This draft class is going to be ridiculous

[magnifier661]

Yes.

EDIT: Caveat being that I tend to think Anthony Davis' has greater potential to be a franchise level player than a lot of other lotto picks ... Lillard included.

Well then why are we sooo worried about getting anyone in this draft then? I mean for all we know, they will be at Anthony Davis's level. Your ideology would lean more towards grabbing proven vets and superstars no?

 

[Strenuus]

So in other words.....you will pretty much always be cautiously happy if we are winning. 16 games does not make a season, nor does 60. (Like when we were 50-10 and Walton got hurt)

Bottom line is some people prefer not to get their hopes up for fear of being let down. Others prefer to enjoy the moment a little bit more. To each his own. Personally I am more the cautious type, but I wish I wasn't.......

Repped. Well said.

 

[HailBlazers]

It looks to me like it' sat least 8-9 deep with all-star caliber players

Wow that would be ridiculous

 

[Strenuus]

wow, really? thats a quality bold statement

They're always seems to be 2 busts when theres a draft class like this, it seems.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Wow that would be ridiculous

That number is probably high, but I think it will rival some of the drafts from the 80's

 

[Nikolokolus]

Well then why are we sooo worried about getting anyone in this draft then? I mean for all we know, they will be at Anthony Davis's level. Your ideology would lean more towards grabbing proven vets and superstars no?

The Blazers don't have that luxury because of a combination of factors (geography, market size, cache', etc.)

And why are you getting so emotional about this?

 

[magnifier661]

The Blazers don't have that luxury because of a combination of factors (geography, market size, cache', etc.)

And why are you getting so emotional about this?

I'm just off of this "tanking for picks" bandwagon. I think it's a broken idea and hardly works. The true players have GMs that find talent regardless of pick.

You or others keep bringing up "market, location" as some detour for players, but I disagree. There have been small market teams that built winners and lured solid free agents. Remember the early 2000 kings? They were winners and brought in vets to build on. Hell our team had the same privilege as well. The key to success is to develop a winning culture. That culture will attract other players that want to win too. That's why OKC can lure free-agents if they wanted to.

 

[Nikolokolus]

First of all define "solid free agent" and then name me one "Superstar" (your word not mine) that has left a team to go to a small market in the past 10 years. That's not a rhetorical question; maybe there's somebody I've forgotten.

 

[magnifier661]

First of all define "solid free agent" and then name me one "Superstar" (your word not mine) that has left a team to go to a small market in the past 10 years. That's not a rhetorical question; maybe there's somebody I've forgotten.

Iggy going to Golden State? Guess he really isn't a superstar. And lately there hasn't been a small market team that contends, unless you talk about SAS. Fortunately for them, they didn't need another superstar to come to town.

 

[Natebishop3]

Iggy going to Golden State? Guess he really isn't a superstar. And lately there hasn't been a small market team that contends, unless you talk about SAS. Fortunately for them, they didn't need another superstar to come to town.

Right now, I'm not convinced that Iggy is better than Batum.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Indy looks like a (sort of) contender lately, but they languished in the lottery for awhile to get there and they got pretty lucky finding guys like George who exceeded expectations.

There is no magic formula, but there are templates for success and those templates are different for small market teams vs. large markets. The little guys almost always have to find their core players via the draft and nothing you list above changes that.

So where are we disagreeing?

 

[magnifier661]

Indy looks like a (sort of) contender lately, but they languished in the lottery for awhile to get there and they got pretty lucky finding guys like George who exceeded expectations.

There is no magic formula, but there are templates for success and those templates are different for small market teams vs. large markets. The little guys almost always have to find their core players via the draft and nothing you list above changes that.

So where are we disagreeing?

The model is fine for teams like how we were when we were winning barely 20 games. When you start making your way to the middle of the pack, you need to make moves for established players. Gotta try and get to the playoffs, then determine what pieces you need to go to the next level. And once you make the playoffs, especially if you can make some noise; I expect many veterans you may need will be available.

And we still haven't talked about when a superstar being disgruntled. CP3 was one of the last times a team was able to get a star from a team no one really wanted to play for. They are a large market, but the whipping boys of the league. And now, they are a destination for many seasoned vets to want to play for.

 

[Natebishop3]

The model is fine for teams like how we were when we were winning barely 20 games. When you start making your way to the middle of the pack, you need to make moves for established players. Gotta try and get to the playoffs, then determine what pieces you need to go to the next level. And once you make the playoffs, especially if you can make some noise; I expect many veterans you may need will be available.

And we still haven't talked about when a superstar being disgruntled. CP3 was one of the last times a team was able to get a star from a team no one really wanted to play for. They are a large market, but the whipping boys of the league. And now, they are a destination for many seasoned vets to want to play for.

Yeah, but they're still in LA. All it took was the right players. Even with the right players, we're still a small market team. That will never change.

 

[Nikolokolus]

So think about that Mags. As shitty as the Clippers were forever, location made it possible to flip the script. That's something that the OKCs, Portlands and Memphises of the world will never be able to overcome. Being a "winner" means less than it appears you think it does.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Wowsa

 

[Pinwheel1]

So think about that Mags. As shitty as the Clippers were forever, location made it possible to flip the script. That's something that the OKCs, Portlands and Memphises of the world will never be able to overcome. Being a "winner" means less than it appears you think it does.

How did location help the clippers flip the script? I don't buy that for a second. Did CP3 say the only reason he resigned was because of LA? or was the the potential to win the reason? (and max money)

 

[Natebishop3]

How did location help the clippers flip the script? I don't buy that for a second. Did CP3 say the only reason he resigned was because of LA? or was the the potential to win the reason? (and max money)

Because it's still LA... the only difference between the Lakers and the Clippers is a winning history, and a semi-competent owner. The reason the Clippers sucked all this time is because of Donald Sterling. If you put the right players on the Clippers, they suddenly become marketable. Case in point, Blake Griffin and CP3. Add those two players to the Clippers and they are no different than any other large market team.

 

[Nikolokolus]

How did location help the clippers flip the script? I don't buy that for a second. Did CP3 say the only reason he resigned was because of LA? or was the the potential to win the reason? (and max money)

He had a very narrow list of teams he was willing to be traded to (i.e. teams he was willing to sign an extension with). Without that handshake agreement, there's no way CP3 ever goes to the Clips and location had a huge part to play in that, whether it was because of him or his reps.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Cp3 didn't sign an extension

Team x could have traded for him, gave him a solid chance to win, and more money than any other team too

 

[Pinwheel1]

Because it's still LA... the only difference between the Lakers and the Clippers is a winning history, and a semi-competent owner. The reason the Clippers sucked all this time is because of Donald Sterling. If you put the right players on the Clippers, they suddenly become marketable. Case in point, Blake Griffin and CP3. Add those two players to the Clippers and they are no different than any other large market team.

I agree that if you put the right players on the Clippers they become marketable, but Mags is right in the fact that if you put the right players on the Blazers....they become marketable. Their GM (our GM) got lucky with the trade of Chris Paul. Lucky in the fact that Stern vetoed the Laker trade.

Cp3 makes that whole team. If we would have landed him in the trade, and had the talent the Clippers have, he would have resigned with us as well. No doubt in my mind.

Not really relevant to my point, but Turn the radio on in LA right now. Are they talking Clippers? Hell no. All Lakers, then the Dodgers, then USC, UCLA.......... then maybe the Clippers and Kings.

 

[Pinwheel1]

He had a very narrow list of teams he was willing to be traded to (i.e. teams he was willing to sign an extension with). Without that handshake agreement, there's no way CP3 ever goes to the Clips and location had a huge part to play in that, whether it was because of him or his reps.

What if Portland had a shit load of talent at that time. They may have made that short list. Just like they did in the early 90's and 2000. Players want to win and get paid. Portland can do that.

But you are right in the fact they need to build the nucleus first. Which is through the draft. But right now we have the nucleus. We just need the FA

 

[Nikolokolus]

Cp3 didn't sign an extension

Team x could have traded for him, gave him a solid chance to win, and more money than any other team too

Extension or not I have no doubt that assurances were made before Olshey pulled the trigger on that deal.

 

[blue9]

But you are right in the fact they need to build the nucleus first. Which is through the draft. But right now we have the nucleus. We just need the FA

First you need to build a good nucleus. (Maybe we've done that.) NEXT that nucleus needs to win enough to be attractive to other good players. (We haven't done that yet.) And THEN you add the final talent to your already good/winning nucleus.
One problem - how do we add that final talent, if our nucleus can attract it?

 

[Natebishop3]

I agree that if you put the right players on the Clippers they become marketable, but Mags is right in the fact that if you put the right players on the Blazers....they become marketable. Their GM (our GM) got lucky with the trade of Chris Paul. Lucky in the fact that Stern vetoed the Laker trade.

Cp3 makes that whole team. If we would have landed him in the trade, and had the talent the Clippers have, he would have resigned with us as well. No doubt in my mind.

Not really relevant to my point, but Turn the radio on in LA right now. Are they talking Clippers? Hell no. All Lakers, then the Dodgers, then USC, UCLA.......... then maybe the Clippers and Kings.

But here's the difference, not only is LAC marketable, but because of their location I could see a star signing with them. I still don't see that with Portland. Even with CP3 and Griffin, I don't see a star signing here, like a LeBron or a Durant or a Howard. When LeBron was a free agent, the Clippers were toss about as a possible destination. You won't ever hear Portland mentioned as a possible destination for a LeBron.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Extension or not I have no doubt that assurances were made before Olshey pulled the trigger on that deal.

Such as? Like "I will re-sign here no matter what" ?
Extremely improbable

 

[Pinwheel1]

First you need to build a good nucleus. (Maybe we've done that.) NEXT that nucleus needs to win enough to be attractive to other good players. (We haven't done that yet.) And THEN you add the final talent to your already good/winning nucleus.
One problem - how do we add that final talent, if our nucleus can attract it?

Well you have to get a little lucky. Just like it takes some luck in the draft. However it just takes the right Vet to take the 5.5 mid level exception (or whatever it is these days) to be the missing link. Or another disgruntled player who wants to get away from their current situation. Veteran players know how close a team is when they are looking around. That seems to be our only option without cap space.

 

[RR7]

As shitty as the Clippers were forever, location made it possible to flip the script. That's something that the OKCs, Portlands and Memphises of the world will never be able to overcome.

We'll never be able to overcome shittiness? Unsure I get your point here. The Clippers took a risk in landing Paul. Because of their location, shouldn't they have then never been as shitty as they were? Why has NY sucked for so many years? It seems to be people think that it's different for a large market and a small market, but I still see large markets needing the same amount of luck to get over the top.

 

[Pinwheel1]

But here's the difference, not only is LAC marketable, but because of their location I could see a star signing with them. I still don't see that with Portland. Even with CP3 and Griffin, I don't see a star signing here, like a LeBron or a Durant or a Howard. When LeBron was a free agent, the Clippers were toss about as a possible destination. You won't ever hear Portland mentioned as a possible destination for a LeBron.

True the top Hall of Fame type players will not sign as a FA, when they have better options. But the rest will if they can get paid and can win.

But CP3 did not re-sign with the Clippers because of LA. The reason I say that is no-one ever has before in the Clipper history. (That i can think of)

He signed because it was his best chance to win while getting paid the max. If he was in Portland one year and liked his teammates and thought they could win (and get paid) he would re-sign here too. So no I do not think in that specific scenario that location turned the clippers around.

The Clips are still 2nd rate in LA. They need to win it all first. Lakers all day..... all the time.

 

[Natebishop3]

True the top Hall of Fame type players will not sign as a FA, when they have better options. But the rest will if they can get paid and can win.

But CP3 did not re-sign with the Clippers because of LA. The reason I say that is no-one ever has before in the Clipper history. (That i can think of)

He signed because it was his best chance to win while getting paid the max. If he was in Portland one year and liked his teammates and thought they could win (and get paid) he would re-sign here too. So no I do not think in that specific scenario that location turned the clippers around.

The Clips are still 2nd rate in LA. They need to win it all first. Lakers all day..... all the time.

The thing is, a lot of that had to do with Sterling being so cheap. They ended up losing a lot of talent because he refused to pay them. A few times they've had a young nucleus that could have gone on to be successful, only to be broken up because Sterling refused to pay up. It's hard to say if a big ticket free agent would have signed there if Sterling ponied up. I know he tried to steal Kobe back in the early 2000's. I think he also made a big push for LeBron.

 

[RR7]

The thing is, a lot of that had to do with Sterling being so cheap. They ended up losing a lot of talent because he refused to pay them. A few times they've had a young nucleus that could have gone on to be successful, only to be broken up because Sterling refused to pay up. It's hard to say if a big ticket free agent would have signed there if Sterling ponied up. I know he tried to steal Kobe back in the early 2000's. I think he also made a big push for LeBron.

Sterling was cheap, for sure, but I think it had a lot more to do with just piss poor management overall. From bad picks to trades and signings.