Would you go all-in on the playoffs?

Jamal Crawford has been sixth man of the year twice (2010 & 2014)

 

Fair enough. I agree that it's possible, I just don't know how likely it is.

 

It's Star Wars. It's the scene where Luke leaves before finishing his Jedi training.

 

There in lies your fault. a quality role player is can still be a core. How many all stars games has Ginobli been in? He is part of a core...
Being part of a core doesnt require you to be an all star or even a star. It means your part of a group of players that mesh well and can be built around.
Our core consists of the following:
Dame, CJ, Aminu, Crabbe, Plumlee. Everyone else has been somewhat inconsistent and has been moved around.

This core is absolutely buildable. or able to build around. If you bring in a lopez and Plums goes to the bench, he is still part of the core.

Again, being part of a core doesnt require anything more than meshing well with the other players and are able to build around.

And you do need a ne prescription if you think CJ is Jamal. Different games.... different attitudes... pretty much everything different.

I think you should focus on euroball players and thier cores, lol

 

So Dame, CJ, Aminu, Crabbe and Plumlee are going to bring home and lead this team to a championship in the next few years?

 

A core player to me is somebody you build on top of, not a guy who might or might not be here in three years. I would be absolutely shocked if the guys you list will all still be here in three years (Lillard, maybe CJ, and? ...). As for Ginobli, he was not a "role player" at the height of his powers, he was a driving force for the championship teams he was a part of. Does anybody on this team outside of Lillard possess Ginobli's talent? I sure don't see it.

Why is the CJ-Jamal Crawford comparison so offensive (the comparison wasn't meant to be an insult to CJ)? Offensive minded guards who can create their own shot, are dangerous on offense, shaky (or indifferent?) on defense, have a little bit of play-making ability and are at their best playing with the ball in their hands - CJ's likely long-term role with this team if he's going to remain here. You may not like Crawford's demeanor and the way he handled himself here, but if you take out the emotions what's so different about those two guys?

 

I agree that the CJ/Crawford comp isn't bad. Emotions are definitely making it seem like a back-handed compliment at best. But Crawford is/was a very good 6th man on a winning team, and a fine starter on an average team - seems about right for CJ. But CJ is pretty much already at that level. The one area where I think CJ trumps Crawford is intelligence. It's because of that that I think CJ can be better than Crawford.

 

Haha. Strawman, not at all. Just because you disagree doesn't make it a strawman fallacy. I made very valid points. You may not be in the group that wants to tank for a pick, so my comment wouldn't pertain to you. The chips are falling and they're a borderline playoff team constructed of young, high draft picks, who have barely seen the court until this year because of the reasons I laid out before. They're getting the opportunity to play and we've seen what happens when they're all firing. Let them play and gain consistency.

If nobody is saying that the picks will put Portland over the hump, then what is the point in hoping they lose so that they can use the pick?

In short, I believe that the experience of the team playing together and trying to win is more valuable than most draft picks can be.

 

It's apparent I can read perfectly fine. If you're arguing semantics, maybe your position isn't as strong as you'd like to believe. Don't believe everything you think.

 

I said the easiest path to getting transcendent talent was the draft, not the only way. You then immediately translated this into "ONLY." It's right there in black and white (go check). The reason it matters is that (speaking of strawmen) you end up arguing against something I never said.

 

I DO want the pick more than the Playoffs. But I'm not pro-tanking. And from what I've read, everyone who "your side" consider to be pro-tankers share my opinion - focus on development ahead of wins and we'll be better off in the long run.
A pick doesn't have to put us over the hump - but it's an asset that will make it easier for us to get better, quicker. Having an asset is better than not having an asset. The pick could very easily become a rotation player, or even a starter - or it could be packaged for a player that gets us closer to contention.
That's fine that you believe experience is better than a draft pick - we can agree to disagree. But I think you've misrepresented "the other side" of the debate.

 

You said that CJ might "eventually" be like him.

 

Is CJ our sixth man? Nope.

 

And with this team development is translating to wins already. I haven't misrepresented anything. How do I misrepresent myself? Lol.

 

The easiest way is also the least likely to result in a star. Sam Hinkie? He's doing things the easy way. Building a contender ain't easy. You won't draft you're way through the late lottery to a championship. (Golden State is the only exception, and they got lucky as hell.)

 

I believe Detlef Schrempf and Kevin McHale are the only players who have won 2 sixth man of the year awards in there career along with Jamal Crawford.

 

If we're looking at the draft as a way to improve the team, the questions I have are:
- What are the chances of drafting a difference maker?
- How quickly will that player produce for the Blazers?

Here's a graph that shows the odds of drafting an all-star and a starter by each draft position. This data includes the drafts from 1990 thru 2010. A starter is defined as a player that started over half of their games and/or was an all-star.

If the Blazers are drafting 8+, then their chances of landing a starter is 57.1% or less. Now lets say the Blazers grab a potential starter. How many years until that player becomes productive?

The graph below shows PER by age for every player that played more than 72 minutes per season between 2001 and 2015.

A player's peak years are from ages 24 - 29. Most players that are drafted are 19 -21 years old. A team typically has to wait 3+ years before they see that player mature into the starter or all-star.

I'm not opposed to building thru the draft. But I see that as a long term, risky proposition. Building thru the draft should be supplemental to building the team thru trades and free-agency. At this time, with our CAP space and young talent, I think building the team thru trades is our biggest opportunity. If we pass up a good trade because it might harm our chances of building our team thru the draft, I think that's missing a golden opportunity. Plus, I enjoy watching the team win now.

 

Lol. Let's try again. Do you believe that the best way to obtain said talent is through the draft? If so, are you pro-losing to acquire said player/asset? Or do you not really care how the player is acquired as long as they are acquired?

 

HE'S TOO GOOD TO NOT START. If he was coming off the bench he would be the unanimous 6th Man of the Year.