RealGM

Just read an interesting trade scenario between Cavs and Blazers.

Cavs trade Levert, Wade, Okoro 2 seconds
Blazers trade Grant/Reath

Blazers get to move off Grants' $30m salary for the next 4 years at the cost of Okoro. LeVert only has 1 year left. Wade is not fully guaranteed for 25/26. Whatever the cost of Okoro's next deal ($8 to mid teens?) is what Portland pays going forward. Okoro should be able to be signed for 3 years at around $30m (10 per year).

Cavs add a 3-D wing that can play either forward spot, especially if he shoots like he did this past season (40% from 3). Adding Reath allows Okoro a bit more salary than the $7m gap without him.

louc1970 wrote:Just read an interesting trade scenario between Cavs and Blazers.

Cavs trade Levert, Wade, Okoro 2 seconds
Blazers trade Grant/Reath

Blazers get to move off Grants' $30m salary for the next 4 years at the cost of Okoro. LeVert only has 1 year left. Wade is not fully guaranteed for 25/26. Whatever the cost of Okoro's next deal ($8 to mid teens?) is what Portland pays going forward. Okoro should be able to be signed for 3 years at around $30m (10 per year).

Cavs add a 3-D wing that can play either forward spot, especially if he shoots like he did this past season (40% from 3). Adding Reath allows Okoro a bit more salary than the $7m gap without him.

Simons needs to go first.

JRoy wrote:

louc1970 wrote:Just read an interesting trade scenario between Cavs and Blazers.

Cavs trade Levert, Wade, Okoro 2 seconds
Blazers trade Grant/Reath

Blazers get to move off Grants' $30m salary for the next 4 years at the cost of Okoro. LeVert only has 1 year left. Wade is not fully guaranteed for 25/26. Whatever the cost of Okoro's next deal ($8 to mid teens?) is what Portland pays going forward. Okoro should be able to be signed for 3 years at around $30m (10 per year).

Cavs add a 3-D wing that can play either forward spot, especially if he shoots like he did this past season (40% from 3). Adding Reath allows Okoro a bit more salary than the $7m gap without him.

Simons needs to go first.

I don't care which order they are traded (Simons/Grant), they both need to go

Blazinaway wrote:

JRoy wrote:

louc1970 wrote:Just read an interesting trade scenario between Cavs and Blazers.

Cavs trade Levert, Wade, Okoro 2 seconds
Blazers trade Grant/Reath

Blazers get to move off Grants' $30m salary for the next 4 years at the cost of Okoro. LeVert only has 1 year left. Wade is not fully guaranteed for 25/26. Whatever the cost of Okoro's next deal ($8 to mid teens?) is what Portland pays going forward. Okoro should be able to be signed for 3 years at around $30m (10 per year).

Cavs add a 3-D wing that can play either forward spot, especially if he shoots like he did this past season (40% from 3). Adding Reath allows Okoro a bit more salary than the $7m gap without him.

Simons needs to go first.

I don't care which order they are traded (Simons/Grant), they both need to go

Ultimately, yes.

I like this trade. That said, I think LeVert will get a chance to play for his former coach first, before the Cavs consider trading him.

I'd love to get a 1st or 2 for Grant, but that doesn't seem to be out there currently, so I'd do this trade. Obviously would immediately be looking to move LeVert elsewhere for some 2nds

Yes they both need to go. But what about the trade suggestion?

louc1970 wrote:Yes they both need to go. But what about the trade suggestion?

I don’t want POR to pay either Levert or Okoro.

JRoy wrote:

louc1970 wrote:Yes they both need to go. But what about the trade suggestion?

I don’t want POR to pay either Levert or Okoro.

Okoro is going into his year 24 season. I for sure would roll the dice on him at 10M AV assuming we can turn Matisse into a few more SRP in another deal. If the stars all align he is an ideal low usage 3/D fit next to the higher usage guys in Scoot / Sharpe / Deni.

I would rather roll into 24/25 with our 1-4 as Scoot / Sharpe / Okoro / Deni than the expected Scoot / Simons / Grant / Deni.

I would hope LeVert can get moved to another team for nothing (Or some SRP).

EOD - I would prefer to get a FRP but if this is the best we can do then do it. I cant do another season of Simons and Grant taking shots from the youngsters.

If I'm Cleveland, I'm not giving up my 3 best wing defenders in a deal centered around Grant.

BlazersBroncos wrote:

JRoy wrote:

louc1970 wrote:Yes they both need to go. But what about the trade suggestion?

I don’t want POR to pay either Levert or Okoro.

Okoro is going into his year 24 season. I for sure would roll the dice on him at 10M AV assuming we can turn Matisse into a few more SRP in another deal. If the stars all align he is an ideal low usage 3/D fit next to the higher usage guys in Scoot / Sharpe / Deni.

I would rather roll into 24/25 with our 1-4 as Scoot / Sharpe / Okoro / Deni than the expected Scoot / Simons / Grant / Deni.

I would hope LeVert can get moved to another team for nothing (Or some SRP).

EOD - I would prefer to get a FRP but if this is the best we can do then do it. I cant do another season of Simons and Grant taking shots from the youngsters.

It would be great to not be undersized anymore. Woild prefer Avdija at sf and maybe a pf in the draft.

mcfly1204 wrote:If I'm Cleveland, I'm not giving up my 3 best wing defenders in a deal centered around Grant.

This. Just a nonstarter with Wade in it. There's room for discussion if Niang is subbed in.

jbk1234 wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:If I'm Cleveland, I'm not giving up my 3 best wing defenders in a deal centered around Grant.

This. Just a nonstarter with Wade in it. There's room for discussion if Niang is subbed in.

From the Cleveland perspective, LeVert/Niang/2 2nds is probably about it. I assume Portland holds out for a 1st, but I'm not sure they see it.

mcfly1204 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:If I'm Cleveland, I'm not giving up my 3 best wing defenders in a deal centered around Grant.

This. Just a nonstarter with Wade in it. There's room for discussion if Niang is subbed in.

From the Cleveland perspective, LeVert/Niang/2 2nds is probably about it. I assume Portland holds out for a 1st, but I'm not sure they see it.

That doesn’t work for POR.

JRoy wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:
This. Just a nonstarter with Wade in it. There's room for discussion if Niang is subbed in.

From the Cleveland perspective, LeVert/Niang/2 2nds is probably about it. I assume Portland holds out for a 1st, but I'm not sure they see it.

That doesn’t work for POR.

I'm not trying to antagonize by any means, but what does Portland realistically envision getting in return for Grant? He's a third option at best on a contender. In Cleveland, they would acquire him hoping (keyword) that he locks in on the defensive end, to go along with his shooting. That said, when was the last time Grant was viewed as a plus defender?

mcfly1204 wrote:

JRoy wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:From the Cleveland perspective, LeVert/Niang/2 2nds is probably about it. I assume Portland holds out for a 1st, but I'm not sure they see it.

That doesn’t work for POR.

I'm not trying to antagonize by any means, but what does Portland realistically envision getting in return for Grant? He's a third option at best on a contender. In Cleveland, they would acquire him hoping (keyword) that he locks in on the defensive end, to go along with his shooting. That said, when was the last time Grant was viewed as a plus defender?

It’s a fair question.

Grant is probably best suited as a third option on a good team, where he might not need to expend quite as much energy on offense so he could focus on defense a little more.

He’s a poor rebounder, mediocre playmaker and average to good defender.

He’s also 6’8” ish and shoots 40% from 3 on high volume without being an embarrassment on the other end.

POR is under the cap now, thanks to the Brogdon deal. We don’t need to deal anyone.

We should move vets when the value is right. Not for 8th men and several 50th picks.

JRoy wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:

JRoy wrote:
That doesn’t work for POR.

I'm not trying to antagonize by any means, but what does Portland realistically envision getting in return for Grant? He's a third option at best on a contender. In Cleveland, they would acquire him hoping (keyword) that he locks in on the defensive end, to go along with his shooting. That said, when was the last time Grant was viewed as a plus defender?

It’s a fair question.

Grant is probably best suited as a third option on a good team, where he might not need to expend quite as much energy on offense so he could focus on defense a little more.

He’s a poor rebounder, mediocre playmaker and average to good defender.

He’s also 6’8” ish and shoots 40% from 3 on high volume without being an embarrassment on the other end.

POR is under the cap now, thanks to the Brogdon deal. We don’t need to deal anyone.

We should move vets when the value is right. Not for 8th men and several 50th picks.

Agreed.

Portland doesn't NEED to trade Grant. They can hold out for a decent player and a future 1st.

In this trade, the only value for Portland would be Wade.
LeVert doesn't do anything for Portland nor does Okoro. The seconds a meh at best.

I really like the Grant to Cavs idea. I think he'd be a fantastic fit... but this trade is not it

tester551 wrote:

JRoy wrote:

mcfly1204 wrote:I'm not trying to antagonize by any means, but what does Portland realistically envision getting in return for Grant? He's a third option at best on a contender. In Cleveland, they would acquire him hoping (keyword) that he locks in on the defensive end, to go along with his shooting. That said, when was the last time Grant was viewed as a plus defender?

It’s a fair question.

Grant is probably best suited as a third option on a good team, where he might not need to expend quite as much energy on offense so he could focus on defense a little more.

He’s a poor rebounder, mediocre playmaker and average to good defender.

He’s also 6’8” ish and shoots 40% from 3 on high volume without being an embarrassment on the other end.

POR is under the cap now, thanks to the Brogdon deal. We don’t need to deal anyone.

We should move vets when the value is right. Not for 8th men and several 50th picks.

Agreed.

Portland doesn't NEED to trade Grant. They can hold out for a decent player and a future 1st.

In this trade, the only value for Portland would be Wade.
LeVert doesn't do anything for Portland nor does Okoro. The seconds a meh at best.

I really like the Grant to Cavs idea. I think he'd be a fantastic fit... but this trade is not it

The fundamental problem is that Wade on his contract is worth a lot to the Cavs given their cap situation. Like more than Grant. So any trade that includes him for Grant is just going to be a nonstarter.

jbk1234 wrote:

tester551 wrote:

JRoy wrote:
It’s a fair question.

Grant is probably best suited as a third option on a good team, where he might not need to expend quite as much energy on offense so he could focus on defense a little more.

He’s a poor rebounder, mediocre playmaker and average to good defender.

He’s also 6’8” ish and shoots 40% from 3 on high volume without being an embarrassment on the other end.

POR is under the cap now, thanks to the Brogdon deal. We don’t need to deal anyone.

We should move vets when the value is right. Not for 8th men and several 50th picks.

Agreed.

Portland doesn't NEED to trade Grant. They can hold out for a decent player and a future 1st.

In this trade, the only value for Portland would be Wade.
LeVert doesn't do anything for Portland nor does Okoro. The seconds a meh at best.

I really like the Grant to Cavs idea. I think he'd be a fantastic fit... but this trade is not it

The fundamental problem is that Wade on his contract is worth a lot to the Cavs given their cap situation. Like more than Grant. So any trade that includes him for Grant is just going to be a nonstarter.

Makes sense to me. The Cavs have slot of large contracts. Affordable role players that play in their lane are valuable.

Portland wins bigly here. These are not filler-level players coming back, but at least two are being priced that way.