# 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves? (merged)



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

According to John Hollinger of ESPN, getting the number one pick in Greg Oden does not even qualify Portland as a top 15 most improved team. At #15 he has Philly, who drafted Thad Young and Jason Smith. The way I see it they would have gladly traded those to plus more for Oden, so there is some sort of Hollinger bias here. Never liked that ***!

Edit link http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insi...r_john&id=2940622&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

Well, they didn't give up anyone. They only made additions, where we got rid of Zach, and will probably lose Ime. Our net gain is at a much lesser extent than theirs.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

We did lose ZBo. John may also be thinking Oden will not improve us in 07-08, but further down the road.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



Draco said:


> We did lose ZBo. John may also be thinking Oden will not improve us in 07-08, but further down the road.


With that in mind, how much do you think Young will help Philly while playing behing Iggy, or Smith playing behind Dalembert? Oden alone would clearly put Portland on the list. I seriously doubt Hollinger ever had anything positive to say about Zach, so trading him should be a positive as it opened up a position for Aldridge, plus netted Frye and future cap room.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

It appears that Portland will be one of the "losers" for his next column. It's one thing to be ranked below 15, but how can you say adding Oden, Rudy, Frye, etc. and reducing the team debt makes the Blazers losers? I'll be interested to see how he spins this. If he is smart, he will only have 5-10 losers and just leave the Blazers out.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

I think they are talking about just next year. We did lose 23 points and 10 rebs. Now if he were talking about 2 or 3 years down the road that's another thing. It may be a suprise to some of us around here, but the national media does not expect a big improvement for us next season.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I think they are talking about just next year. We did lose 23 points and 10 rebs. Now if he were talking about 2 or 3 years down the road that's another thing. It may be a suprise to some of us around here, but the national media does not expect a big improvement for us next season.


I think you're right... Portland treaded water in terms of player acquisition for the immediate future. Will our guys mature and improve over last year? Yes. Will we have cap flexibility down the road? Probably. Will Oden be a dominant big man over the course of his career? Hopefully.

But for THIS year, and for the purposes of his column, the Blazers traded away their best player and got back almost nothing. The addition of Oden doesn't counteract that entirely, in the opinion of Hollinger, an I think he's right.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



Reep said:


> It appears that Portland will be one of the "losers" for his next column. It's one thing to be ranked below 15, but how can you say adding Oden, Rudy, Frye, etc. and reducing the team debt makes the Blazers losers? I'll be interested to see how he spins this. If he is smart, he will only have 5-10 losers and just leave the Blazers out.


Considering this is what he said about the Sixers;



> 15. Philadelphia 76ers
> (added Thaddeus Young and Jason Smith; lost Joe Smith)
> 
> The departed Joe Smith was one of the keys to the Sixers' strong second-half run last season, so losing him leaves a dent. On the other hand, they added two first-round picks in Young and Jason Smith, and my guess is the contributions of those two will offset what has been lost.
> ...


I would say that if he says anything negative about the Blazers trading Zach then he will lose any credibility that he may have. He states himself that his list is not about "difference in the win column."


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



Ed O said:


> I think you're right... Portland treaded water in terms of player acquisition for the immediate future. Will our guys mature and improve over last year? Yes. Will we have cap flexibility down the road? Probably. Will Oden be a dominant big man over the course of his career? Hopefully.
> 
> But for THIS year, and for the purposes of his column, the Blazers traded away their best player and got back almost nothing. The addition of Oden doesn't counteract that entirely, in the opinion of Hollinger, an I think he's right.
> 
> Ed O.


I respect your opinion, but what do you make of this Hollinger quote (In bold type) vs. what the Blazers have done in the off season?



> 15. Philadelphia 76ers
> (added Thaddeus Young and Jason Smith; lost Joe Smith)
> 
> The departed Joe Smith was one of the keys to the Sixers' strong second-half run last season, so losing him leaves a dent. On the other hand, they added two first-round picks in Young and Jason Smith, and my guess is the contributions of those two will offset what has been lost.
> ...


I still expect Portland to win more than 32 games, which would qualify as an improvement. Do you not anticipate an improved win/lose record?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



BIG Q said:


> I would say that if he says anything negative about the Blazers trading Zach then he will lose any credibility that he may have. He states himself that his list is not about "difference in the win column."


I don't think that he cares about you giving him credibility. He's been writing about the NBA for about a decade and has been pretty consistently insightful.

Going to his logical consistency (or inconsistency), the Blazers might still be terrible, too. Or they might improve based on the natural improvement/experience of players that have nothing to do with offseason acquisitions (which is the point of the column, remember). Or they might be worse.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



Ed O said:


> I don't think that he cares about you giving him credibility. He's been writing about the NBA for about a decade and has been pretty consistently insightful.
> 
> Going to his logical consistency (or inconsistency), the Blazers might still be terrible, too. Or they might improve based on the natural improvement/experience of players that have nothing to do with offseason acquisitions (which is the point of the column, remember). Or they might be worse.
> 
> Ed O.


You are most likely right on most points here, but how congruous is his stance on the Sixers vs. what the Blazers have done so far? I am looking for responses to my last post above if anyone wants to comment, not just Ed O.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

That is why the Celtics are on the list. They will be alot better next year. Maybe even make the playoffs. Everyone will say Ainge did a great job in the offseason. Then reality will sink in. They will be in bad shape in 3 years.(Shoot, they're in bad shape now)


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

I have to go with Memphis, first you get a healthy Lowry and Gasol(not offseason moves per se).Add Mike Conley and Darko Milicic,much needed position upgrades, and get a new coach who should uptempo that team quite a bit. Solid A.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

I actually really liked what Atlanta did this year. 

But if you look at it, with the deep draft we had this year, a lot of teams are going to improve as their young talent they procured this year comes into its own. There are a lot of players with great upside. Ok so we got the #1. Some teams had 2 or 3 picks in a deep draft. Most of Portlands draft picks will not even play in the NBA this year, so they have no chance to improve the team. 

While I don't agree with the NBA having an age restriction as far as treating people equally, for the league it is good because players going to college are coming in and strengthening the talent pool. With all the expansions over the last decade, this was really important.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



BIG Q said:


> You are most likely right on most points here, but how congruous is his stance on the Sixers vs. what the Blazers have done so far? I am looking for responses to my last post above if anyone wants to comment, not just Ed O.


He said the 76ers might not improve much, he might think the Blazers won't improve at all, or even have a slightly worse record this year without Zach, he did praise Zach's offense in his comments about the Knicks.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

I know they never really had them, but I would have liked it if he had added Brandan Wright and Jeff Green to the losses of Charlotte and Boston respectively.


----------



## Bob Whitsitt (Jul 12, 2007)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

What Hollinger (who is an f'ing retard, by the way. I have never agreed with a single thing he's said because he's a moron) and the general NBA analysists seem to be of the opinion of is that losing Zach basically wrote us off for this season. What they don't see is that LeMarcus is a smart, talented player with better physical gifts than Zach and MUCH better defense. I honestly, and completely realistically, see LeMarcus being an 18-20/8-11 guy this year, if he stays healthy and out of foul trouble. The dude is just an unbelieveable talent and has obviously matured an awful lot. I don't see him taking over games like Zach did, but Zach did it out of necessity cause the rest of the team sucked and couldn't make a shot. I can see LeMarcus being a legit starting PF this year with drastically improved hustle and defense numbers out of the PF spot.

I still see us winning over 35 games. Maybe not playoffs or anything but there's no way we don't improve this year with our young studs being a year older and wiser. If Martell keeps hustling and gets his issues out of his head - look out, we're scary.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I think they are talking about just next year. We did lose 23 points and 10 rebs. Now if he were talking about 2 or 3 years down the road that's another thing. It may be a suprise to some of us around here, but the national media does not expect a big improvement for us next season.


I think the thing to be seen is whether we really did lose 23 points and 10 rebounds. How many of points could have been scored by one of Zach's teammates if he had passed out of a double team instead of forcing up a shot that ended up getting batted away? How many rebounds was he sometimes credited with on a single possession where he would throw it up against the backboard several times before finally scoring or losing control of the ball? I don't mean to say that Zach won't be missed, because he will. I'm just not so certain that it's going to be as dramatic a loss as you might believe simply from the stat line.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



gambitnut said:


> He said the 76ers might not improve much, *he might think the Blazers won't improve at all, or even have a slightly worse record this year without Zach*, he did praise Zach's offense in his comments about the Knicks.


I just can not see it. Does anyone here expect Portland to win less than 32 games? I am thinking Hollinger does not know that Portland only won 32 last season. I anticipate 38-41 wins, which is an improvement. I am just dumbfounded here by the thinking that the Blazers will go backwards in the win column after picking up Oden and Frye while creating a spot for LA while Roy and Jack are a year older. Blake is a great pickup as is Jones. 

Hopefully Travis will play half as well as he did at the end of the season and that is a marked improvement while losing Zachs 23/10 with poor defense, poor passing and holding the ball too long. Dickau and Freddy never factored in. Losing Ime I doubt will make much of a difference in wins and loses. He was a great locker room guy and I am sure he will be missed the most there.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

Hollinger is way off. Portland is going to be the most improved team in the league *next year*. Replacing Zach with Aldridge at starting PF is a wash imo. Adding Channing Frye will help the depth at the position as well. Jones should be as proficient as Udoka, Blake is an upgrade at the point, Roy will improve with a year of experience, and Oden is going to make a big positive difference immediately. The vast improvement of this club is obvious to me.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



Bob Whitsitt said:


> What Hollinger (who is an f'ing retard, by the way. I have never agreed with a single thing he's said because he's a moron) and the general NBA analysists seem to be of the opinion of is that losing Zach basically wrote us off for this season. What they don't see is that LeMarcus is a smart, talented player with better physical gifts than Zach and MUCH better defense. I honestly, and completely realistically, see LeMarcus being an 18-20/8-11 guy this year, if he stays healthy and out of foul trouble. The dude is just an unbelieveable talent and has obviously matured an awful lot. I don't see him taking over games like Zach did, but Zach did it out of necessity cause the rest of the team sucked and couldn't make a shot. I can see LeMarcus being a legit starting PF this year with drastically improved hustle and defense numbers out of the PF spot.
> 
> *I still see us winning over 35 games. Maybe not playoffs or anything but there's no way we don't improve this year with our young studs being a year older and wiser.* If Martell keeps hustling and gets his issues out of his head - look out, we're scary.


I agree with everything you posted here, especially what is in bold. By setting the bar for improvement so low by what Hollinger wrote for Philly, I see no possible way Portland can not be on the improved list. I even expect Portland to win more games than Philly (I know this is not part of the argument), who won more games than Portland last season while in a weaker conference which implies improvement of and by itself.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

It's really not that complicated. He's looking at how much additions (or subtractions) help (or hurt) the team in the upcoming year.

Might Portland be better? Sure. Might they improve more than the 76ers? Yes.

But *why* would they improve? Partly because of Oden, and partly because of Blake (both factors in his analysis) but primarily because of improvement of holdover players (which is NOT a factor in his analysis and rank) and in SPITE of the loss of Zach (which is a negative in his rankings).

Roy being healthy and/or improving has nothing to do with his ranking. Same with Jack and Sergio and Joel and everyone else... except maybe LA, who (probably) is helped by Zach being moved, and it's not clear if that sort of thing is being included in his thought process.

You guys are getting all spun out and are taking shots at the man about something you don't seem to understand...

Ed O.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

The guy is operating at less than a full IQ- It's hard to see how we haven't improved.

We lose about 38 minutes/game of Zach- but the improvements that Aldridge will show negate a good portion of this, once you take defense into account. Channing Frye is okay as a back up. Overall, a net loss, but not a huge one. Even if you assume that we lose 5-7 points/game, this is made up at other positions.

In every other area, we have definite improvement- especially at the 5 spot. Blake makes us much more solid than we were at the 1 and we should see improvements from either Jack or Sergio. Oden will likely make up the 5-7 points per game theoretical loss all by himself, considering how anemic center production has been in the past.

It's hard to see how there are 15 teams that improved more...

I think we understand the guy, we just think he's an idiot!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

Ed is right in that Hollinger is only looking at acquisitions. a team that relies so much on developing youth like ours does isn't going to do well by those standards. 

that said, I really like how our team is shaping up.

last year's team: 
PG: Jack
SG: Roy
SF: Udoka
PF: Randolph
C: Przybilla then Magloire then Aldridge
Key reserves: Outlaw, Aldridge, Rodriguez, Dickau, Freddie Jones. Remember, though, that Aldridge was inexplicably benched in the middle of the season. 

this coming year's team if we made no more deals: 
PG: Blake
SG: Roy 
SF: ?
PF: Aldridge
C: Oden
Key reserves: Jack, Frye, Outlaw, Jones, Rodriguez


PG: Blake is an upgrade at running the point guard position. even if he isn't, Jack is a year older and wiser. 
SG: Roy will be older and wiser. 
SF: whatever we wind up with at SF isn't likely to be much worse than Udoka. 
PF: Aldridge will score and rebound less than Randolph, but he will be light years better at defense, making that a wash. 
C: Oden is going to be a much better center right out of the box than any of Aldridge/Pryzbilla/Magloire. 

Key reserves: All of our young bench is a year older and wiser. the loss of Magloire is our one major downgrade, but that's offset with the addition of either Blake or Jack to the bench. Frye is a decent prospect. 

would we have a much better lineup if we hadn't dumped Randolph? definitely. but it's still a MUCH better team than last year.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

*John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

OK, would someone please explain to me how John Hollinger of ESPN could have left the Blazers off his list of 15 most improved NBA teams? I'm flabbergasted.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insi...olumnist=hollinger_john&page=offseasonwinners


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

The easy explanation: John Hollinger is a moron.

-Pop


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



SodaPopinski said:


> The easy explanation: John Hollinger is a moron.
> 
> -Pop


Easier explanation: he is talking about the 07-08 season, not 3 years from now.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

If you read the reader comments following the article you'll see that folks are hammering Hollinger for this very reason. :biggrin:


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

http://www.basketballforum.com/port...ook-whos-improved-thanks-offseason-moves.html


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

Maybe he doesn't like the Zach trade either, eh OMG? :biggrin:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

Hollinger apologists aside, the snubbing of the Blazers has to be an oversight.

If not, this guy has no credibility after this regardless of how long he's been writing on the NBA.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



BBert said:


> Maybe he doesn't like the Zach trade either, eh OMG? :biggrin:


:whoknows: Hollinger is a devout stat geek. He is an agnostic when it comes to "upside." He won't jump on the bandwagon until the baby Blazers actually start producing on the court.

Besides, he shares my low opion of Frye, so he can't be all bad! :biggrin:


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

Just wait till next year. He'll be riding you guys hard.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

Memphis> Portland??? Darko is no Oden.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

_Quote:
The amount of money that the T'wolves have tied up in deadweight truly boggles the mind. It's enough to make one suspect that Herman Munster has photographs of Taylor holding an orgy with a live goat and a pair of dead six year olds. -ehmunro _

As vehemently against censorship as I am, how does this disgusting post not get deleted by Mods?

And why would anyone post it in their sig?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

The Blazers will be six to ten games better than last year. Considering that in any given year, an average of less than 15 teams will improve by any games on the previous year (that's half, the other half by necessity losing more games, and that doesn't even count ones who stay the same), our team's projected improvement should easily get it on the top 15 most improved list. But whatever. Nobody nationally even watches the Blazers or has any idea what they are doing, and this is an example of it.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*

Hollinger is a stat-head who questions the value of unproven "upside" and "intangibles". That hardly makes him a fool. His player performance ratings and projections are some of the best in the business.

Besides, as others have pointed out, he is only talking about the short-term.....and while I admire the wild-eyed optimism some of you have, the Blazers are not a play-off team.

I do agree that his yardstick for measuring improvement is unclear. Philly went from drowning to treading water. The Blazers went from treading water to dog-paddling. Which is more impressive?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



dudleysghost said:


> Nobody nationally even watches the Blazers or has any idea what they are doing, and this is an example of it.



Hate to tell you this, but Hollinger once lived in Portland.:biggrin: 

Sorry, but adding 6-10 wins strikes me as waaaay to optimistic.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

Looks like Hollinger got things pretty accurate, especially with the Knicks at #5 solely on the strength of KP's Big Blunder.

Portland, at the very best, will be as good as last year, albeit with happier faces on the court. Their improvement wins-wise is unlikely this year.


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



MARIS61 said:


> Looks like Hollinger got things pretty accurate, especially with the Knicks at #5 solely on the strength of KP's Big Blunder.
> 
> Portland, at the very best, will be as good as last year, albeit with happier faces on the court. Their improvement wins-wise is unlikely this year.


It appears you underestimate the need for defense, since Zach and Curry will be abused all season long by the Knicks' opponents, while the Blazers should be able to defend almost any team this season.

The Blazers will be able to run more this season, will be able to match up better with Denver/Phoenix/Dallas/San Antonio and Houston due to the addition of Oden and increased playing time for Aldridge, and will be able to defend at a higher level.

The Blazers will lose games at times due to inexperience, but should be more competitive in more games due to an improvement on defense. A balanced offense based on Aldridge, Roy and Jack should lead to an increased output on offense, especially by the end of the season, and the defense will be improved.

Agreed, there will be growing pains, especially if Aldridge is not up to the challenge of scoring 15-20 per night, but the team is better off with Aldridge, Roy and Oden sharing the ball vs. Zach putting up 20 shots/night.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



MARIS61 said:


> _Quote:
> The amount of money that the T'wolves have tied up in deadweight truly boggles the mind. It's enough to make one suspect that Herman Munster has photographs of Taylor holding an orgy with a live goat and a pair of dead six year olds. -ehmunro _
> 
> As vehemently against censorship as I am, how does this disgusting post not get deleted by Mods?
> ...


It might be disgusting to you, but it doesn't violate site rules in any way that I can see. 

barfo


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

If he's talking about next seasons wins/losses then I'd mostly agree with him that we won't improve a whole lot. 

That was until I saw: 

Toronto: (added Maceo Baston and Jason Kapono; lost Morris Peterson) at #13

Philadelphia: (added Thaddeus Young and Jason Smith; lost Joe Smith) at #15.

Since his next column is going to be "offseason losers", and it will likely list another 15 teams, I guess we fall into the loser category...

On second thought, Hollinger's an idiot.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



Oldmangrouch said:


> Hate to tell you this, but Hollinger once lived in Portland.:biggrin:
> 
> Sorry, but adding 6-10 wins strikes me as waaaay to optimistic.


Too optimistic ... that's what some said when I predicted 32 wins last season following the previous 21 win season. Actually, before the Zach trade and lotto, I was calling playoffs in 2008 for the Blazers. Now I'm saying they will probably fall just short, although I wouldn't eliminate the possibility. Maybe I'm being optimistic about next season, but I'd be willing to be that I'm not.

But anyway, like ProZach said, if you aren't among the "15 offseason winners", then you must be among the 15 offseason losers. Did the Blazers get worse this offseason? I really doubt it. All we had to do was let our young core mature and add Oden, and improvement is virtually guaranteed.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*

Haven't read the article, but the first thought that jumped into my mind when I read the initial post of this thread was, "Well, have we really _improved_?". It's kinda hard to say, with so many old faces leaving and new faces arriving. I think the team is on track for solid improvement over the longer-term (2-3 years), but that doesn't mean we will be a better team in '07-'08 than we were in '06-'07. In fact, if you subscribe to the tenets of the Tuckman Model of Team Development, you could rationally argue that - as of right now - we may very well win fewer games in '07-'08 than we did in '06-'07.

I personally think too many people have set their expectations for next season too high for this team, and are going to go through a phase of disappointment / disillusionment as the team works their way towards Performing. The good news is that it looks like most of the basic pieces are in place, so team improvement will largely depend on individual improvement and experience playing together.

Now, if only that one last trade would happen... :wink:

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



LameR said:


> http://www.basketballforum.com/port...ook-whos-improved-thanks-offseason-moves.html


Yep. There's already a thread on this where Hollinger is being criticized and I tried to explain the list's focus, which is improvement for next year based on additions or subtractions.

The Blazers added Oden and Blake and Frye. They lost their best player in Zach Randolph.

If they get better, and they probably will, it will be due to the improvement and maturation of our youngstrs and the increased health of our team overall... it won't be primarily because of Oden or Blake or Frye, and it will be in SPITE of the loss of Zach.

The Blazers are middle of the pack, but I don't think they're clearly in the top 15.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



Ed O said:


> Yep. There's already a thread on this where Hollinger is being criticized and I tried to explain the list's focus, which is improvement for next year based on additions or subtractions.
> 
> The Blazers added Oden and Blake and Frye. They lost their best player in Zach Randolph.
> 
> ...


It might make sense in that context, but JH specifically mentions "holdover players raising their games" as one of the ways teams can improve, without mentioning as far as I can tell that he would exclude it from consideration in his list.

Even if we are just looking at transactions, the Zach trade took away our best player, but the summer has given us otherwise positive moves. We lost Ime, Zach and Mags from the regular rotation, and added Blake, Jones, Frye, Oden and maybe McRob. I'm thinking (ok, hoping...) that that second group will give us more depth and balance next season than that first group did last year.

However one does the accounting though, we'll be a better team next year than last, and the following will be even better. We'll improve every year, whether we make moves or not, which is nice.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



dudleysghost said:


> It might make sense in that context, but JH specifically mentions "holdover players raising their games" as one of the ways teams can improve, without mentioning as far as I can tell that he would exclude it from consideration in his list.


Really? It's clear to me that's what he's written.

Paragraph one: different ways a team can improve.

Pararaph two: standing pat is moving backwards.

Paragraph three: "Fortunately, half of the league's teams *have made additions *to their rosters that should prove quite helpful in the coming season, and that's the group I'll be discussing today." (emphasis added)

Paragraph four: limits his discussion to upcoming season.

Paragraph five: "With that as the background, here's a midsummer update showing the teams *that have made themselves more formidable* than they were a year ago:" (emphasis added).

It seems obvious to me from paragraph three's topic sentence as well as his active verb ("that have made themselves more formidable") he's talking about player transactions, not natural improvement or evolution of teams.

Ed O.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



Ed O said:


> They lost their best player in Zach Randolph.
> 
> Ed O.


Sorry, but the best player last season was Brandon Roy. AS A ROOKIE. Watch the tapes of who hit game winning shots and who had the ball in his hands.

Randolph proved diddly-poo as the "best player" on a very bad team. He was a stat stuffer on a bad team and a defensive liability as well. The guy is a 16/7 player who got stats by hogging the ball on bad teams with young players. Oh, I forgot the micro-fracture surgery.

He led the team to jack squat. Good riddance.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



Ed O said:


> Really? It's clear to me that's what he's written.
> 
> Paragraph one: different ways a team can improve.
> 
> ...


We get it. You are a Hollinger apologist.

Adding Oden is clearly a setback for the Blazers.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



Ed O said:


> Really? It's clear to me that's what he's written.
> 
> Paragraph one: different ways a team can improve.
> 
> ...


It doesn't seem so obvious to me. He says he is discussing roster additions, but in two of the posts he prominently mentions coaching changes, which was one of the non-roster factors he listed in paragraph one. So he says he is only talking about roster additions, which presumably excludes player holdover but somehow includes coaching changes? And it's not like the Blazers really stood pat. They replaced 3 players in the starting lineup. I get what you are saying, and one could even argue that keeping young and improving players is not really an "offseason" move, but I'm saying that the Blazers are going to be better next year than the previous. If that doesn't make them a "winner" on Hollinger's list, that's too bad.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



dudleysghost said:
 

> It doesn't seem so obvious to me. He says he is discussing roster additions, but in two of the posts he prominently mentions coaching changes, which was one of the non-roster factors he listed in paragraph one. So he says he is only talking about roster additions, which presumably excludes player holdover but somehow includes coaching changes? And it's not like the Blazers really stood pat. They replaced 3 players in the starting lineup. I get what you are saying, and one could even argue that keeping young and improving players is not really an "offseason" move, but I'm saying that the Blazers are going to be better next year than the previous. If that doesn't make them a "winner" on Hollinger's list, that's too bad.


It's ok because it'll make a winner in the finals sooner than a lot of those other teams.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



papag said:


> Sorry, but the best player last season was Brandon Roy. AS A ROOKIE. Watch the tapes of who hit game winning shots and who had the ball in his hands.
> 
> Randolph proved diddly-poo as the "best player" on a very bad team. He was a stat stuffer on a bad team and a defensive liability as well. The guy is a 16/7 player who got stats by hogging the ball on bad teams with young players. Oh, I forgot the micro-fracture surgery.
> 
> He led the team to jack squat. Good riddance.


The most loved player by fans was Roy. The best player was Zach. He was a ball-hog and a bad defender, but he was also the most capable and productive player we had. For all the talk about Zach as a liability, look up who lead the team in +/-, as in who made the team better by being on the court. It's posts like this that make me think we could have gotten more for Zach in trade if we had waited, because then he would be putting up nearly the same numbers (probably lower ppg but higher FG%) on a team that is suddenly not bad, and then that criticism of him would have disappeared. As it is, he is with the cruddy Knicks where he doesn't even fit, and when he again fails to single-handedly carry a bad team to any meaningful success, people will crow about how that supposedly proves how hollow his stats are. Whatevah...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



papag said:


> We get it. You are a Hollinger apologist.
> 
> Adding Oden is clearly a setback for the Blazers.


Nice logic. Good work there, champ.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



dudleysghost said:


> It doesn't seem so obvious to me. He says he is discussing roster additions, but in two of the posts he prominently mentions coaching changes, which was one of the non-roster factors he listed in paragraph one. So he says he is only talking about roster additions, which presumably excludes player holdover but somehow includes coaching changes?


The first paragraph is inclusive, IMO, of things that teams can do. They're not all to be excluded. He subsequently says that player improvement is not a factor, but he doesn't say anything about coaching. Personally, I think that changing a coach IS a way to make a team better (or worse) the same way drafting a player or signing a free agent or making a trade is.

All of those things are active moves by the teams. Letting young players mature is smart and might be the best move for the team, but it's not what this list is looking at.



> And it's not like the Blazers really stood pat. They replaced 3 players in the starting lineup.


But one of those moves is a negative. Going from Zach to LA is a step down in the upcoming season. We don't even know who's going to be starting at the 3, but there's a real chance that it will be either a wash or even a step down from what we got with Ime last year.



> I get what you are saying, and one could even argue that keeping young and improving players is not really an "offseason" move, but I'm saying that the Blazers are going to be better next year than the previous. If that doesn't make them a "winner" on Hollinger's list, that's too bad.


I don't disagree with this... the thing is that people are geting fired up over something that he's not addressing. They're criticizing his list because it doesn't use the parameters that THEY would use.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



Ed O said:


> I don't disagree with this... the thing is that people are geting fired up over something that he's not addressing. They're criticizing his list because it doesn't use the parameters that THEY would use.
> 
> Ed O.


The above seems like the most important part of all of this to me. The other thing is that I'm not sure why so many of us posters get our noses all bent out of joint about perceived "disrespect" from the national media. I'm totally fine with the underdog role and if these young Blazers come in and blow the doors off the rest of the conference they (and then we) will have the last laugh. If not...?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



PorterIn2004 said:


> The above seems like the most important part of all of this to me. The other thing is that I'm not sure why so many of us posters get our noses all bent out of joint about perceived "disrespect" from the national media. I'm totally fine with the underdog role and if these young Blazers come in and blow the doors off the rest of the conference they (and then we) will have the last laugh. If not...?


I could not care less about how this snub reflects on the Blazers or even me as a fan. That doesn't matter at all. What does matter is that someone who is paid to write about the NBA for a national media outlet apparently just makes up criteria for his list depending on the team he is writing about.

I find it amateur journalism and frankly, I've seen posts on this forum with more foundation and substance than this "Winners List" by Hollinger.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: 2007-08 outlook: Who's improved thanks to offseason moves?*



Bob Whitsitt said:


> What Hollinger (who is an f'ing retard, by the way. I have never agreed with a single thing he's said because he's a moron) and the general NBA analysists seem to be of the opinion of is that losing Zach basically wrote us off for this season. What they don't see is that LeMarcus is a smart, talented player with better physical gifts than Zach and MUCH better defense. I honestly, and completely realistically, see LeMarcus being an 18-20/8-11 guy this year, if he stays healthy and out of foul trouble. The dude is just an unbelieveable talent and has obviously matured an awful lot. I don't see him taking over games like Zach did, but Zach did it out of necessity cause the rest of the team sucked and couldn't make a shot. I can see LeMarcus being a legit starting PF this year with drastically improved hustle and defense numbers out of the PF spot.
> 
> I still see us winning over 35 games. Maybe not playoffs or anything but there's no way we don't improve this year with our young studs being a year older and wiser. If Martell keeps hustling and gets his issues out of his head - look out, we're scary.


I seriously have never used the ignore feature before. Congratulations BW! You're the first. 

John Hollinger is one of my favorite NBA Analysts.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Here is the other half (bottom 15):

Link



> I love what the Blazers are building and am as high on their future as anyone, so you might be surprised to see me rank Portland so low on this list. The reason is that I'm not sure whether those moves translate into much of a change in the win column for 2007-08.
> 
> The biggest loss is Randolph -- . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Hollinger may be right in the context he's framed the question. The Blazers may not have improved significantly in terms of likely wins and losses for next season. Frankly, given the youth of this team, that's hardly an indictment of the Blazers' off-season moves to date. KP is taking a longer view towards putting this team together.

One question, though, I know it's slow, but why is Hollinger writing this piece now? There's still a lot of off-season left and there will be a lot of moves made by many teams before the summer is over. The Blazers may even be one of the teams making a deal.


----------



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

John Hollinger said:


> But two other moves look like a step back. First, there was the decision to sign Blake, which seemingly would necessitate the trading of Jarrett Jack -- an odd move given that Jack is younger, better and makes less. Another loss I didn't put above because it isn't official yet is Ime Udoka. The Blazers have the maximum 15 players under contract, including three at Udoka's position, so it's a good bet that last season's defensive stopper will have a new home. Essentially, Portland gave Udoka's money to Blake instead.


OK, this is where Hollinger's "logic" and lack of familiarity with the Blazers personnel falls flat. First, he makes a huge assumption that signing Blake means trading Jack. That is in no way a foregone conclusion and should not be factored into his analysis *until it actually happens*. And if it does, who ever we get back in that trade should be considered an addition. We got Blake without giving up ANYTHING and he considers that a negative in our improvement. I guess this is subtraction by addition - the opposite of addition by subtraction. 

At this point we have both Blake and Jack and the stated intention is to use Jack as a combo guard (a role he is ideally suited to play) in a three guard rotation of Blake, Roy and Jack. By Hollinger's logic: 

Blake + Jack < Jack

An impossible and completely illogical conclusion that makes me question the quality of his other conclusions.

Again, he assumes Ime is gone before the fact. Even if this assumption is a valid one, Ime's spot has been replaced by James Jones - a player with a very similar skill set who is 3" taller and 3 years younger. Yet, again he considers this a negative and incorrectly characterizes James Jones as a replacement for Fred Jones.

Yeah, it's just a sports column written to meet a deadline, but I expect more from Hollinger. This is the kind of backward logic and poor research I've come to expect from Canzano - not a flattering comparison for Mr. Hollinger.

BNM


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK, Hollinger assumes that signing Blake means Jack is leaving. He also assumes that Ime is leaving.

These are both assumptions widely shared by the posters on this board - but when Hollinger makes them, people get upset! :rofl2:


----------



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

*Re: John Hollinger leaves Portland off "improved" list*



Ed O said:


> The first paragraph is inclusive, IMO, of things that teams can do. They're not all to be excluded. He subsequently says that player improvement is not a factor, but he doesn't say anything about coaching. Personally, I think that changing a coach IS a way to make a team better (or worse) the same way drafting a player or signing a free agent or making a trade is.
> 
> All of those things are active moves by the teams. Letting young players mature is smart and might be the best move for the team, but it's not what this list is looking at.
> 
> ...


Ed, I agree that it's Hollinger's list and he stated his parameters clearly - improvement based on off season additions/subtractions. I still think he is undervaluing what the Blazers have done. 

Hollinger is a stat geek, and like many stat geeks he places much more emphasis on offense (where production is easily measured) than on defense (less measurable, but every bit as important when it comes to wins/losses).

First, adding Oden, even a young, foul prone Oden is a big upgrade at the center position. Defensively, he will be an immediate impact player. Offensively, how can he be worse than last year's starter, Joel Przybilla who averaged a whopping 2.0 PPG. Greg Oden will easily be in the top half of all centers in the league this year as a rookie. He'll be in the top 5 defensively (in spite of foul trouble - which will improve as the season progresses). Offensively, he'll average about 2x as many PPG as what Joel and Magloire did last year combined. Big improvement at the center position.

At power forward, yes we lose Zach and his great offense. We also lose his terrible defense. People who mention losing Zach's 23 PPG make it sound like his replacement will score 0 PPG. Even if we assume absolutely no improvement in his offensive game from last season to this (a faulty assumption, but one we must make if we are playing by Hollinger's rules in this analysis), LaMarcus Aldridge, if playing equivalent minutes to what Zach played last year would average 14.4 PPG (again, this is based on his per 40 scoring average from his rookie year and assumes absolutely no improvement in his offensive output). So, we lose 9 PPG at the starting PF position - an offset that will easily be made up by the improved scoring at the starting center position. Plus, Aldridge (again assuming no season-to-season improvement) is a vastly better defender than Zach. Aldridge is much taller with longer arms. He blocks and alters way more shots than Zach. Scoring on Zach in the paint is easy for taller, more athletic power forwards. Scoring in the paint against Aldridge is much more challenging. Aldridge also has much better lateral quickness and hustles back on defense. He's a much better interior defender, a much better perimeter defender and plays much better help defense than Zach. Zach lacks both the physical tools and the effort to be an even average defender in the NBA. LaMarcus Aldridge has both the physical tools and puts in the effort to play good defense. So, we lose 9 PPG at the starting PF spot, but gain MUCH better defense.

At SF, assuming we lose Ime (not a done deal at this point), we replace him with James Jones - a nearly identical player with a very similar skill set that is three inches taller and three years younger. Worst case, this is a wash.

SG - no change (based on Mr. Hollinger's criteria).

PG - We gained Blake and lost Dickau. This in my opinion is a huge upgrade. In Hollinger's analysis he assumes (incorrectly at this point) that adding Blake means losing Jack (and getting nothing in return). This is where his analysis completely falls appart. He thinks Jack is better than Blake and also mentions that he's younger and cheaper (neither of impact how many games the team wins this coming season - which is supposed to be what he's evaluating). I think this is another case where Hollinger's offensive-heavy statistical analysis impacts his judgment. Jack is clearly a better scorer - and that shows up in his higher PER. Since he invented the PER stat, it's no coincidence that Hollinger considers Jack a better player than Blake. Which one is actually better is a source of much debate, but for the case of this evaluation it's totally irrelevant - WE HAVE THEM BOTH. Both Nate and KP have said they plan to use Blake, Jack and Roy in a three man rotation at both guard spots (even occasionally going with a three guard line-up). So, the real question (at this point in time) is not is Steve Blake better than Jarret Jack. The real question should be is Steve Blake better than the player whose roster spot he's taken (Dan Dickau) and better than the players whose minutes he will consume (Dickau and Fred Jones). I say the answer is a resounding yes. A Blake/Jack/Roy three player rotation is much better than last year's four man guard rotation of Jack, Dickau, Roy and Jones. Yet, Hollinger considers the addition of Blake a negative (based on the false assumption that it means we trade Jarrett Jack and get nothing in return).

I also think our bench has improved. Much of that will be through the improvement of young players like Outlaw and Webster - but we can't count that here. The addition of Oden allows Joel to move to the back-up center role - one that given his injury history would seem to suit him better (although in Joel's case merely getting out of bed in the morning seems to put him at risk of injury). Channing Frye capably fills in the role LaMarcus Aldridge played last year backing up both the four and five spots. With Blake starting at PG, Jarrett Jack moves to bench backing up both guard spots. This is a huge improvement as Jack is better than any of the guards we had coming off the bench last year. While I like what McRoberts brings to the game with his great passing, he's bascially and end of the bench guys and guys who occupy the 10 - 15 roster spots rarely have any impact on how many games a team wins or loses.

So, in summary (using only Hollinger's criteria and not counting on any improvement of our young players) - a huge upgrade at starting center, a loss of 9 PPG at the starting PF spot but greatly improved defense, a wash at starting SF, SG and PG and an upgraded bench (mostly by moving Jack from starter to back-up). Even if we ignore the continued and expected improvement of our young players, I think this team, as it sits today with no further roster moves, would win 3 or 4 more games than last season. This is based mostly on the vastly improved defense at the 4 and 5 spots and the improved three man guard rotation. Defense wins game - a fact that often gets ignored by stat geeks like Hollinger.

In the real world where our young players (especially LaMarcus Aldridge) do improve, I think things look even better. I think they will win about 40 - 43 games and seriously challenge for a play-off spot in the West. Whether or not they make the play-offs will depend on how well Oden plays and how long it takes him to adjust to his teammates and NBA officiating. And, of course injuries. If Brandon Roy, Greg Oden and LaMarcus Aldridge can all remain reasonably healthy and not miss an excessive number of games (less than 10 each), I think we truly have a legitimate shot at making the play-offs.

BNM


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK, Hollinger assumes that signing Blake means Jack is leaving. He also assumes that Ime is leaving.
> 
> These are both assumptions widely shared by the posters on this board - but when Hollinger makes them, people get upset! :rofl2:


For one thing, he rates other teams on what they did, not what he thinks they might do. And Jack, at any rate, would mean bringing in another player. So he is saying that dealing Jacks certainly makes the Blazers worse without considering who the team would get. 

And I keep getting back to Philly. They won't win more games but they are better? 

Not to mention Sacramento. New Jersey was right to let Mikki Moore go but Sacto is better because they added him, along with a rookie stiff center whose most notable attribute is his "God Bless George Bush" bumper sticker.


----------



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

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK, Hollinger assumes that signing Blake means Jack is leaving. He also assumes that Ime is leaving.
> 
> These are both assumptions widely shared by the posters on this board - but when Hollinger makes them, people get upset! :rofl2:


Who's upset? I merely stated, correctly, that Hollinger's assumptions were incorrect (at this point in time) and factoring him into his analysis leads to faulty conclusions.

He based his conclusions on "facts not in evidence", which by definition makes his conclusions invalid.

I also doubt that any posters on this board assume we will trade Jarrett Jack and get absolutely NOTHING in return. If Hollinger wants to assume we trade Jarrett Jack, he should also assume we will get a player in return that helps our team in some fashion and that we won't just give Jack away for nothing.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> For one thing, he rates other teams on what they did, not what he thinks they might do. And Jack, at any rate, would mean bringing in another player. So he is saying that dealing Jacks certainly makes the Blazers worse without considering who the team would get.


I actually agree with this. I don't understand why Hollinger doesn't see the Blake addition as a positive... either he's simply an upgrade over Dickau, or he puts us in a position to move Jack or Sergio for more value. If we'd given up Jack for Blake, I could see how he MIGHT consider it a negative (although for next year alone, I'm not so sure)... but as he framed it? I don't like it.

Also, it's less clear to us all than to him that Ime is certainly gone.



> Not to mention Sacramento. New Jersey was right to let Mikki Moore go but Sacto is better because they added him, along with a rookie stiff center whose most notable attribute is his "God Bless George Bush" bumper sticker.


And his 14.9 ppg as a true freshman who battled illness for much of his first year.

True freshman centers almost NEVER average that much. I think calling him a "stiff" is a joke.

Ed O.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

John Hollinger would make a great NBA General Manager ...





























...




















... FOR ME TO POOP ON!











-Pop


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I would agree with Hollinger. With what the team has put together so far, we haven't improved short-term. We're not done yet though.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Ed O said:


> And his 14.9 ppg as a true freshman who battled illness for much of his first year.
> 
> True freshman centers almost NEVER average that much. I think calling him a "stiff" is a joke.
> 
> Ed O.


I know it was a strong draft, but 7 footers who are good rarely last as long as he did. I am not the only one skeptical if he's going to have a big NBA impact.

Against what kind of competition did he play?


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Just looking at the starting five (IMO) compared with last year.

Jack vs. Blake - I'm assuming still that Jack is being traded. Jack is a superior player. He will improve. Blake's numbers too, but they won't catch up to Jack. Jack's the better offensive player and they're near equal defenders. Moving Jack is still the right idea for the right player, as it allows more playing time for Sergio, who IMO is the better long-term solution.

Roy (year 1) vs Roy (year 2) - I'm going to go out on a hunch and say Roy improves upon last season. The difference won't be as big as the loss of Blake though.

Udoka vs. Jones - The only area that Ime falls short is in defense, but the margin isn't much at all. Ime is the better player. I still say that we'll upgrade this position, but as of now, we haven't.

Randolph vs. Aldridge - Lamarcus will be the better player IMO, but not next year. It will be fairly close though. Aldridge is by far the better defender, but not enough to eclipse Randolph's offensive superiority.

Oden vs. Przybilla - Oden wins this rather easily. I do not think foul trouble will be a factor. He'll be healthier and quicker. 2 months of training camp will get him ready to go and surpass many expectations.

As of now, our bench is pretty even. There'll be some improvements, such as Rodriguez and Frye, but should they stand pat, the rest of the team will likely disappoint.

Overall, we're looking at a 30+ win season and a lottery selection. I'm cool with that. It sure would be nice to make another move though to improve us at the 3, 2, and or 1.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> I know it was a strong draft, but 7 footers who are good rarely last as long as he did. I am not the only one skeptical if he's going to have a big NBA impact.


There's quite a difference between skepticism of a 10th pick overall and calling a 19 year old a "stiff".



> Against what kind of competition did he play?


I dunno what his competition was like in comparison to other center prospects... the PAC 10 is pretty good. He did well against LSU (Big Baby) and decently against Pitt (Gray), as I recall.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Crimson the Cat said:


> As of now, our bench is pretty even. There'll be some improvements, such as Rodriguez and Frye, but should they stand pat, the rest of the team will likely disappoint.


Frye is, IMO, a downgrade from Aldridge coming off the bench.

Ed O.


----------



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

Ed O said:


> Frye is, IMO, a downgrade from Aldridge coming off the bench.
> 
> Ed O.


If you just go by last year's numbers, I agree wholeheartedly. However, if you look at their rookie numbers, Frye actually posted better rookie numbers (higher PER, higher Pts/40, higher Reb/40, etc.) than Aldridge. So, which Channing Frye did we get - the promising rookie or the disappointing sophomore? Hard to say. 

On a positive note, Frye flourished coming off the bench under Larry Brown, a tough, no nonsense coach who values defense and he floundered as a starter under Isiah Thomas, a more easy going coach who values offense more than defense. Nate is closer to the former than the latter and Frye will once again be coming off the bench and not have the pressure of being a starter. Plus, Frye sounded absolutely giddy to be leaving NY and coming to Portland. I am cautiously hopeful the change of scenery and the excitement of playing for his new coach and with his new teammates will motivate Frye and we'll see him return to the promising form he displayed as a rookie - or at least close.

BNM


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I guess I am in the minority, but in the *short-term* I believe replacing Ime with Jones will be a significant downgrade.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I guess I am in the minority, but in the *short-term* I believe replacing Ime with Jones will be a significant downgrade.


You may be right, but at this time last season, most of us never would have thought some guy named Ime Udoka would be the Blazers' starting SF. We would have greeted the news with disappointment. Ime turned out to be a pleasant surprise.

Bottom line, we'll see in camp whether there's another pleasant surprise or a major disappointment in the moves the Blazers made at the SF position.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> You may be right, but at this time last season, most of us never would have thought some guy named Ime Udoka would be the Blazers' starting SF. We would have greeted the news with disappointment. Ime turned out to be a pleasant surprise.
> 
> Bottom line, we'll see in camp whether there's another pleasant surprise or a major disappointment in the moves the Blazers made at the SF position.


Hey, I love Ime's story as much as anyone, but he is ridiculously overvalued on this board. He is a soon-to-be 30 year-old with limited athletic ability to go along with overseas knees.

As for his defense, I remind everyone that he guarded Kobe Bryant for much of the 65 point game. Ime was a solid role player on a mediocre team. That is his on-court NBA legacy right now.


----------

