# It's not sunny in Philadelphia



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Iggy is pissed, he didn't get the money, they're asking him to be the first option, and many of his teammates have quit on the season. I'm thinking he wants out, and would settle for less money. Philly knows they won't be competetive next year either and are looking to ger rid of Miller for cap space too (Iggy has said Miller is the best player on the team before). Iggy wants to compete, and I think after this year he's probably sick of being the first option on the team anyways. Playing with some bigs (never has before) and a distributor like Roy would probably thrill him. If we could trade for him now while his value is at rock bottom and our guys values are inflated it might be a steal. And if he wants too much money this offseason we could sign n trade his ungrateful ***.

He would complement Roy well as a good ballhandler and excellent passer for a SG, he can bring lock down defense (much better than Jarret), nearly the same shooting and driving as Jarret, and much much better fast break offense, he could really help with our playoff run this year even.

Here is an article on the situation - 
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20080110_Iguodalas_frustration_growing.html

and Philly fans discussing it (some want to trade him, most don't
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=748316

I think he would make an excellent player here and fill some holes we have, he's nothing but a team player and very unselfish his entire career, I think things are just coming to a head now with his competetive attitude (which we would want). I'd love a rotation next year of

Roy (28)/Sergio (20)
Iggy (28)/Fernandez (20)
Webster (30)/Roy (9)/Iggy (9)

Do you guys think we should pursue Iggy?

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=77~3212~2386~2768~2015&teams=22~22~22~20~20&te=&cash=
and we throw in our first rounder

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=2004~2386~557~2768~2009~2015~1823~933~2423&teams=14~22~14~20~14~20~22~20~20&te=&cash=
and we throw in our first rounder


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

No, because because if it isn't broke, don't fix it, and secondly, Iggy is a very poor outside shooter, and when Oden is here, Portland will need that more than anything.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Brandon, Martell, and Lamarcus are more than adequate and he's a very good mid-range shooter. Keep in mind he's having to create nearly all of his own offense because he's the only player on the team who demands defensive attention. So most shots he's taking are with a hand in his face. I think he'd be a good enough shooter to play in that lineup, AND he's an amazing cutter which will help our big guys as much as outside shooters.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Just curious, is there anybody on our team that you wouldn't trade in order to get rid of Jack?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Brandon, Martell, and Lamarcus are more than adequate and he's a very good mid-range shooter. Keep in mind he's having to create nearly all of his own offense because he's the only player on the team who demands defensive attention. So most shots he's taking are with a hand in his face. I think he'd be a good enough shooter to play in that lineup, AND he's an amazing cutter which will help our big guys as much as outside shooters.


Have the Blazers have any problems scoring lately? Why mess with what is working? 

Also I would warn, always be very leery of players who are putting up good scoring numbers on bad teams, they are not usually as good as it appears.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

there was already a multi-page thead on him. we need spot up 3P shooters (like jones/webster) to compliment roy, not slashers that need the ball in their hands a lot to be effective. iggy would be horrendously expensive to keep and would not add anything to the team that we don't already have. 

no thanks. i'd much rather pay to keep jones.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

You gave up on Felton and are back to Iggy? It's been done...

http://www.basketballforum.com/port...80-fill-question-mark-thinking-long-term.html

http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/385322-andre-iguodala-sixers-gm-fired.html 

http://www.basketballforum.com/port...p-them-right-when-how-do-you-consolidate.html 

http://www.basketballforum.com/port...p-kobe-iggy-larry-brown-atl-playoff-push.html 

Is Andre Miller going to pop back up soon too?

*Stop beating the horse! It's already dead!*

Like it was said before, what's the point of messing with something that's working so well, and why do you have a vendetta against Jack?


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Have the Blazers have any problems scoring lately? Why mess with what is working?
> 
> Also I would warn, always be very leery of players who are putting up good scoring numbers on bad teams, they are not usually as good as it appears.



KP has said he will always look to make our team better no matter what. Iggy would provide balance for us. We're gonna have more trouble scoring when players go cold and we face more balanced teams. Jones and Blake won't always be shooting this hot, and keep in mind we're in the first half of this season, when most teams are still experimenting and a little sloppy. He put up great numbers on a decent team with lots of rebounds, steals, blocks, and assists dominating his scoring numbers earlier in his career, he's very well-drounded and unselfish. If he wasn't selfish on that team right now i'd be very nervous about his competetive nature.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

crowTrobot said:


> there was already a multi-page thead on him. we need spot up 3P shooters (like jones/webster) to compliment roy, not slashers that need the ball in their hands a lot to be effective. iggy would be horrendously expensive to keep and would not add anything to the team that we don't already have.
> 
> no thanks. i'd much rather pay to keep jones.


We already have 3PT shooters, and Iggy is one of the last players in the NBA you could say needs the ball to be effective, have you ever seen him play or are you just a stat based observer because that's BS. The guy played with Iverson and Webber and put up great stats, he's an extremely effective off the ball player and if he was here he could get 3/4 of his points on fast breaks, mid-range shots, and backdoor cuts while focusing on being a lockdown defender (something we don't have anything near). We'd have arguably the best defense in the NBA once Oden is back. Do you really see a team full of spot up shooters beating the spurs, mavs, or suns in a 7 game series?

martell is developing into a much younger, better, more athletic, non-bad-knee version of Jones anyways. I love the guy and his contributions and leadership have really helped us this year, but if we sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal at the expense of playing time for Rudy, Martell and others we're making some huge mistakes.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Jones and Blake won't always be shooting this hot,


Nope. It might be Roy, Webster, Outlaw, Frye, or Aldridge who has the hot night.

That's what makes this Blazers team so tough for opponents to cover. You never know which assassin is going to do you in.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

o genizus another iggy to portland idea....for the last time..NO! He wouldn't be a great fit here.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

LameR said:


> You gave up on Felton and are back to Iggy? It's been done...
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/port...80-fill-question-mark-thinking-long-term.html
> 
> ...


Never really liked Felton.

How is it dead? Is it because Iggy signed a contract? Is it because things are going extremely well in Philly now? Is it because we found a lockdown defender on our team? Is it because we think we can compete for a championship right now? Is it because our fast break offense got less horrendous?

We're playing fantastic right now, but that doesn't mean you don't look to improve the team anymore. Jones and Blake will come back down to earth before too long.

Jack is simply terrible three out of every four games and shouldn't really be on the floor as he's 24 years old with three years of NBA experience and still doesn't bring much to the table.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

You know how you improve the hottest team in the NBA? You stand pat and let the uber man-child Greg Oden and Spanish sensation Rudy Fernandez come over next year, that's how you improve.


----------



## TallBottom (May 24, 2006)

Don't mess with this team! let's enjoy what we've got.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> Nope. It might be Roy, Webster, Outlaw, Frye, or Aldridge who has the hot night.
> 
> That's what makes this Blazers team so tough for opponents to cover. You never know which assassin is going to do you in.


So you're saying that we're good enough shooting with them to have one mediocre shooter like Iggy right? Seriously though do you really think with our current perimeter D and trouble getting out on the break we could be competing with San Antonio or Phoenix in the playoffs? With this move I think we could be, this year.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

So shocked to see this idea involves getting rid of Jarrett. 

Dude, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Jarrett may not be the best PG in the league, but he is one of the glue pieces of the chemistry bonding this team together.

You start trying to upgrade individual players, you start making the same mistakes Whitsitt (you know, the guy who wasn't a chemistry major) made.

Here is something you, darkhelmit, REALLY need to read: Tuckman Model of Team Development.

This is not a fantasy league.

PBF


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> You know how you improve the hottest team in the NBA? You stand pat and let the uber man-child Greg Oden and Spanish sensation Rudy Fernandez come over next year, that's how you improve.


Post of the Year. Repped!


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> You know how you improve the hottest team in the NBA? You stand pat and let the uber man-child Greg Oden and Spanish sensation Rudy Fernandez come over next year, that's how you improve.


why not do more if we can? And this move helps consolidate and open up some time for the two of them also. We trade 3 out for one back. Together the draft pick, Jack, and Outlaw in the long term would cost more than Iggy anyways.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> We already have 3PT shooters, and Iggy is one of the last players in the NBA you could say needs the ball to be effective, have you ever seen him play or are you just a stat based observer because that's BS. The guy played with Iverson and Webber and put up great stats, he's an extremely effective off the ball player and if he was here he could get 3/4 of his points on fast breaks, mid-range shots, and backdoor cuts while focusing on being a lockdown defender (something we don't have anything near). We'd have arguably the best defense in the NBA once Oden is back. Do you really see a team full of spot up shooters beating the spurs, mavs, or suns in a 7 game series?
> 
> martell is developing into a much younger, better, more athletic, non-bad-knee version of Jones anyways. I love the guy and his contributions and leadership have really helped us this year, but if we sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal at the expense of playing time for Rudy, Martell and others we're making some huge mistakes.



The team won't be a team full of spot up shooters when Oden is here. He will provide more then enough presence inside. 

The other side of the story you also fail to aknowledge is that Iggy already turned down a fairly sizeable contract extension, and will be a free agent next year. Every NBA commentator I have seen who discussed this issue said it was a mistake by Iguodala, because he is not going to get money better then he was offered. If he does, that team is making a mistake. Now, that being said, somebody who made him believe otherwise has his ear, since he did not sign the extension. 

Now that also being said, in my guestimation, chances are one of the Blazer small forwards who are here now will be better then him by next year, if they aren't already and just playing within the team concept. I would take my chances with a Martell Webster and a contract extension over Iggy any day of the week, just because I know he buys into the system and fits, and is much cheaper.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> why not do more if we can?


Because the act of DOING SOMETHING often sets the entire team back to square 1.

Dude, just read that thing I linked you to in my last response.

PBF


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

ProudBFan said:


> So shocked to see this idea involves getting rid of Jarrett.
> 
> Dude, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Jarrett may not be the best PG in the league, but he is one of the glue pieces of the chemistry bonding this team together.
> 
> ...


If it aint broke don't fix it is the strategy that keeps playoff teams from being championship teams, from championship teams from being dynastys, and 3 year dynastys from being 8 year dynastys. KP would tell you that I'm sure. Everyone thinks Jack is out soon at this point anyways. There's no way we're giving up on Sergio right now with wanting to have Rudy over and their friendship and chemistry, there's no way we're extending Jack for a bunch of money either, and there's no way we can add a draft pick to this team with Rudy and Oden anyways. There is not enough playing time to go around. We're not changing our core. Iggy is a complementary player who would fit our team great and fill the holes we have in our team. He's unselfish and a top competitor. 

Do you think trading Jones (who we had just acquired and was friends with Oden) was good for chemistry? Do you think bringing in Blake after Jack had started last year was good for chemistry? Do you really think jarret's holding everything together? It sure seems like Roy, Aldridge, Webster, and Jones are the ones consistently spacing the floor and directing the offense to me, Jarret is a bench scrubs who occasionaly scores a bit and mostly stands around and every once in a while runs to the hoop hoping to get fouled. Were his 6 turnovers last night holding our team together? 

BS

We need to consolidate for less selfish players than Jarret, players who move better without the ball than Jarret, and players not as TERRIBLE on the break than Jarret! Outlaw is the only one you could argue would disrupt the team getting rid of, but I'm sure the guys would be pumped to have a defender the quality of Iggy on the team. And what's the big risk, if it doesn't fit this year, sign and trade the turd.

We're gonna have to consolidate eventually because if you want good chemistry you won't just keep everyone and have 15 players deserving of playing time on the same team, which is WHAT WHITSITT DID!


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

darkhelmit54 said:


> We already have 3PT shooters, and Iggy is one of the last players in the NBA you could say needs the ball to be effective, have you ever seen him play or are you just a stat based observer because that's BS. The guy played with Iverson and Webber and put up great stats, he's an extremely effective off the ball player and if he was here he could get 3/4 of his points on fast breaks, mid-range shots, and backdoor cuts while focusing on being a lockdown defender (something we don't have anything near). We'd have arguably the best defense in the NBA once Oden is back. Do you really see a team full of spot up shooters beating the spurs, mavs, or suns in a 7 game series?
> 
> martell is developing into a much younger, better, more athletic, non-bad-knee version of Jones anyways. I love the guy and his contributions and leadership have really helped us this year, but if we sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal at the expense of playing time for Rudy, Martell and others we're making some huge mistakes.



yes i've seen him play lol. he's a medium-range shooter/slasher who's main strength is finishing. he's an average 3P shooter. he basically duplicates what roy brings, only as a less effective all-around player. defensively he's ok, but really no better than outlaw or jones -certainly not "lockdown" lol.

anyway how do you propose we would get iggy without giving up anything less than webster?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Because the act of DOING SOMETHING often sets the entire team back to square 1.
> 
> Dude, just read that thing I linked you to in my last response.
> 
> PBF


I couldn't agree more. This reminds me a lot of a person in the past who was GM of the Blazers and couldn't figure out when to stop F'n with the teams lineup. His name was Bob Whitsitt. Don't win one year? Make a change. Don't give it a chance to gel. The biggest mistake of many GM's is not recognizing when to stop tinkering with the lineup. Continually making trades is sure working out for New York isn't it? How about Dallas, you think they ever wonder about trading Nash? What about Phoenix and the chemistry problems they have this year, they have a good record, but all is not well in Phoenix. I believe that team made the biggest mistake of all. They should have come back in this season with the same team as last year with one more year playing together. Now I think they will fall short though due to a lack of inside toughness. All because the GM could not quit fargin with the lineup.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

hasoos said:


> The team won't be a team full of spot up shooters when Oden is here. He will provide more then enough presence inside.
> 
> The other side of the story you also fail to aknowledge is that Iggy already turned down a fairly sizeable contract extension, and will be a free agent next year. Every NBA commentator I have seen who discussed this issue said it was a mistake by Iguodala, because he is not going to get money better then he was offered. If he does, that team is making a mistake. Now, that being said, somebody who made him believe otherwise has his ear, since he did not sign the extension.
> 
> Now that also being said, in my guestimation, chances are one of the Blazer small forwards who are here now will be better then him by next year, if they aren't already and just playing within the team concept. I would take my chances with a Martell Webster and a contract extension over Iggy any day of the week, just because I know he buys into the system and fits, and is much cheaper.


you're first point makes not sense? Did you mean post-up?

1. He probably knows not taking the deal was a mistake, but he won't want to sign a smaller one from Philly this offseason, that'd be embaressing to him, helping us to acquire him. I think he'd probably take a little less to play in Portland with two fantastic big men and Brandon Roy. He'd be a defensive specialist who gets out on the break awesome, pulls down a lot of boards, cuts backdoor all day, and is a great passer.

2. Why would this affect Martell? If anything it'd help the SF who is better honestly. I love the way Martell plays and we really need to keep him. Martell is the best young shooter we have and is way more athletic than he's given credit for, he also knows how to play within an offense and is learning to space the floor. And he's one of the very youngest players on our team, I want to keep him bad. With that said Iggy would be a great complement to him on the other side of the floor. I don't see this as either or. I mean at first before Brandon is listed as PG Iggy probably comes off the bench and still plays about 35 a night because he'd be grabbing quite a bit of SG (jack minutes) and Travis minutes (SF) while Jones would slide to PF a little bit. But after Brandon is moved to PG you start all three of Roy, Webster, and Iggy.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

crowTrobot said:


> yes i've seen him play lol. he's a medium-range shooter/slasher who's main strength is finishing. he's an average 3P shooter. he basically duplicates what roy brings, only as a less effective all-around player. defensively he's ok, but really no better than outlaw or jones -certainly not "lockdown" lol.
> 
> anyway how do you propose we would get iggy without giving up anything less than webster?


He has one of the highest SPG averages in the entire NBA, he is a lockdown defender as much as about anyone I can think of. He's at least top 10 on defense and on the break (our big weakneses). Iggy is much better off the ball than Brandon Roy, he made his living his first couple of years feeling out the defense and constantly moving getting a lot of passes from Iverson while he was cutting, who does that on our team now? Iggy is not much worse of a shooter than Outlaw or Jack, he plays better defense than both, he has a better handle than both, and he is incredibly better on the break than either.

I think with the situation over there if Andre Miller is moved for cap purposes and Iggy is even more frustrated and sick of being the #1 option (which he never seemed to want and wasn't in college either). he'd be right at home in Portland and with his best buddy Frye.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

hasoos said:


> I couldn't agree more. This reminds me a lot of a person in the past who was GM of the Blazers and couldn't figure out when to stop F'n with the teams lineup. His name was Bob Whitsitt. Don't win one year? Make a change. Don't give it a chance to gel. The biggest mistake of many GM's is not recognizing when to stop tinkering with the lineup. Continually making trades is sure working out for New York isn't it? How about Dallas, you think they ever wonder about trading Nash? What about Phoenix and the chemistry problems they have this year, they have a good record, but all is not well in Phoenix. I believe that team made the biggest mistake of all. They should have come back in this season with the same team as last year with one more year playing together. Now I think they will fall short though due to a lack of inside toughness. All because the GM could not quit fargin with the lineup.


you're completely rediculous. The key is to maintain the core and find the best complementary pieces behind to cover your weaknesses, a player like Iggy would fall right into that strategy. Teams that just acquire talent stat based like Portland did and New York is now are ones that just go out and grab scorers and hope they learn to play together without taking into consideration age, development, strategy, or style. Do you think Jack fits the style of the rest of the team right now? That's a joke!

Phoenix did bring back the same team, the only player gone is Kurt Thomas and Skinner's doing just as much as he did. Their problem is that Marion doesn't get along with the other players and they aren't feeding Amare enough, Phoenix's problem is they aren't adapting and developing, just being constant, and they're not getting over the top. Did keeping the same core around help Boston? What big time players am I suggest we trade for Iggy? Stop using false analogys and other logical falacies.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> If it aint broke don't fix it is the strategy that keeps playoff teams from being championship teams, from championship teams from being dynastys, and 3 year dynastys from being 8 year dynastys.


And consistently trading for namebrand players that don't mesh well together makes you the Knicks.

This team is way ahead of schedule and there's absolutely no reason to make any changes mid-season. Next summer, KP may decide a trade is needed to make some roster space and solidify a perceived need, but that gives the team a chance in camp to work with the new players and form a new cohesive unit. It's pretty tough to improve on 17 out of 18 and this isn't the time to try.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Jack is simply terrible three out of every four games and shouldn't really be on the floor as he's 24 years old with three years of NBA experience and still doesn't bring much to the table.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2001.html

Man, that Chauncey Billups guy sure was awful at 24. 

You don't seem to be picking up on the fact that Jack brings a different type of play to the game than anyone else. If Portland isn't hitting its shots, Nate can put in Jack and know that he's going to get to the line. FYI, he gets to the line at a higher clip than anyone else on the team. 

Does that mean KP won't shop him? Who knows. But the way you talk about Jack makes him seem like the weakest player on the team. He isn't. Nate keeps him in the game during the fourth quarter for a reason. 

As for Iggy, my guess is if we do a trade this year, it's much more likely to be one of two things:

1. A trade that gives us an extra roster spot (2-for-1)

2. A trade that moves Raef. 

I doubt Iguodala is the guy KP has his eye on.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> And consistently trading for namebrand players that don't mesh well together makes you the Knicks.
> 
> This team is way ahead of schedule and there's absolutely no reason to make any changes mid-season. Next summer, KP may decide a trade is needed to make some roster space and solidify a perceived need, but that gives the team a chance in camp to work with the new players and form a new cohesive unit. It's pretty tough to improve on 17 out of 18 and this isn't the time to try.


which of our players is fat and lazy while being terrible at defense yet still heavily featured like Zach and Eddy? Which of our players is a chucker who's out of shape like Q? Who is a severely undersized SG who's selfish like Nate Robinson? Who is a selfish headcase like Stephon Marbury? Stop using irrelevent examples. 

By keeping everyone w/o consolidating you're the one who wants to keep accumulating talent w/o there being enough time for anyone, creating drama and ruining chemistry. Sure we have enough minutes to around now (except for Sergio, Frye, and Pryz) but try next year when we have Oden and Fernandez. 

By the way...I think Boston did fairly well by accumulating talent that complemented each other and fills each others holes, which is what we would be doing.

I bet when we lose two or three in a row you'll be ready to trade everyone except for Roy, Oden, and Aldridge.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

crowTrobot said:


> anyway how do you propose we would get iggy without giving up anything less than webster?


did you mean more than Webster? I think we could maybe get him at a bargain if we were to give up Jack, Outlaw, and our draft pick or some sort of other package. Maybe not at the moment but closer to the deadline I could see it maybe.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> which of our players is fat and lazy while being terrible at defense yet still heavily featured like Zach and Eddy? Which of our players is a chucker who's out of shape like Q? Who is a severely undersized SG who's selfish like Nate Robinson? Who is a selfish headcase like Stephon Marbury? Stop using irrelevent examples.
> 
> By keeping everyone w/o consolidating you're the one who wants to keep accumulating talent w/o there being enough time for anyone, creating drama and ruining chemistry. Sure we have enough minutes to around now (except for Sergio, Frye, and Pryz) but try next year when we have Oden and Fernandez.
> 
> ...



You may want to read what I actually wrote before you reply. I said KP may want to do a trade this summer. When did Boston make their trade? 

Major deals during the middle of the season are for teams who either are tanking or who need one more piece in order to make a title run. The Blazers certainly aren't in the first category and they don't fit well into the second category either because the cure for what keeps them from being a title contender is already on the roster and should be available next season.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

No. Stop posting stupid trade ideas. Our team is fine how it is.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Samuel said:


> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2001.html
> 
> Man, that Chauncey Billups guy sure was awful at 24.
> 
> ...


I love that Billups name constantly comes up when measuring Jack because he's one of the only players to turn out good after being that bad for so long. That's not the way it worked with most others though. Wonder how Billups did at Sergio's age? Oh wait that's not relevant because you ride Jack's jock.

Umm, Iggy moves better without the ball than Jack, gets to the line better than Jack (which is Jack's strength), defends better than Jack (why he's in at the end supposedly), and is extremely better in the open court than Jack (a different skill Iggy brings to the table!).

1. A move like this would open up more roster spots...it's like a 3 for 1


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> You may want to read what I actually wrote before you reply. I said KP may want to do a trade this summer. When did Boston make their trade?
> 
> Major deals during the middle of the season are for teams who either are tanking or who need one more piece in order to make a title run. The Blazers certainly aren't in the first category and they don't fit well into the second category either because the cure for what keeps them from being a title contender is already on the roster and should be available next season.


I was responding to your stupid invalid Knick analogy actually. Keeping things together probably is the most perfect solution actually I've seen the error of my ways, the Chicago bulls really convinced me with their crowded young talent, it's a great idea.  (that's the game you're playing).

You adress weaknesses whenever you can, KP has said he'd rather deal in the summer but he's always open to making the team better, right now would be the easiest time to get Iggy. And he would improve us for this year, make no doubt about that. If not, who cares we just cleared some space for Rudy and Oden without making any financial sacrifices as we don't have to resign him. (and we'd get a very cheap year on his QO where he'd play his butt of for a good contract)


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Resume said:


> No. Stop posting stupid trade ideas. Our team is fine how it is.


stop writing stupid responses with no content, the thread was fine without you.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> I love that Billups name constantly comes up when measuring Jack because he's one of the only players to turn out good after being that bad for so long.


The point is that 3 years is hardly a long time to really judge a point guard. 



> That's not the way it worked with most others though. Wonder how Billups did at Sergio's age? Oh wait that's not relevant because you ride Jack's jock.


I was never a big Jack guy. I just find it funny that you keep picking on him when he's actually been a big factor in the team's turnaround.



> Umm, Iggy moves better without the ball than Jack, gets to the line better than Jack (which is Jack's strength), defends better than Jack (why he's in at the end supposedly), and is extremely better in the open court than Jack (a different skill Iggy brings to the table!).


Jack also won't demand max money when he becomes a free agent in 2 years.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Keeping things together probably is the most perfect solution actually I've seen the error of my ways, the Chicago bulls really convinced me with their crowded young talent, it's a great idea.  (that's the game you're playing).


So we should trade Outlaw or Aldridge for a PJ Brown clone now? The areas in which Paxson has been trade-happy have been noted as his biggest failures.

Also, I think the Bulls are less an example of a failed youth movement and more an example of talent that doesn't compliment itself well, and a team without a true leader. Portland seems like it's taking care of both of those.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Samuel said:


> The point is that 3 years is hardly a long time to really judge a point guard. I was never a big Jack guy. I just find it funny that you keep picking on him when he's actually been a big factor in the team's turnaround. Jack also won't demand max money when he becomes a free agent in 2 years.


after four years of college and three years of heavy minutes in the NBA we should have a clue on what type of player Jack is, and right now not a very good one. How has he been a big factor? It's Roy and others whose game has been much better over this streak, Jack is still not shooting well, botching fast breaks, turning the ball over, and getting half of his points on free throws off intentional fouls at the end of games. Jack + Outlaw + draft pick = just as much money, and more minutes than Iggy needs. Iggy + Rudy + Webster > Jack + Rudy + Webster + Outlaw, there's just no enough minutes.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> o genizus another iggy to portland idea....for the last time..NO! He wouldn't be a great fit here.


I KNEW you were going to love this thread! lol


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> o genizus another iggy to portland idea....for the last time..NO! He wouldn't be a great fit here.


care to explain why or just leave it as a vague statement with no reasoning.
Why would an unselfish, incredible on the break, lockdown perimeter defender not be a good fit here?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> You adress weaknesses whenever you can


AFTER you give the team enough time to gel together - AND PLATEAU - so you _really_ know what those weaknesses are.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say this team has grown as much as they possibly can at this point. Pretty sure Pritchard isn't going to make any moves until he feels the team has gotten to that point, when REAL weaknesses will be revealed.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> after four years of college and three years of heavy minutes in the NBA we should have a clue on what type of player Jack is


Maybe, but unless you've been hanging out in the locker-room, at the practice facility, on the team bus, or the team plane, you have absolutely NO idea what kind of influence Jack has on team chemistry. By all accounts I've read, Jack is one of the guys who supplies motivation and fire to the rest of the team.

Also, didn't Jack hit the game-winning shot (and, later, free-throws) just a few games back?

PBF


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I don't want to rock the boat, either. But if we can upgrade, then we do. Iggy is a huge upgrade over Jack, and brings skills this team could use. 

I hate to mess with chemistry, 'tis true. The team will be fine if we sit pat. But we all know that if we can get a star for players that don't have a long-term role in Portland anyway (where is Jack next year when Rudy comes over?), we should do it.

iWatas


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> care to explain why or just leave it as a vague statement with no reasoning.
> Why would an unselfish, incredible on the break, lockdown perimeter defender not be a good fit here?


Hmm, we have a guy like that..Travis Outlaw..maybe you should check our roster out before making rediculous trade ideas. I realize you have a man-crush on Iggy..I get that..but quit it with the Iggy threads. Rudy Gay is prolly my fv non-Blazer, but he wouldn't fit in here that well, because we are deep at SF. Do you see me making thread after thread of Gay to Portland? No, no you don't.
I can't believe we are 17-1 since 12-3-07 and we are having trade threads about a swingman who wouldn't improve us all that much. Someone said it earlier, but this sounds a lot like Bob Whitset's trading philosophy..and that did nothing but break our team down. We are playing as 1, which is hard to do, so why call for a trade right now?


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

sury he's a hell of a player but would he really fit? Could we do better? I think we could do better for this team and the way this team is set up. We don't need another star player we need players to complement Roy, Oden and Aldridge. Thats Portlands big 3. I don't beleive Jack will be here much longer I think he will be packaged in a deal. :cheers:


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

ProudBFan said:


> AFTER you give the team enough time to gel together - AND PLATEAU - so you _really_ know what those weaknesses are.
> 
> I don't think anyone in their right mind would say this team has grown as much as they possibly can at this point. Pretty sure Pritchard isn't going to make any moves until he feels the team has gotten to that point, when REAL weaknesses will be revealed.
> 
> PBF


We probably shouldn't let Oden play until the team plateus next year either, maybe he can take another off.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> stop writing stupid responses with no content, the thread was fine without you.


I actually agree with him. These "lets trade for Igoudala" posts are getting old real quick.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

There aren't going to be too many teams with cap room this offseason. Off the top of my head, restricted free agents and free agents this offseason include:
Iggy
Deng
Ben Gordon
Gilbert Arenas
Josh Smith
Andris Biedrins
and quite a few others.

A sign and trade deal with any of these players is a possibility, although not likely. If their demands are such that their original teams do not want to meet them, why should we? Do we want to pay Ben Gordon 12 million per? I would argue that maybe Josh Smith is worth that, Gilbert is most likely going to receive a max extension around 17 million per.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> I can't believe we are 17-1 since 12-3-07 and we are having trade threads about a swingman who wouldn't improve us all that much. Someone said it earlier, but this sounds a lot like Bob Whitset's trading philosophy..and that did nothing but break our team down. We are playing as 1, which is hard to do, so why call for a trade right now?


I think I said in one the other trade for Iggy threads that I'd possibly be up for it.
But you're right about it being too Bob Whitsitt-y. It'd be a trade just to make a trade. We just need to let this ride out, 17-1 in the last 18 is pretty sick...

It's too fantasy basketball-ish, which is WAY different than real life hoops, and is too much Whitsitt philosophy.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

alext42083 said:


> I think I said in one the other trade for Iggy threads that I'd possibly be up for it.
> But you're right about it being too Bob Whitsitt-y. It'd be a trade just to make a trade. We just need to let this ride out, 17-1 in the last 18 is pretty sick...
> 
> It's too fantasy basketball-ish, which is WAY different than real life hoops, and is too much Whitsitt philosophy.


I totally agree. We don't have a glaring need right now for him and it would cost us too much in terms of our current roster to swing a deal with the 76ers.

Adding a star player like Iggy mid-season could easily throw the team's rhythm off.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Iggy this year = Darius Miles in 04-05. Put in a position to be the main cog and just can't hack it. Now he seems to be cracking up. Not sure I want a guy like that on my team.

That said, I'd happily take a chance on him if the cost is LaFrentz, Jack and Outlaw. But that wouldn't get the job done. They'd want guys that we wouldn't want to give up.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

drexlersdad said:


> There aren't going to be too many teams with cap room this offseason. Off the top of my head, restricted free agents and free agents this offseason include:
> Iggy
> Deng
> Ben Gordon
> ...


Ben Gordon and Gilbert Arenas are chuckers. Josh Smith is an injury away from being a SF with no jump shot or post moves. Biedrins is a mediocre big man. But Iggy and Deng are great well rounded players who put the team first.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

ebott said:


> Iggy this year = Darius Miles in 04-05. Put in a position to be the main cog and just can't hack it. Now he seems to be cracking up. Not sure I want a guy like that on my team.
> 
> That said, I'd happily take a chance on him if the cost is LaFrentz, Jack and Outlaw. But that wouldn't get the job done. They'd want guys that we wouldn't want to give up.


Iggy has no lazy attitude, he's extremely competetive, and he has a very well-rounded and unselfish game.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Iggy has no lazy attitude, he's extremely competetive, and he has a very well-rounded and unselfish game.


He's competitive, but also needs the ball in his hands to really be an impact player. I doubt he could co-exist with Roy.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

That is so rediculous, there's just no one better to have the ball in their hands on Philly right now. And he plays with Andre Miller and loves the guy directing the offense so I think you're clearly off base. This is just the hyped up thing blazer fans love to say "needs the ball". The guy played with AI and put up great stats (without the ball in his hands) and got decent assists, shot a great percentage, got a lot of points on backdoor cuts, putbacks, steals, and points on the break, he could do that here.

Wasn't Pippen a player that "needed the ball to be effective", boy how did him and Jordan ever play together?


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

At the moment I'm not interested in making any trades, let alone one for Iggy. The chemistry and composition of the team is amazing right now. I'm definitely not saying that it will be all roses the rest of the way this year, but considering how far ahead of schedule they are at the moment, I'd like to at least keep the team together through the end of the year and then reevaluate in the off-season.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> This is just the hyped up thing blazer fans love to say "needs the ball". The guy played with AI and put up great stats (without the ball in his hands) and got decent assists, shot a great percentage, got a lot of points on backdoor cuts, putbacks, steals, and points on the break, he could do that here.


His first two years, next to Iverson and without the ball in his hands, he averaged 11 and 13 ppg and 3.7 and 3.1 apg. He did shoot very effectively, but his PER next to someone that needs the ball in his hands was 13.5 and 14.8 - less than an average NBA starter.

His 3rd year, before Iverson was traded:

13.6 pts., 6.3 rebs., 4.2 assts., 2.05 stls - better than the previous years, but not a major up-swing.

He did finish the year averaging around 18.2 ppg and 5.7 apg - so he clearly needs the ball in his hands to be effective.

Now, 13.6 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 4 apg and 2 spg is nothing to scoff about - if he gets the same production next to Roy - but the question is - how much does he want to be paid for this kind of production? If the rumors are true that he walked away from a $57m extension - it seems to me that this is way too much money to pay for a guy that will not thrive if he is not the primary ball handler.

With this in mind, I doubt that Iggy will want to be in Portland for what they will be willing to pay him - and I doubt the Blazers will want to pay him as much as he wants for what we can expect from him, production wise.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit: read up on the acronym "VORP". Considering what Iggy would cost, and with the others on the team who will warrant near-max deals, he wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

andalusian said:


> His 3rd year, before Iverson was traded:
> 
> 13.6 pts., 6.3 rebs., 4.2 assts., 2.05 stls - better than the previous years, but not a major up-swing.
> 
> ...


I think 14, 6, 4, and 2 would be great and exactly the kind of complementary production we could use from a great defender that can really disrupts the other teams offense too. I'd take him in that role over Tayshaun, Bruce Bowen, or other defensive stoppers. And I think he'd be worth 8-10 million a year at that level, which may be fine with him after this year. I think the problem with Philly is that they suck and want him to be the first option and expect top level production, but aren't paying him for that. He might embrace being the 3rd or 4th option on a championship contending team where he has players to pass to and is with one of his best friends in Frye.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Samuel said:


> darkhelmit: read up on the acronym "VORP". Considering what Iggy would cost, and with the others on the team who will warrant near-max deals, he wouldn't be worth it.


re-signed Jarret (3-4) + Travis (4) + draft pick (2) are going to cost around what Iggy would cost (9-11), and they'll take up a hell of a lot more playing time. If Allen will spend 3 mill on random draft picks who may never play he'll pay a couple extra mill on that.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I don't want to trade Travis Outlaw..plain and simple..and certainly not for Iggy.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> I don't want to trade Travis Outlaw..plain and simple..and certainly not for Iggy.


I agree. I think Outlaw is a keeper.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> And I think he'd be worth 8-10 million a year at that level, which may be fine with him after this year. I think the problem with Philly is that they suck and want him to be the first option and expect top level production, but aren't paying him for that. He might embrace being the 3rd or 4th option on a championship contending team where he has players to pass to and is with one of his best friends in Frye.


8 - 10 mil is a lot of money for a 3rd or 4th option on a team (Probably 4th after Roy/Oden/Aldridge). Probably not worth it. Add the attitude issues he already has in Philly and it is hard to see him in Blazers uniform.



> Recently, Iguodala has been seen sniping at teammates. He also is one of the more animated complainers when talking to officials.
> 
> "I am just upset we are not playing up to our ability late in games," Iguodala said. "There are times where we are down in the game mentally, and it's just tough. It's tough losing."
> 
> http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20080110_Iguodalas_frustration_growing.html


This sniping at teammates is a bad thing. We got rid of it when we shipped Zach - why bring this headache back again? It's ok to get upset at losing, but it is the opposite form of what we have seen from the Blazers during their successful campaign so far.

Really, with Roy and one or two of Rudy/Jack and the addition of Oden - this team does not need Iggy to be a contender in the long run.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

andalusian said:


> 8 - 10 mil is a lot of money for a 3rd or 4th option on a team (Probably 4th after Roy/Oden/Aldridge). Probably not worth it. Add the attitude issues he already has in Philly and it is hard to see him in Blazers uniform.


We're paying our 12, 15, and 16 option that range right now. (Lafrentz, Miles, Francis). And we spend 3 mill on draft picks that might not ever play for us every year.




andalusian said:


> This sniping at teammates is a bad thing. We got rid of it when we shipped Zach - why bring this headache back again? It's ok to get upset at losing, but it is the opposite form of what we have seen from the Blazers during their successful campaign so far.
> 
> Really, with Roy and one or two of Rudy/Jack and the addition of Oden - this team does not need Iggy to be a contender in the long run.


Do you not think Roy would be upset and irritated on a team where Reggie Evans thought he was Hakeem Olajuwan, and Sammy D forgot to play for a couple of games at a time, and Willie Green thought he was Michael Jordan? As far as teammate sniping that seemed like an exaggeration when none of his teammates or coaches are complaining about it and they're actually defending him. Yeah we'll be contendors with Oden and Rudy, we're contendors now, but with a move like this we're undeniably better and really we run less risk of having an unhappy Jack, Fernandez, Outlaw, Webster, Jones, Frye, and first round pick next year with our minutes crunch. A shorter rotation is better for chemistry and that's a fact.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> We're paying our 12, 15, and 16 option that range right now. (Lafrentz, Miles, Francis). And we spend 3 mill on draft picks that might not ever play for us every year.


You do realize the reason that those guys, on this roster (or not re: Francis), have those contracts, right? Bringing in Iguwhatever at $10 million is stupid considering his whining in Philly. The guy is a role player.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Ben Gordon and Gilbert Arenas are chuckers. *Josh Smith is an injury away from being a SF with no jump shot or post moves*. Biedrins is a mediocre big man. But Iggy and Deng are great well rounded players who put the team first.


and iggy isnt?


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

drexlersdad said:


> and iggy isnt?


no, he utilizes his athleticism without relying on it. Iggy moves without the ball, is a better ballhandler, has a better shot (not by much), and is ten times the passer.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Yeah we'll be contendors with Oden and Rudy, we're contendors now, but with a move like this we're undeniably better


I disagree. Even if it did help short-term (which is questionable given the emphasis on chemistry and how close this team seems to be), I don't think Iggy is a better fit *for this team* in the long-term. Why get rid of players that seem to fit into this system that we already have for a guy that _may_ be able to do basically the same thing, but is a bit more likely to need the ball in his hands?


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

LameR said:


> but is a bit more likely to need the ball in his hands?


have you ever watched Jarret Jack or Travis Outlaw play? One on 1


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

darkhelmit54 said:


> have you ever watched Jarret Jack or Travis Outlaw play? One on 1


If this was the beginning of the year, I'd agree with you, but both of these guys, especially Jack, have grown into their roles. Sure, Iggy _could_ do the same, but I don't see the point in hoping he can do something we already have being done.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

LameR said:


> I disagree. Even if it did help short-term (which is questionable given the emphasis on chemistry and how close this team seems to be), I don't think Iggy is a better fit *for this team* in the long-term. Why get rid of players that seem to fit into this system that we already have for a guy that _may_ be able to do basically the same thing, but is a bit more likely to need the ball in his hands?


Of course he is not. If you take Iggy's number next to Iverson (not the #1 option on offense) - you see that he gives you 2 more PPG, about the same RPG, a bit more APG (with more turn-overs) and steals as Outlaw currently gives you in 10 minutes less per game (Yep, Outlaw's numbers are per 26 mpg, I took Iggy's 2nd year stats where he logged 38 mpg). Add the fact that he would cost at least twice as much as Outlaw, would not be happy being the 3rd or 4th option on offense and it is clear that he is a bad fit for this team and a much worse value than Travis.

With the progress in Outlaw and Webster's game and the impending arrival of Rudy - Iggy is not needed on this team. He would probably just kill the chemistry and cap space providing an answer for a problem this team does not have.

The biggest issues this team have should be solved with a healthy Oden on the roster. If there is still any kind of rebounding problem - someone like McBob or Freeland could solve it. This team really looks like it has most of what it needs to be successful in the long run. I am still certain that trades will be made around the draft - if only to trim the roster to 10 guys that need consistent minutes - but this team really does not seem like it needs another "star". Too many chiefs...


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

look, Iggy is a great player, and unlike lots of people, i think he would fit in great here. But it wouldn't be worth giving up our depth to get him. Also you have to remember Fernandez will join the team next year at around the same position.

I would love to see Iguodala come, but even if you convince people that it is a good idea, what good does that do you? It is still most likely not gonna happen. We have a good team man, and they are only gettin' better. If there is a way to get Iguodala with little sacrifice because he might not re-sign with Philly and they want to get at least SOME value for him, and we could get him cheap, you know i'd be all for it, i just don't see it happening.

A lock down defender who would be a true SF for us would be nice though. He would fill up the assists, rebounds, steals, blocks department and do the dirty work. Iguodala is a great player, and if it is meant to be, it will happen. You should just chill on it bro.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

andalusian said:


> This team really looks like it has most of what it needs to be successful in the long run. I am still certain that trades will be made around the draft - if only to trim the roster to 10 guys that need consistent minutes - but this team really does not seem like it needs another "star". Too many chiefs...


so you'd rather trade out borderline players like Jack and Outlaw for another one rather than someone as good as iggy? Is that what you're saying? We gotta consolidate, the idea is a little bit of quantity for a little higher quality.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> look, Iggy is a great player, and unlike lots of people, i think he would fit in great here. But it wouldn't be worth giving up our depth to get him. Also you have to remember Fernandez will join the team next year at around the same position.
> 
> I would love to see Iguodala come, but even if you convince people that it is a good idea, what good does that do you? It is still most likely not gonna happen. We have a good team man, and they are only gettin' better. If there is a way to get Iguodala with little sacrifice because he might not re-sign with Philly and they want to get at least SOME value for him, and we could get him cheap, you know i'd be all for it, i just don't see it happening.
> 
> A lock down defender who would be a true SF for us would be nice though. He would fill up the assists, rebounds, steals, blocks department and do the dirty work. Iguodala is a great player, and if it is meant to be, it will happen. You should just chill on it bro.


This is not a me liking Iggy vs. Other people type of thing. It's not him, there's other players I think would fit well (eric gordon, luol deng, and others) and I really love the diversity of our roster and in particular what Webster and Fernandez could bring and grow into. BUT I think we just gotta consolidate and I'm more irritated with people who thing you can just leave things alone, because they're gonna turn into a logjam, and people are gonna get pissed over playing time and stuff. We're on a very hot streak now, but there's no way we shoot this well forever, Oden will solve most of our physical problems. But we always gotta aim to keep getting better, the GM has to. A move like this opens more time for Fernandez with the minutes of Jack and Outlaw compared to Iggy. I don't think Philly would accept this move, but maybe if things turn more sour. I just can't believe how fickle people are and willing to rest on their laurels and thinking just piling on more talent without clearing space in the rotation will be pain-free.

I think us currently with Oden and Fernandez (after a couple of years of seasoning) could compete for a championship, with a lot of grumpy guys on the bench. But we're gonna have to let certain guys go to get other ones chances, and if we have to make moves, why not keep trying to get better? It's really just the core that has to gel, everyone else needs to understand that. The bulls teams didn't come back with the same roster every year, they added rodman (not suggesting this) after winning titles, the spurs have added manu and others have made adjustments too.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> so you'd rather trade out borderline players like Jack and Outlaw for another one rather than someone as good as iggy? Is that what you're saying? We gotta consolidate, the idea is a little bit of quantity for a little higher quality.


First of all, I would hate to lose Outlaw and I am not sure that I want Jack gone either - but I am certain that some trades will be made, and I think they should be made for short term vets and future picks or high potential projects. The core of this team is set - and it would be good enough for years to come. There is no need for more stars - there is just a need to look into the future and see how you create a stream of good prospects that can be role players and potential young stars as the team ages.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> This is not a me liking Iggy vs. Other people type of thing. It's not him, there's other players I think would fit well (eric gordon, luol deng, and others) and I really love the diversity of our roster and in particular what Webster and Fernandez could bring and grow into. BUT I think we just gotta consolidate and I'm more irritated with people who thing you can just leave things alone, because they're gonna turn into a logjam, and people are gonna get pissed over playing time and stuff. We're on a very hot streak now, but there's no way we shoot this well forever, Oden will solve most of our physical problems. But we always gotta aim to keep getting better, the GM has to. A move like this opens more time for Fernandez with the minutes of Jack and Outlaw compared to Iggy. I don't think Philly would accept this move, but maybe if things turn more sour. I just can't believe how fickle people are and willing to rest on their laurels and thinking just piling on more talent without clearing space in the rotation will be pain-free.
> 
> I think us currently with Oden and Fernandez (after a couple of years of seasoning) could compete for a championship, with a lot of grumpy guys on the bench. But we're gonna have to let certain guys go to get other ones chances, and if we have to make moves, why not keep trying to get better? It's really just the core that has to gel, everyone else needs to understand that. The bulls teams didn't come back with the same roster every year, they added rodman (not suggesting this) after winning titles, the spurs have added manu and others have made adjustments too.


You make some good points, and I am always into adding talent, but the time is not right. We are on a roll. 

And you know KP is saving all his chips for his annual draft night tradegasm.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

drexlersdad said:


> You make some good points, and I am always into adding talent, but the time is not right. We are on a roll.
> 
> And you know KP is saving all his chips for his annual draft night tradegasm.


the trade deadline is one of the best times to steal talent from desperate teams and a major bargaining time. Teams are more level-headed and under less pressure in the off-season.


----------

