I guess I forgot to mention the part where they have to get lucky too. In any case, what makes this so different than the Blazers blowing it up under Patterson/Nash and then going through another tear down under KP? The only differences I really see are that KP had a better knack for finding talent with his high lottery picks than the previous regime did.
KP started with a bottomed-out franchise. He had no choice but to build from nothing...he inherited nothing. PatterNash inherited a playoff team and tore it down in order to rebuild. So there's a big difference. We don't know what Pritchard would have done if he had taken over from Whitsitt, but he didn't tear anything down...nothing existed to be torn down.
I didn't recommend a tear down after the Whitsitt years and I don't believe it turned out to be productive. We can blame that on PatterNash incompetence, and I'm sure there's a healthy aspect of that, but ultimately I don't think forcing the franchise to the bottom of the league is a good or useful step towards building a contender.
So what is it that you would do to reverse the team's recent fortunes? I don't see a lot of free agents clamoring to come play here nor do a lot of teams seem willing to part with bonafide stars.
Luck ends up playing a part in any championship build. I would certainly not disagree with that. I simply believe that you always work to maximize the talent you have in hand so that when that lucky strike comes along (hopefully, it does) you have talent around that acquisition to make a run.
I don't believe in making moves with the intention of becoming a worse team on the idea that it will increase your chances of getting lucky. From my observation, it doesn't work that way. Teams that attempt that are usually bad for a long time. Even the recent benefactors of lucky strikes (like the Cavs and Nuggets) were terrible for years before they got James and Anthony.
I don't have any specific policy prescriptions since I don't talk to GMs and don't know what's available and the general value of Portland players around the league, but in more general terms I would seek to augment a current core of Aldridge, Batum and Matthews. I'd hold onto Miller and Camby until and unless an attractive trade asset was offered in return. I'd love to acquire a nice young player for the future with Miller, Camby and/or Prsybilla but, in the absence of such an opportunity, I'll hold onto them.
I recognize that Aldridge, Batum and Matthews (barring some totally unforeseen development) is nowhere near a title-contending core. But with a lucky opportunity (a Pau Gasol type of trade becoming available, an unexpected stud with a 15-20 pick, Oden returning and actually not re-injuring himself), those three players suddenly make a nice supporting cast. When that lucky opportunity comes along (and it has to for the Blazers to become a contender), it's a bad idea to have shit surrounding that player.
I used to believe that either you should be a top team or else you should be a bottom team, with cap space and top picks. After watching what that's generally gotten bottom teams, I no longer believe that. I now firmly believe that a team who's good enough to get into the playoffs, even if they get knocked out in the first round, is closer to title contention than a team who's got no talent but has cap space and a top draft pick.
