The call has finally come, but not in the way you had imagined it.  Paul Allen, through one of his various and secretive high-tech investments, has become aware of an enormous meteor set to impact Earth in August, 2011.  The devastation is expected to cause a massive wave of extinctions, threatening life as we know it and putting the 2011-2012 NBA season in serious jeopardy.

For Paul Allen, news of the impending impact can mean only one thing: a one year window to win a championship.  And you're just the person to deliver it.  Apparently the Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw for LeBron James  trade rumor you fan-posted in December caught on like wildfire with rival executives, prompting a panicked LA Clippers to send Marcus Camby to Portland in order to have a shot at The King.  This move would spell doom for Kevin Pritchard, as the organization had to make room for the one with the vision: you.

Your first reaction to this news is obviously despair at the irony of the situation; here you have finally landed your dream job, but you no longer have Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw to use as trade bait for LeBron.  But there is no time to dwell on this misfortune.  You have a championship team to build.  Mr. Allen's rules are simple:

 

1. There are no restrictions on who you can trade or trade for; the league may chuckle if you stack up on veterans at the expense of your future, but the last laugh will be on them when they realize the future consists of brushing ash off of their canned food and keeping an eye out for cannibals.
2. There are no restrictions on what you can spend; so...you know...business as usual.
3. You cannot tell anybody about the meteor; it's unlikely Dwayne Wade wants to spend his last year on the planet playing for the veteran's minimum in drizzle town anyway.
4. The answer cannot be, "this Blazer team is already going to win the championship next year"; if you're going to be that much of a homer, Paul Allen will go find the genius who proposed the Dante Cunningham and a re-signed Raef Lafrentz's new expiring contract for Chris Paul trade (young talent and an expiring contract!) to run the team.

Remember: this isn't Pritchmas.  Just because we're playing make-believe doesn't make rival GMs extra gullible.  Superstar free agents aren't going to line up to play for you just because you really, really feel like they should. 
Now go out and win that championship.  Next year.  No future considerations.  What are you going to do?

The following trade has been accepted in the BlazersEdge fantasy league:

Andre Miller, Jason Richardson, and Antonio McDyess for Cuttino Mobley and Rashard Lewis

I have set up a poll.  If you agree that the trade should be allowed, vote "Yes".  If you think it's rotten, vote "No".

It feels a little weird posting this here since I haven't posted anything else in a while, but perhaps one day soon my schedule will let me post some more...

Poll

Should the above trade be allowed?

81%

Yes

22 votes

18%

No

5 votes

27 votes | Poll has closed

At the end of today, Portland will be midway through a season in which they have blown away all expectations.  If you predicted this record during training camp, you are the biggest homer around (and also right, which has to make you the happiest homer of all time).  The Blazers have won often, with any number of rotation players stepping up from game to game to deliver the victory.  Brandon Roy gets all of the headlines, but Aldridge, Outlaw, Blake, Webster, Frye, Jones, Jack and Przybilla have all, at one point or another, played huge roles in pulling out wins.

In fact, Roy's supporting cast, and the chemistry exhibited by the group, has been so effective, you have to ask who is responsible for this success.  And when you start to think about sustaining success over several years, it becomes important.  The Blazers are built around players on rookie contracts; when those contracts expire, assuming continued team success, you better believe these youngsters are going to look to get paid for their part in the effort.

For the Blazers to reach their championship potential, I would posit that success has to come primarily on the backs, primarily, of three or four players.  If Roy, Aldridge, Oden, and maybe another player (Outlaw?  Fernandez?  Free-agent to be determined?) can't bring us a championship with some interchangeable pieces around them, then we're going to have a hard time reaching the peak.  Paul Allen may have deep pockets, but it simply isn't feasible to keep the whole roster in tact (we don't even have the roster spots to accommodate it).

Look at the teams with the most long-term success over the past decade, and you'll see a lot of teams built around two to four stars, with a lot of interchangeable pieces around them.  If our current success is due to those supporting pieces, will our stars be able to step up in the next few years to make that cast replaceable?

So what do we think?  In a couple of years, will our "star" core be good enough to win without the strength of the current ensemble behind them?  Is something resembling the current ensemble necessary for continued success?  Is my assumption that Paul Allen can't keep this cast together off-base?  Is Rudy Fernandez the next MJ?  

Poll

Who has been primarily responsible for all of this success?

8%

Nate McMillain

6 votes

4%

Harry Manback

3 votes

14%

Chemistry

10 votes

10%

The absence of fatty

7 votes

41%

Brandon Roy

28 votes

16%

The ensemble as a whole

11 votes

0%

LaMarcus Aldridge

0 votes

0%

Rudy Fernandez

0 votes

1%

James Jones

1 votes

2%

Charles Barkley McLovin

2 votes

68 votes | Poll has closed

Recently, there has been some frustration in the unofficial BlazersEdge fantasy league regarding managers who are not keeping tabs on their teams.  Fantasy leagues simply aren't any fun when half the league is going unmanaged--teams have no chance of winning if they aren't having players swapped in and out of the lineup, and watching good players sit on those teams and knowing that you cannot obtain them via trade is frustrating.

So here's the deal: I know that there are people who wanted into the league before it filled up, who would gladly manage one of these teams.  And chances are, there are people who got into the league, who didn't really know what they were signing up for.  Some managers have asked me to remove the deadbeat teams or replace their managers, but Yahoo fantasy sports allows commissioners to perform no such actions.  Teams cannot be removed, and the only way to replace a manager is for the manager of that team to edit his or her team info and add a co-manager.

If you are in the league and don't feel up to keeping tabs on your team on a day-to-day basis, I encourage you to post below. If you are not in the league and would like to manage one of these teams, please respond to the said plea for help.  Then, the manager who wants out can go to their team page, click 'Edit Team Info', and click the 'Invite' button to add one of the responders as a co-manager.

Finally, I would like to address the accusation that I am one of the managers who is not managing his team.  I know that it's easy to get obsessed with fantasy basketball leagues, but ease up a little.  I did not set my lineup in time for a couple of games because I have had to focus heavily on work for the past week so that I can take a vacation next week without things falling apart in my absence.  People get busy.  Let's have a little perspective here.  Moreover, when you send an email asking that something be done, please check the league's message board to see if I replied there before you spam the entire league claiming that I'm not paying attention because I didn't answer your email.

Failure is not fun.  A few years back, when my daughter was first learning how to read, she had a strategy to avoid the sting of failure: sound out two letters and then guess the word.  While she succeeded in avoiding frustration and disappointment (and annoying the hell out of her parents), she didn't learn a thing.  It wasn't until she worked up the courage to put in effort and have that effort repeatedly result in failure that she began to make progress.

Failure is also not fun to watch.  For the past few weeks, we have been forced to witness a likable, incredibly young team fail in many ways.  We have seen failure on an individual level, with our young stars unable to perform at their highest level on a consistent basis.  We have seen failure by the team as a whole, as leads slip away and opposing teams rack up runs of 18 straight points to grab a victory.  And while it all might be painful for the team and its fans alike, it is a necessary part of building a good team.

We're all Blazer fans, and some of us harbored hopes that this young team would sneak into the playoffs this year.  But now that reality has set in and we can see they will struggle at times, let's not panic, shut down Brandon Roy and fire Nate McMillain.  Last year, LaMarcus Aldridge showed only flashes of brilliance.  This year, he's brilliant every other game.  In two years, it will be there every single night.  Brandon Roy has never seen the kind of defensive attention he is seeing now.  Let him learn what works and what doesn't in attacking it--he's going to fail a good portion of the time, but he'll learn.

And about blowing leads...this team never had a big lead prior to this year.  How would they know how to protect it?  Playing from behind is easy to do.  You're in a hole and there's nothing you can do but get aggressive and claw your way out.  Playing in the lead requires something more--resolve, smarts, control.  You don't learn how to play in the lead unless you can first get some leads and then try to protect them until you get it right.  A young team blowing a lead shouldn't be some glaring, red flag that the team is on the wrong track.  It's one of the failures that accompanies the maturation process.

In my mind, everything that has occurred so far this year confirmation that this team will, within two years, be a very good team.  They are playing to the level of their opponents, which shows that they are talented enough to play with the contenders, but not disciplined enough to step on the throats of the bad teams.  They are blowing big leads, which means that, when playing the right way, they can build big leads.  Even having another team score 18 straight on them is not some terrible sign--they're learning the hard way that they need to maintain their focus for 48 minutes.

Failure hurts.  It's supposed to hurt.  The pain is motivation for learning how to prevent future failures.  And in a year or two when this team, currently featuring seven rotation players with three or fewer years of experience, takes its lumps and loses several games that it "should have won", we will reap the benefits.  Let's not get too down on them in the meantime.

Another trade has been made in the BlazersEdge fantasy league.  If you're interested, vote to approve or veto.  2/3rds veto votes in the next 24 hours will cause the trade to be canceled.  

Kevin Durant for T.J. Ford

Remember that this trade involves fantasy players, and is all about stats.  This is not a vote on whether or not this trade should take place in reality.

Poll

Kevin Durant for TJ Ford

25%

Veto

11 votes

75%

Approve

33 votes

44 votes | Poll has closed

I have been surprised by a number of events in this young season: a four game winning streak amidst a brutal opening schedule, Jarrett Jack becoming Mr Offense off the bench, Channing Frye failing to live up to even modest expectations.  But nobody has surprised me more than Martell Webster.  Almost thrown into the Zach Randolph trade, Webster has suddenly become a key part of the starting lineup, providing exactly the kind of play that helps this offense run smoothly.  This play came out of nowhere for me--I thought Martell might show modest improvement this year, but he has far surpassed all of my expectations.

Now, the season is still young.  The Blazers have a long way to go to prove that this winning streak isn't a fluke, and Martell has a long way to go to prove that he can be a dependable small forward for this team.  However, let's assume he does just that.  Suppose he finishes the season strong, averaging 16 points and 5 boards per game, with efficient shooting.  Looking like a long-term starter, and maybe even potential star, at small forward, Webster suddenly presents the Blazers with something of a dilemma.

Webster will be entering his fourth year entering the 2008-2009 season, meaning that he is eligible for a contract extension.  Without an extension, Webster becomes a restricted free agent in the summer of 2009.  Either way, by summer 2009, the Blazers will have to commit money to Webster or lose him; any money that they commit comes right out of their vaunted 2009 cap space.  And if Webster can sustain his current level of play or improve on it, one has to think he will receive a contract in the $7-8 million range, which, unless more deals are made, will likely not allow the Blazers to offer a max deal to anyone in 2009.

So the question becomes, can the Blazers do better than a 16/5 Martell Webster on the 2009 free agent market?  Do they lock him up early at a hopefully reasonable price, or do they tempt fate and risk alienating Webster by not signing him to an extension in 2008, so they can see how the free agent market plays out?  With Martell a seemingly great fit, can they do better in the 2009 free agent market?

Note that the same situation exists with Jarrett Jack, who may prove just as valuable as Webster as an instant-offense backup shooting guard.  If their play continues as it has, we could reach 2009 with very little cap space (and I'm not sure that would bother me too much).

The following trade took place in the BlazersEdge fantasy league:

Carmelo Anthony for Chris Bosh

As I mentioned in the original posts regarding this fantasy league, if 2/3rds of BlazersEdge readers vote to veto the trade in the next 24 hours, I'll veto it.  Otherwise it goes through.

Please remember that this is a fantasy league, where winning is about stats, and in some cases filling positions where you have holes.  This trade shouldn't be judged with regard to how it would work in the real NBA.

Oh, and Dave, if you have an objection to these kinds of posts, then I'm sure we would all understand.  It has been 2 weeks and we have only had one trade, so I don't see it being a high-volume thing.

Poll

Chris Bosh for Carmelo Anthony: approve or veto?

74%

Approve

40 votes

25%

Veto

14 votes

54 votes | Poll has closed

With just three losses, we have begun to see some whispered questions about Nate's ability to handle point guards.  Jack is struggling, Sergio can't get off of the bench, and Blazer fans want to assign blame.  I don't think you need to look to the bench to find the root of our point guard issues; the problem is with Brandon Roy.

Don't get me wrong--Brandon Roy is a good player and has done nothing wrong.  But as a shooting guard, Brandon Roy is the primary ballhandler and playmaker on this team.  The coaching staff and management has done whispering of its own regarding moving Roy to point guard.  History has shown that playmaking shooting guards aren't easy to share a backcourt with.

Let's look at three players whose primary position was shooting guard and who spent some time experimenting at point guard: Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson, and Michael Jordan.  Yes, all three might be out of Roy's talent range.  But each was (or is) relied on as the main source of offense--not just as a scorer, but as a distributor.

The first thing that is obvious is that players of this nature tend to be very good, justifying the stress they might put on the traditional basketball arrangement of the point guard as the primary distributor.  That's a good sign.  The second obvious observation is that these players don't usually last long at point guard before moving back to shooting guard, which is interesting in terms of the team's future plans.

Looking at the point guards who have had success playing next to these three, a pattern emerges:

Jordan: Jim Paxson, Steve Kerr, BJ Armstrong
Iverson: Eric Snow, Steve Blake
Wade: Damon Jones, Jason Williams

Most of these point guards were not great or even necessarily above average point guards on their own, but fit the role--able to bring the ball up court, hit an open jump shot, and maybe play some defense.  None of them need to handle the ball to be effective on offense, and are primarily used to knock down jumpers that the defense gives them.

What this tells me is that Jack's struggles are not surprising--even if he is the ultra-talented point guard that his fans want him to be, he's not a spot-up shooter.  He may well warrant a larger role in the offense, but that role simply isn't available.  Likewise, Sergio Rodriguez doesn't fit the bill as Roy's wing man.  Sergio needs the ball worse than Jack does, and his shooting leaves much to be desired.

Steve Blake has demonstrated the ability to play next to Allen Iverson, of all people, and should be effective next to Roy.  Taurean Green, who can reportedly hit a jumper and plays tenacious defense, might be a good candidate for the future.    For the present, however, it's hard to envision either of the fan-favorite point guards excelling in the starting lineup.  Or even fan dream-scenario point guards like Chris Paul or Deron Williams.  

If Brandon Roy is going to be your primary ballhandler and playmaker, it's entirely likely that you can't plug anything other than a role-playing point guard next to him and expect solid play.  And if Roy turns out not to be good enough to warrant that kind of sacrifice, then we have problems.

... Update [2007-10-4 12:56:16 by HarryManback]:The league has been created and many teams have already joined. There are a few spots left (maybe someone could create a second one...seems like a lot of people are interested). The information is in a reply a little further down the page.

Just curious...would anyone be interested in joining a BlazersEdge fantasy basketball league, if I were to create one?  

It could be made up entirely of BlazersEdge members.  

It would be free (you would need to create a Yahoo account if you don't have one).

I generally use the following stats: FG% FT% 3Pt% 3pts Pts Reb Ast Stl Blk TO

We could have some BlazersEdge specific rules...say...every team has to have a current or former Blazer on it at all times.

We could either set up an autopick draft (where you rank players ahead of time and the computer picks them) or a live online draft (but I doubt everyone in the league would be able to attend).

Trades could be voted on at BlazersEdge--maybe a 2/3rds majority would veto the trade.

The winner would be...like...the bomb, and could brag all the time in his or her posts, etc.

Anyhow...if you would be interested in playing, vote yes.  If not, vote no or don't vote.

Poll

Would you join a BlazersEdge fantasy league?

93%

Yes

54 votes

6%

No

4 votes

58 votes | Poll has closed

It seems like every few years a team will start out the season incredibly hot and be on pace to win 70 games early on.  And it seems like every few years when that happens, you'll hear TV commentators, when asked if the team will reach 70, say "They shouldn't even try."  I guess the thought behind that opinion is that the team should focus on winning the title.

Well I say, "forget that".  If your team wins 70 games, it enters the "Best team ever" conversation.    If you can get into the history books, I think you need to try.  Sure, your fans will always remember that 63-win championship team, but who else will?

Which brings me to this year's Portland TrailBlazers.  Kevin Pritchard, today, has the chance to do something that has never been done in the league and will probably never be done again.  He can, and should, make history.  I don't think I need to tell you how.  Okay...maybe I do.  

Trade Steve Blake for Jamaal Magloire.  

Think about it: you trade guy 1 for guy 2 one year, re-sign guy 1 in the offseason, and then turn around and trade him for guy 2 again.  What are the odds that it would ever happen?  One in a million?  Don't we all want the Blazers to be a one-in-a-million type of team?

You would tell your grandchildren about this trade someday.  Well...maybe not you, but you can bet Steve Blake and Jamaal Magloire would be telling their grandkids.  Steve Blake would become the player most screwed by the Blazers since Fred Jones waived $3M in guaranteed money to play in his home town, and then got traded after a couple months of living the dream.

I know...the salaries don't match up.  NJ has no use for Steve Blake.  But you know what?  I don't care.  Sometimes you have to work hard to make history, and that's exactly what KP should do today.  Get on the phone and make it happen.  

History is waiting.

Deep breath.  I've had 12 hours to go through some coping steps, and I'm over it.  Greg Oden is a good, strong kid with heart and a good perspective on life.  He's going to be fine.  

Ever since I was a kid, when some kind of stress came up in my life, I would turn to basketball.  Play it, watch it, think about it...whatever.  So let's just do that now and turn to next season.

No Zach, no Oden.  No low-post banger (unless LMA evolves into one).  No expectations.  Scratch that...no POSITIVE expectations.  Just a team full of young players who have proven willing to scrap and tear their own guts out to win.

Here's Nate, quoted from oregonlive (http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/)

"The first thing we said was, 'OK, do we become a trapping team?' " McMillan said. "Are we a scrambling team? Are we a wild-and-crazy team? Who is in the starting lineup? Is it better to start Joel and put him in with LaMarcus, or do we put Channing (Frye) in there with LaMarcus?"

What is this team going to look like?  They almost have to go up-tempo now, don't they?  There is no reason to play this season safe and every reason to mix things up.  Play small (Blake-Jack-Roy-Frye-Aldridge), play big (Roy-Martell-Frye-Aldridge-Prz), play crazy (Sergio-Jack-Roy-Outlaw-Aldridge)...Wins or no wins, this should be entertaining to watch.

I think this season has the potential to be a lot of fun.  And I don't think it's out of the question that Nate can come up with a winning formula from all of these young players.  Look at what he did in Seattle in 2004-2005, with a team that wasn't expected to compete: 52-30 and a 6-game series with the Spurs in round 2.  I'm not saying these Blazers will come anywhere near that, but let's not write their eulogy just yet, either.

In short...I still can't wait for the season to start.  This should be a lot of fun.

I have been hanging around BlazersEdge for maybe a year now, and have seen a few issues come up that seem to get people's feathers ruffled.  The one (legitimate basketball) issue that consistently seems to start a heated debate is the Sergio versus Jack debate.  In one sense, it makes sense that people would be strongly in one player's corner or the other; they are both young players who could, in time, become really good point guards.  However, you don't see the same kind of debate with regards to other position battles--Martell versus Travis never stirs much emotion.

So what is it about Sergio and Jarrett?  Are they teasing out two opposing philosophies?  Grit versus flash?  Is each of them just so potentially good that they deserve a good shouting match?  And why is it that each camp perceives weaknesses in the other camp's player (recklessness for Sergio, lack of poise for Jack) that the other camp never sees?  

And moreover, with people so adamant about one player or the other, where is the outrage about the Steve Blake signing?  Here's a guy who nobody sees as the PG of the future, who comes in to steal minutes from two guys who people are verbally fighting for weekly, and the collective reaction is, "Good move".

All in all, I think the heated arguments regarding Sergio and Jack are a positive sign; people obviously believe that we have a lot of potential at that position.  I find it curious, though, that these two players are so polarizing.

It seems as though, with the lack of any real NBA action, our little Blazers' Edge community has turned on itself.  I understand that we all have a whole raft of insults we want to dump on somebody, so let's let loose on the rest of the league.

So who is going to be the worst team in the league this year?  Let's go ahead and define "worst team" as the team with the worst record.  Whatever assumptions you want to make about moves to be made between now and Halloween are cool.  Just try to avoid the phrase "book it".

My worst team pick:

The LA Clippers!

"Worse than Seattle or Minnesota", you ask, "How can that be?"  Easy.  Seattle and Minnesota have something that the Clips will only be able to dream about--hope.  The Clippers went from perpetual punching bag to surprising success to massive disappointment, and now come into this season with their top young point guard out potentially forever, their star power forward injured for most of the year, and a coach who got tuned out during their one successful season.  It's a team built to win now that will be forced to take the year off to wait for their best player to come back and give them a shot at the playoffs.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back the good old Clippers.  The depressed looking Clippers who always come up short on the scoreboard.  The Clippers whose players stare off into space on the bench, imagining what it will be like when they finally become a free agent and can move to a real team.

Maggette will demand a trade by Christmas (actually, I'm not sure he has retracted his last trade demand yet).  Sam Cassell will be on and off the inactive list all year.  Tim Thomas will continue to be known as Tim Thomas.  Donald Sterling will look to move every contract that he has for cap space.

Clippers.  Worst team.  Book it.

Poll

Which team will have the NBA's worst record this year?

5%

Philadelphia

8 votes

7%

Atlanta

11 votes

14%

LA Clippers

21 votes

28%

Minnesota

40 votes

13%

Sacramento

19 votes

8%

Seattle

12 votes

8%

Indiana

12 votes

4%

Other...

7 votes

3%

New York

5 votes

4%

Milwaukie

6 votes

141 votes | Poll has closed

When I saw the Blazers opening up in San Antonio on national TV, my initial thought was, "This is going to be ugly."  But the more I have thought about it, I think the NBA and TNT got this right.  I'm not go so far as to guarantee victory, but we'll definitely have some factors working in our favor.

1. San Antonio always starts slow.
2. Defending champs don't always play their best game after receiving their rings (see Miami's 40-point loss in their first game last year).
3. The Blazers actually played the Spurs well a couple of times last year, leading until Ginobili killed them late on two occasions.
4. Familiarity: every schmuck with a TV knows exactly what the Spurs are going to bring on opening night.  The Blazers, on the other hand, will be somewhat of an enigma.  I would be hard-pressed to even name a starting lineup at this point.
5. Familiarity, part II: on an individual basis, our guys are young and have been working their tails off.  San Antonio won't know what new stuff Aldridge has developed, or if Roy will be more effective from long-range.  The book has been written on Duncan, Manu, and Parker (even if the book says they're hard to stop).
6. Speaking of Tony Parker, will he be at full strength?  The ankle injury must have been reasonably significant if he left the French team to get it checked out.
7. Hunger.  The Spurs have won their titles.  The Blazers are young and just want to win games.

I think the Blazers have a real shot at getting off to a roaring start with this game.  And I don't think I'm just being a homer.  Then again, I'm also a big fan of myself.

Back on the topic of actual basketball, TrueHoop linked to this article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/28/SPC9R8T8K2.DTL&feed=rss.warriors), which suggests eliminating "fouling out".  Rather than fouling players out on a 6th foul, the author suggests imposing stiffer penalties for subsequent fouls, such as the fouled team shooting two free-throws and retaining possession.

Framed as a potential partial solution to referees being able to fix games (calling two quick fouls on the star big man and making him sit out), the rule change would also have the advantage of letting marquee players stay in games.  What fan wants to go shell out $50 to go watch Amare Stoudemire, only to have him get in foul trouble early and leave the game?  While the team certainly isn't going to want the player in question to go beyond 6 fouls because of the penalties, they won't run the risk of that player being out of the game in the fourth quarter just because of early foul trouble.

I'm all for this rule change, and not just because it would allow Greg Oden to rack up 9 fouls every game (they say the great centers force the NBA to change the rules, right?).  I want to see the best players out there deciding the outcome of games.  Thoughts?

I couldn't help but notice a few scathing rants floating around regarding fair weather fans.  Some "real" fans seem to be extraordinarily hostile toward these people, presumably on the grounds that "real" fans, rooting for their team through good and bad times, have more claim to the team than those who only follow the team in good times.  While I think that fair weather fans can be a bit annoying, I think we need to get over it.  Fair weather fans the only reason that a small market can have a viable franchise.

Big market teams, like NY and LA, have huge populations to draw from.  It doesn't matter what kind of team they field--they are still going to sell tickets and merchandise as well as setting up lucrative TV deals.  The population of their home cities is just so large that the "real" fans can support the team full time, and the exposure they get by being a big city generates them revenue around the world.

Small market teams, on the other hand, don't have that luxury.  They lose money in the bad years, and they earn money in the good.  Why?  Because of the fair weather fans.  The "real" fans fill up the arena half way in the bad years, and in the good the thing is overflowing.  Without the fair weather fans in the good years, the franchise couldn't survive; or, if it did survive, it would do so through sheer thriftiness.

Why didn't Paul Allen sell the team after the great draft of 2006?  Because he saw the money getting ready to roll in.  And where was it going to come from?  The people who show up when we start winning.

Furthermore, fair weather fans produce "real" fans.  I was born at the very beginning of the 1977-78 campaign.  I had never heard of basketball until I turned 8 or 9, when my brother and I started catching wind of the NBA.  Luckily for me (and unluckily for my wife), I became aware of the league when my home team was becoming good.  My dad had never followed sports in his life, but he was getting into it with us.  Clyde Drexler, Terry Porter and company drew me in, and I have been around ever since.  

If you see some guy without a clue sitting at a game with his kids, you're witnessing one fair weather fan sitting with the next generation of "real" fans.  And that's a good thing.

The point is, if you really want to spend all of your time dumping on fans who weren't around two years ago, I guess that's your prerogative.  But the fact is they're going to be here, and it is for the good of the team that they are.

Someone...anyone...going into training camp and winning the starting small forward position outright.  I don't care if it is Outlaw, Webster, or Jones.  Hell...I don't care if it's Darius Miles.  I just want to see someone starting because they earned it, rather than because they were the least bad of the options.

Two Blazers mentioned in the national conversation about the Most Improved Player Award.  I don't care which two (Aldridge or Roy taking the next step, Sergio or Webster becoming real players), and I don't care if they're front runners.  I just want to see some serious improvement from a couple players.

Some fast breaks.  We ought to be creating opportunities for them with Oden and Aldridge around.  I don't want to be Phoenix.  I just want to see a few fast breaks.

Joel Przybilla learning the secret to staying out of foul trouble in the NBA, followed by him teaching the secret to Greg Oden.

An off-court incident involving a player with an attitude or playing time problem, being sorted out by teammates rather than the coach or front office.

Kevin Durant, star.  Call me crazy, but I want a rival.  I want to be raving in five years about a Western Conference Final showdown between the Blazers and Sonics.  A superstar Kevin Durant is probably the best way to accomplish this.

Greg Oden, when mentioned in the Rookie of the Year race, being given credit for playing for a competitive team.

Wins on the road in two of the following places:  Los Angeles, San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, Denver.

A late season surge instead of a slump.

I think people will disagree when they hear this, but the problem with Jarrett Jack is his (lack of) poise.  The guy is up-and-down depending on how the game is going for him and/or the team, and you can't have that from your starting point guard and team leader.  Your point guard needs to play his game and encourage the team no matter how things are going.  Period.

A couple of examples of what I'm talking about...

I was at the Washington game.  The Blazers were playing great against a team with a lot of firepower and an all-star who had vowed to score 50 on us.  Jack, on the other hand, was not playing well, and you could see by his body language that he was well aware of it.  He was walking around completely deflated, with his head down and a grimace on his face.  After half time, he came out before everyone else to shoot jumpers.  With every miss, he would hang his head.  Finally he hit two or three in a row and sort of pumped his fist and looked a little more upbeat as if he had just repaired his deficiencies.

I'm sorry, but it was a pathetic display.  In this league you need to be tougher than that, especially as a starting point guard.  Jack was benched for a good portion of the second half, and I was glad to see it.

I also remember hearing Jack talk about how Nate had asked him if he was ready to make it his team, or something to that effect.  Jack had a single good game, and then declared that he had taken over the team that night.  Again, pathetic.  A good leader doesn't announce that they own the team after one good game.  Hell...a good leader doesn't ever admit to owning the team.  He just leads and gives credit to everyone else.

Jack just strikes me as a guy who is desperate to succeed, and lets everyone see the desperation.  He gets overly excited at the successes, and overly down at the failures.  And I don't see how you can have a guy like that as the starting point guard on a championship team, which is what we're obviously trying to build.  Can he grow out of it?  Who knows.  But in that department I think he has a lot to improve on.

It seems blatantly obvious that the other shoe will be dropping shortly.  After having a crowded Blake-Telfair-Jack rotation two years ago, they are not going to camp with a Blake-Sergio-Jack3.0 rotation in the fall.  So let's just assume there's a trade coming.  What might it look like?

Listening to what Kevin Pritchard said when asked if James Jones had a chance to be the starter next year, it seems clear that he is targeting the small forward position for an upgrade.  He responded to the question by saying that he wasn't sure that he was done dealing yet.

Now there are a million diplomatic ways he could have answered that question.  He could have said, "We'll have a lot of guys competing for that spot, and he'll be in the mix."  Anything vague to that effect would have passed.  But his answer amounted to, "No.  We're going to trade for our starter at small forward."  I think the quote was very telling--they're not just planning to trade for a small forward, but they are planning to trade for one who would be the clear starter over the others on the roster.

So let's assume that Jack or Sergio is a major piece in this deal (I'm pretty sure it would be Jack, but for this discussion it doesn't make much difference).  And let's assume that we're getting back a small forward.  I would argue that the small forward has to fall into one of the following categories:

A starter-caliber veteran with a short, potentially large contract (2 or less years)

A starter-caliber young talent with a contract longer than two years, but at a reasonable salary

A potential star-caliber small forward whose development fits into the time frame of our other star-caliber players (i.e. someone under the age of 24, regardless of contract).

The team we would trade with would probably have a need for a point guard as well as a small forward that fits the above criteria.  Not too many teams meet these criteria...

Atlanta could potentially want a more veteran point guard while Acie Law matures, but the only small forward on their roster that is a clear starter over Trout/Jones/Webster is Josh Smith, who surely can't be gotten with what we're offering.

Dallas is known to have put feelers out for a more prototypical point guard, but again...their small forward of note is way out of our price range.

Houston DID need a point guard until they traded for Mike James.  If they view James as more of a combo-guard they may still have interest in Jack.  I believe it is established fact that Kevin Pritchard is hot for their small forward, Shane Battier, who happens to meet the "reasonable salary" criterion.

The Clippers desperately need a point guard and have been on-and-off-again talking about parting ways with Corey Maggette for years.  Maggette has 2 years remaining on his contract (although I must say, he doesn't seem like a great fit).

Milwaukie will shortly lose Mo Williams to free agency, and has a young man named Yi at small forward.  I can't help but think back to some of the pre-draft rumors of Portland trading Jack and Przybilla for Milwaukie's pick and Gadzuric.  Maybe there were some legs to it after all.  Perhaps Yi's tough stance might have moved Milwaukie to explore a trade.  But would Yi play in Portland even if some kind of trade were to take place?  Maybe if China liked the prospects of Yi on a championship-caliber team in a couple years?

And that's my list.  You could make an argument for a couple of other teams (Phoenix wanting a backup for Nash, etc), but I think those scenarios are far less likely.

I feel like the Atlanta trade makes sense for Atlanta, but I'm not sure any of their small forwards fit the mold.  I feel like the Dallas scenario is totally out of the question.  I feel like the Clippers might want to deal if they don't sign Francis, but that Maggette isn't the type of player or attitude we would be shopping for.

So that leaves Yi, who Portland sounded high on going into the draft, and Battier, who makes a lot of sense for this team in a lot of ways.  Do any other trade scenarios make sense?  Can we get fatty to chime in with vague rumors of rumors about to be announced?

I know...everything is all speculation.  But what else are we going to do all summer?

Now that public enemy #2 is getting ready to try to wrestle the ball away from Stephon Marbury and Eddy Curry, I'm going to shift my focus to public enemy #1: Darius Miles. Everyone wants him gone and gone now. They want him to take a medical retirement. They want him bought out. Let's take a fresh look at why he is considered such a burden, and whether or not it is warranted. And more importantly, given that he sounds as though he'll be healthy enough not to warrant a medical retirement, let's see if it is honestly worth buying out his contract and paying him for the next several years for no return.

Darius Miles is Lazy

This is a common refrain from Blazers fans, and I'm honestly not sure we have any evidence to back it up. Have you ever heard a coach or player refer to Miles as lazy? I checked Google and can't come up with a single quote. My feeling is that the lazy label has come from his vast unrealized potential. Darius Miles has all the tools to be a great player in the NBA, and yet has been unable to put them together. Therefore, he must be too lazy to make it happen, right?

I take issue with this line of thinking. Great NBA players put in hours upon hours of extra work to become elite. Is it laziness when someone just puts in normal practice hours? Do you spend countless extra hours at your job trying to hone your skills? I don't. If Darius Miles has a life (or a family) outside of basketball and chooses not to work 60 hours a week, can we call him lazy? That seems like a stretch to me.

I would argue that if Darius Miles comes back from microfracture surgery to play professional basketball, he can probably shed the laziness reputation. Coming back from microfracture, by all accounts, takes work. Oh sure, he may be overweight right now. But you try sustaining a knee injury of that magnitude and see what kind of exercise program you can come up with. If he makes it back on the basketball court, I'm done with lazy.

Darius Miles is a Cancer

This argument carries a little more evidence than the first. While Miles is reportedly a personable and nice guy who is well-liked in the locker room, he has had some incidents that were definitely over-the-line behaviorally. He had a verbal altercation with Maurice Cheeks in which he reportedly hurled racial slurs at his coach. He dressed down in the middle of a game, perhaps as a sign of protest. While I'm not going to defend these actions, I would like to add a little perspective.

Consider that the Blazers, at an organization, were basically at the lowest point in their history when these incidents occurred. The team was a few months away from being put on the market by Paul Allen. The team was floundering on the court. Management was falling apart at the seams. I'm not sure you could point to a single leader in the locker room, and if you had to name one, you would probably have to pick Zach Randolph.

Darius Miles was going to work in a very toxic environment. Having worked in an extremely toxic environment myself, I can say that such conditions don't bring out the best in people. And while I have never verbally assaulted my boss (and I would never use a racial slur), if I had been put into a confrontational situation with him and hadn't feared for my job, I can't say that I wouldn't have. And he would have deserved it. And nobody in that workplace, myself included, was working as hard as they could. Morale was just too low. The point is, while Miles certainly did some things he shouldn't be proud of, maybe it was just a 23-year-old in a bad situation handling things in a very immature manner. Maybe he's not some raging lunatic saboteur.

Darius Miles is not a bad guy. We're not talking about Isaiah Rider or Bonzi Wells here. We're not even talking about Zach Randolph. Listening to the broadcast from the Rose Garden on draft night, somebody mentioned a story about Darius that I thought was telling. Recently, when a young local boy was killed by a falling tree branch, his parents didn't have the means to pay for his funeral arrangements. Darius Miles stepped in and covered all of the costs. Now, if you're from the Portland area, you have probably heard of the boy. This was a widely reported story. It would have been easy for Miles to publicize his donation to bolster his damaged public image, but I never heard his part of the story reported anywhere in local news coverage. Does that sound like a horrible guy?

The Situation has Finally Changed

The team that Darius Miles will be returning to at some point this year barely resembles the squad he left. This team has a leader, and a strong one at that. Management has not looked stronger in decades. One has to wonder if he can stay under control in this environment. And if he can, couldn't he fill a need on a team with a big opening at the small forward position? We look to be evaluating just what kind of talent would make sense in this lineup, and we have already gathered a couple of different flavors of small forward to try: shooters (Webster, Jones), glue-guy facilitators (McRoberts), defensive specialists (Ime). Miles, if he can play at a reasonable level, represents a different type of small forward that isn't otherwise represented--a slasher. Might he be an asset off the bench?

No Good Alternatives

I'm sure most of you are reading this and thinking, "Harry Manback has finally snapped!" Well first of all, I snapped a long, long time ago. And second, what are the alternatives? Medical retirement? Can't happen if he's not actually too injured to play (and he says he's excited to contribute to this team). Buy-out? Great. It felt so good to pay Derrek Anderson this last year while he played for Charlotte, that we might as well do it again for the next three years with Miles.

No, if Darius Miles does not retire, then you have to root for him. Root for him to mature and contribute for the good of the team, or root for him to contribute to the point that he can be traded. Me, I've decided to just hope that he can turn a corner in his life and make the Blazers a better team. I think in this environment, he can be of value. And honestly, while he has certainly earned some of the flak that he has received, I think that he has been an easy target for "Jail Blazer" frustration. I'm not sure he deserves it.

I'm giving Darius a second chance. I hope he uses it wisely.

The Blazers' new mantra

It is clear to me now that the Blazers are operating under a new mantra: Don't **** this up. As in, we have our core, we have our franchise player(s), now don't do anything to **** this up. And I mean that in a good way. It doesn't mean that they won't be aggressive. It doesn't mean that they'll be timid. It means they're going to make moves with an eye towards developing their young talent and avoiding committing to players who may or may not fit in.

It's all about flexibility. Look for the Blazers to take on short-term, mid-money contracts. That way, they can watch their considerable young talent develop and find out what pieces they need to get to that next level.

Francis-Frye fits the mantra. Nocioni or Richard Jefferson does not

I know. Some of you are upset for how little we got for Zach. In truth, we got just as much value for him as we would have gotten in a Nocioni trade. Don't sleep on Channing Frye. Remember that he's a big part of what made Isaiah Thomas look like a draft genius. Remember that up until very recently, he was considered an untouchable part of the Knicks' core. The guy couldn't play next to the black hole known as Eddy Curry. Frye is as good a young talent as we would have gotten with that #9 pick. He will play big backup minutes at power forward and center, giving us a young big man rotation that will soon be unmatched in the league.

As for Steve Francis, we buy him out or inactivate him. So we're paying him for doing nothing. Who cares? Is it your money? I still believe that we'll be able to get him to waive his player option for the 2008-2009 season by paying him full price on this season, essentially turning him into an expiring contract. And even if not, he's off the books in 2009, as opposed to...

Richard Jefferson or Andres Nocioni, both decent small forwards, would have been on our books, overpaid, until 2011. Sure, we would have been near the salary cap until then, but remember that in free agency it doesn't help to be under the cap unless you're significantly under the cap. In 2009 (if not before), the Blazers will likely be coming off of a playoff run with a young core and enough cap space to sign at least one max-level free agent. In 2009, the national media will hail Kevin Pritchard as an absolute genius. And you know what? They might be right.

The bottom line is that the Blazers weren't going to challenge for a championship in 2008 anyway, so you don't need to try to find that missing piece today. Long-term (which is where we should be looking), this move was huge.

Goodbye, Joel Przybilla

I think this trade and new direction of the team signals the end of Joel in Portland. I would look for him to be moved for a shorter-term contract this summer. Why? Because Channing Frye is going to eat up most of his minutes, and because his contract runs too long. If you look at who the Blazers are contractually committed to in 2010, it's this year's rookies, last year's rookies, and Joel. One of these things is not like the others. Someone will likely take Joel on as a strong backup center and we'll have even more flexibility going forward.

We're not overpaying Outlaw

If the staff considers Outlaw a backup power forward, where we're more or less covered by Channing Frye, then we don't need to be held hostage by Outlaw. If he goes and finds a big, long-term contract somewhere (even the mid-level over 4 or 5 years might be too high), then there's no need to bring him back.

Bringing back Ime?

This roster is starting to feel a little crowded, especially if the rumors of James Jones coming to town are true. However, Ime seems like exactly the kind of player and contract that we would sign. If he doesn't generate too much interest around the league, we could bring him in relatively inexpensively, and probably not on such a long-term that he impacts our flexibility going forward.


So basically, I think the Blazers did everyone a huge favor yesterday. As I look at their salary situation, I find myself wondering why I was so surprised at this sort of deal. We're going to struggle next year, and then it's on to glory!

Just speculating, but suppose the Blazers had an understanding with Steve Francis that goes like this: Francis is scheduled to make about $15m during the next two years.  His second year is a player option.  Say he agrees to waive his player option, making this a one-year contract.  The Blazers agree to pay him his entire salary for this year (maybe a little more, if that's possible in a buy-out), since you know that somebody in this league will give a healthy Steve Francis the mid-level.  Francis maybe ends up losing $5M in the deal in order to play a role on a real team (and there are plenty looking for point guards).

Since a buy-out counts against the salary cap for the number of years the contract would have won, the fact that Francis waives year 2 means that he is essentially an untradeable expiring contract.  The Blazers, who would have been right around the cap next summer, will now be significantly below it.  

Listen to what Pritchard was saying early in the day--Portland is now a desirable location for free agents.  He's telling you the plan.  We're not competing for a championship this year, and 2008 free agents include many big names.  If it doesn't go down like this, we're probably positioning for 2009, when Raef also comes off the books...

Would making Stevie into a one-year buy-out make this deal look better?  I think so.

It comes as you're lifting your sandwich to your mouth.  A hurried working dinner interrupted by the familiar buzzing of your phone.  As the cell dances in a half-circle on the table, you register the name on the display and immediately lock eyes with Paul Allen, sitting across the table.  This is the call you knew was coming.

"This is your call," says Paul, as you take a deep breath and reach for the phone.  As adrenaline starts coursing through your veins, you press Talk and answer, just hoping that your voice does not come out shaky.

"Sam Presti--how the hell are you?"

"Hey Kevin," he replies.  There is no hint of nervousness in his voice, as usual.  "You know why I'm calling.  Who's it going to be?"

"I think you know who it's going to be," you reply.

"And that's final?"

"We got our consensus," you say dryly, "But nothing is final until you hear it from the podium."

"Look, Kevin," says Sam, "You and I come from the same background.  You know as well as I do that big men win championships."

"Thanks for validating our decision," you chuckle.

"Hear me out--you HAVE your big man.  Aldridge is no slouch.  You sure those two can play together?"

"You're not going to talk me out of Oden, Sam," you reply.  The anticipation builds in the pit of your stomach.  You know what's coming.

"Alright.  But listen--we want OUR big man.  What is it going to take to get us that big man?"

"Your roster is a mess, Sam," you answer, "Your point guards might not even start on this team.  You have about fifteen project big men.  We like Rashard, but we're not about to draft Oden and then trade him in a month if and when Rashard decides to agree to a sign-and-trade."

"Future draft picks?" asks Presti.

"I don't think so," you reply.

"Wilcox?" says Presti, weakly.

"I'm not going to tell the fans of Portland, 'Sorry we didn't draft the next superstar center, but we DID get the next Blazer backup power forward.'  Which leaves..." you trail off.  You glance up to see Paul Allen smiling at the exchange.

"I can't just give you Ray Allen," says Sam.  "But I'll tell you what.  Now that I'm aboard, I'm committed to rebuilding around this pick, no matter who it is.  Ray has value in this league.  I have deals on the table I could trigger with a phone call.  Perhaps you could share in the spoils."

"I'm listening," you reply.  You figured it might come to this.

Presti audibly takes a deep breath.  He is putting all of his cards on the table now--a position you know he doesn't want to be in.  "Suppose, hypothetically, that I was to trade Ray to Chicago, and among the pieces coming back are Ben Gordon and the number-nine.  Would I get any traction with either of those pieces?"

"Interesting," you say thoughtfully, "What else you got?"

"If I'm laying this out for you, I need an answer quickly," he says, sounding a bit annoyed.  "I'm not waiting until tomorrow.  We need to move forward."

"Understood," you say.

"Suppose we traded Ray to Minnesota for Foye and the number-seven?"

"Huh...I thought Minnesota was trading Garnett," you say, surprised.

"They have to go one way or the other," says Sam.  "They think they can make another run with Ray."

"Interesting.  What else?"

"That's all we have that could get done tonight, Kevin.  What direction do you want to go with this?  What's going to get it done?  I need something you want to pursue further, or my guys are going to move on."

"You want an answer now?" you say incredulously, "I need to run this by Paul."

"I need to know what you're interested in," replies Sam, without the slightest hint of wavering.  "I need to know the cost.  We don't have a lot of time on this one.  So what's it going to be?"

You glance at Paul.  He opens his hands and mouths the words, "It's your call."  This is what you were brought in for, and you both know it.  Your heart has migrated into your ears as you briefly let the possibilities flow through your head--is Foye or Gordon the combo-guard compliment to Brandon's point guard?  Is Joakim Noah your center of the future at #7?  Would Sam give in if you held out for Gordon AND the #9?  Foye AND the #7? What if you demanded Ray Allen?  You have always loved Durant's game, but is any of this worth giving up Oden?

"Come on Kevin," comes the voice over the phone.  "Give me something."

You take one last deep breath.  You know that demanding too much will end this conversation, but you are going to make sure you get value.  

"Well, Sam," you hear your voice say...

Poll

What's it going to be?

0%

"We're somewhat intrigued by Randy Foye."

0 votes

8%

"We might be interested, but we want Gordon and the #9."

3 votes

0%

"Let's talk about those future, unprotected draft picks."

0 votes

19%

"We like Foye, but we're going to need the #7 as well."

7 votes

0%

"I'm willing to deal, but none of these packages interest me."

0 votes

11%

"I'm interested in that #7 pick."

4 votes

5%

"Nah...just kidding. We're taking Durant. Have fun with Oden!"

2 votes

50%

"We're just not giving up Oden under any circumstances."

18 votes

2%

"Let's talk about Ben Gordon."

1 votes

2%

"We might be interested, but only if we got Ray Allen."

1 votes

36 votes | Poll has closed

1. We are NOT going to acquire the #2 pick unless we trade away the #1 pick.  Give it up.  When you see post after post where Blazer fans say they would only give up the #1 pick for LeBron James, what makes you think that Seattle is going to give up the #2 for a package that starts with Zach Randolph?  Sure, if we offered Aldridge, Roy, Sergio, and every other player who made us feel like we had a bright future prior to the lottery, we might get some traction.  But that isn't happening, and we shouldn't want it to happen.
2. Jarrett Jack is NOT Chauncey Billups.  I'm sorry to everyone who would like him to be.  I know that the similarities are numerous and striking:

Neither player was all that good at this point in their career.

Both players are lacking in the hair department.

But come on, people.  Sometimes when a player looks mediocre, it isn't a sign that they're going to be an all-star. Billups' greatest asset is his always-in-control swagger.  Jarrett Jack is decidedly lacking in that area.

3. Oden will be the #1 pick.  Sure, he might get traded to Seattle a half an hour later for Durant and something nice, but Oden is going #1.
4. Darius Miles cannot just take a medical retirement because he wants one.  He can only take a medical retirement if third-party doctors say there's no way he can play again.  Those insurance companies aren't about to cough up his contract money without making darn sure that he's legitimately unable to play.  So enough about "talking Miles into retiring" as part of our future plans.  If he physically can play at any level, whether he does or not, he's going to be counting against the salary cap.

You have heard the news over the weekend: Kobe still wants to be traded.  We know that he has three teams on his list and that Chicago is one of them.  Now, whether or not Kobe will be traded is still totally up in the air, and I'm still of the opinion that Jerry Buss, with the limitations Kobe has put on him, isn't going to be able to find an acceptable trade.  However, I also wouldn't expect any of this to be resolved by draft night.

Given all that, how do the Bulls make any kind of trade with anybody else before knowing whether or not they have a shot at Kobe?  Are they really going to give up the #9 and anything for Zach, when that #9 might be the piece that pushes the deal through with the Lakers?  Just a hunch, but I think any potential trades that were being discussed are going to be put on hold until the Kobe Bryant saga is resolved, and I would be surprised if anything is resolved by next week.

Zach Randolph for the #9 pick and the right to overpay a mediocre small forward for the next five years.

Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge for Kevin Durant.

Jarrett Jack for the #11 pick.

Zach Randolph for the #5 pick and some cap relief.

We have all been hearing (and in some cases, proposing) scenario after scenario aimed at acquiring more draft picks.  Honestly, it has me a little concerned.  Yes, it's a deep draft.  But people: these are DRAFT PICKS.  College players who have never faced NBA competition.  They may be promising risks, but make no mistake that they are risks.

Let's talk about trading into the #9-#13 range.  Traditionally, players taken in this range have been very hit or miss.  And for the most part, we're talking miss.  "But this is a deep draft", you'll say.  Well let's look at the last deep draft--when LeBron and Wade came out.  

#9 - Michael Sweetney
#10 - Jarvis Hayes
#11 - Michael Pietrus
#12 - Nick Collison
#13 - Marcus Banks

Huh.  Well, at least Jarvis Hayes is a starter.

Now don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying "Don't try to get a draft pick".  I'm just saying, please don't go and trade all of our assets for a mid-first-round draft pick.  I don't want to go from Jack-Roy-Aldridge-Zach-Oden to Marcus Banks-Roy-Aldridge-Jarvis Hayes-Oden in a couple years.  You might hit a home run with these picks, but chances are you won't.  I don't want to be the team that traded Elton Brand so they could acquire the promising young duo of Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.

I can now die and know that I have accomplished something:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/blazers/2007/06/gotta_love_harry_manback.html

You heard it, Blazer nation.  You gotta love me.

Oregonlive didn't post my other question, though, where I asked him who was going to take over after the Spurs faded away and he A) included Miami, and B) didn't include Portland.  

Come on!  Miami?  Wade plus the bloated carcass of Shaquille O'Neal?  They're going down hill fast, and haven't got any assets with which to re-tool (pardon me if I don't consider Antoine Walker to be worth a second-round pick).

Hopefully now that I'm famous, more of you will back me in the jersey contest next season.

I couldn't help but notice that when Jason Quick mentioned that we had all but given up on Rashard Lewis and were looking into the second-tier forwards, that one name came up that usually isn't discussed.  Richard Jefferson, check.  Shawn Marion, check (and while we're on the subject, how is Marion second-tier to Lewis?).  Antawn Jamison, check.  Jason Richardson...

Continue reading this post »

Seattle has been bothering me lately.  Here they beat the odds and land the second pick in a draft with two likely superstars.  Their neighbors to the south get the top pick.  While Blazer fans talk about championships and dynasties, Seattle thinks about plunking Kevin Durant into a lineup with Ray Allen.  

Now, don't get me wrong--with some reasonable return for Rashard Lewis, Seattle could be a decent playoff team next year.  But the clock is ticking.  In three years, you might as well start referring to Kevin Durant as Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett.  Ray Allen won't be around forever, and Seattle will be doomed to mediocrity (and the high likelihood of losing their superstar) within just a few short years.

Wake up, Seattle.  You have all the pieces to set yourself up for the next decade and form one of the most entertaining rivalries of all time.

Continue reading this post »