The "Build Around Dame Vs Not" Myth?

[wizenheimer]

the "build around Dame" vs not....I'm thinking that it is mostly nonsense

Q) What would be the kind of players you'd want to in order build around Dame?
A) It would be 2-way wings and forwards with length; perimeter shooting; defense; ball-handling

Q) What would be the kind of players you'd want in order to build to a contender?
A) It would be 2-way wings and forwards with length; perimeter shooting; defense; ball-handling

I thinking it's kind of a false narrative to say there are two different tracks here. There is no reason both can't be the same track

 

[blazerkor]

the "build around Dame" vs not....I'm thinking that it is mostly nonsense

Q) What would be the kind of players you'd want to in order build around Dame?
A) It would be 2-way wings and forwards with length; perimeter shooting; defense; ball-handling

Q) What would be the kind of players you'd want in order to build to a contender?
A) It would be 2-way wings and forwards with length; perimeter shooting; defense; ball-handling

I thinking it's kind of a false narrative to say there are two different tracks here. There is no reason both can't be the same track

As long as we have Dame both have to be the same track. I do think that having players that don't need too much development behooves winning while Dame is still one of the best players in the league but as we saw last season with Mobley and Herb Jones, those players don't have to be NBA vets. So yeah when you have an offensive weapon like Dame you need two way players. We probably need a player that has the size to get Dame out of blitzing traps right as he passes half court and the BBIQ and skills to take advantage of a 4 on 3 situation. That being said, you're right, two way players with skills, athleticism, length and consistency are always what you need and something we've been lacking for quite some time.

 

[Mediocre Man]

The difference is age. A young 2 way forward that has a high ceiling but might not reach it for 2-3 years won’t help with Dame as much as say a guy like Grant

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Which is why I think our focus this off-season needs to be narrowed to players who fit that bill. Grant does in fact match this framework--just shouldn't have a high acquisition cost. Mo Bamba would be great. Tari Eason in the draft would be decent. Anunoby if available. Boucher could work.

I'm sure there are plenty of others who fit the bill, but I'm pretty much going to downplay anybody who either doesn't have good size/length for his position, isn't a good outside shooter, or doesn't defend the perimeter.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Which is why I think our focus this off-season needs to be narrowed to players who fit that bill. Grant does in fact match this framework--just shouldn't have a high acquisition cost. Mo Bamba would be great. Tari Eason in the draft would be decent. Anunoby if available. Boucher could work.

I'm sure there are plenty of others who fit the bill, but I'm pretty much going to downplay anybody who either doesn't have good size/length for his position, isn't a good outside shooter, or doesn't defend the perimeter.

So basically you've got us trading for a bunch of role players. That would be depressing if we had the Damian Lillard of 3 years ago, and now...

Tear this motherfucker down!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So basically you've got us trading for a bunch of role players. That would be depressing if we had the Damian Lillard of 3 years ago, and now...

Tear this motherfucker down!

Assuming that the FO is absolutely opposed to the "trade Dame" path, what would you have them do?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

The Blazers don't need a wing or two way player for Dame. Sure these players have the most value so you'd always prefer these types of players. The Blazers just need talent for Dame. They don't even need one player, all draft picks and expiring contracts could work.

That said I don't believe the Blazers must trade Dame, they can try to rebuild with him and stealth tank as the Lakers did with Kobe.

But when a franchise has no realistic way to contend in the years ahead as the Blazers they should consider trading any veteran for longer term assets.

 

[Mediocre Man]

So basically you've got us trading for a bunch of role players. That would be depressing if we had the Damian Lillard of 3 years ago, and now...

Tear this motherfucker down!

YES PLEASE!!!!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Assuming that the FO is absolutely opposed to the "trade Dame" path, what would you have them do?

Just act as if you have traded Dame. Which is pretty much what Cronin has done so far.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

YES PLEASE!!!!

It's amazing how many delusional fans don't realize this tear the motherfucker down is what Cronin is doing starting with the Clippers trade.

Those fans will wake up one day with Dame gone and wonder what happened.

The Blazers royally screwed up the Olshey transition. There were possible ways to aim to rebuild a contender around Dame. It would've started with step 1 Hire a competent GM.

Now it's too late, that ship has sailed and the Blazers have no realistic way to contend in the short term years ahead.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Just act as if you have traded Dame. Which is pretty much what Cronin has done so far.

I prefer to operate in actual reality rather than pretend reality.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I prefer to operate in actual reality rather than pretend reality.

I think "pretend reality" is going to be much kinder to Blazer fans in the next decade than actual reality.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

There were possible ways to aim to rebuild a contender around Dame.

Counterpoint: no there weren't.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think "pretend reality" is going to be much kinder to Blazer fans in the next decade than actual reality.

Probably. In pretend reality we drafted Jordan, Sabonis came over in 1988, we never traded Petrovic, we drafted CP3 and Durant, Roy's knees didn't disintegrate, we didn't trade up for Z-Co, traded CJ years ago, and have more titles than every franchise but Boston (because the Lakers never got any after 1988).

 

[Chris Craig]

Probably. In pretend reality we drafted Jordan, Sabonis came over in 1988, we never traded Petrovic, we drafted CP3 and Durant, Roy's knees didn't disintegrate, we didn't trade up for Z-Co, drafted Giannis instead of CJ, and have more titles than every franchise but Boston (because the Lakers never got any after 1988).

FTFY

 

[Hoopguru]

It's amazing how many delusional fans don't realize this tear the motherfucker down is what Cronin is doing starting with the Clippers trade.

Those fans will wake up one day with Dame gone and wonder what happened.

The Blazers royally screwed up the Olshey transition. There were possible ways to aim to rebuild a contender around Dame. It would've started with step 1 Hire a competent GM.

Now it's too late, that ship has sailed and the Blazers have no realistic way to contend in the short term years ahead.

So you think Dame Chauncey and Joe are in concert to tear it down rather than their talk about building around Dame?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

FTFY

Maybe add in drafted Draymond instead of Meyers

 

[glazeduck]

The difference is age. A young 2 way forward that has a high ceiling but might not reach it for 2-3 years won’t help with Dame as much as say a guy like Grant

Yep. Has nothing to do with style of player and everything to do with prime window.

If you're trying to win with Dame, you're going after the Jimmy Butlers of the world.
If you're preparing for life after Dame, you're looking at young guys to develop around Ant and Nas.

 

[Strenuus]

I think "pretend reality" is going to be much kinder to Blazer fans in the next decade than actual reality.

See you in a decade, then.

 

[wizenheimer]

If you're trying to win with Dame, you're going after the Jimmy Butlers of the world.
If you're preparing for life after Dame, you're looking at young guys to develop around Ant and Nas.

you always go after the Butler's of the world; maybe not after they are 36 or older. But you always go after that kind of talent

and one thing you should not do is "build around Simons and Little". I mean, Little?...where did that come from?

I understand Simons got everybody excited with a 20 game sample size....after 4 seasons. But he has proven nothing yet as an actual impact player on a good team. Once he has for a couple of seasons, then you might consider building around him. Until that point in time he's a supporting player, not the primary piece of a core (Remember Vinsanity?)

one of Olshey's fatal mistakes was that he tried to build a team around CJ. Sure, Dame was part of the equation but the flaw was treating CJ as a centerpiece of the roster and the salary cap. And that's what kept the Blazers from adding the desperately needed talent at wing when they had the opportunities for PG13 and Butler. Don't repeat that mistake with Simons

 

[glazeduck]

you always go after the Butler's of the world; maybe not after they are 36 or older. But you always go after that kind of talent

I don't agree with this at all. If your team isn't ready to compete with a salary and player like Butler, what's the point of acquiring him (especially when its going to cost you assets that you should be using to build your team?) Mediocrity is the absolute worst thing to be in the NBA

and one thing you should not do is "build around Simons and Little". I mean, Little?...where did that come from?

Little is our 2nd best player with untapped upside and he showed tremendous progression last year. I didn't say he was the 2nd coming of MJ, but you've got to start somewhere. It's pretty clear that one of the few paths we have to take is rebuilding around youth, who else would you suggest we build around if not him?

I understand Simons got everybody excited with a 20 game sample size....after 4 seasons. But he has proven nothing yet as an actual impact player on a good team. Once he has for a couple of seasons, then you might consider building around him. Until that point in time he's a supporting player, not the primary piece of a core (Remember Vinsanity?)

First of all, Vince Carter is a hall of famer, so yeah, he's worth building around. Secondly, Simons took four years because we drafted him, essentially, out of HS. In the absence of better options, the fact that he's young enough to be in this draft class and has shown a steady track of progression makes him worth being a player to build around.

one of Olshey's fatal mistakes was that he tried to build a team around CJ. Sure, Dame was part of the equation but the flaw was treating CJ as a centerpiece of the roster and the salary cap. And that's what kept the Blazers from adding the desperately needed talent at wing when they had the opportunities for PG13 and Butler. Don't repeat that mistake with Simons

I fail to see how these situations are at all similar. If we're trading Simons+ to get a PG/Butler level player to try and win with Dame, then fine. But even if our Cronin can somehow swing that (I'm not holding my breath), it would take a borderline miracle to make us a true title contender. As such, it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider options post-Dame trade at all.

 

[Hoopguru]

I don't agree with this at all. If your team isn't ready to compete with a salary and player like Butler, what's the point of acquiring him (especially when its going to cost you assets that you should be using to build your team?) Mediocrity is the absolute worst thing to be in the NBA



Little is our 2nd best player with untapped upside and he showed tremendous progression last year. I didn't say he was the 2nd coming of MJ, but you've got to start somewhere. It's pretty clear that one of the few paths we have to take is rebuilding around youth, who else would you suggest we build around if not him?



First of all, Vince Carter is a hall of famer, so yeah, he's worth building around. Secondly, Simons took four years because we drafted him, essentially, out of HS. In the absence of better options, the fact that he's young enough to be in this draft class and has shown a steady track of progression makes him worth being a player to build around.



I fail to see how these situations are at all similar. If we're trading Simons+ to get a PG/Butler level player to try and win with Dame, then fine. But even if our Cronin can somehow swing that (I'm not holding my breath), it would take a borderline miracle to make us a true title contender. As such, it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider options post-Dame trade at all.

he may have been referring to Linsanity?

 

[wizenheimer]

I don't agree with this at all. If your team isn't ready to compete with a salary and player like Butler, what's the point of acquiring him (especially when its going to cost you assets that you should be using to build your team?) Mediocrity is the absolute worst thing to be in the NBA

I'd say mediocrity is about the 2nd worst. The worst would be having a management record like the Kings

But I think it's nuts to suggest a team would not want two players with talent like Butler. That would be like Boston not wanting Tatum and Brown. Or Chicago not wanting Jordan and Pippen. Those kind of talents it what you build around. You don't build around Jordan Poole...or Ant. Not yet at least

Little is our 2nd best player with untapped upside and he showed tremendous progression last year. I didn't say he was the 2nd coming of MJ, but you've got to start somewhere. It's pretty clear that one of the few paths we have to take is rebuilding around youth, who else would you suggest we build around if not him?

well, be careful of trying to tap Little's upside...you'll injure him with that tap. Right now, I'd rate Dame/Ant/Nurkic/Hart all much higher than Little and Watford might be close. Little has flashed some potential but he hasn't come anywhere close to earning a core player role, and even some core players aren't worthy of building around

maybe our issue is the definition of 'building around': I define build around talent as elite...repeat all-star level. A GM would be crazy to look for players that complement Little. That doesn't mean you don't give him a chance to develop, but he isn't going to develop much if he can't stay healthy

First of all, Vince Carter is a hall of famer, so yeah, he's worth building around. Secondly, Simons took four years because we drafted him, essentially, out of HS. In the absence of better options, the fact that he's young enough to be in this draft class and has shown a steady track of progression makes him worth being a player to build around.

I misspoke...I meant Linsanity...as in Jeremy Lin who had a 25 game stretch in his 2nd season as impressive of what Simons did in his 4th season. The Knicks would have been loopy to use that stretch as a reason to build around Lin

I fail to see how these situations are at all similar. If we're trading Simons+ to get a PG/Butler level player to try and win with Dame, then fine. But even if our Cronin can somehow swing that (I'm not holding my breath), it would take a borderline miracle to make us a true title contender. As such, it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider options post-Dame trade at all.

I don't have a problem with considering "post-Dame" options. I have a problem with creating a post-Dame era now because of Simons and Little

 

[glazeduck]

I'd say mediocrity is about the 2nd worst. The worst would be having a management record like the Kings

But I think it's nuts to suggest a team would not want two players with talent like Butler. That would be like Boston not wanting Tatum and Brown. Or Chicago not wanting Jordan and Pippen. Those kind of talents it what you build around. You don't build around Jordan Poole...or Ant. Not yet at least

All depends on what you believe, I guess. My philosophy in the NBA is if you're not championship caliber, you're not good enough. I don't think Dame, Butler and a bunch of scraps is championship caliber, so why bother?

well, be careful of trying to tap Little's upside...you'll injure him with that tap. Right now, I'd rate Dame/Ant/Nurkic/Hart all much higher than Little and Watford might be close. Little has flashed some potential but he hasn't come anywhere close to earning a core player role, and even some core players aren't worthy of building around

maybe our issue is the definition of 'building around': I define build around talent as elite...repeat all-star level. A GM would be crazy to look for players that complement Little. That doesn't mean you don't give him a chance to develop, but he isn't going to develop much if he can't stay healthy

However you define it, there will be a pecking order of players. If we're restarting, you're looking at young players with upside, that's Ant and then Nas, pretty much by default. That doesn't mean I'm anointing them as anything other than the guys who are likely the best pieces moving forward...

I misspoke...I meant Linsanity...as in Jeremy Lin who had a 25 game stretch in his 2nd season as impressive of what Simons did in his 4th season. The Knicks would have been loopy to use that stretch as a reason to build around Lin

I knew what you meant, was just having a little fun. And I'd argue that most sane people could see the Linsanity experiment for what it was at the time, insanity.

I don't have a problem with considering "post-Dame" options. I have a problem with creating a post-Dame era now because of Simons and Little

Just comes down to how relevant you think you can make a Blazers team around Dame. Is a bunch of 5, 6, 7 seeds and first-round bounces worth it to watch him retire here? Because I think the argument that many are making is that there's not a large enough window of opportunity, given cap situation, available assets, ability of front office, engagement of ownership, etc. to truly have a legit shot at a ring. That's all I'm saying. If you don't believe that our future assets are enough to build a championship roster, why slog through another half decade of mediocrity and waste your most valuable asset's prime when you can restart and try again? As before, Simons and Little may or may not be true pillars, but they're the best long term options we have. That's not creating the post-Dame era because of them, that's creating a post-Dame era because of the reality of things.

 

[wizenheimer]

Just comes down to how relevant you think you can make a Blazers team around Dame. Is a bunch of 5, 6, 7 seeds and first-round bounces worth it to watch him retire here? Because I think the argument that many are making is that there's not a large enough window of opportunity, given cap situation, available assets, ability of front office, engagement of ownership, etc. to truly have a legit shot at a ring. That's all I'm saying. If you don't believe that our future assets are enough to build a championship roster, why slog through another half decade of mediocrity and waste your most valuable asset's prime when you can restart and try again? As before, Simons and Little may or may not be true pillars, but they're the best long term options we have. That's not creating the post-Dame era because of them, that's creating a post-Dame era because of the reality of things.

you keep talking about a "post-Dame" era

What I would like to see is the Blazers devote at least a full season to post-Olshey/CJ--->with-Dame era before throwing their hands in the air and giving up

IMO, it's dumb to advocate a post-Dame era to start now just because the trade deadline did not turn a below .500 team into a contender....but that sure as hell seems to be the gauge some of you are using

 

[swish3]

The "post-Dame era" will not begin until 2028 or later. There is a good chance for multiple NBA Championships with Dame in the next 5 years!

 

[KSF-ERIC]

the "build around Dame" vs not....I'm thinking that it is mostly nonsense

Q) What would be the kind of players you'd want to in order build around Dame?
A) It would be 2-way wings and forwards with length; perimeter shooting; defense; ball-handling

Q) What would be the kind of players you'd want in order to build to a contender?
A) It would be 2-way wings and forwards with length; perimeter shooting; defense; ball-handling

I thinking it's kind of a false narrative to say there are two different tracks here. There is no reason both can't be the same track

I think the point is thus. Dame and Simons each need their own team to run. Which team is better:

1)Simons plus the players Dame can get us

or

2)Dame plus the players Simons can get us

That's the Build Around Dame vs Not Equation. And it's not a Myth.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

you keep talking about a "post-Dame" era

What I would like to see is the Blazers devote at least a full season to post-Olshey/CJ--->with-Dame era before throwing their hands in the air and giving up

IMO, it's dumb to advocate a post-Dame era to start now just because the trade deadline did not turn a below .500 team into a contender....but that sure as hell seems to be the gauge some of you are using

Who said Cronin would EVER throw his hands in the air and give up? His job is to make us the most competitive as possible and that is what he will do. I've never seen a GM give up though.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

you always go after the Butler's of the world; maybe not after they are 36 or older. But you always go after that kind of talent

and one thing you should not do is "build around Simons and Little". I mean, Little?...where did that come from?

I understand Simons got everybody excited with a 20 game sample size....after 4 seasons. But he has proven nothing yet as an actual impact player on a good team. Once he has for a couple of seasons, then you might consider building around him. Until that point in time he's a supporting player, not the primary piece of a core (Remember Vinsanity?)

one of Olshey's fatal mistakes was that he tried to build a team around CJ. Sure, Dame was part of the equation but the flaw was treating CJ as a centerpiece of the roster and the salary cap. And that's what kept the Blazers from adding the desperately needed talent at wing when they had the opportunities for PG13 and Butler. Don't repeat that mistake with Simons

I think you mean Linsanity. And Linsanity was just about 8 games long. Simons was dominating teams that were guarding him like he was Dame. Fuck, look at Game 82 of his rookie year. We gave him the team, he got 37 and 9. Simons needs his own team.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

you always go after the Butler's of the world; maybe not after they are 36 or older. But you always go after that kind of talent

and one thing you should not do is "build around Simons and Little". I mean, Little?...where did that come from?

Well, not even counting the eye test.... peruse this link and you will some incredible potential especially leading up to his injury. Also factor in his defense, the eye test, and his age and he absolutely should be considered a part of our core.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/littlna01/gamelog/2022