Grade the offseason

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Grade

  • Total voters
    79
B.

Keeping Lillard Happy. My focus for me that he's in Portland his whole career.

Sharpe seems like a good pick for us. Franchise potential. No rush, but if he can contribute off the bench, all the better.
Ant will continue to develop. Good to lock him up.
Increased the Defense with GP2 and Grant.

Still have some assets we can trade out for a starter at the 3.
 
We’re a small market team and even our star cannot recruit a big name to come. Dame convinced Grant but I’m uncertain if he’ll move the needle much.

mall things considered we drafted well, we picked up two decent players in Grant and Payton and we re-signed Ant and Nurk. I don’t think I was planning for much more, so I give it a B.

we need a power forward vet (younger than Aldridge) and I’d like to see an addition this Summer
 
For where it is so far, C. If Cronin has more homework to turn in, I'll be happy to look at it and change the grade.
 
D. I was going to give it an F but that's only if you include the trade deadline. Given where we ended up after the season ended, I'll give it a D.

A: Draft Sharpe. I like the upside and it's the only thing I'm enthusiastic about.
B: Re-sign Nurk. He's a pretty decent value at that salary and we needed someone taller than 6'8" who is actually an NBA-level player.
C: Trade for Grant. I don't think he's that good, I don't think his contract is that good, and I don't like that we traded several picks we're going to need in a post-Dam world.
D: Extend Ant. Too much money with no clear reason for that amount of money given I don't see anyone capable and willing of paying him that much, and while I like him I don't think it's likely he'll blow up to a max-level player if he'd played out his QO and become unrestricted next year.
F: Sign Payton II. Too much money for a journeyman who has barely played basketball in the NBA, is the small, and is very limited on one end of the floor.​

That sort of averages out to a C, I guess, but if there are percentages, I'd give low A, B, C, and F, so I'm calling it a D overall.

Bad strategy (build around Dame after trading away veterans for little value) followed by bad tactics... a disaster overall :(
 
I actually do not mind this off-season as much as the general consensus here, and that surprises me because I hated last off-season, and I was very underwhelmed with Joe Cronin's moves at the deadline.

But it's very clear to me that we actually DO have a plan, so I'm going to actually defend the roster moves here.

1.) Joe and Chauncey clearly have a type based on the players we targeted this off-season (Thybulle, GP2, Brown, OG, etc.), the guys that we traded for at the deadline (Hart, Winslow), and the players that started earning minutes in the rotation last year (Watford, Little). They want guys that can actually guard 1:1 and guard multiple positions.
  • Everyone focuses on the "big wing" quote from Joe but the reality is that big wings who are ALSO good perimeter defenders are hard to find.
  • Being bigger is a benefit, but it's not THE requirement. Clearly it's more important that this player is actually a good defender and not just a good defender in theory.
  • This is why we went after GP2/Thybulle/Brown etc. and were never connected to "bigger" wing types like Porter/Warren who are really PFs and just better in theory because they are "bigger".
  • We actually tried to go for the homerun play first (OG) before moving on to our other targets. Sometimes shit doesn't work out, the NBA is hard.
  • Our best (only) perimeter defenders last year were Nas and Nance. These two had to cover Dame, CJ, Norm and RoCo. Now we have GP2, Little, Winslow, Hart and Grant trying to cover for Dame and Ant. This is a MUCH better defensive situation.
2.) There's only one basketball.
  • Ant and Dame are going to be close to 30% usage. Hart and Grant 20%+. You don't pay Nurkic this much without giving him touches. Everyone else is going to be a low usage role player.
  • I shake my head every time someone suggests players whose value is tied to their offense/usage (Warren, Smith etc.). Whether you agree with it or not, after we traded for Grant and re-signed Nurkic, we committed to them being a focal point of the offense. You have to wonder why those players would consider the Blazers without a guaranteed role on offense.
3.) This was our reality after we were unable to jump up in the lottery (and moved down!)
  • There's no one move that would make us contenders this year. Where are all the people preaching a 2-3 year retool? Weren't people saying this would take more than one year?
  • I was always super skeptical the Ant/Dame pairing is championship material. If this year does not work, I'm confident the FO will have the guts to actually move forward without one of them (most likely Dame).
Are there things I wish we could have done? Sure. I would rather have a better rim protecting backup center than Eubanks. We could have actually HIT the homerun (OG or whatever). But all things considered, it's a fine off-season. At the very least there is a clear plan in place. It's much better than last year with the Zeller/McLemore/Snell signings.
 
I wonder if we can still go after OG.

We need to move Hart. We can move Keon. I really don't want to give up Sharpe at this point so would Hart/Keon/2 firsts get OG?
 
Natebishop3 said:
I wonder if we can still go after OG.

We need to move Hart. We can move Keon. I really don't want to give up Sharpe at this point so would Hart/Keon/2 firsts get OG?
Click to expand...

We have to remove protections on the chicago pick, so its almost like 3 lightly protected firsts + Hart + Keon for OG.

BTW I don't think Keon has value, like at all.

No thanks.
 
B-Roy said:
We have to remove protections on the chicago pick, so its almost like 3 lightly protected firsts + Hart + Keon for OG.

BTW I don't think Keon has value, like at all.

No thanks.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... I'm just trying to think of some kind of consolidation that works under the hard cap.
 
Ed O said:
D. I was going to give it an F but that's only if you include the trade deadline. Given where we ended up after the season ended, I'll give it a D.

A: Draft Sharpe. I like the upside and it's the only thing I'm enthusiastic about.
B: Re-sign Nurk. He's a pretty decent value at that salary and we needed someone taller than 6'8" who is actually an NBA-level player.
C: Trade for Grant. I don't think he's that good, I don't think his contract is that good, and I don't like that we traded several picks we're going to need in a post-Dam world.
D: Extend Ant. Too much money with no clear reason for that amount of money given I don't see anyone capable and willing of paying him that much, and while I like him I don't think it's likely he'll blow up to a max-level player if he'd played out his QO and become unrestricted next year.
F: Sign Payton II. Too much money for a journeyman who has barely played basketball in the NBA, is the small, and is very limited on one end of the floor.​

That sort of averages out to a C, I guess, but if there are percentages, I'd give low A, B, C, and F, so I'm calling it a D overall.

Bad strategy (build around Dame after trading away veterans for little value) followed by bad tactics... a disaster overall :(
Click to expand...

A: Draft Sharpe. I like the upside and it's the only thing I'm enthusiastic about. It's all about upside....there will likely be little contribution anytime soon.
B: Re-sign Nurk. He's a pretty decent value at that salary and we needed someone taller than 6'8" who is actually an NBA-level player. More than one would be nice. We are looking good for a YMCA team.
C: Trade for Grant. I don't think he's that good, I don't think his contract is that good, and I don't like that we traded several picks we're going to need in a post-Dam world. Agreed. Terrible rebounder, defense declining, not an efficient shooter, and if we have to pay anything more than he is making now, it will be an over pay.
D: Extend Ant. Too much money with no clear reason for that amount of money given I don't see anyone capable and willing of paying him that much, and while I like him I don't think it's likely he'll blow up to a max-level player if he'd played out his QO and become unrestricted next year. Agreed. Only a couple teams that had cap space and neither of them expressed any interest from what I heard.
F: Sign Payton II. Too much money for a journeyman who has barely played basketball in the NBA, is the small, and is very limited on one end of the floor. Nice defense and hustle, but we will be hard capped for yet another 6'3" guard? The only reason to go get him is because the 2 starting guards we are paying so much money to can't play defense.
 
For the 11 people who voted "incomplete," do you want to change your votes now?

I will bump up my C to a low B for the Walker pick.

Still think we need a big behind Nurk who is serviceable.
 
illmatic99 said:
For the 11 people who voted "incomplete," do you want to change your votes now?

I will bump up my C to a low B for the Walker pick.

Still think we need a big behind Nurk who is serviceable.
Click to expand...
Changed my incomplete to a C. Likely a high C, low B. I like the high upside gamble on Sharpe. Walker looks like maybe he can give us some hustle minutes immediately. I liked the Grant trade.
I just would have liked to see a little more. I know this is more than a one offseason process. We weren't becoming title contenders this season with what we had available. I like the path we're on. I just wanted one other move to transpire. Maybe one still will, but not holding out hope at this point.
Stull, am excited for the season. It got really stale here,and there's at least more reasons to be optimistic than previously.
 
RR7 said:
Changed my incomplete to a C. Likely a high C, low B. I like the high upside gamble on Sharpe. Walker looks like maybe he can give us some hustle minutes immediately. I liked the Grant trade.
I just would have liked to see a little more. I know this is more than a one offseason process. We weren't becoming title contenders this season with what we had available. I like the path we're on. I just wanted one other move to transpire. Maybe one still will, but not holding out hope at this point.
Stull, am excited for the season. It got really stale here,and there's at least more reasons to be optimistic than previously.
Click to expand...
I'm the same way, but went with the B.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Eastoff said:
I'm the same way, but went with the B.
Click to expand...
Really, I probably should have. I should grade what was done, and not based on my hopes that we land OG for scraps!
 
I'm still on incomplete but if I changed at this point it would be a C. I won't move off of incomplete though until I can form a gauge of Sharpe

*I gave an A for dumping CJ-Powell-Nance and a C+ on the return for trading them although a B+ is more appropriate because of the perfect storm of bad luck that kept Portland from having the 11th pick

* adding Grant warrants a C generically, except that adding him for that Bucks pick and a 2nd warrants a B+

* I gave a C- for the Simons and Nurkic contracts, but that's me being charitable...or maybe me being an asshole

* a D+ for the Payton contract because hard-cap and Portland not getting bigger

* Dame's extension doesn't bother me at all
 
A-

Sure, we didn't get the star we wanted but that was probably never likely to happen. The pieces we added I think are a great fit for what we needed to do. Grant has been severely underrated the past several months around here. GP2 graded out to be the most effective defensive player in last year's playoffs.

We got a lot better defensively and a lot more dynamic. I never had Sharpe as a regular contributor from day 1 but a great long term piece. Hopefully he doesn't need surgery and can get acclimated with NBA professionals.
 
B
Locked up Dame and put end hopefully to he wants trade rumors. Two solid acquisitions in Grant and Payton. Sharpe a question mark but Walker looking like a steal.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I haven't paid much attention but I think Nurk's behind's size is fine.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. Looks proportionate to Dame's:

lillard_and_nurk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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