Bogus! Chris Mannix: Chauncey gone

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
wizenheimer said:
lol...you say that like it's a fact...which it's not. Brogdon was probably the best player on the roster because there are two ends of the floor. After him it was probably Ayton, then a tie between Ant/Grant
Click to expand...

My post was said as a fact as much as your statement that Ant is a bad fit is a fact... which it's not.

I disagree about Ant being T-3 for talent, but I can see a case for all the players you've mentioned. I believe Ant has the best mixture of talent/contract of anyone not on a rookie deal. I think there is a clear difference between the wanting to get value from guys on the wrong side of 30 vs needing to trade a player at age 24, on a good contract. Ant is the youngest of the 4 players you mentioned and he makes far less than Ayton, who I also don't think we need to trade.

Can you give me a realistic trade that you'd accept for Ant? There are a lot of trades I'd be willing to accept for him, but I'm not willing to dump him for 75 cents on the dollar just to make room for two guys who couldn't even make the all-rookie second team.
 
Last edited:
Tince said:
Can you give me a realistic trade that you'd accept for Ant? There are a lot of trades I'd be willing to accept for him, but I'm not willing to dump him for 75 cents on the dollar just to make room for two guys who couldn't even make the all-rookie second team.
Click to expand...

wut?

we have a big gap in how we view Ant's talent. I'd think that gap would extend to what we view as a "realistic" return, so we'd still be at the same impasse
 
wizenheimer said:
wut?

we have a big gap in how we view Ant's talent. I'd think that gap would extend to what we view as a "realistic" return, so we'd still be at the same impasse
Click to expand...

Maybe. If you think he's as talented as Grant, but 6 years younger, and on a better contract, we may not be that far off because I'm very close to that. I'm curious what you would consider an acceptable trade for him. At the end of the day, in order to trade him, we have to find a trade partner who values him enough to give up pieces we believe match our need going forward.

Would you be happy to simply salary dump him? Do you think a bench level player is enough in return?
 
Tince said:
Maybe. If you think he's as talented as Grant, but 6 years younger, and on a better contract, we may not be that far off because I'm very close to that. I'm curious what you would consider an acceptable trade for him. At the end of the day, in order to trade him, we have to find a trade partner who values him enough to give up pieces we believe match our need going forward.

Would you be happy to simply salary dump him? Do you think a bench level player is enough in return?
Click to expand...

WCJ + a lottery protected 1st + 14M TPE
 
wizenheimer said:
WCJ + a lottery protected 1st + 14M TPE
Click to expand...

I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. I think that's probably the ballpark of best-case scenario as far as a return for Ant goes.

Feels like a net loss in the asset department.
 
Portland front office has learned the art of buying time. Never wanting to be splashy because the safe route is easier and they can collect more paychecks. I always felt that way about Olshey. He didn’t want to gamble or take risks to get to the next level because why? Stability with an oblivious owner (Jody) is the much safer play.
 
Tince said:
I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. I think that's probably the ballpark of best-case scenario as far as a return for Ant goes.

Feels like a net loss in the asset department.
Click to expand...
It clears the way for Scoot and we clear some space. The goal is to secure a top 3 pick next year.
 
Tince said:
I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. I think that's probably the ballpark of best-case scenario as far as a return for Ant goes.
Feels like a net loss in the asset department.
Click to expand...

but again, that goes to our significant difference in views on Ant as a player. I agree that's probably a best case scenario. But you may disagree when I said that's best case because the rest of the NBA is judging Ant's value objectively.

but of course, if that is the best case scenario, it's hard to also judge it as a net asset loss. WCJ, a future 1st, and a large TPE are decent assets
 
MickZagger said:
Not if you’re like me and look at Simons as an equivalent to Lou Williams
Click to expand...

That's probably a pretty fair comparison. Ant has already had two seasons that were statistically as good as Lou Williams best season (at age 31), so I'd say Ant has more upside. I'd probably put him closer to Jamal Crawford, though I feel like Crawford had something extra to him that Ant doesn't, yet.
 
wizenheimer said:
but again, that goes to our significant difference in views on Ant as a player. I agree that's probably a best case scenario. But you may disagree when I said that's best case because the rest of the NBA is judging Ant's value objectively.

but of course, if that is the best case scenario, it's hard to also judge it as a net asset loss. WCJ, a future 1st, and a large TPE are decent assets
Click to expand...

Whatever the market views Ant as, is his value; that's how it works. This gets back to the previous discussion had about people here wanting players traded, then when they are, being bummed about the return, saying we should've got more.

WCJ seems like an odd fit next or behind Ayton to me. We're likely to be a position where we'd need to move off him within a year or the trade deadline of the following season. A none-lottery pick is fine. The best we've done with one of those in the last 10 years ironically is Ant. I think it's unlikely we would use the TPE or if we did, that it was for a player that would be contributing on the roster 3-4 years down the road.

I guess that type of trade feels like one we'll be reviewing in 2029 and seeing we got role player for Ant. In the meantime, he'll probably still be averaging 18ish ppg on a solid team... and probably saying we need to trade Shape and Scoot to make room for a couple of 19 year olds who haven't done much.
 
Last edited:
Natebishop3 said:
It clears the way for Scoot and we clear some space. The goal is to secure a top 3 pick next year.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about clearing space for anyone who hasn't given us reason to clear space. You clear space for ROY/1st NBA All-Rookie Team players. I said early last year I don't want to force Scoot in a position he's not ready to succeed in as I feel that could hurt his growth long term. I think the best way to support him would be to surround him with legit talent that is better than him.

We can get a top 3 pick next year with Ant on the roster. This year proved as much.
 
Last edited:
Tince said:
WCJ seems like an odd fit next or behind Ayton to me. We're likely to be a position where we'd need to move off him within a year or the trade deadline of the following season.
Click to expand...

I think WCJ could play both PF & C effectively, as a starter or a backup. He's certainly more mobile than Ayton. He's owed the same amount over the next 2 seasons as Thybulle. So he's affordable; certainly a lot more affordable than Ayton. Personally, I think the Blazers should shop Ayton even though I'm pretty sure they won't. He's overpaid, by quite a bit, IMO. We saw in Phoenix that his 'best' role was as a 3rd/4th option on a team with lots of perimeter threats in 2-way players. Portland has none of those, yet at least. And 35M/year for a 3rd option is a luxury only a strong contender can afford; not a bottom-dweller like Portland

part of my motivation for wanting Ayton traded is I have no confidence the Blazers will pay the actual market value for Ayton as UFA in 2 years, rather than bid against themselves. IMO, they paid well above the off-season markets for CJ, Ant, Nurkic, and Grant. I get the concept of trying to keep your players happy, but the Blazers have gone overboard. That's why they had to work hard to dodge tax for a 21 win team; and very likely be over next year's tax line after the 1st round of the draft. If they keep Banton (which I doubt: tax reasons), they'll only be 5M below the tax line on draft day. 7+14 would add 11.5M more. So then, 5-7M over the tax line depending on Banton...for a 21 win team. That's management not being able to choose a lane; straddling fences; severely limiting options by trying to keep too many options alive. That's not management, that's mismanagement....

and the trade I suggested would at least begin to correct that by reducing salary
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I feared Lou Williams when he was with the Clippers. He could turn a game around in a hurry.
3-time NBA Sixth Man of the Year sounds good to me
Click to expand...

the highest salary Williams ever had was 8M in the 2019-20 season; 4 years ago. The salary cap was 109M. Next season it will be 141M. So, 4 years ago, a 3-time 6MOY was paid next season's equivalent salary of around 10.5M. Add 50% for age difference and wtf, then maybe 15-16M would be fair...seemingly. But a 27M/year 6th man on a 21 win team?

I'm looking at the playoff semi-final teams and their 6th men

Denver - Jackson 5M
OKC - Cason Wallace 5.3M (rookie scale)
NYK - Hartenstein 9.2M
Cleveland - Caris Levert 15.3M
Boston - Horford 10M
Indiana - TJ McConnel 8.7M
Dallas - Lively 4.8M (rookie scale)
Minny - Naz Reid 13M

Portland - Simons 27M/year

of course, the Blazers are years away from being one of 8 teams left standing in the playoffs, it probably doesn't matter how they arrange the deck chairs. I have a hard time seeing Ant OK with a 'demotion' to the 2nd unit. I'm also noticing that Ant supporters seemed to have pivoted to Ant as a great 6th man rather than a flawed starter as a reason to keep him around; but that's probably my bias. If Ant is OK with it, sure, why not....but it's just not sustainable IMO
 
Tince said:
And it would be odd to ask him to accept the role of a 6th man until we find two better guards to start over him.
Click to expand...

Maybe I interpreted his exit interview wrong or maybe he was lying, but right after he said losing is not fun and he wants to win, he said very specifically at the 6:18 mark that regardless of the backcourt lineup, he was going to come in with the attitude that they were going to make it work. I believe him because

A) he already got paid
B) he isn't stupid.

He just wants to win. Whatever it takes. This is not a Kiki situation who could not accept coming off the bench behind Jerome. Kiki was a 2-time all-star at the time and was much more celebrated in the league than Simons. I just don't see Simons as having the same type of ego. He wants what's best for the team.

 
Last edited:
Pinwheel1 said:
Maybe I interpreted his exit interview wrong or maybe he was lying, but right after he said losing is not fun and he wants to win, he said very specifically at the 6:18 mark that regardless of the backcourt lineup, he was going to come in with the attitude that they were going to make it work. I believe him because

A) he already got paid
B) he isn't stupid.

He just wants to win. Whatever it takes. This is not a Kiki situation who could not accept coming off the bench behind Jerome. Kiki was a 2-time all-star at the time and was much more celebrated in the league than Simons. I just don't see Simons as having the same type of ego. He wants what's best for the team.

Click to expand...


I don't disagree with your interpretation of what he says he wants. However, having two worse guards starting while bringing Ant off the bench won't get Ant closer to his goal of being on a winning team. In fact, I'd say it would do just the opposite.

What winning team starts their 2nd/3rd (or 3rd/4th) best guards?
 
Tince said:
I don't disagree with your interpretation of what he says he wants. However, having two worse guards starting while bringing Ant off the bench won't get Ant closer to his goal of being on a winning team. In fact, I'd say it would do just the opposite.

What winning team starts their 2nd/3rd (or 3rd/4th) best guards?
Click to expand...

The best players IMO need to end games, not necessarily start games.

Not worried about the Sharpe portion of that equation. He needs to start and should be the better overall SG.....when healthy.

I think you start Scoot game 1 unless he shows in preseason that he just hasn't improved. He doesn't need to shoot much. His job as the starter is to run the offense, play defense, and set up Sharpe, Ayton, and Grant (or Grant's replacement)

Simon's role is different. He is the best shooter on the team, but if he starts he won't shoot as much in the first quarter as they tend to try to get everyone involved. So I say unless Scoot is horrible then start him and let Simons come off the bench and also finish games. But you are right that if both Scoot and Sharpe struggle there won't be much winning.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
The best players IMO need to end games, not necessarily start games.

Not worried about the Sharpe portion of that equation. He needs to start and should be the better overall SG.....when healthy.

I think you start Scoot game 1 unless he shows in preseason that he just hasn't improved. He doesn't need to shoot much. His job as the starter is to run the offense, play defense, and set up Sharpe, Ayton, and Grant (or Grant's replacement)

Simon's role is different. He is the best shooter on the team, but if he starts he won't shoot as much in the first quarter as they tend to try to get everyone involved. So I say unless Scoot is horrible then start him and let Simons come off the bench and also finish games. But you are right that if both Scoot and Sharpe struggle there won't be much winning.
Click to expand...

I very much want Sharpe and Scoot to be better than Ant, that would be great for the franchise. When that day comes, they should start over him.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
This is the way.

Ant is a gatekeeper. If the young guys don't take the starting job from him that's on them, not him.
Click to expand...

But in what way? Scoring? Passing? Defense? Shooting?

Simons and Scoot are very different players. I don't think Scoot will ever be the shooter that Simons is, but I think he'll be the far superior passer and most likely a significantly better defender.
 
Tince said:
I don't disagree with your interpretation of what he says he wants. However, having two worse guards starting while bringing Ant off the bench won't get Ant closer to his goal of being on a winning team. In fact, I'd say it would do just the opposite.

What winning team starts their 2nd/3rd (or 3rd/4th) best guards?
Click to expand...

the late 90s blazers started Damon instead of Greg Anthony
 
Everything Beagle said:
it’d be necessary to use more advanced status like per minute production to do a fair comparison. I was speaking of the interesting scenario where Dunleavy played Greg instead of Damon to close out games because it did work well. I seem to remember we did pretty well in 2000
Click to expand...

I followed your logic. We did do well in 2000. My question was about starting games, not finishing them. I would guess if Ant came off the bench as a 6th man, he would finish games, much like Greg Anthony did (sometimes).

Since you asked for more data regarding Stoudamire and Anthony in Portland, here you go:

upload_2024-5-29_12-5-10.png

upload_2024-5-29_12-5-34.png

I still think the comparison of the Greg Anthony/Stoudamire situation in 2000 to the Ant/Sharpe/Scoot situation in 2024 is a stretch.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2024-5-29_12-5-10.png
    upload_2024-5-29_12-5-10.png
    60 KB · Views: 87
  • upload_2024-5-29_12-5-34.png
    upload_2024-5-29_12-5-34.png
    60.6 KB · Views: 91
Tince said:
I followed your logic. We did do well in 2000. My question was about starting games, not finishing them. I would guess if Ant came off the bench as a 6th man, he would finish games, much like Greg Anthony did (sometimes).

Since you asked for more data regarding Stoudamire and Anthony in Portland, here you go:

View attachment 64705

View attachment 64706

I still think the comparison of the Greg Anthony/Stoudamire situation in 2000 to the Ant/Sharpe/Scoot situation in 2024 is a stretch.
Click to expand...
Thanks, those stats were illuminating. I feel like with Greg/Damon it was a matter of Anthony being a more predictable presence who listens to coach and gets to the line more, even if his percentage is lower. And of course the defense was a lot better too. That’s where I agree that Ant would be useless in this situation. But the idea that you have one starting quality guard at the beginning of the game and another starting quality guard on the bench to end the games isn’t completely unprecedented. In our case it should be Brogdon backing up Scoot, not Ant… I just felt compelled by autism to mention it haha!
 
Everything Beagle said:
Thanks, those stats were illuminating. I feel like with Greg/Damon it was a matter of Anthony being a more predictable presence who listens to coach and gets to the line more, even if his percentage is lower. And of course the defense was a lot better too. That’s where I agree that Ant would be useless in this situation. But the idea that you have one starting quality guard at the beginning of the game and another starting quality guard on the bench to end the games isn’t completely unprecedented. In our case it should be Brogdon backing up Scoot, not Ant… I just felt compelled by autism to mention it haha!
Click to expand...

IIRC, what really worked for Portland back then was pairing Anthony with Stacey Augmon. Those two were more disruptive on defense for opponents than any perimeter combo Portland ever had, IMO. Clyde and Jerome were pretty good, but being full-time starters they couldn't expend energy on defense like Anthony/Augmon did

I agree about Ant. Portland won't make him a 27M/year backup (they should make him wear another team's uniform), and Brogdon would be a better backup anyway. But unless Portland overpays Brogdon, or trades him before the deadline, I think he'll leave as UFA and look for a contender to sign with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top