Trade Larry Nance Jr traded to Portland

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
illmatic99 said:
so you want our second best player playing 25 minutes off the bench?
Click to expand...
I want him to be Jason Terry..scoring in bunches when Norm or Dame rest...I've always wanted CJ to have that role and put a better perimeter defender with the starters..we need bench scoring...he can play 30 some minutes staggered...if he can't stop opposing 2 guard with the starters...he can put up points off the bench..best case is he comes into the season having made a big leap as a two way player...
 
riverman said:
I want him to be Jason Terry..scoring in bunches when Norm or Dame rest...I've always wanted CJ to have that role and put a better perimeter defender with the starters..we need bench scoring...he can play 30 some minutes staggered...if he can't stop opposing 2 guard with the starters...he can put up points off the bench..best case is he comes into the season having made a big leap as a two way player...
Click to expand...
this doesn't make any sense. If you play him 30 minutes, he will still be matched up against opposing starters. By this logic, you think other bench players are playing this many minutes for CJ to matchup against?
 
illmatic99 said:
this doesn't make any sense. If you play him 30 minutes, he will still be matched up against opposing starters. By this logic, you think other bench players are playing this many minutes for CJ to matchup against?
Click to expand...
No...that's not what staggering means at all...and every bench player plays against starters especially if we have a lead...I'm saying his minutes don't matter...his production does. I want some offense running through Nurk with the first unit...to me..CJ is a perfect 6 man...of course he won't just play against bench players but he might be playing while superstars are taking a break more often than matching them for court time...As a 6 man he'd also be playing against starters who have tired legs while he's fresh, so there's that as well..if he's hot you play him big minutes. Also using CJ as a 6 man he would probably ask to be traded to the east where he could be an allstar and start again.....I could live with that as well...there's no downgrade in being Manu Ginobli..
 
Last edited:
I think trading CJ makes more sense now than ever. Some have mentioned getting Tobias Harris and that would be a good trade. The fact is that if there is a three way trade that brings in a star big for CJ and Nurk, that might make sense. I think CJ and RoCo for Simmons and filler actually makes us a lot better.

With that said, I don't think that will happen so I just want to know how CJ is going to feel when he inevitably sits the bench to finish any game we have a close lead in. You have to assume our finishing lineup is Dame, Norm, RoCo, Nance and Nurk... it's actually our best and most balanced lineup period. If we're behind and need a bunch of threes then I bet we go super small ball and have Dame, CJ, Norm, RoCo and Nance. But again, our lineup for closing out games will not have CJ in it... I just don't see how it logically could.
 
illmatic99 said:
then the solution is to trade CJ, not move him to the bench with whom he already plays a ton of minutes. By moving him to the bench, you are:

1. hurting his ego (which matters)
2. further staggering with Dame and removing any chance of synergy between our two best players.
3. forcing him to become more me-first as a bench player than he already is (Do you recall how Melo reacted coming off the bench last year? he didn't even look to pass the ball)

I want to see what Chauncey can do with Dame/CJ first. Terry was horrible at maximizing their talents and they often just took turns rather than playing off each other. It also highlighted this notion that they need to be staggered-- I don't agree with this. I think we need to run the right kind of action to make the most of each of their skills to the point that with both on the floor together, we are far better than each one individually.

And if you think defense is an issue, go back to 2018 when we were top 10 with those two starting in the backcourt as always. It's because we had plus defenders in Moe/Aminu/Nurk that year and a bench that was also decent defensively. The issue now is our SF is 6'3 instead a good defender like Harkless. That sounds like it's a Norm problem-- not a CJ problem.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I want CJ traded, but since that won’t happen, bring his ass off the bench.

The rest of the stuff — like I said. We have a fundamental basketball disagreement.

I value defense. You don’t. Nothing more to talk about.

Also, it’s not a Norm problem. It’s a team problem. A blazer problem. We are the ones choosing to play him at SF. Our choice. Not norms choice. Our choice. We brought him back with that intention. That’s on us.

Sometimes lineups can be greater than the sum of their parts. But we have a fundamental disagreement on this so it’s ok.

And that lineup could be top 10. But switching norm for CJ could make us top 5.
 
illmatic99 said:
Only in Blazer land would fans think that acquiring the 7th man signals a move to the bench for the 2nd guy.
Click to expand...
The problem in Blazerland is that we've watched the Dame/CJ back court get torched by opponents for so long now that we're ready for a change regardless of what our GM wants. We see the change being really simple. Norm plays the 2 next to Dame... like you said a 6'3" SF doesn't make any sense. We all see a very competitive lineup with Dame, Norm, RoCo, Nance and Nurk.

Of course with how great of an offensive weapon CJ is, it makes no sense sitting him but it might make less sense to continue to be horrible defensively. The cool thing is that we'll either see a CJ trade (keeping my fingers crossed but not holding my breath) or we'll get to see how all of these guys fit together when being coached by coach Billups aka Mr. Big Shot.
 
blazerkor said:
The problem in Blazersland.com is that we've watched the Dame/CJ back court get torched by opponents for so long now that we're ready for a change regardless of what our GM wants. We see the change being really simple. Norm plays the 2 next to Dame... like you said a 6'3" SF doesn't make any sense. We all see a very competitive lineup with Dame, Norm, RoCo, Nance and Nurk.

Of course with how great of an offensive weapon CJ is, it makes no sense sitting him but it might make less sense to continue to be horrible defensively. The cool thing is that we'll either see a CJ trade (keeping my fingers crossed but not holding my breath) or we'll get to see how all of these guys fit together when being coached by coach Billups aka Mr. Big Shot.
Click to expand...

FIFY :devilwink:
 
Last edited:
illmatic99 said:
then the solution is to trade CJ, not move him to the bench with whom he already plays a ton of minutes. By moving him to the bench, you are:


And if you think defense is an issue, go back to 2018 when we were top 10 with those two starting in the backcourt as always. It's because we had plus defenders in Moe/Aminu/Nurk that year and a bench that was also decent defensively. The issue now is our SF is 6'3 instead a good defender like Harkless. That sounds like it's a Norm problem-- not a CJ problem.
Click to expand...

The data suggests there is no Norm problem. (All from the NBA.com official 5 units stats).

2017-2018 lineup of Dame, CJ, Harkless, Aminu, Nurkic had a Defensive Rating of 103.1 (off 111.7, net 8.5)
2018-2019 lineup of Dame, CJ, Harkless, Aminu, Nurkic had a Defensive Rating of 108.0 (off 117.2, net 9.2)
2020-2021 lineup of Dame, CJ, Powell, Roco, Nurkic had a Defensive Rating of 104.8 (off 118.1, net 13.4)
 
illmatic99 said:
this doesn't make any sense. If you play him 30 minutes, he will still be matched up against opposing starters. By this logic, you think other bench players are playing this many minutes for CJ to matchup against?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but more of his minutes will come against bench guys by staggering his 30-32 minutes against backups vs starters. For simple math, if you get him 5 minutes against backups per quarter for 3 quarters thats 15 minutes against backups and 17 against starters if playing 32, more realistically it would be about 15 against bench and 21 against starters.

Curious to see how many minutes he played against backups last year.
 
Haakzilla said:
...we got a new coach and offense now :dunno:
Click to expand...

Batum ran the offense fine for Ty Lue on the Clippers and did well for Portland with Nate McMillan before Terry, so put some respect on Batum's name, please, he has earned it. He has his issues, but he was a better ET than ET, frankly.

As for running the Stotts offense - that was one of the best offensive teams in the league year in, year out, so not the kind of put down you think it is.
 
andalusian said:
Batum ran the offense fine for Ty Lue on the Clippers and did well for Portland with Nate McMillan before Terry, so put some respect on Batum's name, please, he has earned it. He has his issues, but he was a better ET than ET, frankly.

As for running the Stotts offense - that was one of the best offensive teams in the league year in, year out, so not the kind of put down you think it is.
Click to expand...
So powerful it was easy peazy to plan against and trap Dame.

ill add that i bet much of Stotts offense was carried by Dames offense.
 
Hoopguru said:
Maybe Olshey has larger nards than many of you think! What if he pulls a block buster involving Dame? I hope that doesn't happen but if he knows its going to be hard, to put Dame in a positions to contend, maybe he sends him East for another Super Star where he may contend and that buys him a few more years? What if Philly through in one of their youngster guards along with Simmons? What if Miami wanted Dame bad enough to trade Butler, and Butler was cool with it? Is Neil capable of such, heresy?
Click to expand...
If his nards were that big, it seems they were robbing his brain; those would be real negative moves.
 
JoshuaHall said:
Yeah, I want CJ traded, but since that won’t happen, bring his ass off the bench.

The rest of the stuff — like I said. We have a fundamental basketball disagreement.

I value defense. You don’t. Nothing more to talk about.

Also, it’s not a Norm problem. It’s a team problem. A blazer problem. We are the ones choosing to play him at SF. Our choice. Not norms choice. Our choice. We brought him back with that intention. That’s on us.

Sometimes lineups can be greater than the sum of their parts. But we have a fundamental disagreement on this so it’s ok.

And that lineup could be top 10. But switching norm for CJ could make us top 5.
Click to expand...
i never said I dont value defense. I'm saying pinning all the blame and thinking moving a 30 million dollar player to the bench to play fewer minutes is flawed
 
andalusian said:
Very different players. The beauty of Batum is that he could be what the Blazer once signed Evan Turner to be. He was a forward that could run the offense. Nance is not that kind of player. He is a a PF version of Mason Plumlee.
Click to expand...
I agree but I think Nance is a better player today than Nico is and I like Nico's game...Nico and ET did have similar games ..
 
riverman said:
I agree but I think Nance is a better player today than Nico is and I like Nico's game...Nico and ET did have similar games ..
Click to expand...

Questionable even at this point, Nico had a great season for LAC last year, I would say that in a vacuum - they are about the same. LNJ is a better fit for Portland given that Powell is a part of the rotation now, you have 3 guys that can handle, create on the roster already, there is less need for Nico, and LNJ is mobile enough that he can move around just as well as Nico against most players. But, Nico is still a more effective scorer than LNJ which is never a great thing bigs - as they should have better scoring efficiency than smaller players.

I would say LNJ is better than Nico for this version of the Blazers. If the Blazers still had only 2 ball dominant guards, Nico would have been a better fit. Just my $0.02
 
illmatic99 said:
think top 4 is a stretch unless Ant/Nas pop because I don't know who we would replace. I like the Billups hiring as well and thought anyone was an upgrade over Terry, but he's going to have growing pains.

I still have it like this:

Tier 1: UTA, LAL, PHX

Tier 2: GSW (the obvious wildcard here)

Tier 3: POR/DEN/DAL/LAC

Tier 4: NOP/MEM/SAC

Tier 5: who cares...
Click to expand...
We we're tied for 5th last season with only a partial season of Norm, C.J. and Nurkic missing significant time and with Stotts as our coach. Two teams above us were Denver (who will be without Murray) and the Clippers (who will be without Kawhi).

I think LAL passes us, but they have a ton of question marks and potential injury issues. Golden State will be solid but who knows how good Klay is coming off of two major injuries and Draymond isn't anywhere near as good as he used to be.

I don't think it's a stretch at all.

Tier 1: LAL/PHX
Tier 2: POR/GSW/UTA
Tier 3: DEN/DAL/LAC
 
BonesJones said:
We we're tied for 5th last season with only a partial season of Norm, C.J. and Nurkic missing significant time and with Stotts as our coach. Two teams above us were Denver (who will be without Murray) and the Clippers (who will be without Kawhi).

I think LAL passes us, but they have a ton of question marks and potential injury issues. Golden State will be solid but who knows how good Klay is coming off of two major injuries and Draymond isn't anywhere near as good as he used to be.

I don't think it's a stretch at all.

Tier 1: LAL/PHX
Tier 2: POR/GSW/UTA
Tier 3: DEN/DAL/LAC
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with that, but Denver could be just as good even without Murray, MPJ is going to get better and he is not chopped liver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top