Portland needs to add a go-to player

[Strenuus]

Yeah. And the league took the team away..... that's a foreshadowing I don't want to think about.

We're not even CLOSE to relocation... That's not a thought that has entered my mind, ever.

That being said, yes, this is the most pivitol offseason in the last decade or so... We do have to get someone proven. I think Dame can "recruit" well.

 

[ripcityboy]

We're not even CLOSE to relocation... That's not a thought that has entered my mind, ever.

That being said, yes, this is the most pivitol offseason in the last decade or so... We do have to get someone proven. I think Dame can "recruit" well.

We should get the whole S2 crew to take potential fre agents on a "Night of Vice" tour in Stumptown. Ron Jeremy as limo driver. HCP can film it in case they get cold feet.

 

[BonesJones]

People want to rebuild because we're struggling in the playoffs when we were rebuilding to try to get to the playoffs... makes no sense.

 

[Orion Bailey]

People want to rebuild because we're struggling in the playoffs when we were rebuilding to try to get to the playoffs... makes no sense.

I don't know if its so much rebuilding as it is improving or taking the next step. I don't think, myself included most believe that this group as is will gain maturity through experience enough to get so much better that we don't need to make a few changes. So if we need to make changes to improve, what are they?

We are in the playoffs and that's great. its giving us a detailed vision of what is and isn't working when it matters. Next we need to fix what is clearly not working. Or improve what isn't working

 

[kjironman1]

Trade Lillard.

You forgot the GREEN font.

 

[Strenuus]

I don't know if its so much rebuilding as it is improving or taking the next step. I don't think, myself included most believe that this group as is will gain maturity through experience enough to get so much better that we don't need to make a few changes. So if we need to make changes to improve, what are they?

We are in the playoffs and that's great. its giving us a detailed vision of what is and isn't working when it matters. Next we need to fix what is clearly not working. Or improve what isn't working

Exactly.

Look at this way, if we go in to the offseason and don't make the playoffs, we see the holes, but not the magnification of the holes we need to fill. Because we played the 2nd half great, it didn't look like we needed to do THAT much... we needed to, but not to the level now.

Now, we see the glaring weaknesses. That is why the playoffs were so important over the pick... the pick wouldn't allow us to see the glaring holes, and in fact, may not amount to anything and stunt our growth.

The playoffs is allowing us to see where we need to grow, whereas the pick would have stunted it. Making the playoffs this year is going to go a LONG way for this group. Maybe not this exact group of players, but the organization as a whole.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Exactly.

Look at this way, if we go in to the offseason and don't make the playoffs, we see the holes, but not the magnification of the holes we need to fill. Because we played the 2nd half great, it didn't look like we needed to do THAT much... we needed to, but not to the level now.

Now, we see the glaring weaknesses. That is why the playoffs were so important over the pick... the pick wouldn't allow us to see the glaring holes, and in fact, may not amount to anything and stunt our growth.

The playoffs is allowing us to see where we need to grow, whereas the pick would have stunted it. Making the playoffs this year is going to go a LONG way for this group. Maybe not this exact group of players, but the organization as a whole.

That's gospel right there. Preach it brotha!

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

We're not even CLOSE to relocation... That's not a thought that has entered my mind, ever.

That being said, yes, this is the most pivitol offseason in the last decade or so... We do have to get someone proven. I think Dame can "recruit" well.

I'll be disappointed if Olshey doesn't buy low on Greg Monroe, if the asking price is a first rounder and Vonleh we should do it. Also, if Dame and CJ could recruit Barnes (I know he's restricted but idk if GS will wanna drop 18mil on him when they have to re-sign Curry and others soon.) we could really be cooking. Get those two and extend CJ and Plumlee while retaining Crabbe, Harkless, Roberts.

Dame / Roberts
CJ / Crabbe
Barnes / Aminu
Harkless / Davis
Monroe / Plumlee

 

[Strenuus]

I'll be disappointed if Olshey doesn't buy low on Greg Monroe, if the asking price is a first rounder and Vonleh we should do it. Also, if Dame and CJ could recruit Barnes (I know he's restricted but idk if GS will wanna drop 18mil on him when they have to re-sign Curry and others soon.) we could really be cooking. Get those two and extend CJ and Plumlee while retaining Crabbe, Harkless, Roberts.

Dame / Roberts
CJ / Crabbe
Barnes / Aminu
Harkless / Davis
Monroe / Plumlee

Is Barnes our third scorer? Monroe the real low post presence? I don't know about that.

And really, we would need beibs. I came around to this awhile ago... he does have intangibles we need... for the right price, of course.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

Is Barnes our third scorer? Monroe the real low post presence? I don't know about that.

And really, we would need beibs. I came around to this awhile ago... he does have intangibles we need... for the right price, of course.

Barnes can give us 15 a night, as can Monroe (both eliminate Dame or CJ getting trapped too). Meyers is a guy I'd also look to retain but if the price is too much let him go.

 

[blue9]

I'll be disappointed if Olshey doesn't buy low on Greg Monroe, if the asking price is a first rounder and Vonleh we should do it. Also, if Dame and CJ could recruit Barnes (I know he's restricted but idk if GS will wanna drop 18mil on him when they have to re-sign Curry and others soon.) we could really be cooking. Get those two and extend CJ and Plumlee while retaining Crabbe, Harkless, Roberts.

Dame / Roberts
CJ / Crabbe
Barnes / Aminu
Harkless / Davis
Monroe / Plumlee

If we get Barnes you let Crabbe walk.

At this point I'm only interested in extending Harkless and Meyers, regardless of who we sign. If we can't sign anybody, I'd bring Crabbe back for $5M. Trade Aminu and one of Plumlee/Davis.

 

[Draco]

I'll be disappointed if Olshey doesn't buy low on Greg Monroe, if the asking price is a first rounder and Vonleh we should do it. Also, if Dame and CJ could recruit Barnes (I know he's restricted but idk if GS will wanna drop 18mil on him when they have to re-sign Curry and others soon.) we could really be cooking. Get those two and extend CJ and Plumlee while retaining Crabbe, Harkless, Roberts.

Dame / Roberts
CJ / Crabbe
Barnes / Aminu
Harkless / Davis
Monroe / Plumlee

That would be worse than the Afflalo trade. Monroe can walk after next season. If we resign him he'll want a supermax contract. There's no way I'd give up Vonleh or a first round pick for him. Give up both for a few month rental? Sheesh.

The roster you typed up isn't any closer to contending than what we have now. It has the same downside, no additional upside, less picks, less youth. What a terrible suggestion.

 

[blue9]

That would be worse than the Afflalo trade. Monroe can walk after next season. If we resign him he'll want a supermax contract. There's no way I'd give up Vonleh or a first round pick for him. Give up both for a few month rental? Sheesh.

Does he have an early out? Because he just signed a contract last summer - so I would think he has at least 2 years remaining. In fact, now that I'm checking the Trade Machine, he has the same number of years on his contract as Vonleh. Granted Vonleh will be RFA...but who knows if he'll even develop into a rotation player by then.
It's possible that Vonleh will develop and in hindsight trading him for Monroe might look bad. But at this point it's a gamble I would certainly make. Probably wouldn't include a 1st round pick though.

 

[DreamKillah]

Hassan Whiteside, anyone?
Larry Coon says: The last time I ran the math, Wade would have to take less in order for the Heat to give Whiteside the full max. The Heat only have Early-Bird rights to Whiteside, which will be useless to them. Given the jump in the cap and the demand we’re expecting to see for Whiteside’s services, the Heat will have to sign him with cap room. And given the cap room that will be out there, if the Heat don’t pony up a max offer, some other team probably will. The last time I ran the numbers, Wade wouldn’t have had to take substantially less, but it’d still be a pay cut. But I’m also guessing that at 35, he’d probably be willing to do that.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[KingSpeed]

LaMarcus wasn't a go to player.

He dropped 40+ in back to back playoff games on the road in 2014.

 

[trailblazer18]

I want Barnes as a Blazer!

 

[TBpup]

I don't know if its so much rebuilding as it is improving or taking the next step. I don't think, myself included most believe that this group as is will gain maturity through experience enough to get so much better that we don't need to make a few changes. So if we need to make changes to improve, what are they?

We are in the playoffs and that's great. its giving us a detailed vision of what is and isn't working when it matters. Next we need to fix what is clearly not working. Or improve what isn't working

Brilliant!

He dropped 40+ in back to back playoff games on the road in 2014.

Yes...and then proceeded to shoot under 40% for the next 14 Playoffs games as a Blazers. One of those is a much bigger playoff sample than the other.

 

[KingSpeed]

Brilliant!



Yes...and then proceeded to shoot under 40% for the next 14 Playoffs games as a Blazers. One of those is a much bigger playoff sample than the other.

And then the best franchise in sports signed him to a max contract.

 

[ThugginPaulyGAllen]

He dropped 40+ in back to back playoff games on the road in 2014.

Any perimeter oriented front court player, is not a go-to player. Need to be able to get your own shot.

LMA is not a go to player. He is a second or third fiddle.

 

[ThugginPaulyGAllen]

And then the best franchise in sports signed him to a max contract.

To be second fiddle, not their go to player.

Kawhi Leonard says wassup

 

[kjironman1]

Saying LaMarcus Aldridge isn't a Go To player is pretty short sighted. The guy was the Blazers "Go TO Player" for a number of years and I have been watching the Spurs this year. They pretty much use him as a "Go To Player" also. They just do it in moderation but when they come out and run their very first play of the game it is usually through LMA. When they need a bucket to get things settled down they run a play to Aldridge. Just because he left here doesn't make him any less viable. The only thing that supports an argument that he is not a "Go to Player" is simply that he is on a roster now that has other contributors.

 

[jlprk]

Last summer when Olshey was adding players, I posted, we still need a scoring small forward, to counterbalance Lillard. But Olshey stopped signing, so we all surmised that he was tanking this year. We knew we didn't have enough scorers.

 

[selloutking]

hopefully that's just meaning he was back stocking the roster so that after this offseason we have a roster bolstered with real and showing talent

 

[ThugginPaulyGAllen]

Saying LaMarcus Aldridge isn't a Go To player is pretty short sighted. The guy was the Blazers "Go TO Player" for a number of years and I have been watching the Spurs this year. They pretty much use him as a "Go To Player" also. They just do it in moderation but when they come out and run their very first play of the game it is usually through LMA. When they need a bucket to get things settled down they run a play to Aldridge. Just because he left here doesn't make him any less viable. The only thing that supports an argument that he is not a "Go to Player" is simply that he is on a roster now that has other contributors.

Sometimes I question the amount of research people put into their posts. LMA has his lowest usage rating since the 2010 season. The following 4 seasons as our 'go to player' we never seriously contended, as his usage rating skyrocketed. Additonlly, he himself has said that he defers to Kawhi Leonard and that is something that he refused to do whIle he was here. He wanted it to be his team. Thus; yes, he was the go to player here, but he isn't the go to player on the spurs - reducing his usage rate (despite them.frequently sitting numerous starters
..they've still reduced his role slightly) and it's doing wonders for them. He is a self admitted second fiddle and that stats back it up in the record of the team he plays for.


Edit - here is a link of him saying he isn't the guy any more....

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nba/eye-o...-not-being-the-guy-says-spurs-are-kawhis-team

 

[kjironman1]

Sometimes I question the amount of research people put into their posts. LMA has his lowest usage rating since the 2010 season. The following 4 seasons as our 'go to player' we never seriously contended, as his usage rating skyrocketed. Additonlly, he himself has said that he defers to Kawhi Leonard and that is something that he refused to do whIle he was here. He wanted it to be his team. Thus; yes, he was the go to player here, but he isn't the go to player on the spurs - reducing his usage rate (despite them.frequently sitting numerous starters
..they've still reduced his role slightly) and it's doing wonders for them. He is a self admitted second fiddle and that stats back it up in the record of the team he plays for.


Edit - here is a link of him saying he isn't the guy any more....

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nba/eye-o...-not-being-the-guy-says-spurs-are-kawhis-team

Sometimes i question the amount of common sense people put into their posts.
I don't have to research a damn thing. I watch the games. LMA is an impact player and yes the Spurs "GO TO" him quite a bit. Yes he does defer to Leonard as he also does Parker and Duncan, but as i said that has a whole lot to do with the people around him.
Try watching the next game and see who gets the first touch? 9 times out of 10 it is LaMarcus Aldridge. It's called the Eye test and people who rely on what they actually see have a tendency to be a little more accurate in my book.

 

[blue9]

Getting the first touch does not designate a go-to player. Generally it's the guy who gets the LAST touch, or who you "go to" in the 4th quarter.
The only time LMA was a go-to player we were a lottery team. The moment we drafted Lillard it was always a little tenuous as to who our go-to player was - we certainly fed LMA (and his ego), but ever since Lillard's first season it was apparent that he was a better closer, or go-to player.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Saying LaMarcus Aldridge isn't a Go To player is pretty short sighted. The guy was the Blazers "Go TO Player" for a number of years and I have been watching the Spurs this year. They pretty much use him as a "Go To Player" also. They just do it in moderation but when they come out and run their very first play of the game it is usually through LMA. When they need a bucket to get things settled down they run a play to Aldridge. Just because he left here doesn't make him any less viable. The only thing that supports an argument that he is not a "Go to Player" is simply that he is on a roster now that has other contributors.

Very well said!

 

[Orion Bailey]

Getting the first touch does not designate a go-to player. Generally it's the guy who gets the LAST touch, or who you "go to" in the 4th quarter.
The only time LMA was a go-to player we were a lottery team. The moment we drafted Lillard it was always a little tenuous as to who our go-to player was - we certainly fed LMA (and his ego), but ever since Lillard's first season it was apparent that he was a better closer, or go-to player.

But if he was our go to and then Dame too kit over, it doesnt mean he is no longer "A" go to player.

He is def a go to player. Maybe not in every scenario, but he was, is and will be a go to player.

 

[Hobbesarable]

Here's a link to a Forbes article about the Go-To-Person and how it relates to sports and the workplace.

It may or may not help you define a Go-To-Player.