Give the kid a break. It's not the worst article I've read. Being a sportswriter can be tough. When I write my articles, I know a lot of people aren't going to agree with everything I say. Yeah, the kid could use an editor. There are multiple grammatical errors, word choice issues, as well as some sentence structure problems. I have been writing awhile and I often find I will miss a misspelled word and such, here and there.
Let's breakdown what he is saying. Are the backcourt of Lillard and McCollum underachieving? It's hard to agree with. They are one of the best backcourt duos in the NBA. They have been in the league on the Blazers for 6 years together. They just got a 4 and 3 year extention, which will keep them together through 2022. A combined $296 million is a big chunk of change. It doesn't take much thought to come to the conclusion that they are worth it. You have to extend Lillard. McCollum, at the price the Blazers got him, why not? What is the Blazers alternative? They could probably trade CJ and try another shooting guard next to Lillard. That is a suitable argument. But, he didn't offer who the Blazers could trade for shooting guard wise.
The kid moves on with the argument that the NBA is no longer a league where a team can win a championship with their star players in the backcourt. That a star at the 3 or 4 is needed. Does this hold true? Could the Blazers trade CJ for a Star 3 or 4 and win it all? Probably not. It is not that simple.
He offers the example of Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson as the only team to win a recent championship with a star powered backcourt. Though the Warriors have had other stars to help. Kevin Durant for one, though they have won without him. Draymond Green has been a key piece, going to his argument. Andre Iguodala. Alone, without those guys, could Curry and Thompson win a championship? Have other backcourt duos won?
Toronto had Kawhi. Cleveland had Lebron. Miami had Wade/Lebron/Bosh, Lakers had Kobe/Shaq, San Antonio had Duncan and Parker, etc etc. No teams who have relied heavily on a backcourt duo alone, have won it all. It is a good argument.
He then questions why we just extended McCollum and makes the claim that they aren't championship worthy. I think that is an over tough assessment. Yeah teams have double teamed them in the playoffs and stopped them, but we saw both of them get past that last postseason at times. You have to look at the players that surround them for a better answer. It takes a team to win a championship.
The Blazers upgraded their bench last season and it paid off. The Blazers made the conference finals without Jusuf Nurkic and a one armed Kanter. That is pretty damned good. So, you pay Lillard and you pay McCollum because there has been progress. Keeping them here and further upgrading the team is the best chance of winning a trophy for Portland.
This offseason has been insane. The Blazers have completely transformed the team. They are arguably better than last year. He maintains the Blazers backcourt will have to score 45 a game to get anywhere. So what? They are going to score that anyway. But, the Blazers have more than just Lillard and McCollum. Nurkic will return later in the season. They have Whiteside and Gasol, to hold down the center position till then. The Blazers have Bazemore and Hood. They have Simons and Collins. Etc. The Blazers have a chance to match or best last season. Yeah, they will habe to rely on some young players to break out. That can be scary.
So, are Lillard and McCollum underachievers? They have been here six years together and have made the 2nd round three times, and the conference finals last year. I would say they have achieved what they could and more with what they have had to work with.
The kid then says that their playing styles are unsustainable. I don't know about that. I think may that is a word choice issue. I would say they aren't compatible because their styles rely on them having the ball. They could work more on playing through each other, rather than next to each other. Sure.
Then come the scenarios. I don't see the Blazers starting Nassir Little. I could see Neil trading Whiteside/Bazemore for Love, Griffin, or perhaps ugh, Aldridge. I could also see him play the season out. The word investment comes up a lot in the article. Is trading for the long term, beomoth contracts of injury prone players like Love and Griffin a good investment? Maybe.
Maybe history is against the Blazers and that is ok. It has been a while since Portland has won a championship. 42 long years. The Blazers serious runs for the trophy have been decades in between and they haven't been able to get back their yet. But, hey the Blazers got to the conference finals last year. So, why give up and say maybe this or that will happen, but really it's futile the Blazers won't make it. The west is wide open. Instead of asking why, how about why not?
I've got to say despite his lack of editing, the kid suceeded. We are talking about his article. That is the job of any writer. Not for everyone to agree with what is said, but for it to create discussion, argument. I'd say it has done just that.
