http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2015654101_brewer19.html

Baltimore Oriole fans are not alone in their sense of frustration and despair.  The other team I like to follow, the Seattle Mariners, are doing their best to match Baltimore's futility.  Keep in mind they play in the West, where the level of competition is arguably below what the O's have to face in the East.

When matched against the Mariners, the Orioles look like an offensive powerhouse.  However the M's actually have a young pitching staff that has lived up to expectation, unlike that of Baltimore's.  And let's not even think about bullpens.  Seattle has one and we don't.

So this gave me the following question:  Are O's fans on the right track in criticizing the team and in particular Andy McPhaill for a failure to sign good bats or his strategy of developing arms and buying bats?  (As an aside - I believe there is zero question on the policy of spending millions on relief pitchers being both failed and idiotic.)

From my perspective one of the key problems with the Orioles right now and perhaps the biggest cause for worry is that the pitching - which was supposedly the team's strength - is a mess.  I'd follow that closely with team defense appearing to be sub-standard.  Focusing on guys like Vlad and Lee is missing the real problem.  The fact our stable of young pitchers is a chimera (and I'm not referring to the fire-breathing kind).

1) Cav's lose to Grizzilies - we aren't the only ones ; and a possible warning on what could happen if you rely on just one guy at crunch time.

2) The Nets Terrence Williams and Twitter - Twitter may be a cool tool for someone in Ben's line of work, but for most people its primary use is as another way to advertise what a dumb ass you are ; btw, loved the Nets response.

3) Knicks 0-9 with Robinson getting 19 or more minutes - and winning with him getting under 12 ; so where are the BEdgers who were calling for KP to sign Nate?  Maybe we should show Steve Blake a little more love than we do.

4) Atlanta Hawks - provided their fans with a much rockier start with their strategy to develop young talent than the Blazers have, yet look at them now ; perhaps we just need to show a little patience.

 (Tried this as a Fanshot, but it wouldn't go through.)

 UPDATE: TrueHoop reader Brad e-mails: "Isn't what you recommend based on his findings exactly what the Spurs are doing? They bought a D-League team (Austin Toros, 90 minutes up I-35), and as 48 Minutes of Hell wonderfully explicate, the brilliant San Antonio management uses 10-day contracts like ongoing job interviews. They stash and/or farm young guys and bring them up every so often to see how they react. Even if they won't be playing this year, they're grooming them in the "Spurs Character" (not to mention Pop's basketball) system, so that next year, or the year after that, they will be more than ready -- and management will have seen who fits and who doesn't.

I've been wondering (and I've seen others here doing the same) why Paul Allen and Kevin Pritchard haven't followed this model.  One would think Allen could certainly afford it.  And it could fit into a larger plan of developing a NorthWest regional sports empire.  The Boise Stampede seems like a nice starting point, or possibly putting a team in the Tri-Cities.  In addition to putting a development stream in place, Portland could be grooming a new batch of fans who get interested in the team from watching guys who later graduate to the big league team.

I'd take it one step further and purchase a team in Europe.  In fact, should I purchase the winning ticket to Washington's Mega Millions lottery (currently at $207 million), I would be willing to co-invest in such a team (preferably one in Trieste or Gorica, in Italy). 

Who thinks PA should build his own minor league system?

There's supposed to be a poll, but I couldn't figure out how to insert it.

Have you guys seen this from Henry Abbott?

Skip down to the end where he (and David Thorpe) come up with a couple of trade suggestions.

Anybody here willing to make those trades?

Not me.  Not by a country mile.  Why gut the team for James? 

No worries though. By the time Cleveland would have to start considering trading him, Portland will be so good that we won't need LeBron.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-36-98/No-Longer-Cute--LeBron-James--Flirtation-with-New-York.html?post=true

FNL was a show I tried to catch every week for the past two seasons.  I felt it had a lot of interesting story lines coming out of the simple premise of a small town Texas high school football team.  It was my understanding that it was picked up again this season.  In fact one of my coworkers said that her nephew got the part as the new quarterback.

In a related question - would you consider it a disadvantage or advantage to have a series that dealt with high school students, knowing that at some point you would have to bring in a new group of actors and risk losing your audience when their favorite character "graduated" from the show?

Other shows I like to watch:

Chuck

The Unit

Primeavil

Survivor

Heroes (thought not as much as last season)

Lost (if I can get caught back up).

Did anybody note some of the players the Sixer's renounced over the summer?

Rick Mahorn
Derrick McKey
Rodney Rogers

That's a lot of talent....

                                    .... for an oldtimer's game.

How is it a team keeps the rights to player long after they've quite playing.  I know about the Keith van Horn and Aaron McKie deals, but all three of the guys above stopped playing long before these two.

Another question - What is the advantage (or the reason) to renounce them now?

Which players do you think might be the sleepers in the draft?   The next Tony Parker or Tyshaun Prince or Josh Howard?

For the purposes of this question, consider a sleeper to be someone who gets drafted outside the top ten and ends up making the rotation next season and/or is a starter by year three.

My list:

Chris Douglas-Roberts

Roy Hibbert

Brandon Rush

Courtney Lee

Jason Thompson

possible list makers:

Kyle Weaver

Mario Chalmers

Note: by the definition above, Martell is not a sleeper, nor is Travis.  Jack however is borderline.  Were he still the starter, I'd put him in this category.  That he isn't means he just misses.

Both Draft Express and Hoops Hype have Portland taking Darren Collison at #13.  I don't get it.  HoopsHype says Collison is a role player at the NBA level and uses Earl Watson as a comparison player.  Seriously, who here thinks Earl Watson is the answer for Portland as our staring PG?  I wouldn't trade Jack or Blake for Watson.

Here are some of the guys listed below Collison:

Nick Batum  6-8  SF  (Rudy Gay)
CDR         6-6  SG  (Jerry Stackhouse)
Tyler Hansbourgh  6-9  PF  (Luis Scola)
Richard Hendrix   6-9  PF  (Paul Milsap)
Courtney Lee 6-5 SG  (Anthony Carter)

I select any one of these guys before I go with Collison.  (Unless it's Nick Collison we are talking about.)

I was watching the feed from the Kings broadcast last night and saw something interesting.  The announcers were talking about Portland and their age and how in just a few years they may be the team to beat in the west.  They then posted a graphic listing the ppg average and age of

Roy
Aldridge
Outlaw
Webster

All are 23 or under and all are averaging in double figures.  Jack just misses the list, as he's averaging just under 10 points a game.  How many other teams would like to have Portland's problem?  Who else in the league could field a starting 5 that is 23 or younger and averaged 65 - 75 points per game?  And we haven't even added Oden to the mix yet.

I understand getting frustrated during a game.  We all want to see our team go out there and win every game.  Who doesn't want to see the end of our bench playing the 4th quarter of every game because our starters have built up an insurmountable lead.  I know I get frustrated.  Last night it was LaMarcus again.  He was letting Mikki Moore pretty much dictate where on the floor his shots would come from.  Now Moore is actually a pretty good defender, but Aldridge should be getting his shot where he wants it at least half of the time even against a good defender.  Still, as frustrated as I might get watching a game, I don't let it carry over to the next day.  I don't rant about how we should trade Aldridge because he's never going to develop into the greatest basketball player in the history of the game.  

The same applies to every other player on the team.  I groan when Martell misses wide open 3 pt looks.  Or when Jack and Blake hesitate and then pass on good shots, or Channing Frye and LaMarcus wave at guys penetrating the lane rather than moving their feet, or Aldridge, Jack and Outlaw hold on to the ball for a few seconds while they think, instead of knowing what they are going to do within a second of receiving it.  But that doesn't keep me from seeing what a wonderful group guys we have.  Not just wonderful as people, but as talented basketball players.  

I realize that most of what frustrates me from these guys can be fixed with experience, meaning all I have to do is be patient and I will see what might end up being one of the best teams ever assembled.  I don't think that's too much to expect of Trailblazer fans.  At a minimum, we should all remember that less than two years ago we were watching a 21 win team whose core was built on Randolph, Miles and Telfair.  That we've come so far so fast is truely amazing.  

On the assumption that at least some folks out there think a little tweaking of the roster might be of benefit, who do you think we could add?

The rebounder & enforcer off the bench?

A starting PG?

A perimeter defender (who preferrably shoots three's)?

Let's not propose trading for Chris Paul or some other top player.  Try to stick with someone who might actually be available.

After a few minutes thought, I have trouble coming up with anybody.  There is also the little problem (for me at least) of deciding who we move to make room for someone new.

For example can you name someone who fit's the first need?  I don't think Karl Malone is coming out of retirement (nor Buck Williams).  Brian Grant's knees are toast.  Who out there fits the description?  David Lee definitely fits the rebounding part, but I have no idea if he does the latter.  Plus it appears Isiah is not totally bonkers, as he's refusing to listen to any deal that includes Lee.  

Utah isn't going to let Millsap go.  There is Reggie Evans in Philadelphia, but do you really want to trade, say Channing Frye for Evans?  Danny Fortson anybody?  Didn't think so.  Going back to Utah there is Matt Harpring.  He might be an ok addition, but there is those nagging issues of why would the Jazz trade him and is it worth it to trade a young asset for an old one.  

Right now, about the only guy I can think of who is a good rebounder and who make the punks backpedel like an All-Pro cornerback is Antonio "slow down Kevin, I want to talk to you" McDyess.  I don't see him being available, but he's the only one who seems to come even close to justifying giving up a couple of our guys for.

What do you think?  Any names out there you can think of that would make us a better team?

BlazersOrBust asked this question in another diary.  A question I was also pondering this morning.  What does Portland need in terms of bringing on new players?

Before the season started a consensus list looked something like this:

1. A quality PG - a significant number of folks (Sergio fanatics excepted) thought we lacked a bonifide starting PG among the 4 guys on the roster.
2. A starting SF - the hole at the 3 spot was a close second (if not #1) to being considered Portland's biggest need.  
3. A shutdown perimeter defender - this is sort of a 2a.
4. A bruising rebound machine off the bench.

We seem to be doing fine at PG.  Blake is supplying steady play and is playing well off the ball when Brandon takes over ball handling duties.  Jack has done decently coming off the bench and Sergio is showing some improvement in the areas Nate wants.

It is also tough to argue we need a SF.  Martell has stepped up his game from last year and while still having lots of room for improvement, he's also showing he looks like he belongs.  Meanwhile Travis seems to be blooming right before our eyes and Jones has been a very plesant surprise so far.

We are still lacking a lock down man-man defender.  But out of Roy, Webster, Outlaw and Jones (and perhaps Rudy next season), who do you get rid of?  Also to consider is the possibility of improvement from the guys we have.  Outlaw in particular could become All Defensive team in a couple years if he works at it.

There are still a lot of calls for a rebounder off the bench (including mine up until a couple of weeks or so ago).  But realistically, we have that guy in Oden.  Also, Channing Frye is starting to show a desire to grab rebounds.

Therefore, I would now argue that there isn't much for Portland to consider in regard to revamping the roster.  If we have any problem, it may be that we have too many guys deserving playing time.  But that's not the question before us.  The question is, what player or type of player do you think Portland should add?

Some more coverage from outside Portland.  Not only is a nice piece about the Blazer's (they give some focus on Blake, who is sort of a local, having played at Maryland and then for the Wizards), but it gets little things like Outlaw's name right.

For some of you, the most interesting part is found in the next to last paragraph.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2007/12/blazers_are_burning.html

Two questions rescued from the weekly spam
2. "In the NBA preview in SI, you quote a scout saying that Rasheed Wallace has the highest basketball IQ in the league. Is that for real? What does he mean? I've always liked Sheed and continue to mourn the 2000 Western Conference finals Game 7, but I never thought of him as much smarter basketball-wise than others, especially when it comes to shot selection. What's behind the scout's assessment? And how could he be smarter basketball-wise than Steve Nash or Tim Duncan or Jason Kidd?"
-- Aaron Brenner, New York

Here is your answer from the NBA advance scout:

"Rasheed really understands the subtle nuances of the game.

"He really understands defensive schemes, situations and rotations. He is like a coach on the floor offensively and defensively in how he verbally communicates with his teammates. He is always calling out situations. He knows how to use his body and length to negate a smaller player's quickness and his agility and timing to bother bigger players. He knows just when to time a double-team, get around a guy to front the post, or play behind and reach in at the last second. He understands using angles.

"Offensively, like many players, he will force the occasional three-point shot. But he really gets spacing, recognizes mismatches and is willing to make the extra pass. He is incredibly unselfish in this regard. He willingly looks for others as much as his own. He doesn't worry about his stats, and he gets it that on teams that win consistently, the players don't [focus on their own numbers]."

Check out the following from the Chicago Sun Times (by way of Hoopshype).

http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

Do you think anybody is still of the opinion that Chicago outsmarted Pritchard in exchanging Aldridge for Thomas?  Additional proof there is more to basketball than jumping out of the gym.

From Draft Express, by way of Truehoop.

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=2280

Story wasn't clear on how serious an injury.  The guy replacing him in the lineup - 17 yrs old - is apparently pretty impressive.

Article also has a blurb on Batum, who a lot of folks here are high on.  He's listed as "Who's Hot".

The Detroit News is reporting a potential Byrant to Detroit deal.

The Pistons would ship Richard Hamilton, Tayshuan Price, Amir Johnson and 1st round pick to the Lakers for Byrant.

I'm thinking I might take that deal if I'm Kupchack.  Rip and Prince added to Odom and Bynum.  A lot of people are high on Johnson and an extra draft pick is not bad.

Don't know if I'd say yes if I'm Dumars.

reputation.

Think this is where fatty got his opinion from?

http://www.ballineurope.com/euroleague/saras-vs-greer/

(btw - I'm referring to the logo, not the article)

Note:  picked this off of TrueHoop.

Euro's who smoke - which is a different subject from Euros in chains.  (Maybe not as interesting, but different.)

than being a fan of the Blazers.

Portland has really only sucked on a competative level for maybe two years.  That's peanuts.  And while the news about Oden may be a little disheartening, it doesn't have to be franchise changing.

Entered into evidence is the following piece concerning my beloved Baltimore Orioles.

http://www.camdenchat.com/story/2007/9/12/144149/141

I don't know if this guy is related to Colin Cowherd, but his article is pretty funny.

Which strategy do you think the Blazers should adopt?

They have youth and numbers, meaning they should be able to run and that a number of guys are going to need minutes if they are going to develop.  This seems to point to using a 1st unit and 2nd unit, much like how hockey teams change entire lines.

But very few NBA teams have ever used a mass substitution strategy.  Most seem to utilize a tighter rotation, with substitutions often dependant on individual matchups.

I keep thinking about turning the whole matchup idea on it's head.  Instead of worrying about how you match up against the other team, let them worry about how they matchup with you.  Don Nelson seems to do a lot of this and he's been a fairly successful coach.  (His Achilles heel seems to be no insistence on playing defense.)

As examples:

Blake (or Jack)
Roy
Jones
Aldridge
Oden

with

Sergio (or Jack)
Jack (or Webster)
Outlaw
Frye
Pryzbilla

coming in as an entire unit.  

You have 11 guys so you can still do a bit of mixing and matching to alter each unit.

Prior to the start of last season, had I been able to pick any two players to start my team, they would have been Dwayne Wade and Dwight Howard.  

Now, I'm not so sure.  It's not because I am having doubts about either of these two guys.  It's because I'm starting to think we already have two guys that are just as good.

What do you all think - Howard & Wade or our guys Oden & Roy?  Or some other duo?

(Last year I thought Aldridge & Roy where close but second to Howard/Wade.  Now I'm thinking Oden is going to outshine Howard and we still have Aldridge.  

Ime has been a topic of multiple discussions.  Fans here tend to group into one of three categories.

Those who think Ime was a nice role player and a nice human interest story and would have liked to see him remain as a bench player at a modest price.  (I'm going to lump in here those who liked Ime enough to start him, but thought he was too old to be part of our future.)

Those who, while liking Ime, felt he was nothing more than a journeyman player easily replaced and way over valued by Portland fans because of the human interest angle.

Those who think Ime was a true gem.  The sort of player that good teams require if they want to become great.

My question is, "What happens if certain players all perform up to or exceeding our expectations this year, but no one steps up and takes over the SF position?"  

Let's say Brandon Roy continues on the same upward curve he showed the last three months of the season, averaging in the neighborhood of 20 pts a night.  LaMarcus Aldridge does explode, averaging 20 & 8.  And by mid season Greg Oden is putting up Dwight Howard or better numbers every night.  If Blake, Fyre and Pryzbilla have even average seasons Portland suddenly looks competative.

How much then will we miss Ime?  I'm thinking that if Portland exceeds the reasonably modest expectations many of us have, we could very well discover that Ime is the difference between making the playoffs and being on the outside looking in.  What's your opinion?

The Garnett trade planted the seed.  Knickfan's post evaluating Pritchard's moves (in particular the Randolph trade) watered it.  Idog's post has gotten me to go out and bring it in.

How many of you would have pulled the trigger on a Kevin Garnett deal, had it been available to the Blazers?

While I don't think we had a realistic chance at him, looking at what Minnesota received, it's not completely unreasonable to think that Portland could have come up with a similar package.  In fact it is pretty easy to match up to, with the exception of Ratlef's expiring contract.  (Which is a big exception.)

Zach Randolph is arguably a more proven player than Jefferson.  The difference in salary is not going to be that great once you take into account that Jefferson is already demanding an extension, starting at about $10 mil a year.

I don't see much difference between Webster and Green, except I think I'd prefer MArtell.

Telfair?  Taureen Green is probably better than Telfair, let alone Jack or Sergio.

Draft picks?  We have those to give.  Our pick this year was supposed to have been around 5 or 6.

So, would you have acquired Kevin Garnett, assuming it would cost you;

Randolph
two - three guys from the group of Webster, Outlaw, Jack, Rodriguez
this year's 1st round pick - (bear with me on this)
our 09 1st round pick

As for the draft picks - assume that this year's pick was #1 & #2 protected.  Pritchard can rightfully argue that he can't give away a chance, no matter how slim, at Oden or Durant.  The odds favor McHale on this.  To further sway him, Pritchard offers a two for one deal.  Should the impossible happen and Portland gets either of the first two picks, Minnesota gets our 08, 10 and 11 picks in place of 07 and 09.

To make salaries match we would probably have to include Pryzbilla or we might have been able to include Magloire in a one year sign & trade.  (I don't see this last, as Mags and Randolph obviously didn't mesh well when on the court at the same time.)

Also throw in at least one of our 2nd round picks from this year - so say goodby to either McRoberts or Green.

Finally, consider that to make this work we might have to take back a contract like Troy Hudson's or Marko Jaric's.

So

Randolph
Pryzbilla
Outlaw
Webster
Jack or Rodriguez
McRoberts
Jones & Dickau (for salary purposes)
3 out of our next 5 1st round picks
$3 million in cash

for

Kevin Garnett
Troy Hudson

who has been working on a time machine and he's asked me to give it a test drive.  As a former history major, it sounded exciting.  Going back in time and seeing great events as they happened.  Then he explained the limitations.

The device only travels temporally - i.e. physically stays in the same spot.  So I could perhaps go back 200 years, if I wanted to be there to greet Lewis & Clark, but forget about listening in person to the Gettysburg address.  This also has the practical limitation of wanting to know exactly what, or more to the point, what isn't, in the space the device currently occupies.

Then there is the power issue.  The farther back you go, the more energy is required.  The amount of power available to this guy will allow him to send the device back no more than 7 - 8 years.  

Now I'm thinking what the hell.  He's successfully tried it on his cat (ok, it's his wife's cat and he can't stand the thing), and it seems to work with no bad side effects.  I'll just run a quick search through the Oregonian archives to get the winning number for the biggest lottery payout within the past year (there's a year limit on claiming your prize) and I'm set.  Turns out there is also some sort of barrier having to do with the physics involved - the guy tried to explain it to me but gave up when my eyes passed one another as they crossed - that won't allow jumps any shorter than a year.  

I'm still willing to try it out, but what should I do while I'm back there?  (He tell's me I'll have just a couple hours.)  I think I've come up with an idea.  Help my basketball team.  I'm thinking if I take back the ESPN.com stats for certain players, plus a newspaper headline to convince the Blazer management what I'm giving them is valid and not a joke, I can get them to make a different selection in the draft.  So here's where I need some help.  Which year do I go back to (remember, 2000 is about my limit) and who do I get the Blazers to select?  I'm trying to keep in mind that the further back I go, the greater the possibility that the ripples caused by change in pick might screw up the two most recent years.  In otherwords, no Roy, Aldridge or Oden.

How many here would have said yes to Kurt Thomas and Phoenix's 2008 and 2010 picks for a conditional 2nd rounder?

(Note: I realize this assumes we had a trade exception available to make the deal work, which we didn't. The purpose is not to second guess KP.)

If yes, what would you do next - if anything?

Since one of my favorite players from last years' squad is apparently leaving for SA, here is my suggestion for replacing him.

First though, let me preface this with the statement that I don't think the Blazers need to make anymore deals.  Lets see how the guys we have work out.

Now - on to the deal.

Portland sends Channing Frye, Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster and a 1st round pick to Dallas for ... wait for it...

Josh Howard.

I think it works salary wise.  Approximately $7.75 million for Howard's $9 million - which is within the 25% window.

Howard appears to be a perfect fit for the Blazers.  Young, starter quality (and about to bloom into an All-Star), all round game and doesn't need to have the ball in his hands to contribute.  He's also a gem of a character guy.  Really has his head in the right place.

My biggest question is whether the 3 young guys + a 1st round pick (I'd even go with sending two 1st rounders to get the deal done) is attractive enough for Dallas.

Exchange Jones for Khryapa and we have a nice 8-man rotation:

Pryzbilla
Aldridge
Howard
Roy
Blake

with Oden, Khryapa & Jack the first three guys off the bench.  (With Oden and Joel probably swapping roles before year's end.)

LaFrenz can back up at PF (afterall we are paying him $11 mil).  As can Khryapa and even Miles (assuming he plays).  Zendon Hamilton might even be an option, at least as far as providing depth.

Sergio appears to be the odd man out, but should still see 10 - 12 minutes a game even with a three guard rotation of Roy/Blake/Jack.

So let's make a deal Mr. Pritchard.  You brought back Blake, now let's bring back Victor and then assuage our sorrow over Ime's departure by acquiring Mr. Josh Howard.  

Scotty raised the point that Portland has a ton of potential trading chips and should consider cashing them in to obtain that 4th guy to team with Roy Aldridge and Oden.  He identified PG, SG and SF as positions we would look to fill.

So, who is that guy?  Scotty identified the following traits - starter quality and under 28.

Here is my list.

Josh Howard
Tony Parker
Caron Butler
Manu Ginobilli
Deron Williams

Would any of these guys be available - probably not.  But every one would fit nicely into our big three.

What do you think?  Any objections to any of these guys?  Any other choices?

Entries were all over the place.

It was pretty much a tie between a Jack/Roy/LMA/Oden line up and one with Zach in place of LaMarcus at 4 votes each.

All of the LMA/Oden l-u's had different SF's starting.  

One interesting fact was that over a third (8 total) of the lineups listed a PG other than Jack.  Steve Blake gets the love here, with 80% of those votes.
This category also was the tie-breaker in choosing the starting PF.  Nearly all of them listed the LMA/Oden combo.

Pryzbilla received only 3 votes.  Could be an opportunity for me to pay down the mortgage if I want to bet on my belief that Joel starts opening night.

There was also a tie for most interesting line-up (a purely subjective award).  Two people had Aldridge in the starting line-up as a SF.

I am going to stand by my selection.  Having Oden, Aldridge and Rodriguez coming off the bench as a second unit to start the season seems both appealling as a fan and logical as a coach.

So here, by popular vote, is your 2007 Portland Trailblazers season starting lineup:

At PG - Jarrett Jack  (or maybe Blake)
At SG - ROY Brandon Roy
At SF - any and everybody who's ever played the 3
At PF - LaMarcus Aldridge
At C  - NBA #1 pick Greg Oden

"ve seen several different opinions posted on this.  How about a vote on who you think will be the opening night starting 5?

Just list the starting 5 - not what you think the depth chart will be.  If you think the Blazers will be making a draft day trade and picking up another lottery pick, you can use the pick # as a place holder. If you believe a FA signing (ex. S. Blake) is in our future, use it.  For the #1 pick, you have to choose who you think the Blazers are taking.

Remember that this is who you think will be the opening night 5 - not what you'd like to see.

I've already indicated that I think the first night starters will be:

Pryzbilla
Randolph
Udoka
Roy
Jack

If I had to hedge, I'd substitute Oden for Joel, on the chance that Pryz is not 100% healthy.  If he is, he's again a team captain & starting.

and quebecois' proposed deal gets done.  Portland ends up with the #2 pick.

Would you trade it to Dallas for Josh Howard?

As part of the deal, they would have to take Miles (or you can select any other unwanted contract) and would have to send back a future 1st round pick.

From a skills and style of play standpoint, I think Howard might fit the Blazers better than any other SF out there.  From a character and personality standpoint he also looks like the perfect fit.  Portland would collect as many NBA Good Citizen awards as NBA titles.

In other words, he is not only a known commodity, he's a high value one.  In return, we'd surrender what many consider the next superstar.  A high price.

I contend that when you have an Oden and an Aldridge, and can add guys like Roy and Howard who would be stars on most other teams - i.e. our glue guys are all-stars in their own right - you don't need the next Jordan/Garnett/Kobe/LeBron.  What you likely have is a McGrady, who ends up leaving in 4 years (to his favorite town LA) because he can't be THE MAN.