SBNation.com User Blog: Dave

Draft Prospects: Lower-Tier Centers

Dave — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:38:31 -0000

Yesterday we looked at a couple players the Portland Trail Blazers could move up for in the 2013 NBA Draft. Today we're going to cover four centers generally pegged below Portland's #10 pick...players the Blazers could probably draft at 10 outright or might be able to trade down and still get.

Kelly Olynyk--7'0", 234lb C from Gonzaga, 22 y.o. Junior

Gonzaga's Kelly Olynyk is going to be fine in the NBA as long as he doesn't have to play anybody bigger or more athletic than he. This being the NBA, though, that list of players is short. Olynyk does have athletic skills. He gets up and down the court well for a guy his size. He also has great balance and body control. He just doesn't have much explosive, quick-twitch ability. He's at this level because he's a basketball player, not because he's an athlete.

Olynyk makes up for that lack of overt athleticism with a well-rounded offensive game. If there's such a thing as a "stretch center" he could be one. He's got a nice jumper and a good dribble from the perimeter. He's a crafty post player with good hands and a soft touch on his shot. He's smart enough to know what to do with the ball and he has enough fundamentals to do it.

But Olynyk may not be able to establish position in the post at the next level, nor consummate his moves with a good shot. It's hard to envision him dribbling around or spinning through NBA defenders. Likely he'll be left putting up shots over the top.

Lack of explosive athleticism will hurt Olynyk at the defensive end. He's not a shot blocker, not much of a rebounder, and he defends like a bowl of oatmeal on roller skates. He can move in one direction and I guess you'd get mildly disturbed if you tripped over him? Other than that, he's not going to make a mark on "D".

Verdict for the Blazers

I'd be curious to see the Blazers design some high post sets featuring Olynyk. He'd be a threat to shoot or dribble drive. If he could hit LaMarcus Aldridge or cutters with solid passes he could find a niche there. His face-up game and the range on his jumper would also be welcome in Portland.

But lack of defense, shot blocking, and rebounding are not what the Blazers are looking for in a center. Chances are the Blazers will pass on him long before they'd ever give Olynyk a chance to pass for them.

Mason Plumlee--7'0", 238lb C from Duke, 23 y.o. Senior

If it were possible to grab a center off the Wal-Mart shelves, that center would probably look like Mason Plumlee. He'd be in a pretty display, near the higher-end merchandise. On the box would be a picture of him jumping and dunking. He looks nice when he's floating through the air. No doubt they'd have magenta and green streaks behind his feet and a lens flare beaming near the basket, accentuating his leap.

Also on the box would be some specs on his rebounding and pick setting, both of which are adequate. Whether he's slipping the pick or setting and rolling he moves with purpose. His board work follows suit.

Once you got him home and opened him, you'd find the typical Wal-Mart fare...serviceable as long as you don't overuse it. His post game would work well enough. If he only had to worry about defending one person he'd be fine there too.

When you started to look for high-end features, though, you'd quickly remember where you bought him and how much you paid. His game is sufficient as long as he's within a dozen feet or so of the basket...typical 7-footer fare. Move him outside on either end and you're asking for trouble. Most of this comes from his inability to switch directions. He looks good as long as he only has to move one way (or not move at all, such as defending the post). As soon as he has to help, reverse, do anything beyond a simple spin he's out of his element. His momentum carries him beyond the play and his brain can't get his body to recover quickly enough.

Verdict for the Blazers

Even a Wal-Mart center would look fine in Portland right now, but Plumlee will probably end up being a back-up in the NBA. The Blazers need more help than that. They already have a young reserve center. In another year with a more complete roster Plumlee might be a value pick. 7-footers who can play are always welcome. But Plumlee doesn't fit Portland's profile right now.

Gorgui Dieng--6'11", 230lb C from Louisville, 23 y.o. Junior

Gorgui Dieng is a legit athlete. 6'11", nice wingspan, fluid in motion...almost everything he does from a pure athletic standpoint (as opposed to a technical basketball standpoint) shows good form. He's moving quickly, jumping high, but he doesn't look like he's putting undue stress on his body. He just knows how to move it.

Nowhere is this more apparent than when you watch his hands. His feet are fine too, but his hands border on artistic. They're always in motion, looking as if they're ready to do the next thing instead of catching up to the last thing as is the case with so many big men. Seriously, I want to go through his highlights and Photoshop in little lightning balls around his hands as if he's getting ready to cast some kind of spell. Then when he gets a block or something, ZZZaaaappp! Discharge. I'm relatively sure that if you told Dieng to defend on any carpet in the world he'd build up enough static electricity to send you to the moon.

When it comes to blocks, this guy's got a little Dikembe Mutumbo in him. The arms, the grace of the swat, the pride in the accomplishment. He's not Mutumbo-sized nor does he have Mutumbo's strength but Dieng is like Deke's little brother.

Rebounding and defense complement Dieng's shot blocking. Again energy, motion, anticipation, and athleticism make a nice mix. Obviously Dieng cares about that end of the floor and feels confident in his ability to alter the game.

The tables turn when Dieng gets on the offensive end. Every move with the ball looks rushed, almost as if he's intimidated in turn by his own defender. The confidence is missing, along with most of the fundamentals. These shortcomings showed against college defenders. It'll be harder in the NBA. Dieng won't be a complete bust on offense but you're going to have to wait for him to find his sea legs. It'll be a long wait. Plus the finished product will likely incorporate only one or two reliable scoring moves. You're drafting Dieng as a defensive presence, hoping to get by with some offensive rebounding and chip shots on the other side.

Verdict for the Blazers

What do the Blazers need again? Shot blocking? Rebounding? Intimidation? And they can live without the offense for a while? Dieng looks like a good fit then. He won't be considered a star in the league. He'll never score 20 points, or even close. But his impact in Portland would be maximized compared to most other teams.

The real question here is Dieng's value versus other options. Selecting him at #10 could be considered a reach...maybe. Trading down means losing the chance to pick somebody else at that 10th spot. Buying into a second 1st Round pick to get him means losing more cap space this summer. Would Dieng add enough, and soon enough, to justify any of these moves? If Portland's center situation changes in the near future or if Dieng ends up being a decent reserve player instead of a full-time starter, would the Blazers still feel like they took full advantage of their opportunities by selecting him?

Rudy Gobert--7'2", 238lb C from somewhere above the skies of France, 20 y.o. ProA Player

Rudy Gobert is tall and has a super-ridiculous wingspan. You know those pre-game circle-sway dance huddles all teams do? Gobert will be able to touch his own fingertips. He's a one-man group hug.

Seriously, take a buddy and a metal folding chair to your local playground court. Line up at the free throw stripe and have your buddy stand on the chair 2 feet in front of you. Try to make a free throw over him. That's what it's like being defended by Rudy Gobert.

All the good things about Gobert's game have to do with his Condor-esque reach. He can dunk. He blocks shots. He doesn't have to be in position for offensive rebounds; they just get to him before they get to anybody else. To his credit, his hands are good and he's got decent ball control. Any time he gets space NBA point guards will be able to lob to him while blindfolded. With enough room to operate Gobert is going to be a nice weapon.

And...errr...he's tall. And...errr...he has long arms. Yeah.

Did I mention he's tall? His wingspan? How about his height?

The problem here is that we've exhausted his demonstrated ability. And none of that ability has been proven in the NBA. Already the game moves too fast for him, and that's in France. The NBA is a guard/small forward league. It's going to move even quicker. A huge wingspan is great in theory but in practical terms it may end up as more square inches of arm to get fouls called on.

Gobert doesn't have a great sense of fundamentals, especially when somebody is leaning on him. Part of it is physical limitation. How are you going to get a low center of gravity to block out or defend the post when you're that tall? It's not like he weighs 300 pounds. Part of it is skill. He can catch the ball fine but once he's got it he has all the touch of your corner mailbox. Part of it is just not knowing the game yet.

NBA bigs are not going to let Gobert dunk or even take two steps without getting chucked. They're going to try and rip away every rebound, push him out of post position, make him uncomfortable, dare him to put up any kind of shot under pressure. They're going to shove him around on the other end too. If he's not strong enough to bully his way to rebounds and not quick enough to block the layups of fast, agile guards he loses his effectiveness.

Mind you, Gobert is still going to erase plenty of cute floaters in the paint. There will be a no-fly zone around him. If he's anywhere near the lane you better stay out or dunk hard. But those amazing moments will be salted atop a large heap of adjustment and frustration.

Verdict for the Blazers

Somebody's going to be tempted by Rudy's altitude and promise but I don't see how the Blazers take this risk. The upside isn't high enough and the potential problems are legion. Gobert needs a team that can bring him along slowly, using him in back-up situations where he won't get exposed while getting used to the game. The Blazers need more than that.

Just like Shabazz Muhammad felt like a Minnesota Timberwolves pick, Rudy Gobert has Sacramento Kings draft written all over him. The typical Kings vibe would be to draft Trey Burke at #7 then buy up one of Atlanta's picks to get Gobert, then stink to high heaven because Gobert didn't fit and Burke wasn't enough on his own. Again, this is not a pattern for the Blazers to emulate. Rudy coming to Portland seems like a long shot.

Go ahead and give your thoughts on any or all of these four centers in the comment section below. Do any of them excite you? If so, how and why?

Draft Prospects: Alex Len and Victor Oladipo

Dave — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:39:04 -0000

Draft coverage is exploding all over Blazer's Edge! Just click on any of these links for:

All the articles in this series covering potential Blazer selections from A(dams) to Z(eller).

Complete coverage of Trail Blazer pre-draft workouts.

SBNation's less Blazer-centric but more comprehensive view of the 2013 Draft Class.

ZiggytheBeagle's comparative charts of selected draftees.

And now on with the show.

So far our journey through the Portland Trail Blazers' prospects in the 2013 NBA Draft has been limited to players available in the range of the #10 pick. Today we're going to look at two draftees who would have to slip in order for the Blazers to select them at #10. Alternately, the Blazers might find them worth trading up for.

Alex Len--7'1", 255lb C from Maryland, 20 y.o. Sophomore

The Alex Len story begins with 7'1" height, great wingspan, and 255 lbs of weight, headed upwards. Those are fine measurements for a 20-year-old. He's a center, born and bred. No messing around, no guessing about power forward, no undersized designation.

The second stanza is all about how he moves those 85 inches and 255 pounds. Some guys are graceful, some powerful. With Len it's all about economy. He gets from Point A to Point B with a minimum of motion and no wasted effort. This is true with his lateral movement, his running, his jumping, his finishes, his jump shots. Often you'll look at a guy and say, "That was a MONSTER athletic move." At the same time you know that's 1 play out of 100, that he needed that athletic explosion to look that good. Len has the athleticism but he doesn't have to use it in order to be effective. That's a great quality and one of the big reasons his stock is higher than other athletic centers in this draft class. His ceiling is high but so is his floor. Instead of vacillating between bad and great you're probably looking at pretty good to great play.

Len's economy of motion gives him a bigger window than most to time rebounds and shot blocks. He has the instinct to take advantage of it. He boards and swats like it was the most natural thing in the world. "There's the ball. I wonder who's going to make the play? Oh yeah. Len."

Len's feet and hands work in sync with the rest of him. This may seem like an obvious point but how many 7-footers have you seen who looked like three different people when they ran, as if the body is going one way, the feet are doing something else, while the hands are spraying odd directions? Len creates space with both hands and feet, making room and catching it soft on offense, slipping past and snagging the ball on defense.

The offense isn't bad. His face-up jumper looks nice. When he gets to the rim he can dunk quick as a hiccup. He's not as athletic or powerful looking as Steven Adams nor is he as well-rounded offensively as Cody Zeller, but he's kind of a mix of the two.

The big drawback to Len is his foot injury, a stress fracture in his left ankle. Not only does this make it hard to evaluate him head-to-head with his draft classmates, you get really nervous when you hear "mobile big man" combined with any kind of foot or leg problem. Len's not going to make it on bulk or strength alone. If he can't move and jump he's less than ordinary.

Other than that, Len's weaknesses can mostly be boiled down to, "We need to make a man out of you." He's young. He needs to get tougher, find a go-to move in the post, learn to attack more. We've said repeatedly during this draft review process that the NBA is not school. However making a man out of young guys and teaching them a couple of techniques is right in the wheelhouse of the league's teachers. It's a sink or swim deal but Len's got too much natural ability and has made too much progress already to even think about sinking. He may not become great, but he'll almost certainly be good.

Verdict for the Blazers

A shot-blocking, rebounding true center with a ready-made floor-spacing jumper and plenty of upside is just what the Blazers are looking for in a draft pick. Even Len's weaknesses--post play, banging--could be made up for in the short run by disguising him in the already-perimeter-oriented offense. Even if he didn't transform Portland's attack he could easily fit into it.

But Len is still a project center. He's more likely to succeed (and sooner) than the other true centers below his level in the draft but he's not going to be ready this year. You're looking at a 1-2 year process minimum before you can think about starting him and keeping integrity. He has to grow, learn, get tougher. You're banking on him doing those things both mentally (desire, integrity, intensity) and physically (the ankle). No matter how promising a guy looks, that's never guaranteed. Len is not going to provide the immediate, sure boost that an established center would. He's just going to be cheaper and bring more of the dreaded "potential" on which this team has traded the last few years.

Cheaper is a relative term here, as well. If Len slips all the way to #10 the Blazers would have to look hard at him. Otherwise they'd have to trade up for him. Even in a seller's market, that may cost one of their core players if Len goes in the Top 5. The Blazers would then have more cap space to sign a replacement but they do have to get that free agent in order for the move to make sense. It may be a good gamble, but it's still a gamble. One can't shake the feeling that in a normal, deeper draft Len would easily be available at the spot the Blazers are picking already. They may not be getting full value on their bet.

Long story short, Len would be one of a couple players possibly worth moving up for in this draft, but you are still moving up for him and the cost will have to be weighed carefully, especially considering his injury.

Victor Oladipo--6'4", 213lb SG from Indiana, 21 y.o. Junior

If you lived through the 1980's you may recall an unholy quarter-sucking arcade machine known as Defender. The side-scrolling, astronaut-saving space romp was so difficult that nobody mortal had a chance of making it past the fifth level but so attractive that everybody kept on pouring their allowances into it anyway.

The NBA better prepare for a trip to Soviet Russia, because in 2013 Defender plays you in the form of Victor Oladipo. It's going to be just as hard to master and just as alluring.

Oladipo has a few noteworthy assets--length, athleticism, continuous motor--but his defense tops them all. Most highlight reels are full of dunks and threes. Oladipo has some of those. But his defensive moves are just magic. He gets through screens like they weren't there. On-ball or off-ball, it's like he's always around. And he just doesn't stop. You might as well play the Terminator. Every time you shoot at, around, or over him he comes back even harder.

One example: Lots of guys get steals but mostly they're playing the passing lanes, timing bad tosses. Oladipo is just taking the ball out of the hands of dribblers. You can see palpable relief on the faces of some of these guys when they bail out and pass out of the play. They just want him off of their case. It's as sick as any slam dunk you've seen, just on the other end of the floor.

Oladipo's athleticism gives him some offensive options as well. He's got a good finish on the break and he's a nice offensive rebounder.

A 60% clip from the field, 44% from the arc, and 67% true shooting percentage are going to make eyes fly wide, especially when attached to a potential elite-level defender. But here's where the burgeoning legend may exceed the reality. Oladipo has a jumper. He can catch and shoot or hit off of a couple dribbles. But his form is his own. It's not classic, especially on his long shots. His college threes involved some degree of push on the release. Those that didn't usually missed. Back up the arc and you increase the need for push and a lower release. That's not going to fly in the NBA. Plus he shot only 2 three-point attempts per game and 8.5 total attempts. Compare that to Ben McLemore at 11 and 5, C.J. McCollum at 16 and 5, or Kentavious Caldwell-Pope at 13 and 7. Oladipo is efficient but not an offensive dynamo.

One of Oladipo's biggest assets is the offensive rebound. He's tenacious and athletic enough to grab plenty. But having a guard thrive on offensive rebounds in the NBA is problematic. They entail a miss. Misses are usually picked up by the opposing team no matter how good your offensive rebounding skills are. Guards are generally supposed to be the first defenders back to stop the break...not possible if you're buried under the hoop trying to corral that miss. A guy like Russell Westbrook can usually get away with it because he's a penetrating guard anyway and because he plays next to a defensive master in the backcourt. But Oladipo is supposed to be that defensive master.

Nor will Oladipo be scoring on halfcourt drives anytime soon. His handle is unpolished and unidirectional. If he can get to the hole on a straight drive he'll bruise the rim dunking it down. But if he has to change direction he's not going to finish strong, or maybe at all.

Oladipo never quits on anything. He has the kind of attitude and effort that never go out of style. But he has a fair amount to prove on offense. He could end up as a legitimate star or one of the most prized role-players in the league. He could also end up as a highly athletic version of the "3D" shooting guard, heavy on the "D" and light on the "3".

Verdict for the Blazers

Oladipo does plenty of things the Blazers would like and it's hard to imagine him being anything but a great complement to Damian Lillard in the backcourt. His defense will be exemplary and even if he doesn't stretch the floor all the way to the arc, mid-range is plenty good enough for Portland's purposes. The Blazers could even accentuate his offensive rebounding potential by keeping Nicolas Batum on the perimeter as a first-call transition defender and letting Victor head inside at will.

The Blazers will miss good handles at the shooting guard position and the ability to get to the rim in traffic but they don't have that now anyway.

Chances are Oladipo will end up quite good. I don't see any way he busts out of the league short of catastrophic injury. There's little downside to this kind of move.

The caveats are two:

1. Moving up far enough to get him is bound to be expensive. Len at least has a small chance of dropping to Portland's pick. If buzz means anything, Oladipo won't.

2. The guy is a per-minute wonder, which is exactly the type of player the internet will overrate. There's no argument on defense. It's nearly impossible to overrate Oladipo's prowess there. But this guy may not be the next big star as some are forecasting. He could be, but efficiency numbers and single-year statistics don't always ring true even when considering NBA years, let alone when making the transition to a higher level of competition. He could also end up being the next James Posey. That's not bad, but it's not exactly the franchise-changing move people are hoping for when his name comes up in awed whispers.

The safest assumption is that you're getting an excellent role-player, a fine starting shooting guard because of his defense, until Oladipo proves he can become more. You then have to ask whether you kept enough talent and cap space post-trade in order to build around the remaining core sufficiently. If the Blazers had a chance to move up, trading away Wesley Matthews in the process and saving money while securing a good defensive guard, they'd have to consider that. But chances are one of the upper-lottery teams will covet Oladipo and that his name will be inscribed onto the list of players that Portland would have liked to have drafted but couldn't find a way to.

Should either of these players tempt the Blazers to move up? If so, how much should Portland pay for the privilege? Share your opinion below.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Draft Prospects: Shabazz Muhammad and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope

Dave — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 05:31:57 -0000

Today we continue our journey through the Trail Blazers' potential picks in the upcoming 2013 NBA Draft. Last week we talked about Steven Adams and Cody Zeller, then checked out C.J. McCollum and Trey Burke. Today we're taking a look at a couple of good-sized wing players.

Shabazz Muhammad--6'6", 222lb SF from UCLA, 20(?) y.o. Freshman

Good offensive players come in several flavors. Some are dominating athletes, overwhelming defenses. Others rely on a technical skill like shooting or fancy dribbling. Some are students of the game, schooled in fundamentals and able to out-think (if not outplay) the opposition.

Shabazz Muhammad is none of those things. Shabazz Muhammad is a point manufacturer...as in, "The product is buckets and I am a one-man assembly line." The closest analogy in recent Blazer history (not in skill or even style but approach) was Zach Randolph. He wasn't the greatest athlete. He wasn't an all-around player or cerebral master. He wasn't going to dazzle you with technique or shot-selection. But that man could score, repeatedly, in ways you didn't suspect he was capable of. That's how he made his money and he had no shame over it. That's Shabazz.

Several parts of Muhammad's repertoire look ready for the NBA already. At 6'6", 220+, carrying a 6'11" wingspan his body is pro-caliber. His catch-and-shoot J is nice and quick, the quickness aided by his complete willingness to shoot. Usually a guy contemplates whether a jumper is the best shot or whether he has a lane to dribble. Muhammad is unconcerned. You're passing it, I'm firing. That's the way of things. He has range out to the college three-point arc, although his distance shot is a work in progress.

Muhammad likes to post and can finish right or left. The most impressive thing about his post game is the rapid finishing moves. Again, where most people treat the deep post like a chess match or wrestling, it's target shooting for Shabazz. By the time you get your forearm in his back to push him out, he's already spinning for the release.

Offensive rebounding and free throw attempts provide secondary methods of scoring, rounding out the package. Muhammad actually averaged more offensive boards per game this season than defensive.

The moral of the story: if it leads to scoring, Shabazz will do it.

But some of Muhammad's offensive moves didn't fly in college, let alone the big leagues. His dribble drives read "one hand, one direction, one results". That result, of course, is getting up a shot. But he doesn't shoot the jumper nearly as well off of his dribble as he does when catching and firing. Nor does he finish above the rim unless he's already got a running start on the break. Get him out of his comfort zone and he'll hoist bad attempts.

At UCLA Muhammad passed about as often as your granny cruising the freeway on a Vespa. This isn't a mortal sin in the pros. The game needs 20-point scorers too. But Muhammad will have a harder time getting open without demonstrating passing ability. Inability to pass out of a single-direction, single-hand drive gets you stymied. Inability to pass out of the post earns you a double-team as soon as you've shown any scoring ability. As soon as Muhammad becomes a threat, one trip around the league will be enough for opposing coaches to force his hand.

Muhammad looks good on selected defensive stands. The wingspan helps make up for any lack of lateral quickness. But he doesn't have the same effort or focus on that end that he does on offense. No steals, no blocks, few defensive rebounds, doesn't stay in front of his man, doesn't rotate quickly...the dossier isn't impressive.

In short, you're getting a one-way player and hoping he develops the mindset to succeed on the other end. That story seldom ends happily. If he's a good offensive player he's going to make bank without learning to defend. If he's not a good offensive player, why are you drafting him to begin with? Only character and commitment to something bigger than the self (e.g. team, championship, the sport) gets a player out of this conundrum. It's an open question whether Muhammad has that commitment.

Verdict for the Blazers

Shabazz scores. The Blazers need scoring. Offensive rebounding, running, and the catch-and-shoot all feature prominently in Terry Stotts' ideal offense. The Blazers could even use another post-up player and aren't averse to using a wing that way, perhaps alleviating their need for another big to do so. Stotts' policy of "Take the First Good Shot You See" fits Muhammad well...too well, maybe. Coach may have to amend it to, "Take the First Good Shot You See...errr...Except Shabazz." Good is a relative term.

This would be a lot more of a no-brainer if Muhammad had a dribble drive, a little bit of a nifty finish, and was projected to play shooting guard where his size would allow him to post up against smaller, weaker players. As a small forward he'll be playing against some of the best athletes the league has to offer. He's not going to start ahead of the game in any way. He'll have to demonstrate that he can perform on this level and every scoring move except the catch-and-shoot will be scrutinized and contested.

Between the holes in his game, the lack of passing (Muhammad's most glaring anti-Stottsian trait), and the Blazers liking Nicolas Batum this probably isn't a good fit.

I'd be surprised if Muhammad's stock rises any higher than it has already. I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall down the draft order. Frankly he feels like a Minnesota Timberwolves selection, just going for the combination of name and raw production, hoping the rest will develop. They haven't found a ton of success with that M.O. and the Blazers shouldn't adopt it.

Kentavious Caldwell-Pope--6'6", 204lb SG from Georgia, 20 y.o. Sophomore

I don't often draft shooting guards...but when I do, I prefer them over 6'5"

--The Most Interesting Man in the World

If you agree with our Guest GM (and keep in mind that the only reason he doesn't suit up himself is that Congress has determined it would imbalance the sport and thus be against public interest) then the only shooting guard for you in Portland's range this year is Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. He's the most shooting guard-ish of all the shooting guards in the upper portion of the draft: no "combo", no "small forward swing". He's a 2, pure and simple.

KCP's calling card is his jumper. And it dials long distance. More than half of his attempts last season were beyond the three-point arc and he hit 38% of them. He can stroke it any which way you please: straight up, off the dribble, off the screen. His form is good, his shots straight and clean as long as he's squared up.

Athleticism is the other tantalizing aspect to Caldwell-Pope's game. He's got quickness laterally, down the court, and up in the air. As long as he's going straight ahead he can fly. The combination of quickness and size translates into plenty of steals on defense. He's no slouch on the defensive glass either. He brings more defensive potential than most of the upper-tier wings in this draft.

KCP's super-ultra-glaring weakness is his lack of handle and ability to finish. If he gets fouled inside he's gold, hitting 80% at the line. Other than that, he's toast. He has no change of direction, little ability to keep his dribble tight, and no way to get a clean look at the hoop unless it's a gift-wrapped present. On the break he's going to jam it. In a halfcourt offense drive he's going to get stripped, blocked, or pull up for an ugly leaning jumper.

Summary: Caldwell-Pope's jump shot is NBA-ready. His defense is almost NBA-ready. His dribble drive may never be NBA-ready.

Verdict for the Blazers

If the Blazers are interested in Kentavious Caldwell-Pope they're probably envisioning him and Damian Lillard slaughtering opponents behind the arc. They would be a sick pair of shooters. Size and defensive potential also fit right in with Portland's plans.

However the Blazers also have to ask themselves whether they'd be happy fielding Wesley Matthews Jr. and Wesley Matthews III on the same team. KCP is a smidgen taller, carries 15 fewer pounds, and has more lateral quickness and leaping ability. Other than that, he's a Wes Matthews clone. Even his shooting form looks similar.

The obvious permutation would be to get a cheaper version of v1.0 Matthews with an eye towards trading Wes. The cap savings would be significant, almost $5 million. But most practical trade scenarios involve Matthews and the #10 pick changing hands. One wonders what Matthews could bring on his own. The only other player in the magic salary+talent zone for potential trades would be Meyers Leonard. The Matthews-Leonard duo isn't overwhelming from a talent or cap savings standpoint.

Of course nobody said a trade would have to happen immediately, or ever. It'd just be odd to see two players whose strengths and weaknesses coincide so much playing for the same team. But if you're the type who always wants more cowbell and your definition of "cowbell" is Wesley Matthews, then Kentavious Caldwell-Pope is your guy.

On a personal note, KCP wears #1 which means the Blazers would be 2/5 of the way to fulfilling my lifelong dream of seeing a starting lineup wearing the lowest numbers possible in consecutive order. Woot!

Weigh in on these options below. How would you feel if the Blazers selected Shabazz or KCP with the #10 pick?

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Coaching Changes, Trading Down, Superstars, RFA's, and the Draft

Dave — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:47:13 -0000

Mailbags are fun!

Dave,

Should the Blazers fire Terry Stotts and replace him with Lionel Hollins or George Karl?

Adam

I didn't expect Hollins to come available for another couple years, so I'm not prepared for this question! Then again, neither are the Blazers.

Let's get Karl out of the way first. I don't think at this point in his career he's going to want a rebuilding job. Plus Portland has a new General Manager who probably won't be interested in sharing power, meaning Karl would be expected to just coach without sticking his fingers in the personnel pie. That's not appealing, if nothing else because he's too old for that stuff. So count him out.

When considering a guy like Hollins, whom I've thought could become a Blazers coach before, I want to ask these questions:

1. Bring him in to coach what, exactly? If you don't have enough talent coaching won't matter much. The Blazers don't yet have enough to justify a coaching change.

2. Do the players fit his system and strengths? I'd say somewhat yes, but again the holes in the roster prevent us from answering the question completely at this point.

3. What's the ancillary cost? These moves don't happen in a vacuum. And in this case the cost would be high.

Hollins would be Portland's third coach in the last 15 months. That's not even counting Kaleb Canales' tenure as interim head coach, which would make it fourth. This is in addition to the famous GM carousel. At what point do the players--and all the rest of us--say, "Enough"? Whiplash is a bad organizational trait. How do you explain to LaMarcus Aldridge why he's learning yet another system? How do you tell Damian Lillard you're removing the guy who help him to Rookie of the Year honors? How do you throw more instability towards a crew that's still struggling to get stable? That chaos would undermine Hollins' efforts no matter how good they are. What's more, can you guarantee that he's the right fit and that you wouldn't be doing this again in another year or two? At that point you're Clippers North, and not in a good way.

The better question here is whether Coach Stotts did a good enough job to merit further consideration. If the answer is yes (and I think it is) then pulling the rug out from under him isn't going to serve anyone. Even if your prospective new coach would be right, the timing and effect would be all wrong.

Dave,

What do you think about the Blazers trading down with Atlanta for the number 17 and 18 picks?

Daniel

This is a good draft to trade down, the talent curve remaining fairly flat throughout the mid-first-round picks. The Blazers need bodies. It makes some sense.

The Blazers also need contributors. That's an issue even at #10. Adding two iffy young guys instead of one doesn't address the problem.

The better solution is asking Atlanta to absorb Joel Freeland's contract in addition to the #10 pick. That would clear $3 million in extra cap space in July to sign or trade for known players. The Hawks probably wouldn't give up both 17 and 18 for a package of 10 and Freeland, but you could maybe convince them to trade one of those picks.

Dave,

I know the odds of us getting Nerlens Noel are astronomical. I am okay with that.

What I don't get is all of the press.

The kid is 206 lbs. 206 lbs. Not sure if you saw that but.... 206 lbs. He is a center. Another news flash is he has a torn acl. Wont be ready to play an NBA game till what... November?

When he recovers from this ACL tear, will he be able to put on weight? Would it be safe to have him put on weight after a knee issue like that? GO say's no.

What are your thoughts?

Jeff

Chris Rock did a classic routine called "No Sex in the Champagne Room". [NSFBE and not quite safe for gender relations class either, obviously.] The basic premise: no matter how privileged you feel getting invited into the V.I.P. part of the strip club, no matter how tantalizing it seems from the outside, no matter how many drinks you buy and how many girls you look at, there will be no sex happening. It's carefully-packaged build up without the big payoff.

People need to be humming that little phrase all throughout the 2013 draft. Picks will look exclusive. Players will parade. Money will be spent. Team officials will talk gamely about excitement at hitting their targets. But at the end of the night no General Manager will be walking home arm in arm with a franchise-transforming superstar.

Nerlens Noel is a good player. He'll be a nice piece of somebody's puzzle. But even at #1, there's still no sex in the Champagne Room.

It'll be important to remember that. Every year as the draft approaches people start falling in love with the process instead of the product. Draft picks are worthless and drafting a useless endeavor apart from the talent of the players involved. If you get a player who'll help you've succeeded whether the pick number read 9, 19, or 49. If you didn't, it doesn't matter even if your pick was the first overall. You have to fall in love with who you can get, not the act of picking itself. If you can't fall in love with that player you either need to move around until you find a relationship you're comfortable with or just get out.

Dave,

If you were playing GM for the blazers, would you repeat last year's idea/failure by going after restrictive agent Nikola Pekovic, by offering him a max contract? He is a legit 7 footer who takes up space in the middle and eats rebounds for breakfast, but is surprisingly mobile. We haven't brought him up yet, for obvious reasons because of last years attempt at Hibbert, and this be swinging for the fences once again. The Wolves big 3 (Pekovic, Love, and Rubio) all will demand a large salary in the coming years. Also, Andrei Kirilenko has a player option of $10.2 million.

Colby

That depends on a couple things:

1. Timing.

2. How many other center targets I had.

3. What else I was spending money on.

If, for instance, I drafted C.J. McCollum as a wing bench player, was comfortable with that, and had my remaining space to blow on a center, then yeah...making a max run at a RFA like Pekovic could make sense. But if I was looking at multiple free agents and had several center targets, throwing all my eggs in that basket wouldn't add up.

Pekovic would be an interesting fit but he's neither the best nor only fit. Plus I suspect Minnesota matches no matter what. Therefore I'd pass on the privilege of bidding for his services.

Dave,

Do you think we are placing to much emphasis on a starting veteran Center? They are expensive and there really aren't that many great centers... I think we just need TALENT! Why not trade Wes Mathews, Joel Freeland, all three 2nd round picks (or convert all three 2nd rounders into a late 1st) cash and/or rights to Kostas Papanikolaou to Indiana Pacers for Danny Granger? Go after Tyreke Evans, Jermaine O'neal and Elton Brand in free agency

Denny

There are many ways to fill the center gap. The veteran center option is the most sure, which is why it receives the most attention. But you've pointed out the possibility of filling in with a couple of cheaper, older guys for a while (O'Neal and Brand). Others favor going for a draftee and waiting a couple years. Those are more risky but less expensive options.

The point of "less expensive", as you say, is to spend that money elsewhere. The problem with Danny Granger is his $14 million contract and his recent injuries. Even trading away the $10+ million you suggest in Matthews and Freeland (and by the way, that package probably isn't enough to get Granger) the Blazers would lose cap space in the deal. There's no way they'd be able to sign all the players you named with their remaining room. Plus Granger is on a one-year deal, bumps Nicolas Batum out of the small forward position, and doesn't improve a defense which you also haven't improved by upgrading your center position.hough the specific suggestion doesn't work that well, your general theory is sound. If the Blazers can't swing a deal for a proven starting center, or at least a cheap facsimile, acquiring talent at other positions is a legit strategy.

Dave,

After considering the NBA draft for awhile I think that the NBA should look at some of the rules that MLB has implemented.

1. MLB allows prospects to jump straight from high school, but if they choose to go to school they have to wait until their junior year or until they are 21. Why doesn't the NBA look at this kind of scheme? If the NBA thinks that they are protecting high schoolers, it doesn't seem necessary. 28 out of 39 players drafted from 1995-2005 are still in the league right now, a rate I'm willing to guess is higher than the overall rate from the NBA draft in that era. Players like Andrew Wiggins or Nerlens Noel don't have to spend a year risking injury to be somewhere they will just leave in a year. Harrison Barnes lost money from getting picked later, his game was apparently much more applicable for the NBA, but his poor play in college dropped him down a few slots. This would also help stability in NCAA basketball, there would actually be names that people would remember beyond a year. Part of my problem right now with college basketball is it is hard to get invested in paying attention because I expect the best players to jump ship immediately. I don't see how the current one and done policy is superior to this sort of format.

2. Increase the number of rounds in the draft. MLB has an absurd number, but for the NBA it could just move up to four or five rounds. My main thinking here is if NBA teams are serious about getting a farm system started up they actually need some players to put on their D-League teams. Obviously once you start getting that far out into the talent pool things dry up a little bit, but I think fans would still be interested enough to see if those players could develop. After a few years the D-League teams would be full of players that both teams and fans would be invested in, and more players would get an opportunity as well.

Chris

Lots of good stuff here.

I think the current one-year college rule is silly...the kind of compromise solution that attempts to tie several threads together and end up resolving none of them.

If the goal is to help the college game, I'm not convinced it's working. We've created a two-tier system of players who actually want to play college ball and players who are stopping by for a year before bouncing to the NBA. Those higher-profile names do add some zip to the marquee but in the long run the draw of college basketball is the team. It's about the tournament, legacies, coaching systems, and uniform colors more than the big star. Who outside of Louisiana really remembers that Shaq went to LSU? How often is Michael Jordan's North Carolina tenure feted compared to his Bulls career? (And he won a championship there!) Is the perceived level of play really that much higher, are these programs that much richer, because of the one-and-done players populating the landscape? If anything, I perceive the reverse happening. The NCAA is better off playing to its program-oriented strengths than serving as a pit stop for NBA hopefuls.

If the goal is to help the kids, I'm not sure they're getting that either. They're recruited, pampered, made de facto stars of their schools when everybody knows they're not going to be there longer than a single season. How much is this really altering the course of their lives or changing their habits? The well-grounded kids will get something from it, but then those kids probably would have been well-grounded in the NBA as well. Guys headed for disaster aren't going to alter that trajectory because of a brief layover during which the school's aim is to keep them happy and producing on the court.

If the goal is to help the game, I don't see young guys that much more prepared with fundamentals than they used to be. Some are, some aren't. That's the way it'll always be. Teams still make potential-based draft selections. Some hit the jackpot, others are disappointed. A year in college isn't changing any of these things.

This "neither fish nor fowl" solution doesn't help. You either need to set a minimum age limit (assuming players will spend the intervening time working on their craft in college) or just lift the restrictions and let the chips fall where they may. Since the former will never happen, I'm in favor of the latter. You'll always get some major failure stories when 18-year-olds are drafted but those are going to happen anyway. The guys who can make it that early should be allowed to while everyone else learns from the folks who didn't succeed.

As far as more rounds, the limited number of spots on an NBA roster speaks against that. Teams who draft players own the rights to them, meaning those players can't seek employment with other organizations. Football rosters are four times the size of basketball rosters. Baseball teams have 25 guys in the majors and at least three levels organized, team-affiliated ball below that. Under those circumstances drafting 7 rounds (NFL) or 40 rounds (MLB) makes sense.

An NBA team has 15 roster spots, period. Most of those are filled by veterans. If you draft 7 guys you're going to cut 5-6 of them each year. You'd be keeping all those players from seeking employment with other teams while you were waiting to cut them. That's not good for the players, the player's union, or even the teams. Why would teams want to draft 5 guys in the 3rd-7th rounds when they can just claim the top 2, then pick and choose from the entire pool of guys who otherwise would have been lower-round picks? If I want to bring in Shecky Gruberman for a tryout why should I have to wait until Atlanta cuts him just because they drafted him in the 6th round?

One thing that Major League Baseball has that the NBA doesn't is an incredibly developed minor league system. It'd be easier to stomach 18-year-olds declaring for the draft if you knew the guys who weren't ready had a legit place to play with a salary and structure safety net. The D-League isn't bad but it doesn't perform that function. Your instinct to build it up is probably a good one.

If and when the D-League gets stronger, aligned on a one-to-one basis with NBA teams, focused on teaching and developing players, you might be able to consider adding more rounds to the draft. But you have to set up the system first, then draft the players. Otherwise you're just pouring people into the system for no purpose. That's not good for anybody.

Keep those Mailbag questions coming to the address below!

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Draft Prospects: C.J. McCollum and Trey Burke

Dave — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:54:48 -0000

Yesterday we started exploring possible Portland's possible draft selections, kicking off the proceedings with a look at a couple big men. Today we check the other end of the height spectrum, examining a couple small guards rumored to be hanging around the vicinity of #10.

C.J. McCollum--6'3", 197 lb combo guard from Lehigh, 21 y.o. Senior

The first thing that jumps out about C.J. McCollum is...well...his jumper. The striking part isn't purity of form, rather his ability to get off his jump shot under almost any circumstance: dribbling, catch-and-shoot, off of screens. He's got good range, a quick enough release; that "J" is a threat.

Even with his offense coming from range McCollum's shooting and efficiency numbers are high. He draws fouls at a nice rate too. Put all that together and he's a scoring machine, clearly the best reason to draft him.

Passing ability on offense and steals on defense also recommend him, at least as a shooting guard. His rebounding rate is high but that skill might not transfer to the NBA...not a huge loss.

McCollum is more crafty than athletic. Four years in college have given him a good sense of the game and ways to exploit his own ability and the defense at the same time. He's not explosive though. His lateral movement doesn't impress. Much of his success in the lane in college came against average athletes, many of whom fouled him. Pro defenders won't be so obliging, nor so slow or easily duped. McCollum will likely have trouble finishing in the lane in the NBA. He'll also have trouble guarding bigger or quicker opponents.

If McCollum is to become a point guard in the NBA he'll probably end up the scoring variety more than the pure facilitator. He can pass but his eye appears to be more towards his own shot. He'll need some work and seasoning before he can helm a good team.

This draft has been knocked for lack of stars. Whether McCollum has the talent to ascend to star level remains to be seen, but among the mid-to-high prospective picks he's the only one with star bearing. He walks, moves, and shoots with confidence. He makes his mistakes trying to do things, not shying away. He looks and acts like a really good player. You can't miss him on the court. That can't be taught. Under the right circumstances this guy could be a huge boost.

Verdict for the Blazers

The Blazers need somebody who can help right away. McCollum qualifies.

McCollum's biggest potential drawbacks are that he might not be a true point guard and he's probably too small to defend starting shooting guards. Ideally the Blazers would be drafting him as a scoring spark-plug 6th man, thus requiring him to do neither for extended stretches. If McCollum could get used to a role off the bench, spelling Lillard for a few minutes and playing alongside him against opposing second units, he could be just what the Blazers ordered. He'd be able to dine on all the shots he wanted. His jumper would fit right in with Portland's offense. Plus he'd add the wrinkle of being able to get it off his own dribble.

As long as he's in that 6th man role, there's not a lot of downside to taking C.J. if he's available at #10. Even though he's not the hyper-athletic, drive-heavy finisher that most envision, McCollum might be an adequate enough reserve wing scorer to make the Blazers forget about going after another in free agency. Filling that need with a rookie contract makes more sense than trying to fill the starting center need that way. Freeing up the remainder of Portland's cap space to chase starting centers and assorted spot guys would be a fine use of the 10th pick.

If the swagger made McCollum into the league's next hot, young point-a-minute guy off the bench, so much the better.

Trey Burke--6'0", 187 lb PG from Michigan, 20 y.o. Sophomore

Like McCollum, Trey Burke is a fantastic jump shooter. His range extends even farther out on the court and he's completely fearless. He's got great shooting and efficiency percentages as well. He can get his own shot without difficulty. He adds more passing than McCollum but fewer free throws drawn. Smart, volume-scoring point guards never go out of style in this league and Burke is exactly that.

Burke is also short and sports a small frame. That doesn't automatically disqualify point guards from success but you have to be super talented (and usually super-quick) to make an impact. Burke may not be at that level. Three questions arise:

1. The mid-range pull-up was one of his strengths in college. He does have a 6'5" wingspan so he can extend, but will he be able to create enough separation to get that shot off in the NBA?

2. The most effective set-up for the pull-up jumper is the ability to finish at the rim. If defenders fear a layup or dunk it's easy to drive hard, rise, and connect. But Burke had trouble finishing at the rim even against NCAA competition. If he can't score at the cup defenders will just watch for the mid-range jumper and snuff him. Plus his foul shots will disappear. Plus the drive-and-dish won't be effective. That's a lot of things to remove from the arsenal.

3. Defense is always a concern when you're small. Burke isn't a bad defender but he isn't a good enough defender to overcome his size disadvantage against many point guards either.

Burke won't ever be a bad player. His shooting alone will keep him in the league a long time. But you may end up with a jump-shooting specialist with decent passing ability and not much effective defense. Even though Burke has starting-level talent, that's closer to the description of a reserve point guard.

If Burke can unveil his entire repertoire on offense, however, he's going to be a dangerous scoring-passing combination. If not, he'll just be a handy guy to have around.

Verdict for the Blazers

The Blazers already have a point guard. Drafting a reserve point guard with the #10 is a bad move. It's tough to envision Burke and Damian Lillard playing together for long stretches without the defense disintegrating. Therefore Portland drafting Burke is a reach.

If he's still on the board at #10, though, he may be the best player available by a long shot. The Blazers need talent, period. Point guards will always be valuable in trade. Ending up in a Mark Price-Terrell Brandon scenario wouldn't be the end of the world for Portland. (Obviously that was veteran-youngster and this is sophomore-rookie, but the Blazers aren't contending in the playoffs right now either.) Coach Stotts could figure out how to take advantage of two wonderfully-shooting point guards while Neil Olshey started thinking about how to work the phones when that strategy ran its course.

Note: Read about C.J. McCollum's solo workout for the Blazers HERE.

Weigh in on these two guard prospects below! How enthused (or not) would you be if the Blazers ended up with either of these players?

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

The 2013 NBA Draft: Steven Adams and Cody Zeller

Dave — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:10:54 -0000

With the NBA Draft a couple weeks away and the Blazers still sitting pretty with the 10th pick it's time to start exploring potential draftees. We're going to divide the draft class by position, first looking at candidates who will likely fall within the Blazers' natural drafting range and then exploring outlying possibilities.

Since center is Portland's position of greatest need we'll start with two centers likely to go in the 10-ish range.

Steven Adams--7'0, 255lb Center from Pittsburg, 19 y.o. Freshman

Watch this guy for more than five minutes and you can see why scouts and prognosticators are pricking up their ears at the sound of his name. His combination of size, speed, and fluidity is rare. He's not the strongest or most intimidating center prospect we've seen. Greg Oden was a scarier physical specimen. But Adams has that athletic grace thing working for him, moving more like a 6'8" guy than a 7-footer. He glides across the court. Not only does he dunk, his above-rim leaps look effortless, like a big cat jumping. Most big-man defenders are "one direction, one speed" guys. Even if they're quick, it's in a straight line. Adams shifts directions and speeds as easily as he jumps. Watching him go out to hedge on a screen and then go back-left-back-right in his recovery as he picks up a cutter is awesome.

Imagining Adams' potential as a weak-side shot blocker or trailing defender doesn't require much creativity. If he's a big cat when dunking he'd be a bird of prey on the other end, swooping in to swat the shot. He's off his feet in an instant, has good reach, and can sail a long way.

Offensive rebounding is Adams' other translatable skill. Some guys get offensive rebounds and put-backs because they're bigger or because the defense gets lazy. You get blinded by the awesome dunk at the end without realizing that they'll not be able to get those at the next level because they won't have the same advantage. Adams has the knack for offensive rebounding. He's already grabbing the kind of boards and converting the quick, modest put-backs that NBA rebounders get. He edges in his body, secures the ball, and delivers it back to the rim as efficiently as possible.

Keep Adams in any of these situations and he's going to do fine. Get him out of his element and the story changes radically.

Take away offensive-rebounding put-backs and the over/under on his points scored for the year is 2. His jump shot, post moves, post set-up, handle, catching ability, finish at the rim (outside of the clear dunk), and free throw shooting are incompetent. There's no other way to put it. Stick him on the floor and you're instantly playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end.

That'd be fine in a Joel Przybilla way if Adams were a great defender. He looks good when he's on the move but any time he has to cover a specific man or even specific area of the floor he gets in trouble. He gets bullied out of post defense. Cutters slip by him too. He's got the tools to defend but he doesn't have the instinct yet.

Worse, his offensive rebounding doesn't translate to the other end. He's a poor defensive rebounder. Whenever you see a guy dominating on the offensive glass while suffering on the defensive you have to employ a quick flow chart:

1. Was he being used enough to defend the perimeter that he didn't have a chance to get rebounds? (For Adams the answer is no. Proceed to Step 2.)

2. Start asking if he has a desire/intensity problem.

Offensive rebounds offer an added treat: the scoring attempt after. Defensive rebounds are just work...important work, but often thankless. The physical techniques are similar. The results can speak volumes about your approach to the game.

Verdict for the Blazers

Adams will be one of the more intriguing possibilities in the draft for Portland. The Blazers need a center, a shot-blocker. He's only 19. His potential is strong, differentiating him from most other centers at or below his range. He's a strong candidate for the best value pick in the draft, which is why scouts and internet types love him. In isolation selecting him could be a great move.

But the Blazers aren't playing in isolation. They need immediate help. Adams does not qualify. 30 years ago he would have been tabbed as a freshman with the potential to be a Top 3 pick after his junior or senior season, having learned how to play. Nowadays that potential makes you a lottery pick, no seasoning required.

But the NBA is not school. In college guys like this become the focus of the program. They're nurtured, brought up carefully. Coaches know they'll end up sinking or swimming with the performance of this one guy. Nobody else will replace him.

In the NBA they have another name for guys like this: fresh meat. Players do learn and develop, but it's not the same environment. They're professionals, expected to do their job. They're fighting with at least 2 teammates for floor time and position. Behind those 2 are 100 others who'd love nothing more than to take that spot and the contract attached. Coaches are invested in getting results, not developing your individual game. In some ways those two aims are congruent, but not always.

If you go to school, show a talent for writing, but lack some of the basics you'll probably find someone to help you along. If you get hired at the Wall Street Journal based on that talent but then they find that you can't even spell, your experience will be much different. You'll still get taught, but you better fix it quick and start producing. And don't expect those editors to be nice to you in the meantime. If they are, consider yourself lucky. Unlike the school teacher, that's not their job.

In short, Adams could be great. Adams could also be a huge bust. The questions for the Blazers:

1. Can they afford that risk compared to other moves they could make executing or trading the pick?

2. Can they afford to wait 2-3 years to find out whether this guy will turn into a star, just a player, or a bust? The only thing sure about Adams is that he's not going to help for sustained minutes now. But that's exactly what the Blazers need: sustained minutes now from a decent center.

If this were a Japanese Role Playing Game the Blazers would just get a potion to fuse Adams and Meyers Leonard back-to-back, making a two-sided, four-armed center that flipped faces on either end of the court. In real life, already carrying a project center in Leonard, the decision about gambling on Adams will prove more complex.

Cody Zeller--7'0, 230 lb Center from Indiana, 20 y.o. Sophomore

Cody Zeller is the anti-Steven Adams. He carries around a utility belt full of practical, polished moves on offense. He can score from either block with his back to the basket, going right hand or left. He can face up and dribble into the lane. His jump shot is under-utilized but looks sound. He's got good touch. Because he kept opponents guessing (and they often guessed wrong) he drew plenty of fouls in college. He hits his free throws too.

Zeller has good hands, efficient footwork, and knows how to get separation without overwhelming athletic ability. He's mobile on both ends of the floor. He's smart and puts himself into position to succeed. He's not intimidating but he's got a motor.

Zeller comes to the league fully-assembled, ready to play right out of the box. He'll learn fast, pick up the game, likely playing to his full potential at each step.

The big questions surrounding Zeller: Will his game carry over to the NBA level and how many new tricks does he have left?

Footwork, fidelity, and smarts will always translate. The open jumper, touch, finish once he gets his shot up...these will serve Zeller well and keep him from floundering completely. But his calling card in college wasn't dominance in any given area, rather the potential to do everything well which in turn kept opponents on their heels and guessing. Lack of bulk, strength, and inclination will likely keep Zeller from getting good post position in the NBA, reducing the effectiveness of part of his arsenal. Talented, experienced, hyper-athletic defenders will also inhibit his face-up dribble drive. They won't have to guess. They'll just wait for him to make a move and stay in front of him. Strips and stymies will start to replace fouls. Likely he'll have to develop on the least-practiced part of his game: the jumper. That's fine, but it's not really the reason he's getting drafted.

Lack of strength, bulk, and toughness will also cost Zeller on the defensive end. He's going to get barbecued in the post. He can't make up for it with shot blocking, as that's not his game.

Add this all up and Zeller starts to look more like a stretch four with some extra skills and athleticism (but not much "stretch" to his jumper yet) than a true center. That's also fine, but again you have to ask what expectations would lead to him being drafted as a lottery pick. Chances are they are more center-related than perimeter power forward.

Zeller won't bust but there's a chance his popularity peaked his freshman year of college. (Perhaps a warning to those who would salivate over Adams.) His potential at the next level isn't as boundless as speculated. Zeller doesn't have the overall talent or the body to be one of a handful of superstars who does everything well even though that's his college M.O. He'll have to develop a couple of bankable skills, deeply grooved and repeated often, to show his value on the court.

Verdict for the Blazers

Zeller would bring more immediate help than Adams and as much as any big man in the draft who won't go in the top four. He's your guy if you want production now. But the questions about what kind of production, where on the court, and at what position make this a hard call. If Zeller can't post up on offense he becomes one of a host of perimeter players for the Blazers. He'll learn to hit those open jumpers but how does that differentiate him from everybody else on the team? More importantly, how does it change the attack?

Double-underline that question on the defensive end. No shot-blocking, inability to hold position against big guys, and questionable rebounding don't add up for a team that needs all three.

Zeller wouldn't be the worst pick in the world for the Blazers. He'd fit in the rotation now. He'll still be contributing 3 years from now, as a reserve power forward if nothing else. But the Blazers need more help and pop that he can provide. If they want solid, all-around play they need to go with a veteran and a more proven track record. If they do select a rookie, they'll be looking for a diamond. They can't afford to end up with a CZ instead.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Mailbag: Matthews as 6th Man, Eric Gordon, Expensive Rosters

Dave — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:08:57 -0000

Mailbag time!

Dave,

You said earlier that getting a center would improve the play of guys like Nicolas Batum and Wes Mathews. How much upside do you think they have? What potential lies untapped in the starting lineup? You must think there's some room, right?

Bruce

I do think a defensive-minded center would make Portland's starters look better. But that's less an assessment of individual ceiling and more an assessment of effect. I don't anticipate that Batum and Matthews will blossom into star-level players. I'm not sure they'll get that much better than they are now, though I'd certainly hope for it. I do know that their work, particularly on the defensive end, was pretty much wasted last year.

Defense is like assembly line work. No matter how skilled the individual worker is, he or she can't do it alone. Each worker does his part. If all workers on the line are adept and working hard, the finished product will probably look good. If the workers at Stations 1 and 2 are skilled craftsmen but the guy at Station 5 stands there picking his nose and smashing the units with a plumber's wrench, the finished product won't turn out right. How long will the guys at Stations 1 and 2 continue pouring their heart and soul into it if their work's just getting ruined farther down the line? That was pretty much Portland's defense last year.

Getting a halfway decent defender at that 5th Station will allow us to see the benefit of the guys at the earlier stages. They're going to look and play better with someone competent behind them. They won't instantly morph into All-NBA defensive guys, but their "D" will start making a difference.

Dave,

It seems like most of the talk this summer focuses on trading Wesley Matthews or Nic Batum. Maybe that's the best option. I'm not convinced. Can you give a brief summary of why Portland would or wouldn't trade Wes and Nic beside just getting more talent?

Devan

You wouldn't trade Matthews and Batum because they're nearly ideal non-star wings in today's NBA. They stretch the floor with their distance shooting and they defend. They bring extra bonuses as well. Batum developed his passing this year and hit some nifty last-second shots. Matthews busts out with the occasional 30-point game. They're both solid character guys, good teammates.

You would consider trading either because the Blazers are the ultimate floor-stretching team without anything to stretch the floor for. They have no true inside presence, nobody outside of their point guard who can get his own shot or create off the dribble. They're a supporting cast in search of a star. If they can't get that star--or the competent center they need, or just a little more variety in their attack--without moving one of these two guys, they'll have to think about doing so. The Blazers could probably live with a slightly lesser substitute for one of these players easier than they could live without a jolt of talent and style.

Finding a player worth trading away one of those players for--a player whom you could actually get with one of those players--is the fly in the ointment. That depends on who is available and/or what free agents the Blazers can sign.

The best thing to say at this point is that theoretically this should be a possibility. In reality it probably won't happen. For now, that'll probably be fine.

Dave,

We won 33 games last year with an admitted end of the year tank. Part of it was with a rookie starting Point Guard, Players on the bench developing and injuries to Batum and Matthews. We may or may not get "the Center" and wing we want. If we get a serviceable 10 PPG/ 8 RPG Center that plays good defense, how many more games would you project us winning organically? By Organically, i mean as a result of Lillard no longer being a rookie, these guys having a year together and players like Claver having had some minutes and improvement?

Hermistonmelons

First a caveat about this kind of comparison. No two seasons compare exactly. The Blazers won 33 last year in part because of some last-second rallies and improbable fourth quarters. What if those shots rim out or the runs don't happen? How do we know they weren't a 25-win team who just got lucky? On the other hand, we DO know that they were robbed of at least one win in Los Angeles which foreshadowed the shameful Lakers Aid policy in the closing weeks of the season, so you could reasonably argue the Blazers were a 34 win time at minimum.

When we can't even be sure of our baseline for comparison, we can't look at a single change to that baseline and attribute it to a given cause. A thousand things could go differently around a new center to affect that win total.

If I had to guess (which is the purpose of the question) I'd say a reasonably competent center makes the Blazers into a .500-level team, maybe just below. The ripple effect on the defense described above is going to keep Portland in more games. If Portland's woes last year really were attributable to injuries as you said, perhaps extra help from healthy players pushes the team into the mid-40's. But no single player short of Dwight Howard or a rejuvenated Andrew Bynum (both mythical creatures in these parts) will make enough of a difference on their own to carry the Blazers past the first round of the playoffs. To even sniff that you need a center, a hot scorer off the bench, and more depth.

Dave,

What are your thoughts on trying to trade for Eric Gordon? It seems in a situation like Portland's you either need to build patiently through the draft or take a risk. Is he the type of "high risk, high reward" player we need to go after?

Kyle

I am not really fond of the Gordon pick-up for a couple reasons. First, he makes LaMarcus Aldridge money. Second, he's not at a LaMarcus Aldridge level of impact. His defense is poor. He scores points by eating the ball. That'd be fine in a 6th man except he probably wouldn't be content to come off the bench (leaving Portland a horrific starting backcourt on the defensive end) and you'd be paying $14-$15.5 million for that 6th man for the next three years. Add in his recent injuries and we're not talking risk-reward as much as a bad bet from Portland's perspective. If the Blazers were one hot scorer away, if cap space didn't matter, if you had visions of Vinnie "Microwave" Johnson spinning in your head then this move might make sense. None of those hold true for the Blazers.

Dave,

A common discussion amongst my fellow Blazer fans and I directly involves Wesley Matthew's value. It seems that he is not considered an elite SG option and would better serve as a 6th man, not a starter. I disagree strongly with that idea. Compared to Eric Gordon (who is paid elite-SG money whether he is elite or not) it shows that Wesley shoots higher percentages, turns the ball over less and scores basically the same amount of points. Gordon takes 2 more shots a game and scores about 2 more points a game in a few less minutes playing time. I think a lot of Blazer fans would be willing to trade Wes straight up for EG but after looking at the stats I feel that Wes is a better overall player. I didn't do comparisons of every SG in the league vs. Wes but I have a feeling if I did that he would rank pretty high overall, yet he never gets the respect I feel he deserves. What gives?

Andy

Matthews is a far better value than Gordon would be. It's hard to compare Matthews to the overall set of shooting guards because the position contains so many different types. You range from ultra-stars like Kobe and James Harden to defensive specialists like Tony Allen to hybrids like Jarrett Jack. Your advantage depends on what you were looking for. Matthews is nowhere near Harden's league, obviously. But as a defender/shooter he's plenty adequate. Any lack of respect would probably come from your friends looking for an elephant instead of a duck.

Then again, you can paint that duck gold but that still doesn't make it more valuable. Wesley is what Wesley is. If you need that star-level player, a shot-creator, the sizzle factor, he's not your guy.

I'm not sure what the 6th man argument is based on except "We don't really think he's exciting enough to be a starter". In my mind a 6th man does one of two things: scores big or plays multiple positions. That's not Wes. He's actually poured from the Allen-Sefolosha shooting guard starter mold. He'll give you 32 good minutes while covering for his higher-profile teammates on the defensive end and hitting his open shots. Echoing an earlier point, who's he spreading the floor for in the second unit?

Wesley would be no more exciting coming off the bench than he is starting. He'd just be slightly less visible. I'd actually prefer my main bench guy to ignite the court, taking over the game while some of the other starting scorers are out. If you need to upgrade the position that badly--as in considering Gordon badly--you probably need to trade Matthews. If you're going to keep him, he might as well start in support of Lillard and Aldridge while you bring more concentrated firepower (and probably less defense and/or shooting) off the bench.

Dave

I've been hearing a lot about how many teams will be a tough place trying to keep their team together while at the same time avoiding the luxury tax. Golden State is one of the teams mentioned. The experts say this will lead to a redistribution of talent (i.e. Harden's trade and the idea that Golden State likely won't be able to keep both (or either) Jack and Landry this year). Do you think in the next few years the Blazers will be more of a victim or beneficiary of this concept, and can you summarize who will likely be the victims in the next few years?

Steve

It'll be interesting to see. Oklahoma City has already felt the pressure, as you say. If Golden State follows and never has a chance to find their ceiling it'll be sad.

You know who won't feel that pressure? Los Angeles and New York with their back-fat laden TV deals. The new CBA will restrict their ability to trade once they're over the tax threshold but nothing's going to stop them from retaining players they want to keep. The more things change the more they stay the same, eh?

Portland will be a beneficiary of this phenomenon in the short-term. The sad part about it is that, much as with the Seattle-Sacramento struggle, it'll be a case of small-market teams cannibalizing each other.

If Portland ever gets good they'll be under the same constraints as any other non-TV-fed team. At that point you have to hope that Paul Allen is in a charitable mood...or that he sees that title trophy as his personal White Whale.

Be sure and send your questions to the address below. Please put "Mailbag" in the subject line. For all of you who have sent in draft-related questions, they're up next!

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

A Tale of Two Trades

Dave — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:37:00 -0000

We're going to turn discussion towards draft prospects this week but before we leave trade prospects behind...

This weekend I had some serious discussions about trades with several folks around the league I trust. Understand, no given trade is likely under normal circumstances. Every once in a while you'll see a trade coming around the bend from miles away but that's rare. Multiple streams--need, value, cap considerations, timing, initiative and inclination--have to come together at once to make any trade possible. Lose one of those factors and you lose the deal. Therefore potential trades can't be described in certain terms or given definitive odds. "Could happen" and "not impossible" are as close as you can get unless you're one of the GM's involved.

That said, most of the folks I talked to felt that both of the following trades qualified for "could happen" and "not impossible". Some even made arguments for "might be desirable". Therefore I wanted to run them by you and see which, if either, you preferred. Unlike last week's trade post, we're leaving nothing to chance. Here are the deals and the exact benefits to the Blazers.

Deal #1: Portland's 2013 #10 draft pick, Joel Freeland, and cash to Phoenix for Marcin Gortat

This is a variation of a trade that's been talked about for weeks. Portland gets a starting center in Gortat, obviously. (Complete stats HERE if you need them.) The real beauty of the exchange from Portland's view is that they don't disrupt their current core while doing so plus the don't eat up much cap space. Gortat makes $7.7 million next year. Freeland and the #10 pick combined will make $4.8 million. That's a difference of $2.9 million...the amount of cap space the Blazers would be spending on their starting center. Whether you like Gortat or not, filling that hole while eating less than $3 million of the cap budget would be a major accomplishment. The Blazers would have around $8.5 million remaining to offer one or more free agents before hitting the cap limit.

This is why including Joel Freeland is key for Portland in this deal. Otherwise the remaining budget sinks to $6 million...not horrible but not the same kind of offer. The cash going to Phoenix covers the first year of Freeland's contract. It doesn't absolve Phoenix of the cap obligation but it pays off Joel's salary for one year. They'd owe him $3 million the season after. Phoenix is in longer-range rebuild mode than the Blazers are, wants lottery picks, and would be able to preserve cap space this year and next if desired even with Freeland on board. His salary affects their plans far less than it affects the Blazers. Although nobody can know for sure, most folks I talked to believed that removing Freeland would be more of a deal-breaker for Portland than including him would be for Phoenix.

Deal #2: Phoenix gets Portland's 2013 #10 draft pick, Joel Freeland, and cash; Denver gets Marcin Gortat and Wesley Matthews; Portland gets JaVale McGee

Both Denver guys I talked to agreed that the recent change in regime probably bodes ill for JaVale McGee's tenure with the Nuggets. (Complete stats HERE.) Both also raised an eyebrow and went, "Hmmm..." at the package of Matthews and Gortat. (As in, "Hmmm...I could see being interested in that.")

From the Phoenix point of view this deal is the same as Deal #1.

Unlike the first deal, which would have to wait until Portland cleared cap space in July, this deal could be consummated any time.

The differences for Portland are two. First, the Blazers give up Wesley Matthews. Second, the Blazers would have approximately $11.8 million in cap space in July. That's $2.9 million more than the first deal but the Blazers are also one starter down.

This deal would also work after July without Freeland included. That would take Portland's cap space down to $9.9 million, again without a starting shooting guard on board.

Quick Comparison

Deal #1 gives the Blazers Gortat without touching the core and leaves them $8.5 million to spend on the bench.

Deal #2 gives the Blazers McGee while losing Matthews and leaves them $11.8 million to spend on a starting shooting guard and the bench.

Which, if either, of these deals would you prefer and why? Weigh in below.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Wesley Matthews, LaMarcus Aldridge Timing, and Game-Changers

Dave — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:28:22 -0000

Welcome to the latest edition of the Blazer's Edge Mailbag!

Dave,

We need a ruling. Is Wes Matthews a quality starting wing in this league or not? I see him as at best a serviceable sixth man. In my opinion bringing in a scoring combo guard to compete with him makes sense.

Shane

Wesley Matthews is a prime example of a complementary player in the New NBA. He shoots from distance and defends, stretching the floor on one end and making it smaller on the other. If you look at the sheer number of shooting guards who fit this description nowadays you're going to find Matthews is more archetype than outcast. The days of Jordan, Drexler, and Richmond are far behind us now. When your star plays point guard or one of the forward positions, this is what you want your starting two to do.

The problem is, Matthews is a complementary player without enough teammates to complement. If and when the Blazers get a decent defensive center he's going to look better than he does now. Without a backstop his talent is wasted. He already looks plenty good as an outlet for the three. Upgrades and time to gel will make that skill even more valuable.

Is Matthews a quality starter in this league? Yes, in the right situation. Does Matthews have the right combination of skills and talent to start for the Blazers if and when they get better? That depends on his teammates. With a center and a shot-creator coming off the bench, sure. He'll be fine. Maybe more than fine. If the Blazers need a star, or even just more of an attack off the dribble, he won't be the ideal fit.

Dave,

The options you have been presenting seem to reflect that you will be surprised if the front office can pull off major moves to turn this team into a true top contender and I agree. With that said, how much do you see the perceived top heavy 2014 draft weighing on the front office?

I almost can see them giving serious consideration to trading LA for 2-3 smaller/younger pieces and/or higher draft pick this year, having a bad 13/14 year and hope to get lucky in the 2014 draft and hoping to find that #1.

Matt

It's going to be hard for the Blazers to pull off a franchise-changing series of moves this summer. You can't say it's impossible without knowing what's out there, but it's pretty clear that some unlikely circumstances will need to materialize if the Blazers are to leap into contention.

Nevertheless, why would you want to accept less-than-sterling assets this year and throw your fate to luck next year in order to move LaMarcus Aldridge? Sure, you could get draft picks for him...maybe more and/or higher than you could in any other year. But what could you get with those picks? All of the top guys in this draft come with serious questions attached. If you trade for next year's picks--a more jealously-guarded commodity--how do you know how high they'll be, especially since the team you're trading with is going to get better now that Aldridge is there? GM's who leave their fates to chance don't succeed.

Other than intentionally sabotaging the roster to possibly improve your own pick status next year--a suggestion which would probably get Neil Olshey fired, would inflame the fan base, and would further ensconce the franchise in a culture of losing--you gain nothing from moving now. It's better to take your chances trying to improve this summer and then move Aldridge next year if necessary when you know what you're getting in return for him...no luck required.

I'm not opposed to dealing Aldridge. I'm just opposed to dealing Aldridge at the wrong time for the wrong (or at least indeterminate) return.

Dave,

Much of the talk regarding using our 2013 Lottery pick surrounds an athletic 2 guard but given the options available do you think those players are better than Will Barton? Certainly the Blazers need as much talent and depth as possible but what are your thoughts?

Rudy

Most veteran wings we've discussed so far are better than Barton. It's harder to judge the guards and forwards in the draft crop. Many of those guys come with a better developed game than Barton showed last year. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll end up as better players. But certainly if you're drafting a wing in the lottery you expect him to give you more than Barton gave the Blazers last year. If C.J. McCollum or Kentavious Caldwell-Pope played and performed as little as Barton did in 2012-13 they'd be considered busts.

Then again, Barton was a second-round pick. He's a value-added player, not a key part of the foundation. Everybody knew that going in. By those standards he's doing well.

The safest way to factor in Barton right now is to assume that he's not going to make any impact other than the occasional highlight-reel dunk, then give him a chance to work upwards from there. If he plays his way into a regular spot both you and he are ahead of the game. If not, you didn't lose anything. Making plans around Barton, assuming that he's going to be X or Y and passing on opportunities because of that assumption, would be a mistake. If you see a wing that you think can help the team you have to get him whether or not Barton is on your team.

Dave,

I have a couple of questions regarding who the Trailblazers should try to pick up during the off-season. First off, what is your opinion of the Blazers trying to get Paul Pierce or somebody like him to join the roster? I keep reading articles that are saying that Paul Pierce might have played his last game as a Boston Celtic and that he will most likely be bought out of his current contract with the Celtics for $5 Million, and will probably be playing for a competitor next season. If the Blazers were to try to get Pierce, how much would they have to pay him for him to come and play for them, and who would they have to give up to get him? If the Blazers can't get Paul Pierce for whatever reason, who would be a good alternative to look for/at?

Brian

The operative question in this kind of scenario is why a given player would come to Portland instead of going elsewhere. The Blazers can't overpay this kind of player because they need more help than a single grizzled veteran can provide. The money's not going to be any better here than anywhere else. The team's not in contention or even close. Good teams with mid-level exceptions could probably sell a player like Pierce on joining them far more easily than the Blazers could.

That said, if anybody gets amnestied this summer the Blazers should be examining their options. Money is not an issue in such cases as the player's getting paid by their old team. In this case the promise of playing time could trump the promise of contention for some players.

One non-amnesty option the Blazers might purse is Elton Brand. He won't play for the same $2 million he signed for last year (as an amnestied player) but you might be able to pick him up as a reasonably cheap reserve PF/C if you can't get a premier free agent.

Honestly, though, in this kind of situation it would be better for the Blazers to be over the cap and using that mid-level exception than it will be for them to be under the cap and using non-replaceable cap space. Spending $4-5 million on Pierce or Brand this summer means you're not spending it on other players. If you wait until next year and use that exception you can have your cake (in the form of this year's free agent signings) and eat it too (via the cap exception).

Dave,

Remembering the almost championship team of 99-00, 2 of my favorite guys were Greg Anthony and Brian Grant. They weren't the prolific scorers or best athletes at their positions, but they provided hustle and defense and talent . I loved seeing them come in the game. Are there any guys that compare in the free agency pool? Our core was pretty stacked last year and could have carried the team further with bench help...any bench help...at all. What are your thoughts?

Aaron - Lonely Blazer fan in Siberia

Shout out to all of our international readers, several of whom are sending in questions.

Sure, there are guys like that around. The Blazers have one in the making in Wesley Matthews. You can also look at Tony Allen, Corey Brewer, Jeff Pendergraph, Chauncey Billups, and Tiago Splitter for different variants.

People forget that Brian Grant was something of a star when he came to Portland and gradually morphed into a role-player. The Blazers could afford to pay that kind of player but not to come off the bench. They'd need to sign early Grant, not later Grant.

This is why most of the talk this summer revolves around starting centers. Except most of the centers available aren't up to Grant's quality specs when he came to Portland. Thus the Catch-22. The Blazers mustn't pay a ton of money to a guy who won't fulfill most of their needs but guys who fulfill most of their needs are too expensive or not available. The people they can afford they shouldn't pay. People they should pay they can't afford.

But all is not lost. Analogous to the veteran ex-star move above, you'll probably have to wait a year or two to see the Blazers spend money on exciting, gritty bench players. First of all they have to determine if they even need them, which means shoring up the center spot and proving that acquiring upper-tier bench guys will make a difference. Then they have to find one of those sweet bench players for the right price or the right trade.

Dave,

I'm disappointed all the talk of "improving" the NBA game seems to have disappeared and we are stuck with the status quo. It's my opinion NBA players are some of the greatest athletes on the planet and basketball is a game in which multiple skills can be demonstrated. The problem is these fantastic athletes are playing on high school sized courts. The professional courts should be longer, wider, have higher rims and larger keys, and longer free throw and 3 point lines. If the NBA is afraid all this will reduce offensive statistics, simply slightly increase the circumference of the rim. The key is a larger court will show off the athleticism of the players in so many ways and increase the advantage of skills over height to some degree. What do you think?

Jerry

Truehoop is still carrying the banner for league improvement so the talk hasn't all gone away. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm suspicious about the efficacy of such measures. We saw beautiful basketball in the 70's, 80's, and 90's before the Pistons, Knicks, Heat, and Rockets ground the game to a halt. The 2000's hand-checking rules opened up the game more. It's more fluid now than it was during the iso-thug heyday. It's not perfect but I don't think more extensive and specific regulation can make it so. The refs seem no fairer now than they used to be, the league office decisions no less debatable. The game still gets slowed by foul reviews and timeouts. The huge change this year was anti-flopping penalties and yet I turn on the radio after an Eastern Conference Finals game and all anybody's talking about is how much players flop. I preferred the days when players worked out most things naturally. When regulation does come I like it to be obvious and as judgment-free as possible. "Can't hand-check beyond this line" and "Can't leave the bench in an altercation" work. A weird fine system after the game if the league office decides you flopped, not so much.

Raising the rim isn't a great idea. These guys already get up high enough and pound their knees coming down. Plus their shooting stroke would suffer. The only way to do it would be gradually, starting at low levels of play, getting an entire new generation used to shooting at an 11-foot rim, then moving it up when that generation got to professional age. But kids already learn bad shooting mechanics while firing at a 10-foot hoop. Besides there's international play, not to mention six hundred billion playgrounds around the country to think of.

I'm not sure a longer court would do anything but disadvantage bigger and older players and put more miles on legs.

Longer free throws would penalize fouling less, likely not what you'd want to see.

The one change you've suggested that I could see would be widening the court. The space between the three-point arc and the sideline seems too small, especially when you're trying to run last-second shots. It's too easy to defend the corner three or to step out of bounds before you've even received the ball. A few more feet of cushion over there would make that area more than just a bail-out shot option. Players having to defend more often in the corners would also open up the middle, leading to better and prettier inside looks.

I suspect the main objection to doing this would be losing two rows of ultra-expensive seats in each arena as the sidelines moved out. A row of floor-level seats can generate tens of thousands of dollars per home game, so it's not a trivial concern.

Keep sending your Mailbag questions to the address below. Please put Mailbag in the subject line or I might not find your question when I sort.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Choose Your Portland Trail Blazers Center of the Future

Dave — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:59:19 -0000

Having gone through a two part examination of nearly every available center around the league this summer we're now leaving it to you, Blazer's Edge readers, to choose your preferred pivot move. Now granted, we're not opening up the entire spectrum in this post. That's what the other two posts were for. I'm selecting some of the more likely and/or commonly-discussed trades for a starting center. For purposes of this post we're setting aside the chic reserve centers and the outlying moves that have a one-in-a-billion chance of happening but would make somebody look like Nostradamus if they hit. We're looking at these trades only.

For each deal we're going to offer the player, his current cap hit, and what the Blazers would trade away. Let us know which you prefer or if you prefer none of the above. Again, please judge "none of the above" only on the merits of these trades, not because you'd rather have Al Horford or because you have a fancy four-way to propose. We're assuming that these are the only deals available to the Blazers. General Managers around the league said no to everything else involving a potential starter. Which move do you like best, if any, and why?

Andray Blatche, Free Agent, for all your cap space

Anderson Varejao, $9.5 million current contract, for 10th pick and 2 second-rounders

Chris Kaman, Free Agent, for $6.5 million

Brandan Wright, Free Agent, for $6 million

Timofey Mozgov, Free Agent, for $4.5 million

DeAndre Jordan, $11 million current contract, for 10th pick and 2 second-rounders

Samuel Dalembert, Free Agent, for $7.5 million

Marcin Gortat, $7.7 million current contract, for 10th pick

Al Jefferson, Free Agent, for all your cap space

Have at it in the comment section and the poll.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

All the Centers in the Universe: Part 2

Dave — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:59:16 -0000

Today we continue our look at all of the veteran centers around the league whose names have been linked with the Blazers so far this off-season. Yesterday we covered centers from Atlanta through the Lakers. Today we begin with Memphis (Miami, really...Portland can't touch Marc Gasol) and we won't stop until we've made it all the way to Washington! Enjoy!

Chris "Birdman" Andersen, Unrestricted Free Agent, Miami Heat

He blocks shots, rebounds, and can give you 10-15 good minutes as a backup center. He was fishing for 10-day contracts this year and got picked up by the Heat so you know he's not going to be expensive. Even though he'll turn 35 this year he'd be worth a look if he's still floating around when the season starts. If the Blazers don't already have back-up help, that is.

Samuel Dalembert, Unrestricted Free Agent, Milwaukee Bucks

Skill-wise, this guy has everything you'd want. He's not a recent revelation. He's been a great rebounder and shot-blocker for years. His defense is nice. At 32 he's plenty experienced but still has a couple years left. You'll have a hard time finding a better (realistic) fit, except... He hasn't played 30 minutes a game for five years and he averaged only 16 for the Bucks last season. If he's your starting center you'll need more help. But he's also perched at the $7 million salary level which now looks like more than half of Portland's available space this summer. If you spend half your money on half a starting center, who fills up the other half and/or your other positions of need?

Nikola Pekovic, Restricted Free Agent, Minnesota Timberwolves

The Blazers may still have enough cap space to make the 'Wolves sweat a huge offer for Pek, but even if Minnesota didn't match he'd be Portland's only signing above the veteran minimum level. Is he worth it? He's the right size and plays a nifty, old-school offense. He also rebounds exceptionally well on the offensive end. Defensive rebounding and defense, period, remain questions. Add in the fact that Minny would likely match an offer and this is becoming an increasingly unlikely match for Portland.

Robin Lopez, $5.2-$5.3 million over two seasons non-guaranteed, New Orleans Pelicans

I'll repeat a recent Mailbag blurb about him: "Lopez doesn't rebound, doesn't defend that well, has no face-up game, considers fouling a second religion, never passes the ball, and pretty much only blocks shots. His offense is efficient though. And he's cheap. In an ideal world he's my back-up center, not a starter." The thing is, he's valuable enough to New Orleans to keep on board. That means Portland would have to trade for the guy. I could maybe see picking him up as a free agent if you believe he has more to give, but trading anything significant for him seems like a bad move.

Tyson Chandler, $14.1-$14.6 million over two seasons, New York Knicks

Somebody always mentions him when defensive centers come up. The Blazers don't have the cap room for him and the Knicks don't have a real reason to trade him, at least not to Portland. They wouldn't be below the cap even if they dumped his $14 million for second-round picks so they need commensurate value in return. Unless you're looking to trade Nicolas Batum or LaMarcus Aldridge for an over-30-year-old center this won't happen.

Kendrick Perkins, $9.0-9.6 million over two seasons, Oklahoma City Thunder

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Spencer Hawes, $6.5 million next season, Philadelphia 76'ers

If the Sixers don't retain Andrew Bynum, dropping Hawes' contract would equate to cap space for free agents on a 1-to-1 basis. If they do retain Bynum then Hawes is theoretically less necessary, pending injury status. Either way, they're not in love with Spencer and would probably be amenable to trading him away. Can the Blazers live with a Stretch 5 at center, though? He rebounds but is indifferent defensively...not the "rim protector" the Blazers have said they need. But he's young and won't cost them a fortune. In the last post we compared getting Chris Kaman to shopping for a new car but ending up with a used Ford Taurus and Timofey Mozgov as ending up with a Ford knock-off. This would be the equivalent of shopping for a new car and ending up with a Segway instead. Could work under the right circumstances but those circumstances are limited.

Andrew Bynum, Unrestricted Free Agent, Philadelphia 76'ers

This is the kind of thing that makes your stomach turn. He's the most talented center available outside of Dwight Howard. He'd be a game-changer...the only guy on this list but Dwight who would raise your expectations of team performance to instant contention. But his attitude is suspect, he wants to be the main guy, he's not good enough mentally or fundamentally to rely on in that role yet, he just sat out the entire season because of injury, he'll be bloody expensive, and chances are decent he'll just be a ton of cap-clogging, chemistry-ruining poison. The Sixers have Bird Rights. Bynum will likely follow the money there or elsewhere, putting Portland out of the mix. If this choice did come before the Blazers though... Naw, not gonna happen.

Marcin Gortat, $7.7 million next season, Phoenix Suns

When we started this whole center-discussion process a few months ago I was lukewarm on Gortat, and for good reason. He's decent at most everything, dominant at nothing. Rebounding is his strongest suit. His offense is pretty good as long as he doesn't over-rely on the jumper. He won't make you raise eyebrows but he doesn't have any major holes. He is one of the few obtainable centers sitting in the intersection between "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling". His cap hit isn't bad. His play isn't bad. His size isn't bad. He's experienced and plays nice with others. You can't find this combination of non-offensiveness and affordability anywhere else on this list. Brace yourselves, Blazer fans, a mild, slightly warm zephyr might be blowing through town. That zephyr's name is Gortat.

Jermaine O'Neal, Unrestricted Free Agent, Phoenix Suns

What's better than one Phoenix center? How about two? O'Neal would be the ultimate pickup for Portland with the room exception or veteran's minimum exception once the other cap money is spent. Depth, attitude, the ability to play a little power forward behind LaMarcus Aldridge, contentment with smaller minutes, Circle of Life career capping...if the Blazers can get him there's no question they should bolster their center depth with the former high school phenom who got away.

LaMarcus Aldridge, no extra cap cost, Portland Trail Blazers

From time to time people mention shifting Aldridge to center and acquiring a power forward to play alongside him. The pool of power forwards is deeper and they come cheaper, so this makes some sense as long as the new guy rebounds. But Aldridge doesn't want to play center and you can't make your star #1 option play in a way he doesn't like. If Aldridge isn't optimal and happy neither is his team.

DeMarcus Cousins, $4.9 million next season, Sacramento Kings

Next to Andrew Bynum, Cousin's may be the highest risk-highest reward center in the rumor mill. He's young. He's not had a good upbringing in Sacramento. His physical gifts are astonishing and even at this early stage, amid so much chaos, his production is pretty impressive. He's not a shot-blocker but the Blazers might give that up to get a player of his potential. The problem is, he's caused a bunch of that chaos. It's hard to look past his head-case tendencies. He's also self-centered on offense, a big no-no in Portland's system. Even if you were willing to take a chance on him, it's hard to see what the Blazers could trade to make Sacramento give him up. Nicolas Batum is the only reasonable candidate from Portland's end, Aldridge and Damian Lillard being untouchable and Wesley Matthews not being enough. Having already dumped last year's lottery pick Thomas Robinson, the Kings can't afford to drop another young guy without just compensation. The deal just isn't lining up here even if the Blazers were interested.

Cole Aldrich, Unrestricted Free Agent, Sacramento Kings

Here's another former lottery pick, albeit one on his third team in three years, retained by none of them. Aldrich can block shots and rebound, fitting Portland's needs. But he's not played more than 9 minutes per game in his career and the Kings didn't even think he was worth picking up the option year on his rookie contract. When he was in OKC our colleagues at Welcome to Loud City noted that he was developing a nice baby hook with right and left hands, leading me to dub him the Best Ambidextrous Hooker in the league. For that alone the Blazers might want to consider picking him up as a cheap back-up option if nobody else works out.

Tiago Splitter, Restricted Free Agent, San Antonio Spurs

Splitter would be a great pick-up as long as Portland also had a bigger center in reserve for use against huge opponents. Defensive rebounding is his biggest issue. He's not a shot-blocker. But his defense is rock solid his offense is efficient without being demanding and his offensive rebounding is strong. He plays smart and would fit in on either end, up to and including spelling Aldridge and providing an insurance policy against his departure. Unless they win another World Title this year, the Spurs should probably consider Splitter expendable at a certain price level, as he's not the kind of player you'd rebuild around. The problem is that price level is likely to be high. It'd take all of Portland's cap money to approach it and Splitter is neither complete enough nor enough of a true center to warrant putting all your eggs in his basket. It would be a beautiful move but ultimately it's probably not affordable.

Al Jefferson, Unrestricted Free Agent, Utah Jazz

If you wanted to say, "Forget defense, let's just try to outscore everybody with our bigs" then Jefferson would be your man. Seeing him and Aldridge work off of each other and the guards would be interesting. His multi-faceted offense, offensive rebounding, and star-level production would add a major new wrinkle to the team. But Portland would get smoked on the other end. Plus with the salary cap lower than expected the Blazers might not have enough money to lure him here. This would be your classic, "We've given up on being great, but you'll like our 'good' well enough to buy tickets" move.

Emeka Okafor, $14.5 million next season, Washington Wizards

Okafor's skill set would fit right in with Portland's needs. He's big, a defensive specialist, scores in the lane, and grabs a large popcorn bucket full of rebounds every time he takes the floor. His production fell a couple years ago due to injury but he bounced back this season with Washington. Sporting another center already in Nene Hilario, the Wizards might even be willing to move Okafor for cap space. His salary is enormous, which is the issue for the Blazers. They'd have to move Joel Freeland for nothing before they'd be able to take back Okafor's salary. The bite's not as bad as it might seem, though, as Okafor's contract expires next summer and he won't make as much on a new deal. But the improvement this year plus the cost of a new contract plus the lottery pick it'd cost in trade plus the opportunity cost isn't really worth it. Okafor brings what the Blazers need but he's just too expensive to welcome on board.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

All the Centers in the Universe: Part 1

Dave — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 02:27:21 -0000

The most popular flavor of Mailbag question I'm getting this off-season (and it's not even close) runs like this:

Dave, what do you think of [insert name of veteran center here] for the Blazers?

That people are asking about this at a 3-to-1 ratio compared to asking about lottery draft picks tells you everything you need to know about Portland's perceived position and priority this summer. And these questions just keep...on...coming despite me having addressed numerous centers in numerous mailbags.

To save myself some trouble, I've decided to list every center who's been mentioned, however peripherally, in conjunction with the Blazers. To keep reading manageable I'm going to limit myself to 2-3 sentences on each player. Hopefully these will be a catch-all posts for all of the "What do you think of?" center questions.

Here we go:

Zaza Pachulia--Unrestricted Free Agent, Atlanta Hawks

He's a smart veteran, rebounds, and would come at the right price but lack of shot-blocking, so-so defense, and injuries make him a Plan C option.

Andray Blatche--Unrestricted Free Agent, Brooklyn Nets

Getting out of Washington made him look great but he played only 20 minutes in reserve for the Nets and since his numbers came in a contract year he might not be worth the gamble on his character and payoff. What a big swing this would be though.

Joakim Noah--$11-13 million contract over 3 years, Chicago Bulls

What an amazing fit he'd be but the Bulls aren't giving him up. I'm not sure where this started but it doesn't make sense to me at all.

Anderson Varejao--$9 million next year, $9.7 non-guaranteed after, Cleveland Cavaliers

Rampant injuries make this a hard sell, especially since it'd eat almost all of Portland's cap space. Cleveland would probably prefer to get a nice return for him as well. It's too bad because he'd be a fun guy to have on the team.

Chris Kaman--Unrestricted Free Agent, Dallas Mavericks

This is kind of like starting out shopping for a new car and ending up with a 2005 Ford Taurus. Offense, defense, and rebounding all tend towards the poor side of mediocre. But he's a veteran, he's got size, and he wouldn't be a bad choice if you thought Meyers Leonard would assume the throne soon.

Brandan Wright--Unrestricted Free Agent, Dallas Mavericks

A converted power forward who doesn't defend the post or rebound well, Wright still makes exciting plays and the most of his offensive ability. He could be a cheap find but is unlikely to provide a long-term answer at center.

JaVale McGee--3 years at $10.5-12 million, Denver Nuggets

This guy has so much going for him: talent, flash, multiple ways to affect the game including everything the team could ask for: defense, rebounding, blocked shots, efficient offense. He'd be an exciting pick-up for the Blazers. The problems: not known as a smart, stable player and the Nuggets just traded Nene for him and wouldn't get under the cap even if they moved his salary for nothing. Unless they lust after the 10th pick, how are you going to get him?

Timofey Mozgov--Restricted Free Agent, Denver Nuggets

The dude can rebound and works well with limited offensive opportunities but he's a little slow and not at all intimidating. He should be available, as he's Denver's third-string center. See note above about Chris Kaman, subtract 80,000 miles from the car, but make it a Ford knock-off instead.

Andre Drummond and Greg Monroe, Detroit Pistons

Can't get them. Wishful thinking.

Andrew Bogut, $14 million next year, Golden State Warriors

He's mentioned as a cast-off if the Warriors are able to pursue Dwight Howard but their cap reads $73 million this summer. They need to get down to $38 million to make an offer to Howard. How are they going to do that? And how do the Blazers clear $14 million in space with a new cap projection of $58.5 million? So many parts have to move to make this work that it's barely worth talking about. Injuries over the last couple seasons make Bogut a risk but he's only got a year on his contract so it might be a risk worth taking if it came up. He feels like a better bet than Varejao.

Andris Biedrins, $9 million next year, Golden State Warriors

The Warriors would probably move him for a soda pop if that soda didn't burden their cap for the summer of 2014. He used to be something but now he's so far into his own head that he came out the other ear. He'd be a one-year trial reclamation project but if the Blazers sink this far you'd better cross your fingers.

Omer Asik, $8.4 million a year for two years, Houston Rockets

This is another salary-clearing move speculated in the wake of a Dwight Howard shift. Unlike the Golden State prospect this one is semi-plausible. Asik would be desirable and a rebounder and defender and he's reasonably priced. Since they can't trade future first-rounders, one wonders if the Blazers would have enough juice to outbid other suitors.

Roy Hibbert, Indiana Pacers

Forget it. They're not giving him up this year either.

Ian Mahinmi, $4 million a year for three years, Indiana Pacers

He hasn't looked his best in Indiana and he's probably not a starting center even in Portland. He could provide depth at the position but what would you trade for him that the Pacers would accept unless they're seeking a salary dump? He's in the no-man's land of being good enough that you can't trade junk for him but not good enough that you'd trade a core player for him.

DeAndre Jordan, $11 million next year, $11.4 the year after, Los Angeles Clippers

This is the next in the never-ending litany of centers to be dumped if his team gets Dwight Howard. Jordan is young, he's athletic with size, he can run, he blocks shots and rebounds, and he's got a prior connection with Portland General Manager Neil Olshey. Plus he carpet-bombed this year's playoffs without regard for all the innocent civilians his suckage would hurt, leading some to speculate that he's out of favor with the Clips. It's easy to envision them moving him but not without getting another center. They're in win now mode. The Blazers have to hope that Howard flips allegiances.

Dwight Howard, Unrestricted Free Agent, Los Angeles Lakers

Unlike all those other teams, the Blazers wouldn't have to dump any center to get this guy! They would have to dump about $10 million in salary. That'd be a stretch considering how thin their roster is. They'd also have to convince Dwight to come to Portland. That's not happening.

Tomorrow: The rest of the candidates from Memphis to Washington!

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Thomas Robinson, Tony Allen, Contracts and Comps

Dave — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 01:31:54 -0000

Monday Morning Mailbags...mmmmmm...mighty nice! (copyright: Dr. Seuss)

Dave!

T-Rob! Want!
Houston wants to move him for cap space. The Blazers have second rounders to spare with no cash footprint involved. Sounds like a match! This will be the second time [Thomas Robinson] has been moved though. Is it just circumstance or is something wrong with him? Would he be a good pickup for us?

Marty

Circumstance or player? It's always a little of both.

Seeing a lottery pick traded in the middle of his rookie season is rare. Having it happen twice in one year is practically unheard of. I don't believe it's all on Robinson himself. Sacramento is in flux, has weird priorities anyway, and just didn't have a plan which included T-Rob. (One would think they'd have considered that before drafting him, but hey.) If Houston moves him it'll be for cap space to sign Dwight Howard. Circumstances haven't favored the guy.

On the other hand, you don't see these things happen to LeBron James, eh? If teams believe they have a star in the making they'll either find a way to keep him or make sure they get value in return for him. That's not happened at either of Robinson's stops. He could still be good, but having two front offices pass on you for packages highlighted by Patrick Patterson is not a good sign.

Granted, we don't know yet whether the Rockets want to move him or if they'll insist on a future first-rounder in order to do so. But if the Blazers got Robinson for a couple second rounders (as you suggest) that would give you a pretty good idea of his perceived value around the league.

My guess is that folks fear T-Rob is a one-trick pony, that he won't be fast enough to guard nouveau power forwards or big enough to guard centers, and especially that his offense includes no jumpers and will limit and/or slow down his team's sets. You're probably projecting him as a back-up power forward at this point, hoping for more but not banking on it.

That might be a good gamble for the Blazers under normal circumstances. They need players everywhere. They could probably find minutes for Robinson if he earned them. But these aren't normal circumstances.

Portland's slogan entering the free-agency period is EMC...Every Million Counts. The Blazers' greatest obstacle this summer won't be need or players available to fill those needs, it'll be budgeting. They'll be threading the cap needle as it is. Even 1 or 2 million dollars could make a huge difference. If you show up at the bargaining table with $4 million when a couple competitors come with $5 million you're done. The Blazers don't have enough selling points to make up the monetary gap. A million bucks, 1/60th of the cap, could mean the difference between a really good second signing and having to scrape by with a less-than-ideal solution.

Robinson makes $3.5 million next year. That's the difference between a $12 million offer to a center and an $8.5 million offer, or between an $8 million offer to a guard or a $4.5 million offer. His talent is neither great enough nor bankable enough to justify that difference.

The only way this works is if the Blazers get all their other business done first, have a little room left over they don't plan to use, and decide to take a flyer on the guy. That's not something you can predict. So I'd say Robinson is a nice thought but not really a part of the plan.

Dave,

I'd consider last year's draft a success (the first draft for this brain trust). Lillard was an obvious great pick and the verdict is still out on whether or not Myers Leonard was the right choice over Tyler Zeller. The old guard passed on 4-year small school rebounding machine (Faried) but the new guard jumped on the opportunity to draft a 4-year small school scoring machine (Lilliard). Am I too quick to give credit to our current staff's ability to evaluate talent? Where is your confidence level in the current blazers staff ability to draft?

Rory

Too soon to tell. The Lillard pick was coming down the track from a mile away. Part of that long view of the right thing to do came from the Blazers themselves. Credit goes to them for identifying their guy and sticking with him. As we just discussed, some teams in front of them were...slightly less astute? But the combination of talent and need made Lillard a good fit and most folks saw that.

Meyers Leonard was also on this site's short list of good players to gamble on. He was (and is) a multi-year project but he's a center with upside. I don't fault them for that pick either.

Will Barton has shown decent return for a second-rounder so far. We'll see where that goes but he's a nice bonus.

In other words, they've done well.

This year the pick is lower and the expectations higher. That's a bad combination. In a way the front office can't miss because the team needs help at pretty much every position. But they need veteran, immediate help of the kind the 10th selection in a relatively weak crop won't provide. That makes this draft much harder to think through than last year's.

A couple days ago Ben gave us a transcript of Neil Olshey's statements after a draft workout. In response to questions about his ability to find a good player Olshey said:

That's kind of what they pay me to do. I'm not going to tell Paul Allen that we're not going to get a really good player at 10 because that's what he hired us to do.

And...

I think it's a solid draft, I like where we're positioned, I think there are really good players at that level. If you have a realistic expectation of what they can produce, I think you're going to get a quality player.

There's a "yes" in there somewhere, but it's qualified. And it should be.

I do have confidence that this staff can spot a good player. I'll have that until they demonstrate otherwise. I don't have confidence that a good enough player will be present at #10 to merit getting excited about. Therefore to me this draft is kind of a freebie for the front office. If they find a keeper that's to their credit. If not, well, that's not a huge surprise.

I'll judge Portland's front office far more by what they do through trades or free agent signings this summer than by anything they do in the draft.

Second Question...

Whenever Blazer's Edge runs a piece associated with Blazer CEO Chris McGowan you use the same corporate head shot for his image. Will you please let your readers in on the inside joke?

Rory

There's no joke, actually.

We're a nationally-known, professional site affiliated with a nationally-known, professional network. That means we only use pictures under the following circumstances:

1. Pictures we've taken ourselves, as allowed through our press credentials.

2. Properly credited, and paid-for, pictures obtained via designated sources, including a couple of national press corps.

3. Pictures from other sources used with express permission. (This one is rare.)

An amateur site can get away with searching on Google, copying an image, and posting away. They're not supposed to, but copyright holders usually don't notice small infractions like that and it's not often worth their time to police them. We don't do that because it's not fair to those copyright holders and because we could be liable for the infraction.

In most cases our affiliation means we can bring you better pictures with a clearer conscience than anybody else. But since national photographers aren't climbing all over each other to snap Mr. McGowan's photo and since us asking him to sit and say "cheese" would result in a rather cheesy look, we actually only have a couple pictures to choose from. That's why you see them repeated.

Dave,

Any thoughts on going after Tony Allen in free agency? He would allow us to move Wes (if he's still on the roster) to the 6th man role to provide a spark off the bench while keeping the defensive presence in the starting line-up. Best part- he'll be cheap!

Ryne

I like Allen but I don't see this move making sense. Allen's defense is good--better than Matthews'--but he's 31 instead of 26 and this three-point shooting is non-existent. Matthews' distance shooting makes him plenty valuable to Portland. I could see getting away from it for a guy like Victor Oladipo. He'd be on a cheap rookie contract and would have plenty of years to develop a shot. But Allen's new contract won't be that much of a savings from Matthews and Wesley's trade value on his own won't be high enough to make this move much more than lateral.

Dave,

I hear folks arguing about whether certain players are worth their contracts. Nicolas Batum is the latest but I'm sure there will be more with free agents coming in. My question is how to tell whether a guy is overpaid or not. Doesn't it just depend on your expectations?

Mike

It depends on the barometer you're using.

Professional sports salaries are determined by measuring comparable athletes, the "comp" system. Teams and agents look at the contracts of players similar to the free agent in production and position. This gives you a base salary range which can be modified by other factors including age, potential, the status of the team, amount of competition for the player's services, etc. If three other power forwards in your player's ballpark are making "x" amount of dollars and your player signs for that, you feel like you did OK.

This is one reason why people hate owners who overspend on players. They throw the comp system out of whack. As soon as someone signs a ridiculous contract I imagine general managers are inundated with, "If that guy makes 'x' then my guy should be making 'x'+20%!" I also imagine most of those agents get talked down, but every contract has a potential ripple effect.

When considering contracts in isolation, production vs. dollar compared to other players around the league at the same position is the best way to go.

In the big picture, though, you also have to contend with a salary cap that--at least theoretically--limits the total amount you can spend on players. This introduces the concept of opportunity cost. Dollars spent on one player cannot be spent on another, or at least not without restrictions. If the 76'ers offered up Jrue Holiday in trade the Blazers would probably balk, not because Holiday's $9.2 million next year is out of line with league salaries but because they already have Damian Lillard and that $9.2 million of cap space could be better spent helping another position of need.

In addition to asking whether a player is worth his contract empirically (i.e. judging by comps) you also have to ask what else you're sacrificing in order to pay that player. If you can cover a small loss at one position with a greater gain at another position you've achieved an overall net gain. If Player A makes $10 million and you trade him away for Player B who makes $4 million you're not just comparing those two players. You're asking whether Player B plus what you can get for the remaining $6 million you've now freed up will exceed the benefit of having Player A. This is where many of the current trade scenarios come from. This is also where you'll find the arguments that some players aren't "worth their salary".

Looking at each individual, I'd say that the key members of Portland's roster are all performing at or above their salary level. In that sense they're worth their salary. But impending summer cap space also opens up a fairly rare chance to replace each dollar spent on a current player with a dollar spent on someone else. (That only happens this cleanly when you're well under the cap.) That opening brings the opportunity cost question front and center.

If the Blazers can trade away an expensive contract for near-equal production or even a slight downgrade and then turn the extra cap space into a better opportunity at another position, they'll have to consider it. They're unlikely to move any of their most expensive contracts, but if they do it won't be because they thought that player wasn't earning his keep. Rather they'd be betting that the total gain will outweigh the individual loss. The contract they trade away won't be too high in absolute terms, just too high to allow them to make another move that they deem more beneficial in the long run.

Keep sending questions to the address below and we'll keep answering! Please put "Mailbag" in the subject line to make sorting easy.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Oden's Return, Old-School Centers, Lopez, and the Lottery

Dave — Fri, 31 May 2013 01:26:53 -0000

Ahoy hoy! Time for another edition of the Blazer's Edge Mailbag.

Dave,

What do you think the probability is that Neil Olshey would pursue Greg Oden if he was convinced he was healthy enough to contribute next season? Would the fact that none of the Oden drama happened under Olshey's watch increase the likelihood that the Blazers could be interested or would the baggage attached to such a reunion be too much to overcome?

Matt

There's enough water under that bridge to turn the Mojave into a melon farm. Even if Olshey were inclined that direction both the Blazers and Oden himself would probably nix the idea. Chances are it wouldn't be healthy for either. The Blazers are attempting to start anew, not go backwards. The environment would be just as toxic for Oden now as it was when he left. Old friends, old habits...besides, for 29 other teams he could get a fresh start with low expectations. Oden returning to Portland would bring back all of those 2007 expectations for Blazers fans. That's not realistic.

Once again we'll say it's sad that Oden never worked out here. He's exactly the kind of center the Blazers need. Still. But Meyers Leonard is the new Oden. The old one's not coming back.

Dave,

As I look at the current era's game, I can't help but wonder how traditional centers would fare. Players Like Hakeem, Ewing, Jabbar and Moses Malone. They were all fairly mobile (Todays center needs to cover some ground), but also had great low post presence. I can't help but think with the right talent, coaches should be able to marry both styles. Wing play creates post space. A post player capable of getting the ball and going quickly should have an advantage? Or do the new Zone rules really shut this down?

Hermistonmelons

Talent is talent. Transcendent guys like those could play anytime, anywhere. Kareem and Hakeem already had the mid-range shots in addition to their post games. They'd just be unleashed to do more nowadays. Rebounding doesn't change much, just how much space you have to cover to get there. If defenses keyed in on them because of the new rules they'd just hit three-point happy teammates on the perimeter...the modern way to create space. All three could adapt and dominate, though Kareem might have to put on a couple pounds!

The old Houston Big Three offense? That's another story.

Dave,

In the pre-season, Coby Karl looked pretty good, great at times. He was always under control and certainly knows the game. He was certainly better than the bench turned out to be. Sure, he was 28 years old, but so what! He would have been a great addition to an otherwise feckless bench. So, why didn't the Blazers sign Coby during preseason or at some other point during the season, cutting Nolan Smith?

Rich

Props for the use of "feckless".

My guess is that it was a combination of several things: little or no upside, not suited to defend point guards, no proven NBA three or really any shot to speak of, only 184 minutes played in his career total, and none of those spent at point. Plus the Blazers owed Nolan Smith money already.

Dave,

Dave, a lot of talk on this blog lately has been finding a starting center and a versatile shooting guard. We have a number 10 draft pick a reasonable amount of cap space, but the Portland bench has to be almost completely restructured. Would it make sense to utilize our resources in the D-league?

Michael

If the Blazers had any, they'd have already used them. Luke Babbitt and Meyers Leonard are as good as anybody in Boise right now. You're right that the Blazers have more than two spots to fill. They'll need to get use out of smaller contract guys. But those guys are more likely to be NBA veterans than D-League hopefuls.

That said, watch this year's Summer League team. Plenty of agents will salivate over their clients' prospects with Portland since the roster is so thin.

Dave,

Now that some time has passed since the last CBA which team(s) do you think have made best use of the amnesty clause so far? Do you see any other 'changing the course of the franchise' (such as if the Lakers used it on Kobe Bryant) moves happening at this point?

Steven

The Lakers probably should use it on Kobe, but I doubt they will. They could give him an entire year off to rehab then re-sign him next summer when the only contracts they'll be carrying are Dwight Howard and Steve Nash. They'd save about a billion dollars in luxury tax payments.

Tyrus Thomas in Charlotte and Charlie Villanueva in Detroit are other candidates depending on how much cap space their teams need.

Mostly I suspect that the amnesty clause has run its course. You have to remember that even though the salary comes off the cap, owners still have to pay those amnestied guys in full. Assuming you fill the recently-amnestied cap spot with a different player you're now, in essence, paying double for that player...his contract plus the contract you amnestied. Few incoming players are going to merit that. I can imagine plenty of owners having a hard time stomaching the idea, especially if their teams aren't contending anyway. What's worse, paying $9 million for an under-performing player or paying $18 million for one who's pretty good but still not going to take you to the playoffs?

Dave,

The #10 pick for Robin Lopez straight-up. Can it be done? Is it worth doing? Would LMA be pleased?

Kyle

Yes it can be done financially. Maybe it can be done talent-wise. It might be worth doing if you can't find any other centers or if you plan to make your big splash with a guard instead or if you believe in the Awesome Power of Meyers Leonard. Aldridge would be happy until he figures out that Lopez doesn't rebound, doesn't defend that well, has no face-up game, considers fouling a second religion, never passes the ball, and pretty much only blocks shots. His offense is efficient though. And he's cheap. In an ideal world he's my back-up center, not a starter. I might be able to get a back-up center with that 10 pick though, if I'm so inclined.

Dave,

Every time I read a post about how getting multiple high lottery picks is the only way to arrive at contention, it depresses me. I don't want my team to suck, particularly not on purpose. I get especially depressed when I worry that it might be true. Thus, what would you think of transferring to a completely random lottery? In that case, picks would be random, so teams would have to find their success based on the quality of their front offices and decisions. Probably would never happen, but what are your thoughts?

Jack

I've long been a proponent of a two-tier lottery where the teams from 1-7 vie for the #1 overall pick and the teams from 8-14 settle out for those 7 selections. I'd keep the top three shuffle in each tier just as they have now. The worst teams would have a better shot at the best picks this way. I'd also weight it so that the very worst teams had a better chance of actually getting #1 instead of the 25% chance they have now. This way if you really sucked you'd be more sure of getting immediate help. With that help you'd be less likely to become a repeat customer in the lottery. Get in, get out, let someone else stink for a while.

I might also consider term limits of sorts, like you couldn't get a Top 3 pick for more than two years running. If you qualified the third year you'd be bumped down to 4 and the teams behind you would move up.

I suspect a completely random lottery would have the opposite effect of the one you're envisioning. No matter how much draft expertise you have, you can only work with the tools you're given. The GM drafting #1 is almost certainly going to do better than the GM drafting #14 even if that #14 guy is the second coming of Kevin Pelton and the #1 guy is Doofus McGoofus. A totally random drawing would take the tools out of the GM's hands and put them firmly in the realm of chance. The system would reward lucky, not good. You really, really don't want that 14th team that just missed the playoffs drawing first overall while the worst team in the league sits at #11. That all but guarantees that the worst team in the league will retain that designation the year following while the best team in the lottery punches through to the playoffs with their new superstar.

By the way, the 8th seed in the conference would also have something to say about the team right behind them in the standings drawing an ultra-high pick. Let's say the Jazz worked their tails off all year and managed to edge out the Suns for the last playoff seed in the conference after a grueling battle. As the 8th seed the Jazz get eliminated in 5 games and earn the 16th pick in the draft. Phoenix, finishing just one game behind Utah in the standings, gets vaulted to the #1 overall draft position in a completely random draw and gets the next LeBron James. Even if Phoenix got the #2 or #3 pick, what's going to happen to the standings next year? That ultra-high star selection is certainly going to be worth more than one game. Through no merit of their own the Suns are going to vault the Jazz in the standings and probably a couple other teams as well. The teams who actually bothered to make the playoffs all get screwed comparatively. Why would you want a low seed at all?

People sometimes advocate a random system because they think it would get rid of tanking. It wouldn't. It'd just shift where it happens. Instead of the worst teams in the league tanking in what are already meaningless games, teams would be tanking like heck to avoid the lower playoff seeds. When the team that just squeaked into the post-season starts uttering expletives instead of celebrating that's a black eye for your league.

You also have a basic issue of fairness in that the 13th and 14th teams in the lottery line basically have nothing to lose. They can only go up. The 1st team, with the worst record in the league, has a 13 in 14 chance of dropping. They can only go down. If you can't be league champion or at least in the Finals, the best spot in the whole league is to finish 9th in your conference. That's a weird reward system.

There are plenty of ways to fix the lottery, but totally random ain't it.

Send your Mailbag question to the address below with "Mailbag" in the subject line for lots of question-answering fun!

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Kendrick Perkins, Tyson Chandler, and the Benjamins

Dave — Thu, 30 May 2013 04:10:54 -0000

Catching up on more Mailbag questions!

Dave,

You've discussed several potential centers for the Blazers. What are your thoughts on Kendrick Perkins? He seems to be in the doghouse in OKC. I'm wondering if a change of scenery to Portland would be beneficial, but I'm not sure exactly why he's not playing and it might not do any good if his attitude stinks.

Brian

I think you've hit on one of the few starting centers in the league I'd run from. Hard.

How complicated can being Oklahoma City's center be? Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant take care of all the scoring. Serge Ibaka is a reasonably good rebounder and Nick Collison comes off the bench in relief. The defense around you is pretty decent. What, exactly do you have to do? Grab a few rebounds, cherry pick some shots when defenders cover the stars, don't ruin your own defensive sets, then sit back and collect a multi-million dollar paycheck while people fete your amazing team.

When a guy can't even manage that much, when he's the only real center in town and still earns only 25 minutes per game for a squad that made Hasheem Thabeet look decent (for Pete's sake!) something is...wrong. Not just kind of wrong, but "the smell coming off that thing is so bad you better throw it in the garbage and wash your hands right now or the Zombie Apocalypse might happen today" wrong.

$9 million per year isn't a bad price for a starting center but Perkins may not be fit to be a starting center. Rebounding, scoring, shooting percentages, efficiency are all in the toilet and the guy's not a shot blocker. This is not the droid you're looking for.

Dave,

It seems to me the Blazers competed very well for many years due to the fact we had an owner who was willing to spend to get good players. Since Allen had a change of heart (after the JailBlazer era), it seems Portland really lost its ability to differentiate from other market teams with cap space and lure in attractive free agents. Money used to be that differentiation in Portland, but not anymore. We also currently lack the top coach or high caliber players that would attract other top notch players to come and join us. If winning is the ultimate goal for Allen, wouldn't money put us back in the map faster than any other thing (ie praying for good lottery picks)? Do you see Allen ever willing to over spend in order to sign the right player(s)?

Ramon

The Blazers got more fiscally sensible in the mid-2000's. They stopped overpaying every B-level free agent that came on the market. No matter what you thought of chemistry or character, stocking the team with fairly talented players all those years kept the bottom end of Portland's success range fairly high. The problem was, they wouldn't really succeed. They'd just remain not too bad, a B- team with A-level salaries.

Luxury tax territory mandates great results, not just "not too bad". Therefore the cutbacks made sense for reasons independent of the off-court problems of the players involved. A conservative cap approach makes even more sense today under the new CBA which penalizes tax offenders harshly, not just financially but restricting their ability to make further moves. You really don't want to tread that tax threshold unless you're a Finals contender. Mediocre and taxed is the kiss of death.

Even with their new sensibility, however, the Blazers have opened the coffers for players who deserved money. Brandon Roy got a max contract. LaMarcus Aldridge was close. Greg Oden would have been paid full fare, Nicolas Batum is making ~~six~~ eight digits, and Wesley Matthews got the highest contract offered a second-year player ever. In between there the Blazers still managed to afford vets like Gerald Wallace, Jamal Crawford, and Raymond Felton.

One could argue that the combination of injuries, under-performing veterans, and questionable drafting has absolved Portland from luxury tax consideration. They've never had enough players succeeding at once to call the question. If and when that happens, I'd expect senior management and Paul Allen would calculate the value of adding an extra piece or two and crossing the line. If they're one piece away from a title shot my guess is they'd bite the bullet and pay. But they can't afford to take a chance on multiple, expensive players who might or might not produce the desired results. Chances are they wouldn't work out. Then you're leaking money and handcuffed to your woes.

Keep in mind, too, that the team is bound by CBA rules. The Blazers can't go out right now and spend themselves into tax land. Their major spending will be cut off at the cap limit this year. In years to come they can add salary incrementally by trades and in larger chunks through cap exceptions not available to them this summer. That's when we'll find out how close to contention they think they are and how much they're willing to spend to get there.

In any case, the days of Portland as perpetual ATM are done, and rightfully so. How's it working out for the Knicks or the Dodgers?

Dave,

I keep hearing about the "core four." Does the fact that you only have four decent players on your roster necessarily make them your core four? Especially when two of those four have skill sets that are so similar?

As we look to the future, I only see a "core two."

Jesse

I coined the term as a shorthand way of identifying the players the team can trust enough to build around: Aldridge, Lillard, Batum, Matthews. By virtue of salary, youth, or talent nobody else on the team fit the description. Those four are clearly a class apart. When you hear Blazer folks say things like, "We're closer than you think..." they almost certainly mean that they're comfortable with those four guys and just need to add a couple pieces to succeed. Either way, it's not often you see such a gap between four guys and the whole rest of the team, so the designation is a valuable time-saver at this point. When someone says, "I'd trade anybody outside of the Core Four" everybody in the universe knows what they mean.

When you start to tweak that definition the number changes. If you want to talk about players the Blazers consider near-untouchable right now you're probably talking about a Core Three (or at least 2.5). If you want to talk about players everybody would assess as untouchable it's a Core Two. If you ask for players you're certain will be Trail Blazers four years from now you have a Core One.

Dave,

The discussion about LA's future and recent discussion about his value leads me to believe his greatest contribution to the long-term viability of the team lies in his trade value. I was listening to the radio as they were discussing the needs of the NY Knicks - that they need another "major" player to go along with ‘Melo. It was discussed that they might be willing to package Chandler, Shumpert and draft picks to make that happen. Do you think LA would fit their definition of "major" and would they be willing to offer that package to us? Seems like a nearly ideal for us - a D-minded center, athletic wing and assets for the future. Is that the ideal package? Any other teams out there that would offer a similar package and have interest in LA?

2forLaRue

Sorry, can't do it. I hate calling him LA. I know he prefers it and it saves a syllable for the broadcasters but...ugh. Just ugh.

The Knicks would love to get their hands on LaMarcus. They might even swing that deal to do it.

Here's what you have to remember from a Blazers perspective. You can talk about needs of the team with certainty right now because the core is pretty well defined. The Blazers need a shot-blocking, rebounding big man right now because they've got scoring and shooting elsewhere and Aldridge doesn't fit that bill. But as soon as you trade Aldridge you hit the reset button on the team. Now the needs are different. You can get your defensive big man and extra wing help off the bench but that was last year's, Aldridge-based need. You know what you need now? An All-Star 20+ point-scoring #1 option. Without that your new big man and bench guy don't lift you above your previous level. And by the way, guess which is harder to find between a serviceable defensive center and a All-NBA-level star?

If you trade Aldridge it has to be for tomorrow's need, not today's or yesterday's. Adding on a sun porch and extra bedroom to a house you just ripped the foundation out from under doesn't make sense. Move him for the next foundation or not at all.

Submit your question to the address below with "Mailbag" in the subject line.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Lillard's Athleticism, Mediocre Free Agents, and BPA

Dave — Wed, 29 May 2013 02:14:56 -0000

Another batch of Mailbag questions await us!

Dave,

One of my biggest irritations from the media (particularly ESPN analysts) last year was that whenever Damian Lillard was mentioned they talked about him not being an elite athlete. I think we need a definition of elite athlete? Because how can Lillard have tested almost the same as Derrick Rose (who the media loves to talk about as an elite athlete) and yet still not be an elite athlete? Is this bias because of the way he plays? Because by numbers, the guy is a sick athlete.

Joseph

Shortcuts are common in the quick, churn-out-the-words world of national media coverage. Once a meme takes hold it's hard to break out of. Most shorthand phrases like "not an elite athlete" have some truth to them. The problem is, we don't know which truth they're trying to get at. Left to guess, we stab at the wrong one. Misconceptions spread as the meme gets repeated from source to source.

This is why I prefer to listen to people who know what they're talking about, or at least are willing to treat the subject carefully. National media guys are often the best source of information on teams like the Lakers, Knicks, and Heat. They spend all their time and energy on those teams. Everything else is going to be some version of a shortcut from all but the best, most dedicated analysts.

My guess is that "not an elite athlete" was not meant to equate Lillard with a 40-year-old MLB relief pitcher. Part of it may be Lillard scoring outside rather than bulling in the lane like Jerryd Bayless once did. Lillard's physique is not as hulking as the Bayless-types either. People tend to equate "athlete" with size, strength, and looking ripped rather than speed. "Not an elite athlete" could have been code-speak for "spent four years in college" or even "plays smart instead of relying solely on physical gifts". Some of those things are compliments packaged in a supposed weakness.

Either way, people in the know understand that Lillard is a good athlete, has superb conditioning (another underrated part of athleticism), and that his brain allows him to make more of his physical gifts than you might expect. No need to worry on that account even if other NBA point guards look good for different reasons.

Dave,

After reading all this free agent talk, I could not help to reminisce on the free agent class of 2009. Only this time instead of think of Portland's failed courtship of Hedo Turkoglu, I started to think of Detroit's terrible decision making which left them with Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva eating their cap space. I fear we are in a similar position where we are trying to reach instant success in order to appease the veterans on our team, as Detroit did for Prince and Hamilton. Your view on Evans, Mayo and Reddick seemed eerily similar to Ben Gordon a la 2008 and 2009. You have also state, I believe accurately, that the Blazers must spend their money this summer. So my question is, would it be better for the Blazers to go after a high risk/reward player where if it works we are championship contenders but if it doesn't we are bottom feeders, or spend the money on overpaid mediocre players that may get us to the first round or may get us a high teens pick again?

Peter

This is what's great about the NBA. In the broadest sense your concern is justified. The Blazers will need to distinguish between Mr. Right and Mr. Right Now when courting free agents. But the equation is too complex to be encompassed by any one generality.

Ben Gordon carried some nice offensive numbers when he hit free agency, had a reputation as an iron man (which would disappear soon after), and had even won the 6th Man of the Year award in his rookie season. For all that, though, he was still a 6'3" shooting guard who couldn't defend a lick. Gordon's demise was aided by his move to a fractured team with a rookie coach. He returned to the bench after starting in Chicago, losing minutes and shots in the process. It never worked out. His game got exposed and he was never the same.

If the 2009 Ben Gordon were available today the Blazers might be intrigued. At the same time we'd be asking some serious questions. As a 6th man this team would probably welcome him. But starting or even playing serious minutes alongside Lillard would be a near-non-starter because nobody could compensate for the lack of backcourt "D". We'd have to ask if Gordon was the kind of guy who could get in, get his points, then get right back out of the way. Although his efficiency numbers were pretty good, that was never his style.

O.J. Mayo is probably the closest analogy to Gordon among the players you mentioned. He's neither as prolific nor as efficient of a scorer as Gordon was at his peak. But you're getting him mostly for offense, relying on his jumper to generate buckets, straddling the line between whether he'll start or come off the bench. If it's the latter, you have to be worried about him. His spotty track record also makes you question if you're buying a guy at his best-looking moment only to rue it later.

Tyreke Evans is a completely different animal. He'd likely start for you as he has in Sacramento, though there's some question about his fit with Lillard. He's a driver with size, a guy you'd get for his style of play and the new wrinkle it gave your offense as much as his ability. You'd worry about defense but you could also chalk up his poor showing so far to playing in Sacramento.

J.J. Redick's shot is never going away even if you blindfold him. He's a bench player and nothing but except in an emergency, making his flaws less important and his mindset more secure. He fits more naturally than any of the above three guards but he doesn't have the same potential to transform the team. He's less of a boost to the engine, more of a tune-up to maximize efficiency.

Which of these players you'd favor depends on what you're looking for. Production alone says Gordon. Fit alone says Redick. Potential sides with Evans. Mayo is a mix of the three. The point here is that none of these guys, even Gordon, would be an automatic signing for the Blazers. If I had to handicap the race I'd say the Blazers would be more interested in Evans, Mayo, or Redick than they would be in Ben Gordon circa 2009 unless they were dead certain B.G. would happily come off the bench again. If he's the archetype of the player you don't want to sign you don't have to worry. The Blazers probably wouldn't sign him.

Because the Blazers have to be careful with their money--needing help at multiple positions--and have to get these decisions right the players they're looking at will be under a microscope. Nobody will be perfect but the combination of price, talent, fit, and potential will have to add up before Portland pulls the trigger. If they can't find a couple mid-priced guys who meet their requirements they can always try to blow big money on one guy who does. This isn't 2011 when they're throwing last-second money at mediocre players to shore up a last, desperate run with a crumbling roster. They have to build solidly, for the future. That's what they'll try.

As far as the home run versus safe double question, you've pretty much set it up to answer itself. If the home run swing is there and the odds are anything north of miserable you take the chance. But if you can't get your home run you have to take two doubles and hope to score. The Blazers seem to self-assess as being "close" so they'd prefer the doubles to a huge-risk homer cut but they won't say no to a reasonable home-run chance. That said, reasonable home-run chances don't usually hit the open market.

Dave,

You keep saying the Blazers should target the best available talent this off-season. I'm not arguing.

Are you restricting your view of 'best available talent' to free agents, or do you believe that criteria can apply to all players in the NBA?

Finally, is Josh Smith the best available talent to the Blazers?

hellofromengland

The Blazers need the best available talent any way they can get it. Trades, draft, and free agency all qualify.

However the Blazers also have to distinguish between theoretical and functional talent. Josh Smith is a huge talent theoretically but his attitude and playing style have combined to lessen his impact in Atlanta, where he fit comfortably into the rotation. He'd fit less comfortably into Portland's. There's no reason to speculate that he'd reform his ways here. Therefore the payoff wouldn't match the potential. If he had a reputation as an incredible worker, a guy who does anything to win, the story would be different.

Hi Dave,

You've said that we need to draft talent over need and your approach would be to draft the best player available. If there is one guy available at each position, each with exactly the same level of talent, which one would you select and why?

JonathanPDX

This would never happen. That aside, assuming you mean with Portland's highest pick, you draft the shooting or combo-guard because he'd have an easier time adjusting and making an impact than a center would. Also he wouldn't have to start. Then you go out and get a veteran center.

Dave,

Do the Blazers have any say over whether Nicolas Batum can play international ball in the off season? I know Nate McMillian used to support, thinking the more Nic played, the better he would get, and far be it from me to tell someone not to play for their nation. However, each of the last three seasons, Batum has suffered injuries towards the end of the season that, when combined with the fatigue that comes with the NBA season, have contributed to a distinct decline in his play.

It seems to me that he and the Blazers both would be better served if Batum chose not to play in the offseason, instead focusing on getting completely healthy and working on specific aspects of his game to improve.

Scott

They don't and they won't. McMillan had him as a young, raw player. It's likely that his tune would change now. And I agree. Nicolas shouldn't be playing in the summer if he can't put in a full, energetic, and relatively injury-free season for the team that's paying him $11 million per year. But that's not our decision. If extra exposure back home or national pride impel him to play, he'll do it.

Dave,

I've been watching the playoffs and, as a Blazers fan, can't help but notice the play of Jarrett Jack and Jared Bayless. They are both playing great basketball on the big stage. Who, if any, would you rather have back on the Blazers: Jack or Bayless?

Matt

Given the choice, Jack. He had the better attitude and would give the Blazers more of what they need. You didn't need Jack as much if you had Brandon Roy. Now the Blazers could use him.

If you have a Mailbag question you can send it to the address below with "Mailbag" in the subject line. Thanks to all those who are sending questions in!

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Can the Blazers Trade Out of the 2013 Draft?

Dave — Tue, 28 May 2013 04:09:35 -0000

Last week we explored what moving up in the draft would look like for the Trail Blazers. (A theme picked up by Bill Simmons over the weekend.) Today we're going to explore the opposite move, trading out of the draft entirely.

Why Would the Blazers Want to Trade Out of the Draft?

Bailing out of a lottery position is not a prudent move under normal circumstances. Draft picks not only represent the future health of the franchise, they provide the better production per dollar invested than any other category of player in the league. The rookie contract scale tops out at about $5.9 million for the #1 overall pick after four years and go down from there. Those #1 picks are supposed to be stars. Think you can get a star on the open market for $5.9 million?

By comparison Portland's #10 pick would cost them about $2.6 million in the fourth year of his deal. That's third-string point guard money for a lottery pick. There's no substitute for having a player's right so long and so cheaply. If you can find anybody good with those high picks you have to take him. You'll never find a better deal.

Notice we said "under normal circumstances" though. This year two abnormal factors combine to make what would normally be a bonehead move into a smart consideration for the Blazers.

1. As has been proclaimed since before last year's draft, the 2013 rookie crop looks weak. If you don't like the word "weak" you can substitute "flat" instead. There aren't many peaks here. Even the premier picks carry significant question marks and you don't find many high-ceiling players in lottery position.

I've heard some claim, "Every draft contains some star players." Most drafts do, it's true. But that reasoning is the same as, "There are always seashells on the beach!" That's accurate until there aren't. Saying it will not make the tide come in when you get to the shore and find mostly bare sand. If shell hunters have been to this stretch before you, as is the case with anyone drafting after #5 or so, "mostly bare" becomes "completely". Unless, of course, you like half-broken sand dollars. Every once in a blue moon you find a year like 1973 or 2000 when the pickings range from slim to none.

2. You can probably argue with a straight face that the Blazers can get a future decent player at #10 but the Blazers need more than a future decent player. They're flush with experiments, guys you hope for, guys you're waiting on. Their bench was populated with pretty much nothing but last season. They have enough Will Bartons, Meyers Leonards, Victor Clavers...and those are the elite names in the bunch. They need solid help now. That's a tall order with the 10th pick in 2013.

Cross-reference the state of the draft with the needs of the team and you're going to find that trading their lottery pick for an asset makes sense for Portland if they can pull it off.

What's Standing in the Way

The lottery being the sweet spot in today's NBA, the Blazers would normally find suitors aplenty for their dangling selection. Once again, circumstances aren't normal.

Everybody else around the league knows this draft is weak as well. Teams will target players but there won't be as much consensus and they're not going to pay as much to hit those targets as they would be willing to in a stronger year. Fewer teams liking fewer players means a much smaller chance of finding that magical combination of need and willingness to pay that sparks trades.

This could be confusing to those who read the article on Portland moving up in the draft which speculated that such a move would be comparatively easy. Moving up and moving out are completely different types of trades.

Imagine 14 people are standing in line because they got a coupon for a free plain bagel for breakfast. It's free and they've got nothing else to do, so what the heck. They'll each get to pick a bagel when they redeem their ticket so the folks in the front of the line are going to get slightly bigger bagels, but everybody will eventually get a bagel of some sort.

If you're standing in the 10th position in line and you want a bigger bagel it's going to be a fairly easy matter to get the guy in the 5th position to switch with you. He's comparing bagels to bagels. All you have to do is give him enough incentive to take a slightly smaller one. Slip him a dollar and he comes out ahead: a buck and a free bagel instead of a free slightly bigger bagel is a good deal for him...his lucky day!

If you turn instead to passersby on the street and start trying to sell the coupon and your place in line you're going to find a tougher audience. They're not comparing bagels to bagels. They have omelettes, stacks of pancakes, bacon, or the money to buy same. Most of them won't want a bagel instead of their normal breakfast. (You might not have either, except it was free.) Even interested parties won't be willing to pay you enough to get a Grand Slam at Denny's just to get a bagel themselves. Your buck and a bagel just doesn't carry much buying power outside of the bagel line. You're going to need to find somebody who really values these particular bagels in order to swing a deal. And even then, such a connoisseur would probably prefer to buy in closer to the front of the line.

It's the same thing with the Blazers trying to find established players in exchange for the #10 pick. Absent additional incentives they'll have a hard time getting somebody to turn over real assets for that selection.

The phrase "additional incentives" evokes the same question we found in the trading up post. What have the Blazers got to offer? Their bench players are closer to pocket lint than breakfast. Their upper core players can't be traded without rebuilding the team. They're left with Wesley Matthews, Nicolas Batum, or taking on a bad salary.

Moving Matthews or Batum made some sense in the trade up scenario because the Blazers would gain a better pick plus extra cap space to sign free agents in addition to the higher draft pick. It's not a 2-for-1 deal for Portland because they'd get more players with the newly-available money, turning it into a 2-for-2 affair at least.

In the trade out scenario the departing player's cap space would presumably get eaten by the incoming player. Plus the Blazers would lose their pick without gaining one in return. This is a true 2-for-1 deal. The incoming player would have to replace the value of the #10 selection and the core player the Blazers traded out. That's a pretty high bar to clear for any player the Blazers could reasonably get in such a move. It's hard to imagine it turning more than lateral.

This is also true if the Blazers absorb a bad salary in addition to a prized asset when they're trading out the pick. Each dollar they take on means a dollar less to sign someone else. In this case they may keep their Core Four and get one more guy but that would be their summer. Again it's hard to imagine an incoming player who could make that kind of move work all by himself.

The Ultimate Sticking Point

Now cold, harsh reality smacks the Blazers in the face. If it were just a matter of not liking anyone in the lottery and getting out, they could do that. "Who wants a free bagel?" would be enough. But the cupboard is bare for Portland. They need help in multiple places and they need to improve on a relatively quick timetable. They can't afford not to like anybody and just get out. They can't afford to go laterally. They have to maximize every single asset this summer, including this pick. That either means falling in love with somebody at #10 or making measurable headway by trading it.

It's a strange situation because there's no clear solution. The first question you ask is, "Can the Blazers afford to pick at 10 and wait for a potentially-shaky guy to develop?" Probably not. Then you ask, "Can the Blazers afford to trade out and get a more experienced, bankable player?" For completely different reasons the answer is, "Probably not." You're trapped into figuring which move costs you less and carries less risk instead of asking which move takes you forward most. The Blazers can't afford that mindset either.

Everywhere you turn your head bonks something. Welcome to life in the Portland front office.

Conclusion

If they can find a veteran rotation player they like and a team willing to trade that player for #10 and not much else moving out of the lottery is a no-brainer for the Blazers. Parlaying that "maybe" pick into certain depth is the best option possible. But absent the Dwight-Howard-Displaced-Center unicorn scenario the add-on cost of turning that bagel into even an Egg McMuffin, let alone Eggs Benedict, may prove too high to make the move practical for Portland. They may end up having to eat the free bagel and hope it holds enough nutritional value to see them through.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Dallas Trade, Summer Hope, Stars and Draftees

Dave — Fri, 24 May 2013 04:06:11 -0000

Mailbag time! For information on how to submit your question see the end of this post.

Dave,

Saw your post about moving up in the draft. Folks are saying Dallas wants to cut cap space to sign Dwight Howard. How about getting that 13 pick and then packaging it with the 10 to move up? That would get us somewhere, right?

Rob

First, I don't think the Blazers really want to move up in this draft. Ideally they'd prefer to move out in exchange for a helpful veteran. The goal of that post was to look at possible options, not to endorse the general course of action.

Second, the scenario you described sounds good on paper...very, very thin paper. It doesn't make much sense in real life for a few reasons.

You have to suspect any trade reasoning that relies more on the motive of your team's trading partner than the actual talent exchanged. We hear these things every year. "This team wants to dump salary. That team is rebuilding. The other team is supposedly dissatisfied with a player." These things do play into trades but NONE of them substitute for talent or turn a horrible move into a good one. Teams do not just dump assets willy-nilly. Even if they have an overall goal in mind they still want to maximize value at each step of the way.

Let's just say Dallas is interested in saving cap space for Howard. You still have to answer these questions.

1. O.J. Mayo is opting out and will have to leave in order for the Mavs to offer Howard a full salary. That's going to leave them at about the $40 million mark, give or take. Will the $1.7 million they'd owe the 13th pick make THAT much of a difference, particularly since they can save close to a million by renouncing the rights to Petteri Koponen?

2. Why should Dallas trade that pick to Portland as opposed to any of the 28 other teams? What offer can the Blazers make? Second rounders? Cash? Who can't match that? Where does Portland get the edge to make this deal work?

3. The draft happens in June. The Mavs can't woo Howard until July and have no guarantee of getting him. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to hedge their bets by drafting a player they could use and then dumping that player for next to nothing in July if they do get Howard? The Blazers would need them to make the move in June with no assurance of ultimate success in order to make a trade plan work.

4. Most importantly of all, since you're speculating the pick is all but free for the taking why wouldn't the team the Blazers want to trade it to just go and get it from Dallas themselves? If you're Charlotte and you have a choice between trading the #4 pick for #10 and #13 or spending a couple second-rounders to draft #4 and #13 which would you take? Given the choice wouldn't the Mavs prefer to help an out-of-conference team rather than the Blazers?

So many trade scenarios contain steps that just don't make sense, relying on perceived context rather than actual trade value. Sometimes crazy things happen in this league but you can't depend on them. Most of the time they happen to somebody else besides you.

Put yourself in the other GM's shoes. Pretend it's the summer of 2014, LaMarcus Aldridge has one year remaining on his contract, and rumor has it he's going to leave next year. How are you going to feel when everybody starts saying, "Just offer Tyrus Thomas, some cap filler, and the 12th pick for him. They're going to lose him anyway!" Are you going to take that kind of deal? No way. You'd rather ride out the summer, try to trade him at the deadline, or even let him walk than take back pieces that have little value or make no sense.

Phoenix is not going to give away Marcin Gortat because his contract has but one year left and they're rebuilding. Cleveland is not in charity mode just because Anderson Varejao doesn't fit their timetable. The Mavericks may end up selling the 13th pick low but there's no guarantee you'll be the one who gets it and if you do there's no guarantee you'll find a buyer to flip it to.

Hi Dave,

Now that the lottery is over, the reality of our situation is setting in. The #10 pick is not going to deliver a star and maybe not even a starter, or at best a flawed one. Our core isn't made up of young guys with potential anymore and the timeline to develop a whole new core of young talent doesn't really line up with the position and age of our best players. We have slim odds to pick up high quality free agents or to turn our assets into a veteran who isn't too old or not good enough. Even if we did we'd still need a bench!

It seems like we're in the dreaded no-mans land, where we're too good to get great draft picks and too lousy to compete in the playoffs. Is there any solution besides crossing our fingers? Our last 6 drafts have netted little (Batum and Lillard), can you give us some hope that next draft, season, or cycle of team development will be better?

Jonathan

We've said from the beginning, and often since, that what the Blazers are attempting this summer is going to be hard. Ask me point blank if I think they can pull off a revolutionary coup and I'm going to tell you no, the odds are low. They'll probably have to dish out more salesmanship than reassurance when October rolls around. But that doesn't mean you have to walk out on a ledge. There are plenty of possibilities.

We already mentioned one last night. Even among the unlikely "move up" draft scenarios a Charlotte move isn't completely far-fetched. If I'm Portland's GM I'm talking to Rich Cho right now, asking if he's interested in a two-for-one by swapping his 4th pick for my 10th and Wesley Matthews. If Cho doesn't fancy Victor Oladipo, wants a big man instead but can't get to the #1 spot himself, trading down in this draft makes sense. Picking up a starter in that exchange also could make sense for Charlotte. Matthews is better than any second player they'd get in this draft and as good as any free agent they could find. If Charlotte's needs match up, that two-for-one deal is attractive.

If I'm Portland, I take Oladipo to fill Matthews' spot. More importantly I've just added to my cap space...now projected to hover near $18 million if the total cap rises to $60 million. With that kind of money I can now make a run at a center while still affording to add a second player. Dwight Howard is now the only available center out of reach. I can take on anybody else's expensive center in a trade if they get Dwight. I can sign any unrestricted free agent center you could imagine. I've also opened the possibility of making an obnoxious offer to a restricted free agent that their current team might not match. So let's say I make a huge offer to Tiago Splitter or Nikola Pekovic. I also start bidding for J.J. Redick or O.J. Mayo or Jarrett Jack. I still sign Jermaine O'Neal with the veteran's minimum or room exception. Prefer Josh Smith or Tyreke Evans? You could get one or the other and still fill in with a decent center.

If Portland's off-season looked like: Oladipo, good or great center, good or great wing, Jermaine O'Neal and the only significant loss from this year's roster was Wesley Matthews the joint would be going crazy.

No scenario is likely. But is this kind of think possible? Could be. You never know until you try. So get off that ledge and start hoping like the rest of us.

Dave,

Do you see Lillard and Aldridge as good enough to lead a team? Or do you think the Blazers are still looking for their "star"?

Brad

Both are stars. Both are plenty good enough. Both will need help. The roster had so many holes this year it was like putting two Olympic-level rowers in a colander. No matter how hard they worked, teams with intact boats were going to win.

The Blazers need a center and bench depth. We all know this. The Blazers also need another spark somewhere. We're not talking LeBron James. There's only one of him. Whether it's center, 6th man, consistently outstanding play from Batum, or trading for an established star, they just need a little more zap and intimidation factor in the rotation. With the basics covered and that extra zap, Aldridge and Lillard will look really good. More to the point, if you took either away then covering the basics and providing the extra zap wouldn't put the Blazers that far ahead.

Dave,

A couple college/draft related questions for you. Are you a fan of the college game, or are you primarily an NBA fan? How much does your fandom of the college game affect how you evaluate draft prospects, or do you mostly view them as tabula rasa? Finally, if the Blazers end up keeping their draft pick this year (likely 10), who would you reasonably like take? Would you look to the wing or center?

Kyle

Other than a few tournament games almost all my exposure to the college game comes through scouting film and listening to guys who do scouting work. I just don't have time to follow a second sport. Therefore I'm much less a college game fan than a college player shark. I cut corners by evaluating most heavily the prospects the Blazers are most likely to select based on their draft positions and needs. I'm actually quite good if you stick to the first round. If you get deep into the second you're mostly over my head, but that's why the basketball blogosphere is so big. Plenty of guys specialize in that and I appreciate their work. I can cover most of the material on any given player in a matter of hours so it's easier for me to study up on the guys the Blazers do pick in the second round than to anticipate the players they could pick. Within 8 hours after the draft the results are the same as far as what you guys see.

And yes, that makes each crop of draftees a tabula rasa for me. I have few preconceived notions going into the process. That often turns out to be a strength. I don't get bothered by reputations, historical expectations, or impressions from developmental years. Sometimes I feel like a Quality Control Inspector, just watching the finished product go by on the assembly line, checking for strengths and flaws. I get plenty of help to bracket and modify my impressions. It generally works.

The Blazers should pick the best player on the board when the #10 selection comes around. Right now it looks like that's going to be a big, which is why the Blazers should do everything they can to make sure they're not on the board when the #10 selection comes around. I'm still going through the slate of players. We'll start looking at specific draftees in a couple weeks.

Keep those Mailbag questions coming to the address below with "Mailbag" in the subject line.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Can the Blazers Move Up in the Draft?

Dave — Thu, 23 May 2013 05:14:43 -0000

Now that the Portland Trail Blazers have secured the #10 pick in the 2013 NBA Draft we can begin looking at their possibilities. Today we'll tackle one that seems popular, moving up in the draft order.

We're going to stay relatively value-neutral on whether the Blazers should look to move up in the draft and for whom they'd be moving. Feel free to discuss those things in the comment section. We'll tackle those questions another day ourselves. But for purposes of this post we're going to assume the Blazers do want to move up for somebody. What might that move look like? Could they actually pull it off?

What the Trail Blazers Have to Offer

The most obvious asset the Blazers can offer in trade right now is their #10 pick. Since most folks in the know project this draft to be stocked with a dozen or so good, but not great, players Portland's low-lottery selection actually carries more value to teams looking to trade down than it would in a more exciting year. Things to know:

1. This does not apply to teams looking to trade into the draft. To them that #10 selection looks like a marginal player because they're comparing the draftee to their current guys. But teams above Portland in the order are forced into drafting a marginal player anyway. If they think they can get equal value a few spots lower the smart move is to parlay their pick into a player and an extra asset by trading down.

2. Let's not go crazy here. Holding the #4 selection is still significantly better than holding #10. It might be easier to talk those higher teams into a swap than it would be in most other years but you still have to make a good offer. They're not going to trade picks just to be nice or just because the draft has been termed "weak".

The striking thing about Portland's position right now is how few assets they can throw into a deal besides the draft pick.

LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard

If either one of these players is traded it'll be part of a larger scheme than just moving up a few spaces in a weak draft. Discussing them in this context is like buying a backhoe to plant a petunia.

Any Number of Bench Players

NBA rules prevent the Blazers from trading players whose contracts expire this summer so you can forget your J.J. Hickson and Luke Babbitt deals. However Portland still has the potential to trade Will Barton, Sasha Pavlovic, Victor Claver, Meyers Leonard, or Joel Freeland.

Collectively those players aren't worth much. Leonard is the only guy who might draw interest but trading away last year's lottery pick is a rare move in the NBA. This is doubly so if the player in question is a center and the team trading him away really needs a center. Unless you talk very fast the other team is going to interpret that offer as you giving up on him. That's going to make them as why they would want him.

Crazy things happen sometimes, but if the Blazers held a high lottery pick would you be happy if your GM traded it for a lower pick and one of these players? Probably not.

Second Round Picks

Copy and paste the paragraphs above. You could use a second-rounder as a throw-in but there's no way the 10th and 39th picks will move you up very far in the order.

Future First Round Picks

Complications from owing Charlotte a future first-rounder push such an offer far enough into the future to make it unlikely.

With all of these options essentially off the table, at least as far as primary inducements, the Blazers are left with three cards to play.

Wesley Matthews

Matthews is a young but experienced shooting guard making $6.9 million next season with one additional year at $7.2 million. His ceiling isn't impressive but he's solid and fills the shooter-defender role popular among NBA shooting guards these days. Unfortunately for the Blazers 3 of the top 10 projected draftees at this point read shooting guard. Potential trading partners would have to value Matthews' reliability more than the promise of a lottery pick rookie.

Nicolas Batum

Like Matthews, Batum shoots and defends. He also runs, passes, and sports a ceiling as-yet-unknown. For those reasons he'd be a more attractive trade piece than Wesley. His $11.3 million salary next season, running for two more after with raises, makes him much more of a commitment for the receiving team though.

Cap Space

Portland will have the ability to take back salary this summer, as they'll be under the cap come July. The Blazers couldn't execute an unbalanced trade before July 1st. They could agree to a future deal, taking on a bloated contract in July. Portland's trading partner would make a selection for the Blazers at the higher pick, the Blazers would return the favor at #10, and the teams would swap the contracted player and the draft rights once the calendar turns.

Obviously any contracts the Blazers take on in this manner would take away from their available cap space to sign free agents or execute other trades. In essence the Blazers would be valuing their new rookie more than they'd value the 10th selection and a free agent of the bloated contract's value. That's a high bar to clear for that rookie.

It's worth noting that the cap space deal works both ways. If the Blazers were to trade away Batum and #10 to move up (taking no players in return except the new draftee) they'd have $11 million more cap space in July. They wouldn't be trading two-for-one as much as trading Batum and #10 for their new rookie and the ability to sign one or more free agents with that extra cap space.

Summation

The following characteristics typify ideal trading partners for the Blazers:

In possession of a high enough pick for Portland to get a player they covet
Looking for a veteran shooting guard or small forward
Able to absorb $7-11 million in salary this summer OR...
Looking to dump a contract of a player the Blazers would find useful OR...
Willing to trade a player or players to match salaries with Matthews or Batum in a more traditional deal

Potential Trading Partners

#9 Minnesota Timberwolves, #8 Detroit Pistons, #7 Sacramento Kings

Trading up a couple spots is less a matter of difficulty and more a matter of utility. The 'Wolves would probably take Nicolas Batum and the Pistons Wesley Matthews but that wouldn't make sense for Portland to move up 1 or 2 spots. If the Blazers wanted to and if the Pistons and 'Wolves knew the Blazers wouldn't be selecting their target a second round pick or two would probably suffice. Would the Blazers be able to get the player they wanted at 8 or 9 though?

The Kings would probably say yes to any number of swaps including just taking an expensive player off of their hands. But again, would #7 do it for the Blazers?

#6 New Orleans Pelicans

The Pelicans fulfill several of the criteria the Blazers will be looking for. They're well under the cap next year and could well be looking for a small forward and a shooting guard. They'll need a shooting guard because their very-expensive ($14-15 million per year over the next three seasons) shooting guard, Eric Gordon, isn't helping them enough and they want out of the relationship.

Gordon's no superstar. He dominates the ball, doesn't shoot threes well, his defense is suspect. But the guy can score...and score...and score. If the Blazers think he's the kick in the pants this lineup needs, getting him while moving up could be quite attractive.

Nevertheless this feels like a miss for several reasons. The Pelicans could get multiple offers for Gordon. Since they're already way under the cap next year salary relief won't be the most pressing issue for them. They'll want talent. Likely they'll think that the Blazers should be swapping a higher pick with them in order to get Gordon. Even if they've soured on him, the talent disparity is too high. Plus they're young and not close to contending so they could afford to grow with a rookie shooting guard instead of filling the gap with Matthews.

Portland has to consider Gordon's injuries, compatibility, and even discounting Wesley Matthews' contract $14 million of salary is nothing to sneeze at.

The option to trade Matthews and the #10 for New Orleans' #6 straight up is still there. Robin Lopez might be another attractive piece, particularly if the Pelicans think they can get a big at 10. But will #6 get the Blazers the player they need?

#5 Phoenix Suns

The Suns also have salary cap space, holes at the wing positions, and a tempting veteran to offer Portland: center Marcin Gortat.

Gortat is a much nicer fit with a much nicer price than Gordon. The 5th pick might also get the Blazers a coveted player. The problem here is making it work from the Suns end.

Phoenix is under no pressure to fire sale Gortat. No matter how much they love or hate him, he's a quality starting center. He's not expensive. They can take their time and field offers. Even if they think they can get a replacement big at #10 trading down for (presumably) less talent and trading a decent center for a decent shooting guard with no cap relief involved makes little sense.

Nicolas Batum might be the silver bullet to this deal but then the Suns are going backwards in cap space and the Blazers now have a huge hole at small forward. Unless Portland loves Otto Porter (which I don't think will be the case) they're either targeting Victor Oladipo and creating a shooting guard logjam or they're looking at spending a high pick on a big who's going to play behind Gortat. That's not an impossible conundrum from Portland's end but they'd need a strong free agent small forward to balance the roster.

If the Suns really loved Batum, if the Blazers were willing to part with him, if the Blazers loved a guy available at #5, and if the Blazers could also follow up with that key forward signing this might work. That's a lot of "ifs".

#4 Charlotte Horncats

This pick hits the sweet spot for Portland. They're high enough to have their (reasonable) pick of players but low enough they're not paying luxury prices to move up. Charlotte has cap space to absorb a player, a bad salary to dump, and they'll need a shooting guard. (Small forward is all sewn up.)

There are three ways this deal works. The first would be a straight two-for-one value move on Charlotte's part. They get Wesley Matthews and #10. Since they desperately need big guys, that might look like a good move for them if they only see two great bigs in the draft and they go in the top three. A mid-level big and a starting shooting guard is better than reaching for a mid-level big. The other possibility is Charlotte going the free-agent route and dumping Tyrus Thomas' $8.6 million contract (with another year left at $9.3...one of the more ridiculous contracts in the league right now) to clear cap space. The hybrid, with Thomas and the #4 coming Portland's way and Matthews plus #10 going out, is also possible. That would preserve some of Portland's remaining cap room. Thomas would eat a huge chunk of Portland's space without Matthews leaving.

The questions here: Does Portland value a guy in the 4th spot highly enough? It would almost have to be Oladipo, replacing the outgoing Matthews. Is that enough of a step up for the Blazers, especially if they have to eat Thomas' contract as well? Second, does Charlotte want a big in the draft or would they settle for a shooting guard? If they don't mind drafting a wing Oladipo would make more sense for them than Matthews from a ceiling and cost standpoint.

I'm guessing if the Blazers really, really wanted to they could convince Charlotte to deal. I'm just not sure the payoff here is worth it.

#3 Washington Wizards

The Wizards are a mess. The Wizards need a small forward. The Wizards are at the cap line next year. The Wizards have two true bigs in Nene and Emeka Okafor. They're tying up $27 million in cap space--half their allotment--between those two and cannot afford to keep doing that. Their likely pick at #3 would be another big. It sure seems like something has to give here.

The main reason to trade from Washington's point of view would be redistributing salary rather than creating more space. Even if you take the most expensive contract they could offer Portland--Okafor's $14.5 million, they're still only gaining $3 in cap room in a deal for Batum. Nevertheless you could argue that spending $14 million on Batum and the #10 draft pick would be better than spending $14 million on Okafor with Nene and Trevor Booker already in uniform. The drawback for the Wizards is that they're taking on long-term contracts where Okafor expires after next season.

If they're willing to wait one more summer they'll have plenty of cap space and the ability to revamp their roster, building around John Wall, Bradley Beal, and Nene. Under those conditions executing the #3 pick this year may make more sense.

Again the question for Portland is, would Okafor for Batum be worth moving up? They'd get a center. They'd get their man at #3. They'd have some salary cap space left. They'd have more if they could convince the Wizards to take Joel Freeland as well. Again they'd be searching among free agents or further trades to fill the hole at small forward.

#2 Orlando Magic and #1 Cleveland Cavaliers

Making a deal with either of these teams seems improbable. Orlando's needs can be filled more easily and cheaply by executing the pick than by trading with Portland. I don't see Cleveland giving up their selection, at least not to go down that far. In both cases a move would cost the Blazers more than they'd be willing to pay for a rookie who's not proven to help them win now. It could be a great rebuilding move, but the Blazers already rebuilt and are looking to move upwards.

Do you think it would be advisable, or even practical, for Portland to try and move up in this draft? Go ahead and discuss these moves and the million alternate scenarios below.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: Damian Lillard Reaction, Image, Fishbowls, and Racism

Dave — Tue, 21 May 2013 06:46:23 -0000

This (second!) Mailbag today addresses the reaction to the incident with Damian Lillard's entourage and a possible bar altercation detailed here. If that's not your cup of tea (and it's not mine either but we might as well get the questions over and done with instead of dragging it out for weeks) then you can find the Draft Lottery Drawing Day version of the Mailbag here.

Dave,

Damian Lillard, entourage, bar fight, AAAAAAAHHHH!!! My stomach just turned a loop. How serious is this? Innocent, dumb mistake, or sign of bad things to come? Help! I want my innocence back!

Thomas

Two clashing waves of reaction come from situations like this. Half the people accuse while the other half excuse.

"He shouldn't have been out there thugging it up at 2:30 a.m. and why does he have an 'entourage' anyway?!?"

"Those guys who got beat up must have been looking for trouble, probably to get rich off of suing an NBA millionaire!"

We don't have enough knowledge about the actual incident to go down either of those paths. Nobody knows except the people involved and they likely have wildly different interpretations of the events in question. We're not ever going to know exactly what went down or why. There's nothing to accuse anybody of at this point, nothing to excuse either. Confrontations like this happen all the time. Usually they go by the boards as everybody gets on with life. One of the onlookers (perhaps an interested party) in this event will get on with a life of NBA stardom. That's the only odd factor in this whole story and it's not indicative of anything much.

If such incidents become commonplace for Lillard then we have a problem. But you can't deal with that unless it happens. Until it does--and hopefully it never will--take a couple antacids, calm your stomach, and get back to rooting for the guy.

If folks aren't satisfied with that, I can add some generalities:

1. If the JailBlazer era, yellow hummers, drag races with loaded guns through downtown streets, and police reports about hotel assaults had never happened, how big would the reaction to this story be? The stomach churning comes more from old scars than new fears. Damian Lillard should be aware of those things but he's not responsible for them. We're responsible for factoring in the source of our reactions before we lay stuff on him. That's true whether this incident ends up as nothing at all or a major deal.

2. People are entitled to be young. If there were mistakes here (and we don't know that there were) then people are entitled to a few of those too. That includes NBA people and people taking pictures of NBA people.

3. As we grow older we start to realize that we can't have everything. Having access to every relatively uninhibited public environment in town, partying among a social-media generation, and retaining complete control over photo images may be mutually exclusive goals. Working that out may be a learning process. All of us have those learning processes. Most of us don't go through them under media scrutiny.

4. Risk assessment is also part of life. In my opinion nobody should get sanctimonious about bar hopping at 2:00 a.m. Almost everybody has done it. Mostly it's fine. But personal confrontations in this day and age seem to carry more risk than they used to. Get into enough of them and you're going to run into somebody who considers himself a legit gangster or tough guy. Sometimes those guys pack more than fists. Neither you nor your friends want to be handling those situations. It's a bad idea from personal safety and media relations standpoints and neither one of those go away. The risk-reward of random clubbing versus finding a place where the owner can give you your own space and vet the people coming into contact with you (including handling the "no picture" thing) may be something to examine.

Summing up: Damian Lillard was somewhere near a situation which proved volatile both immediately and in its ripple effect. He may or may not have been responsible for the immediate scenario. He's certainly not responsible for all of the ripple effect but that's not something he can control either, nor will it change. He'll have to decide who he is (and who he wants to become) personally and professionally, make a risk-reward assessment, and plan for the future accordingly. Each of us has to do the same at some point in our lives...at multiple points really. Some end up good at it, some not. We'll see which way Damian goes.

While I do find this newsworthy in terms of reporting the incident--and would continue to do so should something similar happen again--debating and dissecting his personal assessment/choices like they were basketball moves seems repugnant to me. I don't believe we have the obligation, knowledge, or authority to pick apart his personal decisions the way we pick apart his pick and roll defense. He's getting paid millions to make the latter mistake-free. Not so for the former. We can't help but observe because he's a public figure. He derives some social capital from that observation so there's some benefit with the price. But having thousands of strangers pass judgment on incomplete information without knowing your mindset is too high of a price unless your actions cause repeated and substantial public harm. We're not even close to that with Lillard.

Dave,

Doesn't Damian Lillard have to be more conscious of his public image? He's a public figure making millions. Responsibility comes with the territory.

Pete

Maybe he needs to be less conscious of his public image. Concern over getting posted on the internet in less than pristine condition was supposedly a motivating factor in the incident.

Why are we so concerned with "public image" anyway? Lillard is brilliant in front of a microphone. His public addresses charm everyone. He seems so nice, stable, perfect, funny. You have to know he's not like that every second of every day, right? Nobody could be.

My guess is that Lillard is worried because he's gone to great pains to show the best part of himself when being interviewed and representing the team...exactly as he should. He's good at it and is being rewarded for it...exactly as he should. But he also lives in a society where one picture on the internet can cause hundreds of thousands of people to say, "He's a totally phony jerk! This is the real Damian Lillard!" That's not the real Damian Lillard any more than the guy on the mic in uniform is. He's a mix of everything, just like we all are. But he won't be judged that way. Instead he'll be judged by how his "image" meets up with people's expectations.

What if we all saw that picture of him looking less-than-perfect and said, "Well, fine. I assumed he wasn't that guy on the mic 24/7"? What if he didn't have to worry that much about photos leaking out because we took the best parts of him at face value and used those for our definition unless confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary which indicated public harm?

Ask people around here if I'm reasonable and most will say yes. Ask people at my church the same thing and you'll get the same answer. Ask my wife and you're going to get a more nuanced tale. Does that single snapshot of me in my worst moments make all the rest a lie? Does it ruin my whole "image"? I hope not. It doesn't for her.

If we want to make the world a better place maybe we should stop fussing about what Damian Lillard is or isn't doing at 2:00 a.m. and start worrying about the system we've created where everybody is either an idol or lower than dirt with no real humanity allowed...the system where image is everything and a 22-year-old guy has to worry about who's taking his picture because it could ruin him.

Dave,

The Portland fishbowl sucks! What players will ever want to come here under this kind of scrutiny!

Skyler

Please, stop.

You want scrutiny? In New York or Los Angeles there would have been photographers taking pictures of the paparazzi who were taking pictures of the two guys taking a picture of Lillard and getting roughed up for it. The biggest difference is that in those bigger, nightlife-oriented cities Lillard probably would have already been steered to a joint like the one mentioned above where the owner would V.I.P. him and take care of everything so Lillard didn't have to. They cater to that kind of thing. But there's no guarantee Damian would even like that treatment.

For the vast majority of players Portland's disadvantages have more to do with ancillary advertising revenue and national media attention than with who's taking whose picture and how quickly it gets spread in the media.

Dave,

It's hard to read about the Lillard bar thing without picking up on racial overtones. Let alone discuss it! I've already heard people throw the word around. I'll just ask. Is Portland racist and is this further proof?

Thad

My earliest education about racism came from the Love Boat. I was a little kid when it ran. I didn't even know what racism was until this one episode when some African-American people came on the ship and Isaac the Bartender (played by the also-African-American Ted Lange) got mad at them. One of the guys was named "Hambone" or something. He was an entertainer. He did this hand-jive thing which Isaac did not want him to do in front of white people. Isaac argued that he was going to set back all the progress his people had made, perhaps impugning Isaac's own credibility with his Caucasian Crewmates.

Looking back now, this is kind of funny. Progress? Hambone probably should have replied, "Dude, you're the bartender." And then Isaac's all, "Yeah, but if the Captain and the Doctor and Gopher all die then it's a fight between me and the coked-out blonde chick to see who will run the whole ship!"

In any case, when Isaac's white friends heard about his angst they scolded him and assured him it was OK. They liked Hambone's act. They weren't going to think anything less of him or of Isaac because of the hand-jive. It was entertaining. I think maybe Isaac joined him in a little jiving to close the show.

Summation of message: Don't worry, Isaac. You can tap dance AND serve us drinks and we'll still like you just fine!

Now keep in mind this was the Love Boat...cotton-candy sweet network TV. They were trying to be as understanding and inclusive and reassuring as they could manage. This was supposed to be a good message.

When you've got a few evil-minded folks among you hurling epithets, trying to hurt and exclude another ethnic group, your society might be kind of racist. When the best possible thing you can think of to say about another ethnic group is still racist...yeah folks, you're racist.

But who knew? That's the point here. Those writers and all us nice white folks who watched thought we were being kind and sweet and totally fair. Looking back, probably not so much. We had no clue. Then again I don't think it's possible to know, at least not completely. It's not possible to parse out all the influences that inform your outlook and actions. Except in its most obvious forms racism can't be discerned internally. Racism happens in the space between us, between people of different ethnic origins. The only way to detect it is through the feedback echoing through that space, by listening and taking each other seriously as we consider these matters.

Is Portland racist? Yes? Maybe? No? I don't know. I know I'm not qualified to answer that question. I'm not sure how much good comes from arriving at such a static label anyway. People prefer a set answer because it absolves them of the need for further discussion on the matter. "Yes! No! Done! Next topic!" Ironically listening to and interacting with people who bring different things to the table than you--particularly those who might be disadvantaged--is the only means of identifying racism and probably the best corrective to it as well.

Circling back to the Lillard reaction and whether it's racist, I'd have to listen a lot longer before I was prepared to offer an opinion. Even then I'm not sure my opinion would matter much. It wouldn't surprise me if racism was a factor. It would kind of surprise me if that's THE factor. Either way, I'm not even an expert on my own racism so I feel at a loss to speak. I've nodded at racist stuff before without even realizing it was racist. How can I answer this about an entire city?

Since this is a basketball blog I'm sensing a basketball subtext to your question as well, as in: "Is Portland more racist than other NBA cities and might incidents like this affect an NBA player's perception of the city's desirability?" Again, I'm no expert. My guess is that every city has its own form of inequality. I'm not sure you escape it as much as find a flavor you can live with. That doesn't absolve us from working on our own, local forms of inequality. But I doubt there's some Utopia City out there where these issues don't exist if that's what you're worried about.

Then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder which means ugly is too. And, by the way, should we even be worried about basketball context when these issues come up? Could that be racism too, since we probably care about these things less because he's an African-American possibly experiencing injustice and more because he's Damian Lillard, Rookie of the Year?

Ugh. I have a headache now and I'm no closer to answering this question than when I started. So I'm going to leave this to wiser souls and go back to figuring whether the Blazers would have the chutzpah to draft Victor Olapido with the #1 overall pick if they got it and couldn't trade down to a more sensible spot to take him. If you're going to take up the racism topic in the comments, please keep it respectful and avoid stomping over or shouting past each other on your way to defend your point.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

Blazer's Edge Mailbag: All About the Lottery

Dave — Tue, 21 May 2013 05:29:07 -0000

The first part of today's Blazer's Edge Mailbag deals with the lottery drawing. The festivities will commence at 5:30 Pacific this evening. Here are the answers to your lottery-based questions.

Dave,

Can you give us the lottery odds for the Blazers finishing with each pick, 1st through 14th?

Bryan

That's easier than you think. The Blazers have 11 combinations out of the 1000 possible combos distributed to the 14 lottery teams. NBA officials will draw three combinations total. Teams in possession of those three combinations will move to the 1, 2, and 3 spots in the order. Everyone else will line up behind them by record, worst record towards the front of the line and best at the back. Only three teams are determined randomly. Everyone else will stay in the same order relative to each other.

Starting from the 10th spot by record before the drawing, the Blazers can only finish in spots 1-3 (if one of their combinations is drawn) or in spots 10-13 (if none of their combinations hit). You either go right near the head of the class with a lucky hit or you stay where you are. The Blazers could move down as far as 13 because teams currently behind them in line could get the lucky draw and leap ahead, pushing Portland back.

If that last part is confusing, just line up 14 pennies and turn all but the 10th to tails. The 10th one (heads) represents Portland. Pick any three pennies besides Portland to shift to the 1, 2, and 3 spots (in that order). If all the pennies you picked were already ahead of the "heads" penny then that penny will remain 10th in line. For each penny you moved up from behind the heads penny it will move back one spot. Now you see the possible range of motion. 1-3 or 10-13. 4th-9th and 14th just aren't possible.

During the lottery reveal you'll want to watch the 13th-10th envelopes. If the Blazers are revealed in one of those slots then you know Portland's pick. If not, they're guaranteed a Top 3 position.

Here are the percentage chances of the Blazers ending up with each pick:

1st--1.1% 2nd--1.3% 3rd--1.5%

10th--87%

11th--8.8% 12th--0.2% 13th 0.1%

Dave,

Since the beginning people have accused the NBA of rigging the lottery. Patrick Ewing went to the Knicks. LeBron went to his home state with Cleveland. New Orleans won last year just after they were purchased. Who's that team this year? Is it time to rig again?

Brendan

It's got to be Sacramento, right? So if the Kings get the lucky draw you know the league is rigged. If they don't then you know the NBA is trying to throw us off the trail by not doing the obvious thing this year, which is further proof that it's rigged.

Dave,

We keep hearing that this is a weak draft. I've also heard people say that nobody should want the #1 overall pick this year. Two part question. Do the Blazers even want a top 3 pick and if they got it what would they do?

Heather

You always want to secure the most options possible. If I told you that you had to travel to Topeka as quickly as you could by commercial bus, would you feel more able to complete your task if I gave you the phone number for one bus company or the whole phone book? Would you be more successful if I handed you $50 to purchase your ticket or $500? More options equal more power.

In the draft, options are defined by pick order. The team at #1 can pick anyone they want. Each team after loses one possible candidate for each space they're behind in line. 9 players will be off the board by the time Pick #10 comes along. Fewer options equals less value.

The Blazers would be foolish to prefer #10 to a Top 3 pick. But that doesn't mean they'd use that Top 3 pick to draft a player.

In common parlance "weak draft" translates to "no immediately evident superstars". That's probably true of this draft. Several draftees could be good, though. When the playing field levels out like that, the players selected 6th or 9th might turn out just as good as the guys going 2nd or 4th.

If the Blazers get a Top 3 pick the first question they should ask is whether they see a probable star in the bunch. If so they should draft him and call it good.

If the Blazers don't believe this year's draft crop will provide a high-percentage star then this would be the ideal year to trade the pick for more useful resources. Somebody out there will covet a high pick. I'd call up the #4-7 pick holders and see if anybody wants to trade up. I can still get a good guy at those spots and maybe get an extra player. If the deal were sweet enough I could also trade for veteran players or future picks without getting a lottery pick back this year.

This should tell you exactly why the Blazers should covet a high pick even in a "weak" draft. If I get #1 or #2 I'm burning up the phone lines to see who wants to make an offer. Doing that with the 10th pick just won't yield the same results.

Note: Our sister site in Utah, SLC Dunk, covers all the numbers and odds in this post. Check it out if you're so inclined. Also all you stat-oriented folks will love this numerical goop that's way over my head at CanisHoopus.

--Dave (blazersub@gmail.com)

OT: J.J. Abrams and Star Trek: Into Darkness

Dave — Mon, 20 May 2013 05:20:44 -0000

From time to time we allow interesting off-topic Fanposts during the off-season. As long as they're clearly marked "OT", of good quality, will generate intelligent discussion, and don't crowd out the basketball talk we might even encourage them. I wanted to offer one today covering the newest Star Trek movie release, J.J. Abrams' Star Trek: Into Darkness. I've seen it twice now and I'd like to share some thoughts and hear those of other people.

This is not a movie review as such. It's certainly not the kind you'd read if you're deciding whether to see the film. It's pretty good. Go see it, then come back and discuss. I'm not going over the whole plot here but there are spoilers, so be warned. This is for people who have seen the movie.

Here's what I like about the Abrams Trek movies so far:

Character Portrayal

I love how Abrams and the actors have updated the characters. You find endearing connections to the old, iconic characters combined with new reasons to root for all of them. This was a landmine waiting to explode. From Kirk's new vulnerability and desire for command to Spock's wit to the kick-butt style of Uhura and Sulu you can't help but saying, "Yeah! Fun! And funny!" In two films these guys have done more to bring life to Star Trek characters than the 10 films before them combined. Of particular note: the supporting cast. Original cast Chekovs and Scottys (not to mention Next Gen Crushers and Trois) would have killed for scenes like the new supporting characters are getting. This was the trickiest part of the transition and they aced it. Brilliant choices, brilliant work.

Special Effects

The special effects are nothing short of amazing. They're neither overwhelming nor flat. They're pretty, well-timed, and fit in. Yes, I even enjoy the lens flares. They remind me that I'm watching a new thing, not just the old thing redone. I have a small logical quibble in that Star Fleet's ship designers must have gotten tired with all the AutoCad work because they wasted a TON of space in this version of the Enterprise. "Yes...we, uh...need Engineering to be 50 stories high with huge open spaces! The warp engines are...air-cooled? Just draw a huge circle in the blueprints on every deck. Done!" But I understand that the ship is movie-big so things can fall a long way and go boom inside of it. I'm good with that.

Not Being Afraid of Change

In fact that's the other thing I admire, that Abrams and company just went balls out and said, "Look, we're making a movie here." They cast "Into Darkness" as a summer action flick with Star Trek characters rather than a Star Trek movie with action bits. Whatever you think of the philosophy, you have to respect them sticking to their guns. Trying to jump the movie/TV fence all but killed the earlier Trek films. They seldom felt right. And to be fair, it may not have been possible to take two casts you felt comfortable with in your living room for years and splash them up on a cinema screen without losing intimacy. It'd be like seeing your own family up there. Even if they did a cool movie it wouldn't quite feel right. With the reboot they rightly said, "Film, film, and only film!" The linear aim and coherent conventions make a huge difference. Bravo for having the guts to do it.

Many of the objections people make to the new films have to do with already-established Trek canon. I give the filmmakers a near-total pass on that as well. Many of those things were just writer-producer decisions convenient to telling a particular story. If the new stories are different then these writers and producers shouldn't be bound to non-essentials. I'll not complain that Carol Marcus was never in Star Fleet but now is, nor about Kirk going directly to the Enterprise Captain's Chair without serving aboard previous ships. You couldn't make the moves these guys are making otherwise. If their story is good, put the Trek Bible away and embrace the alternate universe-ness of it all.

I explain that because I do have some complaints/critiques about this film. I want you to understand that I'm not trying to hold the filmmakers to standards or stories that they aren't already using and depending on. In addition to the praise above, I'm going to argue that a few unnecessary and/or sloppy moves took the film down a few notches from what it should have been. The reviews, while generally positive, tended to say, "Something was missing here." I agree, although I think the "something missing" had more to do with a few facile (and ultimately incorrect) choices than it did with any omission.

The most glaring choice was the level of violence portrayed. Again, I'm cool with the "Summer Action Flick" motif and I understand that a superhero movie is going to have some punching and shooting. Gene Roddenberry tried to avoid all that stuff but he's at peace now and the franchise was dead in the theaters before this incarnation. I'm fine with a little revolution in the violence department. I'm cool with phasers firing staccato punches instead of long, lazy beams. I was cool with Kirk's bar fight in the beginning of the first Abrams movie. It had context, humor, and it showed that New Kirk wasn't going to be the perfect superhero of the old show. They needed to parse out his attributes: heroism to Spock, taking care of business to Sulu, swagger to Uhura, etc. It was like they apologized for four decades of William Shatner's Kirk in two minutes of haymakers, announcing to the world that this was going to be a true ensemble crew. Got it. Appreciated it. Make his nose bleed.

But "Into Darkness" took the violence to another level, portraying it with little purpose but itself and/or its shock value. Just considering hand-to-hand combat you had:

1. Kirk punching Khan 5-6 times across the jaw without remorse after Khan had surrendered.

2. Khan crushing the skull of the Admiral with everything shown except the decisive moment, which was portrayed by a sickly crunching sound effect and the camera tight on a female character screaming in shock.

3. Spock breaking Khan's arm by snapping it backwards over Spock's shoulder

4. Spock raining blow after blow to Khan's face/head while straddling Khan after Khan had gone down stunned. The swings were shown full on.

5. After Uhura called off Spock from that rampage, he took the still-helpless Khan into custody with a huge uppercut which made the screen go black with a sickening crunch.

The key here is that these characters weren't Wolverine-like superheroes with metallic claws whom you might expect to rampage and whom you'd never meet in real life. Rather these characters were portrayed with witty, endearing dialogue designed to draw you into relationship and very human empathy with them. Then without remorse or pause those same characters were unleashed in frightening, uncontrolled, even sickening moments like this. It's like getting to know a kid as a friend and then watching him get mad at another kid, deck him on the playground, then straddle him and punch him until his head starts to cave. You know what? No matter how nice that kid seemed 20 minutes ago you need to get away from him and never go back, cuz that kid needs help.

The filmmakers could have conveyed the same message with a more subtle portrayal and still kept the characters Trek-level-close. They chose not to.

Other scenes of gun violence appeared to last forever as well. These weren't so much objectionable as tired. Khan's decimation of the Klingons looked like it was lifted straight from Rambo or Predator. The Star Fleet Headquarters massacre was lifted straight from Godfather III. It's worth noting that those movies were Rated R. Trek wasn't, but not because the violence itself was less, simply because they didn't show as much blood or bodies exploding from it. In every other way it was every bit as jarring...and derivative. As I said, I don't mind a little re-working of Roddenberry's views on violence, but this would have left him aghast...like you massacred his whole vision of the future. You can go there, but you better be really innovative or have a really good reason for it. Neither happened here. The cost-benefit ratio of these scenes didn't add up.

Speaking of cost-benefit ratio, can anybody tell me what Spock's Vulcan identity means now? One of the strong messages of Into Darkness was that Spock was letting loose a little bit, allowing himself to be affected by Kirk and Uhura. But that mission was accomplished wonderfully the moment he shed a tear in the Wrath of Khan Radiation Reversal. That should have been his crowning emotional surrender. Instead the ultimate fruit of his emotion was him beating Khan's face again...and again...and again...then grabbing a metal object and hitting him again...then delivering an uppercut to knock him out before taking him into custody. I get the revenge motif, but most "highly illogical" human beings wouldn't give in to that impulse even if somebody had been responsible for the death of a friend. We might want to, which was the purpose of the moment on film I suppose. But here we got to live out our most base, revenge-filled instincts through...Spock?

Forget whether the message and moment were appropriate, just ask what this New Spock is good for now? What does his logic mean? How about protestations of non-violence and restraint and the moral high road? Can he ever play those cards with a straight face again? And yet 15 minutes before that scene and 5 minutes after he was back to his same old dialogue. The filmmakers put in a scene like that and then expected us to act like it changed nothing. If it changed nothing, then what was the point? Why spend that kind of capital on a non-consequential moment, leaving it as the culmination of Spock's journey in the film?

The filmmakers have created a problem for themselves here. In the old series Spock's logic was a fully-formed and closely-held philosophy which then led to entertaining banter with characters of different philosophies...at once entertainment and a mirror for our human condition. In one, poorly-chosen scene Abrams has now revealed that New Spock's logic exists for the sake of the entertaining banter but runs not much deeper than that. As such, the scripted back-and-forth drifts away from revelation into banal formula, becoming far less entertaining in the process. They're subverting the very thing they're trading on.

Granted, the Spock tradition is embedded so deeply into our culture that we'll probably just accept that he's still logical no matter how many punches he throws, but the filmmakers took away all support for his logic from their films and left us leaning on the bare and cracked ice of the original. That was a mistake, especially when they're so freely deconstructing and re-purposing the conventions of the old series elsewhere. It feels manipulative.

In any case, judging just by the new movies, there's now no reason or purpose for Spock to be Vulcan. The ears are his only distinctive racial feature. Other than the points he might as well be an odd human with extra strength and some kind of logic disorder. That Zachary Quinto plays a FANTASTIC Spock--far better than Leonard Nimoy does at this point--rubs salt in the wounds.

The sad part here was that they had a much richer scene right in front of them. Earlier in the film Uhura had been upset with Spock for being, in essence, too logical, making their relationship difficult. She wanted more open emotion from him. They fought, they resolved, at least tenuously. Now Spock's on that transport thing getting his lunch handed to him by Khan in a really cool Confrontation of the Superheroes that never happened in the original because it was always Khan vs. Kirk. But then here comes Uhura beaming down to stun Khan, playing a little bit of the hero herself and saving her man. Great reversal, great scene so far!

In the actual movie Uhura had to shoot Khan, like, seven times to actually get him down (which made no sense because Scotty had stunned him with one shot earlier in the film), which left Spock coming in to mop up with his punches. That stunk. Uhura wasn't really the hero and you fractured Spock's character for the sake of that violent mop-up.

The resolution hanging right in front of their faces was to have Uhura down Khan with one shot as usual...hero lady saves her man. Go 24th-century equality! But then half because he knows Khan won't stay stunned long and half because he's screaming for revenge inside, Spock goes to beat down Khan while he's prone. You see it in Spock's eyes. You read the tension in his fists. His arm goes back. Quinto gets a great moment to play this revenge motif, except instead of doing it with blunt fists raining down we have to see it in every line of his body...a great acting challenge. You know he's going to do it. He's going to cave in Khan's head right there. Then Uhura realizes what's about to happen and what a betrayal it would be to everything that makes Spock who he is. So she yells, "Spock!" Maybe she jumps and grabs his arm before it descends and/or wraps him in an embrace to snap him back. Then Spock says, "I thought you wanted me less logical." To which she replies, "What are you talking about? I adore logic." (Or something to that effect.)

Not only have you avoided breaking Spock here (even though you know he wanted to abandon everything he stands for in that moment) you have brought home a bigger point about Uhura and Spock and relationships. She may think she wants her guy different but really she loves him because he's like he is. She's confronted right there with the horror of seeing what such a change would create in him. She realizes she wouldn't love that more overtly emotional Spock as much as she thought she would. The price of having--and being able to trust--the guy she loves is letting him be him...which means occasionally watching him be a little too dispassionately self-sacrificing inside of a volcano. That's a good deal, actually, as it would be for all of us who think we want our significant others to change but don't think through what that would mean for them or us.

Khan gets bagged up, Spock remains Spock while showing that somewhere inside there's still another side to him, Uhura looks even more boss, and Spock + Uhura gets more depth and meaning. In the end an emotional, human relationship kept him Vulcan. He needs these people (and particularly Uhura) after all.

You're really telling me that any sick thrill of watching Spock throw down on an already-downed man was worth sacrificing all that in the balance? It wasn't. It was just sloppy, following the action motif too far.

The film had some other sloppy mistakes of internal logic and film-making both. A few:

--Judging by the return trip the distance between the Klingon homeworld and/or Klingon Neutral Zone and earth is apparently about 15 seconds by warp in this universe. This leads to all kinds of political (and credibility) problems.

--Distance came into play again when the Enterprise got stuck dead at about the moon's distance when trying desperately to return to earth--announcing that they couldn't make their destination--but then when the final ship explosions were done, without ever having regained engine power or moved, they found themselves falling into earth's atmosphere. You can't make distance an important plot device in one scene and then ignore it in the next.

--The whole torpedo-and-cryogenic-tank thing was convoluted. If they were Khan's freezers, why were they armed with explosives? Wouldn't he have removed the detonation devices? But if he did that and the Federation fixed them, how did they not discover the bodies in there? One side or the other had to be pretty oblivious to make that work.

--Speaking of, how stupid were the people on the Admiral's ship to let Scotty on board in the first place and then never find him when he was sabotaging the joint left and right? Nobody ran an internal sensor scan or, you know, just called roll? The one incredibly stupid security guard I can almost live with, but the whole technologically-superior ship being run by a crew with an IQ of 30 is hard to swallow.

--I hate it when writers drop in a serious analogy to real-world stuff as a side matter in a script and don't resolve it. The torpedoes were an obvious comparison to long-range U.S. drones going after enemy targets. Spock was against that, I guess? Then Kirk came around to his way of thinking? But then they had no trouble following their baser instincts into other things. Were the drones good or bad or what? They just kind of morphed into something different and then the writers appeared to bail out with, "Well this is just an action flick!" OK, then don't bring up the obvious and clumsy deeper comparisons to begin with.

--Benedict Cumberbatch had an interesting take on Khan. I was quite relieved he didn't try to follow in Ricardo Montalban's footsteps. He was great...except the camera totally exposed him in a profile shot when he was in sick bay. From the front or back he was striking. From the side you saw that he was incredibly skinny and that his chin was weaker than month-old tea. Having that weak of a profile totally subverted the Khan image and the camera folks should have protected him better.

--Similarly in one scene on the Enterprise when Spock was running his hair (wig?) bobbed up so profoundly it looked like Black Adder or a Bobby Moynihan bowl cut when he's playing a kid/fool in a Saturday Night Live skit. The comedic value betrayed the urgency of the moment, which was when he was running down to find Kirk in his death throes.

There were a few more, but I'm not trying to bag on the film too much. I actually liked it both times. My points are two:

1. There are good reasons people are getting the impression that it was a little bit "off" even if they can't name what the "off" was. In most cases it's the filmmakers subtly (or not-so subtly) betraying some of the same foundations on which they are trying to build their film and its characters. The problem isn't them betraying the old canon, but their own assumptions. People sense when you're not being consistent even if they can't name exactly why because they're distracted by the flash and pop.

2. In almost every case these things were unnecessary--not really being integral to the story--and avoidable. Either they got stubborn and went with action movie conventions even when they didn't fit or they just went for a couple of lazy outs.

I once had a math teacher who said she got madder at students who got a 97% on their tests than those who got 75%. If you got 75% you legitimately didn't know some of the material. But if you got 97% you knew everything. You could have gotten 100% but you just got sloppy.

I'm not sure Star Trek: Into Darkness was a 97% film but the filmmakers knew their stuff. They made a good picture but a problematic one as well. With a little more attention to detail, creativity, and integrity they could have registered an easy "A". That they didn't is frustrating. But maybe they'll pick up on some of this for next time.