Olshey Get 3 Year Extension

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Boise Blazer

Boise Blazer

Thread Lightly
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
7,272
Likes
2,598
Points
113


Sorry about the "get" instead of "gets" typo in the title.
 
Last edited:
Now that's some really good news. One of the most savvy, articulate and likeable GM's in the league.
 
Obviously they are extending him before he makes a big move to break up the chemistry.
 
Didn't realize he was up for an extension.

Still a volatile position, tbh, PA isn't scared of cutting ties with GMs even if they have long term contracts.
 
Even though I question a good deal of his moves, I'm very happy to hear this. Despite some of my misgivings I think he's a good GM and I'm happy to have him around for several more years.
 
blue9 said:
Even though I question a good deal of his moves, I'm very happy to hear this. Despite some of my misgivings I think he's a good GM and I'm happy to have him around for several more years.
Click to expand...
What if he offers Aldridge max? heh heh
 
This franchise is as healthy as its been, on and off the court, in a very long time - and this ensures it will stay that way.
 
Yay for continuity and stability! Look at the Spurs. They've kept the same GM, the same coach and the same core of players forever. When your organization has a revolving door for both management and players, no one really buys in to the system, they view at as a stepping stone to their next gig.

Olshey is locked up. Lock up Stotts, lock up Aldridge, lock up Lillard (as soon as possible), lock up Matthews, lock up Lopez.

BNM
 
blue9 said:
I agree with locking up 3 of those 5... ;)
Click to expand...

Why not all 5? We won 54 games last year and advanced to the second round. We are off to an even better start this year, in spite of injuries and a tougher schedule. Last year, we blasted out of the gate, had an easy schedule, caught a lot of teams by surprise and had perfect health from all 5 starters until after the all star break.

You may not like one, or two of our pieces, but they work well together and are getting better. There are a lot of advantages to stability and continuity. You mess with your core and you lose that. Is there a better PF in the game than Aldridge? That;s debatable, but even if there is, is he available (Anthony Davis is not walking through that door - except when NOP comes to town)? At what price? How will he fit with this team?

Stick with what works. The days of fantasy league personnel moves are thankfully behind us.

BNM
 
BBert said:
I say lock up our starting five. Batum was clutch in the Houston series. How conveniently people forget.
Click to expand...

My memory only works 10 years ago or like.... a quarter by quarter basis. It just vanishes after a quarter and then I'll fondly remember it in 10 years. :dunno:
 
Boob-No-More said:
Why not all 5? We won 54 games last year and advanced to the second round. We are off to an even better start this year, in spite of injuries and a tougher schedule. Last year, we blasted out of the gate, had an easy schedule, caught a lot of teams by surprise and had perfect health from all 5 starters until after the all star break.

You may not like one, or two of our pieces, but they work well together and are getting better. There are a lot of advantages to stability and continuity. You mess with your core and you lose that. Is there a better PF in the game than Aldridge? That;s debatable, but even if there is, is he available (Anthony Davis is not walking through that door - except when NOP comes to town)? At what price? How will he fit with this team?

Stick with what works. The days of fantasy league personnel moves are thankfully behind us.

BNM
Click to expand...
I'm sold on the team as a regular season team, but I'm not sold on us as a contender. And the reason I'm not sold on us being a contender boils down to Stotts/LMA.

Stotts' system is severely flawed - it's built around the very shot that his defense is designed to give up. I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics Terry has to do to convince himself that the shot he wants to give up on defense is the shot that's going to propel his offense to the championships. And we've all seen that when our jumper isn't falling we struggle against even the worst teams, and Terry doesn't really change up the offense to get better shots - he just has the team keep shooter jumpers until Dame gets hot and wins the game for us.

And unless you have a transcendent PF (Duncan, maybe Davis), I wouldn't build a team around a PF. Aside from the Spurs there's only been one fluke-of-a-championship won by a PF-lead team (DAL) - and LMA isn't nearly as good as Dirk was. Teams led by PFs simply don't win championships. Now, you can argue that we're being led by Lillard rather than LMA (and I do believe that to be the case), but until the FGA are distributed differently it's an LMA-led offense, and no team is going to win a championship when their primary scoring option leads the league in 18' jumpers.

With all that said, I do agree with you on the importance of continuity.
 
Congrats to Neil! Anyone who thinks he hasn't improved this franchise hasn't been a fan for many years. Shout out to Paul Allen for showing Neil some appreciation. Good move all around.
 
blue9 said:
I'm sold on the team as a regular season team, but I'm not sold on us as a contender. And the reason I'm not sold on us being a contender boils down to Stotts/LMA.

Stotts' system is severely flawed - it's built around the very shot that his defense is designed to give up. I don't know what sort of mental gymnastics Terry has to do to convince himself that the shot he wants to give up on defense is the shot that's going to propel his offense to the championships. And we've all seen that when our jumper isn't falling we struggle against even the worst teams, and Terry doesn't really change up the offense to get better shots - he just has the team keep shooter jumpers until Dame gets hot and wins the game for us.

And unless you have a transcendent PF (Duncan, maybe Davis), I wouldn't build a team around a PF. Aside from the Spurs there's only been one fluke-of-a-championship won by a PF-lead team (DAL) - and LMA isn't nearly as good as Dirk was. Teams led by PFs simply don't win championships. Now, you can argue that we're being led by Lillard rather than LMA (and I do believe that to be the case), but until the FGA are distributed differently it's an LMA-led offense, and no team is going to win a championship when their primary scoring option leads the league in 18' jumpers.

With all that said, I do agree with you on the importance of continuity.
Click to expand...

I am certain our offense doesn't necessarily revolve solely on Aldridge. He's just a very important cog. Aldridge takes a lot of shots, the most on the team, but Lillard is slowly getting more and more shots.

Stotts has evolved since his first days in Portland and I'm quite certain it will evolve even more. I think the moment we become unbeatable is when Stotts has equal shot distribution between Lillard and Aldridge. We are almost there right now. Then add Matthews and Batum taking the third load on a daily basis and you have success! :)

You gotta give credit where credit is due. Stotts wasn't known for defense, yet he has developed into a solid defensive coach right now. Imagine what will happen with another season with the same players?!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Boise Blazer
Peterri Update
Replies
19
Views
3K
Tince
Tince
Stevenson
The Bucks did what Olshey never had the balls to do
Replies
0
Views
273
Stevenson
Stevenson
B
Blazers finalizing extension with NO
Replies
1
Views
271
blazedanugz
B
SlyPokerDog
Trail Blazers gave Neil Olshey a bigger deal
Replies
7
Views
799
Draco
Draco
UKRAINEFAN
The effects on cap space of Lillard's extension
Replies
9
Views
921
barfo
barfo

Users who are viewing this thread

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