Anfernee Simons trade destinations

[Whyachi]

nobody questions Simons offensive prowess. But his defensive rating is .... oh whoops, my bad. This is the trade Simons thread.

*All-Star potential, electrifying scorer, slam dunk champion, improved two-way capabilities. Ant can play 1-3. Team friendly contract !!

backstory: The Blazers were mere moments away from being contenders until Lillard messed up the team. Now Portland is rebuilding, and Simons no longer fits the timeline. 6 FRP's, open to negotiation.

Anyone with interest dial 1-800-Go-Joe

 

[beast blazer]

Scoot was better than Ant at defense last season... just think about that for a bit. Scoot also showed a much better ability to facilitate for others on offense last season.

So yeah, Ant is better at going one on five. He's the better scorer obviously. I just worry that Chauncey will want to have Ant on the floor a lot and that Chauncey won't keep Ant from dominating the ball the way he did last season and that will be detrimental to the development of Scoot and Shaedon.

I'm not advocating giving Ant away, I just hope we're shopping him.

Scoot probably will be a better facilitator, but Simons is no slouch either 5.5 assists as a SG is pretty good. And Simons will draw the defense to him wheras teams will let Scoot shoot.

Simons will probably never be anything but a bad defender, but so was Lillard. But if Simons blows up as a scorer his trade value will go way up. Plus, why trade him now while Scoot is bad on both ends?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Plus, why trade him now while Scoot is bad on both ends?

@Natebishop3 already answered that question earlier in the thread.

Except.... we don't want to win games next year

 

[Pinwheel1]

.

Now Portland is rebuilding, and Simons no longer fits the timeline. 6 FRP's, open to negotiation.

I would say the longest possible timeline any team should ever realistically plan for....... is 7 years.
Ant would then be 31. So I question why this part keeps coming up.

 

[wizenheimer]

I would say the longest possible timeline any team should ever realistically plan for....... is 7 years.
Ant would then be 31. So I question why this part keeps coming up.

7 years is only for a player who hasn't played a game during his rookie scale contract. Sharpe's timeline is 5 years; Scott's is 6

most timelines will match the duration of contracts until UFA. Simons and Ayton can walk in 2 years, along with Thybulle. I would say Timelord can walk two years from now, but that might be too optimistic

 

[beast blazer]

I would say the longest possible timeline any team should ever realistically plan for....... is 7 years.
Ant would then be 31. So I question why this part keeps coming up.

Yeah, he's 25 years old. I don't know what they're talking about. Imagine if we had traded 25 year old Damian Lillard because we had just drafted Sebastian Telfair.

I get the idea that we'll need to eventually pick one, but we shouldn't trade Simons for peanuts just to get rid of him.

 

[Pinwheel1]

7 years is only for a player who hasn't played a game during his rookie scale contract. Sharpe's timeline is 5 years; Scott's is 6

most timelines will match the duration of contracts until UFA. Simons and Ayton can walk in 2 years, along with Thybulle. I would say Timelord can walk two years from now, but that might be too optimistic

Exactly. Which is why I said 7 should be the most we should realistically plan for.

 

[Tince]

nobody questions Simons offensive prowess. But his defensive rating is .... oh whoops, my bad. This is the trade Simons thread.

*All-Star potential, electrifying scorer, slam dunk champion, improved two-way capabilities. Ant can play 1-3. Team friendly contract !!

backstory: The Blazers were mere moments away from being contenders until Lillard messed up the team. Now Portland is rebuilding, and Simons no longer fits the timeline. 6 FRP's, open to negotiation.

Anyone with interest dial 1-800-Go-Joe

I continue to state that if we can get a good return for Ant, I'm all for it. This is the trade Simons thread, not the "only speak negatively of Simons" thread. Providing context for his value in comparison to others in the league should be allowed.

The "timeline" stuff is silly though. If Simons is too old for the timeline, then so is Camara, Reath, Ayton, Murray, etc etc. We don't need every player on the roster to be under 23. In fact, I'd argue having a mix of youth, players in their prime, and vets is probably good for franchise building.

 

[Boomchakalaka2]

I would say the longest possible timeline any team should ever realistically plan for....... is 7 years.
Ant would then be 31. So I question why this part keeps coming up.

with Portland’s inability to attract free agents and keep our stars, seven years is not good planning. I say three years, maybe four - and we will still lose one or two of our groomed youngsters to free agency!

 

[Pinwheel1]

with Portland’s inability to attract free agents and keep our stars, seven years is not good planning. I say three years, maybe four - and we will still lose one or two of our groomed youngsters to free agency!

Which again is why I didn't say 7 years, I said the MOST should be seven years.
Which is why I think saying Ant is not in our timeline is ridiculous.

 

[Tince]

with Portland’s inability to attract free agents and keep our stars, seven years is not good planning. I say three years, maybe four - and we will still lose one or two of our groomed youngsters to free agency!

Bingo!

 

[Boomchakalaka2]

As a fan, cheering for a perineal loser just isn’t fun. Having half the team in street clothes for the final twenty games just isn’t fun to watch! Rebuilding to me means “out with the old and in with the new.” Doesn’t have to mean that we get rid of talented veterans for 18-19 year olds with “high upside,” because I want to see a winning product. You have to build a team with a mix of veterans and filter in youth. This way the youngsters are brought up in a winning environment rather than a losing one. For me, if Scoot doesn’t look any better this season from last, move on. Same with any of them. But please don’t sell me on a seven-year rebuild (or a three year rebuild for that matter) because I know too well that by the time the team of youngsters begin to look like a winner (maybe) the good players will either leave in free agency OR like is the case with ANT, everyone says it’s time to move him to let the kids get more minutes. This is kinda crazy. Oh! And ANT is only in his 6th season! Time for him to go!?!

 

[blazerkor]

As a fan, cheering for a perineal loser just isn’t fun. Having half the team in street clothes for the final twenty games just isn’t fun to watch! Rebuilding to me means “out with the old and in with the new.” Doesn’t have to mean that we get rid of talented veterans for 18-19 year olds with “high upside,” because I want to see a winning product. You have to build a team with a mix of veterans and filter in youth. This way the youngsters are brought up in a winning environment rather than a losing one. For me, if Scoot doesn’t look any better this season from last, move on. Same with any of them. But please don’t sell me on a seven-year rebuild (or a three year rebuild for that matter) because I know too well that by the time the team of youngsters begin to look like a winner (maybe) the good players will either leave in free agency OR like is the case with ANT, everyone says it’s time to move him to let the kids get more minutes. This is kinda crazy. Oh! And ANT is only in his 6th season! Time for him to go!?!

Ant isn't outside the window as far as age goes. In fact he's perfect in that way. It's just from what I saw last season from him he definitely isn't setting an example for how to play winning ball. He's in fact taking opportunities away from our young guys by going iso in a system that is not supposed to be designed around that and putting them in bad situations with his piss poor defense. The same is true of Jerami on the offensive end and he is outside the window that we should be targeting.

I won't try to sell you on a youth rebuild but just because you aren't sold doesn't mean it's a bad way for small markets to build a contender. You're impatient and that's your prerogative to be that way, just don't expect us all to be.

We didn't lose the best dude to ever have been a star on this team to half ass and rush this rebuild and end up year in and year out in play-in purgatory.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

As a fan, cheering for a perineal loser just isn't fun.

It certainly does taint the fan experience.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If I were running things, yes. If Scoot shows the ability to at least be average NBA starter level, then I would adjust my opinion.

Even Scoot as an average NBA starter would have proven less than Ant. I don't see Scoot starting until Ant is gone.

 

[Natebishop3]

As a fan, cheering for a perineal loser just isn’t fun. Having half the team in street clothes for the final twenty games just isn’t fun to watch! Rebuilding to me means “out with the old and in with the new.” Doesn’t have to mean that we get rid of talented veterans for 18-19 year olds with “high upside,” because I want to see a winning product. You have to build a team with a mix of veterans and filter in youth. This way the youngsters are brought up in a winning environment rather than a losing one. For me, if Scoot doesn’t look any better this season from last, move on. Same with any of them. But please don’t sell me on a seven-year rebuild (or a three year rebuild for that matter) because I know too well that by the time the team of youngsters begin to look like a winner (maybe) the good players will either leave in free agency OR like is the case with ANT, everyone says it’s time to move him to let the kids get more minutes. This is kinda crazy. Oh! And ANT is only in his 6th season! Time for him to go!?!

You know what I hate? Being a perennial also ran. It has been 20+ years since we were a legitimate contender. To me that’s a waste of time. I’d rather stomach a few years of being really bad and have a shot at drafting a superstar who will give us a real chance at a ring.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You know what I hate? Being a perennial also ran. It has been 20+ years since we were a legitimate contender. To me that’s a waste of time. I’d rather stomach a few years of being really bad and have a shot at drafting a superstar who will give us a real chance at a ring.

Absolutely. We're bad. Take the lumps now so we can delay the next time as long as possible.

 

[Tince]

You know what I hate? Being a perennial also ran. It has been 20+ years since we were a legitimate contender. To me that’s a waste of time. I’d rather stomach a few years of being really bad and have a shot at drafting a superstar who will give us a real chance at a ring.

I'm not sure the path to winning a ring in the next 5-7 years is any higher now than it was back when we were making the playoffs.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm not sure the path to winning a ring in the next 5-7 years is any higher now than it was back when we were making the playoffs.

I disagree. Even now, with the roster we have, we are significantly more balanced than we were in The last 5-7 years.

Simons/Scoot
Sharpe/Banton
Avdija/Thybulle
Grant/Camara
Ayton/Clingan

That roster is longer and more athletic than anything Dame had after LMA/Batum/Wes left. And if we get a top 3 pick next summer, now we're really cooking and I see a very clear path to winning a ring. I think Simons and Grant are most likely not long for this team. Obviously we need someone to pop on the level of Dame and then a second player to pop, and that's a big if, but we were basically in a situation where we had Dame and we had no chance of getting a second star once LMA left. What team wins a championship with one superstar?

 

[Tince]

I disagree. Even now, with the roster we have, we are significantly more balanced than we were in The last 5-7 years.

Simons/Scoot
Sharpe/Banton
Avdija/Thybulle
Grant/Camara
Ayton/Clingan

That roster is longer and more athletic than anything Dame had after LMA/Batum/Wes left. And if we get a top 3 pick next summer, now we're really cooking and I see a very clear path to winning a ring. I think Simons and Grant are most likely not long for this team. Obviously we need someone to pop on the level of Dame and then a second player to pop, and that's a big if, but we were basically in a situation where we had Dame and we had no chance of getting a second star once LMA left. What team wins a championship with one superstar?

Balance in the sense that gap between top talent and bottom talent is as close as we've seen since our 2000 team, I agree. The problem is, we have a bunch of average/below average talent. This team is bad and the path to being a championship contender requires a lot of ANDs hitting. Even more than the Dame years.

I agree it's rare to win a title without only one superstar. Even more rare to win with zero superstars. And even more rare to win with zero all-stars. You can guess which category this group falls into it.

I love your optimism though!

 

[Natebishop3]

Balance in the sense that gap between top talent and bottom talent is as close as we've seen since our 2000 team, I agree. The problem is, we have a bunch of average/below average talent. This team is bad and the path to being a championship contender requires a lot of ANDs hitting. Even more than the Dame years.

I agree it's rare to win a title without only one superstar. Even more rare to win with zero superstars. And even more rare to win with zero all-stars. You can guess which category this group falls into it.

I love your optimism though!

How many teams won with only one superstar and that superstar is a short guard? Maybe the Warriors if you don't count Klay as a superstar? That team was perfectly built around Steph. Something Neil could never do with Dame.

But let's say we don't make any moves, when is the last time we had a starting lineup that's as talented overall as Simons/Sharpe/Avdija/Grant/Ayton?

 

[Boomchakalaka2]

You know what I hate? Being a perennial also ran. It has been 20+ years since we were a legitimate contender. To me that’s a waste of time. I’d rather stomach a few years of being really bad and have a shot at drafting a superstar who will give us a real chance at a ring.

This is my point! So we patiently take four years for the cake to bake and then contracts expire and off they go! How is this a “plan?”

We gotta rebuild in 2-3 years and you do this with a blend of new and vet players I feel. Stop tanking and go for the playoffs. We tanked the past two seasons and I’m not sure that we are any closer to winning the title!

 

[Phatguysrule]

This is my point! So we patiently take four years for the cake to bake and then contracts expire and off they go! How is this a “plan?”

We gotta rebuild in 2-3 years and you do this with a blend of new and vet players I feel. Stop tanking and go for the playoffs. We tanked the past two seasons and I’m not sure that we are any closer to winning the title!

You may end up having to trade the first guys you drafted during the tank in exchange for assets that fit better (if they aren't willing to re-sign). Probably won't happen. You usually get 7 years or so before you lose guys that you really want to keep.

And we should be VERY competitive in 4 or 5 more years.

But we don't have enough talent to be done yet.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

How many teams won with only one superstar and that superstar is a short guard? Maybe the Warriors if you don't count Klay as a superstar? That team was perfectly built around Steph. Something Neil could never do with Dame.

But let's say we don't make any moves, when is the last time we had a starting lineup that's as talented overall as Simons/Sharpe/Avdija/Grant/Ayton?

2019 WCF team was much more talented than the current roster, especially prior to Nurk injury.

I'm all for rebuilding, but the current roster is nowhere close to finished. That's the reason we should trade vets for long term pieces. That actually would give us a better chance in the long run, instead of no chance now and little chance later.

 

[sheed30]

2019 WCF team was much more talented than the current roster, especially prior to Nurk injury.

I'm all for rebuilding, but the current roster is nowhere close to finished. That's the reason we should trade vets for long term pieces. That actually would give us a better chance in the long run, instead of no chance now and little chance later.

it would give us a better chance in the long run, IF we actually hit on picks we get say next year and the year after.

There is also a very high chance one of those picks or both can flop and we continue to waste years.

 

[beast blazer]

If I were running things, yes. If Scoot shows the ability to at least be average NBA starter level, then I would adjust my opinion.

There is plenty of minutes to go around at guard between Simons/Sharpe/Scoot. We already know that Simons is a good guard and can play either position. Scoot showed flashes, but he was terrible at both ends last year. I don't think he'll stay terrible, but why send Simons away just to "clear the way" for someone who might be a total bust? I'd wait another year at minimum to see how they progress.

Hypothetically, imagine we didn't have Scoot. Would we be stressing about finding our PG of the future with Simons? I think not.

 

[beast blazer]

Scoot was better than Ant at defense last season... just think about that for a bit. Scoot also showed a much better ability to facilitate for others on offense last season.

So yeah, Ant is better at going one on five. He's the better scorer obviously. I just worry that Chauncey will want to have Ant on the floor a lot and that Chauncey won't keep Ant from dominating the ball the way he did last season and that will be detrimental to the development of Scoot and Shaedon.

I'm not advocating giving Ant away, I just hope we're shopping him.

Scoot is a better passer than Ant. But had a TS of 49%. That is horrendous, especially in the modern nba. Also, I don't think he was any better defensively, based on the eye test.

I like Scoot's potential, but the Blazers shouldn't be so quick to put all their eggs in the Scoot basket just because they drafted him at #3. Simons is a much better player right now, and it's not even close.

 

[Phatguysrule]

There is plenty of minutes to go around at guard between Simons/Sharpe/Scoot. We already know that Simons is a good guard and can play either position. Scoot showed flashes, but he was terrible at both ends last year. I don't think he'll stay terrible, but why send Simons away just to "clear the way" for someone who might be a total bust? I'd wait another year at minimum to see how they progress.

Hypothetically, imagine we didn't have Scoot. Would we be stressing about finding our PG of the future with Simons? I think not.

Simons can't defend guards. He gotta go.

 

[wizenheimer]

But let's say we don't make any moves, when is the last time we had a starting lineup that's as talented overall as Simons/Sharpe/Avdija/Grant/Ayton?

overall? Well, in 2020-21, Blazers won the equivalent of 48 games in an 82 game season. That lineup you listed would not have a chance at 48 wins. Of course, that team 4 years ago had Dame and his talent kind of unbalances any roster talent comparisons

 

[Phatguysrule]

overall? Well, in 2020-21, Blazers won the equivalent of 48 games in an 82 game season. That lineup you listed would not have a chance at 48 wins. Of course, that team 4 years ago had Dame and his talent kind of unbalances any talent comparisons

Yeah, you can't compare this team to any team that had Dame.