Game 53: MEM vs DAL
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:29 pm
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2072099
Whole Truth wrote:With Memphis in the playoff mix without 3J playing a single game, it's easy to forget that this is the 2nd youngest team in the league, where the youngest team, Minnesota, have the worse record.
E S V L wrote:Whole Truth wrote:With Memphis in the playoff mix without 3J playing a single game, it's easy to forget that this is the 2nd youngest team in the league, where the youngest team, Minnesota, have the worse record.
I thought we are youngest after the Dieng departure.
PS what do you think about trading for Grant? (Clarke as a main piece)
Whole Truth wrote:E S V L wrote:Whole Truth wrote:With Memphis in the playoff mix without 3J playing a single game, it's easy to forget that this is the 2nd youngest team in the league, where the youngest team, Minnesota, have the worse record.
I thought we are youngest after the Dieng departure.
PS what do you think about trading for Grant? (Clarke as a main piece)
It's possible.
I like Grant as a target but I'd probably explore draft options before potentially consolidating for him.
That said with the depth at PF it's a potential solution for Anderson/Clarke behind 3J to turn one of them into a player capable of playing SF a current position of weakness. I don't like the fact Denver gave up on him but they also struggled without him. Fit wise he was good between a dominant PG 8 slow footed big in Denver...
Usually though. for deals & players I like. there would be more conviction than I have concerning Grant. I assume because I'm banking on the draft options first & foremost to avoid the cost & expense of going after a player like Grant.
E S V L wrote:Whole Truth wrote:E S V L wrote:
I thought we are youngest after the Dieng departure.
PS what do you think about trading for Grant? (Clarke as a main piece)
It's possible.
I like Grant as a target but I'd probably explore draft options before potentially consolidating for him.
That said with the depth at PF it's a potential solution for Anderson/Clarke behind 3J to turn one of them into a player capable of playing SF a current position of weakness. I don't like the fact Denver gave up on him but they also struggled without him. Fit wise he was good between a dominant PG 8 slow footed big in Denver...
Usually though. for deals & players I like. there would be more conviction than I have concerning Grant. I assume because I'm banking on the draft options first & foremost to avoid the cost & expense of going after a player like Grant.
I was thinking that Grant would allow us to go super-athletic with Ja, JJJ, Grant.
VCfor3 wrote:E S V L wrote:Whole Truth wrote:
It's possible.
I like Grant as a target but I'd probably explore draft options before potentially consolidating for him.
That said with the depth at PF it's a potential solution for Anderson/Clarke behind 3J to turn one of them into a player capable of playing SF a current position of weakness. I don't like the fact Denver gave up on him but they also struggled without him. Fit wise he was good between a dominant PG 8 slow footed big in Denver...
Usually though. for deals & players I like. there would be more conviction than I have concerning Grant. I assume because I'm banking on the draft options first & foremost to avoid the cost & expense of going after a player like Grant.
I was thinking that Grant would allow us to go super-athletic with Ja, JJJ, Grant.
I wonder if we could get Grant without giving up Clarke. Ja/Brooks?/Grant/Clarke/JJJ would be a fun lineup.
E S V L wrote:VCfor3 wrote:E S V L wrote:
I was thinking that Grant would allow us to go super-athletic with Ja, JJJ, Grant.
I wonder if we could get Grant without giving up Clarke. Ja/Brooks?/Grant/Clarke/JJJ would be a fun lineup.
It would cost us 2 1sts. I would probably prefer to give up Clarke. Also, is Grant SF?
VCfor3 wrote:E S V L wrote:VCfor3 wrote:I wonder if we could get Grant without giving up Clarke. Ja/Brooks?/Grant/Clarke/JJJ would be a fun lineup.
It would cost us 2 1sts. I would probably prefer to give up Clarke. Also, is Grant SF?
He plays both SF and PF though I have no idea which is his better position. And giving up the UTA 1st plus one other is a price I don't mind. It likely isn't enough since someone would probably overpay to acquire him but maybe some of our filler can sway them. Would we part with Allen in the deal? He only has next year on his deal before he gets paid. I don't know if Jenkins would part with him though.
E S V L wrote:VCfor3 wrote:E S V L wrote:
It would cost us 2 1sts. I would probably prefer to give up Clarke. Also, is Grant SF?
He plays both SF and PF though I have no idea which is his better position. And giving up the UTA 1st plus one other is a price I don't mind. It likely isn't enough since someone would probably overpay to acquire him but maybe some of our filler can sway them. Would we part with Allen in the deal? He only has next year on his deal before he gets paid. I don't know if Jenkins would part with him though.
Grant resembles Kyle in terms of being more effective as PF while staying on record as SF. If this the case, I am not sure if he is worth our 2 1sts.
As for Allen, he is kind of guy who has much less value on the market than in your team. I don’t believe he can return 1st. Other price doesn’t make sense for us.
I believe Clarke, Bane, 1sts are our only valid trade-chips. I might be easily wrong.
VCfor3 wrote:E S V L wrote:VCfor3 wrote:He plays both SF and PF though I have no idea which is his better position. And giving up the UTA 1st plus one other is a price I don't mind. It likely isn't enough since someone would probably overpay to acquire him but maybe some of our filler can sway them. Would we part with Allen in the deal? He only has next year on his deal before he gets paid. I don't know if Jenkins would part with him though.
Grant resembles Kyle in terms of being more effective as PF while staying on record as SF. If this the case, I am not sure if he is worth our 2 1sts.
As for Allen, he is kind of guy who has much less value on the market than in your team. I don’t believe he can return 1st. Other price doesn’t make sense for us.
I believe Clarke, Bane, 1sts are our only valid trade-chips. I might be easily wrong.
Yeah I see Allen as a sweetener for a deal more than true value-add. And yeah if Grant isn't geared to be a SF then it likely wouldn't be worth going for him since JJJ definitely isn't ready for the wear and tear of the center position every night. We really need a SF or SG upgrade if given a choice. Just hard to come by right now unfortunately.
E S V L wrote:VCfor3 wrote:E S V L wrote:
Grant resembles Kyle in terms of being more effective as PF while staying on record as SF. If this the case, I am not sure if he is worth our 2 1sts.
As for Allen, he is kind of guy who has much less value on the market than in your team. I don’t believe he can return 1st. Other price doesn’t make sense for us.
I believe Clarke, Bane, 1sts are our only valid trade-chips. I might be easily wrong.
Yeah I see Allen as a sweetener for a deal more than true value-add. And yeah if Grant isn't geared to be a SF then it likely wouldn't be worth going for him since JJJ definitely isn't ready for the wear and tear of the center position every night. We really need a SF or SG upgrade if given a choice. Just hard to come by right now unfortunately.
I would offer Clarke, Bane, #18, 1st 2024 back for GSW’s #5 (Kuminga) and Wiggins (waived).