How do we get another lotto pick?

[illmatic99]

I'm increasingly gaining interest in the draft this year. I want to max our chances at landing the #1 pick, but even if we don't, there seem to be quite a few players that could be all stars in the NBA. After Simmons, there's Ingram, Dunn, Bender, Sabonis Jr, Murray, Skal, etc that project very well. Landing two of these guys to add to Dame would make a terrific core. But what kind of assets do we have to be able to move up to get another pick?

Think top 3 are obvious and can be valuable to every team, but it gets hairy from there.

1. Dame -- Not trading him.
2. Draft pick -- just ranking assets. No way we move either Dame or the pick.

3. CJ -- Breakout player but how valuable is he for a team already in contention? And that team is unlikely to have a lotto pick anyway.

4. Capspace -- Absorb some shit contracts for a pick in return? Yes please! Our very own GM was on the other end of this when he (infamously) traded a lotto pick (Kyrie) to CLE to get rid of Baron Davis' contract. Guessing/hoping Sterling had some input into this and Olshey was not the driver. Looking at SAC/NO/HOU/WAS as trade partners here :teams that were supposed to be in the playoff hunt, and are desperate to get there, but have sucked instead.

5. Meyers -- big question mark but value is in the unknown I'm guessing.

These guys are all in the same boat- and would help the teams looking to get into the playoffs, but the risk here is that these guys on their new teams can't actually get them into the playoffs:
6. Plumlee
7. Aminu
8. Davis
9. Crabbe -- becoming increasingly consistent
10. Henderson

More unknowns, like Meyers but worse prospects:
11. Harkless
12. Vonleh

Filler:
Kaman
Montero
Frazier

Think I'd trade any combo of 6-15 for another pick this year, with minimal protection.

 

[Denny Crane]

Trade #4 for #9 and #10

 

[Orion Bailey]

Trade
#7 & #9 and maybe cash for a top 5 pick? Is that enough? Amino/ Crabbe/Cash?

 

[Strenuus]

If CJ+ picks/fillers nets us a top 3 pick somehow, you do it without question. He's our Monta.

 

[HailBlazers]

Wave a Magic Wand?

 

[handiman]

Swing for the fences. Let's say we time the trade dependent on the Lakers having secured and kept a top-3 pick, move Dame for their pick and Clarkson. We'll also say it's #2 or #3, since no one is letting go of Simmons. I know most everyone hates the idea, but isn't that package plus CJ of better value long-term than Dame + CJ? CJ isn't getting us that much in return and the Dame/CJ combo is too flawed, so it has to be Dame to make it work. Plus, everyone worries about him eventually becoming a Laker, anyway. And who would want to acquire him more than the team he goes for 30+ on every game?

 

[Strenuus]

Swing for the fences. Let's say we time the trade dependent on the Lakers having secured and kept a top-3 pick, move Dame for their pick and Clarkson. We'll also say it's #2 or #3, since no one is letting go of Simmons. I know most everyone hates the idea, but isn't that package plus CJ of better value long-term than Dame + CJ? CJ isn't getting us that much in return and the Dame/CJ combo is too flawed, so it has to be Dame to make it work. Plus, everyone worries about him eventually becoming a Laker, anyway. And who would want to acquire him more than the team he goes for 30+ on every game?

I'm not worried for a second that he is. And besides, he's not going anywhere until he's 30.

You do CJ + picks/fillers and that could get a top 3. SG is a much thinner position and CJ could garner a lot if he continues to produce well (and not repeat the last couple of performances)

Dame is untouchable, IMO.

 

[handiman]

You do CJ + picks/fillers and that could get a top 3.

If that got it done, sure. I think you're delusional if you believe it's enough, though. Our roster is full of "value acquisition" guys, aka players that aren't highly valued around the league. Our picks aren't great commodities historically, either, with only a couple trips deep into the lottery.

SG is a much thinner position and CJ could garner a lot if he continues to produce well (and not repeat the last couple of performances)

I find that funny, because CJ and Dame are essentially the same position. Call it SG/PG vs PG/SG, but they're interchangeable in nearly every respect.

Maybe by season's end, CJ has enough value to get something done. But that would mean he probably would have equaled or surpassed Dame by that point, so what's the difference?

 

[Strenuus]

If that got it done, sure. I think you're delusional if you believe it's enough, though. Our roster is full of "value acquisition" guys, aka players that aren't highly valued around the league. Our picks aren't great commodities historically, either, with only a couple trips deep into the lottery.



I find that funny, because CJ and Dame are essentially the same position. Call it SG/PG vs PG/SG, but they're interchangeable in nearly every respect.

Maybe by season's end, CJ has enough value to get something done. But that would mean he probably would have equaled or surpassed Dame by that point, so what's the difference?

Eh, CJ is a SG.

And if we have two players that are replicated, why not trade CJ? I don't think we do have replication, but I gotta ask it anyway.

CJ is a SG. And if he plays better than Dame, you trade CJ. If you can trade CJ + whatever lotto pick we would get + crabbe (Not a value acquistion) and someone else for a top 3 pick, you do it. Now, if the lotto pick is 9-12, I don't think you can do it. 4-7(maybe 8)? Then yes.

 

[blue9]

I'm hoping BOS gets their act together and get into the Top 4 in the East, then suffer an injury wherein they need one of our guys in order to remain a contender. Say, Avery Bradley goes down with a season ending injury, and they need CJ to salvage the season. Package CJ with Aminu, Davis, or Vonleh and pry a pick away from them.

I'd really like it if Aminu and/or Vonleh would get better so their value would increase.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think Denny has it right, buying a high lotto pick is almost unheard of and I don't see anybody on this roster that most teams would be willing to trade top ten pick for (even packaged together). If we want multiple lotto picks then Neil is almost certainly going to have to trade back.

 

[illmatic99]

I'm hoping BOS gets their act together and get into the Top 4 in the East, then suffer an injury wherein they need one of our guys in order to remain a contender. Say, Avery Bradley goes down with a season ending injury, and they need CJ to salvage the season. Package CJ with Aminu, Davis, or Vonleh and pry a pick away from them.

I'd really like it if Aminu and/or Vonleh would get better so their value would increase.

Didn't think of the injury possibility. Good call. BOS is an easy target just because they have so many picks.

 

[illmatic99]

Gortat + pick for Plumlee + 1 other player below him in my above rankings.

WAS gets out of its massive contract for Gortat while getting a fairly comparable replacement in Mason. They give us their pick unprotected (currently sitting at 12) in return.

 

[handiman]

Eh, CJ is a SG.

They're both 6'3" combo guards that are equally comfortable playing with the ball or off it, and neither is a pure ball handler.

And if we have two players that are replicated, why not trade CJ? I don't think we do have replication, but I gotta ask it anyway.

I already answered that. Dame will net a lot more in a trade than CJ. No way does CJ at his current level of recognition get us up high in this draft unless we're including our own pick in the #5-7 range to move up a couple spots.

Dame is a media sensation. His big shot making and eloquent speaking in front of the camera resulted in all-star appearances and mega endorsement contracts that exceeded his production at the time, and unfortunately, his efficiency (as opposed to his raw production) has slipped since then. Buy low, sell high. It's just smart business.

People bitch about the Lakers being gifted Kobe, but the fact is they had the balls to trade a productive and popular starter (Vlade) for a mid-round HS kid. The winners know to do whatever it takes to get the players you identify as essential. Boston did it with KG/Allen, and then sold high when the group had run its course.

 

[dviss1]

Swing for the fences. Let's say we time the trade dependent on the Lakers having secured and kept a top-3 pick, move Dame for their pick and Clarkson. We'll also say it's #2 or #3, since no one is letting go of Simmons. I know most everyone hates the idea, but isn't that package plus CJ of better value long-term than Dame + CJ? CJ isn't getting us that much in return and the Dame/CJ combo is too flawed, so it has to be Dame to make it work. Plus, everyone worries about him eventually becoming a Laker, anyway. And who would want to acquire him more than the team he goes for 30+ on every game?

Any talk of trading Damian Lillard is just silly.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Trading Dame would be a PR nightmare - but if looked at unemotionally, he should not be untradeable. He is good, even very good, but he is not a first-ballot-HOF-superstar. His trade value is actually decreasing.

 

[Strenuus]

They're both 6'3" combo guards that are equally comfortable playing with the ball or off it, and neither is a pure ball handler.



I already answered that. Dame will net a lot more in a trade than CJ. No way does CJ at his current level of recognition get us up high in this draft unless we're including our own pick in the #5-7 range to move up a couple spots.

Dame is a media sensation. His big shot making and eloquent speaking in front of the camera resulted in all-star appearances and mega endorsement contracts that exceeded his production at the time, and unfortunately, his efficiency (as opposed to his raw production) has slipped since then. Buy low, sell high. It's just smart business.

People bitch about the Lakers being gifted Kobe, but the fact is they had the balls to trade a productive and popular starter (Vlade) for a mid-round HS kid. The winners know to do whatever it takes to get the players you identify as essential. Boston did it with KG/Allen, and then sold high when the group had run its course.

I hear your argument, but I think if I'm delusional with my thought on it, you are with this.

"Hey Dame. Thanks for signing for 5 years with no options. Oh, wait, we aren't loyal. See ya."

Really good for business. Really solid. Outstanding. Every team should do that. Lets show those free agents we'll love them for years! YEAH.

There's good business. Then there's losing good graces with not only the face of the franchise, but anyone who would even think about coming here.

In short, trading CJ makes sense. Trading Dame is asinine and should never be considered unless we ourselves get the #1 pick GUARANTEED(at least in this years' draft because of Simmons, other years who knows), Curry, Lebron, or Durant. Besides that, it's idiotic.

And to be quite honest, I don't think Dame by himself or with fillers gets the #1 pick guaranteed.

CJ gives us the BEST option to get into at least the top 5 WITH others going with him and picks. That's logical, that's not delusional.

 

[blue9]

I'd trade Lillard for Simmons but I wouldn't trade him for a chance at Simmons.

 

[Strenuus]

I'd trade Lillard for Simmons but I wouldn't trade him for a chance at Simmons.

Even then, I don't think Lillard for Simmons (Or the #1 guaranteed like I said) is enough straight up... or even if we do fillers for that matter.

Lillard is untouchable, but not in the UNTOUCHABLES... if that makes sense.

 

[blue9]

Even then, I don't think Lillard for Simmons (Or the #1 guaranteed like I said) is enough straight up... or even if we do fillers for that matter.

Lillard is untouchable, but not in the UNTOUCHABLES... if that makes sense.

Oh, I agree. I'm just sayin' is all.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I hear your argument, but I think if I'm delusional with my thought on it, you are with this.

"Hey Dame. Thanks for signing for 5 years with no options. Oh, wait, we aren't loyal. See ya."

Really good for business. Really solid. Outstanding. Every team should do that. Lets show those free agents we'll love them for years! YEAH.

There's good business. Then there's losing good graces with not only the face of the franchise, but anyone who would even think about coming here.

In short, trading CJ makes sense. Trading Dame is asinine and should never be considered unless we ourselves get the #1 pick GUARANTEED(at least in this years' draft because of Simmons, other years who knows), Curry, Lebron, or Durant. Besides that, it's idiotic.

And to be quite honest, I don't think Dame by himself or with fillers gets the #1 pick guaranteed.

CJ gives us the BEST option to get into at least the top 5 WITH others going with him and picks. That's logical, that's not delusional.

And this is why he is untouchable. It would set us back another decade in the PR ands no one would ever want to come here.

 

[blue9]

And this is why he is untouchable. It would set us back another decade in the PR ands no one would ever want to come here.

Nobody wants to come here as it is - keeping/trading Dame isn't going to change that.

 

[Strenuus]

Nobody wants to come here as it is - keeping/trading Dame isn't going to change that.

Oh, it'd change it. We'd be in purgatory for YEARS. We aint getting simmons unless we get lucky, but trading CJ with others and picks, we have a chance of getting a top 5 pick (as long as our pick is within 3 or 4 spots).

Unless we can somehow get a stud SG that can put CJ on the bench for 6th man duties (his real role... but shhh we wont tell teams that), then CJ can stay. As is? If he continues to shine, he can be a key piece in a movement.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Nobody wants to come here as it is - keeping/trading Dame isn't going to change that.

I disagree. Let the new age come into its own with instant media ETC. Even Adam Silver said he likes what we are doing and with the change in individual marketing, Portland is a much better destination than in years past and he could see us having a big offseason with trades and signings.

 

[Tunchi]

I disagree. Let the new age come into its own with instant media ETC. Even Adam Silver said he likes what we are doing and with the change in individual marketing, Portland is a much better destination than in years past and he could see us having a big offseason with trades and signings.

Bc Portland is basically his team and he needs to say that for one of his products to get good publicity

 

[blue9]

I disagree. Let the new age come into its own with instant media ETC. Even Adam Silver said he likes what we are doing and with the change in individual marketing, Portland is a much better destination than in years past and he could see us having a big offseason with trades and signings.

I'd bet my house that the Blazers won't ever sign a marquee Free Agent until they make it to the WCF. Winning is the only thing that will make us a destination.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I'd bet my house that the Blazers won't ever sign a marquee Free Agent until they make it to the WCF. Winning is the only thing that will make us a destination.

You dont think that the POTENTIAL of winning big would do it? You think that if we win 35-40 games this year when predicted to win 20, that stars wont see this young club overachieving and want to get on the train while its roaring? I think by the time we are in the WFC it will be too late.
I could be wrong, but Id rather think that your wrong in this. I suppose time will tell cause were gonna win 40 games this year .

 

[blue9]

Nope.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Nope.

Thats all I get? Damn... okay. your wrong.

 

[Strenuus]

You dont think that the POTENTIAL of winning big would do it? You think that if we win 35-40 games this year when predicted to win 20, that stars wont see this young club overachieving and want to get on the train while its roaring? I think by the time we are in the WFC it will be too late.
I could be wrong, but Id rather think that your wrong in this. I suppose time will tell cause were gonna win 40 games this years .

If the potential of winning big mattered, the Bucks would have been a hot place to go... (15-67) in 2013-2014, 41-41 in 2014-2015.

Also, what about the Atlanta Hawks. They have all this "potential" to win big, but can't get anyone to go there that's marquee.