After a strong preseason, what should the Blazer's goal be this year?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Do we even want the #1 pick? Isn't it a cursed chalice for Portland?
 
A few random thoughts on this topic:

1. Give it a month. See what the Blazers really have.

2. We crushed the Kings and Jazz when they were playing their top guys and we were missing two starters. The Kings game was on the road. If the Kings don't score 20 points on runouts, mostly early in the game, it's an even bigger blowout -- that's a really good team.

3. People downplay Ulm. I don't. Ulm's the defending German champion and has a winning Euro Cup record the last two years. It possesses NBA length and size and has a potential lottery pick in the 2025 draft in its rotation.

4. If we can force 20 turnovers and block 10 shots per game like we've done in the preseason, then we're trending the right way and I'd be less likely to change.

5. IMO, the "championship window" thing isn't a thing. Very, very few good teams have the vast majority of the rotation between 4 years of each other. It's not like Grant is going to be too old to contribute in 2-3 years; he's playing some of his best basketball now. But also don't just be looking to push them out the door because they're on the older end of the roster. Ant's a 3-level scorer and can create his own shot against good defense; despite his limitations defensively, there aren't a lot of scorers his caliber in the league and we shouldn't forget that. Ayton averages a double-double, can switch on high screens and defend guards and shoots close to 60%. Grant's got so much versatility and the new composition of our roster makes him an even bigger matchup problem. Look at quality and fit before age.

6. That said, if some team comes along and wants to trade the farm to the Blazers for Grant, Ant or Ayton, take it. Don't fall in love with your own players at this point in the rebuild. Be open to trades if they definitely make you better, but be smart about it.

7. We aren't a team of tiny guards anymore. The roster is comprised much differently. That might have a lot to do with improvement on the court. Ant and Scoot aren't as problematic defensively when you have the length that exists on the rest of the roster. I think one even could argue that forward isn't the need anymore, but the Blazers might actually be looking for a really good guard next draft, or, at least open to it.

8. The Forever Tank isn't a way to become a longterm winner. And the draft's a bit of a crapshoot. The last two drafts should tell you everything you need to know about that. Right now, the two players we got out of what was considered a very weak draft (Clingan and Avdija) are far, far ahead of the generational PG we got with the second pick in what was considered a fantastic draft the prior year. People are salivating about Flagg and Bailey and I think they'll be great players in the NBA, but I don't know that they're immediate difference-makers and then you keep trading away your good young talent to be bad and hit lightning in a bottle and you end up on an awful treadmill. Essengue from Ulm is going to be in this draft -- he's 6-10 and showed me he can play as a good wing forward in the NBA right now as a 17-year-old and he's considered borderline lottery. You don't know where you'll land in the draft and what you might get, either way. But say you land just outside the play-in with all this young talent and you wind up being able to draft someone like Essengue who might be as good or better than Flagg or Bailey and is a very similar talent, rather than ripping away some of the talent you have to be bad enough to add Flagg or Bailey; I think the former makes you better both in the long run and better faster. It's hard to get better when you're always trying to be bad.
 
One other thing. I think we need to understand that there's a bigger NBA that we're just a part of.

What I mean by that is that the Blazers could be much, much better this year and it still not make a big dent in the win column just because there are a lot of really good teams in the West right now.

And not all those teams are going to stay that good. OKC's going to have to make decisions on which of its players to keep. The Lakers keep getting older, etc.

There also are several teams that are almost certain to be worse than the Blazers even if the Blazers trade Grant and/or Ayton. Are you willing to trade some of the under-25 players that we think right now can be part of a winning rotation on the chance that we get lucky in the lottery for Flagg?

We're at the stage where tanking starts to become the law of diminishing returns and to be bad enough to get a shot at a transcendent talent you have to eject some of the players that you need to reach your objective.
 
How many years can you tank and it not affect the players you are developing negatively?

I get the need to lose so we can be at the top of draft and try our hands at a generational player. When you are a rebuilding small market team the draft is key. But, getting the first or even top three or four is not guaranteed.

We were the worst team in the west and tied for third worst record last year and still ended up with the 7th pick.

It's a gamble

Also, when you are rebuilding you need to develop players and that doesn't just mean their ability, but their confidence. Part of that is fostering a winning attitude.

Will our players want to stick around if we keep losing or leave for an opportunity to win elsewhere?

We will eventually have to pay our young players to keep them around. That means getting rid of other players and deciding who stays. It's a treadmill the Blazers have been on. The downfall of that is moving on from players before they fully develop, giving up on players, not keep guys around long enough to promote team chemistry.

It's a dangerous game.
 
PCmor7 said:
One other thing. I think we need to understand that there's a bigger NBA that we're just a part of.

What I mean by that is that the Blazers could be much, much better this year and it still not make a big dent in the win column just because there are a lot of really good teams in the West right now.

And not all those teams are going to stay that good. OKC's going to have to make decisions on which of its players to keep. The Lakers keep getting older, etc.

There also are several teams that are almost certain to be worse than the Blazers even if the Blazers trade Grant and/or Ayton. Are you willing to trade some of the under-25 players that we think right now can be part of a winning rotation on the chance that we get lucky in the lottery for Flagg?

We're at the stage where tanking starts to become the law of diminishing returns and to be bad enough to get a shot at a transcendent talent you have to eject some of the players that you need to reach your objective.
Click to expand...
We're going to need Stars to win big. We shouldn't be worrying about balancing the roster until we get stars. Once we have some stars we can balance the roster by trading duplicative talent for vets who will help.

If we end up with an anything outside of a 7-ish pick this season that will be a horrible wasted opportunity. Everyone expects us to be bad this year. Everyone.

We have this opportunity to add more talent and we should take it.

Unless you think we already have two legitimate stars... I don't see anybody on this team as having a good chance of being better than Dame.

Sharpe has a chance. But I wouldn't count on it. Nobody else is really even close...
 
Phatguysrule said:
We're going to need Stars to win big. We shouldn't be worrying about balancing the roster until we get stars. Once we have some stars we can balance the roster by trading duplicative talent for vets who will help.

If we end up with an anything outside of a 7-ish pick this season that will be a horrible wasted opportunity. Everyone expects us to be bad this year. Everyone.

We have this opportunity to add more talent and we should take it.

Unless you think we already have two legitimate stars... I don't see anybody on this team as having a good chance of being better than Dame.

Sharpe has a chance. But I wouldn't count on it. Nobody else is really even close...
Click to expand...
This draft is good and deep, so a 6 pick may not be much different than a 10/11, now maybe there becomes a top 3 or 4 that set themselves apart, we simply don't know yet
 
Blazinaway said:
This draft is good and deep, so a 6 pick may not be much different than a 10/11, now maybe there becomes a top 3 or 4 that set themselves apart, we simply don't know yet
Click to expand...
We don't know. That's exactly my point. And exactly why we should have already traded Simons and Grant.

We're trying to do this rebuild too fast. We're going to end up doing a half ass job of it.

We might be able to get a good player at 7. But that player would be on the board at 3 or 4 as well.

The only way to give yourself the best chance is to get rid of the mediocre players who can't help us win big but who can help us beat bad teams.

That also allows us to determine if the young guys we are drafting are actually good enough and have enough potential to keep long-term.

These are all healthy decisions that a young rebuilding team can make. But if they're worried about actually winning every single game because they have some middling vets who are not winning players but are too good to lose to really bad teams that short circuits the process.

It'll just be an absolute shame if we spend the next decade trying to win a first round series... Or maybe winning a first-round series but never making it out of the second round.
 
I still think the only way you get rid of players like Grant, Ayton or Simons (some think overvalued to build around) we would have to attach young ups and coming players like, Tou, Scoot, Walker, Murray or even Shae. If Atlanta offered a first & some for Shaedon & Simons not sure Id do it as you could be taking a net loss in the end.
 
This is projected to be a historical Draft. Watching very early season college film, Flagg, Bailey and Harper all look very legit. Traore and VJ also have looked very good at times and way above an average years #4-5 prospect.

Play the youngsters as much as possible. Find out what you've got. But any wins the Blazers get because of Ayton, Grant, Ant, Thybulle, Reath, etc is mostly a waste. Yes, the kids need to learn how to win, but they need to do it of their own volition. Help is on the way. Camara is already looking better. Sharpe was looking better in training camp until his injury (again). Scoot needs to show signs of improvement, you need to find out what Walker is, if Rupert will continue his growth curve, see what Kling Kong can do and if Avdija is a piece that can be a veteran to the youngsters, or is a trade piece for later.

Add to that a ridiculous bucket getter like Bailey (his ability to make shots is very advanced) an all-around playmaker like Flagg, a big floor general like Harper and this team starts to progress next year and the following year is a #6-8 Playoff team. By then, you have the future Draft picks you've traded for and whatever you got from Grant/Ant/Ayton/Thybulle, etc to add pieces to the foundation of your roster.

It will take time, but this year is the year to Draft that 'IT' player that propels them to the next level.
 
Chris Craig said:
How many years can you tank and it not affect the players you are developing negatively?

I get the need to lose so we can be at the top of draft and try our hands at a generational player. When you are a rebuilding small market team the draft is key. But, getting the first or even top three or four is not guaranteed.

We were the worst team in the west and tied for third worst record last year and still ended up with the 7th pick.

It's a gamble

Also, when you are rebuilding you need to develop players and that doesn't just mean their ability, but their confidence. Part of that is fostering a winning attitude.

Will our players want to stick around if we keep losing or leave for an opportunity to win elsewhere?

We will eventually have to put out young players to keep them around. That means getting rid of other players and deciding who stays. It's a treadmill the Blazers have been on. The downfall of that is moving on from players before they fully develop, giving up on players, not keep guys around long enough to promote team chemistry.

It's a dangerous game.
Click to expand...
Like the old saying goes. Everything before "But" is bullshit. Good post.
 
Hoopguru said:
I still think the only way you get rid of players like Grant, Ayton or Simons (some think overvalued to build around) we would have to attach young ups and coming players like, Tou, Scoot, Walker, Murray or even Shae. If Atlanta offered a first & some for Shaedon & Simons not sure Id do it as you could be taking a net loss in the end.
Click to expand...
We could have already traded Grant for a draft pick. We refused to do it.
 
Chris Craig said:
How many years can you tank and it not affect the players you are developing negatively?

I get the need to lose so we can be at the top of draft and try our hands at a generational player. When you are a rebuilding small market team the draft is key. But, getting the first or even top three or four is not guaranteed.

We were the worst team in the west and tied for third worst record last year and still ended up with the 7th pick.

It's a gamble

Also, when you are rebuilding you need to develop players and that doesn't just mean their ability, but their confidence. Part of that is fostering a winning attitude.

Will our players want to stick around if we keep losing or leave for an opportunity to win elsewhere?

We will eventually have to put out young players to keep them around. That means getting rid of other players and deciding who stays. It's a treadmill the Blazers have been on. The downfall of that is moving on from players before they fully develop, giving up on players, not keep guys around long enough to promote team chemistry.

It's a dangerous game.
Click to expand...
The game is dangerous. That's the nature of competition.

Drafting high to build your team is less dangerous than not. That's just math.
 
Chris Craig said:
How many years can you tank and it not affect the players you are developing negatively?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Is this team going to trot out Shaedon Sharpe for another full year and tell him to lose or he gets shut down? And then use the excuse of " We need to draft a player that will be great so you can play second fiddle to them".
At what point do you let the chips fall where they may?
 
kjironman1 said:
Exactly. Is this team going to trot out Shaedon Sharpe for another full year and tell him to lose or he gets shut down?
Click to expand...
Nobody is suggesting that. It's frankly disingenuous to frame the conversation that way.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Nobody is suggesting that. It's frankly disingenuous to frame the conversation that way.
Click to expand...
Excuse me???? What? They have done this for 2 years exactly already. Now he's hurt again and it's a shoulder that they can easily proclaim injured once again. Tell me again who is being "Disingenuous". There is someone who is here but it isn't me.
 
They should play as hard as they can through December, and then re-evaluate. A .500+ record at New Years' means we go for it, and .499 or below means we tank.... ish
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Do we even want the #1 pick? Isn't it a cursed chalice for Portland?
Click to expand...

Blazers got #1 pick in 1974; three years later they win their only championship with that #1 pick being the Finals MVP. All you need to do is hit on it once and the curse is lifted forever

Portland's #1 picks:

1972 - Larue Martin (a top-3 brain-dead decision)
1974 - Bill Walton
1978 - Mychal Thompson (arguably, 2nd best player in the draft behind Boston getting Larry Bird at #7 using a loophole that was subsequently closed)
2007 - Greg Oden

don't see a curse...just seeing a stupid decision followed by a pick that won a championship; followed by a solid choice; followed by a decision ignoring medical advice and the worst possible outcome. Should of honked twice
 
Chris Craig said:
How many years can you tank and it not affect the players you are developing negatively?

I get the need to lose so we can be at the top of draft and try our hands at a generational player. When you are a rebuilding small market team the draft is key. But, getting the first or even top three or four is not guaranteed.

We were the worst team in the west and tied for third worst record last year and still ended up with the 7th pick.

It's a gamble

Also, when you are rebuilding you need to develop players and that doesn't just mean their ability, but their confidence. Part of that is fostering a winning attitude.

Will our players want to stick around if we keep losing or leave for an opportunity to win elsewhere?

We will eventually have to put out young players to keep them around. That means getting rid of other players and deciding who stays. It's a treadmill the Blazers have been on. The downfall of that is moving on from players before they fully develop, giving up on players, not keep guys around long enough to promote team chemistry.

It's a dangerous game.
Click to expand...

Giving a team a winning attitude and promoting team chemistry is the coach's job.

See Jack Ramsey's first year as Blazer head coach for example.

If the Spurs decide to tank again this year, which it looks like they are, are we really worried about Wemby's development and confidence?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Giving a team a winning attitude and promoting team chemistry is the coach's job.

See Jack Ramsey's first year as Blazer head coach for example.

If the Spurs decide to tank again this year, which it looks like they are, are we really worried about Wemby's development and confidence?
Click to expand...

Don't give two craps about other teams development and confidence. Just ours.

Sure, it's the coaches responsibility but the initiative and instruction to lose can effect the coaches ability to carry that out.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Lol. I guess nobody is talking to anybody until a trade happens then.
Click to expand...
I really haven't heard about any offers for Grant? If it was a possible top 12 pick id probably do it, if not for just financial reasons. I just think unless there is a generational wired talent a tank strategy is more than 3-5 years more like 8-10 years and with the Blazers being the big ticket in town not sure we could endure a 8-10 year tank. I read at an article that when the Sonics were sold and they ended up with Durant their main strategy was to lose fans so that they could relocate even though they had Ray Allen and others. Im not opposed to tanking this year at all but would be against another 3-5 years after this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top