ABM

From the O:

I don't believe the disparity in records is entirely attributable to Theo's presence, or not.

Do you?

Stepping Razor

I'd like to see this stat disaggregated:

Record with BOTH Joel and Theo: ?
Record with Joel but without Theo: ?
Record with Theo but without Joel: ?
Record with NEITHER Joel nor Theo: ?

I have a hard time believing that Theo's absence hurt the team more than Joel's. I recall (vaguely, and perhaps wrongly) that the Blazers had their nice little stretch in Jan/Feb with Joel in the lineup, and then right about the time Joel went down, the wheels came off the Blazers' wagon.

Stepping Razor

__________________
It's Oden Time

GrandpaBlaze

To Theo specifically? No. I think it would be very interesting to look at our record with Joel in vs. out and then combine the two. I think a big key to the Blazers is having someone who can play the middle and play it well. Unfortunately, both Joel and Theo have been hurt much of the year and Joel for many of the games he has played has looked less-than-healthy.

When I say play the middle well, I am not necessarily looking at scoring (as we know neither Joel or Theo are offensive juggernauts) but rather at defensive presence and rebounding. I think with either Joel or Theo in the middle, the defense automatically improves as at least there is someone in the middle to provide some deterrent whereas now who's going to stop them? Zach?

Gramps...

Masbee

Even when playing, Theo did not have an impressive year. So I agree.

I think the record speaks to this NBA truth: a team needs 3 solid bigs to compete. Portland had 3 solid bigs on the roster - Zach, Joel and Theo. After that the dropoff was very steep when the coach's choice is to play a very young second rounder (HA) or to play a very small lineup.

So, I don't think it was that Theo was "good" independently, just within the context of the situation.

If Skinner had been with the team all season, I don't think you would have seen the big difference in the win % with Theo in Vs. out.

SheedSoNasty

Theo comes back and our 11 game losing streak is snapped... weird!

__________________
We Believe In Brandon Roy (PM to Join!):

~ SheedSoNasty ~ BlazeTop ~ handclap problematic ~ Draco ~ Target ~ drexlersdad ~ Stugots ~ PhilK ~ bruindre ~ ehizzy3 ~ dwood615 ~ GottahaveyourPAUGASOL ~ Benis007 ~ dudleysghost ~ TheBigDonut ~ MAS Rip City ~ Blazers2121 ~ Trailblazed&Confused ~ ProudBFan ~ Utherhimo ~ Stanthecaddy22 ~ ThePrideOfClyde ~ Talkhard ~ Blazer Freak ~ LameR ~ OnTheRocks ~ BiggaAdams~ ptownblazer1 ~ B_&_B ~ ChadWick ~ World B. Free

blue32

When Theo is healthy, Theo > Joel. Easy.

Theo is a monster on defense. it's just that he isnt healthy more than 50% of the season....or so

Cinco de Mayo

Theo's missed just 27 games this year?

Is that some kind of record for him?

__________________

hasoos

Which is exactly the type of reasoning why I say draft big and increase the interior presence for Portland. Theo is not even that great of a rebounder and had an immediate impact last night.

__________________
Hasoos

Foulzilla

No, just par for the course. 11 million for 2/3 of a season, what a bargain.

Ok, well seriously it's worse then his average. But he has had a season where he only played 3 games all year.

__________________
"If push came to shove, I could lose all self-respect & become a reporter."
-Charles Barkley

Redbeard

I agree that Theo's presence is definately helpful in getting wins, but given that the rest of the team is so inconsistant, this stat is irrelevant being just a total. If it was broken down into a timeline comparison showing when Zach and Joel went out, who the opponent was, and whether it was a home game or not, then we would be able to see what impact Theo made.

IMO, it just comes down to having a healthy center in the game for 48 minutes.

__________________
The age of dynasties is upon us.

Ed O

Unfortunately, no. He appeared in 85 regular season games between Atlanta and Portland, and that helped convince some Blazers fans (and, apparently, PatterNash) that he wasn't the injury-prone one trick pony that everyone else knew that he was.

Ed O.

Stepping Razor

The crazy thing about the 3-year extension we gave him after that (admittedly pretty good) half season was that his contract wasn't even expiring until after the NEXT (04-05) season... And then we gave him another THREE YEARS on top of that. Oy.

Miles was out of contract so you can understand then new deal he got, based on what he showed that half season.

Zach still had a year left and would have been a restricted free agent the next year, so PatterNashAllen probably should have held their nerve and waited. But his agent was making all kinds of "now or never" threats, and he still seemed to be our emerging franchise player, so I can see how that happens.

But three extra years for Ratliff, a year early, when he had no leverage whatsoever? Craaaaazy.

Stepping Razor

PS I guess by the trading deadline in '08 Ratliff becomes valuable again as a big expiring contract. But man that seems like a long way away...

__________________
It's Oden Time

Masbee

Yes, and a bunch of posters here said so at the time what a dumb move. There was no monday morning quarterbacking on this.

And yet again, a bunch of poster here said it was bad negotiating to pay pay Miles significantly over the MLE, when 1) he wanted to stay in Portland unless he could get more money somewhere else, and 2) the teams that had caproom that summer had used the money on other players. None left for Miles. He was too far down on the sought after free agents list. As several of us said at the time, offer Miles a bit over the MLE and call it a day. I even suggested a player option on a straight MLE $ deal, if his agent was going to argue his "potential". If he blew up he could opt out sooner and renegotiate. Instead the team paid him over market value. Why? I will never know. I (and others) didn't trust his history to justify overpaying the market. Just dumb business.

I (and others) said to call his agents bluff. We didn't buy it. Nor did I buy into the "Zach is our franchise player" storyline from management. I never saw Zach as a cornerstone. It is as if the Blazers bought into their own marketing campaign - which is idiotic. Or that they thought treating Zach like a franchise player - early extension on a (near) MAX deal - would turn Zach into something he probably wasn't - a dominating cornerstone player. I was more than willing to wait another year to deal with Zach's extension - and to set an example as a franchise to not be such pansies. The only time you roll over is when dealing with a true SuperStar level talent - in which case you DO lick their boots every chance you get.

Except for one HUGE problem. With the current financial problems of the team - there is no guarantee that they will be anxious to use that asset if it means keeping the salary level higher.