Trade Ideas 2024 Offseason

[PtldPlatypus]

Nearly every mock has guys like Sheppard/Dilli/Topic around 5. These are guys we most likely would not touch regardless of where we ended in the lotto.

It's why I asked my previous question: who are we getting at 5 that won't be available at 7?

Hypothetically (looking at NBADraftRoom's mock), Castle at 5 and then Williams at 7.

And is that worth giving up our best player for?

Yes, actually I think Castle probably is worth giving up Ant (irrespective of Ant's skill level compared to the rest of our team). The salary savings and the still-uncertain-future of Jaden Ivey are just fringe benefits.

I don't deny that there might be better deals available for him, and I get that my opinions are certainly in the minority, but I'm ready to move on.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Any young team like Detroit who is above us in the lottery would just take Reed (or Knech) instead of trading additional value to get Ant.

I agree with this.

 

[illmatic99]

Hypothetically (looking at NBADraftRoom's mock), Castle at 5 and then Williams at 7.


Yes, actually I think Castle probably is worth giving up Ant (irrespective of Ant's skill level compared to the rest of our team). The salary savings and the still-uncertain-future of Jaden Ivey are just fringe benefits.

I don't deny that there might be better deals available for him, and I get that my opinions are certainly in the minority, but I'm ready to move on.

Noted. Clearly we differ in opinion on Ant's value.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You can make this point without the lecture about general forum opinions.

And yes, I see Ant at his contract as higher value than the #5 pick in this draft.

Wow. I think we should definitely trade Ant for #5 if that's the case. I don't think we should trade him for cap relief, but getting a #5 out of him and the opportunity to turn that into a big athlete seems tough to pass up.

*Edit* But maybe this draft is just all time bad and there is nobody good? I'm no draft expert. It just seems like historically you could get a much better player than Ant at #5 almost any draft.

 

[illmatic99]

I don't understand the pressing need to trade away a 24yr old guard averaging 23 ppg on good effeciency with a reasonable contract.

There are far more contracts on this roster who make much less sense for a rebuild (Grant/Thybulle/Brogdon/etc).

Trading our young guard and best player for a third lottery pick in the shittiest draft in decades makes very little sense to me, especially if we're keeping the other old dudes with worse contracts still on the roster. This is the type of head scratching directionless move that Cronin is famous for.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Noted. Clearly we differ in opinion on Ant's value.

Which is completely fine. And honestly, I would be thrilled to see Ant traded for something better than the package discussed. Have you given an indication in this trade ideas thread as to what you believe would be reasonable value for him? (I'm admittedly too lazy to look)

 

[wizenheimer]

It's why I asked my previous question: who are we getting at 5 that won't be available at 7? And is that worth giving up our best player for?

no, it's not worth it to move up just 2 slots in this particular draft. Other drafts...maybe, depending on the salary coming back

and I think it's debatable saying Ant is Portland's best player. Grant-Ayton-Brogdon are all at about the same level offensively and aren't as big of sieves on defense

 

[SharpesTriumph]

You can make this point without the lecture about general forum opinions.

And yes, I see Ant at his contract as higher value than the #5 pick in this draft.

Well sure, I can do a lot of things, or I can not.

 

[illmatic99]

Which is completely fine. And honestly, I would be thrilled to see Ant traded for something better than the package discussed. Have you given an indication in this trade ideas thread as to what you believe would be reasonable value for him? (I'm admittedly too lazy to look)

No. I would trade Ant for an established similar caliber talent at a position that makes sense. Guys like Franz Wagner, Okongwu, DeAndre Hunter, Kuminga, etc make sense to me.

The #5 pick in this draft ain't it.

I also am hesitant to trade him without getting a more definitive idea of Scoot/Shae being the future. We don't know that yet.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Noted. Clearly we differ in opinion on Ant's value.

I've always been one of the few big Ant supporters here but saying on a 25 million contract he is worth more than #5 is nuts to me.

I'm all for keeping Ant if we can't get good value, but happy to move on if we can take a swing for something better like we could at #5.

 

[illmatic99]

I've always been one of the few big Ant supporters here but saying on a 25 million contract he is worth more than #5 is nuts to me.

I'm all for keeping Ant if we can't get good value, but happy to move on if we can take a swing for something better like we could at #5.

25 mil is less than 20% of the salary cap. It will be even better with the anticipated spike in the coming years. After this upcoming free agency, he might end up around the 70th highest paid player in the league.

Yes, that is a reasonable contract for his production.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I don't understand the pressing need to trade away a 24yr old guard averaging 23 ppg on good effeciency with a reasonable contract.

There are far more contracts on this roster who make much less sense for a rebuild (Grant/Thybulle/Brogdon/etc).

Trading our young guard and best player for a third lottery pick in the shittiest draft in decades makes very little sense to me, especially if we're keeping the other old dudes with worse contracts still on the roster. This is the type of head scratching directionless move that Cronin is famous for.

I'm all for keeping Ant if we don't get good return, yes Id try to trade away Brogdon or Grant first.

But saying Ant is our best player while possibly true just doesn't matter to me. This franchise doesn't have a single above average starter, and Ant (like Dame/CJ) with bad D is difficult to build a roster around so I'm all for moving on if we can get a nice asset.

If we needed to win next season then perhaps Ant scoring would be a real need. But the Blazers are so far away from that mattering that Ants immediate contributions just aren't that relevant to the Blazers long term.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

No. I would trade Ant for an established similar caliber talent at a position that makes sense. Guys like Franz Wagner, Okongwu, DeAndre Hunter, Kuminga, etc make sense to me.

The #5 pick in this draft ain't it.

I also am hesitant to trade him without getting a more definitive idea of Scoot/Shae being the future. We don't know that yet.

Franz and Kuminga are just worth way more, Ant doesn't have that value.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't understand the pressing need to trade away a 24yr old guard averaging 23 ppg on good effeciency with a reasonable contract.

There are far more contracts on this roster who make much less sense for a rebuild (Grant/Thybulle/Brogdon/etc).

Trading our young guard and best player for a third lottery pick in the shittiest draft in decades makes very little sense to me, especially if we're keeping the other old dudes with worse contracts still on the roster. This is the type of head scratching directionless move that Cronin is famous for.

I certainly also would like to see the other vets dealt as well. As it stands presently, however, Ant is the one player whose presence on the roster seems to conflict with the desire to pursue/develop a future superstar (given the hopes for Scoot/Sharpe). Of course, after this draft the same might be able to be said of Grant, but even so he still seems more versatile/well-rounded than Ant.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

The #5 pick in this draft ain't it.

I also am hesitant to trade him without getting a more definitive idea of Scoot/Shae being the future. We don't know that yet.

None of us know what #5 will be worth as we don't know who will be available there nor how well they will develop. Sure you can project, doesn't mean your right.

I don't see why Scoot/Sharpe development or lack of it matter much with keeping Ant. We have a massive hole of talent all over this roster so keeping or sending our Ant shouldnt depend on those guys.

Either Ant is worth more than the asset we could acquire and we don't do a trade, or he's worth less and we should do it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Franz and Kuminga are just worth way more, Ant doesn't have that value.

I would tend to agree with this stance (not surprising, given that we have already stipulated that @illmatic99 and I differ vastly in terms of perception of Ant's value)

 

[SharpesTriumph]

25 mil is less than 20% of the salary cap. It will be even better with the anticipated spike in the coming years. After this upcoming free agency, he might end up around the 70th highest paid player in the league.

Yes, that is a reasonable contract for his production.

Yes I think it's a reasonable contract, and I think Ant does have value.

But I think the #5 pick is on a much much better contract, a great contract, as well as having more upside. I'd greatly prefer #5.

 

[illmatic99]

I certainly also would like to see the other vets dealt as well. As it stands presently, however, Ant is the one player whose presence on the roster seems to conflict with the desire to pursue/develop a future superstar (given the hopes for Scoot/Sharpe). Of course, after this draft the same might be able to be said of Grant, but even so he still seems more versatile/well-rounded than Ant.

He's also 6 yrs older and paid 80 mil more with 2 extra yrs on his deal.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

no, it's not worth it to move up just 2 slots in this particular draft. Other drafts...maybe, depending on the salary coming back

Nobody's talking about just "moving up"--we're discussing adding the 5 to the 7 we already have.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

He's also 6 yrs older and paid 80 mil more with 2 extra yrs on his deal.

Again, I'm still in favor of trading him. And honestly, I think he'd be more likely to generate a decent return. Though I doubt the Pistons want him back, so we'd probably have to find a different trade partner

But really, the 2 extra years on Grant's contract don't bother me.

 

[wizenheimer]

Nobody's talking about just "moving up"--we're discussing adding the 5 to the 7 we already have.

yeah, I got a little lost.....Somebody said Ant + 7 for Keldon Johnson + 4 and it immediately morphed into a discussion on #5

Ant for 5 with no salary coming back is interesting but Detroit has no cap-space

 

[Ed O]

Again, I'm still in favor of trading him. And honestly, I think he'd be more likely to generate a decent return. Though I doubt the Pistons want him back, so we'd probably have to find a different trade partner

But really, the 2 extra years on Grant's contract don't bother me.

It will be fascinating to see, if and when we trade him, what value we get (or give up) to move Grant.

The Blazers got him for essentially a first and two seconds (and unfortunately we still need to send those in 2025 and 2026) along with Detroit not having to take any contracts back since we had a trade exception.

He's now two years older, he's had two more injury-shortened years (that's four in a row now, for those keeping track!), and he's owed $132m over the next four (while he was only owed $21m for a single year at the time the Blazers acquired him).

I look at that and I wonder... do we get a second rounder? Do we have to give up a second rounder to get rid of him? While it hurts that we won't have the Bucks' first rounder next year, the amount of value we gave up for Grant just wasn't that much, and he's less valuable now than he was two years ago, so... **shrug**

 

[Pinwheel1]

If I were Orlando I would seriously look at Ant, #7, #14 for Franz. They get his replacement at #7

Now I said Orlando should offer it, I am not saying Portland should accept it. Not if Cody Williams is available.
But Orlando does have the cap space to do it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

yeah, I got a little lost.....Somebody said Ant + 7 for Keldon Johnson + 4 and it immediately morphed into a discussion on #5

Ant for 5 with no salary coming back is interesting but Detroit has no cap-space

It would have to be a pre-draft trade agreed to be consummated after the beginning of the new league year (at which point Detroit would have plenty of cap space).

 

[illmatic99]

It would have to be a pre-draft trade agreed to be consummated after the beginning of the new league year (at which point Detroit would have plenty of cap space).

Also, we haven't really talked about why Detroit wants another guard when they have Cade/Ivey/Sasser on board...

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Also, we haven't really talked about why Detroit wants another guard when they have Cade/Ivey/Sasser on board...

Well, they would be sending Ivey over, and they need outside shooting. Ant and Cade would complement each other nicely.

 

[illmatic99]

Well, they would be sending Ivey over, and they need outside shooting. Ant and Cade would complement each other nicely.

I must have missed this. Detroit is trading Ivey/#5/salary filler for Ant?

Seems like a stretch. Even with the Ivey misfit with Portland's roster, value play makes it a no brainer

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I must have missed this. Detroit is trading Ivey/#5/salary filler for Ant?

Seems like a stretch. Even with the Ivey misfit with Portland's roster, value play makes it a no brainer

Kinda what I've been saying. Which, BTW, is why I originally said it would be unlikely to happen.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don't understand the pressing need to trade away a 24yr old guard averaging 23 ppg on good effeciency with a reasonable contract.

There are far more contracts on this roster who make much less sense for a rebuild (Grant/Thybulle/Brogdon/etc).

Trading our young guard and best player for a third lottery pick in the shittiest draft in decades makes very little sense to me, especially if we're keeping the other old dudes with worse contracts still on the roster. This is the type of head scratching directionless move that Cronin is famous for.

It's not pressing for me, other than he's taking minutes other players need (and he's not the kind of player I want to build around).

But if we can get a better player who will fit our future better I think we should do it. It seems like we should be able to do that picking #5 almost any draft. It's not a guarantee, but...

 

[Natebishop3]

Moving up makes no sense unless you think there's someone at the top who you think can be a significant difference maker.

If that's Risacher or Buzelis, but there's a good chance that someone equally as interesting could drop to 7.

So really the only reason to move up is because this is a year that high lottery picks might be available. And we have veterans to move. So we could potentially roll the dice on multiple guys from this draft in hopes that they develop into stars.