Blazers board: Blazers in talks with East team for PG and SF

[SportsWorld]

Expect the unexpected.

Expect the Pritch Slap!

League Email?

Yeah he's going to send a league wide e-mail telling teams to not trade with John Paxson and if they do he will sue them if Paxson doesn't give them Deng and Hinrich for their crap.

[Sonny_D1]

I'll admit I haven't been able to watch a ton of Rudy other than when the Bulls play the Blazers, but I have read some critiques of him on the Blazers board. From what I can see of the objective posters over there, a LOT of fans give him a free pass on a ton of things. Apparently, defensively he is less than spectacular and isn't particularly good at creating offense for himself. Maybe, he won't have to do that much with Rose. However, they were also saying that he isn't a good fit next to Roy, because Rudy needs the ball in his hands to be more effective. I think that directly clashes with what we want and expect from Rose. Any thoughts on that?

It's hard to create for yourself when all you do is stand in the corner waiting for a pass to be swung around to him after LA and Roy are done posting or driving. If you watch the Blazer rotation (with Blake out), they'll almost always have either LA or Roy on the floor with the other 4. Roy is usually the first to be taken out (with approx 4min left in the 1st and 3rd) and then he'll come in in the beginning of the 2nd and 4th (that's when LA goes out for a breather). And while they're out, they'll always have others scorers or facilitators out on the floor, guys like Bayless, Outlaw, Sergio, etc.

As for his fit wit the Bulls, he'd be ideal. Rudy doesn't need the ball in his hands to be successful, but he'd be MUCH more effective both as a scorer and a passer if the ball is in his hands at some point in the offense. Again, with the scorers in Portland, Rudy usually gets the ball on a dish out after Roy drives or LA posts up. That's it. Hence the 3 point shots and perimeter scoring. On the Bulls, he'd have much more opportunity to create some shots for himself and his teammates. And his unselfish style of play would certainly be a great asset to this team.

Case in point, last night Rudy beat his man to the rim and could have easily taken it in himself. Instead he chose to throw an oop to Pryzbilla for an And 1 dunk and 3 point opportunity. You have to have "it" to have the presence of mind to make that play. He's got "it."

[Sonny_D1]

I'll admit I haven't been able to watch a ton of Rudy other than when the Bulls play the Blazers, but I have read some critiques of him on the Blazers board. From what I can see of the objective posters over there, a LOT of fans give him a free pass on a ton of things. Apparently, defensively he is less than spectacular and isn't particularly good at creating offense for himself. Maybe, he won't have to do that much with Rose. However, they were also saying that he isn't a good fit next to Roy, because Rudy needs the ball in his hands to be more effective. I think that directly clashes with what we want and expect from Rose. Any thoughts on that?

I think that directly clashes with what Blazers fans are saying, if that's really the consensus (especially what I have in bold). I can't see how a player who is bad creating offense for himself, needs the ball in his hands to be effective. He should definitely be a player who plays off the ball for the most part.

Overall, I think he has a similar game to Peja Stojakovic, except quicker and possibly not as good of a scorer, but that remains to be seen. If he turns into some form of Peja, that definitely isn't a bad 3rd or 4th option to have on your team. He'd compliment Rose greatly.

Peja is a pure shooter, he doesn't see the floor nearly as well as Rudy does, nor is he as smart a player as Rudy is.

I know I probably sound like I'm making Rudy to be the best thing since sliced bread, but that's not what I'm saying. He'll never be a great player, but I really do believe he'll be a Manu-lite. Not as good of a finisher as Manu but better from the perimeter and about as good of a passer.

[Ben]

From a purely statistical standpoint, look at Rudy's numbers:
Per game:
3.5 FGM 8.3 FGA
2.0 3PM 5.2 FGM
1.7 FTM 1.9 FTA

He is getting that efficiency by taking *mostly* 3 pointers and not a lot of them. In cases like that, people generally cannot maintain that efficiency with more minutes or shots. The shot quality goes way down.

Or it could very well mean that he's only asked to shoot 3's or from the perimeter, on a team that features an excellent low post game and an excellent finisher in Roy? Or it could also mean that if he were given a few more minutes or more shots (driving more), he might be able to get himself into a better "rhythm" which is what most outside shooters do anyways? Playing on a team like the Bulls he'd certainly have more freedom to drive and be more of a "scorer" rather than just a shooter. Have you guys watched this kid play? He can finish, he can dish, and he can play D. At times you'd think he had eyes behind his head.

I suggest you all watch a few more Blazer games before comparing Rudy to players like JR Smith and Cook, efficiencies and all. If you guys haven't watched the Blazers enough to realize the difference, then there's really no reason for me to tire my fingers out typing on a Sunday.

You're a great poster, so take this in the spirit in which it's offered, but:
What you're writing here is unfair and hypocritical. YOU introduced the TS% and eFG% back on p.23, or whichever page it was that you cited. I responded by showing that a fairly high TS% and eFG%, to go along with a less-than-stellar overall game, does not automatically make one an extremely valuable player. coldfish made stat-based points as well in response to the stat-based argument.

Then YOU turn around and say, hey, don't go using statistics, and you pull the "I've watched more Blazer games than you " insinuation. That's lame. You probably HAVE watched more Blazer games than I have, but I've watched some and seen Rudy and have not been blown away. He looked really good in the beginning of the season and more ordinary since then. I've seen him make some great, eyes-in-the-back-of-his-head passes and also some dumb plays, and a lot of ordinary plays. If he were 19 years old and had room to grow into an entirely different player, I'd say WOW! Hold on to that guy no matter what! But he's 23 (will be 24 in less than 3 months) and is already fairly mature.

I'm happy to debate with you, and also to concede that you've watched more Blazer games, but it's lame to go switching the goal-posts in the middle of the debate or dropping the demeaning "go watch him" card.

But you're still m'boy, Blue.

EDIT: whoa. I hadn't even seen this thread on the Blazers board.
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=876073

Some of those guys have probably watched even more Blazers games than you, SD1. And I see folks there saying that in addition to the flashy plays he falters a lot as well. So maybe my characterizations haven't been so worthless after all...

[Red Larrivee]

Peja is a pure shooter, he doesn't see the floor nearly as well as Rudy does, nor is he as smart a player as Rudy is.

That's definitely what separates them, as I pointed out. But other than Peja's elite shooting and Rudy's quickness and vision, I think they present some similarities in terms of their offensive use and playing style.

I don't blame you though, he could be a Ginobli clone as well, Rudy's a very interesting prospect and I just wouldn't expect Portland to part with him any time soon barring a blow away deal.

[Sonny_D1]

You're a great poster, so take this in the spirit in which it's offered, but:
What you're writing here is unfair and hypocritical. YOU introduced the TS% and eFG% back on p.23, or whichever page it was that you cited. I responded by showing that a fairly high TS% and eFG%, to go along with a less-than-stellar overall game, does not automatically make one an extremely valuable player. coldfish made stat-based points as well in response to the stat-based argument.

Then YOU turn around and say, hey, don't go using statistics, and you pull the "I've watched more Blazer games than you " insinuation. That's lame. You probably HAVE watched more Blazer games than I have, but I've watched some and seen Rudy and have not been blown away. He looked really good in the beginning of the season and more ordinary since then. I've seen him make some great, eyes-in-the-back-of-his-head passes and also some dumb plays, and a lot of ordinary plays. If he were 19 years old and had room to grow into an entirely different player, I'd say WOW! Hold on to that guy no matter what! But he's 23 (will be 24 in less than 3 months) and is already fairly mature.

I'm happy to debate with you, and also to concede that you've watched more Blazer games, but it's lame to go switching the goal-posts in the middle of the debate or dropping the demeaning "go watch him" card.

But you're still m'boy, Blue.

Yeah it probably does appear as if I moved the 1st down marker some, but in all fairness to myself , I wasn't the first one to argue Rudy's worth using statistics. Another poster attempted to "devalue" Rudy by pointing out his low FG%. All I did was point out that if you're going to use metrics, use the metrics and efficiencies that really matter when valuing a player, efficiencis such as TS% and eFG%. That's when others, ahem, ahem, Ben, "used" those efficiencies to point out that players like JR and Cook have similar efficiencies, basically saying "So, what's your point?" I think you guys made my point, really. Say what you will about JR but he's considered a very, very good scorer and Cook is viewed as one of the better 3 point shooters in the league, certainly up and coming in that dept.

Unfortunately, they don't do much of anything else. So it was only then that I brought up the whole "you need to watch more Blazer games" argument, because I'm not going to be able to show you any further stats to argue that Rudy is a much better all around player than either JR or Cook. We just don't have enough of a sample size to use any further statistics, not to mention his role isn't being fully utilized in Portland.

So no, no offense taken Ben, I actually enjoy good debate with my fellow Bulls fans.

NBA TV + LA and Roy on my fantasy team + married with kids + Blazers usually play late = Watching almost every Blazer game

[Sonny_D1]

EDIT: whoa. I hadn't even seen this thread on the Blazers board.
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=876073

Some of those guys have probably watched even more Blazers games than you, SD1. And I see folks there saying that in addition to the flashy plays he falters a lot as well. So maybe my characterizations haven't been so worthless after all...

Ben, you know as well as I do it's all in the eye of the beholder. Look at our board, some love BG and he can do no wrong, others don't want him to ever take another shot. Same with Kirk, some see him as a valuable piece, others want him traded for expirings.

I could care less what others think about certain players, I watch the games myself and make my own judgement on their worth and project them as NBA players. Besides like I said above, I'd venture to say I've probably watched more games than many of those posters. Just like the Hawks, I've probably missed 3 or 4 games at the most.

[Ben]

All fair enough. Just wanted to point out that some of us on the "overhyped" side aren't simply blowing smoke out our butts. Something of which I do sometimes get accused by my wife. But that's another matter altogether.

[Leto]

Rudy is a solid player coming off the bench. That's all he's shown hinself to be regardless of Roy or anyone else. He had the opportunity to "show" what he had when Roy was injured and he just isn't that good. For all the talk about his vision he has anorexic assist averages and he simply does not rebound the basketball.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind having Rudy, but have no delusions about his skills. He isn't as good as Hinrich and Deng is absolutly out of the question. I.E., any trade where the primary players being exchanged are HInrich and Rudy makes the Bulls WORSE. The notion that Deng should be a part of such a package is a great step if your goal is to ensure that Rose will be gone by the end of his rookie contract.

[kyrv]

EDIT: whoa. I hadn't even seen this thread on the Blazers board.
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=876073

Some of those guys have probably watched even more Blazers games than you, SD1. And I see folks there saying that in addition to the flashy plays he falters a lot as well. So maybe my characterizations haven't been so worthless after all...

Ben, you know as well as I do it's all in the eye of the beholder. Look at our board, some love BG and he can do no wrong, others don't want him to ever take another shot. Same with Kirk, some see him as a valuable piece, others want him traded for expirings.

I could care less what others think about certain players, I watch the games myself and make my own judgement on their worth and project them as NBA players. Besides like I said above, I'd venture to say I've probably watched more games than many of those posters. Just like the Hawks, I've probably missed 3 or 4 games at the most.

I have to ask - is it merely subjective, or does it matter who has watched more games? You state that opinions differ (which I agree with, of course), then bring up watching more games - is that relevant?

[jax98]

I say this without agenda and I mean no disrespect.

But just because someone is watching every game of some team, it doesn't mean a thing if his analysis are completely and utterly wrong. I'm not saying your analysis are wrong Sonny, I'm just pointing out that we've seen our share of non-Bulls fans come in and actually provide respectable analysis despite them not seing the Bulls all that often - Toronto fans especially. Just like we've seen some NY fans believe they were a good ball-club for the past 5 years...

[Brandon-Clyde]

A couple of videos showing Rudy doing more than shoot 3's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKnr1Ieu4z0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4fiOnYNKf0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PREocudT90&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5vIno6K7yk
Rudy also has a knack for making the big play when needed

[Sonny_D1]

EDIT: whoa. I hadn't even seen this thread on the Blazers board.
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=876073

Some of those guys have probably watched even more Blazers games than you, SD1. And I see folks there saying that in addition to the flashy plays he falters a lot as well. So maybe my characterizations haven't been so worthless after all...

Ben, you know as well as I do it's all in the eye of the beholder. Look at our board, some love BG and he can do no wrong, others don't want him to ever take another shot. Same with Kirk, some see him as a valuable piece, others want him traded for expirings.

I could care less what others think about certain players, I watch the games myself and make my own judgement on their worth and project them as NBA players. Besides like I said above, I'd venture to say I've probably watched more games than many of those posters. Just like the Hawks, I've probably missed 3 or 4 games at the most.

I have to ask - is it merely subjective, or does it matter who has watched more games? You state that opinions differ (which I agree with, of course), then bring up watching more games - is that relevant?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Mickael Pietrus last week had a game with a line of 27 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal, 3 three pointers on 8/13 shooting (62%). If that was the only game you'd ever seen of Mickael, you could argue that he's one of the best players in the NBA.

Edit add: BTW, read Ben's comment above and you'll understand why I even brought up the fact that I watched those games. Perhaps your question should be directed elsewhere then?

[Sonny_D1]

I say this without agenda and I mean no disrespect.

But just because someone is watching every game of some team, it doesn't mean a thing if his analysis are completely and utterly wrong. I'm not saying your analysis are wrong Sonny, I'm just pointing out that we've seen our share of non-Bulls fans come in and actually provide respectable analysis despite them not seing the Bulls all that often - Toronto fans especially. Just like we've seen some NY fans believe they were a good ball-club for the past 5 years...

Really?

Quick, let every NBA team, every scouting service, and every NBA personnel dept know that they should halt all scouting of players immediately, since all it takes is watching a player once (or twice) to know their exact tendencies, skillset, and potential as a ballplayer. I guess that's one way teams can start saving some money in this down economy.

I'm not saying your analysis are wrong Sonny

No, I think that's exactly what you're trying to say. But that's ok because everyone has their own opinion.

[jax98]

Really?

Quick, let every NBA team, every scouting service, and every NBA personnel dept know that they should halt all scouting of players immediately, since all it takes is watching a player once (or twice) to know their exact tendencies, skillset, and potential as a ballplayer. I guess that's one way teams can start saving some money in this down economy.

You know. I didn't say anything negative to you, nor did I emply in any way that you yourself were a bad analyser. So your response makes little sense to me.

My point is pretty simple. Some can watch 82 games of one team and still have no clue at making proper analysis, and some can come in and make valid analysis after just a few games. If you don't agree with that, fine. No reason to be a jerk about it.

No, I think that's exactly what you're trying to say. But that's ok because everyone has their own opinion.

Since when do you have any idea about my line of thinking? I wasn't trying to say that, nor did I intend to make it sound that way. You're 100% wrong in this case.

[Sonny_D1]

Really?

Quick, let every NBA team, every scouting service, and every NBA personnel dept know that they should halt all scouting of players immediately, since all it takes is watching a player once (or twice) to know their exact tendencies, skillset, and potential as a ballplayer. I guess that's one way teams can start saving some money in this down economy.

You know. I didn't say anything negative to you, nor did I emply in any way that you yourself were a bad analyser. So your response makes little sense to me.

My point is pretty simple. Some can watch 82 games of one team and still have no clue at making proper analysis, and some can come in and make valid analysis after just a few games. If you don't agree with that, fine. No reason to be a jerk about it.

I didn't think I was being a jerk at all, I simply tried to point out my feelings about a player after analyzing his play by watching many of his games. And I agree that analyzing a player is subjective, afterall, feelings about guys like Ben and Kirk on this board are 50/50 and we're all Bulls fans. Having said that, let me ask you a question. Isn't it safe to assume that your analysis of a certain player would be better if you watched MORE of that player as opposed to less?

All I've tried to point out is my analysis of a player.

[Sonny_D1]

He isn't as good as Hinrich

Purely subjective, but I couldn't disagree more.

[jax98]

Having said that, let me ask you a question. Isn't it safe to assume that your analysis of a certain player would be better if you watched MORE of that player as opposed to less?

Well obviously more. However that wasn't my point at all. I'm pointing out despite following something/someone intensely, it's not always a sign of quality analysis. I'll point to Sam Smith to prove my point. He's been around for many, many years and his breakdown of the Bulls is beyond awful and often inaccurate. That's with him attending a ton of games, getting inside info we don't, and living as a professional sports writer.

Now compare that to Hubie Brown. An analyst who doesn't see us play all that often. He's usually right on the money with his analysis and general perception of the Bulls. So I find it difficult to say that quantity equals quality.

[Il_Devo]

WOW! Im a Blazer fan and I cant believe this thread has gone on for this many pages on a BULLS board, and its a topic concerning the Blazers.

Let me tell you, from a Blazer perspective, if this deal involves the Bulls in any way, it will DEFINITELY 100% be for Hinrich and Deng. Sorry, but no way would Portland ever take on Nocioni's contract, ever. The main piece in the trade that pushes the Blazers closer to "contention" would obviously be Deng.

Hinrich is a lateral move for the Blazers. We already have Steve Blake who has a better outside shot than Hinrich but less defense, and he also costs $6 million less and has a team option for next season.

Nocioni is 29 years old and makes $8 million + for the next 5 years and he has no inside game at all. Blazers already have Batum, Webster, and Outlaw who are all under 25 years old who play SF and all three combined cost the same as Nocioni. And they all can play inside and can play defense.

So really, the only upgrade the Blazers would get from Chicago in any deal would be DENG: a more consistent 3rd scoring option to take pressure off Roy and Aldridge, not only in the front court, but from the wing as well.

Sorry guys, but you can take Nocioni out of every scenario... it isnt happening. And for those who think Deng wont happen either.... well you're not the owner paying him $4 million+ more a year than he is actually worth. This is a bad economy for cheap owners who dont have $30 BILLION like others do...

[Sonny_D1]

Having said that, let me ask you a question. Isn't it safe to assume that your analysis of a certain player would be better if you watched MORE of that player as opposed to less?

Well obviously more. However that wasn't my point at all. I'm pointing out despite following something/someone intensely, it's not always a sign of quality analysis. I'll point to Sam Smith to prove my point. He's been around for many, many years and his breakdown of the Bulls is beyond awful and often inaccurate. That's with him attending a ton of games, getting inside info we don't, and living as a professional sports writer.

Now compare that to Hubie Brown. An analyst who doesn't see us play all that often. He's usually right on the money with his analysis and general perception of the Bulls. So I find it difficult to say that quantity equals quality.

I agree, and I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my analysis. Nor do I really care. I'm just here on a message board to discuss/debate basketball with other fans and to give my .02 about what I see.

The only reason the subject of watching more Blazer games even came up is because the sample size of Rudy's accomplishments thus far is small. The only way to gain a true appreciation of his game is to watch more of his games. I'm certain that if fans do that, most will come out with a better appreciation of his talent and his overall potential.