Blazers Give Sharpe a Promise?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
i am not trolling, but I am just not terribly hopeful for this org. carry on.
 
Cugel said:
how else do they get him? No one would have guessed we would trade cj for a pick in the high 20s in 3 years time.
Click to expand...

Most fans outside of Portland didn't think Portland would get any kind of 1st in a CJ McCollum trade. Most expected a swap for Tobias Harris (another garbage salary for the player you got). The CJ return really wasn't bad for the amount of salary cap that he eats up and the production that you got. If you want to slam the Clippers trade, fair enough, but the CJ trade was a solid return.
 
Oh man, if Sharpe is available and they pass him up, this place might end the internet.
 
riverman said:
When Lamarcus left for nothing it was a much bigger letdown and we survived...there's hope for the internet
Click to expand...

True, but the draft is a special different beast. It'll be the end of the internet, just you watch!

I have 5 bucks on @Natebishop3 holding up an air soft gun to a picture of "the internet".
 
Mediocre Man said:
Maybe they like Daniels, Mathurin, Duren, Griffin, Sochan better?
Click to expand...

Ha, you act like this place has ever shown the ability to think calm and rationale about stuff like this.
 
Fitz303 said:
Most fans outside of Portland didn't think Portland would get any kind of 1st in a CJ McCollum trade. Most expected a swap for Tobias Harris (another garbage salary for the player you got). The CJ return really wasn't bad for the amount of salary cap that he eats up and the production that you got. If you want to slam the Clippers trade, fair enough, but the CJ trade was a solid return.
Click to expand...
This is revisionism and untrue.

The Oregonian gathered media grades at the time:

CBS Sportse: D
The Athletic: B
SB Nation: C-
Sports Illustrated: C+
Sporting News: C+
USA Today: B+​

I don't think that (about a C average) is considered a "solid return". And that was before NO made the playoffs... the return was dismal at the time, and is even worse now. I'm not a big fan of CJ, but he is a good player and his value would have gone up as his contract got shorter... moving him for that was just not smart.
 
Someone is really going to look stupid on draft night.
Me (and Cronin if he actually trades #7 for Grant) or all of you who have been so adamant that it will happen.

Liking Grant and trading #7 for him are not close to being the same thing.
 
Ed O said:
This is revisionism and untrue.

The Oregonian gathered media grades at the time:

CBS Sportse: D
The Athletic: B
SB Nation: C-
Sports Illustrated: C+
Sporting News: C+
USA Today: B+​

I don't think that (about a C average) is considered a "solid return". And that was before NO made the playoffs... the return was dismal at the time, and is even worse now. I'm not a big fan of CJ, but he is a good player and his value would have gone up as his contract got shorter... moving him for that was just not smart.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite true. I said, most "fans" outside of Portland. Nobody outside of the Portland bubble expected the Blazers to get much back for CJ.

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2165166&hilit=Cj pelicans blazers
 
People started melting down when Joe tore it down to the studs and tanked. Before they were melting down because Neil didn't tear it down to the studs and tank. Melting down is a one way dead end street....it can happen every time we lose two games in a row. It's why kjironman started that meltdown thread....we've got draft picks and trade assets...feels pretty good to me so far. I wasn't that heavily invested in the Roco Norm CJ pairing and Nance couldn't stay on the court...I love Winslow and Hart and Didi and Keon aren't bad projects. All in all I think we're going to have a better team when the dust settles and a core that can become our next Dame Wes Nico Lamarcus Rolo core...one that has an identity.....I never felt that the last couple seasons. I felt like Stotts just had to keep searching for the fab five and they just weren't there.
 
illmatic99 said:
hence the risk... and the boom/bust potential. how much risk are you willing to endure for a chance at an elite scorer who could potentially put up 25 ppg in year 3? Given how far we are from contending, is there anyone else on the board in our range who can reach this level?
Click to expand...

It's a dangerously fine line between risk-reward and wishful thinking. Even if he pans out, we have next to no information pointing to him being a 25 PPG guy.

glazeduck said:
Not sure who "we" is, but if you can't understand how Sharpe's situation could potentially hide his talent, I'm not sure what else to say to you. I'm not advocating for specifically drafting him because he didn't play last year, simply that his situation could be the largest contributor for why he's available at 7...
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I said. Undoubtedly, never taking the court in college hid his talent ... and his flaws. We know zilch about him, unlike all the other one-and-done guys who showed us what they still need to work on.

theprunetang said:
View attachment 48048

I'll just leave this zoomed in picture of Dame's face and let you decided what he's thinking here.
Click to expand...

He's thinking, "so that's what I would look like if I grew my hair out."
 
handiman said:
That's not at all what I said. Undoubtedly, never taking the court in college hid his talent ... and his flaws. We know zilch about him, unlike all the other one-and-done guys who showed us what they still need to work on.
Click to expand...

Of course it hides his flaws, but that's kind of missing the entire point that I was making. In that hypothetical situation, you're swinging for the fences for another star, so you're basically saying ignore the negatives and potential negatives and focus only on the positives. Sharpe has those, and its the maybe only imaginary negatives and uncertainty that is baked into his cost to be there at 7. You're taking an informed risk that the guy you're drafting should be (as more than a few draft people have suggested) the #1 pick, were it not for his situation.

You're not worried about striking out here...
 
riverman said:
I'm just glad Joe brought in the draft whisperer Schmidtz from ESPN....gives me a ton of confidence in how they handle this offseason. the Oliva from the Jazz hiring was supposed to be a good one as well...impressive staff he's putting together
Click to expand...
Yep. This staff gives me hope for talent evaluation
 
Ed O said:
This is revisionism and untrue.

The Oregonian gathered media grades at the time:

CBS Sportse: D
The Athletic: B
SB Nation: C-
Sports Illustrated: C+
Sporting News: C+
USA Today: B+​

I don't think that (about a C average) is considered a "solid return". And that was before NO made the playoffs... the return was dismal at the time, and is even worse now. I'm not a big fan of CJ, but he is a good player and his value would have gone up as his contract got shorter... moving him for that was just not smart.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately keeping CJ wasn't an option, so his value wasn't going to go up. Hart and a shot at a lotto pick was about the best we were ever going to get for CJ. From what I've seen from Hart, I'd prefer him over CJ anyway.

And I'm a CJ fan.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Unfortunately keeping CJ wasn't an option, so his value wasn't going to go up. Hart and a shot at a lotto pick was about the best we were ever going to get for CJ. From what I've seen from Hart, I'd prefer him over CJ anyway.

And I'm a CJ fan.
Click to expand...
I'm in a little different camp but after last night, it doesn't matter. You think it was a good enough deal that got better and I think it was a bad deal that got salvaged to being a really good one.
 
blazerkor said:
I'm in a little different camp but after last night, it doesn't matter. You think it was a good enough deal that got better and I think it was a bad deal that got salvaged to being a really good one.
Click to expand...
Sounds good.
 
glazeduck said:
Of course it hides his flaws, but that's kind of missing the entire point that I was making. In that hypothetical situation, you're swinging for the fences for another star, so you're basically saying ignore the negatives and potential negatives and focus only on the positives. Sharpe has those, and its the maybe only imaginary negatives and uncertainty that is baked into his cost to be there at 7. You're taking an informed risk that the guy you're drafting should be (as more than a few draft people have suggested) the #1 pick, were it not for his situation.

You're not worried about striking out here...
Click to expand...

And what exactly was Sharpe's situation? I've yet to see that explained. That is a huge factor in assessing his value.

What I'm trying to say is, anyone's a potential star if you never see him play. Use Duren as an example. He was supposedly considered the #1 pick in next year's draft, had he not reclassified and left HS early. A year of college ball showed how raw he still is, and he may end up being a late lottery pick.

When I watch the HS footage of Sharpe, I don't see a particularly fluid or smooth athlete. Athletic, yes. Abundantly so, not sure. Put him in the same collegiate scenario as Duren and I think he would be similarly exposed as having a lot to work on. To say there's no worry about striking out is a roundabout way of saying trust others, don't think for yourself. Because there's nothing in front of us to support your belief that he's risk-free.
 
Ed O said:
This is revisionism and untrue.

The Oregonian gathered media grades at the time:

CBS Sportse: D
The Athletic: B
SB Nation: C-
Sports Illustrated: C+
Sporting News: C+
USA Today: B+​

I don't think that (about a C average) is considered a "solid return". And that was before NO made the playoffs... the return was dismal at the time, and is even worse now. I'm not a big fan of CJ, but he is a good player and his value would have gone up as his contract got shorter... moving him for that was just not smart.
Click to expand...

how is it worse now? We took an asset from that trade and turned into a good starting 4?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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