Malcolm Brogdon trade ideas

[Natebishop3]

Anyone advocating trading Brodgon for whatever should be forced to watch 24 consecutive hours of Scoot's first half play and then be forced to write an essay about how anyone on the Blazers would be better if he was seeing more floor time right now.

Then they should have to watch a full day of this year's Pistons and a full day or Process Sixers on loop.

I would rather watch Scoot. Nothing has changed for me. I want Brogdon gone for the same reason why I wanted Dame gone. I want to build a championship contender. That means that this season is going to hurt. Having the team scrape into the playin would be catastrophic. Horrible decision.

 

[BankTeller]

Anyone advocating trading Brodgon for whatever should be forced to watch 24 consecutive hours of Scoot's first half play and then be forced to write an essay about how anyone on the Blazers would be better if he was seeing more floor time right now.

Then they should have to watch a full day of this year's Pistons and a full day or Process Sixers on loop.

No one has suggested trading Brogdon for "whatever"...if the goal was to trade Brogdon just for the sake of being bad, it would've happened long ago. Grant wouldn't have been re-signed.

 

[cdub503]

No one has suggested trading Brogdon for "whatever"...if the goal was to trade Brogdon just for the sake of being bad, it would've happened long ago. Grant wouldn't have been re-signed.

seems like everyone is going in circles here.... but as someone said earlier if he gets traded great, probably means a good/decent return because they arent going to ship him out for nothing especially since he was apart of that dame trade. If he stays great, a good solid vet presence on the team is never a bad thing. But Nate isn't wrong one bit, while brutal as its been for scoot (albiet the team being 5-1 when hes been playing) he should be getting as much run as possible same with shaedon (without killing him), and with the Log Jam at the guard position it makes it a lot harder to get, and with mays playing pretty damn decently over those weeks with brogdon out he feels like the most expendable guard we have that can net us a decent return.

I like brogdon but I dont think trading him away makes or breaks the team in any way like most seem to think here. As nate has said before there are tons of Vets out there for cheaper contracts, if we think brogdon is that guy and that nooooooo other vet and or trade could bring what he brings in terms of experience then sure keep him, but if there is a good trade available for him then I think we should take it.

 

[Natebishop3]

seems like everyone is going in circles here.... but as someone said earlier if he gets traded great, probably means a good/decent return because they arent going to ship him out for nothing especially since he was apart of that dame trade. If he stays great, a good solid vet presence on the team is never a bad thing. But Nate isn't wrong one bit, while brutal as its been for scoot (albiet the team being 5-1 when hes been playing) he should be getting as much run as possible same with shaedon (without killing him), and with the Log Jam at the guard position it makes it a lot harder to get, and with mays playing pretty damn decently over those weeks with brogdon out he feels like the most expendable guard we have that can net us a decent return.

I like brogdon but I dont think trading him away makes or breaks the team in any way like most seem to think here. As nate has said before there are tons of Vets out there for cheaper contracts, if we think brogdon is that guy and that nooooooo other vet and or trade could bring what he brings in terms of experience then sure keep him, but if there is a good trade available for him then I think we should take it.

I was fine with bringing back someone like Lowry, but there’s probably other guys out there who would also work. Someone who is comfortable playing 10-15 minutes a night.

 

[PCmor7]

seems like everyone is going in circles here.... but as someone said earlier if he gets traded great, probably means a good/decent return because they arent going to ship him out for nothing especially since he was apart of that dame trade. If he stays great, a good solid vet presence on the team is never a bad thing. But Nate isn't wrong one bit, while brutal as its been for scoot (albiet the team being 5-1 when hes been playing) he should be getting as much run as possible same with shaedon (without killing him), and with the Log Jam at the guard position it makes it a lot harder to get, and with mays playing pretty damn decently over those weeks with brogdon out he feels like the most expendable guard we have that can net us a decent return.

I like brogdon but I dont think trading him away makes or breaks the team in any way like most seem to think here. As nate has said before there are tons of Vets out there for cheaper contracts, if we think brogdon is that guy and that nooooooo other vet and or trade could bring what he brings in terms of experience then sure keep him, but if there is a good trade available for him then I think we should take it.

I think it was Nate or someone piggybacking on him who said just signing a vet who was a free agent after a buyout would be good enough.

That's just blindness, though.

Those guys are either usually one of two forms. Either they're high-priced guys later in their careers looking for rings who are going to sign with a contender or they are washed.

Saying Kyle Lowry would be fine as a replacement for Brogdon is way off the mark. Part of the reason you keep Brogdon is because he can keep you in games. Lowry's something like 7 years older, he can only play one position, and his game is nowhere near Brogdon's now.

That there are people out there that think just any vet can offer what players like Brogdon or Grant to mentoring this young core just seems so out there to me. I don't know how anyone who's been around any competitive team in any serious sport would think that way.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I would rather watch Scoot. Nothing has changed for me. I want Brogdon gone for the same reason why I wanted Dame gone. I want to build a championship contender. That means that this season is going to hurt. Having the team scrape into the playin would be catastrophic. Horrible decision.

if we scrape into the play in this year with our youth still having so much growth to go thru, wouldnt that then be the same as okc almost? Then trade brogdon and picks for a legit missing pc to push us into top four contender status instead of a play in team?

i just dont see how you can be so matter of fact about something so unpredictable. Unpredictable being who we would trade brogdon and picks for to elevate us from play in to contender when added to another year of growth from our youth.

if we aRe a playin in team now with all of our youth that still has growth, then we should absolutely be looking to be going all in in another year or two.
No late first round pick is gonna change that.

there is no way we get two lotto picks for brogdon. So…

 

[Hoopguru]

if we scrape into the play in this year with our youth still having so much growth to go thru, wouldnt that then be the same as okc almost? Then trade brogdon and picks for a legit missing pc to push us into top four contender status instead of a play in team?

i just dont see how you can be so matter of fact about something so unpredictable. Unpredictable being who we would trade brogdon and picks for to elevate us from play in to contender when added to another year of growth from our youth.

if we aRe a playin in team now with all of our youth that still has growth, then we should absolutely be looking to be going all in in another year or two.
No late first round pick is gonna change that.

there is no way we get two lotto picks for brogdon. So…

I mean we have a bunch of youngsters now, 3 rooks, a couple second year players a 25 year old 5, Simons, and a few vets.

 

[BankTeller]

if we scrape into the play in this year with our youth still having so much growth to go thru, wouldnt that then be the same as okc almost? Then trade brogdon and picks for a legit missing pc to push us into top four contender status instead of a play in team?

I don’t view OKC last year the same situation as us this year. OKC had several years to accumulate talent at the top of the lottery. In addition to acquiring SGA, they drafted Giddy, Chet, Jalen, and Carson. Dieng is also someone who was a lotto pick. Right now, we have Shae and Scoot as our top-shelf-talent guys. Even if Camara and Walker max out their abilities and become the best role players they can, I view those guys on the tier of a Dort. I have hope in Ant, but some of you will have me believe he’s a CJ clone.

You pointed to possibly trading Brogdon and picks for a missing piece to compete in like two years. I can assure you, 33yo Brogdon and picks will NOT get you that “missing piece” you want. At any point, OKC can offer Dort, Giddy, and 5+ 1sts for any star that becomes available. You better hope Embiid doesn’t become available, Wallace + SGA + Williams + Holmgren + Embiid is as scary a starting lineup I can think of in a couple years.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think it was Nate or someone piggybacking on him who said just signing a vet who was a free agent after a buyout would be good enough.

That's just blindness, though.

Those guys are either usually one of two forms. Either they're high-priced guys later in their careers looking for rings who are going to sign with a contender or they are washed.

Saying Kyle Lowry would be fine as a replacement for Brogdon is way off the mark. Part of the reason you keep Brogdon is because he can keep you in games. Lowry's something like 7 years older, he can only play one position, and his game is nowhere near Brogdon's now.

That there are people out there that think just any vet can offer what players like Brogdon or Grant to mentoring this young core just seems so out there to me. I don't know how anyone who's been around any competitive team in any serious sport would think that way.

That's what Simons is for....

 

[BankTeller]

Saying Kyle Lowry would be fine as a replacement for Brogdon is way off the mark. Part of the reason you keep Brogdon is because he can keep you in games. Lowry's something like 7 years older, he can only play one position, and his game is nowhere near Brogdon's now.

You’re convoluting the term “vet” to mean way more than it is. When guys like Barkley and McGrady were talking about lack of vet leadership, they meant it in the literal sense—guys who taught young men to be men, handle finances, stay out of trouble, life lessons, etc. They pointed to the fact that the oldest guy on a team being 28 is a problem.

Lowry is a great mentor for the guards. NBA champion, great defender, the greatest player of a franchise—all the things you would want in a guy to mentor Scoot. Of course Brogdon is the better player, he’s smack dab in his prime.

You sound like you want guys who can actually win games. You want to compete. That’s fine, but don’t say you want vet leadership on the team and point to players that win games. Guys who enjoy playing a role in developing players and will hang with some young guys on the road are just as important to creating a winning culture as guys who are productive on the court. Batum is another great example of a vet I’d love.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Still think were not a competitive team after tonight?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Chiro chirp chirp… crickets are loud! Lol. We won when this guy had a shit game. But we don't compete?
We shouldn't be competitive? Im not sure ill ever understand how some doesn't think we aren't being competitive and cant continue to improve on that with how young we are….

 

[Natebishop3]

Chiro chirp chirp… crickets are loud! Lol. We won when this guy had a shit game. But we don't compete?
We shouldn't be competitive? Im not sure ill ever understand how some doesn't think we aren't being competitive and cant continue to improve on that with how young we are….

You still don't get it. I'm not saying we don't compete. I have said before that I love that we compete night in and night out. I'm saying we're not competitive, meaning we're not a playoff team so why are we chasing wins by playing Brogdon ahead of Scoot? Do you actually think this team could beat any of the top teams in the west in a 7 game series? So you'd be in favor of pushing to make the playin or the first round only to get blasted?

I have no problem with playing Grant or Ayton, but I don't understand keeping Brogdon once Simons comes back. If the team continues to win with Scoot and Simons and Sharpe playing big minutes, that's great. We're ahead of schedule, but giving big minutes to guys who don't fit into the long term future of this team at the expense of our young guys is just plain silly.

 

[Natebishop3]

This entire post is full of statements based on incorrect assumptions about other people's thoughts, wants, and hopes. Such a post has no content worth responding to.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

You still don't get it. I'm not saying we don't compete. I have said before that I love that we compete night in and night out. I'm saying we're not competitive, meaning we're not a playoff team so why are we chasing wins by playing Brogdon ahead of Scoot? Do you actually think this team could beat any of the top teams in the west in a 7 game series? So you'd be in favor of pushing to make the playin or the first round only to get blasted?

I have no problem with playing Grant or Ayton, but I don't understand keeping Brogdon once Simons comes back. If the team continues to win with Scoot and Simons and Sharpe playing big minutes, that's great. We're ahead of schedule, but giving big minutes to guys who don't fit into the long term future of this team at the expense of our young guys is just plain silly.

im just poking at ya. Giddy over the win is all.

But on the serious, why is it i don't get it? Why cant it be i get it but simply disagree? You think brogdon and grant cant be part of a contending team in the future. I disagree. Whats long term in the nba? Five years?
How do you know we aren't a playoff team? How do you know this team cant continue to improve and start winning more as cohesion builds?
Are indiana and cleveland playoff teams? cause we just beat them. On the road….

i think you are completely wrong in thinking its a fact we cant compete. If we are a playin te this year, as is, why cant they grow and improve to a playoff team next year and potential contender the year after?
Why cant brogdon be part of the mentoring group on that team? More minutes now as scoot develops and they swap roles in a year?
I find it ludicrous to simply dismiss that as impossible.

 

[Natebishop3]

im just poking at ya. Giddy over the win is all.

But on the serious, why is it i don't get it? Why cant it be i get it but simply disagree? You think brogdon and grant cant be part of a contending team in the future. I disagree. Whats long term in the nba? Five years?
How do you know we aren't a playoff team? How do you know this team cant continue to improve and start winning more as cohesion builds?
Are indiana and cleveland playoff teams? cause we just beat them. On the road….

i think you are completely wrong in thinking its a fact we cant compete. If we are a playin te this year, as is, why cant they grow and improve to a playoff team next year and potential contender the year after?
I find it ludicrous to simply dismiss that as impossible.

We do not have a consistent star player and that is what you need in the playoffs. Sharpe can play at a star level at times, so can Grant, but we don't have Dame anymore. This team is inconsistent as hell from three. If we improve our shooting on a consistent basis and pair it with our defense, we will be a good team, but we're not there yet.

You don't get what I'm saying so whether you agree is irrelevant. You're harping on the word "competitive" and I never said we can't be competitive at times. We can beat almost any team on any given night because we never stop trying, BUT this team isn't good enough to win a 7 game series and that is what I mean by competitive. We're plucky. We can catch a team on an off night. We can surprise people. But we are also HORRIBLE at going through long droughts like when we let the Bucks erase a 26 point lead. We are not consistent and consistency breeds true competitiveness in the NBA. This team is still a few years away from being really good. So I don't see the point in holding onto a 30 year old guard who is injury prone when we could flip him for decent value this year.

I'm not saying trade him right now. I'm saying when Simons comes back and we need to find 30+ minutes per night for our three young guards, we can't give Brogdon the kind of minutes he deserves. He should be playing 28-30 minutes per night on a contender.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

We do not have a consistent star player and that is what you need in the playoffs. Sharpe can play at a star level at times, so can Grant, but we don't have Dame anymore. This team is inconsistent as hell from three. If we improve our shooting on a consistent basis and pair it with our defense, we will be a good team, but we're not there yet.

You don't get what I'm saying so whether you agree is irrelevant. You're harping on the word "competitive" and I never said we can't be competitive at times. We can beat almost any team on any given night because we never stop trying, BUT this team isn't good enough to win a 7 game series and that is what I mean by competitive. We're plucky. We can catch a team on an off night. We can surprise people. But we are also HORRIBLE at going through long droughts like when we let the Bucks erase a 26 point lead. We are not consistent and consistency breeds true competitiveness in the NBA. This team is still a few years away from being really good. So I don't see the point in holding onto a 30 year old guard who is injury prone when we could flip him for decent value this year.

I'm not saying trade him right now. I'm saying when Simons comes back and we need to find 30+ minutes per night for our three young guards, we can't give Brogdon the kind of minutes he deserves. He should be playing 28-30 minutes per night on a contender.

How do you know Sharpe and possibly even Ant cant become consistent star players? It seems like you are writing Sharpe off as he cant turn into that. Kid is 20 man… maybe he becomes that this next year and by year three ant is in his super prime, scoot has come around as a star or solid starting role player?
Im pretty sure his numbers are much better than Kobes was at 20?(not 100%sure)


I just dont see how you don't think thats a possibility? They are young. They can improve and turn into what you want.

 

[Natebishop3]

How do you know Sharpe and possibly even Ant cant become consistent star players? It seems like you are writing Sharpe off as he cant turn into that. Kid is 20 man… maybe he becomes that this next year and by year three ant is in his super prime, scoot has come around as a star or solid starting role player?
Im pretty sure his numbers are much better than Kobes was at 20?(not 100%sure)


I just dont see how you don't think thats a possibility? They are young. They can improve and turn into what you want.

I’m not talking about the future, I’m talking about right now. This season. The hope is that Sharpe will continue to grow but I don’t see him putting up star numbers consistently yet. Probably not this year. Hopefully next year.

This is what I’m talking about. You’re not really getting what I’m saying.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I’m not talking about the future, I’m talking about right now. This season. The hope is that Sharpe will continue to grow but I don’t see him putting up star numbers consistently yet. Probably not this year. Hopefully next year.

This is what I’m talking about. You’re not really getting what I’m saying.

Isnt that what i just said???

maybe he becomes that this next year and by year three ant is in his super prime, scoot has come around as a star or solid starting role player?

and why cant we be a playin team this year and next year be a playoff team with Sharpe becoming more consistent and a star?

seems you arent really getting what im saying.

 

[Natebishop3]

Isnt that what i just said???

maybe he becomes that this next year and by year three ant is in his super prime, scoot has come around as a star or solid starting role player?

and why cant we be a playin team this year and next year be a playoff team with Sharpe becoming more consistent and a star?

seems you arent really getting what im saying.

Why are you talking about the future when we are debating about this season? I’m talking about this year and our minutes crunch that’s about to happen in a few weeks when Simons comes back. I’m talking about Malcolm Brogdon and his trade value right now. I’m talking about finding minutes for our young guys like Scoot and Shae. I’m talking about it being pointless to try to push for the playoffs THIS SEASON because we aren’t ready yet.

You’re jumping all over the place.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Why are you talking about the future when we are debating about this season? I’m talking about this year and our minutes crunch that’s about to happen in a few weeks when Simons comes back. I’m talking about Malcolm Brogdon and his trade value right now. I’m talking about finding minutes for our young guys like Scoot and Shae. I’m talking about it being pointless to try to push for the playoffs THIS SEASON because we aren’t ready yet.

You’re jumping all over the place.

because the premise has been to keep him to mentor this season. He can do that this year and then possibly swap on-court roles with scoot next year.
Im not jumping all over the place. You just either disnt read it or missed it because i said this already.
What numbers crunch? What growth is negated by playing 25 instead of 35 minutes a night?

and then you think when ant is back all four of them will all be healthy every game?

experience has value. If young players don't have vets teaching them the right and wrongs, how do you think they will develop faster?

They seem to be developing fine as is overall. How much more development xan happen between 25-35 minutes a game?

how much more development comes from winning and making a playin? I think more than 10 more minutes a game.

no one is jumping around but you. You are circling because this season was already responded to my friend.

 

[Natebishop3]

because the premise has been to keep him to mentor this season. He can do that this year and then possibly swap on-court roles with scoot next year.
Im not jumping all over the place. You just wither st read it or missed it because i said this already.
What numbers crumch? What growth is negated by playing 24 instead of 35 minutes a night?

and then you tbink when ant is back all four of them will all be healthy every game?




no one is jumping around but you. You are circling because this season was already responded to my friend.

There is only 96 minutes between the two guard spots.

Scoot is clearly only a point guard. I’d like to see him get 30 minutes per night.

Sharpe is clearly at his best when he’s at the two. He’s averaging a shit ton of minutes right now but I’d like to see him at 37 at most.

Simons can play either spot. He’s gonna get at least 36.

Thybulle and Camara are playing well at the three. I don’t like putting Sharpe there.

So if Simons and Sharpe account for 74 minutes by themselves, that leaves 22 minutes for Scoot and Brogdon at guard.

I think the starters will be Simons/Sharpe/Camara/Grant/Ayton.

Bench will be Brogdon, Scoot, Thybulle, Walker, and Reath. How do you find enough minutes to keep those four guards happy?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

There is only 96 minutes between the two guard spots.

Scoot is clearly only a point guard. I’d like to see him get 30 minutes per night.

Sharpe is clearly at his best when he’s at the two. He’s averaging a shit ton of minutes right now but I’d like to see him at 37 at most.

Simons can play either spot. He’s gonna get at least 36.

Thybulle and Camara are playing well at the three. I don’t like putting Sharpe there.

So if Simons and Sharpe account for 74 minutes by themselves, that leaves 22 minutes for Scoot and Brogdon at guard.

I think the starters will be Simons/Sharpe/Camara/Grant/Ayton.

Bench will be Brogdon, Scoot, Thybulle, Walker, and Reath. How do you find enough minutes to keep those four guards happy?

im not sure you read my post. Again.

What lack of growth is gonna happen if they play 25 instead of 35 minutes? I believe Brogdons mentoring offsets any potential loss in 10 minutes a game…his value off the court is more than those 10 minutes on the court.

and again. You have yet to address health….

 

[Natebishop3]

im not sure you read my post. Again.

What lack of growth is gonna happen if they play 25 instead of 35 minutes? I believe Brogdons mentoring offsets any potential loss in 10 minutes a game…his value off the court is more than those 10 minutes on the court.

and again. You have yet to address health….

Becuse health is an unknowable quantity. We have no idea if they’re gonna get hurt or be healthy. So are you gonna tell Brogdon that he gets 20 minutes per night until someone gets hurt? Do you think he’s gonna accept that?

Or how about Scoot? You gonna tell him that he needs to sit because we might have a chance at a playin where we get demolished by a much better team?

the difference between 25 and 35 minutes is a lot. That’s a lot of teachable moments that he’d miss. Playing against starters is a huge difference from playing against their bench guys. And for whar? What is the point? Our best chance at actually becoming a contender is to develop our stars. Who are the best teams in the league and how many star players do they have? Boston? Three stars. Milwaukee? 2-3 three stars. Phoenix? Three stars.

Scoot and Sharpe and Simons need to play. They need minutes.

 

[BankTeller]

You still don't get it. I'm not saying we don't compete. I have said before that I love that we compete night in and night out. I'm saying we're not competitive, meaning we're not a playoff team so why are we chasing wins by playing Brogdon ahead of Scoot? Do you actually think this team could beat any of the top teams in the west in a 7 game series? So you'd be in favor of pushing to make the playin or the first round only to get blasted?

I have no problem with playing Grant or Ayton, but I don't understand keeping Brogdon once Simons comes back. If the team continues to win with Scoot and Simons and Sharpe playing big minutes, that's great. We're ahead of schedule, but giving big minutes to guys who don't fit into the long term future of this team at the expense of our young guys is just plain silly.

I don’t understand where the hold-up is either. I share the same frustration as you man lol, but there’s no point in trying to convince anyone of our position on the direction.

I do think Brogdon is the one vet that should be gone by the deadline. He’s playing the good soldier but knows his best days aren’t meant to be spent on a non-contending team when he himself could change the 3-6 positions in the east, depending on the team he went to. We can only hope for the best package when he’s gone, so I hope he chooses a destination that can actually give us among the best packages for him.

The question is really when to trade Grant. Personally, I don’t see a point in trading him until there is more of a debate at the starting forward spots, and we currently don’t have a crop of forwards talented enough to depend on for that yet. Obviously, if a huge package is offered, take the deal. If Schmitz can find two forwards with the 2 1sts and add some more excitement to the forward room, we can start to talk about trading him.

I’m lowkey at the point where I prioritize the players over picks when trading the vets though. I’m at a point of contention with myself seeing the effort leading to good results, so I understand why some people really want to go for it. I’m at the point where I really want to go for it soon too, but I know that gunning for a play-in appearance, particularly this season, would be foolish.

There are avenues for us to compete really soon though. It takes for a lot of things to go right, like
1) drafting the right forwards this summer (2 of Sarr, Buzelis, Swain, Castle, or Williams would be great)
2) getting the B(young)PA at forward for Brogdon
3) a lot of internal growth from Camara, Walker, Murray, and Rupert

But I think it could happen. I haven’t moved off my 2026 expectation for the playoffs. I think a lot of people would say that’s optimistic, but I feel more strongly about this due to the play of the young guys right now. It’s just all about having enough forwards to make it trading Grant a discussion point. With Scoot, Shae, and Ant, it makes sense to trade Brogdon for the most assets eventually. With Grant, the urgency to trade him is not there yet.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Becuse health is an unknowable quantity.

which is exactly why it needs to be factored in. We cant expect the guys to all be healthy every game. I would think the start to this season has proven that. If not, then look at the average starters games per season.

We have no idea if they’re gonna get hurt or be healthy. So are you gonna tell Brogdon that he gets 20 minutes per night until someone gets hurt? Do you think he’s gonna accept that?

yes. He is a professional and paid. But i wouldnt cut him to 20.

Or how about Scoot? You gonna tell him that he needs to sit because we might have a chance at a playin where we get demolished by a much better team?

No because he doesn't need to sit out. But 20-25 minutes a game for now is fine.

the difference between 25 and 35 minutes is a lot. That’s a lot of teachable moments that he’d miss. Playing against starters is a huge difference from playing against their bench guys. And for whar? What is the point?

the point is so he can develop confidence by playing better with the second unit due to lesser competition, for this year. The loss of the off court tutoring is alot as well. To me, much more than 10 minutes a game on the floor.

Our best chance at actually becoming a contender is to develop our stars. Who are the best teams in the league and how many star players do they have? Boston? Three stars. Milwaukee? 2-3 three stars. Phoenix? Three stars.

Agreed. On and off the court. Brogdon straight up said he will be sitting down with scoot and watching film and teaching him. That is worth way more than 10 minutes a game on the court to me. Film study is huge. Thats how you learn your opponents and Brogdon knows this.

Scoot and Sharpe and Simons need to play. They need minutes.

again agreed. And They can still get enough to continue growth.
Brodgon 25
Simons 27
Scoot 20
Sharpe 24

and thats if everyone is 100% healthy all year.

Kobe averaged 16 mins his first season. 26 his second.

Was Kobes growth stunted?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I think it was Nate or someone piggybacking on him who said just signing a vet who was a free agent after a buyout would be good enough.

That's just blindness, though.

Those guys are either usually one of two forms. Either they're high-priced guys later in their careers looking for rings who are going to sign with a contender or they are washed.

Saying Kyle Lowry would be fine as a replacement for Brogdon is way off the mark. Part of the reason you keep Brogdon is because he can keep you in games. Lowry's something like 7 years older, he can only play one position, and his game is nowhere near Brogdon's now.

That there are people out there that think just any vet can offer what players like Brogdon or Grant to mentoring this young core just seems so out there to me. I don't know how anyone who's been around any competitive team in any serious sport would think that way.

I think there's plenty of vets who could provide a valuable leadership presence.

Now if you want one that is also as effective as Grant or Brogdon are currently on the floor then no, I don't think that is likely, nor should it be a goal.

The move would be to trade Brogdon or Grant for picks, then bring in a Lowry or buyout vet minimum type guy for leadership. Maybe bring in two. Think of Earl Watson last season in Portland. Yeah he's basically washed in terms of being an effective NBA player. A vet like that would be fine. We wouldn't be counting on him being effective on the floor. We'd just need him to be an adult and show proper work ethic as well as maturity.

We'd hopefully have Ant healthy to handle some of the Brogdon/Grant offense burden.

There's advantages and disadvantages with either direction, I'm not saying we 100% must go one way or the other. I'm just saying we can explore offers for Grant/Brogdon and if one makes sense accept it, then work on a follow up move to replace much of the vet presence we will have lost.

Grant and Brogdon have value here, but their far from one of our most critical assets nor irreplaceable.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Always interesting when goalposts get moved over the course of a discussion.

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.

This isn’t a competitive team.

First, "competitive" was brought up by @bemac as a contrast to "trash" team, clearly indicating that his opinion was that Scoot and Sharpe would benefit from being on a team that was trying to win games and had a chance to do so. Then when you blanketly declared that this team isn't competitive, we even (unwisely) gave you the opportunity to redefine the term. So you did.

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?

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 here you define competitive for the purposes of this discussion as "good enough to be competitive for a playin or playoff spot", and the discussion continues with that basis. Yet now, you push it further, again, by saying that they're only "competitive" if they can win a playoff series.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying we don't compete. I have said before that I love that we compete night in and night out. I'm saying we're not competitive, meaning we're not a playoff team so why are we chasing wins by playing Brogdon ahead of Scoot? Do you actually think this team could beat any of the top teams in the west in a 7 game series? So you'd be in favor of pushing to make the playin or the first round only to get blasted?

This is the definition of a disingenuous argument. From the beginning, all we have said is that we believe that Scoot and Sharpe will develop better by playing meaningful (even if somewhat reduced) minutes on a team that is competing for victories than they will by playing maximum minutes on a team that is only competing for ping-pong balls. If you're going to disagree with that position--which is perfectly understandable--why not actually argue with the position itself rather than the ancillary aspects thereof?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Always interesting when goalposts get moved over the course of a discussion.



First, "competitive" was brought up by @bemac as a contrast to "trash" team, clearly indicating that his opinion was that Scoot and Sharpe would benefit from being on a team that was trying to win games and had a chance to do so. Then when you blanketly declared that this team isn't competitive, we even (unwisely) gave you the opportunity to redefine the term. So you did.



So here you define competitive for the purposes of this discussion as "good enough to be competitive for a playin or playoff spot", and the discussion continues with that basis. Yet now, you push it further, again, by saying that they're only "competitive" if they can win a playoff series.



This is the definition of a disingenuous argument. From the beginning, all we have said is that we believe that Scoot and Sharpe will develop better by playing meaningful (even if somewhat reduced) minutes on a team that is competing for victories than they will by playing maximum minutes on a team that is only competing for ping-pong balls. If you're going to disagree with that position--which is perfectly understandable--why not actually argue with the position itself rather than the ancillary aspects thereof?

The only issue i have with this?

you didn't drop the mic on your way out!

 

[PCmor7]

I don’t view OKC last year the same situation as us this year. OKC had several years to accumulate talent at the top of the lottery. In addition to acquiring SGA, they drafted Giddy, Chet, Jalen, and Carson. Dieng is also someone who was a lotto pick. Right now, we have Shae and Scoot as our top-shelf-talent guys. Even if Camara and Walker max out their abilities and become the best role players they can, I view those guys on the tier of a Dort. I have hope in Ant, but some of you will have me believe he’s a CJ clone.

You pointed to possibly trading Brogdon and picks for a missing piece to compete in like two years. I can assure you, 33yo Brogdon and picks will NOT get you that “missing piece” you want. At any point, OKC can offer Dort, Giddy, and 5+ 1sts for any star that becomes available. You better hope Embiid doesn’t become available, Wallace + SGA + Williams + Holmgren + Embiid is as scary a starting lineup I can think of in a couple years.

Brogdon's 30. He turns 31 later this month.