on the o-live forums:
> 
> Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Shane Battier & #10 Pick
> 
> ...


Hmmm... two solid players and a low lottery pick? It's close. Close.

Most years, the #10 wouldn't be worth that much, but with this year's class? We get another of the "top 12" and that could mean Green or Conley or Hawes (although Hawes might not fit with Oden and Miller already at the five.

Battier is 28... going to be 29 in September. Still has a couple of good years left in him, but will be done by the time Oden/Roy/LA hit their stride. Miller is 31, and I think that his game could avoid a steep decline if he can stay relatively healthy... he succeeds because of skill and positioning, rather than athleticisim.

Not the most exciting deal ever, but it would definitely cement our playoff chances in the next year or two.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> I somewhat agree...but to make ESPN radio there must be something to it...not that, that means it will happen.


I'm confused. Is the Houston scenario or the Boston scenario per ESPN Radio?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Has anybody checked the possibility of these trades on realgm or the trade machine?


You could check yourself...pretty simple to do. But anyway...

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2763~682~1017~25~556&teams=22~23~23~23~10~22


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

The guy on ESPN RADIO just said it was a possibility/rumor. Calm down, you all should know better than thinking that we'd even consider trading for Ron Artest and his off court issues.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Samuel said:


> I'm confused. Is the Houston scenario or the Boston scenario per ESPN Radio?


No...as far as I understand it the Houston and Boston scenarios are ideas and or rumours (not sure which) thrown out by posters on Olive and Realgm. I think everyone assumes that the third team is involved since Portland obviously would not keep Artest. 

The ESPN radio report according to my friend said it was Joel + Zbo to Sac for Artest and Miller and didn't mention Boston, Houston or the #10 pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> The guy on ESPN RADIO just said it was a possibility/rumor. Calm down, you all should know better than thinking that we'd even consider trading for Ron Artest and his off court issues.


We know no such thing. Especially if it's part of a three-way deal.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

B_&_B said:


> The guy on ESPN RADIO just said it was a possibility/rumor. Calm down, you all should know better than thinking that we'd even consider trading for Ron Artest and his off court issues.


I never suggested it was anything but a rumour...and I don't think we would be keeping Artest if this happened.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Ron Ron and Brad are up in 2 years though...add in the fact Raef's deal expires in that year too...We could be in the market for a huge free agent splash. I am indifferent on Artest. I would need the #10 to do any trade with Sac.
I agree in the OLve variation, no way Boston does that unless they get more value for the #5. Wally World ends in 2 years as well...plus we rid ourselves of Darius!!


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Personally, I like this deal a lot. 

For Portland's needs:

Miller > Przybilla

Artest = Randolph

Artest has issues, but so does Randolph. Exchanging Randolph, who's talents will be wasted behind Aldridge, for Artest, who's talents are needed at the 3.

I think it's a near perfect trade for both sides. I would have hoped for a small forward that's younger and with less baggage, but what can we expect for Zach.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I firmly believe this thread will crush the 805 post on the "deal coming" thread :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

If there is a trade for Artest, I can't see KP keeping him on the roster.


"We are not the 'Jail Blazers,' " Pritchard said. "I guarantee you that." 

"The biggest thing for us (is) if you are not high character, then you get eliminated early in the process," he continued. "For us we feel very strongly that character means a lot, and that is what wins championships."


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> You could check yourself...pretty simple to do. But anyway...
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2763~682~1017~25~556&teams=22~23~23~23~10~22


that makes the most sense to me so far

but I am calling BS on the whole rumor already


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

HoopsHype says Miller has 3 years left on his contract.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

blue32 said:


> read over on the o-live forums:
> 
> Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Shane Battier & #10 Pick
> 
> ...


I am SO all over that one. :gopray:

PBF


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think Randolph is a much milder dosage of Crazy than Artest, though. In a trade, the 'character issue' deduction should be much heavier on Artest's side.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

hasoos said:


> I firmly believe this thread will crush the 805 post on the "deal coming" thread :biggrin:



Funny thing is I don't think it will because there are too many details here. The "beauty" of MM's post is there were no details. The only details is some deal may or may not happen "soon" . . . that allowed posters to speculate on every team and every possible trade senario, mix into that a lot of posters bagging on MM for lack of details of making fun of the thread and you have the perfect storm senario.

In this thread we are limited to analyze a couple of senarios that I suspect will die before coming close to "the thread" of the year.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Trader Ed said:


> that makes the most sense to me so far
> 
> but I am calling BS on the whole rumor already


Yeh probably BS...but it sure is damn fun to speculate with any little tidbit of information. :biggrin:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Just for clarity ESPN radio in Sacramento reported it as a rumor, not as real breaking news.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Has anybody checked the possibility of these trades on realgm or the trade machine?


I was able to get the Boston trade approved on Realgm, but not the Houston trade, even though I tried some different stuff.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

hasoos said:


> I firmly believe this thread will crush the 805 post on the "deal coming" thread :biggrin:


I don't know about that, it took ten days for it to reach 800 and we only have 9 days left till draft.:lol: 

gatorpops


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Just for clarity ESPN radio in Sacramento reported it as a rumor, not as real breaking news.


And as we all know, if its reported as a rumor then it almost never happens. I hope that holds true in this case.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iB16BmfKgbk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iB16BmfKgbk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> HoopsHype says Miller has 3 years left on his contract.


nope, just 2 left. They included 06-07 on their websie, so thers only 2 left.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

So then, in my eyes, it would become Randolph for Battier and #10. I'd be okay with this. It's weird though. I think I'd prefer Artest. It all depends on who was available at that draft spot.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

About the Houston trade and Realgm. I think it could be done in parts. Joel and Zach for Artest and Miller works. Then I think that as long as Artest is traded alone, he can be traded immediately, Artest for Battier and Kirk Snyder. Presumkably the draft picks could be included in the two trades or a 3rd separate trade.


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

blue32 said:


> Agreed; Zach's contract sucks, and he's just a mini-sheed with all complaining he does at the offensive floor.



Please be sure to NEVER compare zBO to SHEED ever again...unless by "mini" you mean zBO is 10% the player that SHEED is...zBO must GO!!!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ukrainefan said:


> Then I think that as long as Artest is traded alone, he can be traded immediately


Yeah, that sounds about right.


----------



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

blue32 said:


> read over on the o-live forums:
> 
> Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Shane Battier & #10 Pick
> 
> ...


If this is on the table, I'd do it without hesitation. Miller is a smart player and a great passing big man. He'd be a better back-up than Joel - especially since Oden and Aldridge would provide plenty of defense at the 4/5 spots making Joel primary skill redundant. 

Battier addresses our need for a starting caliber small forward. He's not flashy, but he's a solid team player who plays excellent defense and can stick the open 3 (0.421 3FG% in 2006-07). Exactly what we need at the 3.

Both of these guys are team oriented players (glue guys) that would help our young guys improve and learn how to play together. They are the type of veterans Nate likes and would fit right in without causing problems.

And the No. 10 pick will get a quality player in this draft - possibly our future starting SF, or... We could still trade Jack to ATL for No. 11. That would give us two top prospects in this draft that's at least 12 players deep - or we could package 10 and 11 and move up to 5 or 6. Personally, if we get Battier, I'll get off my Corey Brewer crusade as Battier is a bigger, more experienced (albeit older), more proven version of Brewer. The addition of Battier gives us another 3+ years to find our "small forward of the future". If this deal happens, I'd go all out to get Conley Jr. I know not everybody on this board is high on him, and my reasons for drafting him have nothing to do with his friendship with Oden. He's a pass first PG who plays excellent defense - which I think would make him a good fit with this team. So, either package 10 and 11 to move up and grab Conley Jr. or hope he falls to 10 and use 11 on another promising prospect.

BNM


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

In fact I see it could all be done in one trade, Battier and Snyder and Miller and #10 to Portland, Ron Artest to Houston, Zach and Joel to Sacramento, that works on Realgm.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

HAAK72 said:


> Please be sure to NEVER compare zBO to SHEED ever again...unless by "mini" you mean zBO is 10% the player that SHEED is...zBO must GO!!!


Calm yourself Haakky-

They both complain in a similiar fashion, nuff said.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> nope, just 2 left. They included 06-07 on their websie, so thers only 2 left.


It says it runs threw 09/10

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/sacramento.htm


----------



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

sa1177 said:


> Ok it looks like this:
> Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Wally Szczerbiak & #10 Pick
> 
> BOS: Artest, Joel & #42
> ...


I prefer Battier over Wally. However, if we could get Boston's No. 5 pick, I might be willing to suffer through two years of Wally.

I propose we let Sacramento keep No. 10 and offer Boston No. 37 & No. 42 if we get No. 5.

So:
Por: Incoming - Brad Miller, Wally Szczerbiak & #5 Pick

BOS: Artest, Joel, #37 & #42

Sac: Zach & Darius and they keep #10

Then I'd do the Jack to ATL for #11 trade. That would give us Miller, Wally, #5 and #11. We could draft BOTH Conley Jr. AND our small forward of the future to replace Wally (the sooner, the better).

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I prefer Battier over Wally. However, if we could get Boston's No. 5 pick, I might be willing to suffer through two years of Wally.
> 
> I propose we let Sacramento keep No. 10 and offer Boston No. 37 & No. 42 if we get No. 5.
> 
> ...


Boston would never do that trade, though.

Boston Out: Wally, #5 pick
Boston In: Artest, Przbyilla, #37, #42

Doesn't that seem like a wildly unfair trade to you?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> It says it runs threw 09/10
> 
> http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/sacramento.htm


hmm i was prolly thinking of one of the other players rumored in the deals.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I'm scratching my head to see who we could get for Artest...


me too, we can't possibly keep him. miller however would be an EXCELLENT compliment to oden off the bench. close to perfect for a backup.

dunno bout this, but intriguing.


----------



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

Samuel said:


> Boston would never do that trade, though.
> 
> Boston Out: Wally, #5 pick
> Boston In: Artest, Przbyilla, #37, #42
> ...


I wasn't the one who proposed the original scenario. In my variation Boston gives up the same things (Wally and #5), but gets back an extra pick (#37) in exchange for us getting #5 instead of Sacramento (who keeps their #10).

In terms of rather or not it's fair, Boston is DESPERATE to dump Wally's contract AND Ainge is rumored to not like ANY of the players that would be available at #5. So, this gets him out from under Wally's contract, brings them a starting center and an all-star caliber psycho, I mean small forward. Adding Joel and Artest (if he remembers to take his meds) to Pierce and Jefferson definitely gets them in the play-offs in the East and keeps Pierce from demanding a trade. If they do nothing and keep #5 they aren't going to land a player that will make enough of an immediate impact to get into the play-offs and Pierce starts demanding a trade before training camp even starts. They end up with another wasted season and back in the lottery with no chance of landing an Oden or Durnat caliber player and Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers are both unemployed.

BNM


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Combining a couple of different rumors here...

*Incoming:*
Steve Blake (FA)
Brad Miller
Shane Battier
#10
#11

*Outgoing:*
Jarrett Jack
Zach Randolph
Joel Przybilla
#37

Do you do it?

PBF


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> Combining a couple of different rumors here...
> 
> *Incoming:*
> Steve Blake (FA)
> ...


yeah...i think you do. barring anything else more productive for us coming along. a little veteran help could nudge us in the right direction faster than picking up the bulls pick, for example.

hate to part with jack though. i feel like we owe him another year. then again, i like blake alot. miller is the catalyst though, he makes this trade happen if true.


----------



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

ProudBFan said:


> Combining a couple of different rumors here...
> 
> *Incoming:*
> Steve Blake (FA)
> ...


In a heartbeat! Blake, Miller and Battier are EXACTLY the kind of vets to surround our young guys with. They will help the team win now and provide invaluable guidance to help the young guys grow and reach their potential. 

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I wasn't the one who proposed the original scenario. In my variation Boston gives up the same things (Wally and #5), but gets back an extra pick (#37) in exchange for us getting #5 instead of Sacramento (who keeps their #10).


Right, but we're at the point where we're determining whether a rumor is a sniff of a real deal or is a complete fabrication by someone down the line.

This trade doesn't pass the sniff test. It's almost a fact that the Celtics would be much better off keeping the #5 pick and Wally instead of trading those guys away for a combustible personality, an injured big, and a couple of throwaway 2nd round draft picks.



> In terms of rather or not it's fair, Boston is DESPERATE to dump Wally's contract AND Ainge is rumored to not like ANY of the players that would be available at #5. So, this gets him out from under Wally's contract, brings them a starting center and an all-star caliber psycho, I mean small forward.


I'm always a little skeptical when I hear about teams being DESPERATE to do anything. According to what we hear from the media, Portland is DESPERATE to get rid of malcontent Zach Randolph because he's absolutely nuts. He's so bad, in fact, that they're willing to get rid of him for almost anything.

Do you think that sentiment is the case? I don't. In the last few days KP has repeatedly said that he won't get rid of Zach Randolph unless he gets fair value. 

I suspect Danny Ainge will make a similar decision with regard to his pick.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Do we really have to let JJ go? I hate losing that kid.


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

ProudBFan said:


> Combining a couple of different rumors here...
> 
> *Incoming:*
> Steve Blake (FA)
> ...


IN A HEARTBEAT!


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I dont like the trade accept for getting artest at the 3 , but hes 2 much trouble


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

KP has explicitly said that he won't decide whom to pick before the workouts. This deal would almost solidify Oden as our selection.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

I know this may sound crazy....but Ron Artest is a great player. GREAT defense on the perimeter, good scoring, good rebounds from the sf spot. 

He will essentially be in his contract year, so it is in his best interest to have a great season, devoid of off-court problems. This gives us a damn good lineup.

I know character is more important than winning and all, I just see Artest as a dominant defender.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I know the kings love Joel he always put up big games against them while in portland games like 20 points 16 boards and 9 blocks , The commentators rave about him every time we play them .


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Combining a couple of different rumors here...
> 
> *Incoming:*
> Steve Blake (FA)
> ...


There's no way they'd keep #10 and #11. My guess is they'd trade both of those to move up even further. *cough* #2 *cough*


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

yuyuza1 said:


> KP has explicitly said that he won't decide whom to pick before the workouts. This deal would almost solidify Oden as our selection.


Really? 

We're adding a starting-level 3 and a starting level 5 in that potential deal... at #10 we'd be able to take a small forward (Thornton/JWright/TYoung) or a center (if Hawes lasts that long).

Further, Portland could re-sign Magloire if we decide to take Durant.

I'm not sure it would be a huge impact either way...

Ed O.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

There is no way we bring Ron Artest into the fold. No way. He is EXACTLY the kind of guy that Trader Bob would have taken a chance on, and the Blazers are the one team that can'f afford to take that risk now.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

drexlersdad said:


> I know character is more important than winning and all
> ...


winning above all. period. to me at least...

and i know artest is nice with it, its just a matter of fitting the organization. he would not at all. i could care if somebody is on my team that other people don't like, but he can't be here IMO. just doesn't fit with our guys.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Personally, I'd be stunned if we decide to bring in Artest. It goes against absolutely everything I would have expected in a trade.

If he's being relayed to a 3rd team, fine. If not, we may be in for a world of hurt. As talented as he is, he's an absolute nut job that would rather spend his time writing rap songs than playing basketball. No way in Gods green earth would I have expected to see Ron Ron in a Blazer uniform.

I'm guessing it doesn't happen, either way since we've already heard about it.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

drexlersdad said:


> I know character is more important than winning and all


No. At one point, it *was* more important, because it was SO bad that it was preventing us from winning. But now that the character issues have been almost completely addressed, it is simply *equally* important. It *has* to be, or the whole machine becomes unsustainable (as we learned in the wake of 2000-2001).

As talented as Artest is, he is Rasheed v2.0. We made that mistake once. I seriously doubt we make it again. Would conflict with pretty much every move that has been made since Pritchard became Assistant GM.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> No. At one point, it *was* more important, because it was SO bad that it was preventing us from winning.


That's silly. We were prevented from winning because we lacked enough good players and we had a crappy coach.

Ed O.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> That's silly. We were prevented from winning because we lacked enough good players and we had a crappy coach.
> 
> Ed O.


You two are talking about two different time periods.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Combining a couple of different rumors here...
> 
> *Incoming:*
> Steve Blake (FA)
> ...



I am a Jarrett Jack fan... but heck YES

BTW where did Marvin Williams go to?



No way this Sac rumor has any legs... but that would be a heck of a deal in the end


PG Blake, Sergio, Dickau (If he is not dealt as well)
SG Roy, Jones, Ime =MLE
SF Battier, #10 pick, Miles?
PF Aldridge, Marvin Williams, Outlaw, ?
C Oden, Miller, LeFrentz

You can add Marvin Wiiliams in there if you think he is included in an ATL deal.. which I would add Martell to get it done

AND the #11 pick = Conley? or Fernandez? or ? (If Dickau is dealt.. then make it Conley)


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> That's silly. We were prevented from winning because we lacked enough good players and we had a crappy coach.
> 
> Ed O.


But, but, but...addition by subtraction Ed O! Don't you understand how that works? You get rid of a talented guy that the fans have turned against and you immediately get better. Works every time.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I almost decided not to click on this thread because it is so obvious that Artest will not end up a blazer. He is exactly the type of player KP doesn't want...listen to today's Chad Ford podcast if you need to hear, once again, how much he values character. There is always the possibility of a 3 way, but until I at least see ONE LINK, I am not going to believe it.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> I almost decided not to click on this thread because it is so obvious that Artest will not end up a blazer. He is exactly the type of player KP doesn't want...listen to today's Chad Ford podcast if you need to hear, once again, how much he values character. There is always the possibility of a 3 way, but until I at least see ONE LINK, I am not going to believe it.


Well I could create a link for you. But it would be to totally forged web pages filled with false information which you probably have already read about on this thread!:biggrin:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> *Zach's not worth much more then Battier*....if the #10 is included then it's a great deal for Portland IMO.


Oh please. Zach is one of the very few dependable scorers in the post in this day and age and a very effective offensive rebounder. He gets easy, garbage points.

Chicago, New Jersey, or even Denver should be lining up to get him on their roster.

Battier is a 'hustle guy'.

It's not like the #10 pick is a throw-away. It would mean Zach is worth MUCH more than Battier.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> That's silly. We were prevented from winning because we lacked enough good players and we had a crappy coach.
> 
> Ed O.


You are referring to the Mo Cheeks era, Ed. I was referring to the end of the Mike Dunleavy era (when things first starting falling apart with Sheed, Bonzi, Damon, Kemp, et al). The talent level of the players was just fine at that point, but their heads werent in the game. The coach was just fine, too.

I agree with you about the Mo Cheeks era, though. Coach wasnt very good. Talent was leaving along with character issues. That was a dark time. Just not the one I was referring to.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

LameR said:


> You two are talking about two different time periods.


Yes. Thank you for noticing, LameR.

Ed just natually disagrees with pretty much anything I post. Im used to it.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> You are referring to the Mo Cheeks era, Ed. I was referring to the end of the Mike Dunleavy era (when things first starting falling apart with Sheed, Bonzi, Damon, Kemp, et al. The talent level of the players was just fine at that point, but their heads werent in the game. The coach was just fine, too.


Huh... the team won 50 win seasons in 2000-01 (Dunleavy's last year). It underachieved in a tough conference, but was 47-25 before a 3-7 final 10 games.

If Bonzi doesn't go down with six games left? If the Blazers don't HAPPEN to get matched up against the best team in the NBA in the first round? The best team that HAPPENED to get the second seed in the conference after finishing 9-1 in their last 10 games and only lost a SINGLE game in the playoffs?

I think that the Portland team *was* winning and would have kept winning. The losing was just overaccentuated because of the poor finish and the Lakers' dominance.



> I agree with you about the Mo Cheeks era, though. Coach wasnt very good. Talent was leaving along with character issues. That was a dark time. Just not the one I was referring to.


*shiver*

Ed O.


----------



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

Samuel said:


> This trade doesn't pass the sniff test. It's almost a fact that the Celtics would be much better off keeping the #5 pick and Wally instead of trading those guys away for a combustible personality, an injured big, and a couple of throwaway 2nd round draft picks.[


You really think so? They won 24 games this year. Do you think keeping Wally and adding another young prospect with the #5 pick wins them the additional 15 - 20 games they'd need to make the play-offs? I sure don't. I don't see anyone who will be available at #5 that will make that kind of immediate impact. If they keep #5 it is to build for the future, not to get better now.

Boston has tried, and failed, to have their cake and eat it, too. They tried to rebuild with youth while at the same time keeping their superstar who was in his prime. The result is they went from 47 wins to 33 wins to 24 wins. The success of their "plan" rested entirely on winning one of the top two picks in the Oden/Durnat lottery - and we all know how well that worked out for them. They lost, by design, to increase their odds and it didn't pay off. They now have an even more disgruntled superstar and a disenchanted fan base - both of whom they sold on the potential instant gratification of rebuilding by tanking.

At this point, they either need to fish or cut bait. They need to either throw in the towel and admit they are in full blown rebuilding mode, keep the #5 pick and use it as a piece to build around and trade Pierce while he still has some trade value. Or, they need to keep Pierce and surround him with enough experienced talent to win enough now to at least make the play-offs. Neither Pierce, nor the Boston fans, are going to quietly suffer through another 20-something win season.

I don't think this trade will happen, but I don't really see how it's so bad for Boston - if their goal is to win while Pierce is still productive. The East is wide open and the Celtics play in the weakest division of the weakest conference. The addition of Przybilla and Artest could easily propel them into the play-offs and potentially past the first round. Yes, Artest is a high risk/high reward player, but he is in a contract year and you'd be amazed how well behaved and focused a guy like Artest can be when his last shot at a big payday is at risk. He is a top notch talent, and when his head is screwed on straight, he's one of the best all-around small forwards in the game. He's a DPOY caliber perimeter defender who can also score 18 - 20 PPG. 

Joel would step into the starting center role in Boston. He may not be an all-star, but he's better than half the starting centers in the East and would give Boston the interior defensive presence they currently lack. Think how much better Boston would be defensively with the addition of Artest and Przybilla. The defensive minded Joel is also a perfect compliment to the more offensive Al Jefferson. The two together would give Boston a solid combination of scoring, rebounding and defense from the 4 and 5 spots.

If Artest shows up to play (and in a contract year, I'd say the odds are pretty good he will), the starting five of:

5 - Joel
4 - Jefferson
3 - Artest
2 - Pierce
1 - Rondo

easily makes the play-offs in the East and challenges Toronto for the Atlantic division crown and HCA in the first round. Not only does that five offer an excellent balance of offense and defense, they also have balanced inside/outside scoring with Jefferson, Artest and Pierce. Plus, they could easily lead the league in rebounding. All five of those guys are above average rebounders for their positions. 

We saw Cleveland make the finals in the East with a superstar + scrubs. Granted LeBron is better than Pierce, but that line-up above is a far, far better supporting cast surrounding Pierce than King James had. Sitting around and waiting for everyone else in the East to get worse while their young guys improve isn't going to cut it. They can't keep surrounding Pierce with younger and younger players while he gets another year older and somehow think that it will net them more wins and a trip to the play-offs.

Do you really think:

5 - Kendrick Perkins
4 - Jefferson
3 - Wally/Gomes
2 - Pierce
1 - Rondo

plus whoever they get at #5 wins more games and makes the play-offs? I certainly don't see it.

Again, I don't think this trade happens, but after the way they failed in their tank job rebuilding "plan", they need to do something fast to keep their fans and Pierce happy. They stunk big time this year and without a trade that brings in experienced talent the forecast calls for extended stench. They sold their fans and their superstar on the possibility of turning things around instantly through losing by design. That failed miserably. I doubt if Pierce will sit by quietly while the Celtics get even younger through the draft. If they stand pat and go into the season with the same roster + #5, look for Pierce to demand a trade and Doc and Ainge both out of work by the end of the season.

BNM


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

papag said:


> It's not like the #10 pick is a throw-away. It would mean Zach is worth MUCH more than Battier.


i'd love to get that number 10...not a whole lot of certainty this year and we could pick up someone nice. i'd nab spencer hawes, if available, then use him as trade bait later. :biggrin:


----------



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

P.S. It's a limited sample size and only an online discussion board poll, but 72% of the voters on the Celtics board think they'll trade the 5th pick.

BNM


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> You really think so? They won 24 games this year. Do you think keeping Wally and adding another young prospect with the #5 pick wins them the additional 15 - 20 games they'd need to make the play-offs? I sure don't. I don't see anyone who will be available at #5 that will make that kind of immediate impact. If they keep #5 it is to build for the future, not to get better now.


I'm not saying they will keep the pick. They'll probably package the pick with one of their young players and a contract for another "solid player" to stick alongside Pierce. 

Solid player =/= Przybilla or Artest.

My point was simply that if the best deal on the table was the #5 and Wally for questionable players (be they injury-riddled or malcontents), I think Ainge would rather stand pat.


----------

