# Would you trade Aldridge for Derrick Rose?



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Let's assume that two teams with good young PGs but no size end up 1 and 2. The first one takes Beasley. The second offers the #2 to Portland for LaMarcus Aldridge. Would you do it? (I know this has been discussed, but Rose has played well since then, and we haven't had a poll yet.)


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

I'm not a Blazers fan but i'm sure Blazers fans wouldn't want to give up Aldridge, he is going to be a monster next to Oden.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea, no way I do it. LMA and Oden will be better than Rose for this team.

There are other PGs out there that we can get to fill in at our PG spot, but there isn't another PF out there that will work next to Oden like LMA will. LMA has proved he will be a star in this league, while Rose hasn't. I think Rose eventually will be one of the top 3 PGs in the league, but we don't know yet.

That being said, I would give up anything other than Oden, LMA and Roy. A combination of anything like Outlaw, Rudy, Westber, thsi years lottery, 2010 1st, cash and so on to get Rose.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I love Rose, but Aldridge is going to be great next to Oden. He's already proven he can score inside and outside, and is equally as good on the defensive end as well.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Nothing against LMA, but I would trade him for Rose. Skilled PGs are a lot harder to find than power forwards. I would almost rather have a solid rebounding defensive PF next to Oden. A lineup of Rose-Roy-Outlaw-[defensive PF]-Oden would be amazing.

I would be happy with keeping LMA also. But, if someone offered Rose for LMA, I would think hard about it. It won't happen though. Rose is the kind of guy you build a team around (like Oden & Roy). LMA is not. The only way I see this even being possible is if Golden State wins the lottery and decides they don't need Rose and need interior help now (Aldridge). All highly unlikely. No other team would trade Rose away (IMHO).


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

You do not break up Twin Towers..its as simple as that.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

LMA + Oden = better then Rose + Oden

That is how I see it. I love Rose and would trade anything outside of the big 3 to get him, but not for any of the big 3. That is our core and that is how we will win.

GO, LMA and Roy (IMO) is a better core then Rose, GO and Roy.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Too high a price to pay for an unproven commodity, for a player who has already demonstrated remarkable growth in just his second year and his first year as starter.

Oden + LMA equals a nightmare matchup.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> You do not break up Twin Towers..its as simple as that.


Exactly. 

No, vehemently.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^yea man, 100% agree with you! 

I can definitely see Reep's arguement though. Finding a PG like Rose is as rare as finding a PF like Aldridge, but PG is a more important position.

Thing is though, Aldridge has proven himself, AND is perfect with Oden. while we don't know how Rose would do playing in the NBA with Roy and Oden.

Anyway, there was a comment i saw on Youtube on a Rudy vid, that said, "Rumor has it that Phoenix wants to trade Barbosa to Portland for Fernandez".

What do you guys think?


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Would you do Aldridge for Rose if you knew that KP was targeting Josh Smith with the '09 cap space? With Horford in Atlanta they have two great PF's and Smith will want huge money. Horford is not a center and ATL has all kinds of ownership issues and can not just give out $10+ mil a year. I can see Smith traded for less than true value due to these issues. Or he could just accept the Qualifying Offer and then be a free agen in '09. I would be very tempted.

Edit. Or, if you could get Smith on the cheap you could possibly flip him for Rose. Just another thought.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Anyway, there was a comment i saw on Youtube on a Rudy vid, that said, "Rumor has it that Phoenix wants to trade Barbosa to Portland for Fernandez".
> 
> What do you guys think?



You should post this as a seperate thread. I think it would generate some interesting discussion.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Would you do Aldridge for Rose if you knew that KP was targeting Josh Smith with the '09 cap space? With Horford in Atlanta they have two great PF's and Smith will want huge money. Horford is not a center and ATL has all kinds of ownership issues and can not just give out $10+ mil a year. I can see Smith traded for less than true value due to these issues. Or he could just accept the Qualifying Offer and then be a free agen in '09. I would be very tempted.
> 
> Edit. Or, if you could get Smith on the cheap you could possibly flip him for Rose. Just another thought.


My opinion on the matter is... I don't see Aldridge going anywhere, for any player, unless its a LeBron James type. I thikn most of us would not do Aldridge for Rose straight up, as Rose hasn't proved anything on the NBA level yet.

Gettin' Josh Smith would be cool, but Smith seems a lot like Outlaw. SF/PF hybrid which we don't really need. His attitude has also come into question, which we don't really need. I wouldn't midn picking him up, but the question would be for what cost.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^yea man, 100% agree with you!
> 
> I can definitely see Reep's arguement though. Finding a PG like Rose is as rare as finding a PF like Aldridge, but PG is a more important position.
> 
> ...


I live in the Valley and Suns fans think that Barbosa is the second coming. My thoughts on him is that he is not a PG. Can he be a PG next to Roy, sure. But he is not a great ball handler and will not be throwing ally-oops. He would be a shoot first PG. He has ridiculously long arms (think spider monkey) which makes him a decent defender. I would not trade Rudy for him straight up. I would have to get their picks as well. I think if Rudy is going to be traded it would be in a package for Rose/pick.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Talent-wise, Rose is on another level. The fact that Aldridge will be next to Oden though stops me from doing this trade. You don't break-up such a good frontcourt.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^good insight. Thanks. Very helpful. That settles it. I want a PG with scoring option for sure, but not one that would really take shots from Aldridge, Roy and Oden. 

i think you are right, i'd rather keep Rudy than Barbosa. Specially if we get Westbrook via draft.

And how sick would it be to do somethin' like Outlaw, Rudy, first this year, 2010 first for the #2 pick?


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> My opinion on the matter is... I don't see Aldridge going anywhere, for any player, unless its a LeBron James type. I thikn most of us would not do Aldridge for Rose straight up, as Rose hasn't proved anything on the NBA level yet.
> 
> Gettin' Josh Smith would be cool, but Smith seems a lot like Outlaw. SF/PF hybrid which we don't really need. His attitude has also come into question, which we don't really need. *I wouldn't midn picking him up, but the question would be for what cost*.


I would only want him as a replacement for Aldridge *if* KP thought Rose was worth Aldridge. What I like about him is his excellent help defense and his killer instinct. I was watching the game at the end of last season when he got into an argument with the coach. I can not remember the particulars, but I do remember that I agreed with him, just not how he argued his point at the end of a game. But that goes back to having the killer instinct. I love that and do not see him as having an attitude problem, just a lack of winning problem.


----------



## LittleAlex (Feb 14, 2008)

You never trade a quality big for an unproven small. That said, I would trade any combination of players that didn't include B-Roy, LA, or Oden to get Rose. Those four, plus a collection of low cost free agents and D-Leaguers would be enough to make the playoffs next year.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

While I salivate at the thought of Derrick Rose on this young team I would be hesitant to trade Lamarcus for him. As had been said, L.A. is a proven NBA player whereas Rose has yet to prove anything in the NBA. It would certainly be something to think hard about though as I do believe Rise will one day be a excellent NBA player.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I think that with those three star players in Roy, Aldridge, and Oden. Portland could find answers at the one and three through free agency and trades. They have plenty of pieces to make something of.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I don't understand the question. After the ping pong balls drop and Portland move's up to number one in the draft, why will we need to trade LaMarcus for Rose?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> Nothing against LMA, but I would trade him for Rose. Skilled PGs are a lot harder to find than power forwards.


I'm not sure that that's true, talented, skilled point guards are rarer than talented, skilled big men.

In any case, I actually do think Rose may well be a more talented player than Aldridge. Aldridge is safer, having proven a lot at a young age at the NBA level, but he's never looked as dynamically amazing, at any level, as Rose.

If I had a blank roster, I'd take Rose over Aldridge. On this Blazers team, however, I don't think he's an ideal fit. Portland doesn't _need_ a Rose. He would certainly make the team better, but not enough, on a team with Roy in the backcourt and Oden as the first option, to cancel out the defensive and rebounding losses of Aldridge. Not to mention the extreme fortune of Portland's "twin towers" happening to have exactly complimentary games. Oden is a low-post monster. Aldridge does his damage best in the high-post. That sort of front court synergy is incredibly rare.

If Rose were guaranteed to be a Chris Paul (in terms of playing style, not just talent), I'd make the deal in a moment. But considering Rose's risk compared to Aldridge, considering how well Aldridge fits this roster, considering how a scoring point guard, while nice, isn't a necessity and, finally, considering how many other good guard options are available in this draft, I would not give up Aldridge for Rose.

I don't think it would be a terrible decision to do so. I'd be conflicted if Pritchard did it and inclined to be excited...but right now, I'm leaning against it.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

If I thought Rose and Roy could work well together I might be tempted. But Rose, like pretty much all great point guards, is most effective with the ball in his hands. I'd really like to have a guy that's a decent ball handler and a great shooter who knows his job is to bring the ball up the court and give it to Brandon.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

NBADraft.net has Rose at #1 now, over Beasly. Wow....


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

If Frye was playing better I'd do it. Aldridge is going to be a great player, however Rose is going to be a great PG and that is something this team really needs. I think right now, I'd pass. I think that Portland is going to be attractive enough once Oden is back and Rudy is injected into this offense.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Woah... now they have

1. Rose
2. Beasly
3. Mayo

weird... huge change. Its definitely going to depend on the team.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ruff Draft said:


> Talent-wise, Rose is on another level. The fact that Aldridge will be next to Oden though stops me from doing this trade. You don't break-up such a good frontcourt.


While I have seen flashes from Rose on the talent front, the guy has not dominated at the college level to the point of being called "on another level." Do I believe he could get there? Yes. But he has not dominated yet. This makes me question, "Is his motor running."


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

hasoos said:


> While I have seen flashes from Rose on the talent front, the guy has not dominated at the college level to the point of being called "on another level." Do I believe he could get there? Yes. But he has not dominated yet. This makes me question, "Is his motor running."



I agree. While Rose is a very good prospect, IMHO he is somewhat over-rated for a guy who has not consistently dominated at the college level. Even if he reaches his full potential, and that is not guaranteed, it could take several seasons for him to make an impact as a pro. 

Maybe my memories are skewed, but I seem to recall Paul being far more impressive at the college level.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I agree. While Rose is a very good prospect, IMHO he is somewhat over-rated for a guy who has not consistently dominated at the college level. Even if he reaches his full potential, and that is not guaranteed, it could take several seasons for him to make an impact as a pro.
> 
> Maybe my memories are skewed, but I seem to recall Paul being far more impressive at the college level.


Remember that Paul was a sophomore when he came out. I don't think his freshman year was much better than Rose. I wasn't impressed with Rose against Tennessee (only loss), but in the tournament he has really turned it on. He has a rare combination of size, hops and speed at his position. 

In his last three games (most important games of his career against Mich St., Texas, UCLA) he has averaged *24 pts, 6 reb, 6 asst, 1 t/o, (6:1 asst:t/o), shooting 57% from the field and 89% from the line (on 9 attempts/game)*. Those numbers look pretty dominant to me for a freshman going up against three pretty solid teams.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Reep said:


> Remember that Paul was a sophomore when he came out. I don't think his freshman year was much better than Rose. I wasn't impressed with Rose against Tennessee (only loss), but in the tournament he has really turned it on. He has a rare combination of size, hops and speed at his position.
> 
> In his last three games (most important games of his career against Mich St., Texas, UCLA) he has averaged *24 pts, 6 reb, 6 asst, 1 t/o, (6:1 asst:t/o), shooting 57% from the field and 89% from the line (on 9 attempts/game)*. Those numbers look pretty dominant to me for a freshman going up against three pretty solid teams.


Fair points.

His play in the tourney makes me wonder - is it maturity/improvement, or is it motivation? If it is the former - great. If it is the latter - that goes back to the point HASOOS raised about his motor. 

Aw, who knows. :whoknows: By this time of the season, these kids have been under the microscope so long, it is easy to over-think things and make huge flaws out of small blemishes!


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i'd give no more than aldridge. at 13, i think we can get a starter quality pf in arthur, randolph, or love.

i love the potential of aldridge and oden in the front court, but i believe rose will challenge paul and williams for the best pg in the league.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> Woah... now they have
> 
> 1. Rose
> 2. Beasly
> ...


Wow. Three months ago, there was speculation that Mayo could be a late-lottery pick.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^i know. Weird... everything just changed... Chances of Mayo are no slim to none.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> You do not break up Twin Towers..its as simple as that.


You mean, like trading Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler?


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

nope wouldnt do...cuz what do we have at the 4 now??


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

I don't think I'd do the trade, but I think it brings up interesting questions:

Is Rose going to be as good as Deron?
Is Rose going to be as good as C. Paul?
Would you trade LMA for Deron?
Would you trade LMA for C. Paul?


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

wizmentor said:


> I don't think I'd do the trade, but I think it brings up interesting questions:
> 
> Is Rose going to be as good as Deron?
> Is Rose going to be as good as C. Paul?
> ...


good point but i also think he is less like deron or chris and more like a poor mans dwayne wade becuas ehe isnt as good a passer as d will or paul but is a better scorer and rebounder

so would i???

probably not cuz then we have no low post scorer


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dwood615 said:


> good point but i also think he is less like deron or chris and more like a poor mans dwayne wade becuas ehe isnt as good a passer as d will or paul but is a better scorer and rebounder
> 
> so would i???
> 
> probably not cuz then we have no low post scorer



So you don't think Greg Oden will be able to be a low post scorer?


----------



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

No, I wouldn't trade Aldridge for Rose. I really like Rose, and would love to see the Blazers find some way to get him that doesn't involve trading Roy, Aldridge or Oden, but I definitely would NOT trade Aldridge to get him.

I agree with all the others that have said you don't trade a big for a small, Aldridge is proven at the NBA level, Rose isn't, etc. But my big reason is that if we trade Aldridge that leaves us severely thin up front. What if Oden doesn't come back 100%, needs more time to rehab, or worse yet needs more surgery or suffers another injury? Then we have Joel and Raef as the only players on our roster over 6'9" 215lbs. How many games would a line-up of Roy, Rose, Martell win with a starting front court of Joel and Raef, or Joel and Travis? Not many. I know Nate likes to play Travis at the back-up 4, but no way is he a starting power forward in the NBA, especially the western conference where he'd have to try to guard guys like Boozer, Duncan, Amare and Gasol on a nightly basis. Most of the top teams in the west have solid starting power forwards, and with the Suns adding Shaq, the emergence of Andrew Bynum and the addition of Gasol, many of the top teams now are very solid at BOTH the 4 and 5 spots. If the Blazers want to compete, they need to be, too. A healthy Oden combined with Aldridge puts them in the same class at the 4/5 as the Lakers and Suns. Without Oden, they are average, at best, up front. Without Oden AND Aldridge, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality big men (nothing against Joel, he had a great season - for him, but he's hardly all-star material).

Edit: Oops, forgot about Channing. So, replace Raef with Channing above and you still get the same result.

While an upgrade at PG is definitely needed (sorry Blake - see my Joel comment above), I would not downgrade our front court, which will be one of our strengths, to get it. As much as I like Rose, some of what he would give us we already get from Brandon Roy. And while I do think Roy/Rose would be a good fit, I think there are other options, either later in this draft or through a trade, that will also work well beside Roy in the Blazers backcourt. If we trade Aldridge, I don't see anyone else readily obtainable that would fit as well next to Oden in the Blazers front court.

So, keep Aldridge, and look for a PG elsewhere.

BNM


----------



## CharcoalF (Feb 11, 2005)

Sort of reminds me when Orlando traded Webber for Penny and 3 #1's. I would have loved to see what Webber and Shaq could have done together.

If the team at #1 likes Beasley more than Rose, why would the Blazers think that LA is the lesser of these three players? Unless there is something about LA that I do not know (work ethic or his desire to stay in this area), I keep LA.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

No, I wouldn't trade Aldridge for Rose. I really like Rose, and would love to see the Blazers find some way to get him that doesn't involve trading Roy, Aldridge or Oden, but I definitely would NOT trade Aldridge to get him.

HAHA No chance. I always find it funny when people think we can get a young top notch guy with little salary for just a bunch of avg players.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

wizmentor said:


> Would you trade LMA for Deron?
> Would you trade LMA for C. Paul?


yes to both questions. i think paul and williams are already the two top pgs in the nba. they will remain so for the next decade.

rose has the potential to be better than them both. 

aldridge is already a good pf and will get better, but i don't see him being a top 3 pf any time during his career.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I think it's not as difficult to replace Aldridge as it would be to replace a player like Rose appears on his way to being.

Don't trade big for small shouldn't really apply to a star type point guard. If Rose seems more likely to develop into an all-star after observing him during workouts- if we get that chance- then it's a good move.

Right now, comparing their college careers, I think Rose looks more promising.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Rose for Aldridge would be vary tempting. I think at the end of the day you have to ask yourself who else can play the PF position?


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

BlazerFan22 said:


> Rose for Aldridge would be vary tempting. I think at the end of the day you have to ask yourself who else can play the PF position?


How about Zach? Just kidding....


----------



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

I'm actually hoping Memphis ends up with the No. 2 pick. Of course, if they do and he's available, there will be tremendous pressure on them to take Rose (think Draft the 'Stache, only with a *good* player who *IS* local). If that happens, they may look to trade Mike Conley. They already have Kyle Lowery who would make a good back-up and Javaris Crittendon who is a combo guard that can play the point. No sense having two consecutive high lottery picks that play the same position. We have a number of young, inexpensive players that we could either trade straight up for Conley, or package in a 2-for-1. They might be interested in Travis, Martell, Channing and/or Sergio.

Or, we could offer them Raef's huge expiring contract, plus one or two young players, draft picks and/or cash for Conley, Mike Miller and Brian Cardinal. That would give the Blazers an upgrade at PG and SF, would give Memphis a lot of cap relief (or more importantly just flat out save them some money). Miller is one of their best players, along with Gay, but they are rebuilding and I think in the long run Gay is their SF of the future. So, Miller, and his big contract, are in the way. Cardinal is overpaid and pretty, much worthless - especially to a rebuilding team that's strapped for cash. Throw in any two of Travis, Martell and Channing (and whatever else is needed to make it work, draft picks, $3 million of Paul Allen's petty cash, whatever) and it clears the way for Memphis to draft Rose and move Gay to his best position. That gives them two potential future all-stars, plus a ton of other cheap, young talent.

New Starting Line-Ups:

Us: Oden, Aldridge, Miller, Roy, Conley
Them: Darko, Channing, Gay, Martell, Rose

The trade makes both teams better and more balanced. Memphis who is rebuilding would take over the mantel of "youngest team" from us, would save some cash/cap relief and have a roster full of cheap, young players with a ton of potential. We don't get Rose, but we get a young PG who can play defense and distribute the ball (and has been a teammate of our young franchise center since 8th grade), plus a good all around (16.5ppg/6.7rpg/3.4apg) starting SF who can knock down an open shot and is a good rebounder and passer for his position. And, while not as young as our "core" players, he's not exactly ancient (turned 28 in February - about the same age as Blake and Joel).

BNM


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Miller would be a horrible fit on this team... Miller doesn't play defense and needs to many shots to be effective. With Outlaw, Webster, Roy, Aldridge, Oden and Rudy, it just wouldn't work.

With Martell emerging, Outlaw emerging and Rudy coming, I see our 2-3 positions taken care of. I don't see them including Conley and Miller unless we give them a lot of young players in return, which would be a horrible trade. Miller also has a big contract.

With Rudy and Oden joining this team next year, i see absolutely no reason to trade 4+ players and essentially have a completely different line-up. I think KP has put us in a great position to win with what we have, and has given the team a lot of young talent, that knows their roles.

Role players that fit and have chemistry is much more important at this point than adding a 17ppg player like Miller.



> So you don't think Greg Oden will be able to be a low post scorer?


It doesn't look like Oden is going to be near the offensive player that Aldridge is.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm definitely against this and am glad to see that most here are as well. While I think that Rose may one day emerge as one of the top players in the game at his position, I think LA projects to do that as well. But while I see LaMarcus as a near perfect compliment to Greg, I don't see Rose as nearly as complimentary to Roy. Both guys would be looking to drive more times then not and neither is a great perimeter threat. With his side cocked form, I doubt Rose is ever as good from the outside as Roy is now.

btw... on a side PG note, I expect KP to bring in Mario Chalmers in for a workout.

STOMP


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

LA is proven in the NBA, Rose still has to clear up some question marks. Especially the outside shooting. The small upside of Rose exceeding LA in the NBA game is not worth the horrific downside of Rose falling short of expectations.

Pass.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

One other factor to consider here: is Nate's conservative, half-court offense really the best environment for a guy like Rose? As good as Rose might be, would he be as valuable in Portland as he would with a more up-tempo team? 

Assuming the team really is committed to Nate as coach, wouldn't a Deron Williams type PG be a better fit?

Just something to ponder.


----------



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

MrJayremmie said:


> Miller would be a horrible fit on this team... Miller doesn't play defense and needs to many shots to be effective. With Outlaw, Webster, Roy, Aldridge, Oden and Rudy, it just wouldn't work.


Other than the lack of defense, we must be talking about two different Mike Millers. The Mike Miller currently playing for Memphis, a bad team without a lot of scoring options, is averaging 11.8 FGA/G. That's not exactly chucker territory. Prior to the Gasol trade (give away), Miller was a distant third on the team in FGA/G behind Gay at 16.6 and Gasol at 14.5. That doesn't sound like a guy who needs a lot of FGA to be effective. It sounds EXACTLY like what Miller is - a viable third scoring option.

I also disagree that Miller would be a bad fit on this team. In fact, if he was a lock down defender, he'd be a PERFECT fit. We need a player who can consistently knock down an open shot to spread the defense. We kind of had that back in December with James Jones - not so much these days. We also get that every once in a while from Martell - basically whenever we play Utah, or once every 6 or 8 games otherwise. Both James Jones and Martell are streaky shooters. When they are hot, watch out. When they are not, watch out. Miller has proven over his career that he can *consistently* hit an open shot. Both Jones and Webster haven't.

Miller is also a good rebounder (6.7 RPG) for his size and position and an excellent passer. On a team with only one other legitimate scoring option he is averaging 3.4 APG this year, and last year he averaged 4.3 APG when he had Gasol to pass to. In spite of his athleticism, Martell is a worse rebounder and a MUCH worse passer. Miller is a significant upgrade at starting small forward over anyone on the current Blazers roster. Will Martell someday be better? Who knows. He shows flashes, but he also totally disappears for entire games on a regular basis.

Besides, Miller isn't the real prize I'm after, it's Conley. Miller is just a nice throw in that also addresses an immediate need.



MrJayremmie said:


> With Martell emerging, Outlaw emerging and Rudy coming, I see our 2-3 positions taken care of. I don't see them including Conley and Miller unless we give them a lot of young players in return, which would be a horrible trade. Miller also has a big contract.


Rudy isn't a 3. We need an upgrade at the starting 3 spot. Is Martell emerging? Sure, he's playing more minutes, but if you go back and look his actual on-court production, adjusted for minutes, it's almost identical to his rookie year. Yes, he still has "upside", but he really hasn't shown all that much improvement in his three seasons here - and it's not like he hasn't been given chances. Outlaw is a good 6th or 7th man, but he's a pretty one dimensional scorer. He basically shoots as much as Miller (11.7 FGA/G), scores three less PPG, gets fewer rebounds and far fewer assists.



MrJayremmie said:


> With Rudy and Oden joining this team next year, i see absolutely no reason to trade 4+ players and essentially have a completely different line-up. I think KP has put us in a great position to win with what we have, and has given the team a lot of young talent, that knows their roles.


At some point, this roster needs to be consolidated. There are just too many guys who are too similar. Adding Rudy only make things worse, in terms of roster congestion. They need to start thinning the roster by trading quantity for quality. Trading seldom used Raef LaFrentz and two or three young players (or two players plus a draft pick) helps eliminate that congestion. You cut Brian Cardinal (like they did with Francis last year) and you end up with two starting caliber players at what are currently our two weakest positions. Even if you give up Webster, Outlaw (or Frye) and Jack (or Sergio), you end up with both a better starting five AND a better bench than we had this season.

Starters: Oden, Aldridge, Miller, Roy, Conley
2nd Unit: Joel, Frye (or Outlaw), Jones, Rudy, Blake

Conley is a young, athletic PG who plays good defense and distributes the ball. The big knock on him is his outside shooting. Fair enough. He needs to improve, but on a team with so many other offensive options, including great shooters like Mike Miller, Rudy and James Jones, shooting the ball would not be his role and I don't want a PG that takes 15 shots a game. The best thing Conley gives us is a PG that is willing and able to guard small, fast PGs. Something we currently lack big time. And with Conley, Roy and Miller you have three excellent passers who would all be great at feeding Aldridge and Oden in the post



MrJayremmie said:


> Role players that fit and have chemistry is much more important at this point than adding a 17ppg player like Miller.


On this team Miller would be a role player. Currently in Memphis he has to score a lot, but does so very efficiently, because they don't have many other viable scoring options since they traded Gasol. Miller has spent his entire career being the second or third scoring option on his team. He's never been THE man, he's always taken a secondary, or tertiary role. He IS a role player. And he addresses a need - a starting caliber SF that can CONSISTENTLY hit an open shot.

Again it's Conley who is the real prize. He's already a MUCH better defender than any PG the Blazer have on their roster or stashed in Europe. He's very young and an amazing athlete. He has a much better chance at being our PG of the future than anyone we currently have.

So, yeah, we give up some young, redundant, not-fully-developed talent, but get two new starters at our two weakest positions. Such a trade would address weaknesses in our starting line-up, thin our already crowded roster, and still leave us with PLENTY of young talent with a lot of potential for improvement (Oden, Aldridge, Roy, Rudy, Conley). We get better now, keep our core intact and and don't mortgage the future.



MrJayremmie said:


> It doesn't look like Oden is going to be near the offensive player that Aldridge is.


No, he'll be better. Look for Oden to average about as many PPG as Aldridge next season (both in the high teens) and by his third year he'll be our leading scorer. His low post game is already MUCH more developed than Aldridge's and he will be much more physically dominant. Oden will make a HUGE impact at both ends of the court. He will be a beast that NOBODY will be able to guard 1:1. Shaq in his prime could have, but Shaq is old, fat and slow now. Yao has the size, but lacks the quickness to guard a freak like Oden. Bynum will have the best chance - if he continues to improve. He's really the only player in the league today that can come close to matching Oden's combination of size, strength and athleticism.

BTW, none of that is a knock on LaMarcus, he's just a totally different kind of player than Oden - and that's why they make such a good pair. Oden commanding double teams and wreaking havoc in the low post and LaMarcus spreading things out and knocking down those sweet mid-range jumpers.

BNM


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

You want to give away our young players, who do what Miller does (Webster, Jones) and take a 28 year old Miller, who doesn't play defense and has a huge contract? That doesn't sound all that good to me, considering what we have. With Rudy Fernandez coming in, why do we need another shooter on this team?



> Besides, Miller isn't the real prize I'm after, it's Conley. Miller is just a nice throw in that also addresses an immediate need.


I like Conley. Miller not so much.



> Rudy isn't a 3. We need an upgrade at the starting 3 spot. Is Martell emerging? Sure, he's playing more minutes, but if you go back and look his actual on-court production, adjusted for minutes, it's almost identical to his rookie year. Yes, he still has "upside", but he really hasn't shown all that much improvement in his three seasons here - and it's not like he hasn't been given chances. Outlaw is a good 6th or 7th man, but he's a pretty one dimensional scorer. He basically shoots as much as Miller (11.7 FGA/G), scores three less PPG, gets fewer rebounds and far fewer assists.


Yes, but Webster has learned to contribute without scoring. He has also shown signs of briliance and is a great defender with a small contract. He also has great chemistry with this team. He seems to me somebody who will be more valuable to this team than Miller. And why not have a 6'6 Roy move to the 3 and Rudy to the 2? 



> At some point, this roster needs to be consolidated. There are just too many guys who are too similar. Adding Rudy only make things worse, in terms of roster congestion. They need to start thinning the roster by trading quantity for quality. Trading seldom used Raef LaFrentz and two or three young players (or two players plus a draft pick) helps eliminate that congestion. You cut Brian Cardinal (like they did with Francis last year) and you end up with two starting caliber players at what are currently our two weakest positions. Even if you give up Webster, Outlaw (or Frye) and Jack (or Sergio), you end up with both a better starting five AND a better bench than we had this season.


Yes, i agree. Consolidate the roster. but not by bringing in 3 players. You have to realize what we would have to give up to attain Conley and Miller from them. They want young players, expiring contracts and draft picks. We have them all, but are we willing to give them up? Again, for miller who is 28, has a big contract, and someone that could probably be easily replaced? he is a shooter man, those come and go. We have lots of 'em.



> No, he'll be better. Look for Oden to average about as many PPG as Aldridge next season (both in the high teens) and by his third year he'll be our leading scorer. His low post game is already MUCH more developed than Aldridge's and he will be much more physically dominant. Oden will make a HUGE impact at both ends of the court. He will be a beast that NOBODY will be able to guard 1:1. Shaq in his prime could have, but Shaq is old, fat and slow now. Yao has the size, but lacks the quickness to guard a freak like Oden. Bynum will have the best chance - if he continues to improve. He's really the only player in the league today that can come close to matching Oden's combination of size, strength and athleticism.


LOL. This i don't agree with. I see Oden as our 3rd leading scorer at best. Roy and aldridge do have, and will always have a superior offensive game compared to Oden. The knock on Oden since college was his offensive game. He is going to be a defensive Center first, on par with the greats. His offense will come with time, but Aldridge's will just keep getting better.

BTW. I find having a conversation with you MUCH better than most other people here. You keep it very civilized and there are no personal attacks or sarcasm or anything like that. Very cool man. Much respect and rep. 

Just giving my opinions of course. I doubt any of us will change our mind.

Edit - i'm going to be taking off here. Just wanted to also say, in order to attain Miller and Conley, i see us having to give up Outlaw, who is a huge part of our team, imo. I think that is just giving too much. Right now, I love the team, because we have the leader, the post players, and backups at every position, and they will keep getting better. PG is a position that needs to be adressed because we don't have a young player who is going to get better and looks to be what we need as our PG, but we do have a player (Blake) who will be PERFECT for the backup PG role, and even starting PG role while the young PG learns from him during the season (assuming we go via draft).

I'm one of those fans that goes by the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I feel that we have a great thing goin' here, and Oden and Rudy are only going to make it better. I would hate to give up a guy like Webster who looks to be a starter for us. Outlaw who is a great roleplayer who knows his job off the bench. Jones who is our shooter, or anyone like that. I would love to consolidate, but go after it wisely.

It makes me sad to see lots of people propsing we do a 6-7 man trade this off-season with picks involved. I don't see KP doin' it, as i believe he loves what we have going here also.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

I really like your idea BNM. Assuming Memphis drafts Rose....ESPN's trade machine isn't playing nice and letting me trade Raef, but this deal does work cap wise, and it seems fair to Memphis. I guess the question is how good will Conley be...

To Memphis - LaFrentz, Outlaw, 2008 first round pick, and - Rodriguez or Jack or 2nd rounders?
To Portland - Cardinal, Conley, Miller

Portland
1st unit - Conley, Roy, Miller, Aldridge, Oden
2nd unit - Blake, Fernandez, Webster, Frye, Przybilla

That would be a great lineup for now and the future. The 3,4,5 of each unit are eerily similar in playing styles and should give us a good 10 man rotation. Or you could switch Webster with Miller to add two good scoring options in Miller and Rudy to the second unit.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^You think they'd want outlaw when they have Gay and Warrick? And they give up Conley and Miller? don't you think they would get much better offers than that? Seems like we would have to invest a good amount more that that. Helps their cap space though. And the pick, at probably 12 wouldn't be bad.

What do you guys think of Shaun Livingston? Seems like the Clipper fans want to get rid of him (of course that means nothing) and one said that they'd want like Jack and a 2nd in return... lol. 

IMO, Livingston has all the talent in the world. And at 6'7, can really be abeast. One of the better passers in the league. Being injured would probably make him cheap to attain. I think I might like him more than Conley, depending on how his knee situation is.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

For some reason Portland fans seem to want all-stars at all five positions, like this is NBA live. You have three all-star, all-NBA types in Oden, Roy and Aldridge. What should happen next is to bring in complimentary pieces to surround them, not look for every superstar at a position that doesn't have an all-star.

If you need consistency from the 3, try to get Mike Miller (but hold on to one of Outlaw or Webster). If you need a stable point guard, keep Steve Blake, but get Earl Watson to be his backup (for Jack). If you're happy with Pryzbilla keep him, but try to get a player who could be a goon or menace on the boards like a Reggie Evans, Craig Smith or Paul Millsap, a tad undersized but relentless. 

I am really not sure why you want to trade guys who can play high level NBA basketball and fit the mold of championship contender. As good as Paul is and as good as Deron is, they are playing with West/Chandler and Boozer/Okur respectively. You can't just trade Aldridge for Rose and put Frye into the starting lineup.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

rose is a chris paul, d-wade hybrid. Hes is gonna be dropping 24/8 in 3 years. I will bump this thread in 3 years.


----------



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

MrJayremmie said:


> You want to give away our young players, who do what Miller does (Webster, Jones) and take a 28 year old Miller, who doesn't play defense and has a huge contract? That doesn't sound all that good to me, considering what we have. With Rudy Fernandez coming in, why do we need another shooter on this team?


I'm not advocating giving anyone away. You have to give up something to get something back. We'd be trading redundant pieces and thinning our roster to get back two new starters at our two weakest positions.

And as much as a like James Jones, he does NOT do what Mike Miller does. James is a streaky shooter and when his shot isn't falling (which is the last month and a half), he gives you little else. Miller is a CONSISTENT outside shooter - and he's a good rebounder and a great passer for his size/position. At 28 Miller is in his prime (and the same age as Joel, Blake and only a few months older than James Jones). There is a reason Mike Miller has started 430 NBA games and James Jones has started only 75. Miller is a starting caliber NBA small forward, Jones isn't. He's in his prime right now and as his game doesn't depend on freakish athleticism, he still had at least three, probably four more very productive years left. His contract isn't that huge, it's probably about average for a starting player than averages 16.5ppg, 6.7 rpg and 3.4 apg, and there's only two years left on it. Miller gives us an upgrade at the starting three spot for two years, but doesn't tie us in long term should something better come along.

Rudy won't be a starter. We will need a legitimate 3-point threat in the starting line-up to keep defenses from collapsing on Oden and Aldridge. Miller gives us that - and he also gives us a another good passer to feed the ball into Oden and Aldridge. Offensively, he's a great fit with our other starters. 



MrJayremmie said:


> Yes, but Webster has learned to contribute without scoring. He has also shown signs of briliance and is a great defender with a small contract. He also has great chemistry with this team. He seems to me somebody who will be more valuable to this team than Miller. And why not have a 6'6 Roy move to the 3 and Rudy to the 2?


Webster may, or may not, be more valuable in the future. It really depends on how he develops. I'm not convinced he will get a whole lot better than he is right now - based on his progress to date. He's not Jermaine O'Neal rotting on the bench behind proven veterans. In his three seasons, Martell has played almost 5000 minutes and started 115 games (so far). In his FOUR seasons in Portland, Jermaine played only 2400 minutes and started 19 games. Miller is definitely more valuable now, and will be for the immediate future. If Martell busts out, he won't be cheap much longer, and if he doesn't, well he may not be worth re-signing. I haven't totally given up on Martell, but it's far from a given he will get a whole lot better than he already is. Yes, he is young, but in three seasons he has made baby steps. He needs to make a giant leap to be a better than average NBA starting forward, and I'm not convinced he'll ever make that leap.

A three guard line-up with Roy at small forward and Rudy at the 2 may work for very brief stretches, it's not a night-in-night out starting line-up I'd want to see. As much as I love Brandon Roy, he's not a small forward. There are tons of 6'8, 6'9 and 6'10 small forwards that would simply kill him night after night. His production would go down and he'd wear himself out trying to constantly guard bigger, stronger players for 30+ minutes a night. No thanks. Roy as our starting 3 is simply not a viable option IMHO.



MrJayremmie said:


> Yes, i agree. Consolidate the roster. but not by bringing in 3 players. You have to realize what we would have to give up to attain Conley and Miller from them. They want young players, expiring contracts and draft picks. We have them all, but are we willing to give them up? Again, for miller who is 28, has a contract, and someone that could probably be easily replaced? he is a shooter man, those come and go. We have lots of 'em.


It would be two players - two starters that would both be upgrades over our current starters at our two weakest positions. Cardinal would be waived and his contract eaten. What's the point of having excess young players (if they weren't excess, why do we need to consolidate the roster?) expiring contracts and a boatload of 2nd round picks if we don't use them to improve our team? So, give up the redundant and the unneeded to improve the QUALITY of the team - the guys who actually play the majority of the minutes. I already addressed Miller's age and his contract. Neither are excessive, IMHO and he's a bonus in getting Conley, a young, athletic defensive PG with a ton of upside. If Miller is easily replaced, all the better. He's an instant upgrade over any 3 on our roster and with only two years left on his contract, we'd have time to shop around for an eventual replacement - or use our 13th pick on a young small forward and let him learn the ropes and be ready to step in when we let Miller go two years down the road. And no, we don't have lots of shooters. Correction, we don't have lots of CONSISTENT outside shooters. We don't have a single player on our roster that comes close to Miller's proven track record as a shooter, year-after-year. With our "shooters" we don't even know what we're going to get from one night to the next. One night Martell looks like the second coming of Reggie Miller, the next night he couldn't hit a shot in an open gym to save his life.



MrJayremmie said:


> LOL. This i don't agree with. I see Oden as our 3rd leading scorer at best. Roy and aldridge do have, and will always have a superior offensive game compared to Oden. The knock on Oden since college was his offensive game. He is going to be a defensive Center first, on par with the greats. His offense will come with time, but Aldridge's will just keep getting better.


Oden played LESS than one year of college ball - and what he did play he played with an injured wrist on his shooting hand. And he still averaged 15.7 PPG on only 9.6 FGA/G - which is more than Shaq (13.9), Hakeem (8.3), David Robinson (7.6) and Patrick Ewing (12.7) all scored as freshmen - and I don't recall any of those guys having trouble scoring in the NBA. And, it's also more than LaMarcus Aldridge scored as a sophomore (15.0) on more FGA/G (10.4) - and remember, Oden did all of this with a bad wrist on his shooting hand. But, it's about more than just stats. First, the ONLY reason anyone says Oden's offensive game was lacking in college is because he didn't put up the gaudy stats Kevin Durant did. The difference is that Texas designed their entire offense to get Durant as many shots as absolutely possible. Rick Barnes knew he only had Durant for one year and wanted to get as much as possible out of him while he had the chance. Because Oden was injured and sat out the first several games of the season, Ohio State's offense was much more perimeter oriented than it would have been if they had chosen to feature Oden. Like I said, he only got 9.6 shots a game, and still scored 15.7 PPG. Yes, Durant scored 10 more PPG (64% more than Oden), but he took almost twice as many shots (18.5 FGA/G = 93% more shots than Oden). In their one year of college, Oden was a MUCH more efficient scorer than Durant - and he did it with an injured right wrist. Last I checked Durant is averaging 20ppg as a rookie. Oden won't average that much, because he won't shoot as much as Durant, but it will be closer than most people think (I predict 16 - 18ppg for Oden as a rookie)

Finally, the reason I'm most convinced Oden will be able to score in the NBA is his combination of size, strength, athleticism and FOOTWORK. Go back and watch video of Oden in high school, in college, in summer league and in training camp and pre-draft workouts - anything you can find. And this time, instead of getting all caught up in the monster dunks and intimidating blocks, watch his footwork when he gets the ball on the low block. This kid has been well coached. He has excellent footwork - much better than LaMarcus Aldridge, much better than Shaq when he came into the league and on par with guys like Ewing, Olajuwon and Robinson who spent much longer in college. Oden spent several years playing at the highest levels of AAU ball, his team won three straight Indiana HS basketball championships and his one year in college his team made it all the way to the NCAA title game. He's obviously had a LOT of very good coaching, and it shows. Not only is is footwork fundamentally correct, he has incredibly quick feet for such a big strong player. He doesn't have the feather soft mid-range jumper of Ewing, Olajuwon and even Aldridge, but in terms of low post moves, he already has the fundamentals down pat - and he's a huge, strong, athletic freak. He will be a much better scorer than people are anticipating. Go ahead and bookmark this post and come back and call me out a year from now if I was wrong. I don't mind, I am confident that Oden WILL be an offensive force in the NBA - even as a rookie, but by his third year he will be as dominant on offense as he will be on defense and will be the Blazers leading scorer when they win their next title.



MrJayremmie said:


> BTW. I find having a conversation with you MUCH better than most other people here. You keep it very civilized and there are no personal attacks or sarcasm or anything like that. Very cool man. Much respect and rep.


Likewise.

BNM


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> I'm not advocating giving anyone away. You have to give up something to get something back. We'd be trading redundant pieces and thinning our roster to get back two new starters at our two weakest positions.


See right here, this is my problem, bro. We are trading away young players, who are growing, but know their role, have chemsitry, and a place on this team, and small contracts. In exchange, we are bringing in a 28 year old SF, who isn't the greatest defender (and i think it was unanimous that we all wanted a lock down defender at the 3) and has a big contract. To me, having to give up our pick, Outlaw and some other players like Webster, future picks and so on, is tough for me to swallow. It will also take a lot more than Outlaw and our 1st to pry Conley and Miller away from Memphis, with the deals they will be offered.



> Cardinal would be waived and his contract eaten


which really hurts considering we would bring on Miller's as well, and have to give Roy, Aldridge and Oden big dollars soon.



> Oden played LESS than one year of college ball - and what he did play he played with an injured wrist on his shooting hand. And he still averaged 15.7 PPG on only 9.6 FGA/G - which is more than Shaq (13.9), Hakeem (8.3), David Robinson (7.6) and Patrick Ewing (12.7) all scored as freshmen - and I don't recall any of those guys having trouble scoring in the NBA. And, it's also more than LaMarcus Aldridge scored as a sophomore (15.0) on more FGA/G (10.4) - and remember, Oden did all of this with a bad wrist on his shooting hand.


Correct, but even in high school he wasn't a phenominal scorer, and was caught just using his athleticism and ability to overpower people for dunks. Throughout college the scouts say how un-refined his post game was, and he had a lack of a jumper. But that can be used to his advantage (see Dwight Howard).

I do not think that he will pass Aldridge though, who in his first year in serious minutes, and as the only post scorer on the team, who gets doubles a lot, is gettin' 18ppg, and just getting better and better. I also expect his scoring to go up, playing next to Oden next year.

Sometimes it is hard for me to get my point across, as I am not the greatest at putting my thoughts into words. hopefuly you get what i am concerned about.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Correct, but even in high school he wasn't a phenominal scorer, and was caught just using his athleticism and ability to overpower people for dunks. Throughout college the scouts say how un-refined his post game was, and he had a lack of a jumper. But that can be used to his advantage (see Dwight Howard).


He wasn't a phenominal scorer in HS in part because his team was never challenged and he was on the bench for much of the game. He also had a whippet quick future lotto pick guard (Conley) on his team who deserved a few shots of his own. But dude does have a jumper that DHoward would kill for. While it was shelved with the wrist injury while at OSU, we did get to see it briefly in summer league. For hard evidence of his ability to hit shots other then a dunk, dude hit 80% from the line as a HS Senior. 

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Definitely. I was very impressed with his Free-throw shooting. Never even thought of that. I remember him shootin' left handed freethrows in college, lol.

I think him developing a solid, dependable mid-range jumper would be huge for him. Might get him 3-4 ppg more. I remember in a blog he said this could be a blessing in disguise because he will be shooting a lot of jumpshots since his knee is bad he couldn't dunk, so he would learn to play without dunking.

I cannot wait to see how he looks on the court.

Edit - this doesn't mean i think he will outscore Aldridge though.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Definitely. I was very impressed with his Free-throw shooting. Never even thought of that. I remember him shootin' left handed freethrows in college, lol.


I recall at a 65% clip 



> I think him developing a solid, dependable mid-range jumper would be huge for him. Might get him 3-4 ppg more. I remember in a blog he said this could be a blessing in disguise because he will be shooting a lot of jumpshots since his knee is bad he couldn't dunk, so he would learn to play without dunking.
> 
> I cannot wait to see how he looks on the court.
> 
> Edit - this doesn't mean i think he will outscore Aldridge though.


I don't think Nate is going to have him setting up away from the low block very often. Like HS, on this team his role will be big man things/controlling the paint. I don't think he'll be outscoring LA next year either, but I do expect he'll be a pretty major upgrade offensively to Joel. He's going to be a beast on the offensive boards.

STOMP


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> So you don't think Greg Oden will be able to be a low post scorer?



NOT TO THE CALIBER OF LA

AND NOT MORE THAN SAY 15 OR 16 POINTS A GAME


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> rose has the potential to be better than them both.


I DONT KNOW IF I AGREE

PAUL IS AMAZING


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

So far 14 people might be insane. I wonder how many more there will be.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

HKF said:


> *For some reason Portland fans seem to want all-stars at all five positions, like this is NBA live. You have three all-star, all-NBA types in Oden, Roy and Aldridge. What should happen next is to bring in complimentary pieces to surround them, not look for every superstar at a position that doesn't have an all-star.*
> 
> If you need consistency from the 3, try to get Mike Miller (but hold on to one of Outlaw or Webster). If you need a stable point guard, keep Steve Blake, but get Earl Watson to be his backup (for Jack). If you're happy with Pryzbilla keep him, but try to get a player who could be a goon or menace on the boards like a Reggie Evans, Craig Smith or Paul Millsap, a tad undersized but relentless.
> 
> I am really not sure why you want to trade guys who can play high level NBA basketball and fit the mold of championship contender. As good as Paul is and as good as Deron is, they are playing with West/Chandler and Boozer/Okur respectively. You can't just trade Aldridge for Rose and put Frye into the starting lineup.


THANK YOU. Goddamn.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

3-way trade:

Aldridge to GS 

Brondon Wright/pick to team with #2

Rose/Azubuki to Blazers


----------



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

MrJayremmie said:


> See right here, this is my problem, bro. We are trading away young players, who are growing, but know their role, have chemsitry, and a place on this team, and small contracts. In exchange, we are bringing in a 28 year old SF, who isn't the greatest defender (and i think it was unanimous that we all wanted a lock down defender at the 3) and has a big contract. To me, having to give up our pick, Outlaw and some other players like Webster, future picks and so on, is tough for me to swallow. It will also take a lot more than Outlaw and our 1st to pry Conley and Miller away from Memphis, with the deals they will be offered.


Again, to get something you have to give up something. If we give up some guys who are role players to get back two starters, why wouldn't you do that. And yes, we give up some youth, but youth and potential don't win games. And it's not like we're mortgaging the future or giving any of our core young guys. We'd still have Oden, Aldridge, Roy, Rudy AND Conley. That's a pretty great young core if you ask me and all the youth we need.

I'm not saying we give up five guys and our draft pick, but Raef and some combination of two players (Webster, Outlaw, Jack, Frye, Sergio and McRoberts) and the draft pick, or three of the players mentioned and we keep the draft pick. Again, you can't expect to get Conley, the 4th player taken in last year's draft, for nothing. You have to offer Memphis enough to make this deal attractive for them. A combination of Raef's expiring contract, and two (and a draft pick) or three young players might get it done. Memphis is in a rebuilding mode. They are cutting costs to the bare minimum and building around cheap, young players. We help them out by taking Miller and Cardinal, two of their highest paid players, that will be gone well before Memphis is ready to make the play-offs and give them the cheap, young guys they covet that we have in abundance. Cardinal is worthless, but costs them salary and cap space. Miller is highly paid, but at least he's productive. He also plays small forward, Rudy Gay's best position. Gay is their small forward of the future. For them, Miller is just in the way of Gay reaching his full potential. For them he's redundant. For us, he'd be a starter and an upgrade. 

You make it sound like Miller is ancient. He just turned 28 less than 2 month ago, and as I already said he's only got two years left on his contract. He'd be a more than adequate upgrade at the starting small forward spot for those two years and better than anybody we currently have on our roster FOR THOSE TWO YEARS. You stated earlier that shooters like Miller were easy to get. Fine pencil in Miller at the starting 3 spot for two years and then find somebody younger to replace him. And if guys like Miller, a proven starting caliber NBA small forward and a CONSISTENT outside shooter are so easy to find, how come we don't have any? And why didn't we have one last year either (sorry, Ime, I love you man, but I gotta tell it like it is - I hope you win a ring in San Antonio THIS year, but no more after that)?



MrJayremmie said:


> which really hurts considering we would bring on Miller's as well, and have to give Roy, Aldridge and Oden big dollars soon.


Why does it hurt????? Seriously, it's Paul Allen's money, not yours. Last I checked Paul Allen had more money than even he could burn through in his natural lifetime - and he doesn't have any heirs. When we won the lottery, he said he'd be willing to spend whatever it takes to win a championship. So, buy out Cardinal for $10 or $12 million and let him sign a vet minimum deal to sit on the end of somebody else's bench. It's only Monopoly money to Paul Allen. And since we will have Bird rights to Roy, Oden and Aldridge, Allen can offer them all max contracts and will be happy to do so. I don't get what this concern is over salaries and re-signing our young core players. Makes no sense at all to me. Allen has the cash and has said he's willing to spend it. The CBA let's us offer our own free agents more money and longer contracts than anybody else. So, what's the problem. Last year Allen ate Stevie Francis' contract and it was a hole lot bigger than Brian Cardinal's. And that was just to get rid of Z-Bo - our leading scorer and rebounder. In this case, he'd eat Cardinal's much smaller contract to get a young PG that was taken 4th in last year's draft. Seems like a relative bargain to me.



MrJayremmie said:


> Correct, but even in high school he wasn't a phenominal scorer, and was caught just using his athleticism and ability to overpower people for dunks. Throughout college the scouts say how un-refined his post game was, and he had a lack of a jumper. But that can be used to his advantage (see Dwight Howard).


Oden averaged 20 ppg on 71% FG shooting as a high school junior and was named Parade magazine's co-high school player of the year. As a senior, he averaged 22 ppg on 74% shooting and won his second Parade magazine POY award. And he did all this in limited minutes. The high school game is shorter and lower scoring than college or the pros. Plus, Oden's high school coach didn't play him in the second half of blow outs (and there were many). He saved him for the big games - like the state championship game where Oden scored 27 points and grabbed 26 rebounds.

What college scouts said his post game was unrefined? Seriously, links please. His post game, even playing left handed, was dominant in college. Did you see what he did to Florida in the national title game? The Florida kids were older and more experienced, and all three of their bigs who TRIED to guard Oden (he destroyed them all) are playing in the NBA now. Two were lottery picks and one is likely to finish as the runner up in the ROY race - and Oden was clearly better, much better, than all of them. Shaq's post game coming out of college was a LOT less refined than Oden's. Did Shaq have trouble scoring as a rookie? Oden may not be QUITE as big and strong as young Shaq, but he's closer than anyone to enter the league since O'Neal was drafted, and he's faster AND has a better low post game. Again Oden won't average as much as Shaq did as a rookie (23.4ppg), the Blazers have too many other scoring options, but he'll be closer than most people think. I've already said I think Oden will average 16 - 18 ppg game as a rookie (and I actually think that's a conservative estimate). How many ppg do you think the "offensively challenged" Oden will average as a rookie?



MrJayremmie said:


> I do not think that he will pass Aldridge though, who in his first year in serious minutes, and as the only post scorer on the team, who gets doubles a lot, is gettin' 18ppg, and just getting better and better. I also expect his scoring to go up, playing next to Oden next year.


I'm not sure he will pass him, as a rookie. It'll be close. Depends on foul trouble, minutes, etc., but I expect both Oden and Aldridge to be around 16 - 18 ppg next season. I don't expect Aldridge's scoring to go up much, as Oden will get more shots than Przybilla, and those shots have to come from somewhere, but I do think Aldridge will be a more efficient scorer as he'll get more open looks with Oden drawing more defensive attention than Przybilla (I would draw more defensive attention than Joel).

BNM


----------



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

mediocre man said:


> So you don't think Greg Oden will be able to be a low post scorer?





dwood615 said:


> NOT TO THE CALIBER OF LA
> 
> AND NOT MORE THAN SAY 15 OR 16 POINTS A GAME


Oden is already a better *LOW POST* scorer than Aldridge. Remember, Aldridge gets over half his points on face up, mid-range jumpers. That's fine, in fact, that's perfect. It's exactly what you want alongside Oden. Even if Aldridge does score more than Oden next year (I think they will both score in the high teens), Oden will be the more dominant *LOW POST* scorer. Aldridge will continue to get >50% of his points from his excellent mid-range game. Oden will get >90% of his points in the low post.

BNM


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Oden is already a better *LOW POST* scorer than Aldridge. Remember, Aldridge gets over half his points on face up, mid-range jumpers. That's fine, in fact, that's perfect. It's exactly what you want alongside Oden. Even if Aldridge does score more than Oden next year (I think they will both score in the high teens), Oden will be the more dominant *LOW POST* scorer. Aldridge will continue to get >50% of his points from his excellent mid-range game. Oden will get >90% of his points in the low post.
> 
> BNM


Aldridge has scored 21.75%(273) of his pts from shots beyond the free throw line, 24.86%(312) of his pts inside the line but outside the restricted area under the hoop, 36.81%(462) basically at the hoop, and 16.57%(208) from the line. Some of those shots inside the line but outside of the restricted area are gotten with his post game, while others are just short jumpers, so really he probably scores something like 35% from his midrange game. That plus free throws leaves about 50% of his pts coming right around the basket, not all from his low post moves because he scores well in transition and on offensive boards.

I agree that Oden's offensive ability coming out of college is pretty underrated, and that he'll probably get more than people tend to project. if he can put up 16ppg I think 70-75% will come from his post game, about 5% from an occasional open jumper, and about 25% from the line as I expect him to physically overpower people and force them to foul him.


----------



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

Jayps15 said:


> Aldridge has scored 21.75%(273) of his pts from shots beyond the free throw line, 24.86%(312) of his pts inside the line but outside the restricted area under the hoop, 36.81%(462) basically at the hoop, and 16.57%(208) from the line. Some of those shots inside the line but outside of the restricted area are gotten with his post game, while others are just short jumpers, so really he probably scores something like 35% from his midrange game. That plus free throws leaves about 50% of his pts coming right around the basket, not all from his low post moves because he scores well in transition and on offensive boards.


Sounds about right. He gets a lot of baskets off his nice 12-15 ft. face-up jump shot, and as you noted some in transition. When all is said in done, he probably gets about 40 - 45% of his points off his low post moves and the other 55 - 60% off jumpers, free throws and in transition. 



Jayps15 said:


> I agree that Oden's offensive ability coming out of college is pretty underrated, and that he'll probably get more than people tend to project. if he can put up 16ppg I think 70-75% will come from his post game, about 5% from an occasional open jumper, and about 25% from the line as I expect him to physically overpower people and force them to foul him.


Yeah, I was counting the FTs in the 95% he'd get off his low post game as they will be fouls to prevent him from getting easy dunks. With his low post dominance, there will be little reason for him to shoot jumpers beyond 10 feet. That's Aldridge territory.

BNM


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> I'm not advocating giving anyone away. You have to give up something to get something back. We'd be trading redundant pieces and thinning our roster to get back two new starters at our two weakest positions.
> 
> And as much as a like James Jones, he does NOT do what Mike Miller does. James is a streaky shooter and when his shot isn't falling (which is the last month and a half), he gives you little else. Miller is a CONSISTENT outside shooter - and he's a good rebounder and a great passer for his size/position. At 28 Miller is in his prime (and the same age as Joel, Blake and only a few months older than James Jones). There is a reason Mike Miller has started 430 NBA games and James Jones has started only 75. Miller is a starting caliber NBA small forward, Jones isn't. He's in his prime right now and as his game doesn't depend on freakish athleticism, he still had at least three, probably four more very productive years left. His contract isn't that huge, it's probably about average for a starting player than averages 16.5ppg, 6.7 rpg and 3.4 apg, and there's only two years left on it. Miller gives us an upgrade at the starting three spot for two years, but doesn't tie us in long term should something better come along.
> 
> ...


Christ man whos going to read all that? It's a blazers forum we are not writeing a book.:cheers:


----------



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

BlazerFan22 said:


> Christ man whos going to read all that? It's a blazers forum we are not writeing a book.:cheers:


Oh, come on man, you GOTTA read it. Do you realize how long it took me to type all that on my Blackberry. Those little, tiny keys are murder to type on.

BNM


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

BlazerFan22 said:


> Christ man whos going to read all that? It's a blazers forum we are not writeing a book.:cheers:


 Read it, BF22, you might learn something. I'm just about convinced that BNM is really Kevin Pritchard. Dude knows his chit.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

tl/dr


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Oh, come on man, you GOTTA read it. Do you realize how long it took me to type all that on my Blackberry. Those little, tiny keys are murder to type on.
> 
> BNM



:rofl2:

I like your posts BNM, but this time I do have to disagree. I predict Oden will be our #3 offensive option behind Roy and LMA.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Oden is already a better *LOW POST* scorer than Aldridge. Remember, Aldridge gets over half his points on face up, mid-range jumpers. That's fine, in fact, that's perfect. It's exactly what you want alongside Oden. Even if Aldridge does score more than Oden next year (I think they will both score in the high teens), Oden will be the more dominant *LOW POST* scorer. Aldridge will continue to get >50% of his points from his excellent mid-range game. Oden will get >90% of his points in the low post.
> 
> BNM


i guess time will only tell because LA as improved his low post immensely this season...so over the summer it can only get better buuut your right it would be good to have him more in the high post and GO in the low post and roy on the wing

i dont know if GO willl score more than LA though

i thik LA will be around 17 and GO around 15 and ROY around 19


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> :rofl2:
> 
> I like your posts BNM, but this time I do have to disagree. I predict Oden will be our #3 offensive option behind Roy and LMA.


I understand your thinking, but remember who will be initiating our offense; Brandon Roy. The ultimate team player. He will be looking for Oden and Aldridge before he looks for his own shot. My thinking is that during the first thru third quarters Roy will most likely make himself the third option. He knows how important it is to get his teammates involved early. But, of course, in the fourth Roy will make himself the first option and Oden/Aldridge second and third.


----------

