The super Melo to Portland thread + The Big Blockbuster

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Should the Blazers puruse Carmelo Anthony?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Not No but Hell No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Pinwheel1 said:
I am not saying I like the proposed rumor either, but taking a devil's advocate viewpoint ......wouldn't we better? Crabbe moves over to SF, backed up by ET. Anderson starts at PF backed up by Aminu. We then have 3 shooters on the floor with Nurk and Anderson. (Vonleh could still get moved for cap space.)

Basically Aminu is as good as Harkless (Although I like Mo more) and Anderson is better than Meyers. Yes the salaries suck, but an argument could be made that we get better. Either fire Stotts or give him 3 pt shooters.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
Sarni said:
Seriously, we have so many bad contracts and are considering trading one that is actually decent for another terrible deal?
Click to expand...
It's going to be very difficult to get out of this mess. At least with Anderson he can shoot and would kind of fit.

Defense optional for the foreseeable future ... Ya know, just like normal.
 
Sarni said:
Seriously, we have so many bad contracts and are considering trading one that is actually decent for another terrible deal?
Click to expand...

headscratcher2.jpg
 
Sarni said:
Seriously, we have so many bad contracts and are considering trading one that is actually decent for another terrible deal?
Click to expand...

It feels like leverage talk.
 
Lets review

Knicks get rid of Carmelo

Blazers get screwed

Houston gets Carmelo and

images (1).jpg
 
Nikolokolus said:
Aminu is a horrific ball handler, and should receive electric shocks every time he tries to take his man off the bounce.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with that. But Harkless isn't a whole lot better. I like 3 ball handlers on the floor. So I guess we start ET at SF. Not a bad option actually if we had Anderson at PF spreading the floor.
 
TBpup said:
From what the guy tight with the Nets indicated, (posted earlier) Portland wasn't high on getting Anderson and would rather have other pieces. If it is RA, they want a pick to go with it.

FWIW.
Click to expand...

I hate that reasoning. If you don't like a player, how is a draft pick going to change anything unless it is a unprotected high lottery pick? Same reason I thought it was ridiculous to think we would try to dump one of our bad contracts by adding a simple draft pick.
Either you want the player and his contract or you don't. A draft pick should not change things, unless we are talking about a one year deal.....which we are not.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I hate that reasoning. If you don't like a player, how is a draft pick going to change anything unless it is a unprotected high lottery pick? Same reason I thought it was ridiculous to think we would try to dump one of our bad contracts by adding a simple draft pick.
Either you want the player and his contract or you don't. A draft pick should not change things, unless we are talking about a one year deal.....which we are not.
Click to expand...

I agree.....but they are trying to get rid of some other contracts they want as well so if they can pick up a future asset for their trouble, I'm guessing that is what they are thinking.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I hate that reasoning. If you don't like a player, how is a draft pick going to change anything unless it is a unprotected high lottery pick? Same reason I thought it was ridiculous to think we would try to dump one of our bad contracts by adding a simple draft pick.
Either you want the player and his contract or you don't. A draft pick should not change things, unless we are talking about a one year deal.....which we are not.
Click to expand...
An asset is an asset. Swapping one crap-sack player on a bad deal for another overpaid, one-track pony shouldn't reasonably entitle the Blazers to an unprotected pick.
 
According to Zach Lowe, when the Rockets tried to shop around Ryan Anderson's deal, other GMs wanted two first-round picks as compensation. That's the starting point for what Olshey needs to be demanding. In reality, Anderson plus two first-rounders makes more sense for a cap-lean team that wants to leverage their cap space--that's not where Portland is and every added albatross contract makes re-signing Nurkic harder. So realistically, Portland shouldn't be involved unless they're getting total rip-off terms.
 
If we get Anderson to go with Meyers, Turner and Crabbe, we have $70M locked for the next 3 seasons in dreadful deals, and zero cap flexibility. It makes it incredibly hard to extend Nurkic too, because if we do, we are looking at paying an extremely high luxury tax going forward.

I will still support him if he comes but I don't want him here at all.
 
Minstrel said:
According to Zach Lowe, when the Rockets tried to shop around Ryan Anderson's deal, other GMs wanted two first-round picks as compensation. That's the starting point for what Olshey needs to be demanding. In reality, Anderson plus two first-rounders makes more sense for a cap-lean team that wants to leverage their cap space--that's not where Portland is and every added albatross contract makes re-signing Nurkic harder. So realistically, Portland shouldn't be involved unless they're getting total rip-off terms.
Click to expand...

Rockets don't really have 2 1st rounders to give.
 
Nikolokolus said:
An asset is an asset. Swapping one crap-sack player on a bad deal for another overpaid, one-track pony shouldn't reasonably entitle the Blazers to an unprotected pick.
Click to expand...
If HOuston wants Anthony enough, it does.
 
Sarni said:
If we get Anderson to go with Meyers, Turner and Crabbe, we have $70M locked for the next 3 seasons in dreadful deals, and zero cap flexibility. It makes it incredibly hard to extend Nurkic too, because if we do, we are looking at paying an extremely high luxury tax going forward.

I will still support him if he comes but I don't want him here at all.
Click to expand...

Biebs leaves in the discussed scenario.
 
Nikolokolus said:
An asset is an asset. Swapping one crap-sack player on a bad deal for another overpaid, one-track pony shouldn't reasonably entitle the Blazers to an unprotected pick.
Click to expand...

Of course it does not entitle us to a HIGH unprotected pick. That was my point. That type of an incentives won't happen, and is why I wouldn't trade for a player that I am not interested in getting just to get a mediocre asset. Which is what the post was about. (The Blazers not wanting Anderson without a pick)

Sure if it was one bad contract for another bad contract of equal proportions, than yes the added asset might be worth it. But not if you really don't like the guy you are getting. Especially when one contact is twice as much as the other 2. Those are harder to move if the player gets injured.....again
 
2 am in New York gonna guess it's not happening tonight.
 
Minstrel said:
I preferred being bored to this. If this goes through, Olshey has given up on playing defense--let Nurkic play defense until he fouls out and otherwise try to outshoot the other team.

Oh well, the Blazers weren't winning the title anyway. Shootouts are, at least, a fun way to lose.
Click to expand...


My fear is Nurkic will tire, stress, and ultimately injure himself having to anchor such a piss-poor defense.
 
Blazers would be the Rockets on steroids. The same rockets that won 55 games. We pretty much have two Hardens, guys that can score whenever they want and take over a game. We have a dynamic center, not just a rim runner. Blazers would be unstoppable offensively. If we're going to suck on defense, might as well put on a show.
 
RipCityDSCPL said:
Share with the rest of the class Fez!
Click to expand...


3658400.jpg
 
Scalma said:
Blazers would be the Rockets on steroids. The same rockets that won 55 games. We pretty much have two Hardens, guys that can score whenever they want and take over a game. We have a dynamic center, not just a rim runner. Blazers would be unstoppable offensively. If we're going to suck on defense, might as well put on a show.
Click to expand...

If Anderson starts at the 4 they should put AC at the 3 and go balls deep. 4 shooters in Stotts offense with Nurk setting screens would be a blast... on one end of the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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