2009 Blazers = 2000 Bulls?

Harry Manback — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:32:39 -0000

This all just feels too familiar. Think back to 2000. The Bulls go in with all kinds of cap space, make a run at Duncan only to see him re-sign with San Antonio. They make a run at Grant Hill and McGrady, only to see them sign with Orlando. They make a run at Eddie Jones, have him verbally agree to a deal, and then back out and sign with Miami. The Bulls were used repeatedly as leverage by free agents looking to increase their value and sign elsewhere. In the end, they felt like they needed to use up their cap space so they spent it on Ron Mercer and Brad Miller.

The Blazers haven't destroyed their entire organization the way that Chicago has, but they are being used in the same manner. And I have a sneaking suspicion that they will continue to be abused in this way. Take David Lee. He is restricted, meaning that if the Blazers offer everything they have, it will be just barely above what the Knicks have already offered and likely a no-brainer for them to match. Aside from being a competitive team, the Blazers don't really have anything to offer Lee--no starting spot, no supermodel girlfriend, no New York nightlife. So KP can make him a big offer outright and tie up the cap space while the Knicks take their time deciding to match, or he can get in line with a dozen other teams trying to work out sign-and-trades.

The Blazers have no real advantage in a sign-and-trade other than the fact that they don't need salaries to match up completely. And make no mistake that in a competitive sign-and-trade field, trades along the line of Steve Blake + Travis Outlaw are not likely to get you David Lee. The Knicks would probably rather let him go for nothing. They're in the LeBron James sweepstakes, and anything they do is going to be aimed at making New York a more desirable destination. I'm not sure The King is going to be drooling over the thought of playing next to Steve Blake.

So given that we have been spurned once and seem likely to be spurned again, what is to be done? I think that the top priority has to be, "do not end up with Ron Mercer". Making a reasonable offer to a guy like Ramon Sessions sounds fine with me. Paying him a large portion of your $9 million because nobody else will take it is not going to be worth it in the long run. Beyond that, it seems as though the Blazers' best remaining options involve trades with those teams that are trying to position themselves for 2010. Cap space and young players with potential are good. If nothing pans out there, trade the cap space for an expiring contract (and picks or other assets) that could be dealt at the deadline (a la Seattle for Kurt Thomas a couple years back)--this will at least allow us to extend LMA and Roy and not completely lose all flexibility. I don't know about you, but I would rather not see those two hit restricted free agency at all.

And if we get to the fall and can't find a deal that makes sense, have the courage to make no deal at all.

Unwinnable Games and the Appropriate Response

Harry Manback — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:50:45 -0000

Remember March 9th? You and the Blazers at the Rose Garden, hosting the L*kers? Remember how the Blazers crushed the top conference seed, leading by 20 to 30 points through most of the second half? Do you recall how the L*kers seemed powerless to stop the slaughter?

Does that game remind you of a game you have seen more recently? Maybe one that left a bad taste in your mouth?

Sometimes an entire team catches fire. When that happens, that team can be all but unbeatable for a night. It's not necessarily a reflection on the team that got beat. What adjustment could the L*kers have made to stop the Blazers on that night? Get the ball to Kobe more? Less? Double team Roy more? Aldridge? Try to kill Rudy Fernandez?

The answer: nothing. The Blazers were going to win that game. They would have beaten any team in the leaghe tuat night. The L*kers probably didn't spend 30 seconds figuring out how to adjust in the next game. They didn't take it as a sign that the Blazers were a better team.

Now that the Blazers have just undergone a similar experience, let's not go overboard on the reaction. The Rockets were rolling on Saturday. They had everything going for them. They would have beaten any team in the league. There was no adjustment that was going to beat them. Does that mean we shouldn't make adjustments going into game 2? Of course not. But let's try to avoid panicking. We're a 54-win team. Changing up our entire approach or lineup in response to a bad outing is just not warranted.

And if you're looking for a positive out oa 30-point loss, it's this: the Blazers went into this season and this series as a naive, happy Cindarella team. Well Cindarella just got pumpkin-jacked and left for dead on the side of the road. If you want these young guys to be successful for the next decade, then you had to see this happen. Cindarella isn't winning any championships. Win or lose the series, the team that lines up for game 6 will be a different group of guys than those that lined up in game 1. They'll have sneers on their face and a little hair on their chests. And if they continue to learn as quickly as they have so far, they may just take this experience and gut out the 4 wins they need to move on.

SB Nation User Blog: Harry Manback

2009 Blazers = 2000 Bulls?

Unwinnable Games and the Appropriate Response