Taking a cue from small market teams in baseball, I think the blazer's should be acquiring players using the best replacement value approach.

So who do we replace? I watched Bill Parcells talk about how he and his organization evaluates talent. Parcells created or identified players who were prototypical of the best athletes/players at each position. This is the player Portland needs to create in the aggregate, especially since it is very unlikely Portland will ever get three all-star players together at the same time.

The 2008-09 Blazer combination of Pryzbilla and Oden score 15 points and grabbed 15.7 rebounds a game. I think this is a very good stat line for the center position. Unless there is a Dwight Howard, a Shaq, someone who can score and rebound in the draft, I'd trade for good role players that can play defense and rebound.

The 08-09 blazer's had Aldridge and Frye at the power forward position. Combined these two players scored 22 pts a game and 9.7 rebounds a game.

At small forward Outlaw and Batum scored 18 pts a game and 6.9 rebounds.

At the point Blake and Sergio average 15 point a game and 4.1 rebounds.

Roy averaged 22.6 points a game and Fernandez ~10 pts a game for a total of 32 pts a game. Together they grabbed 8.7 rebounds a game.

These eight players delivering these performances produced about 100 points a game and 44 rebounds.

Starting with Aldridge and Batum the lineup by replacement value (mine anyway) would be:

C: Ronny Turiaf, Javale McGee, and Joel Pryzbilla

PF: J.J. Hickson, Sheldon Williams

SF: Babbit

SG: Matthews,Williams, Smith

PG: Trade both 1st round picks to get Gilchrist(?), Jeremy Lin

Except for point guard, these players represent replacement value at a below luxury tax rate.

What lineups would others suggest? Caveat--the team salary has to be below the tax cap.

The Blazer's are starting a new era. So what do they do on the floor now? Do they play some young talent to increase their value? Do they use the veterans to make something of a legitimate reach for the playoffs? Do you start only two players regularly-Aldridge and Batum?

The poll below is meant to get a discussion going. If you have an alternate 5 let's have a look!

And looking towards next season, what would be your dream 5?

The 2011-12 season has generated more questions than answers. This is especially concerning after the team went 7-2 to start the season. Many have pointed fingers at players. So I generated win-loss records based on the median number of baskets made per game and the median number of 3 point shots attempted per game.

At first it seems difficult to decipher the numbers, but let me give my interpretation.

The first table (median number of baskets made per game) shows that Aldridge, Batum, Camby and Crawford depend heavily on the good play of Felton, Wallace and Matthews. By contrast the next table shows that Matthews and Crawford are taking too many threes reducing the number of touches to Aldridge or creating poor floor balance from long rebounds.

I've watched quite a few Blazer games and I've noticed that Felton, Matthews and Crawford are reluctant passers from the point or they miss wide open players because they're not looking or they can't see the open player. I would recommend that Felton push the ball up court and if an easy opportunity doesn't present itself give the ball to Batum so that he can see over the defense and use his passing skills to get the ball inside.

On the other hand, these tables show, I think, that Batum makes Crawford and Matthews expendable.

Player_________Median # of baskets made per game______Win-Loss >= Median ___ Win-Loss < Median

Aldridge___________________9_________________________10-11______________9-9

Wallace___________________4_________________________16-11______________4-9

Matthews__________________4_________________________14-12______________6-9

Camby ___________________1_________________________10-12______________9-7

Felton __________________4_________________________ 13-8 ______________7-12

Batum ___________________4_________________________12-16 ______________7-4

Crawford__________________ 5 _________________________10-14______________10-7

Player__________ Median # of 3pt baskets att per game_____ Win-Loss >= Median___ Win-Loss < Median

Matthews ___________________ 5 __________________________10-12_______________10-7

Crawford____________________ 4___________________________11-15________________9-6

Batum______________________4____________________________13-11________________6-9

Felton______________________3____________________________16-14________________4-6

Wallace_____________________2____________________________16-14_______________4-6

The blazer's lost Tuesdays game because the Mavericks had 10 more attempts all of which came from 4 extra steals and 6 less turnovers.

The blazer's made only 25 2 point shots (as opposed to 33 in game 1).   Not enough shots for Aldridge who, as I've said before on this blog, needs 25 to 30 shots.

The blazer's shot exactly the right number of three's.

Need a little better free shooting.

Need to get Kidd to give up the ball before he gets into the pick and roll (or pop).

Try to have Aldridge feed to posting guards.

Many have written about seeding position and how of the lower seeds 6th seems to be best.

My opinion about that is:  sod it.  Everyone in the NBA gets paid plenty of money to play basketball and since the court is the same size and the basket is at the same height a given opponent isn't the problem it's the attitude of the team.  I mean how much worrying can one do?

There is a chinese story involving a sage and some monkeys.  The sage told the monkeys he would give them three acorns in the morning and four in the afternoon.  The monkeys became upset at this arrangement so the sage said I will give you four acorns in the morning and three acorns in the afternoon.  The monkeys were ecstatic.

Some keys to playoff success:

Aldridge needs to have 25 to thirty attempts each game.

Matthews shalt not dribble unless it's directly to the basket.

Shoot no more than 15 threes.

Roy, Fernandez and Patty need to make an effort to shoot from 12 to 15 feet when open:  in fact if those three were 5 for ten from the foul line area each game we should go far.

Finally, run don't walk!!

Most statistical analysis in basketball is direct toward the assessment of individuals and this is fine if one is trying to identify talent to acquire for a team.

These analyses are not very good for analyzing team performance.  Hollinger's stats and Pelton's + - are fine but they aren't easy to derive unless you want to use a calculator.

To simplify evaluation of team performance from box scores, that is identify stats that indicate how well a team is playing and  are easily accessible then we need to realize that:

a.  To score means only to put the ball through the hoop and

b.  a team needs to do it more often than the other team

Shooting % is not much good if you shoot less than the other guy, so I claim that a better way to measure performance is how many 2 pt baskets a team makes a game.  In order to score 100 points a game, for arguments sake, then a team needs to make 50 baskets.  Ah, but what about free throws?  The league avg ftm is about 19.  So the total points a team needs to make from made baskets is about 40.  The league avg number of two pt field goals is just over 30 a game.  Thus, as I've pointed out before on this blog,  the closer one gets to 40 made shots the higher the probability  of a win.

To reduce the number of baskets the other team makes is best accomplished through defensive rebounding.  The magic number here is 30:  30 or more def rebounds yields an even higher probability of winning when combined with the number of two point baskets made.  Guess what?  Yeah you guessed it:  the league def rebounds per game is 31.

The blazer's are avg 30.55 two point baskets and 26 def rebounds a game.  This means the blazer's are a very inconsistent def rebounding team and hence our mediocre record.

When a team score 35 2 pt baskets and 30+ def rebounds the probability of winning reaches nearly 80%.

The blazer's need to, obviously, increase the number of 2 pt shots made.  This can come only from running good offensive sets--perhaps running plays for camby and miller more often in order to increase the number of baskets from our most game to game inconsistent scorers.

The addition of Pryzbila should help the defensive rebounds as well.  He should add at least 7 to 8 a game and that would bring the blazer's over that 30 def rebound threshold every game.

The three point shot is not a good indicator of team success.  Off rebounds only indicate a bad shooting team (if you made the basket initially you wouldn't need to off reb. !)

So if you want to tell how well we did (as a team) then just look a the 2fgm and def rebound stats.

Watching the last three games has been maddening.  All of it explainable.

The Blazer's are a poor shooting team.

And I don't see any change on the horizon.

That means Pryzbilla's return may enable the Blazer's to make the playoffs because of better defensive rebounding, but if that stat doesn't improve then the team is going to be .500 at season's end.

In all but one of the losses the blazer's got fewer than 30 defensive rebounds.  More than 30 defensive rebounds the blazer's are 5-3.

When the blazer's shoot 30 or more two point baskets they are 6-4 and when they shoot less than 30 they are 1-5.

The blazer's do not have an offense which consistently gets the ball to cutters so the blazer shooting % is low and unless that changes then the blazer fortunes will go the with the accuracy of their jump shooting.

Anybody have a solution to the blazer shooting woes?

Another season ending injury for Oden.  I hope he gets well soon and can get back to basketball.  Now to my thoughts.

 The future of the Blazer franchise is on the line.  If the Blazer's don't treat Oden well, keep him on the roster and foster his career then the Blazer franchise will become a backwater.  We've dumped Pendergraph because the timing of his injury unfortunately made that possible, but Oden is not Pendergraph.

If the Blazer's don't bring Oden back no quality player will come to Portland via trade or free agency.  They don't really consider it now, and if we let Oden go because of his injury history, Portland will certainly never be considered as a destination of the likes of LeBron, Wade, Kobe, etc.  Why would they?  It wouldn't be the money that kept them away, it would be the venue and the quality of the management.

I here grousing about the amount of money being offered.  But be certain of this:  defensive rebounding wins championships and if the Heat had even a half a season of Oden and that half included the playoffs they would win the next five NBA championships.  Oden is that important a player.

Consider:  in all of the Portland losses this season defensive rebounding has been the key.  Less than 30 defensive rebounds means a very low probability of winning.  When Pryzbilla returns our defensive rebounding will improve but it won't necessarily be consistent when we play in the playoffs.  A healthty Oden would give two good defensive rebounding big men making our defensive rebounding as constant as any team in the league.  The other advantage:  it would allow Camby to spell Aldridge at power forward.

However.

This is the nail that will pound the nail in the Blazer coffin:  after the lock out year a recovered Oden will be a Laker, or Celtic or Heat player.  And if any of them win a NBA championship with any kind of Oden contribution then there will be a pox on our franchise.

The franchise must keep Oden until he proves himself as a player or until it is clear that he is physically unable to play in the NBA.

I've mention before (in A Statistical Analysis) that when the blazers score 30 or more two point baskets they win about 67% of the time and when those 30 or more 2 point baskets are combined with 30 or more defensive rebounds that winning % goes up to 79%.

Last night against PHX the blazers scored 33 two point baskets and had 30 defensive rebounds:  and the blazers won.(FYI:  PHX had 27 two point shots and 23 defensive rebounds)

The starters made 23 and the bench 10 2 point baskets.

All but 2 three point shots were made within the offense, in other words the three point shot was a weapon and not a rescue line.

Note: Neither the Celtics or the Heat made close to 30 two point baskets in a game that was horribly played.  Lakers and Rockets had exactly 30 two point baskets and more than 30 defensive rebounds each and the game was a nail biter.

Why --30-- ?  Is it the end of the story?

No.

It's the number of two point baskets needed for a near 70% winning percentage.  30 is a number that means the Portland offense is working on the floor.  30 baskets defines the defensive effectiveness of the Blazer's as a unit.

So do we have the players to score 30 two point basket's a game?  The offensive scheme?  The players to make 30 two point baskets a winning margin with their defense?

70% means 56 wins.  Where does thirty 2fers come from?

Only Oden's presence in the pivot can get us 30 a game(consistently) and even then I think there is going to be some rust when he first gets back and the Blazer's will have a difficult time meeting that goal.  I don't see any other player that Portland acquired that significantly improves the chances of getting 30 2fers a game.

What do other B'edgers think?

http://7677maniacsblzerstats.blogspot.com/

I've graphed (see the link above) 2 pt field goals made for each game and then charted them using columns for each win, or loss, associated with the number of fields goals.

Two modes appear in the graph:  29 or fewer 2 pt field goals made the Blazer record was 20-17 which translates into a .54 probability of a win.  With 30 or more the Blazer record was 29-14 translating into a .67 probability of winning.

I then graphed made the sum of 2pt field goals and the total defensive rebounds.  Again graphing w/l in columns for each value.  When the blazers had a sum of less than 59 (made 2pt shots + def rebs) the expectation of a win was .41 .  When the sum of rebounds and 2 pt shots made was 59 or greater the expectation of winning was .79 (34-9).

My quick perusal of the stats suggest that three point shooting is only useful if it's good three point shooting.  Second this analysis suggests that running plays for the "offensively" challenged early in the clock would maximize the usefulness of their time on the court.  This analysis also points out the importance of defensive rebounding and the gamble hitting the offensive boards is if it hurts the defense (i.e. players out of defensive position, bad matchups making it easier for the other team to score two point fields goals).

I like frequency analysis like this rather than averages because frequencies of types of performances actually relates to the way basketball is played.

Here is my assessment of the season with some questions about the 10-11 season.

Injury plagued year.  I think this can be attributed to a group of guys committed to being the best they can be and trying to win it all on every single play.  Admirable but probably not advisable.  It's like trying to help somebody without trying to understand what the exact conditions are:  you're likely to do more harm than good.  I'm not suggesting guys take plays off but does Oden have to block every shot?  Does Brandon have to break down the other team every play?  Does LA have to play the most minutes every game?  This season demonstrates that it wasn't possible even those these players tried (Do Webster and Rudy have take and make only three's? etc, etc).

Game planning.  The blazer's had difficulty handling double teams of Roy and Aldridge.  For most of the season the double teams, when they came could be dealt with, but as the end of the season neared, and during the playoffs, teams were more committed to double teaming our two most consistent scorers causing what seemed like an insoluble situation.  What can be done to counteract double teaming?  Now that the Suns beat the blazers by consistently doubling Roy or Aldridge, I suspect the Blazers can expect a steady diet of this next season.

Improvisation.  It seemed this season that players were disciplined to a fault.  By the end of the season it was clear to me that teams were consistently beating the blazer players to their spots.  This level of predictability hurt the offensive flow and it showed at the end of games and in games against good defenses.  Can Rudy, Batum, and Webster hit a mid range jumper?  It seemed that the role players were never able to improvise when the defenses accounted for their presence in the lineup.

Speed.  This year the Blazers played with greater speed than in the season before.  Aldridge, Batum, Rudy, Bayless, and Webster can play fast break if the opportunity arises.  Are Diener and Mills fast?  Weren't they capable of playing a few minutes just to change the pace of the game or to take advantage of some adjustment the opponent made?

Next season (2010-11)

Coaching

I think the coaching staff is going to have to show if can come up with an offensive system that can be executed no matter what player is injured--purely trying to get the best shot while rebounding and avoiding turnovers won't work consistently enough to do anything but get into the playoffs.  Some way of understanding what teams are doing and how the team can improvise to meet new challenges will be as important as following a game plan.

Players

The players have shown they are willing to work on their games.  I hope it continues.  The blazers are a good enough 3-point shooting team that teams will try to defense the 3pt line.  More players need to develop good mid range jump shots.  With this in mind:

Roy --better read of defenses, keep developing three point shooting

Aldridge--learn to use the backboard on his shot, improve his across the lane jump hook, pass better out of double teams

Batum-- mid range jump shooting, develop post game

Oden--be more selective about what shots to block, keep hands up when handling the ball in the post, learn to use the backboard on his jump hook

Bayless--learn to take a shot off the dribble, mid range shooting, reading the defense

Webster--mid range shooting, use speed and hops to take it to the basket, improve passing

Fernandez--learn to shoot off the dribble, mid range shooting

MIller and Camby just need to stay healthy.

Cunningham--film study of players to enhance defense, keep up shooting the midrange, develop three point shot

Pendergarph--learn to use body to make room to get off shot (Boozer and Milsap are good examples), develop elbow jumper

Mills needs more playing time--his speed is his best weapon.

Let's all hope for a healthy and successful 2010-11 season!!

 Mid Court double team

Today teams are pinching the point guard, or other initiator, closer to mid court with tall players, and zoning the key area to discourage short passes over the mid court double team.  This has caused a very  marked slow down in the game and has increased physical play because teams who have difficulty dealing with the double team are seen as passive while the double teaming team is seen as aggressive.  This dichotomy of intention, as interpreted by the referees, leads to an imbalance at the free throw line because the aggressive team is 'allowed' more contact.

Portland has trouble with the mid court double team because no one comes to the top of the key to help the point guard.  Teams with two good ball handlers like the Spurs or the Lakers, can move the ball horizontally and take advantage of the floor imbalance that results when the defense double teams near the mid court.  This is one area where Nate has to show his stuff as a coach because the inability to deal with this trend is a game plan deficiency  and failing to deal with it is the fault of the coach.

Foul shot disparity

It seems that this year there is more grumbling about foul shot disparity.  Blazer fans know this has always been a problem.  This year though some good teams on the slide down toward mediocrity, and with a large following (that is, viewership), especially with the pundits, are the victims of this disparity and because of the fiscal clout they possess feel they can expect some relief when they complain.  And complain they have.

I propose that coaches can only speak to the referees during the first period, and after the first period coaches can only talk to the refs to ask for clarification on technicals, ejections, and three point shot reviews.  If a coach talks to a ref any other time then a technical is assessed to a player in the starting lineup each time the coach violates the rule. This would be good for Portland because Nate doesn't compalin much--something I admire him for.  Don't like the calls, play better!

Aggressive/Passive dichotomy

In my opinion, this division of teams into these categories exists and is used by referees to establish the way they are going to call fouls in a game.  The only way to deal with this if you are the passive team is to move, ball and player and put the onus on the refs.  Most 'passive' teams are seen to be just standing around or playing one on one basketball.  Portland, like many teams, often falls into this trap.

Portland needs to move the big men more.  Find some way to get them the ball while they are cutting toward the basket.  When ball and player move grabbing and shoving is more detectable and that will lead to getting more calls and expose refs (and defenses) who (which)  aren't very good.

The Blazer fan base is one of the most supportive in the league (in not in pro sports) both in attendance and money.  Witness the many years with sellouts.  For an organization to reward it's fan's with good management is and has been a sound Trailblazer management strategy.  But in light of the current economic conditions and the timing of a new CBA with this economic downturn a fan wonders what is in store for the Trailblazer's and by extension the league, for if the Trailblazers with its rabid fan base cannot operate in the black then one has to wonder, in light of the CBA the league just tendered to the players, what the future holds for Oregon's only major pro sport franchise and the league.

And this brings me to this season.  How will the Trailblazers handle the second half of the season?  Will the organization

Lebron James wants to be a NBA Champion.

Most commentators see James going to New York.  At least one says he well stay in Cleveland (or should stay).

But what teams would give James a legitimate chance of winning a championship?

First, if he wins with the Cleveland team he has right now, then I'd say he could win anywhere.

If James, and Cleveland don't win this year, then where would James go?  I am not going to address the possibility of getting personnel that might make it work in Cleveland, but what teams have the personnell James needs to win now.

Let's start with the Lakers.  A proven champion without Lebron.  A big market team with deep pockets.  Always willing to make a big deal.  Everyone feels this would be a good team for James.  The lakers have two good post players, a great two guard, a capable if not outstanding point guard, and a very good defensive small forward who can score in streaks.  James would be a definite upgrade at small forward.

What other teams are similar to the Lakers?

Orlando.  Two post players.  A very good shooting guard.  An excellent point guard.  Weak at small forward.  Enter Lebron.

Portland.  Two post players.  A very good shooting guard.  A good, capable point guard. Deep at small forward/guard but Lebron would be a definite improvement.

These teams have the talent, two have the market, and Portland has a deep pocket (Allen).  James wouldn't have to worry that the teams listed would have to rebuild or be just another Cleveland--plenty of good players but not enough to bring home a trophy.  These teams have very good defensive centers, good scorers at power foward and shooting guard, good if not excellent point guards, good to adequate small forwards (Portland may have very good small forwards as they become more experienced) and they don't have to acquire additional pieces to go with the addition of Lebron.

It seems to me if Lebron James wants to win a championship, and team skill is the main criterion for choosing a team, then the following teams would be the best destination for James:

1.  Los Angeles Lakers
2.  Orland Magic
3.  Portland Trailblazers

Howard Oden

Games 82 66

MP 2670 1429

FG 352 211

FT 277 152

ORB 287 185

DRB 536 288

TRB 823 473

PTS 981 574

RR/M .308 .331

O'Neal's first season (81 games):  3071 MP, 1122 TRB, .365 RR/M

Howard (career)                             : 14742 MP, 5160 TRB, .350 RR/M

From these statistics it is clear that Oden is statistically about on par with Howard.  Oden appears to have benefited from the year in college because his first year rebound rate per minute is greater than Howard's rate after the first season of Howard's career, Shaq's year in college probably helped him too.  Oden and Shaq may have higher initial rates than howard because of better fundamentals learned during a year in college basketball.

While Howard's career rebounding rate per minute has climbed from his first year,  Shaq's declined to a .316 rebounds per minute, however after the first five seasons (13105 MP) Shaq's RR/M was .330 the same rate as Oden.

The question I pose to the blazer edge community:  would having a point guard like Hardaway or Nelson increase Oden's minutes on the floor?

Does Miller fill the bill?

What is the goal of the Portland Trailblazers?

Wining the NBA championship.

How do the trailblazers win the NBA championship?

With intelligence.

Ah, wait, you say.  We need players, we need hall of fame caliber players.  This may be true.  It certainly makes it easier from a skills standpoint.

But in reality, championships are won and lost with what’s between the ears.

Conventional wisdom said the Sixers should have beaten the Blazers in 76-77.  The same wisdom said Seattle should have beaten Denver in the 90’s, last year Cleveland was supposed to dominate.  It was the ability to adapt, to make the right decision and not the wrong decision that makes a champion, skill only gets you to the dance.

The trailblazers this season are showing some growing pains.  They want more than a good record, a playoff qualifying record.  The blazers want to vie for a championship and this is going to take an investment.  An investment in failure.  To fail is to see where one needs to improve, change or redirect.  This is never easy.  It’s counter intuitive.  Success is supposed to be the result of incrementally successful steps.

But the best improvement comes with failure, because failure will teach you to be flexible, adaptable and cooperative.  Without failure you can’t see your faults and either eliminate them or accommodate them.

That’s why I think this season we may not see an “improvement” but rather a mental gut check that will show the players that attitude as well as skill is important in the pursuit of success.

                                                   TRB      TRB     DRB  DRB     ORB  ORB
                                                                 OPP                 OPP               OPP
Without Oden   2007-2008   3339   3422   2438   2465      901   957
With       Oden    2008-2009 3420   2976   2360   2190     1060   786


Greg Oden's impact I think can be seen in these statistics.  Clearly his rebounding has helped the Blazers defensively, limiting the opponents scoring opportunities.  It is also clear that the Blazers shot better (.448 in 0708 and .465 in 0809) making fewer rebounding chances available to opponents.  It would be interesting to see if the blazers shooting percentage went down during the games he didn't play.

Does any body else have some statistical info to contribute?

Management

The Turkoglu Affair seems to highlight the inexperience of the Blazer management when it comes to augmenting and maintaining a playoff caliber team.

First there is the poor reaction to the Darius Miles reality.  It feels like management didn't plan for an unfavorable result.

Second, the Blazer's seemed playoff bound for some time during the season, but when July 1 rolled around management doesn't seem very organized--i.e. they seemed to sight their lasers on a particular guy rather than court several at a time (what was the hurry?).

Third, management seems determined to get a veteran, any serviceable veteran.  Why?  Is there something amiss in the coaching staff?  Why can't Nate bring along the young guys? 

I don't sense a plan that is as good as the rebuilding plan ( or has luck just made rebuilding look good).

Players

I don't see anything yet that alarms me.  The team appears to have chemistry which is a difficult thing to achieve when a team is as young as the Blazer's.  But this coming season will be a bellweather for many players (I'm thinking of marked improvement by Batum, Oden, Bayless, and Fernandez.  If other players improve as well--it won't hurt my feelings).

Team

The Blazers are a .600 team (~50 wins).  That means they should fall between 45-37 and 55-27.  I've put a +- of 5 games because a team might have a run of bad luck or good luck that will either not reflect the ability of the team or inflate the ability it actually has.

To get to 60 wins, I think that would make the blazers an elite team, means we need to add some scoring and some defense against quick, penetrating guards.  60 wins means we should expect the blazer's to make it out of the first round.  55 or fewer wins means that Portland might not yet have the horses to get out of the first round.

Finally

I don't want anyone to think I'm not hoping for a world championship.  I watched every minute of the 76-77 blazer championship run ( or at least looking back at it it seems like I did).  I'd love to watch the team succeed again.  But I want the team to be good, to have excellent players.  To get that, especially in today's NBA, patience should be exercised.  When this core group of players gets good enough to make a run, we'll have to turn down calls from players who want to be part of the Blazers.

Two for LaRue!!

Greg Oden's main offensive move is being a receiver in the pick and roll.  On occasion though he does get deep in the paint and Portland has had difficulty getting Oden the ball in a timely fashion.  Hedo enhances Oden's offense.  Why?  Because Hedo is a good midrange shooter it pressures defenses when he handles the ball and this makes it easier for Hedo to loft a pass to Oden; second, Hedo's height allows him to see over most small forwards increasing the chances that Oden can get the ball when he needs it:   when Oden is right under the basket.

In addition, Hedo's ability to execute the pick and roll would have created better matchups for Roy (no small forward guarding him).

Hedo's decline of the Blazer's bid for his talents highlights what the Blazer coaches and management see as a weakness in the Blazer's skill set:  the ability to operate the pick and roll.  Roy is fine but teams will (did) use taller small forwards to defend the pick and roll making it difficult to execute the play successfully, and increasing the wear and tear on Roy by having to do all of the playmaking.

So it seems the Blazer's management doesn't think that Outlaw or Batum can effectively run the pick and roll.  Why else acquire Hedo?

Win now?  This is not a realistic goal.  Remember, while the 76-77 blazers were the youngest team ever to win the championship, that team had experience from top to bottom from good to great collegiate programs.  The Blazers have guys who are still years away from having that kind of experience (basketball and otherwise).  So acquiring Hedo to win now was not the goal of the trailbalzers.  

Did Portland want to see if salary could overcome geography?  I think they got their answer:  not in Hedo's case.  Will Oden, Aldridge eventually bolt to other locations when their contracts are up?  In spite of monetary rewards for staying in Portland.

Will McMillan stay if Portland has difficulty in getting veteran talent?  McMillan was apparently sold on Hedo's abilities (perhaps that's why Portland management sent him to talk to Hedo in Orlando) and McMillan has complained of a lack of veterans on the Blazer's.

I think Blazer management just got some valuable experience in regards to building a playoff, and championship, team, a team that makes it out of the first round on a regular basis.  Clearly rebuilding has been a success for Blazer management, now they have to learn how to manage a successful, winning, team.  That appears to be tougher to learn than rebuilding a playoff qualifying team.

It strikes me with this year's draft (2009) that the consistent early entry of players has caught the league in a basketball assessment gap because there has been too little development of players due to their lack of playing experience in college basketball.  Thus the draft has been an exercise in risk avoidance rather than risk taking.  That's why some teams have been hoarding certain positions-- if one of the players chosen meets with expectations then the draft choice has an economic benefit, need is not a consideration when risk dominates reward.

This is probably more true now that economic uncertainty hangs over professional sports in general. 

The salary cap forces teams to eventually make draconian decisions considering their rosters.  That's why a big market team like the Lakers can land Pau Gasol for essential for peanuts.  This is because those players deemed essential to making the playoffs are paid so much that there is no possibility of a wage/skill structure that makes consistent team performance possible- a yo-yo pattern develops: a few years of winning basketball followed by a few years of rebuilding.

The future for the NBA appears to be a seesaw between parity or inbalance. 

How can a more league wide competitive system be developed?

So I don't have to read all of the posts, they are all good, what position player do the fans think the blazers need the most?  Should the need be satisfied through the draft or through a trade?  And should the emphasis be offensive or defensive?

My interest here is to see if the blazer fan community has a consensus on what the blazers need to do to maintain or improve the roster and to see if that perception is in agreement with Blazer management.

It seems that this years draft for the Blazer's depends on what the team plans to do in terms of player development, especially in regards to Bayless, Batum, and Oden.

If the Blazers want to concentrate on improving the game of these players they might not want to move anybody until sometime into the season.  The Magic showed what happens when a player's game is immature: a team can't win it all.

It seems to me that these players should start and prove themselves as starters in the league, even if it means that the Blazers may miss the playoffs.