Blazers lost twice last night

[Blazers1977]

In 2015, the $70M he signed for in Dallas was the 4-year max for a player with 7 or fewer years of service. Also recall that Sacramento offered him a max deal, and he rejected them to initially sign for less in Dallas (his deal was increased after Deandre spurned the Mavs). The Blazers knew going into free agency that he was going to be offered max or near-max deals, and there was no way they were going to offer him the same.

Do you honestly think that Wes would have taken $30M less to stay in Portland? Because I can't imagine the Blazers would have offered him any more than $10M/year to stay, especially with a top-10 pick at his position waiting in the wings.

this is a non-sequitir.

The blazers did not make ANY offer. They immediately decided to rebuild the team. Wes himself said he was insulted by their lack of interest.

and yes he likely would have taken considerably less than the max to stay here, but it never got there bc the blazers showed NO interest in resigning him at all.

you backtracked from “well they couldn’t offer him the max” to “they couldn’t give him more than $10 million”.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

you backtracked from “well they couldn’t offer him the max” to “they couldn’t give him more than $10 million”.

Nope. I never said they "couldn't" offer him the max. I said they didn't. Because they were never going to. Because they knew the severity of his achilles tear and knew it would not have been wise to offer him what it would have taken to keep him.

How many times have you heard athletes talk about how "insulting" a low-ball offer was? The Blazers were in a no-win situation. Insult him by offering too little, insult him by not making an offer at all, or hamstring the franchise by offering "enough". They chose #2. I get it.

 

[Blazers1977]

Nope. I never said they "couldn't" offer him the max. I said they didn't. Because they were never going to. Because they knew the severity of his achilles tear and knew it would not have been wise to offer him what it would have taken to keep him.

How many times have you heard athletes talk about how "insulting" a low-ball offer was? The Blazers were in a no-win situation. Insult him by offering too little, insult him by not making an offer at all, or hamstring the franchise by offering "enough". They chose #2. I get it.

you implied that the only way we could have kept him is with a max contract. That is blatantly false.

now you’re backtracking to something much more qualified, that we never even made him an offer bc we didn’t think his injury was worth what he’d done for our team, which shows that I was right when I said:

He played like 5 straight years for us without missing a game and we immediately dumped his ass upon his first injury.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

you implied that the only way we could have kept him is with a max contract. That is blatantly false.

now you’re backtracking to something much more qualified, that we never even made him an offer bc we didn’t think his injury was worth what he’d done for our team, which shows that I was right when I said:

Again, not backtracking. I've been very consistent. We knew he was getting a max. We knew we weren't going to give him one. IMO, that's not "dumping his ass". That's accepting reality.

 

[e_blazer]

Barkley's analysis is brilliant. The Blazers are too guard/jump shot oriented and don't have enough interior scoring, so break up the team. Never mind, or even mention, that they have two guys in suits (Nurk & Collins) who are pretty good at interior scoring that are likely to be back before the end of the season. If he doesn't think that those two guys are enough and a trade is still needed, fine, but at least mention them and say why they're not the right guys. None of the other guys on the panel said anything about Nurk or Collins either, nor did Chris Webber. Lazy, sloppy commentary at best.

 

[tlongII]

you implied that the only way we could have kept him is with a max contract. That is blatantly false.

now you’re backtracking to something much more qualified, that we never even made him an offer bc we didn’t think his injury was worth what he’d done for our team, which shows that I was right when I said:

It was a very smart decision by the Blazers. Matthews has been a shell of himself since the injury.

 

[Blazers1977]

Barkley's analysis is brilliant. The Blazers are too guard/jump shot oriented and don't have enough interior scoring, so break up the team. Never mind, or even mention, that they have two guys in suits (Nurk & Collins) who are pretty good at interior scoring that are likely to be back before the end of the season. If he doesn't think that those two guys are enough and a trade is still needed, fine, but at least mention them and say why they're not the right guys. None of the other guys on the panel said anything about Nurk or Collins either, nor did Chris Webber. Lazy, sloppy commentary at best.

he literally pronounces Nurk’s name as “nur-chick”. He has no idea what he’s talking about most of the time lol. He only follows the favorites.

 

[Blazers1977]

It was a very smart decision by the Blazers. Matthews has been a shell of himself since the injury.

1) you’re assuming the blazers couldn’t have got him for significantly cheaper

2) you’re assuming Matthews would have been just as bad on the blazers - a team he had years of chemistry with- as he was on the mavs, which is not likely

3) his leadership and other qualities are what we miss even more than his skill set.

4) he’s actually playing well right now

 

[tlongII]

1) you’re assuming the blazers couldn’t have got him for significantly cheaper

2) you’re assuming Matthews would have been just as bad on the blazers - a team he had years of chemistry with- as he was on the mavs, which is not likely

3) his leadership and other qualities are what we miss even more than his skill set.

4) he’s actually playing well right now

I'm not assuming shit. I don't want a guy coming off an achilles tear to be an important part of the team.

 

[Blazers1977]

I'm not assuming shit. I don't want a guy coming off an achilles tear to be an important part of the team.

that’s not what we’re talking about.

you guys keen making a false dichotomy that it was either give him the max or not. That’s not what happened. We didn’t entertain resigning him at all, in any way, whatsoever. That’s the epitome of “dumping” a player who poured his heart and soul into your organization. I find it amazing people don’t get how bad of a look this was.

if the numbers didn’t work for his expected value post-injury, then fine. Make an offer and move on. What we did was shameful.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

that’s not what we’re talking about.

you guys keen making a false dichotomy that it was either give him the max or not. That’s not what happened. We didn’t entertain resigning him at all, in any way, whatsoever. That’s the epitome of “dumping” a player who poured his heart and soul into your organization. I find it amazing people don’t get how bad of a look this was.

if the numbers didn’t work for his expected value post-injury, then fine. Make an offer and move on. What we did was shameful.

Well sure, I've heard "the way they treated Wes Matthews" cited repeatedly by players, agents and analysts alike as a primary reason free agents don't sign in Portland. It will be an indelible stain on the franchise for years to come.

It's all subject to interpretation. Clearly it bothered you. We all know it irked Wes. Me...I didn't have an issue with it. Sure a "two-minute phone call" on the way out (as @TorturedBlazerFan suggested) would have been a good idea, but oh well.

 

[calvin natt]

that’s not what we’re talking about.

you guys keen making a false dichotomy that it was either give him the max or not. That’s not what happened. We didn’t entertain resigning him at all, in any way, whatsoever. That’s the epitome of “dumping” a player who poured his heart and soul into your organization. I find it amazing people don’t get how bad of a look this was.

if the numbers didn’t work for his expected value post-injury, then fine. Make an offer and move on. What we did was shameful.

Thats not good basketball business. You dont keep guys because of this.

 

[tlongII]

that’s not what we’re talking about.

you guys keen making a false dichotomy that it was either give him the max or not. That’s not what happened. We didn’t entertain resigning him at all, in any way, whatsoever. That’s the epitome of “dumping” a player who poured his heart and soul into your organization. I find it amazing people don’t get how bad of a look this was.

if the numbers didn’t work for his expected value post-injury, then fine. Make an offer and move on. What we did was shameful.

I've never said anything about a max contract. That is irrelevant.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Portland didn’t just lose the game to the Clippers, they were knocked out by TNT broadcaster Chris Webber, who spent most of the game criticizing the Blazer’s isolation offense.

It was brutal. Every time Lillard or McCollum or Anthony went one-on-one with somebody Webber would start in again about how that kind of offense can’t work in the NBA. At one point he wondered who had told the Blazers that this style of play was a winning strategy—a direct swipe at coach Terry Stotts.

Even more damaging, Webber suggested that the Blazers don’t play hard. His repeated praise of Montrezl Harrell’s hustle was a thinly veiled criticism of Portland’s lack of effort.

Webber and Barkley seem to have different takes on Portland’s problems. Barkley thinks the Blazers have gone “stale” and need a trade, while Webber thinks the problem is the Blazers’ style of play and lack of hustle.

Either way, the Blazer’s national reputation took a big hit last night.

It's their own fault. PASS THE FUCKING BALL!!!!!!

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Well sure, I've heard "the way they treated Wes Matthews" cited repeatedly by players, agents and analysts alike as a primary reason free agents don't sign in Portland. It will be an indelible stain on the franchise for years to come.

It's all subject to interpretation. Clearly it bothered you. We all know it irked Wes. Me...I didn't have an issue with it. Sure a "two-minute phone call" on the way out (as @TorturedBlazerFan suggested) would have been a good idea, but oh well.

I was absolutely fine with not offering a contract to him, or bringing him back after the injury everyone knew he wasn't coming back. Just think it plays better to treat those type of guys well. Also, think if I was in Wes's position I'd be upset too, and if I was in NO's position I'd make it a point to make that quick phone call for all my guys whether they were leaving or not. You want to get Agent's and Players talking about how great of an organization the Blazers are and how well they treat you, even when you're in the process of moving on that'll help.

 

[Blazinaway]

Portland didn’t just lose the game to the Clippers, they were knocked out by TNT broadcaster Chris Webber, who spent most of the game criticizing the Blazer’s isolation offense.

It was brutal. Every time Lillard or McCollum or Anthony went one-on-one with somebody Webber would start in again about how that kind of offense can’t work in the NBA. At one point he wondered who had told the Blazers that this style of play was a winning strategy—a direct swipe at coach Terry Stotts.

Even more damaging, Webber suggested that the Blazers don’t play hard. His repeated praise of Montrezl Harrell’s hustle was a thinly veiled criticism of Portland’s lack of effort.

Webber and Barkley seem to have different takes on Portland’s problems. Barkley thinks the Blazers have gone “stale” and need a trade, while Webber thinks the problem is the Blazers’ style of play and lack of hustle.

Either way, the Blazer’s national reputation took a big hit last night.

Awesome, he was brutal (which was fully deserved IMO) and our offense is brutal, and he was honest and telling it like it is. Absolutely loved to hear a broadcaster make an honest analysis and loved that it was on Natl TV, maybe that will get back to our owner and higher ups how ugly and shitty the Stotts offense is.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

Watching the game tonight thinking about Webber's comments and those of various posters here, I got to thinking - how is it that you have motivation to put in effort - dive for balls, play serious defense, etc. when regularly your offense is, as others have pointed out, is to have people in four corners effectively functioning as outlets for the one-on-one player.

No effort required to stand in the corner and if you don't have to expend effort on offense, you are not mentally prepared to expend effort on defense.

Not that the Kings are a great example of ball movement but, on average, they have more than the Blazers.

We have low-energy offense which, IMO, leads to low-energy defense and low-energy everything. Also makes for relatively boring basketball.

<sigh>

 

[jlprk]

Wesley Matthews would fit the Stotts "system" perfectly, with his great shooting-off-the-dribble.

(Not.)