# Quick: big news tomorrow



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

from the blog:

Quick Chat tomorrow

Just spoke with Jason Quick to comfirm our chat tomorrow at 1pm.

We didn't get into specifics, but he told me "There is a lot to talk about."

I asked, "Not just about the players at the pre-draft camp, but rumors, too?"

Quick replied: "Yep."


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

A #2 pick in addition to a #4? :gopray:


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Canzano has been named GM.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

No, but a person who has some supposed inside info, posted last night about a potential deal involving Miles being made....possibly with the Lakers....


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

OOooooooooo, Interesting! Can deals be made already?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ooooh, rumors! We are so desperately short on those. Fill us up, Mr. Quick.

barfo


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Canzano has been named GM.


No, but he did crash at a Holiday InnExpress last night.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I talked to my source, and he relunctantly gave me some hints..and I think I figured it out.

Jason Quick is going to announce, on his chat tomorrow (not like he's trying to get more people to watch/listen to the chat and therefore get more hit$) that Marc Iavaroni is going to be named head coach!

you heard it here first folks! 

Welcome Head Coach Marc Iavaroni!


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

SMiLE said:


> I talked to my source, and he relunctantly gave me some hints..and I think I figured it out.
> 
> Jason Quick is going to announce, on his chat tomorrow (not like he's trying to get more people to watch/listen to the chat and therefore get more hit$) that Marc Iavaroni is going to be named head coach!
> 
> ...


I still think that would have been a good decision. Nate was always my man, but I wouldn't have been upset with Iavaroni.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

here's what i think the news might be.

a. The team is officially for sale....which we already know
b. Pritchard is named GM
c. That the workout scheduled on June 15th will be open to the public


And I still hope Hap is correct.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> No, but a person who has some supposed inside info, posted last night about a potential deal involving Miles being made....possibly with the Lakers....


Source?


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Why can't he break the story today? 

I wonder: is it about potentail Ownership? Potential Relocation? Potentai lTrade? potential GM? Potential Draft pick?


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Lakers deal ... um ...

Even if it does get rid of Miles, I don't like the idea of *helping* the Lakers. They don't need help (outside of Kobe taking pills that would make him tolerable).


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Jason Quick is entering a monastery and will no longer write about the Blazers?


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

my guess: It's about the sale of the team.


----------



## POzers (Jul 27, 2005)

Deal with the Lakers huh? I can see it now Miles for Mimh and McKie in order to dump Miles contract for two expiring next season. In an effort to sell the team I can see them trying to gut some of the bad contracts to make it more attactive to a new buyer. I would prefer Bynum but they want the world for him.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> No, but a person who has some supposed inside info, posted last night about a potential deal involving Miles being made....possibly with the Lakers....


just for kicks, I thought I'd give it a try on realgm. we could deal Miles for Mihm, McKie and their #26 pick. it gives a seven footer backup (whom we could cut if we wanted), McKie (whom we'd probably just cut) and another pick that we could use for other trades. mostly, though, it makes Miles go away. 

can you imagine a lineup of Odom, Kobe and Miles? talk about a collection of impossible-to-figure-out players.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

theWanker said:


> just for kicks, I thought I'd give it a try on realgm. we could deal Miles for Mihm, McKie and their #26 pick. it gives a seven footer backup (whom we could cut if we wanted), McKie (whom we'd probably just cut) and another pick that we could use for other trades. mostly, though, it makes Miles go away.
> 
> can you imagine a lineup of Odom, Kobe and Miles? talk about a collection of impossible-to-figure-out players.


Miles for Brown also works. Kwame can play the 4 and 5, giving us a Zach/Brown/Ratliff rotation (if Joel is indeed gone). I know Kwame is still a big question mark, but he has been improving.

I'm in the minority that still likes Miles, so I don't really want to move him just to move him. He's inconsistent, but he's still one of our most talented players (and talent is scarce on this team, so why lose more?).


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

theWanker said:


> just for kicks, I thought I'd give it a try on realgm. we could deal Miles for Mihm, McKie and their #26 pick. it gives a seven footer backup (whom we could cut if we wanted), McKie (whom we'd probably just cut) and another pick that we could use for other trades. mostly, though, it makes Miles go away.
> 
> can you imagine a lineup of Odom, Kobe and Miles? talk about a collection of impossible-to-figure-out players.


A "Love Triangle" Defense. :biggrin:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

miles and kobi ohhh what a great combo!  

kmurph who was this person that came in?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I could be wrong, but I think LA still has some hope for Kwame.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

SLAM said:


> I'm in the minority that still likes Miles, so I don't really want to move him just to move him. He's inconsistent, but he's still one of our most talented players (and talent is scarce on this team, so why lose more?).


I like Miles too. Unfortunately, he doesn't like us. And therefore he decided to tank late last season. 

If he wanted to be here, he could be the best player on the team. Since he doesn't.... :wave:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Assuming Miles is dealt on his own.. his salary of $6.8 mil can be sent away to teams over the cap +/- 25%

salaries of $5.1 to $8.5 mill work in a deal with teams over the cap

teams under the cap.. is fair game

Kwame is $7.5 mil and would fit that condition

If you want another big... maybe Mihm at $3.8 mil now, $4.2 mil expiring next year
but would needs some filler... just a bit!


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Man, Miles for Mihm. That's depressing. I'd rather have Kwame.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Since he is down at the draft workouts, I'm guessing it is not about the sale of the team or about Blazer management. It is most likely some type of rumored trade. It may or may not be real. Clearly he is trying to hook people into listening to his talk segment.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

POzers said:


> Deal with the Lakers huh? I can see it now Miles for Mimh and McKie in order to dump Miles contract for two expiring next season. In an effort to sell the team I can see them trying to gut some of the bad contracts to make it more attactive to a new buyer. I would prefer Bynum but they want the world for him.


Miles for Mihm and McKie wouldn't be great, but Mihm would be useful. I'd still rather see Jack and Miles for Bynum, Mihm and McKie.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

theWanker said:


> just for kicks, I thought I'd give it a try on realgm. we could deal Miles for Mihm, McKie and their #26 pick. it gives a seven footer backup (whom we could cut if we wanted), McKie (whom we'd probably just cut) and another pick that we could use for other trades. mostly, though, it makes Miles go away.
> 
> *can you imagine a lineup of Odom, Kobe and Miles? talk about a collection of impossible-to-figure-out player*s.


im 100% sure P-Jax would figure it out


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

actually the draft workout would be the place to move miles


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Well the deal rumored was Miles and Blake for Mihm, Cook & Mckie...

and it varied a little with one deal having POR throwing in the #30 pick as well...which seems a little steep to me...

I think both Mihm and Cook have 1yr left? and McKie would just be waived....

I don't know how much credibility the guy has, or if this was even the deal he was discussing as he didn't mention specifics...just that he posted last night that he got word of something involving Miles, and then Quick says he has some "big" things to discuss tomorrow...He has posted some accurate stuff on the blazers before....I guess we will see...

IMO the timing of the two is worth noting...

Probably nothing comes of it, as usual, but I thought it was worth posting...just in case.....


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

I think Miles for Mihm is an ok deal. Look, we kill 2 birds with one stone. 

Joel is leaving. I know he loves Portland, but this is a business and he needs to capitalize on his talents. Nothing wrong with that. 

Miles-obviously a phenomenal talent, but at what cost? He has hurt relationships with teammates, coaches and most importantly fans. He cannot come back. 

Mihm is a serviceable backup center. 

Draft the Stache to take Miles minutes..

Ratliff/Mihm
Zebo/Skinner
Morrison/Kryapa
Webster/Dixon
Telfair/Blake


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Well the deal rumored was Miles and Blake for Mihm, Cook & Mckie...
> 
> and it varied a little with one deal having POR throwing in the #30 pick as well...which seems a little steep to me...
> 
> ...




Now I know what board you visit as well 

Its a trade idea on another board see my thread here
but Blake was not included



as the rumor goes

PG Telfair, Jack, Blake
SG Webster, Dixon, McKie
SF Morrison at #1?, Khryapa, Outlaw
PF Randolph, Skinner, Cook
C Mihm, Przybilla?, Theo, Ha

Then who do we draft at #1? Morrison?, Brgnani? Aldridge? (my vote)


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> I think Miles for Mihm is an ok deal. Look, we kill 2 birds with one stone.
> 
> Joel is leaving. I know he loves Portland, but this is a business and he needs to capitalize on his talents. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> ...


Not only that, but you get Brian Cook. A big guy that stroke it from the outside. He's nothing special, but at least he's serviceable.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I'm going to predict right now that what he's referring to is the announcement from Vulcan Inc. and PAM today that they are finally sitting down at the table.

Big freaking woop.

PBF


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Not only that, but you get Brian Cook. A big guy that stroke it from the outside. He's nothing special, but at least he's serviceable.


Yeah, but hit the outside shot is all he can do. He can't defend, can't rebound, all he can do is spot up behind the line. I would hope for more out of my backup PF. Mihm has value, but I'd rather have Turiaf over Cook (he'd go nicely with Ammo).


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

SLAM said:


> I'm in the minority that still likes Miles, so I don't really want to move him just to move him. He's inconsistent, but he's still one of our most talented players (and talent is scarce on this team, so why lose more?).


Miles will never play up to his potential here in Portland. Dude has shut down for this market. Might as well trade him if they can get anything useful (including shorter contracts) in return.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Reep said:


> Since he is down at the draft workouts, I'm guessing it is not about the sale of the team or about Blazer management. It is most likely some type of rumored trade. It may or may not be real. Clearly he is trying to hook people into listening to his talk segment.


Yep, a common tactic he and Eric use all the time. Don't forget, they work for the same company, and therefore have a vested interest in cross-promotion.

Don't expect anything earthshaking. Quick never knows ANY of the good stuff until it becomes public knowledge. He brokers rumors. Nothing more.

PBF


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> I'm going to predict right now that what he's referring to is the announcement from Vulcan Inc. and PAM today that they are finally sitting down at the table.
> 
> Big freaking woop.
> 
> PBF


That's what my guess is, too. I hope we're wrong though. We need some fresh meat!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Throw this into the rumor mix:

Portland's representatives were spotted having discussions with Billy Knight of Atlanta at the Orlando pre-draft camp. Obviously, Atlanta has a TON of swingmen. We could use a good SF. Al Harrington anyone? Or better yet, Josh Childress? Problem is, why would they trade either of those two to us? We don't have that much that would interest them, in my opinion. Zach Randolph? Maybe, but if they aren't willing to pay to keep Al Harrington, who can play PF, why would they want Zach? Maybe Jarrett Jack, who played his college ball in Georgia?

Jarrett Jack plus the #4 and #30 picks for the #5 and Josh Childress? That would be a dream scenario in my opinion, and I like Jarrett Jack a lot. 

It seems like there could be a variation in there that worked out for both teams.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> Mihm is a serviceable backup center.


Mihm is big, tough, young, and aggressive (both ends of the court). I'd rather have him than Miles (in his current mental/emotional state WRT Portland) any day of the week.

PBF


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Further Info...err...more fodder for the fire...

and let me preface it by saying...I sincerely hope this isn't true....



> An unconfirmed source in Orlando has told me they are hearing a lot of chatter that the deal is:
> 
> Miles, Jack, and the #4
> 
> ...





> The Alvin Williams contract thing is not something that would hold up this deal, IMO. Basically, he has a player option for next year, plus the year after that with no option. Does anyone think he's really going to opt out of the last two years of his deal and see if he can match the $6.8 million per on the open market? Me either. He just has to file the paperwork, and if Portland or Toronto go to him and tell him this, I'm sure it would be done almost immediately.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Fork said:


> Throw this into the rumor mix:
> 
> Portland's representatives were spotted having discussions with Billy Knight of Atlanta at the Orlando pre-draft camp. Obviously, Atlanta has a TON of swingmen. We could use a good SF. Al Harrington anyone? Or better yet, Josh Childress? Problem is, why would they trade either of those two to us? We don't have that much that would interest them, in my opinion. Zach Randolph? Maybe, but if they aren't willing to pay to keep Al Harrington, who can play PF, why would they want Zach? Maybe Jarrett Jack, who played his college ball in Georgia?
> 
> ...



In mid July Atlanta has a lot of cap room...
Atlanta trades us the #5 pick plus Childress
Atlanta receives Randolph to play PF, and another player ????? perhaps Dixon?

Portland then gets the #4 and #5 picks

getting the #5 pick has been a discussion around here a bit... probably will not happen.. but :whoknows:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

miles, jack AND the #4 for basically the #1??

that has be a joke.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Miles Jack and the #4

for Alvin and the #1

is just plain ridiculous IMHO


that is too much to give up for 3 spots in the draft... even for Aldridge



a few players packaged to get the #1 on its own and us keeping the #4 I would do


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I think whenever you add Miles into a trade, it reduces the value of your package. I think other teams would rather trade for Jack and the #4 than Miles, Jack, and the #4.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Fork said:


> Throw this into the rumor mix:
> 
> Jarrett Jack plus the #4 and #30 picks for the #5 and Josh Childress? That would be a dream scenario in my opinion, and I like Jarrett Jack a lot.


The question I have is this, is Childress 6'8" with our without the hair. Because if you count the hair then he must really be about 5'11".

If you think of #4 and #5 as being roughly equivalent, then it would be like Jack+#30 for Childress. I guess that would be a pretty good move. I'm not sure #4 and #5 are equivalent this year though. Who would the hawks want at 4 they couldn't get at 5? Roy? At 5, assuming they don't want another 6'8-6'9 SF, and Joe Johnson is their SG, what they need are centers, legit PFs and a PG. At 4, it is unlikely anyone better will be available. I'm not even sure there is anyone in the draft that would really excite them.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> In mid July Atlanta has a lot of cap room...
> Atlanta trades us the #5 pick plus Childress
> Atlanta receives Randolph to play PF, and another player ????? perhaps Dixon?
> 
> ...


I think this makes more sense than swapping picks. Atlanta needs interior post play and a point guard. Of the top 6 prospects, only one (Aldridge) fits that bill, and Atlanta isnt' goingn to get him unless they can get to 1 or 2. Turn the #5 pick (along with one of the many extra SFs they have) into a local PG prospect (Jack) and a true PF (Zach). That would fill two needs without giving up much. Other than the salary hit from Zach, that would be pure upside for Atlanta.

For Portland, they could have the 4+5, which would likely yield Roy and their favorite SF [Ammo/Bargnani/Thomas/Gay]. The big problem here is that Portland now has no starting-quality PF. If Joel leaves, then the frontcourt looks terrible. I liked this deal when I first saw it, but now I'm not so sure.

1: Telfair, Blake
2: Webster, Roy, Dixon
3: Childress, [draft pick], Khryapa, Outlaw [Miles is gone]
4: Skinner?, Khryapa? [Mihm?, Cook?]
5: Theo, Ha?

I think you'd have to combine this with a trade to move either the 4 or 5 up to the top 1 or 2 to get Aldridge. Bottom line: if the Blazers trade Zach as part of a draft move, they better get Aldridge in return.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Hap, I agree with you...but POR still has their two later picks (#30, #31) and other players (Blake, Dixon, Outlaw, Theo) to potentially move....

I agree with Tince...adding Miles actually benefits POR...moreso than the other deal...which was Jack, #4 and #30 for the #1....

I don't like the deal...but I guess it really depends on who POR is after. I have to believe it is either Morrison, whom has allegedly moved up the charts or Aldridge (will go #1 or #2) or Thomas perhaps....

Nate has mentioned before, wanting to acquire a go-to scorer, Pritchard has said the same. Steve Jones stated the same thing on the last CSMN...

I tend to strongly agree with these assessments...POR needs a #1 scoring option badly, a "franchise\All-Star" caliber player. I know people say that there is no such player in this draft, I am not necessarily convinced that is true...

If Adam Morrison is moving up the charts as rumored, and if he is #1 on POR board as some have speculated, and if POR mgmt feels he is reasonably capable of being that go-to scorer (I think he can be) then I think this is a reasonable deal...I would not be opposed to it, if it got us Morrison.

Can Williams even play anymore?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I cant help but laugh at the fact that Quick thinks he knows of any potential trades etc. etc.

:laugh:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Reep said:


> 1: Telfair, Blake
> 2: Webster, Roy, Dixon
> 3: Childress, [draft pick], Khryapa, Outlaw [Miles is gone]
> 4: Skinner?, Khryapa? [Mihm?, Cook?]
> ...


*

Agreed on the bottom line...

I have always wanted Aldridge, and thought the only hope of getting him is to give up Zach + ?
I think (wishingly) we would not have to give up Jack to get the #5. Zach is just a lot better than any of the top picks already. Giving Atlanta an immediate presence at the PF spot. Their glut of SF's fill right in behind him

If we do get Childress.. I can see us letting go of Outlaw to sweeten the deal. I would prefer to just go the #5 for Zach straight up if possible. send Dixon if need be

PG Telfair, Jack, Blake
SG Webster, Roy?, Dixon?
SF [draft pick= Morrsion or Gay or Bargnani], Khryapa, Outlaw [Miles is gone]
PF: Aldridge, Skinner?, Khryapa? [Mihm?, Cook?]
C: Przybilla, Theo, Ha?

I really think Joel will stay if we get some exciting draft picks. Especially if we get 2 of them*


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Tince said:


> I think whenever you add Miles into a trade, it reduces the value of your package. I think other teams would rather trade for Jack and the #4 than Miles, Jack, and the #4.


Which is why I'm thinking maybe that deal holds some water. Toronto's gonna have some cap space come July 1st. We tell Toronto to draft Aldridge, we draft who ever they want at #4 and then in July when all the numbers roll over we trade them Miles, Jack and #4 for Aldridge.

Not a gret deal but it gets us the guy we want and it gets Miles off the books.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

The main thing involved with all teams who might swap picks is that the players they truly covet will be around for the picks they are swapping. So that being said, Portland making a deal with a team ahead of them is much more likely then making one with a team behind them in the draft. 

As for the trade possibilities, remember people that Jason Quick never announces trades, he always just announces rumors.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> I have always wanted Aldridge, and thought the only hope of getting him is to give up Zach + ?
> I think (wishingly) we would not have to give up Jack to get the #5.


The hurdle I can't overcome is how do we move from 4+5 to 1+[4 or 5]? Atlanta needs a PG worse than they need a PF. I don't see them doing the deal without one of the PGs. But, Toronto also needs a PG, and I would think that would be the ticket to get from 4 or 5 up to 1. Maybe the 30th and 31 picks could get them there too. 

Atlanta trade #5 to TO, receives Zach, Blake + #31 [may have to swap Jack for Blake+31]

Portland trades Zach, Blake and #31 to Atl, [#30 or Outlaw] to TO, receives #1

TO trades #1 to Portland, receives #5 (Roy, Foye, Williams) + [Outlaw or #30]

If you grease the wheels by giving Atlanta Zach and Blake, I think they would take that. Unless Toronto is really in love with Aldridge, I think they would take Outlaw and/or #30 to move down. If the Blazers could obtain #1 and #4 buy giving up some combination of Zach and [Blake, Jack, Outlaw, 30, 31], I think you'd have to feel okay about that. You would have to feel very good about it if they did it with only giving up Zach, Blake, 30 and 31.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

O man, I would love that deal. Take Adam at #1, Andrea at #4. Then trade Miles for Brown...

PG- S.Telfair/J.Jack
SG- M.Webster/J.Dixon
SF- A.Morrison/V.Khryapa
PF- A.Bargnani/B.Skinner
C- K.Brown/T.Ratliff

jesus, that team could be dangerous.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah morrison and bargnani are the go to shooters in the draft which we need I like THatBlazerGuy's idea!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> O man, I would love that deal. Take Adam at #1, Andrea at #4. Then trade Miles for Brown...
> 
> PG- S.Telfair/J.Jack
> SG- M.Webster/J.Dixon
> ...



That team basically replaces Miles with Morrison, Zbo with Bargnani and Priz with Brown. I would expect a similar record to the one we had last year.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Reep said:


> The hurdle I can't overcome is how do we move from 4+5 to 1+[4 or 5]? Atlanta needs a PG worse than they need a PF. I don't see them doing the deal without one of the PGs. But, Toronto also needs a PG, and I would think that would be the ticket to get from 4 or 5 up to 1. Maybe the 30th and 31 picks could get them there too.
> 
> Atlanta trade #5 to TO, receives Zach, Blake + #31 [may have to swap Jack for Blake+31]
> 
> ...



That is the kind of deal that sounds good to me.. giving up Zach, Blake and some picks to get the #1
I woud like to be a bit greedy and keep the #31 pick.
My perfect preference would be to include Dixon instead of Blake.. but :whoknows:

Like the others say.. you then move Miles for a big man (from LA?) and you have some excitement around here

#1, #4, another big man while loosing Miles

but you better get Adam or someone who can score.... loosing both Randolph and Miles from one of the leagues worst scoring teams will hurt big team. Offense will need to be replaced :banghead:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> O man, I would love that deal. Take Adam at #1, Andrea at #4. Then trade Miles for Brown...
> 
> PG- S.Telfair/J.Jack
> SG- M.Webster/J.Dixon
> ...




OR

Aldridge and Bargnani or Morrison

PG- S.Telfair/J.Jack
SG- M.Webster/J.Dixon
SF- A.Morrison or Bargnani/V.Khryapa
PF- Aldridge/B.Skinner
C- K.Brown/T.Ratliff

and maybe even Joel if he stays


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Quick didn't say he had big news ... that's a little overblown on the part of the OP. He just said there are rumors and all. And rumors are just that. What's the saying? Once reporters or the Internet hear about it, the deal's dead.

If it was some officiall announcement about Pritchard becoming GM, the Blazers would issue a press release.

If it was about the team/arena sale, Helen Jung would cover it.

But it's likely neither. Probably just him talking about rumors and that's all. Nothing earth-shattering.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

More fuel for the fire...about a possible Darius Miles trade...

from our favorite source of accurate information :whofarted:

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/b...live_blazersbeat/archives/2006_06.html#149121



> Another hunch - the radar here detects a trade is brewing with Darius Miles. His agent today said he hasn't heard of anything, but it is not uncommon for an agent to be left out of the loop on a trade.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> More fuel for the fire...about a possible Darius Miles trade...
> 
> from our favorite source of accurate information :whofarted:
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/b...live_blazersbeat/archives/2006_06.html#149121


From Hoopsworld...



> A rumor started making it’s way around the camp today, suggesting that Toronto was on the verge of a trade with Portland, in which the number 1 overall pick and Alvin Williams would head to Portland, in exchange for the #4 pick, Jarrett Jack and Darius Miles – a very well placed Raptors source put the water on the deal, saying that yes the Raptors did speak with Portland today (among other teams) but there was nothing even close to this in the works. Several media personalities were re-telling the rumor at the end of the day – prompting a fact check with the well placed Raptors source, who asked not to be quoted, and has a history of being very open and honest about such transactions.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

still way too much to move up 3 notches :nonono:

and I think they did a lot of manuerving last year on draft day to get Jack. I do not see them giving him away so easily. Especially after having a pretty good year his rookie year.

Alvin will be 32 this summer, and did not play ONE game last year. Further adding the word STUPID to this deal. And he has potentially 2 years left on his deal starting in July.... player options

Now make it.... Darius and Blake for Mo Pete and exchange draft picks and I would do it.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

If 'Pritcherson' makes that trade (Miles, Jack, and #4 for Williams and #1), somebody needs to cop a *serious* beat-down over at "One Center Court.".


----------



## RickRoss (May 24, 2006)

CanJohno said:


> If 'Pritcherson' makes that trade (Miles, Jack, and #4 for Williams and #1), somebody needs to cop a *serious* beat-down over at "One Center Court.".


I would make that deal in a second. I would use the number one pick to take Adam Morrison. It's actually a great deal. It clears our jam at pg, making Telfair the starter. It gets rid of our biggest cancer in Miles. Most of all, it lands us Adam Morrison to give us an identity, a top noch scorerk, and go to guy in the clutch. And I like Jack better than Telfair, but we have to choose one eventually, and this gets us the best player in the draft. DRAFT THE STACHE!


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

That trade won't happen.

Also, Quick did keep saying "just a hunch" a couple times in his Orlando report, so take whatever he says with a grain of salt (duh).


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

If we could sub Jack in for Blake and even throw in Outlaw, I'd do it. I just really really really don't want to get rid of Jarret yet.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Does anyone really think Toronto or Chicago are going to take Morrison with the 1st or 2nd picks? That leaves the Bobcats who already have Wallace playing SF the only team that might take him. Considering they seem to like Wallace a lot, and neither him or Morrison could play SG, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the Bobcats to select him. 

I'd trade Miles and #4 for Williams and the #1, but I'm still not sure Telfair will be a better PG than Jack five years from now.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

soonerterp said:


> Lakers deal ... um ...
> 
> Even if it does get rid of Miles, I don't like the idea of *helping* the Lakers. They don't need help (outside of Kobe taking pills that would make him tolerable).


Miles would surely help them alright.

Help them back into the lottery next year.

Who do we get?

I'll take Brian Cook and Aaron McKie.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> Miles-obviously a phenomenal talent, but at what cost? He has hurt relationships with teammates, coaches and most importantly fans. He cannot come back.


What??? Have I missed something? Can Miles shoot the turnaround jumper? NO. Is Miles a good free-throw shooter? NO. Is Miles a great ball handler? NO. Is he a great defender? NO. Does he average league leading turnovers? YES. Does he give consistent effort? NO. Can he dunk? YES. Can he occationally make an outside jumper? YES. Can he occationally block shoots? YES. I am seeing a average to below average player. Just because someone can dunk and make an occational jumpshot does not indicate phenomenal talent. I would do any of these trades ASAP!

Sorry, just my $.02.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Miles on the Lakers would be awesome


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

CanJohno said:


> If 'Pritcherson' makes that trade (Miles, Jack, and #4 for Williams and #1), somebody needs to cop a *serious* beat-down over at "One Center Court.".


Pritcherson just doesn't have enough zip to it. I like the sound of "Patterpritch" better.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I like Jack a lot, but one thing I have noticed is that this draft is relatively strong at the PG position....

I think POR could pick up a PG with #30/#31 and there are some intriguing players to be had around those picks


I think if POR does trade up it is to get Morrison...


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

well it was rumored that the raps would look to move down and pick up a decent piece along the way and that most teams wouldnt risk picking bargnani as he only wants to play with the raps and would likely stay overseas if picked by anyone else. basically they get their pick they'd take at #1 regardless at #4 and pick up a pg with a lot of potential.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

that i will only play for the raptors was bs


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

RickRoss said:


> I would make that deal in a second. I would use the number one pick to take Adam Morrison. It's actually a great deal. It clears our jam at pg, making Telfair the starter. It gets rid of our biggest cancer in Miles. Most of all, it lands us Adam Morrison to give us an identity, a top noch scorerk, and go to guy in the clutch. And I like Jack better than Telfair, but we have to choose one eventually, and this gets us the best player in the draft. DRAFT THE STACHE!


Morrison might fall to #4 without having to give up Jack. There is no logjam at PG. We just have three capable players there. I'd rather not trade up to get the #1 pick - unless Blake or Outlaw are the pawn instead of Jack, otherwise the price is too high.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

So the big news is that Patterson talked to the Raptors and (IIRC) he joined Pritchard and talked to the Bulls. Big deal.

Quick is really grasping for anything these days.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

:rotf: 

WOW!!! Quick has a 'hunch' that the current top 4 drafting order may change before/at the draft? And he also has a 'hunch' that the Blazers may be trying to trade Miles? O RLY?!! (sorry, couldn't resist.) 

This guy must really be connected. So, Patterson is busy talking business with other NBA business executives? That IS a teaser!! I can't wait for the 'teasing' to be over and I can tune into his show (not!).

:rotf:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i agree with RH&R about jack being too high of a price but outlaw or blake would be do able but i would like to keep the 4th pick


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

OK, I'll give Quick a break. I appreciated his update (just not his lame attempt at insider sensationalism/marketing his show).



> Pritchard also said this figures to be the craziest draft ever, because nobody knows who will go where, and what teams are falling in love with what players. *For that reason, the sting of slipping from a possible No. 1 to their current slot of No. 4 has been lessened.* Still, from what happened here today, it appears the Blazers are at least interested in moving up in the draft.


Huh? This quote I don't get. It seems to me that, if you want a certain player, and you have no idea who wants what player where (ahead of you), so you have no idea if your player will be available to you when you pick, it would sting MORE that you lost out on the opportunity (the no. 1 pick) to be certain to get your player. The only time it wouldn't "sting" to lose out on that certainty/opportunity, is if you just don't care who you get. Which seems unlikely. And what would really "sting" is to have to give up additional assets in order to move back up in the draft (which he said the Blazers might like to do) to have that certainty of getting your guy, when, with the first pick, you'd already have had that.

:whoknows:


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Please make these Darius Miles rumors come true... Let him go to the Lakers, who cares. He'd probably be more interested in making really bad movies. Why would anyone believe Miles would make the Lakers better? I think he's shown here that he might sparkle you at first, and at times, but most of the time, he's just a lazy player who can't hit a jump shot or a free throw.



Blazer Bert said:


> :rotf:
> 
> WOW!!! Quick has a 'hunch' that the current top 4 drafting order may change before/at the draft? And he also has a 'hunch' that the Blazers may be trying to trade Miles? O RLY?!! (sorry, couldn't resist.)
> 
> ...


I'm sure if this was someone else other than Quick reporting this, it wouldn't be received like this.
Love him or hate him, it's better than the alternative, which is.... nothing.
At the least, it's showing that Patterson is looking to do a trade or SOMETHING, and hopefully it's to improve the team, and not just get rid of bad contracts to make the team more attractive to whoever's buying the team.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

wastro said:


> So the big news is that Patterson talked to the Raptors and (IIRC) he joined Pritchard and talked to the Bulls. Big deal.
> 
> Quick is really grasping for anything these days.


Come on. Didn't you read the article? I mean, Colangelo rubbed his hands over his face, Patterson rubbed his hands through his hair, and Paxson may have mouthed the word "Roy" (or "boy" or "Morrison's a lock for ROY").

Scintilating. :angel:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

alext42083 said:


> I'm sure if this was someone else other than Quick reporting this, it wouldn't be received like this.


To quote the infamous Bugs Bunny; Hmmm.....could be!  

Seriously, the manner in which the blatantly obvious 'teaser' was written was off-putting to me, no matter who wrote it. But you are correct in your estimation that there are only a couple of writers who would have elicited a similar post from me. My animosity for him was cultivated by his body of lousy and biased work covering my favorite team over several years time. It's not likely to go away now (or ever). 

:cheers: 

BTW: I also appreciate that there is someone attending the camp and reporting back their observations, even if it is Quick. I liked the rest of his blog.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> i agree with RH&R about jack being too high of a price but outlaw or blake would be do able but i would like to keep the 4th pick


 I like it too. A big part of why I like it is because with 12 guaranteed contracts, the Blazers have to make some kind of 2 for 1 deal.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> Huh? This quote I don't get. It seems to me that, if you want a certain player, and you have no idea who wants what player where (ahead of you), so you have no idea if your player will be available to you when you pick, it would sting MORE that you lost out on the opportunity (the no. 1 pick) to be certain to get your player. The only time it wouldn't "sting" to lose out on that certainty/opportunity, is if you just don't care who you get. Which seems unlikely. And what would really "sting" is to have to give up additional assets in order to move back up in the draft (which he said the Blazers might like to do) to have that certainty of getting your guy, when, with the first pick, you'd already have had that.
> 
> :whoknows:


I think what takes the sting out is that even the experts don't know who is really going to blossom out of this draft class. So if the Blazers really want say Morrison, but Morrison is picked before the Blazers pick, the Blazers second (or third or fourth) choice might have just as good of a chance of blossoming as their first choice. 

In other words, this draft there isn't a stand out player or two and the best player in the draft really could be picked anywhere from 1-6 because no one knows who is going to be that impact player. I joked about it before but the best player may fall into the Blazers lap.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I think what takes the sting out is that even the experts don't know who is really going to blossom out of this draft class. So if the Blazers really want say Morrison, but Morrison is picked before the Blazers pick, the Blazers second (or third or fourth) choice might have just as good of a chance of blossoming as their first choice.
> 
> In other words, this draft there isn't a stand out player or two and the best player in the draft really could be picked anywhere from 1-6 because no one knows who is going to be that impact player. I joked about it before but the best player may fall into the Blazers lap.


This makes sense. And I agree, we may have just as good a chance at the best player at no. 4 as at no. 1. I certainly hope so.

Skoal, brother!

:cheers:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> This makes sense. And I agree, we may have just as good a chance at the best player at no. 4 as at no. 1. I certainly hope so.
> 
> Skoal, brother!
> 
> :cheers:


I too am inclined to agree, at this early stage.

I am against trading up.

I want the Blazers to make their draft board. I want the Blazers to sit back on draft day and pick the highest player on their board that is left.

I think it likely that the Blazers will be selecting their 2nd choice, even though they have the 4th pick this year.

I am content for the Blazers to get their 2nd favorite prospect, or even 3rd.

If by some stroke of bad luck, they end up with their 4th favorite prospect, THEN they can make some offers in trade.

Who says you have to trade up before the draft?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I'm actually for the Blazers trading up. I think that the workouts will lead them to one or two players that are clearly better than the others. Throwing in some young talent (Outlaw, etc.) would be a small price to pay to get one really solid player. I'm also very concerned that the best players this year may be (in no particular order) Morrison, Aldridge, Bargnani. If that is true, the the fourth pick sucks. Now, if Thomas or Gay burn it up in workouts, then the fourth pick would be fine.


----------



## BlazeTop (Jan 22, 2004)

Tince said:


> Does anyone really think Toronto or Chicago are going to take Morrison with the 1st or 2nd picks? That leaves the Bobcats who already have Wallace playing SF the only team that might take him. Considering they seem to like Wallace a lot, and neither him or Morrison could play SG, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the Bobcats to select him.
> 
> I'd trade Miles and #4 for Williams and the #1, but I'm still not sure Telfair will be a better PG than Jack five years from now.


Chicago taking Morrison? No, They have some solid players already in Deng and Nocioni.
Toronto taking Morrison? Maybe, They do have Morris Peterson, but he is not nearly as big of a building block as Chicago's SFs. Joey Graham along with Villanueva and Bosh appear to be their "core". Graham has appeared to be their preimere option to play the 2, even though he could play the 3. Peterson is going to be 29 going into this season, that and the fact that he is an expiring contract makes me think he is very expendable. I can see them easily drafting Morrison and letting him use his high level of competitiveness to battle with Mo' P for minutes. Or the fact that at around 5 million dollars of an expiring contract, Toronto could pretty easily move him.


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

Anybody else picture Quick crawling around in the bushes, following Patterson around, and working on his 'spy' skills after reading his article today? It's pretty obvious he's observing from a distance, and trying to interpret everything he sees into something meaningful. I mean:



Quick said:


> The two talked for 43 minutes. At one point, Colangelo, in a purple-and-white striped shirt, rubbed both hands over his face. Later, Patterson, wearing a blue Hawaiian shirt, ran both hands through his hair. There was also laughter on the part of Colangelo, and hand gestures from Patterson.


WTF?



Quick said:


> During the conversation, Paxson was the most demonstrative, several times holding out his hand and counting down his fingers. At least one time during this process, Paxson could be seen mouthing the word, "Roy," presumably Washington guard Brandon Roy, who is expected to be a top-five pick.


I can just picture this clown sitting on the in the upper level of the arena, across from this discussion, watching with binoculars. Must have left the parabolic microphone in his hotel room.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Thanks for the laugh, J_Bird. 

"Secret Agent Cody Quick: Outside Looking In." Tonight, on the Disney Channel.

If he were smart, he would have hired a lip reader (Seinfeld, anyone?).

:clown:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

J_Bird said:


> Anybody else picture Quick crawling around in the bushes, following Patterson around, and working on his 'spy' skills after reading his article today? It's pretty obvious he's observing from a distance, and trying to interpret everything he sees into something meaningful. I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quick tried the normal approach of asking Patterson questions, but Patterson was "quick" to remind Jason that all questions needed to be faxed back to Blazer headquarters and approved by the PR department . . . which is on vacation during the offseason. :biggrin:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Masbee said:


> I too am inclined to agree, at this early stage.
> 
> I am against trading up.
> 
> ...


I agree with this 100%.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Who says you have to trade up before the draft?


Sometimes the other team does. 'Make this trade or we make a similar trade with somebody else.'

The GMs know what everyone's board looks like and what players a team is likely to pick. If it looks like the guy we want is likely to be gone and it's worth it to move up, we should do that whenever the deal is as good as it's going to get.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

That is why predicting the draft over the years has been an exact science :rofl:


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

I cannot seem to download the realplayer. What is being said?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> I cannot seem to download the realplayer. What is being said?


I started another thread for people to post details of Quick's chat into (easier than trying to dig through this multi-page thread).

PBF


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

The thing I found most interesting from that article was the quote from Pritchard saying we're looking at seven players with the 4th pick. The six we keep talking about as contender for the top pick are obvious, but who is the 7th player?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

gambitnut said:


> The thing I found most interesting from that article was the quote from Pritchard saying we're looking at seven players with the 4th pick. The six we keep talking about as contender for the top pick are obvious, but who is the 7th player?


Patrick O'Bryant, I would bet.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Fork said:


> Patrick O'Bryant, I would bet.


Being the only center in the draft I bet he's on everyone's list. He's probably at the end of the list, but he's still on it. I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone decides to make a grab for him as high as 5 ala Rafael Araujo back in 2004.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

gambitnut said:


> The thing I found most interesting from that article was the quote from Pritchard saying we're looking at seven players with the 4th pick. The six we keep talking about as contender for the top pick are obvious, but who is the 7th player?


Foye. They are bringing him in on the 15th as well. Aldridge, Bargnani, Ammo, Gay, Roy, Thomas, Foye. All except Bargnani (at this time) are working out for Portland.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ebott said:


> Being the only center in the draft I bet he's on everyone's list. He's probably at the end of the list, but he's still on it. I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone decides to make a grab for him as high as 5 ala Rafael Araujo back in 2004.


Man, I hope we don't take him. The odds of successfully drafting a quality center in the first round that's not the consensus #1 or #2 pick are pretty remote. 

If you throw out Shaq, Duncan, Yao and Mourning (#1 or #2 picks) what good centers are there? Przybilla, Ben Wallace, Kamen, Miller. Wallace and Miller are probably the only ones worth the pick at #4 (and neither were even drafted in the first round). 

How many centers have been drafted in the top 10 in the past five years? 

History seems to show that the surest way to waste a top 10 draft pick is to squander it on a guy you think will be an NBA center.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

theWanker said:


> Man, I hope we don't take him. The odds of successfully drafting a quality center in the first round that's not the consensus #1 or #2 pick are pretty remote.
> 
> If you throw out Shaq, Duncan, Yao and Mourning (#1 or #2 picks) what good centers are there? Przybilla, Ben Wallace, Kamen, Miller. Wallace and Miller are probably the only ones worth the pick at #4 (and neither were even drafted in the first round).
> 
> ...


Those players might not be stars, but they're pretty solid. They might not be worth the #4 to most people, but that is because most people want to take a chance on star potential with the #4 and those players were older, more experieced and we knew what to expect from them. That isn't the case with O'Bryant. When was the last time a center was taken 3-10 based soley on potential?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

exactly.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

theWanker said:


> How many centers have been drafted in the top 10 in the past five years?
> .


Darko Milicic F/C
Chris Bosh F/c
Chris Kaman 
Yao Ming
Emeka Okafor F/c
Rafael Araujo
Andrew Bogut
Channing Frye
Andrew Bynum


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

crandc said:


> Darko Milicic F/C
> Chris Bosh F/c
> Chris Kaman
> Yao Ming
> ...


Okay, I guess Bynum is the answer to my question, but he hasn't been in the league long enough to know if he was worth the pick. Who was the last player picked soley on potential who has been in the league long enough to form an opinion on?


----------

