Seen Enough?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
H

Hank The Dwarf

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
331
Likes
25
Points
18
Ready to blow it up yet? This team is mediocre without a star to build around. Worst place in the NBA to be. We cannot build through trades or FA. Need to blow it up and start over from scratch.

Trade Wallace, Trade Felton, Trade LaMarcus, Trade them all.

Hank
 
I like LaMarcus just fine and Nicolas is fun to watch ... maybe keep Nolan and Elliot too. This is not a "tear it down to the foundation" situation (but it probably needs a new roof, new drywall and some paint).
 
Nikolokolus said:
I like LaMarcus just fine and Nicolas is fun to watch ... maybe keep Nolan and Elliot too. This is not a "tear it down to the foundation" situation (but it probably needs a new roof, new drywall and some paint).
Click to expand...

I think its a complete demolition..down to the ground. Need new Management, coaches and players.
 
The problem with keeping LaMarcus is that he's good enough to keep you out of the top of the lottery. We will not be able to build through the draft by trading our spare parts. They're not going to get you what you need.
 
This is an under-achieving bunch. Instead of trading players, bring in a fresh thinking coaching staff.
 
Ya, mediocrity is the single worst place to be in sports. I think what's sad is a lot of fans accept it because the team makes the playoffs.
 
Weav said:
This is an under-achieving bunch. Instead of trading players, bring in a fresh thinking coaching staff.
Click to expand...

How do you consider this group "under-achieving" exactly?

Wallace and Felton have never won anything. LaMarcus is barely a 2nd option on a great team and our young players are garbage.

I'd be happy to see Nate go, but the reality is that talent wins and we dont have it.
 
Obviously my opinion of our player's talent is higher than that of yours. That's how.
 
Hank, I think there's a nugget of truth in what you're saying, but it's not nearly as dire as you portray it. I think LaMarcus is somewhat miscast as a true number one guy, but he'd probably be a fantastic number 2 (his PER of almost 23 as the only go to option on a team with horrid guard play supports this). And how are you going to replace him when he's probably a little bit underpaid and in his prime? Furthermore, I think Nic is maybe exactly the kind of guy you want as your third best player (a "utility knife" type) and there should be enough adequate role-players like Craig Smith and Matthews to help fill in the holes if the team decides to start making trades into their cap space or potentially getting a decent draft choice in a fairly loaded draft.

This team certainly has its warts and there are some fairly big decisions that need to be made, but to suggest that there's "nothing" is just over the top.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Hank, I think there's a nugget of truth in what you're saying, but it's not nearly as dire as you portray it. I think LaMarcus is somewhat miscast as a true number one guy, but he'd probably be a fantastic number 2 (his PER of almost 23 as the only go to option on a team with horrid guard play supports this). And how are you going to replace him when he's probably a little bit underpaid and in his prime? Furthermore, I think Nic is maybe exactly the kind of guy you want as your third best player (a "utility knife" type) and there should be enough adequate role-players like Craig Smith and Matthews to help fill in the holes if the team decides to start making trades into their cap space or potentially getting a decent draft choice in a fairly loaded draft.

This team certainly has its warts and there are some fairly big decisions that need to be made, but to suggest that there's "nothing" is just over the top.
Click to expand...

I think we agree. My question to you would be how do we get that #1 option while we keep LMA? The guys we are going to trade will not get us a top 5 pick. LMA is good enough to keep us hovering around 30-40 wins per year by himself.

We would be stuck in mediocrity. No thanks.
 
Hank The Dwarf said:
My question to you would be how do we get that #1 option while we keep LMA?
Click to expand...

LMA joins Team USA, bonds with free agents to be, convinces them to come play with the Blazers /pipe dream

LMA joins Team USA, bonds with his teammates, decides he wants to leave PDX where he has a real chance to win a championship and publicly demands a trade /reality
 
After enduring six years of being terrible, Iwould much rather have a medicore team that is trying to improve than a terrible team hoping to get lucky in the lottery.

I get those that are championship or bust. Personally I don't think that should be the motto to run a team by. I want to know that when the Lakers or the Celtics or whoever is tough is coming to town, we are going to take it to them and have a chance to win the game. I don't think I could attend the games knowing we really don't have a chance to beat these teams and that all we are really playing for is to get a good draft pick.
 
who's in bunker, who's in bunker
i've seen too much
i haven't seen enough
you haven't seen enough
i'll laugh until my head comes off
women and children first
 
Hank The Dwarf said:
I think we agree. My question to you would be how do we get that #1 option while we keep LMA? The guys we are going to trade will not get us a top 5 pick. LMA is good enough to keep us hovering around 30-40 wins per year by himself.

We would be stuck in mediocrity. No thanks.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that nobody is going to give you a top ten player for LMA + hot-plate-of-garbage. It's either acquire another top twenty player via free agency or the draft or probably nothing at all.
 
Hank The Dwarf said:
The problem with keeping LaMarcus is that he's good enough to keep you out of the top of the lottery. We will not be able to build through the draft by trading our spare parts. They're not going to get you what you need.
Click to expand...

One dip into the high lottery odds guarantees nothing. Look at how many times Chicago did it, before they struck Gold (Rose).
 
Masbee said:
One dip into the high lottery odds guarantees nothing. Look at how many times Chicago did it, before they struck Gold (Rose).
Click to expand...

Look how many times OKC did though.


Also, staying mediocre does guarantee something, but it's not a good thing
 
Hank The Dwarf said:
I think we agree. My question to you would be how do we get that #1 option while we keep LMA?
Click to expand...

define #1 option. you could tank for 10 years and not get a Rose or LeBron type in the lottery.

anyway LMA is closer than you think. with him it's more of a problem of motivation than skill, so he might do better with better individual coaching (and a PG who doesn't have trouble dribbling because his fingers are too pudgy to handle the ball.)
 
We lose a few games and suddnly were a below average team? The few big things iv taken from these last few games is.
1: we drift away from lma to often in close games
2: our offense relys to much on three point shooting. When we hit a few the lanes open up and lma has a better time down low
3: our help d is shaky at best. We also go under picks to often. If were scoring our d has energy and hustle if were on a cold streek our d becomes lethargic as well.
These things dont lead me to a "blow it up" conclusion but a more conservative approach. A few of our guys are shooting career lows from distance give them a chance to turn it around if nothing really has changed close to the trade deadline then we need major changes eitherr threw blowing it up or retooling by trading crawford wallace felton ect

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk
 
Rhal said:
We lose a few games and suddnly were a below average team? The few big things iv taken from these last few games is.
1: we drift away from lma to often in close games
2: our offense relys to much on three point shooting. When we hit a few the lanes open up and lma has a better time down low
3: our help d is shaky at best. We also go under picks to often. If were scoring our d has energy and hustle if were on a cold streek our d becomes lethargic as well.
These things dont lead me to a "blow it up" conclusion but a more conservative approach. A few of our guys are shooting career lows from distance give them a chance to turn it around if nothing really has changed close to the trade deadline then we need major changes eitherr threw blowing it up or retooling by trading crawford wallace felton ect

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree.

I think we use this year to figure out where we retool . . . but we are looking to improve rather than trying to play the draft lottery.
 
Rhal said:
We lose a few games and suddnly were a below average team? The few big things iv taken from these last few games is.
1: we drift away from lma to often in close games
2: our offense relys to much on three point shooting. When we hit a few the lanes open up and lma has a better time down low
3: our help d is shaky at best. We also go under picks to often. If were scoring our d has energy and hustle if were on a cold streek our d becomes lethargic as well.
These things dont lead me to a "blow it up" conclusion but a more conservative approach. A few of our guys are shooting career lows from distance give them a chance to turn it around if nothing really has changed close to the trade deadline then we need major changes eitherr threw blowing it up or retooling by trading crawford wallace felton ect

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think many people are saying this is a bad team or a below average team (aside from Hank) but I think it's becoming clearer that this is merely an average team or a slightly above average team when they're catching breaks; that's really the no-mans land of the NBA -- especially for a roster that's upside is somewhat limited due to age lack of up-and-coming players and certain contract situations.

If I were Paul Allen, I'd be willing to let it ride until the trade deadline to see if they can turn things around, but a team that's this bad on the road isn't something I'd want to keep together for much longer.
 
Hank, you were MIA when the Blazers were on a hot streak at the start of the season. I guess their slump has you feeling more chatty.

No, I haven't seen enough yet. I don't think that this team is nearly as good without Marcus Camby as they are with him. He'll be back the next game. I also don't think that the guard play will remain as dismal as it's been lately. Career averages tend to reappear as slumps are left behind. The West is wide open after the Thunder and I think the Blazers have a solid shot at an upper-bracket slot in the West.
 
Hank The Dwarf said:
The problem with keeping LaMarcus is that he's good enough to keep you out of the top of the lottery. We will not be able to build through the draft by trading our spare parts. They're not going to get you what you need.
Click to expand...

Hank The Dwarf said:
How do you consider this group "under-achieving" exactly?

Wallace and Felton have never won anything. LaMarcus is barely a 2nd option on a great team and our young players are garbage.

I'd be happy to see Nate go, but the reality is that talent wins and we dont have it.
Click to expand...

Wait what? LMA is barely a 2nd option but is good enough by himself to keep a team from a top lottery pick?!?
 
Mediocre Man said:
Look how many times OKC did though.


Also, staying mediocre does guarantee something, but it's not a good thing
Click to expand...

Uh, dude.

First, Chicago:

After the blowup when Jordan left, they were in the lottery 6 straight years, including seveal years of worst or second worst record. They were a horrible, nasty, bullshit product for their fans.

As a reward after those 6 nasty years, and a bunch of lotto picks, their fans got a playoff team that was deep, but with no star. Deng, Hinrich, Gordon, Big Ben. They played hard defense, went no where in the playoffs, and in the 4th year of that, the players couldn't take the "effort" gameplan and Scott Skiles anymore, they "dipped" into the lottery - beat the odds by jumping from the late lottery to win the #1 pick and Rose. The "dip" was UNPLANNED. The team just imploded that one season.

Then, get Rose, build around him and ONLY 13 seasons later - the Bulls make it to the Eastern Conference Finals. We all agree that is bad, right? OKC is better right? Yes, but is it what you imply?


Sonics, after they lost McMillan, they failed to make the playoffs. In the lotto. Drafted Sene. Ooops.

Next season, same team - still sucking, decided for full tear-down. Ray Allen traded for lotto pick. Rashard Lewis will be allowed to walk. Back into lotto, get lucky and they got Durant. All better now, right?

Not so fast. They still sucked balls - as the new ownership was purposefully tanking the team to drive fans away. That double down on tanking got them Westbrook and Harden. The team would be NOWHERE without that tanking as well.

So, the team was in the high lotto FOUR SEASONS.

Not ONE.

FOUR.

FOUR.

FOUR.

And that is your idea of a "quick dip". The OKC are the shinning examples of how to do it "right". In fact, your opinion is shared by the national sports media that OKC did everything right and caught a bunch of lucky breaks.

And even still, it took FOUR YEARS.

So, in conclusion, I don't hear any more bullshit about how a "quick dip" into the high lottery is a cure for this - or most any other team's ails. Show me an example barring incredible dumb luck that has happened once in the last 20 years (Spurs).
 
Masbee said:
Uh, dude.

First, Chicago:

After the blowup when Jordan left, they were in the lottery 6 straight years, including seveal years of worst or second worst record. They were a horrible, nasty, bullshit product for their fans.

As a reward after those 6 nasty years, and a bunch of lotto picks, their fans got a playoff team that was deep, but with no star. Deng, Hinrich, Gordon, Big Ben. They played hard defense, went no where in the playoffs, and in the 4th year of that, the players couldn't take the "effort" gameplan and Scott Skiles anymore, they "dipped" into the lottery - beat the odds by jumping from the late lottery to win the #1 pick and Rose. The "dip" was UNPLANNED. The team just imploded that one season.

Then, get Rose, build around him and ONLY 13 seasons later - the Bulls make it to the Eastern Conference Finals. We all agree that is bad, right? OKC is better right? Yes, but is it what you imply?


Sonics, after they lost McMillan, they failed to make the playoffs. In the lotto. Drafted Sene. Ooops.

Next season, same team - still sucking, decided for full tear-down. Ray Allen traded for lotto pick. Rashard Lewis will be allowed to walk. Back into lotto, get lucky and they got Durant. All better now, right?

Not so fast. They still sucked balls - as the new ownership was purposefully tanking the team to drive fans away. That double down on tanking got them Westbrook and Harden. The team would be NOWHERE without that tanking as well.

So, the team was in the high lotto FOUR SEASONS.

Not ONE.

FOUR.

FOUR.

FOUR.

And that is your idea of a "quick dip". The OKC are the shinning examples of how to do it "right". In fact, your opinion is shared by the national sports media that OKC did everything right and caught a bunch of lucky breaks.

And even still, it took FOUR YEARS.

So, in conclusion, I don't hear any more bullshit about how a "quick dip" into the high lottery is a cure for this - or most any other team's ails. Show me an example barring incredible dumb luck that has happened once in the last 20 years (Spurs).
Click to expand...

Thank you Masbee for the "quick dip" into reality!
 
This is an honest question. Is a string of low playoff seeds and multiple first round exits a lot better than missing the playoffs altogether for a couple of years?
 
Masbee said:
Uh, dude.

First, Chicago:

After the blowup when Jordan left, they were in the lottery 6 straight years, including seveal years of worst or second worst record. They were a horrible, nasty, bullshit product for their fans.

As a reward after those 6 nasty years, and a bunch of lotto picks, their fans got a playoff team that was deep, but with no star. Deng, Hinrich, Gordon, Big Ben. They played hard defense, went no where in the playoffs, and in the 4th year of that, the players couldn't take the "effort" gameplan and Scott Skiles anymore, they "dipped" into the lottery - beat the odds by jumping from the late lottery to win the #1 pick and Rose. The "dip" was UNPLANNED. The team just imploded that one season.

Then, get Rose, build around him and ONLY 13 seasons later - the Bulls make it to the Eastern Conference Finals. We all agree that is bad, right? OKC is better right? Yes, but is it what you imply?


Sonics, after they lost McMillan, they failed to make the playoffs. In the lotto. Drafted Sene. Ooops.

Next season, same team - still sucking, decided for full tear-down. Ray Allen traded for lotto pick. Rashard Lewis will be allowed to walk. Back into lotto, get lucky and they got Durant. All better now, right?

Not so fast. They still sucked balls - as the new ownership was purposefully tanking the team to drive fans away. That double down on tanking got them Westbrook and Harden. The team would be NOWHERE without that tanking as well.

So, the team was in the high lotto FOUR SEASONS.

Not ONE.

FOUR.

FOUR.

FOUR.

And that is your idea of a "quick dip". The OKC are the shinning examples of how to do it "right". In fact, your opinion is shared by the national sports media that OKC did everything right and caught a bunch of lucky breaks.

And even still, it took FOUR YEARS.

So, in conclusion, I don't hear any more bullshit about how a "quick dip" into the high lottery is a cure for this - or most any other team's ails. Show me an example barring incredible dumb luck that has happened once in the last 20 years (Spurs).
Click to expand...



So if you were GM, how would you get this team our of mediocrity and into serious championship contention?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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