Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember Joe said that K Murray & R Rupert were lottery type win now players. How does a GM say such a thing, unless he believes it?
WTF is an undersized PG??? Definitely not a dude that's 6'2". That's about what you'd expect from a point guard if that's what you consider him.
In one of those pressers,, Joe said "win now very soon" about a Blazer, or the team. I dunno, it's easy to get lost is Cronin's super duper GM speeches. He's burned through about 70 different players in 3 years. I think he has a photographic memory to remember all those names.Remember Joe said that K Murray & R Rupert were lottery type win now players. How does a GM say such a thing, unless he believes it?
And they never would with Simons and Grant here making their teammates worse.
If they aren't "it" then we need to find out now.
This is absolutely going to take a long time to dig out of. We need to stop kneecapping ourselves with play-in caliber (at best) talent and get on with it.
Yawn. You guys didn't know that Cronin also stocks the Remix roster? This will happen about 11 more times in the next couple of months.
Oh I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't believe that we are close to making the play-in.I think we've totally eliminated the possibility of being a play-in caliber team for a bit, so no need to worry about kneecapping ourselves. We may be kneecapping ourselves by having so little talent that builing a real contender would take a bunch of lucky things to happen instead of just one or two.
In a couple years, people will be making the same case that Scoot and Sharpe will be holding back our 2025 draft picks back.
I think we've totally eliminated the possibility of being a play-in caliber team for a bit, so no need to worry about kneecapping ourselves. We may be kneecapping ourselves by having so little talent that builing a real contender would take a bunch of lucky things to happen instead of just one or two.
In a couple years, people will be making the same case that Scoot and Sharpe will be holding back our 2025 draft picks back.
To me the writing on the wall looks like they want to get rid of Grant and Simons as soon as they get the right deal put together. I think they'll keep Ayton until next Summer unless Clingan is just picking things up extremely quickly and then I could see them dealing Ayton at the deadline. Obviously if teams are trying to low ball us we don't have any real urgency to get rid of any of these guys but I think most teams know that... so for me it seems likely that Grant and Simons will both be gone by training camp. I guess like always we'll wait and see.not really buying that argument if it's about holding on to role-playing talent for spec....which is exactly what Portland has in their veterans...they are supporting cast
contenders develop a core then build around the core once it's known what kind of players are complimentary. That's what Golden State did; what Denver did; what Boston did. They didn't worry about about moving lower-level talent before they knew what kind of talent would fit with the core...
and right now, the Blazers don't have any certain core players. Sharpe-Scoot-Clingan may be. It's unlikely all three will be; more likely it's only one, two if the Blazers are lucky; none if they are unlucky. None of the Blazers veterans are anywhere close to being core pieces. The talent in that group is limited and flawed...in every case. Arguments for keeping them in some 'chucking-darts-at-a-board' hope they might fit with a future core are facile IMO
that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
not really buying that argument if it's about holding on to role-playing talent for spec....which is exactly what Portland has in their veterans...they are supporting cast
contenders develop a core then build around the core once it's known what kind of players are complimentary. That's what Golden State did; what Denver did; what Boston did. They didn't worry about about moving lower-level talent before they knew what kind of talent would fit with the core...
and right now, the Blazers don't have any certain core players. Sharpe-Scoot-Clingan may be. It's unlikely all three will be; more likely it's only one, two if the Blazers are lucky; none if they are unlucky. None of the Blazers veterans are anywhere close to being core pieces. The talent in that group is limited and flawed...in every case. Arguments for keeping them in some 'chucking-darts-at-a-board' hope they might fit with a future core are facile IMO
that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
That phrase "equal or greater value in the long run" seems very subjective. What level of draft capital would be equal to either player's expected impact on the team's future contender status? Personally, I can't really quantify it. If Ant retired tomorrow and his contract were wiped off the books, would this franchise be better or worse off long-term? In what way?If we can trade Grant/Ant for assets that are of equal or greater value in the long run, then I'm totally open to those moves.
Reality is that a first round pick is of equal or greater value considering their contacts and what they bring to the table.This is exactly what I'm getting at. Moving off Grant/Ant to make room for Scoot/Sharpe doesn't make sense to me. If we can trade Grant/Ant for assets that are of equal or greater value in the long run, then I'm totally open to those moves.
that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
I am sure there is some stat that backs you up, but Ayton has the talent to positively alter a team's trajectory if he has some help.
He was the 3rd leading scorer on a team that made the finals.
Given how that franchise has performed in the 2 years since they made the finals, I wouldn't put much stock in the personnel decisions they've made.then why was that team so anxious to dump him?
Given how that franchise has performed in the 2 years since they made the finals, I wouldn't put much stock in the personnel decisions they've made.
Cronin sneaking vets onto the Remix. Jody is gunning for a G-League championship.Wait. Why?
Why another 6’2 guard?
why?
Why!
WHY???
That phrase "equal or greater value in the long run" seems very subjective. What level of draft capital would be equal to either player's expected impact on the team's future contender status? Personally, I can't really quantify it. If Ant retired tomorrow and his contract were wiped off the books, would this franchise be better or worse off long-term? In what way?
Reality is that a first round pick is of equal or greater value considering their contacts and what they bring to the table.
Neither of these guys are going to help us win a playoff series. A first rounder could.
Those guys could help other teams win playoff series though... So maybe you can get another pick. Maybe.
No, but but we've already given Grant and Ant years of being lead options. Now they can get us value from contending teams.It's possible Ant or Grant won't help us win a first round series. Also possible Scoot and Sharpe won't help us win a series. So do we trade them now also?
then why was that team so anxious to dump him?
Is there a non subjective way to measure it? If so, I'm all for it!
To answer your second question, I would say an amensty of Ant would be a net negative to the franchise, and I don't think it's that close. Hard to imagine Portland signing a player of his age and talent level at his current contract via free agency and/or via a TPE.
What say you?
Bridges were burned. (and traded)
Who knows, but the new owner made quite a few questionable moves early on. My guess was losing to Jokic in the 2nd round was blamed on Ayton. After the Suns destroyed a good Clipper team in 5.
The part your reply doesn't really address was the "in what way" would they be worse off. Given that the franchise appears to be committed to a Scoot/Sharpe backcourt for the rebuild, the only way Ant factors in as part of that eventual contention-pursuing roster is in a reserve-scorer role. Now, if you believe that he will ultimately still be here, and be willing to accept/fulfill that role when the Scoot/Sharpe team begins to push for playoffs, then sure, an amnesty of Ant would deprive that eventual roster of a seemingly valuable asset. If, however, you don't see him fitting into that role (whether due to salary, insufficiency, unwillingness, etc), then I posit that Ant himself doesn't have value to this team "in the long-run", only whatever assets we can receive in exchange for him.Is there a non subjective way to measure it? If so, I'm all for it!
To answer your second question, I would say an amensty of Ant would be a net negative to the franchise, and I don't think it's that close. Hard to imagine Portland signing a player of his age and talent level at his current contract via free agency and/or via a TPE.
What say you?