POR should consider trading Batum

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I'd be fine with trading him. His offense is nice but limited and inconsistent and I've always thought his defense as a whole has been pretty overrated. He has length, but his foot speed and strength and defensive IQ is below average imo.
 
San Antonio has three players making more than 10M on the books next season before signing Duncan. I do not see them being able to sign Batum to a huge offer sheet and they lack quality assets for a sign and trade. I think we will listen to offers but will probably overpay for a four year contract by matching.
they can amnesty Stephen Jackson to have the room.
 
Some ideas -- Batum plus this years pick (if needed):

-Batum for Derreck Williams

-Batum for Evan Turner

-Batum for Nikola Mirotic

-Batum for Klay Thompson
 
Some ideas -- Batum plus this years pick (if needed):

-Batum for Derreck Williams

-Batum for Evan Turner

-Batum for Nikola Mirotic

-Batum for Klay Thompson

Klay Thompson would be the only one I'd consider.

I'd really only trade him for an UPGRADE at the position, not potential or a downgrade. Something like a Danny Granger or Igoudala.
 
I'd do the deal for Turner, if Philly would do it. Batum doesn't fit a need for them, though.
 
Just kinda' sucks the best players available on a few mock drafts as of right now at our draft positions are both SFs!
 
Word...... I forgot about that. Played his best ball of the season at that spot huh?
 
Batum hasn't distinguished himself as being anything above an average starter, and that's not an insult, if you're good enough to start in the NBA you've got skills, but he's not a difference maker, or a star.. 7-8 mil is about what you'd pay for an average starting quality player.
 
Sign him and then trade him. He's not worth what he'll be making. He has reached his ceiling and it is low.

This. Only thing is he may not have reached his ceiling yet, but either way I don't think he's going to get significantly better. He'll never reach his "potential" that people claimed over the past five years. That's not a knock against him, it's just the way it is.
 
I love Batum, but I am ok if we trade him. Whatever we do, we better not just let him walk.
 
Word...... I forgot about that. Played his best ball of the season at that spot huh?
Yes he did. I'm not giving up on Batum. I'd trade any player for an upgrade, but I don't envision such a deal being offered. Who gives a shit how much Allen pays him, so long as we complete our free agent signings before signing Nico's contract. An extra million dollars a year is going to cause fans to freak out, really? Allen has always overpaid. It's literally the only way to keep quality players in podunk Portland.
 
We should have signed him for cheaper when we had the chance. Though I guess we wouldn't have the caos flexibility we have now... Win some and lose some.
 
Word...... I forgot about that. Played his best ball of the season at that spot huh?

If Batum were 6'6 and played exactly as he plays now, everybody would consider him a decent shooting guard--maybe the long term shooting guard of the future for Portland. Because he's 6'9 he seems to get forced into playing SF when it's really not his best position.
 
If Batum were 6'6 and played exactly as he plays now, everybody would consider him a decent shooting guard--maybe the long term shooting guard of the future for Portland. Because he's 6'9 he seems to get forced into playing SF when it's really not his best position.

If Batum was 6'6" and played exactly as he plays now, I'm not sure he'd even be in the rotation.
 
We should have signed him for cheaper when we had the chance. Though I guess we wouldn't have the caos flexibility we have now... Win some and lose some.

Nor do we have any clue if we could've signed him for "cheaper" earlier....
 
At 6-6 he'd be a Rudy without the passing. He'd have to improve his shooting and passing to stay in the league.
 
The Blazers "weren't close" and the offer was low enough to piss off his agent for him to say that they'll talk to "29 other teams before the Trailblazers".

It's obvious that he wants Gallo type of money.

Steve 'Snapper' Jones chimed in when he was in Portland saying, IIRC, that he's a $6m type of guy.
 
If Shaq was 6'3" he would have never been a great center...
 
The Blazers "weren't close" and the offer was low enough to piss off his agent for him to say that they'll talk to "29 other teams before the Trailblazers".

It's obvious that he wants Gallo type of money.

Steve 'Snapper' Jones chimed in when he was in Portland saying, IIRC, that he's a $6m type of guy.

Of course his agent will call all the other teams and try and get his agent the highest offer possible. Gonna have to say i'm pretty sure all agents do this regardless when there player is a RFA or UFA.
As for Batum there was never any confirmed reports of what we offered but the big amounts that were windmilled around was we were at 6m a year and they wanted 9m and wouldn't budge because of what Batum's supposed value was this off season with a weakh money. FA class and a ton of teams wit
 
they can amnesty Stephen Jackson to have the room.

I thought you couldn't use amnesty on someone that you traded for after this CBA started. Do I have that wrong?

EDIT: found an SI article from December that backs me up here:
• Teams will not be able to use the amnesty provision on a player acquired in a trade going forward. The CBA summary says teams can apply amnesty to a pre-existing contract. It does not say whether teams must already have that contract on their books, or whether that contract must simply exist. There had been hope, for instance, that the Nets could acquire Hedo Turkoglu’s contract in a theoretical Dwight Howard trade and then use the amnesty provision on Turkoglu instead of the less-expensive Travis Outlaw. Turkoglu’s contract is “in place,” in some sense, after all.

But alas: The sides have agreed that teams can use the amnesty provision only on players they have now. That is a bit of a disadvantage for teams such as the Thunder and Grizzlies that have no viable amnesty candidate, though it does provide a form of long-term insurance should any of their players become unproductive down the road.
 
Last edited:
I thought you couldn't use amnesty on someone that you traded for after this CBA started. Do I have that wrong?

EDIT: found an SI article from December that backs me up here:

ooops, damn, you're right. total brain fart on my part, had just looked quickly at their roster. I guess they'd have to renounce rights to Duncan, and then sign him for MLE to do it. They are set to have 10 in space, I think, without him.
 
I'm all for trading Batum for a better player and that list of better players is long.
 
I'm all for trading Batum for a better player and that list of better players is long.

Its all about having to replace the SF spot. Who do we get if we let him go.
 
Its all about having to replace the SF spot. Who do we get if we let him go.

Babbitt, Claver, Barnes, Jones...there's a few options...
 
Babbitt, Claver, Barnes, Jones...there's a few options...

I don't think any of them will be better then Batum, but i do find Claver intriguing to bring over. I'd rather trade our draft picks then Draft either Barnes/Jones. Not advocating overpaying Batum here, but i'm not willing to give him up for nothing either.
 
Remember, the French National team tends to play him at SG, too, long before he played it for the Blazers.

We have to re-sign Batum, that's all there is to it. Small franchises have to retain their decent players, and often have to overpay to do it. I bet Utah wishes they had cap space to make a ludicrous offer for him just to get us back for Millsap.

(And, as somebody said, if San Antonio wants him, he must be good. And remember, their starter at SF for the next decade or so is set, so maybe they see Batum as a SG, too.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top