If the team is sold any time soon they'd be fools to sell it before the TV deal drives up the price in the summer of 2025. That's a long time to be in a holding pattern.
Yeah, but don't hold your breath. They are going to try and up the value of the team as much as possible before it goes up for auction. Meaning put as competitive of a team around Dame as possible without breaking the bank.
If that's the result of this, but with legit hope for improvement because the roster is better constructed, I'm all for it.
Could be... Hopefully we get better ownership at that point. But 52 wins would be the 4 seed this year...
Yep, but Billups wants better defense an Dame wants to win a title. Neither was happening with that group. With the reset there is a chance we could get lucky. Dame wasn't coming back without changes and the team will be worth more with Dame on it than without him.
Why pay him when you don't have to? Maybe he wasn't willing to tank? And then what do you gain? There is no market for him and now he's the 4th guard? And you're paying $20 million for him for 4 more years? Makes no sense.
except for Dame's abdomen they were at "full strength" and were 10 games under .500 in January. Either full strength was an illusion or the difference between 50 wins and 35 wins all rests on Dame. I kind of think we knew that though but what's your point? Did you want another reboot of the same dead-end rosters the Blazers rebooted for the 6 previous years?
This is terrible logic. It's like saying everyone who's ever been married made the right decision because they didn't ask anyone else who said "yes" to marrying them. Just like bad marriages sometimes happen, bad trades sometimes happen, too. There's a ZERO PERCENT CHANCE that every NBA trade made by every NBA GM in history has been the best possible deal for their teams. And yet you treat the mere existence of the deals as evidence that they're the best he could have done. We don't know (a) that he talked to every team, (b) did a good job negotiating with every team, (c) and/or properly judged the values of assets other teams were offering him.
Because you can't get anything for him at that point. Why not wait? You can always get nothing for him later, but there's a chance that something might change and you can get more than nothing for him down the road.
Which is why I've said we just don't know. There was no other obvious trade out there that was much better for us and another team would agree to. There is no evidence of interest for those players so it's not logical to assume it was there. Please find any trade proposal from another team's forum (or newspaper) that would have been as good as what we got. Then let's see how that proposal was viewed by their fans or other personalities. Better trades both teams would agree to don't exist for those guys. I listened to a ton of podcasts with other cities radio personalities and experts etc. Nobody was offering anything we'd want for CJ. Nothing that would improve the team. Hart was about the best, but that's just a marginal improvement at best (if you count on addition by subtraction and better fit, etc). Well, Simmons was the best high ceiling option, but Philly wasn't interested in that at all.
Because you had a mandate that you had to get under the cap so we didn't pay the repeater tax. Keeping those guys just to keep them wasn't an option.
Perhaps people were just convinced that if those were the "best" trades available, then the team would have been better off not trading those players. Or, alternately, that if those were the best trades that our fledgling GM was able to negotiate, then he was vastly deficient in his negotiation abilities. Or perhaps there were better options he never discussed or proposed because he wasn't creative enough to conceive of them. I don't think perspectives on the trades are necessarily as binary as you tend to imply.
I have yet to see a trade proposal for those guys that would be better for us, get us under the cap, and be acceptable to the other team.
The first criterion is purely subjective, and last is completely speculative. I've seen several that I believe would fit that description, even if you disagree.
