# Aldridge out indefinitely



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

http://columbian.com/sports/blazerbanter/

Well that sucks.


Edit....add found link of OLive forum.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

The Blazers are smart not to rush Aldridge back. Absolutely no reason to, either. Sure, he wants to play - but they ned to understand what it was/is and determine whether or not it's *safe* for him to play before he gets back out there. Aldridge is a key component of our future success, and with nothing really requiring him to come back ASAP, why risk it?

Plus, it doesn't hurt our lottery chances at all.

PBF


----------



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

Better safe than sorry. Yeah, I want him back in the line-up, but his long term health is much more important than some meaningless games in April.

BNM


----------



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

ProudBFan said:


> Plus, it doesn't hurt our lottery chances at all.


i have a feeling this is the main cause. obviously i hope nothing is actually wrong but this does give us more pp balls.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Might as well start Sergio then, it's basically the second unit playing...

Sergio
Roy
Webster
Outlaw
Jamaal

Or is Ime back now?

Jack/Sergio/Dickau
Roy/Webster
Ime/Webster
Outlaw/Raef
Jamaal/Raef/10-day contract guy

Damn, that's going to be ugly.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

I think this is a move to counter the Hawks yanking Childress for the rest of the season. Race to the bottom is on.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Sucks indeed, but there is litterally no reason at all to rush him back. Hopefully they find absolutely nothing


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

SLAM said:


> Might as well start Sergio then, it's basically the second unit playing...
> 
> Sergio
> Roy
> ...


Your perception of ugly is going to get worse once you see who they'll be matched up against. I'm hoping for 3 more wins, but that in itself is going to be hard.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

I hope he is okay. This isn't about tanking, either. You don't mess around with the heart.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ya, agree with everyone else, better safe than sorrry.

Ime is suppose to play against the Jazz.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Yay! More ping pong balls! Because we really need another 21 year old project who won't pan out for 3-4 years.

Lame.

Count me among the fans who actually enjoys winning and looks forward to being good, not the Clipper fan mold of eternally wondering who we're going to take with the #4 pick in the next draft.

Get well soon, Aldridge. Please.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Yay! More ping pong balls! Because we really need another 21 year old project who won't pan out for 3-4 years.
> 
> Lame.


you mean like how Aldridge took 3-4 years to pan out?

Somehow I doubt that getting Oden or Durant (bcs) would be a bad thing.



> Count me among the fans who actually enjoys winning and looks forward to being good, not the Clipper fan mold of eternally wondering who we're going to take with the #4 pick in the next draft.
> 
> Get well soon, Aldridge. Please.
> 
> -Pop


Always look on the bright side of life...


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Yay! More ping pong balls! Because we really need another 21 year old project who won't pan out for 3-4 years.
> 
> Lame.
> 
> ...


It is too dry in Los Angeles for Clipper fans to grow mold.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Yay! More ping pong balls! Because we really need another 21 year old project who won't pan out for 3-4 years.
> 
> Lame.
> 
> ...


And this makes a difference at this point in the season how? Personally I'd rather have a 21 year old guy taken #6 than #10 again at this point in the season that's what we are looking at. I suppose based on current situation you'd rather add less talent then?


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Tank McTankson from Tankonia


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Schilly said:


> And this makes a difference at this point in the season how? Personally I'd rather have a 21 year old guy taken #6 than #10 again at this point in the season that's what we are looking at. I suppose based on current situation you'd rather add less talent then?


I'd rather get on potential free agents' and trade targets' wish list of teams than win 30 games and cross our fingers we won't get ****ed in the draft lottery again. Yes, we had a perfect storm last draft, but I'm not sure we can expect that every year.

This is a deep draft year, but unless we can get the #1 or #2, there are no franchise changers out there*. And there's a fairly large (albeit talented) plateau after Oden and Durant*. In other words, you've probably got as much chance of getting an impact player at #14 as you do at #3.

So, this whole "well, at least we get a better chance of a higher pick in the draft" bit is tiresome.

-Pop

* - I'm not even sure Durant is a "franchise changer." But I could be wrong.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> I'd rather get on potential free agents' and trade targets' wish list of teams than win 30 games and cross our fingers we won't get ****ed in the draft lottery again. Yes, we had a perfect storm last draft, but I'm not sure we can expect that every year.
> 
> This is a deep draft year, but unless we can get the #1 or #2, there are no franchise changers out there*. And there's a fairly large (albeit talented) plateau after Oden and Durant*. In other words, you've probably got as much chance of getting an impact player at #14 as you do at #3.
> 
> ...


As I said how does Lamarcus going out for a bit and Zach being out change the whole FA and Trade target angle? Getting ****ed in the Lotto is one thing, but the year before we moved from 5 to 3, and Milwuakee went from 6 to 1. So if you are sitting at 4,5 or 6 it's actually pretty hard to get ****ed by the draft unless 3 teams lower than you vault past you and that's pretty unlikely.

My point was we have what 9 games left. We aren't making the playoffs. We have banged up guys who need rest. It helps our draft. It doesn't change Trade targets or FA targets in any way. I don't see how that hurts anything but your feelings.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I think it's a damned shame that Udoka is being rushed back so quickly and Roy isn't getting some maternity leave. Come to think of it, our head coach has got be suffering from a serious migraine about now. 

We really need to field the Dickau/Jones/Webster/Outlaw/Magloire lineup. Promote Darius Miles to interim coach until McMillan recovers. And somebody needs to take a belt sander to the traction on their shoes.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Wait so Zachs hand isn't hurt? Ime doesn't have a concussion and a bum knee? Joel didn't tear tendons in his knee? Lamarcus didn't have heart issues? Ok now I understand.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> But we want to be very precautionary and *frivolous* with what we do with him from here on out.


Yikes! Somebody better tell KP that frivolous doesn't mean what he thinks it does...I hope.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

All I have to say is.......Luke Schensher (or however you spell that guy's name) just lucked into being signed for the rest of the season. Serendipity for him, not so much for us. 

prunetang


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I think the timing of Zach's surgery and holding Aldridge out indefinitely certainly should raise some eyebrows. I, for one, have no problem with the team intentionally tanking (at this point of the season with the record we have). It's not the Blazers fault that the league is set up this way. But it WOULD be the Blazers fault if they didn't take advantage of it. We're not the first, and we'll certainly not be the last.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

At this rate, next week's starting lineup:

PG-SERGIO
SG-DAN
SF-JARRETT
PF-FREDDY
C-BRANDON


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> At this rate, next week's starting lineup:
> 
> PG-SERGIO
> SG-DAN
> ...


I would pay big bucks to watch that lineup. Big Monopoly bucks...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I seriously hope some of the posts in this thread don't bring us bad luck. It would suck something horrible if Aldridge's "issue" turned out to be anyhting remotely serious.


----------



## Baracuda (Jan 10, 2007)

SodaPopinski said:


> Yay! More ping pong balls! Because we really need another 21 year old project who won't pan out for 3-4 years.
> Lame.
> Count me among the fans who actually enjoys winning and looks forward to being good, not the Clipper fan mold of eternally wondering who we're going to take with the #4 pick in the next draft.
> Get well soon, Aldridge. Please.
> ...


I call it a culture of winning the NBA Draft Lottery. We'll need a lot of luck to win a top two pick this year, I'd rather kick ***!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> you mean like how Aldridge took 3-4 years to pan out?


No no, Hap -- he was clearly talking more about _Brandon's_ development, or lack of.

Soda, I _do_ hear that you want to win and that you're tired of hearing about ping pong balls. And, even presuming you're right about there not being "franchise changers", there are certainly going to be players better than most of they guys currently on the roster, and I have great confidence in Pritchard to find them.

Right now the best three guys on the team are probably Aldridge, Randolph, and Roy, yes? I'm pretty confident that, within less than a year, several of the guys taken in the first round (and perhaps one or two from the second round) will generally be thought to be better than all three of the above. But even if that's not true, wouldn't it be nice to have four or five guys in competition for Best Blazers' Player?

Beyond that, I don't know how long you've followed the Blazers but even in the 80s and 90s when the team was consistently winning 50 some odd games, they weren't able to attract big name free agents. Nearly all of the significant players on those teams came either through the draft or via trades.

And even if you (and Nate) are right that the team would be better served to use the pick in trade to get a veteran in here, the better the pick, the better the veteran.

Hold on for just a few more weeks and your wish to hear less on this board about ping pong balls will be granted.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> No no, Hap -- he was clearly talking more about _Brandon's_ development, or lack of.
> 
> Soda, I _do_ hear that you want to win and that you're tired of hearing about ping pong balls. And, even presuming you're right about there not being "franchise changers", there are certainly going to be players better than most of they guys currently on the roster, and I have great confidence in Pritchard to find them.
> 
> ...


Excellent summary, thank you.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Sucks indeed, but there is literally no reason at all to rush him back. Hopefully they find absolutely nothing


Not no reason. LMA missing several games could really hurt
his chance of making all-rookie 1st team (is there a 2nd team?).

Having two players on the all-rookie team would be nationwide
validation of us as a rising team, and as non-Jail Blazers. It 
wouldn't hurt with the refs either.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> Not no reason. LMA missing several games could really hurt
> his chance of making all-rookie 1st team (is there a 2nd team?).
> 
> Having two players on the all-rookie team would be nationwide
> ...


Of course rushing him out there could cause him to go into cardiac and die on the court. I think I'd rather just let them validate next year, and be sure of what is going on with his health. He has a strong chance at the 1st team All Rookie as it is.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mook said:


> I think it's a damned shame that Udoka is being rushed back so quickly and Roy isn't getting some maternity leave.


Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha.

That has little to do with anything but of course I like it.

I think Roy should be getting some paternity leave, rather than maternity leave. Although, if he's been putting up the numbers he has while 9 months pregnant, he certainly deserves rookie of the year.

barfo


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

Oh heck. Let's face reality. The Celtics pulled their starters and blew an 18 point lead against the Bobcats (in the 4th quarter), the other night. Memphis fired a coach early in the season that would have kept them more competitive. Atlanta is shelving Childress for the year. The race is on for the most ping pong balls and if there was ever a year to have one of the top two picks this is the one.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> Oh heck. Let's face reality. The Celtics pulled their starters and blew an 18 point lead against the Bobcats (in the 4th quarter), the other night. Memphis fired a coach early in the season that would have kept them more competitive. Atlanta is shelving Childress for the year. The race is on for the most ping pong balls and if there was ever a year to have one of the top two picks this is the one.


While it certainly looks like some bottom teams are tanking, I'm guessing Childress would have a broken foot regardless of the Hawks record. Also, I hope that other teams continue to pull their starters in the 4t quarter vs the Bobcats... same goes for teams playing the 76ers

STOMP


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Don't know if this is in the thread yet but Aldridge is predicted to miss 4games:

LaMarcus Aldridge: 

Out Indefinitely RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Update: Aldridgeis out indefinitely until a battery of tests can determine what causedhis dizziness during Saturday's game against the Clippers, TheOregonian reports.

Recommendation: After playing seven minutes against theClippers, Aldridge left the game complaining of feeling dizzy. Doctorsdiscovered a high heart rate, after which Aldridge was taking to aPortland emergency room. The orginial diagnosis was dehydration. *We will continue to monitor the situation but for now, it is reported thatAldridge will miss the next four games*.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Pop - There is a difference between intentionally tanking and being medically cautious.  In the Blazers' case, I firmly believe they are doing what's medically right for their players (Zach & LaMarcus). Yes, we can expect to lose a few more games the rest of the way as a result. And yes, that would *seem* to help our lottery situation a bit. But three things about that:

1) Our season record isn't going to plummet so dramatically with Zach and LaMarcus out - vs. what it would likely be were they still playing - for any reasonable person to claim the Blazers shut them down in order to improve their draft position.

2) It still boils down to the ping-pong balls. Remember, we were the worst team in the league last season, and ended up with the #4 pick. There is no guarantee that losing a few more games over the remaining... what... 9 games left on the schedule (?) will translate into better draft position.

3) If the Blazers were strategizing to move up in the draft, I would think they'd much sooner put their trust in Pritchard's ability to wheel and deal than the ping-pong balls anyway. All they need to do is look at last year's lottery (where they got screwed by the ping-pong balls) and draft (where they made out like bandits via wheeling and dealing).

I think a lot of people here overestimate the correlation between losing a few more games than a team otherwise would have and actual draft position. There really doesn't seem to be much correlation there in the mid-lottery positions.

Because of all this, I firmly believe the Blazers are doing what's right and responsible for Zach, LaMarcus, and next season's success. And while I *do* hope both Zach and LaMarcus make full and speedy recoveries, I see absolutely no pressure for the Blazers to rush them back into action.

Yes, there's shame in intentionally tanking. But there's no shame whatsoever in turning lemons into lemonade. ESPECIALLY if that lemonade will - as early as next season - be replacing the Kool-Aid we've been drinking up to this point.

PBF


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> 3I think a lot of people here overestimate the correlation between losing a few more games than a team otherwise would have and actual draft position. There really doesn't seem to be much correlation there in the mid-lottery positions.


Yes, you are right. The fan perception that a lottery team losing a few extra games could result in a better pick and a more talented player coming in than otherwise is one of those urban legends. Much talked about - completely false.

I mean, some of the smartest people in the country that are involved in running NBA teams know the real truth. They don't ever bother with the concept. They always push the team to win games to keep the fans interested, sell extra tickets at the end of the season, and to perpetuate a winning culture. 

All good enough reasons to push, so that the "cost" of giving all that up just to MAYBE MAYBE have a tiny extra chance at a slightly better player is not worth it.

The proof is in the pudding. Coaches and GMs do not allow players to get their off-season surguries before the season has even ended, coaches never play scrubs big minutes at the end of seasons, you never see starters minutes mysteriously plummet and iron-men start to sit out for games for injuries they use to play through.......


Oh wait...



PS. You are right there isn't a whole lot of difference between positions IN the mid-lotto. The idea is to GET OUT of the mid-lotto. Either make a push for the playoffs, or lose enough games to be at least 5th or 6th worst. Being at #10 is the pits. Look up the odds and learn.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> PS. You are right there isn't a whole lot of difference between positions IN the mid-lotto. The idea is to GET OUT of the mid-lotto. Either make a push for the playoffs, or lose enough games to be at least 5th or 6th worst. Being at #10 is the pits. Look up the odds and learn.


There seems to be an inflection point. If you are in the 7-14 range, then a couple extra wins or losses may mean just a couple spots and not a major difference in talent, and no matter what your odds of winning the lotto are tiny. If your odds are only 1% or 2%, who cares either way? Unlikely and very unlikely are almost effectively equivalent. 

If you are in the 1-6 range though, as we sit now, each single spot higher or lower in the lotto order can mean a major difference in talent, and a noticable difference in the number of ping pong balls as well. If a single win or loss translates to an extra 5% chance to get Oden and another 5% chance to get Durant, that's something.

I think we'll see teams in the ATL-CHA-POR range tanking, while teams like NYK-MIN-NOK will probably continue to try and win games, for those reasons.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Masbee said:


> PS. You are right there isn't a whole lot of difference between positions IN the mid-lotto. The idea is to GET OUT of the mid-lotto. Either make a push for the playoffs, or lose enough games to be at least 5th or 6th worst. Being at #10 is the pits. Look up the odds and learn.


We're not getting out of the mid-lotto. Not even if we lose all the rest of our games.

PBF


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> We're not getting out of the mid-lotto. Not even if we lose all the rest of our games.
> 
> PBF


Sure we will.

That would give us 29 wins - only 2 wins better than last season when we were the worst team in the league.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Sure we will.
> 
> That would give us 29 wins - only 2 wins better than last season when we were the worst team in the league.


they won 21 games last year.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> they won 21 games last year.


Oh. That's terrible!

Must have been the year before that we won 27...


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Kind of a moot point at this point, though.

The win over the Jazz tonight kinda proves they arent tanking.

PBF


----------

