OT: Anonymous GM: Best Way For Us To Grab Superstar Is Tanking

Yes without Duncan they wouldn't have won shit, but they got a bit of luck and picked smart from that point forward.

The Blazers got a bit of luck themselves and landed Lillard. Will he be a HofFer? Maybe… The point is, we have an opportunity to build around him and pick smart like SAS did.

 

I had a little pep in my step today, so I thought I'd give it, yet another, try

 

How many teams tank every year and are perennial lottery teams? Compare that to the list of teams that tank and are perennial contenders.

Not saying what's right or wrong here, I'd be curious to see people's lists. And I also think people forget about how many teams struggle to get out of the lottery. For every team that tanks and becomes a contender within a few years, I'd have to believe that there are more that struggle to improve their overall position.

 

Agreed. Because only a fool would think this is the best way.

Not saying it doesn't work, but you are over-simplifying it. There's way more that goes into it.

 

Dude, how many top 10 draft picks we got in the last 8 years? What do we have to show for it now? You can try and justify the tank = chance. We had the chance and blew it. Since 05, we've landed a #1 (Won the lotto), #2 (trade), #6 (twice), #5 (Trade), #10, #11

So talking like our team hasn't had the "tanker's" chance is completely ridiculous!

 

The best way to get a superstar is to tank.

The best way to win starts with a competent GM. I really don't think there are very great GM's in this league, especially when it comes to wheeling and dealing and putting together the best roster possible. And there are usually many other factors that come into play (sometimes, winning isn't the ultimate priority; injuries happen; egos happen; a team doesn't have the right coach; payroll issues; players don't reach their potential; etc.).

I don't think you have to lose to win. I think you have to not be afraid to lose if you want to win. That goes beyond the court, in terms of wins and losses. That goes for player moves - you have to take some risks. That goes for payroll (sometimes, you have to make decisions in the name of winning and lose some money). Many of Portland's best years were when we had risks on the roster, both player/personality-wise and financially.

 

Injuries are a motherfucker.

 

And???? It really shouldn't matter right? I mean we "did" have the opportunity and it didn't work. Years ago, we rebuilt while still making the playoffs (1993-1998) and got to the WCF twice. The 1999 team was even a team under the salary cap.

I believe that a team needs a good GM that has the balls to get er done. That's why some of the other "small market team" still are winners.

 

All I'm saying is that the strategy of tanking to get Roy and LaMarcus was sound. Oden was the icing on top the following year and if his knees hadn't exploded or we'd chosen Durant all anybody around here would be talking about is how smart it was for KP to have driven us into the ditch to get where we needed to be.

 

Look at the Clips. How many crap players did they have? People blame Donald being tight, but they didn't draft well for so many years - why would he open up his wallet? The Kings were awful for my entire childhood and struggled to improve, made a few good moves, were solid for a long while, and are back in the crapper and struggling to get out of it. There are probably a lot more teams like this than there are teams that tanked and became contenders.

 

And I think you have a good point. The only reason why I am getting bent is this should definitely not be a "tanking year"; especially if we may lose Aldridge in process.

 

For every San Antonio, there are 10 Kings.

 

Well where did anybody say that this year should be a tanking year for the Blazers? That ship has sailed.

 

Thank God for that!

 

I will be available to the Blazers as a mascot. Mediocrity seems to fit perfectly with their plan.

 

Well, if you agree with this anonymous GM, and you think Portland is going to win 42 games and miss the playoffs...... it seems kind for the same person to believe the GM is right AND believe we're in the middle of the pack, but you don't think we should tank? Seems like a bit of a contradiction. I mean, I guess I'd be curious to know what you think this current team's true potential is.

 

I'm saying that we've made our bed and now we get to lie in it ... at least for this year. If the team doesn't do much more than an 9th or 8th seed and seems to be "stuck" then I imagine there will be a reevaluation of strategy between Allen and Olshey.

EDIT:
One more point. Once you've decided on a strategy you have to let it run its course. So even if I think the one that Allen likely demanded is sub-optimal, radically shifting to tank-mode without seeing the first strategy through until it can be judged would be worse.

 

Would it be easier to tank enough to get enough lotto chances to land Wiggins or to add another key piece with the expiring contracts we have accumulated?

 

Easier to add with expirings.

Not better though.

Matthews, Batum, Mo Williams are all key pieces. I'd rather have a shot at a superstar than all of them put together. Because all of them put together with no superstar equals shit.

It's certainly safer to add a starter next to Lillard and Aldridge, but most likely you won't be landing a difference maker with expirings

 

Not true. The more teams trying to tank the less effective tanking is.