Trade Ideas Thread (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only possibility would be if Cleveland decided to stretch him and make him a FA -- that would be the only reason why "papers on the table" would be at all meaningful.

Agree that this sounds like complete BS.
 
I think Klove and Olshey were playing Magic the Gathering at a restaurant, that was the “papers”.
 
glazeduck said:
Not that I've got a lot of dogs in this fight (plus it has pretty much petered out) but teams are looking at the addition of high school kids back into the draft as essentially a "double draft" where effectively 2 freshman classes will be available at once. So to your point, it's not that any pick becomes "slightly" more valuable, it's basically doubling in value.
Click to expand...

If that was something that can be quantified then the draft pick should be more valuable in a trade and able to bring back a better player then right?. Not really buying into the doubling value aspect though. For example, this past draft was judged to be pretty weak after the 4th or 5th pick and can likely pick up a player at 20 that could be better than a player at 10. Now if you add in the high school class to that draft and and there is no studs coming out of high school or even if there were 3 or 4, would our draft pick really have been any better than what we got? Now it's all hypothetical as there will be surprises that were drafted later and likely some busts that were in the lottery or in the mid to late teens. Little was expected to be a possible lottery pick but he slipped to us at 25. Would that have changed if high school kids were in the draft? Maybe, but likely not or at least not much. I still stick to my contention that I would trade that pick if a good deal came along that improves us for the now in Lillards prime. Draft picks aren't a proven commodity and more don't make it than those that do.
 
BonesJones said:
Why would they need to do that? His contract ots set in stone. Olshey could get a copy and read it in hours office. Love already knows his contract. That tweet is BS for the gullible.
Click to expand...

actually contracts aren't necessarily set in stone as incentives can be negotiated such as if he has a trade kicker and can be waived if he approves. That clause is now not set in stone anymore. It's gone.
 
CupWizier said:
If that was something that can be quantified then the draft pick should be more valuable in a trade and able to bring back a better player then right?. Not really buying into the doubling value aspect though. For example, this past draft was judged to be pretty weak after the 4th or 5th pick and can likely pick up a player at 20 that could be better than a player at 10. Now if you add in the high school class to that draft and and there is no studs coming out of high school or even if there were 3 or 4, would our draft pick really have been any better than what we got? Now it's all hypothetical as there will be surprises that were drafted later and likely some busts that were in the lottery or in the mid to late teens. Little was expected to be a possible lottery pick but he slipped to us at 25. Would that have changed if high school kids were in the draft? Maybe, but likely not or at least not much. I still stick to my contention that I would trade that pick if a good deal came along that improves us for the now in Lillards prime. Draft picks aren't a proven commodity and more don't make it than those that do.
Click to expand...

It's obviously way too early, but just looking at an early mock draft for next season, the first 13 picks are all international or incoming freshmen. The top 13! And 18 out of the top 20. Again, it's early. Does it guarantee anything about how they turn out? Of course not. Nobody is saying that. But, in what people called a weak draft, if the "double draft" happened to start this year, that would be dumping all of next year's predicted lottery choices into this draft. That obviously solidifies the draft quite a bit.
 
RR7 said:
It's obviously way too early, but just looking at an early mock draft for next season, the first 13 picks are all international or incoming freshmen. The top 13! And 18 out of the top 20. Again, it's early. Does it guarantee anything about how they turn out? Of course not. Nobody is saying that. But, in what people called a weak draft, if the "double draft" happened to start this year, that would be dumping all of next year's predicted lottery choices into this draft. That obviously solidifies the draft quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it won't improve the draft but also like you mentioned it is way to early to evaluate the players. I just don't think it makes the pick that more valuable to hang on to. Like i mentioned if it is so valuable keeping it, then it should be equally valuable in a trade. We have limited trade assets with a team that is a win now team and need to continue to improve this roster and building around our core of Lillard, McCollum and Nurkic. If that draft pick is considered a boon, then use it to add to our core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
CupWizier said:
actually contracts aren't necessarily set in stone as incentives can be negotiated such as if he has a trade kicker and can be waived if he approves. That clause is now not set in stone anymore. It's gone.
Click to expand...
There's exceptions but theirs no such amendment that'd be currently relevant to Olshey and Love right now other than a trade kicker and they wouldn't need to set out papers on a table in public to discuss that. People seriously believed that tweet...? Smh.
 
CupWizier said:
I'm not saying it won't improve the draft but also like you mentioned it is way to early to evaluate the players. I just don't think it makes the pick that more valuable to hang on to. Like i mentioned if it is so valuable keeping it, then it should be equally valuable in a trade. We have limited trade assets with a team that is a win now team and need to continue to improve this roster and building around our core of Lillard, McCollum and Nurkic. If that draft pick is considered a boon, then use it to add to our core.
Click to expand...
Agree on the second part of all that. I have no issue with sending out a pick if it's perceived higher value nets us a better return. Of course, my issue would be more tying up an asset that far in the future, and hampering deals with picks because of it. But am in agreement on moving it in the right deal
 
CupWizier said:
Even if it made it slightly more valuable i would not hesitate to use it in a trade that improves the team. Potential and upside is just way to subjective, especially when it is a hs player.
Click to expand...

The Nets thought the same and gave up a draft pick for Gerald Wallace. Oops.

Draft picks are an inexact science but it's a great way to add talent.
 
BonesJones said:
There's exceptions but theirs no such amendment that'd be currently relevant to Olshey and Love right now other than a trade kicker and they wouldn't need to set out papers on a table in public to discuss that. People seriously believed that tweet...? Smh.
Click to expand...

Now i will openly admit i have no idea if they met and if they did or did not layout papers and i look at it with some skepticism, but i would never say it didn't happen without some evidence.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
The Nets thought the same and gave up a draft pick for Gerald Wallace. Oops.

Draft picks are an inexact science but it's a great way to add talent.
Click to expand...

Giving up the draft pick wasn't the dumbest part. Only top 3 proteccting it was the bonehead move of the year.
 
Just curious, would you deal CJ for Butler straight across in a s&t?

Idk if I would because of age, but Butler is better.
 
GhostOfPGA said:
Just curious, would you deal CJ for Butler straight across in a s&t?

Idk if I would because of age, but Butler is better.
Click to expand...

without hesitation. Butler is only 6 months older than Dame and he's a hell of a lot better than CJ. I think he'd mesh with Dame a lot better than CJ does as well
 
I am not sure Butler meshes with anyone. Not for long anyway. He will soon be going on his 4th team in 24 months. I would trade for him, just not for CJ. Either way I doubt he would want to come here if he was replacing CJ. The team would not be that great. He has better options.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I am not sure Butler meshes with anyone. Not for long anyway. He will soon be going on his 4th team in 24 months. I would trade for him, just not for CJ. Either way I doubt he would want to come here if he was replacing CJ. The team would not be that great. He has better options.
Click to expand...

maybe I'm confusing you with somebody else, but it sure seems I've seen you talk about how close Portland was this year...'they were in the WCF!!'

Now, with the idea of upgrading from CJ to Butler (and for sure it would be an upgrade), you say the team "would not be that great". Looks like you're standing on both sides of the fence
 
wizenheimer said:
maybe I'm confusing you with somebody else, but it sure seems I've seen you talk about how close Portland was this year...'they were in the WCF!!'

Now, with the idea of upgrading from CJ to Butler (and for sure it would be an upgrade), you say the team "would not be that great". Looks like you're standing on both sides of the fence
Click to expand...

You are correct. You are confusing me with someone else.
 
CupWizier said:
Giving up the draft pick wasn't the dumbest part. Only top 3 proteccting it was the bonehead move of the year.
Click to expand...

Literally every player on the NBA champions including the best player in the league were not top 3. More amazing not one of them was even lottery pick.

Picks in the middle of the first round can have great value, they also are on cheap contracts so the team can acquire another player in trade/free agency.

I'm not opposed to trading draft picks in beneficial situations. We did that to add Mason Plumlee which was a good move. But saying we should trade draft picks primarily because they have risk is asinine.
 
glazeduck said:
That's really interesting, but also incredibly anomalous. Just because it happened once doesn't mean it's the path to follow.
Click to expand...

I agree it was unusual. But it blows a hole in the Shaq/Duncan championship theory that the key to building an NBA title contender is a top 5 lottery pick, ideally the #1 pick.

The 73 win warriors won a title without a top5 pick as well.

The MVP of the league and the MVP of the finals were both picked outside the lottery.

My point was draft picks have a ton of value even outside the very top of the draft, potentially far into the first round. Of course many picks don't pan out, but many also do, and the ones that do can lead to MVP players.
 
Last edited:
Fez Forthright said:
They're shopping him.
Click to expand...
Only thing I can find indicating that suggests that they would only deal him if they needed to open up more cap space to sign a 2nd max FA. This proposal doesn't help them do that.

Are you seeing something different?
 
OSUBlazerfan said:
Who says no?

View attachment 26711
Click to expand...
That's actually really intriguing on several levels.
--For Portland, we upgrade both forward spots, put a bigger better defender (Bazemore) in the backcourt with Dame, and potentially open up a slot for Simons if he blows up this year the way some are predicting.
--For Cleveland, they get a legit star SG to pair with Garland, and get out from under Love's contract.
--For Minnesota, they get a young PG who can pair with Towns, and allow them to switch their FA focus from Russell to a wing.

My first inclination is that the Blazers say no, just because CJ is a known quantity, and Love/Covington both have injury concerns. But it's really interesting.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
That's actually really intriguing on several levels.
--For Portland, we upgrade both forward spots, put a bigger better defender (Bazemore) in the backcourt with Dame, and potentially open up a slot for Simons if he blows up this year the way some are predicting.
--For Cleveland, they get a legit star SG to pair with Garland, and get out from under Love's contract.
--For Minnesota, they get a young PG who can pair with Towns, and allow them to switch their FA focus from Russell to a wing.

My first inclination is that the Blazers say no, just because CJ is a known quantity, and Love/Covington both have injury concerns. But it's really interesting.
Click to expand...

That's why i posted it :). Covington's contract is AMAZING especially after the summer of 19 which i feel will be worse than the summer of 16. Cleveland can't keep Sexton and Garland, i dont think. Minnesota needs a PG as their sniffing around for Russell but cant get him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top