EDIT: I honestly don't think they'd value Shawne high enough to get all three, but it's still interesting to think about. Surely there is some price at which you'd say "Yeah, I'd trade Shawne or Danny for THAT."
Last edited by Anthem; 12-03-2007 at 06:26 PM.
This space for rent.
The reality is, the Blazers really don't need to make major moves of any kind involving their best assets. All they really need to do is rehab Oden, hold on to what they have and develop it. They'll be a force within a couple of years.
55 posts on this thread.
And no one has said we'd be happy if we had kept Anthony Johnson in the summer of 06.
I'm just sayin'.
And I won't be here to see the day
It all dries up and blows away
I'd hang around just to see
But they never had much use for me
In Levelland. (James McMurtry)
Wow could you imagine the fit Tinsley would throw if we brought back AJ? Can poutisitis be fatal?
bottomline is, diener isn't a low-cost low-risk investment in the way that rush, owens, and graham are. for those 3 guys, if they don't pan out, then ok you just move on. with diener, you're still stuck with him 3 years. you can only hope he turns his game around.
Our backups are worse than ever, but I'm still pleased with the PG situation this year.
What? 8.5 assists per game? Clutch performances? I will take that from the starter and roll the dice that he stays healthy. He played 72 games last year and hasn't missed a single one this year. He's also smiled more in the last month than he has the last 4 years.
I held an Executive VP position in the Tinsley-Hater club over the last several years...and I have since resigned. No, he's not who I would pick at PG, but until major changes are made, I am ready to stop the hate. ;<)
Well, the Suns are ridiculous, so that's not really a great example, IMO.
There are very few other owners so cheap that would ever make the luxury tax limit such a concrete ceiling under that team's current circumstances. Those guys are literally putting a potential title at risk because of like $5 million. That's insane.
The Simons have already shown willingness to pay it in the past if it meant contending. So I stand by the fact that a $1.5 million contract would never make or break us or limit our ability to make transactions. And Diener would be easy to include in a package deal so we're certainly not "stuck with him 3 years" only hoping "he turns his game around."
The third year is a non-issue, IMO, and was actually a savvy move by Bird/Walsh in the sense that if Travis proves to be worth a damn, we have an extremely cheap rotation player for three seasons. Looks like it might not work out, but I still think it was a fine risk to take given the extremely low downside.
i wouldn't say savvy. it would have been savvy to make it a team option, not a player option. but it certainly isn't terrible.The third year is a non-issue, IMO, and was actually a savvy move by Bird/Walsh in the sense that if Travis proves to be worth a damn, we have an extremely cheap rotation player for three seasons. Looks like it might not work out, but I still think it was a fine risk to take given the extremely low downside.
This is the darkest timeline.
take a look around the league. the luxury tax *is* a hard limit for many owners. would the simons be different? we haven't hit that level yet, but i guess we'll find out pretty soon. maybe next summer when we try to re-sign david. or surely the summer after when extensions to danny and ike kick in. that's when the extra years in diener's contract could hurt.