Blazers draft/off-season ideas, Part 2

Here is part two of what this summer hopefully will be for the Trail Blazers… (Please read Part 1 if you missed it yesterday.)

3. Ne pas dépenser sur le Nicolas Batum

Don’t overspend on Nicoals Batum! Oklahoma City does it the right way and spends money on young players that have proven to be good with the potential to be great. Someone will probably make Batum one hell of a deal that we’ll have to consider matching. The difference is that that team probably thinks one of two things: either one, he’s the missing piece to their almost championship team, or two, he’s better than he actually is. In this market Nicolas Batum should not be making more than $9 million a year. Maybe he proves he’s worth more by the time the next contract comes up, but right now he is simply a nice player who can be the fourth best player on a championship team.

Hell, his destiny may just be as a future sixth man extraordinaire. He is not a superstar and shouldn’t be payed like one.

I know that Blazer fans are worried of being bitten by letting a player go before they realize their potential, but we need to stand our ground on this one and make sure to understand that if Nicolas Batum is our second highest payed player, then we will not be in title contention for the duration of that contract.

Instead…

4. Target Eric Gordon or O.J. Mayo

The main reason I liked having Jamal Crawford is that it’s been forever since Portland had a player that when he shot, I thought it was going in. Every time. Doesn’t matter that it wasn’t necessarily working for him this season because, really, nothing was working for anyone — the entire organization just continued to stare at their impotent manhoods and simply pray it started to twitch… besides Greg Oden, of course. (Easy jokes can be funny too.) And yet, if you thought about it, you could conjure up at least a half-dozen examples of when Crawford made incredible, unfathomable shots. He’s a scorer. The next one’s going in.

These two guys, Gordon and Mayo, are younger versions of Crawford in that regard (and Gordon’s probably better right now).

Now, I understand that spending money on a player with an injury history only adds to the Memento corollary, but I’m not sure there’s anyone out there that’s going to argue Eric Gordon isn’t a breakout star waiting to happen. Both he and Mayo can command attention on the wing and score as naturally as Ryan Gosling willing droves of women to remove their panties. (Well, maybe not that naturally, but that man’s a freak of nature. It was an unfair comparison to begin with.)

If Portland was able to spend their cap space correctly on two of the four players already mentioned (Nash, Batum, Gordon or Mayo), coupled with a good draft, this would be a great off-season.

But it still wouldn’t be enough. The last thing on Portland’s list should be…

5. Get Lamarcus Aldridge another star

Just like Batum can’t be your second highest paid player, Lamarcus can’t be your best. He’s made great strides, and he’s my personal favorite current Blazer (since draft day, if you please), but he is not ready to be the man that takes a team to a championship. He can definitely be your second option, but he’s not consistent enough to be the first. I’m hard-pressed to think of a time when Lamarcus took over a game like true superstars do. Talent-wise he’s probably in the top 15 right now in the league, only the top 6 can take their team on their own, everyone else has to do so with better players around them. And, unfortunately, I don’t think Aldridge will ever get there. I don’t see him commanding the ball consistently, barking at players not doing their jobs, or ever eventually getting to the point where he just says, “screw this, get on my back and let’s close this thing out.” No, unfortunately right now he seems likely to fulfill a little more of the potential Rasheed Wallace had.

However, if Nash comes on board, then it works because he becomes your best player and will do his damnedest to turn Lamarcus into Amar’e Stoudemire with a jump shot. But (more realistically) if they strike out on that option, then there needs to be a conversation about packaging players for another actual star. The list includes, from greatest to least.

Pau Gasol: This one probably can’t happen, but at least you know that the Lakers are looking. Packaging a lottery pick with Wes Matthews and possibly Nic Batum should get this done. You might be overpaying a little, but you’d be getting another top 20 player. Plus, Pau likes to play on the block, so Lamarcus could venture out from time to time without causing the same problems that plague Gasol and Bynum in LA.

Joe Johnson: Granted he’s probably the most over-payed player in the league, but he matches what is necessary — a scorer unafraid to take big shots, you can run an offense through him, and he can play multiple positions. Not to mention that if we just sent Atlanta a slew of 6’6” wing players looking to get their own stats, you know they’d take it.

Andre Igoudala or Rudy Gay: Both are seemingly interchangeable, expendable pieces that are playing on team’s that think they can win without them. Igoudala is only 28, and could probably be had in exchange for a much cheaper Nic Batum as a starting point, while Rudy Gay may be a little more difficult to get considering the players/assets that Portland has to give up, the Grizzlies already have and are better in comparison. Do you give up the #11 for him? If you think that player will never be any more than one of the best 30 players in the league, then yes.

Again, though, an unconscionable star player able to get his own shots and (wait for it…) plays both ends of the court. Both of these players are already where you want Batum to be, and they’re under 30 making them worth the risk.

Josh Smith: Perhaps the best player on this list (even with Gasol included), but I’m not sure how his and Aldridge’s games would compliment one another? That, and if all of your fire power is in the post (where Smith finally forced himself to be last season), but you have no one to get them the ball, then I’m not sure what good it does? But his talent can’t be questioned, and if you didn’t have to give up too much (Think Wes Matthews, Luke Babbitt and $3 million in cash… maybe a pick if necessary, just protect it better than New jersey did) then you roll the dice on this every time.

Kevin Martin: By all accounts this could happen today. Houston is trying to get pieces and assets to trade for Dwight Howard. Find an asset that you’re willing to give up and send it Houston’s way and get a twenty-nine year-old efficient scorer back in return.

Carmelo Anthony: … stay away from Melo. Not that this is a possibility anyway, but it’s been proven that he’s not ready to share the ball enough when it matters to ever get what he needs to out of his teammates. The only time he did anything resembling that was when Denver made their run a few years ago, but he knew he had to listen to Chauncey Billups or he would get pelted with a bag of batteries.

Two other tiny moves that could be done: re-sign J.J. Hickson to a reasonable deal. If nothing else we could have a J.J.O.J.LMA starting lineup to look forward to; Re-sign Jamal Crawford (especially if you can trade Wes Matthews).

Whatever happens, please stop talk about creating our own “Big Three” this summer. You know why Miami has a Big Three? Because all three of those players are top 15 players! The likelihood of getting together another group within that company is slim and not the only recipe for a championship. If you remember, a team beat them last year when Dallas simply got it in their heads that they were better than them. Oklahoma lost, yes, but are you reading anything that says people don’t expect them to have another shot sometime soon? And yes, they have three great talents, but those three also have defense and shooters around them to help with the burden when necessary. (They also have a coach. Which just seems like a weird idea over here, apparently.) A Big Three means that you have at least three options that you feel comfortable with. We have one. We need more.

In the end, all that matters is that on draft day and beyond this team gives their fans something to be happy about, something to look forward to. We’re a bleeding-heart group that desperately wants to know the feeling of success again. Too many times and for too long have we been teased with the temptation that we might be good enough only to go down in a crumbling heap atop our own fragile expectations.

Blazers draft/off-season ideas Part 1

History seems to repeat itself here in the Trail Blazers organization. (See: Injures, and Almost Superstars Clyde Drexler and Brandon Roy.) Often times though that means the wrong thing, so let’s take a moment and hope for the right kind of history repeating itself on Thursday. Just like in 2006, this team has two lottery picks and a new GM that last time were able to strike, at least, fool’s gold which perpetuated the fantasy of a championship team for a few more years. I wouldn’t mind being duped again if it meant there was a fleeting chance of achieving something. It’s the Memento corollary: every so often Blazer fans are reminded of the shit they’ve been through, but we do what we can to forget about our past in order to become blissfully ignorant in hopes of figuring out the future.

So, what can we do to hide this painful truth tattoo and work towards a new reality? Well, unfortunately we have to get on board with our new GM, a man who recently helped steer the ship of the ever-sturdy Los Angeles Clippers. Admittedly, that might not be a fair comment to make since most all of LA’s problems start and end with their stubborn, out-of-touch, seemingly incompetent, power-hungry owner.

… thinking … waiting … realizing … fuck.

This is also the same an who the verbal rub n’ tug to unproven interim coach, Kaleb Canales, during his own induction press conference. (More on that later.)

Fortunately we do have two lottery picks that are going to be essential in recreating our future since last year’s signing of Jamal Crawford was, arguably, the best free agent this franchise has ever signed. Ever. In the over forty years this franchise has been in existence. Think about it, not including resigning our own players, but actually luring players to Portland without them ever playing for us, who have we left the summer with and felt like we did something worthwhile? And you gotta think that with the way Jamal was treated over the season, perhaps there’s no reason to believe in ti happening again. The daft is our best option to recreate the team.

That being said, this is what keeps Portland weird: we think we have a legit chance in free agency regardless.

The obvious holes on this team are, well, everywhere. But let’s focus on the five that, if filled, should (should) bring everything up to code:

1. We need a point guard

Do you realize that we haven’t had a great point guard since Terry Porter? Damon Stoudamire might be my favorite basketball player of all time (because I like under-sized point guards that make just enough shots to make you forget that he’s not a great shooter, or that he completely careened his career coming over here and being harnessed by that jackass Mike Dunleavy), but there’s no way Damon was a better point guard than Porter, even with his promising Rookie of the Year start to his career. And don’t me started on Andre “I Hate The World And Am Not Good Enough To Act Like A Stubborn Ass” Miller. What we need is someone that inspires confidence and is able to facilitate the game and know the difference of when it is necessary to get other people involved by getting them open looks in spots they feel comfortable in versus when they need to over. You know, a point guard.

I don’t care about the youth movement, or that I just weakly made the argument that Portland can’t draw free agents, the Trail Blazers need to push for Steve Nash. I’m tired of “veteran leadership” meaning players that don’t get on the court. I know, I know, Juwon Howard just won a championship (sarcasm), but perhaps players like that don’t actually make the difference that’s necessary since, you know, they can’t make any difference that’s necessary. How about a radical idea where you build a team around people that already have shown to be competent and have them teach the youngens? Draft Weber State point guard Damian Lillard with the 6th pick if he’s available and have Nash teach him how to see the court at the NBA level. Then, three years from now when Nash’s contract is up and he retires (or continues to play until he’s 84 because he’s found the magic within no eating gluten and instead just consuming his own aura), Lillard should be ready to take over for good.

Plus, all reports seem to indicate that he’s interested in Portland. Strike while the iron is hot. Bring his Canadian ass a little closer north where we also like soccer and long hair.

2. How about a coach?

I get getting rid of Nate McMillan. You blew up the team and didn’t want for another two-three months of whispers and rumors about his future that he would have to deflect after every game. But so help me god if Kaleb Canales is retained as the head coach of a team that you hope to build into something, I’ll be spending the rest of the summer focusing on how to internally combust if that’s the case.

This is a perfect summer for both free agency and hiring a new coach. Both plentiful and robust. Speaking of which, hire Stan Van Gundy.

Yes, he would be more outspoken than owner Paul Allen has been able to handle over the past (ever) 10 years; to be fair though, at this point if that kid from “Oliver” came and asked for more porridge, I’m pretty sure Paul Allen would skip the offended “More?!” rebuttal and simply fire the kid from the orphanage. Yet, it’s not like this would be an enormous deviation from Van Gundy’s last place of employment. That’s kind of why he’s perfect: he’s knowledgeable, he’s professional in that he just wants to focus on the job at hand, and he’s remarkably unflappable. In fact I’m pretty sure that this exchange would happen during the hiring process:

Paul Allen: “You know, if you take this job, at some point I’m going to hint that we don’t get along but never give any reason as to why, especially if you’re doing well. Please just know that it’ll be because people are probably praising you too much and I don’t feel that my money is being given the right amount of credit.”

Stan Van Gundy: “You’re not going after Dwight Howard, right? … Where do I sign?”

If you hire Stan Van Gundy, Portland becomes a player, instantly. He knows how to coach and get the best out of the talent that’s given to him. He doesn’t get bogged down in gossip and hearsay, though he will answer questions honestly if asked making it seems like he does.

As bad as we are right now, we’re not Charlotte. We have some pieces, so we don’t need to go searching for the next great coach. Instead, let’s utilize the knowledge available to us and hire someone known to be good at his job with an emphasis on defense.

(I’m actually splitting this into two parts. Partially because I want something new up closer to the draft, but mostly because 1,200 words is enough to read from someone that has no credentials other than “I woke up early enough to type this.”)

There’s room for news after all

The pronouncement of death and failure have become synonymous with success and life. If you’re not one, you are the other. We live in a reality where such stark truths permeate nuance and, in the end, destroy our ability to take in information with the understanding that it may mature and morph as the rest of the story presents itself.

For whatever reason our culture seems to be at the extreme of extremes. Best, worst, right now, not later. Ever. The idea that the entire story isn’t available right away seems alien to those consuming it. People don’t take the time to digest the facts that they do have then connect those with the details that will inevitably trickle in; instead they fill in the blanks with perception and commentary. Sometimes theirs, most often though it’s the commentary of their trusted media personality passed off as theirs. (And yes, I’m including myself in this. Daily Show anyone?)

It’s with that blueprint in mind that Newsroom, iconoclast Aaron Sorkin’s newest venture into the world of characters delivering words at the speed of modern information, could really do some damage to the current system of Give Me All The Information So That I Can Devour It And Move Onto The Next Story Media. (Interesting that our media consumption is the same as our country’s takeover tactics.) He has set up a world wherein the internal battle of “reporting the news” clashes with “creating the news” given that there is now an expected 24-hour cycle of commentary that is being presented as facts on all cable news channels. Newsroom will be an attempt to highlight the difference between news and commentary.

In the premiere episode, Jeff Daniels — playing the surly anchor of a news channel’s flagship show much like Bill O’Rielly or Keith Olbermann — and his team of writers and producers race around and create that night’s program from scratch dealing with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill propagated two summers ago by the since-loving BP company. An obvious metaphor for the outbursts of personalities in the premiere, but still an effective choice nonetheless.

It’s interesting that Sorkin decided to revisit 2010 as his starting point since the line between commentary and news would be seemingly more blurred now than then since it’s been happening longer.

Yet, the most likely reason for this is to allow for natural events to happen and shape the show’s narrative as opposed to creating half-assed similar articles of news that have a cheesy resemblance to current events. It’s the same reason we love shows like Mad Men: we can love the characters and use the marking of major events as the timeline instead of guessing how long their world has been in existence. So instead of creating a reality, we are brought back to a time where our country was actually united on a topic before we were then suddenly torn apart as the truths were given political affiliation. We come back to a point where the emotional mayhem that took over the people actually drove the story towards truth until it was no longer new and was then allowed to be parceled up into smaller chunks more easily distorted.

That’s Sorkin’s point, and the point of Newsroom — This shit happened and people were outraged the proper amount of time and then forgot about it, as opposed to continuing to care about it until it was fixed and people were held accountable. The point is that instead of staying with this until its conclusion, we allowed our screens to be filled with a boatload of stories that continually seeped out and covered our newspapers and Google machine searches. BP has since done some of what they claimed in an attempt to clean up their mess (literal and metaphorical), but the point is that it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. That’s why it was important that Sorkin start there — we  pride ourselves on being a forgiving country, but we hardly ever admit that that can also mean we are a forgetful country. As long as what you did last is better than what you had done previously, we’re good to allow it to continue. Yes, BP has taken steps; no, it doesn’t take away the fact that this outcome was an almost certainty because of the measures that were or weren’t taken initially. I’m not saying it needs to dominate headlines still since there is new news to digest, but it should still be in the forefront of the minds of people that don’t have to interact with it every day.

Admittedly, I’m a fan of Aaron Sorkin. I find peace in his claustrophobic pacing and like to feel smarter when I can keep up with the levels of conversation, jokes and facts that are being patted around like a kitten with a ball of string. (I also like kittens, so maybe that has something to do with it?) I re-watch at least the pilot of Studio 60 a few times a year because the precision with which Judd Hirsch defames the rotting of American television culture is so interminably on-point that I just want to sit on his shoulder as he condemns the shit that gets laughs with an agreeing scowl on my face as if to defiantly say, “Yeah.” (Because when someone is already articulate in their argument, I find it best to not convolute it with my commentary.)

I don’t know that I’d call it a fearlessness, but Sorkin definitely holds a talent for showcasing the temperature of the culture.

That being said, I worry about how long the shelf life of this show is if all it intends to do is be a commentary on modern media? Shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad seem to succeed in this realm because their message is disguised by characters that work through metaphor and nuance, whereas Sorkin wants this show to instead shove metaphor to the side while cramming the idea that there is no nuance right into our faces, which is true. However, I just don’t know how long that can last without losing its purpose and deviating from what it tries to be in the first place? How often can a show hit the same beat without eventually falling silent?

Of course that’s assuming that it’s entirely the show’s responsibility to proceed the conversation. An unknown source and I were talking about this show last night and at one point I was accused of having a defeatist attitude because I said that people who will want to watch the show, will, while others that are inclined to see it as propaganda for something they don’t believe in (aka, a leftist piece of garbage galavanting on its own high horse entered in the soapbox Kentucky Derby) wont. It doesn’t mean that show can’t reach all sides, it simply means that it’s the people’s responsibility to uphold the values that are being portrayed and continue the dialogue instead of allowing the dialogue to be created without their input.

If people are willing to once again discuss their differences with an attempt to understand one another rather than either force their beliefs on another or walk away in disgust, then Newsroom will have done its job.

I know he is, but what am I

I don’t have any kids, but I love parenting. Telling anyone who’ll listen how I would punish a child in any situation. Peering over to others in the room when someone else’s child wont shut the fuck up. “Why don’t they just pick her up and do something about it? It’s not that hard. ‘No. We don’t act like that.’ THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY!”

Sitting around for countless hours talking about how wrong people are at what they do and then upholding in my own head that I would (nay, will) do it better is such a great pastime of mine that I don’t even think about it anymore: I just do it. It’s not even Schadenfreude at this point because the pleasure I receive is from my own sense of self-worth and not their pain that they experience. Because that’s the thing – sometimes the parents don’t experience any pain at all. In fact, they mosey along dumbly assuming that the way they deal with it is correct because no one will say anything out loud to them. Well, guess what, you’re wrong in how you raise your kid. I’m better than you at doing what I don’t have the ability to; but if I did, you better be damn well sure that I would kick your ass at it and handle it so much better than you do.

Oh yeah, and this goes for you too, Lebron! You suck at basketball. You know, not in the strictest sense because you’re good at it, but in the more meaningful sense of I don’t have any other way to get my frustrations out at you so I’m going to narrow my vocabulary and degrade you because you handle things differently than I know I would. Luckily for me, that sentiment is totally an OK one to have since my opinion matters since I can publish it on multiple social outlets where people (some I know, others I don’t) will read it and agree with me. Then we can take turns talking about how much he sucks. About how he NEVER shows up in big games… except the ones he does, but those don’t matter because he doesn’t do it all the time. The only ones that matter are the ones that I deem important enough to fulfill his legacy that I am in charge of. Well, me and my anonymous virtual friends. I’m going to continue to ignore that the appropriate comparison to him is Magic Johnson and not Michael Jordan because I only want to remember what basketball was like recently and not have a scope beyond the immediate past.

And you know what else? Fuck anyone who doesn’t agree with me. A very smart, powerful man once said, “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy.” Lord Vader really had it right on the money. Vader’s predecessor, W. Bush even affirmed that sentiment, so you know it has to be the right way of thinking; and be sure to know that if you don’t agree with me, then I will then add you to my list of things I talk about and degrade in my free time.

(Note: W. might have been Vader’s “Successor” actually, depending on how you view the fact that Star Wars was “a long, long time ago” but they had lightsabers and space ships… crazy Lucas).

Lebron succeeds when I say he succeeds. Until then, he will continue to fail. I don’t care that he just won a championship – the one thing I’ve been saying that he needs in order to validate his greatness – because he only has one championship at this point and not six like Michael Jordan, who I want him to be. If Lebron isn’t Michael Jordan, the greatest player to ever play the game, then he’ll continue to suck.

Anyway, he only got his championship after rigging the system and creating a team in a way that I disagree with. How could he have left Cleveland after fulfilling his contractual obligations and not continued to torment himself getting so close with almost no help whatsoever? Because he’s a quitter, that’s how.

He should have stayed in Cleveland and hoped that management continued to play musical chairs with aging veterans so that Lebron might get lucky and win there and not have gone to Miami with two other good players to win on their own terms. It was fine when I stacked my team in grade school during recess because it was recess. No one watched, so no one cared. Lebron was acting like the real child. And you know what, if he were my child, I would totally make sure that he didn’t act this way and do such a better job living his life than he does.

But since I can’t live his life, I’ll just be the one to affirm his accomplishments. It’s my duty because I have a Twitter handle.