ImageImage

(Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets

Moderators: The Sebastian Express, Moonbeam, DeBlazerRiddem

BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

(Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#1 » by BNM » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:33 pm

With training camp and the preseason still months away, it's quite early to be thinking about mid-season moves, but that's also exactly why I am (not much else to talk about right now). So, here's the two moves I'd love to see happen (this depends on Nurk being back and looking halfway decent by the trade deadline).

Note: I am targeting players on teams that are likely to be out of the playoff hunt come January/February as they are most likely to be willing to move a veteran player on a long term contract for an expiring contract + young, cheap talent and draft picks (all things the Blazers can offer a potential trading partner)

1) Hassan Whiteside + Nassir Little + pick(s) for Blake Griffin

Obvious benefits for POR: a great scoring PF with 3-point range who is also a great distributor. In the past, I was vehemently opposed to trading for Blake. I pretty much hated that whole Lob City Clippers team (No Good Clippers!!!), but Blake has reinvented his game to much better suit "today's NBA". He has really upped his 3-point shooting and become a top notch distributor from the PF position. With Blake on the floor, opposing defenses can no longer focus solely on Dame and C.J. He gives POR a secondary ball handler/distributor to neutralize teams attempting to trap/double Dame (a better passing version of Evan Turner who can also knock down 3-pointers and get you 24.5 ppg). He also fits great next to both Nurk and Zach. With Nurk, he can space the floor (and the passing from the 4 and 5 spots would be insane, like Webber/Divac good). With Zach, Blake can play bully ball on the low block while Zach can knock down corner 3s (they can even take turns posting up and spacing the floor). With those three, we'd always have a combination of great interior defense + excellent passing + low post scoring + respectable 3-point shooting on the floor at all times at the 4/5 positions.

Obvious benefits for DET: They get out of the last 2.5 years of Blake's massive contract (which saves them between $75 and $80 million), they get cheap young talent and draft picks to jump start their rebuild.

2) Kent Bazemore + Gary Trent Jr. + pick(s) for Robert Covington + Noah Vonleh + filler

Obvious benefits for POR: Covington is flat out one of the best defensive forwards in the league, who is also a decent 3-point shooter. In 2017-18 he was voted 1st team all defense, beating out Draymond Green, Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, etc. I keep reading about how much POR will miss the defense of Aminu and Harkless, well Covington replaces that and takes it to another level. He is the one get-able defender capable of guarding Kawhi, LeBron, Klay, Harden, etc. And let's face it: Stotts HATES to double and during a deep playoff run, POR will see one, or more, of those guys in the playoffs. Covington is also a much more reliable 3-point shooter than Aminu or Harkless. He turns 29 in December, which would fit in perfectly with Dame's time line. He's on a reasonable contract and would be locked up for 2.5 seasons after the trade.

Note: I also considered Otto Porter here, due to his > .400 career 3FG%, but don't think POR would have what it takes to get Porter after trading for Blake. Plus I'm not sure if CHI will be in any hurry to trade him. A starting/finishing 5 of Nurk, Blake, Porter, McCollum and Lillard would be almost impossible to guard, but I think Porter as a 4th/5th option would be under-utilized (and overpaid). So I went for the more realist, less expensive, better defending option in Covington.

Note 2: I also like the idea of bringing back Noah Vonleh. He's on a cheap 1-year/$2 million contract (MIN would need to throw in a couple cheap contracts anyway to make salaries match). So, obviously, they don't consider him a long term piece of their future. He knows the POR system, is well liked by his coaches and teammates, won't grumble about his role, PT or a lack of touches, and gives POR some rebounding and defense off the bench and some insurance against injuries and foul trouble.

Obvious benefits for MIN: Pretty similar to the DET package. Covington is NOT overpaid, but at almost 29, he's 4.5 - 5 years older than their young core of KAT and Wiggins, so keeping him around for another 2.5 seasons really does nothing to help their rebuild. They save about $25 million over the last 2.5 years of his contract, plus add young, cheap talent and draft pick(s) to jump start their rebuild/retool.

My goal here is to MASSIVELY upgrade the starting forward positions with proven players whose skills fit well with the remaining piece while addressing multiple areas of weakness. The real goal is to totally commit to "winning now" during Dame's prime, without completely mortgaging the future (i.e. keeping Collins and Simons). I think with these changes, POR will be much better suited to matching up with the elite teams in the West and have as good a chance as any of competing for a title this season and the two seasons after that. The contracts of the guys they are getting both expire at the same time. So if things aren't looking good at that point, you let them expire and start the retool around Nurk, Collins and Simons.

Note: To get these two players, I am totally fine with giving up whatever future draft picks necessary to make it happen (that's the cost for keeping Collins and Simons). We currently own all of our future draft picks and the Stepien rule will prevent us from going consecutive years without a 1st round pick. And adding Giffin and Covington to our core will mean those draft picks will be very late 20s for the first few years and maybe you put some protections on the ones beyond 2023, just in case (or offer some pick swaps, that seems to be in vogue right now).

The "new" starting 5:

Dame
C.J.
Covington
Blake
Nurk

6th, 7th and 8th men:
Collins
Simons
Hood

9th and 10th men:
Vonleh
Tolliver

The rest:
Who cares?

Comments? Alternative suggestions?
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 18,356
And1: 701
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#2 » by d-train » Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:23 pm

I would not trade Whiteside for Blake. And, I would not trade Bazemore for Covington and a load of bad contracts. I would continue the course of getting under the tax in 20-21 and loading up with basketball assets that help win now and can be carried forward into 21-22 while staying under the tax in 20-21.
Image
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#3 » by BNM » Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:56 pm

d-train wrote:I would not trade Whiteside for Blake. And, I would not trade Bazemore for Covington and a load of bad contracts. I would continue the course of getting under the tax in 20-21 and loading up with basketball assets that help win now and can be carried forward into 21-22 while staying under the tax in 20-21.


Where did I say anything about "Covington and a load of bad contracts" it would only take a couple small contracts to make the salaries match. One of them would be Vonleh who is only 1 year (this season) at $2 million - so a small, expiring contract, + 1 other small contract.

I don't really get the point of getting under the tax line. If anything, Jody Allen has shown the same commitment to winning, cost be damned, this off season as her brother did. If she's willing to pay the tax, what do I care?

If you want to win now (as in this season or the next two), Blake and Covington fit perfectly with Dame and C.J.'s primes.

What other assets are we going to load up on that will help us win more now than Blake Griffin and Robert Covington? Please be specific. I really want to know what other potentially get-able assets are out there that would make this team a true championship contender during Damain Lillard's prime.
User avatar
Effigy
RealGM
Posts: 11,524
And1: 8,273
Joined: Nov 27, 2001
     

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#4 » by Effigy » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:00 pm

The most likely move would be to try to acquire players who are expiring. Trade our expirings for theirs, like we did with Hood last year. We can't really count of the waiver wire pickups like Kanter to happen again.
Norm2953
RealGM
Posts: 11,271
And1: 560
Joined: May 17, 2003
Location: Oregon

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#5 » by Norm2953 » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:20 pm

We need to see how the pieces fit before we can think of a mid season trade. One obvious
potential spot is if one of Dame/CJ are hurt and will miss several months of the season and
Simons is struggling.
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 18,356
And1: 701
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#6 » by d-train » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:27 pm

BNM wrote:
d-train wrote:I would not trade Whiteside for Blake. And, I would not trade Bazemore for Covington and a load of bad contracts. I would continue the course of getting under the tax in 20-21 and loading up with basketball assets that help win now and can be carried forward into 21-22 while staying under the tax in 20-21.


Where did I say anything about "Covington and a load of bad contracts" it would only take a couple small contracts to make the salaries match. One of them would be Vonleh who is only 1 year (this season) at $2 million - so a small, expiring contract, + 1 other small contract.

I don't really get the point of getting under the tax line. If anything, Jody Allen has shown the same commitment to winning, cost be damned, this off season as her brother did. If she's willing to pay the tax, what do I care?

If you want to win now (as in this season or the next two), Blake and Covington fit perfectly with Dame and C.J.'s primes.

What other assets are we going to load up on that will help us win more now than Blake Griffin and Robert Covington? Please be specific. I really want to know what other potentially get-able assets are out there that would make this team a true championship contender during Damain Lillard's prime.

Your team is worse than the one we have now. Blake, if he is healthy, improves our scoring ability but reduces the opportunities we have to score and increases the scoring opportunities for our opponent. Nurkic isn't going to be of much use with a broken leg.

Blake's contract would guarantee we owe luxury taxes in 20-21 and would put us into guaranteed repeater tax every year until we tear the team completely apart and begin a rebuild. I'm not sure there is any reason to rule out paying repeater tax for the foreseeable future, but I wouldn't obligate the team to pay repeater tax for the privilege of getting worse.

Covington might be slightly better than Bazemore, but why would Wolves trade Covington for a slightly worse player?

Finally, I'm not interested in giving away Trent and Little. They fit our plan of building a team that transfers into the 21-22 season. And, they do nothing to harm our plan of winning now.

I have nothing against reevaluating Blake in 21-22. I would only want him and the health risk if he makes the team worth paying the tax.
Image
DeBlazerRiddem
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 11,888
And1: 3,044
Joined: Mar 11, 2010

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#7 » by DeBlazerRiddem » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:21 pm

BNM wrote:I don't really get the point of getting under the tax line. If anything, Jody Allen has shown the same commitment to winning, cost be damned, this off season as her brother did. If she's willing to pay the tax, what do I care?


As to this point, the repeater tax is a good reason to get out of the tax at least once every 4 years. Otherwise you are basically spending money just for the privilege of having spent money, kind of a double whammy.

10 million over tax penalty
Year 1-3: 16.25 million
Year 4+: 26.25 million

20 million over tax penalty
Year 1-3: 45 million
Year 4+: 65 million

You can see there is also a huge difference between being 10 and 20 million in the tax, so trying to reduce tax as close to the line makes a ton of sense too. Jody might be OK spending 16 million for the ability to go 10 million over the tax, but maybe isn't as happy to spend $45 million to go 20 million over (diminishing returns).
zzaj
Head Coach
Posts: 6,207
And1: 1,718
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
 

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#8 » by zzaj » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:47 am

I really like both trades, which usually means the other teams wouldn't...

My main concern is the "CJ issue" looming. We all know Olshey is super loathe to trade CJ, but I can't imagine a reality where locking up both Lillard and CJ at max or near max contracts will help the team win more games moving forward.
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#9 » by BNM » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:56 pm

Effigy wrote:The most likely move would be to try to acquire players who are expiring. Trade our expirings for theirs, like we did with Hood last year. We can't really count of the waiver wire pickups like Kanter to happen again.


We already did that. We traded Meyers and Moe for Whiteside and Turner for Bazemore. I don't see any point in continuing to swap our expiring contracts for others midseason. The only real reason to trade those expiring contracts is to actually get the pieces to make us a contender during Dame's prime. That was the point of my first post.
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#10 » by BNM » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:38 pm

d-train wrote:
BNM wrote:
d-train wrote:I would not trade Whiteside for Blake. And, I would not trade Bazemore for Covington and a load of bad contracts. I would continue the course of getting under the tax in 20-21 and loading up with basketball assets that help win now and can be carried forward into 21-22 while staying under the tax in 20-21.


Where did I say anything about "Covington and a load of bad contracts" it would only take a couple small contracts to make the salaries match. One of them would be Vonleh who is only 1 year (this season) at $2 million - so a small, expiring contract, + 1 other small contract.

I don't really get the point of getting under the tax line. If anything, Jody Allen has shown the same commitment to winning, cost be damned, this off season as her brother did. If she's willing to pay the tax, what do I care?

If you want to win now (as in this season or the next two), Blake and Covington fit perfectly with Dame and C.J.'s primes.

What other assets are we going to load up on that will help us win more now than Blake Griffin and Robert Covington? Please be specific. I really want to know what other potentially get-able assets are out there that would make this team a true championship contender during Damain Lillard's prime.

Your team is worse than the one we have now. Blake, if he is healthy, improves our scoring ability but reduces the opportunities we have to score and increases the scoring opportunities for our opponent. Nurkic isn't going to be of much use with a broken leg.


Re-read my first post: "this depends on Nurk being back and looking halfway decent by the trade deadline". Yes, it only makes sense to trade Whiteside if Nurk is back and productive.

Did you see this video from June 11?

Read on Twitter


There's a very real chance that Nurk will be back well before the trade deadline. Paul George was back playing in the NBA 8 months after his injury. 8 months would put Nurk back in the lineup in late November. George was not playing at his his previous level after 8 months, but 13 months post injury he was back to playing at a pre-injury all NBA level. Every injury is unique, but it was reported Nurk had no nerve or tendon/ligament damage. It was described as a clean break. Even being cautious and adding two months to George's timeline, Nurk could be participating in practice around Christmas time and back in the lineup in January. Again, my entire post was predicated on Nurk being back and playing decent by the trade deadline.

d-train wrote:Blake's contract would guarantee we owe luxury taxes in 20-21 and would put us into guaranteed repeater tax every year until we tear the team completely apart and begin a rebuild. I'm not sure there is any reason to rule out paying repeater tax for the foreseeable future, but I wouldn't obligate the team to pay repeater tax for the privilege of getting worse.


Because I don't think adding a 3rd team All NBA power forward who averaged 24.5 ppg, 5.4 apg and shot .362 from 3-point range makes us worse. If Nurk is back and looking decent, Whiteside is redundant. You can't play Nurk and Whiteside together. Both are strictly centers. With Nurk, Blake and Collins, you can play any combination of 2 of the 3 together (i.e. Nurk/Blake, Nurk/Zach, Zach/Blake). How is that not better than: Whitside/Zach, Nurk/Tolliver, Zach/Tolliver?

d-train wrote:Covington might be slightly better than Bazemore, but why would Wolves trade Covington for a slightly worse player?


Slightly better?????? In his last full season, Covington was 1st team all defense. He is WAY better defensively than Bazemore and 4" taller. Bazemore is a SG (we already have C.J. and Simons) who can play spot minutes at SF. Last season in ATL, he played 88% of his minutes at SG, 4% at SF. Covington is a SF who can also play PF against small ball lineups. Covington is a better 3-point shooter and an all around more efficient scorer.

Why would MIN do it? I already covered that in my original post. Covinton is 29, 4.5 - 5 years older than KAT and Wiggins. He does not fit into their long term plans, but is under contract for 3 more seasons. Bazemore's expiring contract gets them out of the final 2.5 years of Covington's contract, and we throw in a young player (Trent Jr.) and a pick as further enticement. We also just gave them Jake Layman for nothing. That alone doesn't mean much, but at least we have established some goodwill with their front office. We helped them get a younger player. Maybe they'll help us get an older player than fits better with Lillard's prime.

d-train wrote:Finally, I'm not interested in giving away Trent and Little. They fit our plan of building a team that transfers into the 21-22 season. And, they do nothing to harm our plan of winning now.


They do absolutely nothing to help us win now. So, yeah that actually is harming our ability to win now. Dame is 29 and in the prime of his career. Do we really want to punt on the next two seasons in the hoe that Little and Trent eventually become solid rotation players?

d-train wrote:I have nothing against reevaluating Blake in 21-22. I would only want him and the health risk if he makes the team worth paying the tax.


Again do you want to waste two years of Dame's prime in the hope that Blake will be available and as good at 33 as he is at 31?

What I proposed is trading two short term rentals (Whiteside and Bazemore) and a couple of unproven, very raw, very young late picks for a 3rd team All NBA PF and a 1st team All Defense SF who at 30 and 29 years old match perfectly with Dame's time line. Both would be locked up for the remainder of this season + 2 more (so three deep playoff runs and hopefully an NBA title to show for it). If this team hopes to contend for a title in Damian Lillard's prime, this is the time to act, not waste two seasons of Dame's prime. Plus, we get to keep Collins and Simons, our two best young players (by far). Adding Blake and Covington makes us better on both sides of the ball (again, assuming Nurk is back and healthy). Whiteside is a great temporary Nurk replacement, but once Nurk is back, I'd really like to leverage that big expiring contract for a huge upgrade at PF, as well as leveraging Bazemore's very large expiring contract for a significant upgrade at SF. That addresses the weaknesses at the two forward positions that opponents have exploited in the playoffs for the last four seasons.
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#11 » by BNM » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:44 pm

DeBlazerRiddem wrote:
BNM wrote:I don't really get the point of getting under the tax line. If anything, Jody Allen has shown the same commitment to winning, cost be damned, this off season as her brother did. If she's willing to pay the tax, what do I care?


As to this point, the repeater tax is a good reason to get out of the tax at least once every 4 years. Otherwise you are basically spending money just for the privilege of having spent money, kind of a double whammy.

10 million over tax penalty
Year 1-3: 16.25 million
Year 4+: 26.25 million

20 million over tax penalty
Year 1-3: 45 million
Year 4+: 65 million

You can see there is also a huge difference between being 10 and 20 million in the tax, so trying to reduce tax as close to the line makes a ton of sense too. Jody might be OK spending 16 million for the ability to go 10 million over the tax, but maybe isn't as happy to spend $45 million to go 20 million over (diminishing returns).


I fully understand the implications of the luxury tax, but Jody Allen just agreed to a huge max extension for Damian Lillard and we actually took on more salary in both the Turner for Bazemore and Moe + Meyers for Whiteside trades. If the point isn't to contend for a title in Dame's prime, why make these moves? Dame is now 29, right smack in his prime. If the goal is to compete for, and hopefully win, a title, it's not going to come for free. What's the point of giving Dame a max extension if the goal is not to compete for a championship?

These two moves would give POR a three year window of title contention. Yep, they'd be playing luxury tax and be impeded from adding additional talent by the repeater tax limitations on trades, but that's why you need to get that talent now. How else are you going to add a 3rd team All NBA PF and a 1st team All Defense SF and have them locked up for three playoff runs?
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#12 » by BNM » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:51 pm

zzaj wrote:I really like both trades, which usually means the other teams wouldn't...

My main concern is the "CJ issue" looming. We all know Olshey is super loathe to trade CJ, but I can't imagine a reality where locking up both Lillard and CJ at max or near max contracts will help the team win more games moving forward.


C.J. is not a max contract player, He's not an all star or a #1 option. In fact, if we make the proposed trades, he's a #3 option on offense and the 4th best player on the roster. If he insists on a max contract, trade him and groom Simons as his replacement - but that's still aways down the road. If we make these trades, and it makes POR a legitimate contender, C.J. may decide he wants to be part of that. Curry, Klay and Draymond all took below market deals to stay in Golden State. Curry and Klay eventually got the big paydays, but Draymond hasn't and GSW didn't have to give Klay a max extension after losing Durant. They did because they think they can still contend with Curry, Klay and Draymond, the core of the team that won their first title and won 67 and 73 games in the two seasons before Durant arrived.
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#13 » by BNM » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:09 pm

One rumor that's going around is Bazemore + Trent Jr. + pick for Danilo Gallinari. POR would basically be swapping Bazemore's expiring contract for Gallinari's expiring contract. We'd be giving up Trent Jr. + pick for a 1-year rental of Gallinari.

Thoughts?

That's the exact same package I proposed for Covington. Personally, I'd prefer Covington. He's two years younger, locked up longer, less injury prone and plays defense. When healthy, Gallinari is a better 3-point shooter and a better passer, but if we also add Blake Griffin, we add even better scoring and passing at the 4 and could really use Covington's defense at the 3. Gallinari, when healthy, is clearly better than Bazemore, but I'd prefer to lock in a 3-year window of contention with Blake and Covington over a 1-year rental of Gallinari.
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#14 » by BNM » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:15 pm

Norm2953 wrote:We need to see how the pieces fit before we can think of a mid season trade. One obvious
potential spot is if one of Dame/CJ are hurt and will miss several months of the season and
Simons is struggling.


That's why I included the word "premature" in the subject line. Obviously a significant injury would change the priorities, but since injuries are impossible to accurately predict, I am assuming (as stated) that Nurk is back and looking decent and we have no other significant injuries at the time of the trade deadline.

We are obviously thin at back up PG, which is one reason I like the Blake Griffin trade. You can actually run your offense through Blake with two SG/combo guards (C.J. and Simons) on the floor. Blake gives you that extra ball handler/distributor Turner was supposed to give us, but, unlike Turner, you have to actually guard Blake - both in the paint and out to the 3-point line.
DeBlazerRiddem
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 11,888
And1: 3,044
Joined: Mar 11, 2010

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#15 » by DeBlazerRiddem » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:31 pm

BNM wrote:I fully understand the implications of the luxury tax, but Jody Allen just agreed to a huge max extension for Damian Lillard and we actually took on more salary in both the Turner for Bazemore and Moe + Meyers for Whiteside trades. If the point isn't to contend for a title in Dame's prime, why make these moves? Dame is now 29, right smack in his prime. If the goal is to compete for, and hopefully win, a title, it's not going to come for free. What's the point of giving Dame a max extension if the goal is not to compete for a championship?

These two moves would give POR a three year window of title contention. Yep, they'd be playing luxury tax and be impeded from adding additional talent by the repeater tax limitations on trades, but that's why you need to get that talent now. How else are you going to add a 3rd team All NBA PF and a 1st team All Defense SF and have them locked up for three playoff runs?


I'm just saying, if we can get out of the tax next year it resets us and lets us be a luxury tax team for Damian's last prime years. If there is a move too good to pass up before that maybe you reconsider. As a fan, no need to worry about the tax, however I don't think we can totally neglect the pocketbook of the one signing the checks if we want to keep our GM job. Maybe its not the most important considering if we really think a championship is on the table, but it absolutely needs to be a consideration and cannot be hand waived away forever just because Jody agreed to the tax this year.

BNM wrote:One rumor that's going around is Bazemore + Trent Jr. + pick for Danilo Gallinari. POR would basically be swapping Bazemore's expiring contract for Gallinari's expiring contract. We'd be giving up Trent Jr. + pick for a 1-year rental of Gallinari.

Thoughts?

That's the exact same package I proposed for Covington. Personally, I'd prefer Covington. He's two years younger, locked up longer, less injury prone and plays defense. When healthy, Gallinari is a better 3-point shooter and a better passer, but if we also add Blake Griffin, we add even better scoring and passing at the 4 and could really use Covington's defense at the 3. Gallinari, when healthy, is clearly better than Bazemore, but I'd prefer to lock in a 3-year window of contention with Blake and Covington over a 1-year rental of Gallinari.


For Gallo I probably would not include Trent Jr, he would be necessary depth at the 2/3 spot after the trade. I really would not want Gallo playing much of the 3 at all. I also doubt Trent Jr is really that valuable to OKC, if its really a deal breaker we can sign some vet min instead, but I just don't see his inclusion being necessary.

For Covington, who I would love on this team, I don't think that package really gets the conversation started.
User avatar
JasonStern
General Manager
Posts: 8,521
And1: 1,874
Joined: Dec 13, 2008
 

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#16 » by JasonStern » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:37 pm

if we're just throwing stuff at the wall:

Read on Twitter


Aldridge for Collins+Bazemore+pick works...
Neil Olshey wrote:I'm rich, *****! <honk honk>
BNM
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 1,538
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#17 » by BNM » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:56 pm

JasonStern wrote:if we're just throwing stuff at the wall:

Read on Twitter


Aldridge for Collins+Bazemore+pick works...


Although Aldridge is now 34, his game has aged well. Still, I wouldn't want to give up Collins to get him. The two trades I suggested let us keep both Collins and Simons.

I think one reason Aldridge would love to come back to POR is he HATES playing center, he always has. With Whiteside and Nurk, he wouldn't have to, but do you really want 34-year old Aldridge chasing smaller stretch 4s on the perimeter? Against small ball lineups, we couldn't really play Nurk/Aldridge (or Whiteside/Aldridge).

I'd much rather get Blake Griffin, his 3-point shooting and passing skills. I think he fits better next to Nurk and Collins, gives POR a secondary ball handler, an additional 3-point threat and is over 3 years younger than Aldridge. Plus, we get to keep Collins (in theory) who fits perfectly next to Nurk and Blake.
realboredcactus
Ballboy
Posts: 31
And1: 3
Joined: Jul 01, 2019
   

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#18 » by realboredcactus » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:59 am

JasonStern wrote:if we're just throwing stuff at the wall:

Read on Twitter


Aldridge for Collins+Bazemore+pick works...


God no. I don't think that we should not go for him, but rather he will go for less and we should not give up young assets for him. He has 2yrs/$50mil left, and I can see the Spurs trying to offload him next season, or possibly coming back to retire in portland and play his last 2-3 years here. I doubt we give away pieces for him
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 34,148
And1: 6,124
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#19 » by Wizenheimer » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:42 pm

DeBlazerRiddem wrote:I'm just saying, if we can get out of the tax next year it resets us and lets us be a luxury tax team for Damian's last prime years.


that's not completely accurate

the repeater tax clock is essentially being a tax team for 3 of the previous 4 seasons. If Portland gets out of the tax next season but jumps back over when Dame's super-max kicks in (and quite possibly CJ's 40M/year max...yuck!), then the Blazers are back on the repeater tax track. They need two consecutive years (or 2 out of 3) of not paying tax to drop out of that track. Just one season under the tax-line doesn't do it, only delays it one year

if Portland is paying 88-90M a year for Dame and CJ, they will likely either be paying repeater tax or be pretender with a crappy bench

Portland would be paying repeater tax in the 2nd year of Dame's super-max
HoopsFanAZ
Pro Prospect
Posts: 776
And1: 132
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: (Premature) Mid Season Trade Targets 

Post#20 » by HoopsFanAZ » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:25 pm

Wanting to play for a team makes a difference. Motivation is internal. If LMA wants to return and IF the Spurs acknowledge the rebuild away from their midrange stars — DeRozan and LMA — the speculation is reasonable. What is less likely is trading the next wave — Collins, Simons, Little. It’s been made clear that sustainable success is both the Blazers’ history (at least during the regular season) and a recent mantra by Olshey.

Return to Portland Trail Blazers