Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by Boise Blazer, Apr 19, 2017.
Actually funny joke man, The HCP nailed the win prediction better than every other poster on your fancy forum! Let that marinate FAMS.
Agreed. Except they also have Pop.
Yeah soon Pop, Ginobli, and Parker will retire, Kwai and Aldridge will leave and they will be fucked. A bottom of the barrell team coached by Messina or Hammon
Nurk's 14-6 contributes to us getting to 41 this year. You take him off, we don't get to 41. So it's not exactly + 4. It's 45- (41- Nurk's contribution this year).
I can agree with this; 48-52 wins versus 54-58 wins. Outside of our big three, our team is below average in every respect. Even two slightly above average players would make a huge difference if they support the big three.
I personally think the draft and two years of time will give us one of the two, and we can trade for the other when we're ready.
I think as the team is currently constituted, it's a 45-50 win team. Which is pretty good--they could contend for a 4 seed. They need more talented supporting cast players to push it much above that.
Total bs number but it feels like Nurk netted us about 6 wins; I think we go 8-12 over that stretch without him.
I hope you're right. I'll actually root for LaMarCooch to kill them.
Like I said, I don't even think adding 75% of Nurk's PT is only good for 4 wins.
I'm not overrating him. He's still unproven and didn't win the job in Denver. On the other hand, what he does is balance the lineup, providing defense and inside scoring to complement our lack of D and outside scoring elsewhere.
We were a better team with Plums than without Plums and Nurk, but that's stating the obvious. Nurk also missed 7 games after the injury, in which we went 4-3. We might have won 6 or even 7 of those with him.
Exactly, so we end up with maybe 35 wins if we have Plums and no Nurk.
So next year, estimating that we get to around 45 with a full year of Nurk isn't THAT far fetched. That's nearly 30% more wins. Shoutout to @TBpup for the % stuff.
I believe there next head coach will be my childhood friend Ime Udoka to tell you the truth.
Really over Messina...or the first woman head coach in the NBA Hammon...yeah your right it will probably be Udoka
Im thinking Hammon though. The SPurs will continue to have big time attention with her, but if not could fade away like many smaller markets, but if they get her as HC, then its a trendsetting first that will garner tons of attention the first couple of years.
I hope she gets the job (obviously), because she's good at her job now, and could stretch into a HC gig. But also because no other team would hire her, so she needs San Antonio to promote her from within if we want women as head coaches ever (I know some of the jackals on here are against this, but fuck you).
I am all for it. I think the Uconn coach would slaughter half the NBA coaches with identical rosters. Women coaches are very underrated in my opinion. They just need a shot and a little time to adjust.
A team of receptive and supportive players is important, which is why I feel like San Antonio is her only shot, not because of her skill so much as that the team knows her and would rally behind her. That's important to making other players feel okay with it, which makes more room for other women to move up the ranks too.
Oh god... in 2 years you'll be the next Kingspeed.
There is a flaw in combining Picks with players as incentive to get another team to take said player. Let's use Meyers as an example. He's neither very good, or reasonably paid. In my book he's a classic "Financial Filler" contract for a larger deal. He's the guy you add to an underpaid so you can match salaries for a well paid starter. But trading him alone what we are likely to get is the least of what someone is willing to send, or likely a very similar player. Now we take that a step farther and add a 1st round pick to him to get the other team to pull the trigger. That 1st round pick may have more impact on the game than either Meyers or the Schlep we are trading for. Personally I would rather have Meyers and the Pick than say Aaron Baynes.
In reducing salary we should be looking at bang for your buck kinda trade. Get rid of the biggest problematic salary. Crabbe at least will seem serviceable and what we should be trying to get is a shorter contract in return. Go for the washed up not playing guy and have that team give us a pick instead. Something like Crabbe for Pekovic and a pick. That reduces our salary and continues to add assets for down the road.
Personally the mindset of continuing to shuffle picks away is an awesome tactic to get older faster and reside in mediocrity. We are the youngest team, and we did better than most other young teams, but by being the youngest team we have the luxury of not having to rush. The Cavaliers will fade, Spurs will Fade, Warriors I suspect will have a hard time holding it together. The Blazers need to be poised to say "I got Next".
Separate names with a comma.