Trail of Tears

[STOMP]

so typical. When asked to show something to support your statement you instead resort to insults. Care to try again or are you just all mouth and no substance?

The teams assembled are the substance silly, there is nothing else that I or anyone needs to produce. I'm sorry you can't understand simple concepts like a GM is responsible for the team they assemble. Scouts and assistants evaluate talent too, but at the end of the day it is their call who is and isn't on the team. They draft the players. Not the media. Not the fans. If they do well in attaining talent, they get the credit. If they don't do well, they get the blame.

Of course they'll always have their mother's love. Neil would really like some cookies... chocolate chip!

STOMP

 

[CupWizier]

There is nothing for me to produce silly. I'm sorry you can't understand simple concepts like a GM is responsible for the team they assemble. Scouts and assistants evaluate talent too, but at the end of the day it is their call who is and isn't on the team. They draft the players. Not the media. Not the fans. If they do well in attaining talent, they get the credit. If they don't do well, they get the blame.

Of course they'll always have their mother's love. Neil would really like some cookies... chocolate chip!

STOMP

You seem obsessed with mothers and you post a lot of words, but seldom ever really say anything of substance. Have a nice day.

CUP

 

[STOMP]

You seem obsessed with mothers and you post a lot of words, but seldom ever really say anything of substance. Have a nice day.

There is only one person who thinks a struggling GM being held responsible for their actions assembling their team doesn't make sense, but she could cheer him up with some warm cookies and milk. Hope you have a good time in the kitchen today Mrs Olshey.

STOMP

 

[e_blazer]

There is only one person who thinks a struggling GM being held responsible for their actions assembling their team doesn't make sense, but she could cheer him up with some warm cookies and milk. Hope you have a good time in the kitchen today Mrs Olshey.

STOMP

Mother issues and pissing matches between you two guys aside, your post really pushes the question of if Olshey is struggling. I'm looking at what he has lined up for next season and I'm excited. I'm pretty sure that both Whiteside and Melo will re-sign here. Carmelo has said as much and Whiteside just bought a house. Next season's roster is shaping up to look like:

C: Nurkic, Whiteside (whomever the starter, I'd say they split the minutes pretty evenly)
PF: Collins, Carmelo, Gabriel
SF: Ariza, Hood (probably mid-season), Little, Hezonja?
SG: McCollum, Trent
PG: Lillard, Simons

Add a first round pick probably in the 15-20 range and maybe a vet minimum guy.

That's a pretty darned good starting unit with a ton of depth. There are a lot of GMs who would like to struggle like that.

 

[blazerboy30]

The teams assembled are the substance silly, there is nothing else that I or anyone needs to produce. I'm sorry you can't understand simple concepts like a GM is responsible for the team they assemble. Scouts and assistants evaluate talent too, but at the end of the day it is their call who is and isn't on the team. They draft the players. Not the media. Not the fans. If they do well in attaining talent, they get the credit. If they don't do well, they get the blame.

STOMP

So Olshey gets credit and is responsible for the 3rd or 4th best team last year. By that logic he's the 3rd or 4th best GM.

In that case there isn't much to be so upset about.

 

[wizenheimer]

So Olshey gets credit and is responsible for the 3rd or 4th best team last year. By that logic he's the 3rd or 4th best GM.

ohhhh...this is a fun game! use playoff results as a gauge!

But you can't use just one season for a GM who's been in charge since 2012. You have to use them all

2012-13 - 21st
2013-14 - 8th
2014-15 - 13th
2015-16 - 11th
2016-17 - 16th
2017-18 - 16th
2018-19 - 4th

so, his average is 13th in a 30 team league. Now, if you want to discard that 1st season, and maybe that's fair to a degree, his average is 11th. Not even top-10. And he's had tax teams the last two years when his average is 10th. Blazers should at least be looking for a GM that can keep his team well into the top-10 over a 6 or 7 year time frame. Shouldn't settle for less

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

ohhhh...this is a fun game! use playoff results as a gauge!

But you can't use just one season for a GM who's been in charge since 2012. You have to use them all

2012-13 - 21st
2013-14 - 8th
2014-15 - 13th
2015-16 - 11th
2016-17 - 16th
2017-18 - 16th
2018-19 - 4th

so, his average is 13th in a 30 team league. Now, if you want to discard that 1st season, and maybe that's fair to a degree, his average is 11th. Not even top-10. And he's had tax teams the last two years when his average is 10th. Blazers should at least be looking for a GM that can keep his team well into the top-10 over a 6 or 7 year time frame. Shouldn't settle for less

I dont agree with your assessments for the years you put them at 16, the east sucked those years they were much better than 16th. Not that it matters they dont play in the east.

 

[CupWizier]

ohhhh...this is a fun game! use playoff results as a gauge!

But you can't use just one season for a GM who's been in charge since 2012. You have to use them all

2012-13 - 21st
2013-14 - 8th
2014-15 - 13th
2015-16 - 11th
2016-17 - 16th
2017-18 - 16th
2018-19 - 4th

so, his average is 13th in a 30 team league. Now, if you want to discard that 1st season, and maybe that's fair to a degree, his average is 11th. Not even top-10. And he's had tax teams the last two years when his average is 10th. Blazers should at least be looking for a GM that can keep his team well into the top-10 over a 6 or 7 year time frame. Shouldn't settle for less

What exactly are those numbers referencing. I click on the years and it directs me to a Lillard game log link.

 

[CupWizier]

I dont agree with your assessments for the years you put them at 16, the east sucked those years they were much better than 16th. Not that it matters they dont play in the east.

Yeah, i figured that might have been his logic. If 16 teams make the playoffs, 8 teams loose in the first round so they should all be considered tied for 9th. You can't just select one and call them 16th. If anything they could be ranked using their season record. In other words each team that loses the 1st round will be ranked 9th through 16th by their respective record.

 

[tester551]

We've seen how teams value expiring contracts based on past seasons.

Anyway, you can't trade two-way contracts, and they won't have 14 or 15 tradeable contracts this off-season.
- They're not going to Dame, CJ, or Nurkic for an upgrade.
- Whiteside, Swanigan, and Gabriel are free agents
- Simons, Collins, Trent, and Little mightbe too valuable of prospects to trade depending on who we're getting back.
- Hezonja and Hood are on player options and can't be traded until they accept them (and can't be if they decline).

So on draft night, when a lot of deals happen, we'll have Ariza's $12.8M (if we guarantee it). Past that? Our prospects. That's it. So if a big upgrade becomes available making $23M+, we don't have the contracts to match their salary unless we trade Ariza and multiple prospects. If they're making around $30M? Forget about it. We might have the picks and the prospect they want, but we couldn't match their salary. That's how having less contracts and less tradeable hurts our flexibility.

A couple of points here:

+ Technically, you can trade 2way contracts. They just are not included for salary matching purposes.

+ If Portland traded the clear 2nd best player this season (Whiteside) for Batum - there's no way Portland makes the playoffs & the move is a insult to Dame

+ Portland is VERY concise of the lux tax. With Batum's contract on the books, we'd start the offseason slightly below the tax level. That would eliminate any use of the MLE or TPE. Portland's offseason would consist of signing minimum contracts to stay under the tax.

+ A hypothetical trade that would occur around the draft can easily be pushed into July for the new season.

+ Hood, Ariza, & Mario can be combined to take back a contract value up to ~$26m. (Hood will pick up his option coming off the injury - it's crazy not too considering the risk. Mario will also - he might not be in the NBA next season if he doesn't).

+ For contracts over $26m, CJ can be included (because if we take on a contract that large, they damn well better be a better player than CJ).

There may be one small scenario where trading Whiteside for Batum would turn out good. However, the probability of that is so minimal - the course Portland is taking is a much better option.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Yeah, i figured that might have been his logic. If 16 teams make the playoffs, 8 teams loose in the first round so they should all be considered tied for 9th. You can't just select one and call them 16th. If anything they could be ranked using their season record. In other words each team that loses the 1st round will be ranked 9th through 16th by their respective record.

He could argue they won 0 games those years and I think all the other teams won at least one and its a decent point.

 

[CupWizier]

He could argue they won 0 games those years and I think all the other teams won at least one and its a decent point.

Not really. Totally different competition for each team. Even over all records are flawed as teams have different schedules, but that would be more fair than using the first round record.

 

[e_blazer]

He could argue they won 0 games those years and I think all the other teams won at least one and its a decent point.

Not all matchups are the same. Not sure that you can argue that with any credibility that the Blazers getting swept by the Warriors is a black mark. The following year sweep against the Pelicans, however, was awful. Might drop them to 24th.

 

[wizenheimer]

I dont agree with your assessments for the years you put them at 16, the east sucked those years they were much better than 16th. Not that it matters they dont play in the east.

c'mon man... Somebody else used playoff results at the gauge, not record or conference. Portland was "3rd or 4th best" last year by virtue of playing in the CF. I was sticking to that template that another poster used....do you see that?

so then, in 2016-17 there were two teams that got swept in the 1st round, Portland and Indiana. Indiana had a 42-40 record, Portland had a 41-41 record, so the Pacers won the tie-breaker finishing 15th, leaving Blazers at 16th

and, in 2017-18 there was only 1 team that got swept in the 1st round...take a guess which team it was. Thus the 16th ranking

of course it's kind of a funky gauge, but as long as somebody else was using it, I played along. All in fun really, and it actually served to show the flaws in the logic, I'd think

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

c'mon man... Somebody else used playoff results at the gauge, not record or conference. Portland was "3rd or 4th best" last year by virtue of playing in the CF. I was sticking to that template that another poster used....do you see that?

so then, in 2016-17 there were two teams that got swept in the 1st round, Portland and Indiana. Indiana had a 42-40 record, Portland had a 41-41 record, so the Pacers won the tie-breaker

and, in 2017-18 there was only 1 team that got swept in the 1st round...take a guess which team it was. Thus the 16th ranking

of course it's kind of a funky gauge, but as long as somebody else was using it, I played along

I understand and you can read my posts below. I said you could make that argument. I think everyone else won a game.

 

[wizenheimer]

He could argue .

that's not my style

 

[e_blazer]

that's not my style

Nope. It’s your middle name.

 

[wizenheimer]

Nope. It’s your middle name.

nope, my middle name is Avoidthedamninlaws

 

[e_blazer]

nope, my middle name is Avoidthedamninlaws

You could hit them with ten pages of basketball stats every time you see them. Just a thought.

 

[TBpup]

ohhhh...this is a fun game! use playoff results as a gauge!

But you can't use just one season for a GM who's been in charge since 2012. You have to use them all

2012-13 - 21st
2013-14 - 8th
2014-15 - 13th
2015-16 - 11th
2016-17 - 16th
2017-18 - 16th
2018-19 - 4th

so, his average is 13th in a 30 team league. Now, if you want to discard that 1st season, and maybe that's fair to a degree, his average is 11th. Not even top-10. And he's had tax teams the last two years when his average is 10th. Blazers should at least be looking for a GM that can keep his team well into the top-10 over a 6 or 7 year time frame. Shouldn't settle for less

For statistics, if you remove the low (21st), then you also remove the high (4th) and take the average. You are being much too generous just removing the worst and keeping the rest. Mighty kind of you.

 

[blazerboy30]

c'mon man... Somebody else used playoff results at the gauge, not record or conference. Portland was "3rd or 4th best" last year by virtue of playing in the CF. I was sticking to that template that another poster used....do you see that?

so then, in 2016-17 there were two teams that got swept in the 1st round, Portland and Indiana. Indiana had a 42-40 record, Portland had a 41-41 record, so the Pacers won the tie-breaker finishing 15th, leaving Blazers at 16th

and, in 2017-18 there was only 1 team that got swept in the 1st round...take a guess which team it was. Thus the 16th ranking

of course it's kind of a funky gauge, but as long as somebody else was using it, I played along. All in fun really, and it actually served to show the flaws in the logic, I'd think

You're being purposely obtuse.

The thread was started based on 2016 decisions proving that Olshey is horrible.

Then Stomp argued that resulting performance of the team is the responsibility of the GM.

You can't find a record based stat that shows Olsheys teams have been horrible since 2016.

 

[Blazers Roy]

That Turner contract was the joke of the league. Analysts, reporter,fans and even Turner himself laughed at that decision.

I STILL don't get the thinking behind that move.
I can defend the rest of those decisions, they were ranging between a "C+"(Harkless) and a "D" (Meyers,Crabbe). Turner was graded as an "F" immediately.
A total head scratcher.

 

[wizenheimer]

You're being purposely obtuse.

The thread was started based on 2016 decisions proving that Olshey is horrible.

Then Stomp argued that resulting performance of the team is the responsibility of the GM.

You can't find a record based stat that shows Olsheys teams have been horrible since 2016.

you also can't find any basis for saying they have been the 3rd or 4th best team since 2016 either. Since then, they are 8-17 in the playoffs and have been swept in 3 of 5 series. In the close-out playoff series of the Dame/CJ era, Portland is 1-16 and have lost 14 in a row

and nope....I'm not being obtuse, simply being a little more inclusive and thorough using the gauge you used. Olshey didn't show up in the GM's office in the summer of 2018; he'll have been in charge for a full 8 years in three months time. He'll have had 8 drafts, 8 off-seasons, and 8 trade deadlines to build a team. And when he showed up on the job, the Blazers already had Aldridge, Matthews, and Batum on board. They also had the 6th pick and a heavy scouting file on Lillard who is easily argued as the primary reason Portland has been in the playoffs for at least the last 4 years, if not the 2 years prior

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Merge with the Fire Olshey thread.

Thhhhank you

 

[blazerboy30]

you also can't find any basis for saying they have been the 3rd or 4th best team since 2016 either. Since then, they are 8-17 in the playoffs and have been swept in 3 of 5 series. In the close-out playoff series of the Dame/CJ era, Portland is 1-16 and have lost 14 in a row

Use regular season finishes since 2016.

They're easily in the top 1/4.

While in a small market.

 

[wizenheimer]

Use regular season finishes since 2016.

They're easily in the top 1/4.

While in a small market.

Not really something to whine about as much as you are.

so now, you move the goalposts away from the playoffs to regular season, and move the standard from top 3 or 4, to the top 7.5 teams

ok then, Portland's average regular season record over those 3 seasons is 47.67 wins; in 2016-17, nine teams had 48 wins or better. In 2017-18, eleven teams had 48 wins of better. Last season, 13 teams had 48 wins or better.

in other words over those last 3 seasons since 2016, an average of 11 teams have 48 wins or more, performing better than Portland. That means not only wasn't Portland in the top 1/4, it wasn't in the top 1/3. Now, it changes a little if you want to go by seed, then combining both conferences, it would be 15.5 + 5.5 + 5.5, That would put their average seed at 8.5 in a system that has 16 seeds. And if you wanted to extend that to the entire NBA then Blazers would be 8.5 on a 30 scale. Still not top 25%, but top-33%. Then you'd have to factor playoff performances and like I said, being swept in 3 of 5 playoff series is fairly negative.

Since 2016, there have been 9 sweeps in the playoffs, and the Blazers have 3 of them. 8 different teams have appeared in the conference finals, and Portland was one of them, so there is that

still, all things considered, if you're going by both regular season and playoff performance since 2016, Portland might not even qualify for the top third in the league, and if they do, it's right at the bottom. It's better than average for sure, but it's really not that impressive either

and by the way, trying to look at something objectively is not whining. If I have flaws in trying to be objective, and I'm sure I do, then by all means point them out.

 

[CupWizier]

so now, you move the goalposts away from the playoffs to regular season, and move the standard from top 3 or 4, to the top 7.5 teams

ok then, Portland's average regular season record over those 3 seasons is 47.67 wins; in 2016-17, nine teams had 48 wins or better. In 2017-18, eleven teams had 48 wins of better. Last season, 13 teams had 48 wins or better.

in other words over those last 3 seasons since 2016, an average of 11 teams have 48 wins or more, performing better than Portland. That means not only wasn't Portland in the top 1/4, it wasn't in the top 1/3. Now, it changes a little if you want to go by seed, then combining both conferences, it would be 15.5 + 5.5 + 5.5, That would put their average seed at 8.5 in a system that has 16 seeds. And if you wanted to extend that to the entire NBA then Blazers would be 8.5 on a 30 scale. Still not top 25%, but top-33%. Then you'd have to factor playoff performances and like I said, being swept in 3 of 5 playoff series is fairly negative.

Since 2016, there have been 9 sweeps in the playoffs, and the Blazers have 3 of them. 8 different teams have appeared in the conference finals, and Portland was one of them, so there is that

still, all things considered, if you're going by both regular season and playoff performance since 2016, Portland might not even qualify for the top third in the league, and if they do, it's right at the bottom. It's better than average for sure, but it's really not that impressive either

and by the way, trying to look at something objectively is not whining. If I have flaws in trying to be objective, and I'm sure I do, then by all means point them out.

why do you continually manipulate stats to build your case? You use our average wins over 6 years and compare it to teams during a single season for them. That's some pretty good manipulations even for you. This forum continually cracks me up.

 

[wizenheimer]

why do you continually manipulate stats to build your case? You use our average wins over 6 years and compare it to teams during a single season for them. That's some pretty good manipulations even for you. This forum continually cracks me up.

lol...to start with, I used average wins over three years, not 6, and I did so because another poster insisted I do:

Use regular season finishes since 2016.

They're easily in the top 1/4.

he told me to do it, so I did....I'm cooperative

 

[CupWizier]

lol...to start with, I used average wins over three years, not 6, and I did so because another poster insisted I do:



he told me to do it, so I did....I'm cooperative

Did he tell you to use the 3 year average against other teams single season results? Very odd way of doing a comparison and really not of any value. You want an apple to oranges comparison where it needs to be an apple to apple comparison to have much meaning.

 

[blazerboy30]

Use regular season finishes since 2016.

so now, you move the goalposts away from the playoffs to regular season, and move the standard from top 3 or 4, to the top 7.5 teams

ok then, Portland's average regular season record over those 3 seasons is 47.67 wins; in 2016-17, nine teams had 48 wins or better. In 2017-18, eleven teams had 48 wins of better. Last season, 13 teams had 48 wins or better.

in other words over those last 3 seasons since 2016, an average of 11 teams have 48 wins or more, performing better than Portland. That means not only wasn't Portland in the top 1/4, it wasn't in the top 1/3. Now, it changes a little if you want to go by seed, then combining both conferences, it would be 15.5 + 5.5 + 5.5, That would put their average seed at 8.5 in a system that has 16 seeds. And if you wanted to extend that to the entire NBA then Blazers would be 8.5 on a 30 scale. Still not top 25%, but top-33%. Then you'd have to factor playoff performances and like I said, being swept in 3 of 5 playoff series is fairly negative.

1) Clearly using average wins is flawed and meaningless. Nice try.

2) Using seeds gives the same weighting to the Eastern Conference even though it is clearly inferior.

I stand by my statement that the Blazers have been a top 25% team... in a small market.

You have unrealistic expectations that you try to justify using fake news stats.