We got the #3 pick. Discuss the possibilities.

wait a minute...If Portland trades the 3 for Siakam, between the 23rd pick and after paying Chicago off, or not, the Blazers would have 7 first round picks over the next 7 years. How did Portland end up with no picks to support Sharpe...where did they go?

not every GM is as stupid as Olshey you know

 

I think starting Siakam at 5 and also getting OG to start alongside Grant is the way to go. If I'm giving up Scoot, I'm finding a way to get OG as well. Siakam and move to 4 when Grant goes out and we'll have a sub spend the at the 5.

You won't need the size at 5 for 97% of teams.

 

As I typed in my post, Portland would be balls deep with the Dame/Siakam/Grant timeline. I personally do not think that is close to being a contender. And in my opinion, when that timeline fails to contend after the first season, Dame will again say he needs more firepower. Portland adds a couple two or three picks in a trade here, a couple two or three there and they are bankrupting the future to support the Dame timeline as all Portland will have available to trade is picks and swaps. Sure, they might be able to salvage a couple picks that will be what, 18-23? No difference makers there unless they get lucky. I don't see this as difficult to foresee. Many here are pissed now Portland can't add picks now in trade to fuel the Dame timeline due to previous management. So that is where the picks went. They are the currency of the all in Dame timeline. The only currency Portland will have to fuel the Dame timeline will be picks once Ant/3 are expelled to begin the Dame timeline. The cupboard will be left bare. Is there another scenario you envision that fuels the Dame timeline when it stalls because the other teams have just too much firepower of their own? I only see picks, swaps and Sharpe as available currency to go all in for Dame.

 

For the record I like both Siakam and Grant at either forward spot on defense. They can both even switch effectively onto SGs. I would not ever start Siakam at the 5 as a center... Toronto did that this last season and paid for it. Did no one just watch the Finals. Centers are still important. It's important that we don't have the slowest starting center in the league in Nurk but we still need a legit 5 and Siakam is not that. I think Dame, Shaedon, Jeremi and Siakam along with a mobile but robust center would be a good starting lineup. We would still need to add a backup PG, and at the very least a quality backup big if not a quality backup PF and C and no Trendon is not quality. This is assuming we re-sign Matisse.

Anyway this is likely an exercise in futility because Siakam is only one of the many options that I'm sure our front office is looking at. We'll see what happens.

 

IMO, being a Two Timelines advocate is less about being a Two Timelines advocate and more about not wanting to give up #3 and Anfernee Simons (who is being described now as filler in many circles) in an overpay trade or dump Dame for a shit return that would put the franchise in an even tougher spot.

Any time you’re dealing in absolute binaries you’re handing any other team leverage. Obviously that’s not popular if you’re a member of the local media, who wants to cover a winner, or the national media, who wants Dame out of Portland…

I’d absolutely rather move Ant and #3 for a haul. But I’m not freaked out if it doesn’t appear, either—or if Scoot is off the board at #3.

 

I dunno if someone already posted this but Josh Lloyd talked about our options and hinted at Toronto (?). Couldn't process what he was saying.

 

Sure that is one of many possible scenarios.

 

Red white and black is Chicago. I keep telling people Chicago and Lavine

 

I would not want to start Siakam at center. However, to our point, I can see ending games with him there when we need 5 scorers on the floor. As getting OG as well as Siakam......I can't see that happening.

 

Exactly!! Pick a lane. Have a direction and commit to it. The whole straddling the fence BS doesn't work and won't work this time either.

It would be great if Dame could win a title here or even be a legit contender, but that has just never been the case. It's not Dame's talent, but his style does not historically lend itself to NBA titles. Doesn't mean he isn't a great player. But some of the comments I've read in various placers are mind boggling. One person over at BE compared him to Tom Brady who went to a new team and won in his first season because the former team wouldn't sign him to a 2-year deal.

First of all, comparing Dame who has never lead a team to a single WCF's win to Tom Brady who has won more Super Bowls than entire franchises could be the biggest reach ever. NE didn't have the horses anymore and moved on....it happens. Brady wen to TB who had one of the best defenses in the NFL. He wasn't nearly as good anymore, but was good enough to manage a game, not commit turnovers and be clutch. But take away that incredible defense and he would have been nowhere.

Portland won't get any immediate player that will be the same offensive production as Dame. But they may get someone who is as good or better on defense and has more length right away. Of course it won't be the same, but some people are acting like Dame has led the Blazer to multiple titles and losing him would be a huge step down. I'm a Blazer fan first. We haven't been good. Dame has been individually brilliant on the offensive end, but that hasn't translated to WINS.

If Portland wants to mortgage it's future for a 2 year window to overtake what we just saw from Denver, well at least that would be committing to a direction. I just don't believe it would be a very wise choice. Sadly, at some point, it will be time to go in a new direction. Will that be with assets from Dame to support Sharpe or whomever is the next era, or will it be with an empty cupboard from chasing emotional dreams that had next to no chance of succeeding?

 

God I hope not. Same colors as Toronto though. And the question leading up to that hint was talk about Siakam.

 

Picking a lane would include trading Sharpe for a vet. I would not do that. I don't think veteran teams do well without some young energy on the floor. Look at the Lakers this year, they made some moves that finally helped LBJ and AD, and the effective additions were younger. Reeves, Vanderbilt and Hachimura. There is a long list of contenders/champions who mixed vets with youngsters.

 

They don't have to move Sharpe to pick a lane. They could keep him and go young...that is a lane. And would it really be that much worse than what we have been the last 4 years? We would win just as many Playoff series to be sure....sad. Yes, the Lakers added some youth around 2 1st team All-NBA type players. Portland doesn't have close to that.....and the Lakers also got swept out of the Playoffs. They were a story only because they were from LA. If that was the T'Wolves, they would be dismissed as another pretender that got swept when it came time to play a real contender. #BlazersWCFteam

 

If they trade the pick for Zach LaVine I will stop watching the team until Jody/Bert/Joe is gone. That would be the dumbest trade from this team in my lifetime.

Dumber than the trade for Afflalo.

Dumber than the trade sending Batum to Charlotte for Henderson and Vonleh.

Dumber than the trade up to get Zach Collins.

Dumber than the trade that dumped Norm and RoCo.

This one would take the cake, and I won't stand for it. If we waste a top tier asset like the 3rd pick to bring in a guy who is marginally better than Simons, while we already have Sharpe..... would be completely moronic.

 

Would do if I could get Claxton also; I guess would need to sign Reddish and send him out.

 

We discussed it a bit yesterday. I thought Lloyd's comments on Scoot were very interesting. I also think he made some valid points about keeping the pick.

 

As to some above comments, LaVine for the pick would be terrible in every way. Solid player, but not worth that kind of value if you will. Especially when you have Simons and Sharpe who will be better than him before too much longer. Would make zero sense.

 

so what you're saying is that Portland should not try to add Siakam because it might not work; sure it could work but ignore that. And because it might not work, Portland will make more bad moves; or they could be really good moves, but ignore that too. And because of those bad moves that haven't happened after a Siakam trade that hasn't happened, Portland will trade all it's picks for players that will fail too; even though they might not, but ignore that as well. Or, they'll end up with shitty picks and use them on shitty players. And Sharpe will be lonely with nobody his age or talent to share life with. So don't trade for Siakam because trading for him will cause Portland to waste every draft pick they have, or might have until 2030...maybe 2040; and that will make Sharpe lonely, and he might leave 7 years from now, which he might anyway but ignore that....is that the gist of it?

or put more simply: if there is a fork in the road, Portland will take the wrong fork. Most definitely. And if there is a wrong turn on that wrong fork Portland will take that too. No doubt. And if there is a sharpe curve (tee hee) on that wrong turn on the wrong fork Portland will hit the curve too fast and careen off the road. And if there is a deep ditch along that sharpe curve on that wrong turn on that wrong fork, Portland will end up in that deep ditch and get eaten by rats, maggots, and crows....so don't trade for Siakam....?

 

LaVine is better than Simons, but really only marginally better and not worth a pick. LaVine is 28 and Simons is 23. LaVine is also making $40 million next year - so more than Siakam, more than Bridges, more than Butler, etc.



The biggest difference seems to be defense. Pretty massive gulf between Simons and LaVine on defense.