Athletic article on Cronin

[Mediocre Man]

I have no idea if I’m allowed to copy and paste articles, but it’s good and explains a lot of moves and maybe moves to come

 

[crandc]

Could you please post a link?

 

[Mediocre Man]

https://theathletic.com/3321234/202...-joe-cronin-draft/?source=user_shared_article

 

[Hoopguru]

https://theathletic.com/3321234/202...-joe-cronin-draft/?source=user_shared_article

They charge.
Would you mind paraphrasing what then article is about? Thanks

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I have no idea if I’m allowed to copy and paste articles, but it’s good and explains a lot of moves and maybe moves to come

It's been done here many times, don't be shy!

 

[craigehlo]

It's nothing new. Quotes from when Cronin was introduced as interim GM. Then he says the Blazers could trade the pick or they could use the pick. It seems like an article Quick needed to poop out but couldn't get anyone from the Blazers on record.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

If the Blazers are smart right now the very last person they will speak to will be Jason Quick.

 

[Propagandist]

If the Blazers are smart right now the very last person they will speak to will be Jason Quick.

Have you read any of his Athletic articles? They’re pretty informative, insightful, and well written.

 

[illmatic99]

It's just a summary of his quotes from the exit interview. Nothing new.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Have you read any of his Athletic articles? They’re pretty informative, insightful, and well written.

Oh boy. Here we go.
Yes Quick can inform you. He uses insight. Jason Quick writes well.

He is also a snake.

 

[BigGameDamian]

https://theathletic.com/3321234/2022/05/18/trail-blazers-joe-cronin-draft/?amp=1

When Joe Cronin took over the Trail Blazers in December, there was a word that kept surfacing, first by Cronin, and then by those who had worked with him over the years: risk.

Cronin’s former colleagues said he was the one in the room who would always want to take a risk on the players with high ceilings, even if they were unpolished at the time. He would rather strike out taking a swing at a potential home-run player than play it safe by pursuing a proven but unspectacular player.

And in December, after he was named interim general manager and charged with changing the course of a stagnant roster, Cronin kept bringing up the concept of taking risks.

“Risk means doing deals that might not be embraced by the pundits,” Cronin told The Athletic on Dec. 9, five days after he was named interim general manager. “It means you might increase your downside, but it gives you an opportunity to raise your ceiling. Those are the deals I’m interested in.”

Two months later, at the February trading deadline, those words from December rang true: Cronin pulled off a series of trades that were largely viewed as risky by a fanbase accustomed to postseason appearances.

In moves made largely — but not entirely — for financial reasons, Cronin traded CJ McCollum, Norman Powell, Robert Covington and Larry Nance Jr. The immediate return — ostensibly Josh Hartand Justise Winslow — was nowhere equal. And that’s where the risk comes in.

Cronin made those moves to create room for him to take those big swings he so desires. And even though his big plan was somewhat neutered when New Orleans made the playoffs, preventing its first-round pick from going to Portland, Cronin is still armed with the seventh pick in next month’s NBA Draft and some flexibility to sign his own free agents (Anfernee Simons, Jusuf Nurkić), as well as some exceptions to perhaps entice teams to unload proven players for financial relief.

Earlier this month he was promoted, the interim tag erased and a multi-year contract signed. His next decision will be the seventh pick, and after scouring three in-depth interviews with Cronin over the last six months, here are some possible tells that could indicate how he will handle the pick.

Blazers trade the pick
This seems the most likely scenario based on Cronin’s repeated intention of returning the Blazers to a playoff contender as he assembles talent around Damian Lillard. The day after the Blazers’ 27-55 season — which included a 2-21 finish after the All-Star break — ended, Cronin was asked how he would view the Blazers’ pick.

“The preference is to maximize that pick,” Cronin said. “We will dive in and evaluate film and assess value to that pick. Then you can compare that to what is available on the marketplace, and then make a decision.”

Like all the other lottery teams, the Blazers were hoping for a top-four pick because it’s widely accepted there is a drop in talent after Jabari Smith, Chet Holmgren, Paolo Banchero and Jaden Ivey. There will be talented players available at seven, but will they be impact players right away, while the Blazers are trying to make the most of Lillard’s window of opportunity?

“We want to win; we want to be really competitive next year,” Cronin said. “You are more likely to win with veteran players than young players, so that will definitely be a part of our decision-making process.”

That’s a pretty big tell, but as Cronin noted that same April day, “it takes two to tango” in making a trade.

The ability to find a trade partner and execute a trade is where it becomes interesting regarding Cronin. One thing I’m not sure people understand about him is he is not some rube when it comes to orchestrating a trade. As Cronin explained to me in December, former GM Neil Olshey empowered him behind the scenes.

“There are certain people you have relationships with around the league, people you know who you can work with,” Cronin said. “So you talk about ideas, and as those conversations start, if they got to a certain point, I would connect with Neil (and say), ‘Hey, Neil, I talked to Team X, and there might be something with this guy, or that guy.’ Then Neil would say, ‘Go back to them; let’s ask if they will do this …'”

“So, have I done a deal by myself? No. But we never do it by ourselves,” Cronin said in December. “We are constantly talking and working together. But have I been a point man? Definitely. Many times.”

Agents have told me that some front office executives feel as if Cronin got played in his first two trades, especially by the Clippers. Others inside the Blazers organization have told me the market for the Blazers’ players was low because the salaries didn’t match the production, and therefore Cronin did well.

Cronin noted at the trade deadline that he tried to hunt big-name players, but he felt going ahead with the proposed deals didn’t make sense. He insinuated that Portland would likely revisit those deals in the summer, and judging by reporting from The Athletic’s James Edwards in Detroit, it’s safe to assume the Blazers will revisit a Jerami Grant trade either before or after the NBA Draft.

The big swing for potential
In December, Cronin told The Athletic he doesn’t like to pigeonhole players or commit to a certain style of player.

“Players come in many different shapes and sizes,” Cronin said. “I don’t have a foundation of what kind of player I like; I just want to get the most talented player as possible. But with that, you want to find the right fit and the right mentality.”

It reminded me of what different colleagues who worked with him as he rose from intern to scout to salary cap analyst and then assistant general manager told me: As the group leaned toward the safe, four-year college prospect, Cronin was always the guy bringing the conversation back to the raw, emerging, young talent who needed development but could turn out to be a star.

I asked him about sticking his neck out in those meetings and advocating for the unproven players.

“I’m okay missing if I thought it gave us a good chance to bump up a whole another level,” Cronin said. “I’m okay risking taking a step back when we are taking a swing.”

That brings us back to the seventh pick and the player who is beginning to be labeled the “mystery” man of the draft: 19-year-old Shaedon Sharpe. If there is a player who meets Cronin’s high-ceiling, high-risk/high reward appeal, Sharpe is it.

A 6-foot-6 forward from Canada who practiced but didn’t play for Kentucky this season, Sharpe is a wild card because teams haven’t seen him compete in a game against top competition. After Kentucky’s season ended with Sharpe only practicing, coach John Calipari told reporters: “Would he have been a good player this year? Yeah, he’d have been pretty good. He’d have been pretty good.”

The day before the lottery, Cronin attended Sharpe’s solo workout for league talent evaluators in Chicago. The Athletic’s Sam Vecenie says of Sharpe: “A high-upside gamble because of his potential as a wing shot-creator. He looks every bit like a future NBA star wing, combining elite length with terrific hops.”

The question here is whether Sharpe will be available at seven. The top four picks are almost a given. Detroit is picking at five — and like Cronin, Pistons GM Troy Weaver leans toward unproven players with big upside — but if Sharpe survives five and six, he sure seems like a Cronin pick at seven.

Best player available
If Cronin can’t find a trade, and if Sharpe doesn’t last to seven, expect Cronin to pick the most talented player, regardless of position. The Blazers right now need depth at power forward, center and small forward, but in February, Cronin said he can’t pigeonhole need if he has a high pick.

“We have to balance the roster, no doubt. But the No. 1 thing is we have to get more talent,” he said. “We can’t take talent for granted.”

Cronin says that will hold true even if the best player available turns out to be at a position where the Blazers are set.

“If there is a two guard that is head and shoulders above the other positions, I’m taking the two guard, then (figuring) it out,” Cronin said. “But the talent part, I can’t dismiss to be able to compete at the level we want to compete at.”

Some players who could be available at seven include Arizona wing Bennedict Mathurin (6-foot-6, 19 years old), Baylor forward Jeremy Sochan (6-9, 18), Duke forward AJ Griffin (6-6, 18) and Memphis center Jalen Duren (6-11, 18). Cronin this week is in Chicago at the NBA Draft Combine, where he is conducting interviews, gathering medical information and watching workouts.

“From a straight basketball perspective, I think it’s a solid draft,” Cronin said in April. “The depth of the talent is intriguing to me.

 

[Bingo Bango]

Every “risky” move by Cronin has made the Blazers worse. I don’t have a lot of faith in him, but I hope I’m wrong.

 

[Tince]

Every “risky” move by Cronin has made the Blazers worse. I don’t have a lot of faith in him, but I hope I’m wrong.

By every, do you mean "both" moves?

Or are we counting signings like Eubanks?

 

[Propagandist]

Oh boy. Here we go.
Yes Quick can inform you. He uses insight. Jason Quick writes well.

He is also a snake.

Here we go, what? I don't like Quick the person anymore than the next guy. But who else covers the team indepthly these days?

I don't even get the snake thing, really. He's a journalist, not some sycophant like Chris Haynes.

 

[Propagandist]

Every “risky” move by Cronin has made the Blazers worse. I don’t have a lot of faith in him, but I hope I’m wrong.

I think you might be missing the point thus far...

 

[Bingo Bango]

By every, do you mean "both" moves?

Three moves:

Trading away a bunch of players and getting very little in return.

Trading for the New Orleans pick and losing it.

Tanking the last half of the season but still missing out on one of the top 4 picks.

 

[Tince]

Three moves:

Trading away a bunch of players and getting very little in return.

Trading for the New Orleans pick and losing it.

Tanking the last half of the season but still missing out on one of the top 4 picks.

• I can see your point on the 1st one. Though given the circumstances, there can be some debate there.
• They never lost the NOP because they never had it. They got it if it fell between 4-13.
• Tanking got them the 7th pick vs the 10th-12th pick. Not sure how that's a net negative.

Basically the last two things were probability based and it's probably more safe to say the Blazers got unlucky rather than made a bad move. Your first point about talent reduction is valid though. Basically Cronin traded locked 5th-9th seeds for the next 3 years for a hard reset.

Just curious, were you good running it back a couple more years? I can't recall your overall stance.

 

[PCmor7]

• They never lost the NOP because they never had it. They got it if it fell between 4-13.

That's kind of disingenuous, isn't it? I think everyone knows the Blazers made that trade with the LIKELY return of a late lottery pick as the centerpiece of their return. Unless you're trying to say the Blazers were content to trade CJ and Larry Nance for Josh Hart and scraps, which makes Cronin seem like an even bigger inept buffoon than he already does.

 

[Bingo Bango]

• They never lost the NOP because they never had it. They got it if it fell between 4-13.
• Tanking got them the 7th pick vs the 10th-12th pick. Not sure how that's a net negative

Huh? The New Orleans pick was one of the ways Cronin justified trading away so much talent. Not getting the pick was a failure of his strategy. It was a risk that failed.

Getting the 7th pick was another failure of his strategy. He himself called it a “gut punch.” The Blazers were hoping to move into the Top 4, where all the talent was, but instead they stayed right where they had been predicted to pick. The talent drop-off after the top 4 is significant, and I doubt there’s really that much difference between the 7th pick and the 15th pick. Certainly not enough to justify throwing away the second half of the season.

 

[PCmor7]

Huh? The New Orleans pick was one of the ways Cronin justified trading away so much talent. Not getting the pick was a failure of his strategy. It was a risk that failed.

Getting the 7th pick was another failure of his strategy. He himself called it a “gut punch.” The Blazers were hoping to move into the Top 4, where all the talent was, but instead they stayed right where they had been predicted to pick. The talent drop-off after the top 4 is significant, and I doubt there’s really that much difference between the 7th pick and the 15th pick. Certainly not enough to justify throwing away the second half of the season.

It's been talked about to death: NO had two picks that were going to be around the early teens, probably. Cronin could have worked some kind of contingency into the deal to make it for the Laker pick if the Pels' pick didn't convey. Or, at least, something better than the Bucks pick in three years.

Cronin put all his eggs in one basket and lost. I'm not sure how anyone can try to act like this wasn't the case.

 

[andalusian]

It's been talked about to death: NO had two picks that were going to be around the early teens, probably. Cronin could have worked some kind of contingency into the deal to make it for the Laker pick if the Pels' pick didn't convey. Or, at least, something better than the Bucks pick in three years.

I am no CBA expert but I believe a trade can not be finalized until the specific picks traded are defined (it is ok to put a protection on a pick, but it has to be defined what that pick is) - so the options were

1. Choose between the LAL and NOP picks - and it was reasonable to choose the NOP pick at the time with Zion being out and the expectations that LAL would get better once they got healthy

2. Have NOP trade both picks which I suspect NOP rejected.

So, this sounds like a fantasy instead of an actual option. If someone who is better versed in the CBA can show it otherwise, I think this is how trades work in the NBA.

As for other contingencies - not sure it was possible given the pick swaps that NOP is committed to until 2025, but again, not sure about it as far as the CBA is concerned.

At the end of the day, it was a reasonable gamble to take and it backfired. Shit happens. I much rather have a GM who is not completely risk averse.

 

[PCmor7]

I am no CBA expert but I believe a trade can not be finalized until the specific picks traded are defined (it is ok to put a protection on a pick, but it has to be defined what that pick is) - so the options were

1. Choose between the LAL and NOP picks - and it was reasonable to choose the NOP pick at the time with Zion being out and the expectations that LAL would get better once they got healthy

2. Have NOP trade both picks which I suspect NOP rejected.

So, this sounds like a fantasy instead of an actual option. If someone who is better versed in the CBA can show it otherwise, I think this is how trades work in the NBA.

Perhaps there's something to that. If that was the case, though, then how could you get the Bucks' pick in 2025? Because that's contingent on the Pels' pick not conveying, too.

For instance, if the Pels' pick doesn't convey, the Blazers get this year's Lakers' pick. Wouldn't that work the same way?

 

[andalusian]

Perhaps there's something to that. If that was the case, though, then how could you get the Bucks' pick in 2025? Because that's contingent on the Pels' pick not conveying, too.

For instance, if the Pels' pick doesn't convey, the Blazers get this year's Lakers' pick. Wouldn't that work the same way?

That's what I said, they had to name the picks that will convey. They named them based on protection and NOP agreed to 1 pick, this year and if does not convey, the 2025 MIL pick (that's still 1 pick). I suspect they were not willing to commit to 2 picks - and you probably can not do a protection and fallback for the same year on multiple picks - I have never seen that done.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Trades have "best available" provisions on picks all the time. Why couldn't they have done that here?

 

[wizenheimer]

I am no CBA expert but I believe a trade can not be finalized until the specific picks traded are defined (it is ok to put a protection on a pick, but it has to be defined what that pick is) - so the options were

1. Choose between the LAL and NOP picks - and it was reasonable to choose the NOP pick at the time with Zion being out and the expectations that LAL would get better once they got healthy

2. Have NOP trade both picks which I suspect NOP rejected.

So, this sounds like a fantasy instead of an actual option. If someone who is better versed in the CBA can show it otherwise, I think this is how trades work in the NBA.

As for other contingencies - not sure it was possible given the pick swaps that NOP is committed to until 2025, but again, not sure about it as far as the CBA is concerned.

At the end of the day, it was a reasonable gamble to take and it backfired. Shit happens. I much rather have a GM who is not completely risk averse.

I think that a reasonable alternative option could have been a trade for the better of the Pels and Laker picks this season, both top-4 protected. But it's possible that was actually discussed and Cronin decided the Milwaukee pick had a much better chance to convey

quite a bit of hindsight to that 2nd guessing because at the time of the trade the Lakers were only 1/2 game behind LAC for the 8th seed and AD had just come back from injury. They were, IIRC, the 14th seed at the time and the Pels only possessed that pick if the Lakers collapsed all the way into the top-10. Dropping from 14 to 8 was a fairly historic collapse. In other words, if Cronin assumed the Milwaukee pick had a better chance to convey it seems like a solid assumption

 

[Tince]

That's kind of disingenuous, isn't it? I think everyone knows the Blazers made that trade with the LIKELY return of a late lottery pick as the centerpiece of their return. Unless you're trying to say the Blazers were content to trade CJ and Larry Nance for Josh Hart and scraps, which makes Cronin seem like an even bigger inept buffoon than he already does.

You actually just made my third bullet point (which you left out in your quote) for me by saying LIKELY return of the pick. I agree with you that the Blazers were likely to get the NOP pick, but they didn't. So the trade that was made had high probability and the Blazers got unlucky, which shouldn't count as a bad move when the percentages were in their favor. Right?

The bullet point you quoted is accurate though. The Blazers never had the NOP's pick, just a high probablility of getting it. No different than the year we had the worst record in the NBA, with a high probablility of finishing top 3, and ended up with the 4th pick. Bad luck.

 

[Tince]

Huh? The New Orleans pick was one of the ways Cronin justified trading away so much talent. Not getting the pick was a failure of his strategy. It was a risk that failed.

Did you think the NOPs pick was likely to convey when we made the trade? If so, it's not the trade you're upset with, it's the bad luck. It's the Lakers collapsing and it's PG13 getting covid the day before the game, when basically nobody was missing games due to covid at that point. And even then, NOP barely won the play-in game.

An extreme example would be, if I told you that you could bet me $1 and in bag there were 95 green ping pong balls and 5 red ping pong balls. If you pull a green one, you win $20, but if you pull a red one, you win nothing. I'm guessing you'd take that bet (if you're decent at math). Now, if you pulled a red ping pong ball, that didn't make your wager bad, it just means you got unlucky. It doesn't mean your risk failed, it means you were misfortunate.

A coach who draws up a great play, to get their best shooter a wide open 3ft shot, who ends up missing, doesn't mean the play failed, it means on that individual circumstance went against the probability.

 

[Predator]

Just because we didn’t get a top 4 pick doesn’t mean Joe Cronin made the “wrong” decision by tanking. It still increased the value of our pick. And I’m not some Joe Cronin apologist (look at the avatar).

Side note: “All” the talent is not in the top 4 picks and I would almost call anyone who actually believes that incredibly stupid. I will *guarantee* that in 5-10 years that there will be a player drafted outside the top 4 where people go, “how was he picked at number x?” and players outside the top 10 would be drafted in the top 10 in a “redraft”.

 

[Bingo Bango]

Did you think the NOPs pick was likely to convey when we made the trade? If so, it's not the trade you're upset with, it's the bad luck. It's the Lakers collapsing and it's PG13 getting covid the day before the game, when basically nobody was missing games due to covid at that point. And even then, NOP barely won the play-in game.

An extreme example would be, if I told you that you could bet me $1 and in bag there were 95 green ping pong balls and 5 red ping pong balls. If you pull a green one, you win $20, but if you pull a red one, you win nothing. I'm guessing you'd take that bet (if you're decent at math). Now, if you pulled a red ping pong ball, that didn't make your wager bad, it just means you got unlucky. It doesn't mean your risk failed, it means you were misfortunate.

A coach who draws up a great play, to get their best shooter a wide open 3ft shot, who ends up missing, doesn't mean the play failed, it means on that individual circumstance went against the probability.

Oh, please. Let’s just admit that Cronin gambled and lost. It was a dumb trade and he came out looking dumb. Period. The guy doesn’t know how to do deals.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

That's kind of disingenuous, isn't it? I think everyone knows the Blazers made that trade with the LIKELY return of a late lottery pick as the centerpiece of their return. Unless you're trying to say the Blazers were content to trade CJ and Larry Nance for Josh Hart and scraps, which makes Cronin seem like an even bigger inept buffoon than he already does.

If he trades 7 for Grant, he'll be adding to this.