If we had to cut players...

[PtldPlatypus]

...presumably to accommodate an unbalanced trade sending out Ant/Ayton/Grant, which players would you be OK with the front office simply releasing if necessary?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Doesn't that depend on who we're getting in return?

If we get Wemby I'm fine with cutting all of them.

If we get Westbrook we should cut him.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Thybulle Timelord Deni don't make sense as their contracts make cutting them a bad idea. Duop in a minor way too even though its a few million. If need be they could be routed to a third team though such as Duop which I think I mentioned in another thread.

Scoot/Rupert have enough upside (even if way overrated by many Blazer fans) that cutting is a bad idea.

I'd be fine cutting the others (Banton Murray Walker) - I wanted them off the 15 man roster in the summer anyways for undrafted players with better potential or a vet with better leadership.

 

[andalusian]

Doesn't that depend on who we're getting in return?

If we get Wemby I'm fine with cutting all of them.

If we get Westbrook we should cut him.

I assume the idea is that a team can't be over the 15? players max, so if there is a 2 for 1 trade with the Blazers getting the 2, you need to cut someone before the trade, so even if it is a Jokic + Westbrook coming in, you need to cut someone before the trade. What you do with Westbrook after is not important.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I assume the idea is that a team can't be over the 15? players max, so if there is a 2 for 1 trade with the Blazers getting the 2, you need to cut someone before the trade, so even if it is a Jokic + Westbrook coming in, you need to cut someone before the trade. What you do with Westbrook after is not important.

I get it.

Just saying we would need to know who is coming in to make that decision.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I get it.

Just saying we would need to know who is coming in to make that decision.

Maybe not - we might only need to know who is going out.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Doesn't that depend on who we're getting in return?

If we get Wemby I'm fine with cutting all of them.

If we get Westbrook we should cut him.

The premise would be that it would be irrespective of the return--that the players are simply being cut because we have to have roster space to consummate the deal, and that we're only taking back expendable, salary-ballast players.

 

[andalusian]

I get it.

Just saying we would need to know who is coming in to make that decision.

Mostly fair, I read this as a question of who do you think is non-consequential in general. I can't see the Blazers doing a 6 for 1 trade where they need to get rid of 5 players. I suspect that the Blazers will have to cut 1 or 2 at most and it seems to me that the most non-consequential players the Blazers have on the roster, in general, are between KM, JW and DR - even tho I like all 3, the other players mentioned in the pole have more skill and/or higher upside worth investigating.

So my vote is really just by process of elimination and limiting it to 3 which is the max I believe the Blazers will "have" to cut.

 

[RR7]

I put Reath and Banton, primarily based on age and position. But I think most any of these guys could be included in to a deal, or as a 3 team deal, to keep us within the correct roster limit. I think plenty of teams would give a 2nd for Reath as a low minutes floor spreading big.

 

[BlazerWookee]

HCP

 

[andalusian]

HCP

It's sad to me that you think he is a Player of any kind...

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I get it.

Just saying we would need to know who is coming in to make that decision.

I really don't think we do.

How about this--if you can think of any unbalanced (in player quantity) trade that the Blazers could reasonably make--sending out Ant, Grant, and/or Ayton--that would result in you being OK with cutting any of the players listed above for no additional return, then check that player's box in the poll. I have faith in your ability to think critically.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Prior to a week ago, I had Banton on my list of "inconsequentials", but I think he's proven that he can have a role here, both now and in the future.

 

[andalusian]

Prior to a week ago, I had Banton on my list of "inconsequentials", but I think he's proven that he can have a role here, both now and in the future.

Offense is a skill and you can say what you want about that kid, he can put the ball in the basket.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I really don't think we do.

How about this--if you can think of any unbalanced (in player quantity) trade that the Blazers could reasonably make--sending out Ant, Grant, and/or Ayton--that would result in you being OK with cutting any of the players listed above for no additional return, then check that player's box in the poll. I have faith in your ability to think critically.

I already voted before I posted.



But knowing the return would be helpful.

 

[kjironman1]

...presumably to accommodate an unbalanced trade sending out Ant/Ayton/Grant, which players would you be OK with the front office simply releasing if necessary?

First thought is I'd have to know the trade. Who is involved? Lots of times players involved in trades end up being let go.

Edit- Now that I read the thread that was obviously what others thought as well.

 

[RR7]

First thought is I'd have to know the trade. Who is involved? Lots of times players involved in trades end up being let go.

But unlike the offseason, where we could make an imbalanced trade and then waive incoming players, in the regular season you can not go over 15(barring injury exceptions and what not). So anyone incoming could not be waived to meet our 15 limit

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I genuinely like them all! But I picked Matisse (even though he's among the least likely) just because I don't think he's happy here and I want him to be happy.

 

[kjironman1]

But unlike the offseason, where we could make an imbalanced trade and then waive incoming players, in the regular season you can not go over 15(barring injury exceptions and what not). So anyone incoming could not be waived to meet our 15 limit

Still depends on who is being discussed in trade and who they actually want to keep and why?

 

[Strenuus]

Rupert can go.

That was the first and easiest decision. To see I'm the only one further proves I'm correct in my thinking.

 

[Dozer]

The premise would be that it would be irrespective of the return--that the players are simply being cut because we have to have roster space to consummate the deal, and that we're only taking back expendable, salary-ballast players.

Great question, but it would still likely depend on the scenario. If we trade out and bring back in guards, then waiving a big may not make sense. If we bring on a big, then cutting a guard may not make much sense.
No matter how I view it, I need to know the position to an extent.

With that said, Murray. the new guy, Taze? Walker? Banton?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Great question, but it would still likely depend on the scenario. If we trade out and being back in guards, then waiving a big may bot make sense. Of we being on a bog, then cutting a guard may not make much sense.
No matter how I view it, I need to know the position to an extent.

With that said, Murray. the new guy, Taze? Walker? Banton?

Taze is a 2-way, so he doesn't count.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

First thought is I'd have to know the trade. Who is involved? Lots of times players involved in trades end up being let go.

Edit- Now that I read the thread that was obviously what others thought as well.

Great question, but it would still likely depend on the scenario. If we trade out and being back in guards, then waiving a big may bot make sense. Of we being on a bog, then cutting a guard may not make much sense.
No matter how I view it, I need to know the position to an extent.

With that said, Murray. the new guy, Taze? Walker? Banton?

I addressed this question. Don't overthink it. As I said to Sly--if you can think of any unbalanced (in player quantity) trade that the Blazers could reasonably make--sending out Ant, Grant, and/or Ayton--that would result in you being OK with cutting any of the players listed above for no additional return, then check that player's box in the poll

 

[Dozer]

Taze is a 2-way, so he doesn't count.

Is it possible to waive a two way and then renegotiate a two way to another player like Murray?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Is it possible to waive a two way and then renegotiate a two way to another player like Murray?

I would be absolutely shocked if that were permissible.

 

[Dozer]

I would be absolutely shocked if that were permissible.

Sorry. I know so little about the rules of the Nba off the court. I would think the player would have to agree to the renewed contract turning him into a two way.

 

[RR7]

Sorry. I know so little about the rules of the Nba off the court. I would think the player would have to agree to the renewed contract turning him into a two way.

No, am fairly certain it only works in reverse. YTou can convert a 2 way to a regular deal, but generally deals aren't able to be renegotiated

 

[riverman]

I don't see moving any of these guys. Banton is a keeper. If I had to cut a player it would be Rupert or Thybulle or Walker but at this point but they are all better than their salaries would show.
The guy we need to shed is Simons.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I genuinely like them all! But I picked Matisse (even though he's among the least likely) just because I don't think he's happy here and I want him to be happy.

I guess next in line would be Jabari, because he's just fallen out of the rotation, and some other team could definitely use his rebounding at least.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Instead of unbalanced trade, I've been thinking about the player we need to kick to the curb after we pick our 2025 draft pick. I chose Reath, Walker, Murray. Apparently, the boards agree with those 3. However, I do like each of the 3 players, but someone has to go.