Trade Should the Blazers trade for Zion?

Zion. Zioff!

 

why? He's not as good as Avdija and Camara. If the Blazers are trading for Zion, Jones would be the 4th on the forward rotation for the Blazers. By the way, Jerami Grant has a career rebound rate of 7.7%; Jones has a career mark of 7.0%

 

Herb Jones is nice but he’s not the type of player that’s going to change the outlook of the franchise. Zion can do that and Portland needs a franchise guy.

 

The attitude on these boards seems to be championship or bust. The ULTIMATE oft injured player won us our only championship. So, considering that, exactly what has worked well?

 

No, I don’t think Zion, the rain, Voodoo donuts, and strip clubs on every corner is a good combo.

 

The One player that got the Blazers a championship was a fantastic 2-way center.

Zion is a far cry from Bill Walton.

 

Why not trade for Giannis?

He's 30 years old. The Blazers have Bucks picks swaps for 28 and 30 and the Bucks pick in 29.

That would be the ultimate 4D chess by Cronin.

Take away Jrue Holiday and swaps and a pick, give them Dame, and watch them flail in the playoffs in Giannis's prime.

Trade the swaps and pick back to the Bucks for Giannis.

 

We tried that. So, nothing has worked well.

 

The other thing that got the Blazers to the championships in 90 and 92 was making good draft picks and making the trade of Bowie (after 4 seasons) for Buck Williams.
Drexler, Porter, Kersey, started their careers with the Blazers. Duckworth finished his rookie season as a Blazer.

 

We should be building the most young talent possible through the draft and avoiding barely missing or barely making the playoffs if at all possible.

We've never really done it before... It may take 5-7 years, but if you're at all competent you'll likely have a roster capable of competing for championships for a long time. You will have certainly had the opportunity to build that kind of roster.

 

Under normal circumstances, and by that I mean a team of average age, I'd agree with not wanting to barely make or miss the playoffs. However, we have the youngest team in the league, so I think that barely making or missing would be awesome. Especially since I believe we have our starting PG, SG, SF, PF, and C of the future right now.

Let's go full retard: suppose our starting lineup consists of 5 15 year olds, and those whipper snappers just barely miss the nba playoffs. Would we still need to be saved by drafting a "star"? Of course, not.

So, yes, I agree with your sentiment that barely making or missing is very bad, but not for a team this young. You also tend to emphasize that we need to improve the roster, which I also whole-heartedly agree with as well.

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating a "star or bust" strategy. More of a "stack talent deeper" strategy. But yes, absolutely. If your young team is just so good that it can't help but win that many games (without vets who will not be part of the future) then you are in a great place.

 

people keep saying that as if it means a lot...I'm not sure it does when context is added

yes, Portland was the 2nd youngest at 23.8 years, average age. However, Simons, Ayton, and Grant all averaged more than 30 minutes while starting every single game they played. The average age of that trio is 27.9; that's 4.1 years older, on average, than the roster. If you add Thybulle and Timelord, there are 5 players on the roster whose average age is 27.9. If you combine Simons-Ayton-Grant with Avdija & Camara, you probably have 5 of the 6 best players on the team other than Sharpe (Clingan better than Ayton?), and the average age of those 5 players is 26.6; three years older than the roster average

what you 'want' is youth + talent. OKC is only, on average, one year older than Portland and they won 31 more games and just swept an opponent in the 1st round. OKC, Memphis, Orlando, and Houston are all within a year, on average, of Portland, and they all made the playoffs. Six of the youngest 14 teams made the playoffs. 8 of the youngest 14 teams made at least the play-in. Portland wasn't one of them

when the Blazers won the championship in 1977, well back before the one and done rule for college which drug average NBA ages lower, the Blazers average age that season was 24.5. That's only 8 months older, on average, than the current team...and again...they not only made the playoffs, they won the rings

sorted by minutes:



https://nbaage.com/

IMO, the Blazers aren't good enough, yet, that they should de-prioritize adding young prospects. I'm not sure the front office agrees with that though

 

Agree 100%

 

Trade me Chauncy Billups for Jack Ramsay, and then let's discuss your comparison. I think the current team has buttloads of talent on the youthful end. Get us a coach that knows how to utilize them.

 

Not after his first big injury he didn’t.

 

lol....c'mon man.

next season, assuming the team stays the same, they'd be the same average age or even older than those Blazers. You really can't believe that a different coach could take this Blazer team to the 2026 championship....that's nuts

 

My problem with Zion is he cannot stay healthy and some people still see him as a top 30 players in the league -- spoiler warning -- HE IS NOT

Talent wise maybe he is but the reality is his health is such a question mark that he is not and that is a fact. If I am the Pels and I decide to trade him then you want a deal with the following a Top 8 -15 pick and either a Proven low end Star OR someone who has talent but buried behind a vet or something then maybe another solid player as throw in plus maybe a 1st round pick swap.

The thing is they also have to decide if they want to gamble and see IF maybe he can come back and then maybe trade him at the deadline OR does he pull a Robert Williams -- comes back then gets hurt and then his value plummets again.

 

If he was healthy, they wouldn't trade him for 4 picks and 3 swaps. We couldn't get him at all.