Roy Hibbert - Indy says they will match/offer same terms.

[d-train]

I haven't taken a peak at Indy's lineup, but what do you guys think about a 3-team S&T sending Hibbert to Portland, Batum to MN, and Dwill to Indy. There would obviously have to be more involved overall, but what are your thoughts on that? If what you say about Indy's interest in Leonard or Lilliard are true, perhaps DWill has some interest for them as well?

I think if the Pacers would be willing to give up Hibbert for a castoff like Williams he would already be a Blazer.

[PTPaQ]

Oh Gosh, please NO to McGee...

I'm excited about the news of not overpaying Hibbert, now all we have to do is not overpay Batum and it will be an ideal offseason for me.

Hell yeah!

Lillard - Smith
Matthews - Williams
Babbitt - Barton
Aldridge - Claver
Leonard - Thomas

Looks like the perfect roster to me! Babbitt for 2012 all-star starting SF

One man's Babbit is another man's Shabazz!

(please don't take me to serious.)

[Moonbeam]

For the love of all things holy, I hope the Blazers do not go after McGee.

[Milkdud]

Want nothing to do with McGee.The kid has great talent an in the right situation he could even make an All-Star game. But I don't see that place being Portland.

Bummer about Hibbert but he is a talented center and a league with very few so clearly Indy needed to match.

[Downtown]

In the words of Mark Cuban, "it's better to miss out on the right free agent than sign the wrong one".

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Marc Cuban is the epitome of wisdom.


Both players and capspace are assets. I would sign a player I had little use for if I thought I could use them to get something more valuable than the capspace it took, since not every team is able to use capspace.


If we don't use our capspace one year, in effect we squandered an asset. Thus I would not turn my nose up at signing the type of players who "keep us in mediocrity" because we are acquiring assets. However this is not the same as saying "sign any player you can!" - it is saying if a player is available at a valuable price, then acquiring that asset could be a good move even if it doesn't directly lead to a championship.

[deanwoof]

i'm not sure who would be a worst choice between spencer hawes or javale mcgee.

bring back Ha!

[Beeboywhoo]

heard olshey isnt going for the left over Free agents, but will now make moves for trades

[Sabzi]

Marc Cuban is the epitome of wisdom.


Both players and capspace are assets. I would sign a player I had little use for if I thought I could use them to get something more valuable than the capspace it took, since not every team is able to use capspace.


If we don't use our capspace one year, in effect we squandered an asset. Thus I would not turn my nose up at signing the type of players who "keep us in mediocrity" because we are acquiring assets. However this is not the same as saying "sign any player you can!" - it is saying if a player is available at a valuable price, then acquiring that asset could be a good move even if it doesn't directly lead to a championship.

Not this again. Not for small market teams with no franchise player.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Marc Cuban is the epitome of wisdom.


Both players and capspace are assets. I would sign a player I had little use for if I thought I could use them to get something more valuable than the capspace it took, since not every team is able to use capspace.


If we don't use our capspace one year, in effect we squandered an asset. Thus I would not turn my nose up at signing the type of players who "keep us in mediocrity" because we are acquiring assets. However this is not the same as saying "sign any player you can!" - it is saying if a player is available at a valuable price, then acquiring that asset could be a good move even if it doesn't directly lead to a championship.

Not this again. Not for small market teams with no franchise player.

Blazers should trade every asset they have until the lottery gifts us a franchise player?


If I can sign a player, and then turn around and deal that player for a mid 1st (that would otherwise be impossible to buy), then what is the point in saying "nawww, not good enough for me!".

Sorry, I just disagree on your philosophy. I think you gather assets in whatever ways you can, not sneeze at them until an elite asset drops in your hands from the heavens above.

[Sabzi]

Marc Cuban is the epitome of wisdom.


Both players and capspace are assets. I would sign a player I had little use for if I thought I could use them to get something more valuable than the capspace it took, since not every team is able to use capspace.


If we don't use our capspace one year, in effect we squandered an asset. Thus I would not turn my nose up at signing the type of players who "keep us in mediocrity" because we are acquiring assets. However this is not the same as saying "sign any player you can!" - it is saying if a player is available at a valuable price, then acquiring that asset could be a good move even if it doesn't directly lead to a championship.

Not this again. Not for small market teams with no franchise player.

Blazers should trade every asset they have until the lottery gifts us a franchise player?


If I can sign a player, and then turn around and deal that player for a mid 1st (that would otherwise be impossible to buy), then what is the point in saying "nawww, not good enough for me!".

Sorry, I just disagree on your philosophy. I think you gather assets in whatever ways you can, not sneeze at them until an elite asset drops in your hands from the heavens above.

Go look at Team USA and then tell me what the Blazers are going to do with mid-lottery picks. I'm sorry your philosophy has never applied to recent NBA history as it pertains to small markets. Spurs and Thunder gave you the blueprint and the Brooklyn Nets are the most recent reason to never deviate from it.

[License2Lillard]

Recent history also shows that, as a small market, our philosophy doesn't make a difference. We're not winning a title anyways.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Ok, but were you opposed to the Gerald Wallace trade, because he wasn't a real franchise player? However we turned around, and packaged him for a high pick.


My point is that you gather assets so that you have the ability to make moves like that, and put yourself in a position to get a franchise player. I was clear to say, don't sign players just for the hell of it - sign players that are valuable assets and players that other teams will value. Don't turn down the ability to add assets just because that specific asset isn't good enough.

[Sabzi]

Ok, but were you opposed to the Gerald Wallace trade, because he wasn't a real franchise player? However we turned around, and packaged him for a high pick.


My point is that you gather assets so that you have the ability to make moves like that, and put yourself in a position to get a franchise player. I was clear to say, don't sign players just for the hell of it - sign players that are valuable assets and players that other teams will value. Don't turn down the ability to add assets just because that specific asset isn't good enough.

The Blazers need multiple Top 5 picks. Not one #6 pick spent on a PG. They also wasted another year and garnered the 11th pick. It's way too easy to realize that will never garner anything of substance.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I guess we just have different philosophies.


I think you are talking about an "all or nothing" type game. Where the only asset worth acquring is a superstar, and if you aren't directly adding a superstar then you are wasting your time.


I disagree with that. I think you have to build piece by piece, and sometimes a player or asset is just a stepping stone to a better one.

[Sabzi]

I guess we just have different philosophies.


I think you are talking about an "all or nothing" type game. Where the only asset worth acquring is a superstar, and if you aren't directly adding a superstar then you are wasting your time.


I disagree with that. I think you have to build piece by piece, and sometimes a player or asset is just a stepping stone to a better one.

I'm never going to agree with something that has never worked in NBA history. Team USA should teach you all you need to know about the league.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I guess we just have different philosophies.


I think you are talking about an "all or nothing" type game. Where the only asset worth acquring is a superstar, and if you aren't directly adding a superstar then you are wasting your time.


I disagree with that. I think you have to build piece by piece, and sometimes a player or asset is just a stepping stone to a better one.

I'm never going to agree with something that has never worked in NBA history. Team USA should teach you all you need to know about the league.

So seriously, what are you proposing? Tank until a "cant-miss" prospect comes to us? I guess I am just not understanding why turning your nose up at assets is going to help us get better.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

I mean, say we land outside the top 5 next year, around 7 or 8. What if a player we signed this off-season helps us move up into the top 5?

[Sabzi]

I guess we just have different philosophies.


I think you are talking about an "all or nothing" type game. Where the only asset worth acquring is a superstar, and if you aren't directly adding a superstar then you are wasting your time.


I disagree with that. I think you have to build piece by piece, and sometimes a player or asset is just a stepping stone to a better one.

I'm never going to agree with something that has never worked in NBA history. Team USA should teach you all you need to know about the league.

So seriously, what are you proposing? Tank until a "cant-miss" prospect comes to us? I guess I am just not understanding why turning your nose up at assets is going to help us get better.

Welcome to the National Basketball Association.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

So your only answer is tank until our natural draft pick gives us what we need. Right, very helpful.