The 2022 Trade Idea Thread, now with more urgency!

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)
Three way

Grant to Portland
CJ to NY
Toppin to Detroit

There’d be filler too but that as a base
 
Scalma said:
Three way

Grant to Portland
CJ to NY
Toppin to Detroit

There’d be filler too but that as a base
Click to expand...

I'd be okay with this I guess but does anyone think Cronin has the competence to pull off a three team deal?

Me thinks not.
 
We break up 1 big salary in to 3 more manageable salaries. Fournier is certainly overpaid, but taking him on gets us an extra pick, maybe, in the deal? Toppin becomes our hopeful PF of the future. Go in to next season with Lillard/Simons/Little/Toppin/Nurk? with a Fournier/Watford/Noel bench, along with 2 picks, one in the lottery. Adding Noel also opens up the ability to trade Nance, or keep him around to have a few switchable bigs off the bench.

upload_2022-2-7_10-14-9.png
 
illmatic99 said:
if flexibility is our main goal, i want nothing to do with that fournier contract. we just gave up a better player on a similar contract for scraps.
Click to expand...
His is 2 years shorter than Powell's, the same length as CJ's, at a little over half the cost.
I don't want him, but am willing to take him to gain assets. After next season, he becomes a large expiring contract.
 
RR7 said:
His is 2 years shorter than Powell's, the same length as CJ's, at a little over half the cost.
I don't want him, but am willing to take him to gain assets. After next season, he becomes a large expiring contract.
Click to expand...
unless those picks are unprotected, i'm not considering this. This is hardly the kinda asset gain we should be getting in a CJ deal. i missed the team option on the Fournier deal, admittedly, but it's still not great.
 
Fournier contract isn't as bad as I thought, 18.0 18.9 million the next two years with a team option after. I'm still not sure if I'd prefer to just keep CJ. But as a last resort it might not be a horrific trade. Its better than giving away Norm and Roco for 3 scrubs.

Randle contract is a $32 million player option is 2025-26, so it has a risk of being a bad deal.

I would prefer if CJ gets more than either of these players, but its better than next season trotting out a team of Dame CJ Ant.
 
illmatic99 said:
unless those picks are unprotected, i'm not considering this. This is hardly the kinda asset gain we should be getting in a CJ deal. i missed the team option on the Fournier deal, admittedly, but it's still not great.
Click to expand...
I'd want their pick unprotected this year. The Dallas pick next year is top 10 protected.
It's not great, but feels like a realistic return for CJ. A young prospect in Toppin, 2 picks, and 2 rotational players, 6th, 7th man types.
 
RR7 said:
His is 2 years shorter than Powell's, the same length as CJ's, at a little over half the cost.
I don't want him, but am willing to take him to gain assets. After next season, he becomes a large expiring contract.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the Fournier contract isn't really that bad, 18 million next year and 18.8 the year after. We are paying 3 scrubs $11 million next year. Fournier might be able to provide some value on the bench. He could play with Dame and Ant, something CJ can't do.

I'd hope for a better return in a CJ trade but it wouldn't be a disaster.

I'm much more concerned of the Randle contract. Yes he has much more potential to be a quality starter. But if he isn't, that could screw up our salary cap until 2026 when he's making $32 million.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
RR7 said:
I'd want their pick unprotected this year. The Dallas pick next year is top 10 protected.
It's not great, but feels like a realistic return for CJ. A young prospect in Toppin, 2 picks, and 2 rotational players, 6th, 7th man types.
Click to expand...
in a vacuum I suppose you are correct. But we are being told to contextualize the deal from Friday with any subsequent CJ/others move. In aggregate, a CJ/Powell/Roco for Fournier/Toppin/Noel, 2 picks, and scrubs from LA doesn't look great.
 
I don't think this would be a good deal for Atlanta or Boston, but if ATL is actually interested in CJ, this would work.

CJ/Snell to ATL
Smart/Gallinari to PDX
Bogdanovic/Mclemore to BOS

I think we'd have to add picks or something to sweeten the deal, but we'd stay under the cap and have two big quasi-expiring's to play with. We could send trade for $40M of players at the draft with near-expiring contracts. If we're a lottery team (and could package those two with a top 8 pick) that could be really valuable.
 
CJ ain’t going to NY. They already had an undersized, no defense SG named Kemba Walker and he’s relegated to the bench
 
illmatic99 said:
in a vacuum I suppose you are correct. But we are being told to contextualize the deal from Friday with any subsequent CJ/others move. In aggregate, a CJ/Powell/Roco for Fournier/Toppin/Noel, 2 picks, and scrubs from LA doesn't look great.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could argue they wouldn't want both Powell AND Fournier's salaries on the books as backups, so moving off of Powell made adding Fournier a little more acceptable?
I don't think there's much of anything that will make the LAC deal look good, though.
 
illmatic99 said:
in a vacuum I suppose you are correct. But we are being told to contextualize the deal from Friday with any subsequent CJ/others move. In aggregate, a CJ/Powell/Roco for Fournier/Toppin/Noel, 2 picks, and scrubs from LA doesn't look great.
Click to expand...

The horrific trade is done and over. We lost, case closed. We need to judge a CJ trade on its own.

We can judge Cronin and Jody's performance over both transactions.
 
I have zero faith in this front office making the correct trade with CJ at this point.

So I'd rather they keep him and wait until they hire a real GM.
 
I have a hard time seeing why NY is coveting CJ. But if they are, how about CJ to NY; Randle and a 1st to Atlanta; and John Collins to Portland?

I'll also say that if Cronin has Grant higher on his target list than Collins, he's an even bigger fool than he appears
 
wizenheimer said:
I have a hard time seeing why NY is coveting CJ. But if they are, how about CJ to NY; Randle and a 1st to Atlanta; and John Collins to Portland?

I'll also say that if Cronin has Grant higher on his target list than Collins, he's an even bigger fool than he appears
Click to expand...
because theyre fucking knicks and they need every good player they can get, as they cant land best players in the league

cj mccollum would be better 1st option than randle and i believe better passer too
 
illmatic99 said:
lol come on, that makes no sense. Stop peddling that bullshit. We get zero long term cap savings and take on worse players all for a pick that might not even convey this year?
Click to expand...

It may make no sense ... but the moaning you hear is Jody having an orgasm.
 
upload_2022-2-7_11-39-55.png

Randle is a better play-maker and a slightly better rebounder. Offsetting that a bit is that his assist/turnover ratio is terrible for a playmaker
 
Doing some twitter follow stalking again. Yes, I know this is largely meaningless-- meant only for fun, don't take it too seriously.

- Hankins just followed Bledsoe, but not Keon or Justise. (wouldn't think he'd do this if Bled was on the move again).
- Bledsoe also followed the Trailblazers official account.
- The official account followed all three of our new additions.
- CJ's recent follows include Eric Gordon and... @hoopsjock (congrats!)
- Dame and Nurk haven't followed anyone new.
 
wizenheimer said:
View attachment 44993

Randle is a better play-maker and a slightly better rebounder. Offsetting that a bit is that his assist/turnover ratio is terrible for a playmaker
Click to expand...
I think Collins is clearly the far more efficient player and he's more consistent/stable, but skillset wise, I might prefer Randle. Love bigs who can create. And when engaged, the dude was on an All NBA team last season-- I don't think Collins has that kinda ceiling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top