Trade DEADline fallout: The Aftermath

[illmatic99]

Naw it's absolutely not, because only two players would have changed our trajectory in a meaningful way and they were traded for one another KD for Bridges. EVERYONE else, was a rotation guy at best. Sure some would have been great fits and talent I would have liked to add, but we don't know what it would have cost us. Avoiding a panic trade of Ant or ESPECIALLY Sharpe, in an ALREADY (come to Jesus it was fait accompli boys) lost season was the right move. We also stockpiled assets. Sure, I would have loved to get KD obviously, but look at what Phoenix paid! We didn't have the assets due to the Olshey Chicago pick protections. Could we have removed them? Maybe. I haven't heard any news about us turning down a Sharpe/Ant trade for KD so I just don't think we were ever really in the running. So lets just end this false narrative that we missed out on guys who would have allowed us to compete for a Championship this year, because only two mega talents moved (KD and Kyrie) and one of them was at our most overstocked position (Kyrie) and the other we never had a shot at (KD). Bridges would have been great, but the cost of Bridges was KD so...yeah let's stop making stuff up.

This is quite a strawman response when I very clearly was talking about going for singles.

Not sure what you're responding to me for while talking about Bridges and KD while I was talking about Bey and Wiseman in my post.

 

[BankTeller]

uhhhh....the comparison I was making is not the one you're getting exercised about. I know Bridges is better....geeeeezuz

The comparison I was making is that both players have multi-dimensional tool boxes. Bridges is definitely better, yes. But there's not a chance in hell the Blazers could have added Bridges or will add Bridges any time soon. But they did have Hart and decided they wouldn't or couldn't keep him

You brought up Hart’s stats from one game and mentioned how just because we weren’t willing to bring Hart back for $18m/year, there’s no way we would’ve been paying $23m/year for bridges. That legit was the point of what you said, nothing about multi-dimensional tools or ANYTHING of that sort.

You don’t have to admit that you made a bad comparison, but don’t ‘geeeezus’ somebody because you didn’t make your point clear lmao.

And to the point of being “multi-dimentional”, less than 10ppg and alittle over 8rpg is not multi-dimensional enough to pay $18+m/year for to be a SF for us. I still don’t understand your point if that was the one you were trying to initially make.

 

[wizenheimer]

You brought up Hart’s stats from one game and mentioned how just because we weren’t willing to bring Hart back for $18m/year, there’s no way we would’ve been paying $23m/year for bridges. That legit was the point of what you said, nothing about multi-dimensional tools or ANYTHING of that sort.

You don’t have to admit that you made a bad comparison, but don’t ‘geeeezus’ somebody because you didn’t make your point clear lmao.

And to the point of being “multi-dimentional”, less than 10ppg and alittle over 8rpg is not multi-dimensional enough to pay $18+m/year for to be a SF for us. I still don’t understand your point if that was the one you were trying to initially make.

LOL...yeah right. How did you get to 18M/year?

GEEEEEEEEEZUZZZZ

 

[Idog1976]

This is quite a strawman response when I very clearly was talking about going for singles.

Not sure what you're responding to me for while talking about Bridges and KD while I was talking about Bey and Wiseman in my post.

you said:

"As opposed to not even taking a swing?"

Which you then clarified was swinging for singles. This is false then, Cronin took swings and landed Reddish, a possible 1st, a grip of 2nds and Thybulle all clearly singles+ so if you mean not taking a swing at singles he did so...?

"Dont get me wrong. I don't really care that we didnt put all our chips on the table now. More upset that we didn't even bother trying to hit a single (Bey or Wiseman instead of 2nd rounders).Had glaring needs to add size... Guys were available, we decided to punt the season while watching Dame kill himself in his best season. It's gross negligence when you think about it."


How does adding Wiseman or Bev (who Dame hates) suddenly make Dame not killing himself and us not punting the season? You can't simultaneously complain about a lack of singles, and then say it's gross negligence because Dame is killing himself and claim only the singles part was said and I straw manned the big names. So if it's singles, then how are we punting the season by not going for singles?

Consider that

A) We did go for and achieved singles and perhaps a double if we get that 1st.

and

B) None of those guys is preventing Dame from killing himself and the season from being punted. That would require the aforementioned KD or (big reach IMO), Bridges as being enough to put us in contention. Aka, a Big Swing.

Btw saying we punted the season and Dame is killing himself due to lack of "taking a swing" HEAVILY IMPLY you meant a BIG swing which was what I responded to at length. Therefore, it was not a strawman, but a response to the implication we failed to take a LARGE swing which would have gotten Dame help so he's not killing himself, and put us into contention thereby NOT punting the season. I responded to your implied statement.

 

[BankTeller]

LOL...yeah right. How did you get to 18M/year?

GEEEEEEEEEZUZZZZ

I’m really just not interested in trying to convince you of anything. We’ll just see in July I guess.

 

[HoopsFanAZ]

Josh Hart on 3/12/22....44 points on 15-21 shooting; 6-9 on three's; 8-8 from FT line; 8 rebounds, 6 assists, 4 steals

but apparently Chauncey decided he wasn't a scorer, and the Vulcans decided they couldn't afford his next contract. Bridges will make more than 23M/year over the next 3 seasons. Why would anyone think the Vulcans would agree to pay Bridges when they wouldn't pay Hart?

First, I’ve always enjoyed your history of analyzing trades and trade ramifications and free agent shopping going back quite awhile as they make for reasonable arguments.

As it stands, Ant, Sharpe and Nas get the non-Dame minutes at 1, all at 2 and a chunk of 3. In no scenario would I see Hart as a good answer starting at SF … nor as a starting SG unless the SF was a whole bunch better than what the Blazers have. Hart (shooting 3s version) vs. (best of) Wesley Matthews? I’d go with WM for his 3s but it’s not that far apart, overall. With Sharpe and/or Ant around, Hart is off the bench and best as a minutes-eating-6th-man at SG/SF.

Hart had the right-sized contract in trade, but with JHEC and the upcoming, long-term pay bump AND the need to free up future picks for an all-in move at SF — which is a narrow path for a contending team in the Dame era — well, Hart was the answer-that-fit to set it up. It’s too bad as I’d prefer him over the higher ceiling Nas (who I do like as a 6th man).

From the low end of Anunoby to Siakam to Bridges … to add to Dame, Sharpe, Grant … that’s the hope I have … and the hill to die on.

 

[wizenheimer]

First, I’ve always enjoyed your history of analyzing trades and trade ramifications and free agent shopping going back quite awhile as they make for reasonable arguments.

As it stands, Ant, Sharpe and Nas get the non-Dame minutes at 1, all at 2 and a chunk of 3. In no scenario would I see Hart as a good answer starting at SF … nor as a starting SG unless the SF was a whole bunch better than what the Blazers have. Hart (shooting 3s version) vs. (best of) Wesley Matthews? I’d go with WM for his 3s but it’s not that far apart, overall. With Sharpe and/or Ant around, Hart is off the bench and best as a minutes-eating-6th-man at SG/SF.

Hart had the right-sized contract in trade, but with JHEC and the upcoming, long-term pay bump AND the need to free up future picks for an all-in move at SF — which is a narrow path for a contending team in the Dame era — well, Hart was the answer-that-fit to set it up. It’s too bad as I’d prefer him over the higher ceiling Nas (who I do like as a 6th man).

From the low end of Anunoby to Siakam to Bridges … to add to Dame, Sharpe, Grant … that’s the hope I have … and the hill to die on.

I think people misunderstood what I was getting at...which was a couple of things

the first was just a response to people getting worked up about the numbers from one of Bridges games. They were good numbers but Hart put up arguably better numbers in a game last season.

the other point was the obvious one that it sure seems the Vulcans have set a ceiling for maximum Blazer payroll below the tax line. We can hope that Seattle would be willing to go over the tax line now that the repeater-tax clock has been completely re-set, but that may be wishful thinking. So yeah, Hart was the most likely goner with Payton 2nd. That's how it worked out. But it is worth keeping in mind just how good Hart was for Portland this season and how hard he worked to fit into the role Chauncey had obviously assigned him; and that he was capable of playing above that role

And I agree that Dame-Sharpe-Grant are the most obvious keepers; in that order too. Blazer have about 107-108M in guaranteed payroll and dead salary next season. But that's only for 7 players. That will leave around 50M in room below the tax line. Blazer free agents include Grant-Reddish-Thybulle-Winslow-Eubanks. If you assume Grant gets 30M next season, Portland would have to add 6 players for no more than 20M....or go into the tax....6 players for less than 3.5M per player? it's possible, obviously, but they won't be good players. Back of bench guys mostly

which exposes the elephant in the room and that's the 43M/year the Blazers are paying for Ant/Nurkic. Either there needs to be give in that 43M or the Vulcans have to approve luxury tax. Or, the Blazers will muddle around with Ant/Nurk starting and wondering why they can't get better

 

[Samuel]

Totally agree it was great, but only in a Neil Olshey-sense. No needle-movers were obtained.

I didn’t love the deadline but TBF, the Neil Olshey experience wasn’t ‘marginal asset acquisition’, it was ‘marginal asset depletion’ for near-term gain and only a medium upgrade.

The Nurkic + a first trade is the only trade I can remember where Portland ended up with more draft capital afterward and got a flier as well.

+2 TPEs, +3 2r picks, +1 protected firsts, +2 RFA fliers. It’s not sexy but it’s not bad.

The only issue is that this pushes an ‘all-in’ window out to the deadline unless you’re dealing Ant or Nurk as the matching salary.

 

[Idog1976]

I think people misunderstood what I was getting at...which was a couple of things

the first was just a response to people getting worked up about the numbers from one of Bridges games. They were good numbers but Hart put up arguably better numbers in a game last season.

the other point was the obvious one that it sure seems the Vulcans have set a ceiling for maximum Blazer payroll below the tax line. We can hope that Seattle would be willing to go over the tax line now that the repeater-tax clock has been completely re-set, but that may be wishful thinking. So yeah, Hart was the most likely goner with Payton 2nd. That's how it worked out. But it is worth keeping in mind just how good Hart was for Portland this season and how hard he worked to fit into the role Chauncey had obviously assigned him; and that he was capable of playing above that role

And I agree that Dame-Sharpe-Grant are the most obvious keepers; in that order too. Blazer have about 107-108M in guaranteed payroll and dead salary next season. But that's only for 7 players. That will leave around 50M in room below the tax line. Blazer free agents include Grant-Reddish-Thybulle-Winslow-Eubanks. If you assume Grant gets 30M next season, Portland would have to add 6 players for no more than 20M....or go into the tax....6 players for less than 3.5M per player? it's possible, obviously, but they won't be good players. Back of bench guys mostly

which exposes the elephant in the room and that's the 43M/year the Blazers are paying for Ant/Nurkic. Either there needs to be give in that 43M or the Vulcans have to approve luxury tax. Or, the Blazers will muddle around with Ant/Nurk starting and wondering why they can't get better

Agree with all of this. We need to trade Nurk even if we have to pay to do so. Horrible signing and big mistake. The only hope is that we bundle Nurk and Ant plus picks for an All-Star Wing. Seems a bit wishful thinking unless we have all our future picks and maybe another pick to offer. Ant + Nurk + 4 FRP's could land a top shelf player and that's exactly the kind of move we need to look at.

 

[Idog1976]

I didn’t love the deadline but TBF, the Neil Olshey experience wasn’t ‘marginal asset acquisition’, it was ‘marginal asset depletion’ for near-term gain and only a medium upgrade.

The Nurkic + a first trade is the only trade I can remember where Portland ended up with more draft capital afterward and got a flier as well.

I thought we did well consider NO's innumerable awful moves, and also Joe correcting his own mistake in GPII. Turning Hart into what looks like a first in a deep draft was incredible, and turning GPII into a heap of 2nd's was also amazing. So I'm curious can anyone answer vis-a-vis these 2nds that are future seconds that may or may not convey (meaning they have value now that could increase or decrease dramatically when that draft comes along) are we able to trade those? If so, it's a no brainer to trade those ones while they have potential value for something with actual value.

 

[Whyachi]

We got a pick, we got a pick! The better the Knicks do, the worse that pick gets. I'll go out on a limb and say Knicks pick lands #22. The Blazers better start tanking quick if they want to make a splash in the draft.

 

[HailBlazers]

Prime Wessy Wes was the perfect backcourt mate for Dame. Stellar perimeter D and clutch 3. Add Dunking into that and you got, Sharpe?

 

[Samuel]

I'm curious can anyone answer vis-a-vis these 2nds that are future seconds that may or may not convey (meaning they have value now that could increase or decrease dramatically when that draft comes along) are we able to trade those? If so, it's a no brainer to trade those ones while they have potential value for something with actual value.

I think they have ‘some’ marginal value as a trade chip but not much. Those types of seconds are about as valuable as ‘the draft rights to Ramic Pskitiushivic (45 year old retired Slovakian center)’.

They’re slightly more valuable because they have optical PR value. ‘Hey, we got a HAUL for GP2!’ (2 of the picks are almost assuredly not conveying…).

 

[Samuel]

which exposes the elephant in the room and that's the 43M/year the Blazers are paying for Ant/Nurkic.

I don’t think either of those contracts are especially egregious for starting-level players. We can debate Nurkic’s effective value as a player given his injury history, but statistically he’s about average, and his $15-19M number will look better as the cap continues to rise (to wit, full MLE guys are getting over $11M next year!). The bigger issue with Nurk is that most teams only want to carry one player like him, and a lot of the musical chairs are full—making a suitor harder to find.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Prime Wessy Wes was the perfect backcourt mate for Dame. Stellar perimeter D and clutch 3. Add Dunking into that and you got, Sharpe?

Not only dunking but a mid-range game as well. Wes was good but far from a perfect mate for Dame. He was not a good ball handler and he was not a great passer. He was very much a 3 and D SG. Sharpe will get better as a ball handler/passer IMO and be a great backcourt mate next to both Dame and Ant. Add Thybulle and we are set in the backcourt.

What I want to see is a few games with this lineup.
Dame, Sharpe, Grant, Watford, Nurk