No, the more losses the better. We have zero chance at making a playoff run this year, and winning more games worsens our draft pick. We don't need a measuring stick to know this team isn't talented enough.
No argument at all about us still not being talented enough, though we're not playing like a lottery team, right now. To bolster your point further, I will say this: As far as I'm concerned, Cronin hasn't come through yet. His idea is to dump players for flexibility, and turn that flexibility into a great team. He still hasn't done that last part, which is what we've all been waiting years for.
I know Wizards can wave a wand and magically poof everything into existence, but some things do take time, when being built by mere mortals. .
I DOUBLE-DOG Dare you to ask @Mediocre Man how many years he's been waiting. "Now, don't be hasty, Master MM"
Torey, I know you've played competitive ball, there is no way that Joe would ask Chauncey lose as many games as possible for a better pick. Not saying it doesn't happen just that my vibe with the coach and players is they will try and improve each game and beat whomever they play. Players would never buy tanking and I know you realize that because you've played ball. Sure from maybe a fans and armchair gm's standpoint its easy to advocate for a tank so, they can hit the jack pot. Coaches and players are paid to win. I know pro sports are different from what you and I played because of the money, but young competitive pro athletes want to prove themselves.
Is there an argument to be made that our current not-talented-enough players can improve their off-season trade value by playing unexpectedly well enough to generate those draft-pick-worsening wins?
But above you did say the more loses the better. Where my thinking is that more losses is not at all a motivator for how the team is being assembled and coached for now and later.
OK. Be honest. If I had asked you after we lost by 18 points to Orlando at home, "What are our chances of winning the next 4 in a row?", what would your answer have been? Zero percent?
Tanking makes for great fan talk on boards and sports shows, its great armchair gm material but reality is you have players trying to prove they belong and a coach that wants to coach them the correct way and how to win, then let the chips fall.
The more losses the better for the organization long term, yes. Doesn't mean the players ot coach should try to lose or embrace a losing mentality. You can play hard and try to compete and lose games.
Was the trade bad or was his contract (years + dollars) bad and therefore the market for him was limited? I still haven't heard a plausable explanation for why people would assume the front office didn't reach out to all 29 teams to gauge Norm's value and/or why they decided to take an inferior deal. Do we think the Clippers had compromising texts on Joe or something?
Frankly, a lot of people's ire comes from the fact they did it a week before the trade deadline. Sure, they say it was to "set up the next trades" or some other thing about how teams knew the blazers were scuffling around the tax... But the fact that the norm trade didn't even have that much, if any, effect on the CJ trade moots that entire theory. It was a bad trade for several reasons. All of them plausible given the circumstances. The fact it was a week out for the reason that didn't even pan out still has a lot of people scratching their heads, including myself. Winslow may end up being good. Keon is undecided (I dont have much hope for him, so slight bias from me on that full disclosure). But early returns were rightfully bashing the trade. Honestly, the plausible reason they didn't reach out to 29 other teams is the fact I just mentioned. They took a deal that quickly. You never do that in negotiations. The closer it gets the more they can juice it up if they need and wNt. Norm is injured now so it's whatever. It was just an awful trade based on optics. You can't convince me not one team out of the "29" (they didnt call all of them, they had their teams to hone in on that fit the needs they were trading) said "we will talk middle of the week next week after we see where we are at". They had an entire weekend and half a week to hear offers. It's asinine to assume they all said no that early for two serviceable players lol. Bad contracts or not, that doesn't make sense. To close, optics and inability to suspend belief are the reasons most people hate this. And it's valid. It really, really is.
And we could have held onto norm until the summer. It’s a horrible free agent class. RoCo was whatever. He was gone anyway, but I think norm would have had good value this summer.
We have 6+ years of evidence that Powell is the superior player. If the Blazers failed to optimize his value, that is on the coach and GM. Trading a solid NBA player for a scrub because he is perceived as a "better fit" is just plain foolish! There was zero reason to rush into this deal. Nate is absolutely right that waiting was the smarter move.
