Rumors, "Shorts" and other chatter

[Vega]

It makes NO sense to trade Batum for a player who MIGHT only have 2 to 3 years left in him even for a player who can make average talent look better ALA Peyton Manning in Football making his recievers look better then they are.

It also made no sense to trade a future poorly protected first for a two year rental (possibly 1) of Wallace when the team clearly wasn't a contender and needed to rebuild. I wonder what kind of assets in addition to Crash it would take to get that pick back. Anyway, my point is that the management team is flailing and utterly directionless and no move at this point would surprise me.

[Wizenheimer]

It makes NO sense to trade Batum for a player who MIGHT only have 2 to 3 years left in him even for a player who can make average talent look better ALA Peyton Manning in Football making his recievers look better then they are.

It also made no sense to trade a future poorly protected first for a two year rental (possibly 1) of Wallace when the team clearly wasn't a contender and needed to rebuild. I wonder what kind of assets in addition to Crash it would take to get that pick back. Anyway, my point is that the management team is flailing and utterly directionless and no move at this point would surprise me.

and you have arrived at this conclusion based upon rumors of what is going on?

[JasonStern]

Hey now that Wiz has said it sounds like the ESPN is BS it must be so ... ROFL...

wizenheimer is more connected with the blazers than you think. which is sad because that pretty much guarantees steve nash won't be a blazer this season.

It also made no sense to trade a future poorly protected first for a two year rental (possibly 1) of Wallace when the team clearly wasn't a contender and needed to rebuild.

revisionist history much? when the wallace trade was made, roy was still playing and oden was on track to play this season. with even decent luck, miller/roy/wallace/aldridge/oden wouldn't need a rebuild.

[Vega]

revisionist history much? when the wallace trade was made, roy was still playing and oden was on track to play this season. with even decent luck, miller/roy/wallace/aldridge/oden wouldn't need a rebuild.

I wouldn't call it revisionist, Oden was at best a long shot to return as a significant contributor and Roy had just undergone arthroscopic surgery on both of his knees; his knees were a major question mark even before his condition was found to be degenerative. That isn't the time to ship out a future pick for a temporary stop gap. The Wallace trade would have been a good value for a contender but when you couple the move with transactions just prior to the trade which indicated a youth movement it only highlighted Portland's lack of direction.

[Milkdud]

The only thing the Blazers traded to me of value is next season's pick to get Wallace. I think the Blazers management looked at it as the cost to keeping last season momentum going with Roy looking questionable.

Bigger picture I think the Blazers tried to play both sides on competing/rebuilding this season. Unfortunately its looking more and more like rebuilding is going to be the end result.

[Wizenheimer]

The only thing the Blazers traded to me of value is next season's pick to get Wallace. I think the Blazers management looked at it as the cost to keeping last season momentum going with Roy looking questionable.

Bigger picture I think the Blazers tried to play both sides on competing/rebuilding this season. Unfortunately its looking more and more like rebuilding is going to be the end result.

I expect that a lot has changed since the Blazers made that trade:

Roy hadn't retired yet
Oden was going to be back by now
Camby wouldn't have faded so fast

and the Blazers were supposed to be much better, this season and next, meaning the value of their pick has increased resulting in the choice to trade it looking worse

at least there's an appearance that the FO has adjusted their views on the team

[TBpup]

I expect that a lot has changed since the Blazers made that trade:

...the Blazers were supposed to be much better, this season and next, meaning the value of their pick has increased resulting in the choice to trade it looking worse

Yes but Nate was still the coach. Sorry, that couldn't be helped. If the Blazers manage to trade Wallace for anymore than what they traded for him, it would seem a good deal since this group isn't going anywhere. We already have Joel back so it would seem a good idea to trade him while you can. I doubt as 'Crash', his value will go up.

[lackeyde3]

whats the deal with aj price? does indi have a really good draft pick to give us because just looking at his stats he seems pretty gawd awful

[Wizenheimer]

whats the deal with aj price? does indi have a really good draft pick to give us because just looking at his stats he seems pretty gawd awful

he is pretty bad, stat-wise and floor-wise. Armon Johnson level, IMO

(and I don't think Eric Bledsoe is much better)

my hunch is that what is up is Indiana could be 'leaking' this rumor to try and inflate the perceived value of Price. I'm sure they would like Crawford without giving up anything of value...like a 1st.

there are a variety of reasons why these rumors could be out there and at the same time might not be coming from Portland or reflect what value Portland sets on their assets.

keep in mind that right now there are about 7 teams, Portland included, battling for the last 3 playoff spots in the West. Any advantage gained might be important. What better way to weaken an opponent then to "leak" a rumor that they are willing to give away their 2nd leading scorer for next to nothing. Dissension is good when it is on a rival

One advantage to having such a chatterbox as Kevin Pritchard as GM, is that he let us see behind the curtain, and one of the tools he said GM's use was to leak false rumors about another team in order to distract.

that's not to say that Portland isn't active in trade talks. It is to say that all the rumors so far have the Blazers essentially getting screwed so it's pretty likely those rumors aren't coming out of the Blazer FO

[cucad8]

i fail to see how getting a first rounder, or asking for one, for a player you do not intend to have long term is getting screwed in a trade.

I highly doubt Indy is trying to inflate the value of AJ Price. That's like us trying to inflate the value of Craig Smith. He is what he is. "leaking" that portland wanted him with a first is not going to get anyone clamoring for Price.

[Wizenheimer]

i fail to see how getting a first rounder, or asking for one, for a player you do not intend to have long term is getting screwed in a trade.

I highly doubt Indy is trying to inflate the value of AJ Price. That's like us trying to inflate the value of Craig Smith. He is what he is. "leaking" that portland wanted him with a first is not going to get anyone clamoring for Price.

but it would tend to make other teams offer less for Crawford...would it not?

"hey look, the Blazers may be willing to trade Crawford for that worthless scrub Price. We can beat that lowball offer without giving up much"

that, in effect, would drive up the value of price in relation to Crawford, not for other teams obviously, but in essentially setting a lower value for Crawford using Price as a gauge. Crawford being a player the Pacers would like to land. One way to win a trade is to keep competitor's offers low

mainly I'm saying that when you hear a rumor as bad for one team as is the Crawford for Price rumor, there is likely other motivation for the rumor being out there then the simple truth

[cucad8]

Price isn't the issue. It's the 1st round pick, and you seem to be focusing on Price as the centerpiece of the deal for some reason. What teams would need to look at is oh, I see Portland wants a first round pick for crawford. Indy is at 25, we're at 24, we'll offer our first. Team at 22 likes him. Hey, we have a scrub and a slightly higher pick. etc.

Portland wants the pick more than Price, it would seem, based on other rumors of them looking for a first for him. So mentioning Price does nothing to hurt the value. I imagine any other teams' scrub with a 1st will get it done. So if we wanted a 1st, how does Pricemake them offer less? Oh, they wanted Price and a 1st, so we'll offe r a2nd? Nope. If a rumor is out there, and a team wanted that player, in theory they would have to offer equal value to get Crawford. Or, better value.

[TBpup]

cucad8 wrote:
i fail to see how getting a first rounder, or asking for one, for a player you do not intend to have long term is getting screwed in a trade.

Wizenheimer wrote:
but it would tend to make other teams offer less for Crawford...would it not?

Wiz....I think you are right. Indy is hesitant to give up a first round pick for a potentially ending contract. Can Jamal sign an extension with a new team while he still has an opt out year left?

[Blazinaway]

cucad8 wrote:
i fail to see how getting a first rounder, or asking for one, for a player you do not intend to have long term is getting screwed in a trade.

Wizenheimer wrote:
but it would tend to make other teams offer less for Crawford...would it not?

Wiz....I think you are right. Indy is hesitant to give up a first round pick for a potentially ending contract. Can Jamal sign an extension with a new team while he still has an opt out year left?

Another question here, if we acquire another teams 1st rdr can we then trade our own 2012 pick?

[Blaze01]

cucad8 wrote:
i fail to see how getting a first rounder, or asking for one, for a player you do not intend to have long term is getting screwed in a trade.

Wizenheimer wrote:
but it would tend to make other teams offer less for Crawford...would it not?

Wiz....I think you are right. Indy is hesitant to give up a first round pick for a potentially ending contract. Can Jamal sign an extension with a new team while he still has an opt out year left?

IND may be "reluctant" to deal a low 1st round pick for Crawford, but then they shouldn't be expecting to get him for nothing (AJ Price), I mean that is just ridiculous...It doesn't matter if he is just a rental, a player the caliber of Crawford who could certainly help a team making a playoff push or in the playoffs is worth more than they are allegedly offering, and I suspect they know that....Same goes for Matthews, Wallace, Camby and yes even Felton...No need for POR to trade them for other team's garbage, if you don't have something to offer POR (pick, young player) then forget it...let them expire...

If they are worried about Crawford walking, then offer up Matthews for George Hill...That would be my counteroffer...

[Wizenheimer]

Price isn't the issue. It's the 1st round pick, and you seem to be focusing on Price as the centerpiece of the deal for some reason. What teams would need to look at is oh, I see Portland wants a first round pick for crawford. Indy is at 25, we're at 24, we'll offer our first. Team at 22 likes him. Hey, we have a scrub and a slightly higher pick. etc.

Portland wants the pick more than Price, it would seem, based on other rumors of them looking for a first for him. So mentioning Price does nothing to hurt the value. I imagine any other teams' scrub with a 1st will get it done. So if we wanted a 1st, how does Pricemake them offer less? Oh, they wanted Price and a 1st, so we'll offe r a2nd? Nope. If a rumor is out there, and a team wanted that player, in theory they would have to offer equal value to get Crawford. Or, better value.

I don't agree with that

now, I will easily admit I'm talking out of my colon. I have no real clue at to what is truly happening

But I can make some assumptions and one of them I'd make in this case is that if Portland is dangling Crawford (very likely) they aren't just getting offers of 1st round picks. Minnesota could be offering Ridnour with no pick. Chicago could be offering Watson with no pick. Milwaukee could be offering Delfino with no pick.

If the perception is that Indy won't include a pick with price, then there is no reason for those other teams to add one. Indy could very well be using Price as a way to depress competing offers for Crawford. They are hoping that Portland will cave and view the bigger TPE as sufficient payment

anyway, I don't think we're going to reach an agreement on this. And truthfully, it's a pretty small point of contention

[Wizenheimer]

cucad8 wrote:
i fail to see how getting a first rounder, or asking for one, for a player you do not intend to have long term is getting screwed in a trade.

Wizenheimer wrote:
but it would tend to make other teams offer less for Crawford...would it not?

Wiz....I think you are right. Indy is hesitant to give up a first round pick for a potentially ending contract. Can Jamal sign an extension with a new team while he still has an opt out year left?

no, he can't sign an extension. Too short a contract and there are no bird rights. He has to opt-out then sign a new deal. That goes for Portland or any team he's traded to

I think what Indy wants is to steal Crawford. They are hoping the Blazers will settle for a 4 million TPE for Crawford instead of a 1st

Another question here, if we acquire another teams 1st rdr can we then trade our own 2012 pick?

yes. And that would also be the case if the Blazers traded for another team's 2013 1st

[JasonStern]

whats the deal with aj price? does indi have a really good draft pick to give us because just looking at his stats he seems pretty gawd awful

he is pretty bad, stat-wise and floor-wise. Armon Johnson level, IMO

(and I don't think Eric Bledsoe is much better)

quit trying to defend the claver pick.

bledsoe is nolan smith level - meaning he has an above average chance of being a backup caliber player. that's solid return for a pick in the late teens. but I wouldn't put much (if any) more value on bledsoe than smith accordingly.

[cucad8]

well, i'd say there is reason to offer a first, because it's the "supposed" asking price. Chicago saying oh, well Indy isn't offering a 1st, why should we? Ok, then neither team ends up with him. Which could be fine with them. However, if they actually want Crawford, and the asking price is a 1st, and the thought is the first team to offer up a first gets him, then holding out just because of AJ Price is not driving his value down, or getting him for cheaper from the Bulls. If we HAD to trade him, NEEDED to, for cap space or whatever, then I'd agree with you. but offering up Watson, etc. does nothing for us. We let him walk and so be it. A team would need to offer something, a first rounder, in order to make it worth our while. The value isn't going to dip into Price, or Watson straight up.

[Wizenheimer]

well, i'd say there is reason to offer a first, because it's the "supposed" asking price. Chicago saying oh, well Indy isn't offering a 1st, why should we? Ok, then neither team ends up with him. Which could be fine with them. However, if they actually want Crawford, and the asking price is a 1st, and the thought is the first team to offer up a first gets him, then holding out just because of AJ Price is not driving his value down, or getting him for cheaper from the Bulls. If we HAD to trade him, NEEDED to, for cap space or whatever, then I'd agree with you. but offering up Watson, etc. does nothing for us. We let him walk and so be it. A team would need to offer something, a first rounder, in order to make it worth our while. The value isn't going to dip into Price, or Watson straight up.

but again, you're going a lot further in making assumptions then I'm willing to. That being that it's a true rumor that Portland is demanding a 1st as the price for trading Crawford while not accepting anything else

I am not sure that's true. It makes some sense, yes. But it also makes some sense that the Blazers not simply foreclose on any other options