Heat and Nets, what am I missing?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
wizenheimer said:
if Dame does ask out, then obviously, between Miami and Brooklyn the Nets could make the much more attractive offer

but that offer HAS to start with one thing: NO Ben Simmons. He really seems beyond redemption at this point and he has MASSIVE negative value. It would be incredibly stupid to accept him as part of the return...unless the Nets gave Portland every 1st round pick they own without adding any protection...which they wouldn't do IMO. But again, why would Portland trade Dame AND take back one of the worst contracts in the league?

and I think the only intelligent path for Portland, in the event of a Dame trade, is to tear it all down and become a truly shitty team for 2 or 3 more years and load up on high lottery picks

so a trade I'd be OK with is Dame + Nurkic for Dinwiddie + Joe Harris + Claxton + 2025 Phx first + more advantageous of 2027 Phx or Philly first + the two most advantageous of the 2029 Dallas first, 2029 Phoenix 1st, and 2029 Brooklyn first. And I'd only allow the Nets to put top-4 protection on one of the first's, no more. And, a couple of 2nd's

and I'd also re-route both Dinwiddie and Harris for whatever draft capital and expiring contracts are available. Even if it's for 2nd round picks, that's better than putting them on the roster

I'd even look at adding and Ant for a S&T Cam Johnson and reroute Johnson to another team for a future 1st or two
Click to expand...

If the Blazers are trading Dame they would be rebuilding, then Simmons salary matches and following year it'll be an expiring deal. Doesn't really harm the Blazers when they're rebuilding.

Now it would have less trade value in subsequent moves, so the Nets yes need to give the Blazers additional pick(s). But it makes more sense to give the Blazers way overpaid Simmons, while the Nets keep more players that help them win now, while moving that additional draft compensation to Portland. Win win for both franchises.

Think of it another way, if your the Blazers post Dame do you trade away first round pick(s) to upgrade from Simmons to Harris+Dinwiddle? That wouldn't make any sense.

The salary filler in return for a Dame trade should be the most overpaid players possible so the Blazers get additional draft compensation, or it should be young players that can lose now while having potential to improve to an elite level long term, like Sharpe.
 
Some think trading Dame for Ben Simmons is a terrible idea. But that's exactly the point, Blazers need to be terrible to draft really high during a post Lillard rebuild.

All the Australia fans would go nuts with Thybulle & Simmons. Portland might have to sneak in a kangaroo mascot while rebuilding without Lillard.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
If the Blazers are trading Dame they would be rebuilding, then Simmons salary matches and following year it'll be an expiring deal. Doesn't really harm the Blazers when they're rebuilding.

Now it would have less trade value in subsequent moves, so the Nets yes need to give the Blazers additional pick(s). But it makes more sense to give the Blazers way overpaid Simmons, while the Nets keep more players that help them win now, while moving that additional draft compensation to Portland. Win win for both franchises.

Think of it another way, if your the Blazers post Dame do you trade away first round pick(s) to upgrade from Simmons to Harris+Dinwiddle? That wouldn't make any sense.

The salary filler in return for a Dame trade should be the most overpaid players possible so the Blazers get additional draft compensation, or it should be young players that can lose now while having potential to improve to an elite level long term, like Sharpe.
Click to expand...

I don't agree at all. Simmons has massive negative value...why trade Dame for any negative value? that does not make sense to me, at all, and you won't convince me otherwise. I mean, why would you accept Simmons rather than Dinwiddie and Harris? Even if you didn't flip them to a 3rd team right away, they both have expiring contracts and could be good trade assets at the trade deadline as both are quite functional players. Simmons is none of those things
 
What rebuild? We haven't been good for a number of years.
 
wizenheimer said:
I don't agree at all. Simmons has massive negative value...why trade Dame for any negative value? that does not make sense to me, at all, and you won't convince me otherwise. I mean, why would you accept Simmons rather than Dinwiddie and Harris? Even if you didn't flip them to a 3rd team right away, they both have expiring contracts and could be good trade assets at the trade deadline as both are quite functional players. Simmons is none of those things
Click to expand...

example
option A) Trade for a shitty player and 4 picks
Option B) Trade for an average player and 3 picks

The hope in taking Simmons is that the future life’s are better.

Also, Trade A, win 20 games and have best odds at a top pick 2024. Trade B, win 25 games and have the 3rd best odds.

Obviously, it’s not Lear cut what the results will be, Simmons could become good again, 3rd best odds could win the draft, or the extra pick could flame out immediately. However, if the goal is to rebuild, taking on another teams mess can pay off.
 
wizenheimer said:
I don't agree at all. Simmons has massive negative value...why trade Dame for any negative value? that does not make sense to me, at all, and you won't convince me otherwise. I mean, why would you accept Simmons rather than Dinwiddie and Harris? Even if you didn't flip them to a 3rd team right away, they both have expiring contracts and could be good trade assets at the trade deadline as both are quite functional players. Simmons is none of those things
Click to expand...

If the Blazers are going super young, might as well taken on a negative contract, assuming that means you're getting more/better future assets.
 
wizenheimer said:
I don't agree at all. Simmons has massive negative value...why trade Dame for any negative value? that does not make sense to me, at all, and you won't convince me otherwise. I mean, why would you accept Simmons rather than Dinwiddie and Harris? Even if you didn't flip them to a 3rd team right away, they both have expiring contracts and could be good trade assets at the trade deadline as both are quite functional players. Simmons is none of those things
Click to expand...
I would take the remaining two years of Ben’s deal. Sharpe and #3 are on rookie deals through the rest of Ben’s contract, require 3 additional 1sts. For Dame and Nurk, I want Claxton, Johnson signed-and-traded for Ant, Simmons, one of their 2023 draft selections, and 4 1sts. Claxton, Johnson, one of their rookies, and seven 1sts is quite a haul, all things considered.
 
BankTeller said:
I would take the remaining two years of Ben’s deal. Sharpe and #3 are on rookie deals through the rest of Ben’s contract, require 3 additional 1sts. For Dame and Nurk, I want Claxton, Johnson signed-and-traded for Ant, Simmons, one of their 2023 draft selections, and 4 1sts. Claxton, Johnson, one of their rookies, and seven 1sts is quite a haul, all things considered.
Click to expand...
Going off this, I feel like if a Dame trade happens, it stays under wraps. By draft day, Scoot might be gone, at which point I’m swinging on Amen’s upside. By FA, we may not have done enough to keep Dame or we decide it’s not worth leveraging assets, at which point we get major draft capital and two good fits for our team. At #23, draft BPA or move up and get better prospect—apparently, the 2024 and 2025 class isn’t very good. I would just overpay to keep Grant here for four years because he fits a need, and not worry about tanking. Sign another guy who can actually play PG to run sets, Tre Jones comes to mind but I know he’d be another non shooting PG on the team. Try and win as many games as we can, a lotto pick is a consolation prize.

Amen/BPA/Mays
Sharpe/BPA/Thybulle
Johnson/BPA/Nas
Grant/Johnson/Watford/Walker
Claxton/BPA/BPA

The BRK rookie and #23 will just have to be BPA. Then I would try and sign some veterans or players that might fit the team. At this stage of his career, would Lopez be down to sign an overpaid deal to play for a team that might not compete? I would do it if he wanted to be here. We would need a microwave scorer of the bench at a decent rate, I feel like Malik Monks aren’t that hard to find. We could bring in someone like Tre Jones to come in and compete with Mays for backup minutes.

I think this starting unit could learn to become a really good defense, and Amen would have at least 3 shooters (6 if we sign one in FA, go the Lopez route, and Watford keeps developing as one) that can be plugged in with him for spacing.

Plus 7 1sts, and all of our own. No sweat to unprotect that pick or get it back.
 
wizenheimer said:
I don't agree at all. Simmons has massive negative value...why trade Dame for any negative value? that does not make sense to me, at all, and you won't convince me otherwise. I mean, why would you accept Simmons rather than Dinwiddie and Harris? Even if you didn't flip them to a 3rd team right away, they both have expiring contracts and could be good trade assets at the trade deadline as both are quite functional players. Simmons is none of those things
Click to expand...
You accept it because the Nets give you the most draft equity if you take Simmons.

Have to look at what makes sense for both teams. It doesn't make sense to have Simmons on the Nets if they're trying to win with Dame and doesn't matter if he's overpaid on the Blazers. Thus there's mutual benefit to moving him back to Portland for additional value.

The draft value is a positive much, much larger than the 1 additional year of Simmons contract.
 
Last edited:
Tince said:
If the Blazers are going super young, might as well taken on a negative contract, assuming that means you're getting more/better future assets.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly.

I mean if the Nets instead gave us players on better contracts and less picks I guess we could consider it, and flip those players to 3rd teams for negative contracts and assets. Would seem to make more sense for Nets and Blazers to directly work something out with their worst contracts though.
 
I think there are like 27 or 28 other teams. Only two teams? seems like there is alot missing!!!
 
WesleyMatthews said:
You accept it because the Nets give you the most draft equity if you take Simmons.

.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that; not at all

and even though the Nets do have some future picks, it's not like they are OKC or Utah. Every one of those picks has debatable value. They don't have any of their own picks available till 2029. They have the Phoenix picks in 2025-2027-2029; a protected Philly pick in either 2027 or 2028; and the Dallas pick in 2029

so...5 total 1st round picks and one contingent 1st, that may or may not convey. If Portland is trading Dame and settling for less than 4 of these first round picks they are fucking up big time because not one of those picks is a certain lottery pick. They have just as much chance to be in the bottom-10 of the first round as the top-10. I just don't believe Brooklyn would add a 5th first because the Blazers took Simmons. They'd eat his contract themselves and preserve a first or two. In fact, they are the team that traded for Simmons so they may very well determine that the chance he rehabilitates is worth keeping around Dame & Bridges...

in fact, Dame-Bridges-Johnson-Simmons-Nurkic might offer them their best chance of being a contender....assuming Simmons can get it together

so if Portland is not getting another 1st round pick, why would Portland take on Simmons when instead they could take on Dinwiddie & Harris. The Blazers would have a much easier time extracting value for those two in trades than they would extracting further value from Brooklyn for Simmons. At worst it would be a push, but the Blazers could get out of that 37-40M in salary a year earlier
 
Whyachi said:
Some think trading Dame for Ben Simmons is a terrible idea. But that's exactly the point, Blazers need to be terrible to draft really high during a post Lillard rebuild.

All the Australia fans would go nuts with Thybulle & Simmons. Portland might have to sneak in a kangaroo mascot while rebuilding without Lillard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, being bad a drafting more young players is the easy part. Picking the right young players, developing them, and retaining most of them into their prime is what very very few teams are able to do.
 
wizenheimer said:
I don't believe that; not at all

and even though the Nets do have some future picks, it's not like they are OKC or Utah. Every one of those picks has debatable value. They don't have any of their own picks available till 2029. They have the Phoenix picks in 2025-2027-2029; a protected Philly pick in either 2027 or 2028; and the Dallas pick in 2029

so...5 total 1st round picks and one contingent 1st, that may or may not convey. If Portland is trading Dame and settling for less than 4 of these first round picks they are fucking up big time because not one of those picks is a certain lottery pick. They have just as much chance to be in the bottom-10 of the first round as the top-10. I just don't believe Brooklyn would add a 5th first because the Blazers took Simmons. They'd eat his contract themselves and preserve a first or two. In fact, they are the team that traded for Simmons so they may very well determine that the chance he rehabilitates is worth keeping around Dame & Bridges...

in fact, Dame-Bridges-Johnson-Simmons-Nurkic might offer them their best chance of being a contender....assuming Simmons can get it together

so if Portland is not getting another 1st round pick, why would Portland take on Simmons when instead they could take on Dinwiddie & Harris. The Blazers would have a much easier time extracting value for those two in trades than they would extracting further value from Brooklyn for Simmons. At worst it would be a push, but the Blazers could get out of that 37-40M in salary a year earlier
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious Dinwiddle and Harris are worth more. I'd assume the Blazers would get a better return by taking back Simmons. If the Blazers can get the same picks by taking Simmons or Dinwiddle&Harris yes obviously take the later.
 
TBpup said:
Take out Harris, add in Claxton, and we get 4 unprotected 1st. Not all that other trash.
Click to expand...

Why would the Blazers want Claxton? They aren't winning and hes an expiring contract so will either than bolt or no longer be underpaid.

I guess its the same idea as Simmons posts above - if the Blazers can get the same picks yes take the better players. I'd similarly assume the Nets would give up more other assets if they retain Claxton.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
Why would the Blazers want Claxton? They aren't winning and hes an expiring contract so will either than bolt or no longer be underpaid.

I guess its the same idea as Simmons posts above - if the Blazers can get the same picks yes take the better players. I'd similarly assume the Nets would give up more other assets if they retain Claxton.
Click to expand...

He's young and he's a good center.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
Pretty obvious Dinwiddle and Harris are worth more. I'd assume the Blazers would get a better return by taking back Simmons. If the Blazers can get the same picks by taking Simmons or Dinwiddle&Harris yes obviously take the later.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. For two reasons... one, as has been previously mentioned, being better on the court as we tear it down isn't in our best interest. If Simmons never steps on the court, the team may lose more games (and get a better pick) and our younger guys would get more minutes, making it easier for the Blazers to identify which youngsters to keep. Dinwiddle and Harris are solid NBA players, but... they don't help us in the near term and I don't think they would have much trade value.

The second reason? I know it's crazy, but there is a chance that something clicks for Simmons and he becomes a good player again. We would definitely be buying low, and there's a CHANCE to sell high in a way that isn't common in bad contracts. It's definitely not likely but it's not like this is a John Wall contract.
 
Samuel said:
Nets fans think it's Spencer Dinwiddie, Joe Harris and picks.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Click to expand...

Dinwiddie and Harris are a fuck of a lot better than Simmons. They can be re-routed to other teams right away for draft capital. of they can be held onto and moved at the trade deadline as solid players on expiring contracts...for draft capital

I'd make the trade Dame + Nurk for Dinwiddie + Harris + Claxton + 2025 PHX 1st + best of 2027 Phx/Philly 1st + the 2 best of 2029 Phx/BKN/Dallas 1st's

Blazers keep Claxton and get 4 future 1st's for Dame, even though not a single one is even guaranteed to be top-20 let alone lottery

I'd also trade Ant and Grant for draft capital. Blazers rebuild in the draft by being really shitty for 2-3 years
 
wizenheimer said:
Dinwiddie and Harris are a fuck of a lot better than Simmons. They can be re-routed to other teams right away for draft capital. of they can be held onto and moved at the trade deadline as solid players on expiring contracts...for draft capital

I'd make the trade Dame + Nurk for Dinwiddie + Harris + Claxton + 2025 PHX 1st + best of 2027 Phx/Philly 1st + the 2 best of 2029 Phx/BKN/Dallas 1st's

Blazers keep Claxton and get 4 future 1st's for Dame, even though not a single one is even guaranteed to be top-20 let alone lottery

I'd also trade Ant and Grant for draft capital. Blazers rebuild in the draft by being really shitty for 2-3 years
Click to expand...

Not that I love this plan at all, but if we were to start over and drafted Amen, he'd be a great fit with Ant as a shooter.
 
Simmons is better than y’all think. Nets had an 18-2 stretch and Ben looked great during it. Don’t know why Kyrie/Nets broke it up. They might’ve won the whole thing. They could’ve beaten Miami.
 
blazerkor said:
Joe will make trades, we will have a better team around Dame than he's had and we will see what that team can do. Dame is for real and sometimes some people can't handle that.
Click to expand...
You said this before the trade deadline and it got me excited but nothing significant happened.
 
wizenheimer said:
Dinwiddie and Harris are a fuck of a lot better than Simmons. They can be re-routed to other teams right away for draft capital. of they can be held onto and moved at the trade deadline as solid players on expiring contracts...for draft capital
Click to expand...

Harris is probably worth a couple of seconds. I don't think Dinwiddie is much draft capital at all.

wizenheimer said:
I'd make the trade Dame + Nurk for Dinwiddie + Harris + Claxton + 2025 PHX 1st + best of 2027 Phx/Philly 1st + the 2 best of 2029 Phx/BKN/Dallas 1st's

Blazers keep Claxton and get 4 future 1st's for Dame, even though not a single one is even guaranteed to be top-20 let alone lottery
Click to expand...

No, the inference above was no Claxton. All garbage and future picks.

wizenheimer said:
I'd also trade Ant and Grant for draft capital. Blazers rebuild in the draft by being really shitty for 2-3 years
Click to expand...

Though I like the sound of Grant doing a S&T but I think he'd just sign with another team outright.

This is all sort of moot because I think Joe would be crazy to make this deal.
 
Samuel said:
No, the inference above was no Claxton. All garbage and future picks.
This is all sort of moot because I think Joe would be crazy to make this deal.
Click to expand...

well, If Dame asks out this would probably be on the high end of what Portland would get offered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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