Spoke too soon?

[Hoopguru]

Of course not. I'm never said the players or coach should try and tank. That doesn't make sense haha

But above you did say the more loses the better.
Where my thinking is that more losses is not at all a motivator for how the team is being assembled and coached for now and later.

 

[blazerfan11]

No, the more losses the better. We have zero chance at making a playoff run this year, and winning more games worsens our draft pick. We don't need a measuring stick to know this team isn't talented enough.

OK. Be honest. If I had asked you after we lost by 18 points to Orlando at home, "What are our chances of winning the next 4 in a row?", what would your answer have been?
Zero percent?

 

[Hoopguru]

But above you did say the more loses the better.
Where my thinking is that more losses is not at all a motivator for how the team is being assembled and coached for now and later.

Tanking makes for great fan talk on boards and sports shows, its great armchair gm material but reality is you have players trying to prove they belong and a coach that wants to coach them the correct way and how to win, then let the chips fall.

 

[Kano John]

Blazers 4-0 since fielding players from the trades we’ve made. Haven’t watched the games, but on the box score this is the most noticeable to me.

In the 4 games the Blazers have committed 51 turnovers for an average of 12.75 per game which is a big difference compared to the 10 per quarter we seemed to be averaging.

It’s amazing what a difference it makes.

Did we actually come out of these trades better? Is Ant replacing CJ like CJ getting playing time after we lost LMA and Wes?

Freeing up cap space is sounding better and better if it turns out that the chemistry with this group is significantly better; even if they fizzle out a bit.

Some of you may remember, I’m always anti-tank. I’d like to see us feel like we can do something even as an 8th seed.

Were people (such as myself) who didn’t feel good about the current situation getting ahead of themselves?

Might be interesting to see how we handle the rest of the season looking at how we’ve played better in this short stretch.

Maybe Cronin and Billups know what they're doing and have a long term plan for the team.

 

[BonesJones]

But above you did say the more loses the better.
Where my thinking is that more losses is not at all a motivator for how the team is being assembled and coached for now and later.

The more losses the better for the organization long term, yes. Doesn't mean the players ot coach should try to lose or embrace a losing mentality. You can play hard and try to compete and lose games.

 

[Tince]

The Norm trade was still really bad.

Was the trade bad or was his contract (years + dollars) bad and therefore the market for him was limited?

I still haven't heard a plausable explanation for why people would assume the front office didn't reach out to all 29 teams to gauge Norm's value and/or why they decided to take an inferior deal. Do we think the Clippers had compromising texts on Joe or something?

 

[Strenuus]

Was the trade bad or was his contract (years + dollars) bad and therefore the market for him was limited?

I still haven't heard a plausable explanation for why people would assume the front office didn't reach out to all 29 teams to gauge Norm's value and/or why they decided to take an inferior deal. Do we think the Clippers had compromising texts on Joe or something?

Frankly, a lot of people's ire comes from the fact they did it a week before the trade deadline. Sure, they say it was to "set up the next trades" or some other thing about how teams knew the blazers were scuffling around the tax...

But the fact that the norm trade didn't even have that much, if any, effect on the CJ trade moots that entire theory.

It was a bad trade for several reasons. All of them plausible given the circumstances. The fact it was a week out for the reason that didn't even pan out still has a lot of people scratching their heads, including myself.

Winslow may end up being good. Keon is undecided (I dont have much hope for him, so slight bias from me on that full disclosure). But early returns were rightfully bashing the trade.

Honestly, the plausible reason they didn't reach out to 29 other teams is the fact I just mentioned. They took a deal that quickly. You never do that in negotiations. The closer it gets the more they can juice it up if they need and wNt.

Norm is injured now so it's whatever. It was just an awful trade based on optics. You can't convince me not one team out of the "29" (they didnt call all of them, they had their teams to hone in on that fit the needs they were trading) said "we will talk middle of the week next week after we see where we are at". They had an entire weekend and half a week to hear offers. It's asinine to assume they all said no that early for two serviceable players lol. Bad contracts or not, that doesn't make sense.

To close, optics and inability to suspend belief are the reasons most people hate this. And it's valid. It really, really is.

 

[Natebishop3]

Frankly, a lot of people's ire comes from the fact they did it a week before the trade deadline. Sure, they say it was to "set up the next trades" or some other thing about how teams knew the blazers were scuffling around the tax...

But the fact that the norm trade didn't even have that much, if any, effect on the CJ trade moots that entire theory.

It was a bad trade for several reasons. All of them plausible given the circumstances. The fact it was a week out for the reason that didn't even pan out still has a lot of people scratching their heads, including myself.

Winslow may end up being good. Keon is undecided (I dont have much hope for him, so slight bias from me on that full disclosure). But early returns were rightfully bashing the trade.

Honestly, the plausible reason they didn't reach out to 29 other teams is the fact I just mentioned. They took a deal that quickly. You never do that in negotiations. The closer it gets the more they can juice it up if they need and wNt.

Norm is injured now so it's whatever. It was just an awful trade based on optics. You can't convince me not one team out of the "29" (they didnt call all of them, they had their teams to hone in on that fit the needs they were trading) said "we will talk middle of the week next week after we see where we are at". They had an entire weekend and half a week to hear offers. It's asinine to assume they all said no that early for two serviceable players lol. Bad contracts or not, that doesn't make sense.

To close, optics and inability to suspend belief are the reasons most people hate this. And it's valid. It really, really is.

And we could have held onto norm until the summer. It’s a horrible free agent class. RoCo was whatever. He was gone anyway, but I think norm would have had good value this summer.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

And we could have held onto norm until the summer. It’s a horrible free agent class. RoCo was whatever. He was gone anyway, but I think norm would have had good value this summer.

We got Winslow who is better fit for our team. It was a good trade.

 

[oldmangrouch]

We got Winslow who is better fit for our team. It was a good trade.

We have 6+ years of evidence that Powell is the superior player. If the Blazers failed to optimize his value, that is on the coach and GM. Trading a solid NBA player for a scrub because he is perceived as a "better fit" is just plain foolish! There was zero reason to rush into this deal. Nate is absolutely right that waiting was the smarter move.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Was the trade bad or was his contract (years + dollars) bad and therefore the market for him was limited?

I still haven't heard a plausable explanation for why people would assume the front office didn't reach out to all 29 teams to gauge Norm's value and/or why they decided to take an inferior deal. Do we think the Clippers had compromising texts on Joe or something?

Cronin was in a panic to get below the tax threshold. (no doubt under pressure from Seattle) As a bonus, it convinced some people that the shit and shinola he got for CJ wasn't that bad.

 

[blazerkor]

Cronin was in a panic to get below the tax threshold. (no doubt under pressure from Seattle) As a bonus, it convinced some people that the shit and shinola he got for CJ wasn't that bad.

If the pick relays then we got solid value if you just consider the trade for CJ... but when you add in that they get Larry next season, they got over on us. CJ for Hart and a top 10 pick is pretty solid.

 

[blazerkor]

We have 6+ years of evidence that Powell is the superior player. If the Blazers failed to optimize his value, that is on the coach and GM. Trading a solid NBA player for a scrub because he is perceived as a "better fit" is just plain foolish! There was zero reason to rush into this deal. Nate is absolutely right that waiting was the smarter move.

The truth is that teams trade far superior players for players that are a better fit all of the time... they just come away from the deal with first round picks to make up for the difference in talent, production and just overall value. If the Clippers decide they want to flip Norm at the trade deadline next season and we decide we want to trade Justise at the same time, the Clips are going to get a fuck ton more than we do. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

That being said, if the Pelicans pick conveys, we're in good shape to build a contending team next season.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Its been said before, but ill say it again.
Most here are looking at it in reverse.
Teams find the players they want to target and then work out a trade. If Winslow was a target and the goal was to shed salary as well, why shop elsewhere if the target is able to be had?

everyone seems to think there were better deals out there. Possibly, but the return players may not fit the system the Blazers are building.

Anyone here saying there were many different trades is not being realistic about how it works.
You don't trade for the best package when it doesn't fit the system moving forward.
Sometimes addition by subtraction works and so far, to me, its pretty evident it has.

Blazer fans are hilarious!!!

“x player sucks. Trade him. Not part of a championship team!!”


“How come we didnt get durant and multiple picks for our guys????!!!!????”

(hyperbole i know, but not THAT far off the mark.)

 

[Strenuus]

Its been said before, but ill say it again.
Most here are looking at it in reverse.
Trams find the players they want to target snd then work out a trade. If Winslow was a target and the goal was to shed salary as well.
Why shop elsewhere if the target is able to be had?

everyone seems to think there were better deals out there. Possibly but the return players may not fit the system they are building.

Anyone here saying there were many different trades is not being realistic about how it works.
You don't trade for the best package when it doesn't fit the system moving forward.
Sometimes addition by subtraction works and so far, to me, its pretty evident it has.

Blazer fans are hilarious!!!

“x player sucks. Trade him. Not part of a championship team!!”


“How come we didnt get durant and multiple picks for our guys????!!!!????”

Scratch that last part. No hyperbole needed. No one believes that.

And this fails to take into account that it isn't just "better players or better fit" it's waiting to see if there's "better players that also are a better fit" and we put all our eggs into Winslow and Johnson. When you look at it from a macro OR a micro sense, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Again, Winslow may turn out to be the better player that was also a better fit, but to trade 2 serviceable players for a chance of someone being the better player + better fit without letting teams get desperate towards the end of the trade deadline.... I don't know, it just doesn't sit well.

Again, if we end up having a solid rotational player out of this then I can change my tune to this trade, until then - just selling hope that this trade is good, given what we gave up... People have a right to dismiss this trade.

And remember, people are saying this is a good trade for us. It's been 5-6 games. Winslow has been more than serviceable. But it's still a risk. He is a better fit no doubt, but there's still a long way to go to sway a lot of people's minds from this trade, and rightfully so.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Scratch that last part. No hyperbole needed. No one believes that.

And this fails to take into account that it isn't just "better players or better fit" it's waiting to see if there's "better players that also are a better fit" and we put all our eggs into Winslow and Johnson. When you look at it from a macro OR a micro sense, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Again, Winslow may turn out to be the better player that was also a better fit, but to trade 2 serviceable players for a chance of someone being the better player + better fit without letting teams get desperate towards the end of the trade deadline.... I don't know, it just doesn't sit well.

Again, if we end up having a solid rotational player out of this then I can change my tune to this trade, until then - just selling hope that this trade is good, given what we gave up... People have a right to dismiss this trade.

And remember, people are saying this is a good trade for us. It's been 5-6 games. Winslow has been more than serviceable. But it's still a risk. He is a better fit no doubt, but there's still a long way to go to sway a lot of people's minds from this trade, and rightfully so.

My point being, just because Blazer fans assess value to players on our roster doesn't mean its the same value our FO or the rest of the league views them.
There is also the risk of losing Winslow to another trade and then walking away with a player of lesser fit.

hindsight is 20/20.
There is always a risk in making a trade involving starters.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

We got Winslow who is better fit for our team. It was a good trade.

Great, let's have any other team make a "great trade" where we trade them 2 players who aren't playing and $5 mil cap space for 2 of their starters.

 

[Tince]

Frankly, a lot of people's ire comes from the fact they did it a week before the trade deadline. Sure, they say it was to "set up the next trades" or some other thing about how teams knew the blazers were scuffling around the tax...

But the fact that the norm trade didn't even have that much, if any, effect on the CJ trade moots that entire theory.

It was a bad trade for several reasons. All of them plausible given the circumstances. The fact it was a week out for the reason that didn't even pan out still has a lot of people scratching their heads, including myself.

Winslow may end up being good. Keon is undecided (I dont have much hope for him, so slight bias from me on that full disclosure). But early returns were rightfully bashing the trade.

Honestly, the plausible reason they didn't reach out to 29 other teams is the fact I just mentioned. They took a deal that quickly. You never do that in negotiations. The closer it gets the more they can juice it up if they need and wNt.

Norm is injured now so it's whatever. It was just an awful trade based on optics. You can't convince me not one team out of the "29" (they didnt call all of them, they had their teams to hone in on that fit the needs they were trading) said "we will talk middle of the week next week after we see where we are at". They had an entire weekend and half a week to hear offers. It's asinine to assume they all said no that early for two serviceable players lol. Bad contracts or not, that doesn't make sense.

To close, optics and inability to suspend belief are the reasons most people hate this. And it's valid. It really, really is.

This is a very good post with some solid speculation. However, the part in bold still doesn't make any sense. I still have one small connection into an NBA front office and I've never heard anything that comes close to suggesting that a team isn't in communication with the entire league on a very regular basis. Its not GM to GM, but feelers are out there all the time. There is basically no way the Blazers started to figure out the interest in Norm a week before the deadline. There is probably no way it started just a monht before the deadline. Having said that, this gets back to why they would leave better options on the table, it just doesn't make sense.

If someone wants to make the case that they would've been better off holding onto Norm and not having as much cap flexibility heading into the draft/FA, that's a different discussion. If someone wants to say the Norm trade was a bummer, I can understand that as well. But the story that the Blazers first call about trading Norm was to the Clippers and they got so excited they took the deal without seeing what else was out there; that doesn't hold water to me at all.

Your post was still fantastic overall though.

 

[Tince]

Cronin was in a panic to get below the tax threshold. (no doubt under pressure from Seattle) As a bonus, it convinced some people that the shit and shinola he got for CJ wasn't that bad.

Cronin being under pressure to get under the tax totally checks out. Panic, not so much.

The second part makes no sense for a guy on audition for a full time GM job in the NBA. Zero.

 

[Hoopguru]

Bledslow & Winslow are Chauncey type players.

 

[Hoopguru]

Bledslow & Winslow are Chauncey type players.

and he would tell you slow......

 

[tykendo]

Yes. Build around Little and Simons. Not as your best players but keep the young dudes. Draft even better young dudes with high pick(s). Deal Lillard for stud young guy or two and let them all develop over the next three years or so. Add vets then.

And then half those dudes will leave for the big city and the Blazers go back to step 1. The only team that benefits from trading a generational talent, is the team that receives the generational talent. And yes, Ant is off to a nice start with starters minutes. But he hasn't done JACK! in the playoffs. He's young, we can build around him in a half dozen years, if we don't get it done with Dame.

 

[oldmangrouch]

If the pick relays then we got solid value if you just consider the trade for CJ... but when you add in that they get Larry next season, they got over on us. CJ for Hart and a top 10 pick is pretty solid.

Simply put, I believe that trading for a heavily conditional pick is like a game of 3 card monte. In theory we could come out OK...but I wouldn't bet 2 cents on it happening.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Cronin being under pressure to get under the tax totally checks out. Panic, not so much.

The second part makes no sense for a guy on audition for a full time GM job in the NBA. Zero.

Isn't Cronin's background as a bean-counter? What background does he have in talent evaluation that would even qualify him as a GM?

Maybe I am out-of-step with the current NBA, but I would rather see a basketball guy as GM and let him hire an accountant to advise on cap issues.

 

[wizenheimer]

Cronin being under pressure to get under the tax totally checks out. Panic, not so much.

The second part makes no sense for a guy on audition for a full time GM job in the NBA. Zero.

Portland wasn't 10M over the tax line. They were 1.3M over the line scheduled to pay a grand total of 2M in tax. Cronin's argument that teams were blackmailing Portland because they were 1.3M over the line is simply not credible. Obviously, deleting 2M in tax wasn't the priority, it was re-setting the repeater tax calendar. Still there were almost certainly options for doing that without the Clips trade

more than that though is there is nothing about the Blazer/Pels trade that pivoted on the Blazer/Clips trade being completed first. Nothing from Portland's POV and nothing from the Pels POV. Nance was traded for a TPE. The Pelicans trade could have been completed first and then, according to Cronin's excuse, the Blazers could have entered the Clippers trade talks as a non-tax team with more leverage

 

[andalusian]

Isn't Cronin's background as a bean-counter? What background does he have in talent evaluation that would even qualify him as a GM?

Maybe I am out-of-step with the current NBA, but I would rather see a basketball guy as GM and let him hire an accountant to advise on cap issues.

Cronin was a basketball player and actually played against Billups in the state championship in highschool.

 

[Strenuus]

This is a very good post with some solid speculation. However, the part in bold still doesn't make any sense. I still have one small connection into an NBA front office and I've never heard anything that comes close to suggesting that a team isn't in communication with the entire league on a very regular basis. Its not GM to GM, but feelers are out there all the time. There is basically no way the Blazers started to figure out the interest in Norm a week before the deadline. There is probably no way it started just a monht before the deadline. Having said that, this gets back to why they would leave better options on the table, it just doesn't make sense.

If someone wants to make the case that they would've been better off holding onto Norm and not having as much cap flexibility heading into the draft/FA, that's a different discussion. If someone wants to say the Norm trade was a bummer, I can understand that as well. But the story that the Blazers first call about trading Norm was to the Clippers and they got so excited they took the deal without seeing what else was out there; that doesn't hold water to me at all.

Your post was still fantastic overall though.

It doesn't hold water to me either. I think we're looking at the same coin differently. I don't think "they got excited" I also don't think, even given that they talk weeks and months prior, that there wasn't "feelers" still out there that weren't then, for lack of a better term, fully felt out.

At this point, it's perspective based. I'd also like to know what other trades were made 5-7 days before the deadline and get into the situations based on that. That'd at least guage what the "norm" (HA!) is.

 

[Tince]

Isn't Cronin's background as a bean-counter? What background does he have in talent evaluation that would even qualify him as a GM?
Maybe I am out-of-step with the current NBA, but I would rather see a basketball guy as GM and let him hire an accountant to advise on cap issues.

I think you might be out-of-step. Numbers and analytics guys are more and more of the norm in NBA front offices. Also, Cronin doesn't work in a silo, he has a team of people around him with various backgrounds. Any or all of which could've and most likely did provide input on all potential moves as well as the strength of the current more given ownerships directive.

We'll never know for sure since we're not giving full transparency.

 

[Tince]

Portland wasn't 10M over the tax line. They were 1.3M over the line scheduled to pay a grand total of 2M in tax. Cronin's argument that teams were blackmailing Portland because they were 1.3M over the line is simply not credible. Obviously, deleting 2M in tax wasn't the priority, it was re-setting the repeater tax calendar. Still there were almost certainly options for doing that without the Clips trade

more than that though is there is nothing about the Blazer/Pels trade that pivoted on the Blazer/Clips trade being completed first. Nothing from Portland's POV and nothing from the Pels POV. Nance was traded for a TPE. The Pelicans trade could have been completed first and then, according to Cronin's excuse, the Blazers could have entered the Clippers trade talks as a non-tax team with more leverage

So what is your opinion for Cronin's motive to either reject better offers and/or not even reach out to other teams for offers many weeks in advance?

 

[Tince]

It doesn't hold water to me either. I think we're looking at the same coin differently. I don't think "they got excited" I also don't think, even given that they talk weeks and months prior, that there wasn't "feelers" still out there that weren't then, for lack of a better term, fully felt out.

At this point, it's perspective based. I'd also like to know what other trades were made 5-7 days before the deadline and get into the situations based on that. That'd at least guage what the "norm" (HA!) is.

All valid and I totally agree its perspective based. I wasn't jumping up and down thinking this was a great trade either. It wasn't.

For years, I expressed that I felt the majority of our contracts would not be valued around the league because the years or amt/year were above market value. I think the trade market proved that to be true. None of our players were traded and then flipped for something significantly better either, which some people (Dwight Jaynes) were speculating would surely happen.

For the last 3-4 years, we've been swapping around bad deals for another bad deal. At some point, we were going to have to look in the mirror and take the talent hit to get out of all these bad or useless contracts.