Portland -- After a series of late game meltdowns, including an unexplained failure to get the ball to a red hot LaMarcus Aldridge with the game on the line again in Dallas, owner Paul Allen is reportedly considering benching Head Coach Nate McMillan in favor of highly touted Bernie Bickerstaff.

A numbered clone within the Vulcan organization had this to say: "The same question came up last season. Then, Paul was leaning toward using Andre Miller ahead of Nate. ...Well, anyway, this season that Dre idea had us take our first look at Raymond Felton's leadership credentials. But, no. Just no."

The Blazers' offense often stagnates, drifting through long series of lost possessions. And the childish way the team defends the pick and roll, the fumbling on the fast break, doesn't that suggest the need for a more creative thinker at the helm?

"Whoa! This is Paul's team. And we at here Vulcan are Paul's braintrust. Mr. Allen has assembled the pieces for a deep playoff run. If you think we're going to show our hand now, you're crazy. We're keeping the good stuff under wraps for the postseason! I mean, duh?!"

Besides the excruciating late game meltdowns, this Blazer team is also known for painfully slow starts. At that notion, the clone waved a two-fingered hand in denial. "Paul Allen feels responsible for the product on the floor, but those first half deficits are not the problem! To challenge the talent we have, to show what this team has really got, of course we spot the other teams ten or fifteen points."

Not considering a change there?

"Not to our way of thinking, no. Another benefit: it let's us showcase Aldridge. I mean, how good do you have to be to drag a team back into the game like that night after 40 minute night."

A this point, the playoffs are not guaranteed. Doesn't the team needs wins, now?

"We want to win, sure. But we want to win our way, at the end of the game."

Okay, Nate's finally talking about switching up his starting line-up. How likely is that to save his position in the organization?

"If Nate starts Crawford at the point and Batum at shooting guard and the team starts getting out on a lot of early leads, I'm telling you, Paul and Vulcan will be moving on without him."

I was lucky enough to take "Advanced Basketball" at Chemeketa Community College when Rick Adelman still coached those pre-eminent Chieftan teams. When we weren't playing full court, five-on-five on assigned teams, Coach Adelman had us running drills.

He ran us through different full court passing weaves until we were good enough to bring them off against pressure. And when we failed to make the right pass or missed lay-ins, there might well be hell to pay.

We practiced 3-on-2 fast breaks, with the third defender entering the play from out of bounds through the jump circle at mid-court. And if you didn't score in transition, that counted as a turnover, and the ball went the other way.

[As an aside, Adelman liked to defend 3-on-2's with one man picking up the ball above the foul line while the other man defended at the basket, ready to deny either wing man the easy lay-up. I don't know why I don't see more teams defend it this way.]

We used what we learned with our teammates in a season-ending tournament. By then we knew where our teammates wanted the ball, and we knew how to finish at the rim.

The Blazers are supposed to be a running team this season. But how can you be a running team if you don't know how to finish a fast break?

Others might tell you different. But of all the mistakes and missed shots down the stretch, the mistakes that cost the Blazers the Sacramento game were made in transition with numbers. Where the Blazers, if they are going to be a running team, have got to learn how to finish.

ESPN reports: "Owners dismayed by players asking for 51% BRI 2nite." Dismayed? The players have come down 6% from the last agreement which had them at 57% and they've agreed to real concessions on contract structure. What have the owners done? Moved 3% from  their initial offer of 47%, proposing harsher conditions all along the line.

It's easy to blame the greedy millionaire players. But this story is more about greedy billionaires. The owners paid a premium to say they own an NBA team. Many bought into basketball high, floating huge loans with hefty payments on interest and principal that take big chunks out of their bottom lines. Then the owners doubled down with more poor business decisions.

Greedy for wins, they overpaid for players. Then they asked for limits on team salaries. To help control billionaires from over-spending, the players agreed to their proposal for a soft cap. Free market economics, right? If you are Lebron James, the market should set your worth. Turns out not. The owners also got an individual limit on player contracts of $17M per season.

But it seems the owners were still greedier for wins than for dollars, or at least that's what having so many teams paying luxury tax tells me. The teams not in luxury tax are lucky if they can remain competitive, and not being competitive in sports comes with steep losses on the other side of the ledger in franchise revenue. Playing the game the way the owners have, they've found a way to make the NBA a lose-lose proposition.

Now these billionaires -- the same men who dug these money pits -- want the players to basically guarantee them profitability! And the funny thing is that the teams ARE still profitable -- if you include the growth in the value of NBA franchises.* Or they were. Now that the owners locked out the players, the worth of an NBA team is plummeting. They have two ways out: squeeze the players into an ugly deal, and soon; or pull on their big boy pants and accept losses brought on by their own poor management decisions.

* [The growth in franchise value is not reflected in calculating BRI. Nor are the many tax advantages including double deduction amoratizing presumed losses in player worth, uncounted revenues for arenas, regional market synergies, etc., etc. No wonder teams refuse to show their full revenue pictures! They just want the players to believe they're losing money. Don't get me started.]

So here's your chance to clock in. Who do you blame?

I don't know whether others are bothered by these same things, or not. Anyway, for discussion, here are three things Nate did that bothered me, and may bother you, in losing to the Mavs.

1. Nate told his players and the media that what his team had to do was play under control.

Anyone who watched that series will tell you that when the Blazers tried to play into the Mavs half-court control game, something that experienced team had matured into, the Blazers got worked. When the Blazers played with desperation, they challenged the Mavs athleticism, which is not the Mavs game. This gave the Blazers the extra energy the desperately needed to have a chance at outplaying the Mavs. Right up through the Blazers getting worked in game 6, this was Nate's mantra.

Right decision: At some point, Sarge should have recognized that the only chance his team had was for him to send his guys onto the court pumped up and loose, ready to run and press and beat the Mavs with superior athleticism and heart.

2. Nate blamed his shooters for missing the open shots that his offense generated.

Nate's offense is efficient. But in this six game set, the Mavs tried to make Portland beat them from the outside. It didn't always work, but when the Mavs did hold the Blazers on the perimeter, even in spurts, they grew some nice leads. So we got open shots, we missed them, and maybe you are asking yourself, "Why is this a Nate issue?" That's easy. It's because the outside shots his players missed are pretty much the same outside shots they missed coming down the stretch of the regular season. The Blazers are not the Mavs. The Blazers coach's willingness to make this at times a three-point shooting contest with the Mavs was really asking for the beating the Mavs gave him. That's why this is a Nate problem. And it's not like there weren't other things to emphasize. But if you don't set picks and you don't force double-teams, it's hard to get the opponent out of their set defense. 

Right Decision: Nate gave up too early trying to ride specific mismatches, e.g. Miller and Matthews in the post, in favor of too much reliance on his stock offense. We had mismatches. We could have forced them in addition to running more to get more mismatches in the early offense. (Posting Camby for instance to make Dirk work on defense might have been tried.)

3. Before game 6, asked what his team could do differently, Nate said it's game 6, the teams know what each other was doing and the game would come down to execution.

This is wrong on so many levels. First, it does not account for the need for the Blazers to play with energy and to get the mature Mavs squad out of their comfort zone. It also is basically telling your players that the coach is not going to try anything new, and that you will be forced to beat the Mavs at their own game, a game they have controlled through large stretches of games 1-5, and if you don't make it work, it will be on you. It's also plain wrong: people should make it a goal to learn something new every day of our lives, and Nate violated this principle. It is my firm belief that there were changes to be made to give the Blazers a better chance in the series. It was up to the head coach to find a few new wrinkles, even if they amounted to throwing frying pans and the kitchen sink. [And for those who argue Nate's statement to the press was a ploy on his part, watch game 6 again and tell me what he brought that was new or improved.]

Right Decision: If a coach doesn't have any new ideas, he has players and assistant coaches -- he might even ask the man on the street for help.

Staying the course with the plus/minus the Blazers had toward the end of the series was a horrible decision. We had not shown that our players and our system could beat theirs; we had shown that it took a heroic effort to try and justify the strategy Nate rolled out from the regular season to beat a less-vulnerable-than-thought Mavs team who it turns out were still playing into form.

I am not saying that, recognizing these problems, the Blazers could have necessarily solved them. But it is frustrating watching another first round exit where serious questions about Nate's coaching and creativity come so readily to mind. I mean, 2-4 and out, 2-4 and out, 2-4 and out. Is that simply coincidence?

Putting Game 1 behind us is one option. First let's look at few things the Blazers might look to do differently in Game 2.

Offensive Rebounding

The Mavs are a poor offensive rebounding team. Hard to know that from Game 1. The Blazers let the Mavs have too many offense rebounds, especially in the first half. LMA and Wallace must establish better position and corral the ball. The Mavs coaching staff had their players looking for Blazer tip-outs. Miller must stay in front of Kidd and keep him off the glass. If the Blazers can box out and keep the Mavs one-and-done, the odds tip in the Blazers' favor.

Getting Out on the Fast Break

If the Blazers scour up Dallas misses, they should be able to push the ball at back them. A few early fast break baskets, some mismatches exploited in early sets, and the complexion of the game suddenly changes. The Mavs will be forced into a more one-and-dones in the effort to get back and set up on D.

Defending the Pick and Roll

Jason Kidd and Dirk Nowitzski played great pick and roll basketball in Game 1. Both had great games. Rather than guarding Kidd with Miller, some folks have suggested using Batum. This puts a good defender on Kidd, disrupts the passing lanes, and also leaves Dirk well defended in switches.

In any event, leaving Kidd undefended when he's hitting 3s won't work.  So when Miller does play Kidd, and he might the bulk of their minutes, look for weak-side rotations across the lane to cover Dirk's roll into space, especially to cut off the drive to the hoop.

The Blazers can't let Dirk and Kidd beat them two straight -- they've got to put the pressure on the rest of the Mavs show up and make shots.

Rotations

Playing Roy alongside Miller isn't working. Roy isn't moving well without the ball, and Miller will never be an outlet shooter. Both need the ball in their hands to play their game. Roy needs a quality 3-point threat in the backcourt to give him space to operate. Rudy, a good playmaker in his own right, is option one. Oddly, Nate might try going big, with Brandon at PG and Batum at SG for short stretches.

Roy Matthews and Camby need large and productive minutes with the starting unit. I see Roy playing less overall, but perhaps more effectively by using him in spots. [Having a healthy Oden, or a Vanilla Gorilla, would make the rotations SO much easier and flexible. Against a bigger team, in Round 2, it gets even harder.]

But the main thing is to play through LMA on the post. No waving LaMarcus out of the post; if I am LMA, I am not clearing out, I am calling for the dang ball. Find him, feed him, make the defense respond to him. Trust LMA to make the right pass when doubled, and otherwise to go hard to his move, make the bucket and make the refs call the foul. If the Blazers own the paint like they did in Game 1, it won't take much of an improvement elsewhere to take Game 2.

Get Chandler in Early Foul Trouble

The Blazers won easily in the regular season when they worked Chandler to the bench. Without him, Dallas has trouble collecting rebounds, and the middle clears for drives and for LMA on the low block. So Nate might take the ball at Chandler early. Look for LMA, Crash Wallace, and Miller to challenge him at the hoop.

The Mavs got away with some moving picks in Game 1. Look for Miller to run into a Chandler hip-check to draw the offensive foul, and help keep the Mavs and the refs honest.

Can Some Threes

The Mavericks pack the lane at the defensive end, either by sagging in their man-to-man or by playing a crowded zone. The Blazers need to clear space for LMA to operate and for cutters to the rim. That means someone must hit an occasional 3 just to keep the Mavs defense honest.

Show More Hustle

As much as anything, the Blazers were a step slow to the ball for most of Game 1. Expect Wallace, Batum and Matthews to come out with extra energy for Game 2.

Welcome to the Playoffs!

(Chorus)
Dirk's back!
Dirk's back at the line, again.
Dirk's back!
Dirk's back at the line, again.

Travelin' down the lane alone
Until the limelight of June.
Dirk's looking for ol' Kenny Mauer
Who's crazy as a loon.
Refs keep givin' Dirk those calls
After he done caught their eye.
Ref turned to give Dirk a wink.
That make this grown man cry.

(Chorus)

Come easy, go sleazy,
All night until the rising sun.
Refs called all the shots last night,
I'm like a loaded gun.
Peelin' off my boots and chaps,
I'm saddle sore.
Fourth quarter felt like I was on the rack.
I scream, “No more!”
Fools' gold, those refs were out of their minds.
Their calls were soaking wet,
No tongue's drier than mine!
I'll scream if Dirk gets back.

Dirk's back at the line again.
Dirk's back!
Dirk's back at the line again.
I'm writhing, I'm loading up my pistol.
I'm writhing, I really got a fistful.
I'm writhing, we're shining up our paddle.
I'm writhing, Blazers ain't gonna rattle.

(Chorus)

Refs should die!
Refs should die!
Refs should die, already.

How many wins can the Blazers win to finish out the regular season? To help you in your deliberations, here's the schedule for the 13 games remaining:

Portland Trailblazers: Games Remaining in the 2010-2011 Regular Season
March	Opponent	Record	Last 10	Current Playoff Standing in the West
Sun 20	@ LA L@kers	49-20	9-1	2
Tue 22	vs Washington	16-51	1-9	n/a
Fri 25	vs San Antonio	56-13	7-3	1
Sun 27	@ Oklahoma City	46-23	9-1	4
Mon 28	@ San Antonio	56-13	7-3	1
Wed 30	@ New Orleans	40-31	5-5	7
April
Fri 01	vs Oklahoma City	46-23	9-1	4
Sun 03	vs Dallas	48-21	5-5	3
Tue 05	vs Golden State	30-39	4-6	12 (might be out of the race by then)
Thu 07	@ Utah	36-33	4-6	9
Fri 08	vs LA Leakers	49-20	9-1	2
Tue 12	vs Memphis	38-32	5-5	8
Wed 13	@ Golden State	30-39	4-6	12

The Blazers sit at 40-29, with 7 home games and 6 road games left. Their 3 back-to-backs include two to finish out the season.

The Blazers magic number to guarantee a spot in the playoffs is 10; only 9 if one of those wins is against Utah. Realistically, if they win seven of the remaining games, leaving the team at 47-35, it is difficult to see the team missing the playoffs.

But the Blazers remaining strength of schedule is NOT realistic. It's more like Unreal. Outside of Washington at home, every opponent resides in the tough Western Conference. Nine of the Blazers last 13 games are against Western Conference playoff teams (based on current position). And seven (yes, SEVEN) are against teams positioned for home court advantage in the playoffs. "The NBA," as they say, "where Amazing Happens!"

Look at the current opponent winning percentage for each game left. The Blazers strength of schedule coming down the stretch weighs in at a terrifying .677. That might be daunting if Gerald Wallace's steely demeanor and Barry White vocals weren't present to quell The Fear.

The Blazers have been playing great. This wild ride to the end of the season will test just how great these 2011-2012 Blazers can be.

Nate, there have been recent reports that you feel one-year removed NBA All-Star Gerald Wallace would work better for us off the bench. Is that a fair assessment?

"Yes, I feel that he would work better for us in the second unit."

I'm going to jump start this process with a little intervention. Say it with me, Nate: Start.
 
“Start.”

That’s right, you can do this. Now: Gerald.

“Gerald.”

I am so proud of you! Just one more word: Wallace.

“On the bench.”

Okay, Nate, you’re not getting this. Do you remember Andre Miller?

“Uh, yes.”

And that trouble with Steve Blake?

“I wish we had Blake.”

I do to … coming off the bench.

“With Roy coming back—”

Now, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Stop it

"I could start Steve, and play Dre alongside Wallace on that second unit--"

You are not listening! That kind of thinking's why KP had to trade Blake.

"--second unit, you know--"

No, I don’t know.

"--would present match-up problems for opposing--"

Dear God! With the injuries, we don’t have a second unit.

"--teams on a nightly--"

Help! Help! Men in white overalls, stat!

"--basis. With Steve pulling the major minutes--"

Take me now, Lord, take me, now!

Amar'e Stoudemire and Carlos Boozer joined Garnett out East. So with two spots open it seems like it should be that much easier for LaMarcus Aldridge to make his first Western Conference All-Star appearance in 2011. Just how close is he?

NBA All-Star Rosters have 15 players from each conference. In 2010, depending how you count them, seven of the Western Conference All-Stars were Forwards, and seven were Guards, with Chris Kaman off the bench as the token big dumb white guy.

Western Conference All-Star Forwards 2006-2011

[Note: Stoudemire, Duncan and Gasol are frequently listed as Centers]

Barring injury or a trade sending Carmello Anthony to the East, it's still safe to pencil in Duncan, Nowitzki, Durant, Gasol and Carmello, right up front. That's five. Who else got close in the voting?

2010 All Star Voting: Final Tallies

Western Conference Forwards: Carmelo Anthony (Den) 2,137,560; Tim Duncan (SA) 1,156,696; Dirk Nowitzki (Dal) 1,093,005; Pau Gasol (LAL) 1,051,784; Kevin Durant (OKC) 870,567; Trevor Ariza (Hou) 645,937; Luis Scola (Hou) 580,243; Ron Artest (LAL) 368,281; Shawn Marion (Dal) 363,516; LaMarcus Aldridge (Por) 309,497.

Non-all-star forwards Scola, Artest and Ariza all received more votes than the Blazers' Aldridge. For comparison, B-Roy also finished 10th in the West at his position, receiving a slightly more respectable 422,290 votes among Guards. The obvious deduction? It is unlikely a player from Portland will be voted in--except perhaps for a dominant Greg Oden. Unless things improve for Roy, Portland players will get its players in at the behest of the coaches. And unless the Blazers are leading the West, it will be difficult for the coaches to seed two players from Portand.

Having skipped a year, Phil Jackson is again eligible to coach the All-Star game in 2011. If the Blazers are leading at the end of all-star voting, Nate will coach the West. Then, besides whoever the coaches select, the Blazers' coach might feel generous and fill an optional slot with another Blazer or two. Still, Sarge being Sarge, and with LaMarcus skipping Worlds, his play will need to be good enough to justify his selection.

The make-up of All-star rosters can shift. For information, here are the tallies for Centers.

2010 All-Star Voting for Western Conference Centers: Amar'e Stoudemire (Pho) 1,824,093; Andrew Bynum (LAL) 981,355; Nene (Den) 364,543; Marc Gasol (Mem) 353,155; Antonio McDyess (SA) 328,717; Al Jefferson (Min) 252,777; Greg Oden (Por) 225,245; Marcus Camby (LAC) 188,240; Emeka Okafor (NO) 182,626; Andris Biedrins (GS) 167,481.

Yao is back, and a billion Chinese can't be wrong. Otherwise, it might seem that Bynum, if healthy, would be a shoe-in at Center. But Duncan and even Gasol might be listed at center. And Greg Oden, who finished 7th(!) while playing a shortened 2010 season, could beast his way toward the top.

There might be as many as three centers selected this year for the West. If only two are selected, depending how you count the C/Fs like Duncan, that leaves leaves maybe 6 or 7 slots for forwards.That means roughly 1-3 slots for forwards that we haven't already pencilled in.

David Lee moved to the West. Expected to be a lynchpin in Golden State's uptempo game, Lee could easily take away a big man slot. And if Zach Randolph continues to fill up the stat sheet, he could stay on top for another year. If Aldridge wants that all-star nod, he must improve. Not only must he improve, he's got to improve dramatically.

Several factors impact LMA's chances at becoming an all-star in Portland. This is a small market. That effects not only potential votes, but perception. Making visibility even more of a problem, Portland is on the West Coast. Fans in the East are likely to skip games that start at 10 or 10:30 EST. And we don't play Sunday morning or afternoon games this season. To earn that roster spot, LMA will have to change perceptions. Fans and coaches out East have less opportunity and reason to watch Blazer games; that means even less opportunities to change those perceptions. LaMarcus has got to make a real splash.

Portland's slow pace means less shots to go around. With the return of Greg Oden, a healthy B-Roy, and a surging Nic Batum, Aldridge should see less usage in the offense, translating to a lower points per game average. With Oden, Camby, and Joel gobbling up misses, LMA will also find it difficult to significantly increase his rebound numbers--especially when he's leaking out on the break.

Portland has a number of solid young players. Oden is back and and Nic Batum has received strong mention among NBA SFs. Being one of many can confound voting among fans and among the coaches. But if Aldridge can maintain the #2 spot in the offense on a fiery young team, that might instead tend to showcase him.

LMA will need to improve his play to continue to stand out in this talented crowd. I doubt that improvement will come from improved shooting. With the muscle he has added, I hope the improvement he shows will be down on the block.

Selection is often considered a numbers game. So here are the numbers.

Forwards: 2009-'10 Season and Career averages (per game)

Blake Griffon and Tiago Splitter project as good rookie big men out West, but they would need a few phenomenal months to make the 2011 all-star team. Other notable Western Conference rookie forwards include Demarcus Cousins, Epke Udoh, and Al Farouq Aminu.

LMA's numbers are solid. We can parse numbers all day, but in the end I think what we'll prove is that solid is not good enough for a player looking to surface out of a still strong pool of candidates. A look at the numbers does tell you, that except for Z-Bo, all-star forwards involve others in the flow of the offense. So besides scoring in the paint and rebounding, LMA would do well to pass quickly out of the double team, find the open man, and feed the post.

Defense is harder to quantify, but LMA is not considered a defensive standout. With questions about his strength and his ability to hold off wide bodies, he is seen as a questionable post defender. Improvement on the defensive end can only help his case. With his length, and playing along Camby who shares his high center of gravity, LMA might be capable of developing a healthy appetite for rejections.

Speaking of healthy, in 2010 LMA held down the fort, contributing strongly to a 50 win season. He was forced to play out of position most fo the season. And with the Blazers having few other viable offensive options, defenses were able to key on him. So, while some see him as an underachiever--possibly even as having hit his plateau--in many ways, it is impressive that Aldridge was able to keep his numbers steady through last season.

When Camby came to Portland, Aldridge again performed better at his natural PF position. He has good length and long arms, and is fast for a big man. I can only imagine that playing PF alongside a natural post player like Greg Oden will help his efficiency, if not necessarily his net production.

As a quiet assassin, Aldridge's consistent production rarely makes highlight footage. Dependability is nice for Portland's fans and coaching staff. But if he wants that all-star nod, Aldridge needs to add an element of drama to his game. What Portland fans have been missing is what the media and league fans outside Portland have also wanted to see from him. Something I want to call Heart.

I trust that LaMarcus is playing with effort. But I want to see it. I want to see Aldridge play his heart out. I want to see more than a gifted athlete playing to the potential of his body. I want to see him fight for rebounds. I want to see him wage battle, not only with that sweet midrange game, but down in the paint. I want to see him play with intelligence, hitting Oden when the double comes, like a fish in water. I want it all.

I want LaMarcus Aldridge to prove to me what I wanted to believe all along. That he is an all-star.

(Portland) -- Portland area Wiccan covens joined together in raising a massive black maypole in Forest Park last night. They say it was all in an effort to bring LeBron James to the City of Portland.

Chanting within their sacred circle, young women wearing nothing more than Nike LeBron Signature shoes danced around bonfires and under the light of the moon. Joyous celebrants wove colored streamers round a huge pole, invoking the name "King James! King James!"

One unidentified young woman stood outside that circle. Taping the festivities on video, she claimed to have the event streaming live to LeBron's agent.

Asked about such goings on in the heart of Portland's wild areas, she said:

"This sacred rite is reserved as a celebration of spring. It is a beautiful recognition of the renewal of life, woman and man. But in this case, it's meant to get LeBron James to sign with the Blazers."

"Well, you folks are certainly going all out."

"We just want to show how much LeBron signing with the Portland Trail Blazers means to local fans. He's going to decide next week, so at this point there's no reason to hold anything back."

"Efforts made by some cities to interest LeBron have been considered, well, let's say, embarrassing."

"I wouldn't know about that. I think LeBron James and women's bodies are beautiful. And from what I hear so far, LeBron is favorably impressed with the fanbase out here." The young woman provided no further comment.

During the chilly dawn, Sword Mistress Leila Morningstar cut the circle and the invocation was complete. She was then available for questions.

BEp: Tell us, whose idea was this?

SMLM: We really arrived at this decision via consensus.

BEp: Do you think that Portland has the pieces to put together something for LeBron?

SMLM: I would like to think we do, yes.

BEp: Witches are not considered a high demographic for men's professional basketball. What are area covens looking to get out of this?

SMLM: Portland has been a great home for so many of us. We thought that giving all we have to bring LeBron to Portland was something we could do to give back. Besides, Paul Allen said we could use his skybox.

LeBron will make his final decision on July 7. Hopefully, these fair maidens gave King James something to think about.

Injuries

It would be easy to chalk this one up to injuries: knees, shoulders, backs, ankles, a hamstring. But these Blazers have been winning, anyway. No, the Blazers lost this one to a part of the body you never win without: heart.

Referees

15 fouls on Washington, 23 on Portland. FTs: 25-28 vs 15-16 for the Blazers. That's 10 points. It wasn't all lack of penetration. It was clear that the refs were ready to blow the Wizzle on the Blazers at a moments notice.

Real Bad D

Here's how to beat the Blazers' "defense":

1. Have a player set a pick

2. Watch the Blazers switch

3. Exploit the mismatches

4. Do it! Do it! Do it all night!

It doesn't help when you let them stay in the game off first-half putbacks, but switching every time? That makes it too easy. A coach can go big -- especially with Andre Miller the Refs' whipping boy. Even with him in, it was worth a try.

Tired Threes

3-17. Really? Whatever. The only Blazers making the low post work were Miller and Aldridge. Maybe we should have called their numbers every time down.

Notes

Kudos to Aldridge and Miller.

Kudos to the rebounding edge.

Nate's strategy would have worked if Bayless and Rudy were in stride, but they weren't. So with all the penetration we gave up and lack of rebounding, why not try a big line-up like this to stop the bleeding? They should have tried Webster at SG and Cunningham at the 3 alongside Juwan and LaMarcus.

Even looking at his 8 phat assists, Bayless is not ready to start. The generic scouting report has him figured out: guard shot at rim, collect ball, run it back while JBay jaws at ref. For my money, start Blake alongside Miller next game if Brandon isn't back yet. I would start Rudy, even for limited minutes, but his shot doesn't look right ... yet.

Ugh! Tough one.

No team with such injuries stood any chance.

Against the World Champs? Not worth a glance.

The Blazers were DOA, a team dead on its feet!

Except Zombie Blazers cannot learn defeat.

K*be had thoughts of winning and he had the ball,

Then he met Martell, and his game hit the wall.

Limping on like Roy through the cold Portland rain,

I watched Zombie Blazers eat K*be's brain!

Oh! L*ker fans, you must all lament,

Each of these nine that have now come and went.

But never did anyone the likes of this see,

The cold, beating Heart of the Blazer Zombie.

One of the ugliest things about watching a Blazer broadcast is the not so subtle way that Mike&Mike diminish Andre Miller's contributions. I could let it go if it wasn't every quarter.

In this last contest, it got absurd. Mike&Mike lauded a few good plays, did mention the importance of his 20+ points, but they kept up with the negative comparison's with Blake, kept mentioning Miller's age negatively, harping on every turnover (okay he had six), and then even got into a discussion where they called him an aging Andre Miller and claimed he couldn't drive like he used to even though he kept finishing at the rim or drawing defenders and dishing. (And you oughta be more careful, Mike Rice: they might take away your driver's license!) You gotta love Howard, veteran leader, brings it, teaches on the court. Mike&Mike love them some Howard -- and they could say the same things of Andre Miller, but there's not. Miller's iron man mentality and games played streak -- don't think he's not playing through injuries -- could be announced as a point of pride, especially in these times. Instead, when it is mentioned, it appears as a random factoid.

With Miller playing big minutes deep into the 4th, M&M started a chant about how much we were missing Steve, how the 4th quarter rotation is just unnatural with Miller out there, how we should start worrying with Miller on the floor -- like any minute, old man Miller was gonna hork up a lung. Hey! I am a Blake fan, loved it when we got the guy back from Denver, want him on the team. But Andre Miller is a better player. Not a perfect fit in that an offense that generates open perimeter shots for him that he has no business taking, but better at so many things he does do. Miller made an important contribution toward winning that game. With what else we were getting at the 1, I don't see how we win it without him.

News flash, Mike&MIke: Miller isn't Steve Blake. Playing with these guys is still pretty new to him. He was playing in a system that Nate would not change to suit him. Now that Nate's system has broken down due to injuries, Andre Miller is performing better, free to really play basketball on most of our sets. But don't ask Nate. After the game, he was asked whether the freer game he was discussing benefited Andre Miller. Nate chomped down. No. Not any more than any other player. Has our coach ever said, "I'm sorry" or "I was (get the crash cart ready) wrong"?

Which leads to my second question. Is this systematic rudeness toward one of the top-ten NBA PGs in the past decade coming out of some kind of playbook? Does this guy snap towels when you aren't looking? Stomp on feet in the shower? With all the ruckus, it's like he kills puppies.

I don't have the information together to support an answer to that -- whether he is being persecuted, c'mon the guy is way too sweet to kill puppies -- but I don't like the tenor of the comments I hear. It has gotten to the point with some fans that they don't like to hear support for Miller. Well, guess what, Andre is a Blazer. And I support our Blazers. Do you?

The boob tube told me the internet (series of tubes that it is) will hammer n00bs down with web-speak. Blogosphere hell BE is not. Blogosphere 0, literate Portland 1. But I guess there's a time and myspace for everything.

I am sitting here after the thrashing handed our home town heros last night in Madison Garden Garden with one take-away: Dave's comment that, while we were listless overall, at times the team did play with some energy.

Enough!

"I am the focus of our offense ... where I go, the team goes ... I am tired of being the one who has to sacrifice my game the most ... the superstar should not be the one having to sacrifice ..."

Do you remember this character? Once upon a time, the Blazers had an extremely effective young player they gave a max deal. That player then demanded the ball on every possession, was the team leader in points and minutes with the ball in his hands, and started to disaffect the members of his team who were not interested in his personal vision.

Who are we talking about?  The loved B-Roy or the hated Z-Bo?

When I heard a comparison of these two players on BE the first time earlier this season, I thought, 'Never in the same sentence!' Now I not only pair them, I ask the musical question!

I recall when T-Bob gave Z-Bo his max deal. Never again would our NBA hobo score 20 a night from weak-side put-backs. No, it was his team, and the sets would now run through him. Were you watching when B-Roy, who, with the entire Knick team collapsed in the paint waiting on him, decided to penetrate 1-on-5, got stripped (naturally) and watched as the ball headed the other way? That is st00pid.

B-Roy has to have his Blakey. Even when Miller comes in, Miller has to play Blake's role, standing around for Roy's pass out of the inevitable double-team for a three that Miller might hit at 25% if he's lucky. And for you Bayless fans (he is looking good!), Bayless can't play his role as penetrator alongside Roy when we are investing in Roy-ball. We have two of our three PGs, good players in this league, who -- for the commitment to one player -- don't have a home for their game on this roster.  And that is st00pid.

Shot Clock not Blazers' Friend!

We got a superstar SG who can't use screens and cut off the ball. The coaches have the rest of the team standing around watching. No wonder the opponent's have figured us out. Not only are they stifling our offense, they are saving energy to run our and pound us down at the other end. Not being able or willing to utilize screens, move defenders to create mis matches, involving everyone in the offense, and make the opposing team work on D is ... surprising.

Play Basketball 'Little Bit', Squish Like Bug!

Play basketball yes? Okay. Play basketball, no? Okay. Play basketball "Little Bit" ... Please realize, regardless of what Nate is telling us about effort ... okay, I'll say it, I think that's just a cop-out. If effort was all it took, George Foreman would have left Ali on the canvass in Zaire and not the other way around. It takes intelligence to beat the other guy. A group of people, especially. But in team sports, intelligence is often subbed out for The Plan. Nate's plan has stifled this team's offense. We need to find the answers on the floor, and we won't do that sticking to the sets we do that pose so few challenges. We need to play more intelligently, learn how to play fluid, full-on basketball. (Joel, for instance, should learn how to catch a basketball. There must be drills. Once he's got the ball, he's fine. Hands, Joel!) Play Basketball Yes!

Coach Nate

Nate lost the Seattle players for working them into the ground. He wore our players out last year during that stretch run into the playoffs. He has a poor track record keeping players healthy. The ultimate irony in Nate's coaching style is that he even injured himself recently in a scrimmage. (Heres to a speedy recovery. He is a good man.) Don't expect Sarge to go changin'.

Not St00pid

Okay, Mr. Smartypants, here we are, the walking wounded, way to kick us when we're down! And what would you suggest, then? Well ...

Play. Freaking. Basketball.

Got it? Weird idea to involve all of your players to defeat all of their players, I know. Hardly seemed fair at all, going into the year with all the talent we could put on the court. That's what had Andre Miller following the team around Vegas last summer like a little barky dog who's family's come home from a long vacation without him.

Instead, our brain trust is investing in a superstar concept which might get enough whistles to drag us to 54+ regular season wins. (Not in MSG, though. Thank you for not whistling!) Even our coaches weren't willing to leave behind Greg Oden, though.  And boy did Roy let us know about that! [That's the kind of honesty that so endeared us to Rasheed Wallace.]

We got Andre Miller not because he fit Nate's limited concept. No. He is that veteran floor general Nate had been asking for, though. [But where is my banger 4/5 I was asking for KP? Do NOT think you're off the hook, even though you tried to bring me an Andre Miller.]

Even though Miller is 6-1 as a starter, Nate refuses to consider starting at PG. Because Andre Miller wants to, get this, Play Fluid Basketball. He isn't mentally invested in our junior high offense. Miller knows that when you move defenders, you create mismatches. He sees what we have been missing. He wants to help this team play smarter.

Earlier on, it must have been killing him every day a little more on the inside to see everything going to waste on this team. Then Nate told him in no uncertain terms that he would not be playing beautiful, fluid basketball with our players, no way!

Now? With Oden out, Miller's marginally better than useless. No one left is crazy enough to buy into his style of real, full-on basketball without the support of the coaches. And we are talking coaches who won't even insist that Roy fill the lanes on the break. But Miller's a professional. If you don't want to play basketball the right way, that is really sad, given what this team could be. But Miller knows it is just not his call. And if no one wants to hear him talk about it, either, that's fine, too. If there's one thing Miller knows how to do it's shut up. He'll play Santa, and let us get what we ask for.

Play. Freaking. Defense.

Please play those players willing to D up. Simple, I know.

Don't automatically flash to cutters, because ... see ... the other teams know how to play bas-ket-ball. They know to drive to create double teams. And they know that if you are alone, you cut to the rim and the other team knows to look for that. Knowing all that, they must be freakin' geniuses! With Greg out, Joel will need his fouls (count on Howard using up his pretty fast). It is time to play hard perimeter D or to sit. And it will be hard, too, with how rested the other team will be from watching Roy operate for 20 seconds.

Get Healthy and Host Big Parties!!!

I had intended to call Blazerfan out for thinking that the NBA higher-ups would let the Blazers ever win a title again. But, if you haven't noticed yet, I am st00pid, too. Here's to BIG PARTIES, with Greg and Rudy and Nic drenched in (Andre) champagne, in 2011-12-13-...

Canzano's yellow journalism has hit a new low in fostering hatred for the Blazers' star player Brandon Roy. Is it time to call for an end to Canzano's tenure as a paid sports writer and radio personality in Portland?

Canzano has reached a new low in showing his willingness to call out Roy in a way that is coloring his actions with the national sports media. These are not jail blazers and should not be treated that way. Are we going to let trash stand as journalism in Portland? Are we going to stand by as the local paper drags these stellar young men through the mud until they've had enough of trying to play in this town?

I have had enough.  I don't want to switch on 95.5 and find myself listening to hate radio against the team I love instead of the pre-game show I want.  And I am done buying The Oregonian ever again until Canzano's brand of yellow journalism is no longer tolerated on its pages.  Please let your voice be heard.

Everybody knows that we have NO chance to get King James in the Free Agent Sweepstakes of 2010. Or do they?

KP is stocking up on expensive talent. People are saying that KP has this team loaded with starter quality backups at every position but PF.  Some of that talent just resigned for a ton, and some will be restricted free agents in 2010.

Let's say James doesn't win the championship this season. If I am the Cavaliers, do I want James to walk and get nothing? Or do I want to do a sign and trade with a franchise out West? Hmm ... let's think about that.

Mix and match the contracts as you like. Throw in one from Column A and two from Column B and you got yourself a deal. If we take one of their deadwood guys, all the better if you're Cleveland.

The PTBs were a struggling mess.  They lost home games and had not showed any ability to contain the opponent.

Then Nate started Andre.  Voila!

The Blazers went on a five game win streak and are now tied with Denver atop the Northwest Division.

How does Miller do it?

Let's hope it's not through the use of the dark forces. There is always a price to pay. Maybe Miller knows the Dim Mak, the death touch whispered of in the East.

Evidence of something weird going on:

In Game 1 of the Miller Streak, Tony Parker plays 11 minutes then goes out with an injury and the Blazers get back on the winning track.

Games 2-4, a team that has struggled against all comers is winning by double digits. (How did Andre conjure up such creampuffs?)

Game 5 of The Streak, Chris Paul is fighting to bring his team back when he goes out with a high ankle sprain. News is CP3 will miss games.

The most compelling evidence of mystical forces during The Streak to date? Nate McMillan starts two PGs in every contest, and Bayless plays well off the bench.

Spooky times, my friends.

AP (Allen, Paul "Do I own that?") -- Travis Outlaw's unconscious shooting off the bench gave the Portland Trail Blazers the big push they needed tonight to win their home opener 96-87 against the Houston Rockets.

Outlaw came into the game when Aldridge, the leading scorer to that point, had to sit with early foul trouble. With the separation Outlaw and newly acquired back-up veteran point guard Andre Miller provided in the second quarter, Portland built a lead it never relinquished in winning their home opener.

The depleted Houston Rockets showed heart in the road loss, clawing their way within six points in the fourth quarter.  Outlaw's buoyed his leadership in heading the Blazers in the scoring column by opportunistic play on defense and two key rebounds late as Coach Nate McMillan kept Outlaw in the game down the stretch.

During the preseason, Portland area websites and local sports talk programs had been clogged with demands that the franchise rid itself of Outlaw.  Perhaps seeking revenge for an ousting by the Rockets from last year's playoffs, "Trout" would not be denied.

Outlaw spoke with this reporter after the contest. "Travis, some folks out there questioned your ability to help this team win. Was this a statement game to set the record straight?"

"Nah.  It ain't even like that. Portland fans are smart. B-Roy says they know I hit nine game winners for them last season. I keep winning games for them, Coach Nate says they gotta come round to me."

"Some question your role on this team. You have few starts in your years here in Portland. The lineup is clogged with wing players. You looked to be behind both Webster and Batum at small spot before his injury. Nate came out before the season and said you would be backing up Aldridge at power forward. But with your build you seem out of position there. Where do you see your yourself fitting with this team, at the three or the four?"

"Well, you know, I'm a scorer. I don't see myself as having so much a position except to come in and score. I guess, you know, I a sixth man type player."

Travis Outlaw is certainly a scorer.  Going 9-14 from the field, hitting shots from everywhere on the floor, Outlaw led his team with 23 points in the victory. If the Blazers ever trade him, Portland fans can rest assured that young gun Portland GM Kevin Pritchard will demand someone very special in return.

Batum is out.  Half the season or more out. There goes the whole two units theory.  Nate will be scrabbling to find groups he has confidence in. Travis will play behind Martell at SF. This leaves Howard playing big minutes. Unless ...

How about, when LMA comes out, Joel comes in and we go Twin Towers?

C and PF have 96 minutes a night. LMA gets 33, Greg might get 30 and Joel another 30, with Howard subbing in a little, more when there's foul trouble. With Batum out, the twin towers could be the answer to some lineups with tremendous interior defense. They would gobble up tons of boards. Joel won't take touches away from Greg, but he will be there on the opposite block to collect easy buckets on put backs and when GO draws the double-team.

Alternately, if Travis does see time at PF, then that opens up a spot for Rudy to play alongside Roy.  Those three formed  one of our most productive combinations from last season.

We might even get to see if Cunningham can play at this level (at the 3 spot, please, unless we are going small).

While Batum's injury requiring surgery is dreadful news, it should force Nate to think more creatively. I am looking forward to seeing what he comes up with.

PAX PORTLANDICUS!

Sometimes people aren't very logical. Say you have a logjam at SF, your championship window is just starting to open and you decide to risk the future of the franchise going all-in for $50M on a pizza-addicted, aging guy from Turkey who would need to take the ball out of Roy's hands to have any effectiveness. Just say.

There is little doubt many decisions humans make lack logical consistency. It's been shown that the big decisions we make and the tiny decisions we make are usually equally horrible.

Studies show that people make very sound decisions when the decisions are 1) important enough for them to think about and 2) the decisions concern values they commonly deal with and are comfortable with. For instance, a corporate board commonly charged with making decisions with money ranging from $20K to $5M is usually skilled in making decisions within that range. Ask them how to spend $100 and they won't see the point in responding. More interesting, faced with a $50M decision, they won't know how to analyze the situation. They will start to dream, go on gut, or take existing data at face value. The decision isn't in their wheelhouse. If they get a hit, it will be more luck or perhaps talent than skill, though boardrooms tends to squelch talent.

But I'm not here to talk about He-dos and He-donuts. Instead, I want to talk about he saids and he saids.

It is no surprise to me that Andre Miller is confused with his role on this team. One interview quotes Nate as saying there is open competition at the 1, 3 and 5. The next time he's quoted as saying the starting unit he used last year is what he's going with this season. That kind of logical inconsistency is hard to resolve unless you understand how power works.

I am a Nate fan. I think he is great for this young team. But left with the freedom most coaches are a cult of personality naturally develops where your thoughts are right because they're your thoughts, not because they're sound, well-thought out, or based on the data. And might isn't necessarily right.

I doubt that Nate is playing Phil Jackson in this scenario. But maybe he is sending Miller a message. 'This is my team. Players on this team follow my rules. If you want to play, you have to pay your dues and earn your spot.'

This makes some sense. More sense maybe if it was a battlefield and not a basketball team. Where this sort of messaging really starts to break down is when Miller is not given credit for the dues he's already paid in a long and productive career with the league. This guy is not a rookie. He knows how to play. Early evidence suggests that he knows the Blazers offensive sets and defensive schemes better than many players who were here last year. Miller wasn't hired for his athletic dominance. He was hired for his basketball IQ.

Maybe it's time for Nate to show more flexibility and respect -- and maybe to demonstrate a better understanding regarding the power of his words. I am not saying he should necessarily start Miller. There might be sound basketball reasons to bring him off the bench. Though, like many here, I think the idea that Nate will ever platoon players like Dunleavy did is not proven out by Nate's history as a bench coach -- another logical inconsistency.

What I would like is for the team to step forward and openly support Miller as a player, a man, and for what he could mean to the franchise. I would like Nate to consider again whether his thinking is sound.

In three years, with so many great players in mid-career under longterm contracts, I don't think Nate's current approach will be the right one to lead these men. And I don't think it's fair to Miller right now.

Why ask Andre Miller who he would start? Miller is a veteran. He admittedly has as high a basketball IQ as any player on the team. He is a point guard who led a weak Philadelphia squad into the playoffs. And he led that team to a 2-and-0 record over the Blazers last season.

Andre Miller was asked if he expects to start. He said he has always started. I presume if asked whether he would start himself, he would say "Yes."

Miller would start by filling out the starting roster with our big pieces. At shooting guard, I have little doubt. He'd chose Roy.  You start All-Star, Second Team NBA players. And do we have a viable option to starting LaMarcus Aldridge at power forward? (For those BEdgers who think KP's done, tell me what you do if LMA has to sit out a month.)

Miller has had a look at our small forwards. While Martell has more experience , Batum gave the Blazers equal stats last year in blocks, rebs, steals, and assists in half the minutes that Martell played in 07-08 when last he was healthy. Martell might get the nod from deep, but Nic shoots very well, too, has a game growing by leaps and bounds, and plays lock down D.

Some say that we need to stretch the court. "With Miller in there, you have got to surround him with shooters because he has trouble shooting from the outside and the opponent will clog the middle and double Roy."

I disagree. Miller is a creator on offense. Miller isn't paid because he's a lock-down defender. He's paid because he makes everyone around him a better scorer. In the starting line-up so far, you have Roy and LMA, both excellent scorers.

It's a guess, but I'm guessing Miller wants to start the overall better player here, and Miller thinks that's Batum. 

"But if I start Nic, I gotta have another scorer."

And that answer is obvious. At center, Miller starts Oden. People want to blame our bigs for failing to get on the low blocks and hammer the middle. The same people probably blamed Z-Bo for being a black hole. (OK, everybody blamed Z-Bo for being a black hole.)

If I am Miller, I know I play better with Oden -- Pryzbilla can score but he will not be dominant. I know I make Oden better. I make everyone on the court a viable threat in the offense. And that is how I stretch the defense, by making every player a legitimate scorer. "If my offense is different, sorry. Will we have trouble scoring? If I thought that, I wouldn't have been pushing to come here."

Miller's Starters?

PG - Andre Miller

SG - B.Roy

SF - Batum

PF - LMA

C - Greg Oden

Why should we listen to Andre Miller? The starting lineup of Blake-Roy-Batum-LMA-Pryzbilla was one of the more efficient offense teams in the league last year. They played credible defense. And with Joel in the middle, they were a fine rebounding team.  But they were the same starting five that put us in a hole coming out of the gates time and again last season.  The same starting five that Nate stuck with until too late in the first round against Houston -- the team that had shooters. The Blazers had home court and were ousted in 6 -- because the first team couldn't create shot opportunities for those shooters.

Maybe we shouldn't listen to Andre Miller. The Blazers won 54 games last year without him.

But we got Miller for a reason. Because of his basketball IQ. Because he makes those around him better. I say, let him earn his money. Start these guys and see if he's right.

'77

People, people! All this talk and it simply does not matter. It is so cool we have one of, maybe the most savvy GM in the NBA. Draft Day is coming. KP will answer our questions in ways that will likely surprise us all. Welcome to KP's Slapfest '09.

Since we do have KP, anything stated as fact below, such as a high likelihood of having to keep such and such player, assumes that KP will not intervene with his Supernormal Powers and get the team some giant upgrade.

It is fine to talk, fun to speculate. But several factors are missing from most if not all of the analyses I have read to date.

Regarding one Trout

Travis Outlaw is a role player. He is not a back-up PF. He is not a natural starter at any position. He has too many holes in his defense.  He is not reliable (goofy). Travis is hot and cold. He brings potentially unstoppable scoring and a high level of activity off the bench. He is special enough in that role to merit keeping. This is how he should be viewed. Put him on the depth chart with an asterisk, as a rover.

Regarding the Back-Up PF

Okay, yes, Channing is all but gone. (And the forgettable bigs we acquired during '08 training camp don't effect any equations. Ugh.) If we spend another year without a banger, an enforcer and defensive rebounder, who can body other bigs, and maybe present a back-to-the-basket low post threat, we will have missed the boat. This need is screaming! KP, get us a game-changer back-up to LMA!

Regarding the PG Situation

Yes, Sergio does not fit Nate's system (and he bounces the ball around way too much, reminding me of Damon's bad college-shot-clock eating habit). But Bayless as yet does not fit Nate's system either! Jerryd is not a true PG and would get posted up by most shooting guards. But he might fit with Roy. Jerryd can guard other 1's. But we need him to improve his shooting so he presents a credible threat to sink outside shots. BOTH Sergio and Bayless could go. But since Bayless still has upside here, keeping him is worth the risk of losing perceived trade value. Sergio, as many have said, has no upside under Nate. That leaves Blake, and he could go, too.

Oft villified, Steve brings a lot. He is a fine if not brilliant passer with a great Assist-to-TO ratio. He does not use much shot clock, getting the ball to the next option very quickly. He shoots the 3 VERY WELL. He is a little slight. His defense could be better. And he is not much at pushing the tempo in the open court.  He reminds me of Steve Kerr, also not a jumper. If I remember right, Kerr did alright playing alongside an incredible 2-guard they had in Chicago a while back. They won some titles, right? With the 2-guard handling the ball alot on offense, especially in crunch time.

So: Whatever your analyses, if you have us selling out for a PG who needs the ball, please help us understand where that leaves BRoy. Do we trade Brandon, since he won't be having the ball much on offense? Or do we start Rudy, and bring Brandon off the bench in the sort of role his friend Travis has now? Don't just quote from FantasyBob.com. Let us know how the player fits the team, the existing personnel, and makes us better, not just different.

Besides youth, what needs fixing in this group is defense and the ability to score going full court. If Bayless is truly an upgrade at the defensive end (we should not burden our bigs, especially Greg, with picking up so much of the slack), then maybe he is the PG of the future.

Regarding the Need to Trade Now or Lose Value

This is a myth. I don't believe it. In fact, I think it could not be more untrue.

Here is why. Look at the trade posts. They try to match salaries, right? Well, the young talent we have is relatively under paid. That is the effect of the rookie salary scale. We have rights to sign these players to contracts matching their abilities. Besides the luxury tax and any reticence from PA, there is nothing stopping that. If we have Martell and Travis and Batum at the 3, and in talent level they are worth a ton, but we have to match salaries to make a trade work, we need to give someone a two- or three-for-one on the talent scale for a probable slight upgrade at one position ... think a second, does this in any way sound like a KP move? No. It does not.

What would KP do? He would wait until his chips reflected their actual value or better before trading them. He would wait for his players to get paid what they are worth before he matches salaries with other teams in trading talent. In this regard, standing pat is waiting until your security matures so you don't pay a penalty for early withdrawal.

The Likelihood of Trading Injured Blazers

Martell missed a year with multiple foot surgeries. Blake just underwent shoulder surgery. Oden is not yet 100% after micro-fracture knee surgery. How likely is it that we can get near-full-value value for these players in a trade? Please consider this is your analysis of trades involving these players before they have demonstrated a full recovery, meaning after they've played at least some pre-season games. That timing seems to be a real problem for many trade scenarios I have seen discussed.

Like everyone else, I would like to see upgrades in personnel. In KP I trust. And it is a truism that it does not matter how deep your bench is if your starters can't compete with the opposing starters. And I will entertain the idea that we should make the move now to acquire that key player so that we can get settled into the team we will become as we start our series of championship runs.

However, think about this: If we make a big move now, trading two- or three-for-one, we lose flexibility AND we lose value. We need to know if Martell will pan out. We need more time to evaluate how good Oden and LMA will get to understand what our needs will be.  We need to know what holes need to be filled before we start filling them. (Please consider this when offering Joel in a trade -- I say we keep them both.) The team is closer.  Fix what's broken and the maturation of your investment will give you the value you need to get any missing pieces at the least cost in talent.

Unless you are KP. Then do whatever you want.

Have a great Draft Day '09!

Beijing -- Taking up the cry of long-suffering coach Rick Adelman, millions of Yao Ming fans moved from the Chinese blogosphere to the streets chanting pro-Yao and anti-officiating sentiments.

"Where are the calls against the Trail Blazers?" "Yao is getting mugged." "The referees always call playoffs against Rockets."

Relief!

After Game 4, the relief in Beijing was palpable. "Finally, fouls called against such crowding."  "Yao still is being assaulted. Every play they should call fouls on the American Running Dogs." "Yao would hang 40 on the Blazers except for their cheating ways." And, "Yao is so much a gentleman that he does not respond with superior Chinese kung fu."

Banners still hung far low:  "If Rockets not make it out of first round, Chinese people boycott the NBA!"

Stern appears in Tien Mien Square

David Stern, sensitive to the Chinese position, read a short announcement. "It is about time that Yao, that giant talent from this unbelievably huge and growth oriented market, has made it out of the first round." When reminded that Houston had to win another game, Stern said, "Well, let's call that a formality."

"You are sure the Rockets make Round 2?"

"Yes, you can quote me in your native tongue that it will be a Kobe versus Yao showdown in Round 2."

"But sir, is that not a discredit to the proud Trail Blazers franchise of Bill Walton?"

Signing off with a little wave and a crooked smile, Stern said, "Believe me, by now they're used to it."