Remaining schedule strongly suggests Portland will miss the playoffs

[Nikolokolus]

You can be the one to explain how that increase in asset value is worth pissing away one of LaMarcus Aldridge's seasons. Or, better yet, enjoy telling Marcus Camby, Kurt Thomas, or Joel Przybilla how they should be on board with losing so the Blazers can move from 17-19 up to 12-14 in a draft. That should go over well.

This team shouldn't be worried about its record this year or even next, but it really needs to worry about the talent level that will be around LMA in two or three years when his contract is about to expire. LaMarcus probably has 3 maybe 4 years of true peak production with hopefully a gradual leveling off after that as he enters his early thirties. Ideally this team should be looking for ways to enhance the talent level/experience of it's younger players so their early prime coincides with LaMarcus' late prime and they have a team that he wants to recommit to when the time comes. If they can do that via trades or free agency then so be it, but with the new CBA, it seems like the rules favor building (or rebuilding as the case may be) via the draft.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I hate a losing mentality, Whenever you play, you should play to win. You should always try to do your best. If you don't, you'll forget how and will never succeed.

BNM

 

[RR7]

I hate a losing mentality, Whenever you play, you should play to win. You should always try to do your best. If you don't, you'll forget how and will never succeed.

BNM

I can easily understand the one step back, two steps forward thinking with a lot of suggestions. The fear is that often with teams, it becomes two steps back, one step forward.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I can easily understand the one step back, two steps forward thinking with a lot of suggestions. The fear is that often with teams, it becomes two steps back, one step forward.

Yep, it's a slippery slope and most often losing begats more losing. A losing mentailty is contageous and hard to overcome. That's why teams that are perpetually in the lottery seem to remain there no matter how many top 5 picks they get. The last time the Blazers dipped into the lottery, they were there for six seasons. I don't want to go through that again. Not only will that waste LaMarcus Aldridge's prime, but mine (as a fan), too.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

The way to immediately improve in the NBA is to get a superstar player to go alongside another All-Star player, not by tanking to move up 5 spots in the middle of the draft.

The Clippers were rebuilding for what seemed a million years, and even last year's team was flawed, because there was no one to take pressure off of Griffin.

This year, they bring in a legitimate superstar in Chris Paul, and suddenly they're in the conversation for potential Western Conference champions.

In the meantime, since the Blazers don't have their superstar player, they should just play the games, win the games, make the playoffs, and show players around the league that they are a piece away, and not three pieces away, from contending.

 

[Brock]

Nathan (Portland)

I don't understand why the Blazers would trade to rent nash. Just blow it up already
John Hollinger (2:53 PM)

They see it as a rent-to-own; the idea is that he'd agree to stay beyond this season. And I'd say "blow it up" is a pretty harsh remedy for a team with an All-Star in his prime

 

[Nikolokolus]

I can easily understand the one step back, two steps forward thinking with a lot of suggestions. The fear is that often with teams, it becomes two steps back, one step forward.

What's the risk though? If it's choosing between years of mediocrity and a string of first round exits (at best) or risking sucking for awhile to take a step beyond that mediocrity I don't see the downside -- basically I think watching mediocre and crappy teams gives me almost the same level of "enjoyment" except that with a crappy team there's usually a lot of young guys that you get to watch learn the NBA game and (hopefully) take steps to learning how to become winners.

I guess I have a question for some of you, that I've never been able to answer: Do some of you really take that much pride and enjoyment out of a "worst of the best" team or is it just a fear of having to watch a young and crappy team that makes people so resistant to rebuilding? Or maybe some of you guys really believe that we're really close?

As a fan I want the hope that eventually the team I root for will be able to compete for a title ... Right now, I see one route (rebuilding) being more likely to provide that chance while the others (holding the line, trading for Nash, etc.) don't seem that likely to get it done.

 

[RR7]

I think if that's the case, and the direction, you NEED to look at moving Aldridge.

 

[e_blazer]

What's the risk though? If it's choosing between years of mediocrity and a string of first round exits (at best) or risking sucking for awhile to take a step beyond that mediocrity I don't see the downside -- basically I think watching mediocre and crappy teams gives me almost the same level of "enjoyment" except that with a crappy team there's usually a lot of young guys that you get to watch learn the NBA game and (hopefully) take steps to learning how to become winners.

The main thing is that I don't agree with the entire premise of your post...the notion that there's no exit from mediocre except by going into the lottery. I think an analysis of history would show way more mediocre teams that managed to improve to contention through a trade, a free agent signing, or even through having a late round draft pick blossom into a star than you would find from dipping into the lottery. In fact, it seems to me that loser franchises tend to remain loser franchises.

I guess I have a question for some of you, that I've never been able to answer: Do some of you really take that much pride and enjoyment out of a "worst of the best" team or is it just a fear of having to watch a young and crappy team that makes people so resistant to rebuilding? Or maybe some of you guys really believe that we're really close?

Neither. I just don't buy rebuilding as a straight-line path to success. Frankly, given the Blazers' recent history with the fruits of a rebuilding effort, I'm surprised any of you do.

As a fan I want the hope that eventually the team I root for will be able to compete for a title ... Right now, I see one route (rebuilding) being more likely to provide that chance while the others (holding the line, trading for Nash, etc.) don't seem that likely to get it done.

I want to see the Blazers continue to look to improve. I want them to be active in making trades and pushing to acquire valuable free agents. I want them to get the best GM and the best coach available. I want them to use a Money Ball-type of approach to acquiring the best players at the best values. I want them to do everything they can to try to win a championship while considering a rebuild, when you have existing players as promising as LaMarcus Aldridge and Nic Batum, only as an absolute last resort.

 

[BBert]

I hate a losing mentality, Whenever you play, you should play to win. You should always try to do your best. If you don't, you'll forget how and will never succeed.

BNM

I agree. No one in their right mind should ever even remotely suggest to the players on the floor that they not do their best or create or tolerate that kind of atmosphere. Management however sometimes makes a strategic decision that they know will put lesser players on the floor in the short term with a long-term goal of improving the team going forward. To me, it's not the same at all. Similarly, some very notable coaches (Jackson, Pops) are notorious for 'resting' their best players leading up to the playoffs in the strategic desire to improve their playoff performance. I believe Pops just pulled that one on paying Blazers fans last week. At the same time Pops was holding healthy all stars out of the game, he was clearly riding the players on the floor to do their best.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

As long as the Blazers have Paul Allen as the owner, I want to see if they can get a championship by free agent signings and trades invovling the willingness to take on big contracts (a la Wallace). Let's keep adding to the talent pool and hope we find the right mix.

Should that option go away, draft might be the only viable option.

 

[Mediocre Man]

As long as the Blazers have Paul Allen as the owner, I want to see if they can get a championship by free agent signings and trades invovling the willingness to take on big contracts (a la Wallace). Let's keep adding to the talent pool and hope we find the right mix.

Should that option go away, draft might be the only viable option.

What small market team has signing free agents worked for? Keep in mind it is also a Paul Allen that is tired of losing millions on this team

 

[RR7]

I would say trades over free agents, primarily.

 

[RR7]

What small market team has signing free agents worked for? Keep in mind it is also a Paul Allen that is tired of losing millions on this team

Would also depend on what you defined as "worked". Small market teams winning a title? Signing their top player? Signing contributors?

 

[Nikolokolus]

The main thing is that I don't agree with the entire premise of your post...the notion that there's no exit from mediocre except by going into the lottery. I think an analysis of history would show way more mediocre teams that managed to improve to contention through a trade, a free agent signing, or even through having a late round draft pick blossom into a star than you would find from dipping into the lottery. In fact, it seems to me that loser franchises tend to remain loser franchises.

Who though? I can't think of a single small to mid-market team off the top of my head that muddled around in mediocrity and elevated themselves to a championship by just "hanging around" and then incrementally improving via a free agent signing or a trade. I suppose the Spurs got lucky with Duncan and then mined some superstar gems with Parker and Ginobli without sucking, Dallas might qualify except that it's a destination city because of the size of the market, the weather, etc. and that changes the rules somewhat. Other than that? I'm not seeing this historical trend.

In any case the Blazers aren't in a position where they have to completely clear the decks and start from scratch like the last time they had to endure a true rebuild; Batum and Aldridge are players a team can build around. But without the inherent advantages that come with a larger, warmer market to attract free agents (minus overspending) and hardly any trade-able assets to turn "five nickels into a quarter," the arrow isn't exactly pointing up with this group. It just seems like one of those teams that could use an infusion of young talent (along with a coaching change) mixed with a couple of market value free agents to get back into the mix a year or two from now.

To me this is about strategically going into the lottery this year and probably the next (when our pick to Charlotte is still protected) and hopefully making the team strong enough to have the arrow pointing up, entering Aldridge's free agent year. If not I get the impression we'll continue to limp along, getting more ancient and then entering the lottery anyway a year or two from now and then being extremely weak when Aldridge about to enter free ageny.

 

[Nikolokolus]

As long as the Blazers have Paul Allen as the owner, I want to see if they can get a championship by free agent signings and trades invovling the willingness to take on big contracts (a la Wallace). Let's keep adding to the talent pool and hope we find the right mix.

Should that option go away, draft might be the only viable option.

The luxury rules are about to become incredibly onerous a year or two from now. This team is going to want to be in a position of maximum flexibility in very short order, because getting rid of bad contracts is going to become much more difficult when those rules go into effect. And frankly, I don't think Allen has much desire to live in the lottery anymore (nor should he).

 

[RR7]

Dallas is a destination city, but who is the last free agent they signed to come there from somewhere else? Everything they've done to add to their core has been through trades. People always include Dallas in their lists of where they want to go, but who has gone there? Everyone they have is through a trade. They kept on recycling pieces for better pieces, better fits until they found the right combination. At any time in the last 5 years, they could have said yeah, this isn't working, let's go to the lottery. Nobody thought they were getting even out of the1st round last year.
And yeah, it's a fluke, or one time thing, same with Detroit winning without stars, etc. But it's a fluke to win a title in general.
How many teams have tanked with a 26 year old all star and a 23 year old "rising star to get into the lottery and then went on to win a championship?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The luxury rules are about to become incredibly onerous a year or two from now. This team is going to want to be in a position of maximum flexibility in very short order, because getting rid of bad contracts is going to become much more difficult when those rules go into effect. And frankly, I don't think Allen has much desire to live in the lottery anymore (nor should he).

Agreed, Allen will be in no mood to rebuild, so should this team hit lottery, I suspect Allen will sell and lottery might be the Blazers only salvation.

Until then, I am hoping we have an owner who isn't deterred by luxury numbers and is willing to pay for good players. In fact, the harder it is to get rid of bad contracts, could be a blessing in disguise for Allen as there will be even less owners willing to take on those contracts (less competition). There could be alot more Gerald Wallace types trades in the future with Allen as the owner.

 

[Minstrel]

What's the risk though? If it's choosing between years of mediocrity and a string of first round exits (at best) or risking sucking for awhile to take a step beyond that mediocrity I don't see the downside -- basically I think watching mediocre and crappy teams gives me almost the same level of "enjoyment"

The downside would be years of almost no Blazers-related entertainment for most people. If you get the same enjoyment out of watching a good but not great team (a lower-level playoff team) and a 10-20 win team, I'd say you're in the extreme minority. Most people, I think, would prefer to watch a team that has a chance to win each night.

I'd actually reverse your question to some extent. Considering that the history of teams tearing it down and using that as a springboard to championships seems pretty dismal, what's the downside in having a string of first-round-and-out teams? At worst, you have a team that at least provides you some playoff games with a chance to win a round. At best, you get that stroke of luck (like a mid-round draft pick that turns into a star, a great trade, etc) that vaults you from okay to excellent.

 

[magnifier661]

The downside would be years of almost no Blazers-related entertainment for most people. If you get the same enjoyment out of watching a good but not great team (a lower-level playoff team) and a 10-20 win team, I'd say you're in the extreme minority. Most people, I think, would prefer to watch a team that has a chance to win each night.

I'd actually reverse your question to some extent. Considering that the history of teams tearing it down and using that as a springboard to championships seems pretty dismal, what's the downside in having a string of first-round-and-out teams? At worst, you have a team that at least provides you some playoff games with a chance to win a round. At best, you get that stroke of luck (like a mid-round draft pick that turns into a star, a great trade, etc) that vaults you from okay to excellent.

Well that and in the 90's we were a one and done team for like 5-6 years. Then we made significant trades to build a contender. Our team has proven that you can still rebuild even being in the playoffs time and time again.

 

[XXPrimusXX]

Well that and in the 90's we were a one and done team for like 5-6 years. Then we made significant trades to build a contender. Our team has proven that you can still rebuild even being in the playoffs time and time again.

I was thinking the same thing.

Clyde, Terry and Jerome were drafted. Drexler was a lottery pick (14th), but Porter and Kersey were later picks (24th and 46th) and we traded for Duck and Buck.

That team, along with Ainge (trade) and Uncle Cliffy (drafted 36th) went to 2 NBA Finals.

So it's possible to build a Championship caliber team without blowing it up and living in mediocrity.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I was thinking the same thing.

Clyde, Terry and Jerome were drafted. Drexler was a lottery pick (14th), but Porter and Kersey were later picks (24th and 46th) and we traded for Duck and Buck.

That team, along with Ainge (trade) and Uncle Cliffy (drafted 36th) went to 2 NBA Finals.

So it's possible to build a Championship caliber team without blowing it up and living in mediocrity.

No only is it possible, many think it is more probable than going the "hit rock bottom and get really good draft pick" route.

 

[Nikolokolus]

The downside would be years of almost no Blazers-related entertainment for most people. If you get the same enjoyment out of watching a good but not great team (a lower-level playoff team) and a 10-20 win team, I'd say you're in the extreme minority. Most people, I think, would prefer to watch a team that has a chance to win each night.

I'm definitely part of that minority ... and I don't begrudge anybody being in the majority that wants to see "watchable" basketball. But I've learned I can have just as much fun watching young guys try to climb the ladder to success as I can seeing a veteran team do its thing ... as long as you can see some measure of growth or can envision those guys getting better and more cohesive. Where I stop being entertained and happy is watching a team start to wither on the vine and slide down the ladder ... that's where I see the Blazers right now.

I'd actually reverse your question to some extent. Considering that the history of teams tearing it down and using that as a springboard to championships seems pretty dismal, what's the downside in having a string of first-round-and-out teams? At worst, you have a team that at least provides you some playoff games with a chance to win a round. At best, you get that stroke of luck (like a mid-round draft pick that turns into a star, a great trade, etc) that vaults you from okay to excellent.

I'm probably too much of a football fan, where teams tear it down and rebuild via the draft all the time and you're pretty much always "just a year or two away" if things break your way and you select the right players. So I'm probably guilty of projecting that model on to the NBA when I think about and talk about rebuilding this team.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Hollinger's assessment:http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/PERDiem-120228/nba-breaking-west-playoff-race (Insider only)

Of the top nine teams in the West, Denver is the odd team out right now, but the Nuggets may be much stronger in the second half of the season if they can get their best players on the court. Denver was 14-5 before injuries bushwhacked it but gets the benefit of a cake schedule in March that includes several doormats and one stretch of nine straight home games. I suspect the Nuggets will finish strong and could even push for a top-four seed if everything goes right; suffice it to say I consider their current 40.6 percent Playoff Odds an underestimate.

Their opponent on Wednesday, Portland, is only a half-game ahead, and unlike Denver the Blazers have had virtually no injury issues. What they have had are luck issues, with their point differential indicating that they're a much better team than they've shown thus far, and that's why they're likely to play well enough in the second half of the season to survive.

If they don't, however, they'll rue all the ones they let get away -- Portland had the easiest schedule of any Western contender in the first half of the season and failed to take advantage. From here it gets much, much tougher, including a seven-game road swing that ends with games in Chicago and Oklahoma City. The Blazers, however, have been sniffing around pretty actively for trades and may upgrade the roster for the stretch run.

Interesting.

 

[Nate Dogg]

Does anyone else wonder why we are so excited to make the fucking 8th seed?

Because I think most of us are on the same page and that the blazers screwed themselves in the 3/8 of the season with their Felton/Crawford/Matthews identity slump. It will be interesting to see if Joel Pryz will give the team more energy and spunk to push for the 8th seed.

 

[HailBlazers]

And because the West is a crab-shoot. If our Offense can match our Defense in the slightest, we can beat anyone.

 

[oldmangrouch]

The downside would be years of almost no Blazers-related entertainment for most people. If you get the same enjoyment out of watching a good but not great team (a lower-level playoff team) and a 10-20 win team, I'd say you're in the extreme minority. Most people, I think, would prefer to watch a team that has a chance to win each night.

I'd actually reverse your question to some extent. Considering that the history of teams tearing it down and using that as a springboard to championships seems pretty dismal, what's the downside in having a string of first-round-and-out teams? At worst, you have a team that at least provides you some playoff games with a chance to win a round. At best, you get that stroke of luck (like a mid-round draft pick that turns into a star, a great trade, etc) that vaults you from okay to excellent.

Over-all, I see the sense of your argument, but let me play heretic's advocate for a moment.

The Blazers have 4 or 5 members of the rotation (Batum, Felton, Camby, Wallace and maybe Crawford) ready to hit the market. Keeping the current core together is going to be expensive and rob the team of any roster flexibility for years - all to maintain a team we all know isn't very good.

If you were PA, would you open your wallet just to preserve a .500 team?

Frankly, I can't see how changes are not inevitable. The only question is whether the team makes them happen, or just lets them happen.

 

[THE HCP]

I can't believe how close the race is from 2-8! Gonna' go down to the wire again! Luckily our April looks not so tough.

 

[Minstrel]

Over-all, I see the sense of your argument, but let me play heretic's advocate for a moment.

The Blazers have 4 or 5 members of the rotation (Batum, Felton, Camby, Wallace and maybe Crawford) ready to hit the market. Keeping the current core together is going to be expensive and rob the team of any roster flexibility for years - all to maintain a team we all know isn't very good.

If you were PA, would you open your wallet just to preserve a .500 team?

Frankly, I can't see how changes are not inevitable. The only question is whether the team makes them happen, or just lets them happen.

I don't advocate keeping everyone together just to preserve mediocrity. My point is that the team shouldn't seek to burn things down to the foundations in a vain attempt to "min-max"...that is, either be a title contender or else be god-awful to get a top pick and cap space. My general view is that teams that tank deep into the lottery have generally remained bad for many years. You don't generally see that pay off with foundational talents that translate into titles. Most championship teams were, at one point, so-so or good teams who got the additional piece or two (which took some luck/smarts) that elevated them to a power.

In other words, regardless of popular sentiment that "in the middle is the worst place to be, neither good enough nor bad enough," you generally need to be in the middle before you can get to the top level. Then you need that great trade or great draft pick that surprises and becomes a star to contend for a title.

So that's why I generally disagree with "break it down and start over" sentiments. I understand the impulse, as it sounds logical on paper...it just seems to have a pretty bad success rate in practice. I think the team needs to identify the players who drive their current middle class success (Aldridge, Batum, maybe Wallace), hold onto them and use whatever other resources they have (cap space, draft picks, players they feel aren't part of their future) to try to add another piece. IMO, you just have to keep adding another piece until you've reached title contention. It's not dramatic, but it seems (to me, at least) that that's essentially the way it works.

 

[PapaG]

What small market team has signing free agents worked for? Keep in mind it is also a Paul Allen that is tired of losing millions on this team

The Blazers are on pace to turn a profit this year, amazingly. I'm not sure what paper voodoo they did to get to that point, but that's the reality.