The NBA’s Midseason Arms Race Is Upon Us (The Ringer)

As a Dame homer at first I thought, "What the hell ..." But then I quickly realized it was the right move. I was just initially shocked to see it. I hope they also realize it was the right move and if they don't unfortunately that might say a lot.

 

IDK for as much as Crabbe had a career night scoring.
He seemed to me to get burnt by Jackson over and over again last night. Especially in the 4th.
Admittedly I only watched the last 2 minutes of the forth, and two OT's closely.
Imo if Stotts wanted to send a message, it would have been putting Turner or Harkless in for Crabbe before he went to the anyone under 6"6 sit the ef down.
Even Lillard stayed in front of Jackson better than Crabbe did late in the game. Jackson just got away with an obvious push off to get the jumper off on Lillard.

 

With all this talk of multiple high draft picks, one thing I want to point out - you absolutely cannot depend on any player you draft, even if you have the first pick in the 2017 draft, to help you win more games in the next three years.

That sounds harsh, and there are exceptions, but as a rule, it takes young players, even the most talented ones, that log to adjust to the NBA game and provide significantly improved team performance. There is no Lebron James (14 years ago) or Tim Duncan (20 years ago) in the 2017 draft.

Everyone drools over MIN's talent. With Wiggins and Townes, they had two consecutive N0. 1 overall picks than netted them two consecutive ROYs. That looks great, until you look at their won:loss record. The year before they got Wiggins, their record was 40-42. They swapped Kevin Love for Andrew Wiggins, Wiggins wins ROY and their record plummets to 16-66. That gets them the No. 1 pick, they draft Townes, he wins ROY and they improve to 29-53. Wiggins is now in his third year and Townes in his second and they are on pace to win 30 games and go back to the lottery for the 14th year in a row.

You can't even blame the usual "incompetent management" in this case, they got the two best players in those drafts and are STILL losing.

You could say the same for CLE in the non-LeBron years. LeBron was gone for 4 years, CLE had 6 top 4 draft picks in those 4 years, including 3 No. 1 overall picks, and if LeBron wouldn't have returned, they would STILL be in the lottery.

Honestly, I'm not even going to look (that's kind of the point), but I can't think of a single player drafted in the last three years that has had a significant positive impact on his team's won:loss record, let alone actually led them to the playoffs. The only one that comes to mind is Porzingis, but even that is dubious, at best. The Knicks added him, brought in a shit ton of vets to surround their superstar, and they are still irrelevant and headed back to the lottery, yet again.

So, don't get too excited about landing the franchise savior with one of those high picks. You might get lucky, like we did with Dame, but even then, we only won five more games Dame's rookie year than the year before and were right back in the lottery. Those high draft picks have value, they are GREAT assets, but all this talk about who we can draft to take the place of Dame or C.J. is ridiculous. If that's the plan, don't expect to be back in the playoffs anytime soon.

Now, if we want to actually improve, while Dame or C.J. (whichever we keep) are still in their prime, those draft picks can land the kind of proven talent that immediately turns a team around. That's the real reason to get excited about those draft picks. Sure, if we have more than one high draft pick, trade one and use the other to take a young player you can bring off the bench initially, who may someday be as good as Dame or C.J. Just don't expect them to be that good (if ever) until at least the 2019-20 season.

BNM

 

Oh, I agree. Crabbe has length, but he's not a good defender. It's all relative, he looks better than Dame because it's harder to shoot over him, but I actually think C.J. is a better defender, and the stats agree.

It's weird the way labels work. C.J. is part of the worst defending starting back court in the league, so it's automatically assumed he's a pathetic defender. I'm not saying he's a good defender, but he's actually not THAT bad.

Crabbe is called a 3 & D guy, because that's a cute term for guys who lack the skills to do anything with the ball other than catch and shoot, but he's actually a horrible defender. In Mediocre Man speak, I believe that makes a Crabbe a 3 & _ guy.

BNM

 

Josh Jackson

 

"When the fuck did we get ice cream?"

 

And an unprotected SAC pick!?! I don't care how deferred it is - that could be GOLD!

 

It would also be tough in a couple years when PHI is in the ECF and we're still struggling to get to the 2nd round. CJ/Embiid/Simmons could wreck the Leastern Conference if LBJ starts to follow the career trajectory of Wade.

 

As much as I like Harkless, I do not consider SF a position of strength. Being that, IMO, SF and SG are the two most important positions to have top quality talent at we could definitely use an upgrade. A star SF (and adequate PF or C) is exactly what this team needs. Harkless will never be a star.

 

Harkless is definitely no star and shouldn't block a stud, but on the other hand, Harkless is one of our few solid two-way players. It would be nice, if possible, to get a star at another position so Harkless can play a supporting role alongside that player. It's not a huge deal, but right now three-and-D guys are gold, even at non-star level.

 

What's our W/L record again?

Disclaimer: I do expect us to squeak into the POs...but I'm not as certain about it as I was a few weeks ago.

 

Oh, I agree. Harkless might be my favorite current Blazer. And if we can get a star C then I think we'd be fine with Harkless at SF for the long haul. But I've always felt the easiest path to contention is having one of the top wings in the game, unless you get the rare ultra-dominant C with a good supporting cast.

 

Better than MIN, with their 13 consecutive trips to the lottery and two consecutive ROYs. In case you missed it that was my point.

We are currently 8th in the West, on pace for our 4th straight playoff appearance.

MIN is currently 13th in the West, on pace for their 14th consecutive trip to the lottery.

We briefly dipped into the lottery for two seasons. In the three completed seasons since our last trip to the lottery, we've had two 50+ win seasons and two trips to the second round.

The last time MIN made the playoffs, Steve Blake was a rookie for the Washington Wizards, two years before he became a Portland Trail Blazer for the first of three times. That was also the season we traded Sheed to ATL, Qyntel Woods (pre-dog fighting charges) played in 62 games for us and Travis Outlaw was a rookie.

I only bring all that up to reiterate my point about the fallacy of tanking. Being in the lottery, and even winning the 1st pick, is no guarantee of immediate success.

BNM

 

No, I got your point. My response was mostly tongue in cheek.

But here I think you're dredging up a straw man. Nobody is saying the picks (#1 or not) are a guarantee of immediate success. Nobody. That's not the argument. The argument is whether it's better to be in our current position, which appears to be 1st round fodder for the good PO teams, or take one step backwards in the hopes of taking two steps forward. An argument can (and has been) made for either side. You can't discredit the thought that the second path might be the better path by saying it doesn't guarantee success...especially when we aren't having success by remaining on the current path.

 

A historically bad (for the West) 16-23 has us in the #8 slot....on pace for a gruesome 33 wins. That is pathetically bad for a Playoff team. I think Portland will finish better than that but it shows how far the chaff are behind after the #7 seed.

....where we drafted Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum. I totally agree, the Lottery can be a crap shoot and some teams are run better than others but the stars in this league usually come from the Lottery. Not that there aren't busts and you can hit on a player later in the draft but when you look through the All-NBA teams, the majority are Lottery players.

2015-16 All-NBA Teams:
1st Team
LeBron James #1
Stephen Curry #7
Kawhi Leonard #15
DeAndre Jordan #35
Russell Westbrook #4

Jordan is an anomaly as he certainly isn't one of the 5 best players in the NBA but because the Center position is so down, they had to put someone in there.

2nd Team
Kevin Durant #2
Draymond Green #35
DeMarcus Cousins #5
Chris Paul #3
Damian Lillard #6

Again, a 2nd round pick but this is much more legit than DeAndre Jordan. Green is a stud and a true diamond in the rough.

3rd Team
Paul George #10
LaMarcus Aldridge #2
Andre Drummond #9
Klay Thompson #11
Kyle Lowry #24

Out of 15 players, only 4 are not Lottery players and Jordan has no business being 1st team but they had to choose a center. Kawhi at #15 missed the Lottery by one pick so Green and Lowry are the only real outliers. Those three teams don't include this year Top-2 choice for MVP, James Harden (#3).

So if you put the much more deserving Harden in and take Jordan out, that is 12 of 15 which is 80% of the All-NBA came from the Lottery. They also represent the last 5 NBA champions and all 10 of the teams that have played for the Finals in those season.

The Lottery is no sure thing when selecting....but teams aren't winning championships without Lottery picks either.

 

@TBpup

You have been saying alot that we wont be able to move up even if we go on a winning streak, but I think the thing you are not putting into account is if we go on a winning streak then other teams are losing.

Right now we are sitting at 16-23, The 4th place clippers are 10 games ahead.

if we win 10 in a row and they go 5-5 then we gained half the ground in 10 games.
Im not sure I am following or agreeing with you saying even if we go on a winning struck we are stuck at #7-#8.
Teams can go on losing streaks too, like the Clips have.

10 games is not impossible to make up and if we do well then the games that separate 4th from 7th is 3 games currently. If we go on a 10 game winning streak, I think we are in the hunt to move up. Might not happen, but I disagree with the premise that we are locked in for no better.

 

What I have said is, that at the time, Portland could go on a 15 game winning streak and not catch the #7 seed at the pace they were playing at. Sure they could go on a big losing streak but the reason they (or any of the other teams hovering at 4-7) are where they are is because they are better teams playing better ball. It would take an injury like what happened to the Clippers when they lost 6 straight...Chris Paul was out, to facilitate such a free fall in all likelihood.

The same holds true now as before. If Portland were to go on a 15 game winning streak and OKC (current #7) were just to play at the same pace they have all season, Portland would still be 1/2 a game behind the #7 seed and still in 8th. A 15 game winning streak would be 1 less win than they have all season so I don't see that in their future. Sure, some teams could fall back but historically, they are where the West usually is for winning percentage.

Last year was an anomaly with Portland getting the #5 seed with just 44 wins.

 

...on offense.