Malcolm Brogdon trade ideas

[PCmor7]

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.

I don't really get the purpose of your post. First, you make a definitive on what the goal should be and then later you say either one's OK. I've already said several times that you hear offers for Grant and Brogdon and if you have something that works for the continued growth of the Blazers and ONLY IF it works for the continued growth of the Blazers, you do it. Again, I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me if your conclusion is the same as mine and the parameters are in all but the details the same as mine.

I will absolutely disagree with you that just any vet can bring the value guys like Brogdon and Grant bring, though. I think having a couple of vets that can make games meaningful and competitive is of greater import to our younger guys just playing. Earl Watson couldn't do that. Honestly, Earl Watson didn't have the resume' to tell any younger guys how to be big contributors on good teams -- he averaged double figures twice in his career and made the playoffs three times, and one of those was with the Blazers.

Having players that not only can tell Scoot and Sharpe and Ant what they need to do but also go out there and show them and also show them positive results first-hand is invaluable. Earl Watson-level players don't do that. If you're talking a guy who's essentially just going to be a coach-player, that needs to be someone that actually made an impact during a great career, someone with cache.

 

[Natebishop3]

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.


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


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



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.


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.



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?

Wait you actually think those four players will play those minutes?

 

[Phatguysrule]

You’re not really getting what I’m saying.

 

[Natebishop3]

Fuck it. It isn't worth it.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Wait you actually think those four players will play those minutes?

No. Injuries and the teams we play will vary. But i broke the 96 minutes you are concerned about in a manner that shows we can play them all and it will be fine.
ALOT more to that post than the minutes breakdown i presented dont get fixated…

 

[Natebishop3]

No. Injuries and the teams we play will vary. But i broke the 96 minutes you are concerned about in a manner that shows we can play them all and it will be fine.
ALOT more to that post than the minutes breakdown i presented dont get fixated…

I'm only interested in that portion of your post.

You think that Simons is only going to play 27 minutes per game? Sharpe is only gonna play 24?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I'm only interested in that portion of your post.

You think that Simons is only going to play 27 minutes per game? Sharpe is only gonna play 24?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Injuries and teams we play will play factors on who plays how many minutes.

but im only interested in your definition of competitive. Care to answer the wide range of posts you described that as?

seriously. Address the questions asked to you if you want to fixate and ask questions back.
You completely dismissed platys post. Why?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You completely dismissed platys post. Why?

Discretion is the better part of valor. Sometimes, when you know that you and another person aren't going to agree, it's wiser to just not insist on the last word. I can absolutely respect that.

 

[HailBlazers]

I don't really get the purpose of your post. First, you make a definitive on what the goal should be and then later you say either one's OK. I've already said several times that you hear offers for Grant and Brogdon and if you have something that works for the continued growth of the Blazers and ONLY IF it works for the continued growth of the Blazers, you do it. Again, I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me if your conclusion is the same as mine and the parameters are in all but the details the same as mine.

I will absolutely disagree with you that just any vet can bring the value guys like Brogdon and Grant bring, though. I think having a couple of vets that can make games meaningful and competitive is of greater import to our younger guys just playing. Earl Watson couldn't do that. Honestly, Earl Watson didn't have the resume' to tell any younger guys how to be big contributors on good teams -- he averaged double figures twice in his career and made the playoffs three times, and one of those was with the Blazers.

Having players that not only can tell Scoot and Sharpe and Ant what they need to do but also go out there and show them and also show them positive results first-hand is invaluable. Earl Watson-level players don't do that. If you're talking a guy who's essentially just going to be a coach-player, that needs to be someone that actually made an impact during a great career, someone with cache.

Exactly, playing in competitive games with slightly less minutes is more valuable.

 

[Natebishop3]

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Injuries and teams we play will play factors on who plays how many minutes.

but im only interested in your definition of competitive. Care to answer the wide range of posts you described that as?

seriously. Address the questions asked to you if you want to fixate and ask questions back.
You completely dismissed platys post. Why?

What does that have to do with you thinking that Simons is doing to play 27 minutes per game?

 

[Natebishop3]

Discretion is the better part of valor. Sometimes, when you know that you and another person aren't going to agree, it's wiser to just not insist on the last word. I can absolutely respect that.

Nah, you caught me being disorganized with my thoughts. I definitely posted a few different definitions of competitive and it was stupid to try to get into an argument about defining competitive because at the end of the day, it wasn't really the main point of the argument.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

at the end of the day, it wasn't really the main point of the argument.

I agree completely.

It is, unfortunately, way too easy to get caught up in minutiae and forget the bigger picture. Happens to me all the time.

 

[Natebishop3]

I agree completely.

It is, unfortunately, way too easy to get caught up in minutiae and forget the bigger picture. Happens to me all the time.

Honestly, none of this is really worth debating until Simons actually comes back and we see how he looks. We very likely will see Simons come off the bench at first for the first month while he gets back into game shape, but I expect he will be in the starting lineup by the trade deadline and that is when we will see if Joe decides to move MB.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Honestly, none of this is really worth debating until Simons actually comes back and we see how he looks. We very likely will see Simons come off the bench at first for the first month while he gets back into game shape, but I expect he will be in the starting lineup by the trade deadline and that is when we will see if Joe decides to move MB.

i cant disagree with this.

 

[blazerkor]

Fuck it. It isn't worth it.

I'll tell you why you're right. Many of us have already stated our take that this team is not good enough to make the playoffs. That will be shown before the trade deadline.

However the biggest reason it's not worth it is that we have Joe's track record. If we aren't in contention then Joe will trade guys who are valuable to contenders for picks and younger players and Joe will try to attain the best position possible in the draft lottery. What's crazy is that people think this strategy has changed now that we don't have an all nba superstar leading this team.

It's just a prediction but I think after February 8th which is in 10 weeks and 32 games (only 4 of which we will likely be favored in) Grant will be gone, Malcolm will be gone and a couple of weeks later Ant and Deandre will be sitting. It doesn't matter what I want or what any fan wants, Joe will do what Joe does.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Minutes will vary game by game depending on how well each is playing. Sometimes 28 sometimes 38
But if all are healthy (and again that is a big if) there are 144 minutes for 3 positions (Sharpe, Malcolm, and Thybulle can all guard both positions. There is not that much of a difference between the two positions........against most opponents. And when we need to get bigger, then Camara gets more minutes.

For Scoot, give him 20 every night and more if he is playing well. I love his potential but he still needs to earn it. Sorry, but where he was drafted should not make a difference as long as he is getting an opportunity.

Sharpe 33
Malcolm 30
Simons 30

Thybulle 22
Scoot 20

That leaves Camara with 20 minutes (11 minutes at SF and 9 at PF)

The minutes for Walker and Reath can be situational depending on the opponent.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'll tell you why you're right. Many of us have already stated our take that this team is not good enough to make the playoffs. That will be shown before the trade deadline.

However the biggest reason it's not worth it is that we have Joe's track record. If we aren't in contention then Joe will trade guys who are valuable to contenders for picks and younger players and Joe will try to attain the best position in the draft lottery. What's crazy is that people think this strategy has changed now that we don't have an all nba superstar leading this team.

It's just a prediction but I think after February 8th which is in 10 weeks and 32 games (only 4 of which we will likely be favored in) Grant will be gone, Malcolm will be gone and a couple of weeks later Ant and Deandre will be sitting. It doesn't matter what I want or what any fan wants, Joe will do what Joe does.

Honestly, I don't think our record is going to matter at all with Joe's decision making. I think he has a plan and I think he's gonna stick with that plan. I do think it's possible we keep Grant though, because finding 6'9 guys who can do what he does is really hard to find. He's the best forward we have had since LMA. That's really damn sad but it's true. He's 29 but the guys in this draft look raw as fuck. I could see us keeping Grant for at least this whole season and maybe next season. Maybe longer depending on how we play.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

We very likely will see Simons come off the bench at first for the first month while he gets back into game shape, but I expect he will be in the starting lineup by the trade deadline

Really? Assuming he's actually healthy, I'd be surprised if he isn't starting before the end of December.

 

[Natebishop3]

Really? Assuming he's actually healthy, I'd be surprised if he isn't starting before the end of December.

He's been out a long time at this point. I'm sure he has been exercising and all that, but game shape is another animal. They're saying he might be back in mid December. I think it's gonna take more than a few weeks, but maybe not. I guess we'll see how he looks when he comes back. Maybe it only takes a couple weeks for him to get back into the flow, but that's the other thing. It's not just about conditioning. I wonder how long it will take to work him into the system.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I wonder how long it will take to work him into the system.

Good point. Specifically (for me), the defensive system. This team is developing an identity and a reputation. One has to wonder what impact Simons' return will have on that.

 

[Strenuus]

I agree completely.

It is, unfortunately, way too easy to get caught up in minutiae and forget the bigger picture. Happens to me all the time.

Guilty. I'm so guilty of this at times lol

 

[blazerfan11]

I agree completely.

It is, unfortunately, way too easy to get caught up in minutiae and forget the bigger picture. Happens to me all the time.

The problem with the "Big Picture" is that very little has gone according to plan/expectations.

 

[Strenuus]

The problem with the "Big Picture" is that very little has gone according to plan/expectations.

Curious how this is already deviating from the plan that is within the control of the team/player?

We were supposed to suck this year.

We are seeing gradual improvements from players.

You can't have your plan fully realized when you only have had 1/4th of it done (and this is a multi year plan so even less than that).

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I don't really get the purpose of your post. First, you make a definitive on what the goal should be and then later you say either one's OK. I've already said several times that you hear offers for Grant and Brogdon and if you have something that works for the continued growth of the Blazers and ONLY IF it works for the continued growth of the Blazers, you do it. Again, I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me if your conclusion is the same as mine and the parameters are in all but the details the same as mine.

I will absolutely disagree with you that just any vet can bring the value guys like Brogdon and Grant bring, though. I think having a couple of vets that can make games meaningful and competitive is of greater import to our younger guys just playing. Earl Watson couldn't do that. Honestly, Earl Watson didn't have the resume' to tell any younger guys how to be big contributors on good teams -- he averaged double figures twice in his career and made the playoffs three times, and one of those was with the Blazers.

Having players that not only can tell Scoot and Sharpe and Ant what they need to do but also go out there and show them and also show them positive results first-hand is invaluable. Earl Watson-level players don't do that. If you're talking a guy who's essentially just going to be a coach-player, that needs to be someone that actually made an impact during a great career, someone with cache.

Overall it seems we are probably much more close to being in agreement than disagreement. If we voted on accepting hypothetical trades we might even have many matching votes.

The main thing we seem to disagree on is replacing Grant or Malcolm veteran influence. I believe it can be replaced good enough by other veterans Joe could easily acquire and by additional contributions of guys already on the roster (ie a healthy Ant, more touches for Ayton, etc).

The specifics of how those contributions happen could be very different. It wouldn't be the same way as Malcolm or Grant contribute.

But the main purpose of those vet contributions is to give Scoot/Sharpe/others a proper environment to grow as players. I believe Cronin and Billups can do the moves to make those happen this year and in future years.

So I'd suspect I may be more willing to trade away Malcolm or Grant than you are. But who knows.

 

[blazerfan11]

The Blazers could (I'm not saying they are for sure) right now be as good as last year's Orlando Magic team that finished with a 34-48 record.

The Magic didn't follow up that season by trading away their vet that was in the rotation, 29-year-old Gary Harris, for draft assets to get more playing time for younger players.

What they did was the opposite, adding another, even older, vet to the rotation, 36 year old Joe Ingles.

Paolo Banchero just turned 21 years old on the 12th of November, and Franz Wagner is 22.

Are the Magic doing the wrong thing by adding a much older player to the roster that won't be around for Banchero and Wagner's "Prime" ?

Don't they see the Big Picture?

(By the way, I'm not advocating adding another old player to the Blazer roster.)

 

[BigGameDamian]

I wonder if the Pelicans might be interested in Brogdon? They have some nice young talent and draft picks.

 

[BankTeller]

Brogdon shouldn’t be the end all, be all, ‘vet’ to have on this squad. So many factors change what could be the best path. Keeping Brogdon now, when there hasn’t been any reports of a big offer yet, benefits the team a lot more. We still need more clarity on

1) the NBA landscape. 6ers will surely be trading for a star. Raptors will have to make a decision on whether or not to trade Siakam or OG at the deadline. Is Mitchell going to be traded east or west, and when? If teams are putting all their assets into trying to land one of those guys and Brogdon doesn’t fetch what we want, keep him the rest of the season.

2) the wing talent in the draft. There’s going to be good guards, but we have enough guards. There’s going to be plenty of good bigs, that more than one should slip to the 2nd round. Unless there is a wing worth tanking for, there’s no need to tank. Trying to make the playoffs (and failing, likely) just means our pick might be #10/11 instead of #1-6, not a big deal this year imo. Us pushing for the playoffs means possibly pushing GSW out, so making the playoffs isn’t the worst thing in the world.

3) how desperate are teams to add Brogdon. There’s going to be winners and losers among the contenders at the deadline. There’s going to be winners and losers in the playoffs. A team has to want to part with significant parts if they want Brogdon. He is a valuable contributor on a playoff team, no a trade throw-in.

Until a team offers a package of significance or Brogdon wants to play for a contender, he’ll continue to be here. I’m completely fine with that, even as someone who is rooting for asset accumulation.

 

[BankTeller]

I wonder if the Pelicans might be interested in Brogdon? They have some nice young talent and draft picks.

I actually think Orlando would be the team in prime position to pursue a vet like Brogdon. They have Franz and Banchero as their pillars for the future, and Brogdon would be a perfect vet for Suggs who they see as a piece of their future as well. Brogdon and Suggs are going to be stout defensively, and they have a good mix if vets and productive players in Ingles, Carter, and Harris.

The young pieces available aren’t that interesting to me. Drafting Jett that high was a mistake imo, and I don’t see Black as a prize in a Brogdon deal. They do have Mortiz, who I’d be interested in as a backup C.

The pieces that I would be interested in are the 1st rounders. Aside from all of their own, they have the ‘25 DEN top 5 protected 1st. I’d be interested in that 1st, and a ‘26 ORL lotto-protected 1st.

So the deal would be Brogdon for Mortiz Wagner (absorbed into TPE), the expiring of Fultz (unless Harris can pull a 2nd from a team or would be a good vet piece to this team), and 2 1sts. This is in the realm of a realistic deal I can see going down at the deadline.

 

[Cugel]

Wait, Brogdon brings in Mo Wagner AND two firsts? I can't see that ever going down. Wagner has been fantastic.

 

[CJ_is_Gone]

Brogdon shouldn’t be the end all, be all, ‘vet’ to have on this squad. So many factors change what could be the best path. Keeping Brogdon now, when there hasn’t been any reports of a big offer yet, benefits the team a lot more. We still need more clarity on

1) the NBA landscape. 6ers will surely be trading for a star. Raptors will have to make a decision on whether or not to trade Siakam or OG at the deadline. Is Mitchell going to be traded east or west, and when? If teams are putting all their assets into trying to land one of those guys and Brogdon doesn’t fetch what we want, keep him the rest of the season.

2) the wing talent in the draft. There’s going to be good guards, but we have enough guards. There’s going to be plenty of good bigs, that more than one should slip to the 2nd round. Unless there is a wing worth tanking for, there’s no need to tank. Trying to make the playoffs (and failing, likely) just means our pick might be #10/11 instead of #1-6, not a big deal this year imo. Us pushing for the playoffs means possibly pushing GSW out, so making the playoffs isn’t the worst thing in the world.

3) how desperate are teams to add Brogdon. There’s going to be winners and losers among the contenders at the deadline. There’s going to be winners and losers in the playoffs. A team has to want to part with significant parts if they want Brogdon. He is a valuable contributor on a playoff team, no a trade throw-in.

Until a team offers a package of significance or Brogdon wants to play for a contender, he’ll continue to be here. I’m completely fine with that, even as someone who is rooting for asset accumulation.

Great post. Completely agree.
As with most things nuance is needed