OT Donavan Mitchell trade watch

[riverman]

No to trading Sharpe and Ant for Mitchell. I'm not opposed to trading Ant but I want to get bigger if I trade Ant. As it is, Ant and Sharpe will be dangerous next chapter Blazers as young as they are.
We'll see at the deadline who wins minutes. I've said all along I'd sell high on both Ant and Nas for an impactful bigger two way wing and backup 7ftr...we should know what Nas and Ant are like by the deadline.

 

[calvin natt]

No. Obviously they needed to during him with more but that has nothing to do with anything I said.

How does it not have anything to do with what you said? You said you didn’t want to set a precedent that they aren’t loyal to other stars. Or spit in his face. So we hold on to him forever and ever and hope that some of our 13 role players develops into the next star? Simons is the only one I can see doing it to help Lillard. Sharpe is a ways away, if ever. Nobody else is making a huge jump. So what collection of these guys and picks turns this into a contender, passing by everyone in front of them?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

The team isn't done with making changes. Cronin said as much. Next year will bring more potential additions and subtractions. And , depending on how Ant, Nas, and Sharpe progress, some of them may be included in a package to improve. The team is more liquid now. Not damned by the Hairdo.

Yes, exactly, the Blazers have extreme "Flexibility"

Cronin is going to use that to make this team a contender.

 

[BonesJones]

How does it not have anything to do with what you said? You said you didn’t want to set a precedent that they aren’t loyal to other stars. Or spit in his face. So we hold on to him forever and ever and hope that some of our 13 role players develops into the next star? Simons is the only one I can see doing it to help Lillard. Sharpe is a ways away, if ever. Nobody else is making a huge jump. So what collection of these guys and picks turns this into a contender, passing by everyone in front of them?

Portland will never accomplish shit without a loyal star. If you think setting the precedent that loyalty doesn't matter is a benefit to Portland, I dont know what to say. Trading the type of superstar and player that is almost impossible for Portland to get and keep just because it's hard to get to contention has always seemed contradictory to me.

 

[Strenuus]

Portland will never accomplish shit without a loyal star. If you think setting the precedent that loyalty doesn't matter is a benefit to Portland, I dont know what to say. Trading the type of superstar and player that is almost impossible for Portland to get and keep just because it's hard to get to contention has always seemed contradictory to me.

People want to trade dame before seeing this iteration together with a HEALTHY dame.

That alone is baffling.

And everything else you said is true

 

[Phatguysrule]

- I think Damian would get more than Gobert (prior to extension). And 5 1st round picks is a haul no matter how you want to water it down. It just is. I dont care about the other guys like Beasley etc.
- Again, collecting 1st rounders is helpful. They are assets that can be traded for other 1sts sooner, or players. Whatever puts them in a position to win.
- Agree his extension makes this all moot. It was ridiculous.
- If someone thinks there is more than a 5% chance that this roster, with Lillard, is going to win a championship during his tenure, I would love to know how that looks. Who has any value on this roster and what picks do they have that will build it. Unless you think that Jerami Grant and Nurkic and Lillard are going to leapfrog the other 15 teams better than them right now. If you/no one has that potential strategy, then you are saying that settling for a low-end playoff seed, maybe winning a series, and riding out Lillard till he retires is preferable to making changes. And this would be coming from the same group of people who railed against Olshey for settling, keeping people too long, and not taking chances. I dont get it.

I didn't rail against Olshey.

Before the 2011 season started odds makers gave Dallas 18/1 odds (roughly a 5% chance) of winning it all.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

There's only so many changes they can make.

As he said, if Simons, Nas, and Sharpe pop, they become pieces that can be traded for a star/superstar.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

How does it not have anything to do with what you said? You said you didn’t want to set a precedent that they aren’t loyal to other stars. Or spit in his face. So we hold on to him forever and ever and hope that some of our 13 role players develops into the next star? Simons is the only one I can see doing it to help Lillard. Sharpe is a ways away, if ever. Nobody else is making a huge jump. So what collection of these guys and picks turns this into a contender, passing by everyone in front of them?

If you would carefully look at my prediction in the prediction thread, you would say that there is no team in front of them.

 

[hoopsjock]

So instead we set the precedent that if you are a star here we will sit around and surround you with role players for 15 years until you ride off in the sunset. The extreme loyalty that everyone thinks a pro sports team is supposed to show might be the reason the team is in the situation it’s in.

I don't think there's a single person that wants Dame to only have role players, right? That's the point. We have our star, it's the organizations job to get another one (or more). That's a failure of the front office, not being loyal.

 

[calvin natt]

I don't think there's a single person that wants Dame to only have role players, right? That's the point. We have our star, it's the organizations job to get another one (or more). That's a failure of the front office, not being loyal.

Sure. And how do they get another one? They have no assets except future 1sts. That won’t do it.

 

[Tince]

Sure. And how do they get another one? They have no assets except future 1sts. That won’t do it.

Seeing how hard it is to get a second one, trading the one you have in hopes you can land two more would be like trading in a winning lottery ticket for 100,000 other lottery tickets in hopes you'll win twice with those.

To answer your question: By trade and development (difficult), free agency (unlikey), or draft (remote odds). Without Dame those same options are difficult, even more unlikely, and possible (to get one) / highly unlikely (to get two), far-fetched (to get two and keep two into their prime).

Neither option is great, but one is better than the other. We had a 3-4 year window where I think with the right moves and use of our assets we could've put ourselves in position to get that 2nd star, but the 2016-17 offeseasons were totally mis-handled.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Sure. And how do they get another one? They have no assets except future 1sts. That won’t do it.

They have young players who can pop and very capable defenders.

Somebody is going to up their value.

 

[calvin natt]

Seeing how hard it is to get a second one, trading the one you have in hopes you can land two more would be like trading in a winning lottery ticket for 100,000 other lottery tickets in hopes you'll win twice with those.

To answer your question: By trade and development (difficult), free agency (unlikey), or draft (remote odds). Without Dame those same options are difficult, even more unlikely, and possible (to get one) / highly unlikely (to get two), far-fetched (to get two and keep two into their prime).

Neither option is great, but one is better than the other. We had a 3-4 year window where I think with the right moves and use of our assets we could've put ourselves in position to get that 2nd star, but the 2016-17 offeseasons were totally mis-handled.

If Lillard was 26 I’d agree with you.
Hitting a HR on your one 1st rounder each year is very difficult. So you go get 5. That’s what I think they need to do. Go ahead and keep Sharpe, Ant, Walker, maybe Keon, the young guys. Play them tons of minutes. Collect first round picks. Spend the next three years building what you can. Lillard is the only one who will get a return. OR, don’t rebuild. But go younger and get current young studs and let them grow with the four or so young guys on the roster. Draft a few more and develop them. The alternative doesn’t excite me. Watching this group get bounced again and we can all cry for Lillard again next spring and hear from people all over the country how Damian needs to get out. Tired of it.

 

[Tince]

If Lillard was 26 I’d agree with you.
Hitting a HR on your one 1st rounder each year is very difficult. So you go get 5. That’s what I think they need to do. Go ahead and keep Sharpe, Ant, Walker, maybe Keon, the young guys. Play them tons of minutes. Collect first round picks. Spend the next three years building what you can. Lillard is the only one who will get a return. OR, don’t rebuild. But go younger and get current young studs and let them grow with the four or so young guys on the roster. Draft a few more and develop them. The alternative doesn’t excite me. Watching this group get bounced again and we can all cry for Lillard again next spring and hear from people all over the country how Damian needs to get out. Tired of it.

Does winning 20-30 games for 3-4 straight years for a slim chance to get two superstars excite you? Then imagine we actually get lucky enough to get two talents of that level, the odds that at least one wants to bounce is high (see how few loyal all-NBA players stay in a small market). Then we get to do it over again.

I personally don't care what people from all of the country says about Dame. 1) They're typically not educated about the situation. 2) They have selfish motivations to want him to come to their team, and it's not because he's washed and sucks.

Last year reminded me of one thing: It's far more enjoyable (for me) to watch 82 games of a team competing and playing in a playoffs, than talking about potential draft prospects from December - June, while knowing it's smart to root for my favorite team to lose games. Doing that for 3-4 more years sounds incredibly painful.

 

[calvin natt]

Does winning 20-30 games for 3-4 straight years for a slim chance to get two superstars excite you? Then imagine we actually get lucky enough to get two talents of that level, the odds that at least one wants to bounce is high (see how few loyal all-NBA players stay in a small market). Then we get to do it over again.

I personally don't care what people from all of the country says about Dame. 1) They're typically not educated about the situation. 2) They have selfish motivations to want him to come to their team, and it's not because he's washed and sucks.

Last year reminded me of one thing: It's far more enjoyable (for me) to watch 82 games of a team competing and playing in a playoffs, than talking about potential draft prospects from December - June, while knowing it's smart to root for my favorite team to lose games. Doing that for 3-4 more years sounds incredibly painful.

All of that is going to happen when Lillard either retires or his body gives out. So they can start the process now utilizing their one valuable asset, or wait it out, enjoy some first round exits, maybe a second round, and then have zilch left to trade away. So then they are down to free agency (nothing), trade (all our role players) and the draft. I think they should focus on the draft almost exclusively for the next couple years.

 

[Tince]

All of that is going to happen when Lillard either retires or his body gives out. So they can start the process now utilizing their one valuable asset, or wait it out, enjoy some first round exits, maybe a second round, and then have zilch left to trade away. So then they are down to free agency (nothing), trade (all our role players) and the draft. I think they should focus on the draft almost exclusively for the next couple years.

100% eventually our star players will be gone. I totally hear what you're saying. You want to start being bad now in hopes we might be good later vs being good now assuming it means we'll be bad later. Dallas held on to Dirk until the bitter end and I believe it helped them with their hard reset because the time table was clear. They probably could've got a lot for him at Age 32 as well. Undoubtedly at Age 34 there were Dallas fans saying they should've moved on. Now that some time has passed, I wonder if the over thought from Mavs fans are that they should've traded Dirk at 32 and started the rebuild earlier.

 

[hoopsjock]

100% eventually our star players will be gone. I totally hear what you're saying. You want to start being bad now in hopes we might be good later vs being good now assuming it means we'll be bad later. Dallas held on to Dirk until the bitter end and I believe it helped them with their hard reset because the time table was clear. They probably could've got a lot for him at Age 32 as well. Undoubtedly at Age 34 there were Dallas fans saying they should've moved on. Now that some time has passed, I wonder if the over thought from Mavs fans are that they should've traded Dirk at 32 and started the rebuild earlier.

If they traded Dirk the summer he turned 32 (like Dame did this summer), they would've missed out on one of the most impressive championships of all-time and Dirk is probably thought of a little differently.

Either way, the chances are pretty slim that the Blazers would win a championship. So for me, I'll take my chances with Dame and hope the Blazers can get him enough help. It's also why I disagree with the notion that they can't play both timelines. Add enough young talent (they already have an okay start hopefully) and by the time Dame is in his mid-30's they might not need him to carry the roster anymore. If any of that young talent pops sooner than later, then they could really have something. Adding vets to the mix like Grant and GP2 without giving up any young talent is fine too. What they don't want to do is make trades like the RoCo/Nance ones where they're giving up chances to strike gold for someone that doesn't pan out. It's also why I was so disappointed with the return at the trade deadline, because having more assets would've made it easier.

 

[Natebishop3]

trading in a winning lottery ticket for 100,000 other lottery tickets in hopes you'll win twice with those.

This just isn't a good analogy.

We cashed this lottery ticket and we have been spending the money for ten years. The money is running out. In your scenario, this would be like taking the remaining winnings from the first lottery ticket and buying a few million more lottery tickets..... but I suspect you have better odds of drafting an All-Star than you do of winning the lottery.

According to this site:https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/wealth/what-are-real-chances-winning-the-lottery/
Real Odds of Winning the Lottery
Here’s the cold hard truth when it comes to the lottery: for one of the most popular lotteries in the United States, Mega Millions, your odds of winning are about 1 in 176 million. If you’re playing a single-state lottery, like the California Super Lotto, your odds increase — to 1 in 42 million. While on paper that might seem like a major increase in your odds, 42 million to 1 is still awfully close to zero.

I'm not sure who this guy is, but he did the math


If you get a top 3 pick you have a very good chance of drafting at the very least an All-Star. Much better than 1 in 176 million or 1 in 42 million.

 

[Tince]

This just isn't a good analogy.

We cashed this lottery ticket and we have been spending the money for ten years. The money is running out. In your scenario, this would be like taking the remaining winnings from the first lottery ticket and buying a few million more lottery tickets..... but I suspect you have better odds of drafting an All-Star than you do of winning the lottery.

According to this site:https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/wealth/what-are-real-chances-winning-the-lottery/
Real Odds of Winning the Lottery
Here’s the cold hard truth when it comes to the lottery: for one of the most popular lotteries in the United States, Mega Millions, your odds of winning are about 1 in 176 million. If you’re playing a single-state lottery, like the California Super Lotto, your odds increase — to 1 in 42 million. While on paper that might seem like a major increase in your odds, 42 million to 1 is still awfully close to zero.

I'm not sure who this guy is, but he did the math


If you get a top 3 pick you have a very good chance of drafting at the very least an All-Star. Much better than 1 in 176 million or 1 in 42 million.

I'm certain we could trade Dame for enough picks to get us an all-star. However, that would not be a net improvement. Dame is an all-NBA player and we're saying we need to add an all-star next to him. So we need to obtain an all-NBA player and an all-star. You aren't just given top 3 picks, so you'd have to get lucky to get one, let alone two. Then you'd have to draft right on both, then you need to be able to keep them through multiple contracts in order for them to get into their prime.

What do we see more often in the NBA? An all-star join an all-NBA player or a team draft an all-NBA player and an all-star and keep them both together for 3 contracts so they're in their prime together? The analogy I used wasn't literal in terms of odds, more that we're like "oh, just get rid of the best player we've ever had so we can get some picks to get two players as good as him, guys like Dame are easy to obtain and keep." If it were that easy, I'd 100% be for that strategy. If the math indicated it were that easy, I'd be all for it.

I'd like to see the odds of a top 3 pick being a 6 Time All-NBA player with the same team. Bet its a lot less than 50%, A LOT.

 

[STOMP]

100% eventually our star players will be gone. I totally hear what you're saying. You want to start being bad now in hopes we might be good later vs being good now assuming it means we'll be bad later. Dallas held on to Dirk until the bitter end and I believe it helped them with their hard reset because the time table was clear. They probably could've got a lot for him at Age 32 as well. Undoubtedly at Age 34 there were Dallas fans saying they should've moved on. Now that some time has passed, I wonder if the over thought from Mavs fans are that they should've traded Dirk at 32 and started the rebuild earlier.

Remind me of who the 2nd HoF talent is on the current Blazer roster? The other thing about this bad comparison... Dirk never relied on superior quickness and athletic ability. His money jumper with the high release was always going to age well even when he lost a step.

STOMP

 

[Tince]

Remind me of who the 2nd HoF talent is on the current Blazer roster? The other thing about this bad comparison... Dirk never relied on superior quickness and athletic ability. His money jumper with the high release was always going to age well even when he lost a step.

STOMP

Many difference between Dirk and Dame, between the NBA in 2012 and 2022, and between the Portland & Dallas roster. If we are requiring an exact comparison to prove or disprove if we should or should not trade Dame, please provide an exact situation to ours, where in the recent years, a team traded their best player in franchise history, at age 32, in a small market, with bad ownership, an unproven coach/GM, etc. and it turned into a championship move. I'm guessing there is no exact comparison on either side.

I agree with you there is no 2nd HOF talent on this roster. My point continues to be it's proven to be very hard for us to obtain one HOF talent in their prime in Portland, so the strategy of getting rid of the one you have so you can obtain two more in the future, would very much be going against the odds. I think it would be difficult to obtain a HOF talent now next to Dame, but I think it's less likely to get rid of him and obtain 2 in the next decade.

 

[STOMP]

I think it would be difficult to obtain a HOF talent now next to Dame, but I think it's less likely to get rid of him and obtain 2 in the next decade.

I'm sure they could further mortgage the future to obtain such a talent, but I very much doubt that even then they'd have enough talent overall to be legit contenders. Your preferred path offers me far less hope then building a team around what their two young guards plus a Dame haul & 5-8 years could turn into.

STOMP

 

[calvin natt]

100% eventually our star players will be gone. I totally hear what you're saying. You want to start being bad now in hopes we might be good later vs being good now assuming it means we'll be bad later. Dallas held on to Dirk until the bitter end and I believe it helped them with their hard reset because the time table was clear. They probably could've got a lot for him at Age 32 as well. Undoubtedly at Age 34 there were Dallas fans saying they should've moved on. Now that some time has passed, I wonder if the over thought from Mavs fans are that they should've traded Dirk at 32 and started the rebuild earlier.

That’s a good example, and one that I think is highly highly unlikely to occur again. The Mavs title was very unusual and their path was incredibly difficult. But I wouldn’t say “they did it so now that’s a good strategy for us”. It’s just so unbelievably rare. Also, it’s not just that I prefer to “suck now” instead of in a few years. It’s that I’d rather suck now with the assets from a Lillard trade vs suck in a few years with no assets. I do see, very easily, why people would disagree with me. Lillard is tremendous. Which is why I think he could net a great return and completely change the trajectory of the team. I like him. He’s awesome. But I feel like if you look at it from an unemotional pov it’s a better business decision in the long run. Not short term but long term.

 

[Tince]

I'm sure they could further mortgage the future to obtain such a talent, but I very much doubt that even then they'd have enough talent overall to be legit contenders. Your preferred path offers me far less hope then building a team around what their two young guards plus a Dame haul & 5-8 years could turn into.

STOMP

I agree your strategy has a higher ceiling, but that comes with a much lower and prolonged floor. Last year was painfully boring to me, but I know others like tanking/losing.

 

[Tince]

That’s a good example, and one that I think is highly highly unlikely to occur again. The Mavs title was very unusual and their path was incredibly difficult. But I wouldn’t say “they did it so now that’s a good strategy for us”. It’s just so unbelievably rare. Also, it’s not just that I prefer to “suck now” instead of in a few years. It’s that I’d rather suck now with the assets from a Lillard trade vs suck in a few years with no assets. I do see, very easily, why people would disagree with me. Lillard is tremendous. Which is why I think he could net a great return and completely change the trajectory of the team. I like him. He’s awesome. But I feel like if you look at it from an unemotional pov it’s a better business decision in the long run. Not short term but long term.

I would be all for sucking now, if that meant we had great odds to be title contenders in 5 years. Sadly, history would suggest that sucking now is just as likely to lead to us sucking later as it is to making us a contender. I like to watch meaningful basketball even if winning a title is highly unlikely.

If we had different ownership and an experienced front office, proven they can identify, recruit, and retain talent; a full rebuild would be more a little more tempting to me.

 

[calvin natt]

I would be all for sucking now, if that meant we had great odds to be title contenders in 5 years. Sadly, history would suggest that sucking now is just as likely to lead to us sucking later as it is to making us a contender. I like to watch meaningful basketball even if winning a title is highly unlikely.

If we had different ownership and an experienced front office, proven they can identify, recruit, and retain talent; a full rebuild would be more a little more tempting to me.

Don’t all title winners “suck” 5 years before they win titles? Warriors? Cavs? Raptors? Bucks? Celtics with KG? I would have to look it up, but how many title winners were 7/8 seeds for the better part of a decade then poof! Championship?

 

[Tince]

Don’t all title winners “suck” 5 years before they win titles? Warriors? Cavs? Raptors? Bucks? Celtics with KG? I would have to look it up, but how many title winners were 7/8 seeds for the better part of a decade then poof! Championship?

I think very few teams have been 7/8 for the better part of a decade so that would be a much smaller list than people who have sucked for a year. The Raptors were the first team I looked up out of your list, and here were their prior 5 seasons.



For every Golden St Warriors example, there are multiple examples of teams suckings, missing, continuing to suck, striking out again, and continuing to suck. I would not want to do what the 76ers did for half a decade just for some conference semi-finals. And that isn't even bringing up the opposite extreme example of Golden St, Sacramento, whom I would argue we are much closer to in terms of market size, ownership quality, etc. at this point.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

100% eventually our star players will be gone. I totally hear what you're saying. You want to start being bad now in hopes we might be good later vs being good now assuming it means we'll be bad later. Dallas held on to Dirk until the bitter end and I believe it helped them with their hard reset because the time table was clear. They probably could've got a lot for him at Age 32 as well. Undoubtedly at Age 34 there were Dallas fans saying they should've moved on. Now that some time has passed, I wonder if the over thought from Mavs fans are that they should've traded Dirk at 32 and started the rebuild earlier.

Hello,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Dirk signed for a far less percent of the cap during their championship, enabling Dallas to put a bunch of all star/roll players around him, if I remember correctly.

 

[calvin natt]

I think very few teams have been 7/8 for the better part of a decade so that would be a much smaller list than people who have sucked for a year. The Raptors were the first team I looked up out of your list, and here were their prior 5 seasons.

View attachment 48986

For every Golden St Warriors example, there are multiple examples of teams suckings, missing, continuing to suck, striking out again, and continuing to suck. I would not want to do what the 76ers did for half a decade just for some conference semi-finals. And that isn't even bringing up the opposite extreme example of Golden St, Sacramento, whom I would argue we are much closer to in terms of market size, ownership quality, etc. at this point.

View attachment 48988

The Kings are an abomination of fucked up decisions and horrible leadership for decades. The Warriors do have excellent ownership and management. But they also happen to have Steph who they got with the 7th pick. And then Klay at 11. No owner or FO matters without that duo. To get those picks they had to be shitty. There are other ways to do it but with free agency essentially off the table, it’s draft and trade. Trades require assets which they don’t really have.

 

[calvin natt]

Hello,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but Dirk signed for a far less percent of the cap during their championship, enabling Dallas to put a bunch of all star/roll players around him, if I remember correctly.

Very cheap. Like $10m or something.