Remaining schedule strongly suggests Portland will miss the playoffs

I'm not. I'd gladly retool around our two best players even if it means moving assets before the deadline to improve our future assets, at the cost of losing more games this year. I honestly do not care about our record this season. All I care about this season is positioning the team to have a chance to get better in the future. Most importantly, that will require hiring a GM with a clue, letting him develop a strategic plan, and replacing Mr. Sonic with a coach who fits that vision.

As long as Mr. Sonic is our coach and defacto GM, changing players on this team is just moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[video=youtube;IMk5sMHj58I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I[/video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

 

Herm Edwards: Nice guy, better soundbite ... worse coach.

 

The amount of analysis that goes into sorting the schedule into aahh, uhmm, yeesh, & yeah games is truly mind-boggling. I can definitely see tanking based on the sophistication of this study. Hollinger has the Blazers at the 7th seed and a 76.9% chance of making the playoffs, but this guy's analysis completely overwhelms Hollinger. http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

For all of you would-be "tankers", about the best you could realistically hope for is a 12 to 14 pick given where the Blazers sit in the standings right now, with 16 teams having worse records than them. Unless you're hoping for lightning to strike in a bottle so the Blazers move up to the top 3 spots, the 12 through 14 pick is about it. Here's what those picks have given for the past decade:

2011 12-Alec Burks, 13-Markieff Morris, 14-Marcus Morris
2010 12-Xavier Henry, 13-Ed Davis, 14-Patrick Patterson
2009 12-Gerald Henderson, 13-Tyler Hansbrough, 14-Earl Clark
2008 12-Jason Thompson, 13-Brandon Rush, 14-Anthony Randolph
2007 12-Thaddeus Young, 13-Julian Wright, 14-Al Thornton
2006 12-Hilton Armstrong, 13-Thabo Sefolosha, 14-Ronnie Brewer
2005 12-Yaroslav Korolev, 13-Sean May, 14-Rashad McCants
2004 12-Robert Swift, 13-Sebastian Telfair, 14-Kris Humphries
2003 12-Nick Collison, 13-Marcus Banks, 14-Luke Ridnour
2002 12-Melvin Ely, 13-Marcus Haislip, 14-Frederick Jones

There's a few nice players in there, but franchise guys or better than you could get through a FA signing or trade? Not many. Way more busts. Yeah, I know that this draft is deeper than most, but 12-14 is a crap shoot. Excuse me if I'm not thrilled with the idea of passing on a playoff run for the minuscule chance that you're going to net a major player with this bit of GM brilliance.

 

Think of it this way too though. The 12-14 pick is a much better asset to have than the 17-19

 

You can be the one to explain how that increase in asset value is worth pissing away one of LaMarcus Aldridge's seasons. Or, better yet, enjoy telling Marcus Camby, Kurt Thomas, or Joel Przybilla how they should be on board with losing so the Blazers can move from 17-19 up to 12-14 in a draft. That should go over well.

 

LA's season is getting pissed away anyway. As for the others, in my plan they would all be dealt, so everyone wins in the long run

 

it is better to have 14 than 17, sure. But try to convince any owner, even one knowing things aren't great that the, say, 14th pick is better than 17th and 2 home games in the playoffs.

 

I agree with e_blazer. Good posts!
and would like to add that the Trail Blazers organization makes a nice chunk of $$ from playoff revenue.

 

If the season ended today, the Blazers would have the 17th pick in the draft. If they fall to 9th in the West, they would have the 14th pick. I don't see much incentive to tank to move up three places in a range where most picks have very similar odds of developing into a future starter, and almost no chance of becoming a number 1 option on a championship caliber team

I'd MUCH rather Aldridge gain some post season experience as the number 1 option and Batum as the number 2 option. Remember, last season against Dallas, when Roy was semi-healthy, Nate still ran the offense through him in the 4th quarter. This will be the first postseason where Aldridge truly is the number 1 option. It will also likely be the first post season where Nic is even considered an option at all and will have some plays run for him. The postseason is MUCH different than the regular season, and all players, whether they are superstars or role players, need to learn what it takes to succeed in the playoffs, and the best way to do that is through experience, paying your dues, taking your lumps and using what you learned to be better prepared the next time.

Even if we do manage to somehow acquire another number 1 or 2 option, through draft, trade, free agency, whatever, I still want the guys who are part of this team's future to gain that valuable playoff experience. There is no substitute for that experience and I think it would be foolish to sacrifice that experinece to move up three spots in the middle of the first round.

BNM

 

This team shouldn't be worried about its record this year or even next, but it really needs to worry about the talent level that will be around LMA in two or three years when his contract is about to expire. LaMarcus probably has 3 maybe 4 years of true peak production with hopefully a gradual leveling off after that as he enters his early thirties. Ideally this team should be looking for ways to enhance the talent level/experience of it's younger players so their early prime coincides with LaMarcus' late prime and they have a team that he wants to recommit to when the time comes. If they can do that via trades or free agency then so be it, but with the new CBA, it seems like the rules favor building (or rebuilding as the case may be) via the draft.

 

I hate a losing mentality, Whenever you play, you should play to win. You should always try to do your best. If you don't, you'll forget how and will never succeed.

BNM

 

I can easily understand the one step back, two steps forward thinking with a lot of suggestions. The fear is that often with teams, it becomes two steps back, one step forward.

 

Yep, it's a slippery slope and most often losing begats more losing. A losing mentailty is contageous and hard to overcome. That's why teams that are perpetually in the lottery seem to remain there no matter how many top 5 picks they get. The last time the Blazers dipped into the lottery, they were there for six seasons. I don't want to go through that again. Not only will that waste LaMarcus Aldridge's prime, but mine (as a fan), too.

BNM

 

The way to immediately improve in the NBA is to get a superstar player to go alongside another All-Star player, not by tanking to move up 5 spots in the middle of the draft.

The Clippers were rebuilding for what seemed a million years, and even last year's team was flawed, because there was no one to take pressure off of Griffin.

This year, they bring in a legitimate superstar in Chris Paul, and suddenly they're in the conversation for potential Western Conference champions.

In the meantime, since the Blazers don't have their superstar player, they should just play the games, win the games, make the playoffs, and show players around the league that they are a piece away, and not three pieces away, from contending.

 

Nathan (Portland)

I don't understand why the Blazers would trade to rent nash. Just blow it up already
John Hollinger (2:53 PM)

They see it as a rent-to-own; the idea is that he'd agree to stay beyond this season. And I'd say "blow it up" is a pretty harsh remedy for a team with an All-Star in his prime

 

What's the risk though? If it's choosing between years of mediocrity and a string of first round exits (at best) or risking sucking for awhile to take a step beyond that mediocrity I don't see the downside -- basically I think watching mediocre and crappy teams gives me almost the same level of "enjoyment" except that with a crappy team there's usually a lot of young guys that you get to watch learn the NBA game and (hopefully) take steps to learning how to become winners.

I guess I have a question for some of you, that I've never been able to answer: Do some of you really take that much pride and enjoyment out of a "worst of the best" team or is it just a fear of having to watch a young and crappy team that makes people so resistant to rebuilding? Or maybe some of you guys really believe that we're really close?

As a fan I want the hope that eventually the team I root for will be able to compete for a title ... Right now, I see one route (rebuilding) being more likely to provide that chance while the others (holding the line, trading for Nash, etc.) don't seem that likely to get it done.

 

I think if that's the case, and the direction, you NEED to look at moving Aldridge.

 

The main thing is that I don't agree with the entire premise of your post...the notion that there's no exit from mediocre except by going into the lottery. I think an analysis of history would show way more mediocre teams that managed to improve to contention through a trade, a free agent signing, or even through having a late round draft pick blossom into a star than you would find from dipping into the lottery. In fact, it seems to me that loser franchises tend to remain loser franchises.

Neither. I just don't buy rebuilding as a straight-line path to success. Frankly, given the Blazers' recent history with the fruits of a rebuilding effort, I'm surprised any of you do.

I want to see the Blazers continue to look to improve. I want them to be active in making trades and pushing to acquire valuable free agents. I want them to get the best GM and the best coach available. I want them to use a Money Ball-type of approach to acquiring the best players at the best values. I want them to do everything they can to try to win a championship while considering a rebuild, when you have existing players as promising as LaMarcus Aldridge and Nic Batum, only as an absolute last resort.

 

I agree. No one in their right mind should ever even remotely suggest to the players on the floor that they not do their best or create or tolerate that kind of atmosphere. Management however sometimes makes a strategic decision that they know will put lesser players on the floor in the short term with a long-term goal of improving the team going forward. To me, it's not the same at all. Similarly, some very notable coaches (Jackson, Pops) are notorious for 'resting' their best players leading up to the playoffs in the strategic desire to improve their playoff performance. I believe Pops just pulled that one on paying Blazers fans last week. At the same time Pops was holding healthy all stars out of the game, he was clearly riding the players on the floor to do their best.