Free Agent Devonte Graham

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
blazerkor said:
WTF is an undersized PG??? Definitely not a dude that's 6'2". That's about what you'd expect from a point guard if that's what you consider him.
Click to expand...

Apparently the ability to perceive sarcasm is not your strong suit.
 
Hoopguru said:
Remember Joe said that K Murray & R Rupert were lottery type win now players. How does a GM say such a thing, unless he believes it?
Click to expand...
In one of those pressers,, Joe said "win now very soon" about a Blazer, or the team. I dunno, it's easy to get lost is Cronin's super duper GM speeches. He's burned through about 70 different players in 3 years. I think he has a photographic memory to remember all those names.
 
Devonte might be too good to be a Blazer. When he got main rotation minutes in April, the Spurs went 4-3. Winning late season games would be a nightmare situation for Coach Billups.
 
Phatguysrule said:
And they never would with Simons and Grant here making their teammates worse.

If they aren't "it" then we need to find out now.

This is absolutely going to take a long time to dig out of. We need to stop kneecapping ourselves with play-in caliber (at best) talent and get on with it.
Click to expand...

I think we've totally eliminated the possibility of being a play-in caliber team for a bit, so no need to worry about kneecapping ourselves. We may be kneecapping ourselves by having so little talent that builing a real contender would take a bunch of lucky things to happen instead of just one or two.

In a couple years, people will be making the same case that Scoot and Sharpe will be holding back our 2025 draft picks back.
 
Ant possibly will be dealt sooner than later.. if so, Dalano is more of a sg anyway. These are all 3/4 string mins anyway.
 
Tince said:
I think we've totally eliminated the possibility of being a play-in caliber team for a bit, so no need to worry about kneecapping ourselves. We may be kneecapping ourselves by having so little talent that builing a real contender would take a bunch of lucky things to happen instead of just one or two.

In a couple years, people will be making the same case that Scoot and Sharpe will be holding back our 2025 draft picks back.
Click to expand...
Oh I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't believe that we are close to making the play-in.

I'm specifically saying that Grant and Simons are play in caliber leaders, at best. They both ignore critical parts of the game that you have to have to be a competitive playoff caliber team.

They cannot help us improve beyond that. They prevent us from playing Team basketball. They could be useful parts to a team that already has competitive playoff caliber players.

We should get that value out of them before that value starts dropping, as it is certain to do with Grant, and may start happening with Simons as well.

The sooner Scoot and Sharpe are given the reins the sooner we will know if they are good enough or not. If they have the right mentalities or not.

But make no mistake, we have at least two or three more years in the lottery and that is assuming we pick higher than we have the last couple years.

We aren't close to climbing out of this. We need to add as much talent as possible to this team. And (without Cronin becoming the next Jerry West and Portland the next destination market) we'll need to trade Simons and Grant for the best draft capital possible in order to do that.
 
Last edited:
Tince said:
I think we've totally eliminated the possibility of being a play-in caliber team for a bit, so no need to worry about kneecapping ourselves. We may be kneecapping ourselves by having so little talent that builing a real contender would take a bunch of lucky things to happen instead of just one or two.

In a couple years, people will be making the same case that Scoot and Sharpe will be holding back our 2025 draft picks back.
Click to expand...

not really buying that argument if it's about holding on to role-playing talent for spec....which is exactly what Portland has in their veterans...they are supporting cast

contenders develop a core then build around the core once it's known what kind of players are complimentary. That's what Golden State did; what Denver did; what Boston did. They didn't worry about about moving lower-level talent before they knew what kind of talent would fit with the core...

and right now, the Blazers don't have any certain core players. Sharpe-Scoot-Clingan may be. It's unlikely all three will be; more likely it's only one, two if the Blazers are lucky; none if they are unlucky. None of the Blazers veterans are anywhere close to being core pieces. The talent in that group is limited and flawed...in every case. Arguments for keeping them in some 'chucking-darts-at-a-board' hope they might fit with a future core are facile IMO

that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
 
wizenheimer said:
not really buying that argument if it's about holding on to role-playing talent for spec....which is exactly what Portland has in their veterans...they are supporting cast

contenders develop a core then build around the core once it's known what kind of players are complimentary. That's what Golden State did; what Denver did; what Boston did. They didn't worry about about moving lower-level talent before they knew what kind of talent would fit with the core...

and right now, the Blazers don't have any certain core players. Sharpe-Scoot-Clingan may be. It's unlikely all three will be; more likely it's only one, two if the Blazers are lucky; none if they are unlucky. None of the Blazers veterans are anywhere close to being core pieces. The talent in that group is limited and flawed...in every case. Arguments for keeping them in some 'chucking-darts-at-a-board' hope they might fit with a future core are facile IMO

that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
Click to expand...
To me the writing on the wall looks like they want to get rid of Grant and Simons as soon as they get the right deal put together. I think they'll keep Ayton until next Summer unless Clingan is just picking things up extremely quickly and then I could see them dealing Ayton at the deadline. Obviously if teams are trying to low ball us we don't have any real urgency to get rid of any of these guys but I think most teams know that... so for me it seems likely that Grant and Simons will both be gone by training camp. I guess like always we'll wait and see.
 
wizenheimer said:
not really buying that argument if it's about holding on to role-playing talent for spec....which is exactly what Portland has in their veterans...they are supporting cast

contenders develop a core then build around the core once it's known what kind of players are complimentary. That's what Golden State did; what Denver did; what Boston did. They didn't worry about about moving lower-level talent before they knew what kind of talent would fit with the core...

and right now, the Blazers don't have any certain core players. Sharpe-Scoot-Clingan may be. It's unlikely all three will be; more likely it's only one, two if the Blazers are lucky; none if they are unlucky. None of the Blazers veterans are anywhere close to being core pieces. The talent in that group is limited and flawed...in every case. Arguments for keeping them in some 'chucking-darts-at-a-board' hope they might fit with a future core are facile IMO

that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Moving off Grant/Ant to make room for Scoot/Sharpe doesn't make sense to me. If we can trade Grant/Ant for assets that are of equal or greater value in the long run, then I'm totally open to those moves.
 
Tince said:
If we can trade Grant/Ant for assets that are of equal or greater value in the long run, then I'm totally open to those moves.
Click to expand...
That phrase "equal or greater value in the long run" seems very subjective. What level of draft capital would be equal to either player's expected impact on the team's future contender status? Personally, I can't really quantify it. If Ant retired tomorrow and his contract were wiped off the books, would this franchise be better or worse off long-term? In what way?
 
Tince said:
This is exactly what I'm getting at. Moving off Grant/Ant to make room for Scoot/Sharpe doesn't make sense to me. If we can trade Grant/Ant for assets that are of equal or greater value in the long run, then I'm totally open to those moves.
Click to expand...
Reality is that a first round pick is of equal or greater value considering their contacts and what they bring to the table.

Neither of these guys are going to help us win a playoff series. A first rounder could.

Those guys could help other teams win playoff series though... So maybe you can get another pick. Maybe.
 
wizenheimer said:
that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
Click to expand...

I am sure there is some stat that backs you up, but Ayton has the talent to positively alter a team's trajectory if he has some help.
He was the 3rd leading scorer on a team that made the finals.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I am sure there is some stat that backs you up, but Ayton has the talent to positively alter a team's trajectory if he has some help.
He was the 3rd leading scorer on a team that made the finals.
Click to expand...

then why was that team so anxious to dump him?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
That phrase "equal or greater value in the long run" seems very subjective. What level of draft capital would be equal to either player's expected impact on the team's future contender status? Personally, I can't really quantify it. If Ant retired tomorrow and his contract were wiped off the books, would this franchise be better or worse off long-term? In what way?
Click to expand...

Is there a non subjective way to measure it? If so, I'm all for it!

To answer your second question, I would say an amensty of Ant would be a net negative to the franchise, and I don't think it's that close. Hard to imagine Portland signing a player of his age and talent level at his current contract via free agency and/or via a TPE.

What say you?
 
Phatguysrule said:
Reality is that a first round pick is of equal or greater value considering their contacts and what they bring to the table.

Neither of these guys are going to help us win a playoff series. A first rounder could.

Those guys could help other teams win playoff series though... So maybe you can get another pick. Maybe.
Click to expand...

It's possible Ant or Grant won't help us win a first round series. Also possible Scoot and Sharpe won't help us win a series. So do we trade them now also?
 
Tince said:
It's possible Ant or Grant won't help us win a first round series. Also possible Scoot and Sharpe won't help us win a series. So do we trade them now also?
Click to expand...
No, but but we've already given Grant and Ant years of being lead options. Now they can get us value from contending teams.

We should give Scoot and Sharpe that same opportunity. If they aren't good we'll get more high draft picks to try again.

Keeping Grant and Ant prevents us from getting those opportunities.
 
Last edited:
wizenheimer said:
then why was that team so anxious to dump him?
Click to expand...

Bridges were burned. (and traded)
Who knows, but the new owner made quite a few questionable moves early on. My guess was losing to Jokic in the 2nd round was blamed on Ayton. After the Suns destroyed a good Clipper team in 5.
 
Tince said:
Is there a non subjective way to measure it? If so, I'm all for it!

To answer your second question, I would say an amensty of Ant would be a net negative to the franchise, and I don't think it's that close. Hard to imagine Portland signing a player of his age and talent level at his current contract via free agency and/or via a TPE.

What say you?
Click to expand...

since Portland never signs a free agent of any stature that's a terrible gauge

draft picks and trades...those are the routes available to Portland. Blazers have traded for two players comparable to Simons in past 2 years; maybe 3 with Avdija (and of course Brogdon was statistically the best Blazer last season). Sharpe, Scoot, & Clingan could surpass Simons in the next 2-3 years. Adding players of Ant's level, especially with his flaws, isn't as difficult as you imply

that's not to say I think Portland would be better, short term, if Ant just vanished. Might be better long term, might not, but I'd hope he could fetch at least a lottery protected 1st. He was a 24th pick after all
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Bridges were burned. (and traded)
Who knows, but the new owner made quite a few questionable moves early on. My guess was losing to Jokic in the 2nd round was blamed on Ayton. After the Suns destroyed a good Clipper team in 5.
Click to expand...

yes...questionable moves that are looking worse as time goes on

the team that made it to the finals had Mikal Bridges, Chris Paul, Cam Johnson, Jae Crowder, Torrey Craig, and Cameron Payne. It had really good synergy and balance and all 6 of those players were gone within a year or two

they sold the farm and made a big bet on Durant and that looks like a really bad bet
 
Tince said:
Is there a non subjective way to measure it? If so, I'm all for it!

To answer your second question, I would say an amensty of Ant would be a net negative to the franchise, and I don't think it's that close. Hard to imagine Portland signing a player of his age and talent level at his current contract via free agency and/or via a TPE.

What say you?
Click to expand...
The part your reply doesn't really address was the "in what way" would they be worse off. Given that the franchise appears to be committed to a Scoot/Sharpe backcourt for the rebuild, the only way Ant factors in as part of that eventual contention-pursuing roster is in a reserve-scorer role. Now, if you believe that he will ultimately still be here, and be willing to accept/fulfill that role when the Scoot/Sharpe team begins to push for playoffs, then sure, an amnesty of Ant would deprive that eventual roster of a seemingly valuable asset. If, however, you don't see him fitting into that role (whether due to salary, insufficiency, unwillingness, etc), then I posit that Ant himself doesn't have value to this team "in the long-run", only whatever assets we can receive in exchange for him.
 
golden_grahams.jpg

Dude needs a sponsorship
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top