Trade Idea Realistic trade options for summer of 2023

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
illmatic99 said:
Agree with the sentiment that dame is not undersized but think it comes up frequently because or how often we have him switch onto wings/bigs.
Click to expand...
I think people just got lazy, and because we've had undersized SGs for what seems like the last decade, everyone just said we have an undersized backcourt.
 
RR7 said:
I think people just got lazy, and because we've had undersized SGs for what seems like the last decade, everyone just said we have an undersized backcourt.
Click to expand...

Yup. It was CJ that was the problem.... not Dame. And now Ant is the problem..... not Dame.
 
RR7 said:
Yeah, I'm consistently confused on why people call Dame undersized.
Click to expand...

yeah...I'm curious about that so thought I'd check and see how many Dame-sized PG's there are (and SG's). Using bbref standings

Denver - Jamal Murray, Reggie Jackson, Ish Smith
Memphis - Ja Morant, Tyus Jones
Sacramento - De'Aaron Fox, Davion Mitchell, Matthew Delladova
Phoenix - Chris Paul, Cameron Payne
LAC - Westbrook, Bones Hyland, Norm Powell
Warriors - Curry, Payton, Jordan Poole
LAL - Dennis Schroeder
Minny - Mike Conley, Austin Rivers
NOP - CJ, Jose Alvorado, Kira Lewis
OKC - Tre Mann, (Luguentz Dort is short but built like a LB)
Dallas - Kyrie Irving
Utah - Colin Sexton, Chris Dunn
Houston - DJ Augustine
Spurs - Devonte Graham, Tre Jones

Milwaukee- Javon Carter, Goran Dragic
Boston - Payton Pritchard, (Smart is like Dort)
76ers - Tyrese Maxey, Shake Milton, Mac McClung
Cleveland - Donovan Mitchell, Darius Garland, Ricky Rubio, Raul Neto
NYK - Jalen Brunson, Immanuel Quickley, Derrick Rose, Miles McBride
Nets - Seth Curry, Patty Mills
Miami - Kyle Lowry, Gabe Vincent
Atlanta - Trae Young, Aaron Holiday
Toronto - Fred Van Vleet, Malachi Flynn
Chicago - Patrick Beverly, Carlick Jones
Indiana - TJ McConnell
Wizards - Monte Morris, Kendrick Nunn, Jordan Goodwin
Orlando - Cole Anthony, Markelle Fultz
Charlotte - Terry Rozier, Dennis Smith
Detroit - Corey Joseph

that's somewhere between 12-14% of the NBA. I didn't count Anfernee, but probably should have
****************************************************************

Portland's situation is that they are starting Dame and an undersized SG, and have been since 2015

curious, so I will go thru and list starting SG heights of team's SG's:

Denver - 6'5 KCP
Memphis - 6'5 Bane (skeptical about that)
Sacramento - 6'7 Heuter
Phoenix - 6'5 Booker
LAC - 6'8 PG13
Warriors - 6'7 Klay
LAL - 6'5 Reaves
Minny - 6'4 Edwards
NOP - 6'8 Murphy/Ingram
OKC - 6'6 SGA or 6'3 Dort (6'8 Giddey plays point)
Dallas - hard to figure with Irving at PG; 6'7 Doncic? 6'5 Hardaway?
Utah - 6'4 Clarkson
Houston - 6'4 Green
Spurs - 6'5

Milwaukee- 6'4 Allen
Boston - 6'4 White or 6'3 Smart
76ers - 6'5 Harden
Cleveland - 6'2 Mitchell
NYK - 6'6 Barrett
Nets - 6'6 Bridges or 6'5 O'Neal
Miami - 6'5 Herro
Atlanta - 6'4 Murray
Toronto - 6'7 Anunoby or 6'5 Trent
Chicago - 6'4 Caruso
Indiana - 6'4 Hield or 6'5 Nembhard
Wizards - 6'4 Beal
Orlando - 6'3 Fultz or 6'3 Harris
Charlotte - 6'7 Ball...Ball and Rozier are flopped
Detroit - 6'4 Ivey

looks like the eastern conference is a little shorter than the WC. Outside of Orlando, the only other 6'3 SG's like Ant are Smart and Dort, and those guys are a world more physical than Ant

so then add the trio of 6'5 SF's the Blazers have run with this season...Hart-Little-Thybulle; and the non-physical nature of Grant, and the Blazers still have an obvious problem. That's probably why then leangth of low-level role players like Knox and Reddish were intriguing to Blazer fans
 
We wouldn’t do it, but hypothetically what could we get in a trade if we got the #1 pick?

It seems like OKC is going to have to unload that treasure trove of picks eventually. I wonder if they will try to trade for Wemby. It’s hard to gauge the value of a can’t miss prospect. Would OKC trade Shai? Would they throw in Chet and/or picks?
 
wizenheimer said:
yeah...I'm curious about that so thought I'd check and see how many Dame-sized PG's there are (and SG's). Using bbref standings

Denver - Jamal Murray, Reggie Jackson, Ish Smith
Memphis - Ja Morant, Tyus Jones
Sacramento - De'Aaron Fox, Davion Mitchell, Matthew Delladova
Phoenix - Chris Paul, Cameron Payne
LAC - Westbrook, Bones Hyland, Norm Powell
Warriors - Curry, Payton, Jordan Poole
LAL - Dennis Schroeder
Minny - Mike Conley, Austin Rivers
NOP - CJ, Jose Alvorado, Kira Lewis
OKC - Tre Mann, (Luguentz Dort is short but built like a LB)
Dallas - Kyrie Irving
Utah - Colin Sexton, Chris Dunn
Houston - DJ Augustine
Spurs - Devonte Graham, Tre Jones

Milwaukee- Javon Carter, Goran Dragic
Boston - Payton Pritchard, (Smart is like Dort)
76ers - Tyrese Maxey, Shake Milton, Mac McClung
Cleveland - Donovan Mitchell, Darius Garland, Ricky Rubio, Raul Neto
NYK - Jalen Brunson, Immanuel Quickley, Derrick Rose, Miles McBride
Nets - Seth Curry, Patty Mills
Miami - Kyle Lowry, Gabe Vincent
Atlanta - Trae Young, Aaron Holiday
Toronto - Fred Van Vleet, Malachi Flynn
Chicago - Patrick Beverly, Carlick Jones
Indiana - TJ McConnell
Wizards - Monte Morris, Kendrick Nunn, Jordan Goodwin
Orlando - Cole Anthony, Markelle Fultz
Charlotte - Terry Rozier, Dennis Smith
Detroit - Corey Joseph

that's somewhere between 12-14% of the NBA. I didn't count Anfernee, but probably should have
****************************************************************

Portland's situation is that they are starting Dame and an undersized SG, and have been since 2015

curious, so I will go thru and list starting SG heights of team's SG's:

Denver - 6'5 KCP
Memphis - 6'5 Bane (skeptical about that)
Sacramento - 6'7 Heuter
Phoenix - 6'5 Booker
LAC - 6'8 PG13
Warriors - 6'7 Klay
LAL - 6'5 Reaves
Minny - 6'4 Edwards
NOP - 6'8 Murphy/Ingram
OKC - 6'6 SGA or 6'3 Dort (6'8 Giddey plays point)
Dallas - hard to figure with Irving at PG; 6'7 Doncic? 6'5 Hardaway?
Utah - 6'4 Clarkson
Houston - 6'4 Green
Spurs - 6'5

Milwaukee- 6'4 Allen
Boston - 6'4 White or 6'3 Smart
76ers - 6'5 Harden
Cleveland - 6'2 Mitchell
NYK - 6'6 Barrett
Nets - 6'6 Bridges or 6'5 O'Neal
Miami - 6'5 Herro
Atlanta - 6'4 Murray
Toronto - 6'7 Anunoby or 6'5 Trent
Chicago - 6'4 Caruso
Indiana - 6'4 Hield or 6'5 Nembhard
Wizards - 6'4 Beal
Orlando - 6'3 Fultz or 6'3 Harris
Charlotte - 6'7 Ball...Ball and Rozier are flopped
Detroit - 6'4 Ivey

looks like the eastern conference is a little shorter than the WC. Outside of Orlando, the only other 6'3 SG's like Ant are Smart and Dort, and those guys are a world more physical than Ant

so then add the trio of 6'5 SF's the Blazers have run with this season...Hart-Little-Thybulle; and the non-physical nature of Grant, and the Blazers still have an obvious problem. That's probably why then leangth of low-level role players like Knox and Reddish were intriguing to Blazer fans
Click to expand...
 
Dame is fine for size, not a good defender. Ant is a bit short, decent wingspan, and thinner … and not a good defender. They bring the buckets.
Compound this with forwards who didn’t score (Aminu, Harkless with CJ) or half there (pick name, Grant) and not strong at rebounding … and a part-time center. So, an undersized scoring back court not compensated for by only one good forward and lack of size, length, and D in the bigs.

Add in a strong SF to Dame, Sharpe, and Grant … and get ready to exit from mediocrity.
 
BlazerBender said:
Apparently not with all the “trade Dame to get better” opinions floating out there.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone believes that trading Dame will instantly make us better. Trading Dame would be about getting assets that could help make us better in the future hopefully.

At one time we had Roy, Oden and Aldridge and we got zero assets for any of them. That’s three key players for this franchise that we lost for nothing for various reasons.
 
Last edited:
HoopsFanAZ said:
Dame is fine for size, not a good defender. Ant is a bit short, decent wingspan, and thinner … and not a good defender. They bring the buckets.
Compound this with forwards who didn’t score (Aminu, Harkless with CJ) or half there (pick name, Grant) and not strong at rebounding … and a part-time center. So, an undersized scoring back court not compensated for by only one good forward and lack of size, length, and D in the bigs.

Add in a strong SF to Dame, Sharpe, and Grant … and get ready to exit from mediocrity.
Click to expand...

So you're saying
Dame
Sharpe
Mikal Bridges
Jerami Grant
Brook Lopez

Something like that?
 
boredinsalem said:
We wouldn’t do it, but hypothetically what could we get in a trade if we got the #1 pick?

It seems like OKC is going to have to unload that treasure trove of picks eventually. I wonder if they will try to trade for Wemby. It’s hard to gauge the value of a can’t miss prospect. Would OKC trade Shai? Would they throw in Chet and/or picks?
Click to expand...

Giannis and embiid and it stops there. No one else in the league.
 
HoopsFanAZ said:
Dame is fine for size, not a good defender. Ant is a bit short, decent wingspan, and thinner … and not a good defender. They bring the buckets.
Compound this with forwards who didn’t score (Aminu, Harkless with CJ) or half there (pick name, Grant) and not strong at rebounding … and a part-time center. So, an undersized scoring back court not compensated for by only one good forward and lack of size, length, and D in the bigs.

Add in a strong SF to Dame, Sharpe, and Grant … and get ready to exit from mediocrity.
Click to expand...
Grant is not a PF
 
Natebishop3 said:
I don’t think anyone believes that trading Dame will instantly make us better. Trading Dame would be about getting assets that could help make us better in the future hopefully.

At one time we had Roy, Oden and Aldridge and we got zero assets for any of them. That’s three key players for this franchise that we lost for nothing for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Equating Dame to Lma lost your argument for yourself.
 
Keep an eye on S&T options for Cam Johnson. I have liked this guy for so long but worry about his pairing with Grant. Having both our forwards averaging 4 rebounds per game is not ideal but think we want to do this.

Unsure what it would take to get him.

We are not going to be able to get him as an RFA so S&T is the only option.
 
illmatic99 said:
Keep an eye on S&T options for Cam Johnson. I have liked this guy for so long but worry about his pairing with Grant. Having both our forwards averaging 4 rebounds per game is not ideal but think we want to do this.

Unsure what it would take to get him.

We are not going to be able to get him as an RFA so S&T is the only option.
Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if Brooklyn let him escape in a S&T. He's been their best player in the playoffs so far. The Nets do have a high payroll next season, although Dinwiddie could be waived and drop them about 30M below the tax threshold

they are in a Ben Simmons bind for sure. A S&T for Johnson might require taking on Simmons too
 
wizenheimer said:
I'd be really surprised if Brooklyn let him escape in a S&T. He's been their best player in the playoffs so far. The Nets do have a high payroll next season, although Dinwiddie could be waived and drop them about 30M below the tax threshold

they are in a Ben Simmons bind for sure. A S&T for Johnson might require taking on Simmons too
Click to expand...
His playoff stats might be a bit inflated with the kinda attention Bridges has been getting. But hes a quality starter on a playoff team. I just think BK has a surplus of wings and won't want to pay him the 15-20 mil he is going to ask for. We can try to eek out capspace to get to that number by clearing salary and making a poison pill offer, but I think pursuing a S&T might be the better option. And given our propensity to skirt the tax, I'm guessing hard capping ourselves is not a big issue.

We'd have to send out quite a bit of salary to absorb both Simmons and Johnson. Is that even feasible while keeping Sharpe/Dame?
 
wizenheimer said:
I'd be really surprised if Brooklyn let him escape in a S&T. He's been their best player in the playoffs so far. The Nets do have a high payroll next season, although Dinwiddie could be waived and drop them about 30M below the tax threshold

they are in a Ben Simmons bind for sure. A S&T for Johnson might require taking on Simmons too
Click to expand...
Nets would have to include multiple picks to take on Simmons, and his contract. Nets might have to buy Simmons out.
 
illmatic99 said:
His playoff stats might be a bit inflated with the kinda attention Bridges has been getting. But hes a quality starter on a playoff team. I just think BK has a surplus of wings and won't want to pay him the 15-20 mil he is going to ask for. We can try to eek out capspace to get to that number by clearing salary and making a poison pill offer, but I think pursuing a S&T might be the better option. And given our propensity to skirt the tax, I'm guessing hard capping ourselves is not a big issue.

We'd have to send out quite a bit of salary to absorb both Simmons and Johnson. Is that even feasible while keeping Sharpe/Dame?
Click to expand...

the only way it would work is for the Blazers to S&T Grant for Simmons. Then trade Ant for a S&T Johnson....unless the Nets want Nurkic
 
Natebishop3 said:
It's not an argument. It's a fact.

At one time we had LMA, Roy, and Oden. We lost all three players for various reasons without recouping any assets.

Which part of that statement do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Come on man.

First Roy and Oden went down due to injuries. Show me a team thst got a haul for a player with an injury that stopped their career?????

but really this is the laughable part….
You trying to compare Dame to LMA leaving for nothing should be a blazer fan ban.
You are gonna see what you want to see, but saying Dame might leave the team high and dry like LMA is an insult to Dames character and an insult to Blazer fans.

You are smart enough to know and see this, so i can only assume you are playing games.

There are bad takes and then there is just being silly. Ill let you choose.
 
BlazerBender said:
Come on man.

First Roy and Oden went down due to injuries. Show me a team thst got a haul for a player with an injury that stopped their career?????

but really this is the laughable part….
You trying to compare Dame to LMA leaving for nothing should be a blazer fan ban.
You are gonna see what you want to see, but saying Dame might leave the team high and dry like LMA is an insult to Dames character and an insult to Blazer fans.

You are smart enough to know and see this, so i can only assume you are playing games.

There are bad takes and then there is just being silly. Ill let you choose.
Click to expand...

Not sure where I said any of those things. Would you mind pointing me to where I said those things?
 
Natebishop3 said:
Not sure where I said any of those things. Would you mind pointing me to where I said those things?
Click to expand...

Being concerned Dame leaves for nothing is essentially saying just that. You bringing those three names up and stating we lost them for nothing, means we should trade Dame.

By posting what you did, you are saying we should trade Dame before he gets injured or before he leaves for nothing.
For you to assume people will think anything else is just… laughable man.

So then what DID you mean by your post? What relevance DID it have with regards to those who want to trade Dame? What was your point of that post if not to say you are concerned we lose Dame for nothing like the other three you mentioned?

And if that is what you meant, then why the pushback on what i said?
 
BlazerBender said:
Being concerned Dame leaves for nothing is essentially saying just that. You bringing those three names up and stating we lost them for nothing, means we should trade Dame.

By posting what you did, you are saying we should trade Dame before he gets injured or before he leaves for nothing.
For you to assume people will think anything else is just… laughable man.

So then what DID you mean by your post? What relevance DID it have with regards to those who want to trade Dame? What was your point of that post if not to say you are concerned we lose Dame for nothing like the other three you mentioned?

And if that is what you meant, then why the pushback on what i said?
Click to expand...

I'm so glad that I have you around to tell me what I'm thinking. It really saves me a lot of trouble of having to think for myself.

What am I thinking right now?

Natebishop3 said:
I don’t think anyone believes that trading Dame will instantly make us better. Trading Dame would be about getting assets that could help make us better in the future hopefully.

At one time we had Roy, Oden and Aldridge and we got zero assets for any of them. That’s three key players for this franchise that we lost for nothing for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Where did I say Dame is going to leave? I said that we lost three key players without recouping any value for them. Whether it was because of injury or leaving through free agency, we lost those players without bringing back anything to help us in the future. Dame might not leave, but he will decline and cease to be the player that can carry the team. So we are once again in a position to allow a valuable resource to expire without bringing back anything to help us in the future. Whether it's father time, or injuries, or he decides to leave when his contract is up.

Please, dissect this post and tell me what I really mean though.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I'm so glad that I have you around to tell me what I'm thinking. It really saves me a lot of trouble of having to think for myself.

What am I thinking right now?



Where did I say Dame is going to leave? I said that we lost three key players without recouping any value for them. Whether it was because of injury or leaving through free agency, we lost those players without bringing back anything to help us in the future. Dame might not leave, but he will decline and cease to be the player that can carry the team. So we are once again in a position to allow a valuable resource to expire without bringing back anything to help us in the future. Whether it's father time, or injuries, or he decides to leave when his contract is up.

Please, dissect this post and tell me what I really mean though.
Click to expand...

Come on. Get off the high horse. People disect meanings all the time here. You do too.

I like how you didn't answer any of the questions About why you posted what you did then.
If you don't want people to interpret, try being clearer with the message…

What did you mean with your original post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top