Painting with a broad brush is a bad idea... unless you're painting happy little clouds (your avatar). I'm part of the cast that recognizes this offseason as a disaster. I was also one of the few that called the GM Nash era as a disaster by the 2nd offseason when most everyone else was pumping the Telfair / Webster sunshine... stupid me, I wanted CP3. In between the last Blazer disaster and this perceived one, I was very gung ho about their moves pining for Aldridge, Batum & Dame before they were drafted and happily being surprised by Wes and Lopez. I'll be floored if this roster comes anywhere close to 500. STOMP
I don't think anyone sees the off-season as not being a disaster. I am pretty sure we can all agree the team is going to be pretty bad next season. Just read the way too early to predict thread. The whole off season success or failure was completely tied to Lamarcus staying or going. I do feel though that in the wake of LMA leaving Neil has done a commendable job of making moves that don't hamstring us with over paid veterans that would make us mediocre with no flexibility to get better. I think it's fair to assess the summer in 2 ways, the overall disaster of losing the all star the team was built around, and subsequent plan of attack as the franchise tries to pick up the pieces.
Asset acquisition phase. His biggest move was landing Vonleh. This kid is going to be a monster. Davis/Aminu/Harkless are all defensive oriented garbage men. He's clearly looking for a center.
I get that other teams traded away the players in hopes that what they got from us in return will fit their orginazation better. On the other hand, I think we inherited these players with hopefully a chip on shoulders and prove that they all belong. I have a feeling we will surprise many teams if they are coached up and go beyond the expectations.
Wow, talking to you is sometimes like talking to a brick wall. What part about unrestricted free agent do you not understand? If said player has his mind made up to leave, there is nothing you can do. If said player shows mixed feelings, you do what you can to try to keep him if he is an all star. But LMA walked anyhow. What type of blinders do you wear? I need to buy a pair for this summer because they seem to work damn good...
You need to differentiate "losing" and "giving up". To give something up is an active choice; to lose something is a passive occurrence. We "gave up" Batum, in exchange for Vonleh (and Hendo)--and likely came out ahead on that deal. We "lost" Aldridge, despite all our best efforts. We "gave up" Wes and Rolo specifically because we were "losing" Aldridge, so it then made no sense to pay them what they were offered elsewhere. It's really not that complicated.
Yes, because it doesn't count to be a lottery 9 pick in 1 year. We must only obtain lottery picks in the current year to justify talent acquisition. Got it!
Many feel that Olshey could have done nothing to prevent LA from leaving. I'm not sure why Olshey gets that free pass. Had he picked the rights vets for a deeper bench and the Blazers been more competitive in the playoffs, I think LA would have considered staying in Ptd. Wright, Williams, Blake, Kamen, Afflalo just didn't work. Now I get that those weren't Olshey's first choices and that his first choices passed on Ptd but again does Olshey get the free pass of not being able to convince those guys to come to Ptd. In any event let's just say that LA leaving had nothing to do with the GM or GM moves and that no GM could have avoided LA leaving or seen LA was going to leave and get assets for him: what has NO done? He has gotten a bunch of young guys and not strapped the organization down to a bunch of bad contracts for a team that would compete for a 6-8 spot in the playoffs. And I get that is a good thing. But what I don't get is labeling NO great for doing this. If these players turn out to be key pieces in a championship contender then Olshey deserves the great GM label. But really any GM could have picked up a bunch of young guys with potential. The issue really is if these players will develop into key pieces of championship contending roster. For instance the real question is will Plumlee be more valuable than Hollis-Jefferson? That is what Olshey should be judged on. Trading Batum for a young player with potential: that's not the hard part, any GM could do that. the real question is will Vonleh turn into a quality starter? Aminu, while not breaking the bank, was paid more money than any other team would offer, will he be worth it? Banks is the same issue. Olshey may or may not be a great GM, but to date he hasn't done anything great. He has had some good moves and some bad moves. He added a couple pieces to a team and created a great starting five but couldn't quite finish the deal and put some key vets on the bench to cement what I believe would have had Aldridge stay. His gift for gab is great and works well on fans but doesn't persuade NBA players to come to Ptd. But here is what Olshey gets now, regardless if he could have or not have prevented LA from leaving; Olshey's so called greatness as a GM really lies now on how these current players develop and how far he take a roster that is now all his. Olshey may in fact be a really good or even great GM, but rather than listen to what he says and automatically agree that it will work, why not just sit back and see what he can really do before talking about how great he is.
I think NO praising has more to do with what he didn't do than what he has done. Olshey made it perfectly clear that "we weren't just good enough", but was willing to pay premiums for Wes and Lopez, without trading Batum if that were to keep Aldridge. Another thing he didn't do was tie down this organization with bloated vet contracts, trying to appease the star. If Aldride still left, and we were left with Wes, Batum and Lopez on contracts over 12 mil each, many in here would flip their lid. Olshey's youth movement proves to me that he's willing to fold if he knows the team isn't going anywhere, even after 50+ win seasons. I couldn't say the same for the other GMs we've had.
Well if that is what makes a good or great GM in your mind, then I guess we just have different standards. He traded Batum before he knew LA was leaving (according to Olshey himself) and what GM would have paid Wes and Lopez that kind of money once Aldridge left . . . not many, IMO.
Given the CBA rules and what he inherited, the guys Neil got were really good. You forget he acquired Lopez? When you commit big dollars to your starting 5, your bench is going to be made up of MLE guys and vet minimum guys and draft picks. He managed to trade away some of the bench guys for Afflalo, eh? Regardless of how you think he turned out, he was an awesome pick up at the time and didn't cost much. Two prominent FAs signed offers with the Blazers in his term: Kanter (matched by OKC), and Hibbert (matched by Indiana). Those guys wanted to come to Portland or they wouldn't have signed.
In his first year, he had a 32-win team and a historically bad bench. With less-than-max cap space (~$10M IIRC), he turned that into a 54-win team, playoff-series winning team. That ALONE gets him a pass for a couple years. He had NO cap space that offseason, and did the best he could with what he had in adding Kaman, and then mid-season trading for Afflalo. Along with CJ, Wright and Leonard, he built a solid bench--until health failed them. FA departures notwithstanding, Neil has done a great job with what he has had. And as far as this offseason is concerned, it's not JUST about not overpaying our own guys; it's also about being judicious with the cap space their departure created. Davis and Aminu combined signed for less than any one of the guys we left--that's smart. Turning a low-first-round pick into a starting center--smart. Turning an expiring and almost certainly not returning passive underachiever into a high-potential lottery pick--smart. You can say "any GM could do these things", but the thing is, most don't. You want to be Mr. "I don't care about the process, just show me the baby"--that's fine. But those of us who actually do care about and pay attention to the process understand that it's not as easy as you seem to want it to be.
Lose: verb (used with object), lost, losing. 1. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it. 2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa Give: verb (used with object), gave, given, giving. 1. to present voluntarily and without expecting compensation; bestow: to give a birthday present to someone. 2. to hand to someone: Give me that plate, please. 3. to place in someone's care: If you give me your coat, I'll put it in the closet. 4. to grant (permission, opportunity, etc.) to someone: Give me a chance. Do you understand the difference between these two? The problem everyone has with your thought process is you keep saying things that insinuate we had control. And we didn't...
The only thing truly beyond Olshey's control was LMA's mental problems. Every other move was his choice and is fair game for criticism.
