Around the NBA - Curse all of the other teams here

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Not sure if I would overpay. His defense isn’t good and he’s not that great of a shot creator

He's scoring 20ppg on a miniscule 19.9 usage rate as a starter, that fits with pretty much any team. This is a Duncan Robinson level shooter with more room to grow as a scorer and defender. Nobody on the Blazers plays defense, he tries but Stotts isn't even attempting to coach on that side of the ball.

Did you just use usage rate for the first time after destroying that stat all year long?



I agree that nobody really plays defense on the Blazers... but it’s not like any of those players had a reputation of being good defenders prior to being on the Blazers too. Maybe only Covington, but he’s still good on defense.

He does have a lot of room to grow on both ends for sure. But I’m still skeptical.

I only used it because it's one of the 3 stats you respect, I knew once you saw the low usage rate you'd change your mind



Covington has a worse defensive rating than Trent, Stotts has given up coaching on that end. Trent gives effort on defense, I think he can be a solid defender as long as he's kept to checking mostly 2s, they had him trying to guard 3s last year which he can't do.

[3toheadmelo]

He's scoring 20ppg on a miniscule 19.9 usage rate as a starter, that fits with pretty much any team. This is a Duncan Robinson level shooter with more room to grow as a scorer and defender. Nobody on the Blazers plays defense, he tries but Stotts isn't even attempting to coach on that side of the ball.

Did you just use usage rate for the first time after destroying that stat all year long?



I agree that nobody really plays defense on the Blazers... but it’s not like any of those players had a reputation of being good defenders prior to being on the Blazers too. Maybe only Covington, but he’s still good on defense.

He does have a lot of room to grow on both ends for sure. But I’m still skeptical.

I only used it because it's one of the 3 stats you respect, I knew once you saw the low usage rate you'd change your mind



Covington has a worse defensive rating than Trent, Stotts has given up coaching on that end. Trent gives effort on defense, I think he can be a solid defender as long as he's kept to checking mostly 2s, they had him trying to guard 3s last year which he can't do.

You do have a point about him guarding 3’s. I remember Stotts kept putting him on Lebron in the playoffs and I was like wtf?

I’m still not sold on Trent though. He’s either going to be a Timmy signing or a really good one like Malik Beasley imo.

I personally rather go for Lavine cause he’s a sure thing on offense at the very least. If we can’t get Lavine, I’d probably just draft Bouknight.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Did you just use usage rate for the first time after destroying that stat all year long?



I agree that nobody really plays defense on the Blazers... but it’s not like any of those players had a reputation of being good defenders prior to being on the Blazers too. Maybe only Covington, but he’s still good on defense.

He does have a lot of room to grow on both ends for sure. But I’m still skeptical.

I only used it because it's one of the 3 stats you respect, I knew once you saw the low usage rate you'd change your mind



Covington has a worse defensive rating than Trent, Stotts has given up coaching on that end. Trent gives effort on defense, I think he can be a solid defender as long as he's kept to checking mostly 2s, they had him trying to guard 3s last year which he can't do.

You do have a point about him guarding 3’s. I remember Stotts kept putting him on Lebron in the playoffs and I was like wtf?

I’m still not sold on Trent though. He’s either going to be a Timmy signing or a really good one like Malik Beasley imo.

I personally rather go for Lavine cause he’s a sure thing on offense at the very least. If we can’t get Lavine, I’d probably just draft Bouknight.

I like LaVine, but I don't want him if it means we have to trade for him, he's just not good enough. The move for Trent gives us a starting 2 who has an elite skill and a lot of room to grow as a player, while retaining our asset base for a future trade in case one of these star players who is better than LaVine becomes available. Use the caproom on good young players who can be traded in the future if you need to, rather than just trading for someone like LaVine and praying a tier 1 star signs with us, especially since there aren't many on the horizon in free agency. You don't want to be the team that trades for LaVine, and a year later Giannis is asking for a trade

I think Trent is more in line with Beasley, in that he's going to score, the shooting is just too real. Tim was never this good of a shooter.

[god shammgod]

it's hard to tell if trent is really any good at d. he tries hard but it seems that whole team is abysmal. he's creating for himself more which is nice. advanced stats say he doesn't help much though. but portland is maintaining their winning ways with him and without cj. i don't know. lavine will strip you of too many assets so i don't even consider that.

[god shammgod]

i think most of all the knicks should keep almost all of their picks. because lavine, beal, trent, oladipo, whoever is not making you a real contender. you're gonna rely a lot on internal development of the young kids to get there and you can't rely on that. so you might need those picks or the players they become.

[3toheadmelo]

I only used it because it's one of the 3 stats you respect, I knew once you saw the low usage rate you'd change your mind



Covington has a worse defensive rating than Trent, Stotts has given up coaching on that end. Trent gives effort on defense, I think he can be a solid defender as long as he's kept to checking mostly 2s, they had him trying to guard 3s last year which he can't do.

You do have a point about him guarding 3’s. I remember Stotts kept putting him on Lebron in the playoffs and I was like wtf?

I’m still not sold on Trent though. He’s either going to be a Timmy signing or a really good one like Malik Beasley imo.

I personally rather go for Lavine cause he’s a sure thing on offense at the very least. If we can’t get Lavine, I’d probably just draft Bouknight.

I like LaVine, but I don't want him if it means we have to trade for him, he's just not good enough. The move for Trent gives us a starting 2 who has an elite skill and a lot of room to grow as a player, while retaining our asset base for a future trade in case one of these star players who is better than LaVine becomes available. Use the caproom on good young players who can be traded in the future if you need to, rather than just trading for someone like LaVine and praying a tier 1 star signs with us, especially since there aren't many on the horizon in free agency. You don't want to be the team that trades for LaVine, and a year later Giannis is asking for a trade

I think Trent is more in line with Beasley, in that he's going to score, the shooting is just too real. Tim was never this good of a shooter.

Those are good points. But I also feel like Lavine can be a top SG in the league under Thibs, so that’s why I would consider giving up some assets for him. It’ll be interesting to see what Leon Rose will do.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

i think most of all the knicks should keep almost all of their picks. because lavine, beal, trent, oladipo, whoever is not making you a real contender. you're gonna rely a lot on internal development of the young kids to get there and you can't rely on that. so you might need those picks.

That's my mindset, especially when you look at the next few years of free agents and realize that all the tier 1 guys are locked up for awhile. If we can sign LaVine that's different, I'm all for it, but trading for him doesn't make sense.

[3toheadmelo]

it's hard to tell if trent is really any good at d. he tries hard but it seems that whole team is abysmal. he's creating for himself more which is nice. advanced stats say he doesn't help much though. but portland is maintaining their winning ways with him and without cj. i don't know. lavine will strip you of too many assets so i don't even consider that.

What do you think the Bulls will ask for Lavine?

[god shammgod]

it's hard to tell if trent is really any good at d. he tries hard but it seems that whole team is abysmal. he's creating for himself more which is nice. advanced stats say he doesn't help much though. but portland is maintaining their winning ways with him and without cj. i don't know. lavine will strip you of too many assets so i don't even consider that.

What do you think the Bulls will ask for Lavine?

if all you're giving up is obi, they're gonna want at least 3 first round picks and swaps or something crazy. unless they know those picks are unprotected then maybe you can get away with less.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

You do have a point about him guarding 3’s. I remember Stotts kept putting him on Lebron in the playoffs and I was like wtf?

I’m still not sold on Trent though. He’s either going to be a Timmy signing or a really good one like Malik Beasley imo.

I personally rather go for Lavine cause he’s a sure thing on offense at the very least. If we can’t get Lavine, I’d probably just draft Bouknight.

I like LaVine, but I don't want him if it means we have to trade for him, he's just not good enough. The move for Trent gives us a starting 2 who has an elite skill and a lot of room to grow as a player, while retaining our asset base for a future trade in case one of these star players who is better than LaVine becomes available. Use the caproom on good young players who can be traded in the future if you need to, rather than just trading for someone like LaVine and praying a tier 1 star signs with us, especially since there aren't many on the horizon in free agency. You don't want to be the team that trades for LaVine, and a year later Giannis is asking for a trade

I think Trent is more in line with Beasley, in that he's going to score, the shooting is just too real. Tim was never this good of a shooter.

Those are good points. But I also feel like Lavine can be a top SG in the league under Thibs, so that’s why I would consider giving up some assets for him. It’ll be interesting to see what Leon Rose will do.

I don't think LaVine is worth depleting assets for, there's just too many SGs like him in the league now - Cj McCollum, Bradley Beal, Devin Booker, they're all the same guy to me. Harden is the only true franchise SG in the league, and the only really unique 2 guard outside of him is Jaylen Brown because he can guard multiple positions.

If we can sign LaVine after next season, great, but if it's between LaVine and retaining assets + signing Trent, give me Trent.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

it's hard to tell if trent is really any good at d. he tries hard but it seems that whole team is abysmal. he's creating for himself more which is nice. advanced stats say he doesn't help much though. but portland is maintaining their winning ways with him and without cj. i don't know. lavine will strip you of too many assets so i don't even consider that.

What do you think the Bulls will ask for Lavine?

If they're trading him this year, we'd get an extra year of LaVine before free agency, so they can and would ask for a lot.

I'd expect Obi, IQ, (Frank as filler) both 2021 picks and 2023 pick to be their demand at the very least. Trading for sta

[god shammgod]

i think most of all the knicks should keep almost all of their picks. because lavine, beal, trent, oladipo, whoever is not making you a real contender. you're gonna rely a lot on internal development of the young kids to get there and you can't rely on that. so you might need those picks.

That's my mindset, especially when you look at the next few years of free agents and realize that all the tier 1 guys are locked up for awhile. If we can sign LaVine that's different, I'm all for it, but trading for him doesn't make sense.

in some ways this is similar to the vanvleet situation which i was against. but i thought we were gonna trade randle and bottom out, so signing anyone who wasn't a superstar seemed like a bad idea. i wanted as high a pick as possible. now that's obviously not the case with randle playing like this so they'll sign someone. can trent become a brogdon level player ? hard to say.

[3toheadmelo]

it's hard to tell if trent is really any good at d. he tries hard but it seems that whole team is abysmal. he's creating for himself more which is nice. advanced stats say he doesn't help much though. but portland is maintaining their winning ways with him and without cj. i don't know. lavine will strip you of too many assets so i don't even consider that.

What do you think the Bulls will ask for Lavine?

if all you're giving up is obi, they're gonna want at least 3 first round picks and swaps or something crazy. unless they know those picks are unprotected then maybe you can get away with less.

If they want something at least 3 picks then I’d pass too. But if we can do something reasonable like Obi, Frank, Knox with like 2 protected picks, then im in.

[3toheadmelo]

I like LaVine, but I don't want him if it means we have to trade for him, he's just not good enough. The move for Trent gives us a starting 2 who has an elite skill and a lot of room to grow as a player, while retaining our asset base for a future trade in case one of these star players who is better than LaVine becomes available. Use the caproom on good young players who can be traded in the future if you need to, rather than just trading for someone like LaVine and praying a tier 1 star signs with us, especially since there aren't many on the horizon in free agency. You don't want to be the team that trades for LaVine, and a year later Giannis is asking for a trade

I think Trent is more in line with Beasley, in that he's going to score, the shooting is just too real. Tim was never this good of a shooter.

Those are good points. But I also feel like Lavine can be a top SG in the league under Thibs, so that’s why I would consider giving up some assets for him. It’ll be interesting to see what Leon Rose will do.

I don't think LaVine is worth depleting assets for, there's just too many SGs like him in the league now - Cj McCollum, Bradley Beal, Devin Booker, they're all the same guy to me. Harden is the only true franchise SG in the league, and the only really unique 2 guard outside of him is Jaylen Brown because he can guard multiple positions.

If we can sign LaVine after next season, great, but if it's between LaVine and retaining assets + signing Trent, give me Trent.

I’m thinking Lavine can be better than all of them by a long shot under Thibs though (besides Harden). He’s already scoring as good as all those guys, if not better. I think Thibs can get him to be a competent defender like he did for Randle while being super good on offense. At least that’s how I see it

[3toheadmelo]

it's hard to tell if trent is really any good at d. he tries hard but it seems that whole team is abysmal. he's creating for himself more which is nice. advanced stats say he doesn't help much though. but portland is maintaining their winning ways with him and without cj. i don't know. lavine will strip you of too many assets so i don't even consider that.

What do you think the Bulls will ask for Lavine?

If they're trading him this year, we'd get an extra year of LaVine before free agency, so they can and would ask for a lot.

I'd expect Obi, IQ, (Frank as filler) both 2021 picks and 2023 pick to be their demand at the very least. Trading for sta

If they ask for IQ I’ll pass then

[NoDopeOnSundays]

i think most of all the knicks should keep almost all of their picks. because lavine, beal, trent, oladipo, whoever is not making you a real contender. you're gonna rely a lot on internal development of the young kids to get there and you can't rely on that. so you might need those picks.

That's my mindset, especially when you look at the next few years of free agents and realize that all the tier 1 guys are locked up for awhile. If we can sign LaVine that's different, I'm all for it, but trading for him doesn't make sense.

in some ways this is similar to the vanvleet situation which i was against. but i thought we were gonna trade randle and bottom out, so signing anyone who wasn't a superstar seemed like a bad idea. i wanted as high a pick as possible. now that's obviously not the case with randle playing like this so they'll sign someone. can trent become a brogdon level player ? hard to say.

I liked FVV, because he would have fixed our need for a PG, and on his own he's not good enough to win you games but he's young enough that you didn't need to worry too much about it. With the way they're playing under Thibs we'd probably be top 4 in the East right now. My thinking with Trent is different, I think he can be a 17ppg scorer without really improving much as a player, at the very least he'd be similar to Malik Beasley but without gun charges and if you need to trade him in the future there isn't a team in the league that doesn't want a 45% high volume three point shooter. Look at it like this, Bullock takes 4.8 threes per game on 38.6% in only 26mpg, per 36 minutes that's about 7 threes per game, Trent is taking 8.9 threes in 36.5mpg and shooting 45.8% on them. Give him 36mpg with us and the same looks Bullock gets and how that impacts our offense to have a lights out sniper playing the 2.

[god shammgod]

That's my mindset, especially when you look at the next few years of free agents and realize that all the tier 1 guys are locked up for awhile. If we can sign LaVine that's different, I'm all for it, but trading for him doesn't make sense.

in some ways this is similar to the vanvleet situation which i was against. but i thought we were gonna trade randle and bottom out, so signing anyone who wasn't a superstar seemed like a bad idea. i wanted as high a pick as possible. now that's obviously not the case with randle playing like this so they'll sign someone. can trent become a brogdon level player ? hard to say.

I liked FVV, because he would have fixed our need for a PG, and on his own he's not good enough to win you games but he's young enough that you didn't need to worry too much about it. With the way they're playing under Thibs we'd probably be top 4 in the East right now. My thinking with Trent is different, I think he can be a 17ppg scorer without really improving much as a player, at the very least he'd be similar to Malik Beasley but without gun charges and if you need to trade him in the future there isn't a team in the league that doesn't want a 45% high volume three point shooter. Look at it like this, Bullock takes 4.8 threes per game on 38.6% in only 26mpg, per 36 minutes that's about 7 threes per game, Trent is taking 8.9 threes in 36.5mpg and shooting 45.8% on them. Give him 36mpg with us and the same looks Bullock gets and how that impacts our offense to have a lights out sniper playing the 2.

sure, he'll help with his shooting but can he be more than 3&d for 20 mill a year is the question.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

What do you think the Bulls will ask for Lavine?

If they're trading him this year, we'd get an extra year of LaVine before free agency, so they can and would ask for a lot.

I'd expect Obi, IQ, (Frank as filler) both 2021 picks and 2023 pick to be their demand at the very least. Trading for sta

If they ask for IQ I’ll pass then

We really don't have any assets that we'd want to move to be honest. We probably have enough to get LaVine right now, but it would probably cost us at least 2 of our core 4 younger players (Obi, IQ, Rj and Mitch) and picks ontop. Trading for him now with a year left on his deal is how they can ask for a lot.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

in some ways this is similar to the vanvleet situation which i was against. but i thought we were gonna trade randle and bottom out, so signing anyone who wasn't a superstar seemed like a bad idea. i wanted as high a pick as possible. now that's obviously not the case with randle playing like this so they'll sign someone. can trent become a brogdon level player ? hard to say.

I liked FVV, because he would have fixed our need for a PG, and on his own he's not good enough to win you games but he's young enough that you didn't need to worry too much about it. With the way they're playing under Thibs we'd probably be top 4 in the East right now. My thinking with Trent is different, I think he can be a 17ppg scorer without really improving much as a player, at the very least he'd be similar to Malik Beasley but without gun charges and if you need to trade him in the future there isn't a team in the league that doesn't want a 45% high volume three point shooter. Look at it like this, Bullock takes 4.8 threes per game on 38.6% in only 26mpg, per 36 minutes that's about 7 threes per game, Trent is taking 8.9 threes in 36.5mpg and shooting 45.8% on them. Give him 36mpg with us and the same looks Bullock gets and how that impacts our offense to have a lights out sniper playing the 2.

sure, he'll help with his shooting but can he be more than 3&d for 20 mill a year is the question.

I'd think Trent would be better under Thibs, right? He tries on that side of the ball, still young, I think he can improve. We all assume LaVine would be a better defender with Thibs, no reason to think Trent wouldn't be either, since he actually gives effort already.

[god shammgod]

I liked FVV, because he would have fixed our need for a PG, and on his own he's not good enough to win you games but he's young enough that you didn't need to worry too much about it. With the way they're playing under Thibs we'd probably be top 4 in the East right now. My thinking with Trent is different, I think he can be a 17ppg scorer without really improving much as a player, at the very least he'd be similar to Malik Beasley but without gun charges and if you need to trade him in the future there isn't a team in the league that doesn't want a 45% high volume three point shooter. Look at it like this, Bullock takes 4.8 threes per game on 38.6% in only 26mpg, per 36 minutes that's about 7 threes per game, Trent is taking 8.9 threes in 36.5mpg and shooting 45.8% on them. Give him 36mpg with us and the same looks Bullock gets and how that impacts our offense to have a lights out sniper playing the 2.

sure, he'll help with his shooting but can he be more than 3&d for 20 mill a year is the question.

I'd think Trent would be better under Thibs, right? He tries on that side of the ball, still young, I think he can improve. We all assume LaVine would be a better defender with Thibs, no reason to think Trent wouldn't be either, since he actually gives effort already.

i don't. i don't think there's any helping him. thibs couldn't get kat to play defense either. some guys you can't help.