Tank 2024-30

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
e_blazer said:
In addition to the guys we have acquired so far in the tankathon, a few of whom are keepers, there is clearly the need for a true All-Star caliber player. With today’s CBA, probably that guy will have to come through the draft. I think you just underestimate how long it could take to find and develop that player.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they can find the player but can they get the pick that nets that player is the question.
 
e_blazer said:
In addition to the guys we have acquired so far in the tankathon, a few of whom are keepers, there is clearly the need for a true All-Star caliber player. With today’s CBA, probably that guy will have to come through the draft. I think you just underestimate how long it could take to find and develop that player.
Click to expand...
What makes you think I underestimate that? I've not put a timeline on anything.

First of all, we need far more than one player.

We need to hire good coaching minds who can communicate with the players and we need an infusion of two way talent. Not just one player. Several.

The amount of time it takes is irrelevant. We have to draft the talent. The best way to speed that up is by drafting as high in the draft as often as possible until we simply have too much talent to be a lotto team.

Any other plan will almost certainly take longer and be less successful.
 
Phatguysrule said:
What makes you think I underestimate that? I've not put a timeline on anything.

First of all, we need far more than one player.

We need to hire good coaching minds who can communicate with the players and we need an infusion of two way talent. Not just one player. Several.

The amount of time it takes is irrelevant. We have to draft the talent. The best way to speed that up is by drafting as high in the draft as often as possible until we simply have too much talent to be a lotto team.

Any other plan will almost certainly take longer and be less successful.
Click to expand...

So 2040ish?
 
Chris Craig said:
So 2040ish?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately... The lack of picking a direction leads me to think maybe.

We seem pretty capable of tanking pretty hard. I just don't like that we come into the season trying to win, and then deliberately tank.

If we catch lightning in a bottle and make it to the playoffs by some strange series of events in which Simon's, Grant, and aiten put together an incredibly unlikely season, I feel like we'll think that we have arrived.

Then we'll go all in on that team with the thought that the incredibly unlikely will happen again.

That's my fear. We did that with Dame and CJ.
 
Phatguysrule said:
What makes you think I underestimate that? I've not put a timeline on anything.

First of all, we need far more than one player.

We need to hire good coaching minds who can communicate with the players and we need an infusion of two way talent. Not just one player. Several.

The amount of time it takes is irrelevant. We have to draft the talent. The best way to speed that up is by drafting as high in the draft as often as possible until we simply have too much talent to be a lotto team.

Any other plan will almost certainly take longer and be less successful.
Click to expand...

Your opinion that the amount of time it takes to find a star player is irrelevant is certainly your right as a fan to hold. I don’t think the franchise can afford to have that view. Marketing teams that have multiple 40 point losses per season is untenable from a business standpoint. That viewpoint is also not a viable one for us older fans to have. Frankly, if the Blazers don’t draft that guy for 5-10 years and take another 4-5 to develop him and build the right team around him, quite a few of us on this board won’t be around to enjoy the fruits of this massive tank job.

Historically, the Blazers have only been able to draft and develop a top player who can stay healthy, what, every 15-20 years? Sure, they didn’t rely on tanking much of their history, thankfully. But their history is more notable for bust-to-mediocre players when they have had top 10 picks than it has been for picking stars.

I’d like to see moves that try to package some of our young guys with a vet or two in order to grab a star prospect. I’d deal Scoot plus any of our vets for an established star then look to build around that guy.
 
e_blazer said:
Your opinion that the amount of time it takes to find a star player is irrelevant is certainly your right as a fan to hold. I don’t think the franchise can afford to have that view. Marketing teams that have multiple 40 point losses per season is untenable from a business standpoint. That viewpoint is also not a viable one for us older fans to have. Frankly, if the Blazers don’t draft that guy for 5-10 years and take another 4-5 to develop him and build the right team around him, quite a few of us on this board won’t be around to enjoy the fruits of this massive tank job.

Historically, the Blazers have only been able to draft and develop a top player who can stay healthy, what, every 15-20 years? Sure, they didn’t rely on tanking much of their history, thankfully. But their history is more notable for bust-to-mediocre players when they have had top 10 picks than it has been for picking stars.

I’d like to see moves that try to package some of our young guys with a vet or two in order to grab a star prospect. I’d deal Scoot plus any of our vets for an established star then look to build around that guy.
Click to expand...
But that's not my opinion. That's the opinion you've labeled me with. I'm not hoping to find a star. I'm hoping to add the most talent possible every season.

The most likely way to do that is by drafting high in the draft every year possible.

What you are advocating for is what we had with Dame. But we don't have the assets to trade for a player like that, nor the assets to be competitive if we did somehow luck into such a move.

I'm sorry, but you're living in fantasy land. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. What you are advocating for is simply not realistic.
 
Phatguysrule said:
But that's not my opinion. That's the opinion you've labeled me with. I'm not hoping to find a star. I'm hoping to add the most talent possible every season.

The most likely way to do that is by drafting high in the draft every year possible.

What you are advocating for is what we had with Dame. But we don't have the assets to trade for a player like that, nor the assets to be competitive if we did somehow luck into such a move.

I'm sorry, but you're living in fantasy land.
Click to expand...

The circumstances are completely different now than they were with Dame. Dame was going on 33 and had a massive contract that severely restricted his market. The Blazers didn’t have much young talent or draft picks to include in the deal. You and I have near zero knowledge of what players may be available. Stating that a plan different from yours is a fantasy is pure bullshit.
 
e_blazer said:
The circumstances are completely different now than they were with Dame. Dame was going on 33 and had a massive contract that severely restricted his market. The Blazers didn’t have much young talent or draft picks to include in the deal. You and I have near zero knowledge of what players may be available. Stating that a plan different from yours is a fantasy is pure bullshit.
Click to expand...
Dame wasn't 33 after Aldridge left. And we had more talent on that team than we do now. And you want to trade some of our current talent and future picks to bring in a player who will prevent us from drafting highly to acquire any more talent.

Your plan isn't based in logic. I am sorry if that offends you. I'm not trying to be offensive toward you. What you are advocating for simply can't realistically happen in the real world.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Dame wasn't 33 after Aldridge left. And we had more talent on that team than we do now. And you want to trade some of our current talent and future picks to bring in a player who will prevent us from drafting highly to acquire any more talent.

Your plan isn't based in logic. I am sorry if that offends you. I'm not trying to be offensive toward you. What you are advocating for simply can't realistically happen in the real world.
Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing Dame’s actual trade to the Bucks. Olshey’s inability or unwillingness to build around Dame was due to his incompetence. What Cronin was able to get in the trade to the Bucks was limited by the factors I listed.

Your last paragraph is more illogical than offensive to me. I don’t take this board very seriously. Trades for star players happen every year. I could list several in the past few years, but there’s not much point in doing so since the things that make a trade work are unique in each case. Saying that a trade of a young player plus a vet or two and maybe a pick would stop the tanking is great by me. Sign me up if a deal can be found that brings in an established star who fits nicely with our other young guys. I happen to believe in the future of guys like Sharpe, Camara and Clingan.
 
e_blazer said:
I thought we were discussing Dame’s actual trade to the Bucks. Olshey’s inability or unwillingness to build around Dame was due to his incompetence. What Cronin was able to get in the trade to the Bucks was limited by the factors I listed.

Your last paragraph is more illogical than offensive to me. I don’t take this board very seriously. Trades for star players happen every year. I could list several in the past few years, but there’s not much point in doing so since the things that make a trade work are unique in each case. Saying that a trade of a young player plus a vet or two and maybe a pick would stop the tanking is great by me. Sign me up if a deal can be found that brings in an established star who fits nicely with our other young guys. I happen to believe in the future of guys like Sharpe, Camara and Clingan.
Click to expand...
None have likely happened with the kind of assets we have available. And certainly none of those have resulted in the team having enough left over to be a competitive (HCA) team after the trade.

Please point out a team who has been able to do that and become a championship contender in a small market like Portland (so, no all star caliber free agents) and I'll admit I'm wrong about your proposed plan.
 
Phatguysrule said:
None have likely happened with the kind of assets we have available. And certainly none of those have resulted in the team having enough left over to be a competitive (HCA) team after the trade.

Please point out a team who has been able to do that and become a championship contender in a small market like Portland (so, no all star caliber free agents) and I'll admit I'm wrong about your proposed plan.
Click to expand...

How about the Cavs’ trade to the Jazz for Mitchell?
 
Phatguysrule said:
We don't have a Lauri Markkanen to send out.
Click to expand...

See, there you go. As I said, each trade is unique. The Cavs didn’t have experienced guys like Grant, Ant or Rob to include. Maybe the star the Blazers acquire is a bit older, or demanding a trade, or due an extension that’s going to blow the other team’s budget.

Now, you name a team that’s entirely even built by tanking through the draft that is now competitive per your definition. No trades for major players allowed.
 
kjironman1 said:
An "Analytical Loss"?
Do you guys just sit and enjoy watching a game? How does a loss become Analytical?
Click to expand...
Expected win loss which is primarily based on points differential. Been shown to be a much better indicator of future win-losses than the actual to date record.

Obviously the Blazers games have already resulted in 8 wins. But the team played at a level of a typical 5 win team. So projecting the wins the rest of the season it's likely more accurate to use a 5 win expected performance than the 8 actual wins we have.
 
kjironman1 said:
I'm hoping they try to win before 5 years from now?
Click to expand...
Were already 4 years into tanking losses, next year pretty obviously will be many losses as well. So it's really only 3 extra years of losses after that.

Then 2029 we can try to win. What an exciting plan.
 
e_blazer said:
See, there you go. As I said, each trade is unique. The Cavs didn’t have experienced guys like Grant, Ant or Rob to include. Maybe the star the Blazers acquire is a bit older, or demanding a trade, or due an extension that’s going to blow the other team’s budget.

Now, you name a team that’s entirely even built by tanking through the draft that is now competitive per your definition. No trades for major players allowed.
Click to expand...
Why? My proposal is to trade for major players once we get enough talent...
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Expected win loss which is primarily based on points differential. Been shown to be a much better indicator of future win-losses than the actual to date record.

Obviously the Blazers games have already resulted in 8 wins. But the team played at a level of a typical 5 win team. So projecting the wins the rest of the season it's likely more accurate to use a 5 win expected performance than the 8 actual wins we have.
Click to expand...


upload_2024-12-7_12-16-34.png

upload_2024-12-7_12-17-21.png
 
Phatguysrule said:
Unfortunately that's just the situation we're in. That's where we were as soon as Dame demanded the trade.

Tanking is the only way to become competitive in the future for this team.
Click to expand...
It's certainly not the only way. It might be the best or most likely way.
 
e_blazer said:
In addition to the guys we have acquired so far in the tankathon, a few of whom are keepers, there is clearly the need for a true All-Star caliber player. With today’s CBA, probably that guy will have to come through the draft. I think you just underestimate how long it could take to find and develop that player.
Click to expand...
Who is a keeper?

I'd say Scoot isn't, Sharpe maybe, Clingan might be the most likely but his Blazer big man curse lasted for weeks and he'll have missed over half the season if he returns at the earliest.

Even if we get a stud in the next draft will likely be two years before he significant contributes to wins. So we have many, many, years of this left.
 
Phatguysrule said:
What makes you think I underestimate that? I've not put a timeline on anything.

First of all, we need far more than one player.

We need to hire good coaching minds who can communicate with the players and we need an infusion of two way talent. Not just one player. Several.

The amount of time it takes is irrelevant. We have to draft the talent. The best way to speed that up is by drafting as high in the draft as often as possible until we simply have too much talent to be a lotto team.

Any other plan will almost certainly take longer and be less successful.
Click to expand...
But remember, Portland can also be the dumping ground for the players OKC has to shed. They soon will not be able to afford everyone and have draft picks to replace the players cheaply. Joe needs to set up to be able to take a player or two.
 
e_blazer said:
I may have missed some of your posts, but this is the first I’ve seen with that bit of common sense included.
Click to expand...
I've definitely said as much. I've certainly never said anything about not trading anybody.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
It's certainly not the only way. It might be the best or most likely way.
Click to expand...
I mean, sure. Somebody could give us the next Giannis for free, and maybe we'll win the lottery and draft him and some other guys with late first rounders.

That typically takes us 15-20 years to do... And even then we need a ROY to put it all together.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I mean, sure. Somebody could give us the next Giannis for free, and maybe we'll win the lottery and draft him and some other guys with late first rounders.

That typically takes us 15-20 years to do... And even then we need a ROY to put it all together.
Click to expand...
There's dozens of all-NBA players in the league not drafted high in the lottery - your MVP example you list being one of them in Giannis. The best player in the league was a 2nd rounder drafted during a taco bell ad.

I'm on board with tanking for good picks - but it's just flat wrong to state that's the only way to build a contender.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
There's dozens of all-NBA players in the league not drafted high in the lottery - your MVP example you list being one of them in Giannis. The best player in the league was a 2nd rounder drafted during a taco bell ad.

I'm on board with tanking for good picks - but it's just flat wrong to state that's the only way to build a contender.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
There's dozens of all-NBA players in the league not drafted high in the lottery - your MVP example you list being one of them in Giannis. The best player in the league was a 2nd rounder drafted during a taco bell ad.

I'm on board with tanking for good picks - but it's just flat wrong to state that's the only way to build a contender.
Click to expand...
Yes. I've already agreed with that. We could theoretically win the "Powerball" as well. But we can do that regardless of if we are tanking or not.

In fact, our odds of doing that are probably improved by tanking and getting as many picks as possible.

Tanking is the only way for us to actively significantly improve our odds of becoming a contender sooner.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yes. I've already agreed with that. We could theoretically win the "Powerball" as well. But we can do that regardless of if we are tanking or not.

In fact, our odds of doing that are probably improved by tanking and getting as many picks as possible.

Tanking is the only way for us to actively significantly improve our odds of becoming a contender sooner.
Click to expand...

Only a sith deals in absolutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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