# A Trade Must Be Coming



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Mike Barrett is reporting that Ime has been offered a 3 year $9M deal by the Spurs. Personally, I don't think that's unreasonable. If Portland DIDN'T have another 3 lined up, they would match that. 

http://mikebarrettsblog.blogspot.com/


----------



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

Crimson the Cat said:


> Mike Barrett is reporting that Ime has been offered a 3 year $9M deal by the Spurs. Personally, I don't think that's unreasonable. If Portland DIDN'T have another 3 lined up, they would match that.
> 
> http://mikebarrettsblog.blogspot.com/


They said all along they are going to re-sign Outlaw, and weren't sure about Ime. This tells me Outlaw is the starter, barring another trade. Plus, bringing in James Jones adds another 3, so re-signing Ime would give us more SFs than last year.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

That or they have more confidence coming into this season for somebody to step up(Jones, Martell, or a resigned Outlaw).


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Plus if you talk about Jack possibly serving time at the backup SG position, you can then talk about Webster as a backup SF.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

It is very simple, Ime isn't worth a 3 year contract.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The team might simply look at Ime and see his presence being the difference between, say, 32 wins and 35 wins. They might be willing to take their lumps over the next year or two while the core gets experience, rather than spending money on mediocre, older role players.

Ed O.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Outlaw is a solid 4, but a below average 3, IMO. Webster is a mystery still to me. Like Sergio, I don't think Webster, with what's been shown so far, can be relied on yet.

James Jones and Ime Udoka are the only solid 3s. Something is on the horizon. Otherwise, no improvement has been made to the position that I can tell.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Good signing by the Spurs if they do so. He will produce right away as long as he's healthy.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I think it's a fantastic signing by the Spurs too. If I had to choose another team to be a fan of, it's the Spurs. They're a model franchise.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

As much as I want Ime... I am glad he is going to a great team where he will win and get some playoff experience before he gets too old


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I am just wondering why so many people are discounting Jones. The guy can play in this league, I watched many of the games he started for Indiana when Artest was suspended. He got less playing time in Phoenix because of a stacked club, but I think he will be solid for the Blazers as long as he sticks to his role.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> They said all along they are going to re-sign Outlaw, and weren't sure about Ime. This tells me Outlaw is the starter, barring another trade. Plus, bringing in James Jones adds another 3, so re-signing Ime would give us more SFs than last year.


I would be shocked if Outlaw starts over Jones for the following reasons:

1) Nate refers to Outlaw as a PF more often than a SF.
2) Pritchard has already stated Jones will be a leader on the team next year. Something I doubt he'd say if he didn't think he was going to start.
3) Jones shooting provides the spacing guys like Oden, Aldridge, and Roy need to thrive.
4) Nate likes to start good defensive players when the offensive talent is in the same range, and Jones is a far better defender IMO than Outlaw.

I don't think Portland will bring in any new players, and I think this will be our rotation.

PG: Jack(28) / Sergio(14) / Roy(6)
SG: Roy(32) / Webster(12) / Jones (4)
SF: Jones(24)/ Outlaw (24) 
PF: Aldridge(24) / Frye(22) / Outlaw(4) 
C: Oden(28) / Aldirdge (6) / Przybilla(8) / Frye(6)

* If Miles returns healthy he'll eat into the minutes of Webster, Jones, Outlaw, and Frye.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

He fits right in with the Spurs culture. Hard working, knows his role, positive locker room guy. I think this would be a win/win for both Ime and the Spurs (if we can't get him back). I'd love to see a good guy like that get a championship ring.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I like Jones a lot too, but I don't see him as a big upgrade over Udoka. It may even be a lateral move in the short-term. Long term we get a Udoka-type player for two years. I guess that could be why Portland isn't duplicating what they have in Jones and I just jumped to that thread-starting conclusion.

Also, I believe Pritchard said Jones would be a "locker room" leader. That's different than an on-the-court leader. I don't think Jones is assured of anything yet.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> I would be shocked if Outlaw starts over Jones for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) Nate refers to Outlaw as a PF more often than a SF.
> 2) Pritchard has already stated Jones will be a leader on the team next year. Something I doubt he'd say if he didn't think he was going to start.
> ...


I don't see the problem in moving Przybilla for someone like Turk and then having LaFrentz replace Przybilla in the rotation. We're paying him almost 12 million dollars and I think he still has some bang left in him. 

PG: Jack(28) / Sergio(14) / Roy(6)
SG: Roy(32) / Webster(16) /
SF: Turkoglu (30) / Jones(24)/ Outlaw (4) 
PF: Aldridge(24) / Outlaw (16) / Frye (8)
C: Oden (28) / Frye (18) / Aldridge (2) / (LaFrentz)

I think that frontcourt gives guys like Outlaw and Frye a lot more of a chance to suceed, it solidifies our weakest position and it helps our cap situation by possibly having Turk's money come off a year earlier.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Crimson the Cat said:


> Mike Barrett is reporting that Ime has been offered a 3 year $9M deal by the Spurs. Personally, I don't think that's unreasonable. If Portland DIDN'T have another 3 lined up, they would match that.
> 
> http://mikebarrettsblog.blogspot.com/


Smart move by the Spurs. Tack on that extra year to blow the Blazers off the map.

I feel very sorry for Ime getting stuck playing with Duncan and competing for rings. Very sad - NOT!

Have fun in Texas Ime. No state income tax either. That should save Ime about 
$550,000. Buy a Bently with horns on it to drive around San Antonio. Ha!

Good luck Ime.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Or it could be that the word that we're signing Steve Blake is true and since he's signing for more than 3 mil that takes away what enough of the MLE that we don't have the 3 mil to match such a deal.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ebott said:


> Or it could be that the word that we're signing Steve Blake is true and since he's signing for more than 3 mil that takes away what enough of the MLE that we don't have the 3 mil to match such a deal.


Appears to be so. I'm sure the Blazers like Ime enough to potentially pay him $3m/year, both as an on-court and PR asset, but we got James Jones to replace him in the starting lineup and used the MLE on Steve Blake, so Ime has to be let go.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I am just wondering why so many people are discounting Jones.


Ime: .461 FG%/ .406 3pt%

Jones: .368 FG%/ .378 3pt%

Jones is younger than Ime, but it is questionable whether he is better.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

Man, its a blast from the past seeing Crimson posting 

Great move for the Spurs if we can't have him, he is EASILY worth a 3yr deal imo - great locker guy, role player, dedicated and a team guy. Sure, he isn't the shining beacon of WOWness , but as the Spurs have proved, that isn't totally necessary to make a Champion team.

Ime has earnt whatever contract he gets, good on him if he ends up going to a franchise like that.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Ime: .461 FG%/ .406 3pt%
> 
> Jones: .368 FG%/ .378 3pt%
> 
> Jones is younger than Ime, but it is questionable whether he is better.


Jones is interesting - he had a real hard time with the "old" new ball but shot a whole lot better with the "new" old ball - so his FG% is actually a bit misleading.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Green is guaranteed now, so we officially have 4.5 point guards on guaranteed contracts for next season.

Is Jack gone?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Green is guaranteed now, so we officially have 4.5 point guards on guaranteed contracts for next season.
> 
> Is Jack gone?


Can you say D-League? I knew you could!


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I don't see the problem in moving Przybilla for someone like Turk and then having LaFrentz replace Przybilla in the rotation. We're paying him almost 12 million dollars and I think he still has some bang left in him.
> 
> PG: Jack(28) / Sergio(14) / Roy(6)
> SG: Roy(32) / Webster(16) /
> ...


I agree and I've been on board to move Joel for months now. I was never that thrilled with his contract in the first place.

I like that rotation better, but this Blake signing screws it up and makes me think we might have one more roster shakeup on our hands


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Tince said:


> I agree and I've been on board to move Joel for months now. I was never that thrilled with his contract in the first place.


I'm just continually surprised at how much this forum ignores Raef LaFrentz. Look, I don't think he's a great player but if you throw out last season here's a guy who played serious minutes every season. I think if you factor him in on this team, Przybilla becomes the odd man out.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> I like Jones a lot too, but I don't see him as a big upgrade over Udoka.


I disagree. I think Jones is a _much_ better defender. Ime plays hard and is smart but for his size he really should be playing SG. Why isn't he? He's not fast or quick enough to stay with NBA SGs. Thus he's an undersized SF.

Jones, otoh, brings what Udoka does _while_ having NBA SF size. I think he's likely to be a better defender of SGs, too, but certainly with SFs I don't think there's a question.

And on offense, this last year his shot was miserably off... until they went back to the old ball. For him to have finished with the kind of percentage he did I think says a lot about how he was shooting the second half of the year.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> I'm just continually surprised at how much this forum ignores Raef LaFrentz. Look, I don't think he's a great player but if you throw out last season here's a guy who played serious minutes every season. I think if you factor him in on this team, Przybilla becomes the odd man out.


I like LaFrentz, I really do. I have a lot of respect for him and I think he may still be able to play. However, he's more a 4 than a 5. As a 4 I think he plays behind Aldridge, Frye, and maybe even McRoberts (who'll be much better in a faster second unit) and as a 5 he's behind Oden, Aldridge, Przybilla, and maybe Frye. I suppose that changes if he really finds his 3 point range again but until that happens, unless a lot of guys get hurt I don't see him getting much time.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I like LaFrentz, I really do. I have a lot of respect for him and I think he may still be able to play. However, he's more a 4 than a 5.


I think he can play the 5 position though, and if we're only talking about backup minutes, he'll be serviceable. 

I don't think he's really played the 4 for the majority of his minutes since Denver. Dallas and Boston both used him at the center spot, IIRC.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> I'm just continually surprised at how much this forum ignores Raef LaFrentz. Look, I don't think he's a great player but if you throw out last season here's a guy who played serious minutes every season. I think if you factor him in on this team, Przybilla becomes the odd man out.


Raef has missed plenty of games in his career, and not just last season. Put him and Joel together and you have 1.5 backup centers on this team. They are also very different, with Waef being super soft, and Joel having no offensive skill. Trade either one, and you've got only one injury prone backup C who is prone to creating mismatches for the other team. LMA can play some C, but he's going to be busy starting at PF.

edit: yeah I forgot about Frye. Even so, if healthy Joel is better than Raef or Frye, and none of them has been especially healthy in their NBa careers.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I'm just continually surprised at how much this forum ignores Raef LaFrentz. Look, I don't think he's a great player but if you throw out last season here's a guy who played serious minutes every season. I think if you factor him in on this team, Przybilla becomes the odd man out.


I think with how little we're going to use either of them, it doesn't make much of a difference who we have. Sure if someone gets hurt we might be slightly better off with Joel, but not enough to carry his contract the next 4 years.

We have Frye and Aldridge who can cover at the 5, McRoberts and Outlaw who can cover at the 4 if someone goes down and Reaf can't pick up the slack.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Jack must be gone. Jack + Pryz... what may be out there? I hope it is a starting-quality SF.

I don't mind Sergio and Blake splitting the duties at the 1. I don't care if Sergio is raw, and if he doesn't play much defense yet. Players who can pass like he can, only arrive every 3-5 years. He's a keeper. Jack will never be a good passer, which is why I am not sorry to see him go. I used to compare Jack to Terry Porter, and their numbers are VERY similar -- except for in the key stat for point guards: assists. Terry was a FAR better passer. So bye-bye Jack. I hope you fetch us something good.

iWatas


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

Iwatas said:


> Jack must be gone. Jack + Pryz... what may be out there? I hope it is a starting-quality SF.
> 
> I don't mind Sergio and Blake splitting the duties at the 1. I don't care if Sergio is raw, and if he doesn't play much defense yet. Players who can pass like he can, only arrive every 3-5 years. He's a keeper. Jack will never be a good passer, which is why I am not sorry to see him go. I used to compare Jack to Terry Porter, and their numbers are VERY similar -- except for in the key stat for point guards: assists. Terry was a FAR better passer. So bye-bye Jack. I hope you fetch us something good.
> 
> iWatas


Nate doesn't want Sergio running the point until he is ready to play defense. Blake is not here for Jack's job, he was signed to back him up. Jack is part of the core that KP and Nate keep talking about.

Jack's assists will go up now that the offense will be movement based and not just dumping the ball into Zach and watching him go one on one/two/three.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Rip City Reign said:


> Blake is not here for Jack's job, he was signed to back him up.




lol


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Rip City Reign said:


> Blake is not here for Jack's job.


It looks like he is. Why would Blake come here to play back up? Every other suitor this offseason was offering him the starting job.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Rip City Reign said:


> Nate doesn't want Sergio running the point until he is ready to play defense. Blake is not here for Jack's job, he was signed to back him up. Jack is part of the core that KP and Nate keep talking about.


the "core" that they mention has always been Roy, Oden and Lamarcus. Jack was kind of like Zach..an afterthought.

Blake wasn't brought in to be a backup.


> Jack's assists will go up now that the offense will be movement based and not just dumping the ball into Zach and watching him go one on one/two/three.


Part of that was because Jack isn't a great PG, per-say. Jack's assists might go up, but it'll be on another team. Probably Atlanta.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Rip City Reign said:


> Blake is not here for Jack's job, he was signed to back him up. Jack is part of the core that KP and Nate keep talking about.


and we traded for Channing Frye to start over Greg Oden. We also traded for James Jones so Roy could come off the bench.


----------



## M3M (Jun 19, 2006)

man i wish we could keep Ime, i am really sad to see him go. Its a shame we are letting such a solid asset to our team go.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

M3M said:


> man i wish we could keep Ime, i am really sad to see him go. Its a shame we are letting such a solid asset to our team go.


you wont miss him once you see james jones.


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

I would love to see Jack and Joel traded to Atlanta for Marvin Williams and Tyrone Lue.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=489~2797~2768~682&teams=22~22~1~1


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Sug said:


> I would love to see Jack and Joel traded to Atlanta for Marvin Williams and Tyrone Lue.
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=489~2797~2768~682&teams=22~22~1~1


I personally don't like Marvin as our SF because he reminds me of another outlaw. If we go for another SF this offseason i'd like to get a decent shooter. Hedo doesn't fit despite some people's fascinations. I doubt he would do more than take away time from James Jones and Outlaw. He isnt enough of an improvement at either end of the floor to make an impact. If we go for another SF i'd like to get someone like Maggette, Prince, Granger, Marion. I know that is probably unlikely, but anything is possible.

I worked out a trade earlier to get Granger that looked enticing to some people...

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=2768~2795~2760~615~2748~1998~617&teams=11~11~22~13~11~11~11


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

Five5even said:


> I personally don't like Marvin as our SF because he reminds me of another outlaw. If we go for another SF this offseason i'd like to get a decent shooter. Hedo doesn't fit despite some people's fascinations. I doubt he would do more than take away time from James Jones and Outlaw. He isnt enough of an improvement at either end of the floor to make an impact. If we go for another SF i'd like to get someone like Maggette, Prince, Granger, Marion. I know that is probably unlikely, but anything is possible.
> 
> I worked out a trade earlier to get Granger that looked enticing to some people...
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=2768~2795~2760~615~2748~1998~617&teams=11~11~22~13~11~11~11



While a 2 player for 5 player trade works under the salary cap, it is not very practicle.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Sug said:


> While a 2 player for 5 player trade works under the salary cap, it is not very practicle.


If Indiana is looking to clean house, it could work. We already have too many players, so a 2 or 3 for 1 works with us. LA wants to appease Kobe, so bringing in Jermaine Oneal would do the trick.

Granger would fulfill our need at SF and would completely solidify our place in the conference for the next several years.

Indiana, while losing their 2 best players, gets to clean house and build around a young core. With Odom going to Indiana it makes Granger expendable.

Anything is possible, and if we are trying to get Granger from Indiana now that we have Steve Blake, i dont see why something like this is completely out of the question.

If nothing else, we can trade jack, joel and a future first rd pick and see if granger will bite, or trade jack and webster.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=497~2768~682&teams=22~12~12

Blake/Sergio/Green
Roy/Webster
Maggette/Jones/Miles
Aldridge/Outlaw/McBob
Oden/Frye/LaFrentz

Not a bad looking setup, although it lacks muscle outside of a very green Greg Oden. Maggette probably walks, but Fernandez will probably come over next year pushing Martell to the 3 and hopefully he'll be ready to contribute by then.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=497~2768~682&teams=22~12~12
> 
> Blake/Sergio/Green
> Roy/Webster
> ...


If the Clips are serious about adding Francis, this proposition suddenly becomes less likely. It'll be interesting to see where Stevie goes. 

PS: Thanks again, Blazer management, for not letting Steve wear the scarlet and black.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I like going after Danny Granger but no way would I give both Jack AND Webster for him. Danny is almost 4 whole years older than Martell Webster and at this point, he isn't looking like he's going to swoop in and be a superstar. Martell Webster is still only 20 years old and I'd like to keep him unless we're getting a big time SF, Granger is not that. A couple options that could work are...

1. Granger, Foster for Przybilla, Jack, and rights to Freeland and or picks.
2. Granger, Digou, Armstrong, Harrison for Przybilla, Jack, and rights to Freeland. 

Depending on if the Pacers see Przybilla as an upgrade over Foster or not, I think something could be done. I'd be very happy if they could acquire Granger for one of the deals above, but I'm not willing to throw out a guy who was drafted 12 spots ahead, is 4 years younger, and brings a skill set that the NBA is desperate for.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> I like going after Danny Granger but no way would I give both Jack AND Webster for him. Danny is almost 4 whole years older than Martell Webster and at this point, he isn't looking like he's going to swoop in and be a superstar. Martell Webster is still only 20 years old and I'd like to keep him unless we're getting a big time SF, Granger is not that. A couple options that could work are...
> 
> 1. Granger, Foster for Przybilla, Jack, and rights to Freeland and or picks.
> 2. Granger, Digou, Armstrong, Harrison for Przybilla, Jack, and rights to Freeland.
> ...


We want to trade more players for less not less for more...our roster is already overfilled. Unless you plan on buying out 2-3 players or sending all our rookies to the NBDL this isn't going to work.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> We want to trade more players for less not less for more...our roster is already overfilled. Unless you plan on buying out 2-3 players or sending all our rookies to the NBDL this isn't going to work.



While I agree with you, you have to look at the bigger picture. You can't decide for a team what to think about some of their players. The first deal with Foster would be ideal, but again they might think Foster is better than Joel and might not want to deal him. The second deal involves a bunch of guys that get no run and if it means taking them back then it might be worth it. We give two guys off our active roster and take back four, only three of them are guys that could actually make our team. Armstrong would be cut and we have plenty of time before the regular season, we could deal some of the other guys like Digou or Harrison if we wanted, they have value in this league.


----------



## Blaze (Jan 25, 2003)

I believe that any trade that occurs will bring back only players who have 2 years left on a deal. I'm wondering if Portland might get in on the Cleveland/Sacramento talks. If Sac trades Bibby, they're going to need a PG to take over. Maybe something like Przy/Jack/Miles to Sac, Bibby to Clev, Gooden/Jones/Newbie to Port.


----------

