Malcolm Brogdon trade ideas

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Natebishop3 said:
He is extremely injury prone. He already has an old man game. I don’t see him lasting 4-5 years at a high level. Rob has the same problem but he’s quite a bit younger.
Click to expand...

That can work both ways. Players who are effective without elite athleticism can play a lot longer than those who rely on it. But we don't really need him for 4-5 years. We need him right now.
 
BankTeller said:
You really think we are one young piece away? Well, that’s crazy talk, and I don’t really care to argue that point, so we’ll agree to disagree.

Even if we are one piece, or ‘young’ piece, if that qualifier matters, it’s going to take a couple of years for that rookie to learn the ins-and-outs of the NBA to even prepare for any future competitive basketball. Let’s just assume we hit the lotto and drafted Sarr, and he takes 3 years to get to any semblance of Mobley or Holmgren right now. By then, Brogdon is already 2 years into a new deal. It’s going to be his last big deal, so should we really consider paying Brogdon big money when we will also have to pay Scoot, Shae, possibly even DA if he proves worthy of a new deal? Brogdon is also turning 31 in mid-December, meaning he might be around 34-35 by the time we’re actually competing.

I’m pretty sure that at some point by the deadline, Brogdon’s agent is going to find him a few situations that he wants to be in, and Cronin is going to milk that team for as much as he can. It’s going to be an amicable ordeal from all sides.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Of course the qualifier, “young”, matters. I’m not in the habit of just throwing in extra words for no purpose. And of course I’m not saying that the addition of the one more young player makes the Blazers contenders. What I am saying is that there comes a time when a team has sufficient talented young prospects and needs to start making trades and/or free agent signings to add specific experienced players who can push the team into contention. The Kings added Sabonis and are finally somewhat relevant. The T’Wolves traded for Gobert and may be ready to do something. The notion that you can load up an entire roster with young guys who don’t know their ass from an NBA hoop and expect to achieve success by losing for years on end is massively stupid.
 
Last edited:
PCmor7 said:
Disagree. The window thing is overblown and overused. No championship team has all guys within a couple of years of each other. You need a mix. Give me a great center who's 4-5 years older than my core stars instead of a playable center who is the same age as the core -- the former is the better team. And players are different, just like people in general; the shelf life varies and it's not always based on a birth certificate.

You win with good players with good chemistry, not jut because a bunch of guys came into the league within 3 years of each other.
Click to expand...

I agree

now, it's best if the 'core' is on the same timeline, but a core is usually 2 or 3 players, almost never 4. But outside of the core, the mileage can vary and probably should vary. Experience has value, and usually, a prime component of that value is consistency. Young players like Sharpe and Scoot are wildly inconsistent and it will take a few seasons before that changes.
 
Malcolm will be too valuable to a team that needs to win now not to trade by the deadline.
 
PCmor7 said:
Disagree. The window thing is overblown and overused. No championship team has all guys within a couple of years of each other. You need a mix. Give me a great center who's 4-5 years older than my core stars instead of a playable center who is the same age as the core -- the former is the better team. And players are different, just like people in general; the shelf life varies and it's not always based on a birth certificate.

You win with good players with good chemistry, not jut because a bunch of guys came into the league within 3 years of each other.
Click to expand...
4-5 years is fine. But Brogdon is TEN YEARS older than Scoot and Shae. I have no problem with guys in their mid 20s being a part of our core. Thybulle and Ayton and even Camara is 4 years older than Scoot. That’s all fine. But I don’t see the point of holding onto a dude who is 30 and we are several years away from being decent. Plus we still have a ton of guards. Brogdon is a luxury that we don’t need right now. We need the assets we could get from him a lot more.
 
Natebishop3 said:
4-5 years is fine. But Brogdon is TEN YEARS older than Scoot and Shae. I have no problem with guys in their mid 20s being a part of our core. Thybulle and Ayton and even Camara is 4 years older than Scoot. That’s all fine. But I don’t see the point of holding onto a dude who is 30 and we are several years away from being decent. Plus we still have a ton of guards. Brogdon is a luxury that we don’t need right now. We need the assets we could get from him a lot more.[/QUOTE]

How many young players (approx) do you want as the core? maybe 7? ( give or take a couple) Regardless you will always have room for at least a few good vets and a few good rookies.

Keep in mind any assets we obtain by trading Brogdon, is unlikely to help land us a young stud. It could land us a missing piece who could help, but more than likely he will be a vet with a big contract that a team that is rebuilding needs to dump. So we will need salaries to match at that time........ as well as all the draft picks.
Click to expand...
 
the Rockets got a lot better by adding 27-year-old (28 in Jan) Dillon Brooks and 29-year-old (3o in Feb) Fred Van Vleet.

Is someone suggesting reversing this process to get assets?

How is it good for Scoot, Sharpe and Ayton to play on a crappy team?
 
blazerfan11 said:
the Rockets got a lot better by adding 27-year-old (28 in Jan) Dillon Brooks and 29-year-old (3o in Feb) Fred Van Vleet.

Is someone suggesting reversing this process to get assets?

How is it good for Scoot, Sharpe and Ayton to play on a crappy team?
Click to expand...
I think that’s debatable and I personally would not have made those signings.

I think getting Udoka was their biggest pickup.
 
Natebishop3 said:
But I don’t see the point of holding onto a dude who is 30 and we are several years away from being decent. Plus we still have a ton of guards. Brogdon is a luxury that we don’t need right now. We need the assets we could get from him a lot more.
Click to expand...
You don't need the entire team to be a certain age range just because Scoot is. I would think it's good for Scoot to learn from someone and have an example. For anyone paying attention, Brogdon is not just a luxury and we do need him right now.
 
Natebishop3 said:
So who sits to make room for Malcolm?

Simons?
Scoot?
Sharpe?
Click to expand...
All of them, a little bit. Scoot needs to be eased in, Simons will need to be eased in, and Sharpe doesn’t need to play 36-40 a night if we’re not making the playoffs.

there’s 48+48+24 minutes at Guard and backup SF; we have the room for four players to fill that.
 
Last edited:
Natebishop3 said:
So who sits to make room for Malcolm?

Simons?
Scoot?
Sharpe?
Click to expand...

First of all, I would build my roster assuming one of them might be injured. Hell with our luck maybe plan for two of them to be on the IR.

But let's say they are all healthy........ when you say who sits do you mean who doesn't start? That would be the rookie. He doesn't get an automatic starting position because he was drafted 3rd. He can develop with 20 minutes per game. (more minutes when another guard is injured)

I personally would roll with the 2-deep below. Who plays the most will depend on how well they are playing that night, which could depend on who the competition is. Keep in mind that having the 229 lb Brogdon running the point on offense would allow both Sharpe and Simons to play wings. Malcolm can guard most SFs. (last night Indiana started Bruce Brown at SF who is 6'4" 202)

Malcolm-Scoot
Simons-Thybulle
Sharpe-Camara (I would consider swapping these two if the opponent is bigger)
Grant-Walker
Ayton-Duop
 
ant will eat into sharpe's minutes at the 2, and some of brogdon's minutes at the 1.

sharpe will eat into camara's minutes at the 3.

camara will eat into walker's minutes at the 4.

walker will eat into reath's minutes at the 5
 
noknobs said:
You don't need the entire team to be a certain age range just because Scoot is. I would think it's good for Scoot to learn from someone and have an example. For anyone paying attention, Brogdon is not just a luxury and we do need him right now.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say we should trade him right now. I’m talking about before the deadline. Simons should be back in the next few weeks.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
First of all, I would build my roster assuming one of them might be injured. Hell with our luck maybe plan for two of them to be on the IR.

But let's say they are all healthy........ when you say who sits do you mean who doesn't start? That would be the rookie. He doesn't get an automatic starting position because he was drafted 3rd. He can develop with 20 minutes per game. (more minutes when another guard is injured)

I personally would roll with the 2-deep below. Who plays the most will depend on how well they are playing that night, which could depend on who the competition is. Keep in mind that having the 229 lb Brogdon running the point on offense would allow both Sharpe and Simons to play wings. Malcolm can guard most SFs. (last night Indiana started Bruce Brown at SF who is 6'4" 202)

Malcolm-Scoot
Simons-Thybulle
Sharpe-Camara (I would consider swapping these two if the opponent is bigger)
Grant-Walker
Ayton-Duop
Click to expand...
I don’t understand playing our prized rookie 20 minutes per game on a team that is this bad. He needs reps. We might as well have kept Dame. It’s like people are trying to make the playin.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I don’t understand playing our prized rookie 20 minutes per game on a team that is this bad. He needs reps. We might as well have kept Dame. It’s like people are trying to make the playin.
Click to expand...
Simple...Because 20 minutes a game on a competitive team is far more valuable than 35 minutes on a trash team. You play on a trash team, with nobody converting assists while playing a scramble-style offense does nothing for his growth. Winning has value. Winning players have value.

"A team that is this bad" has shown that they can compete with anyone and improve every game.

Winning mindset is critical for a young players, and you're starting to see it. Camara on a team getting blown out every game does not become who he appears to be becoming. Sharpe not being forced to earn his reps does not become great.
 
bemac said:
Simple...Because 20 minutes a game on a competitive team is far more valuable than 35 minutes on a trash team. You play on a trash team, with nobody converting assists while playing a scramble-style offense does nothing for his growth. Winning has value. Winning players have value.

"A team that is this bad" has shown that they can compete with anyone and improve every game.

Winning mindset is critical for a young players, and you're starting to see it. Camara on a team getting blown out every game does not become who he appears to be becoming. Sharpe not being forced to earn his reps does not become great.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a competitive team.
 
Natebishop3 said:
This isn’t a competitive team.
Click to expand...

Define competitive. Compete? Seems like they compete to me. They try hard every night, win or lose and isn't that competing?
What is the nba definition of competing? Staying in games and making them close? Or winning most games?
To me competing is staying in games and making them close. It sure seems like they are doing that to me?
 
Natebishop3 said:
It shouldn’t be.
Click to expand...

How long are you content to be in rebuilding purgatory? It seems as if your plan is to trade all the experienced guys for ending contracts and picks, and play the young guys, no matter how many losses, until they figure out how to play at a competitive level. Not sure I have enough years before senility strikes left for that plan to work.
 
e_blazer said:
How long are you content to be in rebuilding purgatory? It seems as if your plan is to trade all the experienced guys for ending contracts and picks, and play the young guys, no matter how many losses, until they figure out how to play at a competitive level. Not sure I have enough years before senility strikes left for that plan to work.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should trade Ayton. I don't think we should trade Thybulle. I don't think we should trade Grant necessarily. I don't think we need a 30 year old point guard when we have three young guards who need the ball. I'm fine with rebuilding for this year and next year.
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
Define competitive. Compete? Seems like they compete to me. They try hard every night, win or lose and isn't that competing?
What is the nba definition of competing? Staying in games and making them close? Or winning most games?
To me competing is staying in games and making them close. It sure seems like they are doing that to me?
Click to expand...
This team isn't good enough to be competitive for a playin or playoff spot even if we play our veterans 40 minutes per night. So giving up minutes that should go to our young guys just so we can keep a guy in his 30s and maybe snag a few extra wins is counter productive.
 
Natebishop3 said:
This team isn't good enough to be competitive for a playin or playoff spot even if we play our veterans 40 minutes per night.
Click to expand...
How do we know? We haven't seen this team healthy. We haven't seen this team's best configuration. It's clear now that a Simons/Brogdon backcourt would be at present our most NBA-capable starting pairing. Did they even spend any time on the court together in the first game? Even when Ant comes back, is Sharpe even healthy right now? Based on the way he's shot the past couple weeks (32/24/82 since 11/14), I doubt it.

We don't know how this team might actually perform with its full roster. But I would venture to say that a Simons/Brogdon/Camara/Grant/Ayton starting lineup would absolutely be "competitive" game in and game out, and Scoot and Sharpe could still get plenty of valuable development time, even in reserve roles.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
How do we know? We haven't seen this team healthy. We haven't seen this team's best configuration. It's clear now that a Simons/Brogdon backcourt would be at present our most NBA-capable starting pairing. Did they even spend any time on the court together in the first game? Even when Ant comes back, is Sharpe even healthy right now? Based on the way he's shot the past couple weeks (32/24/82 since 11/14), I doubt it.

We don't know how this team might actually perform with its full roster. But I would venture to say that a Simons/Brogdon/Camara/Grant/Ayton starting lineup would absolutely be "competitive" game in and game out, and Scoot and Sharpe could still get plenty of valuable development time, even in reserve roles.
Click to expand...
The idea that we don't get another blue chip prospect because we can possibly be a first round out this season is asinine. What in the actual fuck are we doing here? This is a rebuild... a youth rebuild. We should leverage Jerami and Malcolm for assets that will be at their most viable when Scoot and Shae are playoff series winning components.

The good news is I think Joe is going to get the most he can for those guys and tank this one last season.
 
Natebishop3 said:
This isn’t a competitive team.
Click to expand...

Looking at the last 2 games, with Scoot back and still no Anfernee Simons, how is it not a competitive team?

With Scoot the team is 4-4.

Is .500 not competitive to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top