# Reminder: Courtside on now (955thegame.com)



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Rice drops a bomb to start off the show. Says there are strong rumors of Portland looking to move up for either Augustin, Westbrook, or Alexander. Milwaukee is interested as well, and Minny is apparently okay with moving down. 

Rice says it might take Outlaw + #13 from Portland for #3, and Milwaukee might offer #8 + Yi or Charlie V. for #3.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

#3 would be waaaay too high for any of those guys. Rather take Mayo and try to trade him if that's the case.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> #3 would be waaaay too high for any of those guys. Rather take Mayo and try to trade him if that's the case.


True, but if we had #3, that means you got every team fighting to get that pick to draft Mayo or someone else they want. If all it took was Travis and #13 for 3, you take that in a heartbeat, cuz you can turn that into around the 5-8 picks and another player or future pick. KP knows what he's doing.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> #3 would be waaaay too high for any of those guys. Rather take Mayo and try to trade him if that's the case.


I still think whoever gets #3 has the keys to Beasley. Miami seems to want Mayo, but thinks Beasley should go at #2. Whoever gets to #3 can short circuit any other deals with Miami. 

I wonder if any team has ever had the top three rookie of the year candidates on the same team.

:yay:


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> True, but if we had #3, that means you got every team fighting to get that pick to draft Mayo or someone else they want. If all it took was Travis and #13 for 3, you take that in a heartbeat, cuz you can turn that into around the 5-8 picks and another player or future pick. KP knows what he's doing.


If we can get the #3 for Travis and the #13, would you trade it down for Westbrook or Augistine? I'm not so sure. I'd either try to make a deal with Miami for the #2 pick or I'd try to move it for a veteran.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Yeah, it's been rumored that the Bucks want to move up to 3 for Mayo, not those guys. Though they do like Alexander at #8.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Frye says he's working on his three-point game.. I think he should work on trying to establish a semblence of a low-post game first before venturing off to be a 6-10 point guard.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Frye also is selling how you need to get five guys on the court who can score. Trying to take some of Joel's time?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

NateBishop3 said:


> If we can get the #3 for Travis and the #13, would you trade it down for Westbrook or Augistine? I'm not so sure. I'd either try to make a deal with Miami for the #2 pick or I'd try to move it for a veteran.


Yeah, I mean just getting that #3 would give us so many options, and there isn't anything scarier to the rest of the NBA than KP with options..


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It's fun because of KP and his craziness though. It just let's your mind go wild with the possibilities.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well the Blazers are having a draft party. I will probably go. Does it make sense they would have a draft party and trade out of the draft? I think not. :azdaja:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

please do not trade Travis though..even if it's good value..just like the kid too much.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Well the Blazers are having a draft party. I will probably go. Does it make sense they would have a draft party and trade out of the draft? I think not. :azdaja:


Except if their is a trade (out of the draft) it would likely happen on draft day, so there would still be something to watch and talk about.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Reep said:


> Except if their is a trade (out of the draft) it would likely happen on draft day, so there would still be something to watch and talk about.


And another shameless excuse to drink beer!


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> please do not trade Travis though..even if it's good value..just like the kid too much.


Love Travis, too, but I don't think KP considers him an untouchable. At the right price, I can see Outlaw gone if it's a player that we really want.

Outside of Aldridge, Oden and Roy, I'd be glued to the TV or my phone if I were one of the Blazers. Who knows what KP is doing to do??


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

hasoos said:


> And another shameless excuse to drink beer!


It's called an alarm clock :wink:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think Pritchard has to do something to clear out the roster...with adding Rudy & Oden, there are just aren't the minutes to go around to keep everyone happy...

I know Pritchard today said that POR isn't a playoff team yet, so having enough minutes for everyone shouldn't be an issue at this point...and that he wants to see how each player fits with Oden...both valid points...but then he says that this is a good group of guys and that chemistry is good...which again is a very good thing, but if he really thinks that chemistry will remain good when guys like Sergio...who was unhappy with his role last year...Jack...who was unhappy with his lack of minutes last year...and Frye, Webster & Outlaw...one or more of whom will lose significant minutes to Rudy...will all just be happy to be on the team, then he is not thinking clearly...

Even with the best character guys and good chemistry...things like playing time can cause things to go south quickly, and it will effect players trade values as well IMO....

There just is not enough minutes to go around...a few players need to go....

As for trading Outlaw & #13 for #3...I don't have a problem with that trade at all...but I don't think POR would trade all the way up to #3....trading Outlaw in the process...only to draft Westbrook or Alexander...or to then turn around and trade down a few spots from #3....I think if they get to #3...It will be to get Beasley....Who this ENTIRE year was the consensus #1 player by far, and now with 7 days to go to the draft may end up going #3...or going #2 to be traded with another team farther down in the lottery(most likely)....

It would be a brilliant move by Pritchard IMO....to basically use Outlaw and our picks to essentially nab the best player in the draft....brilliant...and bold...

and yes, I think Beasley is more than capable of playing SF...in fact I think he would provide a ruggedness to offset Aldridge's softness...I think the two would compliment each other nicely...


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I might just piss my pants if Pritchard pulls off acquiring the 3rd pick for a bench player in Outlaw and our pick. I'll eat Jaric's salary just to see Lima in the stands.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Travis is already better than this draft, which is nothing special at all.

Let's keep things in perspective. Some years just don't have the super talents that others have.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

How did Marko Jaric score Adriana Lima, again? Did I miss something?


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> Travis is already better than this draft, which is nothing special at all.
> 
> Let's keep things in perspective. Some years just don't have the super talents that others have.


Exactly. I do trust Pritchard, but this draft has basically two sure bets. And only one really excites me. (Rose)I still don't think Beasley fits with Oden and L.A. But it will be fun none the less.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Kmurph said:


> I think Pritchard has to do something to clear out the roster...with adding Rudy & Oden, there are just aren't the minutes to go around to keep everyone happy...
> 
> I know Pritchard today said that POR isn't a playoff team yet, so having enough minutes for everyone shouldn't be an issue at this point...and that he wants to see how each player fits with Oden...both valid points...but then he says that this is a good group of guys and that chemistry is good...which again is a very good thing, but if he really thinks that chemistry will remain good when guys like Sergio...who was unhappy with his role last year...Jack...who was unhappy with his lack of minutes last year...and Frye, Webster & Outlaw...one or more of whom will lose significant minutes to Rudy...will all just be happy to be on the team, then he is not thinking clearly...
> 
> ...


I was trying to think of a how to start a thread dedicated to this very topic ... all that precious "chemistry" could end up a smoldering slag heap if we somehow end up with the horde of point guards we're going to have if we don't start clearing room ... I think it's time to seriously consider moving Sergio along with Jack, especially if Petteri is as deserving as Mike Barret seems to think.



> As for trading Outlaw & #13 for #3...I don't have a problem with that trade at all...but I don't think POR would trade all the way up to #3....trading Outlaw in the process...only to draft Westbrook or Alexander...or to then turn around and trade down a few spots from #3....I think if they get to #3...It will be to get Beasley....Who this ENTIRE year was the consensus #1 player by far, and now with 7 days to go to the draft may end up going #3...or going #2 to be traded with another team farther down in the lottery(most likely)....
> 
> It would be a brilliant move by Pritchard IMO....to basically use Outlaw and our picks to essentially nab the best player in the draft....brilliant...and bold...
> 
> and yes, I think Beasley is more than capable of playing SF...in fact I think he would provide a ruggedness to offset Aldridge's softness...I think the two would compliment each other nicely...


I just can't envision any scenario where A) any team would be willing to trade away Beasley for our 13th and Travis, and B) KP thinking that he'd actually be a good fit personality-wise with this team.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Travis is already better than this draft, which is nothing special at all.


This draft is MUCH better than last year's when the drop off from the top two slots was incredible. 

If you wouldn't trade TO for any of the players in the 1-7 slots, you are projecting some serious hopes on Outlaw that I just don't see. Outlaw's production is almost identical to other bench players like John Salmons. He has no handle, is a subpar defender and is pretty much a jump shooter off the bench. I know fans develop connections with players on the roster, but the TO love here can border on the ridiculous at times.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

craigehlo said:


> This draft is MUCH better than last year's when the drop off from the top two slots was incredible.
> 
> If you wouldn't trade TO for any of the players in the 1-7 slots, you are projecting some serious hopes on Outlaw that I just don't see. Outlaw's production is almost identical to other bench players like John Salmons. He has no handle, is a subpar defender and is pretty much a jump shooter off the bench. I know fans develop connections with players on the roster, but the TO love here can border on the ridiculous at times.



Is it love for Outlaw or suspicion for the unproven players in the draft? There seems to be a lot of tweeners this year.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> This draft is MUCH better than last year's when the drop off from the top two slots was incredible.
> 
> If you wouldn't trade TO for any of the players in the 1-7 slots, you are projecting some serious hopes on Outlaw that I just don't see. Outlaw's production is almost identical to other bench players like John Salmons. He has no handle, is a subpar defender and is pretty much a jump shooter off the bench. I know fans develop connections with players on the roster, but the TO love here can border on the ridiculous at times.


Thanks for bringing some homers back to earth. Many seem to think Outlaw is a starter in the league, but he isn't.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> This draft is MUCH better than last year's when the drop off from the top two slots was incredible.
> 
> If you wouldn't trade TO for any of the players in the 1-7 slots, you are projecting some serious hopes on Outlaw that I just don't see. *Outlaw's production is almost identical to other bench players like John Salmons.* He has no handle, is a subpar defender and is pretty much a jump shooter off the bench. I know fans develop connections with players on the roster, but the TO love here can border on the ridiculous at times.


if you're going to try to act like you're giving an impartial critique of Travis, why not mention his top skills? Project his minutes out to starter minutes, and he's averaging real close to a block and a steal a game. Only 11 guys did that last year. Most of these 11 are on the NBA-All D teams. I could list them if you like, but basically I'd beg to differ that he's a subpar defender... he's OK and showing some potential. Nate had him guarding everyone from Kobe & Mello to 5s... you don't put someone on Kobe if you're trying to hide a weak defender.

His other best attribute that you forgot to mention is the ability to get his shot off on most anyone even when they know it's coming. This is no minor skill. He has enough of a handle to make that happen. Believe me I know it's not great but it's not non-existent as you claim. 

Like Travis, John Salmons had a pretty good year in Sacremento. Also like Travis it was the best of his career. But dude is having his best year when he's 28, and Travis was 23. Who's more likely to continue their upward trend? And don't overlook he's a full size smaller then TO. Other then that, spot on comparison.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> if you're going to try to act like you're giving an impartial critique of Travis, why not mention his top skills? Project his minutes out to starter minutes, and he's averaging real close to a block and a steal a game. Only 11 guys did that last year. Most of these 11 are on the NBA-All D teams. I could list them if you like, but basically I'd beg to differ that he's a subpar defender... he's OK and showing some potential. Nate had him guarding everyone from Kobe & Mello to 5s... you don't put someone on Kobe if you're trying to hide a weak defender.
> 
> His other best attribute that you forgot to mention is the ability to get his shot off on most anyone even when they know it's coming. This is no minor skill. He has enough of a handle to make that happen. Believe me I know it's not great but it's not non-existent as you claim.
> 
> ...


No doubt that Travis is a better prospect, I don't think that's a debate. I for one am growing a bit tired to hear people saying they wouldn't give Outlaw to get Beasley or another excellent prospect. I understand he is a good kid but the goal is to upgrade talent, and if it takes trading Travis to get a top college prospect, you do it.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Travis has a fire lit underneath him..he wants greatness..i wouldn't deal him..JO all over again
just deal rudy and 13 for 3..what makes rudy so untouchable?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I love Travis but his situation is nothing like Jermaine O'Neal. Travis has had ample minutes to prove what kind of player he is and while it turns out that the player he is is pretty good, he probably doesn't have a lot of major improvement left in the tank (regardless of what Mike Barret, or Jason Quick think). JO was given almost no minutes during his stay in P-town and it was only when he was moved that he blossomed very quickly and became a fantastic player.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> Travis has a fire lit underneath him..he wants greatness..i wouldn't deal him..JO all over again
> just deal rudy and 13 for 3..what makes rudy so untouchable?


Horrible comparison. First saying Jack is better for this team than Blake, and now Travis = JO?


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> Travis has a fire lit underneath him..he wants greatness..i wouldn't deal him..JO all over again
> just deal rudy and 13 for 3..what makes rudy so untouchable?


He wants greatness? His breakout year only got him 13.3 ppg and 4.6 rebounds. He couldn't even take the starting sport away from Jones and Martell during the regular season. TO's an entertaining player, but I question his basketball IQ and I can't understate how lost he continues to be on defense. He's still a liability on that end of the floor. 

As for the Jermaine comparisons, JO was only given 12 minutes per game the year before the was traded. TO averaged 26:41 minutes this season and posted modest stats.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Man, I'd hate to see Travis go, but if we can score the #3 pick for Travis and the #13th, that sounds like a sweet deal to me. 

But the point is probably moot, as I don't think Minnesota chooses our deal if the Buck's 8th and Yi/Villanueva are being offered.

With the 3rd pick, if by some miracle we do get it, I think we should choose best player available, whether that be Beasley or Mayo.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Outlaw's asthma problems don't help either. I think he's excellent trade bait, depending of course on who we get in return.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

you guys are insane if you really think Outlaw and 13 for 3 isnt worth it. Outlaw is awesome don't get me wrong, but Mayo is going to be a cold hearted killer in this league.

Screw what KP said about not like Mayo, he says smokescreens all the time. Mayo with Oden, Roy, and LMA = an extremely unfair squad.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> He wants greatness? His breakout year only got him 13.3 ppg and 4.6 rebounds. He couldn't even take the starting sport away from Jones and Martell during the regular season. TO's an entertaining player, but I question his basketball IQ and I can't understate how lost he continues to be on defense. He's still a liability on that end of the floor.


BINGO!


----------



## PDXshelbyGT (May 24, 2007)

Darkwebs said:


> Man, I'd hate to see Travis go, but if we can score the #3 pick for Travis and the #13th, that sounds like a sweet deal to me.
> 
> But the point is probably moot, as I don't think Minnesota chooses our deal if the Buck's 8th and Yi/Villanueva are being offered.
> 
> With the 3rd pick, if by some miracle we do get it, I think we should choose best player available, whether that be Beasley or Mayo.




Shoot, then let's just trade with the Bucks:

Travis + #13 + Raef's expirng 

for

#8 (Westbrook) + Villanueva


Then move Jack + 2nd rounders to move back into the 1st round and select best available big man (banger or center)



Westbrook + Blake + Sergio + Koponen
Roy + Rudy
Villanueva + Webster
Aldridge + Frye + McBob
Oden + Pryz + Best Available Big


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Bucks want to move up, not down.


----------



## PDXshelbyGT (May 24, 2007)

Dissonance19 said:


> Bucks want to move up, not down.




Well, we could include Jack along with Travis + #13 + Raef's expiring 

for


Villanueva + #8 (Westbrook)



The Bucks, while initially wanting to move up, get Outlaw + Jack and move down only 5 spots - while also getting huge cap relief in Raef.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Sambonius said:


> No doubt that Travis is a better prospect, I don't think that's a debate. I for one am growing a bit tired to hear people saying they wouldn't give Outlaw to get Beasley or another excellent prospect. I understand he is a good kid but the goal is to upgrade talent, and if it takes trading Travis to get a top college prospect, you do it.


I think people are saying they would trade Travis and #13 for Rose or Beasely but it's the OTHER PROSPECTS that people are a little leery about. Every year we get all excited about the Morrison's and Bargnani's, and the Corey Freakin Brewers, that it's laughable. Now I admit that I am intrigued by Bayless and Westbrook, but even they are not necessarily a no-brainer. Use our assets to trade for the best possible scenario. But a prospect does not do it for me.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

chairman said:


> I think people are saying they would trade Travis and #13 for Rose or Beasely but it's the OTHER PROSPECTS that people are a little leery about. Every year we get all excited about the Morrison's and Bargnani's, and the Corey Freakin Brewers, that it's laughable. Now I admit that I am intrigued by Bayless and Westbrook, but even they are not necessarily a no-brainer. Use our assets to trade for the best possible scenario. But a prospect does not do it for me.


Players I would trade TO and 13 for: Rose, Beasley, Mayo, Bayless, Westbrook, and maybe DJ. While I really like Travis, if trading him is needed for us to upgrade talent at PG, or SF then we need to do it. I think something a lot of you forget is that in order to get talent you do have to trade some, I mean honestly these trade offers that many people post are so lopsided in our favor thats it's not even funny. 

I know its hard to trade Travis because we have invested a lot of time in him and have seen him develop, but an athletic 3 is much easier to find then guards like Bayless, Westbrook and DJ.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> No doubt that Travis is a better prospect, I don't think that's a debate. I for one am growing a bit tired to hear people saying they wouldn't give Outlaw to get Beasley or another excellent prospect. I understand he is a good kid but the goal is to upgrade talent, and if it takes trading Travis to get a top college prospect, you do it.


I'm open to trading most anyone including Travis... in fact I've included him in many hypotheticals I've thrown out. Unfortunately it seems that when posters are for trading a current player they've little good to say about them. Comparing TO to Salmons is case in point. Travis isn't highly valued just because he's a pretty decent player right now, it's because he's 23 and rapidly improving by finally tapping into his eyepopping athleticism.

But #13 + TO for #3 (Mayo or Beasley)??? That sounds like a complete fleecing. Yes please!

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I am completely astounded by the homerism on this board right now. Any time you have a chance to trade run of the mill players for star caliber players, you pull the trigger as long as they will fit in.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

STOMP said:


> I'm open to trading most anyone including Travis... in fact I've included him in many hypotheticals I've thrown out. Unfortunately it seems that when posters are for trading a current player they've little good to say about them. Comparing TO to Salmons is case in point. Travis isn't highly valued just because he's a pretty decent player right now, it's because he's 23 and rapidly improving by finally tapping into his eyepopping athleticism.
> 
> *But #13 + TO for #3 (Mayo or Beasley)??? That sounds like a complete fleecing. Yes please!*
> STOMP


But it won't be that simple. Travis makes $4 mil per year. Draft picks have zero value in trades. That means we have to also take salary back from the team that we send Travis to. I am sure if we are trying to get the third pick from Minny they will be sending us Jarics anchor of a contract. Then we may have to add another player to match up with Jarics money.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> But it won't be that simple. Travis makes $4 mil per year. Draft picks have zero value in trades. That means we have to also take salary back from the team that we send Travis to. I am sure if we are trying to get the third pick from Minny they will be sending us Jarics anchor of a contract. Then we may have to add another player to match up with Jarics money.


understood, I was just listing the principles of the deal as obviously the numbers don't match up as is. To acquire Mayo or Beasley I'd be very willing to take back Jaric. 

If I can add Beasley I'd be willing to go with Travis/Webster + Frye + #13 for #3 + Jaric

If it's Mayo who's to be available I'd probably want to hold on to TO, so it's Webster + Frye + #13 for #3 + Jaric

I think Frye's high post game would be a solid pairing next to Al Jefferson and either Webster or Outlaw would start at SF for them as well. I probably see them wanting Webster more then Travis anyway as I think he's a better fit with Brewer.

STOMP


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> just deal rudy and 13 for 3..what makes rudy so untouchable?


Because we just spent nearly a month trying to convince the guy to come here, and promised him and his family a spot on the squad.
You don't just trade him before he steps one foot into Portland after all that recruitment. That'd just be the most lame thing you could do.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> But #13 + TO for #3 (Mayo or Beasley)??? That sounds like a complete fleecing. Yes please!


Yeah, that is what I thought as well...but it was posted elsewhere...

My thought on a trade with MIN would be along the lines of

Raef, Outlaw (or Webster), Sergio (or Jack or Koponen) & #13
for
Jaric, Walker & #3

This way your giving them 2 young prospects to move down 10 spots and still get another good young prospect and them also giving them an expiring contract and taking the 3/4? year deals of Jaric & Walker off their hands, so they can get active in free agency much more quickly than they would be able to otherwise....


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

alext42083 said:


> Because we just spent nearly a month trying to convince the guy to come here, and promised him and his family a spot on the squad.
> You don't just trade him before he steps one foot into Portland after all that recruitment. That'd just be the most lame thing you could do.


Not to mention that his rights aren't worth anything... until after he signs.


----------



## Rob Allen (Oct 29, 2003)

The radio station's web address always looks to me like "955th e-game", and I start wondering who won the first 954 e-games.


----------

