Bogus! Chris Mannix: Chauncey gone

[MickZagger]

Nothing is preventing Billups from asking out of his contract. Portland would likely allow that.

That may just happen. I just don’t see them owing him because they want out of it.

 

[Tince]

That may just happen. I just don’t see them owing him because they want out of it.

I think him coaching next year is the most likely because I don't believe Portland is willing to pay him to not coach and I don't think Billups is willing to give up a years salary to get out of his contract (unless he's got another HC gig lined up).

 

[MickZagger]

I think him coaching next year is the most likely because I don't believe Portland is willing to pay him to not coach and I don't think Billups is willing to give up a years salary to get out of his contract (unless he's got another HC gig lined up).

Im wondering how another year of purposely sucking is going to permeate throughout the organization.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Im wondering how another year of purposely sucking is going to permeate throughout the organization.

I'm 80+ miles from the Rose Garden, and our season has been over for quite a while. My eyes still sting from the tank exhaust.

 

[MickZagger]

I'm 80+ miles from the Rose Garden, and our season has been over for quite a while. My eyes still sting from the tank exhaust.

Save your gas and beer money. Catch the highlights (or lowlights) for another year or two

 

[Tince]

Im wondering how another year of purposely sucking is going to permeate throughout the organization.

We're about to find out!

 

[BIG Q]

Im wondering how another year of purposely sucking is going to permeate throughout the organization.

I’d say ask the Minnesota and OKC fans. Kings fan too. They have come out of the suck to various degrees of success. Those organizations seem to be doing well as a whole, but the fans are a good guage.

 

[Tince]

I’d say ask the Minnesota and OKC fans. Kings fan too. They have come out of the suck to various degrees of success. Those organizations seem to be doing well as a whole, but the fans are a good guage.

For every OKC, Sacramento, and Minnesota (the last two took a LONG time to get decent), there is a Detroit, Charolette, and Washington.

I don't want this rebuild to be anything like Minnesota or Sacramento decade + rebuilds.

 

[BIG Q]

For every OKC, Sacramento, and Minnesota (the last two took a LONG time to get decent), there is a Detroit, Charolette, and Washington.

I don't want this rebuild to be anything like Minnesota or Sacramento decade + rebuilds.

Rebuilds for small market teams always take a long time. They don’t have the luxury of free agency. They can draft or make trades. Drafting takes time to get the right players, and then developing them.

 

[Tince]

Rebuilds for small market teams always take a long time. They don’t have the luxury of free agency. They can draft or make trades. Drafting takes time to get the right players, and then developing them.

Agreed... which is why you should rarely give up on an All-NBA player unless you're getting a massive haul in return.

The small-market rebuild takes some degree of good ownership, a savy front office, and luck.

 

[BIG Q]

Agreed... which is why you should rarely give up on an All-NBA player unless you're getting a massive haul in return.

The small-market rebuild takes some degree of good ownership, a savy front office, and luck.

Portland is certainly lacking in good ownership. After this draft and free agency period is when I will make a judgement on how savvy the front office is. Not expecting signings, but there should be a few trades.

 

[MickZagger]

Agreed... which is why you should rarely give up on an All-NBA player unless you're getting a massive haul in return.

The small-market rebuild takes some degree of good ownership, a savy front office, and luck.

That players decline was obvious. It was a good time to move on. The haul could have been better I thought though

 

[Whyachi]

Imagine Coach Billups season.

New Blazers! we got this

1st game against Clips, Anfernee wrecks his thumb, missed 6 weeks.

Malcom, Scoot, Shaedon, you got this.

Robert Williams, you be Winslow. WHO? Justise Winslow, 6th man hustle guy, paint player. Pass it to Ant or Grant... wait, pass it to Malcom or Grant. Shoot some middies if you're open. Unfortunately, the Timelord goal to be Winslow lasted 6 games compared to 29.

Then Scoot tweaks something, then Malcom.. OK Shaedon and Skylar Mays, you got this. Peice of cake, in-Season tourney! Scoot's back!! They beat someone, Coach can really coach!

Then the losses began piling up. Malcolm's doing what he can. Scoot missed a few games, Ayton's knees start acting funny... hey we get Ant back soon.

Basketball !!! Weeee... Shaedon out for season. Ayton starts missing games. Duop. Moses, you're my guys. Moses breaks hand, done for awhile. Jabari !! 3rd string utility player, now Blazers full time starter !!

Basketball !!! ... Malcom taps out, done for season. Ayton starts getting his sea legs back, the new matress helps. Thybulle, where's Thybulle ? WHO? Matisse Thybulle, we got him in the Josh Hart trade. We did ?? Yes... but this rookie named Camara is playing better. Heck, the rookie from Iowa who can't shoot is playing better.

Basketball !!! Grant quits, then Thybulle, then Simons, ... Ashton Hagans you got this. Where's Minaya, go stand in the corner and jump at the rebounds.

final tally >> a very tired but very happy head coach. Happy the nightmare of another Joe Cronin "competitive" rebuilding season is finally over.

 

[Tince]

That players decline was obvious. It was a good time to move on. The haul could have been better I thought though

This seems to be the normal take on the board and not just about the Dame trade. Folks want a player gone because he's declining (or has a bad contract/isn't good), but after said player is dealt, the thought is we should've got more for the declining, bad contract, no good player.

I predicted trading Dame was unlikely to produce better results in the near/mid-term. It has actually gone worse than I anticipated. Of course we'll never know what kind of assets we would've obtained while retaining Dame, but there is a case that we'd have a better supporting cast had we kept him vs what we have now without him.

Good franchises don't trade players because they "decline".

 

[CJ_is_Gone]

Good franchises don't trade players because they "decline".

Dame didn't get traded because he was going to 'decline'.
That is just an ancillary benefit people look to that helps justify the trade.

Dame got traded because he tried to force a power play.

 

[MickZagger]

This seems to be the normal take on the board and not just about the Dame trade. Folks want a player gone because he's declining (or has a bad contract/isn't good), but after said player is dealt, the thought is we should've got more for the declining, bad contract, no good player.

I predicted trading Dame was unlikely to produce better results in the near/mid-term. It has actually gone worse than I anticipated. Of course we'll never know what kind of assets we would've obtained while retaining Dame, but there is a case that we'd have a better supporting cast had we kept him vs what we have now without him.

Good franchises don't trade players because they "decline".

An organization should identify before anyone else whether that player is going to be in the window they have in mind. Blazers never did that with Lillard, nor McCollum and probably won’t with Simons either.

So they wait until their trade value has diminished. Get penny’s on the dollar. Have no upper hand in negotiations.

In the case of Lillard, they could have rolled the dice and gambled and at least tried to get a solid supporting cast. We could’ve matched a Siakam level deal for instance.

It’s common with not very good management teams.

 

[Tince]

Dame didn't get traded because he was going to 'decline'.
That is just an ancillary benefit people look to that helps justify the trade.

Dame got traded because he tried to force a power play.

There are a lot of theories about why Dame got traded. Some make Dame look like the villain, others make the Blazers look like the villain. I haven't seen anything credible enough to know the truth. It's possible nobody was the villain.

 

[Tince]

An organization should identify before anyone else whether that player is going to be in the window they have in mind. Blazers never did that with Lillard, nor McCollum and probably won’t with Simons either.

So they wait until their trade value has diminished. Get penny’s on the dollar. Have no upper hand in negotiations.

In the case of Lillard, they could have rolled the dice and gambled and at least tried to get a solid supporting cast. We could’ve matched a Siakam level deal for instance.

It’s common with not very good management teams.

True, they could've trade him when he was 26. Though, they probably wouldn't have got a player as good as Lillard as a result of that package either, nor made it to the WCF in that time period.

They certainly failed to put a solid supporting cast around him, during his prime, which was a failure. Again, a failure small market teams are more likely to experience.

I think a case could be made now that Sharpe's value will never be higher. Maybe they should trade him now as well as to not risk his value declining.

 

[MickZagger]

True, they could've trade him when he was 26. Though, they probably wouldn't have got a player as good as Lillard as a result of that package either, nor made it to the WCF in that time period.

They certainly failed to put a solid supporting cast around him, during his prime, which was a failure. Again, a failure small market teams are more likely to experience.

I think a case could be made now that Sharpe's value will never be higher. Maybe they should trade him now as well as to not risk his value declining.

Why 26? What about 28 or 30?

Sharpe’s upside can make him way more valuable in the future and you know it. But our hopes hinge on building a core for the future. Not by building a young core along side an aging star.

They hold onto Simons much longer and his value will plummet.

The problem with the Blazers is they have tried to assemble a team based on two different windows. The longer it lingered the less trade value they netted.

 

[Tince]

Why 26? What about 28 or 30?

Sharpe’s upside can make him way more valuable in the future and you know it. But our hopes hinge on building a core for the future. Not by building a young core along side an aging star.

They hold onto Simons much longer and his value will plummet.

The problem with the Blazers is they have tried to assemble a team based on two different windows. The longer it lingered the less trade value they netted.

Yeah, 28 or 30 might've been better. 32 might've been the best in regards to output in Portland combined with return. So hard to say w/out knowing the market for him at this points. Ant is 24 and it appears he's already getting too old for the fans of this organization.

Sharpe's potential IS his value right now. It can go one of two ways: 1) He realizes his potential and his value goes up from here. 2) He doesn't and his value goes down. My gut tells me he's unlikely to reach the potential many believe he has, so maybe this is his peak value. I think we could get a solid return for him right now, I don't know what it'll look like 4 years from now. I worry he'll be the next guy people turn on once Grant/Ant are gone. Time will tell and hindsight will make it all so obvious!

 

[Pinwheel1]

Why 26? What about 28 or 30?

Sharpe’s upside can make him way more valuable in the future and you know it. But our hopes hinge on building a core for the future. Not by building a young core along side an aging star.

They hold onto Simons much longer and his value will plummet.

The problem with the Blazers is they have tried to assemble a team based on two different windows. The longer it lingered the less trade value they netted.

His value for us maybe, since he only has two years left on his contract. But he is also a couple of years away from entering his prime. So his overall value is not going to plummet.

 

[MickZagger]

Yeah, 28 or 30 might've been better. 32 might've been the best in regards to output in Portland combined with return. So hard to say w/out knowing the market for him at this points. Ant is 24 and it appears he's already getting too old for the fans of this organization.

Sharpe's potential IS his value right now. It can go one of two ways: 1) He realizes his potential and his value goes up from here. 2) He doesn't and his value goes down. My gut tells me he's unlikely to reach the potential many believe he has, so maybe this is his peak value. I think we could get a solid return for him right now, I don't know what it'll look like 4 years from now. I worry he'll be the next guy people turn on once Grant/Ant are gone. Time will tell and hindsight will make it all so obvious!

Simons isn’t too old. We’re just too guard heavy so it’s time to make a decision.

Sharpe is tricky trying to assess his value. But he showed me a ton in his sophomore year. Still has things to work on and let’s be honest, Chauncey ran him ragged. He was way ready to come back toward the end of the year. But what was the point?

I don’t think Sharpe has that alpha mentality. But he could possibly the best #2 in the game on the right team a few years from now.

My questions with the future are much more surrounding Scoot. I’m gonna be honest, this is a league of keeping teams honest to open up that drive game. Unless he works non stop on his jumper and tunes that part of his game it’s going to be tough sledding. He improved toward the end of the year which is encouraging, but it needs to be a focal point on his development.

Which leads to Simons. Streak scorer, borderline dominant at the ability to get his own. But that’s where his game begins and ends. He’d be absolutely ideal as a spark off the bench. On a good team. But to act like he’s someone you should build around or mortgage the future for is a bit disingenuous. He and CJ are very similar in that when they’re on, it’s artwork and beautiful and we love them. If they’re off they’re an absolute detriment to the team philosophy and hinder more than help.

I’ve been saying this for years. IMO you package Simons. A max contract is too much money for a heat check guy.

 

[Tince]

Simons isn’t too old. We’re just too guard heavy so it’s time to make a decision.

Sharpe is tricky trying to assess his value. But he showed me a ton in his sophomore year. Still has things to work on and let’s be honest, Chauncey ran him ragged. He was way ready to come back toward the end of the year. But what was the point?

I don’t think Sharpe has that alpha mentality. But he could possibly the best #2 in the game on the right team a few years from now.

My questions with the future are much more surrounding Scoot. I’m gonna be honest, this is a league of keeping teams honest to open up that drive game. Unless he works non stop on his jumper and tunes that part of his game it’s going to be tough sledding. He improved toward the end of the year which is encouraging, but it needs to be a focal point on his development.

Which leads to Simons. Streak scorer, borderline dominant at the ability to get his own. But that’s where his game begins and ends. He’d be absolutely ideal as a spark off the bench. On a good team. But to act like he’s someone you should build around or mortgage the future for is a bit disingenuous. He and CJ are very similar in that when they’re on, it’s artwork and beautiful and we love them. If they’re off they’re an absolute detriment to the team philosophy and hinder more than help.

I’ve been saying this for years. IMO you package Simons. A max contract is too much money for a heat check guy.

Simons isn't on a max contract nor will he be, so I don't think we need to worry about that. In fact, one could make the case he's underpaid.



Agree with your takes on Sharpe and Scoot. If they were both living up to the hype/potential, moving off Ant would be an easier choice. I hate the idea of getting even worse because I think we're getting real close to having our talent level get to such a low that it'll become hard to make moves in the future.

 

[wizenheimer]

Ant is 24 and it appears he's already getting too old for the fans of this organization.

it's not his age, it's his talent, limitations, and fit

 

[Tince]

it's not his age, it's his talent, limitations, and fit

Can't agree with the talent part because he's the best player on the roster, and I'm not ready to trade the entire roster. He is an imperfect player, but again, so is every other player on the roster. If we had a young all-star to build around, I'd consider "fit", but again, that player doesn't exist.

Having said that, if he can return a high level forward, I'm all for trading him. Nobody on this roster is untradable for me.

 

[MickZagger]

Can't agree with the talent part because he's the best player on the roster, and I'm not ready to trade the entire roster. He is an imperfect player, but again, so is every other player on the roster. If we had a young all-star to build around, I'd consider "fit", but again, that player doesn't exist.

Having said that, if he can return a high level forward, I'm all for trading him. Nobody on this roster is untradable for me.

But best player on the roster is such a low bar at this point that it hardly holds any relevance.

Mike James was once the ‘best’ player on a really shitty roster

 

[Tince]

But best player on the roster is such a low bar at this point that it hardly holds any relevance.

All the more reason that using Ant's talent as a reason to trade him makes little to no sense. As I previously said, the talent level on the roster is so low, it would be malpractice to try and get worse. If they can trade Ant for a more talented player, do it!

Also, the claim that Ant doesn't "fit" around guys who aren't even as talented as him is a head scratcher.

 

[MickZagger]

All the more reason that using Ant's talent as a reason to trade him makes little to no sense. As I previously said, the talent level on the roster is so low, it would be malpractice to try and get worse. If they can trade Ant for a more talented player, do it!

Also, the claim that Ant doesn't "fit" around guys who aren't even as talented as him is a head scratcher.

Malpractice to get worse? Being worse at this point will pay more dividends considering we are nowhere close to competing. Halfway sucking is an awful approach.

As I said in another post we should go full on suck. We have no business being top 10 in salary. We need to rid ourselves of Simons, Grant, Brogdon and Williams.

Collecting assets should be the prerogative. In a year or two assess those assets and make steps toward piecing together the roster going forward.

 

[Tince]

Malpractice to get worse? Being worse at this point will pay more dividends considering we are nowhere close to competing. Halfway sucking is an awful approach.

As I said in another post we should go full on suck. We have no business being top 10 in salary. We need to rid ourselves of Simons, Grant, Brogdon and Williams.

Collecting assets should be the prerogative. In a year or two assess those assets and make steps toward piecing together the roster going forward.

It would be malpractice to trade a 24 year old on a good contract if we get less talent back in return. At that point we would likely be getting worse in the short and long run in regards to assets, an area we're already weak in.

Ant is nowhere near the same category as Grant, Brogdon, and Williams (Williams is only 26 but his body is 36). He's the same age as Camara and a year older than Kris Murray. His contract is not the cause of the salary cap issues. Trading Ant as a cap dump would be wild. Again, if we can trade Ant for a better player/asset, then great. But we do not need to trade Ant anymore than we need to trade all the other guys on the roster.

We full on sucked last year with Ant, and we'll full on suck next year. Reducing assets to prioritize getting worse or giving the keys to players who have not shown to be worth it would be a huge risk with more downside than upside in my opinion.

 

[wizenheimer]

Can't agree with the talent part because he's the best player on the roster, .

lol...you say that like it's a fact...which it's not. Brogdon was probably the best player on the roster because there are two ends of the floor. After him it was probably Ayton, then a tie between Ant/Grant