Free Agent Devonte Graham

[Tince]

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.

I fully disagree that Grant/Ant have had a true opportunity to be the lead options on a roster good enough to win a playoff series. The second we remove those two, Scoot/Sharpe will also fail to be good enough to lead us to a playoff series win, and I'm not sure it's fair to call them failures based off that standard.

 

[Tince]

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

The question asked of me was if we would be better of simply being off Ant's contract. I believe it would be ignorant to ignore that face Portland never signs free agents as part of the gauge. If we can trade Ant for a better player/asset, then lets do it. I've been pro that stance for many years, with virtually all players (Dame included).

I believe most here over-value the probabilty that we'll trade a starting quality player for a draft pick that will turn into a better asset. We have some examples of that working out and we have even more of it not working out that way.

 

[Tince]

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.

I thought I answered it, but I'll try again.

In your scenario, the Blazers would have given up an asset (Ant) and would have received no asset in return. I don't believe Ant is a negative asset, so simply put, that means we'd be worse off by trading a positive asset for no asset.

Because I don't buy into the theory that Ant playing 30-35mpg is significantly holding Scoot or Sharpe back, I don't put much weight into Ant being on the roster is restricting development or evaluation. Also, at 30mpg for Ant, there are still 66 minutes available for Sharpe and Scoot. I don't think Scoot is anywhere near ready to play more than 33mpg, and failing a lot on the court when he's not ready might actually hurt him long run. Sharpe hasn't proven his body can handle playing 33mpg for 82 games, and I also think Sharpe might be best when he's not forced to be "the guy".

I think Ant, Scoot, and Sharpe are all positive assets to the team. I don't think any of them are such a positive assets to the team that net-negative transactions should be made to evaluate the others position within the roster.

Therefore, I'm against trading Ant, Scoot, or Sharpe if I believe the trade returns a net-negative asset. I'm also ok trading Ant, Scoot, or Sharpe if I believe the trade returns net-positive assets. In my eyes, there are no untouchable players on this roster that can't be traded or are so good, that moves should be made to cater to them.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I fully disagree that Grant/Ant have had a true opportunity to be the lead options on a roster good enough to win a playoff series. The second we remove those two, Scoot/Sharpe will also fail to be good enough to lead us to a playoff series win, and I'm not sure it's fair to call them failures based off that standard.

They haven't had that opportunity on a team good enough to win the playoff series. They never will have that opportunity. They aren't good enough to get that opportunity. They're either terrible at rebounding or terrible at defense. And neither of them are good enough at anything else to make up for that.

If we keep ant or Grant long term we will be lucky to ever make the playoffs and will be back in tanking mode very soon. It'll be at least a decade before we get back to the playoffs with a chance to win a series.

Trying to give either of those guys a chance to lead a playoff team is a mistake of monumental proportions. I would want anybody who suggests that as an honest course of action fired immediately.

 

[Tince]

They haven't had that opportunity on a team good enough to win the playoff series. They never will have that opportunity. They aren't good enough to get that opportunity. They're either terrible at rebounding or terrible at defense. And neither of them are good enough at anything else to make up for that.

If we keep ant or Grant long term we will be lucky to ever make the playoffs and will be back in tanking mode very soon. It'll be at least a decade before we get back to the playoffs with a chance to win a series.

Trying to give either of those guys a chance to lead a playoff team is a mistake of monumental proportions. I would want anybody who suggests that as an honest course of action fired immediately.

I agree that Grant or Ant are highly unlikely to lead a contending team, luckily, neither of them are on a deal that would require them to do so. I also don't think anyone on the current roster will lead a contending team. Grant and Ant have flaws that hold them back from being the #1 guy, as do Sharpe and Scoot. If we traded every player who seemed unlikely to "lead a playoff team", we'd have zero players on the roster, so that can't be the criteria.

A fair return for Portland regarding Grant would require less in my eyes because of Grant being older and on a bigger/longer deal. However, a 25 year old on a fair (probably good) deal, is not something I want to get off of unless we get great value in return.

Anyone suggesting that keeping Ant means they are building the franchise around him would conducting a far too simplistic of a thought exercise.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I agree that Grant or Ant are highly unlikely to lead a contending team, luckily, neither of them are on a deal that would require them to do so. I also don't think anyone on the current roster will lead a contending team. Grant and Ant have flaws that hold them back from being the #1 guy, as do Sharpe and Scoot. If we traded every player who seemed unlikely to "lead a playoff team", we'd have zero players on the roster, so that can't be the criteria.

A fair return for Portland regarding Grant would require less in my eyes because of Grant being older and on a bigger/longer deal. However, a 25 year old on a fair (probably good) deal, is not something I want to get off of unless we get great value in return.

Anyone suggesting that keeping Ant means they are building the franchise around him would conducting a far too simplistic of a thought exercise.

Once again, both Scoot and Sharpe have far more room for growth than both Grant and Simons. Both have far more potential to be part of a Blazer playoff run.

Pretending they are even close to the same situations is feigning ignorance.

The sooner we trade Ant and Grant the more likely we are to get better draft picks. If those draft picks wind up better than Scoot and Sharpe we can decide what to do then.

But we won't be competing for playoff wins during Grant or Simons primes. Keeping them is just hurting our future and helping absolutely nothing.

 

[riverman]

This signing tells me Chauncey wants a vet point guard on the bench and that Ant is probably out of here

 

[Pinwheel1]

This signing tells me Chauncey wants a vet point guard on the bench and that Banton is probably out of here

FIFY

 

[riverman]

FIFY

Banton won't bring draft capital that Ant will nor give the same salary cap relief so I disagree At Banton's price, he's a great 3rd string option, Ant is not going to be happy playing behind Scoot or Sharpe. Ant is also going to win you more games than Bannon in a year that they don't want to win much.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Banton won't bring draft capital that Ant will nor give the same salary cap relief so I disagree At Banton's price, he's a great 3rd string option, Ant is not going to be happy playing behind Scoot or Sharpe. Ant is also going to win you more games than Bannon in a year that they don't want to win much.

I was thinking more about what Chauncey wants. I think he likes Ant more than you do.

Right now their payroll ranks 20th. If they want relief, then I think Grant makes more sense as he will have 3 years left after next year. Thybulle and Williams would be options as well.

As far as playing behind Scoot, if it is a problem, which I doubt it will be, then start Ant and pull him early so he can come back in to begin the 2nd quarter. Either way, all three guards will get their minutes.

 

[riverman]

I was thinking more about what Chauncey wants. I think he likes Ant more than you do.

Right now their payroll ranks 20th. If they want relief, then I think Grant makes more sense as he will have 3 years left after next year. Thybulle and Williams would be options as well.

As far as playing behind Scoot, if it is a problem, which I doubt it will be, then start Ant and pull him early so he can come back in to begin the 2nd quarter. Either way, all three guards will get their minutes.

I think Ant is out of here...if he doesn't start he'll demand a trade in a heartbeat

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think Ant is out of here...if he doesn't start he'll demand a trade in a heartbeat

Assuming he's not traded (which I am), I expect that he will start (and Scoot will come off the bench). The real tipping point will be if/when Scoot actually begins to outplay Ant, actually earns the starting spot. Then the FO will finally have to make that bench him or trade him decision.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Assuming he's not traded (which I am), I expect that he will start (and Scoot will come off the bench). The real tipping point will be if/when Scoot actually begins to outplay Ant, actually earns the starting spot. Then the FO will finally have to make that bench him or trade him decision.

Not to nitpick, but I assume you mean to have him come off the bench. "Bench him" makes it sound like he won't play. Either way, he will get plenty of minutes, but I would love to see Scoot earn that starting spot, that only makes the team better.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Assuming he's not traded (which I am), I expect that he will start (and Scoot will come off the bench). The real tipping point will be if/when Scoot actually begins to outplay Ant, actually earns the starting spot. Then the FO will finally have to make that bench him or trade him decision.

That will be a costly delay. Incredibly costly.

 

[Hoopguru]

Assuming he's not traded (which I am), I expect that he will start (and Scoot will come off the bench). The real tipping point will be if/when Scoot actually begins to outplay Ant, actually earns the starting spot. Then the FO will finally have to make that bench him or trade him decision.

Yep....exactly!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Not to nitpick, but I assume you mean to have him come off the bench. "Bench him" makes it sound like he won't play. Either way, he will get plenty of minutes, but I would love to see Scoot earn that starting spot, that only makes the team better.

Yes, you correctly infer from the context that I was not implying the more severe meaning of "bench him".

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That will be a costly delay. Incredibly costly.

I do not disagree. Unfortunately, those things which I believe should be and will be do not align in this case.

 

[KingSpeed]

Great scorer but can’t defend,

 

[Phatguysrule]

I do not disagree. Unfortunately, those things which I believe should be and will be do not align in this case.

That's my concern as well...

 

[Hoopguru]

That will be a costly delay. Incredibly costly.

Guess we have to trust Chauncey & Joes strategy with regards to bring up Scoot and what to do with Ant.

 

[Tince]

Once again, both Scoot and Sharpe have far more room for growth than both Grant and Simons. Both have far more potential to be part of a Blazer playoff run.

Pretending they are even close to the same situations is feigning ignorance.

The sooner we trade Ant and Grant the more likely we are to get better draft picks. If those draft picks wind up better than Scoot and Sharpe we can decide what to do then.

But we won't be competing for playoff wins during Grant or Simons primes. Keeping them is just hurting our future and helping absolutely nothing.

You think Scoot has more room for growth than Ant, and that is a fair personal opinion, but it's far from a fact. Scoot also has a ways to go to be as good as Ant, so having "room to grow" isn't a meaningful measurement to me.

If you feel we can't be competing for playoff wins when Ant is 30, then that means you think we're at least 6 years away from being able to compete. If that is the case, nobody on this roster is worthy of building around.

 

[Tince]

Assuming he's not traded (which I am), I expect that he will start (and Scoot will come off the bench). The real tipping point will be if/when Scoot actually begins to outplay Ant, actually earns the starting spot. Then the FO will finally have to make that bench him or trade him decision.

Agreed Ant will be starting, as he should be. If Scoot or Sharpe come off the bench is yet to be seen.

I very much look forward to the day that Scoot proves, on the court, he's better than Ant. That will be great for the franchise! He's got a ways to go though.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You think Scoot has more room for growth than Ant, and that is a fair personal opinion, but it's far from a fact. Scoot also has a ways to go to be as good as Ant, so having "room to grow" isn't a meaningful measurement to me.

If you feel we can't be competing for playoff wins when Ant is 30, then that means you think we're at least 6 years away from being able to compete. If that is the case, nobody on this roster is worthy of building around.

I believe we could be competing when Ant is 30, and I believe Ant could be a contributor on a contender. However, I don't believe Ant can be a starter on a contender, and I don't believe Ant can be content as a reserve in Portland, even 6 years from now.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You think Scoot has more room for growth than Ant, and that is a fair personal opinion, but it's far from a fact. Scoot also has a ways to go to be as good as Ant, so having "room to grow" isn't a meaningful measurement to me.

If you feel we can't be competing for playoff wins when Ant is 30, then that means you think we're at least 6 years away from being able to compete. If that is the case, nobody on this roster is worthy of building around.

We won't be competing for playoff wins if we keep Ant. Him being here will hinder the development of the rest of the team and prevent us from getting better talent with higher draft picks.

He's not good enough to fit with his team at his age and level of experience in the NBA. Nobody makes the kind of jump in year seven that we expect Scoot and Sharpe to make in the next couple years.

 

[Tince]

I believe we could be competing when Ant is 30, and I believe Ant could be a contributor on a contender. However, I don't believe Ant can be a starter on a contender, and I don't believe Ant can be content as a reserve in Portland, even 6 years from now.

I see what you're saying. If by "contender" you mean like an NBA Finals teams, and you're assuming he won't get any better, I could see that stance. I think Ant projects as a role players, but I also think he can improve over the next 5 years. Will him improve and how much? I'm not sure.

I can't say I've seen enough on the court from any of the players on this roster to say with confidence that they project to be a starter on a championship contending team. Could 6-8 of them end up getting to that point? Sure. Lots of factors, including what are the skillsets of the #1 and #2 players that these players would be starting around. Guys like LeBron can make average NBA players product well enough to be starters on a contending team.

 

[Tince]

We won't be competing for playoff wins if we keep Ant. He will hinder the development of the rest of the team and prevent us from getting better talent with high draft picks.

It's possible you're right. Also possible you're wrong.

There is little to no evidence that he's hurting the development of the young players or that the young players are so fragile that playing next to Ant is enough to rattle them. I'd like to hope Scoot and Sharpe are good enough players that they can grow their games with a wide variety of teammates.

 

[Phatguysrule]

It's possible you're right. Also possible you're wrong.

There is little to no evidence that he's hurting the development of the young players or that the young players are so fragile that playing next to Ant is enough to rattle them. I'd like to hope Scoot and Sharpe are good enough players that they can grow their games with a wide variety of teammates.

I didn't say he would hurt the players I said he would hurt the team. He will prevent us from getting opportunities at higher draft picks with what I expect to be very little advancement from Ant himself.

And yes of course, all of this is my opinion. I don't know anything for a fact. But history tells us that Ant isn't going to get much better.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I see what you're saying. If by "contender" you mean like an NBA Finals teams, and you're assuming he won't get any better, I could see that stance.

Not quite. I'm assuming that he won't improve enough defensively to start on a contender.

 

[Tince]

I didn't say he would hurt the players I said he would hurt the team. He will prevent us from getting opportunities at higher draft picks with what I expect to be very little advancement from Ant himself.

And yes of course, all of this is my opinion. I don't know anything for a fact. But history tells us that Ant isn't going to get much better.

Any good player will increase the odds of us winning games. Sharpe (when healthy) will also contribute to this problem.

Trust me, we're plenty bad enough to get the #1 pick.

 

[Tince]

Not quite. I'm assuming that he won't improve enough defensively to start on a contender.

It's certainly possible, as is the alternative.