Athletic article on Cronin

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by Mediocre Man, May 19, 2022.

  1. andalusian

    andalusian Season - Restarted

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    12,316
    Likes Received:
    9,549
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Marcos, CA
    I am no CBA expert but I believe a trade can not be finalized until the specific picks traded are defined (it is ok to put a protection on a pick, but it has to be defined what that pick is) - so the options were

    1. Choose between the LAL and NOP picks - and it was reasonable to choose the NOP pick at the time with Zion being out and the expectations that LAL would get better once they got healthy

    2. Have NOP trade both picks which I suspect NOP rejected.

    So, this sounds like a fantasy instead of an actual option. If someone who is better versed in the CBA can show it otherwise, I think this is how trades work in the NBA.

    As for other contingencies - not sure it was possible given the pick swaps that NOP is committed to until 2025, but again, not sure about it as far as the CBA is concerned.

    At the end of the day, it was a reasonable gamble to take and it backfired. Shit happens. I much rather have a GM who is not completely risk averse.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2022
    Voodoo and Phatguysrule like this.
  2. PCmor7

    PCmor7 Generational Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    5,386
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps there's something to that. If that was the case, though, then how could you get the Bucks' pick in 2025? Because that's contingent on the Pels' pick not conveying, too.

    For instance, if the Pels' pick doesn't convey, the Blazers get this year's Lakers' pick. Wouldn't that work the same way?
     
  3. andalusian

    andalusian Season - Restarted

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    12,316
    Likes Received:
    9,549
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Marcos, CA
    That's what I said, they had to name the picks that will convey. They named them based on protection and NOP agreed to 1 pick, this year and if does not convey, the 2025 MIL pick (that's still 1 pick). I suspect they were not willing to commit to 2 picks - and you probably can not do a protection and fallback for the same year on multiple picks - I have never seen that done.
     
    Phatguysrule likes this.
  4. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus They don't do much, you know Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    28,605
    Likes Received:
    34,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trades have "best available" provisions on picks all the time. Why couldn't they have done that here?
     
    Propagandist and SlyPokerCat like this.
  5. wizenheimer

    wizenheimer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    13,981
    Likes Received:
    21,845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think that a reasonable alternative option could have been a trade for the better of the Pels and Laker picks this season, both top-4 protected. But it's possible that was actually discussed and Cronin decided the Milwaukee pick had a much better chance to convey

    quite a bit of hindsight to that 2nd guessing because at the time of the trade the Lakers were only 1/2 game behind LAC for the 8th seed and AD had just come back from injury. They were, IIRC, the 14th seed at the time and the Pels only possessed that pick if the Lakers collapsed all the way into the top-10. Dropping from 14 to 8 was a fairly historic collapse. In other words, if Cronin assumed the Milwaukee pick had a better chance to convey it seems like a solid assumption
     
    blazerfan11 and Phatguysrule like this.
  6. Tince

    Tince Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    7,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You actually just made my third bullet point (which you left out in your quote) for me by saying LIKELY return of the pick. I agree with you that the Blazers were likely to get the NOP pick, but they didn't. So the trade that was made had high probability and the Blazers got unlucky, which shouldn't count as a bad move when the percentages were in their favor. Right?

    The bullet point you quoted is accurate though. The Blazers never had the NOP's pick, just a high probablility of getting it. No different than the year we had the worst record in the NBA, with a high probablility of finishing top 3, and ended up with the 4th pick. Bad luck.
     
  7. Tince

    Tince Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    7,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you think the NOPs pick was likely to convey when we made the trade? If so, it's not the trade you're upset with, it's the bad luck. It's the Lakers collapsing and it's PG13 getting covid the day before the game, when basically nobody was missing games due to covid at that point. And even then, NOP barely won the play-in game.

    An extreme example would be, if I told you that you could bet me $1 and in bag there were 95 green ping pong balls and 5 red ping pong balls. If you pull a green one, you win $20, but if you pull a red one, you win nothing. I'm guessing you'd take that bet (if you're decent at math). Now, if you pulled a red ping pong ball, that didn't make your wager bad, it just means you got unlucky. It doesn't mean your risk failed, it means you were misfortunate.

    A coach who draws up a great play, to get their best shooter a wide open 3ft shot, who ends up missing, doesn't mean the play failed, it means on that individual circumstance went against the probability.
     
    RR7 likes this.
  8. Predator

    Predator The Godfather

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2021
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Dubai
    Just because we didn’t get a top 4 pick doesn’t mean Joe Cronin made the “wrong” decision by tanking. It still increased the value of our pick. And I’m not some Joe Cronin apologist (look at the avatar).

    Side note: “All” the talent is not in the top 4 picks and I would almost call anyone who actually believes that incredibly stupid. I will *guarantee* that in 5-10 years that there will be a player drafted outside the top 4 where people go, “how was he picked at number x?” and players outside the top 10 would be drafted in the top 10 in a “redraft”.
     
  9. Bingo Bango

    Bingo Bango Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2021
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Oh, please. Let’s just admit that Cronin gambled and lost. It was a dumb trade and he came out looking dumb. Period. The guy doesn’t know how to do deals.
     
    SlyPokerCat likes this.
  10. AmirIcon

    AmirIcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,460
    Likes Received:
    3,109
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Writer, Director, Actor
    If he trades 7 for Grant, he'll be adding to this.
     
    Tince likes this.
  11. Predator

    Predator The Godfather

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2021
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Dubai
    If he even suggests trading 7 for Grant he should be fired, on the spot.
     
    blazerkor and Tince like this.
  12. Tince

    Tince Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    7,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They wouldn't call it gambling if you always won, would they?

    If you were one of the guys who got excited about the super low risk forward swap outs over the last 4 years, then I can understand why you would not be happy with a new GM taking a risk. Nothing wrong with that at all. I liked making the playoffs and wasn't near as upset others were with our lack of contending moves. I was simply pointing out your flawed logic.
     
    Wheels likes this.
  13. Tince

    Tince Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    7,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Straight up, that would be a bad trade, no doubt. Easily would be his worst move of the 2 he's already made, plus that one.
     
  14. Predator

    Predator The Godfather

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2021
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Dubai
    Do people not realize we got an “immediate” impact rookie at #6 who might be the best Blazer of all time when it’s all said and done?

    Trading the 7th pick for Jerami Grant would be so, so dumb.
     
    AmirIcon likes this.
  15. blazerkor

    blazerkor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    8,406
    Likes Received:
    8,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is it wasn't like he missed swinging for the fences he made a low reward, high risk move with good odds that went against the odds. That's just not something I can be cool with. If he was trying to knock it out of the park and missed, it would still be bad but I'd understand but he struck out trying to lay down a bunt when we needed at least an extra base hit.
     
    WesleyMatthews likes this.
  16. wizenheimer

    wizenheimer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    13,981
    Likes Received:
    21,845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and he traded a low-reward/bloated-salary player for that pick, so it was a good swap

    and you're all over the place. If that draft pick was really a "low-reward" you wouldn't be so pissed off about losing it
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  17. blazerkor

    blazerkor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    8,406
    Likes Received:
    8,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but I think you know where I'm at on all of this and it's not all over the place. I think that for what we sent out we aimed to get a little less than fair value but close, what we ended up with when we got unlucky was far lower than fair value. So yeah that has me thinking that Croinin did a shitty job instead of the mediocre one he tried to do.
     
  18. Tince

    Tince Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    7,181
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think the odds of the NOPs making the playoffs were high at the time? I don't recall that being the narrative back then, nor did the analytics ever suggest they were likely to make the playoffs until the 2nd half of the 2nd play-in game. They were dogs even after PG13 was ruled out. Not sure how you can consider the NOP pick not conveying a high risk, low reward move.

    In a more general discussion we can talk about the value (or lack there of) for CJs and Norm's contracts, but we were talking about the probabilty of the NOP pick becoming ours, so I'm trying to stay away from that topic of CJ's market.

    I would be surprised if the Blazers front office thought getting out of $80m worth of salary was a strike-out at all. Though it's hard to grade the trade until the TPE and pick is conveyed. There is a chance I'll grade it an F, but it's without a doubt an Incomplete grade right now. If forced to grade it, I'd say C- at this point.

    You don't get to make a long history of overpriced signings and pissing away 1st round draft picks without paying a price at some point. Cronin was in the front office during the signings, so I give him minor blame for that as well. Though it seems like he really wanted out of many of Olshey's deals once he was in control.
     
  19. blazerkor

    blazerkor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    8,406
    Likes Received:
    8,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry I didn't explain that well. I would be cooler with something that was medium risk, high reward or low risk, medium reward but this was low risk, neutral reward that became low risk, negative when the pick went from a late lotto pick this year to a pick three years later from the team with the best player in the game who is still 27 and will be under contract the season that will determine that pick.

    It's just a huge drop in value when I didn't think the value was that good to begin with. When we were trading our second and probably fifth best players on a playoff team for the fourth best player on a lotto team and the pick that took that turn. It was a neutral to slightly negative trade if the Pelicans 2022 first round pick would have conveyed and it's a fucking terrible trade now that it's the Bucks 2025 first round pick.

    This isn't a hard concept to understand. Cronin took a risk but the risk wasn't to make some kind of monumental gain, the risk was to get back to close to net even. The risk failed and we went from close to net even to a very negative result. It's just a big failure and it's not a big failure that opened up all kinds of cap room because in order to do that we have to let valuable players go. If we keep the players then we traded CJ and Larry for Hart and a pick when Dame will be close to his decline and will likely be very late in the first round. So there is no cap space, there is no draft capital to make the TPE valuable, it's just CJ and Larry for Hart and the Bucks 2025 first. For me that's inexcusable especially when coupled with Powell and Covington for Keon and avoiding the repeater tax.

    I hope Cronin is an alchemist and can turn chicken shit into chicken salad. I really want us to utilize the pick we got from tanking, the TPE and the Bucks 2025 pick to upgrade both starting forward spots. If that happens then I'll gladly say that Cronin got unlucky but he had a backup plan that helped the team recover. If not I'll be fucking pissed. I don't think my reaction is in any way illogical but I do think people bright siding it like Cronin had no choice but to take a risk with no actual reward an no actual backup to make things even is very illogical.
     
    Tince likes this.
  20. wizenheimer

    wizenheimer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    13,981
    Likes Received:
    21,845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what I saw you do was explicitly frame the Pels trade as: "low reward, high risk"

    c'mon man...that's just false. We can debate the actual level of 'reward', but a 9-11 pick, Louzada, 21M TPE, 3.3M TPE and 75M in salary relief for CJ & and injured (again) Nance is not a 'low' reward by any realistic gauge.

    the bigger issue is calling the risk high. We 'knew' at the time of the trade there was a much better than even chance that pick would convey. What were the odds at the time? 80%? That's actually low risk, not high risk, and it took a nearly perfect storm of bad luck to screw the Blazers out of that pick

    I know you think Cronin sucks as a GM. That's fine. But framing that trade as low-reward/high-risk is not a logical argument
     

Share This Page