I agree we aren't likely to acquire a player of Dame's calibur but younger in a Dame trade. But we are more likely to have a player that can contribute on a contender in 7-10 year than the 0% chance if we keep Dame. Most likely none of the moves the Blazers can do will result in a championship. But does trading Dame now keep the odds of one in the next few years at 0%? Do the odds of a title 10 years from now rise for 3.5% to 5.5%? That small difference a decade from now is the reason to do a Dame trade. Now I understand some would just prefer we keep Dame and I'm fine with that. But I don't want us to trade away our lottery picks and future assets that reduce that title chance from 3.5% to 0.5%. That's the Olshey plan and what many seem to have reserved themselves to the Blazers doing with certainty regardless of how good it makes the Blazers this summer.
I don't see Dame, Grant and an improved Sharpe as anywhere close to a core as the early 90's Blazers teams. Porter Clyde - Ainge Kersey Buck Duck - Cliff Thats 7 legit rotational guys - and I'd take 6 of them over Grant. I'd take Clyde over Dame. It's like saying the Blazers right now are not so much different than the title winning Warriors.
Grant did, rumors are Jaylen Brown might. I'd say unlikely, but its not a zero % chance. It's not a draw at all to Portland, there is no draw there. Its Dame is viewed highly among peers and Chauncey among many players too.
100%. IF someone "forces" their way onto the team, it'll be a Grant level player. Meaning, meh. And the only realistic hope for the team is to get the #1 pick. Otherwise, it'll be a bad season with us only having Sharpe to keep us interested.
The fact that you throw out an absolute like 0% gives you very little credibility as you spam this thread with the same take. We get it, you want to trade Dame and don't want to try to build around him using the draft picks that we have in this draft and future draft assets. It's a reasonable take... saying that there is a 0% chance that we build a contender around Dame however is not at all reasonable.
Perhaps I should have said 0.2% - would that make it better? I wasn't saying odds of building a contender - I was saying odds of winning a championship. Yeah I think its pretty low the next few years, maybe you think its higher, fair enough. The point I was making is I don't want an irrelevant chance of that in the next few season while drastically reducing the chance 7-10 years from now. I never said I wanted to trade Dame - in fact I've acknowledged many times I'm open to keeping him here forever, he means a lot to this franchise. But it needs to be in a Kobe Bryant/Dirk Nowitzki/Tim Duncan/Reggie Miller role where the team rebuilds with youth and he is just an old veteran along for the ride.
I agree with that. #1 pick is only way this team is compelling - and that 10% chance is legit. Although even if we win it - having Wemba healthy, having him ready to contribute, having other starters healthy and improving, getting the rest of the roster with the right role players are all major hurdles. So its certainly not a guarantee this team is contending with Wemby. But it would be super exciting to try and see.
The lack of imagination here is embarrassing. The fact that so many of you can't fathom a way that this team could become relevant around Dame isn't just lame, it's weird. Of course it's more likely than not that if we go all in on getting vets with our draft assets that we will fall short of a championship but getting a championship by using that strategy is far from impossible. If for some reason that rumor that has very little corroboration is true, that we can send the Bulls 5 second rounders to fulfill our obligation to them... then we could have two picks in this draft and four future firsts all of which we could trade draft day. That's a shit ton of value that we would have to send out. If the rumor isn't true and we would have to give the Bulls a future second just to guarantee them the pick next year, we would still have up to 5 draft picks to deal. If we get lucky and land that first pick we would have at the very least 4 picks that we could still deal to try and get what we need to contend. I think if we keep Dame there is not only a path to contention but multiple paths to contention.
Dude this is what you said: That does not sound like you're trying to keep Dame... even in the capacity that you are now saying you want him in. Duncan didn't have to ever be in that capacity because when he was still young they drafted guys that played behind the guys he was winning with and eventually started on championship teams. Dirk had a team of vets acquired through trades and free agency around him that they brought in to win a championship https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2011.html. Kobe didn't win with the young guys they put around him and he was older than Dame when they started doing that. Reggie had a lot of youth around him that seemingly could have been something special previous to the Malice At The Palace but that is seriously the only thing close to what you are proposing that we do with Dame... if you're not saying that we have "0% chance if we keep" him.
Trying to get this thread back to what it's here for... today's 10 draft simulations have us getting Wemby no times and that means most likely trading the pick with differring amounts of value: 7-7-2-2-7-7-6-8-4-4
If you take some of my statements and extrapolate what you expect from a fan that said it yes you could draw an incorrect conclusion. I'm happy to detail what I believe, but yes one small statement could be misinterpreted. I'm fine with the Blazers keeping Dame if the other moves are done well, I'm fine with the Blazers trading Dame if the other moves are done well. What I don't want is poor execution with either direction. We've had way too much poor execution that has got us to this point. Some fans have now flipped to wanting to trade away lottery pick no matter what we get in return or what the team is like afterwards. I'd consider that poor execution. Yes those other one franchise players all have many differences to their situations. Maybe having Dame retire as a Blazer while making good decisions for the young future of the roster just isn't possible. Again; I'm fine with either direction if its executed well. I consider the Clippers trade, Nurk contract, GPII contract, etc to be poor execution.
I'd say 23 years of roster disappointment building a contender has justifiably reduced some fans "lack of imagination"
Should we even think about 10 years from now? Too many things can happen in that time. Not all players are like Dame and are happy in Portland. Especially young single players. My opinion is we need a no-brainer return if we are moving Dame. There is always some "gamble" with trades, but it should be minimal. If the main return is draft picks that are not in the top 10, then I am not interested. Look at this draft that was supposed to be good....we are not even sure if the 5th pick has any trade value. We need a good proven young player in return plus draft picks. But most young players I want are on teams that don't want to give those players up. Maybe Boston is the exception. I can see Brown getting fed up with playing alongside Smart.
I actually think the reason why the Kings were out of the playoffs for so long was that they were hung up on 5 year plans. It's really hard to pull off a 5 year plan in this league. Too many injuries and young players and draft picks are unreliable commodities. When you couple that with the fact that the longest contract allowed is 5 years, 5 year plans are idiotic for NBA rosters. I really think teams that aren't in position to draft a player they project as a sure fire all star, should be planning for three years at a time while keeping in mind the need to be competitive beyond that point.
Great players are found throughout the draft (Giannis/Jokic). The key is identifying them. Is this what we brought Schmitz in for? But lets just pay him a lot of money and trade all our picks.
Disagree on Clyde over Dame. Dame takes his playoff game to another level. And can carry a team to victory. Clyde wasn't that guy. His shooting wasn't that great other than on drives to the hoop. He had an incredible group of supporting players. Dame's had no where near, that degree of special team around him.
