Exclusive Should Blazers try to make the playoffs or rebuild(tank)?

[Chris Craig]

has that been tested?

 

[KingSpeed]

Go out and give it your all, every season. That is what players are paid to do. We shouldn't ask for anything less. This tank mentality that has seeped it's way into the NBA seems to be teaching players a... loser mentally. Which no team should ever embrace.

OKC tanked for three seasons. They lost a game to Memphis by 78 points. Did that teach them a loser mentality? Now they are the #1 seed and just swept the #8 seed in the first round. Blazers have never swept a best of 7 series. Ever. Let's try something different. Tank for talent. And then win when enough talent has been assembled. Did Dallas develop a losing mentality by tanking for Luka? Of course not.

 

[KingSpeed]

There is a difference between tanking and rebuilding. OKC did not tank. They had journeymen vets helping teach the young players they were drafting. They did not have big contracts until SGA signed his much earned extension. They did not have to sit starters to "tank." The youngsters were being relied upon to carry the load as much as they could with vets that did not demand the ball, go iso and not rebound or defend. Portland needs to rebuild. Sharpe, Scoot and whomever they draft should be the focus. Sure, play to win next season. Just do it without Ant, Grant and Brogdon putting up 20 shots a game and doing hero ball. I want to see Scoot and Sharpe with Ayton and new picks out there sprinkled with vets that are willing to defer and teach.

They DID sit SGA down the stretch for three straight seasons! The last three seasons before this year, he played 35, 56, and 68 games. They didn't try to win til this year and so SGA played 75 games. They are a nothing team this year if they didn't tank for Chet.

 

[BonesJones]

The company I retired from had a branch in Anoka MN and I'd go there 4 times a year and always heard if we tank every years we will soon be in the thick of it. Even after drafting their #1 now and their older #1 KAT, it wasn't until they surrounded them with vets that they created an identity and started to win. Even if you establish a team with some seasoned vets and they don't pan out there are still assets that can be traded.

But they found their superstar. We don't have that yet.

 

[SheedSoNasty]

Older vets do that.

When has a player on a rookie deal or early on his extensions done that? I can't think of a single example.

And why are we scared of Scoot/Sharpe possibly doing this when we don't even know if they are starting quality NBA players?

It’s like going back to 2014 and being worried Allen Crabbe or Meyers Leonard could eventually ask out. The franchise would've been way better off if they did.

Steve Francis

 

[STOMP]

The thread question depends on the development of the youngins. That should be the real goal of the team right now, develop talent to the point where they have a legit shot and it makes sense to push. My sense is that even if they are to move up to top 2 in the lotto they'll still be on the outside looking in in 2024-5 regardless. Shaedon & Scoot have to get much better as currently the Blazers fate is tied to those two leading the team.

STOMP

 

[Hoopguru]

Older vets do that.

When has a player on a rookie deal or early on his extensions done that? I can't think of a single example.

And why are we scared of Scoot/Sharpe possibly doing this when we don't even know if they are starting quality NBA players?

Its like going back to 2014 and being worried Allen Crabbe or Meyers Leonard could eventually ask out. The franchise would've been way better off if they did.

yeah, chances are they wouldn't. My point is if the organization doesn't prove to developing stars they are serious enough to do what's needed to compete and make the playoffs they could force a move? Minnesota make the big trade with Utah because they were concerned about KAT not re-signing.

 

[bigbailes]

Looking at past NBA champions, I do not see any that originally tanked for their difference maker

SA does not count because back in the day they were assured Duncan if they had the worst record.
Cleveland has a case but technically they only won with LBJ after he went back to Cleveland.
Denver-no they did not tank for Jovic
GS-No they did not tank for Steph
Milwaukee-no they did not tank for Giannis
Lakers-No they got free agents (or the player forced a trade)
Toronto, Dallas, Miami, -No No No

So I can see the argument for tanking but at the same time, not very convincing.

The Spurs were the definition of tanking for Duncan, sitting Robinson at the end of the season even though he was healthy and even then they weren't 'assured' of getting him as they had the 3rd worst record and jumped Boston and Vancouver for the top spot.

Also have we forgotten the Cavs tanked for 4 years winning 19, 21, 24 and 33 games ending up with 3 1sts (Kyrie, Wiggins, Bennett) and a 4th (Waiters). Yes they only won a title because LeBron returned (another guy they tanked for) and because Draymond is an idiot.

Tanking isn't a guarantee to success, plenty of teams that are stuck in the hell hole that is losing over and over for seasons on end, but for a team like the Blazers it seems to be the best path forward. Get rid of the vets that can bring any value and ride with the youngsters. Let the losing happen organically and hope to hit on a lottery ticket. So much of long term winning in the NBA comes down to luck for small markets, and as we all know the Blazers haven't had much of the good kind of luck over their existence.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Older vets do that.

When has a player on a rookie deal or early on his extensions done that? I can't think of a single example.

Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Carmelo Anthony all come to mind for me. They were all 26 when they demanded trades during their first extension.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Also have we forgotten the Cavs tanked for 4 years winning 19, 21, 24 and 33 games ending up with 3 1sts (Kyrie, Wiggins, Bennett) and a 4th (Waiters).

I disagree on this one. The Cavs didn't tank after Lebron left
they sucked organically. He left because he was surrounded by terrible players because of management ineptitude, and they did nothing in those 4 years (besides drafting Kyrie) to change that. In my mind, tanking is an intentional act/process, but there was nothing intentional about the Cavs being terrible.

 

[Pinwheel1]

The Spurs were the definition of tanking for Duncan, sitting Robinson at the end of the season even though he was healthy and even then they weren't 'assured' of getting him as they had the 3rd worst record and jumped Boston and Vancouver for the top spot.

Also have we forgotten the Cavs tanked for 4 years winning 19, 21, 24 and 33 games ending up with 3 1sts (Kyrie, Wiggins, Bennett) and a 4th (Waiters). Yes they only won a title because LeBron returned (another guy they tanked for) and because Draymond is an idiot.

Tanking isn't a guarantee to success, plenty of teams that are stuck in the hell hole that is losing over and over for seasons on end, but for a team like the Blazers it seems to be the best path forward. Get rid of the vets that can bring any value and ride with the youngsters. Let the losing happen organically and hope to hit on a lottery ticket. So much of long-term winning in the NBA comes down to luck for small markets, and as we all know the Blazers haven't had much of the good kind of luck over their existence.

You guys keep bringing up the Spurs and missing my point. Of course, we all know the Spurs tanked for Duncan, everyone knows that. But my point is that those who use them as an example of why we should go all out and tank so blatantly to ensure we will end up with a star are not making a valid comparison. Let alone that Timmy played 4 years at Wake Forrest and there was no doubt about how good he was going to be.

The rules have changed. Back then you could blatantly tank for a star player. But if you do that now you still are not assured of being in the top 4. And when I say blatantly tank I am talking about intentionally losing like SA did to ensure they got him. The risk was so much lower.

To land the "great" Cooper Flagg (or Bailey) the Blazers will have to trade all their vets (for picks) AND sit Scoot, Sharpe, and Ayton at times so they don't win more than about 14 games. Because you know there will be a couple of other teams that will go full tank mode for this particular year. I am not convinced that will help with their development.

Now I would be ok with trading Grant, Brogdon, Williams, and Thybulle and letting the rest (including Ant and the new rookies) play to win. That team would still end up in the lottery, but at least they would be watchable. (Assuming we land Sarr, Risacher, Buzelis, or Williams)

 

[Rastapopoulos]

To land the "great" Cooper Flagg (or Bailey) the Blazers will have to trade all their vets (for picks) AND sit Scoot, Sharpe, and Ayton at times so they don't win more than about 14 games. Because you know there will be a couple of other teams that will go full tank mode for this particular year. I am not convinced that will help with their development.

Actually playing Scoot is a better way of tanking than having him sit. At the moment he assists the opposing team about equally to his own. (Besides: he's bound to get injured.)

And anyway, you're acting as if there's no lottery and the worst team automatically gets the #1 pick.

 

[Pinwheel1]

And anyway, you're acting as if there's no lottery and the worst team automatically gets the #1 pick.

How so? Because I am thinking just the opposite. Which is why I was saying to blatantly tank to get the top pick....is risky.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

How many of those who picked "The Blazers should try to make the playoffs" realize that however hard the Blazers try it ain't gonna happen?

 

[Pinwheel1]

How many of those who picked "The Blazers should try to make the playoffs" realize that however hard the Blazers try it ain't gonna happen?

Probably all of them. What is your point....don't try.

 

[BigGameDamian]

I guess Scoot, Sharpe, hopefully Buzelis
and Ayton isn’t a valid core to build around. We’ll have to keep tanking and searching.

 

[wizenheimer]

I disagree on this one. The Cavs didn't tank after Lebron left
they sucked organically. He left because he was surrounded by terrible players because of management ineptitude, and they did nothing in those 4 years (besides drafting Kyrie) to change that. In my mind, tanking is an intentional act/process, but there was nothing intentional about the Cavs being terrible.

I don't think it's that black & white. A lot of teams didn't intentionally tank; at least not going into a season. But I do believe that quite often front offices will make a decision based upon their evaluation of the roster. That decision being that they simply could not compete with their current roster and that a rebuild was the only sensible course

so they trade away veterans who simply don't fit a rebuilding roster...either by timeline, contract, or roster fit. They become organically bad teams and commit to the draft as the primary tool for a rebuild. That's not really tanking in my view. It's hopping onto the logical side of a fence and leaning into the weather there.

Portland has deliberately tanked, but they have also hedged their bets, stupidly. they seem incapable of choosing a street. The poll is about going for the playoffs next season and that makes no sense to me. Anfernee Simons is not going to morph into Anthony Edwards; Grant isn't morphing into Dirk; Ayton isn't morphing into Embiid. The team with the worst record in these playoffs was 46-36. It took 51 wins to secure HCA in the West this year and over the last 24 seasons, Portland has hit that mark only 4 times; and only once in the last 9 years. IMO, the only result of trying to win next season will be diluting the chances of a high pick, and a high pick is about the only hope the Blazers have of adding elite talent

 

[Pinwheel1]

I don't think it's that black & white. A lot of teams didn't intentionally tank; at least not going into a season. But I do believe that quite often front offices will make a decision based upon their evaluation of the roster. That decision being that they simply could not compete with their current roster and that a rebuild was the only sensible course

so they trade away veterans who simply don't fit a rebuilding roster...either by timeline, contract, or roster fit. They become organically bad teams and commit to the draft as the primary tool for a rebuild. That's not really tanking in my view. It's hopping onto the logical side of a fence and leaning into the weather there.

Portland has deliberately tanked, but they have also hedged their bets, stupidly. they seem incapable of choosing a street. The poll is about going for the playoffs next season and that makes no sense to me. Anfernee Simons is not going to morph into Anthony Edwards; Grant isn't morphing into Dirk; Ayton isn't morphing into Embiid. The team with the worst record in these playoffs was 46-36. It took 51 wins to secure HCA in the West this year and over the last 24 seasons, Portland has hit that mark only 4 times; and only once in the last 9 years. IMO, the only result of trying to win next season will be diluting the chances of a high pick, and a high pick is about the only hope the Blazers have of adding elite talent

So being tied for the 3rd worst record in the NBA is "hedging your bet stupidly?"
Did it really matter? Did they not get the result you wanted?

 

[Tince]

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Probably all of them. What is your point....don't try.

Well then I think I will also try to make the playoffs.

 

[wizenheimer]

So being tied for the 3rd worst record in the NBA is "hedging your bet stupidly?"
Did it really matter? Did they not get the result you wanted?

that's deflection. This thread and debate isn't about last season...it's about next season and the question of if the Blazers should try and make the playoffs

Deandre Ayton $34,005,126
Jerami Grant $29,793,104
Anfernee Simons $25,892,857
Malcolm Brogdon $22,500,000
Robert Williams $12,428,571
Matisse Thybulle $11,025,000

that's the stupid hedge

 

[kjironman1]

Older vets do that.

When has a player on a rookie deal or early on his extensions done that? I can't think of a single example.

And why are we scared of Scoot/Sharpe possibly doing this when we don't even know if they are starting quality NBA players?

Its like going back to 2014 and being worried Allen Crabbe or Meyers Leonard could eventually ask out. The franchise would've been way better off if they did.

Maybe you could say Simmons did but that didn't go well...

 

[BonesJones]

It's fascinating how many Blazer fans complained about being stuck in purgatory - Not bad enough for high draft or good enough to contend.

But now that we're out of it because they're bad enough to get high draft picks, they want to go right back to being stuck in the middle?

Trade vets for assets and get high draft picks as a result. More assets + more flexibility + better group of young players > less assets, less flexibility and a worse group of young players.

If they short-circuit this rebuild, then they should've just taken whatever "crappy" offers they were given for the #3 pick last year. Because moving on from Dame and entering a rebuild was supposed to produce a BETTER result, not the same shit.

 

[sheed30]

It's fascinating how many Blazer fans complained about being stuck in purgatory - Not bad enough for high draft or good enough to contend.

But now that we're out of it because they're bad enough to get high draft picks, they want to go right back to being stuck in the middle?

Trade vets for assets and get high draft picks as a result. More assets + more flexibility + better group of young players > less assets, less flexibility and a worse group of young players.

If they short-circuit this rebuild, then they should've just taken whatever "crappy" offers they were given for the #3 pick last year. Because moving on from Dame and entering a rebuild was supposed to produce a BETTER result, not the same shit.

The Blazer fan base on here is hella wacky at times lol. Complaining about everything, wants a rebuild, then complains we're in a rebuild, blah blah over and over again.

 

[kjironman1]

It's fascinating how many Blazer fans complained about being stuck in purgatory - Not bad enough for high draft or good enough to contend.

But now that we're out of it because they're bad enough to get high draft picks, they want to go right back to being stuck in the middle?

Trade vets for assets and get high draft picks as a result. More assets + more flexibility + better group of young players > less assets, less flexibility and a worse group of young players.

If they short-circuit this rebuild, then they should've just taken whatever "crappy" offers they were given for the #3 pick last year. Because moving on from Dame and entering a rebuild was supposed to produce a BETTER result, not the same shit.

You get a bunch more conversations than I do obviously but from my perspective it seems like a pretty good amount have come to grips with the tank and figure we got another couple years.
I would like to see them at least try to get another good pick. Hopefully this year they do pretty well. Next year is worth the tank effort. Maybe they can put something together by 2025-26?

 

[BonesJones]

You get a bunch more conversations than I do obviously but from my perspective it seems like a pretty good amount have come to grips with the tank and figure we got another couple years.
I would like to see them at least try to get another good pick. Hopefully this year they do pretty well. Next year is worth the tank effort. Maybe they can put something together by 2025-26?

I was just basing it off this poll. More people want to try to make the playoffs (yay, 8th seed!) than do what it takes to become a 1 seed down the line. I don't get it. Only way I'm cool with a playoff push is if it comes from the young core breaking out, not because of highly priced vets.

 

[BIG Q]

that's deflection. This thread and debate isn't about last season...it's about next season and the question of if the Blazers should try and make the playoffs

Deandre Ayton $34,005,126
Jerami Grant $29,793,104
Anfernee Simons $25,892,857
Malcolm Brogdon $22,500,000
Robert Williams $12,428,571
Matisse Thybulle $11,025,000

that's the stupid hedge

To start, I agree with you. Three of those players were part of the Dame trade. Some suggest that Ayton was not but forget Allen from the Bucks to the Suns was a big part of the trade. With that said, Cronin should have kept flipping those assets but seemed to be content and stopped. We do not know if he actually was trying behind the scenes and at the deadline, but nothing happened. That was unfortunate. He was on a good roll. I understand matching on Thybulle only from an asset side. Reasonable deal that can be part of a larger deal some day. You have to get to the floor and he is actually a "journeyman" vet type player Portland needs. They just do not need it on a long deal. Grant was just an awful resigning done to save face for peddling a FRP for him. I am sure he was "promised" this new deal and even knowing Dame was leaving Portland honored their word and gave Grant his deal. Now he needs to be moved. Same for Brogdon and Williams, need to be moved. Ant was the only holdover for Portland really. He needs to be moved because he no longer fits. Some suggest he is fine and can be a part of a three guard lineup. I do not agree. Scoot or Sharp would be forced to sit if Ant stays. That is a non starter for me. I like Ayton. At the end of the season he was finally playing like I expected. He and Scoot have something going. Again, you have to have one large contract to meet the floor. Ayton does that and is worth another season IMO to see how he and Scoot continue to gel, hopefully adding in Sharp and another first rounder or two. If Portland cleans house correctly, they won't be tanking, they are rebuilding. I would love to see them "play to win" with Scoot, Sharpe, Ayton, FRP, FRP and the other youngsters from the previous two drafts sprinkled in with vets on low salary deals and few years. Flexibility in the salary cap will be essential.

 

[wizenheimer]

To start, I agree with you. Three of those players were part of the Dame trade. Some suggest that Ayton was not but forget Allen from the Bucks to the Suns was a big part of the trade. With that said, Cronin should have kept flipping those assets but seemed to be content and stopped. We do not know if he actually was trying behind the scenes and at the deadline, but nothing happened. That was unfortunate. He was on a good roll. I understand matching on Thybulle only from an asset side. Reasonable deal that can be part of a larger deal some day. You have to get to the floor and he is actually a "journeyman" vet type player Portland needs. They just do not need it on a long deal. Grant was just an awful resigning done to save face for peddling a FRP for him. I am sure he was "promised" this new deal and even knowing Dame was leaving Portland honored their word and gave Grant his deal. Now he needs to be moved. Same for Brogdon and Williams, need to be moved. Ant was the only holdover for Portland really. He needs to be moved because he no longer fits. Some suggest he is fine and can be a part of a three guard lineup. I do not agree. Scoot or Sharp would be forced to sit if Ant stays. That is a non starter for me. I like Ayton. At the end of the season he was finally playing like I expected. He and Scoot have something going. Again, you have to have one large contract to meet the floor. Ayton does that and is worth another season IMO to see how he and Scoot continue to gel, hopefully adding in Sharp and another first rounder or two. If Portland cleans house correctly, they won't be tanking, they are rebuilding. I would love to see them "play to win" with Scoot, Sharpe, Ayton, FRP, FRP and the other youngsters from the previous two drafts sprinkled in with vets on low salary deals and few years. Flexibility in the salary cap will be essential.

I've read people here saying at teams needs a big salary to reach the minimum floor. That's kind of true, but context makes it more not true than true, IMO

the rule is the salary floor is 90% of the cap. Next season, the cap is projected to be 141M, meaning the floor would be around 127M. Portland is projected for 163M in team salary for 12 players next season (not counting Banton or any 2024 draft picks). If Portland kept Banton and added the 4th & 14th picks they'd be at 179-180M in salary...which would be 7-9M over the tax line. Shedding Ayton's salary would still leave them over the cap and around 18M over the salary floor.

meaning using the salary floor as a justification to pay Ayton...or Grant, or Simons is a theory that doesn't fit the current situation. It doesn't apply next season, or the 2025-26 season. And the 2025-26 season is the last season of Ayton's current contract

the penalties for being below the floor don't really look like roster impact penalties. They look like financial penalties the Vulcans would be concerned with as the biggest penalty for being below the floor is not being eligible for luxury tax distributions that season. And the team would owe the shortfall to the NBA

the new rule is a team has to be at the floor by the start of the season. What we will probably see is that veteran player will start signing substantial 1-year contracts with teams below the floor in August and September if those teams haven't found more coveted free agents. This looks like a rule that the player's union probably loved

by the way, the current projection of tax distributions to the 22 teams below the threshold is about 12M

https://www.sportsbusinessclassroom.com/nba-2023-24-luxury-tax-tracker/

 

[Hoopguru]

It's fascinating how many Blazer fans complained about being stuck in purgatory - Not bad enough for high draft or good enough to contend.

But now that we're out of it because they're bad enough to get high draft picks, they want to go right back to being stuck in the middle?

Trade vets for assets and get high draft picks as a result. More assets + more flexibility + better group of young players > less assets, less flexibility and a worse group of young players.

If they short-circuit this rebuild, then they should've just taken whatever "crappy" offers they were given for the #3 pick last year. Because moving on from Dame and entering a rebuild was supposed to produce a BETTER result, not the same shit.

and Joe said the three he drafted last year were win now players and not your typical rook? Wonder if he says it again?
NO doubt about it, the longer it takes Joe and Chauncey to build with younger players the more job security they have with possible extensions. If they follow ownerships mandate to stay under the cap. Buys even them time. The questions is how does it effect profitability if they cant get butts in the seats, or sponsors? Maybe not at all, as the team is a subsidiary of the mothership and use all types of tactics to keep the Blazers alive and probably as mediocre as ever in the end. They won't spend the money to contend.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I was just basing it off this poll. More pride want to try to make the playoffs (yay, 8th seed!) than do what it takes to become a 1 seed down the line. I don't get it. Only way I'm cool with a playoff push is if it comes from the young core breaking out, not because of highly priced vets.

I didn't vote but I am guessing that many of those who voted to try to win were thinking the same way you are. The poll can be interpreted a few different ways depending on one's definition of the term "tank". So when it asks what they want the Blazers to do on day one of the next season, intentionally trying to lose is not a preferred option for many. Myself included.

So yeah they are rooting for Scoot, Sharpe, Ayton, Walker, Camara, Rupert, Murray, and whoever we draft to to try to win. Personally, I would add Ant to that group as well.

So in my mind, it just comes down to Grant and Brogdon. (I would move Thybulle and I don't think Williams is a factor either way.)
The bottom line, most people hate to intentionally lose so I can see why they voted to let the youngsters try to win.