Tough choices coming

[e_blazer]

I don't find that a conclusive argument because Olshey held CJ untouchable in trade talks for Paul George and Jimmy Butler. Now, it's true those talks were 3-4 years ago so perhaps Olshey has modified his position. I just haven't seen any real evidence for that being the case though. I'd agree the CJ for Simmons talks are no gauge because there seems to be decent evidence that Morey has very little interest in CJ

as for Eric Gordon...I'm not buying that the Olshey's 'affection' for Gordon was anywhere the level of his for CJ. To start with, Olshey did not give Gordon an extension of his rookie contract after his 3rd season, like Olshey did for CJ. And, when Olshey traded Gordon, Gordon was injured and not expected to return to action till well after that season's all-star game. That was a compelling reason to trade Gordon, especially considering the following summer he was going to be RFA

You make some good points, but you're still reaching your conclusion about what you believe is Olshey's current unwillingness to trade CJ based on nothing more than reported trade talks from 3-4 years ago. That's ancient history in NBA terms. Olshey was obviously convinced that CJ would blossom into a major running mate for Dame when he gave him the max contract. I'm sure that by now, with the history of playoff eliminations that have taken place since then, he knows that there is little likelihood that's going to pan out any differently than it has in the past. Dame wants a contender and Olshey knows his future is tied to his ability to make that happen. The clock is ticking on Olshey's GM future and I 100% believe that that is of more importance to Olshey than remaining tied to CJ. Unfortunately, CJ has a bloated contract with several years on it. Unless he starts producing like he's worthy of that contract, it's going to be tough to move him for a piece that's really going to benefit the Blazers.

 

[wizenheimer]

are there actual reports that olshey could have traded cj for those two but didnt? Or was it rumors only?

its on record olshey turned down a butler for cj move?

what was 'reported' was that Olshey entered the trade discussion for both PG13 and Butler holding CJ untouchable in the discussions. Olshey's starting position for PG13 was that Dame-CJ-Nurkic would not be included; and for Butler was that Dame-CJ would not be incuded

 

[Orion Bailey]

what was 'reported' was that Olshey entered the trade discussion for both PG13 and Butler holding CJ untouchable in the discussions. Olshey's starting position for PG13 was that Dame-CJ-Nurkic would not be included; and for Butler was that Dame-CJ would not be incuded

gotcha. I don't recall the details if it was a reported rumor or reported fact.

 

[wizenheimer]

You make some good points, but you're still reaching your conclusion about what you believe is Olshey's current unwillingness to trade CJ based on nothing more than reported trade talks from 3-4 years ago. That's ancient history in NBA terms. Olshey was obviously convinced that CJ would blossom into a major running mate for Dame when he gave him the max contract. I'm sure that by now, with the history of playoff eliminations that have taken place since then, he knows that there is little likelihood that's going to pan out any differently than it has in the past. Dame wants a contender and Olshey knows his future is tied to his ability to make that happen. The clock is ticking on Olshey's GM future and I 100% believe that that is of more importance to Olshey than remaining tied to CJ. Unfortunately, CJ has a bloated contract with several years on it. Unless he starts producing like he's worthy of that contract, it's going to be tough to move him for a piece that's really going to benefit the Blazers.

those are arguments I can't really disagree with. I didn't hear anything about Portland being involved when Kawhi was available. Same for Harden. And there has been so much fog and smoke around Simmons it's impossible to gauge anything. If the CJ + 6 picks and swaps is true, then Morey was placing almost no value of CJ compared to Simmons. it could very well be that Morey felt CJ wouldn't help Philly be a contender any more than he has helped Portland be a contender

I'd also wonder if the new defensive rules might actually hurt CJ's trade value even more as it seems physical perimeter defenders will have more value....assuming the rules aren't modified

 

[Mr. Robot]

jason quick said he doesnt think roco will get extended and that jury is out on nurk and he think theres no way they let simons go if the continues to play like this

hes answering fans questions on reddit:

 

[Phatguysrule]

what was 'reported' was that Olshey entered the trade discussion for both PG13 and Butler holding CJ untouchable in the discussions. Olshey's starting position for PG13 was that Dame-CJ-Nurkic would not be included; and for Butler was that Dame-CJ would not be incuded

Dang. Imagine Butler next to Dame...

 

[Orion Bailey]

Dang. Imagine Butler next to Dame...

my dream team for us.
Dame/Powell/Butler/Nance/Nurk
Smith jr/ant/Nas/roco/zeller.

thats a contender.

 

[Phatguysrule]

my dream team for us.
Dame/Powell/Butler/Nance/Nurk
Smith jr/ant/Nas/roco/zeller.

thats a contender.

Yeah, that would have been awesome.

 

[B-Roy]

jason quick said he doesnt think roco will get extended and that jury is out on nurk and he think theres no way they let simons go if the continues to play like this

hes answering fans questions on reddit:

Other people, like Stotts, Hassan Whiteside, Raymond Felton were decidedly more prickly, which I always thought reflected poorly on them.

 

[Minstrel]

Yes, Olshey would absolutely trade CJ if he found a deal that made the Blazers better. The narrative around here that Olshey is attached to CJ so closely that he would never trade him is, IMO, pure forum fiction. His record of basically trading a similar player he loved (Eric Gordon) to snatch Chris Paul is pretty convincing proof. The problem isn’t willingness to trade CJ, it’s his max contract. So far, CJ hasn’t proven that he’s worth that money by being able to be at least a #2 player on a contender. Olshey’s issue isn’t an unwillingness to trade CJ, it was overpaying him so that now it’s really hard to find a willing trade partner.

It's an interrelated issue. First of all "a deal that made the Blazers better" is in the eye of the beholder and if Olshey overvalues CJ, what many/most might view as a deal that fits that, he wouldn't. Secondly, overpaying CJ means CJ's value is lower than his pure on-court ability. That's a thing a rational GM has to account for--if Olshey is valuing CJ as his on-court ability only, for example, then in a sense he is unwilling to trade CJ--if you're unwilling to trade a player for his real world value, you're basically unwilling to trade the player because it's extremely uncommon for a team to trade more than that value for the player. Unless the league is conspiring to not trade for CJ, the inability to find buyers means Olshey is placing too high a cost on him. Olshey could solve that by lowering the cost. What I think many people believe is that Olshey is refusing to lower the cost to the level the rest of the NBA perceives CJ's value to be, not that he literally refuses to trade CJ for anything.

 

[wizenheimer]

What I think many people believe is that Olshey is refusing to lower the cost to the level the rest of the NBA perceives CJ's value to be, not that he literally refuses to trade CJ for anything.

isn't that a distinction without a difference?

 

[Minstrel]

isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Yes. I made that point explicitly here: "if Olshey is valuing CJ as his on-court ability only, for example, then in a sense he is unwilling to trade CJ."

The overarching point of my post was that it's not "Olshey would trade CJ but his contract is too big" or "Olshey won't trade CJ"...it's that these points are interconnected and the ultimate result is that if Olshey isn't willing to value CJ the way the rest of the market is, then that's the same as not wanting to trade CJ, even if technically there's a difference between those two positions.

If I have a car I complain I can't sell which I'm pricing at way above blue book value, and someone says "It sounds like you really don't want to sell it," then responding with, "I'd absolutely sell it for a million dollars" doesn't really refute the observation.

 

[Orion Bailey]

It's an interrelated issue. First of all "a deal that made the Blazers better" is in the eye of the beholder and if Olshey overvalues CJ, what many/most might view as a deal that fits that, he wouldn't. Secondly, overpaying CJ means CJ's value is lower than his pure on-court ability. That's a thing a rational GM has to account for--if Olshey is valuing CJ as his on-court ability only, for example, then in a sense he is unwilling to trade CJ--if you're unwilling to trade a player for his real world value, you're basically unwilling to trade the player because it's extremely uncommon for a team to trade more than that value for the player. Unless the league is conspiring to not trade for CJ, the inability to find buyers means Olshey is placing too high a cost on him. Olshey could solve that by lowering the cost. What I think many people believe is that Olshey is refusing to lower the cost to the level the rest of the NBA perceives CJ's value to be, not that he literally refuses to trade CJ for anything.

Yes. I made that point explicitly here: "if Olshey is valuing CJ as his on-court ability only, for example, then in a sense he is unwilling to trade CJ."

The overarching point of my post was that it's not "Olshey would trade CJ but his contract is too big" or "Olshey won't trade CJ"...it's that these points are interconnected and the ultimate result is that if Olshey isn't willing to value CJ the way the rest of the market is, then that's the same as not wanting to trade CJ, even if technically there's a difference between those two positions.

If I have a car I complain I can't sell which I'm pricing at way above blue book value, and someone says "It sounds like you really don't want to sell it," then responding with, "I'd absolutely sell it for a million dollars" doesn't really refute the observation.

To summize, NO is just not in touch with reality, regardless.