We got the #3 pick. Discuss the possibilities.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

What are you hoping for with this pick?

  • Total voters
    98
We dont necessarily need to trade 3 for one all star, we could address a number of things we actually need, point of attack Defender, rebounder, and bench strength.
Rather than Ingram, get Trey Murphy (shooter), Herb Jones (tenacious) defender, their 14th pick & future picks. Wouldn't need to give up Simons right away if at all. Could still make some tweaks.
 
Last edited:
Predator said:
Bridges and Claxton
Ingram + Herb + 14

These are about the only non-bullshit trades I see, preferably the first one.

Siakam for a 1yr rental... no thanks

JB not realistic...

We will see...

I think Brooklyn comes around on draft night...
Click to expand...

I would even say the first one is bullshit as well. Would you do that if you were the Nets? I would not.
Bridges and Claxton are two pretty good pieces to build on for them as well.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I would even say the first one is bullshit as well. Would you do that if you were the Nets? I would not.
Bridges and Claxton are two pretty good pieces to build on for them as well.
Click to expand...

We saw what it built them, a play-in or 8th seed and out team. Bridges is already 27. If I was the Nets, I would absolutely trade Bridges (role player) and Claxton (role player) for a guy who projects to be a superstar at 19 years old on a rookie deal. That team isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
 
Hoopguru said:
We dont necessarily need to trade 3 for one all star, we could address a number of things we actually need, point of attack Defender, rebounder, and bench strength.
Rather than Ingram, get Trey Murphy (shooter), Herb Jones (tenacious) their 14th pick & future picks. Wouldn't need to give up Simons right away if at all. Could still make some tweaks.
Click to expand...
I seriously question people that want to see more Dame and Ant. I also question people that would want to bury Ant's talent and 24+M on the bench because we should keep him even though he is obviously a bad fit playing with Dame.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I would even say the first one is bullshit as well. Would you do that if you were the Nets? I would not.
Bridges and Claxton are two pretty good pieces to build on for them as well.
Click to expand...

yeah, I think the 3 has good value but suddenly it and Ant are worth both Bridges and Claxton? doesn't seem credible
 
TBpup said:
Nice player, but I don't want to give up the #3 AND the pieces necessary to meet cap requirements.
Click to expand...

We are in between. Ant + #3 is too much. Ant + #23 isn't enough.
What about Ant + #3 for Siakam + #13?
 
TBpup said:
Nice player, but I don't want to give up the #3 AND the pieces necessary to meet cap requirements.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was thinking that Siakam is basically only worth pick 3 if it's Scoot. So we would need to get a third team involved that could give us value back for Ant and send expiring contracts to Toronto... maybe Orlando.
 
SwissBlazer said:
We are in between. Ant + #3 is too much. Ant + #23 isn't enough.
What about Ant + #3 for Siakam + #13?
Click to expand...

that gets it pretty close, IMO, but a couple things that impact the equation: Siakam will have an expiring contract and could walk in a year; Portland would have to add more to make the deal work...like Little and Keon
 
SwissBlazer said:
We are in between. Ant + #3 is too much. Ant + #23 isn't enough.
What about Ant + #3 for Siakam + #13?
Click to expand...

I looked at that and the Draft takes a drop off for me at 10/11. After that, there isn't a ton of difference for me between 12 to around mid 20s. I'm also looking at the future cost as PS has one year left and will want a SuperMax contract after that. We would be paying Dame/Siakam near $90,000,000/year for a team that I still don't believe is a legit contender.
 
wizenheimer said:
that gets it pretty close, IMO, but a couple things that impact the equation: Siakam will have an expiring contract and could walk in a year; Portland would have to add more to make the deal work...like Little and Keon
Click to expand...

On Fanspo with next season's salaries, it seems to work. But not on ESPN with this year's salaries. Adding a bit more on our side shouldn't be a deal breaker I would say. Or just wait until the 1st of July?
 
AmirIcon said:
Getting Bridges and Claxton would be a win, but I'd feel more comfortable if it was Miller we were trading rather than Scoot. Miller's projected high-end tops out at a Middleton/Bridges level player.

Scoot can be much more than that.
Click to expand...
Here's where I disagree with Lloyd / pretty much everyone who loves Scoot. His projected high-end might top out higher, but his projected number of championships is likely going to be lower because point guards who play like him have never won a championship. Most of them don't even get close.

It's not like he's going to be a Kawhi-level defender (frankly he doesn't have the size to do that anyway even if he was some Marcus Smart-level-defender) and unstoppable offensively. People act like Scoot is the next MJ and forget MJ was one of the best defenders of all time.

Trae Young and Donovan Mitchell are better players with more upside than Pascal Siakam, but if I were trying to win a championship and was forced to pick between those 3 players, I'd pick Pascal every day that ends in 'Y'.





 
SwissBlazer said:
On Fanspo with next season's salaries, it seems to work. But not on ESPN with this year's salaries. Adding a bit more on our side shouldn't be a deal breaker I would say. Or just wait until the 1st of July?
Click to expand...
Fanspo is a little wonky these days. It'd have to be Simons and Little to match the salary.
 
RR7 said:
Fanspo is a little wonky these days. It'd have to be Simons and Little to match the salary.
Click to expand...

Even as of next season? I get it now because of the hard cap situation we are in (thanks GPII) but it won't matter on the 1st of July is the deal is allowed on the 125% rule. That would be my calculation but of course I am not a CBA expert.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I would even say the first one is bullshit as well. Would you do that if you were the Nets? I would not.
Bridges and Claxton are two pretty good pieces to build on for them as well.
Click to expand...
If I were the Nets I'd probably do it if:

1) They were really high on whoever was available at 3.
2) Realized they are headed for a big ol' treadmill of borderline play-in level teams if they keep Bridges.

And honestly, as a PDX fan, I'm not dying for Claxton and Bridges, there are a ton of reservations with that combo as well.

Both teams walk away feeling good but not great which means it's probably the move to make.

#3 and Ant for Bridges, PDX fans feel like they got shafted which means... no deal
 
SwissBlazer said:
Even as of next season? I get it now because of the hard cap situation we are in (thanks GPII) but it won't matter on the 1st of July is the deal is allowed on the 125% rule. That would be my calculation but of course I am not a CBA expert.
Click to expand...
125% of Simons' deal doesn't get to Pascal's deal.
 
SwissBlazer said:
On Fanspo with next season's salaries, it seems to work. But not on ESPN with this year's salaries. Adding a bit more on our side shouldn't be a deal breaker I would say. Or just wait until the 1st of July?
Click to expand...
The combined salaries of Ant and Nas are enough to match Saikam's salary if we're looking at the 23-24 numbers... meaning that 125% of Ant's and Nas' combined salaries (30.4M x 1.25=37.88M) are within 100k of Siakam's 37.89M.
 
blazerkor said:
The combined salaries of Ant and Nas are enough to match Saikam's salary if we're looking at the 23-24 numbers... meaning that 125% of Ant's and Nas' combined salaries (30.4M x 1.25=37.88M) are within 100k of Siakam's 37.89M.
Click to expand...

Seems perfect to me.
 
Predator said:
Here's where I disagree with Lloyd / pretty much everyone who loves Scoot. His projected high-end might top out higher, but his projected number of championships is likely going to be lower because point guards who play like him have never won a championship. Most of them don't even get close.

It's not like he's going to be a Kawhi-level defender (frankly he doesn't have the size to do that anyway even if he was some Marcus Smart-level-defender) and unstoppable offensively. People act like Scoot is the next MJ and forget MJ was one of the best defenders of all time.

Trae Young and Donovan Mitchell are better players with more upside than Pascal Siakam, but if I were trying to win a championship and was forced to pick between those 3 players, I'd pick Pascal every day that ends in 'Y'.
Click to expand...

Odd logic. There's so much more than that one player that will get you to a championship or not.

And, I'd put Trae, Donovan and Pascal pretty equally on the same level. If you're a bad team, going for the guy with the most star power is always the way to go. The role players like Middleton are secondary. I think Miller would be a better fit, but when you're drafting you don't draft for fit. You do that in free agency/trade market.
 
I believe that the Blazers might have interest in Siakam but does not mean they want to trade the 3 pick and someone else for him or whatever the package. This does not even take into account the Raps GM thinks all his players have LeBron in his prime value so I kind of think the Blazers and Raps doing a deal has sailed unless the Raps get real about the value of it's own players.
 
AmirIcon said:
We saw what it built them, a play-in or 8th seed and out team. Bridges is already 27. If I was the Nets, I would absolutely trade Bridges (role player) and Claxton (role player) for a guy who projects to be a superstar at 19 years old on a rookie deal. That team isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Mid-season trades where the team has a huge turnover is too small of a sample size IMO. Bridges at 27 has another 5 years in his prime.
 
How many games can this team realistically win with decent health?

Dame / ? /Mays
Sharpe / ?
Grant / Thybulle
Siakam / Watford
Nurk / ? / Eubanks

Let's say we bring back Seth Curry for the MLE and use our minimum on someone like Dwight Powell or Mason Plumlee.

If Sharpe takes a level up to what guys like Jaylen or PG did their second yr (15ppg or so with decent efficiency), I think that team can win 50 games. Nurk is obviously the upgrade spot in the lineup but we could be if we landed a better backup C in free agency.
 
Also, i think someone like Siakam would be a prime candidate for taking a (slight) paycut next summer. He's not a franchise player and he'd be 30. I don't see him getting more than something like 4/150 in 2024, which would make it somewhat reasonable for us.

Dame -- 49
Siakam -- 37
Grant -- 30
Nurk --- 18
MLE -- 12
FA du jour (Thybulle, etc) -- 10
Shaedon -- 7

Rest as minimums puts us in the ballpark of 170 mil. We'd still be about 8-10 mil from the second apron. Whether Jody would even pay this much is a legit question, but I don't think Siakam's salary should be a deterrant if Dame can sell him on re-signing for market rate next summer.

I have a few more reservations about Jaylen Brown in this regard. He'd warrant a supemax extension and might be a bigger flight risk. And he duplicates a lot of what Sharpe would.
 
illmatic99 said:
How many games can this team realistically win with decent health?

Dame / ? /Mays
Sharpe / ?
Grant / Thybulle
Siakam / Watford
Nurk / ? / Eubanks

Let's say we bring back Seth Curry for the MLE and use our minimum on someone like Dwight Powell or Mason Plumlee.

If Sharpe takes a level up to what guys like Jaylen or PG did their second yr (15ppg or so with decent efficiency), I think that team can win 50 games. Nurk is obviously the upgrade spot in the lineup but we could be if we landed a better backup C in free agency.
Click to expand...

Health, build the bench and 50 wins? I’m optimistic, so yes. The number 3 seeded Blazers that lost in the WCF isn’t this good … IF the bench gets rebuilt. Get Jaylen Brown (and Pritchard), or Mikal Bridges (and Claxton?), instead? Again, yes.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Not worth it. 13 is basically just a throw in.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm drinking the Mike Schmitz kool aid, but I feel like he could turn 13 + 23 in a rotation player. OKC managed to land Jaylen Williams at 12 last yr, and I see a lot of parity in prospects from 6-15 this draft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top