FIRST TRADE IDEA OF THE NEW SEASON!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Would you trade Anfernee and Sharpe and x picks for Shai Gilgeous Alexander?

  • Yes, for any x<3

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Yes if x=1 and is protected

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes for Simons and Sharpe with NO picks (or maybe a second or two)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 64 95.5%
  • Total voters
    67
Perfect example in this conversation about Hart is PatCon. Blazers could have kept him.
Sure they had players that could play the position. He ended up starting for the Bucks and playing next man up in their march to the championship. He had no problem being a role player and filling a need.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Tired of giving guys that actually produce something away because we have another guy that might could produce something.
Click to expand...
What guys are you talking about specifically? I really can’t think of a time in the last decade that we’ve done that besides trading GT because we chose Ant.
 
BankTeller said:
What guys are you talking about specifically? I really can’t think of a time in the last decade that we’ve done that besides trading GT because we chose Ant.
Click to expand...
Gabriel is playing a pretty big role for the Lakers. You will see him today.
We all know we could use him right now and we even have a roster spot.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Gabriel is playing a pretty big role for the Lakers. You will see him today.
We all know we could use him right now and we even have a roster spot.
Click to expand...
This isn’t even a good example of “giving guys that actually produce something away because we have another guy that might could produce something” like what you previously said. We didn’t get rid of Gabriel because we had “another guy that might produce something”, you’re just naming off young guys we should’ve kept.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Perfect example in this conversation about Hart is PatCon. Blazers could have kept him.
Sure they had players that could play the position. He ended up starting for the Bucks and playing next man up in their march to the championship. He had no problem being a role player and filling a need.
Click to expand...
Not a perfect example at all…
PatC averaged 5.4ppg on subpar shooting. Is that your idea of “guys that actually produce something”?
 
BankTeller said:
This isn’t even a good example of “giving guys that actually produce something away because we have another guy that might could produce something” like what you previously said. We didn’t get rid of Gabriel because we had “another guy that might produce something”, you’re just naming off young guys we should’ve kept.
Click to expand...
So I name three of them and you figure one isn’t a good enough example. okay.
 
BankTeller said:
Not a perfect example at all…
PatC averaged 5.4ppg on subpar shooting. Is that your idea of “guys that actually produce something”?
Click to expand...
It’s a good example in my book. He was a glue guy role player that was willing to come off the bench. Then he got better! Imagine that?
Same with Gabriel and Trent.
Those are perfectly good examples sorry.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
So I name three of them and you figure one isn’t a good enough example. okay.
Click to expand...
You didn’t name off three, you agreed to the one example I gave you that I remembered. In terms of “giving guys that actually produce something away because we have another guy that might could produce something”, are we going to act like Ant isn’t the better player?

I’m not defending trading GT for Norm, that’s not what I’m trying to say, and that’s not what you initially said you are tired of. You sound like you’re more tired of us not giving the young guys more of a chance than giving productive players away, because two of those guys you named were not actually productive players when we had them (you can argue Gabriel still isn’t). We also didn’t “give” two of them away, we simply didn’t want to bring them back”.

Your complaints sound like they’re from having a bad FO with no direction like what we previously had, which I get.
 
Last edited:
Fairly-Hard said:
Gabriel is playing a pretty big role for the Lakers. You will see him today.
We all know we could use him right now and we even have a roster spot.
Click to expand...
Also you realize Gabriel’s played 8mpg so far and didn’t even get to play in the second game right? It seems like your definition of “big role” might just differ from mine. Usually they gotta be in the 20+mpg range for me to even think they have a somewhat big role lol. But to each their own bro.
 
BankTeller said:
Also you realize Gabriel’s played 8mpg so far and didn’t even get to play in the second game right? It seems like your definition of “big role” might just differ from mine. Usually they gotta be in the 20+mpg range for me to even think they have a somewhat big role lol. But to each their own bro.
Click to expand...
The original statement said “Tired of giving guys away that actually produce something “
Big role was only brought up in the Gabriel statement and he will have one for them.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
The original statement said “Tired of giving guys away that actually produce something “
Big role was only brought up in the Gabriel statement and he will have one for them.
Click to expand...
What did we give him away for?
 
Fairly-Hard said:
You are arguing just to argue.
You are right I’m wrong
Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Dude lol no I’m not. You said you’re tired of giving players away like we’re trading them. I named one example that matched what you were saying you were tired of, and it’s not like it didn’t work out for us because Ant is a superior player to GT. The other two guys averaged less than 6ppg for us, and we didn’t trade them, we just didn’t bring them back.

I tried to find common ground with you by suggesting you’re probably more tired of the team not giving the young guys an opportunity, with no reply. Are you saying “give them away” to mean they’re just off the team overall, or that we traded them? So I don’t really know what to tell you dude.

Decided to write this now instead of after the game cause I didn’t want you to think “he’s just writing this now because Gabriel didn’t have a big role this game”. I’m not trying to argue.

But if don’t want to move off your initial statement or clear it up, that’s fine.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
I’m not up to speed on his rights? Do the Blazers have them?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if we extend him during the season around the time we extend Grant, especially if we can get him for around the price we're paying him right now or even a couple million more per season.
 
riverman said:
I'd trade Ant and Nas for a needle moving SF and a backup 7 ftr...throw Greg Brown in the deal....no to trading our draft picks this season. Slide Hart to the 2 guard where he's supposed to play
Click to expand...
Scottie Barnes please

STOMP
 
illmatic99 said:
Agree but GP has a 4 yr contract and Hart will be a FA
Click to expand...

trade Payton and keep Hart then

unless it's a great player coming in from a Hart trade, I seriously doubt Portland moves him

edit: Payton has a 3 year contract
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how we can keep Hart he’s going to get a nice offer from someone. Sucks because he’s that guy that you play with who you can’t help but give more effort on the court because you see him doing it. Honestly such an underrated quality he drives others around him to play harder.

Anyways don’t see how we can keep him, if we aren’t a top team come trade deadline I could see us trading him maybe package him with Little to get a very good player back.
 
illmatic99 said:
Agree but GP has a 4 yr contract and Hart will be a FA
Click to expand...

One is playing very well starting for the team. The other is injured, going to be 30 in a month, has one year of productive play, and debatable if he'll ever live up to his contract.

I'm not sure how you arrive to the conclusion that the Blazers should then trade Hart.

If anything shouldn't the Blazers aim to trade GP?
 
WesleyMatthews said:
One is playing very well starting for the team. The other is injured, going to be 30 in a month, has one year of productive play, and debatable if he'll ever live up to his contract.

I'm not sure how you arrive to the conclusion that the Blazers should then trade Hart.

If anything shouldn't the Blazers aim to trade GP?
Click to expand...
When was the last time a team traded an FA after signing him to a full MLE months after the signing?
 
illmatic99 said:
When was the last time a team traded an FA after signing him to a full MLE months after the signing?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what full-MLE has to do with it, but teams have traded FA's in the season they signed them before. It's not unprecedented. Portland did it with Powell last year

and of course, the decisions on Hart/Payton can be forwarded to next summer; don't have to made in February
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm not sure what full-MLE has to do with it, but teams have traded FA's in the season they signed them quite often. Portland did it with Powell last year

and of course, the decisions on Hart/Payton can be forwarded to next summer; don't have to made in February
Click to expand...
believe me, with the emergence of shaedon and hart's effectiveness, i'm inclined to keep Josh over Gary as well. Just might find his recent contract signing a possible hurdle. let's see how he fits in though.
 
illmatic99 said:
When was the last time a team traded an FA after signing him to a full MLE months after the signing?
Click to expand...

That happens all the time. Daniel Theis was signed last summer by Houston and then traded at the deadline.

Why are you now saying the Blazers have to trade Payton in months? Your comment was the Blazers can't resign Hart next season because of Paytons long term contract, which is what I argued against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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