FIRE CRONIN

[tykendo]

I stand by that comment, the Blazers lost flexibility in the Clippers trade and many of Joes other moves.

I love the Scoot pick and similarly loved the Sharpe pick on both draft days. I can still hate the Clippers trade. The Clippers trade is when we basically went down the road of eventually likely trading Dame, so I was very frustrated at the time.

I'm content now keeping or trading Dame if we continue to build the team around Scoot/Sharpe which it appears we're doing.

Yeah I was one of Joes biggest critics, but I love his draft. If he makes good moves going forward and doesn't repeat his prior blunders I'll flip my tune of being one of his biggest critics.

Sounds like Scooby Doo running in place to me. You jumped all over him instead of being patient. And the Clipper moves did lead to flexibility.

 

[Natebishop3]

Sounds like Scooby Doo running in place to me. You jumped all over him instead of being patient. And the Clipper moves did lead to flexibility.

It did not. It actually hurt our flexibility.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Sounds like Scooby Doo running in place to me. You jumped all over him instead of being patient. And the Clipper moves did lead to flexibility.

What flexibility? Name one player or asset we acquired with that Clippers trade "flexibility"?

I jumped all over him for making shitty moves. If he makes good to great moves later, and does it multiple times yeah it will change my evaluation. I don't take back any of my prior comments as they were all justified by what he did at that time.

I hope we see more of the Cronin from two drafts and not the trade deadline/free agency one. They were two completely different GMs.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

It did not. It actually hurt our flexibility.

Correct, if we had Norms contract we could be throwing that into trades instead of having to dump a starter.

 

[Tince]

Correct, if we had Norms contract we could be throwing that into trades instead of having to dump a starter.

But we may not have Grant (or $20m worth of salaried players), assuming Jody doesn't want to go into the tax.

Would you rather Powell or Grant?

 

[Natebishop3]

But we may not have Grant (or $20m worth of salaried players), assuming Jody doesn't want to go into the tax.

Would you rather Powell or Grant?

Can I get back to you in a couple weeks when we know if Grant walks for nothing?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

But we may not have Grant (or $20m worth of salaried players), assuming Jody doesn't want to go into the tax.

Would you rather Powell or Grant?

First that's a tax thing any yes I knock the Blazers management if they are losing flexibility, losing player talent only to save cash.

Secondly even if staying under the tax had to be done there were other options; cutting Little and not payin Nurk above the MLE. Or eliminate other similar wastes of salary. Yes maybe drafting Duren instead of getting Grant.

Dumping Norm for nothing wasn't needed, it predictably provided no flexibility that the Blazers have or could use to improve the roster.

 

[Natebishop3]

First that's a tax thing any yes I knock the Blazers management if they are losing flexibility, losing player talent only to save cash.

Secondly even if staying under the tax had to be done there were other options; cutting Little and not payin Nurk above the MLE. Or eliminate other similar wastes of salary. Yes maybe drafting Duren instead of getting Grant.

Dumping Norm for nothing wasn't needed, it predictably provided no flexibility that the Blazers have or could use to improve the roster.

Exactly.

 

[Tince]

First that's a tax thing any yes I knock the Blazers management if they are losing flexibility, losing player talent only to save cash.

Secondly even if staying under the tax had to be done there were other options; cutting Little and not payin Nurk above the MLE. Or eliminate other similar wastes of salary. Yes maybe drafting Duren instead of getting Grant.

Dumping Norm for nothing wasn't needed, it predictably provided no flexibility that the Blazers have or could use to improve the roster.

Ok... so let Nurk/Nas walk so we can have a backcourt of Dame/Ant/Sharpe/Powell? I didn't realize people wanted to go smaller.

Also, while Nas isn't great, his contract seems to be decent and tradable, which increases flexibility. Not sure why you'd want that one gone for a $20m/year bench guy in an already crowded backcourt.

 

[Tince]

Can I get back to you in a couple weeks when we know if Grant walks for nothing?

It is always easier to evaluate a move when you have more information, especially the luxury of hindsight.

 

[Natebishop3]

It is always easier to evaluate a move when you have more information, especially the luxury of hindsight.

This isn’t hindsight. We knew the threat when we traded for him and it hasn’t played out yet. He didn’t sign his extension and he’s going to be a UFA.

Norm is still locked up for another 3 years. He could have been dealt at the deadline, before the draft or right now. We only have several big contracts to use as filler right now.

 

[Whyachi]

Dumping Norm for nothing

the accepted theory is nobody would take RoCo's bad contract unless a good player or pick was attached, and pick master Cronin ain't trading no picks.

 

[Tince]

This isn’t hindsight. We knew the threat when we traded for him and it hasn’t played out yet. He didn’t sign his extension and he’s going to be a UFA.

Norm is still locked up for another 3 years. He could have been dealt at the deadline, before the draft or right now. We only have several big contracts to use as filler right now.

You asked if you could wait to see if Grant re-signs to answer my question. I think by definition, you waiting to grade a past move until future moves are made, would be hindsight.

 

[Whyachi]

or maybe Ballmer sleezed his way into advising a new owner and rookie GM, by saying he'll help out the Blazers cap space problem, but you gotta give me Norman Powell.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

the accepted theory is nobody would take RoCo's bad contract unless a good player or pick was attached, and pick master Cronin ain't trading no picks.

What kind of idiot would accept that? Roco's contract was expiring.

 

[Whyachi]

What kind of idiot would accept that? Roco's contract was expiring.

I come from the land of Cronin disciples. There's some serious Front Office smootching scattered about. Especially right now, Blazers got Scoot !! incredible

 

[Natebishop3]

the accepted theory is nobody would take RoCo's bad contract unless a good player or pick was attached, and pick master Cronin ain't trading no picks.

But RoCo was a free agent. Why did we need to dump his contract?

 

[Natebishop3]

You asked if you could wait to see if Grant re-signs to answer my question. I think by definition, you waiting to grade a past move until future moves are made, would be hindsight.

To me it’s still part of the same move.

 

[Tince]

To me it’s still part of the same move.

You thinking obtaining a player and retaining a player later is one move?

 

[Natebishop3]

You thinking obtaining a player and retaining a player later is one move?

Yes. In this case. If you use resources to bring in a player that will be a free agent, and you don’t retain said player, that’s all part of the same deal. Do you think we brought him in to be a one year rental?

 

[Tince]

Yes. In this case. If you use resources to bring in a player that will be a free agent, and you don’t retain said player, that’s all part of the same deal. Do you think we brought him in to be a one year rental?

Hate to break it to you: Every player that is brought in ends up being a free agent!

 

[Natebishop3]

Hate to break it to you: Every player that is brought in ends up being a free agent!

Not one year later.

One of the main reasons we don’t want to go after Siakam is because of his pending free agency. So if it’s a determining factor in that trade, why wouldn’t it be a factor with this one? If Grant does not re-sign, that was a major fail.

 

[Tince]

Not one year later.

One of the main reasons we don’t want to go after Siakam is because of his pending free agency. So if it’s a determining factor in that trade, why wouldn’t it be a factor with this one? If Grant does not re-sign, that was a major fail.

Ok... we're getting closer to dialing in your criteria!

What if Grant re-signs for a ton of money? Does that impact your view of the trade?

 

[Natebishop3]

Ok... we're getting closer to dialing in your criteria!

What if Grant re-signs for a ton of money? Does that impact your view of the trade?

Absolutely. We basically traded those assets for the right to retain Grant. Now we get to see if we do retain him and for how much.

 

[wizenheimer]

Correct, if we had Norms contract we could be throwing that into trades instead of having to dump a starter.

you're just worked up it's Ant in all the trade scenarios

by the way, in July, Ant + Nurkic + Little + Keon could bring back 62M in salary. A Grant S&T could bump that up close to 100M. That's a lot of flexibility. The most damaging factor in Portland's flexibility is Chicago controlling the next 6 years of first round picks

and having Powell would have seen Sharpe confined to the bench. And the Blazers probably picking in the 10-14 range instead of 3. Your notion of flexibility isn't the only consideration. Besides all that, the Clippers trade was almost certainly a Vulcan move

 

[Tince]

Absolutely. We basically traded those assets for the right to retain Grant. Now we get to see if we do retain him and for how much.

How do you factor in the probability of us retaining the assets we gave up and what unknown amount of money we would've had to play them, in place of the asset we received?

Feels like the butterfly effect could go on endlessly once you start it. And if you decide to cut it off, it will always leave an incomplete, unbalance picture of the move.

 

[wizenheimer]

Not one year later.

One of the main reasons we don’t want to go after Siakam is because of his pending free agency. .

that's not close to the same; poor comparison. Portland traded a 2025 protected Milwaukee 1st and a TPE for Grant. His expiring contract was an acceptable risk for that bargain-basement price. Siakam would have cost Ant + Little + the 3rd pick. That's an entirely different cost acquisition equation

geeeezuzz....I had to 'listen' to several months of angst and trashing Cronin because of people believing he was going to trade the 7th pick for Grant. But Detroit did accept that low price and Portland got the best forward they've had since Aldridge. But now apparently it was a bad trade because Cronin didn't trade for a better player with 3 years left on his deal

 

[Natebishop3]

that's not close to the same; poor comparison. Portland traded a 2025 protected Milwaukee 1st and a TPE for Grant. His expiring contract was an acceptable risk for that bargain-basement price. Siakam would have cost Ant + Little + the 3rd pick. That's an entirely different cost acquisition equation

geeeezuzz....I had to 'listen' to several months of angst and trashing Cronin because of people believing he was going to trade the 7th pick for Grant. But Detroit did accept that low price and Portland got the best forward they've had since Aldridge. But now apparently it was a bad trade because Cronin didn't trade for a better player with 3 years left on his deal

….. wut?

I said that I was reserving the right to judge the deal until after his free agency. Keep up.

And just because Siakam is a higher risk doesn’t invalidate the comparison that they’re both risks that had to be factored before making the move. We accepted the risk on Grant and we have yet to see if it worked out. We seemingly did not accept the risk on Siakam. How is that comparison bad?

 

[Natebishop3]

How do you factor in the probability of us retaining the assets we gave up and what unknown amount of money we would've had to play them, in place of the asset we received?

Feels like the butterfly effect could go on endlessly once you start it. And if you decide to cut it off, it will always leave an incomplete, unbalance picture of the move.

You’re making this so much more complex than it needs to be.

We used assets to acquire a player. If that player ends up only staying for one year and we don’t get any compensation if he leaves, that’s a bad trade. If he stays that’s a win. If he stays for way too much money, that’s harder to judge. He would be more difficult to trade if Dame leaves. He would eat up more of the cap. Etc etc etc.

Do you think the team is expecting to have used those assets for only one year of Grant? Do you think they will be happy if he leaves?

 

[Whyachi]

But RoCo was a free agent. Why did we need to dump his contract?

Because Cronin had plans to sign Ant, Nurk & Nassir to big fat contracts? Empty the bowl, fill it back up with Dame's buddies.

The GM also seems infatuated with Keon Johnson. Sacrificing Powell and RoCo got the player Cronin & Billups wanted. And left some cap room to buy out Bledsoe's contract. Is Coach Billups is your friendly neighborhood Clipper helper?