# Webster, Frye, and Jack think they may be traded



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Webster sounds as if he won’t be surprised if he is involved in an offseason trade.
> 
> “I’d love to stay with Portland for the rest of my career, but the NBA is a business,” he says. “You can’t get that attached . . .
> 
> Channing Frye and Jarrett Jack also have expressed sentiments that they could be involved in a deal that would take them to a new team.


http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=120846542045537100


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

They are not stupid. My guess is that any one of them that is not extended - will be traded before the summer of '09. Cap hold is a detriment to the cap-plan of '09.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Of the three, I feel like Webster has the best chance of sticking around. It really depends on Jones's knee, though. Jack and Frye showed potential, and could be packaged with LaFrentz in the off-season (or just with each other for someone cheaper).

I'd like to see Frye stay, but I'm pretty sure the chances are as slim as he is.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Not sure what the point of this is. There are very few players in the league that are untradeable, and that is a reality. I think Martell was just saying he acknowledges that reality. Pro players can't afford to become too attached to a city. There are very few players who play the whole time with one team, (even though it seems like a lot of folks on the board think that when you get a player here they should stay here their whole fargin career.) The facts are most player stay on a team for a few years and move on.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BlazerCaravan said:


> Of the three, I feel like Webster has the best chance of sticking around. It really depends on Jones's knee, though. Jack and Frye showed potential, and could be packaged with LaFrentz in the off-season (or just with each other for someone cheaper).
> 
> I'd like to see Frye stay, but I'm pretty sure the chances are as slim as he is.


Huh? dude has got at least as much beef as any of the other Blazer Bigs outside of Oden. He made a strong case for staying on as the season wound down.

Though I know it's not the most popular sentiment around here, I see upgrading the SF position as the most glaring need of the club. Glad to hear that MW (and other Blazer role type players) being realistic about the chances of sticking around.

STOMP


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Huh? dude has got at least as much beef as any of the other Blazer Bigs outside of Oden. He made a strong case for staying on as the season wound down.


I was just trying to be amusing with the slim statement; none of our bigs are beefy outside of Oden. Frye always looked svelt to me.

Anyway, yes, Frye made a good case for himself, but I'm not sure if KP/Nate are hot on having him stay as backup PF, or if they want Outlaw to be that guy still. I want Frye to stay; I've said so in other threads. I like his play. But I don't know what KP and Nate are thinking.


----------



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

Trade those three for Jefferson!!!


----------



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

World B. Free said:


> Trade those three for Jefferson!!!


George or Weezie?

BNM


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> George or Weezie?
> 
> BNM



d'arcy!


----------



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

Boob-No-More said:


> George or Weezie?
> 
> BNM


Terrible... :smh:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=120846542045537100


They should think that

All three of them have serious salary cap issues associated with their contracts. That and they all have at least one player playing in front of them who is better.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Unrelated to Frye, Jack and Webster, but I thought this was the most interesting thing in the article:

• Collective-bargaining rules, incidentally, mandate that if Miles were to come back and play 10 or more games for another team over the course of his contract, his salary would go back on Portland’s cap. However, the Blazers could petition the league if that happens, and the case would go to arbitration.

So if a team signs Miles just to screw us over, it sounds like we might still be able to keep that cap relief. Interesting stuff.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

I really want Webster and Frye to stay. 

Webster has made huge attitude and game-play adjustments this season, he's a popular guy on the team, and I think it'd be a huge mistake to trade him at this point. I think he has just as much potential as Outlaw, is younger, and is still such a good shooting prospect. He will be perfect on the perimeter side of Oden down low while Roy and Aldridge work the two man game on the other side of the court. He needs to learn to cut backdoor more, but he made strides with that this year, and is light-years ahead of Outlaw in that regard. I just see him fitting 'off the ball' way more than Outlaw, whose game is mostly isolation plays (and he can be unstoppable) I just don't think with Roy and Aldridge we want a one on one player, even off the bench.

Frye hasn't gotten to play his game yet, and I really want to see that before I pass judgement on him. He hasn't gotten to play with a defensive interior presence like Pryz much, and almost no time at all with an interior post presence (LMA or Oden), as a lot of his time has been with Outlaw. He's looked better lately because Lamarcus' has had his butt in the paint. Channing will be a perfect role playing pick n pop player next to Oden, LMA, or Pryz and keep the floor spread. He can work in the flow of the game more than Outlaw too in this regard. I think if he can stay aggressive in the time he's on the floor (on D and O) and work on his ability to SET PICKS, then he'll be great.

Rudy is also a great backdoor cutter and perimeter threat to move around picks, with him here Nate will have the pieces to run an amazing motion offense. And the way to really utilize bigs is to have cutters and shooters moving all around them (LMA and GO are good enough passers). And with how mobile LMA and Oden are, if Nate doesn't institute some motion into his offense he's a lunatic and should get canned after next season.

We have too many offensive weapons and balance to be an isolation offense, unfortunately this low-risk, low-reward style is what Nate has played the last several years, we will see if he can adapt to this personal next year. Part of the things is that in Seattle he ran Ray off screens all day so there is hope.

I just think Travis fits best in an isolation offense as the sixth man, he'd be great in Dallas or NJ, and great under Nate, but we should be running motion, if we're not then I'd rather Brandon or Lamarcus or Oden go 1 on 1 and I think Webster and Frye will both fit better as passive hard workers than Travis here.

As for Jack, get him outta here!

I really think a package of Jack-Outlaw-pick could net us something decent, we'll see I guess.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

as for the whole salary cap mirage, I think it's all a smokescreen that KP can fall back on as his 'first option' when negotiating for leverage with other teams. I think some of the final moves to put this thing together will be over this summer/next season with Raef's expiring deal. He's stockpiled so much, has such easy contracts to move (many of which will expire) and just can't bring in any more youth.

He's got a target, no one knows who it is (CP just seems too obvious to me).
I still think Roy's moving to PG and the target is a SG/SF that KP sees as his defensive stopper.
I've got my fingers crossed for Iggy (but you all know that) and he's looking fairly unattainable this summer.
We'll see when his contract negotiations start up again though.

how about we trade up in the draft with Jack (NJ, Charlotte), get love with the pick we trade for, and package Outlaw and Love (perhaps Raef) for a S & T Iggy (who Philly doesn't want to pay much and is frustrated after his great season) and Willie Green (whom they'd love to dump, and we could cut). We'd be set.

Roy/Blake/Sergio
Iggy/Fernandez
Webster/Jones
Aldridge/Frye/Mcroberts
Oden/Pryzbilla/Freeland

Philly fans would say that deal's crazy now, but after a first round thumping and Iggy's desire for money, they may warm up to the idea of making Thad and Lou the men to build around, and if they want to play up-tempo, a front-court of Love and Dalembert is the ticket (with Love rebounding and passing and Dale sprinting up the court). As for Outlaw, Mo loves him.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

darkhelmit54 said:


> as for the whole salary cap mirage, I think it's all a smokescreen that KP can fall back on as his 'first option' when negotiating for leverage with other teams. I think some of the final moves to put this thing together will be over this summer/next season with Raef's expiring deal. He's stockpiled so much, has such easy contracts to move (many of which will expire) and just can't bring in any more youth.
> 
> He's got a target, no one knows who it is (CP just seems too obvious to me).
> I still think Roy's moving to PG and the target is a SG/SF that KP sees as his defensive stopper.
> ...


We're building around our big 3, and bringing in role players. We're not going to bring in Iguodala.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> We're building around our big 3, and bringing in role players. We're not going to bring in Iguodala.


would you rather have all of the guys 6-12 in the 4-8 million dollar range or have guys 6-9 in the 6-10 million dollar range and 9-12 in the 2-3 million dollar range? The salaries will come out the same, playing time would be opened up for a 'short rotation' (which Nate talks about a a lot). Consolidation has to happen dude, or else everyone will get pissed at each other all year like 2000 era blazers. Mass talent works to win...for a while, but it provides too many distractions, steadiness builds dynasty (Lakers, Spurs, ...).


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

darkhelmit54 said:


> would you rather have all of the guys 6-12 in the 4-8 million dollar range or have guys 6-9 in the 6-10 million dollar range and 9-12 in the 2-3 million dollar range? The salaries will come out the same, playing time would be opened up for a 'short rotation' (which Nate talks about a a lot). Consolidation has to happen dude, or else everyone will get pissed at each other all year like 2000 era blazers. *Mass talent works to win...for a while*, but it provides too many distractions, steadiness builds dynasty (Lakers, Spurs, ...).


This team is much more focused on the future. Once we have to pay our big 3 top dollar, Iguodala would have to leave. 

Just because you love a player, doesn't mean he's right for the team. And how is Iggy going to feel being the 3rd/4th offensive option?

The guy is a franchise player for the 76ers, and I fully expect them to sign a contract and work things out.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> This team is much more focused on the future. Once we have to pay our big 3 top dollar, Iguodala would have to leave.
> 
> Just because you love a player, doesn't mean he's right for the team. And how is Iggy going to feel being the 3rd/4th offensive option?
> 
> The guy is a franchise player for the 76ers, and I fully expect them to sign a contract and work things out.


As for being the third option, I think he'd feel fine with it. The guy's a competetive beast who complains about his teammates not playing hard enough D all the time. he's always been a complimentary player before this year, and struggled early before Miller stepped up as a leader and directed the offense more. He wouldn't have to take as many iso plays with lots of defensive pressure and could play very opportunistic and pride himself on rebounding, open court offense (which we don't have any), and being a defensive stopper, all of which have suffered since he was made into the first option and Philly fans would be the first to tell you that.

APART FROM IGGY, why can't we have four good players? I don't think Iggy's a max player, and I'm not sure he does either, but the sixers ask him to play like one and don't pay him like it. 

Anyways, I don't see why with PA's money and the salary cap increase why we can't have four highly paid players? If we're that good the other guys like Frye, Webster, Rudy, etc. would probably take slightly smaller deals than they make get on the open market to stick around and we can pay guys 9-15 dirt cheap anyways, rotate rookies and vets through like the spurs do. And if our good role players want to leave, those guys we're developing on the end of the bench get a chance and we can trade for draft picks (like the suns (joe johnson) and spurs do). Assuming that scenario worked out I think we'd be fine. It's better than paying all guys 6-13 quite a bit and all of them having lots of 'promise'.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

darkhelmit54 said:


> APART FROM IGGY, why can't we have four good players? I don't think Iggy's a max player, and I'm not sure he does either, but the sixers ask him to play like one and don't pay him like it.
> 
> Anyways, I don't see why with PA's money and the salary cap increase why we can't have four highly paid players? If we're that good the other guys like Frye, Webster, Rudy, etc. would probably take slightly smaller deals than they make get on the open market to stick around and we can pay guys 9-15 dirt cheap anyways, rotate rookies and vets through like the spurs do. And if our good role players want to leave, those guys we're developing on the end of the bench get a chance and we can trade for draft picks (like the suns (joe johnson) and spurs do). Assuming that scenario worked out I think we'd be fine. It's better than paying all guys 6-13 quite a bit and all of them having lots of 'promise'.


Why do we need 4 great players? NBA teams aren't made to be filled with all stars. We have 3 potential All-NBA types, and now we just have to build around them. It's not about jamming our team full of good players. There's stars, and then there's role players, it's simple.

Philly WILL pay Iguodala top dollar if Iggy threatens to leave.

Why are you so adamant on getting Iggy. Even if everything could work out in theory, it's still never going to happen. Philly loves him too much.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^Dark, we are going to have 4 good players, probably 4 stars. don't forget about Rudy.. he is a star, trust me.

PG
Rudy
Roy
Aldridge
Oden

I think we are definitely ok bro....

Blake
Webster
Outlaw 
Frye
Pryzbilla

11th - 14th: Jones, Sergio, Jack, LaFrentz

damn sexy backup unit also... 

We are good man. We have some pieces to trade maybe up the draft or somthing for a PG. I don't see us really needing a SF at this point, at least until the PG situation is taken care of. We just gotta go at is realistically.

I want Iguodala and Ellis rounding out our starting 5 with Rudy, Outlaw, and Pryzbilla and Blake coming off the bench... ain't gonna happen though.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^Dark, we are going to have 4 good players, probably 4 stars. don't forget about Rudy.. he is a star, trust me.
> 
> PG
> Rudy
> ...


Rudy Fernandez is not going to be a star. Not in Portland at least.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Dude, stop hating on Rudy. You don't know that at all.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> Dude, stop hating on Rudy. You don't know that at all.


Even if he becomes a good bench/role player, he's still going to be overshadowed by Roy, Aldridge AND Oden.

When was the last time ANY team has developed 4 stars SIMULTANEOUSLY?


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I want andre iguadala!


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Developed? Roy is already a star. Aldridge is well on his way, same with Oden. And for all we know, Rudy is good enough to come into the NBA and be a 15ppg+ scorer his rookie year.

Depending on his minutes, i expect him to be gettin 12-15ppg off the bench.



> I want andre iguadala!


same.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> Why do we need 4 great players? NBA teams aren't made to be filled with all stars. We have 3 potential All-NBA types, and now we just have to build around them. It's not about jamming our team full of good players. There's stars, and then there's role players, it's simple.
> 
> Philly WILL pay Iguodala top dollar if Iggy threatens to leave.
> 
> Why are you so adamant on getting Iggy. Even if everything could work out in theory, it's still never going to happen. Philly loves him too much.


I'm sure glad you're not running the team, clearly you and Pritchard do not see eye to eye, his philosophy is to get better EVERY year. You go after top talent that fits first, then make the salaries work second. As for Philly, have you followed Stefanski at all? Ever heard of Kenyon Martin? How many people thought the nets should let him go (including the fans who also _loved him_. It was Stefanski who said no way, half the reason he let NJ was because the owners and him didn't see eye to eye with the Carter extension (Stef didn't want to supposedly), and talk to the Philly fans about who they're more excited about, Thad or Iggy, see what they think. I know they're pretty high right now with the playoff birth and all, but a lackluster playoff effort, lack of long term commitment from Miller, and large contract demands from Iggy and they may change their tune a little bit.

I'm talking about not just jamming our team with 'good' players, and that's exactly what you want to do. We've stockpiled 'good' players, and can't develop or play all of them, so you try to consolidate for some 'great' players whose skill set compliments your cornerstones...if you're smart. Look at the Celtics, they have three balanced stars, and I'm sure they'd try to get a fourth with different skills if they don't win it this year.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^I think most of us want Iguodala, its the problem of actually getting him, Darkhelmit.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^Dark, we are going to have 4 good players, probably 4 stars. don't forget about Rudy.. he is a star, trust me.


I've been following Rudy for three years, trust me I'm familiar with him and was ecstatic when we drafted him. I looked at my friend (was at the garden) at pick 18 or so and said "if there's some way we get Rudy with this pick then I'll be okay with the deal, but no chance he falls that far" (I wasn't a big fan of Frye or Jones). I'm hoping he'll be great.

BUT, he is not going to provide us with backcourt defense and I'd be a little surprised if Nate actually institutes some motion into his offense that will take advantage of Rudy playing with our bigs.

I really think with a first unit of Roy, Iggy, and Webster out there we could pound teams to start off the game and play very physical with Iggy playing on their best players side and jamming him as much as he could, Webster playing as physical as he could with the 2nd option (who cares if he drives past to Oden and Aldridge) and Roy shadowing off the third threat (usually the shooter). 

Then we could come in with our Sergio - Rudy - (whoever's not tired between Roy, Webster, and Iggy) unit and run the hell out the other teams that were tired and hurting from our physical play.

Not too many teams can play multiple styles well and not too many coaches have the balls to try it. BUT those teams are rarely thrown off by another teams style because they understand it well, and they can play to their strengths well. Why do you think teams like San Antonio and LA have more success than Dallas or Golden State?


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^I think most of us want Iguodala, its the problem of actually getting him, Darkhelmit.


my point is that regardless of if it's Iggy or not, we should go after the best players we can get who compliment our other guys, PERIOD. That's what you do when you have an abundance of 'good' talent on 'good' contracts. I think it would be dumb to just let some guys walk and keep the other mediocre ones w/o trying to upgrade first. Now if a few of them explode and we're set that's fine, but if not we'd be wasting a lot of resources.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

darkhelmit54 said:


> I'm sure glad you're not running the team, clearly you and Pritchard do not see eye to eye, his philosophy is to get better EVERY year. You go after top talent that fits first, then make the salaries work second. As for Philly, have you followed Stefanski at all? Ever heard of Kenyon Martin? How many people thought the nets should let him go (including the fans who also _loved him_. It was Stefanski who said no way, half the reason he let NJ was because the owners and him didn't see eye to eye with the Carter extension (Stef didn't want to supposedly), and talk to the Philly fans about who they're more excited about, Thad or Iggy, see what they think. I know they're pretty high right now with the playoff birth and all, but a lackluster playoff effort, lack of long term commitment from Miller, and large contract demands from Iggy and they may change their tune a little bit.
> 
> I'm talking about not just jamming our team with 'good' players, and that's exactly what you want to do. We've stockpiled 'good' players, and can't develop or play all of them, so you try to consolidate for some 'great' players whose skill set compliments your cornerstones...if you're smart. Look at the Celtics, they have three balanced stars, and I'm sure they'd try to get a fourth with different skills if they don't win it this year.


I'm sure Pritchard will make adjustments over the off season, and many of our players will get traded for quality. But those quality players will become role players. 

As I've said before, even if the trade works out in theory, it's not going to happen. Philly isn't going to let Iggy go for Jack and Frye. 

Trading for Iguodala is almost as ridiculous as being able to get Chris Paul. But it seems all people want to talk about are unrealistic trades, to stack this team. Whatever, dream on, then cry when the off season is over and Iguodala is still in Philly, or some other team that's not called the Trail Blazers.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Dark, you have to consider contracts, chemistry and what you will be giving up to get.

Your trades to try and get Iggy are unrealistic. Unless we include one of our big 3, we would have to give Rudy, Outlaw and probably like Webster and our 1st for him.

Its not worth it.

Nobody is saying not to go after the best, but it is the same situation with Chris Paul. Its really impossible unless we want to really give up a lot. Trust me, in theory Chris Paul would work great with our team also.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> Developed? Roy is already a star. Aldridge is well on his way, same with Oden. And for all we know, Rudy is good enough to come into the NBA and be a 15ppg+ scorer his rookie year.
> 
> Depending on his minutes, i expect him to be gettin 12-15ppg off the bench.
> 
> ...


Are you serious...

Rudy's role will be similar to the role James Jones had this year. The offense is still going to run through Oden, Roy and Aldridge. Rudy will be the one hitting open shots. 

9 PPG at the most.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't think anybody on this board knows enough about Rudy to predict what he will or will not do. :whistling:


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Rudy's role will be similar to the role James Jones had this year


lol...


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> lol...


What do you seriously expect from him? Most of our scoring will be done by the big 3. Do you really see Rudy getting as many touches and shots as any one of the 3?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Are you serious...
> 
> Rudy's role will be similar to the role James Jones had this year. The offense is still going to run through Oden, Roy and Aldridge. Rudy will be the one hitting open shots.
> 
> 9 PPG at the most.


in another thread you admitted you don't know bleep about Rudy or what to expect from him, yet now you're predicting his PPG and acting incredulous towards those who don't share your WAG?



STOMP


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> I'm sure Pritchard will make adjustments over the off season, and many of our players will get traded for quality. But those quality players will become role players.
> 
> As I've said before, even if the trade works out in theory, it's not going to happen. Philly isn't going to let Iggy go for Jack and Frye.
> 
> Trading for Iguodala is almost as ridiculous as being able to get Chris Paul. But it seems all people want to talk about are unrealistic trades, to stack this team. Whatever, dream on, then cry when the off season is over and Iguodala is still in Philly.


I'm not gonna cry when we don't get him. I think there's a 10% chance we do, who cares if we don't, our future is incredibly bright. However, conjecture and speculation on how to improve the team is what people do on a fan message board, and you probably shouldn't read them if you can't handle that.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> What do you seriously expect from him? Most of our scoring will be done by the big 3. Do you really see Rudy getting as many touches and shots as any one of the 3?


No...but there's a big gap between 5.6 shots per game (James Jones) and 15+ shots per game (Roy and Aldridge)

My guess is that Fernandez gets 8-10 shots per game next season. About what Webster got this season. 

Personally, I think two of the four of Outlaw, Jack, Webster and Jones will be moved. If you take out any 2 player combination of those four, you gain 13-20 shots per game. It's not unreasonable to find a scorer like Fernandez 10 shots per game. Especially if he comes off the bench.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

if I had a nickel for every thread derailed by Harris iguodala and deng....


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

darkhelmit54 said:


> I'm not gonna cry when we don't get him. I think there's a *10%* chance we do, who cares if we don't, our future is incredibly bright. However, conjecture and speculation on how to improve the team is what people do on a fan message board, and you probably shouldn't read them if you can't handle that.


10%?!

you forgot to put a decimal and two zeros to the left of that number.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

what do you guys think equal value for all three of them would be? i think it would have to at least approach a high level vet.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Having listened to all three of them interview with Rebecca Haarlow that last game in Portland, they really sounded like they were trying to convince people to let them stay. Frye got all long winded, Webster (in street clothes) made a lot of fan compliments, and Jack spoke a lot about the team's chemistry, and I had the sense that they were each sort of pleading their cases with both Portland and the franchise.

I think Webster will be great if he can learn to put the ball on the floor and be more aggressive. With him it's not about whether or not he hits the shot, it's about whether or not he even takes it. Creating his own shot is what he should think about this summer and that's probably going to come with improving quickness. Jack needs to reduce the no-look passes and travels, and pay more attention to his position from the out-of-bounds line (turnovers). Frye really made a statement at the end of the year, addressing the things I would have criticized him for otherwise like pounding the glass more aggressively. I think each of them are good players, it's just that improving in these areas is critical.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

keep them all please


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> keep them all please


9 rotation players, excluding Sergio, plus 2 more rotation players in Greg and Rudy can't happen. No way can you have 11 rotation players, not to mention the #13th pick. They must get rid of three rotation players. I actually think Outlaw and Jack will be gone for sure. They need to keep either of Frye or Outlaw as the backup 4, Outlaw's value is higher and Frye is a better rebounder and legitimate big man that could team up well with Greg. I'd really like to see Webster stay but I don't know if that happens.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I meant keep the 3 mentioned in the title...the only players I wouldn't have a problem letting go would be Sergio, Raef, Von,Steve (but I wouldn't deal him cause he got screwed over by Nash last time) and maybe James..I'm torn on him...Rudy too if we want to move up in the draft. My 10 man rotation would be
PG-Jarrett,Blake
SG-Roy, Rudy
SF-Martell, Travis
PF-LaMarcus, Channing
C-Greg,Joel
That group is winning titles very soon. I am all about team chemistry and keeping groups of guys together for a long period of time.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Come on, why do you have Jack starting over Blake? It was clear this season when we started off awful that Jack couldn't handle the starting PG position. There is ZERO chance we go into next season with Jack as our starting PG, and about a 20% chance of having Blake start at PG for us. I can appreciate Jack's talents and hard work but he isn't a good fit, simple. I think Frye fits very well, more so than Outlaw who I'd be willing to pawn off since he has higher value really only brings scoring to the table, and with Oden, Aldridge, Roy, and Rudy at the very minimum being able to score on a consistent basis, he won't be a game changer. Best to package him with Jack and other assetts to acquire a starting PG.

I know we all love Jose, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of TJ Ford. I'd still rather have Jose but I think his value is through the roof and the price for acquiring him would be detrimental to our team. I think Ford's value is at an all time low and he is just so productive. Although he's small, he's a pretty pesky defensive player and he's a pretty good scorer, despite his 3 point %. I think a package of Outlaw, Jack, and fillers could get TJ Ford. We must do diligent homework into figuring out his risk to injuries though.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I guess you didn't see my Jack appreciation thread then, because in it I clearly stated why I love his game and want him to be here a long time. His March and April months were very nice and he gives it 100% all the time plus he still has more improvement than a guy like Blake who has prolly already peaked.
Ugh, don't even get me started on trading Outlaw...show some loyalty people, this isn't freaking fantasy basketball..I don't know about you, but I actually like having players stay here for long periods of their careers, and it's not like they can't play, they are very good and have defined roles for the team.
And I don't like either Jose (no D) or Ford (too injury prone)
Everyone makes it seem like we need this all-word PG to compete...last time I checked, John Paxon, Ron Harper, Kenny Smith, Avery Johnson, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw weren't elite. As long as you have 2-3 great players, you will win regardless of position.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Jesus Christ, why are you investing emotions in these players? It's nice to have players stay around but they are basketball players first, and you want to have the best ones possible on your team to win. We MIGHT be able to get by with Jack and Blake, but why settle with might? Why not get better players to improve our chances at winning? You love Jack but you're saying Jose has no D? He's no worse than Jack in that area, and at least he's the most efficient PG in terms of assists to turnover ratio, he takes care of the ball unlike Jack, as does Ford who can get to the basket at will. Every player has flaws, but some are bigger than others, Jack's are bigger than Calderon's and Ford's. 

Last time I checked, we don't have a Jordan for our mediocre point guards to play with, and we don't have a Shaq or Kobe either. We need a better starting point guard and I can guarantee we'll get that this season. Pritchard wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't looking to improve this team.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> Ugh, don't even get me started on trading Outlaw...show some loyalty people, this isn't freaking fantasy basketball..


b.s. only thing i will show my loyalty to is the name on his jersey. i like outlaw, and wouldn't mind at all if he stays. but if he can net us a better player, he's gone.



> I don't know about you, but I actually like having players stay here for long periods of their careers, and it's not like they can't play, they are very good and have defined roles for the team.


i'm into liking winning by my team, not liking any individual player because of their perceived personality.



> And I don't like either Jose (no D) or Ford (too injury prone)


with some people, i doubt they would even want paul or williams on the blazers if it means trading jack, webster, outlaw...


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

If Rudy is for sure coming over then I think Outlaw might be somewhat expendable since he mostly comes in off the bench to be a spsarkplug scorer; his value is going to be pretty high after the season he put together and frankly I think the team would be foolish not to use him as a piece in an attempt to go out and acquire a legit starting PG. Having said that I love Trout (great locker room guy, humble, clutch as all hell) and would not be exactly happy to see him go, but as a price to pay to get better it's worth the cost.

A reasonable trade package for [fill-in-the-blank-legit-PG] in a potential sign-and-trade, could be Jack, Outlaw, Raef + 13th pick, I think a lot of teams around the league would look at Raef's expiring deal and the inclusion of Travis as being the lynchpin, with Jack and the pick rounding it out as filler.

I don't want to see guys like Travis, Martell, or Channing moved, but there are too many bodies on this team and not enough minutes for everyone to stay happy over the long term -- far kinder to move them and consolidate talent to fill positions of need and give them an opportunity to play (if they earn it), than make them languish on the bench or try to wrangle rotations so 11 or 12 guys can get on the court.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> Trading for Iguodala is almost as ridiculous as being able to get Chris Paul. But it seems all people want to talk about are unrealistic trades, to stack this team. Whatever, dream on, then cry when the off season is over and Iguodala is still in Philly, or some other team that's not called the Trail Blazers.


What? Its not like any one put chirs paul's head on damon's just to see him in a blazers unifrom. :whistling:

Honestly though I seem to say every other post that we should go after him, trade for him or what ever! Do I believe we could get him? Yes of course with Paul Allen writting checks, do I think we can get him away from NO? Ah that would be an N and an O. No crying form me if we don't get him... it would be like driving a really nice car (having the team we have) and upgrading the wheels or getting a bigger turbo. Well the bigger turbo is more like hitting the jackpot and landing the #1 for Oden.

As for webster, frye, and Jack if they are gone, they are gone, if not then I will cheer for them and complain when they don't play like they should.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> b.s. only thing i will show my loyalty to is the name on his jersey. i like outlaw, and wouldn't mind at all if he stays. but if he can net us a better player, he's gone.
> 
> 
> i'm into liking winning by my team, not liking any individual player because of their perceived personality.
> ...


CP3 and Deron are different stories..but not mediocre guys like Jose and RJ.....I wouldn't move Outlaw period. We have our superstars all we need is the role players, which some here don't comprehend.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> CP3 and Deron are different stories..but not mediocre guys like Jose and RJ.....I wouldn't move Outlaw period. We have our superstars all we need is the role players, which some here don't comprehend.


I think you need to look up the definition of mediocre. RJeff is #3 in scoring among SFs and Jose is #1 in assist to TO ratio. Both are elite NBA players, don't let you homerism for the Blazers get too carried away.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I'd hate to give up on Outlaw after five years of developing him and all the time we invested in the guy, only to do it for another team to relish for the next 10 years.

He provides the much-needed instant offense off the bench too. But it's just too likely that there is going to be a trade and I trust KP and the gang that they'll do the right thing.
I'd put Outlaw as the fourth most valuable on this team behind the Big 3 but if Travis is the deal breaker for an elite SF or PG, I wouldn't be too sad about it but it would have to be a REALLY good player, and not Calderon or Jefferson.
Jefferson is overrated IMO anyway.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^yea.

With Rudy and Outlaw coming off the bench, along with Joel being the defensive anchor in the 2nd unit, we seem to be in great shape.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

duckworthstolemylunch said:


> As for webster, frye, and Jack if they are gone, they are gone, if not then I will cheer for them and complain when they don't play like they should.


another good question for these three is what sort of minutes they'll be able to compete for as both Greg and Rudy project ahead of them in the rotations. And with these three at or approaching contractual crossroads, how much does Portland really want to invest in various positions as they angle for maximizing their cap space in 2009. 

I see Joel as trade bait down the line after he seasons Greg a bit, and I think he'll fetch a lot. A Bigs rotation of Greg LA and Frye with LaMarcus getting the backup minutes at 5 projects pretty perfectly IMO, so I'm guessing Frye will be offered an extension this off season. I don't want to see Webster starting unless the day comes when he's a lot more productive then he's been. Dude didn't provide much and I'm not sure it's in him. I've about the same opinion of Jack. Both have a single year left on their respective rookie deals before they're due at least qualifying offers which of course counts more against the precious cap... if they really want to stick they'll sign cheap extensions too. I don't think either has much in the way of trade value/suitors for their services... maybe packaged with KP's many picks the club could move up 5-6 spots or possibly fetch a vet worth something. I've got to imagine that the writing on the wall has been there for both to see for some time now.

STOMP


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

nikolokolus said:


> If Rudy is for sure coming over then I think Outlaw might be somewhat expendable since he mostly comes in off the bench to be a spsarkplug scorer; his value is going to be pretty high after the season he put together and frankly I think the team would be foolish not to use him as a piece in an attempt to go out and acquire a legit starting PG. Having said that I love Trout (great locker room guy, humble, clutch as all hell) and would not be exactly happy to see him go, but as a price to pay to get better it's worth the cost.
> 
> A reasonable trade package for [fill-in-the-blank-legit-PG] in a potential sign-and-trade, could be Jack, Outlaw, Raef + 13th pick, I think a lot of teams around the league would look at Raef's expiring deal and the inclusion of Travis as being the lynchpin, with Jack and the pick rounding it out as filler.
> 
> I don't want to see guys like Travis, Martell, or Channing moved, but there are too many bodies on this team and not enough minutes for everyone to stay happy over the long term -- far kinder to move them and consolidate talent to fill positions of need and give them an opportunity to play (if they earn it), than make them languish on the bench or try to wrangle rotations so 11 or 12 guys can get on the court.


AMEN. If there's a little bit of competition for scrap minutes between the 9, 10, 11, and 12 guys then that's okay, but when you've got confusion among players 4-13 for minutes that is not good for chemistry no matter what people say.

Jack, Outlaw, Raef, and 13th pick would be really interesting to shop and I'd be fine with it looking for a 1 or 3


----------

