There was a buzz rushing through the Rose Garden Wednesday night that made it difficult to believe that anything other than a blockbuster deal was on the brink of completion.
The names of former NBA All-Stars and franchise cornerstones were circulating. And if the trades that had already been completed were an accurate baseline for the market’s value, the Portland Trail Blazers appeared to be in a realistic position to complete a major trade. It may have been as simple as the Blazers saying “yes.”
So sure, the “no”
they gave teams on Thursday was shocking — for a moment. But once the emotion wore off, it became clear that it was the right answer. Because lost in the speculation and rumors were a few simple facts.
The Blazers are 33-20 and on pace for a 50-win season.
They are the second-youngest team in the NBA, with a ceiling that has not yet come into view.
And they have no glaring needs.
So why mess with that? Kevin Pritchard was apparently wondering the same thing on Thursday when negotiations continued until the final minute before the Blazers’ general manager made the call to stand pat.
“We’re effectively the youngest team in the league, and we have 33 wins at this time,”
Pritchard said. “It’s hard for me to say it’s logical to make a big change.”
But the emotions generated from potential trades and big names often clouds that perspective, and people forget how those changes can knock a team off course. But look over the last two seasons and you will find examples of good trades that turned bad.
Chicago took an aggressive approach to upgrading its team when it signed Ben Wallace to a $60 million free-agent contract in 2006 after completing a 49-33 season. The Bulls imploded the next season and have not won more than 33 games since.
Dallas gave up early on point guard Devin Harris last year and swapped him for veteran Jason Kidd in the hope that his experience would help push the Mavericks toward a title. But after reaching the NBA Finals and winning 67 games over the previous two years, the move failed to light that spark, while Harris went on to become an All-Star in New Jersey.
Those specific examples may not have been on Pritchard’s mind Thursday, but the concept had him concerned. So when Blazers owner Paul Allen told Pritchard over dinner on Wednesday, “Let’s go to war with this team and see what it’s about,”
the GM didn’t disagree.
“We have a great culture with great kids,”
Pritchard said. “Why tinker with it right now?”
And that is the key point: What did the Blazers have to gain by making a change now, despite the attractive trade assets and leverage they held? Chances are, it would not have turned them into a championship contender, and they did not need it to guarantee a playoff berth. Whatever gains they made likely would have been minimal.
But by holding off the Blazers bought time. They have 29 games to get a better gauge on rookies Jerryd Bayless and Nicolas Batum. They may get a chance to see Martell Webster play with their complete cast. They can evaluate which players respond positively to the tension of a playoff run, and feel out those who best fit their system.
And rather than allow emotions to take hold and force a trade under a deadline, they can step back this summer, make an educated decision and a strategic move.
It may not offer the excitement of a mid-season megadeal. But it may have been the Blazers’ wisest option.
