Trade Ideas Thread

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)
Status
Not open for further replies.
SlyPokerCat said:
Philly probably would want a pick or two along with a Kuminga. Wiseman or Moody. My guess is gsw would be ok adding some extra because of what Green has been saying and Simmons is younger
Click to expand...

yeah likely need fillers picks to make everyone happy but it sure looks feasable and something that should make each of the teams better im thinking.

i doubt phili will get moody and wiseman along with cj though. But then were talking about Morey here….he probably will still think he should get more.
 
Orion Bailey said:
would you do cj to phili, simmons to gsw and green to us?

id do it because i think we need that point forward to allow dame to play more off ball to get easier shots and allow more energy to be expelled on defense.
Click to expand...
I don't get the reason to do that.

I see both Simmons & Green as players with similar flaws. At this point in their careers, I think Ben is a better player (and will be going forward too).
 
tester551 said:
I don't get the reason to do that.

I see both Simmons & Green as players with similar flaws. At this point in their careers, I think Ben is a better player (and will be going forward too).
Click to expand...

dont get it from which perspective?

gsw gets younger, phili gets the win now players they need
And portland balances out a severely imbalanced roster.
Can you expand on that?
 
Orion Bailey said:
dont get it from which perspective?

gsw gets younger, phili gets the win now players they need
And portland balances out a severely imbalanced roster.
Can you expand on that?
Click to expand...
I assume what he doesn't get is why we'd deal CJ for Green instead of just dealing for Simmons. And of course the answer(s) to that is:
  1. Green is a better shooter and smarter player;
  2. Green would cost a lot less;
  3. Green would be more interested in playing here (with Dame) than Simmons would;
  4. GSW would include additional assets to meet PHI's asking price.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I assume what he doesn't get is why we'd deal CJ for Green instead of just dealing for Simmons. And of course the answer(s) to that is:
  1. Green is a better shooter and smarter player;
  2. Green would cost a lot less;
  3. Green would be more interested in playing here (with Dame) than Simmons would;
  4. GSW would include additional assets to meet PHI's asking price.
Click to expand...

funny. I just responded in a other thread saying basically the same things. :)

:cheers:
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I assume what he doesn't get is why we'd deal CJ for Green instead of just dealing for Simmons. And of course the answer(s) to that is:
  1. Green is a better shooter and smarter player;
  2. Green would cost a lot less;
  3. Green would be more interested in playing here (with Dame) than Simmons would;
  4. GSW would include additional assets to meet PHI's asking price.
Click to expand...
I think Green's shooting is very inefficient so I don't see the first point as being a benefit for us.

Green does cost less and would cost us less in terms of draft assets and possibly young players, that's for sure.

The narrative that Simmons wouldn't be interested in playing with Dame was pulled out of the ass of a local sports talk radio host in the Bay Area and I don't buy it.

I think what's missing is that Simmons is both much much bigger than Dray, much much more athletic and five years younger. The other thing that's unappealing for me about Dray is that he was not good as a second option this last season and has been the best when he was clearly the third or fourth option.
 
blazerkor said:
I think what's missing is that Simmons is both much much bigger than Dray, much much more athletic and five years younger. The other thing that's unappealing for me about Dray is that he was not good as a second option this last season and has been the best when he was clearly the third or fourth option.
Click to expand...
obviously Simmons is bigger, better, and younger, and that's why he would cost more, both in terms of money and assets. But the second option thing is a red herring--nobody wants Green to be the second or even third option here, so that thing that's unappealing about him should be a non-issue.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
obviously Simmons is bigger, better, and younger, and that's why he would cost more, both in terms of money and assets. But the second option thing is a red herring--nobody wants Green to be the second or even third option here, so that thing that's unappealing about him should be a non-issue.
Click to expand...

id add in that greens bbiq is top notch. NOt sure i can say that about simmons. He is living on freakish abilities. Not smarts.
 
Orion Bailey said:
id add in that greens bbiq is top notch. NOt sure i can say that about simmons. He is living on freakish abilities. Not smarts.
Click to expand...
Truth. As @Minstrel was saying earlier, Simmons is a superlative individual defender, but Green is a brilliant team defender, both in knowing how to respond and rotate, as well as how to communicate to the rest of his team to elevate their defensive performance. We need that.
 
illmatic99 said:
Dame was actually Draymond's first guest on his show last year.



"It's important for me to win a championship here."

"Look at Dirk. That's the person I look at and be like 'it's worth it."

"If we can build a team here... why not here? We haven't won one since 77."

"If I can have ONE like that.."

This was 11 months ago.
Click to expand...


What's also pretty key in that interview is how Green says Kerr didn't have confidence in him and that HE felt slighted by his own coach.
After making 3s he'd look at his own coach to stop doubting him.
 
I gotta admit, being a referee I couldn't STAND Draymond. I'm really starting to come around to him really just as a human being.

If we trade for him, I won't be mad at all. He'd do wonders for our defense.
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm not sure how much you should gauge RoCo by his offense since he carries a Batum-level low usage rate. He's always been a 4th option on offense

but if you go by defense, and track back thru 82games data, he's always defended SF's better than he has PF's. The numbers are pretty conclusive. Now, he'll turn 31 next season so maybe he's on the verge of losing a step, but even last season in Portland, RoCo defended SF's better.

certainly, the line between SG and SF started to be blurred a decade ago; and the line between SF and PF has become blurred over the last 2-3 seasons. So maybe, it doesn't matter much. But a team that has a high-level, big, mobile PF is going to have an advantage most nights because of that blurring
Click to expand...

I don't buy into the advanced metrics largely, so that argument's not going to move me at all. It's only a part of the equation. There are too many variables that really can't be reasonably figured in (for instance, which SFs he's guarding, how often he's guarding that position, who are the prime offensive players on those teams, what are his help responsibilities for the Blazers, etc.). I watch him and see a guy who is kind of rigid who can't jump. He's going to get exposed by better, and especially, more athletic wings. I feel pretty confident in that being increasingly true, especially the more he plays the 3.

The observation about offense doesn't matter what option he is, because that is very dependent on who is around him. If you put him on the floor with Dame, Norm, Porzingis and Nurk, someone needs to handle the ball unless you want Dame to do it every possession and to be trapped into retirement. Someone needs to be able to get the ball to the bigs who can't get the ball themselves. You need at least a somewhat competent ballhandler. Playing RoCo at the 3 means you basically have four players on the court who need a point guard to create a shot for them. It can work, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

RoCo's value on both sides of the floor in that kind of a lineup is one of diminishing returns.
 
Keep an eye on Detroit and Memphis. Both teams have too many guaranteed contracts. They need to fix that. Sources say Grizzlies small forwards Dillon Brooks and Kyle Anderson are available for the right price. The Pistons are expected to look at dumping either Jahlil Okafor or 2019 No. 15 pick Sekou Doumbouya.
https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/2021...avaliers-do-anything-else-this-offseason.html

Also mentions that Cleveland might be shopping Nance. I’d take all those guys except Okafor.
 
Scalma said:
Keep an eye on Detroit and Memphis. Both teams have too many guaranteed contracts. They need to fix that. Sources say Grizzlies small forwards Dillon Brooks and Kyle Anderson are available for the right price. The Pistons are expected to look at dumping either Jahlil Okafor or 2019 No. 15 pick Sekou Doumbouya.
https://www.cleveland.com/cavs/2021...avaliers-do-anything-else-this-offseason.html

Also mentions that Cleveland might be shopping Nance. I’d take all those guys except Okafor.
Click to expand...
DJJ and a Lotto Protected 1st for Nance. Please!!!
 
BonesJones said:
DJJ and a Lotto Protected 1st for Nance. Please!!!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't protect the pick unless the protection was that it turned into a second rounder if it fell in the lottery. I wouldn't want to tie up any of our other picks because I think there are more moves than upgrading DJJ to be made.
 
Trading first round picks lotto protected or not for role players isn’t a very good strategy. Those are assets that could be used for bigger trades, if not to fill out a roster with young, cheapish talent.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
I just read that Cleveland earlier turned down multiple (2?) late first round picks for Nance.
Click to expand...

pretty dumb of them tbh lol. Reminds me of the magic when they turned down a similar package for Gordon, only to trade him for less a couple months later.
 
Scalma said:
Trading first round picks lotto protected or not for role players isn’t a very good strategy. Those are assets that could be used for bigger trades, if not to fill out a roster with young, cheapish talent.
Click to expand...
I will say if the Blazers could trade for Lauri Markkanen with just using future picks, and not touching core role players, i'd do it in a second. IMO he just needs a change of scenery. He has the ability to really help a team, now.
 
Trade machine ok'd it, even though , of course, that's not the be all, end all.
 
tykendo said:
I will say if the Blazers could trade for Lauri Markkanen with just using future picks, and not touching core role players, i'd do it in a second. IMO he just needs a change of scenery. He has the ability to really help a team, now.
Click to expand...

guys that “just need a change of scenery” shouldn’t cost a first round pick imo. If we’re giving up first rounders it should be for proven vets that are impact players, if not all stars. I just don’t think a Markkanen, or a Nance, or a Kyle Anderson would make a big enough difference to sacrifice the opportunity to grab an all star caliber player if/when one becomes available later.
 
I'd rather take the chance on Bagley for a first round pick + DJ than gamble on an RFA like Lauri. Stats are similar but they have different skillsets. I think Bagley has a higher ceiling and probably more attainable for cheaper.
 
Scalma said:
guys that “just need a change of scenery” shouldn’t cost a first round pick imo. If we’re giving up first rounders it should be for proven vets that are impact players, if not all stars. I just don’t think a Markkanen, or a Nance, or a Kyle Anderson would make a big enough difference to sacrifice the opportunity to grab an all star caliber player if/when one becomes available later.
Click to expand...
I get what your saying. But if you can add a quality player NOW, before training camp, just feel it has more value to the team, than at the deadline. And could help the team get off to a better start. Sure! You're mortgaging the future for today, but isn't that what ALL the contenders are doing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top