It's Time Maloofs...Fire Petrie (chapter 3)

[Wuster]

A change of venue at this position is arguably warranted, but I would not do it. Sometimes change is needed just for the sake of change.

But if I were a new owner filling this slot and Petrie was available, I'd hire him immediately.

Kings are in serious rebuild and the medicine is hard to swallow.

I'd rather have Petrie steering through it than a replacement.

Maloofs? That's another story.

 

[Entity]

I think the problem NOW is we see it happening and know that for sure the rebuild is FINALLY underway. Its just no happening quick enough. We all Want Miller, Moore, KT, and some Salmons gone. We have done step 1 and this is step 2 where we have young talent and just wait for our enders to end or be traded. We all want to jump to step 3 and the enders be gone and nothing but kids finishing out this season. Then on to step 4 starting with the draft.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Portland's rebuild:
Year 0: 50-32, made playoffs, drafted Travis Outlaw
Year 1: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Sebastian Telfair and Sergei Monia
Year 2: 27-55, drafted Martell Webster
Year 3: 21-61, drafted Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez
Year 4: 32-50, lucked into #1 overall pick, drafted Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez
Year 5: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Jerryd Bayless and Nicolas Batum
Year 6: ?? Look like a playoff team, probably not a contender
Year 7: Contender?

Looking at the Kings:
Year 0: 44-38, made playoffs, drafted Quincy Douby
Year 1: 33-49, missed playoffs, drafted Spencer Hawes
Year 2: 38-44, drafted Jason Thompson, got Donté Greene
Year 3: Looking like a 20-win season...

Looks to me like we're a long way away. But we did a better job of drafting in Year 1 and Year 2 than the Blazers. Still, if we follow the Blazers' lead, this year will be horrible (obviously). We'll land a solid player in the draft. Next year, developing that solid player, we'll improve but still miss the playoffs. We can't count on lucking into #1, but with Hawes, Thompson, and Greene instead of Telfair, Monia and Webster we're OK with a #7-10 pick. '10-'11 we'll push .500, pick up another late-lotto player and extend Hawes. '11-'12 is our year to break into the playoffs, we'll extend Thompson and Greene. '12-'13 would then be our first year to contend with our young team (and yes, it will still be a young team).

So following the Blazers' schedule, don't expect us to be in the playoffs next year. Patience. Patience.

If I may make a point of order:

The facts that you present are technically accurate, inasmuch as that stuff did actually happen when you said it happened, but I disagree with your contention that it was evidence of a rebuild on Portland's part. Just because you spend a lot of years in the lottery and getting good picks in the draft, doesn't mean that you're actually rebuilding: Were the Warriors rebuilding all those years they didn't make the playoffs? No. The Clippers? Hell no. Sometimes, when you spend significant periods of time in the lottery, it just means that you suck and are mismanaged, as the Blazers were when they were being run by Nash and Patterson. And just because you drafted someone that was on your team before they became what you have been building towards (Outlaw) doesn't mean that that's when your rebuild started. From my point of view, the Blazers didn't start their rebuild until this guy took over; I contend that the previous management had no direction whatsoever, didn't know what they wanted to do with the team, or how to get there, so I don't acknowledge anything that happened in Portland prior to Pritchard taking the reigns as contributing towards a rebuild. I also disagree with your apparent contention that the rebuild isn't complete until the team becomes title contenders: the Kings weren't still rebuilding in 1999-2000, when we were first round and out. Once you've built a team that can be a perennial playoff team, which I feel the Blazers have, everything after that is team development, which can perhaps feel like rebuilding, but is not, in my opinion... So, from my point of view, Portland's rebuild took three years, four if you count Pritchard's season as assistant GM, when he was involved in the decisions that led to trading for Roy, Aldridge and Rodriguez.

Not to get off on a tangent, but this line from the wiki entry astonishes me:

That summer, Pritchard advised then-Blazer general manager John Nash and president Steve Patterson to select Wake Forest guard Chris Paul with the #3 pick in the 2005 NBA Draft, but was overruled; the Blazers traded the #3 pick to the Utah Jazz.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Geoff has an incredible eye for talent. He's shown the ability to build a good team. But he's not been able to either keep us competitive or get us back on track in a reasonable period of time (and maybe neither of those are his fault; I'm not blaming him for where we are). I'm not confident that he's going to be able to.

I am curious what are your models here. What is the definition of keeping us competitive? What is a reasonable timeframe?

It is very rare for a team to "stay competitive" without going through a rebuilding period. I can name 2 teams that did not go through a pure rebuild between contenders. The Lakers who were sagging, but had the fortune of being able to sign Shaq and get Kobe. And the Spurs who went from the Admiral to Duncan Eras. However, the Lakers only got those two because they were a top 2 media market. Shaq was not leaving Orlando for Sacramento, Seattle, Utah, etc. And the Spurs got incredibly lucky that the year they suffered a number of injuries they got the #1 pick and landed a Top 7 all time player.

In terms of a rebuild. We can certainly discuss if the Kings should have started rebuilding sooner, but as Capt. Factoral pointed out, we are following the same pattern as the Portland's rebuild right now. It is easy to say we should have gutted the team and rebuilt after Webber's knee crumpled; however, we were still very competitive and you would find few if any owners in the NBA wanting to give up playoff revenue because a team was finishing with a worse record. Again, what's the barometer you are using here? Who is the model franchise you think we should have followed?

 

[Ryle]

I'am sick to death of this subject. Its been beaten to death. What is the point, except to vent some frustration at Petrie, or Natt, or Reggie, or Petrie's replacement if he does get fired. We really are living in a society of instant gratification.

So you were a season ticket holder for the last 8 years. Well I was a season ticket holder for the first 10 years. You get no sympathy from me.

Everyone wanted the rebuild. Everyone knew it wasn't going to be easy. Maybe even ugly. So now here we are, having just what we wanted, and everyong wants to ***** about it.

I wouldn't generalize and say everyone wanted this type of rebuild. You can do it the right way and a wrong way and my personal opinion is that the Kings are going about it the wrong way. People bring up Portland, the reason they were succesful is their GM worked his *** off and got creative with trades and draft picks. Petrie sits around and preaches Patience while ticket sales are plummeting and the product sucks. Do we even know if these young guys we have drafted will even pan out and whether or not they will be worth sucking for 5 years??? No. Through trades Portland was able to nab 3 pretty high draft picks and two of those picks were Roy and Aldridge. We sit by with one pick a year and we hope if works. This year we actually have 2 but one will probably be in the low 20's. We also have about 65 million committed for salaries next year

Didn't ask for sympathy I am just stating the point that the Kings have terribly high ticket prices(and concession prices for that matter) and they are losing season ticket holders left and right and no one wants to pay these prices while the team sucks and there really is no end in sight.

 

[Heuge]

Not to get off on a tangent, but this line from the wiki entry astonishes me:

Paul or Williams on the Blazer instead of Martell Webster.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

If I may make a point of order:

The facts that you present are technically accurate, inasmuch as that stuff did actually happen when you said it happened, but I disagree with your contention that it was evidence of a rebuild on Portland's part. Just because you spend a lot of years in the lottery and getting good picks in the draft, doesn't mean that you're actually rebuilding: Were the Warriors rebuilding all those years they didn't make the playoffs? No. The Clippers? Hell no. Sometimes, when you spend significant periods of time in the lottery, it just means that you suck and are mismanaged, as the Blazers were when they were being run by Nash and Patterson. And just because you drafted someone that was on your team before they became what you have been building towards (Outlaw) doesn't mean that that's when your rebuild started. From my point of view, the Blazers didn't start their rebuild until this guy took over; I contend that the previous management had no direction whatsoever, didn't know what they wanted to do with the team, or how to get there, so I don't acknowledge anything that happened in Portland prior to Pritchard taking the reigns as contributing towards a rebuild. I also disagree with your apparent contention that the rebuild isn't complete until the team becomes title contenders: the Kings weren't still rebuilding in 1999-2000, when we were first round and out. Once you've built a team that can be a perennial playoff team, which I feel the Blazers have, everything after that is team development, which can perhaps feel like rebuilding, but is not, in my opinion... So, from my point of view, Portland's rebuild took three years, four if you count Pritchard's season as assistant GM, when he was involved in the decisions that led to trading for Roy, Aldridge and Rodriguez.

Not to get off on a tangent, but this line from the wiki entry astonishes me:

You are right that Pritchard is a very, very good GM. However, you cannot discount the time that Portland was gutting its team even if it was not being managed by as keen of a mind. By the time Pritchard too over, he had young players, and a team bad enough to get him good draft picks. It would be like if we replaced Petrie right now and the next GM got to draft Blake Griffin and the Kings turned things around quickly. You could argue our rebuild only took 1-2 years, but we would all know a lot more time and manuvering went into it. As it is, when are in a good position right now, even if we are a bad team this year and following a similar pattern to what Portland went through. Obviously the onus will be on Petrie to have the same skill (Roy) and hopefully the same luck (Oden) as Pritchard.

And yes, the Warriors, Clippers, etc. were rebuilding all of those years they were in the lottery. They just weren't very good at it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You are right that Pritchard is a very, very good GM. However, you cannot discount the time that Portland was gutting its team even if it was not being managed by as keen of a mind.

Yes I can. You are absolutely not rebuilding just by virtue of being in the lottery, which is why Golden State and the Clippers were not rebuilding; you're rebuilding when you're building the team towards something. The Blazers weren't building towards anything, they were just running around like a chicken with their head cut off.

 

[LPKingsFan]

If I may make a point of order:

The facts that you present are technically accurate, inasmuch as that stuff did actually happen when you said it happened, but I disagree with your contention that it was evidence of a rebuild on Portland's part. Just because you spend a lot of years in the lottery and getting good picks in the draft, doesn't mean that you're actually rebuilding: Were the Warriors rebuilding all those years they didn't make the playoffs? No. The Clippers? Hell no. Sometimes, when you spend significant periods of time in the lottery, it just means that you suck and are mismanaged, as the Blazers were when they were being run by Nash and Patterson. And just because you drafted someone that was on your team before they became what you have been building towards (Outlaw) doesn't mean that that's when your rebuild started. From my point of view, the Blazers didn't start their rebuild until this guy took over; I contend that the previous management had no direction whatsoever, didn't know what they wanted to do with the team, or how to get there, so I don't acknowledge anything that happened in Portland prior to Pritchard taking the reigns as contributing towards a rebuild. I also disagree with your apparent contention that the rebuild isn't complete until the team becomes title contenders: the Kings weren't still rebuilding in 1999-2000, when we were first round and out. Once you've built a team that can be a perennial playoff team, which I feel the Blazers have, everything after that is team development, which can perhaps feel like rebuilding, but is not, in my opinion... So, from my point of view, Portland's rebuild took three years, four if you count Pritchard's season as assistant GM, when he was involved in the decisions that led to trading for Roy, Aldridge and Rodriguez.

Not to get off on a tangent, but this line from the wiki entry astonishes me:

Good points, but you could also argue that we were trying to make the playoffs well into "year 2" of the OP's chart, thus we weren't fully rebuilding either. Heck, I still worry that when the Maloofs need to chime in on how the coaches are doing, that they don't really get the idea of rebuilding, and will trade Hawes and Thompson for Shawn Marion or something terrible next week.

And yes, that wiki quote is truly terrifying.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Good points, but you could also argue that we were trying to make the playoffs well into "year 2" of the OP's chart, thus we weren't fully rebuilding either...

That's because we weren't. No argument from me on that point.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Maybe we get the right guy, maybe we don't. I think that the relationship between the Maloofs and Petrie is irreparable, though. Not that they can't work together, but that Petrie will always be vetoed because he's so easy to veto.

I don't get how you think we know this. And again, who are you comparing Petrie to? What GM has publicly questioned and gone against his owners. Remember, Petrie almost resigned when Jim Thomas wasn't going to spend the cap space we had to sign Vlade. That's the only case I can think of. Someone else said he did not accept an extension beyond 2010 (I can't verify if this was the case), but if that's true, it's probably because he wants to see if the Maloofs will let him do his job. We honestly do not know the nature of the relationship between the Maloofs and Petrie and what they have agreed and disagreed on. If you have evidence I don't I would love to hear it, but I find this whole line of reasoning very specious.

 

[Kings Faithful]

Portland's rebuild:
Year 0: 50-32, made playoffs, drafted Travis Outlaw
Year 1: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Sebastian Telfair and Sergei Monia
Year 2: 27-55, drafted Martell Webster
Year 3: 21-61, drafted Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez
Year 4: 32-50, lucked into #1 overall pick, drafted Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez
Year 5: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Jerryd Bayless and Nicolas Batum
Year 6: ?? Look like a playoff team, probably not a contender
Year 7: Contender?

My only problem in comparing our rebuilds is this...I don't see any Brandon Roy's or LaMarcus Aldriges in the draft this year....They chose a great time to suck. Of course I can't predict what the rookie class is going to be like this year but its not looking too good outside of the number 3 or 4 picks. Imagine how many more years Portland would be rebuilding if they didn't get Roy in the draft? I'm afraid thats whats going to happen to us.

 

[Section 101]

Portland's rebuild:
Year 0: 50-32, made playoffs, drafted Travis Outlaw
Year 1: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Sebastian Telfair and Sergei Monia
Year 2: 27-55, drafted Martell Webster
Year 3: 21-61, drafted Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez
Year 4: 32-50, lucked into #1 overall pick, drafted Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez
Year 5: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Jerryd Bayless and Nicolas Batum
Year 6: ?? Look like a playoff team, probably not a contender
Year 7: Contender?

Looking at the Kings:
Year 0: 44-38, made playoffs, drafted Quincy Douby
Year 1: 33-49, missed playoffs, drafted Spencer Hawes
Year 2: 38-44, drafted Jason Thompson, got Donté Greene
Year 3: Looking like a 20-win season...

Looks to me like we're a long way away. But we did a better job of drafting in Year 1 and Year 2 than the Blazers. Still, if we follow the Blazers' lead, this year will be horrible (obviously). We'll land a solid player in the draft. Next year, developing that solid player, we'll improve but still miss the playoffs. We can't count on lucking into #1, but with Hawes, Thompson, and Greene instead of Telfair, Monia and Webster we're OK with a #7-10 pick. '10-'11 we'll push .500, pick up another late-lotto player and extend Hawes. '11-'12 is our year to break into the playoffs, we'll extend Thompson and Greene. '12-'13 would then be our first year to contend with our young team (and yes, it will still be a young team).

So following the Blazers' schedule, don't expect us to be in the playoffs next year. Patience. Patience.

Once again to clear up some transactions.

Roy was traded for Foye who they got with Dickau, LaFrentz (bad contract) trading Telfair, Ratliff, 2nd round pick. So this was really trading for a draft pick.

They bought both Rodriguez and Fernandez draft rights. It's nice when the owner is one of the richest men in the world.

They also traded for Bayless.

So in reality what the blazers did was a lot of draft day deals. It's not like they did it just off of their own draft picks.

And I will point out the bias by using "got Greene" instead of drafted when it was the same senario as other moves made by portland, ie Roy, Bayless.

 

[LPKingsFan]

That's because we weren't. No argument from me on that point.

Cool, so revising Capt. Factorial's historical chart, we get something like:

Portland's rebuild (Prichard era):
Year 1: 21-61, drafted Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez
Year 2: 32-50, lucked into #1 overall pick, drafted Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez
Year 3: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Jerryd Bayless and Nicolas Batum
Year 4: ?? Look like a playoff team, probably not a contender
Year 5: Contender?

Kings rebuild (actually rebuilding, please butt out Maloofs until we need your $$ to pay the luxury tax when we're trying to contend, era):

Year 1: 38-44, drafted Jason Thompson, got Donté Greene
Year 2: Looking like a 20-win season...

Which actually doesn't look that bad either. They entered their "true rebuilding" era with Outlaw and Webster, while the Kings have Kevin Martin and Spencer Hawes. No, I don't think Thompson or Greene quite match up to Roy or Aldridge nor will our pick this June likely be a potential superstar, a la Oden. But we do have two picks, and hopefully will liquidate Miller and Salmons to come up with another. Amic's recent reporting that Salmons may be on the block too gives me hope that Petrie knows what he's doing (and, sadly, the reports that there's not much interest in Miller makes me wonder how much he can do). There may be a light at the end of the tunnel after all, but its not comign any time soon.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Yes I can. You are absolutely not rebuilding just by virtue of being in the lottery, which is why Golden State and the Clippers were not rebuilding; you're rebuilding when you're building the team towards something. The Blazers weren't building towards anything, they were just running around like a chicken with their head cut off.

I get what you are saying. If a team is in the lottery for 10 years, but a new GM is only there for 3 and makes good moves, you can talk about the GM using a model to rebuild that is shorter than 10 years.

However, if we are looking at team archs and the time it took to go from being a playoff team to being a playoff team again - you cannot simply discount 2-4 years of purging old contracts, acquiring young talent and getting top 5 picks. I am not trying to take anything away from Pritchard who made some great moves and again has been a very good GM. However, he also came onto a team that had the young players and nearly expiring contracts that allowed him to make the trade for the #7 pick and inherited a team bad enough that he immediatley got the 4th and 1st pick in the draft in consecutive years.

Basically, it is not fair to say one team's rebuilding started when they had 1 young player, a pick in the high teens and several long contracts remaining from their contending days, while another team's rebuild starts when they have young players, expiring contracts and the 4th pick in the draft just because they got a new GM. At that point you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Superman]

I don't get how you think we know this. And again, who are you comparing Petrie to? What GM has publicly questioned and gone against his owners. Remember, Petrie almost resigned when Jim Thomas wasn't going to spend the cap space we had to sign Vlade. That's the only case I can think of. Someone else said he did not accept an extension beyond 2010 (I can't verify if this was the case), but if that's true, it's probably because he wants to see if the Maloofs will let him do his job. We honestly do not know the nature of the relationship between the Maloofs and Petrie and what they have agreed and disagreed on. If you have evidence I don't I would love to hear it, but I find this whole line of reasoning very specious.

I know that Petrie didn't want to let Rick Adelman go. I know that Musselman and Theus weren't his first choices. I know that the Webber trade as it happened would not have gone done if it were up to Geoff. These are well documented.

Everything else we've done - aside from draft picks and the Bibby trade - were either circumstantially forced decisions (like trading Ron) or poor decisions (like signing Mikki Moore). If Geoff is making these decisions or if he's just going through the motions because he's hamstrung, then how can we justify defending him year in and year out?

If he's decided that he's going to leave after 2010 if he's not satisfied, then good on him, and I hope he goes to a team where his strengths will be properly showcased.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I know that Petrie didn't want to let Rick Adelman go. I know that Musselman and Theus weren't his first choices. I know that the Webber trade as it happened would not have gone done if it were up to Geoff. These are well documented.

Everything else we've done - aside from draft picks and the Bibby trade - were either circumstantially forced decisions (like trading Ron) or poor decisions (like signing Mikki Moore). If Geoff is making these decisions or if he's just going through the motions because he's hamstrung, then how can we justify defending him year in and year out?

If he's decided that he's going to leave after 2010 if he's not satisfied, then good on him, and I hope he goes to a team where his strengths will be properly showcased.

So there's probably 3-4 things he did not want. Again, we don't know how much went on behind the scenes. Especially since a couple of those moves were for coaches were likely set up for failure, Petrie may have been relatively indifferent. Trading Bibby and Ron were both smart moves allowing us to rebuild. And the Mikki signing was actually underrated. A short, middle sized contract that expires the same year we are supposed to get cap space and could be a nice trading chip. Again, we are on the right track and Petrie's reputation will be made or broken by how he leads us through it.

 

[bajaden]

Maybe we get the right guy, maybe we don't. I think that the relationship between the Maloofs and Petrie is irreparable, though. Not that they can't work together, but that Petrie will always be vetoed because he's so easy to veto.

I don't get how you think we know this. And again, who are you comparing Petrie to? What GM has publicly questioned and gone against his owners. Remember, Petrie almost resigned when Jim Thomas wasn't going to spend the cap space we had to sign Vlade. That's the only case I can think of. Someone else said he did not accept an extension beyond 2010 (I can't verify if this was the case), but if that's true, it's probably because he wants to see if the Maloofs will let him do his job. We honestly do not know the nature of the relationship between the Maloofs and Petrie and what they have agreed and disagreed on. If you have evidence I don't I would love to hear it, but I find this whole line of reasoning very specious.

If I remember correctly, and thats saying a lot, the Maloffs approached Petrie about an extension. Petrie said not to worry about it at this time, and he was fine with taking it up at the end of the year. The Maloffs responded by saying that he had the job for as long as he wanted.

The person that was brought in recently, was brought in by Petrie, who was impressed with him when he negotiated a difficult contract.
Don't forget that it was Petrie that resigned in Portland over the firing of Rick Adelman. So he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes, or at least he wasn't in the past.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Don't forget that it was Petrie that resigned in Portland over the firing of Rick Adelman. So he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes, or at least he wasn't in the past.

Really? I never heard that. Man, part of me wishes he had threatened to resign if they Maloofs didn't re-sign Rick...

 

[bajaden]

Cool, so revising Capt. Factorial's historical chart, we get something like:

Portland's rebuild (Prichard era):
Year 1: 21-61, drafted Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Sergio Rodriguez
Year 2: 32-50, lucked into #1 overall pick, drafted Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez
Year 3: 41-41, missed playoffs, drafted Jerryd Bayless and Nicolas Batum
Year 4: ?? Look like a playoff team, probably not a contender
Year 5: Contender?

Kings rebuild (actually rebuilding, please butt out Maloofs until we need your $$ to pay the luxury tax when we're trying to contend, era):

Year 1: 38-44, drafted Jason Thompson, got Donté Greene
Year 2: Looking like a 20-win season...

Which actually doesn't look that bad either. They entered their "true rebuilding" era with Outlaw and Webster, while the Kings have Kevin Martin and Spencer Hawes. No, I don't think Thompson or Greene quite match up to Roy or Aldridge nor will our pick this June likely be a potential superstar, a la Oden. But we do have two picks, and hopefully will liquidate Miller and Salmons to come up with another. Amic's recent reporting that Salmons may be on the block too gives me hope that Petrie knows what he's doing (and, sadly, the reports that there's not much interest in Miller makes me wonder how much he can do). There may be a light at the end of the tunnel after all, but its not comign any time soon.

Way too early to make any statements about how good or bad Thompson or Greene will be. No one predicted that Aldridge would be as good as he turned out to be. I always liked Roy, but there were many people, some on this fourm that said he was as good as he was ever going to be. He was too slow and couldn't jump high enough and other such nonsense. Golden rule number one. It usually takes at least three years for a big man to develop in the NBA, and the league is littered with teams that gave up after a year or two on someone that turned out to be a star. Thats why its important to be patient and not become a revolving door of talent for other teams.

 

[nbrans]

Way too early to make any statements about how good or bad Thompson or Greene will be. No one predicted that Aldridge would be as good as he turned out to be. I always liked Roy, but there were many people, some on this fourm that said he was as good as he was ever going to be. He was too slow and couldn't jump high enough and other such nonsense. Golden rule number one. It usually takes at least three years for a big man to develop in the NBA, and the league is littered with teams that gave up after a year or two on someone that turned out to be a star. Thats why its important to be patient and not become a revolving door of talent for other teams.

No one?

But honestly, I agree that's it's early to pass judgment, but Portland's model was really about stockpiling high picks. Eventually if you have someone who knows what they're doing in charge, some of those are going to pan out. Some won't, but it's all about maximizing your odds.

 

[NME]

Why is it that Aldridge is seemingly immune from the criticism that is normally directed at jumpshooting/non-rebounding PF's? Yes, he looks smooth on offense, but being a 6'11" former #2 pick that takes jumpers 70% of the time and rebounds less effectively than Mikki Moore would get anyone else torn apart, not universal acclaim.

 

[nbrans]

Why is it that Aldridge is seemingly immune from the criticism that is normally directed at jumpshooting/non-rebounding PF's? Yes, he looks smooth on offense, but being a 6'11" former #2 pick that takes jumpers 70% of the time and rebounds less effectively than Mikki Moore would get anyone else torn apart, not universal acclaim.

Mostly because they were smart/savvy/lucky enough to pair him with rebounding/shotblocking dirty work centers like Greg Oden and Joel Przybilla. Those guys play Tyson Chandler to his David West, and he's a big factor in their success. Getting high-percentage points down low (even if they're turnaround jump shots) are huge for any team, and it's not Brandon Roy alone who's winning those games.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The facts that you present are technically accurate, inasmuch as that stuff did actually happen when you said it happened, but I disagree with your contention that it was evidence of a rebuild on Portland's part. Just because you spend a lot of years in the lottery and getting good picks in the draft, doesn't mean that you're actually rebuilding: Were the Warriors rebuilding all those years they didn't make the playoffs? No. The Clippers? Hell no. Sometimes, when you spend significant periods of time in the lottery, it just means that you suck and are mismanaged, as the Blazers were when they were being run by Nash and Patterson. And just because you drafted someone that was on your team before they became what you have been building towards (Outlaw) doesn't mean that that's when your rebuild started. From my point of view, the Blazers didn't start their rebuild until this guy took over; I contend that the previous management had no direction whatsoever, didn't know what they wanted to do with the team, or how to get there, so I don't acknowledge anything that happened in Portland prior to Pritchard taking the reigns as contributing towards a rebuild.

I think you're reading a bit too much into what I presented there. When I wrote it I was mostly interested in comparing the timelines to see for myself how fast the Blazers "really" rebuilt. Year 0 refers to the last playoff appearance, not the beginning of the rebuild in earnest. If you were to ask me, I'd say the true rebuilding for the Blazers didn't start until after Year 2 when they went a dismal 27-55 (corresponding to Pritchard's arrival) - before that they were trying to compete. I would say this is pretty well analogous to us (also after Year 2), though if you accept the Bibby trade as the beginning of the rebuild, perhaps you push us back a bit to the beginning of Year 2...but in terms of the draft, we weren't in full-blown rebuild yet when we drafted Spencer, so I think the year labels are more or less accurate.

I actually had thought Outlaw was drafted later, but at any rate I don't think he's quite as key a part to the rebuild as a lot of the other pieces. If I was really ambitious I would have looked into the FA acquisitions (Przybilla, for one) and trades but I just looked at what was quickly available (draft) knowing that the bulk of their pieces came from there.

I also disagree with your apparent contention that the rebuild isn't complete until the team becomes title contenders

I'm not sure what made you believe I think that. I wasn't making any assertion about when a rebuild is complete. I certainly don't want to project the Blazers out, even in iffy question mark form, beyond next year, though. I stopped looking into the future when the view got really fuzzy.

I really don't think we disagree much here.

 

[NME]

Mostly because they were smart/savvy/lucky enough to pair him with rebounding/shotblocking dirty work centers like Greg Oden and Joel Przybilla. Those guys play Tyson Chandler to his David West, and he's a big factor in their success. Getting high-percentage points down low (even if they're turnaround jump shots) are huge for any team, and it's not Brandon Roy alone who's winning those games.

That may make him a good fit on a talent-laden team, but doesn't quite justify the kind of plaudits I'm routinely hearing. Even as far as high-percentage scoring goes, his points per shot are way below the top PF's.

 

[NME]

I'm not fully confident that we're on the right rebuilding road, but I feel a lot better about the current course than the prospects of another GM under the dictates of the Maloofs *without* Petrie's eye for drafting. Whether the organization will have the stomach to fully tear down the veteran corps remains to be seen, but at least I have the hope of Petrie finding a couple of gems.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Once again to clear up some transactions.

Roy was traded for Foye who they got with Dickau, LaFrentz (bad contract) trading Telfair, Ratliff, 2nd round pick. So this was really trading for a draft pick.

They bought both Rodriguez and Fernandez draft rights. It's nice when the owner is one of the richest men in the world.

They also traded for Bayless.

So in reality what the blazers did was a lot of draft day deals. It's not like they did it just off of their own draft picks.

And I will point out the bias by using "got Greene" instead of drafted when it was the same senario as other moves made by portland, ie Roy, Bayless.

I truly have no idea what your point here is, unless it is to be more technically accurate than me. You might have pointed out that Aldridge and Batum were also the result of draft day trades.

I believe it is safe to say that in the case of Roy, Aldridge, and Bayless that the trades in question were arranged before the picks were selected in the draft, and that all teams involved were selecting for the other team. T'wolves, Bulls, Pacers - these teams selected the guy Portland wanted, and therefore we may as well say Portland picked him.

In the case of Batum the deal was more complicated. Like a lot more complicated. But in the end they must have been after Batum because the other players in the deal (either Arthur or Greene) could have simply been had at their pick without maneuvering. It looks like they could have just drafted Greene at #27, but by drafting Arthur and holding him hostage they were able to pry away a future 2nd from Memphis. They then sent this Memphis pick, Greene, and Dorsey to Houston for Batum. Batum was the guy they wanted, so it's fair to say they picked him, too.

In all of those cases, the Blazers were the team to sign the player. Not so for Greene, who was signed by Houston. It's certainly not fair to say we drafted Greene, so I didn't. I said "got". Congratulations for your insight.

 

[Superman]

So there's probably 3-4 things he did not want. Again, we don't know how much went on behind the scenes. Especially since a couple of those moves were for coaches were likely set up for failure, Petrie may have been relatively indifferent. Trading Bibby and Ron were both smart moves allowing us to rebuild. And the Mikki signing was actually underrated. A short, middle sized contract that expires the same year we are supposed to get cap space and could be a nice trading chip. Again, we are on the right track and Petrie's reputation will be made or broken by how he leads us through it.

Petrie has been in charge for a decade now. His reputation hinges on what happens next? What about what's happening now?

You miss the point about those 3-4 things Geoff didn't want: those were the biggest decisions that have been made with this franchise over the past four years. Major moves that weren't his choice, and have arguably hurt the team over the years.

Mikki Moore won't be a trading chip. He has no value. I can't think of a single team that would be improved by adding him, certainly not one that would be willing to give up a pick. Maybe if the NBA adds a third round to the draft between now and April 2010. Otherwise, we kill his contract here.

Trading Bibby and Ron were both good moves, and they were both executed properly. With Geoff's eye for talent, I'm sure we'll be able to bring in some quality young guys with the picks we got, and we made the Maloofs pocketbook a little less strained in the process. We'll see how that plays out.

Again, it's not that I just don't like Geoff, or even that I think he's not good at his job. It's that I don't think he's been doing his job. Maybe he's told the Maloofs to let him do his thing or he walks in two years, and maybe that led to Theus being axed. Maybe we'll see some changes in philosophy; we've already seen changes. But I'm not willing to defend him any longer. Sorry.

 

[Section 101]

I truly have no idea what your point here is, unless it is to be more technically accurate than me. You might have pointed out that Aldridge and Batum were also the result of draft day trades.

I believe it is safe to say that in the case of Roy, Aldridge, and Bayless that the trades in question were arranged before the picks were selected in the draft, and that all teams involved were selecting for the other team. T'wolves, Bulls, Pacers - these teams selected the guy Portland wanted, and therefore we may as well say Portland picked him.

In the case of Batum the deal was more complicated. Like a lot more complicated. But in the end they must have been after Batum because the other players in the deal (either Arthur or Greene) could have simply been had at their pick without maneuvering. It looks like they could have just drafted Greene at #27, but by drafting Arthur and holding him hostage they were able to pry away a future 2nd from Memphis. They then sent this Memphis pick, Greene, and Dorsey to Houston for Batum. Batum was the guy they wanted, so it's fair to say they picked him, too.

In all of those cases, the Blazers were the team to sign the player. Not so for Greene, who was signed by Houston. It's certainly not fair to say we drafted Greene, so I didn't. I said "got". Congratulations for your insight.

signing a player means little with the rookie scale. Everything is already laid out for what they get. Once again the point is they gave up players and took on a bad contract to get Roy. They did not get him via their own pick. He was basically traded for. They also gave up more to move up and get Bayless. It was the #13 pick (rush) and Jack for #10 Bayless and Diagu. They gave up a starter for rookie and scrub.

All these moves were dependant on another team being willing to make trades.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Petrie has been in charge for a decade now. His reputation hinges on what happens next? What about what's happening now?

You miss the point about those 3-4 things Geoff didn't want: those were the biggest decisions that have been made with this franchise over the past four years. Major moves that weren't his choice, and have arguably hurt the team over the years.

Mikki Moore won't be a trading chip. He has no value. I can't think of a single team that would be improved by adding him, certainly not one that would be willing to give up a pick. Maybe if the NBA adds a third round to the draft between now and April 2010. Otherwise, we kill his contract here.

Trading Bibby and Ron were both good moves, and they were both executed properly. With Geoff's eye for talent, I'm sure we'll be able to bring in some quality young guys with the picks we got, and we made the Maloofs pocketbook a little less strained in the process. We'll see how that plays out.

Again, it's not that I just don't like Geoff, or even that I think he's not good at his job. It's that I don't think he's been doing his job. Maybe he's told the Maloofs to let him do his thing or he walks in two years, and maybe that led to Theus being axed. Maybe we'll see some changes in philosophy; we've already seen changes. But I'm not willing to defend him any longer. Sorry.

1 - His current reputation to me is based off what he has done. He built a contender here from almost nothing. Yes we are rebuilding, but as I said to someone else earlier, please point me to the non-rebuidling model you would have us follow? The Maloof/Petrie combo may have held on too long, but have us headed in the right direction now. We have young uns, expiring contracts and will have a couple of good draft picks.

2 - In terms of the major moves, 2 were coaching changes. Geoff may not be happy about them, but he seems to have had leeway with the personnel decisions. In terms of what may or may not have happened with the Webber trade it's all speculation.

3 - Why can't Morre be a trading chip? No one is trading for him for his talent. However, a 3-4 million dollar expiring contract has value as part of a trade.

4 - At this point as long as we are trading the vets for kids and not the kids for vets (unless that vet happens to be a superstar) then we are continuing to move the right direction. This year is going to be miserable and there will be a lot of growing pains for our young players, but it's needed. Petrie has steered the ship in the right direction, even if the Maloofs have medeled more than we would like. At the end of the day though, their coaches are gone, Petrie and his players are here and he gets to pick the next coach. Sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war.