They aren't 'Young' anymore

[TBpup]

For years this has been a 'young' team that didn't play young (hardly ran at all) but there is a certain feeling about a young team that is growing, developing and getting better. That will still apply to some players on the roster but for the first time in years, depending on who comes back, the Blazers could have multiple players in their 30's.

By next season:

Turner will be 32
Dame will be 30
Aminu will be 30
Curry will be 30

And following just behind:

CJ will be 29
Meyers will be 28
Hood will be 28
Kanter will be 28

Now it's doubtful that all four of Aminu, Curry, Hood and Kanter will be back and they could be replaced by younger players but for this first time, we could be looking at the physical peak of several of the Blazer players and the beginning of the inevitable decline that starts to happen at or soon after 30.

Experience and mental toughness can make up for some of that initial decline but if there is such a thing as a 'window' for the majority of this roster, it begins in earnest now. That window is about 2-3 years left for Dame and a year or two more for some of those right behind him. But Father Time is undefeated.

For better or worse, that clock will seem to be ticking even faster now. Enjoy it while it lasts as players like Dame don't come along that often.

 

[illmatic99]

I get it. This is true. But it's really disingenuous to mention free agents like Aminu/ Kanter/Hood/Curry but not three important guys who are under contract and will be part of our core in Moe (26) /Nurk (25) /Collins (22). I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I get it. This is true. But it's really disingenuous to mention free agents like Aminu/ Kanter/Hood/Curry but not three important guys who are under contract and will be part of our core in Moe (26) /Nurk (25) /Collins (22). I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative.

Ahhh, I missed that.

Yeah, whats up with that @TBpup

 

[SportsAndWhine]

Since they mostly have birthdays during summer vacation, at the end of the 2019-2020 season in June:

Dame will be 29
Aminu will be 29
Curry will be 29
Turner will be 31
CJ will be 28
Kanter will be 28
Hood will be 27
Nurkic will be 25
Collins will be 22

So what we seem to have is a team entering their prime this year that made the Western Conference Finals basically right on schedule despite missing their starting star center.

People are really looking hard to find something wrong with this picture.

 

[HailBlazers]

Meh, 30 is the new 20.

 

[illmatic99]

Since they all have birthdays during summer vacation, at the end of the 2019-2020 season in June:


Dame will be 29
Aminu will be 29
Curry will be 29
Turner will be 31
CJ will be 28

Nurkic will be 26
Collins will be 23

So not only did he omit three key younger players, but he got the ages wrong. Ouch. You have it off too. Nurk will be 25 still in June 2020 (aka AFTER next season). And Collins will be 22.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

So not only did he omit three key younger players, but he got the ages wrong. Ouch. You have it off too. Nurk will be 25 still in June 2020 (aka AFTER next season). And Collins will be 22.

Sorry pre-coffee!

 

[SportsAndWhine]

By the end of the 1989-1990 season:

Clyde was 28 (Dame is 28)
Danny Young was 28 (Seth is 28)
Terry was 27 (CJ is 27)
Buck was 30 (Turner is 30)
Cliff was 23 (Collins is 21)
Sabonis was 25 (Nurkic is 24)

Just some context

 

[TBpup]

Lol....love the negative reaction as that is all some people seem to be able to respond with. You get the bigger picture idea though. Narrative.....amusing. That is why the word 'some' is used. But per usual, pick and chose. The fact is, the Blazers have 2 of their most important players at their physical peak and that won't be getting any better. Take advantage now.

And of course the part about about how players like Dame don't come along very often. For those who can only respond negatively, that means he is very special and enjoy the time we have left. Try and see some positive.

 

[dviss1]

Lol....love the negative reaction as that is all some people seem to be able to respond with. You get the bigger picture idea though.

Actually no.. The notion of your post is wrong. Based upon the ages you have there, you've taken off a whole season of play, development and maturing.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Lol....love the negative reaction as that is all some people seem to be able to respond with. You get the bigger picture idea though. Narrative.....amusing. That is why the word 'some' is used. But per usual, pick and chose. The fact is, the Blazers have 2 of their most important players at their physical peak and that won't be getting any better. Take advantage now.

And of course the part about about how players like Dame don't come along very often. For those who can only respond negatively, that means he is very special and enjoy the time we have left. Try and see some positive.

Negative reaction? No dude, your numbers were wrong.

COme on. You arent THAT biased are you?

 

[TBpup]

Actually no.. The notion of your post is wrong. Based upon the ages you have there, you've taken off a whole season of play, development and maturing.

I should have said 'year' instead of season. So Dame turns 30 the month after what we hope is a Finals appearance. The bigger point is still the same. And I love how some people now are all zealous about exact numbers/stats when they completely dismiss them at other times. The notion isn't wrong, just the wording. @dviss1 ...this isn't directed specifically at you, but it's amusing how the bigger point is so being dismissed for a fraction of a number.

Admittedly, part of that may be from my job as we go by what birthday a person is closer to to determine age for underwriting purposes. Even so, huge Mea Culpa for using the word season instead of year. SMH....

@Orion Bailey ....biased about what? The overall basis of the post? What bias are you referring to? Is this another mind-reading exercise?

 

[Orion Bailey]

I should have said 'year' instead of season. So Dame turns 30 the month after what we hope is a Finals appearance. The bigger point is still the same. And I love how some people now are all zealous about exact numbers/stats when they completely dismiss them at other times. The notion isn't wrong, just the wording. @dviss1 ...this isn't directed specifically at you, but it's amusing how the bigger point is so being dismissed for a fraction of a number.

Admittedly, part of that may be from my job as we go by what birthday a person is closer to to determine age for underwriting purposes. Even so, huge Mea Culpa for using the word season instead of year. SMH....

@Orion Bailey ....biased about what? The overall basis of the post? What bias are you referring to? Is this another mind-reading exercise?

You posted numbers. Others showed you you were wrong.

Instead of admitting the omissions and wrong ages, you decided to take the victim route.

No biggie, but kinda surprised you didnt just say, oh yeah, I missed those players and probably shouldn't have added players likely not on the roster next year.

Thats all. Not sure what you mean by mind reading excersize, unless you are referring to your OP.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I should have said 'year' instead of season. So Dame turns 30 the month after what we hope is a Finals appearance. The bigger point is still the same. And I love how some people now are all zealous about exact numbers/stats when they completely dismiss them at other times. The notion isn't wrong, just the wording. @dviss1 ...this isn't directed specifically at you, but it's amusing how the bigger point is so being dismissed for a fraction of a number.

Admittedly, part of that may be from my job as we go by what birthday a person is closer to to determine age for underwriting purposes. Even so, huge Mea Culpa for using the word season instead of year. SMH....

@Orion Bailey ....biased about what? The overall basis of the post? What bias are you referring to? Is this another mind-reading exercise?

Their realistic window of winning with Dame as the best player is probably 3-4 years. After that assuming no major injuries to Dame he would probably have to be your leader but need 2-3 other really, really legit all star types next to him and he probably wouldn't be the main focus anymore.

So yes they arent, “young” but 28-32 is really most players “prime”, definitely just hitting it, but its a window that can close very quickly.

 

[dviss1]

I should have said 'year' instead of season.

That's it? So nothing about your complete omission of all the facts?

You "forgot" key rotation players that are under contract: Moe (26) /Nurk (25) /Collins (22)

Players you mentioned: Aminu (29) Curry (29) Kanter (28) Hood (27)

May not even be on the team next year.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We should freeze them in the off season.

 

[Orion Bailey]

That's it? So nothing about your complete omission of all the facts?

You "forgot" key rotation players that are under contract: Moe (26) /Nurk (25) /Collins (22)

Players you mentioned: Aminu (29) Curry (29) Kanter (28) Hood (27)

May not even be on the team next year.

Thats all I was trying to say.

 

[TBpup]

You posted numbers. Others showed you you were wrong.

Instead of admitting the omissions and wrong ages, you decided to take the victim route.

No biggie, but kinda surprised you didnt just say, oh yeah, I missed those players and probably shouldn't have added players likely not on the roster next year.

Thats all. Not sure what you mean by mind reading excersize, unless you are referring to your OP.

Victim? Where did I once say that? In fact instead admitted I used the wrong wording. Also mentioned some of those players would likely not be on the roster next season. I didn't omit anyone as I used the word 'some' as has been pointed out before. This is quite selective reading but maybe I shouldn't be surprise anymore.

he nitpicking around here is reaching all-time high. The broader point is the same. For those who it will help have a better day, once again, I should have used the word 'year' instead of season to indicate how old Dame will be next 'year'. I'm so sorry for anyone that has been caused such bother. My goodness. Bigger picture. Dame is closer to the downside of his career. Take advantage, appreciate and hope they can do something in these next few year. How is that point being missed?

Time for baseball.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Victim? Where did I once say that? In fact instead admitted I used the wrong wording. Also mentioned some of those players would likely not be on the roster next season. I didn't omit anyone as I used the word 'some' as has been pointed out before. This is quite selective reading but maybe I shouldn't be surprise anymore.

he nitpicking around here is reaching all-time high. The broader point is the same. For those who it will help have a better day, once again, I should have used the word 'year' instead of season to indicate how old Dame will be next 'year'. I'm so sorry for anyone that has been caused such bother. My goodness. Bigger picture. Dame is closer to the downside of his career. Take advantage, appreciate and hope they can do something in these next few year. How is that point being missed?

Time for baseball.

Come on man....


It was alot more than wrong wording. You completely dismissed part of the roster to fit your narrative. When called out on it, you said people go negative.
Thats playing the victim.

See, most people see you nitpicking a false narrative that you started in the OP.

Why cant you just admit that you missed some players????

SMH.....

Your point isnt being missed.l How you came to your point is not being missed either.

 

[blazerboy30]

Horrible thread.

Cherry pick the players to include and ommit.

Misrepresent the ages of the players that actually were included.

When called out, double down on the false narrative.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Perhaps you all missed what his point was?

The OP didn't say that because we're old, we're in a bad spot, or that the team needs to be torn down and rebuilt, or anything negative.

The OP said that because the team isn't really "young" anymore, now is the time for the FO to "go for it".

Rather than focus on the "numbers" or the "inclusions"--what do you think about the actual point being made? Do you disagree that this is the time to "go for it"? Do you think we should still be focusing on "building"/"developing"? Something else entirely?

Can we perhaps focus slightly less on the trees and actually talk about the forest?

 

[TBpup]

Apparently, a number of posters can't read. So let me help. (serious sarcasm)

"For years this has been a 'young' team that didn't play young (hardly ran at all) but there is a certain feeling about a young team that is growing, developing and getting better. That will still apply to some players on the roster but for the first time in years, depending on who comes back, the Blazers could have multiple players in their 30's."

Where is the omission when the words "some", "depending on who comes back", and "could" are used. #unbelievable

Rant away in response. It is time for a break from here anyhow.

 

[TBpup]

Perhaps you all missed what his point was?

The OP didn't say that because we're old, we're in a bad spot, or that the team needs to be torn down and rebuilt, or anything negative.

The OP said that because the team isn't really "young" anymore, now is the time for the FO to "go for it".

Rather than focus on the "numbers" or the "inclusions"--what do you think about the actual point being made? Do you disagree that this is the time to "go for it"? Do you think we should still be focusing on "building"/"developing"? Something else entirely?

Can we perhaps focus slightly less on the trees and actually talk about the forest?

Thankfully, some wisdom.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Perhaps you all missed what his point was?

The OP didn't say that because we're old, we're in a bad spot, or that the team needs to be torn down and rebuilt, or anything negative.

The OP said that because the team isn't really "young" anymore, now is the time for the FO to "go for it".

Rather than focus on the "numbers" or the "inclusions"--what do you think about the actual point being made? Do you disagree that this is the time to "go for it"? Do you think we should still be focusing on "building"/"developing"? Something else entirely?

Can we perhaps focus slightly less on the trees and actually talk about the forest?

But don't you ALWAYS want to be going for it? I get the OP's point. But the road in which he got there tossed many people off track.

Sorry, didn't know it was wrong to agree with the bigger picture, but also point out the false narratives in how it was painted.

Also don't know why its so hard to just say, "you know, I should have included them as well", and then maybe there wouldn't be so many posts pointing it out?


We aren't all rookies here. Post false info and you get called out for it around here, regardless of the bigger picture.

Happens to all of us, but some just refuse to admit any wrong doings on anything.... Its kinda funny really.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But don't you ALWAYS want to be going for it?

No. There are a lot of teams in situations in which a "go for it" trade or signing would make no sense.

I get the OP's point. But the road in which he got there tossed many people off track.

Sorry, didn't know it was wrong to agree with the bigger picture, but also point out the false narratives in how it was painted.

Also don't know why its so hard to just say, "you know, I should have included them as well", and then maybe there wouldn't be so many posts pointing it out?


We aren't all rookies here. Post false info and you get called out for it around here, regardless of the bigger picture.

Happens to all of us, but some just refuse to admit any wrong doings on anything.... Its kinda funny really.

Sure, probably easy for someone to respond that way. I'd like to think I would have as well.

All I'm saying is that when we (as a board) focus so much on the details of a post rather than the overarching premise, we often miss out on the opportunity to have an actual discussion.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Lol....love the negative reaction as that is all some people seem to be able to respond with. You get the bigger picture idea though. Narrative.....amusing. That is why the word 'some' is used. But per usual, pick and chose. The fact is, the Blazers have 2 of their most important players at their physical peak and that won't be getting any better. Take advantage now.

And of course the part about about how players like Dame don't come along very often. For those who can only respond negatively, that means he is very special and enjoy the time we have left. Try and see some positive.

You want to really make heads explode? Point out years of NBA experience. I've had people get upset because I pointed out that guys like Leonard and Hark are NBA vets.

 

[Orion Bailey]

No. There are a lot of teams in situations in which a "go for it" trade or signing would make no sense.



Sure, probably easy for someone to respond that way. I'd like to think I would have as well.

All I'm saying is that when we (as a board) focus so much on the details of a post rather than the overarching premise, we often miss out on the opportunity to have an actual discussion.

I think part of it is that there is so much opinion based BS tossed around out here, that people are tired of it. Not saying T's was, but when someone uses numbers that aren't accurate, people want to call it out, because often this misinformation leads the discussion into a completely false projection based on the foundation being inaccurate.

I really Like T and many of his posts. I think this one was not completely thought out and could have easily said the same thing with accurate numbers and information, thus garnering a much more positive reaction.
But On a site where people are regularly trying to push their opinion as facts, people are going to make sure the facts are accurate when they are presented. And then to double down instead of just saying, oh yeah, let me go fix that, it came off as kinda, well....

Not sure of the right word, but it came off as never being wrong.

 

[illmatic99]

Perhaps you all missed what his point was?

The OP didn't say that because we're old, we're in a bad spot, or that the team needs to be torn down and rebuilt, or anything negative.

The OP said that because the team isn't really "young" anymore, now is the time for the FO to "go for it".

Rather than focus on the "numbers" or the "inclusions"--what do you think about the actual point being made? Do you disagree that this is the time to "go for it"? Do you think we should still be focusing on "building"/"developing"? Something else entirely?

Can we perhaps focus slightly less on the trees and actually talk about the forest?

It is a valid point, I said as much in my very first response. Neil keeps throwing around the fact that we are one of the youngest rosters in the league in every press conference. We all know that we aren't. But the notion that I disagree with is that Dame et al might be on the downside of his career (" That window is about 2-3 years left for Dame and a year or two more for some of those right behind him").

That's just flat out false. And to support this narrative (it absolutely is one-- i don't know why this word has a negative connotation. This is an opinion based community. more narratives should be encouraged) with ages (wrong) and leaving out Nurk and Collins who are major contributors who aren't close to their primes is just lazy.

 

[wizenheimer]

oh for chrissakes, if you actually read the OP and considered the full context, there wasn't any real negative agenda to the post. People need to stop trying to be the 'negative-take' police and over-defending Portland's status-quo.

bottom line is the core players for Portland are generally in the early years of their primes with a couple qualifying as young. Personally, I'm tired of the focus on whether Portland is the 3rd youngest or 4th youngest team or whatever the fuck. It's not significant and doesn't indicate much of anything for the future. Dame and CJ are in the what you see is what you get stage. They are close to their ceilings and that limits a lot of Portland's upside considering how much they dominate the offense

By the end of the 1989-1990 season:

Clyde was 28 (Dame is 28)
Danny Young was 28 (Seth is 28)
Terry was 27 (CJ is 27)
Buck was 30 (Turner is 30)
Cliff was 23 (Collins is 21)
Sabonis was 25 (Nurkic is 24)

Just some context

wait, did Duckworth speak Russian? I tell you what, if that Drexler team had a 25 year old Sabonis on it there would have never been a Bulls dynasty. The Blazers would have 3 or 4 more championships

 

[dviss1]

Perhaps you all missed what his point was?

The OP didn't say that because we're old, we're in a bad spot, or that the team needs to be torn down and rebuilt, or anything negative.

The OP said that because the team isn't really "young" anymore, now is the time for the FO to "go for it".

Rather than focus on the "numbers" or the "inclusions"--what do you think about the actual point being made? Do you disagree that this is the time to "go for it"? Do you think we should still be focusing on "building"/"developing"? Something else entirely?

Can we perhaps focus slightly less on the trees and actually talk about the forest?

The point, on it's face, is invalid because of the skewed numbers and omissions of contracted players.

To answer the OP:

We're still young.