Blazers talking to Kings?

sdballer said:
John maybe. I disagree on Brad as I think his value this year or next as a player are about the same but that big of an expiring contract opens a lot of eyes. Maybe its only the difference between an extra pick or some guy stashed in Europe but I think there is no harm in waiting for the right move.

Why, you don't have to play them. Teams do it all the team by putting the older, better-right-now guy on the bench to open development time for a young guy. That's a coaching move, not a reason to sell low. Besides, Donte simply isn't ready to do much more than launch a few ill-advised 3s, hustle but look lost and provide a sense of humor. There's talent but I don't know that throwing him out there for 20+ mpg is always the right thing for development.
Click to expand...

If you don't play a guy as much, his trade value diminishes, so your two points contradict each other. Either Miller's at his peak value, or you must play him next year as well to keep his value. giving miller 20 minutes a game does nothing for his trade value...

nobonus said:
They do, if they are 6'5" or taller. Bayless, like Douby, is undersized and a scoring PG... these types of players are generally only successful through the college level.
Click to expand...

Um... first... a 6'5" "scoring point guard" is a shooting guard. In the scope of the NBA right now, I cannot name a single point guard besides Shaun Livingston, who is 6'5" or taller. And if they are point guards who are under 6'5," they are point guards. There is no "undersized scoring point guard." There are point guards, and undersized shooting guards. Is that what you mean?

As for scoring point guards that are only successful in college...
Tony Parker
Jameer Nelson
Jason Terry
Mike Bibby
Mo Williams
Gilbert Arenas
Bobby Jackson
Baron Davis
Monta Ellis

All of these players are scorers first, passers second imo. Further, they are all under your 6'5" standard. There are a lot of points who are scorers first, and successful. I have only listed the established players. There are more pgs that we can put on that list who arent "there" yet, but I think that's enough for now.
 
A scoring PG can work, but it depends upon the players around them. Bayless' PG skills IMO are very limited, and when I've watched him play he does not seem interested in sharing the ball. Poor man's Ben Gordon at best. He's not a bad player, but he's not going to be a successful starter unless he's paired with a guard who can facilitate and handle SG's defensively i.e. Brandon Roy.
 
Vlade4GM said:
A scoring PG can work, but it depends upon the players around them. Bayless' PG skills IMO are very limited, and when I've watched him play he does not seem interested in sharing the ball. Poor man's Ben Gordon at best. He's not a bad player, but he's not going to be a successful starter unless he's paired with a guard who can facilitate and handle SG's defensively i.e. Brandon Roy.
Click to expand...
And I agree to a large extent. However, I do think that he can be a really good, change of pace, scoring threat off the bench ala Bobby Jackson in his prime.

Getting Bayless really has no downside for us IMHO. At worst he is a solid back up, at best he is a very good albeit undersized scoring "PG". Either way, we get a solid player.

Having said all that, I just can't see Portland giving him up this early, especially for John Salmons.
 
Čarolija said:
And I agree to a large extent. However, I do think that he can be a really good, change of pace, scoring threat off the bench ala Bobby Jackson in his prime.

Getting Bayless really has no downside for us IMHO. At worst he is a solid back up, at best he is a very good albeit undersized scoring "PG". Either way, we get a solid player.

Having said all that, I just can't see Portland giving him up this early, especially for John Salmons.
Click to expand...

I don't mind getting him at all, but I just don't think it should be Bayless or bust, assuming that's the case. Like Brick pointed out, it might not net us Bayless but perhaps it can make it so Portland offers us Freeland and a 1st or something.
 
rhythmless said:
As for scoring point guards that are only successful in college...
Tony Parker
Jameer Nelson
Jason Terry
Mike Bibby
Mo Williams
Gilbert Arenas
Bobby Jackson
Baron Davis
Monta Ellis
Click to expand...

I haven't watched Nelson that much this year, so he's kindof ruled out of this, but I wouldn't want any of those guys as my starting PG. I came to the conclusion a couple years ago after Webber left and before Artest came, when Bibby was putting up 30-40 point games every other week and we were losing, that winning basketball teams do not have a PG as their leading scorer. The purpose of a PG is to get the ball in everyone's hands. If your PG is scoring 30 a game and the rest of the team is standing around, you're most likely going to lose. Bibby was effective for us when we had Webber and Vlade in the paint and he could afford to roam around and be a spot-up shooter or run the pick and roll with Webber. He was a complimentary player then, not our leading scorer.

How many of these guys actually play on winning teams? Tony Parker would not be Tony Parker without Tim Duncan and Greg Popovich. Nelson plays with the most dominant post player in the game. Terry is a PG in name only, he doesn't actually play the position anymore. I already talked about Bibby. He's in a great situation now because Joe Johnson is a shot-creator so he can be a spot-up shooter again. Same with Mo Williams and Lebron. Gilbert (when he's healthy) loses in the first round every year despite putting up 40 point games with relative ease. Jackson has always been at his best as a scoring guard off the bench, not a lead guard. I would argue that Baron Davis is in fact a point guard because he has all the skills to play the position, and it's actually his poor shooting and tendency to jack up bad shots that holds him back from being a better player. And Ellis we talked about already in the other thread.

These types of players can be succesful, but it places a lot more pressure on the rest of your team to run an offense without a real PG. Especially if your shoot-first PG is going to dominate the ball. Which reminds me, you forgot Allen Iverson, and he's probably the best example of them all. Once in a lifetime talent, no championships. Is it because he's a scoring PG? I suspect so.
 
hrdboild said:
I haven't watched Nelson that much this year, so he's kindof ruled out of this, but I wouldn't want any of those guys as my starting PG. I came to the conclusion a couple years ago after Webber left and before Artest came, when Bibby was putting up 30-40 point games every other week and we were losing, that winning basketball teams do not have a PG as their leading scorer. The purpose of a PG is to get the ball in everyone's hands. If your PG is scoring 30 a game and the rest of the team is standing around, you're most likely going to lose. Bibby was effective for us when we had Webber and Vlade in the paint and he could afford to roam around and be a spot-up shooter or run the pick and roll with Webber. He was a complimentary player then, not our leading scorer.

How many of these guys actually play on winning teams? Tony Parker would not be Tony Parker without Tim Duncan and Greg Popovich. Nelson plays with the most dominant post player in the game. Terry is a PG in name only, he doesn't actually play the position anymore. I already talked about Bibby. He's in a great situation now because Joe Johnson is a shot-creator so he can be a spot-up shooter again. Same with Mo Williams and Lebron. Gilbert (when he's healthy) loses in the first round every year despite putting up 40 point games with relative ease. Jackson has always been at his best as a scoring guard off the bench, not a lead guard. I would argue that Baron Davis is in fact a point guard because he has all the skills to play the position, and it's actually his poor shooting and tendency to jack up bad shots that holds him back from being a better player. And Ellis we talked about already in the other thread.

These types of players can be succesful, but it places a lot more pressure on the rest of your team to run an offense without a real PG. Especially if your shoot-first PG is going to dominate the ball. Which reminds me, you forgot Allen Iverson, and he's probably the best example of them all. Once in a lifetime talent, no championships. Is it because he's a scoring PG? I suspect so.
Click to expand...

Point guards of championship teams in the past 10 years:

2008: Rajon Rondo
2007: Tony Parker
2006: Jason Williams
2005: Tony Parker
2004: Chauncey Billups
2003: Tony Parker
2002: Derek Fisher
2001: Derek Fisher
2000: Ron Harper
1999: Avery Johnson

Shoot first point guards bolded.
 
Oh come on. Time Duncan, Shaq. These names are familiar, yes? Read what I said again. My thesis is that teams with a PG as their leading scorer do not win. Tony Parker and Derek Fisher are the third option on their teams. And Chauncey, well, that whole team was a bit of a fluke.
 
hrdboild said:
Oh come on. Time Duncan, Shaq. These names are familiar, yes? Read what I said again. Tony Parker and Derek Fisher are the third option on their teams. And Chauncey, well, that whole team was a bit of a fluke.
Click to expand...

You mean NBA Finals MVP Tony Parker? That Tony Parker?

Honestly though, I don't think there's a rule on this. You just don't need a pass first point guard to win. I don't even know that the evidence is that it helps you win a championship. Even going back in time, you have Sam Cassell, Isiah Thomas, Danny Ainge....
 
Last edited:
One year Tony Parker won Finals MVP. One year out of three. And really, I think they just got tired of giving it to Duncan. Lots of guys can put up two or three huge games in a series and win an MVP award. Nobody talks about Tony Parker as league MVP. Now Steve Nash and Chris Paul on the other hand, those are real PGs and damn good ones who make their teams better and they both get MVP buzz.

You're right there isn't really a rule though. It's just a thesis I have. And it's probably more reactionary than anything. We've been looking at 'motion offenses' without a real PG since the end of the J-Will era, and we've seen the best of it (that 2002 team) and the worst of it (err, this year?). I'm really ready for a change. Get me a real PG so I can watch basketball again.
 
Last edited:
Bayless was more impressive than Jason Thompson at Summer League; and JT looks pretty good lately (21/10). From what I saw, Bayless has great shooting ability, poise, and strength to the hoop. I see him as a Ben Gordon type with better handling skills. He is a guy the Kings would have drafted instead of JT had he still been on the board, so obviously Petrie would love to do this deal.

I doubt Pritchard and the Blazers would agree, but remember Mo Cheeks was the coach in Philly when Salmons was on the roster. Maybe he thinks he can incorporate his skills into the mix. Also, if they envision Bayless as primarily a scorer, and not future point, or combo guard, then they already have Rudy Fernandez and Brandon Roy at the "2" position. That position is locked for the next decade. Roy looks like a future Hall of Famer and Rudy Fernandez looks like a potential all-star.

They can spare a rookie prospect shooting 34% for a veteran who would make an initial effort to fit in. If they think they could go deep into the playoffs THIS year, and Salmons could be a valuable back-up, perhaps they roll the dice, and we become the beneficiary of their risk taking.
 
Last edited:
bench_blob said:
Bayless was more impressive than Jason Thompson at Summer League; and JT looks pretty good lately (21/10). From what I saw, Bayless has great shooting ability, poise, and strength to the hoop. I see him as a Ben Gordon type with better handling skills. He is a guy the Kings would have drafted instead of JT had he still been on the board, so obviously Petrie would love to do this deal.

I doubt Pritchard and the Blazers would agree, but remember Mo Cheeks was the coach in Philly when Salmons was on the roster. Maybe he thinks he can incorporate his skills into the mix. Also, if they envision Bayless as primarily a scorer, and not future point, or combo guard, then they already have Rudy Fernandez and Brandon Roy at the "2" position. That position is locked for the next decade. Roy looks like a future Hall of Famer and Rudy Fernandez looks like a potential all-star.

They can spare a rookie prospect shooting 34% for a veteran who would make an initial effort to fit in. If they think they could go deep into the playoffs THIS year, and Salmons could be a valuable back-up, perhaps they roll the dice, and we become the beneficiary of their risk taking.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? :confused: Nate McMillan is the coach of the Blazers
 
hrdboild said:
One year Tony Parker won Finals MVP. One year out of three. And really, I think they just got tired of giving it to Duncan. Lots of guys can put up two or three huge games in a series and win an MVP award. Nobody talks about Tony Parker as league MVP. Now Steve Nash and Chris Paul on the other hand, those are real PGs and damn good ones who make their teams better and they both get MVP buzz.
Click to expand...

I think you have to strike a balance for a pg. Because in reality - the "true" pgs that you listed, Nash and Paul - well, neither have titles. Sure they rack up the MVP nominations and awards - but, so far, no titles.

While Tony Parker, Fisher and the others mentioned have racked up titles. Reason being, IMO, is because these players can shoot first but also be second option on their team - SO when it's time to feed Shaq or Timmy in the post - these pgs know when to suck it up and give up the ball.
 
Lets leave Fisher out of this discussion, only value he has offensively is bringing the ball up and hitting spot up jumpers, whenever he tries to do more than that it ends up bad. He plays in the triangle and has been lucky enough to play with great players.
 
I think we may be getting close to a trade...

Salmons – who waited six years of his seven-year career to become a starter, yet finds himself a key cog for the worst Kings team in franchise history to this point – said he is well aware that the Kings have made him available to other teams. He said he received numerous phone calls to that effect during the day, though he would not say from whom.

"I heard a lot today about some (trade) stuff, so it's being discussed," he said. "It's at the point where it's got to be discussed. We're (as a team) at a point where they're going to make decisions on where they're going to go with the team and what they're going to do, and everybody has got to be discussed. That's just the nature of the beast."
Click to expand...

With who? Well...that's still to be seen, but something tells me it might be this week....hopefully!
 
hrdboild said:
Oh come on. Time Duncan, Shaq. These names are familiar, yes? Read what I said again. My thesis is that teams with a PG as their leading scorer do not win. Tony Parker and Derek Fisher are the third option on their teams. And Chauncey, well, that whole team was a bit of a fluke.
Click to expand...

So we get a scoring pg and tell him to score the second-most points on the team...
 
kingsnation said:
I think you have to strike a balance for a pg. Because in reality - the "true" pgs that you listed, Nash and Paul - well, neither have titles. Sure they rack up the MVP nominations and awards - but, so far, no titles.

While Tony Parker, Fisher and the others mentioned have racked up titles. Reason being, IMO, is because these players can shoot first but also be second option on their team - SO when it's time to feed Shaq or Timmy in the post - these pgs know when to suck it up and give up the ball.
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that its the right combination of players that wins a championship. Now knowing what that combination is, well, thats another story. As far as Bayless goes, he reminds me of a more athletic Mike Bibby.

He's been in a lose/lose sitiuation at times. When he takes over a game ( I'm speaking of college ) he gets accused of being selfish by the critics. When he tries to set up teammates and show that he's not selfish, he gets accused of being nonaggresive and passive. There's no doubt that scorring has never been a problem for him, but I do think, that unlike Douby, he does have point guard skills. He just needs to work and improve them. He's still very young.

Now having a Christie type player to play along side of would be helpful, and off the bench, Cisco would fit that bill. Martin does not. I could definitely see him playing along side of James Harden. At any rate, I see not risk in bring him to the team. He's a low risk/ high reward type of player.
 
Sptsjunkie said:
I would be very nervous signing Ariza to anything long term. My roommate is a huge Lakers fan and so I have gotten to see every game this year. No doubt that Ariza is very talented, but mark my words, he will suffer a horrific injury at some point. Every Laker fan I know agrees. Ariza plays a bit like Gerald Wallace, careeing into the lane and has just enough athleticism and hops to be dangerous to himself, expecially when you consider he is rail thin.
Click to expand...

Um. You completely jinxed Ariza. I think he's sending you his medical bills.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3867353
 
Sptsjunkie makes a post about Ariza, comparing him to Gerald Wallace, and what happens?

Gerald Wallace is sent to the hospital with a broken rib and punctured lung, courtesy of Trevor Ariza's teammate AND Ariza is out indefinitely because of a concussion.

I'm getting that kind of chill you get when you're watching a scary movie and the music gets louder and more ominous.
 
VF21 said:
Sptsjunkie makes a post about Ariza, comparing him to Gerald Wallace, and what happens?

Gerald Wallace is sent to the hospital with a broken rib and punctured lung, courtesy of Trevor Ariza's teammate AND Ariza is out indefinitely because of a concussion.

I'm getting that kind of chill you get when you're watching a scary movie and the music gets louder and more ominous.
Click to expand...

Having had a punctured lung, its no picnic. Neither is the cure, which I won't go into. Its not for the faint of heart. Sometimes I think Wallace has a black cloud hanging over him. Whatever you do Gerald, don't sneeze.
 
=LarryLegend= said:
LaFrentz and a pick i am a fan of. worst case do this.
Click to expand...

We are so bad we cannot do a deal and hope just for addition by subtraction.

We need an infusion of talent to change the team dynamic and give us fans of ray of hope. Acquiring Bayless and throwing him out there for 25+ minutes a game would do that.
 
bench_blob said:
We are so bad we cannot do a deal and hope just for addition by subtraction.

We need an infusion of talent to change the team dynamic and give us fans of ray of hope. Acquiring Bayless and throwing him out there for 25+ minutes a game would do that.
Click to expand...

Uh, we'd be getting cap flexibility, a pick which will eventually turn into a talent, and we're opening up time for our younger players. That's what it is about in a rebuild.
 
Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeWatchBigs-090129

Raef LaFrentz, Blazers

LaFrentz has what NBA GMs are calling a "super-expiring contract." Not only does his $12.7 million salary come off the books this summer, but insurance is paying 80 percent of it. Add in that the Blazers have other young players like Sergio Rodriguez, Channing Frye and Travis Outlaw whom they could throw in a deal, and a team looking to clear some cap space and develop young talent would have to take a hard look at a deal with Portland.

The biggest question surrounding a Blazers deal at the moment: Does any GM in the league really want to do Blazers GM Kevin Pritchard any favors after his team threatened to sue all the owners in the league over the Darius Miles fiasco? More than one GM has told me no.
Click to expand...
 
If the Blazers want to take a chance on Salmons I am all for it. Give them Salmons, and Moore for Frye, LaFrentz, and a #1. Not sure if that works, but I am sure there could be other filler on our part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
Would Heat trade sharpshooter for Kings superstar to pair with Adebayo, Butler?
Replies
9
Views
915
Section 101
Section 101
S
Miami Heat Reportedly Eyeing All-NBA Kings Star
Replies
4
Views
330
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
S
Kings' Sabonis Speaks Out on Crushing Loss to Trail Blazers
Replies
0
Views
147
Sacramento Kings On SI
S
Tetsujin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] Kings @ Heat, 11/02/2022 4:30pm Pacific, 7:30pm Eastern
10 11 12
Replies
356
Views
14K
kingsboi
kingsboi
Tetsujin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] Kings vs. Trail Blazers 10/19/2022 7pm Pacific 10pm Eastern
24 25 26
Replies
766
Views
28K
White_Chocolate
White_Chocolate
Back
Top