There is angst in Blazerland! Free Bayless the masses scream! I enjoyed Ben's great post about Jerryd's improved play and agree that he has earned more minutes. Where does he get them? The obvious answer is he'll get some run at the backup 2 position until Rudy gets healthy, but in the long run we need to learn if Bayless is a PG. I certainly don't want to see any more of Miller and/or Blake playing the "2". Bad idea that is now a proven failure! People are up in arms about coaching decisions and how the PG minutes are distributed, but there is no way that a 3rd string PG is going to get consistent minutes. If Bayless is going to get minutes it's because Blake or Miller have been demoted to the #3 PG. There are certain facts that make this an extremely difficult decision for the coach. Who is the odd man out as the #3 PG?

1). If and when this team is healthy, there should be no available minutes at the 2 for any of our 3 PGs. Roy should play at his natural position as much as possible and Rudy should get the backup minutes. While the team is short-handed, Bayless needs those minutes. How is it possible that Bayless got zero opportunity in the 2nd half of last night's game backing up the 2? Ridiculous!!

2). Blake led this team to 54 wins last year as the starting PG. I think the coaches are more comfortable with Blake on defense than Miller or Bayless currently. Is that like winning the beauty contest at a uni-brow convention? Bottom line is I don't find it surprising that the coach is hesitant to relegate Blake to 3rd string at this point. Many feel like this is Nate's biggest failure. I think there are very few coaches who would be comfortable making Blake a 3rd stringer right now. As a talent, there are likely few GMs looking for a player who can do what Blake does. As an expiring contract he does have some trade value.

3.) Miller was signed for $7M+ a year to be our 3rd stringer? Let's be honest! KP signed him to be our starter and the whole NBA world is shocked that it hasn't played out that way. Is he the ideal complement for Roy? It doesn't appear that he is. Can we or should we demote him to 3rd string? Again, I don't think there are any NBA coaches that would put their big $$ off-season free agent aquisition at the end of the bench. Is this a failure by Nate? Hard to see it that way.

4.) I don't know if Bayless is our PG of the future, but in my opinion the decisions we made this past off-season were made with the intention that he is our PG of the future. Does anybody believe that KP sees Blake or Miller as the long-term solution at PG? There were younger options at PG if KP wasn't looking for a short-term solution while Bayless grew into the starting PG role. If that is the plan, there has to be a plan to help him develop. That plan has to include opportunity this year on the floor as a PG. Doesn't it? If he stays the #3 PG there will not be minutes!

So what is the solution?

We should move Miller to the starting unit and let him know he has until the trade deadline to show that he can mesh with Brandon in that role. He should also be on the floor to finish games.

I would go to Bayless right now and tell him that he's getting all the backup minutes behind Brandon until Rudy is healthy. Try to pair him mostly with Miller and have Miller guard the opposing teams "2" on defense. That would mean that Blake would be my first sub off the bench so that when Roy is ready for a breather, Miller is ready or near ready to come back in. I would also tell him that if he can show the ability to play defense on the oppposing PG at this level, he will be the backup PG after the trading deadline.

Let Blake know that he's the backup PG now and that he better find his shooting touch or he's going to lose that spot. By the trading deadline, make a decision as to which of the veteran PGs blends best with the rest of the team. Move the other guy (there has been a lot of talk of moving Miller, but he didn't generate much interest as a FA last summer and I think there would be a bigger market for the SBEC than for Miller) or be prepared to put one of the vets as your 3rd string guy who won't see the floor unless there is foul trouble or an injury to the guys ahead of him on the depth chart. By the end of the season you'll have seen enough of Jerryd to know what you have and how to plan for the future.

Oh, and by the way, you don't fire the coach over this. All 30 GMs would have taken GO means KP made the only decision he could at that time. All 30 coaches in the league would have been in an impossible situation with 3 PGs who all deserve floor time. I'm sure not everybody agrees with that, but I think it has been an impossible situation for Nate to keep everyone happy. Our veteran PGs have not played to their potential. Some of that may be Nate's fault, but Blake missing wide open 3's isn't Nate's fault. Miller not being a perfect fit for what this team needed is not Nate's fault. He does, however, need to make the right decision on how to move forward. This is what I think he needs to do!

I am not disappointed that we have added Andre Miller to our team. I think his ability to create easy opportunities for himself and others is exactly what this team needs. I do think that Ramon Sessions is a very similar player who we could have gotten for similar $$ per year (obviously would have been a longer deal and more guaranteed money). It is uncommon for a GM to look at two players with similar skill sets and similar salary demands and choose the older player who is past his prime and less likely to improve his skills.

However, there are reasons that KP made the choice that he made...

Continue reading this post »

Let's look at a few basic stats for each player (last 20 games):

Andre Miller 16.2 Pts/game, 5 Reb/game, 6.2 Assists/game, 2.6 Turnovers/game

Ramon Sessions  13.4 Pts/game, 4.4 Reb/game, 8.2 Assists/game, 2.3 Turnovers/game

Steve Blake  11.6 Pts/game, 2.9 Reb/game, 5.5 Assists/game, 1.7 Turnovers/game

Obviously, you can often make numbers say whatever you want them to but these numbers speak to me. I can understand people who are of the opinion that Blake is a better fit next to Roy than Miller or Sessions. I can understand the opinion that Hinrich is a better option next to Roy than Miller or Sessions. Perimeter shooting ability is a nice skill to posssess. However, I completely fail to understand people who think Miller is the right option. Sessions and Miller possess nearly the identical skill set currently. Miller is at an age that his skills will almost certainly decline over the next few years. Sessions is at an age that his skill set should improve noticeably AND THEY ARE VIRTUALLY THE SAME PLAYER RIGHT NOW! The Bucks have the right to match any offer to Sessions, but they also drafted a PG with their pick at #10. I'm not sure what their breaking point for matching an offer is, but they are very unlikely to match an offer large enough to land Andre Miller. Jason Kidd is off our list now (reportedly has come to terms with the Mavs). Can we cross Miller off the list also?

Assuming Harris is unavailable, our options at PG should be Hinrich, Sessions or Blake. It seems the general consensus is that a decision to go with Blake is a decision to hope that Bayless develops... or a decision to hope that the rest of the team develops enough (ie Oden) that having an "adequate PG" is good enough. I've also read how Sessions would duplicate Bayless' skills. Bayless' strength may be penetrating to the basket, but to those people who think Sessions duplicates Bayless... please looks at Sessions stats again. I won't bother to show the gory details of Bayless' stats over the last 20 games. I have a lot of faith in Bayless. If it turns out we get Sessions and Bayless develops then we'll have the fortunate problem of having 2 "starting quality" PGs. I'm afraid if we go with Blake and Bayless and Bayless doesn't develop as we hope, we'll end up with 2 "backup quality" PGs. That would be a shame!

Can somebody please make a case for Miller that makes sense? I honestly think it can be done. It will probably emphasize experience and readiness to burst open that title window. I doubt I'll agree with it, but at least maybe I'll understand better. 

Who's your "and 1"

Maybe a post like this has already been done, I'm sure some of this has been discussed on the main page and in the myriad of Hedo posts, but I thought it would be interesting to get the "and 1" ideas all together.

Assumption #1 - All this Hedo talk is not a smokescreen. KP would lose all credibility with agents and future free agents. We want him and will get him. He'd like a ring and he isn't going to get it in a Bosh-less Toronto.

Assumption #2 - The Hedo hate is largely a result of feeling that he's going to eat up all the cap space and we won't be able to fill other needs we see as more pressing. There may be other reasons for Hedo hate, but there are plenty of posts for that. This is not that post.

Assumption #3 - We might all like the Hedo move better if we thought something else is coming also.

So let's hear your ideas of how to get Hedo "and 1" or 2 or whatever complimentary move you would want to do if we sign Hedo. Try to keep things realistic. I suspect the strongest push will be a Blake & Outlaw for Hinrich. If that's the move explain why the Bulls would do that now that BG is a Piston. A salary dump is tough to buy. Convince me!

Here's my move... and it won't take anybody by surprise who has noticed the repetitive nature of my posts lately. Before you sign Hedo, convince Milwaukie that you are going to sign Ramon Sessions to a deal that they won't want to match. I think a MLE deal for 5 years (similar to the Ariza signing) or a 4 year deal that averages slightly over the MLE. If they are convinced, perhaps they would sign Ramon to a MLE deal and do a S&T for Outlaw. They lost Jefferson and CV, need scoring punch whether off the bench or starting at both forward positions. If they are not convinced we sign Sessions to an offer sheet. We still move Outlaw in this deal (S&T with the Bucks matching) or another deal (maybe for somebody's trade exception). It only eats up about $2M of our cap space. We rescind all rights to players except Claver. We have to convince Hedo to wait until the Sessions deal is sealed. Why would he wait? Because if Milwaukie matches the offer for Sessions we'll have the cap space to throw Hedo an extra $4-5M. After we land Sessions we still have $7.5M of cap space (I'm hoping, depending on the cap) to sign Hedo to a deal that averages close to $8.5M/year on a 5 year deal.

Why Sessions? This is the case I have made previously:

We need a PG to play decent defense and create high percentage shots for his teammates. If the guy can score that would be great! I don't care if he scores from the inside or the outside. All the talk of PGs needing to hit perimeter shots to space the floor is exhausting. We have other players on our roster that can punish a team if they pack it in too much. If a PG spaces the floor with perimeter shooting the benefit is creating easy shots for his teammates. If a PG creates easy shots for his teammates with penetration and pass... JUST AS GOOD! Put pressure on the defense and create opportunities. That is what we need.

It would also be nice to have a player who fits our window for a title run. Our window may or may not open next year, but whenever it opens it ought to be open for the next 8 years after that.

I like Hinrich. I love Devin Harris. If we can swing a trade that lands us one of these guys... Great! But we have no ability to get them if their teams don't offer them in trade to us. It is out of our control. Make the necessary phone calls KP, but in the end if the offers on the other end of the phone are terrible or non-existant, make a move that you don't have to have another GM sign off on. I know that technically to get Sessions, the Bucks GM would have to decide to let him go. My point is that signing him to the offer sheet is within our control.

If the Bucks decide to match the offer anyway...FINE!!! Then I don't care which of Blake, Miller or Kidd KP decides to settle for, but at least we made an offer to the one free agent that meets our needs and could be available. How does Miller or Kidd fit our needs better than Sessions? They have playoff experience. I guess that's something we need, but I like extending the window. If Bayless doesn't develop, we won't have cap space again.

So who is your "and 1"? Is this Hedo & Sessions option remotely realistic? Would Hedo go to Toronto if our deal starts at $7.5M and averages $8.5M?

I'm sure many of you would really like to keep Sessions and I honestly think Bucks management will do just that if the $ are around a mid-level deal. On the other hand, if the Blazers come and sign Sessions to a 4-yr deal averaging $7M would you be in favor of retaining Sessions? Would your GM and owner? I would think you would go with Ridnour and Jennings and let Sessions go for that kind of money. I know you can sign him and stay under the cap, even at $7M and maybe you would want to. I think this may be a better option for you.

S&T - Sessions for Travis Outlaw ($3.6M expiring)

Now I'm not here to convince you that Outlaw is your answer for the next decade at sf, but he's not garbage either. He's on a reasonable deal that is expiring. You would have Bird rights to retain him if you chose to or let him go after a season. He was the 3rd leading scorer on a team that won 54 games this season. He can play the 3 and the 4 (he was actually slightly better at the 4 for us, creating mismatches with other PF). For us he was instant offense off the bench. He finished 6th in 6th man of the year balloting last year, mostly because of his ability and willingness to take the big shot in the 4th quarter. He was 6 for 7 in last minute game winning shot opportunities last season. I think it was John Hollinger who voted him for 6th man of the year arguing that no other bench player had single-handedly won his team 6 games last season. By the way, he only got 1 first place vote in that balloting. On the other hand, he doesn't get nearly as many rebounds as he should considering his ability to jump out of the gym. He gets out of place on defense far too often. He is a 6-yr vet, but still very young as he came straight from High School. Super locker room guy! The biggest argument from Blazers fans against trading him is because he is the glue in that locker room and Roy's best friend. It would seem you guys have a need at the 3 with Jefferson gone. It would seem that a guy with a knack for scoring fits well with your needs right now. He's on a deal that is VERY affordable for what he brings. I know you have some young 3's, but if they show enough this coming year then you can let Outlaw go. If they don't, you'll be glad that they are not all you have.

You could almost make the case, I wouldn't really try to, that Outlaw fits your needs enough that it would be a good deal even before you consider the $$$ saved on a Sessions deal. Is there a better deal out there for the Bucks? Would you match the $7M? Would you rather just see Sessions go and not get Outlaw?

I think it makes too much sense to not happen UNLESS Blazers and Bulls decide to swing a deal that brings Hinrich to the Blazers. It is not all that unlikely that our GM likes Sessions better than Hinrich (although most Blazer fans like Hinrich's 3-pt shooting as a complement to B Roy's to helps open up the court).

What do you think?

This is all pure speculation and if any of this goes down as I suggest, I will be as surprised as any of you. The major point of this speculation is that POSSIBLY what we do may be determined by what another team, picking in the lottery, does. Also, that who we draft totally depends on which free agent we have decided to target and that depends not only on who we want, but who we think we can sign. Many of the free agents I would imagine KP has interest in have been rumored to be difficult to pry away from their existing clubs.

So let's make some assumptions that seem to be true based on the rumors we are hearing.

Continue reading this post »

My first post. Be Gentle!

It seems many of the posts (except for Hinrich and Conley) targeting specific players with our money under the cap have been free agents. There are only a few teams under the cap that can compete with us for free agents and spend more than the MLE. The problem is the lack of FA players that fit our needs that are worth going over the MLE to get. Andre Miller, Hedo, Varejao, Kidd... the list goes on, but I'm not sold on the available FA's. I like the idea of a trade better if we can find a trading partner. I like Conley and Hinrich but don't think some combination of Sergio/Blake/Outlaw/Picks/Cash get it done. Seems like a majority of Bedgers don't like the idea of giving up more than that for either of these guys. I would agree.  I like Sessions, but am very reluctant to wait 10 days after the beginning of the free agent period to find out if our plan to nab Sessions will be successful.

The alternative to a FA is to find a player under contract from a team that is trying to shed salary. We can take back more in salary than we send out. I would think there would be several good options to consider in this category. I encourage your thoughts on this type of player. There are probably even better options out there than what I'm going to suggest.

Last week Ben made a good argument for moving up to grab a young pg. I like the idea of having options in case Bayless doesn't develop. I believe in competition. Bayless should earn his floor time and I don't buy that having a 3rd pg is giving up on Bayless. Dave made a solid argument for adding a veteran pg. Could we do both? Would that be ridiculous? Maybe. Or maybe we get the veteran backup pg and a young backup pf?

Here is my thought. We target Milwaukee's #10 draft pick and Luke Ridnour. What would it take? The primary thing it would take is a decision by Milwaukee that they will not go over the luxury tax limit and that they want to keep Ramon Sessions more than they want the player available at #10. Currently most of the rumors are that they would be interested in a pg (Flynn. Evans, Jennings) or a pf (Clark, Blair). All of these young players come with question marks. Sessions has been a big fan favorite and most will be very disappointed to lose Sessions. The luxury tax decision has already been made. I would be shocked to see them go over the cap. The Bucks may find a better way to shed salary, but I don't know that they'll find takers for Richard Jefferson's deal in this economy. I don't see this trade any less likely than the Hinrich and Conley musings that have been all over Bedge.

What do we give up? I would offer some combination of Sergio/cash/2nd round pick(s)/future protected 1st and our salary cap space. Is this enough to entice Milwaukee? Not if they have figured out some other way to keep Sessions! If they haven't, they get a replacement for Ridnour in Sergio who may have nearly as much potential as some of the pgs available in the draft. We get Ridnour who has a contract for 1 more year at $6.5M. He would be a solid option if Bayless isn't ready to be a more steady backup to Blake. If Bayless is ready, Ridnour is nice depth in case of an injury. I trust KP to make the right call with the #10 pick. I would love to see Brandon Jennings fall (espn reports he is dropping) and grab him there. I could see taking Blair, but I am more worried about the long-term need for a starting pg more than for the short-term need for a backup pf. We would still have some picks to grab a young pf and some cap space to find a veteran pf to come in. In 2 years you have Bayless and the young pg KP chooses to compete for the starting pg position. This deal is absolutely the best value we could hope to get out of Sergio. I'm sure it may be overly optimistic, but I would take Sessions over anybody at #10. The Bucks might also. We can sweeten the pot if needed.

Those PTB fans looking for veteran leadership with the cap space may not like finding it in what I would hope would be a 3rd string pg. There are others adamantly opposed to adding more rookies. I doubt Milwaukee would want our #24 pick as they are shedding salary. If we only want 1 rookie then use #24 on Claver and leave him in Spain. I don't see how 1 rookie is a bad move, especially one with upside like Jennings, Blair or Evans.

What do you think?