Zombie This is an epic disaster.

[oldmangrouch]

Dear God. Jump off the ledge arleady.

We are finally getting some defenders and now they are too small. We got Grant for a future and kept our 7 this year.

Let the off season play out. We ain't done. Jump on the Train or jump off the ledge.

http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/the-hard-cap-and-you-please-read.377597/#post-5385654

 

[riverman]

So, in your opinion we needed another guard more than help up front? As for Payton's defense - who does he replace in the rotation? Hart (also a good defender) or Simons (who was just given a $100 Mil extension)?

While we are on the subject, what does it say about Sharpe that the team was willing to hard cap itself to bring in a guy to take his playing time for the next 3 years?

Dame Hart Ant and Payton are balanced offensive and defensive rotation guards...Sharpe is a first year rookie...he's a practice player who will get garbage minutes...Hart Winslow Nas Watford can all play SF Payton, Winslow and Hart can guard mulitple positions...as to the cap...Jody is not in it to save money..she's flush with cash from liquidating Paul's estate...she wants to win..things are good...we've got Grant, Brown, Eubanks and Winslow or even Watford who can play the 4....you're going to see Hart play the 3 with Payton at the 2 often when either Dame or Ant rest...as far as minutes...that's on Chauncey..he'll figure it out but people think Sharpe will get minutes ...I don't other than garbage time...why are fans worried about the cap? Contenders never worry about the cap and if want in that conversation, neither will we....we can also shed some bench guys before the season starts.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Every move we made was a need. Yea we need another wing…just because those options weren’t available doesn’t mean these other moves were wrong

Hard capping the team for Payton was not a "need."

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Hard capping the team for Payton was not a "need."

Would have been way better off convincing Philly to trade Thybulle into our TPE.

 

[Blazinaway]

Underwhelming but not a disaster IMO as someone else just posted. However, IMO this team will likely be more fun to watch but it's likely at best a 7/8 seed and will make no headway in the playoffs if we get there. That performance could easily lead to Dame being traded at the deadline or next summer. I hope Dame comes back all the way and has a great year boosting value. I hope Sharpe can make some noise and Nas can stay healthy. My bottom line for me is I want to see more TEAM ball and defense, and I think we will get both next year so I will tune in, we'll see

 

[riverman]

Hard capping the team for Payton was not a "need."

Payton was a need....the cap is there to be used.

 

[Driew]

Dame Hart Ant and Payton are balanced offensive and defensive rotation guards...Sharpe is a first year rookie...he's a practice player who will get garbage minutes...Hart Winslow Nas Watford can all play SF Payton, Winslow and Hart can guard mulitple positions...as to the cap...Jody is not in it to save money..she's flush with cash from liquidating Paul's estate...she wants to win..things are good...we've got Grant, Brown, Eubanks and Winslow or even Watford who can play the 4....you're going to see Hart play the 3 with Payton at the 2 often when either Dame or Ant rest...as far as minutes...that's on Chauncey..he'll figure it out but people think Sharpe will get minutes ...I don't other than garbage time...why are fans worried about the cap? Contenders never worry about the cap and if want in that conversation, neither will we....we can also shed some bench guys before the season starts.

I'm hoping Sharpe balls out in practice forcing Chauncey to have to find playing time for him.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Dame Hart Ant and Payton are balanced offensive and defensive rotation guards...Sharpe is a first year rookie...he's a practice player who will get garbage minutes...Hart Winslow Nas Watford can all play SF Payton, Winslow and Hart can guard mulitple positions...as to the cap...Jody is not in it to save money..she's flush with cash from liquidating Paul's estate...she wants to win..things are good...we've got Grant, Brown, Eubanks and Winslow or even Watford who can play the 4....you're going to see Hart play the 3 with Payton at the 2 often when either Dame or Ant rest...as far as minutes...that's on Chauncey..he'll figure it out but people think Sharpe will get minutes ...I don't other than garbage time...why are fans worried about the cap? Contenders never worry about the cap and if want in that conversation, neither will we....we can also shed some bench guys before the season starts.

I was going to type out a detailed response, but what's the point. You already know that using Hart and Payton that way flies in the face of our need for more size. You already know Winslow has had chances with multiple teams and has failed to hold a job. You know that Little can't stay healthy.

Thoughts and prayers, hopes and dreams. I no longer believe in any of that.

 

[Idog1976]

So, in your opinion we needed another guard more than help up front? As for Payton's defense - who does he replace in the rotation? Hart (also a good defender) or Simons (who was just given a $100 Mil extension)?

While we are on the subject, what does it say about Sharpe that the team was willing to hard cap itself to bring in a guy to take his playing time for the next 3 years?

I think they see Sharpe as a Small Forward, emphasis on Small. That's my hope as well actually so we can have Dame, Simons and Sharpe on the floor together.

 

[Predator]

Poor analogy in my opinion. Any boss would want a detailed plan and timeline with something like that. If they want to work for a successful company anyhow…

I think you get the point I’m trying to make, but In case you don’t. Here we go:

Boss says we need to fire 5 people from this department. Boss says we need to cut costs by 250,000.

Manager says: Ok… here’s how we’ll do it. We will hire 6 more people and increase costs by 300,000.

Boss: Uh, what the fuck?

So in the analogy:

Boss: We need to rebalance the roster, get more size and length.

Cronin: I got an idea. Let’s get MORE guards, less size and length.

Boss: Uh, that’s… not working towards the goal…

Cronin: Yeah, but this isn’t an overnight thing. So you see, getting smaller, shorter and more guards will help us eventually towards our goal.

Boss: what the fuck drugs are you on

 

[Hoopguru]

Not a disaster - just underwhelming.

The FA signings and extensions pretty much went as expected IMO.

The draft was great.

However, upgrading SF was something that should’ve been addressed. The apparent plan is to continue to play players out of position at SF with Hart and possibly even Grant.

Sharpe has a tall reach and will get some play at 3 also.

 

[riverman]

I was going to type out a detailed response, but what's the point. You already know that using Hart and Payton that way flies in the face of our need for more size. You already know Winslow has had chances with multiple teams and has failed to hold a job. You know that Little can't stay healthy.

Thoughts and prayers, hopes and dreams. I no longer believe in any of that.

I know what Winslow and Hart looked like with Ant and Nurk and I liked it...Little I agree is a risk..other than that you are sure free to not believe in the sum being bigger than the parts but I think we've got players who can guard 4 positions that you think are undersized...and a guy who leads the league in steals...just won a championship guarding top tier players. I'm going to enjoy it!

 

[oldmangrouch]

Payton: 3 years/$28 mil
Rubio: 3 years*/$18 mil. (*sounds like the 3rd year is an option)

Be honest - why is Payton worth that much more than Rubio, who is also a good defender and an above average playmaker.

 

[Predator]

Nance, RoCo, Little, Powell, CJ, Ant
Grant, Little, Hart, Sharpe, Ant, Payton

Grant > RoCo > Nance
Hart = Powell (more or less and costs less)
Sharpe is the X Factor.
The defense looks BETTER though a little shorter.

Athleticism? Better.
Length? I’d have to go back on the wingspan and max standing reach … but height is down a bit.

Would “you” want last year’s players from the beginning of the season returned and have a theoretically somewhat lower pick? I wouldn’t. I hope a trade involving a taller/longer SF happens.

Your first example isn’t exactly accurate.
It would be Grant > Roco + Nance - an overall loss in size + length. I agree with your equation as to who the best player is… but we lost two to gain one.

Length and height is definitely down.

And we still could’ve tanked last year since Dame was hurt and we clearly sucked without him.

As far as what I’d do in retrospect. I’d definitely swap CJ for Grant and Hart.

I’d find different Roco / Norm / Nance trades that at least brought us someone 6’7 or taller back.

But like I said. The decision to blow it up isn’t the issue. It’s the fact they’re moving further away from the goal of becoming “taller, longer and more balanced.”

 

[andalusian]

I think you get the point I’m trying to make, but In case you don’t. Here we go:

Boss says we need to fire 5 people from this department. Boss says we need to cut costs by 250,000.

Manager says: Ok… here’s how we’ll do it. We will hire 6 more people and increase costs by 300,000.

Boss: Uh, what the fuck?

So in the analogy:

Boss: We need to rebalance the roster, get more size and length.

Cronin: I got an idea. Let’s get MORE guards, less size and length.

Boss: Uh, that’s… not working towards the goal…

Cronin: Yeah, but this isn’t an overnight thing. So you see, getting smaller, shorter and more guards will help us eventually towards our goal.

Boss: what the fuck drugs are you on

That's a bad analogy. The issue was not cut costs, it was rearrange the costs in a more efficient manner.

The correct analogy is something like:

Boss: We can have 13 to 15 workers. We need to produce as much goods in multiple categories and be able to store it and ship it. We currently have excellent production (offense) but we are poor at shipping (defense). We also have a very good production employee (CJ) but he takes a lot of space for his production and gets in the way of another production employee (Ant)

Joe: Sure, I will replace the very good employee with the other employee that now has more space to produce, and in his place we will get someone that can do more shipping (Hart). They will cost about the same.

Boss: That's great. But we also have our excellent employee coming back from vacation (Dame), He produces a lot of goods, but requires a lot of space and is not great at shipping.

Joe: OK, I will get this guy that can ship a lot of stuff for not too much space. (GP2)

Boss: Well, we still make so much stuff that we have to store some of it on the top shelves - so we need to get tall employees so they can put it there and give to the shippers / help the producers.

Joe: Well, the job market has dried, could not find someone like that. Maybe in the winter we can exchange some of our junior interns for a longer helper.

S2: It's a disaster.

 

[riverman]

I'm hoping Sharpe balls out in practice forcing Chauncey to have to find playing time for him.

would be good for the team if he won the spot because he'd have to be a damned good quick study for that to happen.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

Powell, Roco, CJ, Nance vs. Hart, Grant, Sharpe, Payton

We have high hopes (myself as well) for Sharpe. But, I don’t think we upgraded the roster much. At least in terms of Lillard’s “championship window” (which is a pipe dream the way this organization is ran)

Don’t you mean his Championship Winslow? He’s gonna be huge for us this season.

 

[riverman]

My wish list early on was to move Nas and Ant for a PF and a SF.....these are the guys I'd consider using to upgrade our size...didn't happen and might still be possible at the deadline but doesn't look llike the front office sees them like I do. We'll see. Right now we need ball handlers like Ant

 

[Predator]

* I was hoping that Simons + Nurkic would be resigned for 35-38M/year. The reality of 42.5M is a little disappointing but not really enough to whine about...much...but I probably will...a little...now and then...maybe

* I was hoping for a bigger trade acquisition than Grant but I understood the chances of that were pretty small

* I was actually hoping that if a big trade target didn't land in Portland's lap they would swing for the fences with the 7th pick and it seems like they did

so, in the bigger ticket items, it was slightly disappointing but not enough to get in a twist about or believe that the positives could not overcome the flaws
***********************************************************************************

* I was hoping Portland would maintain flexibility going into the season. But Portland used the MLE on an unorthodox 6'2 guard with a limited offensive tool-box which essentially shit-canned their two remaining TPE's

* I was hoping for substantially more length and two-way talent at wing and that hasn't really materialized. Hart and Grant are the only players with any established two-way talent at wing, and realistically their talent is only a little above average

so those smaller ticket items have been a much bigger disappointment
*************************************************************************************

on the other hand: between Simons, Sharpe, and Little there may be some substantial 'break-out' potential. More than Portland has had since Dame was drafted. And there may be some lesser break-out potential in Watford-Brown-Johnson-Walker. All good things offering substantial entertainment value

also, and maybe I'm underrating this: With Payton, Hart, and Winslow, Portland probably has their best set of perimeter defenders in the Dame era. If some opposing player is gouging Portland with his offense, the Blazers have options to adjust and shut that player down

The bigger ticket stuff I actually agree 100% with you. I think the world might be ending.

I have a huge disagreement though. And that’s the bold. That’s not a small ticket thing. That’s a HUGE change that needed to be made and the fact Cronin addressed this IMO is indicative that it’s a major overhaul and big deal.

Finally, yes. Our wing defenders/perimeter defenders are better. But they’re all short. LeBron will shoot right over top of all of them. No problem.

 

[HoopsFanAZ]

Your first example isn’t exactly accurate.
It would be Grant > Roco + Nance - an overall loss in size + length. I agree with your equation as to who the best player is… but we lost two to gain one.

Length and height is definitely down.
And we still could’ve tanked last year since Dame was hurt and we clearly sucked without him.
As far as what I’d do in retrospect. I’d definitely swap CJ for Grant and Hart.
I’d find different Roco / Norm / Nance trades that at least brought us someone 6’7 or taller back.

But like I said. The decision to blow it up isn’t the issue. It’s the fact they’re moving further away from the goal of becoming “taller, longer and more balanced.”

I’ll disagree with not being “more balanced” across the roster (on talent and fit and D) BUT absolutely in agreement about still having a lack of length and height playing at SG and SF. And no quality, back-up BIG! It’s ONLY July 1 … which will be revisited on August 1 as it SHOULD be.

[Hart and Little and a 1st (and more) to get an actual, good-sized SF who is 3 and frickin’ D]

 

[Predator]

Dear God. Jump off the ledge arleady.

We are finally getting some defenders and now they are too small. We got Grant for a future and kept our 7 this year.

Let the off season play out. We ain't done. Jump on the Train or jump off the ledge.

Just because you’re on the train doesn’t mean you can’t critique the route.

And yeah, having good defenders is cool and all. We need good defenders who are tall, not short… and it’s now “and now”. It’s been the issue for a long time. People wanted two way, tall, long, athletic forwards when we were told about “roster balance”. People weren’t clamoring for small guards.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I think you get the point I’m trying to make, but In case you don’t. Here we go:

Boss says we need to fire 5 people from this department. Boss says we need to cut costs by 250,000.

Manager says: Ok… here’s how we’ll do it. We will hire 6 more people and increase costs by 300,000.

Boss: Uh, what the fuck?

So in the analogy:

Boss: We need to rebalance the roster, get more size and length.

Cronin: I got an idea. Let’s get MORE guards, less size and length.

Boss: Uh, that’s… not working towards the goal…

Cronin: Yeah, but this isn’t an overnight thing. So you see, getting smaller, shorter and more guards will help us eventually towards our goal.

Boss: what the fuck drugs are you on

Sorry not buying this. See below. Explained far better than i could.

That's a bad analogy. The issue was not cut costs, it was rearrange the costs in a more efficient manner.

The correct analogy is something like:

Boss: We can have 13 to 15 workers. We need to produce as much goods in multiple categories and be able to store it and ship it. We currently have excellent production (offense) but we are poor at shipping (defense). We also have a very good production employee (CJ) but he takes a lot of space for his production and gets in the way of another production employee (Ant)

Joe: Sure, I will replace the very good employee with the other employee that now has more space to produce, and in his place we will get someone that can do more shipping (Hart). They will cost about the same.

Boss: That's great. But we also have our excellent employee coming back from vacation (Dame), He produces a lot of goods, but requires a lot of space and is not great at shipping.

Joe: OK, I will get this guy that can ship a lot of stuff for not too much space. (GP2)

Boss: Well, we still make so much stuff that we have to store some of it on the top shelves - so we need to get tall employees so they can put it there and give to the shippers / help the producers.

Joe: Well, the job market has dried, could not find someone like that. Maybe in the winter we can exchange some of our junior interns for a longer helper.

S2: It's a disaster.

Great counter. Do i owe you money? A beer?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Just because you’re on the train doesn’t mean you can’t critique the route.

And yeah, having good defenders is cool and all. We need good defenders who are tall, not short… and it’s now “and now”. It’s been the issue for a long time. People wanted two way, tall, long, athletic forwards when we were told about “roster balance”. People weren’t clamoring for small guards.

Yes what we want and what we get in life are usually not on par. Doesn't mean its a failure.
So let me ask. Who was the attainable two way long athletic player we could have gotten? Do you have a targeted name?

 

[wizenheimer]

I have a huge disagreement though. And that’s the bold. That’s not a small ticket thing. That’s a HUGE change that needed to be made and the fact Cronin addressed this IMO is indicative that it’s a major overhaul and big deal.

yeah...I really didn't mean to minimize the issue of two-way wing length and depth. That's the NBA's wheelhouse and Portland is really lacking in that area unless both Little and Sharpe explode....and if Little is anywhere near any kind of explosion he may miss 3 months of the season

 

[calvin natt]

The only thing that is crazy to me is anyone thinking that they can keep Lillard and win a championship at this point. Given the assets they have had for the last several years, there is no path. Their picks aren’t high enough because the team is always in the playoffs. They don’t get free agents. They have a true star that could fetch higher picks and maybe you strike gold. Otherwise we watch Lillard play some amazing basketball and hope for the best. Just enjoy the team. But there is zero chance at a title here with Lillard.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Grant is 28, Nurk and Hart are 27. The rest of Lillard's supporting cast are younger, and in many cases, much younger - an odd decision considering our star is 32.

 

[Predator]

That's a bad analogy. The issue was not cut costs, it was rearrange the costs in a more efficient manner.

The correct analogy is something like:

Boss: We can have 13 to 15 workers. We need to produce as much goods in multiple categories and be able to store it and ship it. We currently have excellent production (offense) but we are poor at shipping (defense). We also have a very good production employee (CJ) but he takes a lot of space for his production and gets in the way of another production employee (Ant)

Joe: Sure, I will replace the very good employee with the other employee that now has more space to produce, and in his place we will get someone that can do more shipping (Hart). They will cost about the same.

Boss: That's great. But we also have our excellent employee coming back from vacation (Dame), He produces a lot of goods, but requires a lot of space and is not great at shipping.

Joe: OK, I will get this guy that can ship a lot of stuff for not too much space. (GP2)

Boss: Well, we still make so much stuff that we have to store some of it on the top shelves - so we need to get tall employees so they can put it there and give to the shippers / help the producers.

Joe: Well, the job market has dried, could not find someone like that. Maybe in the winter we can exchange some of our junior interns for a longer helper.

S2: It's a disaster.

Also, in a real business they wouldn’t fire their “top shelfers” without having replacements since that would be a massive issue.

Also a real boss would say; Don’t care. Find top shelfers. We need them in order for our business to function.

Your analogy might work if you then attributed heights to those 13-15 employees. “We can only have 13-15 employees, but only 4 can be 6’6 or shorter because the other 10-11 need to be able to reach the top shelf.” We have 10 that are 6’6 or shorter so you need to find a way to cut that down to 4 and hire 6 guys that are taller. Then when you came with 6’2 GP2 the boss would say, “look that’s great he has great shipping. But he can’t reach the shipping shelf, so… no.”


With your last point you somewhat addressed it. But it was the MAIN reason we blew up the team. Then to act all ho hum about it is ridiculous lol

 

[RR7]

The only thing that is crazy to me is anyone thinking that they can keep Lillard and win a championship at this point. Given the assets they have had for the last several years, there is no path. Their picks aren’t high enough because the team is always in the playoffs. They don’t get free agents. They have a true star that could fetch higher picks and maybe you strike gold. Otherwise we watch Lillard play some amazing basketball and hope for the best. Just enjoy the team. But there is zero chance at a title here with Lillard.

How does that star fetch high enough picks to strike gold when the team you move him to now has that star, as well as whatever other star they have, making those picks, more than likely, crap?

 

[B-Roy]

How does that star fetch high enough picks to strike gold when the team you move him to now has that star, as well as whatever other star they have, making those picks, more than likely, crap?

If this last season, or last decade really were any indication:

Unprotected picks are not crap.

 

[RonBrewer]

Just because you’re on the train doesn’t mean you can’t critique the route.

And yeah, having good defenders is cool and all. We need good defenders who are tall, not short… and it’s now “and now”. It’s been the issue for a long time. People wanted two way, tall, long, athletic forwards when we were told about “roster balance”. People weren’t clamoring for small guards.

k