Names FWIW

[PCmor7]

I am not doubting you but I am curious to know in what way he prevents us from our goals. Are you talking about his salary? Or losing a trade piece with the future 1st that we could otherwise use for a better PF? Who else can we use the TPE/draft pick on?

I think all of the above, actually. And more.

1. He wants paid. He wants paid A LOT.
2. He wants the ball. He wants the ball A LOT.
3. He lose a trade piece that could be turned into something better. Do I know who? Of course I don't. That's beyond my paygrade. I've just seen two of these kinds of moves (RoCo, Nance) backfire in the last two years. If you get the right GM, he might be able to wheel and deal something and find a guy hanging there to be picked that we aren't even considering yet.

It's been a few days and I'm not going back to look, but I seem to recall posting that I'm not absolutely against trading for Grant. I'm against trading for Grant if the primary reason for doing it is because Dame likes him and I'm against trading for Grant if we lose the cap space and the resources we need to complete the rebuild, because Grant, IMO, isn't moving the needle that much and he might even be subtraction by addition.

You trade for Grant because it still allows you avenues to improve the team. You don't trade for Grant because he's Dame's friend. You don't trade for Grant because you have a bunch of assets and no other obvious targets.

 

[PCmor7]

Right on both counts. When you balance his contributions (as our 4th option) vs acquisition cost + salary, it looks questionable. Then you have the question of whether he will be happy and productive in a decreased role.

Look at it this way - we have hit the iceberg and have a 50'x50' hole in the hull. We can take the lifeboats (our few trade assets), break them down, and make a 10'x10' patch (Grant). What exactly is the point of that plan? It neither saves the ship (makes us contenders now) nor saves the passengers (a long term rebuilding plan).

Well said.

 

[PCmor7]

I'm fine with getting him, but if we use our lotto pick I'm going to be really really really annoyed.

Aren't you usually annoyed anyway?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Which kind of goes back to what I said. I don't think Dame being good with it necessarily makes it good for the organization. Is the priority winning basketball or pleasing Damian Lillard?

Dame has been a good soldier and done his part. The organization has thus far let him down. We now have to do everything in our power to make him happy (which means winning), because if he leaves we are automatically worse.

The best way for us to win the most is to keep Dame and build the best team possible around him as quickly as possible. That just so happens to be the best way to keep him happy, IMO.

 

[PCmor7]

Dame has been a good soldier and done his part. The organization has thus far let him down. We now have to do everything in our power to make him happy (which means winning), because if he leaves we are automatically worse.

The best way for us to win the most is to keep Dame and build the best team possible around him as quickly as possible. That just so happens to be the best way to keep him happy, IMO.

Nah, there are several false assumptions being made in that.

1. That the organization let him down. The organization has had his cousin on the roster for the last couple of seasons. The organization might have kept guys Dame liked on the roster over trying to make a better roster.

So, it could be that the organization let Dame down by giving him people he wanted to pay ball with instead of people who gave him a better chance to win more games and more playoff series.

2. We're not necessarily automatically worse if Dame leaves. We're probably immediately worse, but depending on what you get in return, your team in 3-4 years might be better than any Dame team.

One can also argue that we haven't done that much winning since we made it to the WC finals. We've been treading water and sinking.

I'm not saying that's an absolute, but it certainly bears consideration.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Nah, there are several false assumptions being made in that.

1. That the organization let him down. The organization has had his cousin on the roster for the last couple of seasons. The organization might have kept guys Dame liked on the roster over trying to make a better roster.

So, it could be that the organization let Dame down by giving him people he wanted to pay ball with instead of people who gave him a better chance to win more games and more playoff series.

2. We're not necessarily automatically worse if Dame leaves. We're probably immediately worse, but depending on what you get in return, your team in 3-4 years might be better than any Dame team.

One can also argue that we haven't done that much winning since we made it to the WC finals. We've been treading water and sinking.

I'm not saying that's an absolute, but it certainly bears consideration.

Nah. We're not keeping anybody because Dane wants us to. His cousin is a nobody. A nobody who would be shown walking papers if it would gain us even 1 more playoff win.

No question, the organization has let Dame down.

There is no evidence that trading a top 20 player makes a team better within 5 years than by just keeping that player.

These are not worth consideration, IMO.

 

[PCmor7]

Nah. We're not keeping anybody because Dane wants us to. His cousin is a nobody. A nobody who would be shown walking papers if it would gain us even 1 more playoff win.

No question, the organization has let Dame down.

There is no evidence that trading a top 20 player makes a team better within 5 years than by just keeping that player.

These are not worth consideration, IMO.

His cousin is a nobody. And yet we kept him.

 

[Phatguysrule]

His cousin is a nobody. And yet we kept him.

Because that spot doesn't matter. Because the organization has let Dame down.

 

[BlayZa]

Brandon Clarke

(again)

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

Brandon Clarke

(again)

My first thought is that he is kind of like Watford, so I decided to check the stats. Watford is an inch taller, 25 pounds heavier and 4" greater wingspan. Clarke this year much better efg% at .650 to Watford's .549, although last year Clarke at about .550. Watford much better FT% which also indicates he might learn to shoot the three efficiently. Per 36 Watford 8.2 rebounds to Clarke's 6.0, steals similar, Clarke double the blocks and Watford about one assist per game more. Clarke played only 19 minutes a game until playoffs when they apparently decided not to play Adams, then he played a lot. Clarke's advanced stats much better than Watford's. Watford has only played one year. Seems Clarke may just be a role player, a backup PF if we hopefully find another. PF is our biggest need and I would prefer we aim higher. Siakam, Collins, Wood.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Brandon Clarke

(again)

I like Clarke a lot and would be excited to get him for the MLE. But having said that we need a backup center more.
He is better than Winslow, but is he that much better? I don't think we should have both, and Winslow is cheaper and already on the team. I would prefer if one of them could shoot a 3, but I guess if they could they would not be available.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Brandon Clarke

(again)

Isn't Tari Eason basically Brandon Clarke? We may be getting him in the draft (especially if we pick after Sochan is gone).

 

[Pinwheel1]

Isn't Tari Eason basically Brandon Clarke? We may be getting him in the draft (especially if we pick after Sochan is gone).

I wish www.NBAdraft.net was somewhat accurate with their mock drafts. They have Ivey #1 and Davis # 5 (Sochan #13)
If that were to happen we would be in good shape.

 

[blazerkor]

I wish www.NBAdraft.net was somewhat accurate with their mock drafts. They have Ivey #1 and Davis # 5 (Sochan #13)
If that were to happen we would be in good shape.

From everything I've read there hasn't been a draft like this in a long time with so many front offices with so many different draft boards. I think this would be a very smart year for top prospects to participate in the combine, if they have confidence in themselves because none of them has a guarantee to go in the top 4. Chet, Paolo, Jabari, Ivey and Sharpe could go in any order as of today. After that there's no guarantee of who goes next when looking at Murray, Duren, Griffin, Davis and Mathurin. That's as of today, a great or terrible combine or workout could drop one of the top guys or send one of the mid lotto guys shooting up in value. Then you have two international men of mystery that could jump way up draft boards in Dieng and Jovic. The value on Agbagi, Daniels and Sochan varies wildly as well. Even guys who don't have the versatility of every other name I've mentioned like TyTy and Mark Williams could get taken really high because they're seen as safe bets to be solid at one specific position and if that's a team's area of need those guys might get taken shockingly early. I think it's highly unlikely that TyTy would go before Ivey or Williams would go before Duren but after those two are off the board who is a better facilitator than TyTy and who is a better paint presence than Williams? Conventional wisdom says that if you had to have one of those things but Ivey or Duren were gone and you had a top 8 pick that you would trade back but GMs get panicky and reach for position of need all of the time.

It could be a really wild draft. If I was an agent I'd have every one of these guys getting measured and running drills at the combine and I would give serious consideration to having them play in the scrimmages. If your guy can go number one but drops to number five, that's over $15M left on the table during their rookie contract.

 

[brooklynballer]

PF is our biggest need and I would prefer we aim higher. Siakam, Collins, Wood.

I think Wood may be attainable from Houston if they end up drafting Banchero, Smith Jr or Holmgren. Certainly a player to keep an eye on as I think he fills a huge need for Portland (mobile big that can shoot the 3). He’s a career 38% shooter from 3 and could potentially make Nurkic expendable (or S&T).

 

[Mediocre Man]

Some bullshit

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Some bullshit

?

 

[Mediocre Man]

?

More to come

 

[PtldPlatypus]

More to come

More cow patties? Seems likely in this place.

 

[PCmor7]

There is no evidence that trading a top 20 player makes a team better within 5 years than by just keeping that player.

These are not worth consideration, IMO.

Pelicans seem to be on that path, BTW.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Pelicans seem to be on that path, BTW.

OK, so that's one, potentially.

How many top 20 players have been traded and had their team get better? How many of those traded were the best player and had their former teams get better?

I'll save you some work... Not many. Because trading away all stars is how teams get worse, not better.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I think Wood may be attainable from Houston if they end up drafting Banchero, Smith Jr or Holmgren. Certainly a player to keep an eye on as I think he fills a huge need for Portland (mobile big that can shoot the 3). He’s a career 38% shooter from 3 and could potentially make Nurkic expendable (or S&T).

I think he can play PF or C; he played his first six years in the league at PF.

 

[brooklynballer]

I think he can play PF or C; he played his first six years in the league at PF.

Agree I think he and Nurkic could potentially co-exist if the team is adamant about resigning Nurk. If you were Cronin, if the only two choices were Wood or Grant, who would you pursue?

 

[SheedSoNasty]

Some bullshit

Blazers wet for Chet?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

OK, so that's one, potentially.

How many top 20 players have been traded and had their team get better? How many of those traded were the best player and had their former teams get better?

I'll save you some work... Not many. Because trading away all stars is how teams get worse, not better.

There were some who thought it was bad for the Celtics to trade away Pierce and Garnett. People though Brooklyn would be a strong contender. A decade later the Celtics have Tatum and Brown. But if you compared the immediate years after the Celtics were initially worse.

Usually a team trades away a top 20 player because they can't contend with them. So they should get worse. But if the team gets younger assets along with improving their own picks they could be better 5-10 years from now as opposed to staying the course.

So the whole premises of your question is flawed.

The comparison isn't how the top 20 player team was previously vs the future without said player.

The comparison is the teams future with a old aging player and an uncompetitive roster, or with the assets returned from a trade of that player.

 

[wizenheimer]

There were some who thought it was bad for the Celtics to trade away Pierce and Garnett

who thought that?

Garnett was 36 years old when Boston traded him. Pierce was 35. It had been 5 years since they had won the championship and they had just lost in the 1st round while being eliminated on their own floor. It was obvious that Boston needed a total rebuild. And of course, every team needs a Billy King around when they are dumping aging players

Usually a team trades away a top 20 player because they can't contend with them. So they should get worse. But if the team gets younger assets along with improving their own picks they could be better 5-10 years from now as opposed to staying the course.

5-10 years?

lol...good to know that when you guys guarantee that Portland can't contend with Dame, what you mean is they should trade him in 2022, so then, if they are lucky, they can maybe contend in 2030. Nice to have a target date

 

[Phatguysrule]

There were some who thought it was bad for the Celtics to trade away Pierce and Garnett. People though Brooklyn would be a strong contender. A decade later the Celtics have Tatum and Brown. But if you compared the immediate years after the Celtics were initially worse.

Usually a team trades away a top 20 player because they can't contend with them. So they should get worse. But if the team gets younger assets along with improving their own picks they could be better 5-10 years from now as opposed to staying the course.

So the whole premises of your question is flawed.

The comparison isn't how the top 20 player team was previously vs the future without said player.

The comparison is the teams future with a old aging player and an uncompetitive roster, or with the assets returned from a trade of that player.

We'll be more competitive with Dame than without him. And he's a better leader and ambassador for the team than likely anybody we would replace him with.

If he wants to be here I want him to be here.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

Agree I think he and Nurkic could potentially co-exist if the team is adamant about resigning Nurk. If you were Cronin, if the only two choices were Wood or Grant, who would you pursue?

I did a post on this a while back. From what I remember Woods a much more efficient shooter and better rebounder. Their advanced stats somewhat similar (and Woods better in former years when he played PF). So, for me, Woods. Does Billups think he could make him a better defender might be the deciding factor.

 

[wizenheimer]

We'll be more competitive with Dame than without him. And he's a better leader and ambassador for the team than likely anybody we would replace him with.

If he wants to be here I want him to be here.

that's my position: if Dame wants to stay in Portland and doesn't ask to be traded, his trade value is irrelevant. Don't even consider trading him. Bill Walton walked away from Portland, then sued them. Clyde asked to be traded to Houston than treated Portland like shit afterward. Dame has remained loyal to his teammates, coaches, organization, community, and city (the one person he wasn't loyal to, eventually, was Olshey). That kind of loyalty is valuable to a franchise

 

[Mediocre Man]

My stance on Dame is if he wants to stay he needs to understand that because of the way Olshey destroyed this franchise we need to build for the future.