I agree with all of this, actually. I was putting 42 not as a goal for next season but for the Scoot era. We aren’t winning 32 next season let alone 42. I’m just operating under the assumption (backed up by your data in fact) that we will fail utterly to improve the team enough to compete. We do need to do everything you say to improve! You are 100% correct; I’m just short circuiting the desire/disappointment cycle and accepting our failure now.
Unfortunately, if this organization wants to win a championship in the next decade, they probably NEED to be bad next year. History shows they need at least a top 15 guy down the line, and it's hard to have a ton of confidence in anyone on this roster or anyone in the Blazers draft this year who will become that. They seem at risk of getting stuck in purgatory again.
Actually NBA purgatory is one of the only things I don't fear at all right now. This team is so far away from entering the purgatory group ... we don't have to worry about that for many years. Haven't thought that for basically ever as a Blazers fan... outside maybe the 2 years prior to Roy.
So you are guaranteeing that there will be a difference maker at #6? Because even this year that is the spot that we have the biggest odds of ending up at. I don't mean a good player, but one that in another 3-4 years will make us a contender? Our fan base barely survived the last couple of years. More tanking will take a toll. https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds
Dude, I get it and didn't mean to dogpile on you (get it? "Everything Beagle"?) I used to be vehemently anti-tank, because I thought it you can get a team capable of making the playoffs, you just need to get some luck to make a splash in the playoffs, and if you consistently fielded a team that won ~50 games, occasionally you'd spike at the right time and make some noise. But then PatterNash showed me that treading water effectively in the NBA is hard, and I think min-maxing is the way to go in most situations for franchises.
That's a misleading way of showing that information... since the odds of getting better than #6 is about two out of three. If I had a 2% chance to die in child birth and then a 1% chance to die every year thereafter, it's true that I'm most likely die when I'm born even though I'm almost as likely to live to 98 years old. Also, not to speak for BoneJones, but I think adding a fourth lottery pick is much more likely to being a difference maker even if he's the same level of prospect as earlier lottery picks. It will make it more likely for the team to weather a bust (injury or otherwise) from those top prospects, and it will allow for the better players to bump others down. Right now, we only have two prospects of consequence (Scoot and Sharpe) and we learned how irrelevant to winning one or two of those guys is this year. We need more prospects and to let the chips fall where they may.
Yowza. Can't we all just get along? I feel like most of us were on board together when we had Batum, Rudy, Sergio, Bayless, Roy, Aldridge, Oden etc. Then most were happy with Dame until the later years. But holy moly. The fan base is in shambles right now with disagreements.
I consider Ayton a pretty good prospect at just 26. So now we need two more young starters. I acknowledge that next year's draft has a few players who are better than anyone in this draft....if you get lucky enough to get one. There is a lot of luck involved. I also think there are prospects this year that have the potential to help us after a couple of years. So if the goal is to add to who we have, then this draft can help achieve that since we have two decent picks. I don't think it is wise to intentionally tank again next year. If we suck at the all-star break then fine tank and try to get lucky. But not from day 1. It is not fair to the season ticket holders or the players.
Just trade Ant, Grant and Brogdon then Portland does not have to try to tank. They should try to win every game minus those guys running the young guys and Ayton like OKC did. Players will be playing to win and still most likely ending in position next draft to get a difference maker.
It's far more punitive to not finish a proper rebuild and let season-ticket holder wallow in mediocrity at-best for the next 10 years. And who cares about the players....they sign contracts and get paid millions. I'm not gonna mention what I would do to get paid millions... Intentionally tanking again next year is definitely wise, no question.
You are obviously not a season ticket holder, because all the ones I know bank on selling some games to help pay for their season tickets. They could not give them away this year. As for "who cares about the players"? You might want to think that one through. The good ones (and their agents) hold all the power.
Ayton, Sharpe, Scoot. 3 starters. I’ll go with that. Forwards needed. Back-ups aren’t the issue. I like Grant, Ant, Matisse, and Brogdon. … and Time Lord if he could stay healthy. Please trade them for youth and draft capital and short term contracts.
I hate the term, "tanking". Why?...because it is used very widely, and holds no nuance. Is any instance of team play that does not use every option player wise (coaches decision) that a fan feels they should have used....then tanking? Is is agreed upon? Premeditated? All coach inclusive? Player inclusive? Activated after a game loss milestone is reached? Used with trade scenarios in mind? Used with contracts in mind? I'll guaranfarkingtee that a well thought poll would render wildly different opinions on what it is. THAT is why I hate it. Before someone brings the whole, "Anything less than full effort by the coaches and players is tanking"......I would remind that no team in the NBA gives full effort all season. I have seen games where the Blazers were not playing players where I think they should have if they wanted to win. Is there a point in any season where wins at the cost of players long term health is not worth as much as getting rare exposure and development of tail end roster players? I have also seen games that I thought were those types of development games, and everyone just throws out the tank card. I watched quite a few players on this roster acquire significant experience this year that will either pay big time down the road, or quicken information about moving on from them.
I mean, that comes with the territory. I'd have to think season ticket holders can reap the rewards when we are good and demand is high, right? Some years are better than others. I know Beavers fans that were able to sell Huskies tickets and Ducks tickets to pay for most of their seasons the last couple years. Probably not gonna be like that anymore unless they get an invite into a conference in the next two years. If you keep the Season Tickets, that's a risk that person takes.
As I understand it, that's just preliminary. The tiebreakers are determined by the ping pong balls. The team that randomly gets an extra ping pong ball gets the 3rd spot. It only makes a tenth of a percentage point difference of grabbing the first pick (13.3% vs. 13.2%).
I'm with you. I would say that if it adds enough value in terms of youth or draft capital that maybe some bad long term contracts would be smart for us to consider as well.
We need two starters? You make it sound like we have 3 great proven starters locked up. Scoot and Sharpe are nice potentially if they make large developmental improvements, but they're currently no more set as a legit starter than the draft pick in a few months or the following pick a year after.
