Trade Ideas 2024 Offseason

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

How many players on our current roster will we trade this offseason?

  • Total voters
    39
SharpesTriumph said:
View attachment 64661

Here's an idea, Cavs get a wing in place of Allen who doesn't fit with Mobley plus a pick, and can still trade Garland or Mitchell. Thunder get needed size. Blazers get a pick and 21 year old Giddey. Jody saves luxury tax.
Click to expand...
I doubt Cavs will participate in this trade.

IF they did, Portland should just keep Allen for themselves.
 
BTW, Utility Sports just had Ant Simons to Orlando for Black and 2 firsts and he's hardly a Blazers homer.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
If that were to happen I would move Knecht higher up my list. He could play both SG and SF.
Click to expand...

I still wouldn't. You're getting Black in the deal who is a SG known as a defensive guy. Shape your defensive identity around your prospects. Let's get bigger and more defensive minded.

Two of Holland, Williams, Buzelis, Salaun, Ware would be good. Then grab a shooter in the 2nd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
I would love it if our first trade was this.
upload_2024-5-23_13-21-22.png

So that would give us Black, pick 11, Denver's pick in next year's draft and fulfill our obligation to Chicago. I think we would waive Lonzo.

Then I'd like to see us package 7, 14 and whoever the Hawks want between Tisse and Rob... or even both guys to move up to 1.

We draft Sarr at 1 and we see who falls to us at 11 but the my target would be whoever is there between Salaun, Buzelis or Cody Williams. I actually like Cody the best out of the three.

We would come out of the draft with Black, Sarr and let's just say Williams and we'd still have Jerami to use as a trade piece to pick up even more future draft assets or young talent.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2024-5-23_13-21-22.png
    upload_2024-5-23_13-21-22.png
    545.7 KB · Views: 115
AmirIcon said:
I still wouldn't. You're getting Black in the deal who is a SG known as a defensive guy. Shape your defensive identity around your prospects. Let's get bigger and more defensive minded.

Two of Holland, Williams, Buzelis, Salaun, Ware would be good. Then grab a shooter in the 2nd.
Click to expand...

Black is an SG? He looks more like a backup PG to me.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Black is an SG? He looks more like a backup PG to me.
Click to expand...

He can play PG too. I think he can be a 1, 2, or 3 on the court. I like Knecht, but I don't think he has a particularly high ceiling. I'd rather go for a higher ceiling guy like Holland, Williams, Buzelis, Salaun or Ware. I want this franchise to start building a defensive identity. Knecht is 23 and has been bad on defensive thus far. I like him, just not enough to draft him over the other guys.
 
AmirIcon said:
He can play PG too. I think he can be a 1, 2, or 3 on the court. I like Knecht, but I don't think he has a particularly high ceiling. I'd rather go for a higher ceiling guy like Holland, Williams, Buzelis, Salaun or Ware. I want this franchise to start building a defensive identity. Knecht is 23 and has been bad on defensive thus far. I like him, just not enough to draft him over the other guys.
Click to expand...

If Black is not good at PG then I don't see the point of getting him in a trade. I doubt he can shoot as well as Rupert.

But I don't disagree about the other guys being a better option than Knecht. My point is if you trade Simons then Knecht becomes more attractive.
 
Last edited:
Pinwheel1 said:
If Black is not good at PG then I don't see the point of getting him in a trade. I doubt he can shoot as well as Rupert.

But I don't disagree about the other guys being a better option than Knecht. My point is if you trade Simons then Knecht becomes more attractive.
Click to expand...

I think Black can be a super versatile defender. I like Knecht. I wish we had another pick!
 
BigGameDamian said:
Click to expand...

Can we sneak a way into this trade to pry Daniels away from NOP? Maybe we could trade Brogdon to be a win-now starter or 6M in Cleveland and add a future 2nd?

Daniels still has to improve his shooting, sure, but he would immediately improve our defense and rebounding. Improvement on offense is going to have to improve from within. It’s going to be ugly, I get that, but we can build a defensive identity and eventually add offensive upgrades when opportunities come along.
 
BankTeller said:
Can we sneak a way into this trade to pry Daniels away from NOP? Maybe we could trade Brogdon to be a win-now starter or 6M in Cleveland and add a future 2nd?

Daniels still has to improve his shooting, sure, but he would immedit afford too many players who are below average shooting tely improve our defense and rebounding. Improvement on offense is going to have to improve from within. It’s going to be ugly, I get that, but we can build a defensive identity and eventually add offensive upgrades when opportunities come along.
Click to expand...

Depth is nice but doesn't he and Camara fill the same role? We can only afford so many below-average shooters.
 
BankTeller said:
Can we sneak a way into this trade to pry Daniels away from NOP? Maybe we could trade Brogdon to be a win-now starter or 6M in Cleveland and add a future 2nd?

Daniels still has to improve his shooting, sure, but he would immediately improve our defense and rebounding. Improvement on offense is going to have to improve from within. It’s going to be ugly, I get that, but we can build a defensive identity and eventually add offensive upgrades when opportunities come along.
Click to expand...
Not sure Daniels is who I'd target but I do like the idea of sending Brogdon out. If Cleveland trades away Garland he could be their 5th starter;

Evan Mobley
Brandon Ingram
Keldon Johnson
Donovan Mitchell
Malcolm Brogdon

That's way better positional balance for Cleveland and I like that blend of offense/defense.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Depth is nice but doesn't he and Camara fill the same role? We can only afford so many below-average shooters.
Click to expand...

I did it for the 4 conference finals teams, but I'll post the 8 semi-finals teams:

Boston: 2nd in 2ptFG% - 2nd in 3ptFG%
Cleveland: 8th in 2ptFG% - 15th in 3ptFG%
Indiana: 1st in 2ptFG% - 9th in 3ptFG%
NYK: 22nd in 2ptFG% - 14th in 3ptFG%
Dallas: 4th in 2ptFG% - 13th in 3ptFG%
OKC: 5th in 2ptFG% - 1st in 3ptFG%
Minny: 16th in 2ptFG% - 3rd in 3ptFG%
Denver: 7th in 2ptFG% - 10th in 3ptFG%

so out of 16 shooting marks, 11 were top-10, 7 were top-5. Only 2 of the 16 weren't in the top half of the league and one of those was 16th. Good shooting has become more important than good defense or good rebounding

meanwhile,

Portland: 30th in 2ptFG% - 30th in 3ptFG%

if Portland is drafting for the future, they should not draft any bad shooters. They have already cornered the market
 
wizenheimer said:
I did it for the 4 conference finals teams, but I'll post the 8 semi-finals teams:

Boston: 2nd in 2ptFG% - 2nd in 3ptFG%
Cleveland: 8th in 2ptFG% - 15th in 3ptFG%
Indiana: 1st in 2ptFG% - 9th in 3ptFG%
NYK: 22nd in 2ptFG% - 14th in 3ptFG%
Dallas: 4th in 2ptFG% - 13th in 3ptFG%
OKC: 5th in 2ptFG% - 1st in 3ptFG%
Minny: 16th in 2ptFG% - 3rd in 3ptFG%
Denver: 7th in 2ptFG% - 10th in 3ptFG%

so out of 16 shooting marks, 11 were top-10, 7 were top-5. Only 2 of the 16 weren't in the top half of the league and one of those was 16th. Good shooting has become more important than good defense or good rebounding

meanwhile,

Portland: 30th in 2ptFG% - 30th in 3ptFG%

if Portland is drafting for the future, they should not draft any bad shooters. They have already cornered the market
Click to expand...

Exactly. Although to be fair those shooting percentages by the Blazers are a little misleading. They account for 22 different players. Most of which were only there for a tryout.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Depth is nice but doesn't he and Camara fill the same role? We can only afford so many below-average shooters.
Click to expand...
Fair point about having too many below average shooters. However, Daniels can is actually be a secondary playmaker, whereas Camara has zero chance of doing so.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Not sure Daniels is who I'd target but I do like the idea of sending Brogdon out. If Cleveland trades away Garland he could be their 5th starter;

Evan Mobley
Brandon Ingram
Keldon Johnson
Donovan Mitchell
Malcolm Brogdon

That's way better positional balance for Cleveland and I like that blend of offense/defense.
Click to expand...
Yeah I couldn’t think of a good return for Brogdon. On one hand, if Brogdon doesn’t get a great return, it’d be better to keep him. On the other hand, we really can NOT afford to keep him, with the young guard talent we already have.

If Brogdon isn’t going to get even a late 1st, I would want to find a flyer on a young prospect I still believe in. I want to find a way to get into any Garland trade with Brogdon.
 
BankTeller said:
Yeah I couldn’t think of a good return for Brogdon. On one hand, if Brogdon doesn’t get a great return, it’d be better to keep him. On the other hand, we really can NOT afford to keep him, with the young guard talent we already have.

If Brogdon isn’t going to get even a late 1st, I would want to find a flyer on a young prospect I still believe in. I want to find a way to get into any Garland trade with Brogdon.
Click to expand...
Ideally we trade Brogdon this summer but if there's no protected FRP offer I'd wait until the deadline. Minimum I'd take in return is getting our pick owed to Chicago back, at the deadline.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Exactly. Although to be fair those shooting percentages by the Blazers are a little misleading. They account for 22 different players. Most of which were only there for a tryout.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that the suggestion that Portland having 22 different players posting numbers was a valid excuse. But I just checked a few teams. Minny had 19; Denver had 17; both OKC and Dallas had 22, the same as Portland. LAC had 21; Boston 19; Indiana had 22

so, it seems pretty usual for teams to cycle thru a lot of players. I'd think those teams, with playoff possibilities, might have focused more on shooting. And certainly, it's pretty likely that Portland ran thru more rookies and inexperienced players than other teams. It might be a case that Portland's bad shooters, because of inexperience, also had bad shot selection

I don't think it matters much at this point. Portland's roster is in flux, as it should be with a 21 win team. I worry that Cronin wants to reduce the flux prematurely though. In an event, the Blazers should not draft any more bad shooters
 
wizenheimer said:
I was thinking that the suggestion that Portland having 22 different players posting numbers was a valid excuse. But I just checked a few teams. Minny had 19; Denver had 17; both OKC and Dallas had 22, the same as Portland. LAC had 21; Boston 19; Indiana had 22

so, it seems pretty usual for teams to cycle thru a lot of players. I'd think those teams, with playoff possibilities, might have focused more on shooting. And certainly, it's pretty likely that Portland ran thru more rookies and inexperienced players than other teams. It might be a case that Portland's bad shooters, because of inexperience, also had bad shot selection

I don't think it matters much at this point. Portland's roster is in flux, as it should be with a 21 win team. I worry that Cronin wants to reduce the flux prematurely though. In an event, the Blazers should not draft any more bad shooters
Click to expand...
It was pretty obvious PDX didn't sign winning players, we had multiple Gleague guys starting or playing huge roles.

Portland could put out plenty of good shooters if needed, Brogdon Ant Sharpe Reath Grant. Ayton is efficient even if not stretching from 3.

Scoot shooting is a major concern - but that's only one player.

The rest of our roster is middling possible end of the rotation prospects so their shooting is pretty irrelevant until the Blazers transition to competing for the playoffs. At that time we'll just hope one or two have become rotational level players.

When drafting rookies I don't think we should under or over prioritize shooting any different than every rebuilding NBA team should. The draft is about long term value and we have no clue what those Blazers rosters will look like years from now. However if we sign some 12th man level free agent yes that would be the spot to put an emphasis on shooting. Or if we're looking at irrelevant veteran salary to eat in a trade - perhaps we should prefer shooters if selecting between different options.
 
wizenheimer said:
I was thinking that the suggestion that Portland having 22 different players posting numbers was a valid excuse. But I just checked a few teams. Minny had 19; Denver had 17; both OKC and Dallas had 22, the same as Portland. LAC had 21; Boston 19; Indiana had 22

so, it seems pretty usual for teams to cycle thru a lot of players. I'd think those teams, with playoff possibilities, might have focused more on shooting. And certainly, it's pretty likely that Portland ran thru more rookies and inexperienced players than other teams. It might be a case that Portland's bad shooters, because of inexperience, also had bad shot selection

I don't think it matters much at this point. Portland's roster is in flux, as it should be with a 21 win team. I worry that Cronin wants to reduce the flux prematurely though. In an event, the Blazers should not draft any more bad shooters
Click to expand...
Yeah the guys's he drafted so far are not what I would consider above average shooters.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Portland could put out plenty of good shooters if needed, Brogdon Ant Sharpe Reath Grant. Ayton is efficient even if not stretching from 3..
Click to expand...

a comparison: Portland had 2 players shot over 40% from three, Brogdon & Grant; and they were the only players who shot over 39%. OKC had 8 players who shot over 40% and 10 who shot over 39%

besides that, say the Blazers put together the best shooting lineup as starters: Brogdon-Ant-Thybulle-Grant-Ayton. That team would be lucky to to get 10th seed. That's a team getting their mail on a treadmill in purgatory

Brogdon and Grant have been the players most mentioned as trade chips, along with Timelord and Ant. Some of those players...the best shooters, should be moved and off the roster, so counting them as shooting credits to offset shooting debits seems unwise

SharpesTriumph said:
When drafting rookies I don't think we should under or over prioritize shooting any different than every rebuilding NBA team should. .
Click to expand...

well...who says other rebuilding teams didn't prioritize shooting? OKC sure did. Minny appeared to prioritize it. Indiana did

my point was that the NBA has evolved to the point that success seems more welded to good shooting than good defense or good rebounding. And with 1st round picks a team can essentially lock them in place for 7-9 seasons, so prioritizing shooting in a long terms sense seems wise

I do get what you're saying about looking for the best talent available. Amen Thompson is a historically bad three point shooter, but he's so good at most other aspects of the game he has significant value. But a team can't have more than one or two guys like him on the roster
 
The Wolves have the best D in the league yet they haven't shot the ball well, especially threes. Dallas has owned the 3 point against them.

We better draft one of the better shooters and prioritize shooting over athleticism.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Ideally we trade Brogdon this summer but if there's no protected FRP offer I'd wait until the deadline. Minimum I'd take in return is getting our pick owed to Chicago back, at the deadline.
Click to expand...
A FRP from a guy that will be a FA even this summer is even a big ask imo. Waiting till the deadline only diminishes his value imo unless he’s lighting it up. But depending on our guard depth, we might not be afford to keep him because there aren’t minutes to go around.

But I really hope his value is closer to what you have it as than me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top