OT Chandler Parson's?

[wizenheimer]

We wouldn't have had money for Turner or Ezeli.
It's possible we don't offer as big of contracts or contracts at all to Harkless and Leonard.
We might not have matched on Crabbe.

There are just way too many rabbit holes when stuff like this is brought up.

LOL...really??...you're actually going to go there??

in the trades thread you are going thru and dreaming up CJ trades to every other team in the league. You are happily going down 29 "rabbit holes". Yet you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of what would have happened if Parsons had accepted an offer sheet Olshey actually made?

apparently, you're a fan of rabbit holes as long as you control the entrance, so I'm going to widen the entrance to the Chandler Parsons rabbit hole by suggesting the reason you don't like this particular hole is because it leads to another reason to bash Olshey. I've been going down rabbit holes bashing Olshey for years, I'm not going to stop just because you're standing in front of one with a keep out sign. Sorry

 

[PtldPlatypus]

LOL...really??...you're actually going to go there??

in the trades thread you are going thru and dreaming up CJ trades to every other team in the league. You are happily going down 29 "rabbit holes". Yet you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of what would have happened if Parsons had accepted an offer sheet Olshey actually made?

apparently, you're a fan of rabbit holes as long as you control the entrance, so I'm going to widen the entrance to the Chandler Parsons rabbit hole by suggesting the reason you don't like this particular hole is because it leads to another reason to bash Olshey. I've been going down rabbit holes bashing Olshey for years, I'm not going to stop just because you're standing in front of one with a keep out sign. Sorry

There's a big difference between looking at future possibilities and speculatively rewriting history. Makes perfect sense to be willing to do one but not the other.

And @hoopsjock is perfectly willing to bash Olshey for his past errors and inactions, so I'd say your characterization of him is a tad off

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

LOL...really??...you're actually going to go there??

in the trades thread you are going thru and dreaming up CJ trades to every other team in the league. You are happily going down 29 "rabbit holes". Yet you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of what would have happened if Parsons had accepted an offer sheet Olshey actually made?

apparently, you're a fan of rabbit holes as long as you control the entrance, so I'm going to widen the entrance to the Chandler Parsons rabbit hole by suggesting the reason you don't like this particular hole is because it leads to another reason to bash Olshey. I've been going down rabbit holes bashing Olshey for years, I'm not going to stop just because you're standing in front of one with a keep out sign. Sorry

Not sure how you’re tying someone going through team by team and throwing out trade ideas to going into the 2016 well for the 8 millionth time to bash a GM thats pretty easy to bash without talking about Chandler Parsons.

 

[wizenheimer]

There's a big difference between looking at future possibilities and speculatively rewriting history.
Makes perfect sense to be willing to do one but not the other.

you'll have to point out where it was that I was "rewriting history". All I did really was push back against the notion that Olshey really didn't make an offer to Parsons. I never went into what would have happened if Parsons became a Blazer other than to say his contract would now be Portland's problem

And @hoopsjock is perfectly willing to bash Olshey for his past errors and inactions, so I'd say your characterization of him is a tad off

that's probably true and I likely got a bit carried away...sorry hoopsjock

 

[PtldPlatypus]

you'll have to point out where it was that I was "rewriting history". All I did really was push back against the notion that Olshey really didn't make an offer to Parsons. I never went into what would have happened if Parsons became a Blazer other than to say his contract would now be Portland's problem

Didn't say you were rewriting history; I was saying that was the kind of "rabbit hole" @hoopsjock stated he wasn't interested in, which you then chided him for.

My statement stands; there is nothing inconsistent about him being interested in potential future scenarios and not being interested in speculating about potential impacts of an altered past.

 

[hoopsjock]

There's a big difference between looking at future possibilities and speculatively rewriting history. Makes perfect sense to be willing to do one but not the other.

And @hoopsjock is perfectly willing to bash Olshey for his past errors and inactions, so I'd say your characterization of him is a tad off

Thank you!

 

[LayneStaley]

The ET signing looks like an executive of the year move compared to what would of happened if Parsons had picked us instead of Memphis. The guy has played 74 games total going back to the beginning of the 2016 season.

 

[Five Second Violation]

Lolol

"No knees? No problem!"

 

[hoopsjock]

LOL...really??...you're actually going to go there??

in the trades thread you are going thru and dreaming up CJ trades to every other team in the league. You are happily going down 29 "rabbit holes". Yet you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of what would have happened if Parsons had accepted an offer sheet Olshey actually made?

apparently, you're a fan of rabbit holes as long as you control the entrance, so I'm going to widen the entrance to the Chandler Parsons rabbit hole by suggesting the reason you don't like this particular hole is because it leads to another reason to bash Olshey. I've been going down rabbit holes bashing Olshey for years, I'm not going to stop just because you're standing in front of one with a keep out sign. Sorry

For the record, you can go down any rabbit hole you want. I am not trying to control anything about you or your posts. I personally don't like saying so and so "almost" signed here and that would have been terrible because as I mentioned, everything from that point would have been different. If you want to fantasize about what would have happened, be my guest.

In the press conference for the Turner signing Olshey says he had Turner's agent on the phone and they were going to get back to him and he wouldn't let them hang up without agreeing on a deal. That somewhat contradicts that Turner was waiting to sign with us if Parsons didn't.

I also put more stock into agent relationships than most probably do. I think it's very important to have good relationships with agents and sometimes that entails doing favors for them. The details of negotiations are often leaked by the agents and sometimes even exaggerated to drum up more interest or bigger offers. I choose not to read too much into stories about signings that didn't happen because of this.

Several weeks before free agency I heard a rumor that Parsons was going to sign with Memphis. It's entirely possible that Portland was just used as a pawn to make sure Parsons got a max deal from Memphis. It could even have been that Olshey was okay with the agent leaking that Portland was offering a max contract even if they weren't. It was definitely a mistake to pursue Parsons and Turner so I'm not completely dismissing that but I think it's entirely plausible that Parsons was always going to sign with Memphis and that he was just trying to get the best deal possible.

Now Olshey's problem has been an inability to cash in on these favors to agents. The whole point is that he can maybe get a meeting with someone he wouldn't have otherwise or something along those lines. If we signed Parsons though Olshey might not even have his job anymore so isn't there a little bit of irony there?

 

[kjironman1]

 

[kjironman1]

In all seriousness though, this is why I don't like to go down these roads with players that didn't sign...

We wouldn't have had money for Turner or Ezeli.

It's possible we don't offer as big of contracts or contracts at all to Harkless and Leonard.

We might not have matched on Crabbe.

With Parsons being worthless things could've gone much worse and we could have ended up with higher lottery picks or players like Layman could have been forced into bigger roles and be more developed by now.

Olshey/Stotts could've been fired.

There are just way too many rabbit holes when stuff like this is brought up.

Mind Blown.... Thanks....

 

[kjironman1]

c'mon man.....Turner doesn't do shit for Portland's defense

How can you say that after just watching the Houston game and the job he did on Harden?

 

[riverman]

That's just flat out not true. Maybe rookie year Nic, but not the one who got that contract. Until his last season with us, he was damn good. He contributed massively to that season we won 54 games.

He was as inconsistent as he could be....he did not play well consisitantly his last couple years here at all....he was not damned good his last season....Lamarcus complained about his lack of work ethic....Neil got rid of him to try to keep Aldridge which didn't work out anyway but to say Nico was great his last year here.....he did NOTHING in the playoffs when Wes went down...Rolo didn't do anything after the break that season either....what you are alluding to is simply not the case.....

 

[hoopsjock]

He was as inconsistent as he could be....he did not play well consisitantly his last couple years here at all....he was not damned good his last season....Lamarcus complained about his lack of work ethic....Neil got rid of him to try to keep Aldridge which didn't work out anyway but to say Nico was great his last year here.....he did NOTHING in the playoffs when Wes went down...Rolo didn't do anything after the break that season either....what you are alluding to is simply not the case.....

He said "until his last season", not that he was good his last season.

 

[Orion Bailey]

With Turner we went from a bad defensive team to a pretty good one...when we signed Turner it was for ball handling and defense...not scoring...when we share the ball as a team Turner fits fine...when we go ISO he doesn't.

Eh. More like when we got nurk we went from a bad defensive team to a good one.

 

[Orion Bailey]

LOL...really??...you're actually going to go there??

in the trades thread you are going thru and dreaming up CJ trades to every other team in the league. You are happily going down 29 "rabbit holes". Yet you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of what would have happened if Parsons had accepted an offer sheet Olshey actually made?

apparently, you're a fan of rabbit holes as long as you control the entrance, so I'm going to widen the entrance to the Chandler Parsons rabbit hole by suggesting the reason you don't like this particular hole is because it leads to another reason to bash Olshey. I've been going down rabbit holes bashing Olshey for years, I'm not going to stop just because you're standing in front of one with a keep out sign. Sorry

One is the past and thus irrelevant. The other is the future and possible.
I know which id prefer to focus on.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Eh. More like when we got nurk we went from a bad defensive team to a good one.

One is the past and thus irrelevant. The other is the future and possible.
I know which id prefer to focus on.

Damn. Late to the party.

 

[riverman]

Eh. More like when we got nurk we went from a bad defensive team to a good one.

Nurk is a great defender in the paint. ET, Mo and Chief deal with night in and night out with Lebron, KD, etc....it's just not a center dominant league anymore and ET, Mo and Chief are all 3 good defenders who improved our team defensively as well. for anybody who disagrees with this....I don't think ET is a good fit for our roster but he's a talented player....

 

[Wizard Mentor]

huh? Batum's 4yr, 46 mil contract with us was very commensurate of his production here. That wasn't the mistake. Trading him for what turned out to be nothing was.

He's certainly not worth the 5 yr, 120 mil deal that CHA gave him however.

He would have taken up too much salary on our cap. We needed that cap space to sign ET.......

 

[Orion Bailey]

Nurk is a great defender in the paint. ET, Mo and Chief deal with night in and night out with Lebron, KD, etc....it's just not a center dominant league anymore and ET, Mo and Chief are all 3 good defenders who improved our team defensively as well. for anybody who disagrees with this....I don't think ET is a good fit for our roster but he's a talented player....

Then how do you explain our defense still being near bottom of the league after attaining Aminu and Turner, but then getting good once we got Nurk? Im not saying they are trash or bad defenders, but its pretty obvious in both the eye test and the stats that our defense became good once Nurk came into play.

 

[CupWizier]

Then how do you explain our defense still being near bottom of the league after attaining Aminu and Turner, but then getting good once we got Nurk? Im not saying they are trash or bad defenders, but its pretty obvious in both the eye test and the stats that our defense became good once Nurk came into play.

Sometimes a player like Nurk can be the missing piece. Was Przybilla a great defender? Not really, but he was very solid and glued the defense together as an anchor in the middle.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Sometimes a player like Nurk can be the missing piece. Was Przybilla a great defender? Not really, but he was very solid and glued the defense together as an anchor in the middle.

I think Post/Paint defense is much more important than perimeter....even in today's 3pt frenzy of a game.

The reason has been proven with our team. Without that pain presence, screens will free up drivers to the hoop. But if you cant drive to the hoop regardless of the screens because there is a solid defensive big camped there... well then...

I mean, they both matter, but I think its more important to defend the rim and higher% shots than the 3pt line.

So as those guys may not be bad defenders, their defense is not as valuable as the post defense, hence why we got so much better with good paint presence.
Dames post up D has gotten better as well.


CJ... well. He is CJ.

 

[riverman]

Then how do you explain our defense still being near bottom of the league after attaining Aminu and Turner, but then getting good once we got Nurk? Im not saying they are trash or bad defenders, but its pretty obvious in both the eye test and the stats that our defense became good once Nurk came into play.

defense is a team skill...and Nurk is way better than Plumlee was

 

[CupWizier]

I think Post/Paint defense is much more important than perimeter....even in today's 3pt frenzy of a game.

The reason has been proven with our team. Without that pain presence, screens will free up drivers to the hoop. But if you cant drive to the hoop regardless of the screens because there is a solid defensive big camped there... well then...

I mean, they both matter, but I think its more important to defend the rim and higher% shots than the 3pt line.

So as those guys may not be bad defenders, their defense is not as valuable as the post defense, hence why we got so much better with good paint presence.
Dames post up D has gotten better as well.


CJ... well. He is CJ.

Interesting stat last night was mentioned by Lamar Hurd. Lillard is #2 and McCollum was #6 for guards on perimeter blocked shots.

I also agree that it is important to have an interior defensive presence and why we have become a top 10 defensive team

 

[Orion Bailey]

defense is a team skill...and Nurk is way better than Plumlee was

But... One guy changed everything for us.

 

[kjironman1]

But... One guy changed everything for us.

That isn't really the case. It's a narrow view on it. One guy changed how the team protected the rim. That guy did not change how the floor was guarded. It's more about how he changed the defense when someone missed an assignment.
Simply put he is doing 1/5 of the job well. That 1/5 of the job was much needed. Without it no team does well.

 

[Orion Bailey]

That isn't really the case. It's a narrow view on it. One guy changed how the team protected the rim. That guy did not change how the floor was guarded. It's more about how he changed the defense when someone missed an assignment.
Simply put he is doing 1/5 of the job well. That 1/5 of the job was much needed. Without it no team does well.

I disagree. Because we have the defense in the paint, it has changed how we can guard the perimeter.

So remove any one of the other wing defenders but keep nurk. Do you think our d takes a hit as it would when nurk isnt on the floor???

Actually with harkless in and out, we have been doing that and our d has been pretty steady.
Remove nurk like when he got two early fouls the other night and we all but fall apart.

Also. My eye doctor says i have great vision.

 

[kjironman1]

So remove any one of the other wing defenders but keep nurk. Do you think our d takes a hit as it would when nurk isnt on the floor?

I can see what your point is and i can't say it's wrong but then i can also say yes the defense does take a hit when he isn't on the floor. But it didn't so much when they had Davis. Now Meyers Leonard doesn't really have the same impact.
You are not wrong in this at all. Just my take is that Defense in general is team oriented. And Nurk is a part of the 5 man unit.