Report: Details of Blazers' offer for Paul George revealed

[Pinwheel1]

George was playing through an injury, but was OKCs best player this season and a legit MVP candidate. If we judged players’ value based off of one series, then what would we have gotten for our backcourt last year?

I do think PG is better than CJ........no question. But even before his injury they struggled to dominate. True it takes more than just two good players, but nonetheless it is still odd that OKC struggled with Russ and PG and Adams. If PG is on "another planet" than CJ it should not have happened.

 

[BigGameDamian]

The Blazers just didn't want to offer too much because he was a one year rental. Don't take any chances.

 

[Scalma]

The Blazers just didn't want to offer too much because he was a one year rental. Don't take any chances.

Never thought I’d say this, but BGD is right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s a risk I doubt Olshey takes. I think he’d rather be good, than risk it all to be great.

 

[trailblazer18]

Revistited briefly on bs pod today, pacers offered PG for CJ.... If there was any doubt

I listened to the podcast, I didn't think it was clear what the actual offer was. It could have been CJ+ whatever. Russilo was just throwing out the situation to show that the Pelicans won't get as much back as the GM said he expects.

 

[Scalma]

I listened to the podcast, I didn't think it was clear what the actual offer was. It could have been CJ+ whatever. Russilo was just throwing out the situation to show that the Pelicans won't get as much back as the GM said he expects.

Kawhi trade is probably a good template. Not many teams can match it though. Portland is one that could, but they’d have to be open to including CJ.

 

[hoopsjock]

Never thought I’d say this, but BGD is right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s a risk I doubt Olshey takes. I think he’d rather be good, than risk it all to be great.

I don't know man. Olshey just signed a long extension. He doesn't have Paul Allen questioning any moves anymore. AD is probably one of a handful if not the only player in the league Dame wouldn't be totally pissed about trading CJ for.

It's a little different now than in 2017.

 

[Scalma]

I don't know man. Olshey just signed a long extension. He doesn't have Paul Allen questioning any moves anymore. AD is probably one of a handful if not the only player in the league Dame wouldn't be totally pissed about trading CJ for.

It's a little different now than in 2017.

I hope you’re right.

 

[Natebishop3]

I disagree. One is a top 5 the other is top 15.

Paul George is arguably top 10 if healthy.

Either way, CJ is maybe top 25 when he's playing well. It's ludicrous that Neil didn't make the trade.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

The initial responses to this trade did not age well.

Get VO away from Westbrook, he blossoms. Pacer fans absolutely love Sabonis. Every fan base would if he were on their team.

I do not think AD will resign with us and it truly would be a one year rental. Whatever we offer should take that in consideration.

 

[Scalma]

.

I do not think AD will resign with us and it truly would be a one year rental. Whatever we offer should take that in consideration.

I think things change and a year is a long time. If you’ve made it an emphasis to build up your culture, trust it.

 

[hoopsjock]

Paul George is arguably top 10 if healthy.

Either way, CJ is maybe top 25 when he's playing well. It's ludicrous that Neil didn't make the trade.

You aren't looking at this through the summer of 2017 lens.

 

[Natebishop3]

You aren't looking at this through the summer of 2017 lens.

Not true. I wanted to trade CJ for Paul George going back four years ago. I remember having debates with people about it.

 

[hoopsjock]

Not true. I wanted to trade CJ for Paul George going back four years ago. I remember having debates with people about it.

That isn't what I'm saying Nate. Paul George was certainly not considered a top-10 player at that time and CJ had just finished a season in which he put up incredible shooting stats. It was a lot closer that summer between them than it is now.

 

[Natebishop3]

That isn't what I'm saying Nate. Paul George was certainly not considered a top-10 player at that time and CJ had just finished a season in which he put up incredible shooting stats. It was a lot closer that summer between them than it is now.

I think it has more to do with Neil being obsess with pairing a star with Dame/CJ and not giving up CJ.

He thought his three draft picks were going to be enough to get George and he was wrong.

 

[hoopsjock]

I think it has more to do with Neil being obsess with pairing a star with Dame/CJ and not giving up CJ.

He thought his three draft picks were going to be enough to get George and he was wrong.

That depends on if you buy into the theory that Pritchard didn't want to deal with Portland. If that's true none of this matters.

 

[Rhal]

Paul George is arguably top 10 if healthy.

Either way, CJ is maybe top 25 when he's playing well. It's ludicrous that Neil didn't make the trade.

It is in hindsight. When the trade happened, hell even until the moment he singed his contract with OKC EVERYONE thought he was a lock for LA.

 

[Minstrel]

That depends on if you buy into the theory that Pritchard didn't want to deal with Portland. If that's true none of this matters.

A lot of the "evidence" for that theory was people thinking he took a garbage return on George, just to avoid dealing with Portland. It's clear now that he didn't get a terrible deal.

 

[hoopsjock]

A lot of the "evidence" for that theory was people thinking he took a garbage return on George, just to avoid dealing with Portland. It's clear now that he didn't get a terrible deal.

Hindsight.

 

[Rhal]

A lot of the "evidence" for that theory was people thinking he took a garbage return on George, just to avoid dealing with Portland. It's clear now that he didn't get a terrible deal.

It clear he didn't get a bad deal now but it was slammed as a bad deal when it happened.

 

[Minstrel]

Hindsight.

It clear he didn't get a bad deal now but it was slammed as a bad deal when it happened.

I realize that that was the perception at the time--but that perception was clearly incorrect, which makes the "evidence" really, really weak.

Unless now the idea is to say "Well, he purposely took what he considered to be a crappy deal to screw over Portland, but lucked out and actually got a great deal." I think, at that point, the tinfoil is real.

 

[hoopsjock]

I realize that--but that perception was clearly incorrect, which makes the "evidence" really, really weak.

Unless now the idea is to say "Well, he purposely took what he considered a crappy deal to screw over Portland, but lucked out and actually got a great deal." I think, at that point, the tinfoil is real.

The two don't have to correlate. Pritchard could have not been willing to deal with the Blazers and he could've also thought the OKC deal was best.

Besides, it's not like Pritchard would ever come out and say that he wouldn't deal with Portland so we'll never know.

 

[Minstrel]

The two don't have to correlate. Pritchard could have not been willing to deal with the Blazers and he could've also thought the OKC deal was best.

I know that both could be true simultaneously. What I said was that the major supposed evidence for that theory has proven to be awfully weak (considering the success of the players he did choose, it's a much simpler and likelier explanation that those were the players he actually wanted), not that we know conclusively that the theory was wrong. Not to mention, one invalidates the relevance of the other. If Pritchard, in fact, thought the Thunder's offer was the best, it doesn't matter whether he was or wasn't willing to deal with Portland--even if he were willing to, Portland would have lost the bidding.

The whole point of that theory was that Portland could have gotten George but that damn Pritchard was being petty so he took a bad deal instead. That narrative likely isn't true, in my opinion--but it'll never be possible to know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I know that both could be true simultaneously. What I said was that the major supposed evidence for that theory has proven to be awfully weak (considering the success of the players he did choose, it's a much simpler and likelier explanation that those were the players he actually wanted), not that we know conclusively that the theory was wrong. Not to mention, one invalidates the relevance of the other. If Pritchard, in fact, thought the Thunder's offer was the best, it doesn't matter whether he was or wasn't willing to deal with Portland--even if he were willing to, Portland would have lost the bidding.

The whole point of that theory was that Portland could have gotten George but that damn Pritchard was being petty so he took a bad deal instead. That narrative likely isn't true, in my opinion--but it'll never be possible to know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And honestly, I wouldn't blame him for being petty. He did right by his current team.

 

[Dougnsalem]

I think you guys are missing the REALLY important thing about this thread.

I found one for you.

https://automotivemessageboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=598

Another AMC Pacer board has bit the dust. That's some sad news there.....

 

[kjironman1]

I think you guys are missing the REALLY important thing about this thread.


Another AMC Pacer board has bit the dust. That's some sad news there.....

Are you really getting kicked out of all those boards?
I have never been kicked out of any other teams boards. Weird?

 

[Dougnsalem]

Are you really getting kicked out of all those boards?
I have never been kicked out of any other teams boards. Weird?

Well, that was two years ago....


Lol

(And yes, I was. Not lately though)

 

[kjironman1]

Well, that was two years ago....


Lol

(And yes, I was. Not lately though)

Go in there and go all savage on them.
I’m always pretty quiet and just ask simple questions that get the flames throwing!