This is precisely where the Blazers are at: a nice little team who'll make the playoffs—then promptly ousted by the legitimate Western powers. Neil is satisfied with this approach, and was borderline gleeful about this position in his end of the season presser. Another aspect that goes against Neil's philosophy: creativity and knowing how to use assets over impulse. This is how this team got anchored with Turner and Meyers. If you factor in his targets that he failed to get, it'd be so much worse: Parsons/Melo/Monroe/etc. In short: FIRE NEIL — HIRE HINKIE!
I’m sorry, but this is just so much horse shit. If you want to understand Olshey’s theory of team building just look at what he did with the Clippers in the Chris Paul trade. You can bet he’s on the lookout for another deal like that for the Blazers, even if it involves moving CJ. Here’s a good article on what it took to make that trade happen. http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/david_aldridge/12/19/art-of-chris-paul-trade-to-clippers/
Nope, drafting well ruins the whole thing unless somehow those players are injured and sit out their whole first year only to become studs later on.
They're doing this with Embiid, Simmons, and no other top draft picks. So drafting the right guys at the top 2 years in a row and surrounding them with the right role players is all it is.
For us, it's always the missing piece. Neil thought Turner was the one. Neil thought Meyers could be the one. I just can't appreciate a multi million dollar deal for bench guys that play an average 6-12 minutes a game. Turner had opportunities to start and succeed but he is no "go to" guy. We drafted Swanigan and I thought he could have immediate impact. No. Collins surprised me and is an affirmation of our draft success.
No they drafted Embiid who didn't play for his first two seasons and Simmons who didn't play his first season. If Embiid plays his 2nd year they aren't bad enough to get Simmons. They also made some shitty picks and wasted high picks like Noel and Okafor. If either of those are better players then they don't have Simmons and Embiid either. Also Saric didn't play for 2 years. It was the perfect shitstorm and impossible to duplicate.
I'm not sure about that, Embiid as a rookie with that trash team? They were so bad they still could've had #1. If Noel and Okafor were as good as their draft spot they wouldn't need Simmons, and could've cashed them out for someone like Simmons.. They drafted Saric because he wouldn't play. You could easily select a Dzanan Musa and replicate that.
I think you are missing a year. Embiid's rookie year they won 18 games without him and two teams finished worse. The Lakers moved up into the top-3 otherwise their pick would've gone to them that year instead of converting this year. They really wanted DeAngelo Russell and may have gotten him if things broke differently and they might have also gotten the Lakers pick too so they probably would've been a lot better the year before they drafted Simmons too with potentially two high lottery picks and Embiid all playing in their 10 win season instead of Okafor.
That might happen in Los Angeles once per generation, but in Portland once a century. I'm sorry, but Chris Paul isn't walking through that door. Our future GM will just have to make smart profitable trades, since Olshey has proven he lacks the talent.
Except your neglecting the other 6 years they sucked. They’ve have 5 top 5 picks in 8 years. Are you willing to tank for 10 straight years pretty much?
Two of those top 5 picks they have away for easily nothing, and another one barely played this year. You leave out the context of the situation.
DeAngelo Russel doesn't have an impact on winning games, and Porzingas is just as good as Simmons, if not better. If things broke differently it wouldve been very likely they had the 4th pick, and wouldve taken Porzingas so...