ImageImage

2019 Offseason: Part 2

Moderators: The Sebastian Express, Moonbeam, DeBlazerRiddem

Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 34,148
And1: 6,125
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#201 » by Wizenheimer » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:21 pm

Read on Twitter


I have some serious doubts about this year's roster compared to last season so this looks pretty close for Portland to me. I wouldn't take the over, not for the Blazers

I might take the over for the Thunder though. If they don't trade CP3 or Gallo and those two stay healthy, OKC will win more than 31 games
User avatar
Oden2
RealGM
Posts: 22,814
And1: 1,901
Joined: May 29, 2007
Location: Portland
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#202 » by Oden2 » Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:41 pm

Wizenheimer wrote:
Read on Twitter


I have some serious doubts about this year's roster compared to last season so this looks pretty close for Portland to me. I wouldn't take the over, not for the Blazers

I might take the over for the Thunder though. If they don't trade CP3 or Gallo and those two stay healthy, OKC will win more than 31 games


Give me the over on Dallas as well

I take the under on Brooklyn. With no kd this season there aren’t many good scorers outside of Irving
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 18,371
And1: 703
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#203 » by d-train » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:24 pm

Sinobas wrote:
d-train wrote:
DusterBuster wrote:
I'm just saying that he's getting a chance to acquire all the guys he had targeted ahead of who he ended up settling for in 2016....

Can we not nitpick the hell out of every little innocuous comment for once d-train?

We know Turner wasn't plan A, B, or C. Basically, the decision was, Turner was better than nothing. If you recall, nobody was confident Lillard and CJ could win enough regular season games to ever make the playoffs. Lillard and CJ were not a pair of stars that other stars wanted to pair with. It would be a different story today, but because we didn't have proven stars until after they got off their rookie contracts. We never had stars and cap room.

The other signings were using exceptions to sign our own players. The 2016 contracts were expensive, but the so-called negative impact is a mischaracterization. 2016 was a willingness to spend money and an unwillingness to give up any player that we thought could help the team.


I think Vonleh and Davis were luxury tax casualties. But you could argue we're no worse off with who we have now. We also have 2.8 mil in dead weight that will run on for many years thanks to the Allen Crabbe "undo".

In my mind, the biggest negative was the fact that Evan Turner played so many minutes for us. I think Stotts felt compelled to play him due to his contract. Last year's playoffs reveal his true feelings, when the stakes were just too high and he benched Turner. Evan Turner taking the floor for our team was a negative 80% of the time.

In 2016 Blazers signed Crabbe, Harkless, and Leonard because they were young developing players. Blazers let Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh go, because those players had no unrealized upside and the money was better spent elsewhere. Crabbe was re-signed when he was our 5th best player and had fallen out of our top 7 the next year. We got a large traded player exception in that trade that had more potential value than an expensive player falling down the rotation.

In the case of Aminu, the cost added to the roster by the Whiteside trade probably killed any chance Blazers could afford to keep him. And, there is potential upside to expanding Collins's role. Mainly, Blazers had a huge rebounding deficit that needed to be addressed, and whatever the cost to get Whiteside is probably worth it.

Turner made an important contribution to a successful team. Your inability to see that is a personal problem. Apparently, Hawks don't agree with your assessment. They traded a pretty decent player to get Turner.
Image
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 18,371
And1: 703
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#204 » by d-train » Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:38 pm

Wizenheimer wrote:
Read on Twitter


I have some serious doubts about this year's roster compared to last season so this looks pretty close for Portland to me. I wouldn't take the over, not for the Blazers

I might take the over for the Thunder though. If they don't trade CP3 or Gallo and those two stay healthy, OKC will win more than 31 games

I'll take the over on Bucks, Blazers, Warriors, Mavs, and Kings. I'll take the under on OKC. I'm tempted to take the under on Pelicans, but they have some veterans and I don't want to bet against the Holiday/Favors combo. I would like to take the over on T-Wolves and would if they had any proven perimeter players. I don't understand the Wolves offseason when all they need is to add a competent perimeter player with playmaking skills to have all the elements of a good team. I'm taking the over on Kings because I love their young backcourt, but I hate what Kings did in free agency.

The 47.5 win projection in an improved Western Conference is more a recognition that wins will be down for all teams than a hit against the Blazers. Notice Blazers are projected to finish 6th in the west. Considering the improvement of the Lakers and Clippers, the injury to Nurkic, and the fact that we were only 3 wins ahead of being 5th last year, that projection seems fairly generous. Vegas must like the Whiteside addition.
Image
Sinobas
Veteran
Posts: 2,882
And1: 219
Joined: Jun 20, 2008

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#205 » by Sinobas » Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:51 pm

d-train wrote:In 2016 Blazers signed Crabbe, Harkless, and Leonard because they were young developing players. Blazers let Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh go, because those players had no unrealized upside and the money was better spent elsewhere. Crabbe was re-signed when he was our 5th best player and had fallen out of our top 7 the next year. We got a large traded player exception in that trade that had more potential value than an expensive player falling down the rotation.

In the case of Aminu, the cost added to the roster by the Whiteside trade probably killed any chance Blazers could afford to keep him. And, there is potential upside to expanding Collins's role. Mainly, Blazers had a huge rebounding deficit that needed to be addressed, and whatever the cost to get Whiteside is probably worth it.

Turner made an important contribution to a successful team. Your inability to see that is a personal problem. Apparently, Hawks don't agree with your assessment. They traded a pretty decent player to get Turner.


Denny, sometimes I wonder if you really believe what you're saying or if you just want to argue. If you can't see that Turner was bad, the problem is not mine. Look at his plus/minus stats and abysmal shooting numbers. There's a reason so many Blazer fans moaned when he came into the game, because we'd often lose ground with him, and he was one of the primary reasons why.

The Leonard and Crabbe signings in particular were bad, most people could see it at the time, and time had proven those people to be correct. Youth and inexperience is not a reason to give someone a contact that is way out of proportion to their talent. By that logic, we should have resigned Pat C and Noah Vonleh to 40 million dollar contract
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 18,371
And1: 703
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#206 » by d-train » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:06 pm

Sinobas wrote:
d-train wrote:In 2016 Blazers signed Crabbe, Harkless, and Leonard because they were young developing players. Blazers let Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh go, because those players had no unrealized upside and the money was better spent elsewhere. Crabbe was re-signed when he was our 5th best player and had fallen out of our top 7 the next year. We got a large traded player exception in that trade that had more potential value than an expensive player falling down the rotation.

In the case of Aminu, the cost added to the roster by the Whiteside trade probably killed any chance Blazers could afford to keep him. And, there is potential upside to expanding Collins's role. Mainly, Blazers had a huge rebounding deficit that needed to be addressed, and whatever the cost to get Whiteside is probably worth it.

Turner made an important contribution to a successful team. Your inability to see that is a personal problem. Apparently, Hawks don't agree with your assessment. They traded a pretty decent player to get Turner.


Denny, sometimes I wonder if you really believe what you're saying or if you just want to argue. If you can't see that Turner was bad, the problem is not mine. Look at his plus/minus stats and abysmal shooting numbers. There's a reason so many Blazer fans moaned when he came into the game, because we'd often lose ground with him, and he was one of the primary reasons why.

The Leonard and Crabbe signings in particular were bad, most people could see it at the time, and time had proven those people to be correct. Youth and inexperience is not a reason to give someone a contact that is way out of proportion to their talent. By that logic, we should have resigned Pat C and Noah Vonleh to 40 million dollar contract

The signings were not bad and most people are full of ****. The contracts were not out of proportion with the market for those players in 2016. Living in the real world means you pay the 2016 price for players you sign in 2016. We could have skipped the 2016 signings (except CJ) and Paul Allen would have saved money. Allen decided he would rather pay for every opportunity to make the team better even if the 2016 prices were high.
Image
User avatar
Pattycakes
Head Coach
Posts: 6,453
And1: 562
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Contact:
     

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#207 » by Pattycakes » Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:12 pm

d-train wrote:
Wizenheimer wrote:
Read on Twitter


I have some serious doubts about this year's roster compared to last season so this looks pretty close for Portland to me. I wouldn't take the over, not for the Blazers

I might take the over for the Thunder though. If they don't trade CP3 or Gallo and those two stay healthy, OKC will win more than 31 games

I'll take the over on Bucks, Blazers, Warriors, Mavs, and Kings. I'll take the under on OKC. I'm tempted to take the under on Pelicans, but they have some veterans and I don't want to bet against the Holiday/Favors combo. I would like to take the over on T-Wolves and would if they had any proven perimeter players. I don't understand the Wolves offseason when all they need is to add a competent perimeter player with playmaking skills to have all the elements of a good team. I'm taking the over on Kings because I love their young backcourt, but I hate what Kings did in free agency.

The 47.5 win projection in an improved Western Conference is more a recognition that wins will be down for all teams than a hit against the Blazers. Notice Blazers are projected to finish 6th in the west. Considering the improvement of the Lakers and Clippers, the injury to Nurkic, and the fact that we were only 3 wins ahead of being 5th last year, that projection seems fairly generous. Vegas must like the Whiteside addition.


Lakers/Clippers/Celtics are all ~5 wins too high. Lakers might very well have a repeat of last season, so that seems like a complete shot in the dark to automatically assume their offseason changes will transform the crap storm of last season.
Oct. 18, 2015 The Prophecy...

Pattycakes wrote:I think people are really gonna be caught sleeping on our depth this year. The big guy rotation is more than impressive, and our guard play looks to be a strength as well. Don't overlook the young guys just yet.
Sinobas
Veteran
Posts: 2,882
And1: 219
Joined: Jun 20, 2008

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#208 » by Sinobas » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:14 pm

d-train wrote:
Sinobas wrote:
d-train wrote:In 2016 Blazers signed Crabbe, Harkless, and Leonard because they were young developing players. Blazers let Aminu, Davis, and Vonleh go, because those players had no unrealized upside and the money was better spent elsewhere. Crabbe was re-signed when he was our 5th best player and had fallen out of our top 7 the next year. We got a large traded player exception in that trade that had more potential value than an expensive player falling down the rotation.

In the case of Aminu, the cost added to the roster by the Whiteside trade probably killed any chance Blazers could afford to keep him. And, there is potential upside to expanding Collins's role. Mainly, Blazers had a huge rebounding deficit that needed to be addressed, and whatever the cost to get Whiteside is probably worth it.

Turner made an important contribution to a successful team. Your inability to see that is a personal problem. Apparently, Hawks don't agree with your assessment. They traded a pretty decent player to get Turner.


Denny, sometimes I wonder if you really believe what you're saying or if you just want to argue. If you can't see that Turner was bad, the problem is not mine. Look at his plus/minus stats and abysmal shooting numbers. There's a reason so many Blazer fans moaned when he came into the game, because we'd often lose ground with him, and he was one of the primary reasons why.

The Leonard and Crabbe signings in particular were bad, most people could see it at the time, and time had proven those people to be correct. Youth and inexperience is not a reason to give someone a contact that is way out of proportion to their talent. By that logic, we should have resigned Pat C and Noah Vonleh to 40 million dollar contract

The signings were not bad and most people are full of ****. The contracts were not out of proportion with the market for those players in 2016. Living in the real world means you pay the 2016 price for players you sign in 2016. We could have skipped the 2016 signings (except CJ) and Paul Allen would have saved money. Allen decided he would rather pay for every opportunity to make the team better even if the 2016 prices were high.


You can't be serious. The Crabbe signing wasn't bad? Then why did Neil have to pay the Nets to get rid of it?

I guess if you were a financial advisor, you'd tell your clients to purchase homes right on brink of a bubble collapse, because you have to pay the "market value". You're using the term "market value" as a cover word for doing something stupid.
HoopsFanAZ
Pro Prospect
Posts: 777
And1: 132
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#209 » by HoopsFanAZ » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:41 pm

Matching Brooklyn’s high offer was about as “bad” as matching Minnesota on Batum (by KP). Just letting either one walk for nothing and not being able to effectively replace them was the calculation. Both the Nets and Portland paid. Crabbe has one more strike, but guys who are supposed to be 3 and (kinda) D are valuable. [In contrast, Sam Presti keeps drafting wings who end up more D than 3 which didn’t work with Westbrook.]

Use it or lose it on caproom isn’t cool. The only way for the Blazers to have kept it for a time was ditching all their free agents in 2016 or keeping their contracts to 1-2 years rather than 3 (Chief) and 4. Few fans saw this as the best option for a team that had surprisingly not tanked during a major rebuild.

With making the playoffs again and again, coming off a WCF, and drafting Collins, Simons and Little, I like this team. Turning Turner into Bazemore and Leonard/Harkless into Whiteside after 3 years are wins we had to wait for. And that the Blazers have their Bird rights with a year to go means having flexibility and better players.

Portland didn’t win the 2016 summer free agency, but those signings kept them in the game.
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 18,371
And1: 703
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#210 » by d-train » Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:32 pm

Sinobas wrote:
d-train wrote:
Sinobas wrote:
Denny, sometimes I wonder if you really believe what you're saying or if you just want to argue. If you can't see that Turner was bad, the problem is not mine. Look at his plus/minus stats and abysmal shooting numbers. There's a reason so many Blazer fans moaned when he came into the game, because we'd often lose ground with him, and he was one of the primary reasons why.

The Leonard and Crabbe signings in particular were bad, most people could see it at the time, and time had proven those people to be correct. Youth and inexperience is not a reason to give someone a contact that is way out of proportion to their talent. By that logic, we should have resigned Pat C and Noah Vonleh to 40 million dollar contract

The signings were not bad and most people are full of ****. The contracts were not out of proportion with the market for those players in 2016. Living in the real world means you pay the 2016 price for players you sign in 2016. We could have skipped the 2016 signings (except CJ) and Paul Allen would have saved money. Allen decided he would rather pay for every opportunity to make the team better even if the 2016 prices were high.


You can't be serious. The Crabbe signing wasn't bad? Then why did Neil have to pay the Nets to get rid of it?

I guess if you were a financial advisor, you'd tell your clients to purchase homes right on brink of a bubble collapse, because you have to pay the "market value". You're using the term "market value" as a cover word for doing something stupid.

Of course I'm serious. There is nothing unserious about stating the facts.

There was nothing wrong or bad with re-signing Crabbe. Crabbe is a good player. Almost every team in the league would want him. I'm sure the price to re-sign him was more than the Blazers wanted to pay. That is why Crabbe needed a qualified offer from another team to get the amount he was paid. None of the Blazers other free agents needed to get an official offersheet from another team to reach agreement with the Blazers. Perhaps you intended to say, it was bad to pay Crabbe that much money. It wasn't bad to pay that amount of money if the objective was to make Blazers the best team possible. No matter how much (or little) money Blazers paid to Crabbe, the Blazers would be over the cap and would have only the tools afforded to teams over the cap to add players. So, in what way was it bad to give Crabbe the size of contract he got? The only downside is the amount of money it cost Paul Allen. Provided everything was explained to Paul Allen, matching the offersheet by the Nets was a great day for Blazers fans.

Why did Blazers have to take a bad contract to trade Crabbe the next season? Simple, the market price for mid level players dropped in 2017. Notice Plumbee (a better player than Crabbe) got $5M per year less than Crabbe in 2017.

In the context that you are using the word "stupid," I would call it stupid to do an analysis of an NBA personnel decision without a basic understanding of the CBA.
Image
Sinobas
Veteran
Posts: 2,882
And1: 219
Joined: Jun 20, 2008

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#211 » by Sinobas » Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:52 am

Denny, I"m surprised that you're able to formulate complete sentences. Allen Crabbe is a good player? By what metric? He had one of the WORST per's in the league last year, ranking 347/361, while being the #57th highest paid player in the league, his average salary 3x the league average.

If that was a good signing, Neil Olshey must be a mentally challenged to have traded him for Andrew NIcholson's dead weight.
HoopsFanAZ
Pro Prospect
Posts: 777
And1: 132
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#212 » by HoopsFanAZ » Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:00 pm

Crabbe was supposedly a decent defender in Portland. I thought he was average at best.
Besides having a limited, straight line drive AND average motor AND decent (before last season) percentage in the paint without getting to the line where he is pretty decent ...

He is a marksman.
42.9% / 35.3% / 39.3% / 44.4% / 37.8% / 37.8% from 3 (rookie to 6th season)
He went from shooting slightly fewer 3s than 2s for the Blazers to 2 to 1 for Brooklyn. He’s becoming a specialist.
His basic problem is he doesn’t shoot enough for the $$$ he makes.

If he improved his handles and got to the line, or was in perpetual motion, the game would be easier for him. If he gets to 15 shots within the offense, questions about how good or bad he is will fade. Simplistic? Yes. If he was more “selfish” or aggressive, the Blazers don’t trade him for the pleasure of dead money. And the Nets don’t send him AND 2 first rounders for Taurean Prince to pay off Atlanta and clear cap room.

Good player? Work on between the ears and be in the right system ... yeah, he’s a player. Don’t get enough shots up? Next summer at 28, he moves to MLE or less. Contract year.

[Taking 8 3s, 4 2s puts him around 13 ppg. / 10 3s, 5 2s gets 16-17 ]
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 34,148
And1: 6,125
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#213 » by Wizenheimer » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:19 am

HoopsFanAZ wrote:Crabbe was supposedly a decent defender in Portland. I thought he was average at best.


he was a horrible defender in Portland

his last season as a Blazer, after he got his big contract, Crabbe actually finished 63rd out of 63 guards in DRPM. Dead last

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2017/page/2/sort/DRPM/position/2

the year before he wasn't much better. It was stupid to match Brooklyn's offer sheet.
Sinobas
Veteran
Posts: 2,882
And1: 219
Joined: Jun 20, 2008

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#214 » by Sinobas » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:18 am

Wizenheimer wrote:
HoopsFanAZ wrote:Crabbe was supposedly a decent defender in Portland. I thought he was average at best.


he was a horrible defender in Portland

his last season as a Blazer, after he got his big contract, Crabbe actually finished 63rd out of 63 guards in DRPM. Dead last

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2017/page/2/sort/DRPM/position/2

the year before he wasn't much better. It was stupid to match Brooklyn's offer sheet.


Hallelujah! Some sanity has arrived.
User avatar
DusterBuster
RealGM
Posts: 27,645
And1: 12,291
Joined: Jan 31, 2010
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#215 » by DusterBuster » Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:53 am

Wizenheimer wrote:
HoopsFanAZ wrote:Crabbe was supposedly a decent defender in Portland. I thought he was average at best.


he was a horrible defender in Portland

his last season as a Blazer, after he got his big contract, Crabbe actually finished 63rd out of 63 guards in DRPM. Dead last

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2017/page/2/sort/DRPM/position/2

the year before he wasn't much better. It was stupid to match Brooklyn's offer sheet.


We could debate til we are blue in the fingers over who's decision it was a match that deal, but one thing we definitely agree with is that regardless of who's call it was, it was a bad call.
Devilzsidewalk wrote:DB is like the ultimate Wolves troll
Dame Lizard
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,883
And1: 1,553
Joined: Dec 03, 2012
 

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#216 » by Dame Lizard » Fri Aug 2, 2019 1:16 am

Collins' ankle ligament injury gave me a jolt when I first read it.

He should be healthy for training camp though.
KewlClutch
Ballboy
Posts: 4
And1: 2
Joined: Aug 01, 2019

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#217 » by KewlClutch » Fri Aug 2, 2019 3:34 am

d-train wrote:
Wizenheimer wrote:
Read on Twitter


I have some serious doubts about this year's roster compared to last season so this looks pretty close for Portland to me. I wouldn't take the over, not for the Blazers

I might take the over for the Thunder though. If they don't trade CP3 or Gallo and those two stay healthy, OKC will win more than 31 games

I'll take the over on Bucks, Blazers, Warriors, Mavs, and Kings. I'll take the under on OKC. I'm tempted to take the under on Pelicans, but they have some veterans and I don't want to bet against the Holiday/Favors combo. I would like to take the over on T-Wolves and would if they had any proven perimeter players. I don't understand the Wolves offseason when all they need is to add a competent perimeter player with playmaking skills to have all the elements of a good team. I'm taking the over on Kings because I love their young backcourt, but I hate what Kings did in free agency.

The 47.5 win projection in an improved Western Conference is more a recognition that wins will be down for all teams than a hit against the Blazers. Notice Blazers are projected to finish 6th in the west. Considering the improvement of the Lakers and Clippers, the injury to Nurkic, and the fact that we were only 3 wins ahead of being 5th last year, that projection seems fairly generous. Vegas must like the Whiteside addition.



I could see the Blazers winning 47 - 52 games this upcoming NBA season.
zzaj
Head Coach
Posts: 6,210
And1: 1,719
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
 

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#218 » by zzaj » Fri Aug 2, 2019 6:12 pm

Dame Lizard wrote:Collins' ankle ligament injury gave me a jolt when I first read it.

He should be healthy for training camp though.


It should give you a jolt. This was an extremely important summer for Collins’ development. Having him on crutches is a major blow and should be bigger news than it is.
User avatar
DusterBuster
RealGM
Posts: 27,645
And1: 12,291
Joined: Jan 31, 2010
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#219 » by DusterBuster » Fri Aug 2, 2019 7:26 pm

zzaj wrote:
Dame Lizard wrote:Collins' ankle ligament injury gave me a jolt when I first read it.

He should be healthy for training camp though.


It should give you a jolt. This was an extremely important summer for Collins’ development. Having him on crutches is a major blow and should be bigger news than it is.


I wonder - if healthy - if Pau could still do like a 10 and 7 average as a pinch starter like he was in SA. I'll be curious to see just how much he has left in the tank and if last season is the new norm for him or if he can be that semi effective old vet like he was for the Spurs and last season was just an aberration.
Devilzsidewalk wrote:DB is like the ultimate Wolves troll
User avatar
Oden2
RealGM
Posts: 22,814
And1: 1,901
Joined: May 29, 2007
Location: Portland
   

Re: 2019 Offseason: Part 2 

Post#220 » by Oden2 » Fri Aug 2, 2019 10:04 pm

DusterBuster wrote:
zzaj wrote:
Dame Lizard wrote:Collins' ankle ligament injury gave me a jolt when I first read it.

He should be healthy for training camp though.


It should give you a jolt. This was an extremely important summer for Collins’ development. Having him on crutches is a major blow and should be bigger news than it is.


I wonder - if healthy - if Pau could still do like a 10 and 7 average as a pinch starter like he was in SA. I'll be curious to see just how much he has left in the tank and if last season is the new norm for him or if he can be that semi effective old vet like he was for the Spurs and last season was just an aberration.


Pau has regressed pretty heavily in the last 2 seasons as age finally caught up to him. I think if we got almost a full season and 15 mpg/ production in that time he will have done his job.

Return to Portland Trail Blazers