Just a handful of elite teams

[kjironman1]

(I don't like this "You do realize..." stuff.)

I hate comparing GS with Portland because they've done such a good job, it's sickening. GS went 23-43 and traded Ellis. Next season? 47-35 and a trip to the Western Conference Semis. It's different, see? They took a chance and put themselves in position to succeed. They made it happen.

Houston has been cycling through players looking for the right combination. That's their process: trying. Hell they let Dwight Howard walk.

And you can't deny Ainge isn't active for fuck's sake.

And Toronto is so boring... if that's our future I'm going to be disappointed.

Not at all trying to be condescending.
But what you are describing is years 3-6 of rebuilds. Portland is only just starting to get to those points. They took some chances some are working some didn't. That goes for all of those teams i just named. Portland is no different. They have taken some chances. Some have worked and some have not. They have drafted pretty well. Sure i can name some players after the fact that might have been better but bunches of teams can attest to that. I also think you are way off by not thinking a true 3 and D threat would change this team. When Turner is hitting shots and playing solid defense this team wins. Same goes for Harkless. If he was consistent this team would be rolling. They need that solid wing player to be in games at the end and win. Turner just doesn't seem to fit the best. I really don't think it was a bad move. It was IMO a good move that didn't work out as well as it could have. Look at his numbers for Jan. He played well and the Blazers won. His play dropped off and the Blazers are struggling.

 

[Nikolokolus]

You do realize Golden State made it to the finals 2 times without Durant right. They even won it once.
Then Houston made it to the Conference Finals once without Paul right? It also took them 6 years to get there with Harden. I don't even want to go into the eastern conference because well James.

You do realize that Damian isn't even remotely an MVP caliber player right? He might not even be the tenth best guard in the league. Building around Damian is fine if he were better or if he was the second best player on the team, but he's not, so there's no point in comparing the Blazers' situation with GSW or Houston.

 

[Lukee]

The Warriors are mailing in the regular season. Also, I disagree that Houston has better role players--especially when Jordan Bell returns from injury, Golden State is the deepest team in the league on top of having the most stars, IMO.

You do realize that Damian isn't even remotely an MVP caliber player right? He might not even be the tenth best guard in the league. Building around Damian is fine if he were better or if he was the second best player on the team, but he's not, so there's no point in comparing the Blazers' situation with GSW or Houston.

And Kyrie Irving is MVP caliber player and one who can lead team to championship?

 

[kjironman1]

He might not even be the tenth best guard in the league.

Well that sir is an opinion. One i simply do not care to debate because i cannot say what you feel is wrong.
I disagree. Dame IMO is top 5 because what you have said is "Guard" not "Point Guard". Dame is a PG and a team leader. With the right pieces around him he can bring 50+ wins no question. He already has.....

 

[ripcityboy]

I've noticed that the club just isn't pro-active in trades and that does worry me. There seems this attraction to let the lineup bake. Which is fine, if we were developing players, but outside of Pat, Meyers is dogshit, Layman is worse than that, and Harkless..... well he's decent on D. We had the ability to get a wing in the draft and we both opted for projects.... I'm not saying that, letting time (even everything out) WON'T WORK, I am just saying every successful team has a large amount of roster turnover. It's just a healthy thing to do. We are the equivalent to a sick dog that does it's business behind the shed once in a blue moon.

 

[cmeese47]

And Kyrie Irving is MVP caliber player and one who can lead team to championship?

He is younger and better than Lillard is, he might even be in the MVP conversation but Brad Stevens coaches for balance rather than relying on Kyrie going for 40 a night.

 

[Propagandist]

Okay, good. BUT we are back to where we started: Dame's timeline. I'm saying we haven't shown enough improvement over the last 3 seasons to warrant optimism. Remember Dame talking about playing in the WCF before the 2016-17 season? Now that's laughable.

The (perhaps irrational) tone I'm sporting is because it feels claustrophobic to be painted into a corner. And this is where Olshey has left us, it seems.

But maybe you're right, KJ: maybe I should just look on the bright side. Maybe the verbal and contractual missteps will somehow reveal a plan. Maybe it's all be subterfuge and when Olshey unveils his masterplan--and scoffs at the notion he should've shared it earlier--we'll be halfway on the road to a championship.

If not, when can the alarm be raised? Year 4?

 

[Lukee]

He is younger and better than Lillard is, he might even be in the MVP conversation but Brad Stevens coaches for balance rather than relying on Kyrie going for 40 a night.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[cmeese47]

I couldn't disagree more.

Watch more Boston games then or just look back to the year the Cavs beat the Warriors it was Kyrie doing the work that sealed that series and the only 10 secs Kevin Love ever played defense.

 

[Nikolokolus]

And Kyrie Irving is MVP caliber player and one who can lead team to championship?

Nope, he isn't one either. What's your point? Boston has a much deeper team, coach and their pieces fit together.

 

[ripcityboy]

He is younger and better than Lillard is, he might even be in the MVP conversation but Brad Stevens coaches for balance rather than relying on Kyrie going for 40 a night.

I love Dame. He's got a will to win and dependable dominant game that he's always improved upon. But Kyrie is a star that just explodes. Some of his drives to the hoop are INSANE. But if you look at their numbers they are quite similar. Yet, I don't know if Kyrie has reached his peak yet.

 

[tester551]

You do realize that Damian isn't even remotely an MVP caliber player right? He might not even be the tenth best guard in the league. Building around Damian is fine if he were better or if he was the second best player on the team, but he's not, so there's no point in comparing the Blazers' situation with GSW or Houston.

It's sad that people have such rose colored glasses on that they can't see this.
Dame's very, very good - but he's not a #1 player on a contending team.

 

[kjironman1]

Nope, he isn't one either. What's your point? Boston has a much deeper team, coach and their pieces fit together.

I can name quite a few PG's on Championship teams that were really good but never even mentioned in MVP voting.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I can name quite a few PG's on Championship teams that were really good but never even mentioned in MVP voting.

How many were also their team's leading scorer?

 

[cmeese47]

It's sad that people have such rose colored glasses on that they can't see this.
Dame's very, very good - but he's not a #1 player on a contending team.

Exactly, look at dominique Wilkins he was a great player as well, but he was never close to being a champion cause he didn't have help. That is the team trajectory with Lillard as our number 1, 0 NBA championships.

 

[Minstrel]

I can name quite a few PG's on Championship teams that were really good but never even mentioned in MVP voting.

The point is not whether Lillard reaches the historic standard of the point guard on championship-winning teams. The point is that Lillard doesn't reach the historic standard of the best player on championship-winning teams.

Lillard is a very good player, but he's not the type of franchise superstar that usually heads up title-winners.

 

[kjironman1]

The point is not whether Lillard reaches the historic standard of the point guard on championship-winning teams. The point is that Lillard doesn't reach the historic standard of the best player on championship-winning teams.

Lillard is a very good player, but he's not the type of franchise superstar that usually heads up title-winners.

Well i guess if that's the way you want to spin that then okay. He is one very talented piece of a team that needs another very talented piece. Not sure where you are going with this? Are you saying Lillard isn't good enough so they better trade him because he isn't as good as say Curry with Durant and Green? Or are you saying Lillard is only as good as Parker so they better get another "Franchise" player like Duncan? Or is it that he is not as good as Irving was with Lebron? Derrick Fisher and Kobe? John Paxton with Micheal Jordan?
If you are saying the Blazers need Durant, Duncan, James or Jordan? I guess i can't argue that at all.

 

[Minstrel]

Well i guess if that's the way you want to spin that then okay. He is one very talented piece of a team that needs another very talented piece. Not sure where you are going with this? Are you saying Lillard isn't good enough so they better trade him because he isn't as good as say Curry with Durant and Green? Or are you saying Lillard is only as good as Parker so they better get another "Franchise" player like Duncan? Or is it that he is not as good as Irving was with Lebron? Derrick Fisher and Kobe? John Paxton with Micheal Jordan?
If you are saying the Blazers need Durant, Duncan, James or Jordan? I guess i can't argue that at all.

I'm saying that the team currently doesn't have the kind of superstar necessary to be a true title contender. That's all.

Also, your examples are pretty strange. But he is much, much better than Derek Fisher or John Paxson, so he's got that going for him. Unfortunately, neither of those guys were the best player on their teams.

 

[kjironman1]

I'm saying that the team currently doesn't have the kind of superstar necessary to be a true title contender. That's all.

Also, your examples are pretty strange. But he is much, much better than Derek Fisher or John Paxson, so he's got that going for him. Unfortunately, neither of those guys were the best player on their teams.

I guess we are agreeing. Sure it would be great to have a superstar on the team.
The examples are simply quality PG's that won Championships both recent and in years past. Lillard is what this team has. The original statement was that he was not an MVP. No he is not. Probably won't be but might be in the discussion some day.

 

[Minstrel]

I guess we are agreeing. Sure it would be great to have a superstar on the team.
The examples are simply quality PG's that won Championships both recent and in years past. Lillard is what this team has.

I agree that you can win a title with a point guard of Lillard's ability. I think he compares pretty well with Tony Parker, among your examples. The problem is that you probably can't win a title with a best player of Lillard's ability, except with an unusual team (like the Detroit Pistons, who's best players were Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups and Ben Wallace).

It's just an observation and "it is what it is." Obviously, if Olshey could find a superstar, he would.

 

[BonesJones]

C'mon. Sure they are. If you are trying to go back before Aldridge you are wasting your time. This team is two and a half seasons in the making. they are much improved from last year. No question. And yes they are better than two years ago also.

Easier schedule. Or we really that much better than a .500 team? Barely. We're barely improved.

 

[LayneStaley]

I think the word you guys are looking for is mediocre....as in “The Blazers are very mediocre.”