Exit Interviews

[Fairly-Hard]

How can you say these are bad examples if you are agreeing with my point?

So really your only point is Grant to Detroit and that wasn’t like a total disaster.
Actually what the conversation is about and what you are trying to squirm out of is saying front offices make decisions all the time without any foresight just to get a player they covet.
That simply doesn’t happen much and in terms of it being a couple of prior MVPs I think you could understand why they might get those players.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

I would be willing to agree it has happened a number of times but I would not agree “It happens all the time”.

 

[PCmor7]

So really your only point is Grant to Detroit and that wasn’t like a total disaster.
Actually what the conversation is about and what you are trying to squirm out of is saying front offices make decisions all the time without any foresight just to get a player they covet.
That simply doesn’t happen much and in terms of it being a couple of prior MVPs I think you could understand why they might get those players.

I'm not sure how you think I'm trying to squirm out of a point that I've repeated several times here. One doesn't evade something by sticking to it.

Yes, teams make dumb moves out of hoping rather than thinking it out. It doesn't matter if they did it because "LeBron wanted Westbrook" (some people say part of the reason we seem to be pushing for Grant is Dame took a liking to him). It doesn't matter if he was a former MVP who was temperamental but they threw caution to the wind and acquired him anyway hoping it wouldn't be a chemistry issue. The front office made a dumb move.

Saying they do it without "any foresight" is hyperbole. No one said they don't use any foresight. What was said was teams routinely make bad gambles that they should know are likely to fail because it's expedient.

You're moving goalposts.

Also, you're trying to tell me what a branch of the conversation I started is about. I'm not sure how ignorant you have to be to manage that, but you did it.

P.S. Your point about Grant's going up is specious. His scoring went up, corresponding with his increased minutes. His field goal percentage plummeted. Meanwhile, the team that acquired him to turn them around won 20 and 23 games. He excelled the Pistons right back into the lottery twice.

 

[PCmor7]

Russ- LeBrons decision, cant really blame the puppet front office for that one.

Harden- only bad in hindsight. If Portland was in position to acquire an MVP caliber player, I would hope they would do everything in their power, minus trading Dame, to do it. And for as bad as that move ended up being, they still got Ben Simmons and a couple firsts out of it.

You're moving goalposts, too. It doesn't matter the reasons behind teams making questionable moves. The original point was that they made them. You suggested that didn't happen. Now you're trying to qualify that statement.

 

[illmatic99]

So... we aren't gonna hear from Nurk, Nas et al? Dame, we've heard ad nauseum on multiple pods. I'm good with where we stand with him.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

I'm not sure how you think I'm trying to squirm out of a point that I've repeated several times here. One doesn't evade something by sticking to it.

Yes, teams make dumb moves out of hoping rather than thinking it out. It doesn't matter if they did it because "LeBron wanted Westbrook" (some people say part of the reason we seem to be pushing for Grant is Dame took a liking to him). It doesn't matter if he was a former MVP who was temperamental but they threw caution to the wind and acquired him anyway hoping it wouldn't be a chemistry issue. The front office made a dumb move.

Saying they do it without "any foresight" is hyperbole. No one said they don't use any foresight. What was said was teams routinely make bad gambles that they should know are likely to fail because it's expedient.

You're moving goalposts.

Also, you're trying to tell me what a branch of the conversation I started is about. I'm not sure how ignorant you have to be to manage that, but you did it.

P.S. Your point about Grant's going up is specious. His scoring went up, corresponding with his increased minutes. His field goal percentage plummeted. Meanwhile, the team that acquired him to turn them around won 20 and 23 games. He excelled the Pistons right back into the lottery twice.

Oh okay. I'm the ignorant one. Gotcha.

 

[Scalma]

You're moving goalposts, too. It doesn't matter the reasons behind teams making questionable moves. The original point was that they made them. You suggested that didn't happen. Now you're trying to qualify that statement.

you’re using hindsight to justify your point. Trading for an MVP caliber player was not a dumb move regardless of whether it worked out or not. The Russ trade was a LeBron decision. Thankfully for Portland Dame isn’t arrogant enough to think he should moonlight as GM.

 

[blazerkor]

Didn't say he'd think he'd be No. 1. Think he'd come in thinking he was the second option.

If he looked at CJ's shots per game as the second guy to Dame, that's 18-19 shots per game even with Nurk.

What he's making in the structure of team expenditures isn't what's important here. It's Grant's perception of his capabilities and role on the team.

I totally agree with the theory behind what you're saying and we can only speculate as to what Grant's mindset is but the most shots Grant has ever taken per game was a season ago as the number one option and he took just 17.3 per game. The guy just isn't a volume shooter. So I don't think he'd assume he'd be getting more shots than he even did last season, let alone CJ's shots which would be the most in his career despite going from the first option to at the very most the second option. Again, like I said we can't know what his mindset is and if it is that he's going to get all of CJ's shots then I wouldn't like his fit. If he's buying into Chauncey's philosophy of everyone sharing the ball and also values what Ant and Nurk bring to the table as scorers, then I think he's a great fit at either starting forward spot.

 

[blazerkor]

I think that's something that would for sure be discussed before a potential move was made. Btw, if we traded a lottery pick for Grant, I'm pretty certain that they would try and sign him to a long term deal. No way they sacrifice that kind of asset for a rental.

Yeah, I actually think it's pretty simple, does Grant buy into Chauncey's system which seems to be Dame first and then everyone else sharing the ball and making the right pass or taking the right shot or is he a diva. I think the fact that he only took 15 shots per game last season as his team's number one option tells me that he isn't too concerned with just getting shots up.

Also, you're right, I think the team would want an extension worked out before the trigger was actually pulled on this deal. I don't think his rumored asking price of 112M/4 years is too far out there but hopefully we could rain that in a little bit. I've said this before, assuming the salary ascends every season, by the time that salary is in the high twenty millions the new TV deal will have kicked in and it really won't be that expensive for a second or third option on a contending team.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This is why we didn't see Dame at the exit interviews.

He's had leg-lengthening surgery and is 6'8" now.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

well, that was 3 years ago and in the last 2 seasons OKC was 46-108. And three years after the trade, so far, their draft pick payoff has been #18 (Tre Mann). They might get a 15th pick this year, but that might also be the highest pick they get out of the deal, and those two picks, #18 & #15 will be the only draft payoff for the first 5 years after the deal

they got a couple of swaps, next year and 2025, but chances are those swaps won't be exercised

this is not a great return. It's actually very much like my coin swap analogy

Simmons was the centerpiece of the return, and he hasn't played a minute yet this season, and very well may not. And he's a very unpredictable asset that had substantially reduced value at the trade deadline. Curry is a role player. The draft assets will be the 23rd pick this season and a 2027 pick 5 years from now. The ancillary assets fit the coin analogy. The centerpiece, Simmons, is a unique situation and shouldn't be gauged as a template. And unarguably he is a flawed player that can't fit many rosters

the Pels & Davis trade is the best one of your 3 examples, in some ways. But it's worth keeping in mind that Davis was 26 at the time, 5 years younger than Dame. There is also the 6'11 vs 6'2 factor. Ingram is a nice player, all-star. But Ball and Hart are gone. Pells got next to nothing for Ball. They got something for Hart but it's hard to gauge how much. The Lakers 1st round pick is a good asset; and the future 1st and future swap might be nice assets. But again, the value of Davis at 26, coming off a season when he averaged 26-12-4 doesn't look like a good gauge for 31 year old Dame coming off his worst season while missing most of it

there is a two-way component of this trade: one is that the draft pick is an example of a payoff for just rolling the dice. The other side of it is you really can't count on a team failing as spectacularly as the Lakers did this season. Maybe have to calculate where the kiss-of-death (westbrook) is going to land next

as I have said: anybody expecting Dame to bring back a "massive haul" (kind of the mantra for the trade-dame crowd) now or this summer is delusional. He'll be 32 next season and he's a 6'2 guard coming off his worst season in the NBA who had surgery to correct a chronic injury and missed 2/3 of the season. His value is depressed, greatly, right now. It might be much better at the trade deadline but if Portland is in the running for a top-6 seed he won't be traded. I don't think he'll be traded regardless but considering doing it now isn't logical

I've also noted that in another post you said that Dame will regress every season from here on out. Maybe the Blazers waited 4 years too long to trade Dame. Might as well ride him into the sunset

The Blazers certainly did wait too long to trade Dame if the goal was to get the maximum return. But 4 years ago there were many possible ways the Blazers could build a contender with Dame. Now many of those options have passed, and with shipping out 4 starters the short term opportunity to make roster moves to contend is more bleak now than ever in Dame's tenure.

The Thunder got SGA and might end up with one or more starters from those picks, thats a pretty good haul. The Celtics got Tatum and Brown in the Nets trades, but it took many years. Similarly we don't know what the Thunder will ultimately end up with now. Its a roll of the dice, maybe the Thunder ultimately don't get a stud in the draft from the trade. But if a trade like that plays out 100 times there will be a significant percentage of those outcomes that do turn into a star, and many with multiple quality starters. That has a lot of value; yes its an inexact predication.

Maybe a haul for Dame would get one or more legit building blocks to contend in 5-10 years. Or maybe the Blazers can't get a good haul for Dame. I'm fine riding him out into the sunset as you say if the offers are not enticing. I'd say all those offers I listed are very enticing and if available the Blazers should consider them. But if not, then ride out Dame. The team could pivot to rebuilding with him as the Lakers did around an old Kobe selling tickets, jacking shots, and not really winning. The Blazers should then try to make good draft picks inside and outside the lottery as the Lakers did with Clarkson, Randle, Russell, Nance, Hart, Ball, Ingram, Zubac, Kuzma, Caruso. Amazing the drafts the Lakers had to get all that young talent, and equally amazing how they now have none of it.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Trade draft picks or promising young player for run-of-the-mill vet.
Act surprised when said vet fails to have a meaningful impact.
Trade vet for a fraction of what you invested in them.
Lather-rinse-repeat.

Maybe we should try a different approach?

 

[Labinot41]

I do not trust Cronin at all. I'm afraid he's going to overpay Nurk and make some stupid bad deals like the Clippers trade in the offseason.

 

[Tince]

This year it's absolutely impossible that the 59th and 60th picks will become MVPs, all-stars, rotation players or even make it into pro ball anywhere.

That is an unprovable statement. (disregard - see my formal apology below).

But like I said it my post, the odds would suggest they won't be future MVPs.

 

[HansenYang]

That is an unprovable statement.

But like I said it my post, the odds would suggest they won't be future MVPs.

PCmor7 is accurate & his statement is completely provable.

There will only be 58 draft picks this year. Miami & Milwaukee both forfeited their 2nd round picks.

 

[Tince]

PCmor7 is accurate & his statement is completely provable.

There will only be 58 draft picks this year. Miami & Milwaukee both forfeited their 2nd round picks.