Let's talk about timelines

And how everyone seems to get it wrong. Plus, more ownership chatter.

Ownership is on everyone’s minds right now, in light of the latest report in the Wall St. Journal about the state of the Paul Allen Trust, and the inability of the Phil Knight-Alan Smomlinsky group to secure a deal, or even an audience, with Jody Allen and Bert Kolde. So I guess we will address that again before I get to the more pressing basketball concerns below.

As we have said before here, the parallels to HBO’s Succession are all too clear to ignore. The Allen-Kolde combo, playing as the children of Logan Roy, is clearly attempting to block a deal from a much more shrewd and successful businessman in the field of sports business, who seemingly everyone wants, with Phil Knight playing the role of Alexander Skarsgard’s Lukas Matsson. In this metaphor, we are all the Waystar Royco Board of Directors, praying for the deal to go through, except we don’t have board votes to influence our desired outcome.

Of course, real drama is never as simple as TV. And while the Jody-Bert pump-fake on bringing Erik Spoelstra home in 2021 remains one of the biggest misses in the history of this franchise, I can’t precisely say that Jody Allen refuses to spend money on the team, just because she didn’t follow through on something that would have been the best thing for the franchise two years ago. I don’t think about it every day or anything. For my fellow Succession fans, this is like the moment in Season 4 when the Roys toyed with the Pierce family about creating ‘The Hundred,’ only to bail at the last minute for no reason other than they just didn’t feel like it anymore.

But truth be told, Jody Allen has greenlit a lot of spending that Neil Olshey, either to prove that he could keep costs down, or because he wanted to have full control over all personnel moves, simply never asked her for. Cronin has asked and his wishes have been granted. They even have a G League team now.

Is she Phil Knight? No, and that sucks. But she is not holding the Blazers back by refusing to spend.

As I said in my last dispatch, the Blazers have more player development coaches and scouts than ever before, even though I think the coaching staff could use more X’s and O’s guys, but that seems to be an issue with Chauncey Billups’ and Joe Cronin’s selection of coaches more than it’s a sign of Allen’s lack of willingness to pay for such things.

Also as far as the “old building,” the Chris McGowan regime that took over the business side of the Blazers in 2012-13, which has been succeeded by Dewayne Hankins, pumped a lot of money into making the arena experience better. From including more local food vendors, to diversifying their retail offerings, to improved luxury seating, to more affordable drinks on the 300 level for people of all income levels, the notion that the Blazers are playing in a barren wasteland is the kind of bullshit commercial real estate developers want you to believe. I do agree they could use a bigger video board. Oh yeah, and sources tell me they’re getting a new roof on the building right now.

And speaking of bullshit things people want you to believe, let’s get to the reason I’m writing today: The Timeline.

One Timeline, In General, Is A Sales Tool. It’s Not A Coherent Team Building Strategy.

I want to talk about the notion of timelines and how they’re usually a transparent grift by people who are desperately looking to sell a narrative. Usually, these people selling the narrative are the executives of NBA teams, presidents, GMs, owners, or national podcasts looking to get a certain player on TV before their little East Coast bedtimes.

Scoot Henderson’s pre-draft workout on Saturday brought out a lot of talk about timelines. For most of the year, Scoot had been seen as the clear No. 2 player behind Victor Wembanyama. Over the course of the college season, with Scoot grinding in the shadows of college basketball with the G League Ignite, Alabama’s Brandon Miller effectively worked his way into a top-3 with Henderson and Wemby. And since lottery night, there’s been a lot of buzz that the Hornets may prefer the 6-9 Miller to complement LaMelo Ball.

Being that Henderson is a 6-3 guard, the conversation eventually shifts to, “Can he play together with Dame?” Scoot seems to think so. Yet many people locally and nationally discussing the Blazers suggest that it’s some kind of eventuality that if you draft Scoot, you have to trade Dame. But if Scoot is as special as many believe him to be, would it not behoove the Blazers to draft him and have him learn from Dame?

If the Blazers are able to flip Anfernee Simons for a wing (OG Anunoby, perhaps?), I see no reason why the Blazers wouldn’t be able to move forward with Dame and Scoot as their point guards. Dame’s exit interview about not wanting to wait around on talent to develop has been used as a reason why it can’t happen, but those statements occurred before Portland moved up in the lottery.

Dame also cannot play 48 minutes. Bringing in Scoot is different than bringing in your average 19-year-old, especially with Dame’s history of rarely having a true backup point guard. To me, Dame’s exit interview quotes are a moot point because the Blazers’ position is materially different now than it was then. It wouldn’t be hypocrisy to take Scoot if he’s there, it’s simply the right thing to do.

While trading No. 3 for Mikal Bridges still makes a lot of sense to me, if they also have to give up Simons in the deal, they wouldn’t have anything left to potentially add to their team. Whereas if they’re able to keep Scoot and keep Dame into his later years, there could be more of a natural transition between eras, with Lillard still contributing into his late 30s. They should still use Simons as the vehicle to bring in another wing to improve Portland’s point-of-attack defense. But provided they do that while re-signing Jerami Grant and another veteran with the MLE, they could easily find themselves in the playoffs next season with a still-in-his-prime Dame leading a hungry pack of young wolves. That sounds like a lot of fun to me.

In my opinion, it sounds a lot more fun than simply handing the keys to Scoot/Sharpe and trading Dame for Tyler Herro + Duncan Robinson + 4 first-round picks (insert any similar deal) that will never be in the lottery, because the team you’re getting picks from will have Damian Lillard (and presumably other stars) on it. In whatever form it’s been suggested, it’s the exact type of Dollar for 4 Quarters type of trade every franchise comes to regret.

Also, as someone who actually looks around the NBA, if you trade Dame, there’s very little separating the Blazers from being the Houston Rockets. If you actually care about basketball in this town, how can you want to be like the Houston Rockets? As one of our great modern philosophers once said, “You play to win the game! You don’t play to just play it!” And by trading Dame, based on some arbitrary bullshit like a made-up rule that everyone on your team has to be on the same timeline, you’re playing to just play it. HELLO!

Frankly, the Golden State Warriors are the most to blame for this tired logic making the airwaves on local sports radio and national NBA podcasts, that having multiple timelines can’t work. The Warriors just picked the wrong guy with their high lottery pick. If the Warriors had picked LaMelo Ball or Tyrese Haliburton, we would not be talking about how it was a bad idea and instead would be crediting them for building sustainability as we did with the Spurs 10 years ago.

To point to more recent examples: Chris Paul and the young Suns were not on the same “timeline,” until they were up 2-0 in the 2021 NBA Finals. Jimmy Butler is 33 and Bam Adebayo is 26, as they’ve made their 2nd NBA Finals in four seasons. The Celtics made it to the 2022 Finals and were a win away from a return trip with Al Horford having more than a decade on Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. I don’t remember anyone talking about timelines when these teams made the Finals.

So while the “multiple timelines” concept is in its flop era thanks to Golden State, the notion of one timeline being some kind of silver bullet is usually something desperate general managers use to sell hope to their owners and fans when their young players have failed to develop.

Winning teams don’t talk about timelines. They’re too busy retaining their best players and adding talent to their core. This is why Cronin hired Mike Schmitz and beefed up the front office. They know they can’t miss like Golden State did. And by hitting on Sharpe and Jabari Walker in the last draft, this front office has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to drafting.

While starting a Scoot/Shaedon backcourt would generate a lot of highlights immediately, I’ve seen a lot of young talented teams lose their way. The Memphis Grizzlies, anyone? Who is going to step up when they don’t know how? When it’s Game 45 and they’re struggling with the process, who is the example they will look to? Who will they turn to when they feel the pressure they’ve never felt before? Dame is the core and the culture of this team. And without him, talent is just talent. We’ve got too many examples of talented teams without a leader failing for me to sign off on such a future in good conscious.

What the talk about timelines removes from the conversation is that building a team is about the people in the building. And if you take Dame out of the timeline, what do you have to anchor you to the present? What’s your identity? The coach?

Get real.

Or as some might say, stop the cap.