Hansari wrote: I would much rather trade him for whatever value we can get and then mould some of our younger prospects to fill that role (and likely those players would be effective off the bench).
You'll be lucky to get 2 2nds for Gary - and that's assuming the accompanying salary isn't a bad contract.
Trading Gary for the sake of it is not getting you a player who can fulfill the same role as he does unless you're attaching picks, it doesn't add to the team's flexibility re: free agency when he's an expiring and the pick(s) one would get by moving him are unlikely to become as valuable as Trent currently is as a bucket getter and floor spacer. Moreover, this ignores that Gary isn't unable to change or grow as a player; people oft bring up the Norm trade that led to us getting him and compare him to who Powell is now but it's important to remember than 24 year old Trent is a straight up better player than 24 year old Norm was.
Powell didn't become the player he is over night and it's wrong to assume Trent can't make improvements in his areas of weakness; i'd argue he's been a far more willing passer (not saying he's pass-happy like Barnes but he isn't stopping the ball as much as he was the past 2 years) and while his defense still relies on gambling, he has his moments on that end, albeit like his shooting it can be inconsistent in terms of the effort. Then again, RJ and Scottie are seemingly the only players who will play defense nowadays and at least Trent can torch opposing teams for leaving him open unlike, say, Boucher/
Quite frankly, the opportunity cost of a Trent trade - unless it's of the "Trent plus a pick(s)" to acquire a better player on a long-term deal - doesn't help the team become notably better in the short nor long-term.
