Time to trade CJ

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)
BonesJones said:
I fucking hate how everytime the team plays well without C.J.... or when Gary Trent Jr. plays well... It becomes "We're better without C.J."
Click to expand...

how many times have you posted about how well CJ does when Dame doesn't play?
 
RR7 said:
Fun fact! We average about 4 less assists per game in the games without CJ playing so far this year.
Click to expand...

fun fact...Nurkic has missed the same games so Portland is averaging 4 less assists without CJ AND Nurkic
 
Last edited:
BonesJones said:
I fucking hate how everytime the team plays well without C.J.... or when Gary Trent Jr. plays well... It becomes "We're better without C.J."
Click to expand...
We're not better without CJ... I mean this season we are winning more games with him and Nurk gone but the truth is we aren't better. There just is no drop off without him and we're paying him around 1/3 of our salary cap and giving him as many minutes as Dame. Those are some misallocated resources. While we might not be significantly better as a team without CJ, Dame is better without him and our defense is better without him. Maybe we are better without him but that's not really the point.

The main thing is, we could get something of worth for him. So if the team is just as good without him and Nurk as they are with him and Nurk, then why not cash him and Nurk in for something that adds to the team that is doing great on the floor right now? That something shouldn't need to be of equal value like we're trading dollars for dollars. It just has to make the team playing right now better than CJ and Nurk returning would.
 
Fez Forthright said:
primarily a PF.

He has no problem playing with Myles Turner - both average 30+ mpg together.
Click to expand...

Natebishop3 said:
What is Indy's motivation to make that trade?
Click to expand...

Watch Myles Turner move, then watch Nurk move... is there a difference? Sabonis is a lumbering PF playing with an athletic C. Nurk and Sabonis would both be lumbering around and that would be a problem. Then there's Nate's point which is very well made.
 
blazerkor said:
We're not better without CJ... I mean this season we are winning more games with him and Nurk gone but the truth is we aren't better. There just is no drop off without him and we're paying him around 1/3 of our salary cap and giving him as many minutes as Dame. Those are some misallocated resources. While we might not be significantly better as a team without CJ, Dame is better without him and our defense is better without him. Maybe we are better without him but that's not really the point.

The main thing is, we could get something of worth for him. So if the team is just as good without him and Nurk as they are with him and Nurk, then why not cash him and Nurk in for something that adds to the team that is doing great on the floor right now? That something shouldn't need to be of equal value like we're trading dollars for dollars. It just has to make the team playing right now better than CJ and Nurk returning would.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said. We are not better without CJ.

But I do see the advantage of trading him for an excellent SF or PF who can create their own offense, handle the ball, and play D.
That is a no-brainer if you can get that star. Either way, you are paying out about the same amount of salary, but you are adding a player at a position of need AND you are replacing CJ with Gary. So yes this summer I would take a Tatum or a Jimmy Butler for CJ and a couple of young assets (ie Little/Simons)

However, I don't think we can get a star, and rather than trade CJ for an average player, I would rather roll with Dame, Trent, Little, Nurk/Kanter, and Covington.....and bring CJ off the bench as our 6th man. I know that some will think he would not accept that role but I think that is bullshit. Vets who have "gotten paid" are less likely to sulk than players who have not. Winning then becomes the most important thing to them. And either way, CJ will get his minutes. And if Dame goes down for a short time, we have CJ there to fill in. So sure if we can get a star that wants out of his current situation I would do it. But I would not give away CJ just to get rid of his salary.
 
blazerkor said:
Watch Myles Turner move, then watch Nurk move... is there a difference? Sabonis is a lumbering PF playing with an athletic C. Nurk and Sabonis would both be lumbering around and that would be a problem. Then there's Nate's point which is very well made.
Click to expand...

But you’re in favor of getting Julius Randle, right? He’s shorter than Sabonis, but outweighs him by ten pounds or so. Is he any less lumbering?
 
Last edited:
is Portland better without CJ?...probably not. Would Portland be better if they traded CJ for a high level starter at SF or PF? probably

but....

* since CJ became the starting SG in 2015, Portland has a .557 winning percentage which translates to an average of 45.7 wins/year

* over the last 3 seasons, Portland is 22-10 without CJ which is a .688 winning percentage which translates to an average of 56.4 wins/year

* in the two extended stretches of multiple games CJ has missed in the last 3 years, Portland is 19-7 which is a .731 winning percentage which translates to 60 wins/year


*************************************************************

obvious sample size issues, and CJ is better than he used to be, but comparing CJ as a 24 year old 1st year starter, to Trent as a 22 year old starter this season:

points/game: CJ 20.8....Trent 19.9
FGA/game: CJ 17.9....Trent 15.7
points/FGA: CJ 1.16....Trent 1.27
3ptFG%: CJ .417....Trent .462
eFG%: CJ .517....Trent .571
FT%: CJ .827....Trent .840
TS%: CJ .544....Trent .602

assists/game: CJ 4.3....Trent 1.7
rebounds/game: CJ 20.8....Trent 19.9

obviously CJ is a better passer. Not only that, Trent is probably guilty of more hooplock than CJ....and CJ is notorious for that. Trent is a much more efficient shooter than CJ was, but again, sample size. CJ posted those numbers after going thru the highs and lows of a season. Trent's 13 game sample size does not reflect any slumps yet

and of course none of that accounts for defense. While I think Trent is overrated as a defender by many, I do think he's better than CJ

but just looking at those numbers as a adjunct to the eye test, I'd say Trent is a lot more Klay-Thompson-Robin to Dame's Batman. Meanwhile, CJ is a lot more Monta-Ellis-Robin to Dame's Batman....and we know how that worked out

*********************************************************

problem is, if you assume CJ traded for a SF or PF, who do you go with and what are you looking for while assuming the combo of Trent/Ant/Jones/Hood could cover CJ's absence? And how much of CJ's shot creation needs to be replaced?
 
Last edited:
Pinwheel1 said:
I agree with a lot of what you said. We are not better without CJ.

But I do see the advantage of trading him for an excellent SF or PF who can create their own offense, handle the ball, and play D.
That is a no-brainer if you can get that star. Either way, you are paying out about the same amount of salary, but you are adding a player at a position of need AND you are replacing CJ with Gary. So yes this summer I would take a Tatum or a Jimmy Butler for CJ and a couple of young assets (ie Little/Simons)

However, I don't think we can get a star, and rather than trade CJ for an average player, I would rather roll with Dame, Trent, Little, Nurk/Kanter, and Covington.....and bring CJ off the bench as our 6th man. I know that some will think he would not accept that role but I think that is bullshit. Vets who have "gotten paid" are less likely to sulk than players who have not. Winning then becomes the most important thing to them. And either way, CJ will get his minutes. And if Dame goes down for a short time, we have CJ there to fill in. So sure if we can get a star that wants out of his current situation I would do it. But I would not give away CJ just to get rid of his salary.
Click to expand...
I love the idea of CJ off of the bench. That was what he was drafted for but somehow we got away from that and decided he should start next to Dame. That decision will not change. Stotts has shown his inflexibility with who starts.

So we will be a worse team when CJ and Nurk return. Dame will be underutilized, CJ will pound the rock too much and pass up the open jumpers that Gary is currently taking and hitting and CJ's defense will hurt the team compared to Gary's. CJ is so talented but he just does not belong on this team but all of this is a preposterous conversation because my hopeful dreams of Neil ever pulling his head out of his ass and realizing these things is not going to happen.
 
wizenheimer said:
is Portland better without CJ?...probably not. Would Portland be better if they traded CJ for a high level starter at SF or PF? probably

but....

* since CJ became the starting SG in 2015, Portland has a .557 winning percentage which translates to an average of 45.7 wins/year

* over the last 3 seasons, Portland is 22-10 without CJ which is a .688 winning percentage which translates to an average of 56.4 wins/year

* in the two extended stretches of multiple games CJ has missed in the last 3 years, Portland is 19-7 which is a .731 winning percentage which translates to 60 wins/year


*************************************************************

obvious sample size issues, and CJ is better than he used to be, but comparing CJ as a 24 year old 1st year starter, to Trent as a 22 year old starter this season:

points/game: CJ 20.8....Trent 19.9
FGA/game: CJ 17.9....Trent 15.7
points/FGA: CJ 1.16....Trent 1.27
3ptFG%: CJ .417....Trent .462
eFG%: CJ .517....Trent .571
FT%: CJ .827....Trent .840
TS%: CJ .544....Trent .602

assists/game: CJ 4.3....Trent 1.7
rebounds/game: CJ 20.8....Trent 19.9

obviously CJ is a better passer. Not only that, Trent is probably guilty of more hooplock than CJ....and CJ is notorious for that. Trent is a much more efficient shooter than CJ was, but again, sample size. CJ posted those numbers after going thru the highs and lows of a season. Trent's 13 game sample size does not reflect any slumps yet

but just looking at those numbers as a adjunct to the eye test, I'd say Trent is a lot more Klay-Thompson-Robin to Dame's Batman. Meanwhile, CJ is a lot more Monta-Ellis-Robin to Dame's Batman....and we know how that worked out

*********************************************************

problem is, if you assume CJ traded for a SF or PF, who do you go with and what are you looking for while assuming the combo of Trent/Ant/Jones/Hood could cover CJ's absence? And how much of CJ's shot creation needs to be replaced?
Click to expand...

I don’t have a problem with your major premise that trading CJ for a SF or PF is a good idea, as long as the guy the Blazers get is the right SF or PF. By that, I mean a guy with a near All Star game and under 30 years of age. I’m not interested in guys on the downside of their careers. Aldridge, Griffin, and Love need not apply unless it’s a Vet’s Min contract next year.

Your stats are interesting, but I doubt they hold up over a season because I don’t think Dame’s body holds up to this work load over a full season.
 
I think Boston is the target, but Ainge is a fucking moron so he probably wouldn't go for it.

If we could take Kemba's albatross contract off their books and in the process get Taytum, I think that would solve our problems.

upload_2021-2-18_12-39-45.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2021-2-18_12-29-1.png
    upload_2021-2-18_12-29-1.png
    127.2 KB · Views: 3
Neil certainly has put himself in a position where he can make a trade and improve the team. You're naive if you dont think Neil is aware that Dames clock is ticking. Expect the un-expectable!
 
Natebishop3 said:
I think Boston is the target, but Ainge is a fucking moron so he probably wouldn't go for it.

If we could take Kemba's albatross contract off their books and in the process get Taytum, I think that would solve our problems.

View attachment 37003
Click to expand...

The Celtics aren't trading Tatum for CJ and Ball just to get out from under Walker's deal. Tatum (and, to a lesser extent, Brown) is basically their only reason for optimism about the future.
 
Minstrel said:
The Celtics aren't trading Tatum for CJ and Ball just to get out from under Walker's deal. Tatum (and, to a lesser extent, Brown) is basically their only reason for optimism about the future.
Click to expand...

Shit did I do it wrong? I thought I included more than CJ and Ball.
 
e_blazer said:
Your stats are interesting, but I doubt they hold up over a season because I don’t think Dame’s body holds up to this work load over a full season.
Click to expand...

I don't see the workload being any heavier than it has been with CJ if Portland makes a good trade
 
Natebishop3 said:
Shit did I do it wrong? I thought I included more than CJ and Ball.
Click to expand...
They're not doing it with Collins, Giles, Simons and a 1st added in either. That's a terrible package for a 23 year old putting up 26/7/5
 
Maybe Boston should get rid of that spectacular coach that seems to underachieve every year. They were supposed to be title contenders 2 years ago.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Shit did I do it wrong? I thought I included more than CJ and Ball.
Click to expand...

Right, a bunch of random flotsam totally changes the equation. This reminds me of people playing sports video games in the 1990s and sending 10 terrible players to a rival NPC GM for a superstar, because 10 ones equaled one 10.
 
blazerkor said:
I love the idea of CJ off of the bench. That was what he was drafted for but somehow we got away from that and decided he should start next to Dame. That decision will not change. Stotts has shown his inflexibility with who starts.
Click to expand...

Is this really true? it seems to me he has tried various starting line ups. The only one in question is CJ. And up to this point, there has not really been another option. Now (since the bubble which is not that long ago) there is. I think it is possible if the team ends up this half of the season on a roll, Terry can convince CJ (and Nurk) that coming off the bench is best for the team, much like he did with Melo.
 
Last edited:
e_blazer said:
But you’re in favor of getting Julius Randle, right? He’s shorter than Sabonis, but outweighs him by ten pounds or so. Is he any less lumbering?
Click to expand...
He is, just watch him move. He's very fast for his size, has a great first step, good lateral movement and he's just much lighter on his feet. After watching more film I don't think it's fair to call Sabonis lumbering either but Randle is more athletic. Neither guy is an ideal fit with Nurk but I don't necessarily think Nurk is the best fit for the team either. The best thing about Randle is that he gets his own shot and passes much better than Sabonis.

If we are keeping Nurk and we're very likely going to keep everybody and so this won't even matter, I would still get either one of these guys over CJ. I just think that CJ fits better with the Knicks than the Pacers and we could get both Randle and Rivers for CJ and save a ton of money going into an off season where we'll need it.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Is this really true? it seems to me he has tried various starting line up. The only one in question is CJ. And up to this point, there has not really been another option. Now (since the bubble which is not that long ago) there is. I think it is possible if the team ends up this half of the season on a roll, Terry can convince CJ (and Nurk) that coming off the bench is best for the team, much like he did with Melo.
Click to expand...
I'd absolutely love that, I just don't think Stotts would do it but I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
 
Minstrel said:
Right, a bunch of random flotsam totally changes the equation. This reminds me of people playing sports video games in the 1990s and sending 10 terrible players to a rival NPC GM for a superstar, because 10 ones equaled one 10.
Click to expand...

I think you're underselling CJ. I think he could be a 30 ppg scorer in the east as the #1 option.
 
Trading deadline or off season they going have to make there minds between CJ or Trent because there not going be able afford both of them. Yes we can match Trent but olshey might don't have any choice if management above him tells don't go over the cap.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I think you're underselling CJ. I think he could be a 30 ppg scorer in the east as the #1 option.
Click to expand...

You really play this both ways--in advocating for CJ being dealt away, you say he's useless, the team is better without him and he makes everyone else worse because he's selfish. Then you turn around and act like all other teams should be happy to trade away their stars or superstars for CJ.

You're extreme in both directions. CJ isn't a selfish player who makes others worse, but he's also not worth two-way stars from other teams, much as we'd like to have them on the Blazers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Minstrel said:
You really play this both ways--in advocating for CJ being dealt away, you say he's useless, the team is better without him and he makes everyone else worse because he's selfish. Then you turn around and act like all other teams should be happy to trade away their stars or superstars for CJ.

You're extreme in both directions. CJ isn't a selfish player who makes others worse, but he's also not worth two-ways stars from other teams, much as we'd like to have them on the Blazers.
Click to expand...

Please, point me to where I have ever said that CJ is useless. That's absurd hyperbole.

He is selfish. He plays better as a #1 option. We don't need him to be a #1 and he's not a point guard. With that said, I think he could be a real star as the primary option on another team. He puts up good numbers. He's a good player. We don't need him anymore. He's a luxury we don't need. Trent fits our need better, so why wouldn't we want to trade him for another position of need?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top