OFFICIAL AROUND THE NBA THREAD -April 2021

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Paying Trent 20 a year off the bench would be a disaster. Matching an offer like that and thinking "we can just trade him" is stupid. His value plummets immediately on that deal. We made a small upgrade, and found someone potentially more retainable. But people gotta whine.
 
RR7 said:
Paying Trent 20 a year off the bench would be a disaster. Matching an offer like that and thinking "we can just trade him" is stupid. His value plummets immediately on that deal. We made a small upgrade, and found someone potentially more retainable. But people gotta whine.
Click to expand...

How does his value plummet? As long as he continues to get better his value does not plummet
 
AldoTrapani said:
How does his value plummet? As long as he continues to get better his value does not plummet
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's kind of the catch. Let's see how his next contract ages. Trent reminds me a lot more of Allen Crabbe than of any high-level shooting guard. Crabbe also had stretches where he looked good, but ultimately he was a one-trick pony on offense and a poor defender--exactly where Trent has been most of his career.
 
RR7 said:
Paying Trent 20 a year off the bench would be a disaster. Matching an offer like that and thinking "we can just trade him" is stupid. His value plummets immediately on that deal. We made a small upgrade, and found someone potentially more retainable. But people gotta whine.
Click to expand...
Just wanted an asset of some sort that couldn't just walk away. That's all. Just trying to think ahead because unless you think this years squad is going to win it all, you've got to think about what you can guarantee for next year.
 
Minstrel said:
Yeah, that's kind of the catch. Let's see how his next contract ages. Trent reminds me a lot more of Allen Crabbe than of any high-level shooting guard. Crabbe also had stretches where he looked good, but ultimately he was a one-trick pony on offense and a poor defender--exactly where Trent has been most of his career.
Click to expand...

No way dude. You can’t let an asset just walk away. You controlled Trents contract. Powell could be gone before you even get a chance to counter him.
 
blazerkor said:
Just wanted an asset of some sort that couldn't just walk away. That's all. Just trying to think ahead because unless you think this years squad is going to win it all, you've got to think about what you can guarantee for next year.
Click to expand...
A 2nd is an asset of some sort. Would adding a couple of 2nd rounders so you don't lose the asset for nothing really be a better swap?
 
AldoTrapani said:
No way dude. You can’t let an asset just walk away.
Click to expand...

That's a terrible way to think. That's what caused the disastrous offseason of 2016--giving guys contracts they didn't deserve because they "couldn't let an 'asset' walk away." A player is only asset to a team at the right price or lower--the moment you overpay a player, you've turned that asset into a liability, so you have already lost the asset. It's far better to "let an asset walk away" than to turn him into a liability.
 
Raptors are not helping us against the Lakers tonight. They are sitting 6 players out including Lowry and Van Fleet
 
twobullz said:
Raptors are not helping us against the Lakers tonight. They are sitting 6 players out including Lowry and Van Fleet
Click to expand...
Starting a brawl and possibly hurting Schroeder could make up for the Raps getting blown out?
 
RR7 said:
A 2nd is an asset of some sort. Would adding a couple of 2nd rounders so you don't lose the asset for nothing really be a better swap?
Click to expand...
Right, Trent's contract gives a team the opportunity no matter what to keep all of what he brings to the floor. He brings a lot more to the floor than a couple of second rounders... even though he was one. I love getting a player like Powell for Trent, I think that's a good trade if we were just that small upgrade away from a championship, or if he had one more year on his contract. Neither of those things are true. You're right, we could have traded Trent for a 2027 top 55 protected second rounder and I guess you could call it an asset but it would not be an asset of equal value. That's what I wanted, not just a rental that might have a little more value today but an asset with at least close to the same value going forward.
 
speeds said:
Not that I wanted this win, but Neto exploded to such a ludicrous degree that the ref couldn't call it.
Click to expand...

If Trent Jr was still a Blazer and did that, it would be called
 
blazerkor said:
Right, Trent's contract gives a team the opportunity no matter what to keep all of what he brings to the floor. He brings a lot more to the floor than a couple of second rounders... even though he was one. I love getting a player like Powell for Trent, I think that's a good trade if we were just that small upgrade away from a championship, or if he had one more year on his contract. Neither of those things are true. You're right, we could have traded Trent for a 2027 top 55 protected second rounder and I guess you could call it an asset but it would not be an asset of equal value. That's what I wanted, not just a rental that might have a little more value today but an asset with at least close to the same value going forward.
Click to expand...
What do you think is an equal value asset we could or should have gotten for him?
 
RR7 said:
What do you think is an equal value asset we could or should have gotten for him?
Click to expand...
I don't know, I'm not a GM but I would have liked it to be something very similar to Powell with value beyond this season. That's all I'm saying. There's this phenomenon in this forum that anyone that wants better from the team is supposed to know all of the opportunities available and present an informed better idea. I've tried that and it's a trap in which people either say I'm settling for too little or asking for too much, never ever do the people asking for a better idea accept the solicited response and this isn't just something that happens to me, it happens on here every day. I'm not a Blazers employee so I can point out a problem and there should be no expectation for me to be part of the solution because I can't possibly be.

I've said this before. Going into the season, I wanted us to retain Gary, find a trade for CJ that would net us a second option at 3-5 that better complements Dame's game and re-sign Gary in the off season. Obviously that's not what Olshey was going to do because his valuation for CJ (and more so the Dame/CJ back court) is so out of line, I don't think I've ever seen something with so much evidence to the contrary more overvalued.

Upon realizing that what I wanted was never going to happen, I just wanted us to walk away from this season with something for Gary... something with value going forward because Gary has value going forward. Giving Dame and Terry a few months to convince an unrestricted free agent with Bird rights that he should sign with us for a discount or even sign with us over any other club... is not value. So we let Gary walk for nothing... except probably a win or two in the playoffs. If it nets us a championship this season then I'm a fucking idiot but if it doesn't, we let Gary walk for nothing and that was unacceptable to me.
 
blazerkor said:
I don't know, I'm not a GM but I would have liked it to be something very similar to Powell with value beyond this season. That's all I'm saying. There's this phenomenon in this forum that anyone that wants better from the team is supposed to know all of the opportunities available and present an informed better idea. I've tried that and it's a trap in which people either say I'm settling for too little or asking for too much, never ever do the people asking for a better idea accept the solicited response and this isn't just something that happens to me, it happens on here every day. I'm not a Blazers employee so I can point out a problem and there should be no expectation for me to be part of the solution because I can't possibly be.

I've said this before. Going into the season, I wanted us to retain Gary, find a trade for CJ that would net us a second option at 3-5 that better complements Dame's game and re-sign Gary in the off season. Obviously that's not what Olshey was going to do because his valuation for CJ (and more so the Dame/CJ back court) is so out of line, I don't think I've ever seen something with so much evidence to the contrary more overvalued.

Upon realizing that what I wanted was never going to happen, I just wanted us to walk away from this season with something for Gary... something with value going forward because Gary has value going forward. Giving Dame and Terry a few months to convince an unrestricted free agent with Bird rights that he should sign with us for a discount or even sign with us over any other club... is not value. So we let Gary walk for nothing... except probably a win or two in the playoffs. If it nets us a championship this season then I'm a fucking idiot but if it doesn't, we let Gary walk for nothing and that was unacceptable to me.
Click to expand...
What if Norm re-signs with us

does that mean you’re whining about no value for no reason?
 
JoshuaHall said:
What if Norm re-signs with us

does that mean you’re whining about no value for no reason?
Click to expand...
Yeah in practical terms it does. If the combination of the team and Bird rights are enough to keep him, then I'm wrong. However, it's a bigger gamble than holding onto Gary would have been because Powell might price himself out of what we want to offer him and be gone but he also might sign a contract that we would like to have him at and still be gone. Gary may have priced himself out too but if he didn't we had control.
 
blazerkor said:
I don't know, I'm not a GM but I would have liked it to be something very similar to Powell with value beyond this season. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Powell is a much better player. Trent wouldn't fetch a "Powell" with value beyond this season.

I think people still have an image in their head of Trent being a really good, young three-and-D player. But he's a poor defensive player and doesn't have a lot to his game beyond shooting threes. It's a good skill to have, but not enough to be valuable without anything else.
 
blazerkor said:
Upon realizing that what I wanted was never going to happen, I just wanted us to walk away from this season with something for Gary... something with value going forward because Gary has value going forward. Giving Dame and Terry a few months to convince an unrestricted free agent with Bird rights that he should sign with us for a discount or even sign with us over any other club... is not value. So we let Gary walk for nothing... except probably a win or two in the playoffs. If it nets us a championship this season then I'm a fucking idiot but if it doesn't, we let Gary walk for nothing and that was unacceptable to me.
Click to expand...
I think that assumption is where your argument falls off the tracks.
We don't know what Gary's value is going forward. Gary on a $25M/yr contract is NOT value. Gary on a $8M/yr has value.

Teams end up with terrible contracts like Crabbe's when you approach the FA with the mindset you have. We CAN'T loose this player for nothing - so we'll end up paying him 2x or 3x what he's worth. :blink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris Craig
Notice Submit Questions/Comments For Tonight's (April 4th) Episode Of Around The NBA With Chris And Eric
Replies
0
Views
139
Chris Craig
Chris Craig
SlyPokerOwl
Official Around the NBA April 2019 Playoff Edition
61 62 63
Replies
2K
Views
110K
kjironman1
kjironman1
SlyPokerDog
OFFICIAL AROUND THE NBA: APRIL 2024
8 9 10
Replies
276
Views
17K
THE HCP
THE HCP
BigGameDamian
OT NBA Drops Spalding, Adopts Wilson as Official Game Ball
Replies
17
Views
851
dviss1
dviss1
1
2021 Superdraft
Replies
15
Views
1K
Reep
Reep

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top