 |
01-28-2005, 01:47 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Schilster Supreme
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lake Wilsonwood
Posts: 13,607
|
A little conspiracy theory for ya.
I've been pondering some of the rotational aspects of the Blazers, for the last few days, and I came up witha conspiracy theory of sorts.
I don't think that being a playoff contender was a priority for the franchise for this season. Here's how I think the priorities shake down.
#1 Don't alienate the fanbase.
#2 Showcase the veteran players in order to move them. Young players and picks are top priority here, unless a big name difference maker is available without giving too much.
#3 Attain a High pick in the draft. I think we allcan see that the youjg pack of players in portland is very promising. Anchored by Zach (20/10), Dariius, and the extremely promising signs of Telfair the team has a good core. Throw in the surprising play of Przz, the promise Outlaw shows and a group of foreign youngsters (Ha, Viktor and Sergei) and the future looks bright. If the Team could bolster that roster with one more top10 draft pick then they would feel very comfortable.
#4 Have a successful season
I think the team is throwing us a good false front by saying the right things and going through the motions of appearing to be trying to compete outright, when in all actuallity that isn't their goal.
I personally think that If Shareef were Healthy right now their lineup would be...
PG NVE
SG Damon
SF Patterson
PF Shareef
C Theo
Why is that? Those are the veteran players that may have some trade value (DA has none due to his contract)
The second string looks like this at that point.
PG Telfair
SG DA/Frahm
SF Miles/Outlaw
PF Zach
C Pryzbilla
OK outside of the PG does that lstarting lineup and Benc rotation look flip flopped to anyone else? Doesn't that bench rotation look a lot like what we will probably be seeing next season as the starting lineup?
So they are getting that team redy to play together by having them come off the bench, while veterans they would like to move are starting so they can be showcased in the last weeks before the deadline.
They don't care if it hurts the team (see priority #3). If they are unable to move any of those guys all they say is, "nothing advantageous presented itself" Meanwhile they let the big 3 contracts walk and Paul Allen saves about $50 mil next season.
Thouhts?
|
|
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
Advertisement
|
|
01-28-2005, 02:35 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Running down the dream!!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ripcity, USA
Posts: 2,938
|
It is possible - just as you've laid out. I agree with you about the youngster playing next year. I also agree with showcasing the Vets. The next 30 days will tell us alot about what is in our future.
Can Nash trade any expiring contract and what does it return?
I don't think its much of a conspiracy though. Just normal everyday "building a team".
__________________
Trail Blazers Fan since Walton was injured the first time!
OSU Beavers Alumni & Fan since Ralph Miller's Orange Express -
"Fans cheer when they have reason to." Stop the programmed noise!!
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 02:44 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Schilster Supreme
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lake Wilsonwood
Posts: 13,607
|
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>RedHot&Rolling</b>!
It is possible - just as you've laid out. I agree with you about the youngster playing next year. I also agree with showcasing the Vets. The next 30 days will tell us alot about what is in our future.
Can Nash trade any expiring contract and what does it return?
I don't think its much of a conspiracy though. Just normal everyday "building a team".
|
What makes it conspiracy is the charade that they are trying to be competitive this year.
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 02:52 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
happy fat guy
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,162
|
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
What makes it conspiracy is the charade that they are trying to be competitive this year.
|
I know as far as I'm concerned I would rather have the organization tell me to be patiet. Tell me that they plan to build around the younger players.
Problem with that is that it lowers the value of players like damon, NVE, SAR and Theo.
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 02:54 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
Banned member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Age: 82
Posts: 28,436
|
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
I know as far as I'm concerned I would rather have the organization tell me to be patiet. Tell me that they plan to build around the younger players.
Problem with that is that it lowers the value of players like damon, NVE, SAR and Theo.
|
they kind of have been telling us to be patient.
btw, does "kind of have" seem grammatically wrong there?
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 02:58 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
BasketballBoards Star
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,222
|
Re: A little conspiracy theory for ya.
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
I've been pondering some of the rotational aspects of the Blazers, for the last few days, and I came up witha conspiracy theory of sorts.
I don't think that being a playoff contender was a priority for the franchise for this season. Here's how I think the priorities shake down.
#1 Don't alienate the fanbase.
#2 Showcase the veteran players in order to move them. Young players and picks are top priority here, unless a big name difference maker is available without giving too much.
#3 Attain a High pick in the draft. I think we allcan see that the youjg pack of players in portland is very promising. Anchored by Zach (20/10), Dariius, and the extremely promising signs of Telfair the team has a good core. Throw in the surprising play of Przz, the promise Outlaw shows and a group of foreign youngsters (Ha, Viktor and Sergei) and the future looks bright. If the Team could bolster that roster with one more top10 draft pick then they would feel very comfortable.
#4 Have a successful season
I think the team is throwing us a good false front by saying the right things and going through the motions of appearing to be trying to compete outright, when in all actuallity that isn't their goal.
I personally think that If Shareef were Healthy right now their lineup would be...
PG NVE
SG Damon
SF Patterson
PF Shareef
C Theo
Why is that? Those are the veteran players that may have some trade value (DA has none due to his contract)
The second string looks like this at that point.
PG Telfair
SG DA/Frahm
SF Miles/Outlaw
PF Zach
C Pryzbilla
OK outside of the PG does that lstarting lineup and Benc rotation look flip flopped to anyone else? Doesn't that bench rotation look a lot like what we will probably be seeing next season as the starting lineup?
So they are getting that team redy to play together by having them come off the bench, while veterans they would like to move are starting so they can be showcased in the last weeks before the deadline.
They don't care if it hurts the team (see priority #3). If they are unable to move any of those guys all they say is, "nothing advantageous presented itself" Meanwhile they let the big 3 contracts walk and Paul Allen saves about $50 mil next season.
Thouhts?
|
#3 and #4 appear to be mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 03:04 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
happy fat guy
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,162
|
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
they kind of have been telling us to be patient.
btw, does "kind of have" seem grammatically wrong there?
|
Kind of have does seem weird. Not worng, just weird. I'm sure some dork......er smart person could tell us.
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 03:32 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
No blood, no foul
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in Denial
Posts: 2,378
|
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
Kind of have does seem weird. Not worng, just weird. I'm sure some dork......er smart person could tell us.
|
Nope, can't tell you.
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 04:38 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
happy fat guy
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,162
|
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>Foulzilla</b>!
Nope, can't tell you.
|
I guess that puts you in the dork category.
|
|
|
01-28-2005, 06:26 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: PDX
Age: 36
Posts: 1,204
Rep Power: 0
|
Quote:
Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
they kind of have been telling us to be patient.
btw, does "kind of have" seem grammatically wrong there?
|
it's grammatically correct.
|
|
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|