And if we let him walk... And if we sign him to a very large contract... Honestly, trading him now for ANYTHING is better that the alternatives. That's not a slight against him as a player (although he has had a remarkable aversion to bring on good teams). It's just what it is.
Can we bring someone that can dribble the ball and play off the bench? That bench unit sucks. Getting someone like Rubio would be amazing.
In general, I'd see Poeltl as an upgrade over Nurk, and OG as an upgrade over Simons, so I'd most certainly be in favor of a deal like this.
Oh, I see that you're right. I haven't been paying much (any) attention to the Spurs, so I didn't realize.
What’s wrong with Crowder is he too old? If we are going to continue with Dame we can’t be going young all the time. The Blazers will have to be targeting more veteran players.
You're giving a false trilemma. We could re-sign him to a reasonable contract. It happened with Nas (although probably because of his injury history). You're assuming we'll do what we have in the past and bid against ourselves. I don't see the market for him as huge because his value isn't evident when you look at his scoring numbers.
Well, you can’t blame the defense. Only 4 teams have played better defense in the last 10 games. But only 4 teams have played worst offensively..,
Blazers have lost5 in a row and 6 of the last 7 games. In those games they have shot 30.5% on three's and averaged 18 turnovers. What's crazy is that Portland's season average on three's is 37.1% (0n 33.3 attempts) and their average on turnovers is 15.8 if the Blazers would have shot their season average on three's they'd have score 5.5 more points/game. And if you say a turnover is worth a 2 point margin (based upon points/possessions), then Portland would have had close to 10 more points in differentials simply by shooting their norm on three's and taking care of the ball at their normal rate. They would have very likely won all 7 games I'm not really sure how much of that is correctable and by how far. But it does suggest, for the most part, that the Blazers are desperate for one more EFFICIENT facilitator (like a point-guard or point-forward) and one more solid three point shooter. Which kind of looks like a trade deadline target list. I know it probably not as simple as this but here goes: Portland's backup 'PG' in Justice Winslow. Blazers are 3-8 without Winslow. So, he could solve their turnover problem. But he sure wouldn't solve their 3 point shooting problem ******************************************************************************* * Denver is looking pretty strong this season. A lot better than last season. It helps they have Murray back but they really struck gold by trading for KCP. he's shooting 48% on three's this year and he's a good defender. Been a real 3-&-D gem....so far; because just like Grant, he's so far above his norm in 3pt% you really have to believe he's bound to regress. But maybe not by a lot ********************************************************************************* when I was thinking about Blazer turnovers I got to wonder how much a turnover was worth in points for opponent and last points for your team. I realized it could just be quick and dirty math using median points/possessions in the NBA. Before that I asked the question on google and got this result: my first thought was what a miss by google. Then I thought, maybe for Blazer fans watching all of the Blazer turnovers a discussion about liver disease is right on point
So Hart is a guy you build around? Love the guys passion and effort but talent he’s definitely not a guy you build around. If I was tearing down the team I’d build around guys with the most upside Simon and Sharpe. That said if your close to winning championship I’d want a guy like Hart on my team just not as a starter
we’ll sort of did “If they tear this team apart….HART is NOT the player to get rid of.” i get his point and understand why he wouldn’t want to get rid of Hart but if you’re rebuilding you don’t need Hart to be part of the rebuild
