Norm or Gary Trent

[BNM]

Norm or Trent IS the topic of this thread, but I'll bite. BlazerBronco... What beef do you have against Simons? Your assessment of him is suspect at best IMO. First of all, he's not a 3rd or 4th option in any NBA coaches mind... he's a young PG, learning the position from one of the great PGOAT. So why couldn't he be a "Building block" along with Little? Simons' defense has also IMO looked decent at least, but until recently he still racked up alot of ticky-tack rookie whistles, that seasoned players don't get called. Is it also possible that Simons could become better than Dame? Is that truly impossible? And why all of the defense criticism for Simons anyway, when Dame has always been a known Matador.

I have nothing against Simons. I think he is a nice scoring guard whos shooting could open the court for better players. I dont think any good team will have Anfernee Simons as a top-3 option. He is, to me, a quality scoring guard whos best suited as an elite 6th man. Or a starter on a team with plus defenders at 1,3,4,5 (I think he would be great in Toronto in GTJ's role). But even then, he isnt a floor raiser like Dame. He just isnt and to think he becomes one is to expect a development trajectory that makes Pascal Siakiam's look like an everyday occournace (And even Pascal was playing at an All Star level by the 2nd half of his 3rd year)

Simons becoming better than Dame is within the realm of possibility in the same way that its possible a planet exists in the near limitlessly large universe populated by tacos that poop ice cream. We should be talking about his trajectory to overcome Powell or CJ, neither of which is guaranteed, before Dame.

I get we need hope. We are floundering and now it seems playing well enough to land in the 'dead zone' of a pick in the 10-14 range. Simons and Little are all the hope we have in terms of young talent, but considering them anything more than valuable young role players is pretty far fetched IMO.

I think you are severely underestimating Simons' potential. You seem to be ignoring the fact that all the other players you mentioned (Dame, CJ, Norm, Saikam) were the same age their rookie seasons as Simons is now. Dame, CJ and Norm were all 4-year college players, while Simons had zero college experience.

It's just a single data point, but at the age of 22 years, 209 days, Simons' career high in scoring is 43 points. At the exact same age, Dame's career high was 29 points, CJ's was 19, Norm's was 8 and Siakam's was 4.

During his age 22 season, Simons has a TS% of .583. During their age 22 seasons, Dame had a TS% of .546, CJ was at .521, Norm was at .541 and Siakam was at .523.

At the same age, Simons is a better, more efficient scorer than the other 4. That doesn't mean he is, or will be, a better player than any of the other 4. I personally don't think peak Simons will be as good as peak Lillard, or peak Siakam (VERY different players - Simons will be better offensively, but Siakam will hold a huge advantage defensively), but I do think he will end up a better player than CJ or Norm, and could easily be a top 3 player on a good team.

He is still very young (again, same age right now as the other 4 were as rookies), so I don't think we've seen close to peak Simons, yet. What that peak will be remains to be seen, but I believe it will likely be higher than you seem to think.

[GEE]

Norm or Trent IS the topic of this thread, but I'll bite. BlazerBronco... What beef do you have against Simons? Your assessment of him is suspect at best IMO. First of all, he's not a 3rd or 4th option in any NBA coaches mind... he's a young PG, learning the position from one of the great PGOAT. So why couldn't he be a "Building block" along with Little? Simons' defense has also IMO looked decent at least, but until recently he still racked up alot of ticky-tack rookie whistles, that seasoned players don't get called. Is it also possible that Simons could become better than Dame? Is that truly impossible? And why all of the defense criticism for Simons anyway, when Dame has always been a known Matador.

I have nothing against Simons. I think he is a nice scoring guard whos shooting could open the court for better players. I dont think any good team will have Anfernee Simons as a top-3 option. He is, to me, a quality scoring guard whos best suited as an elite 6th man. Or a starter on a team with plus defenders at 1,3,4,5 (I think he would be great in Toronto in GTJ's role). But even then, he isnt a floor raiser like Dame. He just isnt and to think he becomes one is to expect a development trajectory that makes Pascal Siakiam's look like an everyday occournace (And even Pascal was playing at an All Star level by the 2nd half of his 3rd year)

Simons becoming better than Dame is within the realm of possibility in the same way that its possible a planet exists in the near limitlessly large universe populated by tacos that poop ice cream. We should be talking about his trajectory to overcome Powell or CJ, neither of which is guaranteed, before Dame.

I get we need hope. We are floundering and now it seems playing well enough to land in the 'dead zone' of a pick in the 10-14 range. Simons and Little are all the hope we have in terms of young talent, but considering them anything more than valuable young role players is pretty far fetched IMO.

I think you are severely underestimating Simons' potential. You seem to be ignoring the fact that all the other players you mentioned (Dame, CJ, Norm, Saikam) were the same age their rookie seasons as Simons is now. Dame, CJ and Norm were all 4-year college players, while Simons had zero college experience.

It's just a single data point, but at the age of 22 years, 209 days, Simons' career high in scoring is 43 points. At the exact same age, Dame's career high was 29 points, CJ's was 19, Norm's was 8 and Siakam's was 4.

During his age 22 season, Simons has a TS% of .583. During their age 22 seasons, Dame had a TS% of .546, CJ was at .521, Norm was at .541 and Siakam was at .523.

At the same age, Simons is a better, more efficient scorer than the other 4. That doesn't mean he is, or will be, a better player than any of the other 4. I personally don't think peak Simons will be as good as peak Lillard, or peak Siakam (VERY different players - Simons will be better offensively, but Siakam will hold a huge advantage defensively), but I do think he will end up a better player than CJ or Norm, and could easily be a top 3 player on a good team.

He is still very young (again, same age right now as the other 4 were as rookies), so I don't think we've seen close to peak Simons, yet. What that peak will be remains to be seen, but I believe it will likely be higher than you seem to think.

Interesting stuff BNM... thanks. Makes me wonder what Curry's #s were in comparison. Feel like it could be similar. Not smart with the adv. stats (more of a eyeball test guy), but I really wish you could show me, if ya got time.

And Siakam isn't a great comparison IMO. I would point out that in his third year, his best year if I'm not mistaken, he was joined in Toronto with Leonard, who made everyone look great while leading them to the title. His numbers since are a bit bloated I think (unless only looking at ppg), as he's playing on a team that is currently not nearly as good as it was then. Siakam is solid though, but as pointed out, a much different type of player.

Speaking of different types of players... when you(BB) say "Scoring guard", what do you mean by that? Are you saying he is neither a Point or Shooting Guard? Combo guard I've heard used for this type that does neither particularly well. Then there are the CJ's, the "Undersized" shooting guards. I previously stated that I believe he is learning from Chauncey how to become an elite PG in the same fashion as a CP3, Nash, or Stockton... but the kid is just on fire right now, so he's shooting alot more. Shooting guards are worlds different in their mental approach to a game. A good coach will generally want his Shooting guard to be very aggressive with shot taking (think Kobe) providing they are good looks, while a good PG gets his biggest joy from a no-look lob to his teammate for the smash dunk. My main point is Simons is no "Scoring guard", but he is proving he can play EITHER, PG or SG, if only we had a 6'10 guy that could run the Point along side Simmons, err, I mean Simons.

[wjun15]

Trent is better. younger and better defender.
powell defense is overrated.


simons Trent little would have been a great young core. add that to the talent u can get with Dame cj nurk cov

sigh...

[DusterBuster]

Trent is better. younger and better defender.
powell defense is overrated.


simons Trent little would have been a great young core. add that to the talent u can get with Dame cj nurk cov

sigh...

Outside of Trent being younger, I don’t think the numbers back up your other statements. From what I recall, Trent is actually a pretty poor defender. Norm’s numbers may not be great, but unlike Trent, Norm is being asked to play 100% out of position at SF.

[Wizenheimer]

Norm is a hell of a scorer, and really we all know the problem with this team not enough size amongst our best players. I will say this though if trading GT Jr. meant we have the money to keep Anfernee it was well worth it 100%.

Anfernee has far more star potential than GT Jr. likely ever will, GT is a great player to have but he is nowhere near a star.

Trent and Powell have nearly identical salaries. No advantage with either in terms of paying Simons

of the three of Powell, Trent, and Simons, Trent would probably be the best back court partner for Dame. His defense has apparently improved a lot this season. Powell is not a good defender and Simons is terrible at defense

I know the Blazers will do everything they can to keep Simons. But there is a pretty high probability that a Dame/Ant pairing will have most of the same problems as the failed Dame/CJ pairing. And I suspect Ant will be paid too much to be a 6th man. But in that reality, a Dame-Ant-Trent rotation would be better than any with CJ and Powell replacing Trent

the nightmare is paralysis and olshey-think by Cronin leaving Portland with all 4 of Dame-CJ-Simons-Powell on the roster next season with the four being paid in the 110-120M range. Even Dame-Ant-Powell at 80M is pretty heavy money for 6'3 & under

[PDXKnight]

Norm is a hell of a scorer, and really we all know the problem with this team not enough size amongst our best players. I will say this though if trading GT Jr. meant we have the money to keep Anfernee it was well worth it 100%.

Anfernee has far more star potential than GT Jr. likely ever will, GT is a great player to have but he is nowhere near a star.

Trent and Powell have nearly identical salaries. No advantage with either in terms of paying Simons

of the three of Powell, Trent, and Simons, Trent would probably be the best back court partner for Dame. His defense has apparently improved a lot this season. Powell is not a good defender and Simons is terrible at defense

I know the Blazers will do everything they can to keep Simons. But there is a pretty high probability that a Dame/Ant pairing will have most of the same problems as the failed Dame/CJ pairing. And I suspect Ant will be paid too much to be a 6th man. But in that reality, a Dame-Ant-Trent rotation would be better than any with CJ and Powell replacing Trent

the nightmare is paralysis and olshey-think by Cronin leaving Portland with all 4 of Dame-CJ-Simons-Powell on the roster next season with the four being paid in the 110-120M range. Even Dame-Ant-Powell at 80M is pretty heavy money for 6'3 & under

Yeah the fit is fairly undeniable, and trent now appears to be at the same statistical level of norm but is more of an impact player seemingly with a higher ceiling. Trade looks worse by the minute, olshey really screwed us not trading cj last year. And as you said it’s not like norm cost anything less. The one thing i don’t like about trent over norm is that contract toronto gave him

[zzaj]

There are a lot of considerations at play, a big one being long-term financial.

The main thing, for me is I would have rather had:
Lillard/Trent/Powell/Ant

to choose from, than:

Lillard/CJ/Powell/Ant

CJ is an albatross, and mostly always has been an albatross because of his overvaluation by Olshey.

[DusterBuster]

There are a lot of considerations at play, a big one being long-term financial.

The main thing, for me is I would have rather had:
Lillard/Trent/Powell/Ant

to choose from, than:

Lillard/CJ/Powell/Ant

CJ is an albatross, and mostly always has been an albatross because of his overvaluation by Olshey.

FWIW, I much rather would have had Trent vs Powell as well and invested in his future as opposed to the older - if more established - Powell.

[zzaj]

There are a lot of considerations at play, a big one being long-term financial.

The main thing, for me is I would have rather had:
Lillard/Trent/Powell/Ant

to choose from, than:

Lillard/CJ/Powell/Ant

CJ is an albatross, and mostly always has been an albatross because of his overvaluation by Olshey.

FWIW, I much rather would have had Trent vs Powell as well and invested in his future as opposed to the older - if more established - Powell.

On the surface, going with Powell made some sense IF the idea was to trade away CJ for help at the Forward positions. But, of course Olshey mis-managed the team in a way that goes beyond "surface". Neil effectively hamstrung the team for nearly his entire tenure, and we will be feeling the brunt of his mis-management for at least another 6 years.

But the absolute SADDEST part of it all, is that we didn't (and won't) get to see Lillard--arguably the greatest Blazer player in history--with a well formed team around him.

[PDXKnight]

Gary trent jr has had 5 30 + pt games in a row. He's the kind of player we should get in a dame package (with picks) if we were to deal dame and we probably gave up an all star in GTJ for a guy who kinda seems like blank stats in Norm. Its just frustrating he clearly was showing signs of success already and we traded him for norm who is the inferior product making the same amount on their next contract. This feels like olshey's final middle finger to Portland.

[The Sebastian Express]

A little odd to call another human being a product. But GT is not playing out of position, to my understanding, and GT doesn't draw fouls and trips to the line. I don't think you understand how big an ability that is and I love watching Norm.

[PDXKnight]

A little odd to call another human being a product. But GT is not playing out of position, to my understanding, and GT doesn't draw fouls and trips to the line. I don't think you understand how big an ability that is and I love watching Norm.

Not sure why product is worthy of a call out, the word product is used frequently and to be frank i’m only 32 and even still i’m losing track of what the new pc word is because it changes every other day

[The Sebastian Express]

A little odd to call another human being a product. But GT is not playing out of position, to my understanding, and GT doesn't draw fouls and trips to the line. I don't think you understand how big an ability that is and I love watching Norm.

Not sure why product is worthy of a call out, the word product is used frequently and to be frank i’m only 32 and even still i’m losing track of what the new pc word is because it changes every other day

Because human beings aren't products, Oden2. And I don't think I need to explain the historical context of that word ascribed to a Black man, especially since you're my age. I think most of us would use player rather than product.

They're all humans. Playing basketball is what they do for a living, they aren't a product. NBA basketball is a product, produced by the people playing it. Language is powerful and how we treat others is powerful, how we designate others is important.

So I stand by that I think it's a little odd to call another human being a product.

[PDXKnight]

A little odd to call another human being a product. But GT is not playing out of position, to my understanding, and GT doesn't draw fouls and trips to the line. I don't think you understand how big an ability that is and I love watching Norm.

Not sure why product is worthy of a call out, the word product is used frequently and to be frank i’m only 32 and even still i’m losing track of what the new pc word is because it changes every other day

Because human beings aren't products, Oden2. And I don't think I need to explain the historical context of that word ascribed to a Black man, especially since you're my age. I think most of us would use player rather than product.

They're all humans. Playing basketball is what they do for a living, they aren't a product. NBA basketball is a product, produced by the people playing it. Language is powerful and how we treat others is powerful, how we designate others is important.

So I stand by that I think it's a little odd to call another human being a product.

My comment was not racially motivated not intended to dehumanize. I’ve used this same word for ages without being chastised i’m not sure why suddenly today the word product insinuates that i’m prejudiced and don’t see an athlete as a human being. I think painting me as such is uncalled for

[BlazersBroncos]

A little odd to call another human being a product. But GT is not playing out of position, to my understanding, and GT doesn't draw fouls and trips to the line. I don't think you understand how big an ability that is and I love watching Norm.

Not sure why product is worthy of a call out, the word product is used frequently and to be frank i’m only 32 and even still i’m losing track of what the new pc word is because it changes every other day

Because human beings aren't products, Oden2. And I don't think I need to explain the historical context of that word ascribed to a Black man, especially since you're my age. I think most of us would use player rather than product.

They're all humans. Playing basketball is what they do for a living, they aren't a product. NBA basketball is a product, produced by the people playing it. Language is powerful and how we treat others is powerful, how we designate others is important.

So I stand by that I think it's a little odd to call another human being a product.

You would really hate marketing.

[Case2012]

How about just not saying it, everyone stop tripping and move on? Oden2 isn’t racist and humans aren’t products, everyone’s right!! Yay!!

Are we really entertaining trading Norm when I thought it was universally understood he was perfect to replace CJ?

[GEE]

Wow! 5th straight 30+ game. What's more impressive really are the percentages. GTJ is a DOG, as in, he will go nose to nose against anyone on D, even Lebron, and die trying. I said at the time of the trade... He's a legit 6'5 w/ a 6'9 wingspan, not quite as good as Powell at the time but trending up, whereas Powell seemed to have peaked. One year under Coach K at Duke vs. 4 years at UCLA... wash? There's also 6'8 Rodney Hood, another Duke player who I really liked, and is now playing some with the Bucks along with Planet PAT and Wesley.

Guess if you're over 6'3, you could be the next goner. So lets trade ROCO and Nurkic for... who cares what. All 6'3 and under so we can lose games and tank, right?

Also... While nearly all continue to pile on Olshey for our current quagmire, it is, and always has been the owner who ultimately decides if the trigger for a trade is pulled. RIP PA. Ownership holds the ultimate blame IMO. There is also a fairly long history for those that remember, of players having direct open-door like relations with Paul Allen, which neuters the GM giving him very little power over said player.

O'well... it's history now.

[Wizenheimer]

labeling someone a product might be awkward verbiage depending on the circumstance. I don't think it's racist though

"a product of their environment"...."a product of their upbringing"...."a product of the system". Do all instances like that need to be policed for PC? Does context matter anymore?

how about the term we have used around here since the beginning: "he's a positive asset"..."he's a neutral asset"...."he's a negative asset with that contract"...."we want to have players that are tradeable assets"

seems to me that 'product' and 'asset' are terms that have distinction without difference. They both distill a person down to value, simple or complex, financial or otherwise. In fact, I think slaves were referred to as assets in some states' articles of secession before the civil war. Yet I can't recall anybody at RealGM ever being called out for using the word asset. Probably because everybody posting on RealGM has used the term to describe a player at one time or the other

[zzaj]

Also... While nearly all continue to pile on Olshey for our current quagmire, it is, and always has been the owner who ultimately decides if the trigger for a trade is pulled. RIP PA. Ownership holds the ultimate blame IMO. There is also a fairly long history for those that remember, of players having direct open-door like relations with Paul Allen, which neuters the GM giving him very little power over said player.

O'well... it's history now.

Gee, let's say you are a person of means who really loves cars--you don't know how to work on them at all, but you really love to drive them and race them. So, you hire some people who are considered master craftsman when it comes to working on cars. They've been doing it for most of their lives and know every minute detail of how to put a car together for high performance. The one guy in charge of the rest in particular, has had some success building cars for other people. That guy tells you "I have this idea for a car which I know could make it better than ANYBODY else's car!" So after 6 years of him and his team tinkering around with your vehicle, it's ended up costing you A LOT of money and the closest you've ever come to out racing your friends who also like to drive is 3rd place.

You're telling me that it's YOUR fault for your car underperforming?

[Renegade]

You're telling me that it's YOUR fault for your car underperforming?

No it isn't. But it is your fault if you retain an advisor in a position that is giving poor advise.