View Single Post

Old 03-27-2006, 10:17 PM   #4 (permalink)
Dan
Banned member
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Age: 82
Posts: 28,436
Credits: 11,720.16
Rep Power: 5960158 Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute Dan has a reputation beyond repute
Re: trade the pick idea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeard
I am not totally opposed to moving down a couple spots, but I think there is probably a decent vet that we could get for it. We have enough young guys and picking up another draft pick isn't going to help us unless we were going to trade it in another deal.

Maybe I would think about it if they wanted to part with Gordon or Hinrich.
valid points. I'm not so sure that chicago wants to get the 1st pick so bad, that they'd be willing to give up Gordon or Hinrich (which would just make our backcourt just increase in #, but not in height).

I looked on chicagos roster, and honestly there aren't too many people that they'd probably be willing to trade in this scenario (AND I'm not sure they'd be willing to trade BOTH picks). They are very thin going into next year.

I'd much rather trade for a vet (something) but I'm not too interested in what is out there and most likely available. Who I would like, is probably available for far more than it's worth to Portland. Who Portland would like (whoever that is) is probably unavaiable for what Portland has or whats worth to Portland.

It's an odd cycle. We probably need vet help, but the vet help we can get isn't much vet help. The team needs talent (and talent that will play today) but getting that just makes the team younger.
__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't
Dan is offline   Reply With Quote