After you get past the obvious and tired history "lesson", the author makes some valid points, not about trading Dame or C.J., but about the cause of POR's problems in the playoffs and how to address them.
It's not news to anyone that Neil overspent during the Summer of 2016, or that POR got swept in the playoffs. Those topics have been beaten to death. But quotes like this provide insight that there may be other ways to "fix" the Blazers than trading one of their two best players:
"Stotts doesn’t have the spacing threats, the self-shot creators, or the paint options to thrive without sharing the ball. The problem is—yes, we’re not to the root of the problem yet—he doesn’t have passers, either."
I think these are issues Neil specifically tried to address in the off season. Unfortunately, he had 1.99 hands tied behind his back due to his own previous overspending. Given his limited options, he brought it more shooters and self-shot creators, and hopefully more passing, as well.
Seth Curry will always be in his brother's shadow, but prior to his injury, he was looking like a legitimate NBA 6th man/3rd guard. Obviously the sample size is MUCH smaller, but Seth's career 3FG% of .432 barely trails Steph's .436. His brother is widely regarded as the best shooter in the history of the game. That's a tough act to follow, but when it comes to shooting from distance, little brother doesn't suck. His career TS% of .600 is better than anyone else on the Blazers roster (Dame = .570, C.J. = .552).
Curry definitely helps address POR's need for more shooters around Dame and C.J., but he doesn't really address the self-shot creation or passing issues. He'll be better than either Connaughton or Crabbe was in the "shooter off the bench" role, but that's basically what he is.
For passing and self-shot creation we will need to rely on Baldwin and Trent Jr. Baldwin was a classic Olshey value signing - a former mid-first round pick that his original team gave up on much too quickly. He's always had the physical gifts to excel, but he seems to really be learning the game. I rant on and on about POR's lack of a proven big man coach, but this staff has a great record of developing guards. I know we've mostly seen Baldwin against G League and Summer League "talent", but his progress has been impressive. He's learning from the best how to run an offense, when to set up his teammates vs. when to look for his own shot. Throw in his length and defensive intensity and he's a great third guard to team with Dame and C.J.
Offensively, Trent Jr. reminds me of a cross between Travis Outlaw and Wes Matthews. In terms of size and athleticism, he falls squarely between those two former Blazers. The similarity is the ability to create his own shot without possessing a great handle. Outlaw had that 1-dribble pull up jump shot that he could get off against anyone and Wes developed a 1-dribble step back that was money (before the injury). Trent Jr. already possesses a similar ability to get his shot off in spite of not possessing elite ball handling skills. He's 19 and will only get better. I think he'll end up being a steal where he was picked. He also has the confidence to take (and make) big shots and the ability to get to the line. Defensively, he'll never be as good on the perimeter as pre-injury Wes, but he has the size and upper body strength to physically "body up" weaker opponents.
"the Blazers are betting on youngish players blossoming"
This is true - especially Zach Collins, but also Baldwin, Trent Jr. and eventually Simons. The good news is we have multiple young players that have the potential to blossom and didn't have to tank to get them. And guess what, if we decide to blow it up, we'll be even more reliant on young players for far longer - 5 to 10 years to get back to where we are now depending on how well we draft. So, I'm not sure how relying on young players to blossom is a strike against us. I'm actually excited to see these young guys develop.
I would absolutely trade C.J. in a package for a Jimmy Butler/Paul George/Kawhi Leonard type of 2-way player, but short of that, I think continuing to build around one of the best backcourts in the game isn't a bad plan. Adding Nurk in the middle (and resigning him to a team friendly contract) REALLY helped our team defense. The emergence of Zach Collins will further shore that up, as will hopefully Wade Baldwin taking Shabazz Napier's minutes. Last season proved that even with the defensive limitations of Dame and C.J., POR can be a top 10 defense. Now, they just need to get back to being a top 10 offense.
The new guys will help, but I think Stotts needs to also make better use of the assets he has. I've beaten this to death, but more Nurk in the high post (as he was used during Nurk fever) will take some of the pressure off of Dame and C.J. and create easy baskets for non-self shot creators like Harkless and Aminu. Last season Stotts seemed to fall victim to the "conventional wisdom" that you need to pound the ball into your young big man early and often to get him involved and motivated to play defense and rebound. I don't think the "conventional wisdom" applies to Nurk. It certainly didn't during Nurk Fever. Sure, get Nurk involved in the offense early, but as a facilitator, not by parking his butt on the low block and pounding the ball into him. That only puts pressure on Nurk to go 1-on-1 and try to beat his man. We don't need more isos, we need fewer. This is not Nurk at his best, especially against other starting centers. It leads to a lot of hurried, forced, weak, out of control, low percentage flip shots and turnovers. On the other hand, when Nurk has a smaller player on him in the post, he slows down, uses his size and strength to maximum advantage and is virtually unstoppable. Save the Nurk post ups for when the other team ends up caught in a switch on the pick and roll, against opposing 2nd string big men, or when the other team goes small. In other words, don't try to force things, take advantage of what the defense gives you.
So yeah, we're relying on some young guys to emerge (other than GSW and HOU, who isn't?), but even with limited options available, Olshey has attempted to address the weaknesses the author described. Now it's up to Stotts to use these new assets as well as make better use of the returning ones.
BNM
