Trade Would you trade CJ... The Super Duper Trade Thread! (1 Viewer)

[AquaXI]

We need this Satire, trading CJ has become an obsession on this board.

 

[Sinobas]

For 1 bundle of sticks?

 

[Daweez04]

I love CJ, but if you can't sign what we are missing in FA, but can trade for him using CJ, and sign a Derozen, it has to at least be discussed.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

@SlyPokerDawg @Denny Crane @Strenuus can we merge some threads?

 

[Sinobas]

@SlyPokerDawg @Denny Crane @Strenuus can we merge some threads?

No, this deserves its own thread.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Actually, the reason the Warriors traded Ellis was two fold.

1. He was a ball stopper according to their scouts. The flow of the offense was affected. And they wanted him to give Curry more shots in the backcourt (which he resisted).
2. They had just drafted a very big SG by the name of Klay Thompson a few months before the deal and they were ready to turn the position over to him.

Of course defense also contributed to it (as it does to our two guys) but I don't see CJ being a ball-stopper that doesn't get Lillard involved and I don't see where Crabbe is ready to be our Klay Thompson.

So it is easy to throw out Curry and Ellis as the same situation as Dame and CJ but it just isn't when you look at it logically.

Although 2011 Ellis and 2016 CJ are much more similar than you're willing to accept, I didn't say it's the same situation. Not at all. What I said was that they were a highly productive backcourt (with a much worse supporting cast that year than we have now), and management found a way to improve the team that involved separating that backcourt. The premise wasn't that we're in the same situation as them; the premise was that a backcourt's high productivity shouldn't necessarily preclude separation thereof to facilitate greater improvement.

 

[e_blazer]

Although 2011 Ellis and 2016 CJ are much more similar than you're willing to accept, I didn't say it's the same situation. Not at all. What I said was that they were a highly productive backcourt (with a much worse supporting cast that year than we have now), and management found a way to improve the team that involved separating that backcourt. The premise wasn't that we're in the same situation as them; the premise was that a backcourt's high productivity shouldn't necessarily preclude separation thereof to facilitate greater improvement.

Jumping in here withe my humble opinion, if CJ couldn't play the point as effectively as he does, I'd be inclined to agree that moving him makes sense. But since he does play the point so well, he makes for a situation where the Blazers can mix and match lineups so effectively that it makes them dangerous even when Dame is out of the game. That's a luxury that not many teams have. Ellis couldn't play the point, so his only position was as an undersized 2G. I'd much rather keep Dame and CJ, re-sign Crabbe, and use the max contract space to get an established PF or C.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Although 2011 Ellis and 2016 CJ are much more similar than you're willing to accept, I didn't say it's the same situation. Not at all. What I said was that they were a highly productive backcourt (with a much worse supporting cast that year than we have now), and management found a way to improve the team that involved separating that backcourt. The premise wasn't that we're in the same situation as them; the premise was that a backcourt's high productivity shouldn't necessarily preclude separation thereof to facilitate greater improvement.

Ok I can agree with all that but with a cavet.

It still goes back to it was much easier for them to do that and a much smarter choice because of the alternative they had.
If we aren't trading CJ for a SG (which is almost a given - as you wouldn't move him for the same position unless you thought it a win - and then why would the other team want to lose?) then you are probably also moving him for a big (like they did) which is great in theory but doesn't help us anymore than keeping CJ in my mind due to the big hole at SG.

So their situation allowed them to make that deal where ours does not give us as big of a luxury. So the comparison in style is fine but they didn't move the player only due to style as much as they moved the player due to him being a knucklehead and needing to improve in other areas while simultaneously opening up time for a young stud to come in. We only check mark 1 of those 3 unlike them check marking all 3.

 

[e_blazer]

Some threads should be merged in the recycle bin.

 

[Nate]

Fuck it. Let's trade dame for the first pick and Cj for the second.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ok I can agree with all that but with a cavet.

It still goes back to it was much easier for them to do that and a much smarter choice because of the alternative they had.
If we aren't trading CJ for a SG (which is almost a given - as you wouldn't move him for the same position unless you thought it a win - and then why would the other team want to lose?) then you are probably also moving him for a big (like they did) which is great in theory but doesn't help us anymore than keeping CJ in my mind due to the big hole at SG.

So their situation allowed them to make that deal where ours does not give us as big of a luxury. So the comparison in style is fine but they didn't move the player only due to style as much as they moved the player due to him being a knucklehead and needing to improve in other areas while simultaneously opening up time for a young stud to come in. We only check mark 1 of those 3 unlike them check marking all 3.

Well, going back to the original premise of the thread, the question was actually about moving CJ for a small forward (Ingram, whom I assume will be the #2 pick). And the basis for that is not the expectation that the deal would make us better in 2016-2017, but that it might put us on a better trajectory to be a title contender by 2018-2019.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

If only Pizza Hut pizzas were 2" bigger.....

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Jumping in here withe my humble opinion, if CJ couldn't play the point as effectively as he does, I'd be inclined to agree that moving him makes sense. But since he does play the point so well, he makes for a situation where the Blazers can mix and match lineups so effectively that it makes them dangerous even when Dame is out of the game. That's a luxury that not many teams have. Ellis couldn't play the point, so his only position was as an undersized 2G. I'd much rather keep Dame and CJ, re-sign Crabbe, and use the max contract space to get an established PF or C.

Although I disagree with your basic premise (I'm not really a fan of the way CJ plays the point), I can understand the thought process, and it's why I'm optimistic about this team's future, with or without CJ.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Fuck it. Let's trade dame for the first pick and Cj for the second.

Though you say it in jest, it would be fascinating to see how those two could coexist, with Simmons' passing and Ingram's outside stroke. I wouldn't be surprised if Simmons/Ingram would be a better pairing going forward than Dame/CJ.

 

[e_blazer]

Although I disagree with your basic premise (I'm not really a fan of the way CJ plays the point), I can understand the thought process, and it's why I'm optimistic about this team's future, with or without CJ.

CJ certainly has room for improvement as a distributor, but given that he played this season with a second unit that was somewhat devoid of other scoring options, I think he did a pretty good job. Also, it was only his first year playing significant minutes at that position. He's such a talented ball-handler, I think he's only going to get better.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Well, going back to the original premise of the thread, the question was actually about moving CJ for a small forward (Ingram, whom I assume will be the #2 pick). And the basis for that is not the expectation that the deal would make us better in 2016-2017, but that it might put us on a better trajectory to be a title contender by 2018-2019.

It is a great thought exercise for sure. I don't have a problem at all discussing it. What I fail to see is how it makes us better like a similar (but then again much different) deal did for GSW.

You all must think MUCH more of Ingram and Simmons than I do. I see Ingram as Tayson Prince and Simmons as Lamar Odom. I know we are projecting here but I am very confident in saying this isn't a Durant/Oden situation at all.

 

[Pinwheel1]

But is the issue whether or not the players like playing together, or whether or not their games complement each other in such a way that is conducive to winning a championship?

I think Ellis' game could have complimented Curry's game resulting in a championship....... if Ellis was ok with sharing the big moments. Ellis was the star and Curry was the new guy.

In Portland, Dame was the star at the beginning of the season and CJ was the new starter, but Dame did not have a problem with sharing the big moments with CJ. Dame and CJ are tight. Ellis and Curry were not. (More like Dame and LMA IMO) So long term I think it is best if you compliment one another and like playing together.

 

[illmatic99]

Last season
CJ had 341 assists. 41 were to Dame. (12 %)
Dame had 511 assists. 95 were to CJ. (21%)

In 2010-211,
Monta had 450 assists, 55 were to Steph. (12%)
Steph had 432 assists, 80 were to Monta. (19%)

Lotsa caveats and assumptions, but pretty freaking similar.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You all must think MUCH more of Ingram and Simmons than I do. I see Ingram as Tayson Prince and Simmons as Lamar Odom. I know we are projecting here but I am very confident in saying this isn't a Durant/Oden situation at all.

True, I do have a much higher opinion of Ingram. I think he's going to be a much better player overall than Simmons, and think he has Durant-level potential. Every game I watched, he impressed me, both with his handles on the drive and ability to finish in traffic, and his ability to score off the ball in catch-and-shoot situations. Plus with his length and defensive instincts, I see him as an above-average defender at the SF spot from day 1.

 

[ChadWick]

I love CJ, but if you can't sign what we are missing in FA, but can trade for him using CJ, and sign a Derozen, it has to at least be discussed.

Lol dogshit Derozan for CJ? Bye.


Enough with the CJ talk. Lillards best friend and the 2nd piece to our 2nd best backcourt in the league. He's not going anywhere.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

DeRozan isn't worth it.

 

[illmatic99]

In Portland, Dame was the star at the beginning of the season and CJ was the new starter, but Dame did not have a problem with sharing the big moments with CJ.

Meehhh, we all watched the fourth quarter of game 5, right? CJ was cooking Curry, but Dame chucked so much in the end of that game. I know Dame says all the right things and definitely does let CJ shine at times. But with the season on the line, he went one on one exclusively. (even with CJ on fire).

There's a reason Terry staggers their minutes, and it doesn't just have to do with spreading out talent on the bench. They both play well when they have the ball in their hands. Still. It's just been one season. We'll see how they grow.

 

[Tunchi]

How many backcourts were better than Curry/Ellis in 2011? Those two combined for 42.7 ppg on 34.3 fga, both shooting over 45%. Breaking up that backcourt seemed to be a decent choice.

Damn I forgot about that backcourt. It kinda downplays the dame/cj backcourt when I hear that

 

[julius]

I don't think trading CJ will get the Blazers anything better then they possibly could sign, in the sense that the cost of losing CJ + who they traded for, is not better than CJ and whoever they can sign.

 

[Trackjack]

I got proposal in trade that don't include CJ. Teague from Atlanta goes to Philly and okafor goes to Portland and Plum goes to Atlanta. This is pretty even trade for all parties and it went through ESPN trade machine and it can be completed.

 

[illmatic99]

 

[Tunchi]

Meehhh, we all watched the fourth quarter of game 5, right? CJ was cooking Curry, but Dame chucked so much in the end of that game. I know Dame says all the right things and definitely does let CJ shine at times. But with the season on the line, he went one on one exclusively. (even with CJ on fire).

There's a reason Terry staggers their minutes, and it doesn't just have to do with spreading out talent on the bench. They both play well when they have the ball in their hands. Still. It's just been one season. We'll see how they grow.

I agree.. Then you remember late in that game, Terry drew a iso play for Dame, that he ended up shooting a step back tough shot that missed badly. I dont get why CJ doesnt have end of game plays drawn for him much more

 

[Pinwheel1]

Meehhh, we all watched the fourth quarter of game 5, right? CJ was cooking Curry, but Dame chucked so much in the end of that game. I know Dame says all the right things and definitely does let CJ shine at times. But with the season on the line, he went one on one exclusively. (even with CJ on fire).

There's a reason Terry staggers their minutes, and it doesn't just have to do with spreading out talent on the bench. They both play well when they have the ball in their hands. Still. It's just been one season. We'll see how they grow.

I really don't think that disputes what I said at all, unless you think Dame intentionally froze CJ out because he was jealous.
Which I don't buy.

 

[illmatic99]

I really don't think that disputes what I said at all, unless you think Dame intentionally froze CJ out because he was jealous.
Which I don't buy.

Not at all.

Just kinda refuting the idea that the two have some sorta synergistic relationship.

And the spotlight sharing thing. Dame's usg and FGAs trump CJ's at end of games consistently.

 

[THE HCP]

Hey we should all start a thread everyday with hypothetical trade scenarios involving CJ! Wouldn't that make the off season on here just the best? Keep it to one thread dorks!