In defense of Joe Cronin and this roster building theory…

[DusterBuster]

Ok… hear me out…

In every NBA era, there is a group of teams to follow suit of how to build the next championship roster. 90s to 2010s was the dynasties. Get the top 2-4 best players on one team (Kobe and Shaq, Duncan and Parker, LeBron and … whoever [another topic] Curry and KD, etc). The CBA changed to kill that, and since it’s clear there has been a shift in how to build a team…

I’m saying this with full self awareness that maybe my frustrations with how I think a championship roster should be built is dead. The era of building your team organically and not via trades and FA seems to be the new norm, at least for the next little bit.

So, we can dive into every 2-7% advance stat, but maybe just actually doing a slow build is the way now with the new CBA, and the days of dynasties are dead.

Allllllll that said, you still need that star. That’s why Dame was so special when he was in his prime… and why we can all collectively say in hindsight…

**** NEIL.

[DusterBuster]

So the point is that started this thought, while they said “maybe the next star is on the roster”… maybe they genuinely think that… because they don’t believe they need a Luka type to make a WCF team…. They’d rather have a complete team from 1-10 vs a top heavy 1-4 and then whatever from 5-9.

[Tim Lehrbach]

I am no adherent to any one roster-building philosophy. While I was advocating for the tank, I am far from a Hinkie-ite. In fact, I detest Hinkie for his arrogance and his influence on fans/teams adopting the title-or-tank theory of team-building.

My objection to Cronin's approach reduces entirely to my fundamental disagreement over the quality of the roster he has assembled. I do not think we have many good players here, nor a single great one. I want to see the Blazers prioritize talent accumulation and upgrading the roster, not assume that internal development, mid first round draft picks, and tinkering around the edges will lead this team to glory. Even winning teams look to replace their worse players with better ones -- that's one of the GM's duties -- but Cronin, like Olshey before him, does not seem to emphasize the importance of this.

Cronin has two chances to win me over: (1) his players prove better than I have given them credit for; Scoot and Sharpe, especially, would need to emerge for this to occur; (2) he shows discipline and does not over-commit to mediocre players, demonstrating a willingness to make bold moves and/or be patient about acquiring higher-end talent by any means available to him (trade, free agency, draft). However, I have high standards for GMs, and (2) alone is not enough -- i.e., he needs to successfully take chances and a long term view to team-building. If he makes the wrong bold moves or invests long-term in the wrong guys, it will be time to move on and find somebody with the requisite vision to improve this team.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

A mega star is obviously the tried and true way. But if you aren't drafting them at the top of the lottery or stealing them in their prime from smaller markets then the only way is the luck required to draft a lower rated prospect and hope they blow up, happens but hard to bank on that and it takes a lot of time and you still wont be the elite of the elite talent but guys like Butler and Haliburton who can clutch up when needed and they have a good team around them anyways.


I dunno, there is something intriguing about building a roster of all solid two way players that play hard. I think a perfectly constructed roster can beat a top heavy roster if things go right for them. But it takes a committed 5 man defense with zero holes to exploit and as long as we remain committed to Simons that wont happen. Would that be fun as a fan? I dunno I like scrappy underdogs and I like watching players who play hard and teams that exceed the sum of their talents. But watching individual talent shine is also fun as a fan.

With max salaries though it definitely is still easier to keep a revolving door of good role players around a star or two; a roster built on contributions from many very well fitting pieces is harder to replicate and easier to get priced out of if you aren't winning every year. You rely much more on everything going right and being a flash in the pan type success than a dynasty. I think the temptation to go all in and mortgage the future hoping to find the "right piece" would be too high and also be the thing that kills a team like that, probably better (if building that way) to stay light on your toes and constantly be pivoting and shifting and acquiring picks rather than going all in and spending assets to consolidate, but man that takes an exceptional front office and coaching staff who can adapt and change on the fly and not get too stuck on "their guys". You would probably want to focus on older draft prospects, guys with known skillsets who can come in and contribute to winning basketball, if you did draft a younger guy its because you really believe in their ability to develop, you aren't shopping for star level upside at that point but guys who will definitely be something and can be traded for sure value if/when needed in your endless quest to find the right configuration of players (for a year or two before you change it up again).

[Brandon-Clyde]

One thing in Cronin's favor is that he will draft or trade for players taller than 6'3". We have gone from being an eternally undersized team to one of the taller teams in the league.

[Wizenheimer]

I'm not sure what his 'theory' is.

the presence of Simons-Ayton-Grant seems to disqualify way too many paths to reach a contending roster.

[JasonStern]

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/

No. 3 pick
MVP: 4.00 percent
Finals MVP: 2.67 percent
All-NBA 1st Team: 17.33 percent
All-NBA Team: 26.67 percent
All-Star: 45.33 percent
All-Defensive: 12.00 percent
Defensive Player of the Year: 1.33 percent
NBA champion: 21.33 percent

No. 7 pick (x2)
MVP: 1.41 percent
Finals MVP: 2.82 percent
All-NBA 1st Team: 5.63 percent
All-NBA Team: 9.86 percent
All-Star: 16.90 percent
All-Defensive: 7.04 percent
Defensive Player of the Year: 1.41 percent
NBA champion: 23.94 percent

No. 11 pick
MVP: 0.00 percent
Finals MVP: 0.00 percent
All-NBA 1st Team: 1.49 percent
All-NBA Team: 8.96 percent
All-Star: 20.90 percent
All-Defensive: 5.97 percent
Defensive Player of the Year: 0.00 percent
NBA champion: 13.43 percent

No. 23 pick
MVP: 0.00 percent
Finals MVP: 0.00 percent
All-NBA 1st Team: 0.00 percent
All-NBA Team: 3.39 percent
All-Star: 6.78 percent
All-Defensive: 6.78 percent
Defensive Player of the Year: 0.00 percent
NBA champion: 16.95 percent

Even inheriting Olshey's mess, which I do give sympathy points towards, it's not like Cronin hasn't had opportunities. And those are just draft picks. Cronin also turned Dame/CJ/Nurkic/Powell/Covington into Deni/Camara/Ayton/Grant (extended @ $LOL/year)/protected future draft capital.

Not necessarily bad GM work, but certainly not good. The team is looking at year 5 of a rebuild, with what will most likely be another lottery appearance next seasons. An average rebuild takes 4-6 seasons.

Is there a path where the Blazers luck out of Grant's contract, let Simons/Ayton/Timelord expire, have max cap space and use it properly, land an above average prospect in this and next year's draft, have Sharpe/Scoot/Camara/Clingan further develop, and walk away with an OKC style team? Sure. Do I think there's any chance of that actually happening? Not really.

And side note - at the time, I thought the Blazers were fleeced in the Powell/Covington trade. I still slightly do, but I've come to terms with the fact that, just like no other team was willing to give a 1st to DET for Grant, the getting fleeced feeling really stems more from Olshey overpaying for Powell and Covington to begin with - outbidding himself, which caused an unrealistic valuation of Powell and Covington versus what other teams were willing to offer.

[Walton1one]

The problem is, even if POR is mirroring a team like HOU or IND, they are a long way from attaining that level.

I posted about IND in another thread, but they have have a star (Halliburton), have a clear #2 option (Siakam) and then have done a masterful job signing key rotation pieces to mid\long term affordable deals.

POR does not have a star, may have a clear #2 (Avdija) and the current vets Grant\Simons\Ayton in particular are not signed to affordable deals and are all up for extensions.

You could call Williams' contract affordable, he can't stay healthy though & Thybulle's deal would be seen as affordable

How much do you pay Camara? Is he akin to Nesmith\Nembhard both making under $20mil. Is Simons worth more than that? He is getting that now and likely more if he is resigned. Grant is vastly overpaid, Ayton vastly overpaid and then you have Sharpe\Scoot & Clingan coming up in the next 1\2\3 years.

Where are the rotational players signed to affordable contracts? That is the concern here, well that and still missing the star player, kind of important

As for HOU, well they are the team POR mgmt keeps pointing to, problem is they won 52 games LY, 41 the year before that.

POR won 36 LY, is that supposed to be their 41win season? So we can expect them to win what 50 games next year then? 45? This is where the delusion seems to be most apparent.

HOU average age is 26, POR 24 however that is deceiving, b\c if you take the top 10 rotational players for HOU\POR and compare them (you know the players who actually play in games), HOU average age is 25.2 and POR is 24.9, so basically same age range yet one team is VASTLY better than the other. Expecting POR to take a HOU like leap next year is wishcasting.

The bottom line is that HOU vets: Van Fleet\Brooks\Adams & Holiday are better than Simons\Grant\Ayton\Thybulle as a group

and HOU young guys Thompson\Green\Sengun\Smith\Whitmore have performed better as a group than Scoot\Sharpe\Avdija\Camara\Clingan and those players are younger as a group than POR young guys to boot (21.8 average vs 22.4).

Not the same path