Getting better is a step into the right direction. DId you even read what I posted about the 90's Blazers? They were first round and out for a solid 6 years in a row, then made it to the WCF and 2 minutes away from a championship the following year. You need to move forward. We got our lucky draft pick. Now is the time to move forward with free agency and trades.
Different era. Different teams. To say that because it was done once - 20 years ago - it can be done the same way again, is living in the past. We are in an asset-acquisition phase, and very few of the free agents represent true assets.
And that's total bullshit. Just last summer this happened with the Clippers. Boston did if 5 years ago. You are making shit up now.
I would like to see the Blazers put there time and focus on trades just a little more rather than just the draft and free agents.
What? Those teams made MAJOR trades to acquire talent - they didn't sign mediocre free agents...at least not until AFTER they had serious talent at the necessary positions. And just who are we going to trade to get our version of CP3/KG?
The only assets we have that could get us a better player in return are Batum, Lillard, Aldridge and Matthews. Who on that list would Portland be most likely to give up?
We must wait for the right time. IN the meantime, you aquire as much talent with tradeable contracts as possible, so you can make a trade for a disgruntled player.
You mean the Los Angeles Clippers, a team currently residing in one of the largest markets in the country? Please, tell me how we're supposed to have similar success. Also, I would like to point out that the Clippers without Blake Griffin would not have been able to acquire Chris Paul, and they drafted Griffin.
Yep, and the comment of the market didn't apply to the 30 years before when Clippers were the laughing stock of the NBA. OUR franchise had those types of moments as well. We drafted Lillard and have Aldridge and Batum. So when a superstar talent is disgruntled again and demands a trade; why couldn't we trade for them?
Actually, I think the list of players we could trade for SIGNIFICANT return is 3 players long - and it doesn't include Wes. And we certainly aren't trading Lillard, so it's effectively two players long. Nic and LMA. Of those two, LMA is the one that would bring the most value back to the team. And with PF being deeper than SF it makes it easier to fill the void created by trading LMA. I think you could probably get 4-5 assets for LMA (plus some garbage to make contracts work). Probably 3 players, and possibly two picks but at least one. Of that at least one player would pretty much be a "sure thing" and one pick would be lotto - so that's two good assets you can count on. Even if they don't work for the Blazers, they are enticing trade pieces for future moves - two assets instead of one. Another player would likely be a "potential" guy - a guy who could develop and become a much more valuable asset, or who might not develop but because of his youth/potential would have some trade value for at least the next 18 months. So that's a 3rd asset who has greater value than anyone we currently have (outside of the 4 starters). The 3rd player would likely be filler, but would probably still be better than anyone we have on our bench.
Stop thinking that Aldridge will be traded, even if it gives us the best group of players back. Management WILL NOT trade Aldridge, Lillard or Batum without getting "someone" more valuable in return. We are talking superstar talent. And we all know that ain't happening.
The Clippers could have easily been a successful team if Donald Sterling wasn't a cheap ass. The number of good players to be drafted by LAC is actually quite impressive, but Sterling never wanted to pay any of them. Who knows what changed his mind, but without Blake Griffin that team would still be a joke. I promise you. Regardless, the fact that they're in LA makes them an attractive destination. Superstars don't want to play in Portland. The last superstar we traded for was Pippen, and he was in the twilight of his career. Roy was on the verge of being a superstar, I think, but we essentially drafted him.
