Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1

Post Reply
User avatar
pezsez1
All Pac-12
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:30 pm
Location: RIP CITY

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by pezsez1 »

I think a big piece of it is that free agents just aren't interested in Portland. It's never going to be a free agent destination, so it's a lot like Sacramento in that way. They aren't going to be able to attract top free agents, so they have to gamble and hope draft picks work out and those guys want to stay. I think that's been a big piece of the franchise being tied to Lillard. There just aren't many stars that are going to be willing to stick around.
Yep, this. Anyone who mentions free agents as a viable part of our long-term strategy shouldn't be in this convo. It's just not realistic. Geez could be our point guard (or maybe an assistant coach, since Geez probably couldn't hoop) and dudes still wouldn't come here.

Why do people think we're doomed to NBA Purgatory with Dame here? The Blazers haven't made a serious trade to help him out since he got here. Blame Olshey for that, or blame Jodi, whatever. We have the assets to possibly make that happen now and the option can't be overlooked.

Also, my argument stands whether Dame is the first, second, or third-best player in franchise history. You're all attaching unrealistic expectations on a sophomore and a dude who isn't even a rookie yet.

A rebuild would be exciting, but don't expect us to do much better than we might possibly do by keeping Dame and trading for help.
Willie Taggart is a dick.
User avatar
dd10snoop28
Senior
Posts: 4815
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:06 am
GM: New Jersey Nets GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by dd10snoop28 »

pezsez1 wrote:
I think a big piece of it is that free agents just aren't interested in Portland. It's never going to be a free agent destination, so it's a lot like Sacramento in that way. They aren't going to be able to attract top free agents, so they have to gamble and hope draft picks work out and those guys want to stay. I think that's been a big piece of the franchise being tied to Lillard. There just aren't many stars that are going to be willing to stick around.
Yep, this. Anyone who mentions free agents as a viable part of our long-term strategy shouldn't be in this convo. It's just not realistic. Geez could be our point guard (or maybe an assistant coach, since Geez probably couldn't hoop) and dudes still wouldn't come here.

Why do people think we're doomed to NBA Purgatory with Dame here? The Blazers haven't made a serious trade to help him out since he got here. Blame Olshey for that, or blame Jodi, whatever. We have the assets to possibly make that happen now and the option can't be overlooked.

Also, my argument stands whether Dame is the first, second, or third-best player in franchise history. You're all attaching unrealistic expectations on a sophomore and a dude who isn't even a rookie yet.

A rebuild would be exciting, but don't expect us to do much better than we might possibly do by keeping Dame and trading for help.
All teams with record > .537 and method of acquiring their best players.

Draft/Trade:
Brown
Tatum
Jrue
Giannias
Middleton
Embiid
Harden
Mithcell
Garland
Jokic
Murray
Morant
JJ3
Fox
Sabonis
Durant
Booker
CP3
Ayton
George
Curry
Klay
Draymond

FA:
Randle
Brunson
Kawhi
Butler
Image
User avatar
Boom
All Pac-12
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Houston Rockets

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by Boom »

I think you have to draft and keep whoever is available at #3. That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to trade Lillard. You could still improve the roster by trading Simmons. He’s probably easier to move anyways.
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37589
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by UOducksTK1 »

^^ Also 3 of those 4 guys that did change teams via FA route were to the LA and NY markets.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Another reason I think its time to move on from the Lillard era: Chauncey.

Even if you go out and build a decent roster by trading #3, moving Ant/Nurk, etc you still have Billups coaching the team and so far, I've not been impressed with his ability as a HC.
Image
squintsdd
Sophomore
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:39 am

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by squintsdd »

Duck07 wrote:Another reason I think its time to move on from the Lillard era: Chauncey.

Even if you go out and build a decent roster by trading #3, moving Ant/Nurk, etc you still have Billups coaching the team and so far, I've not been impressed with his ability as a HC.
I'll agree with this. I was originally enthusiastic about a defensive minded head coach, but there hasn't been much improvement
User avatar
pezsez1
All Pac-12
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:30 pm
Location: RIP CITY

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by pezsez1 »

I feel like Billups deserves a whole new thread. I don't think it's fair to judge his coaching abilities based on two seasons in which we were tanking for nearly half of that time.

The first season was absolutely a throw-away year with Dame needing surgery and so many starters being traded away. Last year was a bit more real -- at least the first 3/4 of the season, before we started tanking -- but even then we had so many injuries to key rotation players. Nurk's injuries were extremely underrated, imo, simply because of the glaring lack of size across our roster. I don't think anyone would have done substantially better with the same roster and circumstances.

I also think Billups brings a different culture than Stotts and that may rub a few players the wrong way (cough cough Nurk cough cough). Last season we saw Billups bench Nurk a few times after lackluster efforts, and often that was followed by Nurk having really good games... but Nurk sure seemed to regress over the course of the season.

Definitely agree though that if the organization wanted to go all in on winning now then it would hire a proven winner as head coach. No point in making a move though if Dame ends up leaving and we go into full rebuild mode. I can't imagine any high-caliber coaches wanting the negative attention of coaching a lottery-bound team for at least two or three years. I also can't imagine Jodi spending big money on a coach for a roster rebuild -- just wouldn't be great business. Might as well let Billups ride out his contract at that point.
Willie Taggart is a dick.
buckmarkduck
All-American
Posts: 10565
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
Contact:

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by buckmarkduck »

I’m not wanting to lose Dame, but we have to draft at 3. It sounds like Scoot will be available, and I’m not interested in watching him kill it somewhere else for the next decade, just so we can keep Dame happy. Dame has about 4 years tops of high production

Chauncey isn’t a good coach, fire the guy. Can’t hire coaches based on playing careers
User avatar
pezsez1
All Pac-12
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:30 pm
Location: RIP CITY

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by pezsez1 »

It's tough, because the FOMO over Scoot could just as easily result in watching Dame go someplace else and winning a title or two with a roster that isn't massively flawed.
Willie Taggart is a dick.
User avatar
Boom
All Pac-12
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Houston Rockets

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by Boom »

pezsez1 wrote:It's tough, because the FOMO over Scoot could just as easily result in watching Dame go someplace else and winning a title or two with a roster that isn't massively flawed.
Who are you trading #3 for that's going to turn the team into a contender?
User avatar
Tray Dub
All Pac-12
Posts: 5004
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by Tray Dub »

pezsez1 wrote:It's tough, because the FOMO over Scoot could just as easily result in watching Dame go someplace else and winning a title or two with a roster that isn't massively flawed.
Why would that be a bad outcome? Dame is plenty good enough to win a title; the Blazers are decidedly not. If he wins a title somewhere else, that obviously doesn't mean he would've won one here.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

Boom wrote:
pezsez1 wrote:It's tough, because the FOMO over Scoot could just as easily result in watching Dame go someplace else and winning a title or two with a roster that isn't massively flawed.
Who are you trading #3 for that's going to turn the team into a contender?
Conversely, are you really going to trade Dame if Scoot isn't available and the team takes Brandon Miller? Or is taking the next best PG in Amen Thompson the route at #3?

IF there's a 3-way deal that nets the Blazers OG for essentially Ant+23, a starting lineup of Dame/Thybulle/OG/Grant/Nurk with a bench of FA PG/Sharpe/Miller/Watford/FA Center, that seems like the best package you could put around Dame that also plays the long-game with Sharpe/Miller in the scenario where Scoot goes #2.
Image
User avatar
Boom
All Pac-12
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Houston Rockets

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by Boom »

Duck07 wrote:
Boom wrote:
pezsez1 wrote:It's tough, because the FOMO over Scoot could just as easily result in watching Dame go someplace else and winning a title or two with a roster that isn't massively flawed.
Who are you trading #3 for that's going to turn the team into a contender?
Conversely, are you really going to trade Dame if Scoot isn't available and the team takes Brandon Miller? Or is taking the next best PG in Amen Thompson the route at #3?

IF there's a 3-way deal that nets the Blazers OG for essentially Ant+23, a starting lineup of Dame/Thybulle/OG/Grant/Nurk with a bench of FA PG/Sharpe/Miller/Watford/FA Center, that seems like the best package you could put around Dame that also plays the long-game with Sharpe/Miller in the scenario where Scoot goes #2.
As long as they can package Ant for a decent wing or maybe Ayton then they shouldn't have to trade Dame regardless who they draft at #3.
User avatar
pezsez1
All Pac-12
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:30 pm
Location: RIP CITY

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by pezsez1 »

IF there's a 3-way deal that nets the Blazers OG for essentially Ant+23, a starting lineup of Dame/Thybulle/OG/Grant/Nurk with a bench of FA PG/Sharpe/Miller/Watford/FA Center, that seems like the best package you could put around Dame that also plays the long-game with Sharpe/Miller in the scenario where Scoot goes #2.
I think you could do this same kind of thing with Scoot while still keeping Dame. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think this might be the best option.

Dame/Sharpe/OG/Grant/Nurk
Scoot/Thybulle/Little/Watford/FA Center

I'd rather see Sharpe than Thybulle in the starting lineup regardless because he's ready for the minutes, and he won't grow as fast without them. Sharpe could actually end up being the second all-star on our roster, but we won't know for certain until we let him run.

As for Scoot, our second unit has needed a real backup PG for years now and he'd fit the bill nicely. He could also play in a hybrid role in relief for Dame and Sharpe, so he'd get plenty of minutes.

I also like this lineup because:
- We don't have our small guards starting alongside each other.
- Both lineups get better defensively
- Nurk is relegated to the fifth scoring option, so he can focus more on facilitating/setting screens
- Grant can stay at the 4
- We don't have three guards in the starting five

Is this a contending lineup? I'd call it a "puncher's chance" lineup. The NBA is still wide open even with the rise of Denver. (Note: The success of this lineup is largely based upon my belief that Sharpe is legit and is poised to explode this upcoming season.)

I also like the idea of trading down in the draft with Orlando and possibly netting something like OG plus #6 if we can get Toronto involved. We could probably pick a solid wing at #6 or maybe trade that pick with Nurk for a more productive center.

The Blazers DO have options here if they have the stones to go for it. I get it, though... punting (picking) always feels safer than going for it on 4th-and-3 from your own 35.
Willie Taggart is a dick.
User avatar
Boom
All Pac-12
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:32 pm
GM: Houston Rockets

Re: Blazers 2022-2023 Thread

Post by Boom »

pezsez1 wrote:
IF there's a 3-way deal that nets the Blazers OG for essentially Ant+23, a starting lineup of Dame/Thybulle/OG/Grant/Nurk with a bench of FA PG/Sharpe/Miller/Watford/FA Center, that seems like the best package you could put around Dame that also plays the long-game with Sharpe/Miller in the scenario where Scoot goes #2.
I think you could do this same kind of thing with Scoot while still keeping Dame. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think this might be the best option.

Dame/Sharpe/OG/Grant/Nurk
Scoot/Thybulle/Little/Watford/FA Center
They probably need another 3&D type off the bench. Maybe Grant Williams or Donte DiVincenzo with their MLE?
Post Reply