The answer at PG: Steve Blake

[Butter]

But the same could be said about Ben Gordon or any of those guys. Gordon has almost been the definition of inconsistency. True, he can go off for 38 points, but he's just as likely to go 6-21 with a bunch of turn-overs.

True, but what we have to consider is this - Gordon serves as the Bulls' best scoring option, with no real threat from inside. Playing alongside Roy, LMA and Oden, Gordon would get much more high percentage shots.

Question is, would it be worth it to give him the money he's looking for? maybe he'll settle for less and sign a 3-4 years deal, hoping to raise his stock with us.

Money is a major issue here. A lot of us have talked about brining in some star FA, but the Blazers will have to pay a lot of money to keep their current players. In my mind, that is another big benefit to someone like Blake. Instead of adding a near max deal, the Blazers could give Blake a reasonable raise to be a solid contributor on a true team thats contending for WCF and Championships.

[Wizenheimer]

-= original quote snipped =-



Money is a major issue here. A lot of us have talked about brining in some star FA, but the Blazers will have to pay a lot of money to keep their current players. In my mind, that is another big benefit to someone like Blake. Instead of adding a near max deal, the Blazers could give Blake a reasonable raise to be a solid contributor on a true team thats contending for WCF and Championships.

that does illustrate a significant problem with the cap-space problem IMO. There appear to be several teams angling for cap space in 2009. maybe as many as 6 or 7 besides portland.

A player like Ben Gordon may be able to get a ridiculous contract if teams get into competition for the best free agents. I'm not sure Portland wants to participate in that kind of market considering their own players they'll have to re-sign in short order.

[Butter]

-= original quote snipped =-



that does illustrate a significant problem with the cap-space problem IMO. There appear to be several teams angling for cap space in 2009. maybe as many as 6 or 7 besides portland.

A player like Ben Gordon may be able to get a ridiculous contract if teams get into competition for the best free agents. I'm not sure Portland wants to participate in that kind of market considering their own players they'll have to re-sign in short order.

Wize, I agree. And that brings us full circle to the original point of this thread. Do any of those other players offer significantly more, with-in the team offense, than Blake. I'm not saying that he's as individual as talented, but are those other players going to provide that much more value for the cost?

[listerine]

I still think the strategy is to keep that cap space for ourselves. Maybe sign another player for a little more than the mid level exception. But I think KP is angling to keep the money and use it for the max or near max contracts for Roy, Aldridge, and Oden.

Afterall, as general manager, KP's goals are to bring in talent and be financially responsible.

Anyway, I seriously doubt we're going to offer Chris Paul a max deal, and then have to do the same with three of our own players.

[mojomarc]

Anyway, I seriously doubt we're going to offer Chris Paul a max deal, and then have to do the same with three of our own players.

I don't now about Chris Paul per se, but I believe that offering a max deal to a free agent and then doing it for three of our own players is exactly what the plan is. That plan may change in that we may end up trading expiring contracts for players rather than waiting for free agency, but it amounts to the exact same thing.

[Wizenheimer]

-= original quote snipped =-



Wize, I agree. And that brings us full circle to the original point of this thread. Do any of those other players offer significantly more, with-in the team offense, than Blake. I'm not saying that he's as individual as talented, but are those other players going to provide that much more value for the cost?

Ben Gordon at 7 million a year, probably...at 11 million, no. But I doubt he'd sign for 7 million.

Gilbert Arenas or Baron Davis?...both could possibly be free agents that summer, but to clear enough cap space for either, portland would have to dump several players. Even if they miraculously managed to eject Miles, portland would still have to sacrifice at least one of outlaw-blake-webster-jones and maybe 2 of them. And of course each of those possible additions has some 'issues'. Davis has a bad back and often a bad atitude. Arenas may be clinically insane.

Right now, as a Blazer fan I'm not comfortable with the backcourt rotation of Roy, Blake, Sergio, and Fernandez (I'm assuming Jack will be elsewhere). Roy is a keeper of course, but Blake is a role player in my view; Sergio may never take the next step; and fernandez is an unknown. Too many questions in that backcourt moving forward, that's why I still think portland needs to keep their eyes open at possible backcourt additions.

I do understand that what portland has may be enough. Roy will improve, Sergio could, and Rudy could turn out to be special. If he took Jack's place in the rotation and was markedly better, then great. In that case Portland wouldn't need to think higher then the MLE for any backcourt help. But I don't think they'll know that for sure for a couple of years.

[Goldbum]

You hit it right on the head wise, I want an impact player to pair with Roy.

[listerine]

-= original quote snipped =-



I don't now about Chris Paul per se, but I believe that offering a max deal to a free agent and then doing it for three of our own players is exactly what the plan is. That plan may change in that we may end up trading expiring contracts for players rather than waiting for free agency, but it amounts to the exact same thing.

I'm just making a guess, but I doubt it's going to end up like that. I'm not saying KP is a liar, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of bait and switch in his methods. After all, it's his job to fix the "broken economic model."

My belief (which I'll freely admit is just conjecture) is that this whole "In 2009 we'll have some flexibility" is just so the fans will swallow some cost cutting methods. The hope is that the big three develop and the remaining pieces can be achieved through the draft of cheap free agency.

The excess cap space? It will all be eaten up when we offer large contracts to the big three.

Seriously, who actually believes that the Blazers will put 4 max or near max players on the roster? KP is groomed in the San Antonio mold. They have 3 stars and a lot of pieces. Something similar will happen with the Blazers.

[Tim Lehrbach]

My belief (which I'll freely admit is just conjecture) is that this whole "In 2009 we'll have some flexibility" is just so the fans will swallow some cost cutting methods. The hope is that the big three develop and the remaining pieces can be achieved through the draft of cheap free agency.

Yup. I have the same suspicion.

[mojomarc]

Seriously, who actually believes that the Blazers will put 4 max or near max players on the roster? KP is groomed in the San Antonio mold. They have 3 stars and a lot of pieces. Something similar will happen with the Blazers.

I do--San Antonio, with three star players, has basically the same payroll we do now. Yet those three star players are hardly sure things to get San Antonio even to the finals every year and certainly haven't proven that you can have the dynastic success that I believe Paul Allen wants. With a fourth player, we have a chance at seperating ourselves from the rest of the contending teams for the foreseeable future. Paul Allen has certainly shown himself willing to spend for winning teams, and if Portland wants flexibility going forward to add additional players to correct for mistakes, they need to increase the salary base enough to accomodate deals, and taking advantage of the 15 days in 2009 (or earlier) does that for us. It allows us to participate in more sign-and-trades, but more importantly it gives us more flexibillity to correct for mistakes or injuries that may occur along the way.

So basically, I think KP sees an opportunity not to do a three star system but to do something more along the lines of the Celtics/Lakers teams of the 80s.

[Wizenheimer]

-= original quote snipped =-



I do--San Antonio, with three star players, has basically the same payroll we do now. Yet those three star players are hardly sure things to get San Antonio even to the finals every year and certainly haven't proven that you can have the dynastic success that I believe Paul Allen wants. With a fourth player, we have a chance at seperating ourselves from the rest of the contending teams for the foreseeable future. Paul Allen has certainly shown himself willing to spend for winning teams, and if Portland wants flexibility going forward to add additional players to correct for mistakes, they need to increase the salary base enough to accomodate deals, and taking advantage of the 15 days in 2009 (or earlier) does that for us. It allows us to participate in more sign-and-trades, but more importantly it gives us more flexibillity to correct for mistakes or injuries that may occur along the way.

So basically, I think KP sees an opportunity not to do a three star system but to do something more along the lines of the Celtics/Lakers teams of the 80s.

that's actually a good argument.

Normally, I'd disagree, even though I'm such an agreeable fellow as you know...

But I read the article about Paul Allen's 3 giant yachts. And a guy who needs 3 yachts might just need 4 superstars.

[listerine]

Paul Allen will spend to win, no question. But why spend a lot to win when you can spend less and still win?

KP's job is to build the most competitive team in the most financially responsible way. And between those two, something's gotta give.

I'm just saying.

[mojomarc]

Paul Allen will spend to win, no question. But why spend a lot to win when you can spend less and still win?

KP's job is to build the most competitive team in the most financially responsible way. And between those two, something's gotta give.

I'm just saying.

Because with the cap rules, you're much better of spending more to win than spending less. If you spend more, you can take more salary back in trade, which means you have more choices of who you can trade for. If KP makes a mistake in judging talent or chemistry, or if there is an injury, you can basically trade a max player for another max player or multiple lower-paid players, while if you only have a mid-priced player, you don't have a shot at taking back the max player.

[listerine]

-= original quote snipped =-



Because with the cap rules, you're much better of spending more to win than spending less. If you spend more, you can take more salary back in trade, which means you have more choices of who you can trade for. If KP makes a mistake in judging talent or chemistry, or if there is an injury, you can basically trade a max player for another max player or multiple lower-paid players, while if you only have a mid-priced player, you don't have a shot at taking back the max player.

This argument doesn't hold up because the Blazers most likely will have 3 max or near max players. In which case, it's much more beneficial to have multiple mid-level and lower-level players to fill out the salary cap restrictions and serve as filler and incentives on trades.

But I don't think there's much point in us debating this, Mojo, since the answers won't appear for two years (at which time we'll have forgotten this conversation took place). I feel one thing, you feel another. Your position is completely logical, and I feel mine is logical as well. Time will tell. But we both hope the Blazers are in a position to own the league in three years.

[mojomarc]

But I don't think there's much point in us debating this, Mojo, since the answers won't appear for two years (at which time we'll have forgotten this conversation took place). I feel one thing, you feel another. Your position is completely logical, and I feel mine is logical as well. Time will tell. But we both hope the Blazers are in a position to own the league in three years.

I'm sorry, but I disagree--I hope the Blazers are in a position to own the league in TWO years

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



Ben Gordon at 7 million a year, probably...at 11 million, no. But I doubt he'd sign for 7 million.

Gilbert Arenas or Baron Davis?...both could possibly be free agents that summer, but to clear enough cap space for either, portland would have to dump several players.

Ben Gordon + 10' pole = I still wouldn't touch him.

He's a nice streak shooter but he's really not a playmaking guard and he's actually not that great of a defender, either. He's pretty much not worth the money that you might otherwise use to re-sign the guys already on your squad.

Gilbert Arenas is DEFINITELY not worth it; your offense is developing fine and he's a hack on D and a chucker. He can get hot like crazy and he gets to the line very well but he's not worth the money he's paid, especially since you're theoretically about to add a high-efficiency interior scoring option (especially if Oden is just taking tip-ins and dump passes for easy buckets off of penetration by the guards and forwards) to boost your O, so of what value would be the addition of Arenas? He'd be a chemistry buster and nothing more. The same would be true of Baron Davis, both of those guys would just serve to take the ball out of Roy's hands.

[Wizenheimer]

-= original quote snipped =-



Ben Gordon + 10' pole = I still wouldn't touch him.

He's a nice streak shooter but he's really not a playmaking guard and he's actually not that great of a defender, either. He's pretty much not worth the money that you might otherwise use to re-sign the guys already on your squad.

Gilbert Arenas is DEFINITELY not worth it; your offense is developing fine and he's a hack on D and a chucker. He can get hot like crazy and he gets to the line very well but he's not worth the money he's paid, especially since you're theoretically about to add a high-efficiency interior scoring option (especially if Oden is just taking tip-ins and dump passes for easy buckets off of penetration by the guards and forwards) to boost your O, so of what value would be the addition of Arenas? He'd be a chemistry buster and nothing more. The same would be true of Baron Davis, both of those guys would just serve to take the ball out of Roy's hands.

We've been having debates like this because of Kevin Pritchard's stated plan to make a big splash in the free agent market of 2009.

With that in mind, we then look at who might be available. IMO, the list isn't that impressive, but the prevailing notion would be that if portland is going to add a major player, it would probably be in the backcourt.

Arenas and Davis are the 2 notable backcourt players who might be free agents. However Arenas has apparently reiterated that he's going to opt-out this summer so he'd be off the blazer's table. And Davis's bad back is too big a red flag.

That was leaving Gordon as a possibility if he was to play for the QO next season. I think he'd be a good match with Roy as a backcourt partner theoretically. The trouble would be how much money he'd want and if he could accept being a 3rd or 4th option. I don't know if he could accept that kind of role, and it certainly seems like he wants a lot of money.

A big issue with the cap-space plan is that portland will have to 'dump' some productive players, either by trade or simply renouncing the rights. That wouldn't be the case if Darius Miles vanished, but it doesn't look like that will happen.

And complicating it further is the question of just how good Rudy Fernandez is going to be. If he turns out to be a real good NBA player (and many here think he will be), then Portland begins to run out of room for another big time player.

Personally, I think portland may be better off dumping the cap-space plan. Instead, they should focus on player development; draft picks and draft day trades (which Pritchard seems a master of); and MLE signings.