Post Draft: 2025 Off Season Part 2- What's Next?

[Case2012]

Joe's not doing anything. He's done for the summer which means he's done until next year because he doesn't do anything at the deadline. I think we've seen the last of Joe Cronin's basketball career.

Whoever spends 4 billion on the Blazers are firing Joe on the spot.

Grant is probably gonna start and Sharpe is coming off the bench.

Jrue/Scoot
Toumani/Sharpe/Love
Deni/Thybulle/Rupert
Grant/Murray
Clingan/RW/Yang/Reath

That's it, that's the team. I think we'll play hard and win some games and be good enough to just miss the play-in.

MAYBE Grant rehabs his value and Cronin makes one last ditch effort to save his job by sending him to a contender at the deadline but I doubt it.

I will admit that I am really excited to see how good our defense is, on paper it looks like it could be the top 3 maybe even the best.

Pretty much how I see it...

Jrue/Scoot
Toumani/Sharpe
Deni/Thybulle
Grant
Clingan/Reath/Yang

RWIII might play some games? Reath plays early on and Yang HOPEFULLY is ready by the end of the season.

Our D hinges on Clingan being able to stay healthy, coming in in-shape and staying on the floor with limited foul trouble.

I will be shocked to see Murray make any progress - he is what he is at this point. Rupert is young enough to still develop materially - that would be awesome. Same with Cissoko.

Making the playoffs will hinge on injuries to players on other teams.

Right, I mean I expect 2 of Deni, Grant, Thybulle, and Toumani is going to be on the floor at all times and they all play the 3-4 so I'm not worried about it. We also have Murray still who is a 3/4 just like all of our forwards. We picked up his option so I guess he'll get spot minutes and there's always injuries. We might bring back Walker as well on a vet min although we didn't pick up his option.

[PDXKnight]

Joe's not doing anything. He's done for the summer which means he's done until next year because he doesn't do anything at the deadline. I think we've seen the last of Joe Cronin's basketball career.

Whoever spends 4 billion on the Blazers are firing Joe on the spot.

Grant is probably gonna start and Sharpe is coming off the bench.

Jrue/Scoot
Toumani/Sharpe/Love
Deni/Thybulle/Rupert
Grant/Murray
Clingan/RW/Yang/Reath

That's it, that's the team. I think we'll play hard and win some games and be good enough to just miss the play-in.

MAYBE Grant rehabs his value and Cronin makes one last ditch effort to save his job by sending him to a contender at the deadline but I doubt it.

I will admit that I am really excited to see how good our defense is, on paper it looks like it could be the top 3 maybe even the best.

Pretty much how I see it...

Jrue/Scoot
Toumani/Sharpe
Deni/Thybulle
Grant
Clingan/Reath/Yang

RWIII might play some games? Reath plays early on and Yang HOPEFULLY is ready by the end of the season.

Our D hinges on Clingan being able to stay healthy, coming in in-shape and staying on the floor with limited foul trouble.

I will be shocked to see Murray make any progress - he is what he is at this point. Rupert is young enough to still develop materially - that would be awesome. Same with Cissoko.

Making the playoffs will hinge on injuries to players on other teams.

Right, I mean I expect 2 of Deni, Grant, Thybulle, and Toumani is going to be on the floor at all times and they all play the 3-4 so I'm not worried about it. We also have Murray still who is a 3/4 just like all of our forwards. We picked up his option so I guess he'll get spot minutes and there's always injuries. We might bring back Walker as well on a vet min although we didn't pick up his option.

We are pretty thin at the 4 especially if we find a suitor for Grant. Hopefully we can get a stop gap in a trade or free agency as even if we move Camara there that leaves us with basically nobody off the bench at the 4

[Case2012]

I don't think we're moving Grant unless we add a first. He can rehab his value so we can trade him next summer or he can continue being a malcontent and hurt his value even more.

[PDXKnight]

I don't think we're moving Grant unless we add a first. He can rehab his value so we can trade him next summer or he can continue being a malcontent and hurt his value even more.

Depends if we take bad money back. I dont want to deal picks to offload him but if we took on a 3 for 1 deal maybe we can make salaries match

[dckingsfan]

Pretty much how I see it...

Jrue/Scoot
Toumani/Sharpe
Deni/Thybulle
Grant
Clingan/Reath/Yang

RWIII might play some games? Reath plays early on and Yang HOPEFULLY is ready by the end of the season.

Our D hinges on Clingan being able to stay healthy, coming in in-shape and staying on the floor with limited foul trouble.

I will be shocked to see Murray make any progress - he is what he is at this point. Rupert is young enough to still develop materially - that would be awesome. Same with Cissoko.

Making the playoffs will hinge on injuries to players on other teams.

Right, I mean I expect 2 of Deni, Grant, Thybulle, and Toumani is going to be on the floor at all times and they all play the 3-4 so I'm not worried about it. We also have Murray still who is a 3/4 just like all of our forwards. We picked up his option so I guess he'll get spot minutes and there's always injuries. We might bring back Walker as well on a vet min although we didn't pick up his option.

We are pretty thin at the 4 especially if we find a suitor for Grant. Hopefully we can get a stop gap in a trade or free agency as even if we move Camara there that leaves us with basically nobody off the bench at the 4

I am not so sure about this... I think three of Camara, Sharpe, Deni, Thybulle & Grant will be on the floor at any given time (sans injuries). Both Deni and Grant can play PF. Deni & Thybulle can play SF, Camara and Sharpe can play SG. You get the idea.

You are right though if there is an injury to any of those 5.

[DusterBuster]

I don't think we're moving Grant unless we add a first. He can rehab his value so we can trade him next summer or he can continue being a malcontent and hurt his value even more.

Depends if we take bad money back. I dont want to deal picks to offload him but if we took on a 3 for 1 deal maybe we can make salaries match

Grant is bad money. Bad money out, usually bad money in.

The reason I've been saying the Blazers should just buy him out is exactly this. You can't even take back bad money because Grant himself is bad money. So if a team has a guy they want out of, say Vanderbilt in Los Angeles, they send him out, but take on a guy with the same amount of years and 3 times his salary if they take back Grant. They don't have more equal bad money length contracts to at least make it an even crap for crap swap.

So you're not going to be able to move him without attaching FRPs, full stop. Blazers (rightfully) aren't willing to do that. They also are making it clear they don't want to commit to any salaries beyond 2027/2028. I think there's a few guys they would make exceptions to for that... actually, just one guy, probably just Camara. Outside of that, they're keeping their books as clean as possible for that season so the new owners will have a relatively clean slate to work with.

If Grant and his agent want him out of Portland, a buy out is the only logical answer here.

[dckingsfan]

I don't think we're moving Grant unless we add a first. He can rehab his value so we can trade him next summer or he can continue being a malcontent and hurt his value even more.

Depends if we take bad money back. I dont want to deal picks to offload him but if we took on a 3 for 1 deal maybe we can make salaries match

Grant is bad money. Bad money out, usually bad money in.

The reason I've been saying the Blazers should just buy him out is exactly this. You can't even take back bad money because Grant himself is bad money. So if a team has a guy they want out of, say Vanderbilt in Los Angeles, they send him out, but take on a guy with the same amount of years and 3 times his salary if they take back Grant. They don't have more equal bad money length contracts to at least make it an even crap for crap swap.

So you're not going to be able to move him without attaching FRPs, full stop. Blazers (rightfully) aren't willing to do that. They also are making it clear they don't want to commit to any salaries beyond 2027/2028. I think there's a few guys they would make exceptions to for that... actually, just one guy, probably just Camara. Outside of that, they're keeping their books as clean as possible for that season so the new owners will have a relatively clean slate to work with.

If Grant and his agent want him out of Portland, a buy out is the only logical answer here.

Agreed.

The rest, not so much unless Grant agrees to a substantial haircut. That gets easier next year and even more so the following year.

[Village Idiot]

Honestly I'd be willing to take a flyer on Ben Simmons on a low-money deal. It would be a high-reward, low-risk type of upside deal. If we can beat the odds and be the teams where he regains his mojo and love for the game fantastic, if not he can be cut with no consequences.

[Case2012]

Honestly I'd be willing to take a flyer on Ben Simmons on a low-money deal. It would be a high-reward, low-risk type of upside deal. If we can beat the odds and be the teams where he regains his mojo and love for the game fantastic, if not he can be cut with no consequences.

Ha, I was thinking about this yesterday after we sent out Ayton. We'd just be swapping out headcase former number 1 pick reclamation projects. You're literally describing Ayton.

As far as the fit goes, we could really use his defense and playmaking. We'd be the most feared team defensively in the league, with 4 and possibly 5 all defense caliber players depending on how Clingan does as a starter. He's the epitome of what CB and Joe have been building right down to the lack of shooting.

Jrue/Scoot
Camara/Sharpe/Love
Deni/Thybulle/Rupert
Grant/Simmons
Clingan/RW/Yang/Duop

We could have the worst offense and the best defense. Just grind teams down for 48 minutes and score mostly on transition and TO's.

I think with the money we saved from the Ayton B/O we could offer him the full MLE which is way more than any other team would offer...

But like I said though, I can't see Joe doing anything else. I guess we do need to add one more player for minimum roster spots but i kind of expected him to just bring back Walker or Banton.

Also, He waited his entire life to play in LA and I think being in LA is more important to him than making a few million more. He got paid 30 million to sit out a season because of his mental health. He's made well over 150 million so I don't think money is as important as the models there.

[BlazersBroncos]

I wouldnt give Simmons more than the VM to play here. The full MLE is far too rich.

14M for a guy who gave 5 / 5 / 5 on .52TS and has serious reliability / attitude issues is far too much $$$.

That being said - he is going to stay in LA or go to NYK IMO. This city wont be flashy enough for him.

[DusterBuster]

Depends if we take bad money back. I dont want to deal picks to offload him but if we took on a 3 for 1 deal maybe we can make salaries match

Grant is bad money. Bad money out, usually bad money in.

The reason I've been saying the Blazers should just buy him out is exactly this. You can't even take back bad money because Grant himself is bad money. So if a team has a guy they want out of, say Vanderbilt in Los Angeles, they send him out, but take on a guy with the same amount of years and 3 times his salary if they take back Grant. They don't have more equal bad money length contracts to at least make it an even crap for crap swap.

So you're not going to be able to move him without attaching FRPs, full stop. Blazers (rightfully) aren't willing to do that. They also are making it clear they don't want to commit to any salaries beyond 2027/2028. I think there's a few guys they would make exceptions to for that... actually, just one guy, probably just Camara. Outside of that, they're keeping their books as clean as possible for that season so the new owners will have a relatively clean slate to work with.

If Grant and his agent want him out of Portland, a buy out is the only logical answer here.

Agreed.

The rest, not so much unless Grant agrees to a substantial haircut. That gets easier next year and even more so the following year.

I'm still waiting for a compelling reason for why that matters what the Blazers pay him to do away. Literally any reason that has a material negative impact on the teams next 3 seasons. They'll still be under the cap, they don't have any big extensions that will kick in during that stretch outside of Camara maybe and they aren't a FA destination so they aren't using that money for big name FA, so unless you have a really big soft spot for Jodie Allen's pocketbook, I'm failing to see why it matters if the Blazers pay off his full contract or not to just go away.

It's not going to get easier to move him next year or the following. That's wishful thinking at best. The Blazers are going to have to still give up picks to move Grant next season/summer. And by the time he's expiring, you could see the same situation they were in with Ayton where it's just going to be forced to waive him.

I just genuinely don't understand where this belief is coming from that it's going to get easier to trade Grant. I've long held the belief it's easier to move overpaid guys as they've got 2 seasons or expiring left, but actual NBA history when you look at it proves I've been absolutely dead wrong with that - which is why I've changed my tune.

[dckingsfan]

Grant is bad money. Bad money out, usually bad money in.

The reason I've been saying the Blazers should just buy him out is exactly this. You can't even take back bad money because Grant himself is bad money. So if a team has a guy they want out of, say Vanderbilt in Los Angeles, they send him out, but take on a guy with the same amount of years and 3 times his salary if they take back Grant. They don't have more equal bad money length contracts to at least make it an even crap for crap swap.

So you're not going to be able to move him without attaching FRPs, full stop. Blazers (rightfully) aren't willing to do that. They also are making it clear they don't want to commit to any salaries beyond 2027/2028. I think there's a few guys they would make exceptions to for that... actually, just one guy, probably just Camara. Outside of that, they're keeping their books as clean as possible for that season so the new owners will have a relatively clean slate to work with.

If Grant and his agent want him out of Portland, a buy out is the only logical answer here.

Agreed.

The rest, not so much unless Grant agrees to a substantial haircut. That gets easier next year and even more so the following year.

I'm still waiting for a compelling reason for why that matters what the Blazers pay him to do away. Literally any reason that has a material negative impact on the teams next 3 seasons. They'll still be under the cap, they don't have any big extensions that will kick in during that stretch outside of Camara maybe and they aren't a FA destination so they aren't using that money for big name FA, so unless you have a really big soft spot for Jodie Allen's pocketbook, I'm failing to see why it matters if the Blazers pay off his full contract or not to just go away.

It's not going to get easier to move him next year or the following. That's wishful thinking at best. The Blazers are going to have to still give up picks to move Grant next season/summer. And by the time he's expiring, you could see the same situation they were in with Ayton where it's just going to be forced to waive him.

I just genuinely don't understand where this belief is coming from that it's going to get easier to trade Grant. I've long held the belief it's easier to move overpaid guys as they've got 2 seasons or expiring left, but actual NBA history when you look at it proves I've been absolutely dead wrong with that - which is why I've changed my tune.

Well, it isn't necessarily going to be compelling for you - it is what is compelling for the FO. And they have access to information that neither of us have. Was he late for practices, meetings and planes? Was he disruptive? Did he intentionally undermine his teammates? Did he intentionally undermine the coach? Did he play hard in the games?

If the FO and coach feel that Grant is not a distraction and could add wins to the team - they are going to keep him. Full Stop.

In the future, his contract will be less burdensome and having the contract on the books allows them flexibility to trade him (if they want). Also, a player is much more likely to take a haircut in the final year vs. over three years. Lastly, you are playing n-game theory. So, if you wave Grant, he gets to go to another team at a steep discount. That makes the other team better.

All of this might not be compelling for you. But it could be compelling for the FO. I think we need to give them the latitude to decide based upon the information they have that we don't.

[BlazersBroncos]

Grant is bad money. Bad money out, usually bad money in.

The reason I've been saying the Blazers should just buy him out is exactly this. You can't even take back bad money because Grant himself is bad money. So if a team has a guy they want out of, say Vanderbilt in Los Angeles, they send him out, but take on a guy with the same amount of years and 3 times his salary if they take back Grant. They don't have more equal bad money length contracts to at least make it an even crap for crap swap.

So you're not going to be able to move him without attaching FRPs, full stop. Blazers (rightfully) aren't willing to do that. They also are making it clear they don't want to commit to any salaries beyond 2027/2028. I think there's a few guys they would make exceptions to for that... actually, just one guy, probably just Camara. Outside of that, they're keeping their books as clean as possible for that season so the new owners will have a relatively clean slate to work with.

If Grant and his agent want him out of Portland, a buy out is the only logical answer here.

Agreed.

The rest, not so much unless Grant agrees to a substantial haircut. That gets easier next year and even more so the following year.

I'm still waiting for a compelling reason for why that matters what the Blazers pay him to do away. Literally any reason that has a material negative impact on the teams next 3 seasons. They'll still be under the cap, they don't have any big extensions that will kick in during that stretch outside of Camara maybe and they aren't a FA destination so they aren't using that money for big name FA, so unless you have a really big soft spot for Jodie Allen's pocketbook, I'm failing to see why it matters if the Blazers pay off his full contract or not to just go away.

It's not going to get easier to move him next year or the following. That's wishful thinking at best. The Blazers are going to have to still give up picks to move Grant next season/summer. And by the time he's expiring, you could see the same situation they were in with Ayton where it's just going to be forced to waive him.

I just genuinely don't understand where this belief is coming from that it's going to get easier to trade Grant. I've long held the belief it's easier to move overpaid guys as they've got 2 seasons or expiring left, but actual NBA history when you look at it proves I've been absolutely dead wrong with that - which is why I've changed my tune.

The idea would be that if Grant can return to 22/23 or 23/24 efficiency and be a good soldier his value next summer with only 2 years left might be just enough for a team to move a shorter deal for him - or a deal of similar length and some sort of mediocre-at-best asset.

I also think the goal this year has to be to get into the playoffs to convey that CHI owned FRP - waiving Jerami hurts playoff chances IMO. We need him off the bench to create some buckets and his high 3PTr is needed with Simons gone and the team generally just not being a good shooting team.

[dckingsfan]

Agreed.

The rest, not so much unless Grant agrees to a substantial haircut. That gets easier next year and even more so the following year.

I'm still waiting for a compelling reason for why that matters what the Blazers pay him to do away. Literally any reason that has a material negative impact on the teams next 3 seasons. They'll still be under the cap, they don't have any big extensions that will kick in during that stretch outside of Camara maybe and they aren't a FA destination so they aren't using that money for big name FA, so unless you have a really big soft spot for Jodie Allen's pocketbook, I'm failing to see why it matters if the Blazers pay off his full contract or not to just go away.

It's not going to get easier to move him next year or the following. That's wishful thinking at best. The Blazers are going to have to still give up picks to move Grant next season/summer. And by the time he's expiring, you could see the same situation they were in with Ayton where it's just going to be forced to waive him.

I just genuinely don't understand where this belief is coming from that it's going to get easier to trade Grant. I've long held the belief it's easier to move overpaid guys as they've got 2 seasons or expiring left, but actual NBA history when you look at it proves I've been absolutely dead wrong with that - which is why I've changed my tune.

The idea would be that if Grant can return to 22/23 or 23/24 efficiency and be a good soldier his value next summer with only 2 years left might be just enough for a team to move a shorter deal for him - or a deal of similar length and some sort of mediocre-at-best asset.

I also think the goal this year has to be to get into the playoffs to convey that CHI owned FRP - waiving Jerami hurts playoff chances IMO. We need him off the bench to create some buckets and his high 3PTr is needed with Simons gone and the team generally just not being a good shooting team.

And if you are Cronin and think that the playoffs is the only way to salvage your job, well - that is quite compelling for him.

Conversely, if you want to waive Grant - you would need to have a compelling case to take to management (flipping the script).

[Butter]

Regarding Grant's playing time - which scenario maximizes other teams perception of his value at the trade deadline?

Does he maximize his value to:

A) make him a starter, defending other teams best players
B) bring him off the bench as a super 6th man, with a green light to shoot at will against other teams second unit players?

[DusterBuster]

Agreed.

The rest, not so much unless Grant agrees to a substantial haircut. That gets easier next year and even more so the following year.

I'm still waiting for a compelling reason for why that matters what the Blazers pay him to do away. Literally any reason that has a material negative impact on the teams next 3 seasons. They'll still be under the cap, they don't have any big extensions that will kick in during that stretch outside of Camara maybe and they aren't a FA destination so they aren't using that money for big name FA, so unless you have a really big soft spot for Jodie Allen's pocketbook, I'm failing to see why it matters if the Blazers pay off his full contract or not to just go away.

It's not going to get easier to move him next year or the following. That's wishful thinking at best. The Blazers are going to have to still give up picks to move Grant next season/summer. And by the time he's expiring, you could see the same situation they were in with Ayton where it's just going to be forced to waive him.

I just genuinely don't understand where this belief is coming from that it's going to get easier to trade Grant. I've long held the belief it's easier to move overpaid guys as they've got 2 seasons or expiring left, but actual NBA history when you look at it proves I've been absolutely dead wrong with that - which is why I've changed my tune.

The idea would be that if Grant can return to 22/23 or 23/24 efficiency and be a good soldier his value next summer with only 2 years left might be just enough for a team to move a shorter deal for him - or a deal of similar length and some sort of mediocre-at-best asset.

I also think the goal this year has to be to get into the playoffs to convey that CHI owned FRP - waiving Jerami hurts playoff chances IMO. We need him off the bench to create some buckets and his high 3PTr is needed with Simons gone and the team generally just not being a good shooting team.

This is such a massive if and not something that would be wise to expect to happen unless you enjoy disappointing.

And the idea of "if you do this, it helps another team..." that's not a process any GM seriously considers in their decision making process. All you care about is doing what you feel is best for your team, you can't worry about what other teams may do. Maybe maybe maybe you do that if you're a Top 2-3 team and you don't want to risk helping another contender, but for gods sake people, the Blazers are still at best an 8th seed team. It does not matter if one move ends up helping another team over the next 2-3 seasons... it truly doesn't when you have a young developmental team. The teams priorities should be having clean books and seeing what their collection of lottery picks from the past 4 years can actually do.

And to another question, there is a compelling argument to waive Grant.

*He openly doesn't want to be here.
*We've scoured the league for a deal that fits our needs - it's not there and there's no reason to believe it ever will be.
*We have other players we need to properly evaluate to see if they're extension worthy in the very near future (Sharpe, Deni, Camara) and Grant's position on the team is going to hinder getting that data back on these guys true potential.

You guys are talking about this like the Blazers need to worry if the Lakers or Warriors get 3-4 games better because the Blazers let a player go. That's like worrying your neighbor left his garbage cans out a few days too long while there's a fire in your livingroom. There's bigger and more important priorities the Blazers need to be focused on over if another team get slightly better.

Hell, even if Grant is magically some teams missing piece, who cares? None of that matters for where the Blazers are and how far away they are from contending. If they ever want to get out of here, they need to know if the past 4 years of lottery picks are worth a damn or not.

[Case2012]

I wouldnt give Simmons more than the VM to play here. The full MLE is far too rich.

14M for a guy who gave 5 / 5 / 5 on .52TS and has serious reliability / attitude issues is far too much $$$.

That being said - he is going to stay in LA or go to NYK IMO. This city wont be flashy enough for him.

You wouldn't be paying for his offense. His 5/5/5 comes with first team level defense which is why so many posters on this forum wanted him 3 years ago and the fit would be perfect.

I doubt there's any chance he would come here though unless we massively overpaid, so saying you wouldn't offer anything other than the vet min is saying you wouldn't try and sign him. I get it though, he'd never live in Portland and he's a diva. My guess is his next stop is MIA, they're pretty cooked and need talent from whoever they can get it from and there's plenty of models there.

But from a basketball fit, he'd be perfect for CB's "system" and I would absolutely pay 12-14 for him if I thought he would buy in and be good in the locker-room.. He can defend all 5 positions, 6'10, and we need playmakers. His TS% is irrelevant.. he took a year off because he was too scared to shoot a layup... That's like saying you wouldn't sign Rodman because he doesn't shoot 3's. Context matters when you look at stats. What about his other advanced stats?

2024-25 Defensive EPM: +2.6, 94th percentile among all rotation players.

Defensive Box Plus/Minus: +2.0 (career mark is +2.9, elite for a perimeter player).

Opponents shot just 43 % when he was the closest defender, and he graded in the 92nd percentile guarding the pick-and-roll ball-handler.
2.9 % steal rate and 1.5 % block rate put him in the top decile for combo forwards.

Even in limited minutes he posted a 32 % assist rate (higher than Jrue Holiday or Scoot) with a 2.3-to-1 A:T ratio. Your half-court offense needs a connector who can hit the corner skip and run inverted pick-and-roll; Simmons still does that every trip.

He grabbed 17 % of available rebounds, pushed tempo, and generated 1.28 points per chance in the open floor. That fits the “get stops, run, and let Sharpe finish” identity we keep saying we want.

The non-tax MLE starts at about $13 M. We’re already paying Grant $30 M and Ayton $34 M to do one thing each. Simmons at $13 M to anchor a top-five defense and juice ball movement is a cleaner bet than spending that same slot money on a one-skill shooter.

Yes, the TS% stinks... That’s why he’ll even be available. What you’re buying is a 6-10 point-forward who can guard 1-through-5, crash, and pass, all things we desperately lack behind Jrue and Deni. You can live with a sub-usage finisher when the rest of the lineup supplies the spacing.

The advanced metrics still paint Simmons as a plus-impact defender and secondary creator. At the MLE you’re not chasing a star, you’re renting a specialty tool. For a roster that’s leaning into length, defense and transition, that tool is worth full price in this context IMO.

[Butter]

I wouldnt give Simmons more than the VM to play here. The full MLE is far too rich.

14M for a guy who gave 5 / 5 / 5 on .52TS and has serious reliability / attitude issues is far too much $$$.

That being said - he is going to stay in LA or go to NYK IMO. This city wont be flashy enough for him.

You wouldn't be paying for his offense. His 5/5/5 comes with first team level defense which is why so many posters on this forum wanted him 3 years ago and the fit would be perfect.

I doubt there's any chance he would come here though unless we massively overpaid, so saying you wouldn't offer anything other than the vet min is saying you wouldn't try and sign him. I get it though, he'd never live in Portland and he's a diva. My guess is his next stop is MIA, they're pretty cooked and need talent from whoever they can get it from and there's plenty of models there.

But from a basketball fit, he'd be perfect for CB's "system" and I would absolutely pay 12-14 for him if I thought he would buy in and be good in the locker-room.. He can defend all 5 positions, 6'10, and we need playmakers. His TS% is irrelevant.. he took a year off because he was too scared to shoot a layup... That's like saying you wouldn't sign Rodman because he doesn't shoot 3's. Context matters when you look at stats. What about his other advanced stats?

2024-25 Defensive EPM: +2.6, 94th percentile among all rotation players.

Defensive Box Plus/Minus: +2.0 (career mark is +2.9, elite for a perimeter player).

Opponents shot just 43 % when he was the closest defender, and he graded in the 92nd percentile guarding the pick-and-roll ball-handler.
2.9 % steal rate and 1.5 % block rate put him in the top decile for combo forwards.

Even in limited minutes he posted a 32 % assist rate (higher than Jrue Holiday or Scoot) with a 2.3-to-1 A:T ratio. Your half-court offense needs a connector who can hit the corner skip and run inverted pick-and-roll; Simmons still does that every trip.

He grabbed 17 % of available rebounds, pushed tempo, and generated 1.28 points per chance in the open floor. That fits the “get stops, run, and let Sharpe finish” identity we keep saying we want.

The non-tax MLE starts at about $13 M. We’re already paying Grant $30 M and Ayton $34 M to do one thing each. Simmons at $13 M to anchor a top-five defense and juice ball movement is a cleaner bet than spending that same slot money on a one-skill shooter.

Yes, the TS% stinks... That’s why he’ll even be available. What you’re buying is a 6-10 point-forward who can guard 1-through-5, crash, and pass, all things we desperately lack behind Jrue and Deni. You can live with a sub-usage finisher when the rest of the lineup supplies the spacing.

The advanced metrics still paint Simmons as a plus-impact defender and secondary creator. At the MLE you’re not chasing a star, you’re renting a specialty tool. For a roster that’s leaning into length, defense and transition, that tool is worth full price in this context IMO.

We just paid Ayton to leave because of his negative impact on the team culture. I have serious concerns about Simmons behavior.

Also, could one of you advanced stats gurus run a comparison on Simmons vs Deni's defense and passing? How does Ben compare?

Finally, I get it that Billups wants to build this team around defense, BUT... we do need some semblance of offense. Simmons may help with defense, but his utter lack of perimeter shooting just exacerbates this teams biggest weakness.

[Butter]

This is such a massive if and not something that would be wise to expect to happen unless you enjoy disappointing.

And the idea of "if you do this, it helps another team..." that's not a process any GM seriously considers in their decision making process. All you care about is doing what you feel is best for your team, you can't worry about what other teams may do. Maybe maybe maybe you do that if you're a Top 2-3 team and you don't want to risk helping another contender, but for gods sake people, the Blazers are still at best an 8th seed team. It does not matter if one move ends up helping another team over the next 2-3 seasons... it truly doesn't when you have a young developmental team. The teams priorities should be having clean books and seeing what their collection of lottery picks from the past 4 years can actually do.

And to another question, there is a compelling argument to waive Grant.

I agree that Cronin's priority should be about making the Blazers better, not worrying about other teams, however, waiving Grant has some significant implications. If Cronin has to dump Ayton, and Grant, what does that mean for his ability to evaluate talent? Not good.

*He openly doesn't want to be here.

Got it, but Grant would not be the first player who's unhappy. At his salary, sometimes milionaires can't be choosers, AND expect a full by out.

*We've scoured the league for a deal that fits our needs - it's not there and there's no reason to believe it ever will be.

How do we know? It may be that Cronin won't get two FRPs. That doesn't mean the Blazers can't make a trade. Even if it was a 2 for 1 or 3 for two deal that brings back several players to break up his contract into multiple players.


*

have other players we need to properly evaluate to see if they're extension worthy in the very near future (Sharpe, Deni, Camara) and Grant's position on the team is going to hinder getting that data back on these guys true potential.

I think we know what they have with Deni and Camara, but agree about Sharpe. Thats why I've proposed to bench Grant. The other option is to extend Camara now, and then bring him off the bench.

You guys are talking about this like the Blazers need to worry if the Lakers or Warriors get 3-4 games better because the Blazers let a player go. That's like worrying your neighbor left his garbage cans out a few days too long while there's a fire in your livingroom. There's bigger and more important priorities the Blazers need to be focused on over if another team get slightly better.

Hell, even if Grant is magically some teams missing piece, who cares? None of that matters for where the Blazers are and how far away they are from contending. If they ever want to get out of here, they need to know if the past 4 years of lottery picks are worth a damn or not.

At the end of the day, this is hitting the nail on the head. Get us back to RIP City Joe!

[Butter]

Here's a new trade concept - I think.

Blazers Trade:
Jerami Grant
RWIII -or- Thybuille

Suns Trade:
Bradley Beal

Blazers consolidate Grant's 3 years of contract into 2 years of Beal and save some money aggregated over the Total time span between Grant and the 2nd players total cost.