SBNation.com User Blog: rh_misar

what if PA sold the team to PK?

rh_misar — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:42 -0000

Some people don't think that Paul Allen is preparing to sell the organization. Other people don't want him to. I, am neither of these people.

As a committed fan (I watch almost every single game, regularly listen to our local sports radio programs, and read Blazers news here, at OregonLive, ESPN, Yahoo, and Sports Illustrated) with zero "inside information", I offer you my own opinions about our franchise as it currently stands:

Paul Allen meddles too much. Somebody please sign him up for fantasy basketball on espn or yahoo or something. And while you're at it, do the same for Bert Kolde and everybody else at Vulcan.
Larry Miller is a walking definition of a 'yes man'. He does what he is told because he (presumably) makes a lot of money and doesn't take much heat, but he will never be a contributor to this organization in any way.
Chad Buchanan seems like a nice guy, who genuinely cares about improving the roster, but for as long as they keep him "auditioning" for the GM job, he's not going to go against what Paul Allen says.
Kaleb Canales also seems like an authentic, organization-first kind of guy (supposedly he works so much that he sleeps at the training facility from time to time), which is great! But prospective free agents won't be impressed, and young coaches are often out-coached late in close games.

Some people don't think that Paul Allen is preparing to sell the organization. Other people don't want him to. I, am neither of these people.

Paul Allen meddles too much. Somebody please sign him up for fantasy basketball on espn or yahoo or something. And while you're at it, do the same for Bert Kolde and everybody else at Vulcan.
Larry Miller is a walking definition of a 'yes man'. He does what he is told because he (presumably) makes a lot of money and doesn't take much heat, but he will never be a contributor to this organization in any way.
Chad Buchanan seems like a nice guy, who genuinely cares about improving the roster, but for as long as they keep him "auditioning" for the GM job, he's not going to go against what Paul Allen says.
Kaleb Canales also seems like an authentic, organization-first kind of guy (supposedly he works so much that he sleeps at the training facility from time to time), which is great! But prospective free agents won't be impressed, and young coaches are often out-coached late in close games.

So, without going into too much detail, i want to present a hypothetical scenario to my fellow Blazer'sEdge readers and see what you all think:

Paul Allen sells the team...
...to Phil Knight.

From one northwest billionaire, to another (according to Forbes, Knight and Allen are each worth just over $13,000,000,000). And I'm aware that Phil Knight has publicly stated that he is not particularly interested in owning a professional franchise, but this is purely hypothetical.

would Trail Blazers fans be happy about this?
would Oregon State University fans be happy about this?
in what ways would Knight make the organization better/stronger?
what particular steps/decisions do you think Knight would make for this organization?
even though Allen's health is declining, does it matter that Knight is 15 years older than Allen?

in the end, did we actually win?

rh_misar — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:04:25 -0000

even though Oregon lost to USC, beating the Beavers should be easy, and beating whichever team comes out of the South Division should be easy too. i'm happy that Oregon will be playing in another Rose Bowl, where they'll be favored to win (unlike the last two bowl games).

had Oregon beat USC the other night, i still think their best-case scenario would have been a Rose Bowl berth, because USC is not eligible for a ranking, and i just don't see Alabama losing in the Iron Bowl.

so why do i think Oregon might still come out as winners after this weekend?

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2011/11/oregon_recruiting_update_wr_dw.html

Oregon invited some pretty major recruits to campus this weekend, and these recruits experienced Autzen Stadium in all of its glory. a night game in prime-time, a slick-looking uniform combination, a great game against a lot of NFL prospects, a sell-out crowd that was louder than any other stadium they've visited, and a celebrity sighting or two:

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2011/11/lebron_james_carmelo_anthony_d.html

recent recruits and commits have admitted that the Oregon uniforms were a factor in their interest and decision, just like how USC recruits have admitted the appeal of playing in L.A. with celebrities on the sidelines. don't you think that some of the recruits that Oregon had in town this weekend like the thought of standing on a sideline with LeBron and D.Wade, wearing sweet uniforms, playing in an exciting game in front of a great crowd?

i think that the overall experience that these recruits got this weekend, despite Oregon losing the game, will probably be their most memorable visit. and if we get commitments from this weekend's recruits, then the four years of future on-field production from these talented young men makes the loss to USC much easier to swallow.

(unless you actually thought Oregon could make it back to the BCS title game)

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/11/18/2568389/recruiting-2011-oregon-notre-dame-georgia-auburn

an observation, and a thought

rh_misar — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:14:51 -0000

this morning on Colin Cowherd, he made a point that the Knicks do not need to trade for CP3 because they have Chauncey Billups. he went on to describe Chauncey as a veteran with an extremely high basketball IQ, with a ton of experience, and then compared him to John Stockton. in Stockton's last season (in his late-30's) he averaged like 11pts and 8ast, basically on-par with his career averages of 13pts and 9 ast. Cowherd said that Chauncey's style of play is similar to Stockton's, in that he's not hard on his body and doesn't need extreme athleticism to be effective. he thinks that 34-year-old Chauncey has a solid 5 years left in him.

i couldn't help but feel like all of the same observations can be said about Andre Miller. he's also 34, he's got a high basketball IQ, he's not hard on his body, and he hasn't shown any sign of slowing down either. i, for one, think that Andre can play at this level for another 3-5 years, and i love the composure he brings and the selflessness he demonstrates. i trust him as the on-court leader of this team, and i would be happy to have him around into his late-30's. ideally, we can find a young talented PG to be his understudy for the next few years. To learn to play and lead like he does. right now, that person is not on this roster.

on a side note, T-Mac is running the point for Detroit these days, and it seems to be prolonging his career. maybe that's Brandon's future here with us? not really in the same spirit as my Andre Miller love-fest above, but it seems to be working for T-Mac.

are we cursed?

rh_misar — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:08:35 -0000

i love Portland, i love the pinwheel, i love The Schonz, i love chanting 'Beat L.A.", i love chalupas, i love my complete set of Dairy Queen glasses from the early 90's, and someday i might even love the 3-goggles

but right now, i do not love being a Blazers fan.

Bill Walton's injuries, the '84 draft pick, Sam B*wie's injuries, the nearly-there teams of the early 90s, Arvydas Sabonis' overseas career, game 7 against the L*kers, the jail-blazers, and now the frail-blazers. i feel like a red sox fan spouting off about the curse of the bambino, and i'm sure i'm forgetting some things.

is there an end to all of this? or was '77 our flash-in-a-pan moment, like a shooting star? no amount of wins by the U.P. women's soccer team or national championship titles from Oregon track&field could ever satisfy what i want so bad in the rose garden.

i won't ever give up on them, but i'm beginning to prepare for a lifetime of let-downs in rip city. where are Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore when you need them?

P.S. maybe we should keep it to one pro franchise, unless we want to become Cleveland v2.0. i guess we'll know the future if Darlington Nagbe goes down untouched like Dennis Dixon. and nobody wants to be like Cleveland, right Joakim Noah?

i like Nate, but...

rh_misar — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:14:43 -0000

first i'll start off by saying that i think Nate is a good coach. when people suggest that we (the organization) fire him and that he's the reason we lose games, i always defend him. to this point i've mostly thought it was the personnel/injuries hurting his coaching, and not the other way around. besides, there's no obvious candidates for replacing him.

but the more i've thought about it, i've reached this conclusion: Nate is the kind of coach who (with a complete and healthy roster) can get you 50+ wins in the regular season but won't ever coach deep into the playoffs.

there are two reasons for this:

1) from what i hear, Nate wants to have a 5-man first unit and a 5-man second unit. that means the team on the floor is going to play one of two ways. pretty predictable, right? opposing coaches seem to know this. it always seems like Nate is reacting to what another coach does, but not until we're losing by a significant margin. if the opponent goes small, Nate eventually reacts. if the opponent goes big, Nate eventually reacts. Nate is known as a defensive coach, and this is totally a defenive mentality. i can't remember the last time i saw Nate aggressively put in a lineup that made another coach do something out of the ordinary. so when Nate reacts to these opposing lineups, he's actually doing something that's out of the ordinary for our own players. typically it will take a little while for our guys to find their "game flow", and we can't afford those wasted possessions and energy. this also causes our players to get confused/frustrated about their role on the team. Nic is the best current example of this; some nights he gets 30min, other nights he gets 10min. i'm no pro, but in an 82-game season i expect players can't really get into a rhythm with this kind of inconsistency. same goes for Rudy, whose minutes were most consistent during his rookie year. so as long as opposing coaches continue to do this, they'll get the best of Nate.

2) the mentality of everybody on the entire roster seems to be to try and win while exerting as little energy/effort as possible. we observe this regularly when we lead early in the 4th quarter and use the full 24-seconds of each offensive possession, keep the ball out of the opponent's hands, force a bad shot at the end of the shot clock and lose all the momentum/rhythm that got us the lead in the first place. i understand that it's an 82-game season and it's important to conserve energy, but there's other ways to secure a win. i can't imagine Nate suggesting to our players to do anything different than this.

MY SOLUTION?:

i'd rather see a 9-man rotation with versatility and equal/consistent minutes. you'd have your typical five positions:

PG/1

SG/2

SF/3

PF/4

C/5

and four additional positions:

CG/1.5 = combo guard

CW/2.5 = combo wing

PW/3.5 = power wing

CB/4.5 = combo big

and this would be our 9-man rotation:

1 Miller

1.5 Rudy (for now, but i'd love to change/improve this spot)

2 Roy

2.5 Matthews

3 Batum

3.5 Cunningham

4 LMA

4.5 Camby

5 Przybilla

everybody gets 25-30 minutes/night, period. this conserves energy/minutes over the 82-game season while everybody knows that they're going to play and doesn't wonder if they'll get pulled early. i don't know how the substitutions would work for this, but somebody could figure it out. these reduced minutes would go a long way for Camby and Miller, who aren't getting any younger/stronger. and also Roy wouldn't experience as much soreness, or have to sit out the second game of a back-to-back, etc.

what can you do with this 9-man rotation? you essentially have three guards (Miller, Rudy, Roy) three wings (Matthews, Batum, Cunningham) and three bigs (LMA, Camby, Pryz). this is good balance, and you can put together any type of lineup you want/need. if one of the starters gets into early foul trouble you have one or two guys who can come in at that position. if somebody gets injured (God forbid) you can still do just fine with an 8-man rotation (30-min/night/player).

how do you implement this? in practices and in games, play these 9 guys in every 5-man combination you can until they start to grow familiar enough with each other that the game flow doesn't change when one or two guys sub out. that might sound difficult but i swear i see it every time i watch the L*kers play.

the other 6 roster spots? use them as insurance for your older and injury-risk players who are part of the 9-man rotation (Miller, Roy, Camby, Pryz), you can also take on a project/upside player (or, you know, someone who's out for the year because of m*crofracture surgery)

and finally, as for the team mentality, HOW ABOUT YOU STEP ON THE OPPONENTS' THROAT! play hard until they're so discouraged that they throw in the towel and put in their rookies/scrubs. sure seems to work for Oregon Ducks Football (starters get lots of rest in most 4th quarters)... and some of the best players in the NBA have this step-on-your-throat mentality (Kobe and Gasol, Rose, LeBron and D.Wade, Nash, Melo). i think this mentality would go a long way for team chemistry and morale. just ask the Ducks...

What's the word on our Euro-stash?

rh_misar — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:02:59 -0000

i haven't heard much lately. Joel Freeland could add depth to our frontcourt, right? he'd probably have a realistic shot at significant minutes, and i expect he's probably better than Sean Marks? how's Victor Claver been doing? Petteri Koponen? who else do we have out there?

http://trailblazers.realgm.com/profiles.phtml

who the heck are those other guys? can any of them be used in a trade? or released to make cap room?

http://trailblazers.realgm.com/profiles.phtml

who the heck are those other guys? can any of them be used in a trade? or released to make cap room?

Ty Lawson

rh_misar — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:24:48 -0000

i still think he'd be the small move that makes a huge impact. i believe he can start, with Armon backing him up. he would fit in our system, he is quick and has got a great handle, good shooting %'s all over the floor, good vision and distribution, good assist/turnover ratio, big-game experience, and most importantly he's used to being unselfish and trusting his teammates (at UNC, Hansborough, Green, Ellington). that's a huge attribute for a PG to have.

i see this as a move to make next summer, when Carmelo is on the way out and they're looking for new wing players. not sure about the details, i'm sure it would involve us getting rid of Rudy, picking up Andre's team option and using him as an expiring contract, etc. (a team picking up Melo would probably like an expiring contract?)

in my opinion, one of the only weaknesses to Ty Lawson is his height and ability to play D against larger guards. there's not a strong argument to dispute this, except that there are many other similarly-undersized point guards doing well right now. for example; Jameer Nelson, Chris Paul, Raymond Felton, Derek Fisher, Jonny Flynn, Brandon Jennings, Aaron Brooks, Darren Collison, Mike Conley, DJ Augustin are all 6'1" or lower. and Lawson is strong and large at 195lbs, so he wouldn't get bumped off the ball by those guys.

anybody else like this prospect?

whose jersey makes it to the Duck Store this fall?

rh_misar — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:00:28 -0000

last year there were three jerseys: Masoli-8, Blount-9, and James-21

i'm pretty sure it's always either three or four different players... so who is it this year?

LaMichael James is a given, right? good.

and from there it's kind of a split between a few of the seniors (Nate Costa, Jeff Maehl, Casey Matthews, Kenny Rowe) and a few of the players who still have a few years ahead of them (Darron Thomas, Kenjon Barner, John Boyett, Cliff Harris) *meaning their jerseys will be relevant for longer*

my guess: we'll have LaMichael James, Darron Thomas, Casey Matthews, and if there's a fourth player it'll be Barner. sounds weird to suggest two running backs, but we had that last year and back in the J.Stew/JJ years too.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

last year there were three jerseys: Masoli-8, Blount-9, and James-21

i'm pretty sure it's always either three or four different players... so who is it this year?

LaMichael James is a given, right? good.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

how to build a rotation

rh_misar — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:26:01 -0000

since there are some injury concerns with a couple of our key players, and a couple of veterans with a lot of miles, i'd really like to see a 9-player rotation.

MIller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Oden are your starting 5, each playing about 32min a night. Bayless, Matthews, Dante, Camby are your rotational bench guys, each playing about 20min a night. Bayless is a combo guard, Matthews is a combo wing (i used to have Martell penciled into this spot), Dante is what i like to call a "power wing" (Outlaw too), and Camby is a combo big. this gives us a lot of versatility to adjust our lineup for different situations. Obviously the substitution pattern would take some thought, but a few less minutes a night for Roy might help keep him a little fresher/healthier during the season.

another way to look at this is: 3 guards (Miller, Bayless, Roy), 3 wings (Matthews, Batum, Dante), and 3 bigs (LMA, Camby, Oden). again, it offers us balance, and a lot of versatility for different situations/scenarios.

and that's a pretty darn young rotation. Pendergraph could be the guy who slides into Camby's spot in a couple of years. Then we just have to figure out who's going to succeed Miller at the 1 (what else is new!), and make improvements to the roster as needed (ie Bayless?) Rudy is as good as gone, so i'm not expecting him to be a part of any of this.

the extra 6 roster spots would be for rookies, projects, emergency/veteran backups (like Juwan), and the occasional bad contract.

thoughts?

since there are some injury concerns with a couple of our key players, and a couple of veterans with a lot of miles, i'd really like to see a 9-player rotation.

the extra 6 roster spots would be for rookies, projects, emergency/veteran backups (like Juwan), and the occasional bad contract.

thoughts?

Da'Sean Butler from WVU

rh_misar — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:21:31 -0000

would you like him in a Blazers uni? i sure would if the plan is to get rid of Rudy. 3-year and 4-year college guys seem to have a pretty complete game and a high basketball IQ (miller, roy, dante, juwan, jeff, camby, and blake who is solely limited by athleticism).

especially compared to guys with 2 or fewer years of college (bayless, webster, outlaw, aldridge, oden), and the international experience is kind of a case-by-case question mark (mills, rudy, batum).

Da'Sean Butler played 4 years at West Virginia (starting lineup for 3 years), led his team to an NIT Tournament Championship as a freshman followed by three years in the NCAA Tournament ("March Madness").

He scored two buzzer-beating game-winners in the Big East Conference Tournament in his senior year, eventually winning the tournament and earning a #2 seed in the NCAA Tournament, in which they made it to the Final Four.

I see him as a combo SG/SF, just like Rudy but with less ego and an overall game more suited for the NBA. after 4 years in the strongest conference in college basketball, i think he can contribute as much Dante did this year.

thoughts?

especially compared to guys with 2 or fewer years of college (bayless, webster, outlaw, aldridge, oden), and the international experience is kind of a case-by-case question mark (mills, rudy, batum).

thoughts?

WIll paychecks always be more important than winning?

rh_misar — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:38:58 -0000

I remember, back in the prime of their SuperBowl dynasty, seeing and hearing media reports that players were willing to take a pay cut if they could play for the New England Patriots. They wanted to be part of a winning franchise with quality personnel more than they wanted to get paid.

Will we ever hear similar sentiments in basketball or baseball? Are there really athletes out there who prefer winning over fat paychecks? Does it even exist? Sometimes there are superstars who talk about their legacy having so much to do with winning championships, but i think we see their true colors when they negotiate for a max contract and limit what their front office can do with the rest of the roster.

Imagine what the future of the Blazers would look like if Brandon and Lamarcus both signed for $10mil/year with no incremental increases. Or :gasp:... "only" seven figures? It would be so much more affordable to sign quality, consistent complimentary players, and they'd still be pullin' in bank. As the leaders of the team I think it would set a great example to their teammates that winning comes first, and it would be an even better example to our community and the kids who grow up with NBA aspirations.

Having lived in the Willamette Valley my whole life, I feel confident saying that the Trailblazers ORGANIZATION is outstanding. A passionate, interactive owner who has a fat bank account. A general manager who's intelligent, detail-oriented and great at what he does. A coach who runs one of the most efficient offenses in the league. A fanbase so passionate that we regularly sellout the arena, have multiple online message boards and blogs, and are often compared to a college-type of environment. Quality of life in Portland is great unless you grew up in the sun.

When all those other factors are so strong, all it takes is a couple of leaders making a selfless decision about their financial status. It could lead to multiple championships, dynasty status, income from promotional/advertising opportunities, and the legacy they supposedly value. Will it ever happen?

In just about every instance in sports, none of the greats are remembered for their income.

when our roster is healthy, what is our biggest long-term need?

rh_misar — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:12:20 -0000

Perimeter Defense? Yes please.

The Point Guards in the west are regularly a matchup problem for us. Most of them are quick and expose our weakness of defending the pick & roll. Some of these guards include Monta Ellis, Baron Davis, Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Tony Parker, and Aaron Brooks. Mike Conley, Johnny Flinn, Russel Westbrook, Ty Lawson are on their way to being included in that list. Deron Williams and Chauncey give us problems too.

I am of the opinion that a high-level defending PG would solve a big problem this team has, and strengthen other aspects of our games. Keeping opposing point guards out of the paint forces them to take jumpers instead of layups or tear-drops: lower-percentage shots. It would help our bigs stay away from foul trouble, and also help them remain in the best position for rebounds. This all leads to us winning the battles in points-in-the-paint and in rebounds.

I know that we have used Batum to defend opposing PGs in the past, because of his length and how well he moves his feet, but as his defensive skills continue to grow I'd rather have him defending Melo, Durant, and the other elite wings. Bayless clearly has the physical tools to stop opposing PGs: decent size, great strength, good quickness. I am very hopeful he will decide to develop this part of his game soon, but I haven't seen any promising signs yet.

Does anybody else agree with me? that perimeter D from a PG is a biggest need? anyone?

(please, no Hinrich fans. he ain't that great)

Perimeter Defense? Yes please.

Does anybody else agree with me? that perimeter D from a PG is a biggest need? anyone?

(please, no Hinrich fans. he ain't that great)

post-Outlaw Minutes Distribution

rh_misar — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:56:13 -0000

let's see how this looks:

PG: Miller 27, Blake 18, Roy 3

SG: Roy 30, Rudy 18

SF: Batum 20, Webster 20, Rudy 8

PF: Aldridge 35, whoever 8, Przybilla 5

C: Oden 30, Przybilla 18

let's see how this looks:

PG: Miller 27, Blake 18, Roy 3

SG: Roy 30, Rudy 18

SF: Batum 20, Webster 20, Rudy 8

PF: Aldridge 35, whoever 8, Przybilla 5

C: Oden 30, Przybilla 18

LMA 35

Roy 33

Oden 30

Miller 27

Rudy 26

Joel 23

Batum 20

Webster 20

Blake 18

that 9-man rotation (plus garbage minutes for a couple players at PF2) seems like a fair distribution based on what each player brings to the team. Rudy replaces Outlaw as our primary 6th man, along with Martell. Blake plays in relief of Miller, and when we need shooters. i expect we'll see 5min/night of Greg-zilla. the 8 backup minutes at PF will go to Howard, Swift, Cunningham, Pendergraph, or whoever the team selects ( Bayless? j/k )

if Martell stays healthy, it will be very interesting comparing his recovery to Batum's improvements.

when i look at the list above, it's pretty much the order of importance in which i rank the players themselves. LMA ahead of Roy because of position scarcity, Batum and Webster are down low because right now they are both pure upside.

and incase you're wondering, i think we trade Travis mid-season for a backup "banger" PF and a future first-round draft pick. or we trade Outlaw WITH Bayless for those same pieces and another young, but proven, PG. (Felton? Conley?)

Opening Night Minutes Distribution

rh_misar — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:08:23 -0000

it's not simple, but this is how i see the current lineup working on opening night of the regular season.

PG: Miller 25, Blake 15, Bayless 8

SG: Roy 30, Rudy 18

SF: Batum 20, Webster 20, Rudy 8

PF: Aldridge 30, Outlaw 12, Pendergraph 6

C: Oden 27, Przybilla 21

and that's a loose rotation we'll play with when the team is winning comfortably. Bayless and Pendergraph's minutes will come in the 4th qtr. it will be interesting to see how the minutes at SF go this year, especially with Cunningham probably making the roster too. I think trading Outlaw is a sure thing if Webster stays healthy, maybe along with Blake to a team looking to cut budget. hope we can get something good in return! a PG or PF, + draft picks.

what do you think? on opening night, will anybody else get playing time?

it's not simple, but this is how i see the current lineup working on opening night of the regular season.

PG: Miller 25, Blake 15, Bayless 8

SG: Roy 30, Rudy 18

SF: Batum 20, Webster 20, Rudy 8

PF: Aldridge 30, Outlaw 12, Pendergraph 6

C: Oden 27, Przybilla 21

what do you think? on opening night, will anybody else get playing time?

are we playing too much "Waiting Game"?

rh_misar — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:37:38 -0000

It continues to be said, that:

Bayless is the future at PG. Batum is the future at SF. Oden is the future at C.

That's more than half of a starting line-up, and we're WAITING for them to develop? I can understand waiting for Oden, as he recovers from microfracture surgery. But WAITING for Batum and Bayless seems a little too patient, meaning we are going to miss opportunities until that expected future arrives. And what if it doesn't arrive? How long should we wait? On which player should we wait longer?

Bayless is a prototype; with size, athleticism, and work ethic that make-up a quality NBA player. Batum has a high basketball IQ and is a defensive star-in-the-making, already drawing comparisons to Pippen and Prince.

The difference between the two is that one is already showing his potential while the other seems to be struggling to learn and play within his role. One has maturity and focus, the other is overconfident and plays too much by his emotion.

When we didn't acquire a PG (Lawson) in the first-round, it became clear that Bayless is in the spotlight of the organization (the one that isn't focused on Oden), and that expectations of him are immediate. While most everybody agrees that Summer League isn't a fair way to judge a player's NBA game, they would also agree that what someone can't do in Vegas they also won't do in the regular season, regardless of the surrounding talent.

Based on his Summer League play, and his lack of development as a true-PG (compared to many of his peers: Rose, Augustin, Westbrook), it seems like WAITING on Jerryd Bayless is a moot point.

Meanwhile, there are two RFA PGs out there who are young, inexpensive, currently better than Bayless, and still posess upside. Felton and Sessions would be immediate impact players on our roster, by either taking the starting job or playing backup better than Sergio or Jerryd can.

I think a team with either of those two can repeat 54 wins, and probably exceed it!

It continues to be said, that:

Bayless is the future at PG. Batum is the future at SF. Oden is the future at C.

Based on his Summer League play, and his lack of development as a true-PG (compared to many of his peers: Rose, Augustin, Westbrook), it seems like WAITING on Jerryd Bayless is a moot point.

I think a team with either of those two can repeat 54 wins, and probably exceed it!