Why re-sign Nurkic if you keep Stotts???

We will never contend EVER for the exact reasons you say. Taking inherant risks....

Balancing the roster: Trading CJ is the equivalent to firing Stotts in Olshey's mind. And that by the way is every situation that could possibly improve this team.... Is taking a risk.

Switching up the roster or firing an average coach (which Stotts totally is) for a young promising assistant coach is EXACTLY the kind of move the Blazers will bever make. Because this franchise is perfectly happy being the the insignificant equivalent to an Olympic runner who never maked it past the first time trials.

But you'd think after bowing out 23 STINKING TIMES this franchise might do something different.

But why change?

"We could always be the Kings?' Says every other Blazer fan I've ever met. That's the Blazers for you. In a sport that gave us Jerry West, Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.... instead of reaching for the stars, we are measuring ourselves against the JV team garbage can.

Of course with a new owner. It may not matter. The first round exit and a couple of packed home playoff games routine, may not work any more. The bottom line may change. But I am doubtful.

 

If Stotts is bad for Nurkic, what was the Nuggets coach like?
Nurk's averaging 16.7 ppg and 11.7 rpg - Stotts isn't exactly holding him back. However, he is the only starter (okay, Jake too, but he's only a nominal starter) who currently has a negative +/-, so maybe Stotts is pulling him for a reason?

 

This has nothing to do with Stotts. It's the way the league is going. All three teams we played closed with mobile 3/4 guys as their center. Nurk is getting forced off the floor due to his defensive liabilities.

 

A lot of Nurks buckets come on put backs or after a number of series where he just gave up the ball. And his defense yesterday was nowhere near what he's been providing the last couple of games. For a guy that big he hates getting physical and that's what Washington did. That small lineup kicked the shit out of us under the basket and then tracked our players close to the perimeter. It worked like a charm.

 

I sat 5 rows behind the Blazer bench last night. Nurk has got to be frustrating to coach. The amount of times he loses grip of the ball or had it taken away, the easy shots he misses...it’s torture. The stats he puts up anyway shows how dominant he could be.

 

If there is a smart risk I'd say go for it. Trading future draft picks for Jimmy Butler. But just making change for change sake does not give us the best chance to contend. Look at teams such as the Knicks, they've made dumb gambles, win now moves for decades and been a joke even with the allure of NYC.

The Blazers had a team that got to the WCF and was certainly a contender in 99. They had a roster around 08 with Roy that had as bright a long term future as any young team in the league. In 2015 prior to Matthews ACL we had a shot of winning the conference. Yes I'd rather have seen us closer to win a title at those times... But I'm glad we had those possibilities and seasons of hope even though it never ultimately worked out. To your point yes this roster has been much better than screwed up franchises like the Kings the last decade.

The Warrior we're a joke for decades before everything came together perfectly and they had a dynasty.

Only one team each year of 30 suceeds in the NBA. 96 percent of teams fail. Add to that the league has many repeat champions, effectively making it more like 98 perecent of the league is failing. It's just very damn hard and unlikely to win an NBA title.

No matter what the Blazers do most likely we will not have a contender soon and won't win a title. You and me and many may get impatient and pissed and sick of it but that's just the nature of the game.

I've learned to enjoy success even if it doesn't result in a championship. Both for the Blazers as well as other NBA teams, players, and sports. Even if we do win a title one year it'll be about that road to win when it was full of doubt. Once we've won, 24 hours later it's over and we've all gone home. It's about the unknown risky journey, not the destination.

Back to your post, I'm for taking a smart risk if it has an expected higher payoff. If we can trade CJ and that increase our odds of a title sure go for it. My concern would be first we need both a legit 2nd and 3rd star after we trade CJ. Acquiring that additional stud player while keeping CJ may be the path that gets us closer to a title.

Think of it from this hypothetical; we trade CJ, but the return for him doesn't get us a stud, meanwhile Zach becomes that 2nd star. Now we are in a spot where we would've been contending if we had kept CJ but trading him robbed us of that opportunity.

 

Wrong. A smart risk is taking a risk that's smaller than the possible reward. Smart risks don't always pan out.

 

Bones, everything comes with risk. I don't care who your trading for. The ones that make the trades just have to be okay with the accepted parameters.

 

Ehhh, no. Not at all. It's only a risk if it's potentially franchise altering for the worse.

 

Bones, you trade for somebody.... that player gets hurt and totally alters your season. You could have traded for like players, but the risk came with making the deal itself. I've seen in happen in baseball all the time down the stretch.

 

But that risk always exists. Were talking about added risk in isolation.

This is about you saying that "smart risks don't exist".

 

But what risk is so small.... and the payoff SO HIGH that the risk is negated. I am having a hard time understanding a practical model for what you are saying. Talent is such a premium in the NBA that you rarely have deals where a potential talent passes hands for anything other than another major player. Almost every move in the NBA seems like a major one. In the NFL or MLB you can have a minor deal that is a smart risk turn into a major contribution to a team.

 

A smart risk is where the reward outweighs a legitimate risk... Not all smart risks pan out, it's all about playing the odds.

 

I am not disagreeing with you. I'd just have to see a litany of NBA deals with all the the eventual outcomes over a period of time.

 

I'm just relying to you saying there's no such thing as a smart risk.

 

Bones man, this is Sports Entertainment, not Linguistics 201 Semantics.

 

Yet, this all started because someone used the term "smart risk" and you told them there's no such thing...

 

Bones, just write me a ticket, I'll pay the fine later.

 

FTFY

 

Just like you wrote "a smart rusk" a couple of messages ago. But I had the good courtesy not to notice.
I am disappointed, Bones. That was cheap.