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
Hoopguru said:
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.
Click to expand...
How would we know if it's potential top 12 pick until the deal happens?

They were almost certainly having talks and the Blazers were clear that they wanted two first round picks.
 
Everything Beagle said:
I mean, if Sean Buttcannon says there's smoke...
Click to expand...
He was certainly right on the Ayton deal. He was pretty damned accurate on all the Miami BS, which has even been confirmed by Bill Simmons.

I think trying to pretend that the Lakers weren't interested for a pick is kind of silly. But I also get that losing is hard. And we want to believe that we might be able to shortcut this thing and stop the suck.

Again, it's going to be really disappointing when we can barely crack the second round and get knocked out of the play-in nearly every season.
 
Phatguysrule said:
How would we know if it's potential top 12 pick until the deal happens?

They were almost certainly having talks and the Blazers were clear that they wanted two first round picks.
Click to expand...
What team are you talking about, Im not aware of any possible deal for Grant. I heard that lakers could be a team interested but haven't heard anything serious?
 
Chris Craig said:
How many years can you tank and it not affect the players you are developing negatively?
Click to expand...

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? 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?
Click to expand...

can you make a list of all the NBA players (or even 4 or 5) who failed because they played on bad teams as youngsters and developed "losing" attitudes, and not because of flaws in their talent.

you guys are just pumping out this theory as as a justification for your POV without offering a shred of evidence that the theory has any merit at all. I don't believe it does, obviously

I don't even know what you guys are arguing in favor of. Looks like it's that Portland should just run with Simons-Grant-Ayton as the featured players on the team, hogging a lion's share of shots and usage; maybe win 35-40 games a year forcing the Blazers to the back end of lotteries; then resign those players to 40M/year deals when their contracts are up. Yeah, my theory of what your advocating for

what about these young guys watching Simons never play defense? or Simons and Grant being ball-hogs? or Ayton being a poor rim protector and passer. Maybe watching that kind of shit year after year has a bigger long term impact than a few years in the lottery
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a lot of this to this.

In the current environment, the Blazers need to build primarily through the draft. That means having a great scouting department (I think we have that covered), some luck with the picks we get and a couple of really good developmental coaches on our staff.

But, to really make that pay off, you need to build a culture. You need to acquire good players who want to be here and you need to be smart in how you refresh the role players on your roster as they come and go. But you need to be a place where good players want to stay.

The Blazers template should be the Spurs, not the Pistons.
 
wizenheimer said:
can you make a list of all the NBA players (or even 4 or 5) who failed because they played on bad teams as youngsters and developed "losing" attitudes, and not because of flaws in their talent.
Click to expand...

Darius Miles.
 
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...

And we also have not just the salary cap but the salary floor to navigate. You're invariably going to have some older guys or bad contracts on the roster. And if you keep cycling out young players because you aren't "bad enough" yet, I think you end up treading water.

What happens if you finally get that generational talent but you kept selling off assets to try to get him that he ends up playing with a bunch of players like Greg Brown?
 
Hoopguru said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think we'd be able to tank for another 3 to 5 years. DC has been good enough that I think he might be a very good starter for a championship caliber team.

We'll see how the rest of the season goes.

I think we've got this year and possibly one more. After that all of our young guys will be two developed and they will win their way to the playoffs. If we get two more guys with the kind of potential that our last three picks have will be able to win in the playoffs.
 
Last edited:
PCmor7 said:
And we also have not just the salary cap but the salary floor to navigate. You're invariably going to have some older guys or bad contracts on the roster. And if you keep cycling out young players because you aren't "bad enough" yet, I think you end up treading water.

What happens if you finally get that generational talent but you kept selling off assets to try to get him that he ends up playing with a bunch of players like Greg Brown?
Click to expand...
Nobody is suggesting we cycle out young players... I'm not sure where that is coming from.
 
kjironman1 said:
You obviously posted something you didn't actually read. First sentence is what tells the story. "Blazers are trying to get". Not offered.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the Blazers were just knocking the Lakers door down trying to extract two picks out of them. Because that's how you get good value.

I posted multiple links on this by now. There were dozens of links posted before. Feel free to read back a few months and figure it out.

*Added green font*
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
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.
Click to expand...

This rebuild is going to take at least five years on its current pace. If that's too fast for you, I don't know what to say. You're going to be at the point where the first players you brought in are going to be too old for your competitive window by the time you feel it's complete.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
Didn't Miles fail because his knee blew up? He was on the rise here in Portland until he got injured... He was an idiot though...
Click to expand...

Nah, his knee was fine early in his career. If you put a young Darius on a team like the Spurs he could have made the all star team once or twice.

With a bad knee he once scored 47pts off the bench in Portland.
 
PCmor7 said:
This rebuild is going to take at least five years on its current pace. If that's too fast for you, I don't know what to say. You're going to be at the point where the first players you brought in are going to be too old for you competitive window by the time you feel it's complete.
Click to expand...
But the question is what quality of talent do you add during that 5 years? If we get an 11 and 12 pick the next two seasons instead of maybe a top 5 that's a significant loss of potential value.

That could be the difference between having Simons and Grant on the team or not.
 
Last edited:
PCmor7 said:
This rebuild is going to take at least five years on its current pace. If that's too fast for you, I don't know what to say. You're going to be at the point where the first players you brought in are going to be too old for you competitive window by the time you feel it's complete.
Click to expand...
Exactly! You gotta make the decision to compete at some point. I'm not saying it's this year because by all appearances it's not. Tank this year but they got to try to win eventually.
 
kjironman1 said:
Exactly! You gotta make the decision to compete at some point. I'm not saying it's this year because by all appearances it's not. Tank this year but they got to try to win eventually.
Click to expand...
Nobody is suggesting that we shouldn't try to win eventually.
 
Phatguysrule said:
But the question is what quality of talent do you add during that 5 years? If we get an 11 and 12 pic the next two seasons instead of maybe a top 5 that's a significant loss of potential value.

That could be the difference between having Simons and Grant on the team or not.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think many disagree with you on getting rid of Simons or Grant or even both at some point. I actually think this trade deadline is the ticket. I also think after those trades you see full on tank again.
 
wizenheimer said:
can you make a list of all the NBA players (or even 4 or 5) who failed because they played on bad teams as youngsters and developed "losing" attitudes, and not because of flaws in their talent.
Click to expand...

Honestly, there probably a lot of guys that fit that demographic. We just don't know because we don't follow the ins and outs of every other team that closely and they were players who failed -- there are a lot more draft picks that bust or underachieve than hit, so none of us know the big reasons why they missed.

But I'm sure there are a number of players that stepped into situations where there was no veteran leadership or such dramatic roster turnover by incompetent management that it contributed to their detriment because they never learned the nuances needed to become a winner at this level where everyone is so gifted.
 
We've been pretty active wit the trade of Dame and also the drafting of Shae, Scoot and now Don. Two sevens and a three. And this year Im sure we will be in the lotto mix. Check out the last 10 years of #1 picks not one has been won a ship yet. Not saying they won't. Some damn good players and only one I deem generational.
 
kjironman1 said:
I honestly don't think many disagree with you on getting rid of Simons or Grant or even both at some point. I actually think this trade deadline is the ticket. I also think after those trades you see full on tank again.
Click to expand...
And my problem with that is that is going to cost us some serious lotto odds... Which is unfortunate.
 
wizenheimer said:
in his first 5 seasons, he played on teams that won 35, 39, and 41 games

but do you believe he'd been a better player or had healthier knees if he'd played on teams that averaged 45 wins?
Click to expand...
I think his whole attitude problem was part of the people he played with yes. I wonder if he had better leadership around him if he would have handled the rehab differently and extended his career?
 
PCmor7 said:
Honestly, there probably a lot of guys that fit that demographic. We just don't know because we don't follow the ins and outs of every other team that closely and they were players who failed -- there are a lot more draft picks that bust or underachieve than hit, so none of us know the big reasons why they missed.

But I'm sure there are a number of players that stepped into situations where there was no veteran leadership or such dramatic roster turnover by incompetent management that it contributed to their detriment because they never learned the nuances needed to become a winner at this level where everyone is so gifted.
Click to expand...

ok...that's my point. It's an unproven theory that some people just suspect has to be true. Maybe it is, to some degree, but I am unconvinced
 
Hoopguru said:
We've been pretty active wit the trade of Dame and also the drafting of Shae, Scoot and now Don. Two sevens and a three. And this year Im sure we will be in the lotto mix. Check out the last 10 years of #1 picks not one has been won a ship yet. Not saying they won't. Some damn good players and only one I deem generational.
Click to expand...
It's definitely a long-term thing. We won't win a championship probably in the next 10 years. But we could be incredibly competitive for 20 years on the strength of this rebuild if we do it right. And maybe get some championships along the way.
 
kjironman1 said:
I think his whole attitude problem was part of the people he played with yes. I wonder if he had better leadership around him if he would have handled the rehab differently and extended his career?
Click to expand...
That could definitely be a Ricky Davis thing...
 
kjironman1 said:
I honestly don't think many disagree with you on getting rid of Simons or Grant or even both at some point. I actually think this trade deadline is the ticket. I also think after those trades you see full on tank again.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of that depends on a couple of things: First, where are the Blazers and second, what's the market for Simons and Grant?

Trading off players who are playing well just for unknowns isn't the way to build a winning team. Don't presume if you have the worst record that you're going to have the first pick, don't presume that top pick is going to turn out to be measurably better than the seventh and don't presume any of them are going to be better players or better for your organization than the players you're jettisoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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