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

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

2024-25 season Game1 primary objective;

  • Blazers should try to make the playoffs

    Votes: 16 47.1%

  • Blazers should rebuild (or tank) for future seasons

    Votes: 18 52.9%
  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
Draft lottery 10 days away. Not as exciting with no Wembanyama in the mix.
 
I dont care either way. Just pick a lane and stop making contradicting moves.

If you want to tank another year, please trade the vets and find picks or young guys. Stop faking injuries to sit them on the bench while their trade value dwindles.

If you want to win, trade the pick and at least two of the young guys and field a balanced roster.

I don't want a middle of the road option again where they irrationally try to do both options. That is not feasible.

(The 2nd idea would be extremely foolish a year after trading Dame but this FO never ceases to amaze me with their stupidity so I suppose it's likely.)
 
Hoopguru said:
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.
Click to expand...
Cronin trading FRP's to improve the team like Minnesota is nowhere near the horizon.

Chicago owns the Blazers pick. Portland gets to use a "we can't trade our pick" card for the next 4 seasons.

Blazers GM nervously stated his outlook for the team is a "sustained build". Meaning the Blazers plan is to dip into the lottery for as long as it takes, until drafting super duper rookies can overtake the bad coaching and return Portland to winning ways.

The team media bakes us "rebuilding like OKC" cakes. Absent is the other rebuilding comps. Minnesota spent years & years & years & years & years & years in horrible basketball slumps. As do some other teams that try rebuilding through the draft.

Can the Blazers become a Minnesota by 2030? They'll have plenty of super rookies and extra bonus picks by then. But getting excited for a team that hopes to be good in 6 years, it's just not fun for NBA fans. Hence the huge drop off in national coverage, and viewership numbers plummeting to record lows.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

* Wut? "not convincing"? San Antonio absolutely counts because they deliberately tanked for Duncan and wouldn't have any of their 5 championships without him

* Cleveland absolutely counts because they tanked for the hometown guy, Lebron; and then deliberately, obviously tanked for Kyrie

* Denver counts, at least partially, because they had the 7th worst record in the NBA when they drafted Murray 7th; and when a team is in the top-half of the draft without jumping way up in the lottery, it's a tank, whether it's deliberate or not. And, we don't know if Jokic would have been enough for the ring without Murray

* Golden State drafted Curry with the 7th pick; they won 29 games that year. Again, it was a tank by default, but clearly they weren't trying to foolishly win games

* Milwaukee....ok, the exception to the rule

* Lakers? they tanked plenty. They got Magic with a 1st pick; Worthy with a 1st pick; Wilkes with an 11th pick; Kobe with a 13th pick. Speaking of the Magic/Worthy era, the Celtics got Bird with a 6th pick and McHale with a 3rd pick. And of course, the Lakers have avenues for elite talent acquisition that Portland will never have

* Dallas got Dirk with a 9th pick; and they got Kidd by trading Devin Harris, who was a 5th pick

* Miami tanked for a 5th pick and got Dwayne Wade who was integral for their 3 championships

* Chicago won 6 championships because they drafted MJ with the 3rd pick; and traded them 8th pick and a 1st round swap (18th pick) for a 5th pick and Scottie Pippen. And they got Horace Grant with a 10th pick

* Houston won 2 championships becasue they drafted Hakeem with the 1st pick

your evaluation of the definition and effectiveness of tanking doesn't match reality, at all. With very few exceptions, almost no exceptions, teams had to suck for a period of time before they could get their rings, and it was the suckage for the most part, that landed the talent that got the rings

I'm looking at the list of champions and here's some numbers: in the last 35 years, only one team has won a championship without having an MVP winner on the roster (at some point in career); the 2004 Pistons. Which dovetails into the reality that over the last 40 years, only three MVP's weren't taken in the lottery: Nash, Giannis, and Jokic. Two of those guys were taken with the 15th pick. And while they have combined for 6 MVP's they only have two championships

what OBVIOUSLY doesn't work is trying to win with below all-star talent like Ant and Ayton
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I am ok with this other than including the 24-year-old Simons. (25 next month) He fits the time line and he won't take playing time away from Scoot or Sharpe.
I see no downside to him coming off the bench. If he sucks then he helps with the tank. If he doesn't suck... then keeping him makes sense. For those who think he will pout, I doubt it but if he does then you trade him.
Click to expand...
I watched this entire season and when Ant was in the game with any of or all of Shaedon, Scoot and Deandre those guys were just way way worse on offense and then there's the fact that he's a defensive liability which in turn puts all of his teammates in bad positions on that end.

Ant needs to be on a team full of good to great defenders, most likely with a bigger guy who can initiate the offense or at least be a secondary ball handler. That's not our team. Also Ant is ready (in the right situation) to contribute to wins now, that makes him more valuable to win now teams than teams like ours. He's just a bad fit and I don't know about you or anyone else but I've been sick and tired of our team trying to shove square pegs into round holes since 2015.
 
After this year's draft even without a clear superstar we should try our darndest to prove that an evenly talented team can go far.

Now it's up to the Players and Chauncey.
 
Whyachi said:
Cronin trading FRP's to improve the team like Minnesota is nowhere near the horizon.

Chicago owns the Blazers pick. Portland gets to use a "we can't trade our pick" card for the next 4 seasons.

Blazers GM nervously stated his outlook for the team is a "sustained build". Meaning the Blazers plan is to dip into the lottery for as long as it takes, until drafting super duper rookies can overtake the bad coaching and return Portland to winning ways.

The team media bakes us "rebuilding like OKC" cakes. Absent is the other rebuilding comps. Minnesota spent years & years & years & years & years & years in horrible basketball slumps. As do some other teams that try rebuilding through the draft.

Can the Blazers become a Minnesota by 2030? They'll have plenty of super rookies and extra bonus picks by then. But getting excited for a team that hopes to be good in 6 years, it's just not fun for NBA fans. Hence the huge drop off in national coverage, and viewership numbers plummeting to record lows.
Click to expand...

Joe couldn't orchestrate a trade like the Minnesota one either. Agree, he wouldn't do it anyway, his hands are tied by Vulcans. They want keep butts in seats and viewership, maybe with all youngsters? We will soon know. But at some point its winning that and playoff excitement that keeps the synergy of Blaazerdom alive and well.
 
wizenheimer said:
* Wut? "not convincing"? San Antonio absolutely counts because they deliberately tanked for Duncan and wouldn't have any of their 5 championships without him

* Cleveland absolutely counts because they tanked for the hometown guy, Lebron; and then deliberately, obviously tanked for Kyrie

* Denver counts, at least partially, because they had the 7th worst record in the NBA when they drafted Murray 7th; and when a team is in the top-half of the draft without jumping way up in the lottery, it's a tank, whether it's deliberate or not. And, we don't know if Jokic would have been enough for the ring without Murray

* Golden State drafted Curry with the 7th pick; they won 29 games that year. Again, it was a tank by default, but clearly they weren't trying to foolishly win games

* Milwaukee....ok, the exception to the rule

* Lakers? they tanked plenty. They got Magic with a 1st pick; Worthy with a 1st pick; Wilkes with an 11th pick; Kobe with a 13th pick. Speaking of the Magic/Worthy era, the Celtics got Bird with a 6th pick and McHale with a 3rd pick. And of course, the Lakers have avenues for elite talent acquisition that Portland will never have

* Dallas got Dirk with a 9th pick; and they got Kidd by trading Devin Harris, who was a 5th pick

* Miami tanked for a 5th pick and got Dwayne Wade who was integral for their 3 championships

* Chicago won 6 championships because they drafted MJ with the 3rd pick; and traded them 8th pick and a 1st round swap (18th pick) for a 5th pick and Scottie Pippen. And they got Horace Grant with a 10th pick

* Houston won 2 championships becasue they drafted Hakeem with the 1st pick

your evaluation of the definition and effectiveness of tanking doesn't match reality, at all. With very few exceptions, almost no exceptions, teams had to suck for a period of time before they could get their rings, and it was the suckage for the most part, that landed the talent that got the rings

I'm looking at the list of champions and here's some numbers: in the last 35 years, only one team has won a championship without having an MVP winner on the roster (at some point in career); the 2004 Pistons. Which dovetails into the reality that over the last 40 years, only three MVP's weren't taken in the lottery: Nash, Giannis, and Jokic. Two of those guys were taken with the 15th pick. And while they have combined for 6 MVP's they only have two championships

what OBVIOUSLY doesn't work is trying to win with below all-star talent like Ant and Ayton
Click to expand...

There are so many holes in this post it would take me 4 hours to respond. I have no desire to do so. But the bottom line is you named a shit load of
teams that were bad for a year (some tanked and some did not) It is not relevant to our discussion about tanking for multiple years until we guess correctly on the right 19-year-old or tank in the right year that actually has a star player.
 
wizenheimer said:
"evenly talented"...?
Click to expand...
Yeah even with who? We're not going to be "evenly talented" with OKC unless Joe pulls some kind of unimaginable miracle out of his ass. We won't be "evenly talented" with well over half the teams in this league and if Joe did pull off that miracle, talent doesn't always mean everything... ask the fucking Suns.

Maybe he meant that if a team is assembled well with talent evenly dispersed throughout the roster both by position and need of skill set or whatever but that's bullshit too because if that evenly distributed talent isn't top of the food chain talent you're not beating anyone. Also roster construction has been a really big problem for quite a while and that entire time Joe was either second in command or first.
 
There is no certainty in a rebuild, whether via draft, marking time losing while waiting for talent to mature, or trades. Those who are afraid of “fence straddling” should at least acknowledge that the Timberwolves went 20 years between playoff wins until acquiring Ant and waiting for him to mature.
 
At this point who really cares? They might as well tank. They certainly won’t be able to win games.
 
If Blazers deliberately tank the next 2-3 years in hopes to draft prospective all stars, we will lose Shaedon, Scoot and Ayton, they'll want the hell out of here. and demand trades and we start the cycle all over again. Joe will make it as clear as he has before, that we want to build around our young stars, until he cant.
 
It took Denver 8 & 9 years after they drafted Murray & Joker to win the ship. And it want till they surrounded them with season vets via trade /FA's that they really were able to contend. Top to that point their coach was look down at as a loser from Sac town where he tried for a number of years through the draft with little results.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
There are so many holes in this post it would take me 4 hours to respond. I have no desire to do so. But the bottom line is you named a shit load of
teams that were bad for a year (some tanked and some did not) It is not relevant to our discussion about tanking for multiple years until we guess correctly on the right 19-year-old or tank in the right year that actually has a star player.
Click to expand...

what difference does it make how long a team was bad if they were able to land an MVP talent in the time they were bad? Portland sure doesn't look like they have done it in the last 2 years
 
Last edited:
Hoopguru said:
If Blazers deliberately tank the next 2-3 years in hopes to draft prospective all stars, we will lose Shaedon, Scoot and Ayton, they'll want the hell out of here. and demand trades and we start the cycle all over again. Joe will make it as clear as he has before, that we want to build around our young stars, until he cant.
Click to expand...

c'mon man...

Portland has control over Scoot for a minimum of 6 more years and Sharpe for 5 years. That's the minimum and almost all players sign 4 or 5 year rookie extensions rather than 3. Lebron and Durant didn't leave the teams that drafted them for 9 years. Aldridge was in Portland for 9 years
 
wizenheimer said:
c'mon man...

Portland has control over Scoot for a minimum of 6 more years and Sharpe for 5 years. That's the minimum and almost all players sign 4 or 5 year rookie extensions rather than 3. Lebron and Durant didn't leave the teams that drafted them for 9 years. Aldridge was in Portland for 9 years
Click to expand...
Because players are under contract anymore doesn't mean that cant force a trade.
 
Hoopguru said:
Because players are under contract anymore doesn't mean that cant force a trade.
Click to expand...
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.
 
If Scoot and Sharpe were average quality starting NBA players, and they weren't injured for major stretches of the season, maybe the Blazers would be in a decent position to try and win now.

So if they don't like it, tell them to prove they are a piece we can begin trying to build a winner around.

Since the Blazers have ZERO young studs to build around they need to continue to rebuild/tank until they get at least ONE such talent, although ideally two or three would be best.

Fans who want to win now would be positioning this franchise for a decade of mediocrity. My fear is Cronin and Jody may be in that boat as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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