Zombie Fire Olshey

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
blue9 said:
I find all the squabbling over whether Harkless would have received more if the Blazer had more to offer boring. But some of the comments made me think about the way it went down, and I do wonder if Harkless' contract was suppressed by the fact we matched Crabbe's offer. Basically, Neil proved to the other GMs that he was going to match offers on his FAs, so other GMs didn't waste time in tying up money in an offer to Harkless that would be matched. If Crabbe didn't receive an offer from BKLYN, or if it had come later, or if we hadn't matched, then perhaps Harkless gets a $14M offer from some other team...which we would have matched.
Click to expand...

Sound logic.
 
Haynes' article is pushing the idea that it was PA who was steadfast in matching Crabbe. No questions asked.

Perhaps he's as much to blame as Neil?

FWIW, I too agree with the decision to match. Can't just let talent walk out when it's so hard to acquire. Not everything is determined by a zero-sum ROI consideration, especially in a market like this one.
 
Before the FA bidding started last summer, I had Crabbe and Harkless with about equal value. Maybe with a slight edge to Harkless over Crabbe because Mo’s game reminds me of Jerome Kersey.
 
e_blazer said:
As a practical matter, that's the last date to make a trade to dump a significant amount of salary, but according to the CBA FAQ page:

"The amount of tax a team pays depends on the season, the team salary as of the team's last regular season game, and whether the team is a "repeat offender"."
Click to expand...

I think other than a dump, the only way to reduce salary is to cut the 10 day contract guys and maybe a buyout of a player with a biggish salary.
 
e_blazer said:
I'll buy that teams were reluctant to offer Harkless a big contract because he hadn't demonstrated what he currently brings to the table, at least not on a consistent basis for a long enough time. That was proven by the fact that he didn't get other offers. Given that Olshey has a much bigger inventory of information on which draw in forming an opinion about his long term value to the team (practice games, coaching staff evaluations, etc.) than other GMs, I think his decision to give him a big contract was valid...as is now being demonstrated. As far as values, last summer's deals for players were crazy. Jordan Clarkson and Solomon Hill getting $12M a year? C'mon. How is Harkless not worth as much as those guys, not to mention Jon Leuer?
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no problem at all with Mo's contract. I think it's very fair to both parties.

My quibble is with the notion that some other GM would have offered Mo a contract starting at $14 million a year, but chose not to for fear Neil would match.

With all the money being tossed around last summer, if some GM would have thought Mo was worth $14 million a year, he would have gotten an offer.

BNM
 
I have an issue with the fact we signed Meyers before we signed moe back. That's alarming to me and also is further proof of the weird infatuation this organization has with Meyers
 
At Leonard's official retirement press conference, whenever that may be, a Trail Blazers' representative will say, "We wish Leonard well and we still fully believe in his potential."
 
Cippy91 said:
I have an issue with the fact we signed Meyers before we signed moe back. That's alarming to me and also is further proof of the weird infatuation this organization has with Meyers
Click to expand...
Or it could be that we were giving Harkless more time to field offers from other teams?

One thing I'll say for Olshey is he seems to want to keep his players happy. He offered Meyers $10m/4 years at the beginning of last season and Meyers "bet on himself". When the bet didn't pay off, rather than sticking it to Meyers Olshey gave him the same deal because relationships matter. Financially, it wasn't a good move. But perhaps it was the right move in the grand scheme of things. (Probably not, but you get what I'm driving at.)
 
I am not going to call for firing Olshey, yet, for a couple of reasons.

1) The team is in a serious funk so far this season. “Occasionally” they play at a very high caliber. Then they go back to being a sad lot. Given how well they developed last season, not sure anyone could predict this regression. Something is not right with this team. Unless the problem originates from one of the new players, how can we blame Olshey for it? It appears to be more of a locker room problem than a talent issue.

2) Olshey does not work for me, and I do not have any inside info on how the decisions were made last offseason.

However, I do have a serious issue with Olshey. Everything indicates that he did not have a plan that extended past this season. All of his FA signings only make sense for one season, this one, and look how it is turning out. The problem is, the 6 largest contracts were for 4 seasons, not one. (ok dame is for 5 seasons, but worth it)

After this season, we are looking at three seasons of cap space hell. It will be three years of trying to dodge the luxury tax. There will be few opportunities to improve the team, outside of the draft.

How could any GM with a multi-year plan do this to himself and the team??
 
Last edited:
IMO Stotts should be being held to the fire more so than Olshey.
We have seen spurts of good play (and last season), so we know that some talent is there.

Once again though, in this past Wizards game, the team shows up just fully unprepared to compete from the tip-off.
The degree of unprofessionalism (and lack of pride) in their conduct is mind boggling.

Little things continue to not be executed. Effort, boxing-out - DISCIPLINE (shots/turnovers/positioning)- there is just so much this team is doing wrong right now, that frankly, they are an embarrassment.

It's Stotts' job to, at the least, have the team ready to play and to compete night in night out.
This is just not happening - and along with the unprofessional conduct and frankly sub high school discipline/fundamentals being displayed - we need a coach who will demand some accountability.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, there's a big misconception that if a team is capable of playing well sometimes, they're capable of playing that well all the time and if they don't, it's the fault of lack of hustle, coaching, leadership, etc. But it isn't the case that occasional good games means that's the level they can play at all the time--variance exists both on the individual level and the team level. Players will sometimes play above their usual level in short stretches (and sometimes below their usual level for short stretches). The same is true of teams.

This isn't some special characteristic of the Trail Blazers that demonstrates unfulfilled talent level--every bad/mediocre team has stretches of looking much better than their record. If we applied this standard league-wide (a team is as talented as their very best play) every team "should be" playing .750+ ball or something along those lines.

The average over a longer stretch, like the entire season to date, is a much better baseline for setting expectations--unless there's some major extenuating circumstance, like a superstar having missed a long stretch of the season (Aminu doesn't qualify, in my opinion, though your mileage may vary). It isn't at all surprising to me that they can beat Cleveland and then lose to in blowouts to the Magic and Wizards and it doesn't change my expectations for the team. They didn't "turn a corner" in the Cleveland game, or the games before that, they just had a stretch of unusually good play.

Stotts may be a problem, or he may not, but I don't think their failure to live up consistently to their best games is indication of that. I also don't think they're inconsistent in giving effort (or, at least, no more so than any other team)--they're a below-.500 team that's experiencing the usual ups and downs from that baseline.
 
Minstrel said:
In my opinion, there's a big misconception that if a team is capable of playing well sometimes, they're capable of playing that well all the time and if they don't, it's the fault of lack of hustle, coaching, leadership, etc. But it isn't the case that occasional good games means that's the level they can play at all the time--variance exists both on the individual level and the team level. Players will sometimes play above their usual level in short stretches (and sometimes below their usual level for short stretches). The same is true of teams.

This isn't some special characteristic of the Trail Blazers that demonstrates unfulfilled talent level--every bad/mediocre team has stretches of looking much better than their record. If we applied this standard league-wide (a team is as talented as their very best play) every team "should be" playing .750+ ball or something along those lines.

The average over a longer stretch, like the entire season to date, is a much better baseline for setting expectations--unless there's some major extenuating circumstance, like a superstar having missed a long stretch of the season (Aminu doesn't qualify, in my opinion, though your mileage may vary). It isn't at all surprising to me that they can beat Cleveland and then lose to in blowouts to the Magic and Wizards and it doesn't change my expectations for the team. They didn't "turn a corner" in the Cleveland game, or the games before that, they just had a stretch of unusually good play.

Stotts may be a problem, or he may not, but I don't think their failure to live up consistently to their best games is indication of that. I also don't think they're inconsistent in giving effort (or, at least, no more so than any other team)--they're a below-.500 team that's experiencing the usual ups and downs from that baseline.
Click to expand...
Expectations were based on a long sample size which was last year. We are not even close to where we were defensively last year, so to suddenly regress badly especially on one end of the court means something is happening that is not the norm.
 
Rhal said:
Expectations were based on a long sample size which was last year. We are not even close to where we were defensively last year, so to suddenly regress badly especially on one end of the court means something is happening that is not the norm.
Click to expand...
2oth in defensive efficiency last year. 27th in defensive efficiency this year. 7th in offensive efficiency last year. 9th in offensive efficiency this year. And really I wouldn't call it a "long sample size" last year, it was about a half-season of play.
 
Nikolokolus said:
2oth in defensive efficiency last year. 27th in defensive efficiency this year. 7th in offensive efficiency last year. 9th in offensive efficiency this year. And really I wouldn't call it a "long sample size" last year, it was about a half-season of play.
Click to expand...
we are 20th in defensive efficiency because of a year long sample and we played about as bad as we are playing this year at the beginning of last year and a whole lot better the second half of the year. We went from allowing teams to avg 104p against us last year to teams avg 110 points this year, that is worst then the worst defensive team all of last year in Sacramento/
For reference the drop in points per game from 20th to 27th last year was under 3 a game this year its just under 5.
If you want to use defensive efficiency we were 105.5 last year and we are 109 this year.
The offense hasn't been a problem at all but the defense isn't just worse its damn near worst in the league
 
Yeah, the offense is about where it was last year, so I feel pretty comfortable with the proposition that Portland has a top-ten offense. As for the defense, the season-long number last year (20th) wasn't great--and while I'm fine with using the season-long number, it's at least a little concerning (now) that there was a stark split roughly pre- and post-All-Star-break. Portland didn't play at "20th ranked defense" level all season...they probably played at more like the 15th ranked defense last year after the All Star break and similar to this year before the break. After last season was over, one could build a plausible narrative that the huge difference was just a young team coming together, but I don't think that narrative holds together anymore especially when their main free agent addition was a player, in Turner, who derives his main value from defense and otherwise they kept that team together.

Instead, that post-All-Star-break period is looking like a half-season fluke wrapped in a full season (in total) of defensive futility. Portland being defensively futile also comports better with the actual personnel the team has, which in no way suggests defensive competence.

In any case, we can wait for the end of the season to better assess. But, right now, I'd say that the team is probably one of the ten best teams offensive and close to the bottom of the league in defense. Even with a strong offense, that kind of defense isn't going to lead to consistently good play, no matter how well-coached or how much effort they put in.
 
Rhal said:
we are 20th in defensive efficiency because of a year long sample and we played about as bad as we are playing this year at the beginning of last year and a whole lot better the second half of the year. We went from allowing teams to avg 104p against us last year to teams avg 110 points this year, that is worst then the worst defensive team all of last year in Sacramento/
For reference the drop in points per game from 20th to 27th last year was under 3 a game this year its just under 5.
If you want to use defensive efficiency we were 105.5 last year and we are 109 this year.
The offense hasn't been a problem at all but the defense isn't just worse its damn near worst in the league
Click to expand...
My point was that even if you account for a half-season of average defense, it's not like they were lights out and it still wasn't much of a sample. Secondly, after that half-season of play I'm guessing coaches around the league simply adjusted and implemented some strategies over the off-season to counter Stotts' approach last year. The last week or two shows that Stotts is maybe finally countering the counter. Who knows where it will go from here: Cleveland and Lakers good. Orlando and Washington bad.
 
Last edited:
Nikolokolus said:
I'm guessing coaches around the league simply adjusted and implemented some strategies over the off-season to counter Stotts' approach last year. The last week or two shows that Stotts is maybe finally countering the the counter.
Click to expand...
So, in another 5 years we'll see another wrinkle to our defense? Yay!!
 
blue9 said:
So, in another 5 years we'll see another wrinkle to our defense? Yay!!
Click to expand...
I don't think Stotts is much of a defense guy, but he doesn't have a lot of ingredients in his kitchen either. It's all pretty much smoke and mirrors with Lillard and CJ on the perimeter and Mason manning the middle -- just too many leaks and not enough sealant.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I don't think Stotts is much of a defense guy, but he doesn't have a lot of ingredients in his kitchen either. It's all pretty much smoke and mirrors with Lillard and CJ on the perimeter and Mason manning the middle -- just too many leaks and not enough sealant.
Click to expand...
He doesn't really have a whole lot to work with if you really think about it. This team is desperate for some good veterans.
 
Sinobas said:
If Neil would have done nothing but resign Harkless this offseason, we'd still have had enough to offer a near max contract to someone this offseason. (or do a lopsided trade) But now we're stuck with Crabbe/Turner/Leonard.
Click to expand...
Crabbe Turner and Leonard could attend motivational camps. That may be the cheapest option
 
In every speech it was about asset acquisition or keeping assets to be in position for a big move. Something he did perfectly in Los Angeles with the CP3 trade. With all the contracts from last summer it was clear that the asset acquisition aspect of his plan was over. Now the next part has to be capitalization on those assets. The major problem is that those guys (Meyers, Turner or Crabbe) don't play good enough to draw interest. Harkless does.

Should we fire Olshey now? I don't think so. Waiting until this summer to give him two windows to trade his assets would be logic in my opinion.
 
SwissBlazer said:
In every speech it was about asset acquisition or keeping assets to be in position for a big move. Something he did perfectly in Los Angeles with the CP3 trade. With all the contracts from last summer it was clear that the asset acquisition aspect of his plan was over. Now the next part has to be capitalization on those assets. The major problem is that those guys (Meyers, Turner or Crabbe) don't play good enough to draw interest. Harkless does.

Should we fire Olshey now? I don't think so. Waiting until this summer to give him two windows to trade his assets would be logic in my opinion.
Click to expand...
If he can find a trade partner interested in Plumlee he needs to move now. I like him, but he's really a more of a high-level, offensively minded backup center miscast as a starter, and going into the luxury tax to retain him seems like a bad strategy. Conversely, letting him walk for nothing is just one more asset out the door for zero compensation; I'd settle for a second round pick if I were Neil.

As for waiting until the summer on the rest, I suppose it doesn't hurt to see if a few guys like Meyers, Davis, et al. can rebound from a poor first half of the season and up their value a bit. I just hope to god Neil and Allen don't get bamboozled into holding on to them if they do manage to reverse course for a couple of months.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I don't think Stotts is much of a defense guy, but he doesn't have a lot of ingredients in his kitchen either. It's all pretty much smoke and mirrors with Lillard and CJ on the perimeter and Mason manning the middle -- just too many leaks and not enough sealant.
Click to expand...
The following post is an encore presentation of a previous post previously posted:

This team needs a center.

Where are you Festi-Wan Ezoli? You're our only hope.

Ouch, that's a dismal thought.

:cheers:
 
Nikolokolus said:
If he can find a trade partner interested in Plumlee he needs to move now. I like him, but he's really a more of a high-level, offensively minded backup center miscast as a starter, and going into the luxury tax to retain him seems like a bad strategy. Conversely, letting him walk for nothing is just one more asset out the door for zero compensation; I'd settle for a second round pick if I were Neil.

As for waiting until the summer on the rest, I suppose it doesn't hurt to see if a few guys like Meyers, Davis, et al. can rebound from a poor first half of the season and up their value a bit. I just hope to god Neil and Allen don't get bamboozled into holding on to them if they do manage to reverse course for a couple of months.
Click to expand...

I would keep Plums over Meyers and Mo. If the only reason to get rid of him is the salary cap I would find other ways to lower our cap amount.
 
SwissBlazer said:
In every speech it was about asset acquisition or keeping assets to be in position for a big move. Something he did perfectly in Los Angeles with the CP3 trade. With all the contracts from last summer it was clear that the asset acquisition aspect of his plan was over. Now the next part has to be capitalization on those assets. The major problem is that those guys (Meyers, Turner or Crabbe) don't play good enough to draw interest. Harkless does.

Should we fire Olshey now? I don't think so. Waiting until this summer to give him two windows to trade his assets would be logic in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree. This season has to be written off as a fundamental component of Olshey's long term strategy. If this strategy doesn't pay off by the start of next training camp then Olshey's strategy will have been a dismal failure. And if that happens: :grim:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top