Ayton, Grant, and Simons for anything?

[Tim Lehrbach]

I just made a post in the NOP game thread semi-defending Cronin for not trading these three. I simply don't believe there is demand for them. At least on the RealGM trade market (which is stupid, admittedly), we've been over myriad scenarios a million times at the Trades and Transactions Board, and nothing seems to stick that returns anything the Blazers would actually want. And, of course, we have as evidence for their soft markets the fact that they have not been traded.

I'm not so much looking for new trade ideas -- but those are OK too -- as I am wanting to ask: would you dump these guys for equivalent salary and no draft picks in return? Worse contracts attached to second round picks? Other veterans who might fit a little better? How badly do you want them off the team?

[Tim Lehrbach]

Also pulling this from the NOP game thread. Solid assessment as a starting point for discussion, IMO:

* I agree that Grant, easily, has the most trade value. He's a wing with length, which is the most coveted type of player. He has 2-way and 3&D value. And he's turned into a 40% shooter from three. But I just don't believe the Blazers will ever get the two first round picks Cronin is reportedly asking for.

* Simons? Very little positive value, especially after last night when he tried, and failed miserably, at being Portland's hero. That 90 seconds will be required viewing in 29 NBA front offices. Unlike Grant, no-defense Simons has no wing value; no 2 way value; no 3&D value. He's an undersized SG with mediocre tweener skills who gives up as much on defense as he adds on offense

Ayton? a traditional C who posts empty-calorie stats and is grossly overpaid. Negative value. That Cronin apparently coveted him for 2 years is a real black mark on Cronin's judgement

Given these valuations, or you own, what would you be willing to accept to see these three gone? Forget first round picks because it's not happening.

[tester551]

Ayton is fine to keep. No need to trade him. Yes, he's overpaid... but its fine to keep him until someone (Clingan) wins the starting job. I actually would consider re-signing him after his contract expires for ~$14-16M per season.

Grant - I would like to see traded ASAP. If we can get 1 first, 1 second, and a playable player -> then that should be done. We would miss his shooting, but I think there are players available that could be had for cheap (Hurter)

Ant is someone who I 100% wanted traded this summer. It looks to me like he is making an effort to play within the flow of the game this season, reducing his ball-hogging tendencies (except for the last 2 minutes of last night's game).... It appears he is TRYING to play D and pass. I'm willing to wait it out with Simons and see what happens (at least for now).

[DeBlazerRiddem]

As Shem said, if you ever want to have a prayer of moving these guys you need to play them and feature them. The early part of the season that is the focus, it is in getting them to a point we can most easily move them. Young players getting handed the reigns and given bigger roles is the focus of that later part of the season but we gotta put one foot in front of the other to get there.

Of course I also agree with those who have little faith our front office will actually move these guys for what the market will actually offer. incompetence from our owner and our team management in Vulcan, through our GM and coach, just top to bottom fence straddling.

Grant we can probably get a solid FRP and some dead salary, maybe a minor prospect we like thrown in. However he is also the one I feel the least pressure to move if the offers aren't what we are expecting. Especially with him being a little more locked in on defense so far someone will come calling. It isn't bad for a team to develop with a clear cut #1 offensive option, guys like Deni/Camara/Scoot/Clingan are going to spend their careers supporting a top dog but aren't that guy themselves so... get used to it.

Simons it's hard to see getting a FRP. I can maybe see a protected one that may turn into seconds. In fact if we could get our own pick back from Chicago somehow, and maybe it takes adding a guy like Reath or Walker to grease the wheels, that would be like the most I could possibly hope for with him. If that doesn't materialize I would dump him around mid season for basically nothing, although I would have a real hard time actually paying to move him if teams think he is a negative. If it's not too much then maybe because starting next season without Ant is probably the main priority of the 3 here.

Ayton is tough. I don't see much coming back for him, so if there is an offer for expiring contracts I would take it and run. If there is a cost to dump him that isn't too much it would be nice to clear his salary off next years books, but if the cost is really high then I probably just let him expire next year. But if we can keep him putting up double doubles someone will come calling, this is the NBA and there are eventually always teams looking for size... Right? Maybe my cope is too strong haha.

[JRoy]

None of the three have demonstrated any leadership qualities to make them worthy of keeping around as a positive veteran influence.

All 3 need to go.

[Wizenheimer]

Also pulling this from the NOP game thread. Solid assessment as a starting point for discussion, IMO:

* I agree that Grant, easily, has the most trade value. He's a wing with length, which is the most coveted type of player. He has 2-way and 3&D value. And he's turned into a 40% shooter from three. But I just don't believe the Blazers will ever get the two first round picks Cronin is reportedly asking for.

* Simons? Very little positive value, especially after last night when he tried, and failed miserably, at being Portland's hero. That 90 seconds will be required viewing in 29 NBA front offices. Unlike Grant, no-defense Simons has no wing value; no 2 way value; no 3&D value. He's an undersized SG with mediocre tweener skills who gives up as much on defense as he adds on offense

Ayton? a traditional C who posts empty-calorie stats and is grossly overpaid. Negative value. That Cronin apparently coveted him for 2 years is a real black mark on Cronin's judgement

Given these valuations, or you own, what would you be willing to accept to see these three gone? Forget first round picks because it's not happening.

sorry....felt like being a smartazz...don't hate me

[Wizenheimer]

about the notion of giving players lots of minutes to elevate their value:

I think that's a theory that has no weight; not for veterans like the Blazers have. The rest of the NBA knows exactly who Grant-Ayton-Simons are; what their strengths and flaws are. Simons and Ayton are in their 7th seasons; there is no mystery that will be revealed by 36 minutes/game

I think the only way playing time would ratchet up any of their value, it's if Grant continues to hit three's at a 40% clip at the same time he's demonstrating a commitment to defense. But I think the ceiling of has value has already been set and that's a protected 1st round pick. The level of protection I don't know

[DeBlazerRiddem]

about the notion of giving players lots of minutes to elevate their value:

I think that's a theory that has no weight; not for veterans like the Blazers have. The rest of the NBA knows exactly who Grant-Ayton-Simons are; what their strengths and flaws are. Simons and Ayton are in their 7th seasons; there is no mystery that will be revealed by 36 minutes/game

I think the only way playing time would ratchet up any of their value, it's if Grant continues to hit three's at a 40% clip at the same time he's demonstrating a commitment to defense. But I think the ceiling of has value has already been set and that's a protected 1st round pick. The level of protection I don't know

It's not so much to raise their value but if you cut their minutes in favor of younger worse players its not going to make them any easier to move...

[Tim Lehrbach]

I ask again: how badly do y'all want these guys gone? I'm seeing multiple replies with "we should be able to get a first" or "if we can get a first..." for Grant. Assume for the sake of this thread that you won't get a first round pick for any or all of them. Salary dump? Bad contracts? Never mind what you'd like to get -- what is the worst you would accept?

[Norm2953]

Portland can just allow Simons and Ayton to walk away in two years. Perhaps the closer they are to the
end of their contracts, they might get something of worth.

Merely wishing these guys to go away isn't the answer for the team has nothing to replace them with
for the team badly needs somebody to develop into a star. Guys like Clingan, Deni and Camara are the
classic glue guys, the guys to support the team's star player.

[Wizenheimer]

about the notion of giving players lots of minutes to elevate their value:

I think that's a theory that has no weight; not for veterans like the Blazers have. The rest of the NBA knows exactly who Grant-Ayton-Simons are; what their strengths and flaws are. Simons and Ayton are in their 7th seasons; there is no mystery that will be revealed by 36 minutes/game

I think the only way playing time would ratchet up any of their value, it's if Grant continues to hit three's at a 40% clip at the same time he's demonstrating a commitment to defense. But I think the ceiling of has value has already been set and that's a protected 1st round pick. The level of protection I don't know

It's not so much to raise their value but if you cut their minutes in favor of younger worse players its not going to make them any easier to move...

if they are being shopped, it won't matter. Other GM's will see the situation and understand the Blazers are going with a youth movement

if they aren't being shopped, then it loops back to current evaluations of those players. Grant has played 695 NBA games and 19,000 minutes; Ayton 405 games and 13,000 minutes; Simons 336 and 8,500 minutes. They aren't mysteries that will be revealed by a couple hundred more minutes

I'm not saying bench them but I am saying I see no logic in arguing that them averaging 36 minutes will give them more value than them averaging 25 minutes. That makes no sense to me

[Wizenheimer]

I ask again: how badly do y'all want these guys gone? I'm seeing multiple replies with "we should be able to get a first" or "if we can get a first..." for Grant. Assume for the sake of this thread that you won't get a first round pick for any or all of them. Salary dump? Bad contracts? Never mind what you'd like to get -- what is the worst you would accept?

for Simons and Ayton, 2nd round picks and expiring contracts. Maybe a young prospect (I tend to agree neither would return a 1st and they are boring players in my view)

for Grant, I'd hold out for a lottery protected 1st and a smaller, shorter-term contract. For some reason, Grant doesn't bother me nearly as much as the other two, but it makes sense to move him

I think the Blazers will be in the lottery for several years even if they keep those guys. So it doesn't really matter what "holes" they leave by their departure

[Butter]

about the notion of giving players lots of minutes to elevate their value:

I think that's a theory that has no weight; not for veterans like the Blazers have. The rest of the NBA knows exactly who Grant-Ayton-Simons are; what their strengths and flaws are. Simons and Ayton are in their 7th seasons; there is no mystery that will be revealed by 36 minutes/game

I think the only way playing time would ratchet up any of their value, it's if Grant continues to hit three's at a 40% clip at the same time he's demonstrating a commitment to defense. But I think the ceiling of has value has already been set and that's a protected 1st round pick. The level of protection I don't know

It's not so much to raise their value but if you cut their minutes in favor of younger worse players its not going to make them any easier to move...

if they are being shopped, it won't matter. Other GM's will see the situation and understand the Blazers are going with a youth movement

if they aren't being shopped, then it loops back to current evaluations of those players. Grant has played 695 NBA games and 19,000 minutes; Ayton 405 games and 13,000 minutes; Simons 336 and 8,500 minutes. They aren't mysteries that will be revealed by a couple hundred more minutes

I'm not saying bench them but I am saying I see no logic in arguing that them averaging 36 minutes will give them more value than them averaging 25 minutes. That makes no sense to me

Depending on the player

Simons - his value could slightly rise if he goes on a hot streak. The flip side is benching him might decrease his injury risk

Ayton - he's proven to be a locker room issue when he feels under utilized and disrespected. I think he's improved the pouty image he developed in Phoenix, but that could get highlighted if they bench him.

Grant - ideally the Blazers move him sooner than later while he's playing well.

[Butter]

I ask again: how badly do y'all want these guys gone? I'm seeing multiple replies with "we should be able to get a first" or "if we can get a first..." for Grant. Assume for the sake of this thread that you won't get a first round pick for any or all of them. Salary dump? Bad contracts? Never mind what you'd like to get -- what is the worst you would accept?

TL - personally, I'm good to wait to trade Ayton and Simons because worse case scenario, they may have the most value as expiring contracts.

Grant, he is probably the most viable member of the Blazers out of these three. With Simons, they can play Scoot, with Ayton - Clingan. But we don't really have a potential full time starter behind Grant, so I'd be ok keeping him this year.

With that being said, if the Lakers up their offer, or if a surprise team meets Cronins price, I am totally ok with moving him

[Pattycakes]

I honestly love DA but he needs to figure out wtf is going on with his offense because he’s looking horrible on that end. And he has it… just not acting like it

[DusterBuster]

I'm still bullish the Blazers can get both FRPs from the Lakers for Grant - particularly if he keeps up his playing level for a month and show it's not a flash. Lakers are showing out to start, they ware going to want to maximize LBJ's final year or two here and Grant is a flawless fit for them and an upgrade over Rui.

Rui, Russell, 2 FRPs for Grant and Banton. Or if they want to keep Rui (who's admittedly having a good start to his year), it could be Russell, Vanderbilt and picks for Grant alone... they may want to include Vando because of his contract length and Grant's contract length matching up. Getting back to the question at hand though, push comes to shove, I would be fine with even just one of two FRPs and either collection of players from the Lakers side.

As for the other two guys...

For Simons... it's not a question of talent but just... but where's the fit? Stretching a bit, I can maybe see a fit for him in like, Golden State... a team in transition but who wants to still be good through the transition. He fits their play style and can grow with the younger core guys they got, so that can make some sense when brainstorming it, but hard to find a deal that makes sense without taking on Wiggins and it's impossible to say how the Warriors still value him with his bipolar play and availability.

I know Orlando is always out there but hard to see the contract fits to make something work, and I don't see any other fit on the East Coast for him.

Maybe Dallas would want him as a 6th man... that's where I think his role is looked at for most contending teams - they'll want him as a super-6th guy off the bench and the Mavs could make sense with that... The Spurs maybe, but I think they're happy to be a dumpster fire in terms of wins again, so not sure there's much motivation there to improve. Sacramento maybe if they're struggling offensively and want some more firepower.

Long story short with Simons, there's a handful of situations where if you look at it right, I think teams would be interested in him, but I don't see any team (even the ones mentioned here) that are so desperate for a player like Simons right now that they're motivated to make a deal for him. Any Simons deal I think comes closer to the deadline when teams know what they are and have better pinpointed what their needs are... even then, I think he's destined to be a 6th man for a contending level team. I would again be fine with just a single FRP... I would prefer they get any FRP pick back, but even if that didn't happen, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Just don't take on any dead-weight long-term contracts if you aren't getting a FRP back - that would be my one rule for Simons. If I saw Simons moved for expiring contracts and a fist full of second rounders, I would just roll my eyes at the headline and go about my day.

Then you have Ayton. Unlike Simons, I can see more immediate teams in need of a C. The team the Blazers just played twice is a perfect example, the Pelicans. They are dreadfully small inside and they should be concerned with the start they're getting of to. They've played 2 tanking teams in 3 games, their first win against the Bulls they didn't play a lick of defense and Chicago scored 111pts. Their two games against the Blazers, they barely squeaked out that first win with a BI GWS, then got blown out by Portland for their first loss of the year. Long story short, for all Ayton's flaws, there are teams in desperate need of size. Ayton also only has 2 years left on his deal, so while he might be "overpaid", it's not like he's locked in for 4 or 5 more years.

For Ayton, I would have the Pelicans and Grizzlies are high potential destinations. The Edey experiment for the Grizzlies might be short lived - he doesn't seem ready for full time NBA speed games so far. Smart, Clarke and a FRP for Ayton makes sense for both sides imo. I can also see Charlotte or Atlanta in the East as a landing spot for Ayton.

[dckingsfan]

I ask again: how badly do y'all want these guys gone? I'm seeing multiple replies with "we should be able to get a first" or "if we can get a first..." for Grant. Assume for the sake of this thread that you won't get a first round pick for any or all of them. Salary dump? Bad contracts? Never mind what you'd like to get -- what is the worst you would accept?

1) The contracts absorbed need to be better if you are only getting 2nd round picks.

2) I think there is significant value in letting Ayton, Simmons, Williams, Thybulle and Reath expire at the end of 2025-26.

3) I think Ayton, Simmons, Williams, Thybulle and Reath will have their most value at the trade deadline of 2025-26.

4) I think the key is the draft picks '25 and '26 (I will make the assumption that the picks will be in the 1-14 range for both of those years.

5) I think the key is the development of the youngsters. That is a pretty young group. I think Clingan is going to get there for sure. One of Henderson or Sharpe (kind of makes Simons moot, IMO). One or both of Camara and Avdija. And hopefully one more of the youngsters surprises. Add two solid FRPs to that group and you have a pretty solid young core.

Code: Select all

Rayan Rupert      20
Donovan Clingan   20
Scoot Henderson   20
Shaedon Sharpe    21
Jabari Walker     22
Deni Avdija       23
Dalano Banton     24
Toumani Camara    24
Kris Murray       24
Anfernee Simons   25

6) Eventually, someone is going to want Grant if he stays healthy toward the end of his contract. Like you say, there is just no interest right now in teams parting with their FRPs (much less unprotected FRPs for him).

So, if I am the GM - I sit tight for now and see if anything stirs at the trade deadline. And I am working really hard on my draft analysis for the next two years.

My 1/2 cent.

[zzaj]

I'm still bullish the Blazers can get both FRPs from the Lakers for Grant - particularly if he keeps up his playing level for a month and show it's not a flash. Lakers are showing out to start, they ware going to want to maximize LBJ's final year or two here and Grant is a flawless fit for them and an upgrade over Rui.

Rui, Russell, 2 FRPs for Grant and Banton. Or if they want to keep Rui (who's admittedly having a good start to his year), it could be Russell, Vanderbilt and picks for Grant alone... they may want to include Vando because of his contract length and Grant's contract length matching up. Getting back to the question at hand though, push comes to shove, I would be fine with even just one of two FRPs and either collection of players from the Lakers side...

Honestly, I just don't see it.

If the Fakers are doing well with Rui, I doubt they are going to feel Grant is enough of an upgrade at his contract to pull that move for 2 FRP. I actually feel the opposite, that if they play worse they may be more inclined to make a desperation move based on a Lebron request...

Also, with how well Rui has been playing I don't think Rui/Russell/2 FRPs > Grant/Banton. IMO, Rui/Russell/1 FRP > Grant/Banton, all things considered.

[dckingsfan]

I'm still bullish the Blazers can get both FRPs from the Lakers for Grant - particularly if he keeps up his playing level for a month and show it's not a flash. Lakers are showing out to start, they ware going to want to maximize LBJ's final year or two here and Grant is a flawless fit for them and an upgrade over Rui.

Rui, Russell, 2 FRPs for Grant and Banton. Or if they want to keep Rui (who's admittedly having a good start to his year), it could be Russell, Vanderbilt and picks for Grant alone... they may want to include Vando because of his contract length and Grant's contract length matching up. Getting back to the question at hand though, push comes to shove, I would be fine with even just one of two FRPs and either collection of players from the Lakers side.

I think why this hasn't been done thus far is:

1) They want to see Rui's 3-point shooting before pulling the trigger. He is shooting .500.

2) If they move Russell (an expiring for next year, they lose all cap flexibility and dive deeply in the repeat tax). It would also leave them without a PG, this would undoubtably make them a worse team.

3) They really want to hold their picks (what they have left) for the aftermath of LBJs tenure.

So, I think this trade would need a 3rd team. Let the complexity for the trade completion begin. Or maybe move Scoot for Vincent - I dunno...

[DusterBuster]

I'm still bullish the Blazers can get both FRPs from the Lakers for Grant - particularly if he keeps up his playing level for a month and show it's not a flash. Lakers are showing out to start, they ware going to want to maximize LBJ's final year or two here and Grant is a flawless fit for them and an upgrade over Rui.

Rui, Russell, 2 FRPs for Grant and Banton. Or if they want to keep Rui (who's admittedly having a good start to his year), it could be Russell, Vanderbilt and picks for Grant alone... they may want to include Vando because of his contract length and Grant's contract length matching up. Getting back to the question at hand though, push comes to shove, I would be fine with even just one of two FRPs and either collection of players from the Lakers side...

Honestly, I just don't see it.

If the Fakers are doing well with Rui, I doubt they are going to feel Grant is enough of an upgrade at his contract to pull that move for 2 FRP. I actually feel the opposite, that if they play worse they may be more inclined to make a desperation move based on a Lebron request...

Also, with how well Rui has been playing I don't think Rui/Russell/2 FRPs > Grant/Banton. IMO, Rui/Russell/1 FRP > Grant/Banton, all things considered.

Why I'm more bullish on this than most is I think there's a decent amount of behind the scenes agent pressure for both organizations that could push this over the top.