# Gasol offered for Aldridge and Rodriguez?



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Originally posted by Legohat in the Bulls forum:


> Peter Vecsey wrote today in the New York Post that Jerry West has tried to make a deal with the Blazers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel the opposite. If I'm a Blazers fan, I'd be all over that. Gasol and Randolph would be a heck of a frontcourt.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> If I were the Blazers I'd be on that like white on rice. C'mon, Aldridge has done nothing, Magloire is going to be traded anyway and Rodriguez is nothing.


sergio is the best player in that trade.....take him out and id do the deal....aldridge does`nt impress me.....throw in a 2nd round pick instead of rodriguez


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

I think that is a terrible deal for Portland. I think they would be giving up way to much for Gasol, who in my opinion is not even as good as Zach. 

The Blazers need to stay with their young players until they determine the direction that they are going and then trade for the pieces to make it work. Sergio and LaMarcus are definitely two of the young players to build a team around.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I wouldn't lose either of them for Gasol, not even in a 1 for 1.

He's a flopping whiner who's on the decline and he'd never fit here.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thats the kind of trade you do when you're on the cusp of the a deep run and can afford to do it. The Blazers aren't, and would be stupid to trade Aldridge and Sergio (let alone, Aldridge alone) for Gasol.

Thats not to say Aldridge is better than Gasol, but that you're giving up two very promising rookies for someone who isn't worth it.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

Alridge and mags contracts are enough to get gasol financially,so why ask for the rookie pg instead of picks etc ??? jerry west is not stupid he see`s sergio`s skills,his team are running an up tempo offense and he smells a steal.

Memphis look locked for a top 3 pick in the draft,by doing this deal he`s getting younger and faster at PF and a future all-star pg (thats right i said it !!).If memphis actually managed to pull that deal off and then get Greg Oden in the draft they could be scary good inside 3-4 years


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> thats the kind of trade you do when you're on the cusp of the a deep run and can afford to do it. The Blazers aren't, and would be stupid to trade Aldridge and Sergio (let alone, Aldridge alone) for Gasol.
> 
> Thats not to say Aldridge is better than Gasol, but that you're giving up two very promising rookies for someone who isn't worth it.


Yeah, we'd be left with a mediocre team with no future potential. It's the old jump to the middle of the pack and stay there.

That team Jack, Roy, Ime, Zach, Gasol would be 5-10 games better than our current version. It's not championship calibre wtih potential.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Yeah, we'd be left with a mediocre team with* no future potential.* It's the old jump to the middle of the pack and stay there.
> 
> That team Jack, Roy, Ime, Zach, Gasol would be 5-10 games better than our current version. It's not championship calibre wtih potential.


The infactuation with youth (especially unproven youth) on BBB.net is unreal. Yeah, lets turn down the productive *26 year old* and hold on to the potential of the unproven.

At 26, Gasol is the oldest person in your startng lineup and you are worried about not being young enough?:nonono: 

As a Grizz fan, I don't feel this is enough for Gasol.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

......this was a joke, right?


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> The infactuation with youth (especially unproven youth) on BBB.net is unreal. Yeah, lets turn down the productive *26 year old* and hold on to the potential of the unproven.
> 
> At 26, Gasol is the oldest person in your startng lineup and you are worried about not being young enough?:nonono:
> 
> As a Grizz fan, I don't feel this is enough for Gasol.


My focus and attention are on the FACT that Gasol hasn't been able to lift a team beyond the first round. We're not building a team to get there, but one to go beyond. I just think the price is too high for the Blazers side of the deal. You get to keep your opinion - and I get mine.


----------



## Roland Garros (Dec 6, 2006)

www.starbury.com said:


> jerry west is not stupid he see`s sergio`s skills,his team are running an up tempo offense and he smells a steal.


that's true, but Paul Allen was the only guy that smelt the steal in Draft-night and now Sergio is worth more than 3M$.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Awww yeah here we go. Memphis fans vs. Portland fans.

Round one...

BTW, I wouldn't do this trade either. Now, Zach for Gasol :yes:


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

If the blazers ever trade sergio, i just couldnt bring myself to be a fan anymore. and ive been one my whole life.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> The infactuation with youth (especially unproven youth) on BBB.net is unreal. Yeah, lets turn down the productive *26 year old* and hold on to the potential of the unproven.
> 
> At 26, Gasol is the oldest person in your startng lineup and you are worried about not being young enough?:nonono:
> 
> As a Grizz fan, I don't feel this is enough for Gasol.


Talk all you want about unproven youth, but you only call it that when they play for Portland. If you got this deal you would then be talking about the great youth you now have. Portland fans have seen enough of these guys to know they will be special. You are pimping Gay for ROY when he has no chance against our guy. I think Portland"s ROY has done plenty of proving and is now respected by every teams defenses. It would be plenty of value for Gasol if you got it, but you won't. He is soft, a whiner and can not lead a team to even one playoff win. Portland easily passes on this.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

That Peter Vescey is usually a pretty reliable guy, especially when it comes to the Blazers. I have no doubt this trade WAS propposed! [/sarcasm] 

By the way, is anyone else NOT seeing the emoticons when they type something like :smileyface: or whatever in their messages? All I'm seeing are the text "codes" for emoticons, instead of the emoticons themselves.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> As a Grizz fan, I don't feel this is enough for Gasol.


Keep smokin' that crack.


----------



## Roland Garros (Dec 6, 2006)

Oden, LMA ,Gay , Miller, Sergio.... 

definitely West is not stupid.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I can't really blame Jerry West for trying. I actually think they are being a little bit sly about this whole thing; they are talking like they just want to do a big favor for Gasol and find him a team where he will be happy. I think they've decided he's not the guy to lead them into the playoffs and they want to get rid of him while he has good value.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

You are right because when you have unproven youth on your team that is usually all you have to talk about. I would prefer conversations about playoff seeding and title aspirations. Heck, I wish we could flip Gay into Zach Randolph, that would be a coup IMO.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Peter Vescey. :rofl:

Giving up Aldridge is dumb, but the addition of Sergio? Jeez. They are the cornerstones of this franchise's future. No way in hell do we trade them. I agree that Gasol would be a good piece to have, but how can he and Zach coexist down low? This is completely unreasonable for the Blazers (who are building a championship team, not just a team that exits in the first round), but I see why the Grizz would do this. West's pulled some aces for trades in the past, I hope Pritchard and Patterson aren't swindled.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> You are right because when you have unproven youth on your team that is usually all you have to talk about. I would prefer conversations about playoff seeding and title aspirations. Heck, I wish we could flip Gay into Zach Randolph, that would be a coup IMO.


Done. Throw in your 2007 pick while you're at it, since youth is so overrated.


----------



## supermati (Mar 28, 2005)

I would always pick an Aldridge on his peak than a Gasol on its own...

But hey, sometimes youth is really considered to be great, but fall short.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> Heck, I wish we could flip Gay into Zach Randolph.


As a previous poster said, throw in your first rounder this year, and SOLD!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> You are right because when you have unproven youth on your team that is usually all you have to talk about. I would prefer conversations about playoff seeding and title aspirations. Heck, I wish we could flip Gay into Zach Randolph, that would be a coup IMO.


What about Pau for Zach and Jack?

Works.

Or more complicated...

Pau + Cardinal + Tsakalidis (expiring) + Warrick = Zach + Jack + Magloire (expiring)

Portland cuts Tsakalidis. This deal is about the same except Portland uses Jamaal's contract to help Memphis' bottom line in exchange for Warrick who may be expendable considering the emergence of Rudy Gay.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> As a Grizz fan, I don't feel this is enough for Gasol.


Hee, hee. You go right on feeling that way. No way in hell would I give up Aldridge and Rodriquez for Gasol. Jerry West knows our young guys have loads of talent, and that's why he proposed the deal.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I may be a minority on this board, but I would think hard about Aldridge + Magloire for Gasol--and would probably pull the trigger. We have no guarantee that Aldridge will ever be as good as Gasol is now. A team of Sergio-Roy-[Ime/Webster/Outlaw]-Zach-Gasol would be interesting.


As to our Memphis friend's proposal about turning Gay into Zach, Zach+Magloire=Gay+Jones. I would do that, but I doubt Jerry West would. Maybe he'll retire this year and they will hire Zeke. Then we could get it done.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I wouldn't lose either of them for Gasol, not even in a 1 for 1.
> 
> He's a flopping whiner who's on the decline and he'd never fit here.


Got to love a career where people (people who don't watch games anyway) think you're "on the decline" in your mid-20s.

Gasol in January: 22.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.8 bpg

Yeah, stick a fork in Pau Gasol - he's finished.

If he was 20 years old and averaging 15 ppg, 7 rpg, BBB.net fans would be tripping over themselves making trade proposals. Now that he's in his prime and an All-Star, it's scraps like LaMarcus Aldridge and Jamaal Magloire...oh and that valuable second rounder.


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

I don't think a trade of Zach for Pau is even good. Zach is easily as good or better than Pau and doesn't flop and complain nearly as much. 

It seems the majority of people here are down on Zach and willing to let him go for just about anything. Zach has proven to be a very hard worker and is trying hard to be a team leader.

He might not end up being the direction the Blazers go but he shouldn't be let go for just anyone. Portland definitely needs a team identity and determine if they want to run or be a half-court team but that can wait until the future.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

smeedemann said:


> I don't think a trade of Zach for Pau is even good. Zach is easily as good or better than Pau and doesn't flop and complain nearly as much.
> 
> It seems the majority of people here are down on Zach and willing to let him go for just about anything. Zach has proven to be a very hard worker and is trying hard to be a team leader.
> 
> He might not end up being the direction the Blazers go but he shouldn't be let go for just anyone. Portland definitely needs a team identity and determine if they want to run or be a half-court team but that can wait until the future.


Gasol is not "just about anything". 

He's a premier bigman who was drafted way ahead of Zach Randolph.

Zach for Gasol would have been laughed at as ridiculous the past few seasons as Gasol was a much more touted player. He just needs a change of scenery, picking him up would be a big win.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

At Aldridge's age, Gasol was doing 19 and 9 with absolutely zero help on an team just as hapless as the Blazers but keep projecting LaMarcus to have this infinite potential.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I just can't see the rebuilding Grizzlies taking on Zach's contract. You can argue Zach v. Gasol all you want, but the Grizz are not going to want another big contract. I think Gasol could be had for Aldridge + Magloire (expiring) are maybe with the addition of something other than Sergio (Outlaw, Jack). I would be willing to do this.

Gasol is scoring 20+ points on 57% shooting this year. Zach is 46%. Gasol also has 2+ blocks a game. Do we have anyone doing that? Gasol's 3 assists aren't bad either. 

Who here thinks that Aldridge will do better than 20/8/3 asst/2 bl while shooting 57%? I like Aldridge, but I don't see him quite getting there. LA+Magloire=Gasol. Do it. Add Outlaw, or send Jack and take back Cardinal if you have to.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> I may be a minority on this board, but I would think hard about Aldridge + Magloire for Gasol--and would probably pull the trigger. We have no guarantee that Aldridge will ever be as good as Gasol is now. A team of Sergio-Roy-[Ime/Webster/Outlaw]-Zach-Gasol would be interesting.


I'm with you. Aldridge + Magloire for Gasol is a steal for us. it's a little like Tyson Chandler for Elton Brand. we hope that some day Aldridge will be as good as Gasol, but why wait if we don't have to? 

it'd actually be a pretty good trade for Memphis, too. they need a young, promising big man to replace Gasol, and Aldridge is likely to be the best one available. 

I wouldn't include Sergio in the deal, though. some time in the very near future he's going to be a 9 or 10 assist/night point guard. his value is nowhere near its maximum. 

I could be convinced to throw in Outlaw, though.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Considering that both Kevin Pritchard and Steve Patterson have come out and said that they arn't going to sacrifice any of their youth for a quick fix I find it hard to believe they would trade for Gasol. 

This is a great trade for Memphis. They get cap relief and two rookies better than Rudy Gay. 

This is a joke of a trade for Portland. They get a PF that isn't that much better all around than the one they already have. Lose two players they seem to be infatuated with, go into salary cap hell with the luxury tax, and still won't make the playoffs.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Same here.

GATORPOPS


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Roland Garros said:


> Oden, LMA ,Gay , Miller, Sergio....
> 
> definitely West is not stupid.


If indeed this rumor was true.. it had to be offered by West. And if West offered it.. be afraid.. very afraid.... your going to get taken to the cleaners.

Portland passes on this definately...

Yes, that would be a very scary lineup...

And before, those Gasol gloaters say he was an all-star... remember.. Magloire was an all-star as well 

I think I would do a Zach for Gasol trade with some minor players in it....


Note to admins: Please fix the emoticons


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Also keep in mind that even if Vescey finally got one right, he did say that he heard PORTLAND WAS OFFERED Gasol for those players. WELL OF COURSE WEST OFFERED THAT it's a great trade for the Grizz. So go back to the reality that you fans in Memphis will get about as muchj on the dollar for him as we will get for Zach.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Subtract Sergio, add Jack, and you've got yourself a deal. I'd even be willing give either one of Outlaw, Webster or Jack instead of Sergio. Or a top 3 protected 1st round pick.(not as if we need more young guys).

I"m not to infatuated with Aldridge, and right now he has a lot of work to do to become even equal with Gasol...a level of play he may never even sustain. I don't understand the people who say they wouldn't trade LA for Gasol straight up.


Sergio is a real PG, IMO, he's going to be the next Steve Nash!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

so you're already sold on Sergio, but Aldridge has a "lot of work to do"?

try keeping it on an even keel, will yah? Sergio is the next "nash", and LaMarcus has a 'lot of work to do' to 'even equal' gasol.

ooh wait, I see the pattern. my bad.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Considering that both Kevin Pritchard and Steve Patterson have come out and said that they arn't going to sacrifice any of their youth for a quick fix I find it hard to believe they would trade for Gasol.


Gasol is not a quick fix. Gasol is 26. And they don't have to sacrifice their "youth", just one -- Aldridge. 



mediocre man said:


> This is a joke of a trade for Portland. They get a PF that isn't that much better all around than the one they already have. Lose two players they seem to be infatuated with, go into salary cap hell with the luxury tax, and still won't make the playoffs.



Gasol would be a center for Portland and has pretty impressive numbers. 

My big concern with this is that this still looks like building around Zach, and I don't think that can lead to a title. I would rather do something like Gasol + Cardinal for Zach + Jack, but I don't see Memphis taking Zach's contract. 

If the team is set on keeping Zach, I think Aldridge for Gasol makes sense. If they really want to unload Zach then just do it so we can get on with a proper rebuilding effort.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Hap said:


> so you're already sold on Sergio, but Aldridge has a "lot of work to do"?
> 
> try keeping it on an even keel, will yah? Sergio is the next "nash", and LaMarcus has a 'lot of work to do' to 'even equal' gasol.
> 
> ooh wait, I see the pattern. my bad.


I agree that Sergio is as far from Nash as Aldridge is from Gasol--skill wise. However, Sergio is about the same size as Nash. Aldridge will never be 7' and 260 lbs. Also, if Sergio obtains his potential, which is possible, then he would be one of top two PGs of the decade. If Aldridge reaches his potential, he will be a solid 18 pt, 9 rebound, 2 block guy--of which there are many in the league right now, and many more to come. That is why I would fight to keep Sergio, but willing to trade Aldridge.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> Gasol is not a quick fix. Gasol is 26. And they don't have to sacrifice their "youth", just one -- Aldridge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, Aldridge is their youth. They love him and thought enough of him to ship one of Nates favorite players out last year in Viktor to get him. Also, I think it's foolish to think this team wants to keep Zach. They don't however...at this point anyway, want to just give him away. It's funny how hard it is to find a team willing to take on a player that's owed so much money that can't play a lick of defense and gets into trouble every year. I'm all for Gasol, but not at the exspense of Roy, Aldridge or Sergio.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Horrible. Let's hope Patterson and Pritchard turned this deal down.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> so you're already sold on Sergio, but Aldridge has a "lot of work to do"?
> 
> try keeping it on an even keel, will yah? Sergio is the next "nash", and LaMarcus has a 'lot of work to do' to 'even equal' gasol.
> 
> ooh wait, I see the pattern. my bad.



Yes, that is exactly the way I see it. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean other's need to "even their keel" to get in line with HapAlmighty.

Couple that with the fact that we are trading for a guy who'd play the same role as Aldridge, not for a young star PG like Tony Parker or Chris Paul.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

QRICH said:


> Horrible. Let's hope Patterson and Pritchard turned this deal down.


Is it really 'horrible', or does it just need to be tweaked?

What makes it horrible is sergio. Take him out and offer another young guy.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> I agree that Sergio is as far from Nash as Aldridge is from Gasol--skill wise. However, Sergio is about the same size as Nash. Aldridge will never be 7' and 260 lbs. Also, if Sergio obtains his potential, which is possible, then he would be one of top two PGs of the decade. If Aldridge reaches his potential, he will be a solid 18 pt, 9 rebound, 2 block guy--of which there are many in the league right now, and many more to come. That is why I would fight to keep Sergio, but willing to trade Aldridge.



Aldridge is listed as an inch shorter, but he has a longer reach. He is listed at 20lbs lighter. You don't think Aldridge can put on 20lbs when the Blazers strength and conditioning coach has come out and said he will be bigger than Jermaine in a shorter ammount of time? 

Why is it that Sergio has a higher ceiling than Aldridge? Both are about the same age, and Sergi oactually has more profesional coaching.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Sergio needs to be taken out. Also, Aldridge is going to be a heck of a player down the road. Gasol has 6 years on Aldridge. I don't see how this works for Portland, a team building for the future; Aldridge is a nice building block.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Yes, that is exactly the way I see it. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean other's need to "even their keel" to get in line with HapAlmighty.
> 
> Couple that with the fact that we are trading for a guy who'd play the same role as Aldridge, not for a young star PG like Tony Parker or Chris Paul.


well, I for one am glad that the team doesn't take your advice for trading players. We'd be making a lateral move, because we'd then have Zach and Pau, so who's going to play minutes? 

OOoh, I know, we're then gonna somehow trade Zach + Outlaw to the Bulls for Deng (a SF) so we now have...basically...1 PF. Wooo!!! well, thats just ****ing brilliant.

Ooh yah, and we have Sergio and Dickau as our PG's. Wooo hoo!!! Oh wait, there's more. We'll play Brandon at the PG spot, were he's not actually that good at it, and it takes away minutes from him being the SG where he's significantly better!

Them there is gud logik!!!!11!

So our team would be:

Sergio and Brickau
Roy and Dixon (although I really really doubt the Grizz would only take Jack and And Aldridge so we'd probably have to include Webster too But I doubt the Blazers counter with that offer)
Pau and um...nobody.
Deng and Ime
Joel and Magloire.

Somehow that lineup is even more ****ed up than our current one.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Not to mention that with two large contracts in Randolph and Gasol (not to mention everybody's favorite Miles) it will be very hard for Portland to get impact free agents or re-sign it's own maturing young talent in a couple of years...


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Aldridge, Jack and Magloire for Gasol puts us in the playoffs this year.
Starting Linup:
Sergio
Roy
Udoka
Zach
Gasol

It would be hard to doubleteam Zach with Gasol in there. Both of their games should flourish...offensively. For defence.... well, that's what we have Joel for.:biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Not to mention that with two large contracts in Randolf and Gasol (not to mention everybody's favorite Miles) it will be very hard for Portland to get impact free agents or re-sign it's own maturing young talent in a couple of years...


good points. Gasol isn't going to lead this young team to anything anytime soon, so by the time the team starts to kicking, he could be 31ish. 

Also, if they get Gasol without giving up Zach, it weakens our leverage in regards to trading Zach. Teams will low-ball us like nobodies business because they know we don't want to keep Zach. So do this trade and kiss goodbye any decent player in return.

Think Chicago wouldn't just then go "ok, we'll give you PJ and filler" for Zach?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

That deal blows. I fully expect Lamarcus to be better then Gasol in 2 years. Not 6. Also I believe Sergio will be insane within a few years. Gasol will never have the defensive ability Lamarcus has, and once Lamarcus offensive game develops more, he will be like Rasheed without the tude.

Gasol has lead what team to any playoff success? None.

Another thing to think about people when making statements about these guys playing levels.

Serio- 20 years old.
Lamarcus- 21 years old.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I will cry if we deal LMA and Sergio..esp for Pau who's a Zach-level type PF..zach n pau together..where's the defense down low? This would bea huge step backwards for the organization imo. BUILD THROUGH THE DRAFT!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> I will cry if we deal LMA and Sergio..esp for Pau who's a Zach-level type PF..zach n pau together..where's the defense down low?


Dude is 7 ft and did have 8 blocks last night... he's not Ben Wallace in his prime, but he's not Zach either.

btw, as the thread reports it, no thanks from me. Throw in Rudy Gay and the scales probably tip. Throw in their 2007 #1...

STOMP


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

As good as I think LMA will be, the dealbreaker is Sergio. Teams just DONT trade speedy,pass first, good shooting, rim attacking point guard leaders. He is what I thought Telfair would be like and the more I see him, the more Nashty he becomes. Look what Nash did for Phoenix, if we jsut give the damn reigns to Rodriguez, and keep our core around him its only a matter of time. High quality point guards and centers are a rare commodity these days and should rarely be traded. It seems like swingmen and pf's are a dime a dozen, but the toughest guys to get are pgs and c's. It would really have to take a great offer for me to think about dealing Sergio, because he is the engineer of the Blazers locomotive, without him we have no one running the show.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Aldridge, Jack and Magloire for Gasol puts us in the playoffs this year.
> Starting Linup:
> Sergio
> Roy
> ...


But the point isn't just to make the playoffs and exit first round. The goal is to build and win a championship. Gasol and Zach on the same team doesn't win enough or defend enough.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

this is a fantasy league trade at best.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

As a rule don't trade with Jerry West especially when you're trading young talent, our only bad trade during last year's draft was when we basicly gave Alexander Johnson to Memphis.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Verro said:


> As a rule don't trade with Jerry West especially when you're trading young talent, our only bad trade during last year's draft was when we basicly gave Alexander Johnson to Memphis.


It's not like the guy is infallible. He's made a lot of mediocre moves as GM of the Grizzlies... take a look at their record for instance.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I concur with most posters here: this trade would go against Portland's rule of fiscal responsibility and trading youth for experience. 

Pritcharttson has told us many a time that they frequently hear proposals for their players that would put Portland back in the playoffs, but it would sacrifice the upper echelon down the road.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Let's have a little sanity in here....

Aldridge is a good prospect...but Gasol is ALREADY a very good player...and still fairly young at age 26...Aldridge MAY...someday achieve Gasol's level of play, but that is certainly not a given....

Same goes for Sergio, who I really like...IF he continues to improve, he has the chance to be something special...but...again...that is a big IF...

I think you have to look at this deal from POR perspective in terms of "Does it achieve the results mgmt is looking for? ie...Making POR a pernennial playoff team and title contender....

and my answer is no...and I have concerns over whether Gasol and Zach could even co-exist together effectively...b\c history shows they probably cannot...or need I remind anyone of the Rahim\Randolph fiasco...

In short I think a combination of Randolph and Gasol would flop...Nor do I feel adding Gasol...while making POR a better team for sure...would make them appreciably better as a playoff CONTENDER...

Memphis X - I always appreciate your posts, your a good poster...As for Aldridge. Sergio and Magliore not being enough for Gasol...1) I don't think POR is seriously considering this deal...I think they have comitted themselves to youth\rebuilding 2) I am not sure that MEM could get MORE for Gasol than 2 unproven but promising prospects and an expiring contract...What other team is going to offer more?

CHI? They will give you one of Deng or Gordon but not both and expiring PJ Brown

BOS? They are dangling Jefferson and Telfair and Theo's contract, which is not expiring, but with promises that he may retire...never a given...

am I missing another team, offering something better?

I think Sergio and Aldridge is as good of a package of prospects as MEM could hope for...but as a POR fan, I wouldn't pull the trigger on that deal...I think POR is better served letting their youth mature...grabbing another top prospect in a talent rich 2007 draft and moving forward from that point.....

as always..appreciate your comments...


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> But the point isn't just to make the playoffs and exit first round. The goal is to build and win a championship. Gasol and Zach on the same team doesn't win enough or defend enough.


 The blazers most glaring need is for a well rounded center (preferably of allstar caliber). Except for Oden, there's none to be had. Gasol is the best center available, now and in the near future.
Gasol will get us into the playoffs now. It's up to Sergio, Roy, our 1st pick this year, Outlaw, Martel and maybe a few minor trades to *mature* and get us to the finals.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

graybeard said:


> Gasol will get us into the playoffs now.


But I think RH&R was trying to say that the plan was never to shoot for the playoffs now.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

The most amusing thing in this thread is that some believe Zach is better than Gasol


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> *Aldridge* is listed as an inch shorter, but he has a longer reach. *He is listed at 20lbs lighter. You don't think Aldridge can put on 20lbs when the Blazers strength and conditioning coach has come out and said he will be bigger than Jermaine in a shorter ammount of time? *
> Why is it that Sergio has a higher ceiling than Aldridge? Both are about the same age, and Sergi oactually has more profesional coaching.


This exactly the point! He will easily put on the 25 lbs. He will probably put on 10-12 lbs of muscle next off season alone! And we all know that Paul Allen does not want to make another monumental trade mistake like he did with Jermaine. Yeah, he was traded for a former all-star. And that is what Pau is. He *will be*an all-star if the coaches vote him in. Would Pau even be an all-star in the West? Who would he beat out? Not Dirk, Amare, Marion, Boozer, Brand, Garnet. Then you have guys like Howard in Dallas, Lewis in Seattle and Zach in PDX. Not likely in the West.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Can we work Damon into the deal? :lol: 

I agree with most of you. This deal sucks for the Trail Blazers, and I'm confident that Patterson/Pritchard would laugh at hang up.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

graybeard said:


> The blazers most glaring need is for a well rounded center (preferably of allstar caliber). Except for Oden, there's none to be had. *Gasol is the best center available*, now and in the near future.
> Gasol will get us into the playoffs now. It's up to Sergio, Roy, our 1st pick this year, Outlaw, Martel and maybe a few minor trades to *mature* and get us to the finals.


Gasol is a power forward.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> Gasol is a power forward.


 Gasol is a Center/Power Forward. And is by far the best center on the blazers horizon.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

BIG Q said:


> Gasol is a power forward.


IMO, Gasol is a finesse center in the Okur mold. He would solidify the C position for 4-5 years, but would set things back with this team.

A Gasol/Zach/Ime/Roy/Jack team wins 48-52 games and is a first round playoff loser.

What is the plan? Improve now or develop into a possible championship team with the youngsters?

I say, pass on this trade. The cost is too great!


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Hmmm... on balance, I think you would have to do this trade. You trade two potential stars for another team's best player in a heartbeat. He's slightly better than our best player, so in a sense it doubles our top level talent.

This gives us a dominant low post game and great production from the 4 and 5. The defense isn't great, but Gasol is a shot blocker and both he and Zach will get better.

Losing Aldridge and Sergio is hard, but Gasol is better than Sergio at this point and we have Jack at the 1.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

no...sergio is too valuable, as is potentially aldridge.

zach 4 gasol or keep it moving.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Please note that in no way am I suggesting that we trade Sergio. I say subsbsitute Jack for Sergio in the trade. We will be a better team. Sergio's ceiling is off the hook, Jack can be replaced.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

As I posted elsewhere....POR should forget about Gasol...and instead focus on getting Miller....a shooting SF, who would fit in perfectly with what POR needs...

Miller & Kinsey
for
Magliore, Jack and 1or 2 future 2nd rounders (an 07' pick and an 08' pick)


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Blazers get taken to the wood-shed (most polite way I can think of to say it at the moment) on the Aldridge+Rodriguez+Magloire=Gasol deal.

REASON: Gasol is at, or at least VERY near, his ceiling. But we don't really know what the ceiling is for Aldridge or Rodriguez yet. In other words, it's too early to trade them away - especially for someone who plays a position we are already strong at, at a slightly lower level than the person already playing that position.

Zach for Gasol and change would get my attention.

PBF


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Originally posted by Legohat in the Bulls forum:
> 
> 
> I feel the opposite. If I'm a Blazers fan, I'd be all over that. Gasol and Randolph would be a heck of a frontcourt.


This is where I see the problem.

I don't agree that Zach and Gasol would be "a heck of a frontcourt".

I don't see them as very complimentary. I see them getting in each other's way. I don't see either one able to play a strong defensive role. Neither one can run. Both are best at PF. The team would be paying $25mil a year to just 2 players, neither of whom is an all-star in the West.

Zach and Gasol need to be traded for each other - or forget it.

If Memphis doesn't want Zach it has to be a 3 team deal.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Zach and Gasol = Zach and Shareef Part II. Stay away from redundant ex-Grizzlies.

Dan


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Masbee said:


> This is where I see the problem.
> 
> I don't agree that Zach and Gasol would be "a heck of a frontcourt".
> 
> ...


 The key here is that both Zach and Pao can shoot, drive *and* score in the post. Both command a double team. It would drive other teams nuts trying to guard them.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

after all the work the blazers did to get aldridge and sergio i dont see them just trading them the next season, in fact i see aldridge being better than Pau when he is 26, sergio? well he is the next nash mold that every team is trying to find right now and we have one! 

blazers get hosed with a firehose in this deal. we need a SF or Center not pf/c


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I'll throw these 2 words out there: Jermaine Oneal. How much did Oneal show in his first years in Portland? 

How much has Aldridge shown already?

Secondly to those that argue Gasol will get us into the playoffs now, is he doing that in Memphis now? Do they not have more veterans on their team then Portland? They have Damon, Eddie Jones, Mike Miller, Gasol, and they are many games behind Portland in the standings. 

Last but not least, if you have not learned not to trade with Jerry West by now (Remember the Kobe deal, remember the Shaq deal) you have got to be completely insane. He has a history of getting high talent with very little give away.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

As a Blazer fan, I'm for trading one or the other for Pau, but not both. I agree it creates a bit of a log jam . . . but so did Sheed and Grant, and that team was a title contender.

But an NBA fan might think this is a fair deal . . . two prospects (#2, #27 pick) for a proven all star who is 26 years old. I would want no less for Zach.

Let's be real, if LA turned into a Gasol type player, Blazer management would be estatic. LA has potential . . . maybe the potentail is greater than Gasol's present day skills . . . but a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

never would i trade aldidge and sergio...they are our future

getting gasol is not gonna make us win NOW...so why trade away pieces that can make us win TOMORROW....maybe some type of deal to get rid of zach and magloire but not our young cats


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> . . . but a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush



but why let 2 young beautiful birds go for 1???

doesnt make sense to me at all


and i hate Gasol anyways


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't know if I'd say someone who made the all star team 1 time is a "proven all star". Otherwise I guess we can mention how Magloire is a "proven all star" too.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

dwood615 said:


> but why let 2 young beautiful birds go for 1???
> 
> doesnt make sense to me at all
> 
> ...



Those 2 young beautiful birds might pull a bizzaro ugly duckling on us and turn up ugly in the end. 

Who knows . . . but that is the premise that I think makes this so intersting . . . do you take the proven player now . . . or hope for two proven players down the road.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

Zach Randolph + 2nd rd pick to MEMPHIS
Pau Gasol + Alexander Johnson to CHICAGO
P.J Brown,Luol Deng + 1st rd pick (via n.y) to PORTLAND


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> I don't know if I'd say someone who made the all star team 1 time is a "proven all star". Otherwise I guess we can mention how Magloire is a "proven all star" too.



Yep that's it. Gasol's value = Magloire's value

If only we still had Blake . . .


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

www.starbury.com said:


> Zach Randolph + 2nd rd pick to MEMPHIS
> Pau Gasol + Alexander Johnson to CHICAGO
> P.J Brown,Luol Deng + 1st rd pick (via n.y) to PORTLAND


More like Zach + 2nd rd pick to Chicago
PJ Brown/Gordon/Pick to Memphis
Gasol/Johnson to Portland.

Remember, Memphis isn't keen on picking up big contracts.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> If only we still had Blake . . .


Blake didn't have bird rights. Magloire does. 

Portland has just as much of a chance at Blake in the offseason as Denver. Maybe moreso.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Memphis is being silly here. I think this is rumorama being filtered through Vecsey to jack up the asking price for potential suitors.

Portland is not going to cough up Aldridge.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think we should target Mike Miller rather than Gasol. I think, if we do keep Zach, Aldridge is going to be a nice compliment to ZBo. Mike is exactly what we need at SF. Consistend outside shooting, agressive, decent defender and can pass and rebound quite well. 

Jamaal Magloire+Protected 1st Round Pick(Lotto protected in 07', top 5 protected in 08', unprotected in 09').


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Yep that's it. Gasol's value = Magloire's value
> 
> If only we still had Blake . . .


thats not what I said, or even remotely implied. I was talking about how saying that he was a "proven all star" means nothing. Tony Parker, before last year, hadn't made an all star team. Did his making it last year, all the sudden change his status in the league?

Would you have not taken him because he wasn't an all star before last year? I sure would've.

Let's not think that "proven all stars" = wins. Look at the Spurs and the Pistons (and even the Heat). Very few all stars on those teams. For the Spurs, maybe 2 before last year, Duncan and Finley. And they didn't make their money off of Finley. So in reality, the only Spur who made the all star team is Duncan before last year with Parker.

Look at the Pistons. Outside of Rasheed and Ben, they had none that were all stars BECAUSE of their play on the Pistons or even were pistons because they were all stars.

And the heat..outside of Shaq once being a once in a generation player, and Wade being really really good, they had Payton and Zo. And neither one of those guys all star appearances matter anymore.

Where do guys make their names? The Playoffs, not the all star game. Thats a popularity contest for the starters, and a name recognition for all but 2 of the players who get named to the reserves. 

So let's not get all excited because he's a proven 1 time all star. If you're going to pull the "proven all star" card, he should have made it 3-4 times.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think some of you are vastly underrating Gasol. If it wasn't for the fact that he plays in a Western Conference with Garnett, Nowitski, Elton Brand, Tim Duncan he'd be an all-star every year. Unlike Zach, he's versatile and can play the 3,4 or 5. Some of you make it seem like anything over 25 is over the hill. 

That said, the only player I wouldn't get rid of in that deal is Sergio. If Pritchard called West back and they agreed to Jack or Webster instead I'd do it in a quick second. We'd then give Pau and Zach a half a year to see if they can co-exist, if they can't then we get rid of Zach like many think is going to happen anyway. Gasol, Roy, Sergio and our upcoming 1st round pick along with whatever we get for Zach in trade this summer is a heckuva good young core. I think that team might even be playing in the playoffs next spring.

If that trade came to fruition with Jack/Webster instead of Sergio, I think Pau would love to come here and play with Sergio (a teammate of his in the World Games).

Some around these parts are enamored with youth. Youth is good, but how many teams ever hold onto a core of 5 or so prospects drafted within a year of each other and win in the playoffs. I can't really think of any.

Also, LaMarcus Aldridge has a loooong ways to go before he is anything close to what Pau is right now, if he ever becomes that. Its not every day that were offered a star type player like Gasol.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

graybeard said:


> The key here is that both Zach and Pao can shoot, drive *and* score in the post. Both command a double team. It would drive other teams nuts trying to guard them.


You have your opinion. I have mine.

I didn't mean to imply that the two would be terrible on the court together. My comment is based on the claim that they would be a good match.

I cannot disagree enough.

In too many ways they are too similar. Thus, it becomes tag team basketball, instead of complimenting each other's game.

Guess what? That is not the path to creating an outstanding team where you 5 best players work with each other, compliment each other offensively and cover for their teammates skill defiencies and mistakes.

So, the Blazers would (potentially) be decent enough in the regular season as they can wear down front lines for 48 minutes attacking the paint, an injury to Zach or Pau would not derail a season (as it has done for the Blazers and Memphis in recent years).

However, in the playoffs, with the scouting, with the zone defenses the opposition can practice and implement - those advantages are minimized.

I don't want two similar - non complimentary - players, each on a max contract, on the same team.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

the bobcats should offer morrison up, afterall, he has a looooong way before he's even a decent NBA player.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> Where do guys make their names? The Playoffs, not the all star game. Thats a popularity contest for the starters, and a name recognition for all but 2 of the players who get named to the reserves.
> 
> So let's not get all excited because he's a proven 1 time all star. If you're going to pull the "proven all star" card, he should have made it 3-4 times.



OK . . . he is a unproven all-star. 

My point still stands, do you take a proven player (I think that's OK to say) v. two unproven players with potential.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK . . . he is a unproven all-star.
> 
> My point still stands, do you take a proven player (I think that's OK to say) v. two unproven players with potential.


That entirely depends on your timeline.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> the bobcats should offer morrison up, afterall, he has a looooong way before he's even a decent NBA player.


Morrison isn't one of 5 draft picks on the team that they hope to keep together.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I think some of you are vastly underrating Gasol. If it wasn't for the fact that he plays in a Western Conference with Garnett, Nowitski, Elton Brand, Tim Duncan he'd be an all-star every year. Unlike Zach, he's versatile and can play the 3,4 or 5. Some of you make it seem like anything over 25 is over the hill.
> 
> That said, the only player I wouldn't get rid of in that deal is Sergio. If Pritchard called West back and they agreed to Jack or Webster instead I'd do it in a quick second. We'd then give Pau and Zach a half a year to see if they can co-exist, if they can't then we get rid of Zach like many think is going to happen anyway. Gasol, Roy, Sergio and our upcoming 1st round pick along with whatever we get for Zach in trade this summer is a heckuva good young core. I think that team might even be playing in the playoffs next spring.
> 
> ...


Damned good post, Zags. I agree with everything you said.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> two unproven players with potential.


I'll answer this question with another set of questions:

1. RE: Sergio; Based on your what you've seen, is it more likely that he becomes a proven player w/ a few years of seasoning or more likely that he's a guy off the bench?

2. RE: Aldridge; Based on your what you've seen, is it more likely that he becomes a proven player w/ a few years of seasoning or more likely that he's a guy off the bench?

Because personally, I think these guys are more likely to become proven players than not. And that's what makes this trade unfair.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> I'll answer this question with another set of questions:
> 
> 1. RE: Sergio; Based on your what you've seen, is it more likely that he becomes a proven player w/ a few years of seasoning or more likely that he's a guy off the bench?
> 
> ...


Agreed.

Sergio and LaMarcus aren't exactly unproven. Jermaine O'Neal was unproven. He was allegedly an assassin in practice, destroying Rasheed Wallace and Brian Grant on a regular basis, but he always looked lost in games. He looked terrible. That's unproven.

In games, Aldridge is scoring well and playing solid, albeit physically weak, defense. Rodriguez is a passing maniac, and he has shown he can score a little bit too. They aren't completely proven to be the next Chris Bosh and Steve Nash, but they're certainly hinting at it, and more than just in practice.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Hey Zags, did you watch the Zags-Torreros last night? At the lead in to the game, the ESPN guy said, and now we turn to "Americas Team-Gonzaga"......ahhh, makes me heart swell


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK . . . he is a unproven all-star.
> 
> My point still stands, do you take a proven player (I think that's OK to say) v. two unproven players with potential.


Depends...

If we're on the bubble of being a contender and Gasol puts us over the top then you go with the proven player. If your a lottery team and Gasol maybe puts us into the 8th spot in the west then I roll the dice on the unproven players with potential.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> Hey Zags, did you watch the Zags-Torreros last night? At the lead in to the game, the ESPN guy said, and now we turn to "Americas Team-Gonzaga"......ahhh, makes me heart swell


Yup.

Everybody loves the Zags.

Neil Everett of Sportcenter who was born and raised in Spokane (but a Ducks alum) started saying that last year, now all the Sportcenter guys are saying it.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Wow- Just logged on for the first time today and was surprised to find this thread.
My thoughts

Aldridge and Sergio together are too much to give up but Gasol is no slouch either. I think Aldridge(young talent) and Magloire(8 mil savings) would be a very fair trade both ways. 

I think Aldridge has a good chance at being one of the top PF/C's in the league but at this moment he is still far away. Sergio is not that far away from being a top PG if he is let loose. Although they both have a ton of potential, I think it is a little more likely that Sergio will reach his potential. 

Also, Aldridge may become an elite player in the league but he will be similar to other players out there, perhaps just a little bit better. Sergio may also become an elite player, but his skillset is much more unique and will be more difficult to substitute. 

Plus, I would love to see Sergio and Gasol on the same team.

I don't think I would offer much more then Aldridge and Magloire for Gasol, but I think this trade is fair. But if it's fair, then West won't like it. He wants to crush on trades.

Most likely this whole trade is just a ploy by West to increase the value of Gasol while in talks with the Bulls.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK . . . he is a unproven all-star.
> 
> My point still stands, do you take a proven player (I think that's OK to say) v. two unproven players with potential.


As others have already pointed out, Aldridge and Sergio are NOT unproven.

They have already proven in 1/2 a season they belong in the NBA, can hang with other players, can play at a high level, aren't afraid or timid, etc.

Does that mean they are as "good" or valuable or useful as Gasol or similar players right now? Of course not. They will take some time to develop into solid players - that know defense, how to run plays, veteran tricks, how to carry the load, respect of officials, etc., etc., that make players more consistent and helpful for the coach through an entire 82 game season.

But their talent and ability is unquestioned. We know it. They know it. Jerry West knows it. And they still have upside. Some would say lots of upside potential. Or, this may be as good as it gets. THAT'S the unproven bit. How good will they get? Nobody knows.

What we do know. They are "good" already. Right now. For 1/2 a season Sergio has per minute stats that are above average in the NBA. What does he have to prove? For 1/2 a season Aldridge has per minute stats that are average in the NBA. As a #2 pick he still has to prove he was worth that pick, but he does not have to prove he can hang in the NBA.

Yes, Gasol is more proven, in the sense that he has been good longer, is more battle tested. The flip side is he is older, very, very expensive, and too similar to Zach to help the team much.

I am not entirely opposed to bringing Gasol in. The price must be right (low) and Zach leaving has to be part of the overall plan.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK . . . he is a unproven all-star.
> 
> My point still stands, do you take a proven player (I think that's OK to say) v. two unproven players with potential.


depends on the "proven" player. I wouldn't trade LaMarcus and Sergio for Vince Carter, or Jason Kidd, but I would for Dwight Howard. I wouldn't for Elton Brand, but I would for Kobe Bryant (if I wasn't a Blazer fan and didn't hate his guts).

I wouldn't for Pau Gasol, but I would for Wade.


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

I refuse to believe this rumor since it was let out by the one and only Peter F'n Vecsey.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Masbee said:


> As others have already pointed out, Aldridge and Sergio are NOT unproven.
> 
> They have already proven in 1/2 a season they belong in the NBA, can hang with other players, can play at a high level, aren't afraid or timid, etc.
> 
> ...


I've read everything you have to say about why they are proven and disagree.

If what Aldridge and Sergio have done to date convinces you they are proven then we just have two defintions of proven.

I think they have potential, I think they have each shown flashes of being very good players, but they have not risen to the level of even starting on a team with marginal talent. They have not shown they can produce on a consistent basis . . . whether or not that is Nate's fault for not playing them, the situation is such that they have yet to show it.

There are many players with talent and ability that are unquestionable (Miles,Telfair and Outlaw comes to mind) that do not become viable NBA players.

What do they have to prove? That they have the skills and the ability to use those skills to become effective NBA players on a nightly basis. Sergio has to show that not only can he pass and hit shots, but that he has the poise to run a team 30+ mins a night against the best PGs in the league. Aldridge has to show not only that he can hustle and have good instincts for the ball, but that he can play the low post and rebound against the best on the defensive boards.

this doesn't mean I don't like or am excited about the two, I just am not as sold that they have arrived or as proven as you say.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

> I think they have potential, I think they have each shown flashes of being very good players, but they have not risen to the level of even starting on a very team with marginal talent


That's not a fair statement at all. Aldridge is stuck behind Zach (who isnt a marginal talent) and a lot of people didnt even think Rodriguez would be on the active roster when the season started but has now earned his way into 20 mpg so obviously he's shown quit a bit. Especially considering he's only 20 years old and doesnt even speak the language. Besides, a lot of people would argue that Rodriguez should start and I think there's a real possibility that'll happen by the end of the year.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I've read everything you have to say about why they are proven and disagree.
> this doesn't mean I don't like or am excited about the two, I just am not as sold that they have arrived or as proven as you say.


That's great. And I disagree with you.

I have watched a lot (too much) basektball over the years, and I am just telling you that Aldridge and Sergio will make it. There is no doubt in my mind (barring injury) those two have NO chance of getting run out of the NBA.

NO CHANCE.

Neither one will be a bust. Neither one will be a below average player, barely hanging on.

They both already are average or better in stats. The consistency and intangibles will come (in greater or lesser degree) with time. Those things are relatively easy. Just put in the time and the work and it will come. And they have a HUGE motivation to do so: the multi-year, big money contract that sets them up for life. Other players have that same motivation too. But early success breeds confidence and positive reinforcement. These guys know they have a good shot at the brass ring.

The hard part they already have (Sergio's dribbling and passing, Aldridge's length). They aren't going to lose or forget those things. They are only going to get better.

Try this. Look for a list of players that put up decent stats their rookie season - and then went bust - injury issues and crazies excluded. Your list will be short.

Players that can play, they keep playing. Young ones get better for a while as they learn the game. Sometimes their per minute stats don't improve that much, but they learn the nuances, become able to play big minutes, etc. Sometimes they do that AND improve their productivity and become stars.

To my mind, that is the question for Sergio, Aldridge and Roy (as well) - not, will they be good, but, HOW good will they be?

Another thing: What does "arrived" mean anyway? I am not so sure that is always that helpful a distinction. How many years of good play before they make it?

Antoine Walker. SAR. Marbury. Juwan Howard. All had arrived. All dropped off big during their "prime". Does a player "arriving" guarantee ANYTHING besides a big, fat, long contract, that a player may or may not earn?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Especially considering he's only 20 years old and doesnt even speak the language.


I think the language thing is a bit of an exaggeration. I heard him interviewed the other day, and although he has a strong accent, he can communicate. 

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> I think the language thing is a bit of an exaggeration. I heard him interviewed the other day, and although he has a strong accent, he can communicate.
> 
> barfo


wait, are you talking about Zach now?


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Masbee said:


> That's great. And I disagree with you.
> 
> I have watched a lot (too much) basektball over the years, and I am just telling you that Aldridge and Sergio will make it. There is no doubt in my mind (barring injury) those two have NO chance of getting run out of the NBA.
> 
> ...


Mas is right. LA and Sergio - you can go to the bank with them having long, successful careers. How successful? Who knows at this point - but they will be good. Sergio won't go Nashy and win back-to-back (to-back?) MVP's, but he's the real deal. LA's stats will probably resemble Sheed's. If you trade those guys for Gasol - you better hope He's enough to take this team to the next level - we know he's good enough to keep us out of the lottery, and with all the money you'd have to pay him (plus what we're already committed to) you can forget about getting FA's. That, and the fact that a Gasol/Z-Bo Front court scares me for the reasons Mas suggested in a previous post - I'll pass. I like Gasol, but this move doesn't pencil out.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Gasol himself said he was tired of rebuilding and didn't want to be a part of it. Why on earth would you think about bringing that guy to our rebuilding team? Avoid that like the plague.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Paxil said:


> Gasol himself said he was tired of rebuilding and didn't want to be a part of it. Why on earth would you think about bringing that guy to our rebuilding team? Avoid that like the plague.


And yet . . . another reason to Pass on Pau.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

well, its officially on ESPN.com...a headline in the NBA section.

as a "rumor" but im sure this is true. details are only available to insiders, and i aint paying for that ****.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

ryanjend22 said:


> well, its officially on ESPN.com...a headline in the NBA section.
> 
> as a "rumor" but im sure this is true. details are only available to insiders, and i aint paying for that ****.


I'll go look at it, I paid for it years ago.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

cool, post what it says please.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

ryanjend22 said:


> well, its officially on ESPN.com...a headline in the NBA section.
> 
> as a "rumor" but im sure this is true. details are only available to insiders, and i aint paying for that ****.



It is just a blurb from the Vecsey article describing the offer and then saying Zach/Pau would be a formidable offensive duo but would possibly give up as many points as they score. Hasn't someone been saying that Pau is a great defender?


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

well, he is an average defender. better than zach, but certainly not an elite.

this trade is just not in our best interest at all. thanks for checking it out.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Just got back to the hotel and 8 pages of this? I can't even believe anyone would consider such lunacy....:lol: 

Some of you guys slay me

Peace


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ColoradoBlazerFan said:


> Just got back to the hotel and 8 pages of this? I can't even believe anyone would consider such lunacy....:lol:
> 
> Some of you guys slay me
> 
> Peace


Did you know that you can change the # of posts per page to 50? Makes browsing easier so you don't have to change pages as often (although the upload time might be longer).


----------



## sportsnut1975 (Jul 6, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Considering that both Kevin Pritchard and Steve Patterson have come out and said that they arn't going to sacrifice any of their youth for a quick fix I find it hard to believe they would trade for Gasol.
> 
> This is a great trade for Memphis. They get cap relief and two rookies better than Rudy Gay.
> 
> This is a joke of a trade for Portland. They get a PF that isn't that much better all around than the one they already have. Lose two players they seem to be infatuated with, go into salary cap hell with the luxury tax, and still won't make the playoffs.


 I actually agree with you. I can't believe it.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Hap said:


> Did you know that you can change the # of posts per page to 50? Makes browsing easier so you don't have to change pages as often (although the upload time might be longer).



No I didn't know that. Thanks

Peace


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Masbee said:


> I have watched a lot (too much) basektball over the years, and I am just telling you that Aldridge and Sergio will make it. There is no doubt in my mind (barring injury) those two have NO chance of getting run out of the NBA.
> 
> NO CHANCE.


That's great. I've watched enough basketball to know anyone who thinks there is "no chance" a player will get run out of the NBA, hasn't watched enough basketball. : )


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> That's great. I've watched enough basketball to know anyone who thinks there is "no chance" a player will get run out of the NBA, hasn't watched enough basketball. : )


Good. Back it up with several examples. Do not include those that had serious injuries or those that entered the league with character and mental issues. Get to it now.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> I don't know if I'd say someone who made the all star team 1 time is a "proven all star". Otherwise I guess we can mention how Magloire is a "proven all star" too.


Thanks for bringing this thread back to the real world.

Magloire for Gasol. I'll throw in a 2nd round pick and Dickau just because I'm generous.

Then Gasol immediately goes on the trade block for someone we can actually use.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

barfo said:


> I think the language thing is a bit of an exaggeration. I heard him interviewed the other day, and although he has a strong accent, he can communicate.
> 
> barfo


And more clearly than several posters here. :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Masbee said:


> Good. Back it up with several examples. Do not include those that had serious injuries or those that entered the league with character and mental issues. Get to it now.



I'm not sure what examples there are to show that the idea that an athlete has "NO CHANCE" of failing is one that I don't agree with (and I don't think many experts would agree with.) But since you asked so nicely, I'll try:

Kent Benson
Richard Washington
Michael Olowokandi
Of course lets not forget LaRue Martin

Anything else master?


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm not sure what examples there are to show that the idea that an athlete has "NO CHANCE" of failing is one that I don't agree with (and I don't think many experts would agree with.) But since you asked so nicely, I'll try:
> 
> Kent Benson
> Richard Washington
> ...


You and masbee are having a great discussion. I do believe however that he meant players that played in the league for a little while and then got tagged as can't miss. You're list has players that never did a thing in the league from day one. Well, maybe Richard Washington had a bit of early success. The name you would be looking for Ernie Digregorio. 

But then look how many years back we are going. Try making a list of guys from the last ten years. I would say scouting staffs and budgets are a lot bigger than they were 25-30 years ago.

Kandi was a questionable pick by at least half of the league, so he was never a sure thing.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BIG Q said:


> You and masbee are having a great discussion. I do believe however that he meant players that played in the league for a little while and then got tagged as can't miss. You're list has players that never did a thing in the league from day one. Well, maybe Richard Washington had a bit of early success. The name you would be looking for Ernie Digregorio.
> 
> But then look how many years back we are going. Try making a list of guys from the last ten years. I would say scouting staffs and budgets are a lot bigger than they were 25-30 years ago.
> 
> Kandi was a questionable pick by at least half of the league, so he was never a sure thing.


Kandi showed some promise and continued to increase his numbers for three years, only to fall off the shelf. 

I think we are going way back (there is a lot of basketball that has been watched by both of us) . . . you're right scouting staffs and budgets are bigger, but even with that, Sergio was bought at the 27th pick. So I think mas is saying he is convinced that Aldrdige and Sergio are sure things based on the half season.

The players I came up with had decent seasons (don't know about half seasons). Washington at the third pick was looking to be very promising after his first two years.

There are tons of players who did not live up to their potential: Joe Smith, Pervis Ellison, Dasrius Miles and others.

Of course Len Bias was a huge can't miss . . . but I guess he was "injuried"

Eventhough mas has deemed Sergio and Aldridge can't miss players . . . I don't think the general league view has accepted this label. I hope mas is right . . . and becomes a little less demanding : )


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> well, I for one am glad that the team doesn't take your advice for trading players. We'd be making a lateral move, because we'd then have Zach and Pau, so who's going to play minutes?
> 
> OOoh, I know, we're then gonna somehow trade Zach + Outlaw to the Bulls for Deng (a SF) so we now have...basically...1 PF. Wooo!!! well, thats just ****ing brilliant.
> 
> ...



 More hap strawman BS. I swear, you have enough talent to work for FoxNews and whisper bull crap into George Bush's ear during debates. Let me put my latex gloves on and correct this mess.

A. Zach and Pau can both play starting minutes, because Pau can play center. He'd give a nice balance to the Blazers offense because he can shoot from the outside. If Pau were a low post scorer like Curry, you'd have a point, but he's not that kind of player.

B. We wouldn't necessarily be trading Jack, Webster and Outlaw are probably a little more likely to entice them, so why did you just single on Jack? Even so, Roy isn't bad at PG and can play some time there and open up more minutes for Webster at SG. Upgrading the starting center from Joel to Gasol is a much greater factor than downgrading our backup PG to Brandon Roy. Jarret Jack is a very replaceable player.

Essentially, the trade would be Magilore(a worthless piece of garbadge), Lamarcus(talented young man, but can only hope to become as good as Gasol), Jack/Webster/Outlaw all three of which are expendable, because Jack is a future backup, and Webster and Outlaw are competing to be our future starting 3.

Rodriguez
Roy
Gasol
Randolph
Webster/Outlaw

Pretty good lineup!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm not sure what examples there are to show that the idea that an athlete has "NO CHANCE" of failing is one that I don't agree with (and I don't think many experts would agree with.) But since you asked so nicely, I'll try:
> 
> Kent Benson
> Richard Washington
> ...


Freeman Williams, Robert Pack, Harold Miner.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> More hap strawman BS. I swear, you have enough talent to work for FoxNews and whisper bull crap into George Bush's ear during debates. Let me put my latex gloves on and correct this mess.


zing



> A. Zach and Pau can both play starting minutes, because Pau can play center. He'd give a nice balance to the Blazers offense because he can shoot from the outside. If Pau were a low post scorer like Curry, you'd have a point, but he's not that kind of player.


since it's not happening, I don't know why it matters.



> B. We wouldn't necessarily be trading Jack, Webster and Outlaw are probably a little more likely to entice them, so why did you just single on Jack?


because I heard things that strongly suggested we countered with Jack, thats why. and I didn't just 'single on Jack'. If Pau is so good, it's going to take more than Magloire and one of Outlaw, Webster or Jack (especially since they aren't trading Sergio and especially Aldridge).


> Even so, Roy isn't bad at PG and can play some time there and open up more minutes for Webster at SG. Upgrading the starting center from Joel to Gasol is a much greater factor than downgrading our backup PG to Brandon Roy. Jarret Jack is a very replaceable player.


Roy isn't good at PG for more than a few plays a game. thats not to say that he's incapable of playing it, but like Clyde Drexler, he's so much better at SG, it's stupid (yes, I said stupid) to trade away a starting PG because Roy can "play PG" in a pinch. 



> Essentially, the trade would be Magilore(a worthless piece of garbadge), Lamarcus(talented young man, but can only hope to become as good as Gasol), Jack/Webster/Outlaw all three of which are expendable, because Jack is a future backup, and Webster and Outlaw are competing to be our future starting 3.


Why on earth would Memphis do that trade? And better yet, why would we? They WERE offered Gasol for Aldridge and Sergio (and Magloire), and I'd bet that they could've replaced Sergio with another player and the Grizzlies might've bit. But they didn't want to trade either guy (esp LaMarcus) and the Grizzlies didn't want the alternative that we were willing to give up.



> Rodriguez
> Roy
> Gasol
> Randolph
> ...


not significantly better than our current lineup (as a whole and for the long run) though. I know you don't like Aldridges pigment, but there's a very good reason why the team turned down the Grizzlies offer.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I think some of you are vastly underrating Gasol. If it wasn't for the fact that he plays in a Western Conference with Garnett, Nowitski, Elton Brand, Tim Duncan he'd be an all-star every year. Unlike Zach, he's versatile and can play the 3,4 or 5. Some of you make it seem like anything over 25 is over the hill.
> 
> That said, the only player I wouldn't get rid of in that deal is Sergio. If Pritchard called West back and they agreed to Jack or Webster instead I'd do it in a quick second. We'd then give Pau and Zach a half a year to see if they can co-exist, if they can't then we get rid of Zach like many think is going to happen anyway. Gasol, Roy, Sergio and our upcoming 1st round pick along with whatever we get for Zach in trade this summer is a heckuva good young core. I think that team might even be playing in the playoffs next spring.
> 
> ...


In other words, if he didn't play in a conference where there are a lot of elite power forwards, he would make the all star game. But he isn't elite. He can't even get a team with more veterans into the playoffs, or for that matter, to a better record then the Blazers. He is a tier 2 player.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> You and masbee are having a great discussion. I do believe however that he meant players that played in the league for a little while and then got tagged as can't miss. You're list has players that never did a thing in the league from day one. Well, maybe Richard Washington had a bit of early success. The name you would be looking for Ernie Digregorio.
> 
> But then look how many years back we are going. Try making a list of guys from the last ten years. I would say scouting staffs and budgets are a lot bigger than they were 25-30 years ago.
> 
> Kandi was a questionable pick by at least half of the league, so he was never a sure thing.


Yes. As I said before I meant players who did something in the league during their rookie season, then fell off for no explicable reason. Thus I stipulated injuries excepted and mental issues excepted. Crazies don't count. We know our rookies aren't crazy anyway.

I also agree, going back many decades almost ends the debate right there. If you have to go back that far, then the worry that our rookies, which now are showing they belong in the NBA, might mysteriously forget how to play or lose their motivation - is completely ridiculous.

Sure it might happen. But its so rare as to be completely irrelevant.

There are FAR FAR more pertinent and much more likely issues to worry about if worry is your thing:

Injury.

Free Agency.

Paying Big money for a good but not great player.

Locker room issues, PR issues causing problems for the team.

Ha, now that I look at that list. ALL of those things happened to Zach. 

What didn't happen to Zach? Zach DID NOT play worse than he displayed as a rookie later (injury periods excepted). Zach was good from day 1. Zach is still good.

To sum up my theory: If a player as a rookie proves that they are good the chance that they will NOT be any good the next season is no more likely than that for a "proven" veteran.

I think GMs know this. That is why young players who can play are so valuable. The team can "bank" on whatever ability has been displayed so far, just as they can with a vet (who isn't too old), PLUS they get to hope for potential to be realized.

People thought Washington was nuts for paying Gilbert Arenas $60million. He "only" was a 20pt scorer. But Washington said, we sign this guy, and $60mil will be overpaying a bit, but we can count on at least that ability - and with his upside we see him as a 25pt scorer and a leader. Then the $60mil is fine. Now he scores 29pts is an all-star starter and is a bargain on that deal.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Masbee said:


> People thought Washington was nuts for paying Gilbert Arenas $60million.


As if they weren't nuts to begin with by over-paying Antonio Daniels.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

hasoos said:


> In other words, if he didn't play in a conference where there are a lot of elite power forwards, he would make the all star game. But he isn't elite. He can't even get a team with more veterans into the playoffs, or for that matter, to a better record then the Blazers. He is a tier 2 player.


If he played in the Eastern Conference he would be a perennial all-star. Anyways, say he is the 3rd or 4th best PF/C in the West, how often do we get a chance to trade for a player of that caliber. Its doubtful that Aldridge will ever be an All-Star in the Western Conference as long as Garnett, Nowitski, Duncan or Brand are playing in the West. 

Also, since when do we not trade for a star level player just because he's doesn't win the popularity contest that is the all-star game?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> If he played in the Eastern Conference he would be a perennial all-star. Anyways, say he is the 3rd or 4th best PF/C in the West, how often do we get a chance to trade for a player of that caliber. Its doubtful that Aldridge will ever be an All-Star in the Western Conference as long as Garnett, Nowitski, Duncan or Brand are playing in the West.
> 
> Also, since when do we not trade for a star level player just because he's doesn't win the popularity contest that is the all-star game?



Yes just like how when Jamaal Magloire played in the eastern conference he was an all star. 

Secondly, I disagree that Lamarcus will not be an all star while those guys are in the league. Just because its your opinion, it doesn't necessarily hold true. Especially when it comes to Brand, he had a great year last season. This season he couldn't hold last seasons Elton Brand jock strap. 

I believe Lamrcus has talents that both Zbo and Gasol don't have, and that is the ability to defend, and speed to run the floor. He is certainly more athletic then both of them. That alone will get him past them both at come point in the future. He has a chance to be a top tier player. They never will be. 

And you should always be very afraid of any trade Jerry West suggest. His history of screwing teams using veteran players to get high end young talent should be enough to scare everybody on this board away from this trade.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Secondly, I disagree that Lamarcus will not be an all star while those guys are in the league. Just because its your opinion, it doesn't necessarily hold true. Especially when it comes to Brand, he had a great year last season. This season he couldn't hold last seasons Elton Brand jock strap.


Just like its your opinion that he will be an all star. As far as knowing whether he could hold Brand's jock strap, who knows he's only played in 23 games this year. 



> I believe Lamrcus has talents that both Zbo and Gasol don't have, and that is the ability to defend, and speed to run the floor. He is certainly more athletic then both of them. That alone will get him past them both at come point in the future. He has a chance to be a top tier player. They never will be.


Because he's athletic he's going to be better? Does that hold true for Duncan as well?



> And you should always be very afraid of any trade Jerry West suggest. His history of screwing teams using veteran players to get high end young talent should be enough to scare everybody on this board away from this trade.


Thats why I said we would add in Jack instead of Sergio. Also, people overrate Jerry Wests abilities. He hasn't done much of anything in Memphis. While he was with the Lakers, sure he made the great trade to get Kobe, but other than that he had a lot of resources in Lakerland and the fact that it is the Lakers and he was able to sign Shaq.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Those guys are all pushing 30, or in the case of Garnett and Duncan, they are going to be 31 this season. Thats not to say they'll start dropping off like flies, but it's doubtful that they'll be in the league by the time LaMarcus is 30, or at least as dominant as they are now. 

So you can't really say that he won't be an all star "as long as" those guys are still in the west, since those guys probably won't be in the league (or dominating) by the time he's hitting his peak.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Chad Ford interviewed Kiki Vandeweghe yesterday on the ESPN Daily Dish podcast and Kiki was asked about this trade and he said in no uncertain terms that there is no way that Portland Would do this trade.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> As if they weren't nuts to begin with by over-paying Antonio Daniels.


Who had similar offers from two other teams. So, I guess 3 teams were nuts.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Who had similar offers from two other teams. So, I guess 3 teams were nuts.


Obviously, I can name you at least 10 teams that are nuts. You don't disprove that they were still nuts.


----------

