Olshey?

[Mediocre Man]

Well we can fill this checkbox neatly.

That was Babe Ruth shot calling right there

 

[e_blazer]

It seems to me that the upcoming off-season is the yardstick by which Olshey should be measured, not the players he signed last summer. As many of us said at the time, it was important to spend the cap space rather than lose it by not spending it. Some of the players he spent it on won't be part of the team's long term plan, but the money that they're signed for represents the opportunity to make trades to get the players that are needed. I see people here declaring that players with bloated contracts can't be traded, but the reality is that they can be combined with picks or other players on good contracts to make a viable offer. Or we may have to take back other players on bad contracts in combination with an asset we do want in order to make a deal. Olshey put himself and the team in this position knowing full-well that the roster wasn't complete. After the Nurkic trade, he's earned the right to have this summer to finish the job.

 

[Denny Crane]

It seems to me that the upcoming off-season is the yardstick by which Olshey should be measured, not the players he signed last summer. As many of us said at the time, it was important to spend the cap space rather than lose it by not spending it. Some of the players he spent it on won't be part of the team's long term plan, but the money that they're signed for represents the opportunity to make trades to get the players that are needed. I see people here declaring that players with bloated contracts can't be traded, but the reality is that they can be combined with picks or other players on good contracts to make a viable offer. Or we may have to take back other players on bad contracts in combination with an asset we do want in order to make a deal. Olshey put himself and the team in this position knowing full-well that the roster wasn't complete. After the Nurkic trade, he's earned the right to have this summer to finish the job.

Spot on.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Isn't it kind of silly that we expect the same guy to be good at a bunch of disparate tasks.
Signing free agents requires people skills. Drafting players requires being able to project how their skills will map on to the NBA. Trading requires "The Art of the Deal".
I would say that Olshey has shown himself to be okay at trading (GOOD: Nurkic, BAD: Batum, Afflalo) very patchy at drafting and downright awful at free agents. So while I salute his Nurkic acquisition (although, given his track record, I fully expect Nurkic to regress to the mean next season like so many of Olshey's initially awesome acquisitions) I fail to see why it should give him the chance to fuck up another draft. Can't we poach some super-scout from some other team that has a good track record of landing gems (Milwaukee?) and put that person in charge of the draft?

 

[Blazinaway]

It seems to me that the upcoming off-season is the yardstick by which Olshey should be measured, not the players he signed last summer. As many of us said at the time, it was important to spend the cap space rather than lose it by not spending it. Some of the players he spent it on won't be part of the team's long term plan, but the money that they're signed for represents the opportunity to make trades to get the players that are needed. I see people here declaring that players with bloated contracts can't be traded, but the reality is that they can be combined with picks or other players on good contracts to make a viable offer. Or we may have to take back other players on bad contracts in combination with an asset we do want in order to make a deal. Olshey put himself and the team in this position knowing full-well that the roster wasn't complete. After the Nurkic trade, he's earned the right to have this summer to finish the job.

"but the money that they're signed for represents the opportunity to make trades to get the players that are needed"

What a load of garbage ". I'll even agree with you about spending most of the money - we did IMO not need to go so far over the cap. However, if you choose to spend it on shitty assets then it is MUCH harder to trade those BLOATED/BAD/SHITTY/CRAP contracts for anyone, in fact we have to add picks to unload a few of these guys, if this was part of his "plan" he needs to be fired. My god its not rocket science to know that if you spend wisely and get good value then yes you can parlay that into other assets you may need down the road, but if you make bad decisions you will suffer the consequences and not be able to get anything of value (except crap back) when trying to trade these "bad decisions" - how can this not be clear to you?

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I don't expect him to be fired; have you ever seen a guy who could put such a positive spin on everything; I think even Allen is mesmerized.

 

[e_blazer]

"but the money that they're signed for represents the opportunity to make trades to get the players that are needed"

What a load of garbage ". I'll even agree with you about spending most of the money - we did IMO not need to go so far over the cap. However, if you choose to spend it on shitty assets then it is MUCH harder to trade those BLOATED/BAD/SHITTY/CRAP contracts for anyone, in fact we have to add picks to unload a few of these guys, if this was part of his "plan" he needs to be fired. My god its not rocket science to know that if you spend wisely and get good value then yes you can parlay that into other assets you may need down the road, but if you make bad decisions you will suffer the consequences and not be able to get anything of value (except crap back) when trying to trade these "bad decisions" - how can this not be clear to you?

Just because you or I think something is true regarding a player's trade value doesn't mean that we're right. Would it be better if all of his player acquisitions had had great season? Sure, but GMs understand better than fans the reasons why a player may have struggled in a given situation and still be someone they think will work out in a different one. I'm not saying Olshey is a lock to have a good summer, just that he should be judged by the results he gets thus off season.

By the way, it's easier to have a discussion about differing opinions when you aren't insulting the person you're talking with.

 

[Minstrel]

I agree with e_blazer that Olshey deserves this summer see his plan bear fruit, if it's going to. Olshey basically made a bet, that the players he signed last year were going to be assets at the dollar level he signed them to. This summer is a good referendum on Olshey and whether he made smart bets. If he can maneuver those salaries to improve the team, he was right and the future is bright. If he can't, then he was wrong and the future is muddy--because while Lillard/McCollum/Nurkic is a good core, it's not winning titles on its own and if the team is locked into the current personnel for the next several years, it's difficult to see how the Blazers get the proper help around that core.

I don't think it's fair or reasonable to fire a GM before he gets to show the value, or lack thereof, of his investments.

 

[e_blazer]

Pretty good summary of Olshey's exit interview on OLive:

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/i...lard_cj_m.html#incart_river_mobileshort_index

 

[H.C.]

Isn't it kind of silly that we expect the same guy to be good at a bunch of disparate tasks.
Signing free agents requires people skills. Drafting players requires being able to project how their skills will map on to the NBA. Trading requires "The Art of the Deal".
I would say that Olshey has shown himself to be okay at trading (GOOD: Nurkic, BAD: Batum, Afflalo) very patchy at drafting and downright awful at free agents. So while I salute his Nurkic acquisition (although, given his track record, I fully expect Nurkic to regress to the mean next season like so many of Olshey's initially awesome acquisitions) I fail to see why it should give him the chance to fuck up another draft. Can't we poach some super-scout from some other team that has a good track record of landing gems (Milwaukee?) and put that person in charge of the draft?

What makes the Nurk trade good and the Batum trade bad?
NO traded Plumlee for the potiental Cotf
NO traded Batum(who was going to get a max deal) for the potential PFotf
Literally the exact same trade, trading an established player for an unproven player.
This board contradicts itself far too often to fit their agenda.

 

[MARIS61]

Fire him today. And Stotts with him.

They're both so blah. No fire at all.

He has dis-assembled our team to a great guard duo who have to play 2 on 5
every game.

Nurkic is not going to be the non-injury prone center we need to be competitive.

Vonleh, Aminu, Leonard, Harkless might fulfill their potential but not under Stotts.

Ready for someone who knows how to build a team.

 

[Minstrel]

What makes the Nurk trade good and the Batum trade bad?
NO traded Plumlee for the potiental Cotf
NO traded Batum(who was going to get a max deal) for the potential PFotf
Literally the exact same trade, trading an established player for an unproven player.
This board contradicts itself far too often to fit their agenda.

It's not the concept that made one trade bad and one trade good, it's the result. It's like saying, "What made the Lillard draft pick good and the Leonard draft pick bad? NO used a draft pick to select a prospect in both cases. Same exact thing." Sure, same concept, terrible choice. When you target the wrong player with a draft pick, it's a bad draft pick. When you target the wrong player in trade, it's a bad trade.

 

[H.C.]

It's not the concept that made one trade bad and one trade good, it's the result. It's like saying, "What made the Lillard draft pick good and the Leonard draft pick bad? NO used a draft pick to select a prospect in both cases. Same exact thing." Sure, same concept, terrible choice. When you target the wrong player with a draft pick, it's a bad draft pick. When you target the wrong player in trade, it's a bad trade.

Which is why I didn't bring up the afflalo trade as that one could be considered bad.
Even though Portland was never going to resign the free agents they traded away.

With Portland losing Aldridge, Rolo, & Matthews. They were never going to offer Batum the super-max deal he got.
Therefore he would have walked for nothing. Instead NO turned that into a 19year old pf with potential.
Which is the exact same trade he made with Plumlee.
There is literally no difference considering Nurk's injury history. It could turn out to frankly be a worse trade than the Vonleh trade.
To say it's a great trade and the Batum trade was bad is completely short-sighted.

 

[Minstrel]

Which is why I didn't bring up the afflalo trade as that one could be considered bad.
Even though Portland was never going to resign the free agents they traded away.

With Portland losing Aldridge, Rolo, & Matthews. They were never going to offer Batum the super-max deal he got.
Therefore he would have walked for nothing. Instead NO turned that into a 19year old pf with potential.

Even if you think you had to trade Batum (which they didn't), a better trade would have gotten a superior return than what they seem to have gotten--a player who looks like a career deep reserve.

What you get matters, not just the idea behind the trade. I agree that the idea behind the trade wasn't awful--just what Olshey actually traded for. At this point, it appears he got zero value in return. If Nurkic also ends up providing almost no value (though he's already provided more value than Vonleh has), we can mark that down as a bad trade too.

 

[H.C.]

Even if you think you had to trade Batum (which they didn't), a better trade would have gotten a superior return than what they seem to have gotten--a player who looks like a career deep reserve.

What you get matters, not just the idea behind the trade. I agree that the idea behind the trade wasn't awful--just what Olshey actually traded for. At this point, it appears he got zero value in return. If Nurkic also ends up providing almost no value (though he's already provided more value than Vonleh has), we can mark that down as a bad trade too.

I doubt Batum had much value coming off that season as he basically posted career low's in every category his last year in Portland.(if you don't include his rookie year).
People forget how shit he was that season. Sure he rebounded to his career averages the year after. But there is no guarantee Portland would have got anywhere close to value for Batum before the break due to that it was a contract year.
History has shown offers go down when a player with be an UFA in the off-season. Batum doesn't get you a pick in the top 10 in an upcoming draft. Instead he got you the #9 pick in the previous draft.(who was 19 years old)
Ignoring these things is another way for people to not look at the whole picture and say. "OMFG BAD TRADE YOU SUCK BAD I DO BETTER ON 2K".
When in fact 2k is a video game, not real life.

Could Portland have resigned Batum, then traded him when he was under a supermax? possible.
But it's the same possibility Portland has of trading players who you don't think can be moved currently on Portland's roster.

At the end of the day, both Nurk & the Vonleh trades are the same deal. One produced at a far higher level over a small sample size, while the other has improved gradually over his time(160+games) in Portland.
But they're the same trade, both good trades.

 

[Minstrel]

At the end of the day, both Nurk & the Vonleh trades are the same deal.

They really aren't, but we're essentially going in circles here. I think Batum had more value than Plumlee (career value matters too, not just the single most recent season) at the time of the trade and I think Nurkic is a far better player than Vonleh. Whether or not the idea behind them was the same, the value gain/loss was massively different (in my opinion) which makes one trade good and one trade bad.

I really don't care whether the trades were made for the same reason--I care about the value gained and lost in each. You don't agree that Batum had more value than Plumlee, nor do you apparently agree that Nurkic is better than Vonleh. That's fine--this is a fairly subjective debate, there isn't a good way to "prove" the intrinsic value of all the players involved in these two trades.

 

[Denny Crane]

It looked to me like the idea of rebuilding year 1 was to develop the young guys, and since we had no draft pick, trading for Vonleh got us a young guy who was drafted #9 overall.

Batum wanted to go elsewhere, no? He did sign with Minnesota, I presume because he wanted out.

I got the sense that Crabbe wanted to start and the big paycheck, not necessarily to leave Portland.

Hindsight is 20-20. NO managed to get us a team that made the 2nd round in year 1 of a radical roster shake up, and playoffs year 2 in spite of injuries and regression by otherwise dependable players. Year 3 looks hella promising with a healthy Nurk and three 1st round picks and tradeable assets.