let's see now. Dirk took his pay cut in 2014. That was 8 years ago...how many of those 8 years was Dallas a contender? Duncan took his pay-cut a decade ago; they won the next season, but they haven't been close to contention since in other words, dumping a super-max deal isn't a path to contention. I'll say again, you guys are focused on the wrong slice of the pie, and this last season proved it: paying Dame 35% of the salary cap is not what has been keeping Portland from contending; what's doing that is paying guys like CJ-Powell-Roco-Nurkic-Nance 70% of the cap
Have we seen any player get out by demanding a trade during his rookie contract? For that matter has any high level player on their second contract been successful with a trade demand besides the one outlier I just mentioned? I also happened to mention that his team had to treat him like shit right after he had a mental breakdown in the playoffs in front of tens of millions of people. So what are the other examples. Allstar Vets demand trades but like I said if the very improbable happened and he did demand a trade after blowing up, we would get a ton of value for him... so the idea that you floated of him just saying "adios" isn't a risk at all. For the record, I'm also riding with Dame.
What a terrible decision, if true. Did Cronin really do all of those trades and shed all of that salary just so he could pay the extra to Lillard? The Blazers will never be a contender with Lillard eating that much of the cap, and he will never be tradeable after he signs that deal. It's too bad so many Portland fans love Lillard more than they love winning.
how often did Portland win without Dame this season? hint: 14 times out of 57 tries. 14-43. In case you're wondering that would be averaging 20 wins a year. Such winning!
Not that I am advocating for trading him, I am not, but I don’t think the objective would be to win next year IF we were to trade Lillard. Using this argument is not a fair one, because the argument your crafting is assuming that we’d have the same roster with Lillard injured as we otherwise would have with him traded. We wouldn’t, and we wouldn’t be wanting to win either in that scenario in this next year.
In @wizenheimer 's defense he was responding to a statement that explicitly made winning and committing to Dame separately exclusive possibilities. You can commit to Dame and winning at the same time, in fact I think our best chance to win is with Dame, gambling on lesser known commodities while exciting is a far worse bet as far as odds go.
I disagree, at least in the context of all the discussions here that being that people keep proposing Dame trades that would bring in players...players like Jalen Brown (very unlikely) or OG Anunoby (most likely) or many other players on that level. I think that's the kind of talent people advocate for bringing in, in no small part because they know the draft capital will most likely stink so then, the arguments are NOT in favor of being a losing team next season. The advocacy is for trading a singular talent for multiple existing talents. The arguments that I've seen have not been for sucking next season and trying to maximize the team's own draft assets. That strategy would at least makes some sense to me
Okay okay okay.... I'm all for debating the merits of playing with or without Dame.... but come on man. We were tanking. We weren't even TRYING to win games. When we did win games, suddenly people would get shut down because of a mystery illness or injury. This is not a good measuring stick.
Who wanted OG for Dame? That is stupidity at the highest level. There were a ton of us that didn't want OG for #7. It would have to be Van Vleet and Scottie Barnes with Vleet going elsewhere.
Yeah it was an extreme response to an even more extreme statement. Wanting to win and wanting to keep Dame aren't in any way, shape or form mutually exclusive and that's the statement that @wizenheimer was replying to. I think it deserves that context. He might have been using a misleading stat but it was just supporting a pretty solid conclusion that Dame isn't detrimental to winning but is actually conducive to winning... it's the uncomplementary casts that Olshey has surrounded him with that have prevented Dame from being the best he could be, not the other way around.
ok...so? some poster actually said some other posters care more about Dame than they do about winning. I want to know how the fuck anybody would know that Portland could win more often over the next 2 or 3 seasons without Dame than with him I know I come across as a Dame apologist but the doom-and-gloom crowd around here are making a hell of a lot more assumptions than those with a little bit of optimism
IIRC it was more coming back than OG, but that more talent was at the same level as OG, or below. Like all of the realistic Dame trades it was trading a dollar for a couple of quarters (at most), a dime, and a nickel
Nah, you gotta trade Dame for someone like Barnes. They may not even do something like that. You need the team desperate to launch themselves into contention. If I were the Blazers I wouldn't hang up immediately on people making offers. Good to know his value if it comes to that.
You don't really have to make assumptions when you have a decade of data to draw from. Paying Lillard a large percentage of the team's salary does not translate into playoff victory. Some people are sick of it, and some people just want to keep Lillard at any cost. If a critical mass of fans would see reality, management would have a lot more leverage every time Lillard asks for more more more or else he will take his ball and go somewhere else. It's a tired act.
