Kings/ Blazers

[Tim Lehrbach]

Blazers should just let every last vet expire if no one wants to pay fair cost. I’m cool with people rejecting the vets, but we’re also not giving them away for anything less than fair value.

A few months ago I would have agreed with this, and maybe in principle I still do. But seeing how little the Blazers' youngsters are developing and how little the veterans are boosting wins in the short term, let alone figuring into the long term, I'm in full draft capital maximization mode. That means taking anything whatsoever you can get for the veterans, including second rounders if those are the best assets out there (and, IMO, we may not even get those -- the team would probably have to pay to move off Ayton or Grant, which should not happen). A one-in-a-million shot at the next Ginobili or Jokic is more valuable to the Blazers than these vets are. It's a lousy position to be in, but I think that's where we are.

[JRoy]

Plus we could always sell those SRP for sweet, sweet cash like we did this past draft.

Jodi needs to go.

[Walton1one]

Plus we could always sell those SRP for sweet, sweet cash like we did this past draft.

Jodi needs to go.

Agreed, inexcusable behavior for a professional franchise.

[psman2]

Blazers should just let every last vet expire if no one wants to pay fair cost. I’m cool with people rejecting the vets, but we’re also not giving them away for anything less than fair value.

A few months ago I would have agreed with this, and maybe in principle I still do. But seeing how little the Blazers' youngsters are developing and how little the veterans are boosting wins in the short term, let alone figuring into the long term, I'm in full draft capital maximization mode. That means taking anything whatsoever you can get for the veterans, including second rounders if those are the best assets out there (and, IMO, we may not even get those -- the team would probably have to pay to move off Ayton or Grant, which should not happen). A one-in-a-million shot at the next Ginobili or Jokic is more valuable to the Blazers than these vets are. It's a lousy position to be in, but I think that's where we are.

The market determines fair value, not some idea that is conceived in your head. Now the Blazer can choose not to accept "fair value" but they don't get to set what fair trade value is.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Blazers should just let every last vet expire if no one wants to pay fair cost. I’m cool with people rejecting the vets, but we’re also not giving them away for anything less than fair value.

A few months ago I would have agreed with this, and maybe in principle I still do. But seeing how little the Blazers' youngsters are developing and how little the veterans are boosting wins in the short term, let alone figuring into the long term, I'm in full draft capital maximization mode. That means taking anything whatsoever you can get for the veterans, including second rounders if those are the best assets out there (and, IMO, we may not even get those -- the team would probably have to pay to move off Ayton or Grant, which should not happen). A one-in-a-million shot at the next Ginobili or Jokic is more valuable to the Blazers than these vets are. It's a lousy position to be in, but I think that's where we are.

The market determines fair value, not some idea that is conceived in your head. Now the Blazer can choose not to accept "fair value" but they don't get to set what fair trade value is.

Not sure what about my post merited that response, but I agree! I will add that the RealGM Trades and Transactions Board is not the actual trade market and has no bearing on what is or is not "fair value." Neither is "fair value" determined by anything other than what is actually offered in trade.

[psman2]

A few months ago I would have agreed with this, and maybe in principle I still do. But seeing how little the Blazers' youngsters are developing and how little the veterans are boosting wins in the short term, let alone figuring into the long term, I'm in full draft capital maximization mode. That means taking anything whatsoever you can get for the veterans, including second rounders if those are the best assets out there (and, IMO, we may not even get those -- the team would probably have to pay to move off Ayton or Grant, which should not happen). A one-in-a-million shot at the next Ginobili or Jokic is more valuable to the Blazers than these vets are. It's a lousy position to be in, but I think that's where we are.

The market determines fair value, not some idea that is conceived in your head. Now the Blazer can choose not to accept "fair value" but they don't get to set what fair trade value is.

Not sure what about my post merited that response, but I agree! I will add that the RealGM Trades and Transactions Board is not the actual trade market and has no bearing on what is or is not "fair value." Neither is "fair value" determined by anything other than what is actually offered in trade.

I was just throwing my 2 cents in about what Pattycakes is trying to sell. This whole notion that if our players are not worth what we want then we will just not trade them is so silly. If a trade makes sense for your team then you make it, but the not selling crowd seem to think you are punishing the rest of the league by not willing to accept the fair value.

Of course the TNT board is not the arbiter of fair value, but a lot posters here at least try their best effort to push forward what they think is fair and more likely to see unfold if a rea; trade is made instead of just having their favorite team "win" the trade or else take they ball and go home approach.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Trade value is an imaginary concept, as much as it goes against the spirit of his board. 30 teams all have their own interpretation of what each player is worth based on team needs, situation and individual assessment. It is not an objective thing.

Is Huerter or Williams more likely to return a 1st? While neither may be likely, Williams has a small chance while Huerter has basically no chance. So if one of them has to be on the books for the next two years why would the Blazers downgrade? Huerter and some prospects we don't care about might be fair value as far as the Kings are concerned but not for Portland. And it is perfectly okay for teams to hold those different opinions and not execute a trade.

[OxAndFox]

Thybulle\Australian FWIW

RW3 is healthy now, I think he is going on his 3rd? DNP, so it appears that they are holding him for the trade deadline

RW3, when healthy is a difference maker, and he is healthy now, and he has proven to show up in big games, that has value, how much? IF POR GM does his job, we will soon find out

There are no guarantees on any players’ health, just look at all the injuries that have happened this year

Oh you don't say. I'm Australian BTW. It was a joke about the other thread that mentioned he didn't make the Austrian NT.

Watch on YouTube

[OxAndFox]

Trade value is an imaginary concept, as much as it goes against the spirit of his board. 30 teams all have their own interpretation of what each player is worth based on team needs, situation and individual assessment. It is not an objective thing.

Is Huerter or Williams more likely to return a 1st? While neither may be likely, Williams has a small chance while Huerter has basically no chance. So if one of them has to be on the books for the next two years why would the Blazers downgrade? Huerter and some prospects we don't care about might be fair value as far as the Kings are concerned but not for Portland. And it is perfectly okay for teams to hold those different opinions and not execute a trade.

Agree with this. In a months' time things can change drastically too whether that be an on court thing, or off court.

One thing we all don't know either is what strategy are FOs looking at in the future? Not talking about paying or receiving a 1st or anything like that, but do we know that Portland wouldn't prefer to have Huerter's $17.9m expiring salary next year or $24.8m in expiring salary in RW3/Thybulle?
There can be cases made for both I would say, but the make up of Portland's roster right now probably suggests they stand pat, but they may also want some more shooting around Scoot/Sharpe at some point (not that Huerter is lights out ATM either, but in general).
Maybe the Blazers are holding out to ensure they use as much of the $80m+ of expiring salary next year where they will surely be able to turn that into some decent assets?

[JRoy]

The market determines fair value, not some idea that is conceived in your head. Now the Blazer can choose not to accept "fair value" but they don't get to set what fair trade value is.

Not sure what about my post merited that response, but I agree! I will add that the RealGM Trades and Transactions Board is not the actual trade market and has no bearing on what is or is not "fair value." Neither is "fair value" determined by anything other than what is actually offered in trade.

I was just throwing my 2 cents in about what Pattycakes is trying to sell. This whole notion that if our players are not worth what we want then we will just not trade them is so silly. If a trade makes sense for your team then you make it, but the not selling crowd seem to think you are punishing the rest of the league by not willing to accept the fair value.

Of course the TNT board is not the arbiter of fair value, but a lot posters here at least try their best effort to push forward what they think is fair and more likely to see unfold if a rea; trade is made instead of just having their favorite team "win" the trade or else take they ball and go home approach.

That’s not really it.

This trade doesn’t improve the team now or in the future.

No point is making a move like that.

I can understand SAC not wanting to pay the price, but the package gives POR nothing we want or need.

[OutsidetheNBA]

For the Blazers, I would do this for 2-3 2nds (which SAC does not have).

I agree with the SAC fans who say that RWIII isn't worth anything right now because he hasn't proven he's healthy. But from the Blazers' perspective, if we're taking back salary next year anyway then we might as well hold onto RWIII and bet on his upside and hope we can trade him this summer or next deadline for small value. And while Huerter's contract isn't terrible, what's the point of shuffling stuff around like this for the Blazers if they don't get paid for it?

Also, I'll echo a post above -- Sacramento needs guys who can contribute *right now* to turn the team around and make the playoffs. This trade doesn't do that. Not sure it makes sense for them either.