# Rashard Lewis, Richard Jefferson or AK47?



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Assume for a minute that KP decided to get one of these three players by trading Zach and only Zach. In return for Zach, we received Lewis, RJ or AK with no body or picks of importance coming along with those players. Who would you rather the Blazers trade for?

For the sake of arguments, lets assume that RJ makes his 10mil + scrub to fill CBA rules, AK makes the same as Zach and Lewis would be sign and traded for exactly the same as Zach. So money issues don't matter.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

AK47 is whining about his playing time again.. - I am tired of whiners. 

Between Shard and RJ - I have a feeling RJ is more likely to be a real star as he gets older - so I voted for him.


----------



## AllEyezonTX (Nov 16, 2006)

I'll take Lewis


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Nate has made it very clear who he wants. KP will listen to him, it's a done deal as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

graybeard said:


> Nate has made it very clear who he wants. KP will listen to him, it's a done deal as far as I'm concerned.


KP will listen to Nate, but in the end I think KP trusts his own assessments completely and will do what he feels is best even if Nate dissagrees.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'll take E....... Any of the above


----------



## glazeduck (Mar 20, 2007)

I agree. Between Nate and KP and Quick's comments and Shards comments about wanting to play here I think there's already been some nudge-nudge wink-wink action and that it'll happen. I also think he's a great fit, less risk than RJ and provides more of what we need than AK or Gerald Wallace...not that I'd mind ANY of them. Beyond all that, Luke Ridnour (young, yet *veteran pg*, plays uptempo well w/ nate, local boy, reasonable contract) and Johan Petro (young, yet *VET BIG MAN* with a good contract are said to be available...both would also fit well here, although I imagine it would have to be a pretty massive trade to bring all of them in...might be worth our while.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> KP will listen to Nate, but in the end I think KP trusts his own assessments completely and will do what he feels is best even if Nate dissagrees.


 I can tell you right now that KP's assessment is going to be that he doesn't want a head coach that is pissed at him. Nate and Kp have already hashed this over. That is why you hear Nate giving KP such a glowing endorsement.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Lewis. I think he's highly underrated. I think complaints of his defense are exaggerated. He has good size and quickness and gets over a steal per game. 

I've never been impressed with RJ. He looks good in an open game, but has always seemed like a terrible half-court player. He doesn't provide shooting and he is very injury prone. No thanks.

I like AK a lot, but he's struggled a lot this year and I think it has to do with playing the SF position. He seems to be much more suited to playing PF and just can't seem to find his groove playing with Boozer and Okur. If we wanted to play him up front with Aldridge and look somewhere else for a SF, maybe that would be okay, but it seems like a bit of a risk taking a flyer on a player who has regressed so much.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Rashard Lewis!!! He's the only budding star - of these three - I'm interested in. RJ (IMO) lives off the passes of Kidd and Carter. He's not able to the "the" guy by himself. AK - seems like the ultimate garbage guy. 

I'd rather have RL.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

graybeard said:


> I can tell you right now that KP's assessment is going to be that he doesn't want a head coach that is pissed at him. Nate and Kp have already hashed this over. That is why you hear Nate giving KP such a glowing endorsement.


I agree that KP would not grab a player that Nate did not want, but that's a big difference from Nate prefering one player, but still approving of two others. 

Most likely, if asked, Nate would tell KP that he would really like Shard on the team, but that the other two would also make great additions to the team. In this case, I don't think Nate would be pissed to find out that AK47 was his new starting SF. 

Chances are that all three players will not be offered or obtainable, and Nate knows that. He might puch for Shard, but if KP comes to Nate and says "Jefferson is on the table right now, would you like him?" The answer will likely be "Yes" from Nate.


----------



## EyeDK (May 24, 2006)

I think Lewis's ability to shoot from outside would compliment Zach's game more than any of the other players listed. 

Jefferson would be the best player out of the three to trade Zach for in my opinion. We would get an athletic wing play that can handle the ball, play defense, drive to the basket and rebound. Jefferson has a respectable outside shot. Maybe it's just me but Jefferson seems like he has less of an ego out the three and would be the better team player.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Some here are stating that "its a done deal" and similar matter-of-fact statements. Do you have specific knowledge or is this your best guess??


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Some here are stating that "its a done deal" and similar matter-of-fact statements. Do you have specific knowledge or is this your best guess??


Was going to make a new thread about this but it seems to fit here just fine...

From what I have heard from two folks within the Blazer organization....

The Blazers are working on two seperate deals which would net them Rashard Lewis..one involves ZBo and one does not. Apparently the sticky point in one is that Portland wants to include Martell Webster and one of the two other teams involved is demanding our 1st round pick this year instead. Webster's stock within the organization has plummeted dramtically over the last 3 months apparently. 

Of course all of this was contingent on how the draft order plays out...but folks at the Blazers are fairly confident a deal will be reached. 

That's all I got...IMO the information is fairly reliable as one of the sources has been correct with this type of stuff before....the second source I just met so I dunno about him/her.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I picked RJ, but it's real close. It really depends on health. I think AK is the best player of the three, was an all-league defender, but is also the most fragile. He always seems to be hurt. I'm also concerned that he seems to be having trouble fitting in in Utah now, and that he isn't really a true SF.

Lewis has the least injury history I think, and is the best scorer of the bunch by far, which would really help us. But his defense isn't good, and I wonder if we'd run into a problem of having too many people want to shoot and not enough people creating and facilitating if we add Lewis. If we expect Sergio to emerge sooner than later as the starting PG though, then Lewis becomes relatively more valuable to us. I'm not as confident in the rapid development of Sergio than others are though, and I'd worry about the defense with both of them on the court.

RJ is my favorite because he's such an all-around talent. He also has injury problems, and he can't hit from outside anything like Lewis, but he's a good scorer, passer and defender. He can create offense for himself and others and plays both ends of the court well. Again, if Sergio emerges, then I think that changes it. With S-Rod, Roy and Jefferson all looking to be the man who runs the show, I think we have problems.

I believe in a "few chiefs-many braves" offensive system, where 1 or 2 people on the court at a time have the responsibility of making everything work together, while everyone else is talented, knows their roles and fills them well. In this spirit, we want a team where the chiefs are top-shelf players, and we make sure to not have too few that the team gets lost nor so many that they conflict with each other. It's a fine line.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I picked Rashard for right now, since he appraently wants to come here. But I am still skeptical about a high salary. There are other choices as well


http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/352215-sf-stat-comparison-thread.html

There are a loto f SF who could play well for us besides the 3 listed

Mike Miller, Corey Maggette, Andes Nocioni, Grant Hill, Marvin Wallace, Gerald Wallace, Josh Childress, Caron Butler, etc

all will be able to be obtained for less than $15.5 mil


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Trader Bob said:


> I picked Rashard for right now, since he appraently wants to come here. But I am still skeptical about a high salary. There are other choices as well
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/352215-sf-stat-comparison-thread.html
> ...


Yeah, we will probably have multiple choices. I don't think Marvin Williams and Childress are really very good though, and I think Grant Hill is not going to be around long enough to play a major role in the future. If we're talking about AK, RJ and Shard, we're talking about getting a real star player for years to come, not just someone to fill the starting SF slot next season.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> I picked Rashard for right now, since he appraently wants to come here. But I am still skeptical about a high salary. There are other choices as well
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/352215-sf-stat-comparison-thread.html
> ...


your post, and this thread in general, is what makes me so excited for this summer. there are a LOT of guys we could target, and that's without even getting into our pick. 

finding a starting quality small forward should be our top priority this summer, and it's looking to be a very achievable goal.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> I picked RJ, but it's real close. It really depends on health. I think AK is the best player of the three, was an all-league defender, but is also the most fragile. He always seems to be hurt. I'm also concerned that he seems to be having trouble fitting in in Utah now, and that he isn't really a true SF.
> 
> Lewis has the least injury history I think, and is the best scorer of the bunch by far, which would really help us. But his defense isn't good, and I wonder if we'd run into a problem of having too many people want to shoot and not enough people creating and facilitating if we add Lewis. If we expect Sergio to emerge sooner than later as the starting PG though, then Lewis becomes relatively more valuable to us. I'm not as confident in the rapid development of Sergio than others are though, and I'd worry about the defense with both of them on the court.
> 
> ...


To me money is a factor too. RJ has the "reasonable" deal. AK is getting "too much" and Lewis wants way more than RJ is getting.

As for health, that is a BIG area of concern for AK and RJ. If that is likely in their past and they look to be normal moving forward, their value goes up dramatically. This is the kind of information we don't have access to.

Interestingly, Lewis is coming off the least games played in his career - 60. Is he really an ironman?

There is also the playoffs. Lewis has not played well in the playoffs, and disturbingly lost his shot every time. Richard Jefferson has played well in the second season. He is "proven" on that stage. One year he was outstanding.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> From what I have heard from two folks within the Blazer organization....
> 
> The Blazers are working on two seperate deals which would net them Rashard Lewis..one involves ZBo and one does not. Apparently the sticky point in one is that Portland wants to include Martell Webster and one of the two other teams involved is demanding our 1st round pick this year instead. Webster's stock within the organization has plummeted dramtically over the last 3 months apparently.


If we are talking about giving up Zach AND a first round pick, we better be getting back a helluva lot more than just Lewis! :eek8: :whofarted :jawdrop:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mook said:


> your post, and this thread in general, is what makes me so excited for this summer. there are a LOT of guys we could target, and that's without even getting into our pick.
> 
> finding a starting quality small forward should be our top priority this summer, and it's looking to be a very achievable goal.


Supply and Demand.

Supply of "available" Small Forwards appears to be fairly high.

That should lower the price in general.

If the Blazers are smart and careful, they will not panic, acting like there is only one good Small Forward available, thus avoiding a super-premium price.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

glazeduck said:


> I agree. Between Nate and KP and Quick's comments and Shards comments about wanting to play here I think there's already been some nudge-nudge wink-wink action and that it'll happen. I also think he's a great fit, less risk than RJ and provides more of what we need than AK or Gerald Wallace...not that I'd mind ANY of them. Beyond all that, Luke Ridnour (young, yet *veteran pg*, plays uptempo well w/ nate, local boy, reasonable contract) and Johan Petro (young, yet *VET BIG MAN* with a good contract are said to be available...both would also fit well here, although I imagine it would have to be a pretty massive trade to bring all of them in...might be worth our while.


Your statement about Petro is very wrong. He is no vet at all.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

jefferson is the best team player and has a great all around game. 
i wouldnt mind lewis. we'll just have to see what happens


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If we are talking about giving up Zach AND a first round pick, we better be getting back a helluva lot more than just Lewis! :eek8: :whofarted :jawdrop:


you have to pay to rid yourself of a player with Zach's type of character issues...

Lewis is better then any SF we could potentially draft in the 4-8 range. And how do you figure a "a hell of alot more"....Lewis is worth more then Zbo as it is.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I like Jefferson's game a lot, but I'd rather have Lewis for Portland. In my opinion, Jefferson duplicates Roy too much. Jefferson is essentially an older, injury-prone version of Roy.

Lewis, however, provides an enormously valuable ability that the team really doesn't have...a lights-out shooter who's not just a catch-and-shoot role-player (ala Steve Kerr). He has elite athleticism, can get to the hoop, can pass and handle the ball. Players like him aren't that common. Add that to the fact that he fills a major need for the team and is still fairly young-ish, and I think he has the most value to Portland.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I like Jefferson's game a lot, but I'd rather have Lewis for Portland. In my opinion, Jefferson duplicates Roy too much. Jefferson is essentially an older, injury-prone version of Roy.
> 
> Lewis, however, provides an enormously valuable ability that the team really doesn't have...a lights-out shooter who's not just a catch-and-shoot role-player (ala Steve Kerr). He has elite athleticism, can get to the hoop, can pass and handle the ball. Players like him aren't that common. Add that to the fact that he fills a major need for the team and is still fairly young-ish, and I think he has the most value to Portland.


I agee with a lot of this, and had thought, but failed to post, that Jefferson is very similar to Roy.

I also agree that Lewis is a proven scorer, and a feared outside threat, which can have great value in opening up the paint. Ironically, that would pair best with.....Zach. Oh well.

So we have Lewis, whose best skill is deadly outside shooting, which pairs very well with an inside threat, and we trade our inside threat to get him.

We have Jefferson, who duplicates a lot of what Roy does, yet is versatile, has proven he can step up in the playoffs, and is a very good defender - something Lewis is not.

If we knew that Jefferson would be fully healthy going forward, past previous issues, I think it would be a tough call when you factor the salary savings.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Nets fan here.


Just my two cents here: I think Shard is the best of the three on offense and 2nd best in rebounding. That, and RJ is becoming more injury-prone and really thrives more on the running game. Also, as someone mentioned before, RJ is like a older version, injury prone version of Roy


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> I also agree that Lewis is a proven scorer, and a feared outside threat, which can have great value in opening up the paint. Ironically, that would pair best with.....Zach. Oh well.
> 
> So we have Lewis, whose best skill is deadly outside shooting, which pairs very well with an inside threat, and we trade our inside threat to get him.


This is true, but I think Aldridge has the potential to become a good inside threat to compliment Lewis. And if we end up with another big man in the draft (Brenden Wright, Roy Hibbert, Spencer Hawes, etc), we'll have one more guy to potentially groom into a good inside threat.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Some here are stating that "its a done deal" and similar matter-of-fact statements. Do you have specific knowledge or is this your best guess??


Read the roadsigns.

Kevin Pritchard said: "I'm going to shock the world on draft day" That's either the statement from a very boastful and arrogant man... or a statement from a GM that already has something in place. I don't think KP is boastful or arrogant, don't know of anyone that does.

Nate said: "Rashard is ready to be the first option on a team"... um, not with Ray Allen on that team.

Nate said: "We need an experienced point guard" Where does that leave Jack?

Kevin Pritchard said: "Sergio is going to be a blazer for a long time"

Nate said: Zach and Magloire don't play well together at the same time".

Nate said: (Paraphrased) We played very well in the games that Zach was out"

Add all those statements up, add to it that Atlanta would be an instant playoff team with Zach and Jack... and that Portland is in a position to offer so much for Shard... And that all three teams would be better,,, Paul Allen's history with Seattle...Nate's history with Seattle...it's a no brainer.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Astral Dragon said:


> Nets fan here.
> 
> 
> Just my two cents here: I think Shard is the best of the three on offense and 2nd best in rebounding. That, and RJ is becoming more injury-prone and really thrives more on the running game. Also, as someone mentioned before, RJ is like a older version, injury prone version of Roy


Thanks for the input. Do you think RJ has become a "chronic" injury risk?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> Was going to make a new thread about this but it seems to fit here just fine...
> 
> From what I have heard from two folks within the Blazer organization....
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. In my mind, when I read that the deal for Lewis is going to get done, I wonder why posters are so confident when we have no idea what Seattle/Oka City is thinking. With Lewis reportedly being one of the hottest FA being sought, what makes us think Seattle feels limited to deal with Ptd.

I've read plenty about how aggressive Ptd is going to be to go after LEwis, nice to read something about how management thinks they can get it done.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

graybeard said:


> Read the roadsigns.
> 
> Kevin Pritchard said: "I'm going to shock the world on draft day" That's either the statement from a very boastful and arrogant man... or a statement from a GM that already has something in place. I don't think KP is boastful or arrogant, don't know of anyone that does.
> 
> ...


Having said all that, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we ended up with a sign and trade that involved Magloire, Jack and pieces to Atlanta. Either way Shard is a blazer.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

graybeard said:


> Having said all that, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we ended up with a sign and trade that involved Magloire, Jack and pieces to Atlanta. Either way Shard is a blazer.



I'm not so sure it gets done. Anytime you talk a three team deal involving near max contracts, I think the odds of it happening drop. Throw in that it is unlikely Seattle is looking to gain salary (a year before they make the big move) and I think it is going to take some stars aligning for this one.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> you have to pay to rid yourself of a player with Zach's type of character issues...
> 
> Lewis is better then any SF we could potentially draft in the 4-8 range. And how do you figure a "a hell of alot more"....Lewis is worth more then Zbo as it is.



Both are good scorers.
Neither are good playmakers or defenders.

The only objective difference between the 2 is rebounding - and that is heavily in Zach's favor.

A straight up deal? Maybe. Adding in a lotto pick? No way in hell. I don't care how much you dislike a player's personality - that is shooting yourself in the foot because you dislike the color of your socks!

That would make as much sense as Boston giving away the chance to draft Roy, just so they could offload LaFrentz.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm not so sure it gets done. Anytime you talk a three team deal involving near max contracts, I think the odds of it happening drop. Throw in that it is unlikely Seattle is looking to gain salary (a year before they make the big move) and I think it is going to take some stars aligning for this one.


 It has to involve a third team. Seattle minus Shard and Portland are both short on quality SF's. It just so happens that Atlanta if flush with them.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd go with Lewis. He's a great shooter and a decent defender at the 3.

His game would mesh pretty well with Aldridge, Roy and Sergio.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

I forgot on more quote from KP: "We like guys that are tall for their position".

Two 6'11' and one 6'10' front line would work nicely as far as height goes.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Both are good scorers.
> Neither are good playmakers or defenders.
> 
> The only objective difference between the 2 is rebounding - and that is heavily in Zach's favor.


Perhaps this isn't an objective difference, but it's still important: While both are good scorers, Lewis gets his more in the flow of the offense and can and will pass the ball. He's not a black hole. Randolph stops the flow and doesn't pass the ball very much.

Also, while Lewis is not an inspired defender, I think he's a better defender for his position than Randolph is for his.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Both are good scorers.
> Neither are good playmakers or defenders.
> 
> The only objective difference between the 2 is rebounding - and that is heavily in Zach's favor.
> ...


I totally understand what you are saying yet IMO and from what I can tell the oppinions of the rest of the league Rashard is seen as being more valuable then ZBO...not enough to warrant giving up the draft pick I agree but coupled with Zbo's bad reputation there is definetly a void that must be filled by Portland to get Seattle to bite IMO. 

Also the demand for the pick may be coming from the third team...who knows they have us over the ropes being the catalyst for us to get this deal done with SEA. 

A straight up deal maybe??? My lord I think I would crap myself if we could trade ZBO straight up for Shard. 

Zach is leading us nowhere...Rashard has the potential under Nate to lead us somewhere IMO. And he doesn't limit us to playing a slow down pound it inside one dimensional game.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

GERALD WALLACE!!! Best of the bunch!


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

For me it's

1. Jefferson
2. AK47
3. Shard

Any would be nice though if we can get rid of Zach.

EDIT: And I agree with MAS Ripcity, I'd take Wallace over any/all of them.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Rl


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I vote for: AKRJ Lewis


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I worry that Lewis is the SF version of Abdur-Rahim. Obviously talented, silky scorer, but doesn't seem to contribute to winning. I would throw him in with players like Antawn Jamison too. I voted Jefferson for the reason that he's a pure SF who's much more of an all-round player. Yes it's nice to have a jump-shooter, but they don't seem to be as much of a premium in the playoffs.

And as to RJ being a taller Roy - how could that be a bad thing? Would having 2 Scottie Pippens on the same team be bad? If you could clone Roy, wouldn't the Clone be our starting SF right now?

The only advantage RL has over the other two that I really care about is that he hasn't (to my knowledge) shown the same signs of wear-and-tear as the other two. But then again, he did miss quite a few games.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> the second source I just met so I dunno about *him/her*.


Apparently so  

barfo


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Lewis is by far the best player out of those three, IMO.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

If the question is who would you rather have as the Blazers starting SF, I'll take Lewis. If the question is who would you rather swap in for Zach, I think my answer would be AK.

I'm assuming the Blazers are either keeping their draft pick or swapping picks with someone such that they'd still have a pick in the top ten or twelve. And they have needs as PG, SF, and PF, if Zach goes. Taking the PG piece out of the equation just to simplify things I'm thinking that:

AK + best SF available > Lewis + best big available.

Exceptions would be Oden (obviously) and maaaybe Horford or Brandan Wright. While Yi and even Hibbert intrigue me some, I'd much rather take my chances with AK and any one of the SFs that are pretty certain to be there in the mid to late part of the first round.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Thanks, SA1177, for the inside info. It's encouraging to hear the Blazers are fairly confident they can make a deal; I assume that means they have been talking with Seattle and Seattle is willing to make a deal.
It's difficult to imagine how they would make that one variant work, the one where Zach is not included in the trade.

Anyway I voted for Lewis because of his good health and potential to be an all-around player if he developes his defense. I think it's easier to learn defense than how to be a good shooter.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

graybeard said:


> Read the roadsigns.
> 
> Kevin Pritchard said: "I'm going to shock the world on draft day" That's either the statement from a very boastful and arrogant man... or a statement from a GM that already has something in place. I don't think KP is boastful or arrogant, don't know of anyone that does.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on the roadsigns. Especially since last year they weren't exactly hiding their love for Roy, there were several comments prior to the draft that Nate really thought Roy was hot stuff. 

So I'm leaning towards the belief that they already have some potential deals worked out with Seattle, depending on how the draft order works out. 

barfo


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

On further thought, I'll ammend my previous statement to:

Lewis + Oden, Horford, Wright, & _maybe_ Yi or Hibbert > AK and best SF (save Durant)

What I don't want to see is a situation where the team has not decent bigs outside of Aldridge and Pryzbilla, Magloire and Outlaw (if you can even call them decent and/or bigs).


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

After SA1177 revealed the Blazers could be pursuing Lewis in a trade not including Zach, I decided to go to Realgm and see what I could come up with. I chose Atlanta as the third trading partner because they are under the cap and have some complimentary needs.

Atlanta sends Marvin Williams to Seattle, they receive Joel Przbilla and Jarret Jack from Portland.

Seattle sends Rashard Lewis to Portland, and receives Marvin Williams from Atlanta and Martell Webster and Fred Jones (one year left, basically an expiring contract) from Portland.

Portland sends Joel Pryzbilla and Jarret Jack to Atlanta and Martell Webster and Fred Jones to Seattle, receives Rashard Lewis.

For Atlanta they fill two needs, a true PG and a true center, they give up a guy who is still somewhat of a question mark with potential.

For Seattle, they receive two former high lottery picks and an expiring contract and avoid the necessity of signing Lewis to an expensive longterm contract. Since their future is somewhat up in the air, I think this kind of flexibility is attractive to them. 

For Portland they give up Przbilla but then could sign Magloire (it's also possible that Atlanta would prefer a resigned Magloire, considering Joel's injury history). This would not be a big loss with Aldrige moving to starting center. They lose Jack, hopefully replaceable by signing Steve Blake. They lose Webster's potential, but this creates room to resign Udoka. Fred Jones I consider a nonfactor. And we would still have Zach and our first round pick.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

One of the reasons that Nate left Seattle in the first place was because their front office people wouldn't listen to him and told him how to run the team. So he left. 
Nate wanted Roy in his first draft as head coach, and he got Roy.(thanks Barfo for the reminder) KP made it happen, he'll do it again.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Ukrainefan said:


> After SA1177 revealed the Blazers could be pursuing Lewis in a trade not including Zach, I decided to go to Realgm and see what I could come up with. I chose Atlanta as the third trading partner because they are under the cap and have some complimentary needs.
> 
> Atlanta sends Marvin Williams to Seattle, they receive Joel Przbilla and Jarret Jack from Portland.
> 
> ...


Since the Hawks are under the cap, there are tons of trade scenarios that work with them.
I think it would be rather ruthless of Portland to trade Joel so soon considering that he probably gave up more money to sign here with his last contract.... Same with Freddie Jones, it would be very ruthless after him giving up the last year of his guaranteed contract to come here. Not the Blazer's style to do that.
I also think that it's very possible that Mags is the main piece from Portland in this trade.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> A straight up deal maybe??? My lord I think I would crap myself if we could trade ZBO straight up for Shard.


Let me clarify: Depending on what sources you believe, Lewis may be seeking a contract substantialy bigger than what Zach is making. If Zach is overpaid, and I believe he is, why would you sink that kind of money in Lewis? The "maybe" is based on what his financial expectations really are.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Graybeard, I guess I'm in my ruthless mode today. First I'm not really sure we underpaid Joel, and I'm not sure what the brass think as far as his effort in the past season, but if the Hawks would take Magloire I'm happy with that. I didn't see a lot of alternatives to sending Fred Jones, I don't think Seattle wants a 2 year contract of Dan Dickau, maybe a resigned Travis Outlaw but that's getting complicated and I would rather keep Outlaw. if we didn't make any promise to Jones, then I don't have a problem trading him.

addon: I guess I was wrong, Dickau also has only one year left so we could trade him instead of Fred Jones; good suggestions, Graybeard.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

graybeard said:


> One of the reasons that Nate left Seattle in the first place was because their front office people wouldn't listen to him and told him how to run the team. So he left.
> Nate wanted Roy in his first draft as head coach, and he got Roy.(thanks Barfo for the reminder) KP made it happen, he'll do it again.


I don't think this is correct. If I remember correctly, there were rumors that Nate wanted to trade the pick last year but Pritchard wanted Roy. And it was Patterson who made it happen on the behest of Pritchard. 

I am sure that Pritchard ran the idea of Roy past Nate and got his approval, but I don;t think it was Nate's choice in the least.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Let me clarify: Depending on what sources you believe, Lewis may be seeking a contract substantialy bigger than what Zach is making. If Zach is overpaid, and I believe he is, why would you sink that kind of money in Lewis? The "maybe" is based on what his financial expectations really are.


I think he'll command the same type of $$$ but not more than Zbo (who makes an average of 15 mil over the life of his contract). That's the salary territory of Paul Pierce, Shawn Marion, Dirk, Vince Carter, Jamison, Larry Hughes, Ben Wallace and Baron Davis. It's a lot of money for sure, but entirely reasonable if we can move Zbo's contract. 

Without a sign-and-trade, I don't see many of the teams with caproom shelling out that much dough for a SF outside maybe Orlando (who are rumored to be going after Vince anyway).


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Any of you people who think AK-47 is the best of the 3 hasn't been paying attention to current events. 

AK-47 should change his name to Paint Ball Gun after the performance this season.

In the current series he is playing in he broke down crying after game 1 because of his poor performance. 

He has played horribly all year long, and to me, looks like he no longer desires to play basketball, loves his fat contract, and needs to refocus if he is ever going to do anything with his career.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I agree with hasoos. I think people are thinking about the Kirilenko of a year or two ago. Lately (which means this whole season and part of last season), he's been near-useless.

Kirilenko has always been an overrated individual defender, IMO, and now even his all-court help defense has been weak and he looks lost on offense.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Sweet Kirilenko followed his wonderful game one, with a doughnut last night. Yes you want to trade for the 12 million dollar doughnut man?:biggrin


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Yeah, as Minstrel said, I'd not realized how "not himself" Kirilenko is at this point. I'd love to see him turn it around because he was really fun to watch a couple of years ago and he's still pretty young, but I'm less and less sure I want to see him trying to turn it around in a Blazer uniform.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Yeah, as Minstrel said, I'd not realized how "not himself" Kirilenko is at this point. I'd love to see him turn it around because he was really fun to watch a couple of years ago and he's still pretty young, but I'm less and less sure I want to see him trying to turn it around in a Blazer uniform.


I agree.. I am not so sure I want to roll the dice on a player. I want to be reasonably sure the player will do well for us. A step in the positive direction as the others gel and improve collectively.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

hasoos said:


> In the current series he is playing in he broke down crying after game 1 because of his poor performance.
> 
> He has played horribly all year long, and to me, looks like he no longer desires to play basketball, loves his fat contract, and needs to refocus if he is ever going to do anything with his career.


It looks to me like he is out of position at SF and doesn't know how to fit in the offense that Utah has now with the emergence of Boozer. Why would he be crying about his performance if he doesn't like basketball and only loves his contract? That doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't trade for him if we didn't plan on playing him at PF. If we trade Zach for him though, Kirilenko would probably just take his place.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> It looks to me like he is out of position at SF and doesn't know how to fit in the offense that Utah has now with the emergence of Boozer. Why would he be crying about his performance if he doesn't like basketball and only loves his contract? That doesn't make sense.
> 
> I wouldn't trade for him if we didn't plan on playing him at PF. If we trade Zach for him though, Kirilenko would probably just take his place.


AK's value, with this horrific season, coupled with his big contract, has to put his trade value at a very low level. I would not want to trade him for Zach straight up. If we were to get AK, it has got to be at a bargain price, just in case he flames out with us too. Utah doesn't play AK. They are in no position to be demaning a premium price.

We send them Raef plus Webster or a pick (but not a top 3 07). They do it to get out of the long term deal and add some youth. They aren't using AK anyway and had a great season without him. It is not like Sloan is going to use a starting caliber vet. The only starter they need is a Shooting Guard, and we aren't about to send them Roy.

Then, the Blazers do the 3-way sending out Zach to get Lewis, as much posted recently.

The Blazers end up with the option of troting out this "small" and FAST lineup:

Sergio, Roy, Lewis, AK, Aldridge

It is small in the sense that AK and Aldridge are light for their positions. Certainly each player is average or better in length at their position. Now you have 5 players that can pass and move. Wow that would be a fun team to watch with the right offense.

If AK comes off the bench, would pair well with Sergio, we have the option of a more tradition half-court team as the starting unit:

Jack, Roy, Lewis, Aldridge, Joel


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> AK's value, with this horrific season, coupled with his big contract, has to put his trade value at a very low level. I would not want to trade him for Zach straight up. If we were to get AK, it has got to be at a bargain price, just in case he flames out with us too. Utah doesn't play AK. They are in no position to be demaning a premium price.
> 
> We send them Raef plus Webster or a pick (but not a top 3 07). They do it to get out of the long term deal and add some youth. They aren't using AK anyway and had a great season without him. It is not like Sloan is going to use a starting caliber vet. The only starter they need is a Shooting Guard, and we aren't about to send them Roy.
> 
> ...


Sure, that's a great deal, if they take it. I really don't think they would though. They are a team in good shape on the court and financially. They can just stand pat and wait for a better offer. They don't have any need to act desperately. I think they would take less "value" talent-wise to move AK and his big contract, but I think they are going to want that talent to be of the veteran kind that can contribute for them right away and help them make a run at it in the next couple years.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Sure, that's a great deal, if they take it. I really don't think they would though. They are a team in good shape on the court and financially. They can just stand pat and wait for a better offer. They don't have any need to act desperately. I think they would take less "value" talent-wise to move AK and his big contract, but I think they are going to want that talent to be of the veteran kind that can contribute for them right away and help them make a run at it in the next couple years.


AK IS a veteran.

So what team is going to trade a GOOD veteran for the current disaster that is now AK????

Won't happen. Not sure why you think it would.

So Utah can dream all they want but they are not getting a good (playoff rotation caliber) vet for AK and his monster contract. AK's deal is MUCH larger than Boozer, Okur, or any other Jazz player. It is out of whack with their team.

Fact is Jerry Sloan is beside himself about AK. I saw part of his interview after the game and he said, "I am not going to talk about AK".

Are you kidding me?

Could they get a better deal than Raef and Webster? Probably. And we can up the deal too. Sign and trade Magliore (if they like him). Sign and trade Outlaw (if they like him). Webster AND a future pick. There are a lot of possibities without using Zach (who they won't want) or Roy, Aldridge, Sergio.

And we have a veteran to send them - Dan Dickau. He he.

There can be more than one path to the same destination. Utah needs a vet to shore up their current playoff run. They look at their current salary structure and they are in trouble Summer of 2009 if they still have AK on the books. If they trade him for Raef, who will be off then, they are in good shape to extend Deron. Check it out:

http://www.storytellerscontracts.info/resources/06-07salaries.htm

Dumping AK's deal early, gives the Jazz the salary room to offer the full MLE to a free agent the next year or two. With AK on board, I think the owner is extremely reluctant to do that. Possibly a different path to the same result - AK out, quality vet (likely shooting guard) in.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> AK IS a veteran.
> 
> So what team is going to trade a GOOD veteran for the current disaster that is now AK????
> 
> Won't happen. Not sure why you think it would.


Simple, he has proven himself to be a good player over numerous seasons. He's had exactly _one_ bad year. I don't think that makes him a disaster. If he was playing bad because he was injured, that would be a disaster, contractually speaking. But it looks like he is just playing bad because he is playing out of position on a team that he suddenly doesn't fit with, but he has a huge body of work to show that he can be a very good player in this league. That's why I think some team would be willing to offer a capable veteran for AK, which would be much more appealing to them than Webster and an expiring two years from now contract.




Masbee said:


> Could they get a better deal than Raef and Webster? Probably. And we can up the deal too. Sign and trade Magliore (if they like him). Sign and trade Outlaw (if they like him). Webster AND a future pick. There are a lot of possibities without using Zach (who they won't want) or Roy, Aldridge, Sergio.
> 
> And we have a veteran to send them - Dan Dickau. He he.
> 
> ...


I agree that the Jazz might take other assets for AK. I don't really think they would take Zach for him straight across anyway, just like I don't think Seattle would swap him for Lewis. It's the premise of this thread, not my own personally. The question was simply which of the three I'd prefer.

That said, I really don't think they want almost any of that stuff you listed. Webster and Outlaw are pretty marginal prospects. Magloire is a guy who plays like junk if he doesn't start, and in Utah he wouldn't start. Those guys aren't very useful to them as players, and aren't desirable enough to be good trade bait.

I can't see them placing a very high value on cap space in 2009 either. They are right in the zone where they have little hope of real cap space until maybe 2010, but they plenty of room under the lux tax to add MLE free agents and extend Deron Williams even if they don't do anything with AK.

The 2008 pick might appeal to them though. If they would do AK for Raef, Webs or Outlaw, and the 08 pick, I'd take that deal. We'd have three starting PFs at that point, and while I don't think we can count on getting Lewis for Zach, we could definitely do something with him.

I'm still skeptical though. I'm sure Utah would like to move AK, but I think they'd like to get more value back than that (I have a pretty low opinion of Martel's market value in case you couldn't tell), and I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to wait for the right offer to come along.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Simple, he has proven himself to be a good player over numerous seasons. He's had exactly _one_ bad year. I don't think that makes him a disaster. If he was playing bad because he was injured, that would be a disaster, contractually speaking. But it looks like he is just playing bad because he is playing out of position on a team that he suddenly doesn't fit with, but he has a huge body of work to show that he can be a very good player in this league. That's why I think some team would be willing to offer a capable veteran for AK, which would be much more appealing to them than Webster and an expiring two years from now contract.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Dude is crying and the coach doesn't want to talk about him.

The definition of DYSFUNCTIONAL.

And you think they want to wait it out?

This has distress sale written all over it.

Like I said, if they want a premium price, they can stick a "For Sale" on AK and watch the looky loos kick his tires. I think he won't get moved in that instance. If Atlanta or some other silly team offers them big value, good for them.

I got two words - Baron Davis.

Just because a guy is "proven", doesn't mean they always get moved for big value, when there are issues of health or game performance or attitude. In AK's case, ALL THREE apply. Imagine that.

If we don't have the pieces they want - eh - I don't really care that much. I am not going to lose sleep over it. I will not be upset if Pritchard fails to pull off a big summer.

As for the salary situation, if the Jazz keep AK and his crying butt planted to the bench at $15mil per, they will have AK, Boozer, Okur, Harpring, Fisher, Williams, Collins, Brewer and Milsap under contract for the 08-09 season. That is only 9 guys, and doesn't even include a decent Shooting Guard. With no other players under contract (which is not really possible) those guys total $57.5 mil. Going into the next season they have to extend Deron Williams and only have 1 ending contract of $2mil. They are in trouble if you ask me. I am not sure why you think they are in fine shape keeping AK.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

And if you don't like the Baron Davis comparison, Jose Arroyo is an example of a player the Jazz sent away for a surprisingly poor return after he and Sloan didn't get along. It's reasonable to think we could get AK with Raef + decent player. Maybe all the talk about Lewis is a smoke screen...or we could go after both.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> The Dude is crying and the coach doesn't want to talk about him.
> 
> The definition of DYSFUNCTIONAL.
> 
> ...


Ok, you can put "dysfunctional" in all-caps, but that doesn't mean Utah's management is panicking. Does their window close after next season? No, not at all. Boozer and Okur are just entering their primes. Williams is very young. They have a window broad enough that they can afford to wait for a good offer in any deal.

Looking at their salary situation, you should know that the luxury tax for next season, if we assume a conservative average NBA rate of inflation of 6%, will be just shy of $70 million. That means if they do nothing with AK, they can add a full MLE free agent, their first round draft pick, and three more minimum salary players and still be well under the tax. Then the next year, when the tax threshold goes up another 6%, they can offer Williams a nice extension, which wouldn't actually kick in until the following year after another 6% threshold increase, and still not be paying tax. That's what I meant when I said they had plenty of room under the lux tax threshold, at least to extend Deron in 2009 and add one MLE free agent.

But even assuming they want more salary space in 2009, they don't have to take a cruddy offer now to get it. Oversized contracts get more valuable as time passes, because the remaining years on it becomes progressively fewer. Instead of taking Raef's junky contract, Utah could wait another season and a half (until the trade deadline 09) to try to find an expiring contract with more value. That's why I said they aren't panicked. I'm sure that they realize that by not taking the first offer that comes along, they aren't in fact bound to never trade AK again at a future date.

And I like the Baron Davis comparison. That was a trade involving a star who had worse attitude problems, a more serious injury history, and was coming from a team that was undergoing a full rebuild, as opposed to Utah which is trying to improve rather than get worse. Also, in return they got a contract that expired that year, instead of two years later like Raef's, and they got a prospect in Speedy Claxton who at the time IMO had more value than Martel Webster does now. I think the differences between the Baron DAvis trade and the proposed AK trade really illustrate how unrealistic the AK trade idea is.

edit: in many ways, the idea of Utah trading away AK for basically nothing reminds me a lot of Canzano's idea last year of trading Zach for Tim Thomas's expiring contract. I'm very glad Blazers management was smart enough to realize that one bad season and some bad press isn't a good reason to panic and make a bad trade.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

#10 said:


> And if you don't like the Baron Davis comparison, Jose Arroyo is an example of a player the Jazz sent away for a surprisingly poor return after he and Sloan didn't get along. It's reasonable to think we could get AK with Raef + decent player. Maybe all the talk about Lewis is a smoke screen...or we could go after both.


_Carlos_ Arroyo also didn't fit in with the Detroit Pistons, or the Orlando Magic. It may have been a surprisingly poor return at the time, in some people's opinion, but later on we've seen that he just isn't that good and the Jazz actually got the best of that trade.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Give me a break trying to make excuses with him playing "Out of Position." How many players do you know that are worth 12 million bucks a year that aren't able to play effectively out of position? That would be none except, Kirelenko. 0 points and 3 rebounds in a playoff game is flat out pathetic, even if out of position. If anything, it weakens the argument that he should be obtained, because if you are a 12 million dollar guy, you should not only be a top notch producer on the court, but you should be a versatile, 2 or 3 position player. 

No I say that we don't bail Utah out, and then they have to keep that money earmarked for paying him, instead of getting another top notch player which could make them a top notch team again.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Maybe AK is simply dogging it to get out of Utah. Hard to believe he could get so bad so fast otherwise, unless he's got some sort of medical issue.

barfo


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I definitely would not trade for AK47- in fact, I'm not sold on the idea of trading Zach at all. I think he's still got upside.

I would take Jefferson over Lewis if we did make a trade because of the better D and more reasonable contract (15 million per is just crazy).

Jefferson had a couple of seasons with injuries, but is younger by a year and has had only 6 nba seasons compared with Lewis' 9 seasons. He seems to have been better overall than Lewis, even on the offensive side.

Lewis is a better shooter and would be a better match with Zach, but if Zach is not here, then I like Jefferson.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

While we are throwing small forward names out there, how about Nocioni? He is a free agent as well I believe. Thoughts?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

hasoos said:


> While we are throwing small forward names out there, how about Nocioni? He is a free agent as well I believe. Thoughts?



My hope is that Chicago gets blown out of one of these playoff series due to lack of inside scoring. Nociaoni will command more than we have available to us in money, so we will need to trade for him. Sending Zach to Chicago for Nocioni, Brown and Gordon or a pick would have been great at the deadline, but now Brown is a FA. It would have to be something like 

Gordon 4.8 mil
Re-signed Nocioni 6-7 mil
Viktor maybe 2 mil
NY's pick assuming it isn't 1, 2, or 3

for 

Zach
Martell


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Ok, you can put "dysfunctional" in all-caps, but that doesn't mean Utah's management is panicking. Does their window close after next season? No, not at all. Boozer and Okur are just entering their primes. Williams is very young. They have a window broad enough that they can afford to wait for a good offer in any deal.


You seem to be missing the part where I don't care.

If Utah wants to hang on to their $15 million dollar crying bench warmer they certainly are free to do so.

Again, I DON'T CARE.

And I assume the Blazer Brass will feel the same way. Nonchalance. If Utah wants to move him we their position will be talk to them and offer them some assets. Just not a lot.

He is a risk. He is an unusual player. Even in his prime, he was hard to fit in many teams. Now he is off his game. No guarantee he ever see his 2003 season again. One guarantee if a team trades for him - Monster salary.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Looking at their salary situation, you should know that the luxury tax for next season, if we assume a conservative average NBA rate of inflation of 6%, will be just shy of $70 million. That means if they do nothing with AK, they can add a full MLE free agent, their first round draft pick, and three more minimum salary players and still be well under the tax. Then the next year, when the tax threshold goes up another 6%, they can offer Williams a nice extension, which wouldn't actually kick in until the following year after another 6% threshold increase, and still not be paying tax. That's what I meant when I said they had plenty of room under the lux tax threshold, at least to extend Deron in 2009 and add one MLE free agent.


Ok.

Is it safe at this time to pencil in those 6% increases?

How solid are those projections? Is most of that increase guaranteed TV money? Or, is it dependent on good TV ratings (which currently are not good), increased ticket revenue, etc. which can go in any direction?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> edit: in many ways, the idea of Utah trading away AK for basically nothing reminds me a lot of Canzano's idea last year of trading Zach for Tim Thomas's expiring contract. I'm very glad Blazers management was smart enough to realize that one bad season and some bad press isn't a good reason to panic and make a bad trade.


You are overthinking the Raef/Webster proposal. Sure, they likely turn that down. That was just an example of something that works salary wise: Matching salary plus value - prospect or pick.

The exact details aren't important. Could be a 3-team deal. Could include other players we have. Could include multiple picks/players. The core idea is no Zach, Roy, Jack, Aldridge or Sergio.

And when you think of the Baron Davis example, and you try to tear it apart, I notice you failed to mention that Baron Davis was a more accomplished player, a point guard which is a position of scarcity, who had a proven ability to lead a team in the playoffs. Of course he was worth more than AK will now be worth. Leaders are more valuable in case you didn't know.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> You are overthinking the Raef/Webster proposal. Sure, they likely turn that down. That was just an example of something that works salary wise: Matching salary plus value - prospect or pick.
> 
> The exact details aren't important. Could be a 3-team deal. Could include other players we have. Could include multiple picks/players. The core idea is no Zach, Roy, Jack, Aldridge or Sergio.
> 
> And when you think of the Baron Davis example, and you try to tear it apart, I notice you failed to mention that Baron Davis was a more accomplished player, a point guard which is a position of scarcity, who had a proven ability to lead a team in the playoffs. Of course he was worth more than AK will now be worth. Leaders are more valuable in case you didn't know.


I guess I just have a different perception of Baron Davis's leadership value. At the time of that trade, he had just lead his team to a dysfunctional season by refusing to run the plays the coach called. The coach got fired and he lead the team out of the playoffs. In Golden State he did basically the same thing, while continuing his history of only playing half a season, until this season. That's the kind of leadership most teams don't want.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> You seem to be missing the part where I don't care.
> 
> If Utah wants to hang on to their $15 million dollar crying bench warmer they certainly are free to do so.
> 
> ...


OK, this us a lot of text devoted to a topic you don't care about. All I said is that I think Utah will balk at your offer, and why. If you don't care, then we can stop talking about it.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Ok.
> 
> Is it safe at this time to pencil in those 6% increases?
> 
> How solid are those projections? Is most of that increase guaranteed TV money? Or, is it dependent on good TV ratings (which currently are not good), increased ticket revenue, etc. which can go in any direction?


It is fairly safe. In 32 seasons of NBA salary cap history, there was only a four season period when the NBA rate of inflation didn't total that over any given two year period, from 2001-2005.

http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml

In any other two year period except the two that fall entirely in that window, the rate of increase has _exceeded_ 6% per year. It is dependent on total league revenues, for which ticket sales are the largest part, TV revenues are a much smaller part, and merchandise which is probably smaller still. I don't know how much it will change in any given year, but if it just goes up 2% this year then I know that Utah will be able to use their full MLE, draft their first round pick, and fill their roster with their second rounder and/or min salary young players and still be under the tax threshold even if they don't trade AK.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I definitely would not trade for AK47- in fact, I'm not sold on the idea of trading Zach at all. I think he's still got upside.
> 
> I would take Jefferson over Lewis if we did make a trade because of the better D and more reasonable contract (15 million per is just crazy).
> 
> ...


I agree. Jefferson is my first choice, if he is deemed healthy on inspection. I'd do Zach for Lewis too though, but I'd also be content keeping Zach on the team, except for the fact that so many people whine about him every day. He does have upside though, as he has shown by noticeably improving his game every year except the one following microfracture. AK would be my last choice as well. I like him a lot as a player though, but he has had some frequent injury problems, and I don't particularly like the idea of a front line as skinny as AK and Aldridge are. Where's the beef?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> I guess I just have a different perception of Baron Davis's leadership value. At the time of that trade, he had just lead his team to a dysfunctional season by refusing to run the plays the coach called. The coach got fired and he lead the team out of the playoffs. In Golden State he did basically the same thing, while continuing his history of only playing half a season, until this season. That's the kind of leadership most teams don't want.


Oh, I see. 

In your mind a has-been young enough to make a come-back is better than a never was.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> OK, this us a lot of text devoted to a topic you don't care about. All I said is that I think Utah will balk at your offer, and why. If you don't care, then we can stop talking about it.


Now you are just being silly.

You complain about too much text, and when I use shorthand, that I would guess most know what it means, you mock it by taking it literally.

Definition time.

I don't care = I don't care if we trade for AK or not. I don't care if Utah wants big value for their MAX contract "star" crybaby bench player that the coach won't talk about. I don't care enough to give Utah a lot of value. I don't care if another team outbids us. But, I do like to trade for talent, and being over the cap one of the best ways is to swoop in during "distress sales" and take another team's problem. If AK is in the bargain bin right now I want to try to get him. If AK is not "on sale" I DONT CARE.

Does all that text make you happier?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Now you are just being silly.
> 
> You complain about too much text, and when I use shorthand, that I would guess most know what it means, you mock it by taking it literally.
> 
> ...


I guess I did miss something. You made up a trade idea, then I said I didn't think it was plausible, then we talked about it a long time, and then you said you don't care if they don't want it...

I'm not complaining about too much text, I just don't see why you debated so long and so ardently express the fact that you "DON'T CARE" if they wouldn't want your offer. Actually, the idea of someone saying "I don't care" in all caps is funny to me. All I'm saying is Utah wouldn't want that deal, regardless of your feelings about it. If that doesn't bother you, that's fine and dandy.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Oh, I see.
> 
> In your mind a has-been young enough to make a come-back is better than a never was.


No, I think a ball-hogging coach killer is a very poor leader and not a valuable asset, especially when he comes with a serious injury history and a large contract attached. Baron Davis is the kind of leader who can sink a whole team, and who has no conscience about shooting off balance jumpers all night when he isn't even shooting 40%FG. I'd rather have a guy who is not a leader than one who can and has lead teams with that kind of bad example.

And you really think AK is a "never was"? Whatever man. I'd take his great defense over Baron's me-first offense every day of the week. One is the kind of super role player that can help a team compete for championships, the other is the kind of guy who is virtually guaranteed to block a team from ever achieving anything great with his 8 ill-advised 3 pointers per game.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I could care less what AK 47 was. What he is now that matters, and that is an ineffective player, that I don't want on this franchise with his bloated contract and virtually no production torpedoing the team for years when we can get more of a sure thing.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Sean Kemp part deux?

lots of potential star talent... but will it resurface?

I realize downturns or slumps are different than drug problems FYI


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I could care less what AK 47 was. What he is now that matters, and that is an ineffective player, that I don't want on this franchise with his bloated contract and virtually no production torpedoing the team for years when we can get more of a sure thing.


What if the trade were, as someone suggested, something like Webster and LaFrentz for AK? LaFrentz is already bring a "bloated contract and virtually no production" -- I'd think AK would be more likely to be useful than Raef and if the difference to get him is something like Webster and a second round pick....

:whoknows:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Sean Kemp part deux?
> 
> lots of potential star talent... but will it resurface?
> 
> I realize downturns or slumps are different than drug problems FYI


Scottie Pippen part deux? 

either analogy fits about the same. 

actually, the Pippen analogy fits better. he was a dynamic small forward renowned for his defense that was consigned to being a spot up shooter because of the offensive sets of Houston. sounds a lot like what Kirilenko is going through in Utah to me. 

the main difference was that Pippen was nearing the end of his career, while Kirilenko's career may only be beginning. 

and Pippen was one of the greatest players of all time. I suppose that's important too.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

On the AK part, it seems like we're discussing it without having very good information. Obviously, if AK would put up 8 and 3 for us, or just spend most of the time on the IL, he definitely wouldn't be worth spending $16 mil/year on. If he would stay healthy return to his all-star form, then trading junk or even Zach for him would be a pretty good deal.

The question is what kind of AK could we expect if we trade for him? Why did he have such a bad year? Is that more predictive of his future performance than his previous much better seasons? As Blazer fans, we can speculate but I get the feeling that none of us knows for sure. I'd be curious to hear from any Jazz fans who might be lurking in here as to why they believe AK has played so poorly recently. That really is the heart of the matter.


----------

