Harkless resolves after Crabbe decision?

Yep, that appears to be the most logical choice, but Olshey made zero comments about Turner starting (as jlprk claims). All we've seen is a story out of Boston, after they lost Turner, that was refuted by Turner.

As always, minutes are earned. If Harkless wants to start, he needs to come into camp and prove he deserves it. Simple as that.

BNM

 

There's plenty of room for him - if he outplays Turner and/or Crabbe. At this point, because Mo can't create for himself, or others, and doesn't have a reliable jump shot, Turner is the more likely starter. Crabbe was our leading scorer off the bench last season, has a reliable outside shot and can play the 2 or 3. These players have proven skills, but it's not like either one is a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Mo iss still young and can improve. Hopefully, he's working on his handle and his shot and will come into training camp and give Turner and Crabbe a run for their (considerable) money.

I've never said I don't want Mo back, at the right price. What that is, is up to Neil and Paul. If we can retain him and stay under the LT threshold, it makes sense. Unfortunately, Mo (allegedly) wants more than that, and that's why there is an impasse. Maybe the best option really is for him to bet on himself, take the QO, come into camp, show that he's improved enough to warrant PT and play his ass off all year. If he does that, Terry will find playing time for him and he'll earn a huge, Crabbe-like payday next summer.

BNM

 

the conversation has reminded me of andre miller signing and nate starting blake ahead of him. miller sulked. best player starts. no "promises.

 

OIC. That's fair.

I'm very high on Harkless' potential but Harkless is high if (that's "if") he thinks he's worth anything close to a max contract. He's proven and earned no such thing.

I seem to recall some discussion when we acquired him that he was somewhat immature and entitled, and maybe lacked a bit of understanding of how to earn his role on a team, and he had a tendency to get down. I don't know if that's true, but the current rumors seem to suggest it could be.

As I said I like his potential and I really really hope the Blazers can afford to keep him. But I don't see them mortgaging the future on his potential.

 

Guys Harkless isn't holding out for a max contract so let's just put an end to that discussion.

 

How do you know?

 

Because common sense

 

Everyone thought Tristan Thompson was out of his fucking mind for wanting the max as well. Common sense doesn't always come into play.

 

Didn't it literally come from an article?

 

The difference being that Blake couldn't hold Mo's jock strap. Blake/Roy/Nate had a polyamorous thing going on though so Andre (and any bigs wanting and entry pass or cutters hoping for a bounce pass) was left out in the cold.

 

never in a million years could i have predicted this outcome after LA chose SA. but i wouldn't trade who we are now for who we might have been. so satisfying and enjoyable this and last season's editions of the Blazers

 

i understand the difference, also understand it stunted teams developement in the process. Blazers were a better team starting Dre .best player should start

 

Then what's he holding out for?

 

More money than Portland offered.

 

He'd be dumb not to--worst case scenario he signs the QO,

 

Yep.
And every hour he wastes on this free agency standoff, is that much more time he could use maximizing his focus on improving in the off season, but right now, His thoughts have to be bouncing around, I am sure.

 

I didn't cite a link because it is a well-known report that Turner said he had been told he will start. It has been mentioned on this board several times. Apparently, you wanted a link from me because it was news to you. I assumed you were up on the subject, since you were writing about it in a style of bombastic authority. Your style of certitude makes you look foolish when you're wrong, as in the quote above.

E_Blazer did the homework you failed to do and found that Turner told a Boston reporter July 1 that Turner had been told by the Blazers that he will start. The report didn't name the Blazer person, but who else would tell him that other than Olshey, or Stotts with Olshey's knowledge. I suppose you'll speculate that it could have been a trainer or a secretary, to continue your line that it wasn't Olshey. On July 7, the day of his Portland press conference, Turner told at least one Portland reporter that he had not been told that he will start.

In other words, on July 7, Turner said that he had lied on July 1. Therefore, he either lied on July 1, or July 7. A theory that would make sense is, he told the truth July 1 (why would he lie that he'd been told he will start?), arrived in Portland, and Olshey told him to quietly let slip after the press conference that he had lied July 1, when really he had told the truth July 1, and instead lied July 7.

Without cherry-picked statistics, your only way to save your pompous, bombastic, win-at-any-cost pride is to stick with your insistence that Olshey didn't tell Turner July 1 that he would start...because someone else did. Here's a good out for you: Theorize that Stotts told Turner July 1 without Olshey's knowledge. When Olshey heard that Turner was saying it, Olshey had Turner flip-flop on July 7. That theory could weasel you out of this. There, I helped you save face, which is what you're all about.

July 1--Boston's Mark Murphy

July 7--Portland's Jay Allen