Yes it is. If we are not tanking we are committing to be middling at best for the next decade. It really is as simple as that. We simply don't have enough talent to do anything else. The cupboards are too bare and our young guys have been hampered enough by not committing to the tank that they don't have any value either. For this team not to tank would absolutely be insane. That would be a terrible decision and whoever made that decision should be fired and never hold another NBA job.
I'm in favor of tanking...this year. I'm in favor of trading some of the vets...as long as they net us actual players with an upside in return. No interest at all in 2030 1st round picks.
Our vets are proven to be incredibly flawed. Anybody we trade them for will be too flawed to help their current team. Trading our worthless vets for other worthless vets doesn't do anything for us. We need to increase the overall level of talent on our team. They will, at best, help us be good enough to miss out on getting real talent in the draft. I want no part of that.
IMO, your vision is too locked in on what you have determined to be the ONE path of only adding talent through the draft. That's too tunnel vision, as the trade for Deni demonstrated. The history of the Blazers shows equal, if not greater, reliance on trades to build their successful teams as the draft. IMO, you're mistaken in your low estimation of the value of guys like Ant, Grant & Williams. The CBA makes trades much harder to pull off than in the past, but it's still a viable path. Our vet assets alone aren't likely to return young talent, but they may provide older vets that fit better or, with the inclusion of future draft picks, young players with upside.
Eventually we can make trades to fill out the roster. The Deni trade was not good (after seeing him play). He's not good enough, and neither are we, to give up 2 draft picks for him right now. I like him, but that was not a smart trade. He is versatile, so that takes the edge off. We're probably a couple years from that being a smart trade, and then only if he fits with who we draft. We really need to be able to take the best player available in the draft and not worry about drafting for position.
I think you have some tunnel vision as well. Do you recall what Portland traded for Grant? A future 1st. Part of the package they sent to the Wiz for Deni was a 2029 1st. Future 1sts are liquid gold in trades that other GMs are willing to give up today for less as they're concerned about winning now and keeping their job. Those picks increase in value as they come closer to being real... buy low sell high or maybe use the pick if it suits them. Accepting that Portland is not winning a championship next year, time is on their side for a true rebuild. Acquiring future picks is one of the paths to potentially achieve that goal. STOMP
Yes we traded a distant first to acquire Grant and two firsts to acquire Deni. That was 3 first round picks traded for vets in less than a year from when those picks were acquired. The old geezers on this forum that totally disregard the value of future draft picks is a totally short sighted way to build a talented NBA roster. Draft picks are the currency needed to create a contending NBA team.
Bro, you still going back and forth with this guy? It's a waste of time, just scroll past or ignore his posts, it will make this place a little more enjoyable
That was already a good trade for a great young player. Unless those picks have equated to anything better, we’re not gonna pencil in untapped potential to mean anything
That's the point. You need as many shots at the draft as possible to pull as much great talent out as possible. This is the situation we are in. All of the teams who successfully rebuild in less than 6 to 10 years (outside of destination markets) have done it by drafting a lot of good players. Not by trading potentially great draft picks for role players. With that trade we have less potential than before we made the trade. That is fine if you already have your team mostly set. I like Deni. He is a solid, solid player. But that is not the situation that we are in. Getting Deni could actually prevent us from acquiring enough talent to be truly competitive by helping us win too many games to do better in the draft while also possibly costing us a #2 pick.
I don't have any problem with trading for picks that fit within the window of Sharpe, Clingan and, maybe, Scoot, but a 2030 pick is six years from this June. Sharpe will be 27 when that pick is drafted. If, like most rookies, it takes that pick 3-4 years of play to know his ass from and NBA hole in the ground, Shaedon is on the downhill side of his career.
That response misses my whole point. Future picks are assets that can be acquired now for less then they'll be worth a year or three from now. The closer to the pick date, the more the pick is typically worth. They don't have to be held onto and utilized by a team whenever said pick comes up, they are also a trade asset that can be used at any point prior like Portland used future picks to acquire vets Grant and Avdija STOMP
Okay, that makes sense. Point taken, but my conversation with Phats was in the context of his stated view of tanking as long as necessary to build a competitive roster through the draft. I agree that first round picks always have value and can be the currency that gets trades done for players who have more immediate impact.
If that's a top five pick that could be the player you need to put us over the top when Sharpe is in his prime (or could be traded for that piece).
No, I've always maintained that we can and should trade picks for players who fit better once we have enough players in place to be a competitive team and as a way to finish filling out the roster. I have never once said that trading should not be a part of the plan. Just that trading away picks right now for role players is not a good plan.
I think we're basically saying the same thing as to your plan. You want to assemble at least "enough players to be a competitive team". I said "tanking as long as necessary to build a competitive roster." I understand from what you said in our earlier conversation in this thread that you intend to make trades for roll players to fill out the roster once the basic roster is set. My only disagreement is that I think that there's a solid chance to get a player or two who might start in the future by trading our vets plus a distant pick. In fact, I think that Deni could very well be such a guy. I know you said he's not good enough. I say he's not good enough yet.
