EuroBasket: Deni Watch

[Blaze the Nugz]

if the discussion is about how to gauge Portland's draft picks since Schmitz arrived:

if it's the case that 7th pick Sharpe in his 4th season, and 3rd pick Scoot in his 3rd season, and neither is starting, that's a pretty strong lean toward mediocre results....or mismatched coaching; adding in the Murray selection doesn't make things better. Also, the Blazers had the chance to draft Camara but instead chose Rupert

Clingan may be the best selection and I'll admit I wasn't keen on drafting him....but I'm not being paid a million dollars a year to make draft picks

For all we know, it was Schmitz that insisted that Camara was a must-have in that trade. What if Schmitz wanted Camara all along but Cronin stuck with his gut and selected Murray? This whole discussion of Schmitz' efficacy is pure speculation given the opacity of his role in the organization. We know he's supposed to be a talent evaluator but we don't know the extent of his influence with respect to draft selections.

sure....we don't know. But I will not believe for a single second, ever, there was any significant disagreement about who to select with a 43rd pick. If Scmitz wasn't front and center on the Rupert selection what is he being paid for?

sorry Blaze, but I have no patience for the 'we don't know exactly what...' argument. It was used for years to excuse the totally stupid things Olshey did. If not knowing for certain is the standard for assumption and discussion, might as well shut down RealGM and all the discussion forums like it.

Well, I am giving Schmitz a full cycle to see how his talent evaluation pans out. I'm looking at this the same way I look at a college football head coach hire. That is, let them recruit their guys, shape the team their way, and see how things are going when those freshmen are seniors. Scoot and Shae have not had the kind of opportunity we would expect future franchise pillars to have. I put the blame for this squarely on Cronin.

[Wizenheimer]

For all we know, it was Schmitz that insisted that Camara was a must-have in that trade. What if Schmitz wanted Camara all along but Cronin stuck with his gut and selected Murray? This whole discussion of Schmitz' efficacy is pure speculation given the opacity of his role in the organization. We know he's supposed to be a talent evaluator but we don't know the extent of his influence with respect to draft selections.

sure....we don't know. But I will not believe for a single second, ever, there was any significant disagreement about who to select with a 43rd pick. If Scmitz wasn't front and center on the Rupert selection what is he being paid for?

sorry Blaze, but I have no patience for the 'we don't know exactly what...' argument. It was used for years to excuse the totally stupid things Olshey did. If not knowing for certain is the standard for assumption and discussion, might as well shut down RealGM and all the discussion forums like it.

Well, I am giving Schmitz a full cycle to see how his talent evaluation pans out. I'm looking at this the same way I look at a college football head coach hire. That is, let them recruit their guys, shape the team their way, and see how things are going when those freshmen are seniors. Scoot and Shae have not had the kind of opportunity we would expect future franchise pillars to have. I put the blame for this squarely on Cronin.

ok...that's fair....although since we don't know for sure who makes the decisions on this, I think, if there is blame to assign, both should get it. But I do agree there is a real disconnect between the Blazers investing in 3 top-7 picks in the last 3 drafts and having a coach who has only started those 3 players 171 of the 379 games they have played. 55% of the time they have come off the bench. There's no real way to gauge rookie scale players when they don't start most of time, and rarely start together. The dual-track approach of the Blazers has sucked

[DusterBuster]

sure....we don't know. But I will not believe for a single second, ever, there was any significant disagreement about who to select with a 43rd pick. If Scmitz wasn't front and center on the Rupert selection what is he being paid for?

sorry Blaze, but I have no patience for the 'we don't know exactly what...' argument. It was used for years to excuse the totally stupid things Olshey did. If not knowing for certain is the standard for assumption and discussion, might as well shut down RealGM and all the discussion forums like it.

Well, I am giving Schmitz a full cycle to see how his talent evaluation pans out. I'm looking at this the same way I look at a college football head coach hire. That is, let them recruit their guys, shape the team their way, and see how things are going when those freshmen are seniors. Scoot and Shae have not had the kind of opportunity we would expect future franchise pillars to have. I put the blame for this squarely on Cronin.

ok...that's fair....although since we don't know for sure who makes the decisions on this, I think, if there is blame to assign, both should get it. But I do agree there is a real disconnect between the Blazers investing in 3 top-7 picks in the last 3 drafts and having a coach who has only started those 3 players 171 of the 379 games they have played. 55% of the time they have come off the bench. There's no real way to gauge rookie scale players when they don't start most of time, and rarely start together. The dual-track approach of the Blazers has sucked

I find this to be a bit of a strange take. Blame the nurse as well because the doctor misdiagnosed the patient?

I guess I get the thought/feeling of just wanting a full clean fresh start, I do get that thought... I also feel that kind of blunt "wipe the board and start over" approach lacks a lot of nuance that performance evaluations should have.

I can sometimes be mistaken for given GM's and FO execs a lot of passes, but really it's just that I'm willing to accept that what these jobs entail have so many more fine detail points that we as fans on the outside aren't privy to. And those details are a far more nuanced of a metric of if a person is good at their job than what we can tell from afar which is basically "how has this player done compared to other players in their draft" assessments. They didn't pick the best player in they draft at #7!!! Well if the best player in the draft was picked at 12 for some reason, than 11 other teams missed that boat and maybe would have been more...

I just think we should have a bit more leeway as fans to respect the fact that there's probably 80% of the day to day of these jobs we don't and never will have any insight into.

After enough time, I think you can start casting those stones with enough long-term evidence, but that takes a lot longer than most of us want to accept. 2-3 season probably isn't enough if we're being fair and truthfully accepting how long a rebuild or youth take to develop.

For example, we **** on the teams that just swap coaches every season because they're 10 games under expectation (Kings) or quick to pull the trigger on moving guys too soon (also Kings), but then we **** on FO's who hold onto players or go in paths we don't like as well.

TL:DR; this **** seems tough. Luck plays a major role in it. Also behind the scenes edicts from ownership plays a role. Internal politics can play a role.

IMO a FO staff needs at least 5 years in place to truly know if they're good or not... assuming they're not making historically bad moves like Niko Harrison... but even he's getting more runway after making arguably one of the worst trades in over a decade or more? Running a franchise is like running an economy, it doesn't usually turn on a dime. If it does, it's because of a huge stroke of luck. OKC getting SGA in that deal for George - it was a no brainer deal at the time, but literally no one - and I mean no one - had SGA as ever even remotely being a MVP quality player.

[Wizenheimer]

I find this to be a bit of a strange take. Blame the nurse as well because the doctor misdiagnosed the patient?

I can sometimes be mistaken for given GM's and FO execs a lot of passes, but really it's just that I'm willing to accept that what these jobs entail have so many more fine detail points that we as fans on the outside aren't privy to.

are you saying there was a misdiagnosis, but we aren't sure who the nurse was and who the doctor was...? Something may have gone wrong but nobody is responsible if it has?

I've said it before, but my thinking is if Ayton hadn't asked for a buyout, and with Chauncey still as coach, AND a brand new extension, there would have been a very real chance that Sharpe, Scoot, and Clingan would have all been backups this season....or at least started the season on the bench. Now maybe, Chauncey will make Grant a 6th man this season; but he's started Grant 164 out of 164 times, so it may not be in the cards.

I'm still hopeful for Sharpe, but I'm sure not as optimistic as I used to be; same for Scoot. Clingan impressed me last season, but IMO, drafting a slow drop-coverage C in Yang a year after drafting a slow drop-coverage C in Clingan makes little basketball sense to me; maybe a bit more asset collection sense, but still, it's definite redundancy in a floor position it's better to have versatility than redundancy

IMO a FO staff needs at least 5 years in place to truly know if they're good or not

This will be Cronin's 4th team; he's had 4 trade deadlines, 4 off-seasons, and 4 drafts. I'm not buying the notion we need to wait till the conclusion of his 5th season, following his 5th trade deadline, 5th draft, and 5th off-season before we can make some judgements. If Paul Allen had been smart enough to shtcan Olshey after his 4th season, he could have stopped Olshey from giving out 345M in contracts to a bunch of role players effectively hamstringing the Blazers flexibility for years. Did we really need that 5th season of Olshey to know he was a crap GM?

[DusterBuster]

I find this to be a bit of a strange take. Blame the nurse as well because the doctor misdiagnosed the patient?

I can sometimes be mistaken for given GM's and FO execs a lot of passes, but really it's just that I'm willing to accept that what these jobs entail have so many more fine detail points that we as fans on the outside aren't privy to.

are you saying there was a misdiagnosis, but we aren't sure who the nurse was and who the doctor was...? Something may have gone wrong but nobody is responsible if it has?

I've said it before, but my thinking is if Ayton hadn't asked for a buyout, and with Chauncey still as coach, AND a brand new extension, there would have been a very real chance that Sharpe, Scoot, and Clingan would have all been backups this season....or at least started the season on the bench. Now maybe, Chauncey will make Grant a 6th man this season; but he's started Grant 164 out of 164 times, so it may not be in the cards.

I'm still hopeful for Sharpe, but I'm sure not as optimistic as I used to be; same for Scoot. Clingan impressed me last season, but IMO, drafting a slow drop-coverage C in Yang a year after drafting a slow drop-coverage C in Clingan makes little basketball sense to me; maybe a bit more asset collection sense, but still, it's definite redundancy in a floor position it's better to have versatility than redundancy

IMO a FO staff needs at least 5 years in place to truly know if they're good or not

This will be Cronin's 4th team; he's had 4 trade deadlines, 4 off-seasons, and 4 drafts. I'm not buying the notion we need to wait till the conclusion of his 5th season, following his 5th trade deadline, 5th draft, and 5th off-season before we can make some judgements. If Paul Allen had been smart enough to shtcan Olshey after his 4th season, he could have stopped Olshey from giving out 345M in contracts to a bunch of role players effectively hamstringing the Blazers flexibility for years. Did we really need that 5th season of Olshey to know he was a crap GM?

My post wasn't about Cronin, it was focused on Schmitz. Cronin, I agree, he's had his chance, if this year is more of the same, I think getting someone new in charge is fine. My iffy analogy was just that I don't necessarily agree that there needs to be a clean slate wipe of EVERYONE and that Schmitz has gotten unfairly derided a bit on here.