Time to package Sharpe?

[Liver_Pooty]

Package him to us. We need something to watch.

[PDXKnight]

Package him to us. We need something to watch.

Top 4 pick and he's yours

[JasonStern]

I cannot find it at the moment, but I am sure I have read a study that demonstrated there is no correlation between roster continuity and winning. (To be completely fair, I did, however, find an unscientific article arguing the opposite: https://www.theringer.com/2022/08/16/nba/nba-trades-kevin-durant-roster-continuity.) The Blazers contenders you cite were renowned for their talent depth. And the 2000 squad replaced two starters from the 1999 team, so it's a puzzling inclusion.

And I don't say "TRADE EVERYONE" after losses only. I say it after wins, too.

Tough to argue against some random study you read somewhere but can't reference.

Meanwhile, you look at every dynasty in the NBA in my lifetime - the showtime Lakers, the Bulls, Kobe and Shaq Lakers, the Spurs, and the Warriors. And what do you notice them having in common? Low turnover in their core rotations. The 90-92 era Blazers were the same. Many key players had 3-5+ years on the team with the same coach running the same system for 3-5 years.

[JasonStern]

Just going to leave this here...

Read on Twitter

*cough* 36/8/5 *cough*

[JasonStern]

He is basically a poor mans Jalen Green on his best days.

Green is 2 years older and has put up 4 straight 20+ point games.

This is a really dumb thread with bad arguments being constantly made. Sharpe did a better job playing point against the Wizards than Scoot and Simons. Which is concerning, as it shows how dependent the team is for Deni to be either a secondary or primary ball handler. But it did show that Sharpe's ball handling skills have improved since last season. Insert "small sample size" and "it was against the Wizards" arguments here - at least those arguments are based. But he was the only player to score more than 16 points against the Wizards. That's concerning given the contracts we have.

This really should be a thread debating whether to try to trade Simons for scraps immediately or just letting his contract expire - not to trade the second best young player on the roster in hopes to get what is a coin toss at what we hope could be the next second best young player on the roster. Especially since everyone, for no real reason, wants to include Sharpe AND our lotto pick in this theoretical trade. And I say that as a "I think Simons is more valuable as an expiring than what we could get in a trade - unless maybe he goes beast mode in a contract year next season" fan.

Seriously, think this out. Sharpe and a lotto pick to move up where we basically just land a lotto pick and salary filler would just mean Billups is going to play Simons/Grant/Ayton 38 minutes a night next season. Other than just saying vague, unbacked statements like "Sharpe has no heart!" and "Sharpe sucks!", what are you realistically expecting from a 21 year old? This season, his PER is up a point and a half, his scoring average is up despite playing less minutes, and his turnovers are down. Looks like a young player that belongs in the league continuing to develop to me.

[Tim Lehrbach]

I cannot find it at the moment, but I am sure I have read a study that demonstrated there is no correlation between roster continuity and winning. (To be completely fair, I did, however, find an unscientific article arguing the opposite: https://www.theringer.com/2022/08/16/nba/nba-trades-kevin-durant-roster-continuity.) The Blazers contenders you cite were renowned for their talent depth. And the 2000 squad replaced two starters from the 1999 team, so it's a puzzling inclusion.

And I don't say "TRADE EVERYONE" after losses only. I say it after wins, too.

Tough to argue against some random study you read somewhere but can't reference.

Meanwhile, you look at every dynasty in the NBA in my lifetime - the showtime Lakers, the Bulls, Kobe and Shaq Lakers, the Spurs, and the Warriors. And what do you notice them having in common? Low turnover in their core rotations. The 90-92 era Blazers were the same. Many key players had 3-5+ years on the team with the same coach running the same system for 3-5 years.

Here's one: https://nhsjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Identifying-Correlations-Between-NBA-Success-and-Team-Dynamics-A-Statistical-Analysis.pdf?

And, I mean, you're making a fairly strong claim that continuity leads to or is a necessary condition for winning without proof. It's likewise pretty tough to argue against a few data points amidst about 2,000 team seasons in NBA history. You can't believe your findings here are statistically valid. Or, if you do, can you elaborate as to why continuity and not talent explains the success of teams featuring many of the greatest players in NBA history? Because that's what jumps out to me in the teams you mentioned.

What is your threshold for positive continuity? You already cut the 2000 Blazers from your list, I see. What about the Shaq and Kobe Lakers? The turnover around their two all-time talents included a different starting PF each year and three different starters (every starter but Kobe and Shaq!) between the first and second years of the three-peat! Chicago? They featured two completely different supporting casts around Jordan and Pippen. The Warriors added Kevin Durant midstream to becoming a dynasty. The Spurs rotated dozens of players around their big three.

Now, you did say "core," but again, let's be clear what examples you're trotting out here: teams built around Jordan, Duncan, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, Curry, Durant, Robinson, Pippen, Drexler, Worthy, Parker, Ginobili, Green, Rodman. If you're saying you should keep your core together, defining "core" as the best players on the team, and choosing a who's who of the best players in history as your evidence, well... no **** you should keep all-time level players on your roster to maximize your chances at winning.

Which players on this roster will join the ranks of the above? Whom should we jealously guard in pursuit of our forthcoming title runs?

Or, are you using dynastic cores to make an argument that any core fares better with continuity? If that's the case, show us the effect on merely good, average, and poor rosters.

Can you isolate the variables and show continuity to trump talent? Can you demonstrate that, relative to their peers and teams throughout history, those teams you mentioned were distinguished by their continuity? Can you show me that high continuity itself isn't a function of having better players than teams with low continuity? Is there a lower talent limit to the positive continuity effect? Will a squad of G-Leaguers eventually start piling up wins if they play together long enough? How substantial is the continuity effect? How many wins better can the Blazers expect to be, year-to-year, by keeping the core intact?

Do at least some of the necessary work, or cite sources. I am open to being convinced.

[Case2012]

Read on Twitter

The league was pumping Shaedon hard last night, hopefully boosting his value a bit. I think we could get a pick in the 5-10 range still.

Speaking of 10, that's where we are now with these ridiculous 3 wins. SA leaped us. Chauncey padding his record with meaningless wins against teams that know how to properly tank. If we stay at 10, based on what they did last year, i think we trade it. I wonder who they would target though?

[Case2012]

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=MaxaMillion711
10 minutes of dunks.

[Sinobas]

I cannot find it at the moment, but I am sure I have read a study that demonstrated there is no correlation between roster continuity and winning. (To be completely fair, I did, however, find an unscientific article arguing the opposite: https://www.theringer.com/2022/08/16/nba/nba-trades-kevin-durant-roster-continuity.) The Blazers contenders you cite were renowned for their talent depth. And the 2000 squad replaced two starters from the 1999 team, so it's a puzzling inclusion.

And I don't say "TRADE EVERYONE" after losses only. I say it after wins, too.

Tough to argue against some random study you read somewhere but can't reference.

Meanwhile, you look at every dynasty in the NBA in my lifetime - the showtime Lakers, the Bulls, Kobe and Shaq Lakers, the Spurs, and the Warriors. And what do you notice them having in common? Low turnover in their core rotations. The 90-92 era Blazers were the same. Many key players had 3-5+ years on the team with the same coach running the same system for 3-5 years.

You mean teams try to hold on to super stars? Amazing. The role players on those teams actually came and went. So that point means nothing.

But the idea that if you just keep a lineup together for years they will magically develop this chemistry that will allow them to perform substantially beyond their talent is BS. Any learning curve in that regard wouldn't take more than 1 season, and the affect itself isn't that substantial.

I've seen too many cases of new teams brought together, new players brought in, and they perform well right away, and vice versa.

[DusterBuster]

Read on Twitter

The league was pumping Shaedon hard last night, hopefully boosting his value a bit. I think we could get a pick in the 5-10 range still.

Speaking of 10, that's where we are now with these ridiculous 3 wins. SA leaped us. Chauncey padding his record with meaningless wins against teams that know how to properly tank. If we stay at 10, based on what they did last year, i think we trade it. I wonder who they would target though?

The 10th pick doesn’t really have a whole lot of trade value in any draft.

Getting any significant value in a trade involving that pick would require probably another pick or more and players. Even getting a guy like Deni - a high level non-all star starter - required one lottery and future picks.

More realistic (boring) outcome is they just use the pick.

[Walton1one]

Duster, you could be right, however teams tend to get starry eyed at the draft and trade away players they normally wouldn’t to acquire that shiny new prospect

When I went thru every team, Here are the names I came out with that are in the realm of possibility that could be acquired for POR 25’ 1st or their 1st + a little extra

I don’t think it is an inspiring list, but if they are chasing older players rather than another 19/20 rookie, there are some intriguing possibilities there. None that move the needle much IMO

Kispert\WAS
Agbaji\TOR
K Johnson\SA
K Oubre\PHI
A Black\ORL
I Joe\OKC
A Wiggins\OKC
J Hawkins\NO
N Alexander Walker\MIN
J McDaniels?\MIN
S Aldama\MEM
GG Jackson\MEM
D Knecht\LAL
B Mathurin\IND
R Nembhard\IND
J Walker\IND
C Whitmore\HOU
T Eason\HOU
J Strawther\DEN
P Watson\DEN
C Braun\DEN
I Okoro\CLE
T Mann\CHA
N Smith\CHA
J Green\CHA
C Johnson\BRK

[Shem]

Watch on YouTube

[Wizenheimer]

Meanwhile, you look at every dynasty in the NBA in my lifetime - the showtime Lakers, the Bulls, Kobe and Shaq Lakers, the Spurs, and the Warriors. And what do you notice them having in common? Low turnover in their core rotations. The 90-92 era Blazers were the same. Many key players had 3-5+ years on the team with the same coach running the same system for 3-5 years.

there's so much to to unpack from that paragraph I should probably be drinking before I start. You obviously were when you wrote it

first thing, you're confused about the difference between a core and a supporting cast. I'll go thru the teams you mentioned:

* Lakers: their core was Magic and Kareem. About halfway thru their run they added Worthy to the core. But the supporting cast went thru a lot of flux. They started with Jamal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, Jim Chones, Spenser Haywood and moved to Byron Scott, AC Green, Mychal Thompson, Kurt Rambis. And Michael Cooper was kind of the glue tying the supporting casts together

* Bulls: this one is easy; the core was Jordan and Pippen. For the first three-peat it was Jordan/Pippen/Grant. For the 2nd threepeat it was Jordan/Pippen/Rodman. The supporting cast over that time changed dramatically. No point in listing the 15 rotation players the Bulls had over that time

* Lakers: Core = Kobe/Shaq...that's it. Glenn Rice & Ron Harper were primary support for the 1st title; Derreck Fisher and Rick Fox for the 3rd title

* Spurs: well, their run of 5 championships spanned a period of 12 years. Duncan/Parker/Manu were generally the core over that time. But primary support for the 1st championship was David Robinson/Stephen Jackson/Malik Rose. For the 3rd title. support was Kawhi/Marco Bellinelli/ Boris Diaw/Danny Green. By the time the Spurs won their 5th title, Kawhi had elevated himself to the primary core player as the Duncan/Parker/Manu trio was aging out

* Warriors: another easy answer - the core was Curry/Klay/Draymond. They cheated and added Durant in the center of their dynasty. the supporting cast for their 1st title was Barnes/Iggy/Bogut/Livingson. The supporting cast of their last title was Wiggins, Jordan Poole, Looney, Otto Porter

so, in one way you're correct: the cores and coaches remained constant, for the most part. But that's where you launced yourself off the deep end and dove into the tall grass. And yes, that mixed metaphor works in this case

your observation has absolutely no bearing on the current Blazers....none

coaches? are you seriously going to try and create any kind of equivalency between Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, Greg Popovich, Steve Kerr and....Chauncey Billups? Between HOF coaches and somebody with a 35% winning percentage as coach?

and cores? really? Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Parker, Kawhi, Ginobli, Curry, Klay, Durant, Draymond....there are a bazillion all-star appearances and a gagillion all-NBA awards in those core players....

pointing to the reality that the Blazers don't have a single core player, They've only had one core player over the last decade and they traded him away because it was an impossible task, seemingly, for the last two Blazers GM's to build a contender around him. Portland has a couple of players the fans hope can become core. And the Blazers apparently have a GM who has thrown up his hands (when he's not sitting on them) and said "screw it, I'll just treat 3 deeply flawed role playing veterans like core pieces, pay them as such, and hope the fanbase doesn't notice"

the Blazers are not protecting anything other than completely speculative and subjective value by practicing continuity. They wouldn't be losing an elite coach by dumping Billups; and they wouldn't be losing core players by trading Simons and Grant

[Walton1one]

I am not an advocate of trading Sharpe away, he is just 21yrs old.

I am also not remotely convinced that Sharpe is a "franchise" player either, or even a key 2nd/3rd piece, and not sure he is worth $30mil+/year either.

Fortunately, POR does not have to necessarily make that decision this off season. They have a club option next year, which they will certainly pick up and then he is a RFA in 26/27, so they have a little more time to evaluate if he is worth the money or not.

One thing about the new CBA is that I do think it is causing teams to re-evaluate if a player is worth "the max" of what they are eligilbe for. Certainly you don't want to be paying Sharpe that much money for the topsy turvy performances he has been putting up this year when he has been relatively healthy

Right now, he grades out as an average player:
His NETRTG ranks in the 30% (meaning 70% of NBA players have a better rating than him)
His eFG% ranks in the 45%
His TS% ranks in the 46%
His Defense ranks in the 25%
His ORB is in the 29%
His DRB is in the 35%
His USG is in the 86% range

So, high usage with not high results. Not totally surprising, given his age, but certainly not "star level" certainty either

3-Steps ranked him as Promising

https://3stepsbasket.com/player/shaedon-sharpe/advanced?season=nba25

Yes, he had 36-8-5 a few games ago, great performance. He also had 11--2 with 4TO vs LAL 2 games before that. Cherry picking? yep, but so is the 36-8-5 line

Sharpe is an erratic player, capable of going off for 30 for a game, maybe even 2 or 3 in a row and then have a ho hum 4 game stretch of 14, 11, 14, 11

A good example is the month of February, capped off by two good performances:

25-4-5
36-8-5

The games before that?

12-2-0
20-3-5
11-1-2
14-4-7
11-3-1
14-3-3
24-4-1
17-4-1
9-1-2
16-1-0

I wouldn't trade him away just for kicks, but I don't think he is untouchable either

[Walton1one]

Comparison b\t Sharpe, Scoot & Simons

remember though, Sharpe is 21, Scoot is 20, Simons is 25

b]Sharpe[/b]
His NETRTG ranks in the 30%
His eFG% ranks in the 45%
His TS% ranks in the 46%
Ball handling ranks in the 69%
His Defense ranks in the 25%
His ORB is in the 29%
His DRB is in the 35%
His USG is in the 86% range

Scoot
NETRTG ranks in the 63%
eFG% in the 40%
TS% ranks in the 46%
Ball Handling ranks in the 91%
Defense ranks in the 32%
ORB% ranks in the 28%
DRB% ranks in the 21%
USG ranks in the 72%

Simons
NETRTG ranks in the 37%
eFG% in the 47%
TS% ranks in the 47%
Ball Handling ranks in the 91%
Defense ranks in the 27%
ORB% ranks in the 7%
DRB% ranks in the 10%
USG ranks in the 85%

[PDXKnight]

If Sharpe finishes out strong and is worth a top 4 pick to another team (obviously wouldn't be number 1, I'm referring to 2-4 ie a team like Toronto is willing to part with a high pick for sharpe) I'd definitely still have to jump on it. Sharpe has looked good in spurts but based on what we've seen up to now I'm uncomfortable offering him a max contract. But I can't see a team not coming close to that if he gets to rfa

[Butter]

Comparison b\t Sharpe, Scoot & Simons

remember though, Sharpe is 21, Scoot is 20, Simons is 25

b]Sharpe[/b]
His NETRTG ranks in the 30%
His eFG% ranks in the 45%
His TS% ranks in the 46%
Ball handling ranks in the 69%
His Defense ranks in the 25%
His ORB is in the 29%
His DRB is in the 35%
His USG is in the 86% range

Scoot
NETRTG ranks in the 63%
eFG% in the 40%
TS% ranks in the 46%
Ball Handling ranks in the 91%
Defense ranks in the 32%
ORB% ranks in the 28%
DRB% ranks in the 21%
USG ranks in the 72%

Simons
NETRTG ranks in the 37%
eFG% in the 47%
TS% ranks in the 47%
Ball Handling ranks in the 91%
Defense ranks in the 27%
ORB% ranks in the 7%
DRB% ranks in the 10%
USG ranks in the 85%

Wow, interesting post

Comparing Sharp and Simons side by side is very informative. Shaedon is at or better than Simons in many categories except ball handling. Nether of the is a strong defender.

I've been raising the issue if trading Sharp for some time now, but mostly because of the cap ramifications of his extension. If the Blazers pay him a MAX deal, and he doesn't become a super star, it's really going to limit this teams ceiling.

If he accepts a deal close to Simons, based on the similar production, that's bearable, but not likely.

If the Blazers do keep him, I think the BEST course of action is to let him play out the last year of his rookie deal next season, under a different coach. Hopefully Sharp commits to improving his ball handling, and goes to some Draymind Green @-hole boot camp to get more assertive in the game.

[Walton1one]

Ranks POR best players as

Deni Avdija 82%
Robert Williams 75%
Toumani Camara 72%
Donavan Clingan 70%

Which fits the eye test, hard to say with Williams since he’s not on the floor very often but when he is on the floor, he’s very impactful

And this is why POR is a better team this year, 3 of those players are new to the rotation this year

Williams didn’t play last year

both Avdija and Clingan are new to the team

And Camara has seen a big jump in his level of play, LY he was 64%, this year 72%

Scoot, who ranks 5th BTW, is at 64%, LY he was at 34%

[JasonStern]

I cannot find it at the moment, but I am sure I have read a study that demonstrated there is no correlation between roster continuity and winning. (To be completely fair, I did, however, find an unscientific article arguing the opposite: https://www.theringer.com/2022/08/16/nba/nba-trades-kevin-durant-roster-continuity.) The Blazers contenders you cite were renowned for their talent depth. And the 2000 squad replaced two starters from the 1999 team, so it's a puzzling inclusion.

And I don't say "TRADE EVERYONE" after losses only. I say it after wins, too.

Tough to argue against some random study you read somewhere but can't reference.

Meanwhile, you look at every dynasty in the NBA in my lifetime - the showtime Lakers, the Bulls, Kobe and Shaq Lakers, the Spurs, and the Warriors. And what do you notice them having in common? Low turnover in their core rotations. The 90-92 era Blazers were the same. Many key players had 3-5+ years on the team with the same coach running the same system for 3-5 years.

Here's one: https://nhsjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Identifying-Correlations-Between-NBA-Success-and-Team-Dynamics-A-Statistical-Analysis.pdf?

And, I mean, you're making a fairly strong claim that continuity leads to or is a necessary condition for winning without proof. It's likewise pretty tough to argue against a few data points amidst about 2,000 team seasons in NBA history. You can't believe your findings here are statistically valid. Or, if you do, can you elaborate as to why continuity and not talent explains the success of teams featuring many of the greatest players in NBA history? Because that's what jumps out to me in the teams you mentioned.

What is your threshold for positive continuity? You already cut the 2000 Blazers from your list, I see. What about the Shaq and Kobe Lakers? The turnover around their two all-time talents included a different starting PF each year and three different starters (every starter but Kobe and Shaq!) between the first and second years of the three-peat! Chicago? They featured two completely different supporting casts around Jordan and Pippen. The Warriors added Kevin Durant midstream to becoming a dynasty. The Spurs rotated dozens of players around their big three.

Now, you did say "core," but again, let's be clear what examples you're trotting out here: teams built around Jordan, Duncan, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, Curry, Durant, Robinson, Pippen, Drexler, Worthy, Parker, Ginobili, Green, Rodman. If you're saying you should keep your core together, defining "core" as the best players on the team, and choosing a who's who of the best players in history as your evidence, well... no **** you should keep all-time level players on your roster to maximize your chances at winning.

Which players on this roster will join the ranks of the above? Whom should we jealously guard in pursuit of our forthcoming title runs?

Or, are you using dynastic cores to make an argument that any core fares better with continuity? If that's the case, show us the effect on merely good, average, and poor rosters.

Can you isolate the variables and show continuity to trump talent? Can you demonstrate that, relative to their peers and teams throughout history, those teams you mentioned were distinguished by their continuity? Can you show me that high continuity itself isn't a function of having better players than teams with low continuity? Is there a lower talent limit to the positive continuity effect? Will a squad of G-Leaguers eventually start piling up wins if they play together long enough? How substantial is the continuity effect? How many wins better can the Blazers expect to be, year-to-year, by keeping the core intact?

Do at least some of the necessary work, or cite sources. I am open to being convinced.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/ ?

I listed multiple dynasties (minimum 3 finals runs). All of them had a roster turnover of under 50% from year 1 to the dynasty end. The one exception is the Bulls, if you view that as one 1990-1998 dynasty and not the pre-Jordan retirement and return of Jordan as two separate dynasties. And even then, you still had the same two lead players and the same coach running the same system.

If there was no benefit to consistency as you claim, players and coaches would only have one year contracts. Why try to retain talent if you can so easily just plug and play a replacement player in? Why even deal with the draft when you know most players need time to develop - despite the claim that you can just drop in random players with no drop-off?

The Heatles is, again, a great example of how this plays out. You have arguably the GOAT in his prime in LeBron, and two hall of fame players in Wade and Bosh. An insane amount of talent. Plus one of the best coaches in the NBA in Spoelstra. And what happened year one? Despite that level of talent just dropped in, they lost to the less talented Mavericks. A team that had a core that had less than 50% roster turnover the two seasons prior. What happened year 2 of the Heatles? They went on to win two consecutive championships.

Better analogy that maybe clicks - I can get 9 women pregnant, but that doesn't make a baby in a month.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Eh, I don't agree with all that, but we've quickly jumped to lampooning each other's arguments, so I won't rebut everything and instead just say this: continuity is a plus if you have players worth keeping. And that's really the crux of the issue for me. I see the team playing well lately but am not convinced we have a winning roster, even given years to grow individually and together under steady leadership. Draft luck could change everything, however. Check on my level of optimism after the lottery.