Do we need a consolidation trade?

[Zach Collins Enthusiast]

Dame
CJ
Trent
Hood
DJJ
Carmelo
Covington
Harry Giles
Zach Collins
Nurkic
Kanter

That's 11 without Simons, Elleby, Nassir Little and my man Keljin Blevins.

If Dame, CJ and Trent play 2×48 minutes in 2 positions that leaves 8 players on 3 positions.
144/8 = 18 minutes each

Is it enough?

 

[hoopsjock]

Well Zach is out awhile, maybe most or all of the season. That leaves 7 players for those 144 minutes. With Hood looking like he'll take some time to get back I don't think it's a matter of being too deep. I'd like to see different lineup combinations first.

 

[Natebishop3]

Yes.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think we will trade CJ and Nurk. That's Dame's two best friends on the team. Maybe one, but not both.

 

[tlongII]

No. Consolidation trades are dumb.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Quality >>> Quantity

 

[blazerkor]

No. Consolidation trades are dumb.

The Lakers consolidating to get AD or the Clippers getting PG13 could both be considered consolidation trades and were both the right move to win now. If we could get Harden without giving up Dame, it would be stupid not to give up any combination that was asked for.

Maybe by consolidation trade you mean just putting guys together to make rotation space and getting less than equal talent back... in that case I'm against it. However if you take three talented guys who may never make the all star game and trade them for one solid all star, that might be a downgrade in overall talent but be an upgrade for in game impact.

 

[Minstrel]

Consolidation trades are always helpful when you're trading role-players for a star. Focusing more production into one lineup slot is more beneficial to winning, especially in the playoffs when each starter can play more of the game. But since such trades are always helpful to winning, it's hard to find a team willing to trade "down." If you can find the rare team willing to give up a star for role-players (and maybe draft picks), great.

I suppose the most famous Blazers consolidation trade was for Pippen, which definitely boosted the team up a tier.

 

[kjironman1]

Quality >>> Quantity

Not this year. Reducing the amount of serviceable players would be absolutely ridiculously stupid! (Covid-19)
A deep roster is what every poster here was screaming for. Now they have it and want to get rid of a few players because they don't know exactly who to bitch about or place blame on for a loss when they happen. (Other than their obvious favorite.... STOTTS!).

After watching the last four years how could anyone honestly want to "Consolidate" the roster?

 

[e_blazer]

This is always one of those "it depends" discussions. If the Blazers could package three players for one bonafide star that is either on a contract with time left or who will re-sign here, then sure. Getting the right player might hurt this season due to loss of depth, but it could position the Blazers to move to true contention season next year. Trading players x, y & z for second tier star player? Not sure it's worth it.

 

[Natebishop3]

No. Consolidation trades are dumb.

Was the Pippen trade dumb?

 

[e_blazer]

Blazers consolidation trades of the past:

1984-85 Acquired Kiki Vandeweghe for Fat Lever, forward Calvin Natt, Wayne Cooper, a second-round pick in the 1984 draft and a first-round pick in the 1985 draft. Result: Lost second round to Lakers.

1989-90 Acquired Buck Williams for Sam Bowie and the 12th pick. Results: Lost 89-90 NBA Finals to Detroit, lost 90-91 WCF to Lakers, lost 91-92 NBA Finals to Bulls.

1999-2000 Acquired Scottie Pippen for Stacey Augmon, Kelvin Cato, Ed Gray, Carlos Rogers, Brian Shaw and Walt Williams. Result: Lost WCF to Lakers.

Those are the ones of consequence that come to mind. There were lesser ones for Shareef, Damon & others.

 

[tlongII]

Was the Pippen trade dumb?

Who is the "Pippen" that is available currently?

 

[RoseCityRebel]

I don't think we will trade CJ and Nurk. That's Dame's two best friends on the team. Maybe one, but not both.

Pretty sure he’s tight with Blevins, too.

 

[tlongII]

Blazers consolidation trades of the past:

1984-85 Acquired Kiki Vandeweghe for Fat Lever, forward Calvin Natt, Wayne Cooper, a second-round pick in the 1984 draft and a first-round pick in the 1985 draft. Result: Lost second round to Lakers.

1989-90 Acquired Buck Williams for Sam Bowie and the 12th pick. Results: Lost 89-90 NBA Finals to Detroit, lost 90-91 WCF to Lakers, lost 91-92 NBA Finals to Bulls.

1999-2000 Acquired Scottie Pippen for Stacey Augmon, Kelvin Cato, Ed Gray, Carlos Rogers, Brian Shaw and Walt Williams. Result: Lost WCF to Lakers.

Those are the ones of consequence that come to mind. There were lesser ones for Shareef, Damon & others.

I don't remember any of those being called "consolidation" trades at the time. If you can get a bonafide star you will obviously give up a lot to get him.

 

[Natebishop3]

Who is the "Pippen" that is available currently?

You didn't say currently. You said they're dumb.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't remember any of those being called "consolidation" trades at the time. If you can get a bonafide star you will obviously give up a lot to get him.

How are you defining "consolidation trade?"

 

[tlongII]

How are you defining "consolidation trade?"

Consolidation is the term for a stock or security that is neither continuing nor reversing a larger price trend. Consolidated stocks typically trade within limited price ranges and offer relatively few trading opportunities until another pattern emerges.

 

[tlongII]

You didn't say currently. You said they're dumb.

They are.

 

[Minstrel]

Consolidation is the term for a stock or security that is neither continuing nor reversing a larger price trend. Consolidated stocks typically trade within limited price ranges and offer relatively few trading opportunities until another pattern emerges.

Thanks for googling the term "consolidation" and copying and pasting what you found, but you didn't answer my question.

 

[e_blazer]

I don't remember any of those being called "consolidation" trades at the time. If you can get a bonafide star you will obviously give up a lot to get him.

I should have left the trade for Buck off the list since that was just a player and a pick for Buck. The others involved multiple players going out for one star coming back to the Blazers. That's pretty much the definition of a consolidation trade in my view.

 

[tlongII]

Thanks for googling the term "consolidation" and copying and pasting what you found, but you didn't answer my question.

Actually I googled "consolidation trade", but you're welcome.

Regarding your question...

The way I have heard the term consolidation trade used in the NBA refers to the abundance of quality players at multiple positions. One or more of the players is traded to give more playing time to the remaining players.

 

[e_blazer]

Consolidation is the term for a stock or security that is neither continuing nor reversing a larger price trend. Consolidated stocks typically trade within limited price ranges and offer relatively few trading opportunities until another pattern emerges.

That definition has absolutely nothing to do with an NBA trade. Consolidating in terms of a trade means sending out multiple lesser value assets for one (or at least a lesser number) larger value asset(s).

 

[Natebishop3]

Consolidation is the term for a stock or security that is neither continuing nor reversing a larger price trend. Consolidated stocks typically trade within limited price ranges and offer relatively few trading opportunities until another pattern emerges.

 

[Minstrel]

The way I have heard the term consolidation trade used in the NBA refers to the abundance of quality players at multiple positions. One or more of the players is traded to give more playing time to the remaining players.

I think you're getting at a common motivation for a consolidation trade, rather than what it is. If it was just about getting rid of players so others could play, you could cut them. As far as I've ever seen the term used, it's trading from an abundance of depth to get fewer (or just one) better players. That's why the Pippen trade is a classic consolidation trade--the Blazers traded a bunch of solid players for one (aging) star. It reduces depth, but focuses talent into fewer roster spots.

 

[Pinwheel1]

The KiKi trade seemed good at the time but it actually made Denver better. Especially when our 2nd round pick beat him out for the starting position a couple of years later. Hell both Fat Lever, and Calvin Natt were just as good by themselves. Risky for sure unless the player is a superstar. If not, an equivalent talent can usually be found. Depth this year is needed more than ever.

 

[Tince]

We need a 2nd all-star player, this one being over 6'7", who can play on both ends of the floor. That's what wins championships in the NBA.

Harry Giles, Greg Popovich, Nassir Little, DJJ, etc are not going to put us over the top.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

We need a 2nd all-star player, this one being over 6'7", who can play on both ends of the floor. That's what wins championships in the NBA.

Harry Giles, Greg Popovich, Nassir Little, DJJ, etc are not going to put us over the top.

Basically, this.

However, I'll reframe it: If we can get a top 5 or 7 player at their position, yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[tlongII]

Frankly the only time I see the term “consolidation trade” used is on this forum. I may be wrong though.

 

[kjironman1]

Frankly the only time I see the term “consolidation trade” used is on this forum. I may be wrong though.

I don't think you are wrong. Sounds like something someone thought up and started using because it made sense for what they were trying to say.
No problem with that at all. But i have never heard of something called a "Consolidation Trade".