My fault, I did not expect anyone to take it other than a funnier way of saying "lower back contusion"...point still is up for debate, though. Not my intent to hyperbolize or try to fake someone out to advance an argument.
I have flipped through the various stations and come across him over the years. He just isn't my "cup of tea". I can see where some would like him, but his style is just too irritating to me for more than about 3 minutes. I bet he does well with Fans from NY/NJ and Miami where there are a lot of NYers, but not me.
These are two different aspects here. One is what assets we get back in a Lillard trade. Two is what age players are up and down the Blazers 15 man roster. I'd like the Blazers to primarily get picks back in a Lillard trade. I want to see Scoot/Sharpe/Ant develop this year and the Blazers build up their assets long term which most likely means getting some lottery picks the next few season. If the Blazers exceed expectations and make the playoffs that is great, but I'm not giving up the chance of future assets to try and get into the playoffs now. Now when the Blazers go to fill out the roster after a Dame move I'd expect we have plenty of youth on this roster, so we should target veterans for the last roster spots to have a good mix of youth and vets.
I agree with you but leadership for this organization believes in egregious tanking as its core ethos. Just hope they don't cost Scoot a chance at ROY by shutting him down too early.
Being slightly more sympathetic to the current org, I think they've done the last two years what people on this board have been asking for for 15+...either be a contender or suck ("stay out of purgatory"). We started the last two years going for it--getting in vets like GP2, Grant, Powell, Hart, etc. When it started going downhill (Dame injury, other injuries, poor play from others, value increasing for some) the org pivoted to "sell for assets and tank for draft position" mode. I don't love it, but having Scoot/Shaedon/Murray/Rupert is objectively better and cheaper than having Hart, GP2, and whatever the #11 and #14 pick the last two years may have been. And Dame would almost certainly still be wanting out. "Egregious tanking" would've been what SAS/DET/HOU have been doing. Starting the year with no semblance of roster construction and no hope for playoffs, but piling up losses for assets. At least SAS was still looking like a basketball team while tanking.
I agree with this but I assume we will be bringing back 3 players in the trade. One vet and 2 youngsters. (Plus 2 picks)
We can agree to disagree. I think a run through the play in would have kept Dame quiet for another yr. Whether that's beneficial to the team overall is debatable but that's not the discussion here. I just don't like the whole hearted embrace of losing that we've fostered the past two years. It just leads to young guys building bad habits and reflects and overarching culture that losing is OK. And what exactly is it doing for Billups and his coaching education? Don't get me wrong-- they were fully justified in doing it for Wemby, but given the gusto with which they pursued that strategy leads me to think they'll do it again this yr.
I agree with your concerns of fostering a culture of losing. I think its important we have a number of good vets on the roster. We have plenty of young upside with rookies the last two drafts plus Ant. If we get back one or two more good prospects in a Dame trade then fine. All the other roster spots should be vets regardless if they are starters/ occasional backups/ or end of the bench Udonis Haslem types. When we had a roster of older players and all win now starters we could take some upside swings on young guys breaking out in roster spots 12-15. But that is not needed any more, we need vets in those spots. The 2024 and 2025 drafts don't look near as good, and the Blazers shouldn't start the year with so many wins as they did the last few seasons. I'm hoping the Blazers can just try to win and we let the chips fall where they may. If the Blazers do lose and we get a nice pick then fine, hopefully the talent and results gets incrementally better in future years. If the Blazers have some good wins this year or next year that's even better because that means 5-10 players are progressing better than we expect instead of just getting a higher spot for 1 player.
I think we need to fill out the roster with players on the Ant, Grant timeline and not go too young from here on. 24-29 age group
portland is a podunk market run by estate custodians that didn't communicate with dame and trashed the relationship purposefully. poor thing. they should trade him immediately for a bradley beal level return (2nds and swaps) and matching salary—basically anything miami wants to get off of. let portland take all of their trash contracts because they did wrong by dame. /s (was I close?) my favorite tone from the miami fans/mouthpieces like lebetard is the attempt to be patronizing around 'how the basketball business works' and 'how leverage works' and how pat riley is 'used to handling major multi-team deals' that cronin isn't sophisticated enough to be a part of. ridiculous, lol.
2007- draft KD 2008- draft RW 2009- draft Harden 2010- 50 wins 2011- WCF 2012- Finals Then they fucked it up but this should be our template for success. So far, it’s working. We have 2 young studs. One more could be the final piece of the puzzle. I’ll still be rooting for us to win but if we pivot in March again and tank, I’ll understand. It’s the only way to build a legit contender in Portland.
None of them ever asked to be traded. Harden was willing to stay on the bench if they paid him. KD played for OKC for 9 years without ever asking to be traded. Westbrook played for OKC for 11 years and never asked to be traded. If they had paid Harden, they win 4-5 titles and are still in OKC ala Duncan/Parker/Manu. KD never goes to GS if he’s winning in OKC. We can fix what OKC messed up.
