Out of the starters; the most valuable trading asset

[magnifier661]

Many are talking about Aldridge being the most valuable trading asset. Personally I disagree. I think Wes Matthews is the most tradeable player for return. His contract is actually going less each year and it's not a Max Type Contract; that teams would need to give up an important piece for.

Also, Batum can slide to starting SG; so losing Matthews isn't as bad as you think.

So with that said; what could a Matthews give you?

Here is my go; maybe it could happen.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=9wl3rjs

Getting Ariza and Crawford would help our bench big time. Ariza is a capable defensive minded SF and Crawford would be a nice scorer to come off the bench. The only downside is we lose about 2 million this summer in cap space.

 

[RR7]

no thanks.

 

[magnifier661]

no thanks.

I was just starting a thread buddy. I know you're creative so lets see yours. I just think using Matthews will actually give us player(s) that could bring us back more value in return.

 

[RR7]

I was just responding to the thread you started. I have no desire to trade someone like Matthews for lesser pieces just because. He's young enough, locked into a decent contract, is a good 3 point shooter, asolid defender, and by all accounts, a GREAT teammate. trading that for a chucker like Crawford and someone like ariza...no thank you.

 

[Rhal]

I was just responding to the thread you started. I have no desire to trade someone like Matthews for lesser pieces just because. He's young enough, locked into a decent contract, is a good 3 point shooter, asolid defender, and by all accounts, a GREAT teammate. trading that for a chucker like Crawford and someone like ariza...no thank you.

Agreed 100% and then some.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mediocre Man]

Matthews is not a very good basketball player

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Matthews is not a very good basketball player

Neither was Rex Chapman, but he had a place on a playoff team.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

mathews is an average player signed for the MLE, but he has some intangibles as well

trading him in a lateral move would be foolish and unnecessary

 

[Mediocre Man]

Neither was Rex Chapman, but he had a place on a playoff team.

I think Matthews has a place on a team, but he is nowhere near our most valuable asset

 

[magnifier661]

I think Matthews has a place on a team, but he is nowhere near our most valuable asset

When I saw "most valuable asset"; I don't mean the most valuable player. I am saying that his contract + production + contract size = a better net return of player(s).

LMA is our most valuable player; but his contract size and what we need in return for the same production would never come. Basically LMA isn't going to net us +. We take steps back.

 

[mook]

Value in trading assets go something like this:

Lillard (production+hype+age+cheap contract) >> Aldridge >> Batum >> Leonard (size+age) > Matthews (shooting+defense) > Hickson (funky contract) > Human excrement > Dog excrement > Everyone else on our bench > Syphilis


You could quibble a little about those last two.

 

[mook]

(Yes, Lillard is even a trade asset. Highly unlikely, but there are a handful of guys in this league you'd have to be willing to part with him for.)

 

[BlazerCaravan]

(Yes, Lillard is even a trade asset. Highly unlikely, but there are a handful of guys in this league you'd have to be willing to part with him for.)

How do you even trade someone on a rookie contract and hope to get equal value for him?

 

[KeepOnRollin]

How do you even trade someone on a rookie contract and hope to get equal value for him?

You would have to package a player like that with an overpaid stiff that you were dying to get rid of.

 

[magnifier661]

You would have to package a player like that with an overpaid stiff that you were dying to get rid of.

We don't have any of those type of players on our books

 

[Nikolokolus]

When I saw "most valuable asset"; I don't mean the most valuable player. I am saying that his contract + production + contract size = a better net return of player(s).

LMA is our most valuable player; but his contract size and what we need in return for the same production would never come. Basically LMA isn't going to net us +. We take steps back.

LaMarcus would easily return the most value in a trade, his contract is easy to move, he's an all-star in his prime and he's a good teammate. There's nobody else on the team who could bring back as much potential talent in a trade ... it's not even close.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

You would have to package a player like that with an overpaid stiff that you were dying to get rid of.

Unfortunately, we're not New York.

 

[Further]

most valuable trading asset is between LMA and Lillard. Then Batum and Wes are pretty close with I think the edge going to Batum.

As far as Wes, I think he is a very good match next to Lillard and that needs to be taken into account if he is moved. Wes does not need the ball to be productive, he can guard either PG or SG and leave the easier assignment for Lillard. Wes is very good at spreading the floor with his 3ball, and this opens up lanes for Lillard to take advantage of. Sure, there are better SG's in the league, but all in all I think Wes is a very good fit. 1,2,3,4 are all good and I don't think that they should be broken up to get tangental pieces. Blazers are kind of fucked this year. They should either ride it out and try and improve in the offseason, or trade away Hickson so they have more losses and a better pick in the offseason. But either way, leave 1-4 alone.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Many are talking about Aldridge being the most valuable trading asset. Personally I disagree. I think Wes Matthews is the most tradeable player for return. His contract is actually going less each year and it's not a Max Type Contract; that teams would need to give up an important piece for.

Also, Batum can slide to starting SG; so losing Matthews isn't as bad as you think.

So with that said; what could a Matthews give you?

Here is my go; maybe it could happen.

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=9wl3rjs

Getting Ariza and Crawford would help our bench big time. Ariza is a capable defensive minded SF and Crawford would be a nice scorer to come off the bench. The only downside is we lose about 2 million this summer in cap space.

Keeping in mind we have to increase BOTH the quality & quantity of talent it makes no sense to trade one of our talented players (we have 6) unless we are able to parlay that into 2 NBA talented players. And that's hard to do. I mean, it can be done, but looking at our roster I don't see it happening.

 

[magnifier661]

Keeping in mind we have to increase BOTH the quality & quantity of talent it makes no sense to trade one of our talented players (we have 6) unless we are able to parlay that into 2 NBA talented players. And that's hard to do. I mean, it can be done, but looking at our roster I don't see it happening.

I agree with this 100%

 

[mook]

How do you even trade someone on a rookie contract and hope to get equal value for him?

Trade him for another equally talented player also on a rookie contract. Or for a package of the #1 pick in the draft with a scrub contract.

I can't think of the last time such a thing happened, but it's possible.

Looking back over the past decade or so, we could have traded Roy, Oden or Randolph on rookie deals and gotten the moon in return. Could have gotten less but still a crap-ton for guys like Bonzi and Sergio and Rudy.

Nobody even discusses those opportunities, which is why GM's never do it. Nobody gets fired as a GM for holding onto a promising young stud who one way or another breaks your heart. But everybody remembers if you trade away a young asset like that and it blows up into Jermaine O'Neal.

People don't trade promising rookies. Not because they can't, but because it's a potentially devastating career move for GM's.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

We don't have any of those type of players on our books

Never said or meant that we did guys. Just answering the question.

 

[magnifier661]

LaMarcus would easily return the most value in a trade, his contract is easy to move, he's an all-star in his prime and he's a good teammate. There's nobody else on the team who could bring back as much potential talent in a trade ... it's not even close.

No we wouldn't get a player more talented than Aldridge. That's the point. But with Matthews; we actually could because of his very manageable contract and trade of being a deadly shooter and good defender.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

No we wouldn't get a player more talented than Aldridge. That's the point. But with Matthews; we actually could because of his very manageable contract and trade of being a deadly shooter and good defender.

You are the only person in the world who values Wesley Matthews that highly.

 

[Nikolokolus]

No we wouldn't get a player more talented than Aldridge. That's the point. But with Matthews; we actually could because of his very manageable contract and trade of being a deadly shooter and good defender.

(Financial considerations aside) since when do teams get a more talented player back in a trade when they send out a single player? Answer: Never. But what the Blazers might get back is a a couple of good prospects with some untapped ceiling and a crack or two at a lottery pick.

 

[KingSpeed]

Matthews is a top 15 SG in the NBA

 

[KingSpeed]

(Financial considerations aside) since when do teams get a more talented player back in a trade when they send out a single player? Answer: Never. But what the Blazers might get back is a a couple of good prospects with some untapped ceiling and a crack or two at a lottery pick.

Lakers traded Bynum and got Howard

Lakers traded Divac and got Kobe

 

[mook]

Matthews is a top 15 SG in the NBA

Nice way of saying he's a completely average starting SG in the NBA. Which is both true and not really that bad.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Lakers traded Bynum and got Howard

Lakers traded Divac and got Kobe

Howard and Bynum were part of a multi-team, multiple players trade and Kobe was a draft pick.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

No we wouldn't get a player more talented than Aldridge. That's the point. But with Matthews; we actually could because of his very manageable contract and trade of being a deadly shooter and good defender.

Um, sure you got the correct Wes? I would say good shooter, not great, and certainly not deadly.

Also disagree with Wes being the most valuable, even by your formula. Lots of teams will have cap space this coming off season. The size of LMA's deal is not that bad and there will not be many players at his level willing to change teams.