Keep Ant, Shaedon and the 3rd pick

[blazerkor]

Here's the problem with that way of thinking.

It's more accurately what are the odds of winning a championship with Dame over a span of maybe 4-5 years compared to what are the odds of winning with Sharpe and Miller/Scoot over the span of maybe 10 years.

Dame has a much smaller window. It might not even be 4-5 years. It might be closer to 3-4 where he's still playing at this level. How long will he be a top 10 player in the league? And that has always been my issue. We messed around and used up most of Dame's prime. There are very few sands of time left.

When you bank on stuff outside of a 3-4 year window in this league the odds almost go out the window. I would gladly take higher odds to win big in the next 3-4 years than any odds someone is trying to peddle in the next 10. A 10 year plan in the NBA isn't a plan it's a fantasy.

 

[Tince]

Here's the problem with that way of thinking.

It's more accurately what are the odds of winning a championship with Dame over a span of maybe 4-5 years compared to what are the odds of winning with Sharpe and Miller/Scoot over the span of maybe 10 years.

Dame has a much smaller window. It might not even be 4-5 years. It might be closer to 3-4 where he's still playing at this level. How long will he be a top 10 player in the league? And that has always been my issue. We messed around and used up most of Dame's prime. There are very few sands of time left.

I agree Dame has a smaller window.. I do not think the odds of Miller/Scoot being on the Blazers in 10 years is very high at all, so I am factoring that in. In my opinion the assumption shouldn't be that IF we are lucky enough that Sharpe/Miller are All-NBA players that they will be near as loyal as Dame has been and stay through 3 contracts.

I do agree the path with Dame is unlikely. I just think the path with Sharpe/#3 is also unlikely.

 

[wizenheimer]

Here's the problem with that way of thinking.

It's more accurately what are the odds of winning a championship with Dame over a span of maybe 4-5 years compared to what are the odds of winning with Sharpe and Miller/Scoot over the span of maybe 10 years.

Dame has a much smaller window. It might not even be 4-5 years. It might be closer to 3-4 where he's still playing at this level. How long will he be a top 10 player in the league? And that has always been my issue. We messed around and used up most of Dame's prime. There are very few sands of time left.

this "window" analogy fails because as each season unfolds the number of variables explodes past the point of and any logical predictions or practical assumptions

Sharpe can leave Portland in 6 years (4 if he plays for his QO). Miller/Scoot could leave 7 years from now. And none of those 3 players might not even achieve all-star level, let alone two of them achieving the all-NBA level needed for contention. Boston had two all-NBA players plus the reigning DPOY plus a solid supporting cast and they couldn't make it to the finals

for chrissakes..."Portland can't contend with Dame over the next 3-4 years so trade Dame so they can contend with Sharpe/Scoot 7-10 years from now" makes no sense at all to me...none...nada...zero. It's an alternate-reality NBA than the one I've been watching

 

[wizenheimer]

A 10 year plan in the NBA isn't a plan it's a fantasy.

so very true and I think that statement is still very true if you say 7 year plan

 

[RR7]

so very true and I think that statement is still very true if you say 7 year plan

For real. Go back 7 years and find me how many teams have their young core together that they built to have a 7-10 year window with. How many teams even have their top 2 players(under 25) still on their team?!
Kyrie no longer with Cleveland.
Minnesota I'm sure had a 10 year vision with their young trio of Towns, Lavine and Wiggins. Of course, until last season, the only winning record they had was when they landed Jimmy Butler.
The Pacers had 25 year old entering his prime Paul George. No longer.
Detroit had a young core with a big window in Tobias Harris, Andre Drummond, KCP and a rookie Stanley Johnson.
John Wall, Bradley Beal and Otto Porter Jr. were quite the trio with a huge window
Orlando had an exciting young core around Oladipo, Fournier, Elfrid Payton, Super Mario, Aaron Gordon and Nikola Vucevic. Huge window ahead
The original unicorn Porzingis created a huge window for NY to build around him.
Charlotte had Kemba Walker, MKG and Cody Zeller(laugh now, but there were a LOT of people in here that liked him in the draft). Solid timeframe for that young trio, I imagine
Denver had an exciting young core in Mudiay and Gary Harris to build with Jokic. Only 1 still around.
The Jazz with Gordon Hayward, Rodney Hood, Favors and Gobert
Kawhi on SA
Anthony Davis and NOP
Cousins leading Sacramento

7 years is a LONG time in the NBA.

 

[wizenheimer]

For real. Go back 7 years and find me how many teams have their young core together that they built to have a 7-10 year window with. How many teams even have their top 2 players(under 25) still on their team?!
Kyrie no longer with Cleveland.
Minnesota I'm sure had a 10 year vision with their young trio of Towns, Lavine and Wiggins. Of course, until last season, the only winning record they had was when they landed Jimmy Butler.
The Pacers had 25 year old entering his prime Paul George. No longer.
Detroit had a young core with a big window in Tobias Harris, Andre Drummond, KCP and a rookie Stanley Johnson.
John Wall, Bradley Beal and Otto Porter Jr. were quite the trio with a huge window
Orlando had an exciting young core around Oladipo, Fournier, Elfrid Payton, Super Mario, Aaron Gordon and Nikola Vucevic. Huge window ahead
The original unicorn Porzingis created a huge window for NY to build around him.
Charlotte had Kemba Walker, MKG and Cody Zeller(laugh now, but there were a LOT of people in here that liked him in the draft). Solid timeframe for that young trio, I imagine
Denver had an exciting young core in Mudiay and Gary Harris to build with Jokic. Only 1 still around.
The Jazz with Gordon Hayward, Rodney Hood, Favors and Gobert
Kawhi on SA
Anthony Davis and NOP
Cousins leading Sacramento

7 years is a LONG time in the NBA.

Roy-Oden-LMA

 

[Natebishop3]

Well, we know it takes at least 1 true star to win a title. We know Damian is a star. We don't know what Sharpe and Scoot will become. Because of that, the window is smaller, yes, but I'd say the odds of winning with Dame are more likely than the odds of winning with Scoot/Sharpe.

I would say arguably it takes two stars. Are you thinking like one true superstar? Like... top 10 player?

 

[RR7]

I would say arguably it takes two stars. Are you thinking like one true superstar? Like... top 10 player?

I said at least 1. In like a Dirk with Dallas situation where your star goes crazy, and you have the perfect mix of roe players around him. But yes, in general, I would say you need 2 stars. We have 1. It's easier to find 1 than it is 2. IF Sharpe becomes that in the next 4 years, then it aligns perfectly with Dame's timeline. If he does not, then he's not the 2nd star in a Scoot/Sharpe pairing, and so it'd be disingenuous to say they have a 7-10 year window when that would be admitting that the first 4 years of that window aren't really a contending window. It's the same 3-4 year window, but it's 4 years from now.

 

[Natebishop3]

When you bank on stuff outside of a 3-4 year window in this league the odds almost go out the window. I would gladly take higher odds to win big in the next 3-4 years than any odds someone is trying to peddle in the next 10. A 10 year plan in the NBA isn't a plan it's a fantasy.

I agree Dame has a smaller window.. I do not think the odds of Miller/Scoot being on the Blazers in 10 years is very high at all, so I am factoring that in. In my opinion the assumption shouldn't be that IF we are lucky enough that Sharpe/Miller are All-NBA players that they will be near as loyal as Dame has been and stay through 3 contracts.

I do agree the path with Dame is unlikely. I just think the path with Sharpe/#3 is also unlikely.

this "window" analogy fails because as each season unfolds the number of variables explodes past the point of and any logical predictions or practical assumptions

Sharpe can leave Portland in 6 years (4 if he plays for his QO). Miller/Scoot could leave 7 years from now. And none of those 3 players might not even achieve all-star level, let alone two of them achieving the all-NBA level needed for contention. Boston had two all-NBA players plus the reigning DPOY plus a solid supporting cast and they couldn't make it to the finals

for chrissakes..."Portland can't contend with Dame over the next 3-4 years so trade Dame so they can contend with Sharpe/Scoot 7-10 years from now" makes no sense at all to me...none...nada...zero. It's an alternate-reality NBA than the one I've been watching

Just going to respond to all three messages in the same message.

I'm not saying the odds are higher or lower. I'm saying the odds are different. One is a short window and the other is most likely a longer window. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like that changes the odds.

If we're doing an apples to apples comparison, yes, we have a better chance to win a title with Dame in the next 3-4 years than we would with Scoot and Sharpe. Conversely, I think we have a better chance to win a title with Scoot/Sharpe in the next 10 years than we do with Dame, because I don't think our odds are good of putting together a contender with Dame before we see a decline in his talent.

 

[Natebishop3]

I said at least 1. In like a Dirk with Dallas situation where your star goes crazy, and you have the perfect mix of roe players around him. But yes, in general, I would say you need 2 stars. We have 1. It's easier to find 1 than it is 2. IF Sharpe becomes that in the next 4 years, then it aligns perfectly with Dame's timeline. If he does not, then he's not the 2nd star in a Scoot/Sharpe pairing, and so it'd be disingenuous to say they have a 7-10 year window when that would be admitting that the first 4 years of that window aren't really a contending window. It's the same 3-4 year window, but it's 4 years from now.

It's funny because I had a guy on the Blazers reddit get REALLY pissed because I said that getting into the lottery increases your chances of finding a generational talent to help you get to the finals and hopefully win a ring.

For every one off championship like Dirk with the Mavs or Kawhi with the Raptors, there is a Jordan with 6 rings, or LeBron with 4 or Duncan with 5, etc etc etc.

Our only real shot, with Dame anyway, is to hope that we build a complete team around Dame in much the same way that Dallas built a team around Dirk.

It's just depressing because if you look at the last 33 years, they were dominated by the same 5-6 guys.

Jordan with 6 rings
LeBron with 4 (three teams)
Duncan with 5
Shaq with 4 / Kobe with 5
Curry with 4

So that's 23 out of 33 years. Then you have the one off champs like Detroit, Milwaukee, Dallas, Toronto, Boston, and Houston got a couple. So I guess looking at that list, is Dame as good as prime Kawhi? Giannis? Dirk? I think the Pistons were such a fluke team that was built on really good defense. Our best case is somehow pulling off the same thing as the Celtics. Stack up a few stars and try to win.

 

[bemac]

For real. Go back 7 years and find me how many teams have their young core together that they built to have a 7-10 year window with. How many teams even have their top 2 players(under 25) still on their team?!

That's an interesting list you put together and definitely shows that not all draft picks work out as you hope. Many of your examples show that fit and timing play a factor.

I guess I'm okay with the draft and development strategies of Boston, Golden State, Milwaukee, and Memphis...I'm sure there are others.

 

[glazeduck]

It's funny because I had a guy on the Blazers reddit get REALLY pissed because I said that getting into the lottery increases your chances of finding a generational talent to help you get to the finals and hopefully win a ring.

For every one off championship like Dirk with the Mavs or Kawhi with the Raptors, there is a Jordan with 6 rings, or LeBron with 4 or Duncan with 5, etc etc etc.

Our only real shot, with Dame anyway, is to hope that we build a complete team around Dame in much the same way that Dallas built a team around Dirk.

It's just depressing because if you look at the last 33 years, they were dominated by the same 5-6 guys.

Jordan with 6 rings
LeBron with 4 (three teams)
Duncan with 5
Shaq with 4 / Kobe with 5
Curry with 4

So that's 23 out of 33 years. Then you have the one off champs like Detroit, Milwaukee, Dallas, Toronto, Boston, and Houston got a couple. So I guess looking at that list, is Dame as good as prime Kawhi? Giannis? Dirk? I think the Pistons were such a fluke team that was built on really good defense. Our best case is somehow pulling off the same thing as the Celtics. Stack up a few stars and try to win.

These are great, and really foundational points, but I think there's also something else at play that juxtaposes with your star points in a chicken/egg fashion... It's a topic that I've been debating posting on here for a LONG time, and that is the evolution of the game, itself, and how teams who are successful are either at the front end of those evolutions, or (back to the chicken/egg thing) possibly creating them...

Taking your list above, you can almost create thematic chapters in terms of how basketball is played, around those stars:

• Jordan had the triangle
• Lebron had superteams AND positionless basketball (note Giannis and Durant winning here too)
• Duncan/Kobe/Shaq with slower, half-court Iso-ball offenses that rely on big man (or post) domination
• Curry redefining what range means...

So to my point -- is it that basketball is adjusting and evolving based on the athletes coming into the sport, and the best teams are the quickest to spot those trends and go with it? Or is it that the best teams are building effective ecosystems that are causing the game to evolve?

If you look at the Blazers' decisions at almost EVERY turn, they're late, either way... We drafted Bowie right as dominant guard play came into vogue. We drafted Oden over Durant at the dawning of positionless basketball. Even Dame was drafted in an era absolutely overflowing with great PGs. From a personnel perspective, I'm not even sure what the takeaway here is, other than -- especially in small markets -- teams have to swing big on true gamechangers if they want to win... Is that a new set of tires with a guy like Bridges on the same car? The next in the line of long do-it-all wings? Kinda feels like Scoot breaks the mold the most...

 

[Natebishop3]

These are great, and really foundational points, but I think there's also something else at play that juxtaposes with your star points in a chicken/egg fashion... It's a topic that I've been debating posting on here for a LONG time, and that is the evolution of the game, itself, and how teams who are successful are either at the front end of those evolutions, or (back to the chicken/egg thing) possibly creating them...

Taking your list above, you can almost create thematic chapters in terms of how basketball is played, around those stars:

• Jordan had the triangle
• Lebron had superteams AND positionless basketball (note Giannis and Durant winning here too)
• Duncan/Kobe/Shaq with slower, half-court Iso-ball offenses that rely on big man (or post) domination
• Curry redefining what range means...

So to my point -- is it that basketball is adjusting and evolving based on the athletes coming into the sport, and the best teams are the quickest to spot those trends and go with it? Or is it that the best teams are building effective ecosystems that are causing the game to evolve?

If you look at the Blazers' decisions at almost EVERY turn, they're late, either way... We drafted Bowie right as dominant guard play came into vogue. We drafted Oden over Durant at the dawning of positionless basketball. Even Dame was drafted in an era absolutely overflowing with great PGs. From a personnel perspective, I'm not even sure what the takeaway here is, other than -- especially in small markets -- teams have to swing big on true gamechangers if they want to win... Is that a new set of tires with a guy like Bridges on the same car? The next in the line of long do-it-all wings? Kinda feels like Scoot breaks the mold the most...

That's a really good point and I actually had thought about that a bit. It seems like we have had more one-off champions in the past... what.... 5-6 years?

Lakers
Bucks
Raptors
Nuggets (most likely)



It doesn't really seem like there's a dominant team right now, so there's a lot of parity. Maybe that's just a fluke, or maybe it's a sign of what's to come because of changes to the salary cap?

 

[SheedSoNasty]

It makes me wonder if Wembanyama is the next guy on that list and we have to endure another decade of San Antonio dominance.

 

[glazeduck]

That's a really good point and I actually had thought about that a bit. It seems like we have had more one-off champions in the past... what.... 5-6 years?

Lakers
Bucks
Raptors
Nuggets (most likely)

View attachment 56110

It doesn't really seem like there's a dominant team right now, so there's a lot of parity. Maybe that's just a fluke, or maybe it's a sign of what's to come because of changes to the salary cap?

I think you can definitely see a lot of trends that would lend themselves towards fostering a parity-driven/get-hot-at-the-right-time league being the next thing:

• Ease of travel could start to minimize market advantage and home/away differences
• Influx of internet and data tools unlocking unique perspectives and strategies
• "Load Management", play-in tournament and CBA trends to minimize super teams could both create a lot of in-season parity and potentially a lot more Heat-like situations where a so-so team gets hot at the right time...

 

[Natebishop3]

It makes me wonder if Wembanyama is the next guy on that list and we have to endure another decade of San Antonio dominance.

I have some serious doubts. When they added Duncan they already had a playoff team. They had Robinson. They had Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott. And then they slowly brought in talent as other guys aged out.

The current Spurs are really bad. They don't have another star as far as I can tell. I don't really see San Antonio as a free agent destination. So they need to get some more draft capital to hopefully put some other guys around him. I just don't know how well his body will hold up. If you go look at other guys who have come into the league with that kind of height didn't usually play anywhere near 30 minutes per game. Yao did, but he also wasn't in the league very long. I think he played about 7 years before he hurt his foot.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

It makes me wonder if Wembanyama is the next guy on that list and we have to endure another decade of San Antonio dominance.

The chances that a guy that big is going to have a healthy career is not great.