crowTrobot

he already turned down a 2 year/25 mil extension offer from seattle. there's no way he won't get at least 13/year to start from someone.

graybeard

Write it down, if we trade Zach, we'll re-sign Magloire. Joel will not be our starting center next year, Mags will.

Some of you may have missed Brandon Roy's comments when he was doing commentary during the last game of the season. He commented on how "championships are won from the inside - out." He was referring to our need to keep a post presence on our team.

dudleysghost

Hey, all I said was that you probably think that. If I'm wrong about that, it's my bad, although you have to admit it sounds like something you'd think...

Anyway, I like the idea of getting RJ or AK for Zach as well. I've always liked both of those players, even if they both are having bad years. I don't think a mid-late 1st round draft pick should sway our decision though (Denver is #17, UTA #25), and neither should a couple million per year. If we hypothetically had the option of any of the three players, Shard, RJ or AK, we should pick whichever one we feel helps us the most. We're talking about all-star or near all-star players here. Who cares about a late pick or a few extra bucks? It's like when we traded Viktor for the rights to Aldridge. Some people said we got ripped off, because LMA probably would have been available at #4. But who cares? We just got the best player in the deal, and that's what's important.

We shouldn't make the dollar wait on the dime.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

Samuel

We're taking a slight hit rebounding-wise, but I think our field goal percentage would go up. Rashard is 22nd in the league in adjusted FG %. He was 22nd last year. He was 13th the year before. I guess that's what I mean by productivity. Something else to consider is that we'd be adding Ime Udoka to the 2nd unit, which would be an improvement over whoever we'd play there otherwise. For once we'd have a legit perimeter threat in the lineup at all times.

I'm willing to give Przybilla the benefit of the doubt that he'd return to his production last year. And it's looking more and more (at least to me) that Portland might go with a big in the draft, so if Prz is awful we can always go with Raef or the draft pick.

I think we saw slight improvement as the season went on, but we still saw a Zach that needed to be sat down by Nate McMillan repeatedly to discuss 'playing the right way'. Nate even pointed out that in the final weeks of the season he was happy about the way Portland was playing. That's an indirect way, IMO, of saying that Portland's style of play was better with Zach out. Even Quick noted that without Zach around the team the rest of the guys inherited the team.

That's at least in the 'PUSH' category, but again, given Zach's body of work and Rashard's positive history with Nate, I'll give the edge (albeit slightly) to Rashard Lewis.

Though I'll agree with you, given the way the CBA is set up coupled with the notion that it's difficult to concoct a trade where both teams felt like they improved their respective rosters, I'm not sure that Portland could do much better in a trade than Rashard Lewis. Maybe that means Portland shouldn't be making a trade at all. But with another draft pick and the production increase we'll get from our young players, I'm not worried about a slight step backward if it means helping the team grow and putting guys like Aldridge and Roy in charge.

Trader Ed

agreed

sorry if it was no evident... but I was teasing... I would not do that with a chance to loose a player who wants to come here and has talent

__________________
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts..."

Heart, desire and hustle! Its the fire within that makes a champion.

dudleysghost

I think if we can guarantee Mags a starting spot, we'll r-sign him. That said, I'm not sure if I'd really call him "a post presence". His post defense is pretty good, even though he doesn't help well, and he does get some cheap points on putbacks and cuts, but his post offense is painful to watch. I could go a lifetime without ever seeing his hook shot again. People say Zach holds the ball to long, doesn't pass and turns it over too much ... but Mags holds the ball way to long, never passes out of the post and turns it over at a higher rate, all while being much less likely to finally score when he does finally make his post move.

If anyone on our team should be called a post presence, I think it would be Zach, and someday Aldridge.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

graybeard

Duds, did you miss the part where I said "if we trade Zach"? Mags is a post player and that is all he is.

Next years starting linup will look like this:
PG- Blake (or whatever veteran pg we pick up) doesn't matter because Sergio will be our starting pg before the end of the season. /Sergio
SG Roy / Martel (if he isn't involved in the Zach trade)
SF Shard / Udoka /Outlaw
PF Aldridge / Outlaw / Raef
C Magloire / Przybilla / Aldridge / Raef

Zach and Jack are going to Atlanta

dudleysghost

Shard has the definite edge in eff FG%, Zach has a more than slight advantage in rebounding. It's debatable and relative which is more important, but I'd just call it a wash roughly. For our team though, I definitely think we need an efficient outside threat to open up defenses.

I said this knowing we have Ime, even though Ime shoots a great 3pt %. I don't consider him a major perimeter threat though, because he doesn't create shots for himself, and he gets that high % by camping out in the corner, where it's easiest to hit a 3. Of course, that's a useful skill, but not really what forces defense to spread out and make space in the middle.

Other than that, it seems like you're making a lot of assumptions that all favor Lewis. We're going to draft a big? I don't see what signs are pointing to that. That comment Nate made about "playing the right way" may have been about Zach, but it might now. It could be that Nate just liked how the team continued to play hard despite being way overmatched (remember, it was without Zach, and also Roy and Aldridge), often playing from way behind, and being late in the season with no playoffs in sight, which is something last-year's team wouldn't do. I think Nate was just praising his team for showing heart in the face of adversity, although possibly it could have been a deliberately vague reference to Zach.

And maybe Nate does prefer coaching Shard to Zach. I don't know how we'd possibly know, other than that if the trade does take place then it's probably true.

Another implicit assumption I'm seeing in your last sentence is that Zach gets in the way of Roy and Aldridge more than Rashard would. I guess it's more than an assumption, since one can make an educated guess by observing their games, but I still see a lot of reasons why that would not be true.

First of all, Lewis has said publicly that he feels like he can be a #1 player. He said it out loud. That doesn't sound to me like the kind of person who wants to let other players be "in charge", let alone a couple of sophomores (although certainly talented ones). He's also never been the kind of player who is really good at creating opportunities for his teammates. He's a scorer. Like Zach and Aldridge, when you give Lewis the ball, he's not likely to get an assist but he's very likely to shoot it. That's not meant to be a knock on any of those guys, because I think pure scorers can be great teammates in basketball, but I just don't see exactly why people believe that swapping Zach for Shard would really improve ball movement.

OTOH, we've seen Zach try to adapt his game with the emergence of Roy and Aldridge. Both those young players turned it on as the season went on, and in response we saw Zach reduce his FGA and increase his FG%. He also dramatically increased his passing late in the season. I don't know if it was a statistical blip or not, because it was basically just a spike to 3.7 apg in the month of March, but it looked to me like a memo about passing was sent to and received by Zach. I think it started around the Feb game at Memphis, when Zach gave the team a pre-game speech about closing out strong and not giving up. After that he seemed to really make it a priority to create offense for his teammates, instead of just for himself.

In any case, I'll be happy if we make the trade or not. I think both Zach and Lewis can help this team. I'm just playing a bit of Devil's advocate because I think I'm seeing a bit of "grass is greener" syndrome permeating the discussion of a possible Zach/Lewis trade. For sure, the fans of the trade might be right, and it could greatly improve out team, but I think a lot of people just don't like Zach and want to believe that any aspect of a trade that sends him out must be good. Not you personally Samuel, but I'm just speaking generally.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

Masbee

Of course your position sounds more reasonable when you color the facts.

I, for one, said I was comfortable with the RJ contract which ends at $15mil. Which by the by is the same as the Joe Johnson contract. Also look at the deals Larry Hughes and Peja got as free agents. I think those guys are better comparos to Lewis for contract vs. player than Pierce, Nowitzki, McGrady, Kobe, Gasol, Duncan, who are all in the contract range that Lewis and his agent are aksing. Just because a couple of teams grossly overpaid for perimeter scorers that are not franchise players, does not mean we should follow suit.

$11, $12, $13, $14, $15. 5 years $65 million. If Lewis wants 6 years, tack on a Team Option for that 6th year at $17 mil. This is what I would be comfortable with.

If we bring Lewis in at the $15.1 to start, ($400k less than he is asking), with the raises, that matches the Paul Pierce deal - $15, $16, $18, $20, $22, and a Player ETO of $24. A 6 year deal would be appx. $115 million.

You say "a couple of million.", when the difference between what is $400k less than Lewis is now asking and what I consider an acceptable contract for the Blazers (and still a ton of money) is:

$4.1 million the first year
$9.0 million in the last guaranteed year
$50 million in guaranteed dollars.

Here is what I say to the Blazers. Quibble. Bargain. Hold your ground. Don't listen to folks who say open back up the truck and open the vault for fringe stars. Save that kind of money for a real franchise player. Thank you.

dudleysghost

I didn't miss the part where you said "if we trade Zach", but the quote you referenced was from Brandon Roy, and if you think Jamaal Magloire was exactly what he had in mind when he imagined championship post play, then I disagree.

There are many different definitions of "post", so I don't really want to debate the meaning of the word. Sometimes it just means "center". It could mean a guy who anchors the offense or defense from inside the key. It can be the "high-post" or "low-post". When I hear it I think of it though, I'm thinking of a guy with a back to the basket low-post game on offense, and a guy who can defend the same on the other end. Judging by the context of Roy's quote, I think he was thinking of "inside" the same way.

Now you might think Zach and Jack will go to Atlanta, and you might be right, but right now Zach is still our best post player on offense by far. He's the only guy we have who can reliably score from "inside". LMA might get there someday as well. Mags OTOH, has a fairly ugly offensive game. IMO he should not have the ball passed to him unless he's wide open cutting to the basket, standing under the basket, at the top of the key helping to set up the offense or if he has a glaring mismatch down low. IMO his back to the basket "post" offense is awful. I don't think a guy like Mags who lacks the ability to be a real offensive anchor in the key is what Roy had in mind when he said championships are won from the inside out. That's all I meant.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

dudleysghost

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. You can feel however you feel about salary. But AK is going to get paid $13.7m next season. Zach is going to get $13.3m. The difference between that and $15.5 is "a couple mil". RJ makes $12.2, so that difference is a little more than a couple mil. It's "a few mil". I wasn't comparing a hypothetical max salary for Lewis to some hypothetical price point, I was comparing it to the actual salaries of those other players because we were contrasting the possibilities of acquiring one or the other.

You bring up a couple good points though. I definitely think the Blazers should try to bargain Lewis. Nobody else is going to offer him the max, so why should we? And those extra obligated years do have an impact, both good and bad really, but I wasn't going to get into that.

But really, I don't think the extra few million dollars or the extra guaranteed years would hurt us much. You say you'd rather spend max dollars on a real franchise player, and of course that would be preferable, but I doubt that we will get the chance. Unless we go on a salary cutting regimen to get under the cap in 2009, we probably won't ever be under the cap. In 2010, Aldridge, Roy and S-Rod are all due for their extensions. Without cap space, we can't chase the rare franchise caliber free agent that becomes available.

Now, of course we could still need salary space under the lux tax to either keep our own franchise level players when they are due for extensions (like Roy or Aldridge if they develop as we hope) or to be able to facilitate a sign and trade that forces us to take on future salary obligations that put us over the threshold (like Denver did this season). IMO though, that all comes down to Paul Allen. If he is willing to pay the tax, then we can ignore the threshold. And I'm guessing that in order to extend our own young guys or if we do get the rare chance at getting a real superstar, PA will open his purse. If I'm wrong though, it does mean that we should be more salary-conscious right now, so we don't get stuck missing out on a great future opportunity, and that a few extra mil a year and more guaranteed years do really matter to us.

__________________
Jeff Van Gundy to the Houston Chronicle: "Everybody gets excited about youth except the coach, because he knows youth means mistakes, mistakes mean losses, losses means you're fired."

ColoradoBlazerFan