Tanking vs Team/Player Growth and Development

[Phatguysrule]

i don't buy that at all. worst place to be if you are a roster full of vets, for sure.
A really young core? Not a big deal. I really think you are way overselling the doom and gloom.

I'm overselling it if there is a plan to get as much talent as OKC, San Antonio, Boston, etc.

If not, then we're not going to beat those teams barring some insane miracle.

And miracles are cool. Just not good practice to plan on them as a part of your plan.

For example, I wouldn't recommend you plan on retiring on winnings from Vegas.

 

[HailBlazers]

For example, I wouldn't recommend you plan on retiring on winnings from Vegas.

Dang, was just about to cash out my 401k and put it on red.

 

[wizenheimer]

Were talking about the same thing.

See above my response on that specific scenario. The young core would have improved sooner and more. Creating more wins in the second half to offset the early losses. Again. We are kind of seeing that now. It just would have been sooner in the season. The vets played like ass in the beginning of the season. I think the young core would have won the same amount of games regardless.

this has gone on long enough...we aren't going to agree on projections

what I'm saying is that the minutes of guys like Avdija-Sharpe-Camara weren't going to increase much. Scoot yes; Clingan yes. But there would still be a learning curve for the youth that would not get significantly accelerated. And they would have had to learn about playing with each other. And frankly, Portland would have probably led the league in turnovers

subtracting the winshares of the vets would have meant the youth started with a projected deficit of 10-12 fewer wins over the current 35. For chunks of the season, the bench was Scoot-Sharpe-Avdija-Clingan. Starting those guys would mean the bench would have been Banton, Murray, Walker, Reath plus Minaya in the beackcourt; that or some of the replacement players landed in the trades. Even if the starting lineup had meshed earlier than I'm projecting, the bench would have been worse

 

[julius]

So, if the team went young and lost, people would bitch that Chauncey can't coach.

If the team goes with "Vets" who "won't be here" (Simons, Grant and Ayton) and they win, they bitch. If they lose, they bitch.

Since Simons played 70 games, I didn't include him in this.

But Grant and Ayton played 47 and 40 games each.

Without Ayton they went 18-22 (pace: 37 wins). With him they went 17-23 (pace: 35)

Not sure how him playing made a difference.

With Grant, the team went: 22-25 (pace: 38 wins)
Without: 13-20 (pace: 32 wins)

In games they BOTH missed, the team went 9-12, (pace: 35 wins).

I,e., they started winning too much *after* they both were out.

Point being, maybe this team is better than we thought they were. With Ayton, they're about a 35 win team. With Grant, they're about a 38 win team. Without Ayton, 37 wins. Without Grant, 32. Without them both they're 35 wins.

Which is pretty much the same as saying they're about a 35 win team regardless.

The biggest "win share" that the team has is Deni. Second is Toumani.

 

[BlazerWookee]

I know the vast majority of you are all about tanking this season and pissed off the tanking didn't go how you hoped. But on the bright side, look at the player growth and development we had this season that we probably wouldn't of had if we went all in on tanking from the start. And tanking builds a bad team culture and vibe. Is the chance to have a better draft pick, and one possibly impactful player, worth the sacrifice of the development of several of our young core guys?
Fire away at me!

Not even close. Player growth & development far outweighs a chance at a few extra ping pong balls.

 

[Pinwheel1]

So, if the team went young and lost, people would bitch that Chauncey can't coach.

If the team goes with "Vets" who "won't be here" (Simons, Grant and Ayton) and they win, they bitch. If they lose, they bitch.

Since Simons played 70 games, I didn't include him in this.

But Grant and Ayton played 47 and 40 games each.

Without Ayton they went 18-22 (pace: 37 wins). With him they went 17-23 (pace: 35)

Not sure how him playing made a difference.

With Grant, the team went: 22-25 (pace: 38 wins)
Without: 13-20 (pace: 32 wins)

In games they BOTH missed, the team went 9-12, (pace: 35 wins).

I,e., they started winning too much *after* they both were out.

Point being, maybe this team is better than we thought they were. Without Ayton, they're about a 35 win team. With Grant, they're about a 38 win team. Without Ayton, 37 wins. Without Grant, 32. Without them both they're 35 wins.

Which is pretty much the same as saying they're about a 35 win team regardless.

The biggest "win share" that the team has is Deni. Second is Toumani.

I don't think it that simple. The whole team played better in January than they did in Nov-Dec. And both Ayton and Grant were part of that.
Although I would prefer to trade Grant and keep Ayton. (Only because of their contracts and age)

 

[wizenheimer]

I don't think it that simple. The whole team played better in January than they did in Nov-Dec. And both Ayton and Grant were part of that.
Although I would prefer to trade Grant and keep Ayton. (Only because of their contracts and age)

I see no reason at all to keep Ayton. Clingan is already a better C and he's good at things that a modern C needs to be good at (see no reason to keep Grant either)

 

[Pinwheel1]

I see no reason at all to keep Ayton. Clingan is already a better C and he's good at things that a modern C needs to be good at (see no reason to keep Grant either)

I think having a center who can score to go along with Clingan is optimal. At his current contract, he is not worth it. But if he so hard to trade, then I don't see anyone paying him that much again. We should be able to get him on a reasonable contract. As we have discussed for years, one good center does not cut it. They get injured. You need at least 2 and a third who can fill in when needed.

 

[wizenheimer]

I think having a center who can score to go along with Clingan is optimal. At his current contract, he is not worth it. But if he so hard to trade, then I don't see anyone paying him that much again. We should be able to get him on a reasonable contract. As we have discussed for years, one good center does not cut it. They get injured. You need at least 2 and a third who can fill in when needed.

I don't agree...mainly because I have no confidence at all that Cronin will re-sign Ayton for a reasonable deal. Which is less than 20M/year in my view

I also don't agree, at all, with the notion that the Blazers can re-sign Ayton and Simons, and still re-sign Sharpe, Scoot, Camara, Avdija, & Clingan. That all would take place over a 2 year period and it's ludicrous to think a small market team could afford that. It's not a sustainable payroll

I also ain't buying that a team "needs" two big lumbering drop-coverage C's on significant contracts. Gobert + Naz Reid works; Gobert + Gobert wouldn't. Holmgren + Hartenstein work; Hartenstein + Hartenstein not so much. Jarett Allen + Mobley works; Allen + Allen would be redundant. And of course, Holmgren and Mobley have the mobility to play PF; Ayton can't contrary to the occasional pipedream around here. And, Hartenstein and Allen are both more mobile than Ayton and Clingan

but yeah sure...Blazers should just keep punting tough decisions down the road and pray for epiphanies; great plan

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

So, if the team went young and lost, people would bitch that Chauncey can't coach.

If the team goes with "Vets" who "won't be here" (Simons, Grant and Ayton) and they win, they bitch. If they lose, they bitch.

Since Simons played 70 games, I didn't include him in this.

But Grant and Ayton played 47 and 40 games each.

Without Ayton they went 18-22 (pace: 37 wins). With him they went 17-23 (pace: 35)

Not sure how him playing made a difference.

With Grant, the team went: 22-25 (pace: 38 wins)
Without: 13-20 (pace: 32 wins)

In games they BOTH missed, the team went 9-12, (pace: 35 wins).

I,e., they started winning too much *after* they both were out.

Point being, maybe this team is better than we thought they were. With Ayton, they're about a 35 win team. With Grant, they're about a 38 win team. Without Ayton, 37 wins. Without Grant, 32. Without them both they're 35 wins.

Which is pretty much the same as saying they're about a 35 win team regardless.

The biggest "win share" that the team has is Deni. Second is Toumani.

This right here.
I notice it was skipped over by those claiming we would have been much worse starting the young core from the get go.
We can all agree to disagree, but you doom and gloom folks are wrong.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

this has gone on long enough...we aren't going to agree on projections

what I'm saying is that the minutes of guys like Avdija-Sharpe-Camara weren't going to increase much. Scoot yes; Clingan yes. But there would still be a learning curve for the youth that would not get significantly accelerated. And they would have had to learn about playing with each other. And frankly, Portland would have probably led the league in turnovers

subtracting the winshares of the vets would have meant the youth started with a projected deficit of 10-12 fewer wins over the current 35. For chunks of the season, the bench was Scoot-Sharpe-Avdija-Clingan. Starting those guys would mean the bench would have been Banton, Murray, Walker, Reath plus Minaya in the beackcourt; that or some of the replacement players landed in the trades. Even if the starting lineup had meshed earlier than I'm projecting, the bench would have been worse

Disagree. Its gonna keep on going because no matter what the team does some like to complain about the negatives and ignore the positives.

Anyhow, what say you about the below post?

So, if the team went young and lost, people would bitch that Chauncey can't coach.

If the team goes with "Vets" who "won't be here" (Simons, Grant and Ayton) and they win, they bitch. If they lose, they bitch.

Since Simons played 70 games, I didn't include him in this.

But Grant and Ayton played 47 and 40 games each.

Without Ayton they went 18-22 (pace: 37 wins). With him they went 17-23 (pace: 35)

Not sure how him playing made a difference.

With Grant, the team went: 22-25 (pace: 38 wins)
Without: 13-20 (pace: 32 wins)

In games they BOTH missed, the team went 9-12, (pace: 35 wins).

I,e., they started winning too much *after* they both were out.

Point being, maybe this team is better than we thought they were. With Ayton, they're about a 35 win team. With Grant, they're about a 38 win team. Without Ayton, 37 wins. Without Grant, 32. Without them both they're 35 wins.

Which is pretty much the same as saying they're about a 35 win team regardless.

The biggest "win share" that the team has is Deni. Second is Toumani.

 

[Phatguysrule]

This right here.
I notice it was skipped over by those claiming we would have been much worse starting the young core from the get go.
We can all agree to disagree, but you doom and gloom folks are wrong.

Not including Simons kind of makes it irrelevant to most of the concerns...

I'm not opposed to keeping either Grant or Ayton longer term at the right price.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I don't agree...mainly because I have no confidence at all that Cronin will re-sign Ayton for a reasonable deal. Which is less than 20M/year in my view

I also don't agree, at all, with the notion that the Blazers can re-sign Ayton and Simons, and still re-sign Sharpe, Scoot, Camara, Avdija, & Clingan. That all would take place over a 2 year period and it's ludicrous to think a small market team could afford that. It's not a sustainable payroll

I also ain't buying that a team "needs" two big lumbering drop-coverage C's on significant contracts. Gobert + Naz Reid works; Gobert + Gobert wouldn't. Holmgren + Hartenstein work; Hartenstein + Hartenstein not so much. Jarett Allen + Mobley works; Allen + Allen would be redundant. And of course, Holmgren and Mobley have the mobility to play PF; Ayton can't contrary to the occasional pipedream around here. And, Hartenstein and Allen are both more mobile than Ayton and Clingan

but yeah sure...Blazers should just keep punting tough decisions down the road and pray for epiphanies; great plan

Would we really be punting tough decisions? If my suggestion doesn't work out, what is the worst-case scenario? They walk, freeing up cap space?
If you don't trust Cronin, fine, but that kind of limits most discussions.

What are the other options? Trading the players you don't like for shit draft picks and pray that we can use those picks for some kind of fantasy trade. Talk about a great plan.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Not including Simons kind of makes it irrelevant to most of the concerns...

I'm not opposed to keeping either Grant or Ayton longer term at the right price.

Not sure where not including Simons came into play? I didn't mention that one way or another. But I do agree with you, both he and Grant need to be moved.
Im fine keeping Ayton one more year, as Reath is a huge drop off. We need two good centers.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Not sure where not including Simons came into play? I didn't mention that one way or another. But I do agree with you, both he and Grant need to be moved.
Im fine keeping Ayton one more year, as Reath is a huge drop off. We need two good centers.

The post you're referring to specifically excluded Simons. That's why I didn't feel it was relevant for me to respond to.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

The post you're referring to specifically excluded Simons. That's why I didn't feel it was relevant for me to respond to.

oh gotcha. Fair enough, but i think it would have solidified the argument even more. Ant sucked ass to start the season.

 

[wizenheimer]

Would we really be punting tough decisions? If my suggestion doesn't work out, what is the worst-case scenario? They walk, freeing up cap space?
If you don't trust Cronin, fine, but that kind of limits most discussions.

What are the other options? Trading the players you don't like for shit draft picks and pray that we can use those picks for some kind of fantasy trade. Talk about a great plan.

the process doesn't start today. The process started when Dame was traded and that's when the punting started

I know you like Simons and I know you like Ayton; and I know you want to keep seeing them in Blazer uniforms. I don't. They aren't winning players imo

as far as fantasy trades, I have been saying for a long time I'd be just fine with a 2nd round pick and expiring contracts for either. I doubt the Blazers could get an expiring for Grant. I've been in the 'addition-by-subtraction' stance for a while. And yes, a 2nd round pick is better than letting them walk

as far as trusting Cronin to hold the line on new deals for Simons and Ayton...why the fuck should I? Why do you? He gave Simons 25M/year; gave Nurkic 18M/year; gave Grant 33M/year; gave an injured Gary Payton a max MLE deal that hard-capped the Blazers; matched the crazy Thybulle offer sheet; and traded for the albatross Ayton contract. Other than rookie deals, the only good contract on the team is Avdija's and Cronin didn't give Deni that deal; it was another GM

so no, I don't trust him to hold the line and sign Simons and/or Ayton to 'good' contracts because there's nothing in his history suggesting he has that willpower

 

[Pinwheel1]

the process doesn't start today. The process started when Dame was traded and that's when the punting started

I know you like Simons and I know you like Ayton; and I know you want to keep seeing them in Blazer uniforms. I don't. They aren't winning players imo

as far as fantasy trades, I have been saying for a long time I'd be just fine with a 2nd round pick and expiring contracts for either. I doubt the Blazers could get an expiring for Grant. I've been in the 'addition-by-subtraction' stance for a while. And yes, a 2nd round pick is better than letting them walk

as far as trusting Cronin to hold the line on new deals for Simons and Ayton...why the fuck should I? Why do you? He gave Simons 25M/year; gave Nurkic 18M/year; gave Grant 33M/year; gave an injured Gary Payton a max MLE deal that hard-capped the Blazers; matched the crazy Thybulle offer sheet; and traded for the albatross Ayton contract. Other than rookie deals, the only good contract on the team is Avdija's and Cronin didn't give Deni that deal; it was another GM

so no, I don't trust him to hold the line and sign Simons and/or Ayton to 'good' contracts because there's nothing in his history suggesting he has that willpower

Addition by subtraction is fine for Grant, as he has a longer contract. Yes, I would take a 2nd.

Dumping Ant and Ayton for a 2nd is a plan, just not one that will make a difference. Not when they are on ending contracts.

As for Ant and Ayton not being "winning players" ....Ayton losing in the finals makes him a non-winning player?
I am not sure how you can come up with that. Every player is a winning player if they have the right teammates.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

These vets were known commodities. Nobody was going to be tricked into overpaying for them. Whatever their value was before season was the best we were going to do.

This season set us back substantially. We have almost no hope of catching San Antonio or OKC now.

If you don't care about ever beating those teams in a series then it's not a big deal. Agreed.

On the vets, im not sure it was to trick someone into over paying as much as it was trying to avoid further decrease in their value. If we had started the core and brought the vets off the bench, our situation now would likely be similar. The only way to lose a bunch would have been to not play the vets at all. Im fairly certain, their value would have decreased even further if we didn't play them at all. How much is debatable. Just like how much or little it set us back.

Is there a team you can think of that started a season not playing any of their vets at all, in preference to a young core in recent history?
I cant.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

the process doesn't start today. The process started when Dame was traded and that's when the punting started

I know you like Simons and I know you like Ayton; and I know you want to keep seeing them in Blazer uniforms. I don't. They aren't winning players imo

as far as fantasy trades, I have been saying for a long time I'd be just fine with a 2nd round pick and expiring contracts for either. I doubt the Blazers could get an expiring for Grant. I've been in the 'addition-by-subtraction' stance for a while. And yes, a 2nd round pick is better than letting them walk

as far as trusting Cronin to hold the line on new deals for Simons and Ayton...why the fuck should I? Why do you? He gave Simons 25M/year; gave Nurkic 18M/year; gave Grant 33M/year; gave an injured Gary Payton a max MLE deal that hard-capped the Blazers; matched the crazy Thybulle offer sheet; and traded for the albatross Ayton contract. Other than rookie deals, the only good contract on the team is Avdija's and Cronin didn't give Deni that deal; it was another GM

so no, I don't trust him to hold the line and sign Simons and/or Ayton to 'good' contracts because there's nothing in his history suggesting he has that willpower

Not folding and trading them for peanuts shows me willpower…

 

[Phatguysrule]

On the vets, im not sure it was to trick someone into over paying as much as it was trying to avoid further decrease in their value. If we had started the core and brought the vets off the bench, our situation now would likely be similar. The only way to lose a bunch would have been to not play the vets at all. Im fairly certain, their value would have decreased even further if we didn't play them at all. How much is debatable. Just like how much or little it set us back.

Is there a team you can think of that started a season not playing any of their vets at all, in preference to a young core in recent history?
I cant.

They should have been traded prior to the season. At least 2 of the 3. Certainly Simons.

The replacements would not be as good as they are. They would not be as good as our young guys. Or as respected by officials.

We'd have lost a lot more games.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

They should have been traded prior to the season. At least 2 of the 3. Certainly Simons.

The replacements would not be as good as they are. They would not be as good as our young guys. Or as respected by officials.

We'd have lost a lot more games.

Sure. But that didn't happen. So at the start of the season things changed.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Sure. But that didn't happen. So at the start of the season things changed.

Yep. And it's been a disaster and very likely locked us into purgatory.

I hope not. But that is the most likely scenario, by far.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Yep. And it's been a disaster and very likely locked us into purgatory.

I hope not. But that is the most likely scenario, by far.

Disaster. Lol. Okay.

 

[julius]

Yep. And it's been a disaster and very likely locked us into purgatory.

I hope not. But that is the most likely scenario, by far.

Purgatory doesn't usually have 14 game improvements.

Sacramento went 16 years between playoffs. That's purgatory.

This is Blazer fans being over the top pessimistic because the team to too good to suck.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Purgatory doesn't usually have 14 game improvements.

Sacramento went 16 years between playoffs. That's purgatory.

This is Blazer fans being over the top pessimistic because the team to too good to suck.

We'll see. I hope you're right.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Addition by subtraction is fine for Grant, as he has a longer contract. Yes, I would take a 2nd.

Dumping Ant and Ayton for a 2nd is a plan, just not one that will make a difference. Not when they are on ending contracts.

As for Ant and Ayton not being "winning players" ....Ayton losing in the finals makes him a non-winning player?
I am not sure how you can come up with that. Every player is a winning player if they have the right teammates.

A.K.A. a winning culture.

 

[riverman]

You don't have to suck to draft Deni Advija because you already have that guy locked up...I'm way more interested in seeing young guys become all nba or make a deep playoff run than drafting the next DeAndre Ayton...and we have him already as well. How great is it to have Toumani and Matisse defending the other team's best players? This team is really close to being legit...this off season should be the turn around. Two way players are going to get you wins...not rookies who maybe look great in college. I think we draft really well under Joe. I'm sure we'll get a good player wherever we land in ping pong ball land.

 

[andalusian]

The last 10 years mvps, 3 were drafted in the top 4, 7 were out of it.
If we look at the active players that defined eras and are in the conversation for being the best player in the league at the time,.LeBron was drafted first, Steph was 7, Jokic second round. If health permits, I suspect Wemby might be the next one..


I think that being good at drafting is underrated - and it feels that this FO is good at drafting,.so I am pretty positive about the franchise future as long as ownership does not interfere...

 

[Phatguysrule]

The last 10 years mvps, 3 were drafted in the top 4, 7 were out of it.
If we look at the active players that defined eras and are in the conversation for being the best player in the league at the time,.LeBron was drafted first, Steph was 7, Jokic second round. If health permits, I suspect Wemby might be the next one..


I think that being good at drafting is underrated - and it feels that this FO is good at drafting,.so I am pretty positive about the franchise future as long as ownership does not interfere...

This is our only hope. Our front office has to be better than everyone else's or we have to get lucky.