When have you been less excited for the start of a Blazers season?

[Pinwheel1]

Players get sick and tired of losing just like fans.
Players will not stay in a tanking situation.
If Portland continues this for 3-4 more years they will lose the players they have as well as begin a coaching carousel that all terrible teams seem to have.
That does not mean to say they should not tank this year. They will just because they will suck anyway. Next year also.

I agree with all of this. The only way you keep Sharpe, a Klutch Sports Management client, is to max him out. And even with that, it doesn't mean they won't try to force their way out after signing.

 

[Phatguysrule]

so lets say 5 to 7years of tanking for top five or better? And what if in that time, no generational talent arises?
Or we dont luck into that number one?
We could tank for a decade and never get that rop pick. Thats very possible.
Btw. You mentioned milwauikie licked into generational talent. But it wasnt via a top pick so they should nit be in the equation supporting your view.
Same with Denver i believe. Jokic was not atop pick right?

so to me, scouting seems to be as important or possibly more important than draft position.

What is more plausible? We keep tanking aNd get the number one?
Or we out scout and find the diamond in the rough in the late lotto or first round?

seems its a crapshoot either way and to then say someone is being illogical for not sharing your opinion is a bit off the mark. Both ways are crapshoots, but with scouting at least there is semblance of control vs luck.
Neither opinion is illogical.

If you look at draft history, on average you will get an all NBA player or two if you get five top four picks in a row. You would have to draft historically bad to not do that. And yes, some teams have drafted historically bad and not done that.

But if you just take the people you're supposed to take and tank for 5 to 6 years (and by tank I mean get rid of the vets who when you meaningless games but can't win big games and rely on your youth. Ie, Not coaching or playing to lose games, but build your roster to be young) you will have a talented group that will have the ability to compete if you make smart moves moving forward.

That's not based on opinion. That's not based on desire or anything else. That is based on the opportunity that you will have assuming an average stretch of drafts and that you take the players most people agree you should take.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I would add GS to that list. As much as I dislike Draymond, he made that engine run. 35th pick in the draft.

And Curry was lucky as well when you consider Johnny Flynn and Thabeet were drafted ahead of him
Thompson went 11th. (That was a strange draft as Kawhi and Jimmy Butler were drafted behind him)

Then you have teams like Philly who were told to trust the process, has it worked? I guess they can be considered contenders, but they still haven't made the finals for two decades.

I understand your philosophy, and it is just as good as any other, but is it any better than the others?

How did they get all that talent? They sucked for a long time. Then they got better management who knew what to do with the talent they had.

But they had to have talent to start.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I agree with all of this. The only way you keep Sharpe, a Klutch Sports Management client, is to max him out. And even with that, it doesn't mean they won't try to force their way out after signing.

The players are going to take the most money. We can pay them the most money until like year 9. We'll be winning by then.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Players get sick and tired of losing just like fans.
Players will not stay in a tanking situation.
If Portland continues this for 3-4 more years they will lose the players they have as well as begin a coaching carousel that all terrible teams seem to have.
That does not mean to say they should not tank this year. They will just because they will suck anyway. Next year also.

No. Those players will take the most money. And we can pay them the most money until we're out of the losing cycle as long as we do it right.

This is an emotional argument. We need to remove emotion from the equation.

 

[Phatguysrule]

so lets say 5 to 7years of tanking for top five or better? And what if in that time, no generational talent arises?
Or we dont luck into that number one?
We could tank for a decade and never get that rop pick. Thats very possible.
Btw. You mentioned milwauikie licked into generational talent. But it wasnt via a top pick so they should nit be in the equation supporting your view.
Same with Denver i believe. Jokic was not atop pick right?

so to me, scouting seems to be as important or possibly more important than draft position.

What is more plausible? We keep tanking aNd get the number one?
Or we out scout and find the diamond in the rough in the late lotto or first round?

seems its a crapshoot either way and to then say someone is being illogical for not sharing your opinion is a bit off the mark. Both ways are crapshoots, but with scouting at least there is semblance of control vs luck.
Neither opinion is illogical.

And again, we don't need to get the number one. It's not a part of my equation at all. If we did, and we're lucky enough that it's a generational talent, that could possibly speed things up. And that would be fine.

 

[Pinwheel1]

The players are going to take the most money. We can pay them the most money until like year 9. We'll be winning by then.

I am sure the Pelicans thought the same with Anthony Davis. They gave him max money and he still demanded a trade.

 

[e_blazer]

How did they get all that talent? They sucked for a long time. Then they got better management who knew what to do with the talent they had.

But they had to have talent to start.

Steph was a 7 pick, Klay was an 11 pick, and Draymond was a 35 pick. None were flagged as generational talents at the time of the draft, yet the Warriors made wise picks and assembled the last league dynasty.

Nobody is disagreeing that the draft is the key for building a contender, especially in a small market city. What I, and I think others, are questioning is your insistence on sucking until the Blazers are able to draft a “generational player.” Players identified as top pick generational talents can turn out to be a Duncan or an Oden. A later pick can turn out to be a bust or a Giannis or Joker. I’ll take smart front office staffs steadily picking the best talent available at the pick they do have every single time over a team like the Pistons devoting to tanking and then stupidly picking the wrong guys.

Front offices owe the fans and owners their best efforts to assemble the best team possible. Rebuilding means sucking for a few years. But front offices also owe owners a chance to make money on their investments. Even for rich as hell owners, this is a business, not a hobby. Fielding Detroit-level garbage for five years and still being no closer to contention should get the entire front office canned.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I am sure the Pelicans thought the same with Anthony Davis. They gave him max money and he still demanded a trade.

Yeah, after 7 years they hadn't done enough. You're going to have to deal with that no matter what. You're going to have a better chance of making them happy if you have more talent on your team.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Steph was a 7 pick, Klay was an 11 pick, and Draymond was a 35 pick. None were flagged as generational talents at the time of the draft, yet the Warriors made wise picks and assembled the last league dynasty.

Nobody is disagreeing that the draft is the key for building a contender, especially in a small market city. What I, and I think others, are questioning is your insistence on sucking until the Blazers are able to draft a “generational player.” Players identified as top pick generational talents can turn out to be a Duncan or an Oden. A later pick can turn out to be a bust or a Giannis or Joker. I’ll take smart front office staffs steadily picking the best talent available at the pick they do have every single time over a team like the Pistons devoting to tanking and then stupidly picking the wrong guys.

Front offices owe the fans and owners their best efforts to assemble the best team possible. Rebuilding means sucking for a few years. But front offices also owe owners a chance to make money on their investments. Even for rich as hell owners, this is a business, not a hobby. Fielding Detroit-level garbage for five years and still being no closer to contention should get the entire front office canned.

I'm not advocating for any single player. I'm saying we're going to need to be high in the draft 5 or more times during a rebuild in order to get enough talent to be able to be competitive.

A generational talent may speed that up. Some busts may slow that down. But we were so devoid of talent that we need at least another two or three high draft picks to be able to put ourselves in the upper echelon of talent, league wide.

And we're not going to be able to compete unless we have top four or five talent in the league.

After that, you focus on having the best coach the best management making the best moves. But you have to have top level talent before that. Or you're just pissing into the wind.

Any owner that doesn't understand the situation of being a non-destination team and needing to accrue talent for 5 or 6 years during the rebuild is a dumb shit. That is a bad owner. Or, at least an owner who's not really serious about winning.

And keep in mind, Golden State had the wealthiest owner in sports. In California. They spent a long time accruing talent. They had a lot of talent outside of those guys. They had some of the best management and coaching in the NBA.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

How did they get all that talent? They sucked for a long time. Then they got better management who knew what to do with the talent they had.

But they had to have talent to start.

Did they really "suck for a long time"?



Kinda looks like only 4 bad years, none as bad as the one we just had.

What "talent" on that '08 48-win team contributed in any meaningful way to their dynasty? 2nd-round pick Ellis who was traded for Bogut, and Andris Biedrins who was a small part of the trade for Iguodala. So unless you're going to cite their picking 11th in 2004 as the reason they had the "available talent" to trade for Iguodala 9 years later, their draft history prior to the stretch I showed really didn't factor into the building of their title team.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Did they really "suck for a long time"?

View attachment 65662

Kinda looks like only 4 bad years, none as bad as the one we just had.

What "talent" on that '08 48-win team contributed in any meaningful way to their dynasty? 2nd-round pick Ellis who was traded for Bogut, and Andris Biedrins who was a small part of the trade for Iguodala. So unless you're going to cite their picking 11th in 2004 as the reason they had the "available talent" to trade for Iguodala 9 years later, their draft history prior to the stretch I showed really didn't factor into the building of their title team.

Trading Ellis for Bogut was huge. You also can't expect to get an MVP at 7 like they did with Steph.

As I've said, it speeds things up if you get a generational talent. You don't have to go as deep you don't have to go as long. If that happens, great.

But if you're EXPECTING to get a generational talent at 7 with a couple of cracks at it you're setting yourself up to fail.

I've seen no evidence that we have drafted a generational talent yet. So I see no reason that we should expect to be competing for the play-in after 4 years.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Trading Ellis for Bogut was huge.

Yes it was. But Ellis being on the roster can't really be attributed to prior suckage. He was just an excellent 2nd-round pick that nobody saw coming.

Point is that GSW's success didn't fit the tanking archetype at all. They were an exceptional case all around (for all the other reasons you've mentioned), and it's foolhardy to try to shoehorn them in as support for tanking.

The notion has enough merit on its own without trying to stretch to include the Warriors.

 

[Whyachi]

Did they really "suck for a long time"?

View attachment 65662

Kinda looks like only 4 bad years, none as bad as the one we just had.

What "talent" on that '08 48-win team contributed in any meaningful way to their dynasty? 2nd-round pick Ellis who was traded for Bogut, and Andris Biedrins who was a small part of the trade for Iguodala. So unless you're going to cite their picking 11th in 2004 as the reason they had the "available talent" to trade for Iguodala 9 years later, their draft history prior to the stretch I showed really didn't factor into the building of their title team.

NBA ignorance helped to facilitate a Warriors Dynasty.

2009 draft, Steph Curry looked like a dynamo at NC Davidson. 40 point nights, unlimited range. A revolutionary young player. Crazy dimes, pesty steals. Curry was easily a top 3 pick with Harden & Griffin..... Steph fell in the Warriors lap with the #7 pick. THREE guards were selected ahead of Steph. (Evans, Flynn Rubio)

2011 draft, Kyrie Irving #1, then 10... TEN future scrubs were chosen ahead of Pac-12 standout Klay Thompson. It made absolutely no sense. Klay was looking like a Brandon Roy clone at Washington State. 21/5/4 on 40% from deep. The Warriors were already improving with Steph Curry running point, and said "thanks chumps" with their #11 pick Klay Thompson.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

NBA ignorance helped to facilitate a Warriors Dynasty.

2009 draft, Steph Curry looked like a dynamo at NC Davidson. 40 point nights, unlimited range. A revolutionary young player. Crazy dimes, pesty steals. Curry was easily a top 3 pick with Harden & Griffin..... Steph fell in the Warriors lap with the #7 pick. THREE guards were selected ahead of Steph. (Evans, Flynn Rubio)

2011 draft, Kyrie Irving #1, then 10... TEN future scrubs were chosen ahead of Pac-12 standout Klay Thompson. It made absolutely no sense. Klay was looking like a Brandon Roy clone at Washington State. 21/5/4 on 40% from deep. The Warriors were already improving with Steph Curry running point, and said "thanks chumps" with their #11 pick Klay Thompson.

Can you imagine if they'd taken Paul George in 2010 (or hell, even Greg Monroe) instead of whiffing on Ekpe Udoh?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes it was. But Ellis being on the roster can't really be attributed to prior suckage. He was just an excellent 2nd-round pick that nobody saw coming.

Point is that GSW's success didn't fit the tanking archetype at all. They were an exceptional case all around (for all the other reasons you've mentioned), and it's foolhardy to try to shoehorn them in as support for tanking.

The notion has enough merit on its own without trying to stretch to include the Warriors.

My point with Golden State all along has been that they are an exceptional case that we shouldn't try to replicate. We are not going to be able to replicate that model. Planning for that is planning for failure.

 

[Whyachi]

Can you imagine if they'd taken Paul George in 2010 (or hell, even Greg Monroe) instead of whiffing on Ekpe Udoh?

the NBA would have to go on strike if nobody could beat the Warriors. Luckily we still have a league.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

My point with Golden State all along has been that they are an exceptional case that we shouldn't try to replicate. We are not going to be able to replicate that model. Planning for that is planning for failure.

Perhaps I had misunderstood. The post to which I initially responded seemed to indicate that their success was partially attributable to talent acquired through long-term suckage, which I interpreted as suggesting that the Warriors owed some of their success to tanking. That was the notion I had intended to challenge. If that was not your intended implication, I apologize.

 

[Whyachi]

Perhaps I had misunderstood. The post to which I initially responded seemed to indicate that their success was partially attributable to talent acquired through long-term suckage, which I interpreted as suggesting that the Warriors owed some of their success to tanking. That was the notion I had intended to challenge. If that was not your intended implication, I apologize.

we're not even supposed to talk Dubs on a Blazers forum. Nate might show up and say "the Warriors Suck", which will start a big fight that we can all laugh at.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Perhaps I had misunderstood. The post to which I initially responded seemed to indicate that their success was partially attributable to talent acquired through long-term suckage, which I interpreted as suggesting that the Warriors owed some of their success to tanking. That was the notion I had intended to challenge. If that was not your intended implication, I apologize.

That wasn't my intention. Though I can see how it could have been interpreted that way.

My whole point with Golden State (who somebody else brought up) is that they were an exceptional case that we shouldn't try to emulate.

 

[RR7]

My point with Golden State all along has been that they are an exceptional case that we shouldn't try to replicate. We are not going to be able to replicate that model. Planning for that is planning for failure.

Almost every team that wins a title is an exceptional case. But looking at the draft for the past 20 or so years, Boston is the only team that has had top 5 guys lead the drafting team to a title.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Almost every team that wins a title is an exceptional case. But looking at the draft for the past 20 or so years, Boston is the only team that has had top 5 guys lead the drafting team to a title.

I'm not sure I'm following you with top five guys? You mean that they drafted their own guys who were all like top-ish picks?

I think it's highly likely that we'll eventually end up having to trade some of our high draft picks for players who fit better. The point is that we just need to increase our overall talent level as much as possible. We need the greatest infusion of talent possible, because we have been so bereft of talent since, Aldridge left really...

We now have some talent. But we haven't come close to catching up to the top teams in talent or potential.

 

[kjironman1]

No. Those players will take the most money. And we can pay them the most money until we're out of the losing cycle as long as we do it right.

This is an emotional argument. We need to remove emotion from the equation.

It’s not emotional at all. Losing is losing. Losers are losers. Players at this level don’t want to lose. Simple as that.

 

[Phatguysrule]

It’s not emotional at all. Losing is losing. Losers are losers. Players at this level don’t want to lose. Simple as that.

Then they should play hard and get their reps in the off season. I never suggested the players should do anything other than try to win.

If we're too good to lose with a bunch if young players then we're in good shape.

 

[sheed30]

This is beating the dead horse over the head over and over.

It’s clear as day there is only a couple people with logic that we need to keep tanking and just give away Simons/Grant for pick, and “hope” we get lucky in a draft.

All of the good counterpoints will just be replied with a “you’re not thinking logically” because I know better than you talk.

the NBA season can’t start soon enough, with Grant and Ant most likely on the team still

 

[kjironman1]

This is beating the dead horse over the head over and over.

It’s clear as day there is only a couple people with logic that we need to keep tanking and just give away Simons/Grant for pick, and “hope” we get lucky in a draft.

All of the good counterpoints will just be replied with a “you’re not thinking logically” because I know better than you talk.

the NBA season can’t start soon enough, with Grant and Ant most likely on the team still

The point isn't that they need to keep tanking or not. Everyone on this board pretty much agrees they do need to lose a bunch of games this year and will lose a bunch next year. The question remains how many years you gonna tank?
If your answer is "As long as it takes" then there is another question that will be asked.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The point isn't that they need to keep tanking or not. Everyone on this board pretty much agrees they do need to lose a bunch of games this year and will lose a bunch next year. The question remains how many years you gonna tank?
If your answer is "As long as it takes" then there is another question that will be asked.

History shows us it will only take 5 or 6 seasons total. As long as Sharpe and Scoot turn into at least legit playoff quality starters we should still be on that timeline. Another 2 or 3 years should get us there.

 

[Pinwheel1]

History shows us it will only take 5 or 6 seasons total. As long as Sharpe and Scoot turn into at least legit playoff quality starters we should still be on that timeline. Another 2 or 3 years should get us there.

History from who? I am sure you can find a couple of teams where that time frame worked, but I am guessing there are several others where it did not. At least for teams who can't augment the process by being an FA destination.

 

[wizenheimer]

I would counter with the last time we were legit contenders(01’) most of those players were traded for or were free agent signings. Not accrued through tanking and the draft.

you do know that the CBA rules were different 25 years ago...right? Executing unbalanced trades and signing free agents was much easier back then. It was especially easier because PA didn't give a shit about paying tax in that era. JA and the current Vulcans are allergic to tax.

just look at the Pippen trade....it was a 6 for 1 deal less than a month before the season started. Almost no chance a 6 for 1 trade could happen a month before a season under the current CBA. By the way, Stacy Augmon was traded for Pippen. Two weeks later he was waived and re-signed by Portland; and it was part of the agreement with Houston. That's an illegal transaction today

besides all that...LOL at any suggestion that the 'risk-be-damned' management urgency of Bob Whitsitt, operating under the open checkbook of Paul Allen, could be matched by the 'take-no-risks' management of Cronin operating under the 'mediocrity doesn't matter-cash-flow-is-king' ownership of Jody & the Vulcans.

that team had Pippen, Rasheed, Steve Smith, Sabonis, Stoudamire, Bonzi Wells, and Jermaine O'Neal. Any of those 7 guys would be the best player on the current Blazer team....meaning it's a hell of a lot easier to trade for talent when you have talent to trade

 

[Mediocre Man]

This is most likely the last year of the Tank Blazers. They are probably good enough this year to compete for a play in….if everything fell right for them. The team won’t allow that to happen though.