Trade Trent

[Natebishop3]

I have officially changed my position.

After watching Gary start for most of the season, I think I would rather keep CJ. I think Trents value is high enough that he should still bring back a nice haul but his defense is overrated and he’s pretty one dimensional on offense. If his shot isn’t falling he is very nearly worthless.

I don’t want to have to pay him this summer and I don’t want him to walk away for nothing. So trade him now while he has value.

 

[damianlillard]

I have officially changed my position.

After watching Gary start for most of the season, I think I would rather keep CJ. I think Trents value is high enough that he should still bring back a nice haul but his defense is overrated and he’s pretty one dimensional on offense. If his shot isn’t falling he is very nearly worthless.

I don’t want to have to pay him this summer and I don’t want him to walk away for nothing. So trade him now while he has value.

Agree. And this is coming from a huge Trent fan. I think we can trade Trent for John Collins. Maybe Hawks don’t want him but we could send him to the pistons and they send Grant to the hawks. Obviously more players would need to be involve. But I think Trent for Collins is a pretty good deal

 

[mook]

I guess it depends on what you get. GT can be our 4th or 5th best player. He can't be our second option.

It's really hard for me to gauge how much teams value CJ. If CJ is valued around the league based on his play this year, which was borderline franchise player, that is a shit-ton of value that could be massively beneficial to the team.

If not, you can probably get nearly as much value for Trent due to his youth and upside and cheaper contract. In which case I'd rather deal Trent.

 

[JoshuaHall]

He makes like $1,000,000. Whatcha gonna trade him for?

 

[STOMP]

He makes like $1,000,000. Whatcha gonna trade him for?

I'd love to swing some sort of a package that brings back a mid to late 1st for him in this loaded next draft. Portland isn't a championship contender as currently constructed & obviously Trent's deal is about up. Get an asset back before he walks for nothing.

STOMP

 

[illmatic99]

I have officially changed my position.

After watching Gary start for most of the season, I think I would rather keep CJ. I think Trents value is high enough that he should still bring back a nice haul but his defense is overrated and he’s pretty one dimensional on offense. If his shot isn’t falling he is very nearly worthless.

I don’t want to have to pay him this summer and I don’t want him to walk away for nothing. So trade him now while he has value.

I 100% agree with you. His defensive value is overstated and he's a blackhole on offense. 40% from 3 on volume is terrific, but you look around in the NBA, that kinda production is not hard to find these days. If he gets 15-20 mil/ yr this summer, let him walk.

Trading him might net some value before the deadline.

 

[James lamphear]

I have officially changed my position.

After watching Gary start for most of the season, I think I would rather keep CJ. I think Trents value is high enough that he should still bring back a nice haul but his defense is overrated and he’s pretty one dimensional on offense. If his shot isn’t falling he is very nearly worthless.

I don’t want to have to pay him this summer and I don’t want him to walk away for nothing. So trade him now while he has value.

Is that what majority people say about CJ too if his shot not falling he kind worthless.

 

[Scalma]

No

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

Is that what majority people say about CJ too if his shot not falling he kind worthless.

It does get said sometimes but CJ has proven he can distribute when he puts his mind to it (unfortunately, he often doesn't). CJ is also a significantly better shot creator. I also think CJ is a better rebounder.

 

[JoshuaHall]

I'd love to swing some sort of a package that brings back a mid to late 1st for him in this loaded next draft. Portland isn't a championship contender as currently constructed & obviously Trent's deal is about up. Get an asset back before he walks for nothing.

STOMP

1) Mid to late first is worthless. Honestly how often do those picks work out?
2) Trent is essentially what you *wish* you got from a mid to late first.
3) Trade him for a mid to late first — bust odds are extremely high. *if* we hit we are looking at probably at least 3 years before this person is a contributor — or we “trade them for nothing” once again.
4) we don’t have to let him “walk for nothing.” We can trade CJ, which is much more likely to get us something of *actual* value. We can keep him.
5) Trading Trent for a shît first round pick is absolutely not worth it in my book.

 

[julius]

You should tweet this at the guy who "creates" art of the players heads and sells them online. Evan something.

not sure how that guy got so popular, it's not like his art looks anything more than just someone taking a picture and putting it into the edit function of a program and making it look like a drawing.

But he's a HUGE homer for Trent and Stotts.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

He can't "walk for nothing", he'll either sign a qualifying offer or he'll be matched. I don't think anyone is going to throw $20 mil/year at him.

Of course, none of us actually know his trade value, but it's likely pretty good.

As for John Collins, they want to get rid of him because he wants like 25 mil per. Obviously, the Blazers can't afford this. That's why they are looking for a lotto pick.

Trent for #15 is a no go, but Trent for #15 and Rondo, hmmm.

I like the idea of trading Trent for a non2G, and playing Ant at his best position.

I like where the OPs head is at, but not trading Trent is fine, too.

If I were Neil, I'd be looking hard at trading Rodney's contract this deadline. Packaging his contract with Trent brings interesting possibilities.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I 100% agree with you. His defensive value is overstated and he's a blackhole on offense. 40% from 3 on volume is terrific, but you look around in the NBA, that kinda production is not hard to find these days. If he gets 15-20 mil/ yr this summer, let him walk.

Trading him might net some value before the deadline.

Granted matching for Crabbe did not work out, but in theory, it was worth the chance. It is nice to have some tradeable salaries that when combined with other assets can help get you a star player.

The bottom line is I would not let him walk if he is offered 15 million. (20+ million might be a different story)

 

[Pinwheel1]

I'd love to swing some sort of a package that brings back a mid to late 1st for him in this loaded next draft. Portland isn't a championship contender as currently constructed & obviously Trent's deal is about up. Get an asset back before he walks for nothing.

STOMP

You are thinking Duarte, aren't you? I know I did.

 

[illmatic99]

Granted matching for Crabbe did not work out, but in theory, it was worth the chance. It is nice to have some tradeable salaries that when combined with other assets can help get you a star player.

The bottom line is I would not let him walk if he is offered 15 million. (20+ million might be a different story)

Trent at 15 mil is probably tradeable. That's about average these days. Trent at 20 mil is a bit annoying and forces you to keep him.

I'm just questioning his impact with CJ on board. We are going to have to pay him on potential and market value, but if he doesn't really improve from his current level, his production is fairly reproducible by mid level guys. Look at what Wayne Ellington, Cam Johnson, Malik Monk, or Danny Green are doing this year. Unless we think Gary can be a swing forward for 25 mpg and our definitive starter at 3, think we can let him go.

 

[illmatic99]

I'd love to swing some sort of a package that brings back a mid to late 1st for him in this loaded next draft. Portland isn't a championship contender as currently constructed & obviously Trent's deal is about up. Get an asset back before he walks for nothing.

STOMP

That's a terrific idea. Maximizes Trent's value, gets us out of potential tax hell, and gives us a way to acquire someone at a position where we need help. I hated giving up 2 picks for Roco-- this would mitigate that a bit.

 

[STOMP]

1) Mid to late first is worthless. Honestly how often do those picks work out?
2) Trent is essentially what you *wish* you got from a mid to late first.

1. All drafts are not the same. It's pretty much universally felt that the next draft is loaded with top talent and really deep too.
2. Trent is likely to leave this off season for nothing. Portland isn't winning a championship this season so I don't mind sacrificing in the short term to benefit the long term.

STOMP

 

[illmatic99]

1. All drafts are not the same. It's pretty much universally felt that the next draft is loaded with top talent and really deep too.
2. Trent is likely to leave this off season for nothing. Portland isn't winning a championship this season so I don't mind sacrificing in the short term to benefit the long term.

STOMP

I think the problem you'll run into is finding a team willing to give up a first rounder for a guy who will be a free agent in a few months. So you're gonna be limited to teams who won't be able to afford him in the summer, and they're generally loaded and won't want to spend 15-20 mil on a backup.

 

[illmatic99]

Trent for Jeff Teague and a protected first.

Would Ainge do that?

 

[Pinwheel1]

.
Unless we think Gary can be a swing forward for 25 mpg and our definitive starter at 3, think we can let him go.

Well, I always have thought he was a better SF than he was a SG. Not a starter as I am hopeful for Little at that position.
But he can get enough minutes at both wing positions to be effective. It is not easy covering quick guards in this league and Gary looks like he can bang with bigger slower wings better than he can cover smaller quicker ones. But that is true of most players. Hell Damon Stoudmire put up 30 on the 72-10 Chicago Bulls his rookie year. Even MJ had a hard time staying with him.

On the other hand, Gary needs to rebound better IMO. Some players have a knack for tracking where the ball will be going off the rim. I do not see that from Trent. But what he does well is spread the floor. He is a hell of a catch and shoot 3 pt shooter.

 

[Natebishop3]

When I thought Trent was a better defender it made sense to keep him over CJ. I can live with a true 3&D shooting guard making 18-20 million. But his defense is not that good. He got burned again and again last night. I really don't think he's better than CJ at defense, in fact I think it's probably a wash, so if that's the case I would rather keep CJ. He has really improved his 3 point shooting and he's a better creator overall. He's making more money, but that means Trent is easier to move.

Plus, I don't think Neil is going to split up Dame and CJ. Not while Dame is going through all this loss. I just don't see it.

 

[twobullz]

For three years I have heard nothing but give Simons time, he is young. Trent who was a second rounder that year, is heads and shoulders above Ant has a couple bad games and people want to dump him. He ends up guarding one of the best players on the other team. Why should we not adopt the same attitude towards Trent that I hear on Simons. Give him time. This is his first full season of playing he will improve his passing and rebounding. I get he is a restricted free agent, but if he doesn't want to come back, work out a sign and trade in the offseason, but I think he is the type of player you need on your team if you are going to go far. Teams don't ignore him, they don't leave him and on defense you never see teams trying to switch to attack him on defense.

 

[RR7]

I really like Trent, and you can see he's improved each year, and isn't just a spot up shooter, he has shown better handles at using a step back, etc. At 22, thee's still a ton of room for growth.

That said, I've mentioned it in numerous trade CJ threads that it seems like it should be one or the other, and I think it's more likely we get back what we want using Trent and matching salary than we do moving CJ, even if CJ is more valuable in a vacuum.

 

[blazerkor]

As expected, I disagree. Gary is playing better D than CJ ever has throughout his time next to Dame. Gary has more urgency on that end and better raw material than CJ. Gary is shooting the spot up three when CJ would pound the rock and stall the offense. When Gary is shooting that three he is just as effective as CJ is when doing the right thing. There is no way that Gary makes even close to CJ's salary next season. CJ is about where he's going to be and Gary has a ton of upside that will make an impact during Dame's prime. I think if he's seen as a second scoring option to a big that CJ's trade value is far higher than Gary's. So my mind hasn't changed.

We need a better fit as our number two player than CJ is. Gary is a great number four starter. All of this said I honestly think we'll all get to have a far more informed opinion by the time it matters because I think Olshey is going to keep both through the deadline and then (if Olshey is still with the team) make a decision after the season ends.

 

[SheedSoNasty]

Trent for Jeff Teague and a protected first.

Would Ainge do that?

Hasn’t Teague been washed for a while now?

 

[julius]

I think Portland fans are notorious for 2 camps (several actually, but I'm concentrating on 2).

1 camp says to wait on a player, and they could still grow.

The other camp says to dump a player if he's not showing growth immediately.


Look at Jerami Grant. He's going to be 27 shortly, and his career #'s are less impressive (at the same age) than Trents, and dare I say, Simons.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If he can bring us a piece to win the championship this season then you trade him. If not you hang on to and make decisions in the off season.

 

[JoshuaHall]

1. All drafts are not the same. It's pretty much universally felt that the next draft is loaded with top talent and really deep too.
2. Trent is likely to leave this off season for nothing. Portland isn't winning a championship this season so I don't mind sacrificing in the short term to benefit the long term.

STOMP

1) So you think that in a “loaded” draft someone is gonna give up a “good” pick for the honor of paying GTJ 15-20 mill +? What would incentivize a team to do this? Logically this makes absolutely no sense. Keeping in mind mid - to late - drafting teams are gonna be essentially other playoff teams. “Hey you can potentially draft the next Michael Porter Jr @ 15 or you can trade us 15 and we will let you pay GTJ 20 mill? Sound good?”

“hey Atlanta, how about you give us your frp in a “loaded” draft and you can pay Trent 20mill and Collins too, have fun!”


I can’t even think of a team that would want GTJ, doesn’t have cap space and would be willing to trade assets + pay him 20mill.

2) In my opinion, sacrificing in the short term for the benefit of the long term would be keeping Trent. You don’t develop *decent* players to ship em off for mid to late FRP’s. Sacrifice would be biting the bullet and overpaying / keeping a player that is redundant while we figured out how to truly extract value from either Trent or CJ. Sending off Trent, for what will most likely equate to garbage, is sacrificing the long term for short term gains (saving money.).

 

[illmatic99]

Hasn’t Teague been washed for a while now?

The point of that trade is to get a pick, Teague was simply a throw in who could potentially play spot PG minutes in our rotation.

 

[JoshuaHall]

I think the problem you'll run into is finding a team willing to give up a first rounder for a guy who will be a free agent in a few months. So you're gonna be limited to teams who won't be able to afford him in the summer, and they're generally loaded and won't want to spend 15-20 mil on a backup.

Ding ding ding

and they can’t already have traded their pick