I'm So SICK & TIRED of Neil Olshey (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
H.C. said:
Valid.
But I don't really care about what he does on offense.
WB4 imo needs to play because he's shown the ability to get after someone @ 94.
Reminds me of Matthews.

If he's playing off lillard or CJ or Curry as the 3 in the offense. Is it required WB4 creates for himself or others?
I'm not so sure.
My only concern would be shooting.
But I have that concern about the entire roster outside of Lillard/CJ/Curry.
Click to expand...
He's shown this in such a small sample size that we shouldn't assume it's something he can consistently do.
 
BonesJones said:
He's shown this in such a small sample size that we shouldn't assume it's something he can consistently do.
Click to expand...
I’m super excited to see what Baldwin can do with a full training camp and all that, but really the only memories I have of him last year was the Houston game and yes it was awesome.
If he’s going to do this for real though, he’ll learn those teams will scout him, they’ll be prepared for what he does.
 
Here's another Olshey quote that I don't understand. Can someone translate it, in particular that last sentence?
While discussing re-signing starting center Jusuf Nurkic to a four-year, $48 million contract, Portland president Neil Olshey explained his stance.

Olshey:

Long term, we have him for the next fours, which gives us a really good runway. We’re keeping the core together, knowing Dame and C.J. have at least three years left on their contracts. And we give that group the best chance to win without impeding our ability long-term in terms of being into a number that’s completely non-liquid.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
Here's another Olshey quote that I don't understand. Can someone translate it, in particular that last sentence?
While discussing re-signing starting center Jusuf Nurkic to a four-year, $48 million contract, Portland president Neil Olshey explained his stance.

Olshey:

Long term, we have him for the next fours, which gives us a really good runway. We’re keeping the core together, knowing Dame and C.J. have at least three years left on their contracts. And we give that group the best chance to win without impeding our ability long-term in terms of being into a number that’s completely non-liquid.
Click to expand...
Translation: we didn't give Nurk so much money that we will have a hard time moving his contract (ie - being to liquidate Nurk into another asset)....

Maybe NO is learning from the Turner and Meyers contracts.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
Here's another Olshey quote that I don't understand. Can someone translate it, in particular that last sentence?
While discussing re-signing starting center Jusuf Nurkic to a four-year, $48 million contract, Portland president Neil Olshey explained his stance.

Olshey:

Long term, we have him for the next fours, which gives us a really good runway. We’re keeping the core together, knowing Dame and C.J. have at least three years left on their contracts. And we give that group the best chance to win without impeding our ability long-term in terms of being into a number that’s completely non-liquid.
Click to expand...

tester551 said:
Translation: we didn't give Nurk so much money that we will have a hard time moving his contract (ie - being to liquidate Nurk into another asset)....

Maybe NO is learning from the Turner and Meyers contracts.
Click to expand...

Exactly what i got of it too.
 
Scalma said:
Why hasn’t Nurkic gotten a press conference for his re-signing? Even Meyers got one!
Click to expand...

Remember in the Curry/Staukas presser when Olshey they were waiting on "guests" who'd got caught in traffic or something along those lines? It was the same day his deal was announced. Maybe it was Nurk that was caught in the "Portland holiday traffic."
 
An outside take on our off season:
"A surprising third seed in the West last season, Portland’s first-round sweep at the hands of the New Orleans Pelicans revealed it wasn’t ready for the big time. Despite what should have been a wake-up call, the Blazers didn’t substantially change their roster.

GM Neil Olshey let Shabazz Napier and Pat Connaughton walk for minimum deals, opting to replace them with Seth Curry (fine, but a health risk) and Nik Stauskas (inexplicable). Meanwhile, the roster’s most glaring void, forward depth, went unaddressed."
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...d-by-their-teams-offseason?share=other#slide0
 
Here is the whole spiel on the Blazers, the article also discusses a few other teams:

  1. The Portland Trail Blazers didn't get younger, didn't add a third star to ease the burden on Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum and remain hamstrung by bad deals they can't or won't unload.

    A surprising third seed in the West last season, Portland's first-round sweep at the hands of the New Orleans Pelicans revealed it wasn't ready for the big time. Despite what should have been a wake-up call, the Blazers didn't substantially change their roster.

    GM Neil Olshey let Shabazz Napier and Pat Connaughton walk for minimum deals, opting to replace them with Seth Curry (fine, but a health risk) and Nik Stauskas (inexplicable). Meanwhile, the roster's most glaring void, forward depth, went unaddressed.

    The Blazers still haven't spent their mid-level exception, and you have to think they'd have made a good landing spot for the likes of Luc Mbah a Moute, James Ennis, Treveon Graham or any number of affordable wings. Inaction on that front was just weird.

    The unfortunate upshot of all this, in addition to a likely slip in the standings, is that rumbles encouraging the Dame-CJ breakup will intensify. Moving one of the team's two best players seems like the easy fix, and those encouraging a broader teardown will continue to support the idea.

    Really, though, the smarter approach would have been putting everyone but Lillard and McCollum on the block (perhaps with picks attached) to find the dynamic backcourt pairing some capable help.

    As it is, the Blazers head into this season primed to disappoint because the front office seems committed to the status quo.

    Zach Collins, your unlikely star turn has never been more necessary.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
Here is the whole spiel on the Blazers, the article also discusses a few other teams.
  1. The Blazers still haven't spent their mid-level exception, and you have to think they'd have made a good landing spot for the likes of Luc Mbah a Moute, James Ennis, Treveon Graham or any number of affordable wings. Inaction on that front was just weird.
Click to expand...
I wonder what this genius thinks the Blazers used to sign Curry and Trent if it wasn’t the tax payers MLE?
 
Last edited:
hoopsjock said:
It's one of my biggest pet peeves reading or listening to people talk on the radio when they obviously don't know the CBA very well.
Click to expand...

CBA? Heck, I don't think some of them even know the NBA very well. Way too many radio shows or blogs dedicated to guys that often have no clue.
 
CupWizier said:
CBA? Heck, I don't think some of them even know the NBA very well. Way too many radio shows or blogs dedicated to guys that often have no clue.
Click to expand...
I mean there are a few people on here know the CBA so well it’s intimidating..., The only time I get frustrated when listening to the radio or reading blogs is when they’re all “worked up”, over things that aren’t even technically possible. Like hey get worked up over the unlikely to happen, but Isaac Ropp sometimes goes on and on and on about things the Blazers couldn’t have done if they wanted too.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I mean there are a few people on here know the CBA so well it’s intimidating..., The only time I get frustrated when listening to the radio or reading blogs is when they’re all “worked up”, over things that aren’t even technically possible. Like hey get worked up over the unlikely to happen, but Isaac Ropp sometimes goes on and on and on about things the Blazers couldn’t have done if they wanted too.
Click to expand...
I don't mind people on here IF they aren't completely crazy (like Lanny's Lebron one the other day was ridiculous) or if they read your posts and try to learn. It bugs the crap out of me if you tell someone it isn't possible and they keep suggesting it.

I love Primetime but I have to change the dial when Ropp starts talking about tanking two years ago. It's like a fish story that keeps getting exaggerated as time goes on. Instead of the Blazers being a few games away from the 4th worst record (which is what really happened), Ropp now says they were only a game or two away from having the #1 pick. Then he always says something along the lines of "How good would Tatum look as a Blazer? Could've happened if they listened to me." I did the math after that season. The worst point in relation to .500 we were that season was at 24-35 (they were 23-32 at the time of the "tanking" comments). That means in order to have the 4th best odds in the lottery they would've had to go 3-20 the rest of the season. The Nets finished with 20 wins so the #1 pick was impossible. The Suns finished with 24 wins so tying for the 2nd best odds in the lottery would mean we would've had to go 0-23 the rest of the way. Even if we went 6-17 it would've given us the 6th best odds. Now would having the 6th pick be better than making the playoffs and getting swept? Not sure when you consider that we ended up getting the 10th pick anyway and that Olshey might have taken Collins at 6 anyway.

Last year when Detroit traded for Griffin he had a full 15 minute cringe-worthy segment about how the Pistons should tank by sitting Griffin the rest of the year and then they'd have two lottery picks to add to Griffin and Drummond after the year. It was only after getting blasted with text messages did he realize that Detroit was the one who traded away their 1st round pick not the extra pick.
 
hoopsjock said:
I don't mind people on here IF they aren't completely crazy (like Lanny's Lebron one the other day was ridiculous) or if they read your posts and try to learn. It bugs the crap out of me if you tell someone it isn't possible and they keep suggesting it.

I love Primetime but I have to change the dial when Ropp starts talking about tanking two years ago. It's like a fish story that keeps getting exaggerated as time goes on. Instead of the Blazers being a few games away from the 4th worst record (which is what really happened), Ropp now says they were only a game or two away from having the #1 pick. Then he always says something along the lines of "How good would Tatum look as a Blazer? Could've happened if they listened to me." I did the math after that season. The worst point in relation to .500 we were that season was at 24-35 (they were 23-32 at the time of the "tanking" comments). That means in order to have the 4th best odds in the lottery they would've had to go 3-20 the rest of the season. The Nets finished with 20 wins so the #1 pick was impossible. The Suns finished with 24 wins so tying for the 2nd best odds in the lottery would mean we would've had to go 0-23 the rest of the way. Even if we went 6-17 it would've given us the 6th best odds. Now would having the 6th pick be better than making the playoffs and getting swept? Not sure when you consider that we ended up getting the 10th pick anyway and that Olshey might have taken Collins at 6 anyway.

Last year when Detroit traded for Griffin he had a full 15 minute cringe-worthy segment about how the Pistons should tank by sitting Griffin the rest of the year and then they'd have two lottery picks to add to Griffin and Drummond after the year. It was only after getting blasted with text messages did he realize that Detroit was the one who traded away their 1st round pick not the extra pick.
Click to expand...
I line prime sometimes, but the Blazer coverage usually kind of sucks... What’s funny is that most of the sports media around here likes to talk about how the Blazers are the, “only show in town”, and then they all botch stuff frequently.

I think if you’re a media member that’s going to go blast the team for whatever reason you should at least go get your facts straight.
 
hoopsjock said:
I don't mind people on here IF they aren't completely crazy (like Lanny's Lebron one the other day was ridiculous) or if they read your posts and try to learn. It bugs the crap out of me if you tell someone it isn't possible and they keep suggesting it.

I love Primetime but I have to change the dial when Ropp starts talking about tanking two years ago. It's like a fish story that keeps getting exaggerated as time goes on. Instead of the Blazers being a few games away from the 4th worst record (which is what really happened), Ropp now says they were only a game or two away from having the #1 pick. Then he always says something along the lines of "How good would Tatum look as a Blazer? Could've happened if they listened to me." I did the math after that season. The worst point in relation to .500 we were that season was at 24-35 (they were 23-32 at the time of the "tanking" comments). That means in order to have the 4th best odds in the lottery they would've had to go 3-20 the rest of the season. The Nets finished with 20 wins so the #1 pick was impossible. The Suns finished with 24 wins so tying for the 2nd best odds in the lottery would mean we would've had to go 0-23 the rest of the way. Even if we went 6-17 it would've given us the 6th best odds. Now would having the 6th pick be better than making the playoffs and getting swept? Not sure when you consider that we ended up getting the 10th pick anyway and that Olshey might have taken Collins at 6 anyway.

Last year when Detroit traded for Griffin he had a full 15 minute cringe-worthy segment about how the Pistons should tank by sitting Griffin the rest of the year and then they'd have two lottery picks to add to Griffin and Drummond after the year. It was only after getting blasted with text messages did he realize that Detroit was the one who traded away their 1st round pick not the extra pick.
Click to expand...
By the way Ropp is definitely a spurned ex lover when it comes to the Blazers. It’s kind of sad. Like he shouldn’t of been on that show anyways he knows literally nothing about the NBA other than GS and Lebron is good. Mike Lynch is really the guy who holds that show together.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
By the way Ropp is definitely a spurned ex lover when it comes to the Blazers. It’s kind of sad. Like he shouldn’t of been on that show anyways he knows literally nothing about the NBA other than GS and Lebron is good. Mike Lynch is really the guy who holds that show together.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. Lynch is cool but the show was successful prior to him being there. I listen to a lot of sports radio but with Isaac and Suke I prefer times when they aren't talking about sports.
 
hoopsjock said:
I don't know about that. Lynch is cool but the show was successful prior to him being there. I listen to a lot of sports radio but with Isaac and Suke I prefer times when they aren't talking about sports.
Click to expand...
I kind of like their takes on Golf a sport I’ve never played but have always wanted too. Sure had a lot of insights on football though he’s pretty obviously bitter sometimes. I just feel like lynch is the only normal guy so he keeps them grounded lol.
 
hoopsjock said:
I don't mind people on here IF they aren't completely crazy (like Lanny's Lebron one the other day was ridiculous) or if they read your posts and try to learn. It bugs the crap out of me if you tell someone it isn't possible and they keep suggesting it.

I love Primetime but I have to change the dial when Ropp starts talking about tanking two years ago. It's like a fish story that keeps getting exaggerated as time goes on. Instead of the Blazers being a few games away from the 4th worst record (which is what really happened), Ropp now says they were only a game or two away from having the #1 pick. Then he always says something along the lines of "How good would Tatum look as a Blazer? Could've happened if they listened to me." I did the math after that season. The worst point in relation to .500 we were that season was at 24-35 (they were 23-32 at the time of the "tanking" comments). That means in order to have the 4th best odds in the lottery they would've had to go 3-20 the rest of the season. The Nets finished with 20 wins so the #1 pick was impossible. The Suns finished with 24 wins so tying for the 2nd best odds in the lottery would mean we would've had to go 0-23 the rest of the way. Even if we went 6-17 it would've given us the 6th best odds. Now would having the 6th pick be better than making the playoffs and getting swept? Not sure when you consider that we ended up getting the 10th pick anyway and that Olshey might have taken Collins at 6 anyway.

Last year when Detroit traded for Griffin he had a full 15 minute cringe-worthy segment about how the Pistons should tank by sitting Griffin the rest of the year and then they'd have two lottery picks to add to Griffin and Drummond after the year. It was only after getting blasted with text messages did he realize that Detroit was the one who traded away their 1st round pick not the extra pick.
Click to expand...
That's one of my biggest pet peeves. The opposite has been happening constantly lately.
 
Last edited:
hoopsjock said:
I don't know about that. Lynch is cool but the show was successful prior to him being there. I listen to a lot of sports radio but with Isaac and Suke I prefer times when they aren't talking about sports.
Click to expand...

Those are the BEST!!
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I kind of like their takes on Golf a sport I’ve never played but have always wanted too. Sure had a lot of insights on football though he’s pretty obviously bitter sometimes. I just feel like lynch is the only normal guy so he keeps them grounded lol.
Click to expand...

It's literally why he's there. That's the role he plays in the dynamic lol.
 
Strenuus said:
It's literally why he's there. That's the role he plays in the dynamic lol.
Click to expand...
They also need someone with a modicum of intelligence to press the buttons heh.
Not that The other two are dumb, just they don’t seem the types to figure that type of thing out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Featured content

Back
Top