Are we better off without CJ?

[Rastapopoulos]

CJ is supposed to be our second-best player. And he may be a more complete scorer than our first-best player. Certainly he's got amazing hesitation moves and can shoot from anywhere. But is that enough? How hurt do you think we would be if he sat out for a long period of time? Olshey has certainly stockpiled SGs, and while none of them can score like CJ can, we might actually benefit from playing SGs who don't demand the ball to be effective.

So, to be clear: I'm not just saying that CJ isn't that great an asset. Most people on here seem to think that (particularly on defense). I'm saying that he may literally be holding us back, so that trading him for expiring contracts might be a good strategy.

Defend away.

 

[Haakzilla]

Yes we are better off without Monta McCollum.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Haakzilla]

 

[jlprk]

15. Pat Connaughton
23. McCollum

Stotts.

 

[oldmangrouch]

In an ideal world, CJ would be a great offensive sparkplug off the bench - contending for 6th man of the year and making 50% of his current contract.

Would the team be better off without him? That depends on what you think his trade value is.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I'm saying that he may literally be holding us back, so that trading him for expiring contracts might be a good strategy.

Defend away.

Expiring contacts so we can land a FA? That is laughable based on our history signing free agents. We would just be giving away talent.

Expiring contracts and a top draft pick? Sure but a really bad team would not want him in their rebuild.

Any suggestion of "addition by subtraction" is absurd IMO. If you trade him you better get back a high scoring forward.

 

[hoopsjock]

Expiring contacts so we can land a FA? That is laughable based on our history signing free agents. We would just be giving away talent.

Expiring contracts and a top draft pick? Sure but a really bad team would not want him in their rebuild.

Any suggestion of "addition by subtraction" is absurd IMO. If you trade him you better get back a high scoring forward.

Yeah we need to find a team that has either multiple draft picks or a team that will finish in the lottery that isn't really trying to tank.

Boston could have 4 1st round picks but they wouldn't want CJ, maybe a 3rd team?

Philly has Miami's unprotected 1st rounder in 2021, that could be a huge asset. I'm not sure if they'd want CJ either. A deal involving that pick, an expiring Wilson Chandler, and filler (Fultz, Zhaire, etc.) could be intriguing.

 

[blue9]

CJ is supposed to be our second-best player. And he may be a more complete scorer than our first-best player. Certainly he's got amazing hesitation moves and can shoot from anywhere. But is that enough? How hurt do you think we would be if he sat out for a long period of time? Olshey has certainly stockpiled SGs, and while none of them can score like CJ can, we might actually benefit from playing SGs who don't demand the ball to be effective.

So, to be clear: I'm not just saying that CJ isn't that great an asset. Most people on here seem to think that (particularly on defense). I'm saying that he may literally be holding us back, so that trading him for expiring contracts might be a good strategy.

Defend away.

What you're really saying, though, is: would we be better taking away one of Stotts' crutches? As outlined in your post, the issue is not CJ, it's how CJ is utilized.
No, we absolutely would NOT be better trading CJ for expirings. But yes, we absolutely would be better if the team's offense wasn't almost exclusively "designed" (I use that term loosely) around two nearly identical guards.