When have you been less excited for the start of a Blazers season?

I agree with all of this. The only way you keep Sharpe, a Klutch Sports Management client, is to max him out. And even with that, it doesn't mean they won't try to force their way out after signing.

 

If you look at draft history, on average you will get an all NBA player or two if you get five top four picks in a row. You would have to draft historically bad to not do that. And yes, some teams have drafted historically bad and not done that.

But if you just take the people you're supposed to take and tank for 5 to 6 years (and by tank I mean get rid of the vets who when you meaningless games but can't win big games and rely on your youth. Ie, Not coaching or playing to lose games, but build your roster to be young) you will have a talented group that will have the ability to compete if you make smart moves moving forward.

That's not based on opinion. That's not based on desire or anything else. That is based on the opportunity that you will have assuming an average stretch of drafts and that you take the players most people agree you should take.

 

How did they get all that talent? They sucked for a long time. Then they got better management who knew what to do with the talent they had.

But they had to have talent to start.

 

The players are going to take the most money. We can pay them the most money until like year 9. We'll be winning by then.

 

No. Those players will take the most money. And we can pay them the most money until we're out of the losing cycle as long as we do it right.

This is an emotional argument. We need to remove emotion from the equation.

 

And again, we don't need to get the number one. It's not a part of my equation at all. If we did, and we're lucky enough that it's a generational talent, that could possibly speed things up. And that would be fine.

 

I am sure the Pelicans thought the same with Anthony Davis. They gave him max money and he still demanded a trade.

 

Steph was a 7 pick, Klay was an 11 pick, and Draymond was a 35 pick. None were flagged as generational talents at the time of the draft, yet the Warriors made wise picks and assembled the last league dynasty.

Nobody is disagreeing that the draft is the key for building a contender, especially in a small market city. What I, and I think others, are questioning is your insistence on sucking until the Blazers are able to draft a “generational player.” Players identified as top pick generational talents can turn out to be a Duncan or an Oden. A later pick can turn out to be a bust or a Giannis or Joker. I’ll take smart front office staffs steadily picking the best talent available at the pick they do have every single time over a team like the Pistons devoting to tanking and then stupidly picking the wrong guys.

Front offices owe the fans and owners their best efforts to assemble the best team possible. Rebuilding means sucking for a few years. But front offices also owe owners a chance to make money on their investments. Even for rich as hell owners, this is a business, not a hobby. Fielding Detroit-level garbage for five years and still being no closer to contention should get the entire front office canned.

 

Yeah, after 7 years they hadn't done enough. You're going to have to deal with that no matter what. You're going to have a better chance of making them happy if you have more talent on your team.

 

I'm not advocating for any single player. I'm saying we're going to need to be high in the draft 5 or more times during a rebuild in order to get enough talent to be able to be competitive.

A generational talent may speed that up. Some busts may slow that down. But we were so devoid of talent that we need at least another two or three high draft picks to be able to put ourselves in the upper echelon of talent, league wide.

And we're not going to be able to compete unless we have top four or five talent in the league.

After that, you focus on having the best coach the best management making the best moves. But you have to have top level talent before that. Or you're just pissing into the wind.

Any owner that doesn't understand the situation of being a non-destination team and needing to accrue talent for 5 or 6 years during the rebuild is a dumb shit. That is a bad owner. Or, at least an owner who's not really serious about winning.

And keep in mind, Golden State had the wealthiest owner in sports. In California. They spent a long time accruing talent. They had a lot of talent outside of those guys. They had some of the best management and coaching in the NBA.

 

Trading Ellis for Bogut was huge. You also can't expect to get an MVP at 7 like they did with Steph.

As I've said, it speeds things up if you get a generational talent. You don't have to go as deep you don't have to go as long. If that happens, great.

But if you're EXPECTING to get a generational talent at 7 with a couple of cracks at it you're setting yourself up to fail.

I've seen no evidence that we have drafted a generational talent yet. So I see no reason that we should expect to be competing for the play-in after 4 years.

 

NBA ignorance helped to facilitate a Warriors Dynasty.

2009 draft, Steph Curry looked like a dynamo at NC Davidson. 40 point nights, unlimited range. A revolutionary young player. Crazy dimes, pesty steals. Curry was easily a top 3 pick with Harden & Griffin..... Steph fell in the Warriors lap with the #7 pick. THREE guards were selected ahead of Steph. (Evans, Flynn Rubio)

2011 draft, Kyrie Irving #1, then 10... TEN future scrubs were chosen ahead of Pac-12 standout Klay Thompson. It made absolutely no sense. Klay was looking like a Brandon Roy clone at Washington State. 21/5/4 on 40% from deep. The Warriors were already improving with Steph Curry running point, and said "thanks chumps" with their #11 pick Klay Thompson.

 

My point with Golden State all along has been that they are an exceptional case that we shouldn't try to replicate. We are not going to be able to replicate that model. Planning for that is planning for failure.

 

the NBA would have to go on strike if nobody could beat the Warriors. Luckily we still have a league.

 

we're not even supposed to talk Dubs on a Blazers forum. Nate might show up and say "the Warriors Suck", which will start a big fight that we can all laugh at.

 

That wasn't my intention. Though I can see how it could have been interpreted that way.

My whole point with Golden State (who somebody else brought up) is that they were an exceptional case that we shouldn't try to emulate.