Agreed, and the team would be better off going forward. Or, mediocre-to-bad players shouldn't be signed to huge contracts. That also helps. I think we basically agree. The Blazers would have been better off not massively overpaying Turner, Crabbe and Leonard, because they'd have more space now to sign guys like Nurkic, Napier and any other players they happen across that turn out to be actually good. Unfortunately, there is no way to time travel back, so we have to move past it. Good discussion!
Do you seriously not think some people are happy with simply appearing in the playoffs? C'mon man. I agree with your entire post, however we don't have the means to get that great SF, and Olshey isn't creative enough to do so. How do you know it almost happened? Who knows if they even considered our offer. We can get lucky in the draft, but so can any team. I don't have a ton of confidence in Olshey to land the right guy.
He mentioned Paul George, but Melo DID say he was gonna choose us if OKC fell through I think? SO we were somewhat close to nailing that SF. When it comes to making the playoffs, Portland is a pretty spoiled and special team. There are many teams who don't make the playoffs but maybe once a decade. Portland has made the Playoffs like 90% of its existence I believe. I can see how Portland fans want more, but I also see how we actually have it much better than most other teams overall with our success rate. So I understand both sides, but Id still rather be a one and done than a team that doesn't make it but once a decade. I think that's what most are saying when we say it isn't really as bad as it seems. It could be a HELL of alot worse.
Melo is not that SF we need a high level two way SF that can score and play off the ball. Being worse would mean better draft positioning though and it would mean building towards a brighter future.
Okay, just so I can comprehend what you saying: You agree that Olshey has put together 4/5 of a pretty good long term starting lineup (Dame, CJ, Collins, Nurk)? At the same time you think that Olshey (the guy responsible for this team having those 4 guys) isn't creative or good enough to land one more piece to the puzzle? Do you see how that can be confusing and doesn't make a lot of sense?
I'm not sure if Collins or Nurk will be what we need. BUT IF they reach their potential, then we'd need a star SF, which we don't have the cap space or trade assets to get, due to Olshey. He's also shown the inability to multiply assets in order to accumulate the assets needed to make that trade. That's why he's not right for the job. Is that clearer?
As far as the playoffs statement goes, this is how it is: There are people that would rather make the playoffs than to just miss out, to tank, or to be the Kings or Suns. That doesn't mean those people don't want the team to go further and win a title. No one says "My ultimate goal for this team is to watch them get swept in the 1st round, woo hoo!" People can be happy they make the playoffs and also want them to do better. Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Well, he was in a similar situation with little trade assets and no cap space and landed 2 of those 4 guys. So no, it isn't clear. Sounds like you are completely dismissing anything he's done, which is my point all along.
Most definitely, it could be a lot worse. Look at Sacramento or Orlando... However, a lot of us believe it COULD be much better. Using GSW as an example - they were in a "good" to "very good" spot with Jackson with them winning 47 and 51 games in '13 and '14. They still had the balls to make a change to the coaching staff because they didn't believe Jackson had the ability to take them to a championship. I'm looking at the Blazers here, and they are average to good. I don't believe that NO has the ability to take the Blazers to a true contender (based on his 6-year reign as GM). I think a change needs to be made. Things are not terrible, but they could be a HELL of a lot BETTER. Better draft position does not always equal better future.
Just curious, you mention GS who switched out their coach but you then say the Blazers need to switch out their GM. Why isn't it a Stotts problem?
If you look at the NBA you will see that there are basically places where the new market model for how to build a team works.... and doesn't work. The "Hey, lets get at least two or three stars and open a 4 t0 5 year window and fill out the rest with FAs" type place. Portland isn't one of those. Any window for contention is probably going to be really small and towards the ends of Dame and CJ's primes. Also, most likely, when another dynasty has fallen by the wayside. Sort of like what Detroit did when the Celtics and Lakers fell apart. What makes this even harder is that places like Salt Lake City and Sacramento probably a slightly more popular destination with FAs. Which also hurts. No we aren't as lame as Sacramento is, but we exist in the same NBA market place as they do.
I have concerns / issues with Stotts too. But it's something to address further down the line. I like Stotts as a person & all his players defend him. So that's not the place to start IMO. My biggest issue with Stotts is how much freedom he gives his players. I look at Stevens, Pop, & Kerr - and they give players a lot of freedom within the context of the team. If a player does something stupid - the coach gets on their ass. With Stotts I see the freedom, but I don't see enough reigning in when it's needed. I also don't see a focus on getting things EXACTLY right. He's the type that 95% correct is good enough... NO has given Stotts a unbalanced roster the last 2 years. I'd like to make sure the Front Office is set first, before making a coaching change. Besides, most GMs like to pick their own coach
I think Luke Walton dispelled your statement here. GSW wouldn't be where it is regardless of coaching if they didn't balance the roster with Klay and get lucky with Draymond being a second round pick. I don't think the change that took the m to another level was the coach, it was the players.
I don't think he did. Walton simply ran Kerr's system. The Warriors were good defensively but mediocre offensively with Jackson. Jackson ran a stagnant, iso-based offense that didn't take advantage of his players at all. I don't think it's a coincidence that Green broke out under Kerr. Walton kept the machine running, but he didn't create the machine. That said, obviously having great talent matters. But having a coach who can optimize the talent matters a lot.
We'd have missed the playoffs. That's not better off, by any measure. The object is to win as many games as possible. All teams face these problems. In fact, we were able to sign Turner because of Boston's lack of flexibility because of all the cap space they accrued. They couldn't re-sign their own player! Crabbe isn't being paid by the team anymore. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how you're wrong on this. What you seem to fail to realize is that the roster can change at trade deadlines and between seasons. You cannot know that Nurk and Napier and other players who turn out to be good won't be signed.
And then I think there were a ton of us who thought: "well, it doesn't seem that great, had hoped for better, but now that it's done, I hope it works out." Unfortunately it hasn't, and we wish our GM had done better and been smarter.
