SB Nation User Blog: BlazerFanSince1970

Trade for Carlos Boozer?

BlazerFanSince1970 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:41:00 -0000

I've never proposed a specific trade before, but adversity breeds opportunity ...

The Trade

Portland sends:

Blake ($4.0M) and Howard ($0.8M) to Miami (Miami agrees to waive Howard so we can resign him in 30 days)

Miami uses their trade exceptions (Banks & Livingston) for Blake & Howard

Portland sends:

Outlaw ($3.6M) and Webster ($4.3M) to Utah for Boozer ($12.3M) and C.J. Miles ($3.7M)

This works in the ESPN trade machine. Portland sends out $12.7M and can therefore receive $16.0M, which just covers Boozer plus Miles. Webster and Miles are just about a wash in salary, but the deal can't work without including them because the 125% multiplier + $100K balances the incoming and outgoing salaries for Portland.

The Rationale

Miami does this deal because they can use Blake, it costs them nothing but trade exceptions, and his contract expires this year if they don't want to keep him next year.

Utah does this deal because they are dying to find a way to get rid of Boozer's contract to save luxury tax this year and not take back more salary for next year. They would save $8.1M in luxury tax plus more than 1/2 of the $8.1M salary difference, for a total savings this year of over $12M. Outlaw's contract expires this year, and Webster and Miles contracts are a wash, so there's no financial impact on Utah next year.

Portland does this deal because Boozer is a 20 & 11 Big Man, which we badly need right now, and he could be a key piece of our future. His contract expires this year so we would have to outbid other teams to keep him beyond this year, but Outlaw's and Blake's contracts expire this year too. With Joel out for perhaps a year or longer, we absolutely need another high quality Big next year or beyond. Oden, Boozer, and LMA each playing 32 minutes a game would be as good a PF/C rotation as we are likely to ever get. The price to re-sign FA Boozer this summer would be steep, but if KP wants him I suspect Paul Allen would agree.

My Thoughts

I've never thought of Boozer as an ideal big man, but we could do a lot worse than an Oden, Boozer, LMA rotation. I certainly can't think of any other way to get a quality Big that is even remotely feasible. Utah is in quite a financial mess (we put them there with the Millsap signing) and that might make this deal possible.

A Plan For The Future ... Without Miller

BlazerFanSince1970 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:38:44 -0000

It’s time to face the reality of our sad situation and think about the future.

First let’s review the Goals and 2009/10 Objectives we had (or should have had) at the start of this year. That leads directly to my proposed Plan for the Future.

GOALS

- Become a championship contending team next year, the 2010/11 season. (i.e. have a reasonable expectation of reaching the conference finals)

- This year (2009/10), win our division, win in the first round of the playoffs, and contend in the second round of the playoffs.

2009/10 OBJECTIVES

Develop Greg Oden (top priority), develop and assess of our young players, resolve the PG position, and decide what to do with Travis Outlaw.

A. Greg Oden – Develop and Integrate

Oden reduces his fouls so he can consistently play 28 or more minutes every night.
Oden further develops his offensive moves and reduces turnovers so he is a reliable option on offense (in addition to scoring on rebounds, lobs, and broken plays).
Integrate Oden into the offense, which means everyone learns to play with Greg (but primarily Roy, LMA, and the PGs).

Status:

Incomplete and delayed an entire year.

(1) Greg was making progress on fouls, but I think it would take most of the year before he could consistently play at least 28 minutes.

(2) His offensive abilities are a long-term project. There was good improvement, but a long way to go to achieve reliability.

(3) We didn’t fully accomplish working him into the offense, partly because he is not yet a reliable option on offense.

Best case - Greg returns with his conditioning and physical abilities fully restored to the level they were prior to his latest injury. Even so, we will need all of next year to accomplish what we wanted to accomplish this year.

Worst case – don’t even think about it.

B. Batum, Webster, Rudy – Develop and Assess their Future with Blazers

Assess Webster’s health and ability to be a key contributor to a championship team either as a starter or a consistent defender and scoring threat off the bench.
Assess Rudy’s improvement in defense, creating his own shot, and playmaking. Determine if there is a role for him on a future championship team.
Develop Batum’s offensive skills with the expectation he can play a major role as a starter or key backup on a championship contender.

Status:

(1) Webster appears to have fully recovered physically, but his overall performance has been inconsistent, and sometimes disappointing. (Was it ever anything else?)

(2) Rudy showed signs of improvement on defense and creating his own shot, but that has been inconsistent. He may have been hampered by his back injury. Rudy should return in time to still make a reasonable assessment of his future with the Blazers by this summer.

(3) Batum should return to continue his development this year.

C. Point Guards – Integrate, Develop, Assess

Introduce Andre Miller into the offense and adjust to a traditional PG.
Develop and assess Bayless as a future starter or primary backup PG.
Assess Blake’s future with the Blazers (to re-sign or not in summer of 2010).

Status:

(1) There is still plenty of time to integrate Miller and Roy’s games, but I suspect we would benefit more from Miller’s individual scoring skills than other parts of his game.

(2) Although Blake and Miller are healthy, the depletion of the roster due to injuries should continue to make minutes for Bayless until Rudy and Batum return. His performance as a combo guard has been encouraging, and if he continues to show improvement he will build confidence to take on a larger roll because of his “fit” with Roy’s game, even though he has not shown traditional PG skills.

(3) Blake is what he is. Nate and KP like him and will re-sign him next summer because he is inexpensive and can always play backup PG.

D. Travis Outlaw – Develop and Assess

Assess Oulaw’s value and ability to improve his defense and rebounding skills. Assess Outlaw’s future as a Blazer. Determine whether to re-sign or not in summer of 2010, or possibly trade this year for a tougher backup PF.
Develop Pendergraph and Cunningham, which could influence the decision to retain Outlaw.

Status:

(1) I doubt we will see Outlaw again this year. Had he played poorly, but the team otherwise played well, he might have been traded before the deadline for a backup PF/C. Ironically, his injury makes it more likely he will be re-signed this summer, since the team has not performed well and his instant offense is highly valued. However, Outlaw could still be traded (sign-and-trade this summer or an early season trade) if more offense is added somewhere else on the roster. i.e. he stays for now, but he will always be on trading block if we don’t need his offense.

(2) Cunningham and Pendergraph (when he returns) may get more development minutes than expected because of the depleted roster, but it seems unlikely that either will play well enough to affect re-signing Outlaw.

2009/10 Summary:

Outlaw’s immediate future with the Blazers was resolved by his injury and the team’s poor play. He will be re-signed this summer. The Miller/Blake PG situation has been disappointing so far, but Bayless is getting some (still limited) opportunity to make a case to remain and receive primary backup PG minutes. There’s not enough SF/3-guard minutes for Batum, Webster, Rudy, and Outlaw, so one (or two) of them will eventually have to go. Batum is a safe bet to return because of his age, progress in Europe, and defense. We need to see more of Rudy later this year, and thus far Webster has been inconsistent and sometimes disappointing.

Our highest priority this year was to develop Greg Oden, and that is now delayed a year. He only made minimal progress in solving his foul problems, his reliability as a primary offensive option still needs a lot of work, and we barely scratched the surface of integrating Greg into the offense. Hence, I believe we have essentially lost this year toward our GOAL of becoming a championship contender.

I believe we will be fortunate to just squeak into one of the final playoff spots this year, and then we would be quickly eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.

Our goal for next year will be essentially what it was for this year, and our Window will now not crack open until the 2011/12 season.

A Plan for the Future:

Do not make any short term band-aid moves to try to “salvage” this season. Do not bring in a D-League player, an out-of-the-league free agent, or make a trade for a marginal player (using our rookies, euro-draft rights, or future draft picks) just to survive this season. Just cutting Patty Mills and bringing in a D-League player, or another Juwan Howard type free agent, will do nothing to make us a better team in the future.
Make every effort possible by the February trading deadline to trade for a player that can significantly help us become a championship contender starting in 2011/12, regardless of any negative effects it may have this season. Use this opportunity to add another piece to our championship roster even if reduces our now marginal chances to make the playoffs this year. We no longer have to worry about making a big deal in the middle of the year and screwing up the team chemistry or our playoff chances. We can now afford to make a move for the future that we would have avoided in trying to make the second round of the playoffs this year.
Miller ($6.7M) is the obvious choice to trade because he is far more likely to return a player of value than Blake ($4M). Miller could make a difference to a contending team with injuries or a weak backup PG, and his salary provides more trading room for a better player in return. No one doubts his PG skills are superior to Blake’s. If we could magically get someone excellent trading Blake, that’s fine too, but it isn't going to happen. This isn’t about Blake versus Miller. We aren’t winning a championship starting either of them three seasons from now.
Trading Miller makes sense. The start of our Window has been pushed back a year to Miller’s team-option year. Miller will end the 2011-2012 regular season as a 36-year old PG. We aren’t likely to win a championship with the defense of a 36-year PG, and that’s just the first year of our Window. Miller’s trade value is the highest it will be right now before the Feb trading deadline. His poor play this year can still be blamed on the PG mess in PDX, and some team should need him by Feb to fix their immediate PG woes. By summer teams will be looking for long term solutions to their problems and Miller’s trade value will have diminished because he will be “a year older” and not helped by his Blazers "experience".
Trading Miller by the trade deadline will completely free Bayless to develop and finally show if he can become Roy’s running mate in a year or so. We will still have Blake next year, plus probably a new PG this summer (see below), and if Bayless fails as a PG we can trade him as a combo guard next year.
KP should attempt to trade Miller for a high-quality starting small forward. He should look for veteran that can start at least this year and next. He can battle Batum for the starting spot in subsequent years when Batum is ready to play significant minutes. We need someone that can score reliably and needs to be defended, particularly in the not unlikely event that we lose Oden for periods in the future. Although our immediate need is a backup big (PF/C) it is difficult to trade a small for a big, and we can add a backup big this summer. We need to use this rare opportunity based on Miller’s salary room and his ability to immediately help a contending team to secure another key player (reliable scorer and defender) for our future.
We should be willing to include Webster in the deal. If we trade Miller ($6.7M) plus Webster ($4.3), KP could take back up to $13.9M ($11M * 125% + 0.1M) in salaries. That should provide enough flexibility to get a top-quality SF and perhaps take back a bad contract if necessary to make a deal. Obviously, we need a trading partner that needs a PG more than their SF, but we would also be able to provide Webster as a fill-in or backup SF for them. We could also include a 3rd team with a SF to facilitate a deal.
I don’t have a particular target player in mind. I’m not into proposing specific trades. It’s KP’s job to find and negotiate deals. I’m proposing a strategy.

Completing the Roster

Trading Miller plus Webster for a small forward (and filler if necessary) likely makes us worse this year. So what? We would be lucky to make the playoffs anyway, and if we get worse we will just get a better lottery pick. KP knows how to deal lottery picks. By the draft we should also decide to trade Rudy, Blake, or sign-and-trade Outlaw. Imagine what KP could do draft day packaging a lottery pick with Rudy or Outlaw. He could probably convert it into an excellent PG (or a PF/C) by either moving up in the draft or trading for a veteran.
Use the MLE (mid-level exception) this summer to bring over Freeland, or use it to sign a free agent PF/C (or PG, whichever we didn’t get on draft day). We could also try to bring over Claver, but that could be more difficult on the rookie scale and I don't know if he would be a solution at PF/C (is he more of a SF/PF?).

Potential 2010/11 Roster

C – Oden, Przy (re-sign if he opts out this summer - a no brainer)

PF – LMA, Freeland or a FA for MLE, Pendergraph, Cunningham

SF – Veteran (for Miller+Webster), Batum

Guards – Roy, Bayless, Blake, PG (Veteran or Lottery Pick) for Lottery Pick plus Outlaw or Rudy

SG/SF Rudy or PF/SF Outlaw

Ok, that's my plan. Let the flaming begin, but please remember this isn't about Miller vs Blake. It's about taking advantage of our now delayed Window as a contender, and converting a valuable asset with a limited shelf life into an even stronger team for the future.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

BlazerFanSince1970 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:56:38 -0000

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Nothing could possibly go wrong in Memphis this year.

Iverson checked into Monday's game with four-and-a-half minutes remaining in the first quarter and finished up the period.

"I had no problems (with the hamstring)," Iverson said afterward. "I had a problem with my butt from sitting on that bench so long. That's the only thing I got a problem with."

"I'm not a reserve basketball player. I've never been a reserve all my life and I'm not going to start looking at myself as a reserve. ... To answer the question, 'No, I'm not a bench player. I'm not a sixth man. Go look at my resume and that will show you I'm not a sixth man."

" ... Hollins seemed incredulous before the game when he was asked if Iverson would be in the starting lineup against the Kings. "He hasn't even been with the team until just a couple of days ago," Hollins said."

He (Andre) Said, He (Nate) Said Audio. You Decide.

BlazerFanSince1970 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:09:56 -0000

Since Andre Miller's interview with Marc Spears of Yahoo! Sports there's been a lot of discussion about what Nate did or didn't tell Andre over dinner in Vegas. While there's no audio recording of that dinner, there is audio of both Nate and Andre from July 28, the day before Andre came to Portland for his first press conference. This is the first time either of them spoke about their now infamous dinner conversations. So now you can hear both of them address the issue of who would start at point guard.

First however, let's look closely at what Marc Spears wrote (Link to Oct 10 article):

“If I was told right out when I had my meetings that I would be a backup, then I wouldn’t have come here,” Miller told Yahoo! Sports this week."

Obviously he came here. So what did Miller mean?

a) Did he mean Nate promised him the starting spot, else he wouldn't have come here? If so, then this is a complaint that Nate mislead him into thinking the starting spot was his.

b) Or did he mean that he wouldn't have come here if he had been told that he would definitely be a backup, and not have a chance to compete for the starting spot. If that is what he meant, there's nothing wrong with a player of Miller's stature not wanting to go to a team where the starting spot was "locked up" for another guy.

So is Miller complaining that he was promised the starting spot, or simply stating that he was promised the chance to compete for the starting spot? If the latter, there is no conflict here, unless Miller's claiming that he isn't getting a real chance to compete? (He started on Friday so that makes little sense.) You decide.

But then Spears wrote:

McMillan has said he told Miller during their summer meeting in Las Vegas that he very well might make him a reserve. Miller doesn’t remember the meeting quite the same way.

There are no quotations here from Miller or Nate. So what does Spears mean:

c) that Nate said he told Miller in Vegas the starting spot was up for competition, but Miller claims it was promised to him?

d) that Nate said he told Miller in Vegas the starting spot was locked up for Blake, but Miller believes Nate told him it was up for competition?

Interpretation c) goes with interpretation a) above. This is the negative way to view the article - Miller claiming he was promised the starting spot to come to Portland. Does that make sense? Remember that Miller had no other offers except to return to Philly on a one year contract, or to try to get a one year deal with NY (NY wouldn't sign anyone, not even David Lee, to more than a one year contract). No one else that had cap space wanted him. (Miller said that himself in another Oregonian article.) So it was Miller begging Portland for a $7M deal longer than one year. Nate didn't need to mislead Miller to convince him to come here.

Interpretation d) goes with interpretation b) above if Spears uses Nate's statements about Blake starting to mean Blake starts the regular season without Miller getting a chance to compete. Is that what Nate meant? Or is Spears just using that narrow interpretation of Nate's words to create apparent conflict between Nate and Miller? You decide.

So now let's go to the Audio Tapes ....

This article (Link) by OregonLive.com's Sean Meagher contains 3 audio recordings of Miller and Nate.

First, there's Miller on the Bald-Faced Truth with John Canzano:

Canzano: “Do you expect to start – have that given to you. Or do you go into camp saying I go to earn this job?

Andre: Nothing is given. You’re going to always have to earn it ... My expectation is to go in and compete for a starting job.

Clearly on July 28 Andre is not saying he was promised the starting job. That would seem to rule out the negative interpretations a) and c) above.

So next, did Nate say the starting job was Blake's unconditionally for the regular season, or did he say it was Blake's to start the preseason and it would be open for competition?

Here's Nate on Trail Blazers Courtside:

Barrett: A lot of people have assumed that Miller will come in and start. … Did you guys discuss with Andre at the Dinner … is Miller a guy - who the people assuming he's going to start - are they correct?

Nate: No, they’re not. I talked to Andre about that. …. Steve Blake started last year. Our starting unit last year won 54 games. We’re not going to mess with that starting unit at the beginning. We will start out the same way with Brandon and Steve as our guards, and bring Andre and Rudy as the guards off the bench.

So Nate says he told Andre at the Dinner that Blake would start. Clearly then, Nate would dispute that he promised Andre the starting job. But it's not clear in this audio if Nate meant that Blake would start the preseason or the regular season when he said "at the beginning".

So we go to the last tape of McMillan on Wheels at Work:

Wheels: Will you look at combinations and decide maybe which unit each guy fits in best with?

Nate: Well, I will look at combinations. But I talked to Andre about that. … I talked to him about coming off the bench and playing in that role. … That will take care of itself once we get into camp. But right now Blake is our starting point guard. Andre, I talked to him about that and he was fine with coming in and just doing whatever is needed to make the club better.

Again, Nate says that Blake is the starter, and he talked to Andre about coming off the bench and Andre was fine with it. So clearly Nate would dispute any suggestion that Andre was promised a starting job to come to Portland. But Nate says "that will take care of itself once we get into camp". Did he mean the starting spot for the regular season was open for competition during training camp?

It seems to me this is a lot to do about nothing, and perhaps this post is just more to do about nothing. But I thought it useful to break down the statements from Spears article and to present the most relevant audio clips I could find. I don't think Miller is claiming he was promised the starting spot, and I don't see how he could feel that he is being denied a chance to earn the starting spot. The audio certainly supports the former and the fact he started the last preseason game refutes the latter. This "controversy" appears to be more a result of how Spears wrote the article, than what Andre actually said.

Why he chose to talk to Spears at all is another matter. If as he said today, he was trying to put forth his side in the media it looks to me like it backfired and Spears didn't do him any favors.

Blazers Stranded on a Desert Island

BlazerFanSince1970 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:33:11 -0000

Blazers Stranded on a Desert Island

Funny stuff.

Miller's loosening up.
What's Greg watching on TV?
Martell's the most likely to beat the Kobayashi Maru test.

Greg Oden Full-court Fast Break

BlazerFanSince1970 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:00:33 -0000

Greg Oden Full-court Fast Break

OK, that's it. Now I'm excited !!!

"Toward the end of practice Saturday morning, during a drill which involves a three-on-two situation at one end, that turns into a two-on-one at the other, Dante Cunningham decided to challenge Oden at the rim. Oden cuffed the shot attempt in his right hand, and then took off with the ball. Cunningham, in a full sprint (and isn't a slow guy), couldn't catch Oden, who dribbled coast to coast and slammed the ball down with two hands. While maintaining professionalism, the players erupted. Oden, who hung on to the rim and swung completely under, landed, and while laughing, flew up into the air and did a full body bump with Martell Webster."

Blake Wins 1st Round vs Miller

BlazerFanSince1970 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:33:46 -0000

Blake Wins 1st Round vs Miller

OK, it's no big deal, but indicative of Blake's competitiveness. He won't go down without a fight.

The 10th annual McMillan Derby was run last night at practice.

The Winner (and new record holder) - Steve Blake.
The only player with a guaranteed contract to fail the conditioning test - Andre Miller.

Biggest Upset - Travis Passed. Way to go Travis!

"Blake set what McMillan believes is the best time for any player in his 10-years of holding the test, finishing with 24 seconds to spare."

"Miller finished his four sets 8 seconds under the required time. His punishment is a seven day, 30-minute detention with strength and conditioning coach Bobby Medina."

Actually the most meaningful news was that GO tied for the 2nd best time on the team. That's definitely good news, even if everyone doesn't push themselves.

Nic and Rudy found a loophole to avoid Nate's torture test.

"McMillan allowed Nicolas Batum and Rudy Fernandez to skip the test because they have been playing international basketball all summer."

Rudy's Blog - Sept 30

BlazerFanSince1970 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:12:13 -0000

Rudy's Blog - Sept 30

A new challenge
September 30, 2009

After European Poland, the gold medal and a great summer, it's my second season in the NBA. A challenge I face with great enthusiasm. I think my first year in the league was good, but it was not easy. And they say the second year is harder, because the rival teams and players know you more. But I'm looking forward to this new challenge and a step forward in my career in the NBA.

After the celebrations for the European gold did not have much time to rest. I had to take some pictures for an advertising campaign for American Crew and also an act with Bido Bido that helped me to dismiss the summer and to welcome the new season. On Saturday the 26th I traveled to Portland, a trip very, very long. On Sunday took the opportunity to do some shopping and Monday to work. The "average day", which was Monday, is a day to be taken with enough humor and patience. We spent many hours taking pictures, videos, interviews, promotions, ads ... And on Tuesday and began the training, which will be two a day all week ... and I will tell you how it goes

A greeting

Rudy

Paul Allen Optimistic LMA will be signed by Oct 31

BlazerFanSince1970 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:08:24 -0000

Paul Allen Optimistic LMA will be signed by Oct 31

" Are you optimistic that you will work out an extension with LaMarcus Aldridge by end of month?

"We have made some progress there. So, yeah, I am optimistic." "

Wells Fargo FanFest on Comcast

BlazerFanSince1970 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:06:08 -0000

Wells Fargo FanFest on Comcast

The Wells Fargo Fan Fest will be televised live on CSN NW starting at 5 pm on Sunday October 4th.