mook

I think us Blazer fans can learn a lot from Chicago. Looking back, the biggest mistake the Bulls have made since Jordan left was that they constantly overvalued potential and constantly undervalued what they had. They viewed all up-and-comers as having limitless potential, and only dealt them after they'd come close to maxing out their real talent.

Elton Brand was the best player the Bulls have had in the last 8 years, and they gave him up for what? A draft pick for Tyson Chandler. Why? Because Elton was about as good in 2000 as he was likely to be in 2007. Somehow, "pretty darned good" wasn't good enough.

Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler didn't look that great in their first year or two, but everybody said you have to be patient with high schoolers. Where did that patience get them? Looking back, can you imagine what kind of deals they could've swung with those two guys and Jay Williams before the motorcycle crash?

They then let Chandler leave when it became clear he was "just" a rebounder and defender. Yeah, he's still that. But so was Dikembe Mutombo. Chandler's per minute stats haven't moved much since his final year in Chicago, but he's now on a team where they realize that if you play him 35 mpg, those are decent stats in the right role.

More recently, I think they could've got Zach Randolph for Nocioni and change, but they never made that deal. Why? You could argue about character, but I think it was mostly because Nocioni was moving up and Randolph was never likely to do better than last year. Last year looks pretty darned good to the Bulls right now.

Chicago could've named their price for an up-and-coming point guard like Hinrich a year or two ago. But they stuck with him too long, expecting him to grow, and he hasn't. Now his stats are in the tank and so are the Bulls (yet again) and they'd be doing pretty well to trade him for Outlaw and Jack.

Marsellus Wallace was too negative, but he had a point: "You see, this profession is filled to the brim with unrealistic mother****ers. Mother****ers who thought their *** would age like wine. If you mean it turns to vinegar, it does. If you mean it gets better with age, it don't." For every "fine wine" lottery pick, there's another that goes the other way.

Chicago fans must burst into tears every time they look at the standings and see the Boston Celtics. In one summer Boston injected more talent into their team than Chicago had over the prior six, mostly by doing what Chicago failed to do: Hold on to the proven guys with talent (Paul Pierce/Elton Brand) and ditching the picks and youngsters for more proven quality (Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett).

So how does this apply to our own team? I think it's pretty clear whom our "Elton Brands" are. Roy, Aldridge and Oden aren't going anywhere. (And while we're winning, nobody else should either.)

But the rest of our core? Webster, Jack, Outlaw, Jones, Rodriguez, Przybilla, McRoberts, Frye, Greene, our first rounder--I like these guys. But I'm not delusional. I fully expect Pritchard to take a hard look at our roster this summer and ask himself, "Which ones are about to go vinegar?"

Myself, I'm a huge Sergio Rodriguez fan. But I'm beginning to think if he spends another year in our system he's going to be tagged with "backup point guard" value, whereas right now I think he's worth a lot more. It's tough for me to say, but it might be best for our team if we get the most value possible out of him by trading him this summer.

SodaPopinski

I'm sure this was a good post, but I'll wait until the cliff notes come out.

-Pop

__________________

ebott

I'm waiting for the movie to come out on DVD.

Edit: Or maybe I can get it on audio book. Perhaps voiced by James Earl Jones.

hasoos

You can look at it that way, or you can look at it this way:

The team was doing fine until the GM really messed with the team chemistry this year. He did not sign one of their "promising core" to a new contract. Consequently, you end up with a bunch of guys that feel like they are not being built around. While I do agree that Ben Gordon asked for way too much money, I do think they should have signed Luol Deng to an extension. That would have shown a committment to at least one player.

Now you have a situation where since nobody has been signed to a contract extension, you don't have anybody in the locker room that is on managements side. It is "Management" and the "team" not one organization. Nobody on the team wants to play for management because they would not make a monetarial committment.

Top it off with the fact that most of the players on the team were shopped for Kobe at one point, and it is no wonder they are so unhappy.

Paxon makes Skiles take the fall, in order to save his *** for another year. You can only do that so many times Paxon. Then it is your butt on the line.

__________________
Hasoos

mook

heh. in summary:

Trade Sergio even though I like him!

andalusian

This is a good post, but I would actually think harder about keeping Sergio. Sergio is slowly getting into the groove of what Nate wants and I think it is crucial to keep him around at least for the start of the Rudy Fernandez era... - it seems to me that Rudy can be the cherry on top of that team - and if keeping Sergio around makes his transition to the NBA easier - than you keep Sergio and hope he becomes the de-facto PG of the white team.

The reality is that the team will have 1 or 2 new players next year - Rudy and a draft pick - so at least 1 if not two of the players from this year's roster need to be moved / waived / retired / bought out.

With Oden coming back, Raef is the piece that is easiest to move (from Portland's needs point of view) - I appreciate how professional he has been, I appreciate that he can still be effective at times - but he will be on his last year of a big contract and what little minutes he currently gets - will disappear with Greg on the active roster.

Realistically, it will be really hard to move Raef by himself - so another asset or two (a promising young or two + maybe a pick) for a rising star might work and will help balance the roster and create the required spot(s) that Portland needs.

Public Defender

Hmm... I think the premise - that Chicago was too impatient with certain players and waited too long on others is on the mark. I think they also learned a lesson about character - I'm not talking about players who screw up offcourt, like Randolph, but guys who don't always give everything they've got, like Curry.

I'm sorry mook's very solid post is being boiled down to just "should we trade Sergio?" and now a response of "maybe we should move Raef and someone else?". In the current situation, we are seeing how good the past moves Kevin Pritchard made are. I think a big key to how good this team is, is the fact that all the pieces work together. Without being in the locker room, it's hard for me to tell if there are guys on the outside looking in, or if it's really one big happy family during this winning streak. I suppose the losing streak gives some indication (the unhappy Jarrett Jack, McMillan's frustration with Outlaw and Frye...), but it seems like the problems are not that big.

I know it's a little weird, but if this team makes the playoffs this season, I'd be tempted to keep everyone and trade our draft pick for a future first rounder. After all, we're already adding a huge piece of the puzzle in a healthy Greg Oden.

__________________
Next year...

mook

very true. the Garnett trade couldn't have happened without Ratliff's big expiring contract (the only time Ratliff has been useful in years). we seem very nicely positioned to make a big trade for an All Star veteran. just like Boston did with Seattle and Minnesota last year.

my key point is that it takes a lot of guts to trade a guy like Outlaw or Sergio or Webster when you don't really know how good they can be. Chicago never showed that courage, and they've paid the price. Boston was willing to part with Al Jefferson and the Green pick, and it's paying dividends now.

andalusian

No, the reality is that with Rudy and a Pick coming this way - the Blazers need to find 2 roster spots for next year - so the option of "keeping everyone" is not an option even if you trade the pick for a future pick. With that, I agree that someone needs to be moved - but it seems to me that even if Sergio does not progress anymore than he already did this year - he still has value just to ease Rudy into his role and see if the two of them can really work great together in the NBA.

Unless Darius retires - someone from the other 14 on the current roster will need to be moved in some way, shape or form - and if you do not decide to buy Raef out of his contract or just cut Green or McBob - there is a need to make a 2 for 1 (or generally a more for less) trade. You will not be able to trade Darius and Raef for someone - so it only makes sense to assume that at least one of the young assets is going to be moved. It really is just logic and it seems, to me at least, to fall within the realm of discussion that the original post initiated.

andalusian

... and I agree with you. From a pure numbers game and the 15 roster spots and Rudy coming - it is a given that at least one of the young ones is going to be moved. My gut feeling is that it will not be Sergio and I think Travis is pretty much a valuable piece for Nate's system because he can create his own shot. The logical people to be moved, in my opinion, are Jack and Webster. I think that Jack's value on this team is higher than Webster - if only for his leadership - so if I could hazard a guess - I am thinking that Webster will be moved at some point with Raef and maybe a pick for a higher pick and a crappy veteran that has more than one year on his contract. Sort of like what happened in the Bassy/Theo for Raef and the pick that got us Brandon. (which shows, btw, that Theo has been a valuable piece of a trade even before the KG trade). Might have to throw another "future" in there - such as Freeland or Green or Playboy or McBob.

Yega1979

You seem to be critisizing them for giving up on players too soon, but on the other hand, saying it's good to trade young players away for something while you have a chance? That doesn't really make sense.

You are gambling any time you trade away young talent. It's almost the equivilant of selling an unopened pack of baseball cards from the 50's. No way to know who lost until the pack is opened, or the player matures. GMs get paid millions to figure out which draft picks will pan out etc...but in the end, it's the luck of the draw.

The Griz traded Rahim for a draft pick and landed Gasol, which turned out to be an upgrade. We gave up on Telfair to get Roy, and that turned out pretty good.

Boston is going to kick *** for awhile, but once Garnett and Allen finally "get old" in a few years they will go back to sucking, just like the Heat do now.

__________________
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, Nazi leader

STOMP

I'd put their 2006 draft right up there too. How nice would LaMarcus fit between Deng and Wallace instead of underachieving/undersized Tyrus Thomas?

STOMP

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQprMCe20A&NR=1

cpawfan

The Bulls problems can be summed as horrible GMing and piss poor coaching

The Blazers no longer have a bad GM, but I'm not a believer in Nate.

__________________