Malcolm Brogdon trade ideas

[Pinwheel1]

It's really not much, for sure... but I think Grant's contract is a negative, so getting out from under it is a positive in and of itself.

yeah, I have read that elsewhere and I am skeptical that it is true. Maybe his last year is a concern, but that is 4 seasons from now and he will still only be 33. Most teams don't care about that because they feel they can move a player by then. I realize there are new salary cap concerns but Grant has value. Personally I want to keep him.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's really not much, for sure... but I think Grant's contract is a negative, so getting out from under it is a positive in and of itself.

I think his value is right in line with his production.

He's 27th in overall contract value behind a few much worse contracts. He's also above a few guys who are due for big paydays within the next year or two.

He's tied for 36th in average yearly salary.

He's 48th in base salary for 2023-2024.

 

[RR7]

I think his value is right in line with his production.

He's 27th in overall contract value behind a few much worse contracts. He's also above a few guys who are due for big paydays within the next year or two.

He's tied for 36th in average yearly salary.

He's 48th in base salary for 2023-2024.

Yeah, after the initial sticker shock, I think you just have to realize that this is the new normal in the NBA. Contracts aren't magically going back to 2015 levels or something. They generally will continue to rise. Look at a lot of the rookie extensions signed last off season, 5 year, 200 million. That used to be at the 3rd conract level, and now it's right after the rookie contract is done!

 

[e_blazer]

View attachment 62597

This makes sense to me but you never can tell with Daryl Morey. (I doubt many on this board would think we get enough for our guys, which is kind of an indicator that it's realistic.)

Why does this make sense to you? I'm trying to see your logic here, but I'm just not seeing what you're trying to accomplish. Batum, Morris and Covington are UFAs after this year, so are you trying to help Jody save money or do you anticipate signing a free agent next summer? Reed is a nothing burger as far as I can see. A 2028 Clippers first? Don't see the big attraction there. Are you just taking a flame thrower to the Blazers' roster in order to tank even harder? What is it you see in this trade that makes it appealing?

 

[Ed O]

I think his value is right in line with his production.

He's 27th in overall contract value behind a few much worse contracts. He's also above a few guys who are due for big paydays within the next year or two.

He's tied for 36th in average yearly salary.

He's 48th in base salary for 2023-2024.

Even if you're right (and I dont know that he's worth the money), we don't want to have guys who are paid what they're worth... we're a lousy team, and we should be taking on value with overpaid guys or we should be gambling on assets that might blossom into something more.

Guys getting paid what they're worth on a team that's one of the bottom feeders in the NBA is not money well spent for that team, IMO.

 

[e_blazer]

I think his value is right in line with his production.

He's 27th in overall contract value behind a few much worse contracts. He's also above a few guys who are due for big paydays within the next year or two.

He's tied for 36th in average yearly salary.

He's 48th in base salary for 2023-2024.

By the time Grant's contract gets towards its end, the new media deal should be in place and the salary cap should take a significant bump. I doubt that it's viewed as being far out of line at that point.

 

[Cugel]

In the minority here but I am thinking Joe makes no moves until the offseason.

 

[Ed O]

Yeah, after the initial sticker shock, I think you just have to realize that this is the new normal in the NBA. Contracts aren't magically going back to 2015 levels or something. They generally will continue to rise. Look at a lot of the rookie extensions signed last off season, 5 year, 200 million. That used to be at the 3rd conract level, and now it's right after the rookie contract is done!

Well, it's not just the amount of money the team is paying him. I don't think he's a good power forward, and I don't think that he's worth as much to the Blazers as they're paying him. I also still question who we were bidding against to bring him back, and there's also the question of if he's good enough to help this team win five or six extra games, is that in the best interest of the future of the team, but the ship on those things have already sailed

 

[Natebishop3]

Even if you're right (and I dont know that he's worth the money), we don't want to have guys who are paid what they're worth... we're a lousy team, and we should be taking on value with overpaid guys or we should be gambling on assets that might blossom into something more.

Guys getting paid what they're worth on a team that's one of the bottom feeders in the NBA is not money well spent for that team, IMO.

We have to hit the salary floor so to me it's a non issue. And we don't have a young forward who should be getting those minutes.

 

[RR7]

In the minority here but I am thinking Joe makes no moves until the offseason.

I'm worried that you may be correct

 

[RR7]

Even if you're right (and I dont know that he's worth the money), we don't want to have guys who are paid what they're worth... we're a lousy team, and we should be taking on value with overpaid guys or we should be gambling on assets that might blossom into something more.

Guys getting paid what they're worth on a team that's one of the bottom feeders in the NBA is not money well spent for that team, IMO.

Just like we hopefully look to take on assets with overpaid guys, we can also retain guys in the hopes of gaining assets at a later time for them. If we let Grant walk in the offseason, we're not looking at an abundance of cap space for asset acquisition. We just save Jody money and lose him and his ability to be traded later.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think he's a good power forward

He might not be a good power forward, but he's a good player. Not a GREAT player, but he's definitely a good player.

We need good players.

 

[wizenheimer]

In the minority here but I am thinking Joe makes no moves until the offseason.

I think that may be the case

pretty sure Ant/Grant won't be traded. Brogdon is obviously the prime trade candidate for several reasons, but it doesn't seem Portland is actively shopping him based upon a lack of rumors

what I could see: Blazers are 5.4M below the tax-line and they have Payton's 8.3M TPE (along with Hart's 1.5M TPE); both of those TPE's will expire next week. And Timelord's 5.8M DPE expires in March

so I could see the Blazers taking on a 5M or less contract in return for some draft capital

 

[e_blazer]

Well, it's not just the amount of money the team is paying him. I don't think he's a good power forward, and I don't think that he's worth as much to the Blazers as they're paying him. I also still question who we were bidding against to bring him back, and there's also the question of if he's good enough to help this team win five or six extra games, is that in the best interest of the future of the team, but the ship on those things have already sailed

I think that Chauncey is with you on the PF position. Grant's been switched to SF the past 7 games that he's played (excluding the Spurs game where he only played 10 minutes due to a bad back). He's averaged nearly 25 PPG and 5.28 boards. To me, that's the position that he should be playing and that's good production.

 

[BIG Q]

We have to hit the salary floor so to me it's a non issue. And we don't have a young forward who should be getting those minutes.

I use this argument to justify Ayton, and the fact he can at least get rebounds. I am fine keeping Grant until Portland finds a replacement. But I would hate for him to be getting in the way of a forward deemed to be part of the future, kinda like Brogdon and Ant if Scoot/Sharpe is the future backcourt.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

"realistic" is trading our two best players for a pile of poop?

Sure has been in the past.

 

[Ed O]

He might not be a good power forward, but he's a good player. Not a GREAT player, but he's definitely a good player.

We need good players.

If we have a salary cap filled with players that produce at his level... we will not be very good. That's the nature of the salary cap.

And we do not need good players NOW. This team is going nowhere, for a variety of reasons (and in spite of my optimism we could be at least mediocre-bad, rather than bad-bad). A bad team spending money on a guy who is, best-case scenario, worth what we're payng him is not the kind of budget allocation I think wins in the NBA.

 

[RR7]

I think that may be the case

pretty sure Ant/Grant won't be traded. Brogdon is obviously the prime trade candidate for several reasons, but it doesn't seem Portland is actively shopping him based upon a lack of rumors

what I could see: Blazers are 5.4M below the tax-line and they have Payton's 8.3M TPE (along with Hart's 1.5M TPE); both of those TPE's will expire next week. And Timelord's 5.8M DPE expires in March

so I could see the Blazers taking on a 5M or less contract in return for some draft capital

Correct, we have 5.4 in space below.
Korkmaz makes 5.37.
Philly is 4.3 million over the tax.
Seems like a perfect fit.

 

[blazerkor]

If this team keeps this roster intact they are basically directionless. Keeping starting level guys who would significantly contribute to playoff wins now and aren't young enough for their value to increase is not what a rebuilding team does. Losing as many fucking games as we have and will continue to is not what a competitive team does.

I just really hope that those of you who expect nothing or very little are wrong. Joe once explained his trade deadline philosophy, it was either explaining trading away CJ, Norm, RoCo and Larry or it was explaining trading away Josh but he said that he felt that if the team wasn't ready to compete in the playoffs (contend) then it had to maximize draft assets and try to secure the best pick possible. I really hope Joe hasn't lost this understanding which is far more important now than it was when we had a superstar to build around.

If this dude tanked and traded away pieces that helped us win when we had Dame but now that we don't holds onto those same types of pieces, it will make zero sense to me and I'll be furious because this team will be rudderless or maybe we'll have a rudder not being used because the guy in charge will have shown he's asleep at the wheel.

 

[Natebishop3]

If we have a salary cap filled with players that produce at his level... we will not be very good. That's the nature of the salary cap.

And we do not need good players NOW. This team is going nowhere, for a variety of reasons (and in spite of my optimism we could be at least mediocre-bad, rather than bad-bad). A bad team spending money on a guy who is, best-case scenario, worth what we're payng him is not the kind of budget allocation I think wins in the NBA.

I disagree. I think it is extremely helpful for Scoot and Shaedon to have competent players to pass to and take some of the pressure off of them. We just need to get rid of the ones who are taking up their minutes.

Now, if we draft a forward in the lottery, I'd be in favor of trading Grant.

 

[Ed O]

We have to hit the salary floor so to me it's a non issue. And we don't have a young forward who should be getting those minutes.

Take on shorter contracts. Or smaller contracts. Or get value for taking on a shorter, bad contract.

In terms of minutes: play our young guys. Maybe they'll blossom, even if it's unlikely. If we lose more games in the meantime? That's just fine, too.

Wallowing in mediocrity, again, makes no sense.

 

[Natebishop3]

Take on shorter contracts. Or smaller contracts. Or get value for taking on a shorter, bad contract.

In terms of minutes: play our young guys. Maybe they'll blossom, even if it's unlikely. If we lose more games in the meantime? That's just fine, too.

Wallowing in mediocrity, again, makes no sense.

Make no mistake, we're not mediocre. We're bad. We're just not as bad as Detroit or San Antonio.

 

[RR7]

Take on shorter contracts. Or smaller contracts. Or get value for taking on a shorter, bad contract.

In terms of minutes: play our young guys. Maybe they'll blossom, even if it's unlikely. If we lose more games in the meantime? That's just fine, too.

Wallowing in mediocrity, again, makes no sense.

We are the fifth worst team in the league, that is nowhere near mediocrity

 

[e_blazer]

I disagree. I think it is extremely helpful for Scoot and Shaedon to have competent players to pass to and take some of the pressure off of them. We just need to get rid of the ones who are taking up their minutes.

Now, if we draft a forward in the lottery, I'd be in favor of trading Grant.

If the Blazers can grab a solid PF prospect in the draft, I favor keeping Grant as the starting SF. The way he’s been playing at that spot is the best SF production we’ve seen since I can’t even remember when. Why would we throw that away given how hard SFs are to come by?

 

[Pinwheel1]

I use this argument to justify Ayton, and the fact he can at least get rebounds. I am fine keeping Grant until Portland finds a replacement. But I would hate for him to be getting in the way of a forward deemed to be part of the future, kinda like Brogdon and Ant if Scoot/Sharpe is the future backcourt.

I was reviewing the film last night on the top projected draft picks this year. There is decent potential at SF for sure, but they are all really young and need two seasons to be ready. It will be painful watching them. That does not sound appealing to me and based on the crazy-ass posts this season from fans bitching and moaning about pretty much everything, I think this forum will be a ghost town after another 2 years.

I don't mind keeping Grant until his replacement is ready. Yes, we currently suck with him based on our current record, but trust me what we are suggesting has the potential to get really ugly. And that is with us making the right picks this year. What if we miss?

Let's hope the Warriors don't make a trade that helps them climb out of the lottery.

 

[Ed O]

We are the fifth worst team in the league, that is nowhere near mediocrity

It was a response to the "we need good players" and/or "salary cap floor" statements. Obviously I don't think we're mediocre now, but Grant's contract is not just for now.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Why does this make sense to you? I'm trying to see your logic here, but I'm just not seeing what you're trying to accomplish. Batum, Morris and Covington are UFAs after this year, so are you trying to help Jody save money or do you anticipate signing a free agent next summer? Reed is a nothing burger as far as I can see. A 2028 Clippers first? Don't see the big attraction there. Are you just taking a flame thrower to the Blazers' roster in order to tank even harder? What is it you see in this trade that makes it appealing?

1. A necessary condition for any trade suggestion worth making is that it's reasonably likely that the other team might agree to it. This trade suggestion meets that requirement in a way that 99% of suggestions on this board don't.
(Yes, of course, it's not a SUFFICIENT condition (otherwise us offering Shaedon for a steaming pile of dogshit would be a good trade. There's also the requirement that there's something in it for us. And in this case there is, as I shall detail.)
2. Paul Reed is not nothing. Here are some last ten games stats.



3. If you don't like the Clippers pick, suggest another. But to me, a 2028 Clippers pick, when Harden will be nearly 39, PG13 will be 38 and Kawhi will be turning 37 sounds pretty likely to be a good one.
4. Sure they're our best players, but I don't know if you've noticed but we're complete shit. And if we ever get good, they'll be old by then. So you must think we can get more for them. But notice what we're getting is almost exactly what Philly got for JAMES HARDEN. You get what you get.
5. I'm not concerned about saving our weird owner money, and yes, it's unlikely that we'll sign good FAs (if there are any) but you can do other things with cap space, as OKC has been showing for years (enable other teams to make trades by taking on salary for the price of pick(s)).
6. Addition by subtraction. To me, these guys' main value given our situation is as mentors. But I think Batum can do that. Or failing that, pick up some old guy currently sitting around unemployed. But right now they're standing in the way of minutes for our young guys, which is only forgivable if we've got a shot at the playoffs. Which we 100% ain't got.

 

[beast blazer]

It's like people want to post shitty trades to prove they aren't a homer...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

He might not be a good power forward, but he's a good player. Not a GREAT player, but he's definitely a good player.

We need good players.

So let's trade all our young players for more good players to put next to Jerami. I mean, Shaedon et. al. are our actual best assets, so I'm sure somebody will offer us good players for them.

 

[e_blazer]

1. A necessary condition for any trade suggestion worth making is that it's reasonably likely that the other team might agree to it. This trade suggestion meets that requirement in a way that 99% of suggestions on this board don't.

Okay, you say you're going to show me what's in it for us. I've got my popcorn handy.

2. Paul Reed is not nothing. Here are some last ten games stats.

Okay. Slightly more than nothing. A 6'8" career bench player is the only certain return from your trade.

3. If you don't like the Clippers pick, suggest another. But to me, a 2028 Clippers pick, when Harden will be nearly 39, PG13 will be 38 and Kawhi will be turning 37 sounds pretty likely to be a good one.

Do you really see Ballmer sitting back and letting his stars just fade into oblivion? He's a competitor and he's got more money than he knows what to do with. He's going to keep that franchise relevant.

4. Sure they're our best players, but I don't know if you've noticed but we're complete shit. And if we ever get good, they'll be old by then. So you must think we can get more for them. But notice what we're getting is almost exactly what Philly got for JAMES HARDEN. You get what you get.

Harden is damaged goods due to his relationship with Morey. He's also more than 4 years older than Grant. The dogshit record has to have injuries and the near total inexperience of our future starting backcourt guys factored in. And, no, you don't necessarily have to trade your best players just because you're not winning. Doing so virtually ensures a LONG rebuild. Keeping veteran talent is worthwhile in terms of veteran presence and avoiding total discouragement by the young guys. I don't see Grant or Brogdon losing value in the next year or two. Unless somebody comes in with a trade that offers something tangible in moving the needle forward, I'm in favor of sticking with known vets who actually want to be here.

5. I'm not concerned about saving our weird owner money, and yes, it's unlikely that we'll sign good FAs (if there are any) but you can do other things with cap space, as OKC has been showing for years (enable other teams to make trades by taking on salary for the price of pick(s)).

I agree that cap space is not a true consideration as far as bringing in vets goes. OKC is a weird situation where they got SGA through a trade and he's proven to be gold. Grabbing Chet through the draft is another major win. I don't understand why they keep stashing picks instead of pushing their chips in and bringing in a third established star. Regardless of that, I'm not sure that having a bit of cash to absorb some salary is going to net the Blazers a truly desirable pick, but I guess it could happen.

6. Addition by subtraction. To me, these guys' main value given our situation is as mentors. But I think Batum can do that. Or failing that, pick up some old guy currently sitting around unemployed. But right now they're standing in the way of minutes for our young guys, which is only forgivable if we've got a shot at the playoffs. Which we 100% ain't got.

I'm not sure Nic wants to play again in the Great NorthWet. IIRC, Dame tried to talk him into signing up and he said no thanks. What Nic can't do at this stage is offer anything in the way of wins. You see the Blazers as light years from being competitive. I disagree. I think, if the Blazers draft well this year, they'll have all the young guys that they can realistically develop. They've got a decent stash of other picks in upcoming years. I think an upgrade at PF, maturing of Scoot and Sharpe, and (hopefully) a lesser bite from the injury bug, and the Blazers can get back to being at least competitive for a playoff spot. I think keeping Brogdon gives them depth at PG, which has been needed due to injuries this year. I think because of his size, he also makes the ideal guy to pair with either Scoot or Ant when Sharpe isn't on the court. Grant is proving to be good at the 3 spot. Getting beyond mediocre is going to take hitting a home run on another draft pick as well as having Scoot and Sharpe prove out to be All-Star caliber players in a couple of years. There are no guarantees of becoming competitive for a title in a league where multiple teams have absolute beasts on their rosters. I'm definitely NOT in the club that favors stashing endless picks and hoping that eventually we'll get enough talent that matures fast enough and all are willing to stay in our little Podunk corner of the NBA. Keep the talent we have and add to it.