Realistic Wish List???

[DC_Melo]

his three remaining years are

$32,000,001
$34,206,898
$36,413,790

if he refuses to lower his guarantee those would be the cap-hits on the Blazers. That's a lot of dead salary....too much dead salary in my view

I get that it's too much in your opinion, but is there anything the Blazers would be doing with that cap space anyway? The most likely outcome, and I think you know I'm right about this, is that it would just be filled with another player we would all bitch about having on the roster.

I genuinely can't see any path beyond that outcome, nor can I see any reason why the "dead cap" would negatively impact the Blazers over the next 3 seasons with how the roster is current structured.

it's not about cap-space. It's about dead salary. If the Blazers are spending the next 3 season buried under 30M/year of dead salary they are at a major competitive disadvantage against other teams in terms of contracts and options. That would mean the tax line for Portland is 30M below other team's tax line. The 1st apron is 30M lower. The capacity to use NT MLE's is kaput. I could see a buyout in 2027-28, but now now or next season

Yea, dead salary is no good. I agree it may not be fatal to our roster construction, as we shouldn’t rely on getting any help in FA, but that amount would limit a lot of roster flexibility options, and could make resigning some of our young guys a nightmare. Scoot and Shae will be on second contracts, Deni and Camara are also due up… we got a lot of spending to do to keep this young core together.

We already have $25 mil on the books from Ayton… cutting Jerami now puts us at $57 mil for this year alone. Would drop back to $34.2 mil next year, then 36.4 the last… and that’s if we don’t waive Holiday at any point. Could you imagine carrying $73 mil in dead cap in three seasons if we waive both Grant and Holiday?

I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but waiving him now and guaranteeing that much dead cap for the next 3 years with so many extensions due seems unwise. If anything, he should be more tradable with 2 years remaining than with 3. Maybe he can redeem some value on the court? A move to the bench could help him look better if he’s playing the bulk of his minutes against other teams benches.

[DusterBuster]

Yea, dead salary is no good. I agree it may not be fatal to our roster construction, as we shouldn’t rely on getting any help in FA, but that amount would limit a lot of roster flexibility options, and could make resigning some of our young guys a nightmare. Scoot and Shae will be on second contracts, Deni and Camara should are also due up… we got a lot of spending to do to keep this young core together.

We already have $25 mil on the books from Ayton… cutting Jerami now puts us at $57 mil for this year alone. Would drop back to $34.2 mil next year, then 36.4 the last… and that’s if we don’t waive Holiday at any point. Could you imagine carrying $73 mil in dead cap in three seasons if we waive both Grant and Holiday?

I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but waiving him now and guaranteeing that much dead cap for the next 3 years with so many extensions due seems unwise. If anything, he should be more tradable with 2 years remaining than with 3. Maybe he can redeem some value on the court? A move to the bench could help him look better if he’s playing the bulk of his minutes against other teams benches.

How is it any different than if Grant is still on the roster? ...

His 33mil is on the books one way or another since he's untradable, meaning those supposed flexibility limitations would still be there regardless...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Someone give me solid CBA reasonings for why it's any different with keeping him or buying him out.

[DC_Melo]

Yea, dead salary is no good. I agree it may not be fatal to our roster construction, as we shouldn’t rely on getting any help in FA, but that amount would limit a lot of roster flexibility options, and could make resigning some of our young guys a nightmare. Scoot and Shae will be on second contracts, Deni and Camara should are also due up… we got a lot of spending to do to keep this young core together.

We already have $25 mil on the books from Ayton… cutting Jerami now puts us at $57 mil for this year alone. Would drop back to $34.2 mil next year, then 36.4 the last… and that’s if we don’t waive Holiday at any point. Could you imagine carrying $73 mil in dead cap in three seasons if we waive both Grant and Holiday?

I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but waiving him now and guaranteeing that much dead cap for the next 3 years with so many extensions due seems unwise. If anything, he should be more tradable with 2 years remaining than with 3. Maybe he can redeem some value on the court? A move to the bench could help him look better if he’s playing the bulk of his minutes against other teams benches.

How is it any different than if Grant is still on the roster? ...

His 33mil is on the books one way or another since he's untradable, meaning those supposed flexibility limitations would still be there regardless...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Someone give me solid CBA reasonings for why it's any different with keeping him or buying him out.

Because unlike dead cap which remains on the books no matter what, and ties up money to resign our guys, Jerami’s contract becomes less negative in value with time, and can theoretically still get moved. Perhaps next season we can move him for another bad contract that’s a year shorter. Or package him in a future deal with another asset for something we might actually want in return. Can that happen today? Zero to none chance. But next summer or the following? The chances go up. But dead cap can’t be moved at any point for the next 3 years, period.

[BlazersBroncos]

Realistically we need to add someone. We have only 13 under contract.

I like Brandon Boston JR a bit - he is a bucket. Just not a smart player though. Not sure if its too late for the light to flip on.
Caleb Houstan has the size and form of a great shooting SF but he hasnt put up good % in college, NBA or G-League really.
JT Thor is another guy who has the frame but is less of an instinctual basketball player than some people that post here probably lol.
I have a soft spot for Pat Spencer. His intensity would fit the culture we are trying to build.
I like Tristen Newton coming out but he hasnt made the NBA jump yet.

IDK, might be smart to just play it safe and sign someone like Seth Curry or Lindy Waters as a shooter.

[DusterBuster]

Yea, dead salary is no good. I agree it may not be fatal to our roster construction, as we shouldn’t rely on getting any help in FA, but that amount would limit a lot of roster flexibility options, and could make resigning some of our young guys a nightmare. Scoot and Shae will be on second contracts, Deni and Camara should are also due up… we got a lot of spending to do to keep this young core together.

We already have $25 mil on the books from Ayton… cutting Jerami now puts us at $57 mil for this year alone. Would drop back to $34.2 mil next year, then 36.4 the last… and that’s if we don’t waive Holiday at any point. Could you imagine carrying $73 mil in dead cap in three seasons if we waive both Grant and Holiday?

I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but waiving him now and guaranteeing that much dead cap for the next 3 years with so many extensions due seems unwise. If anything, he should be more tradable with 2 years remaining than with 3. Maybe he can redeem some value on the court? A move to the bench could help him look better if he’s playing the bulk of his minutes against other teams benches.

How is it any different than if Grant is still on the roster? ...

His 33mil is on the books one way or another since he's untradable, meaning those supposed flexibility limitations would still be there regardless...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Someone give me solid CBA reasonings for why it's any different with keeping him or buying him out.

Because unlike dead cap which remains on the books no matter what, and ties up money to resign our guys, Jerami’s contract becomes less negative in value with time, and can theoretically still get moved. Perhaps next season we can move him for another bad contract that’s a year shorter. Or package him in a future deal with another asset for something we might actually want in return. Can that happen today? Zero to none chance. But next summer or the following? The chances go up. But dead cap can’t be moved at any point for the next 3 years, period.

So this is where me and the rest of you all break on this subject.

There seems to be this here unfounded faith on the chances of Grants value going up because he has less years. I don’t buy that theory for any second because teams generally care less about years and more about $$$ per year. That’s not getting better next year or his final season.

I believe he’s going to be stuck on this roster until his final season (and maybe that as well) because 33+ mil per year is too prohibitive to pay a player who’s not an impact starter in this CBA, and Grant has proved he’s absolutely not a impact starting quality player, even if he can put up good stats.

[oldfishermen]

Sign FA Amir Coffey, backup SG.
Start at vet min, max offer BAE.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

The only thing waiving Grant does is give us an extra roster spot.

But it comes at the sacrifice of any - even very unlikely - chance of being able to use Grants contract in a trade. If you waive grant you 100% have to eat his entire salary, not waiving him keeps a small chance of being able to do something with it.

It could be that Grant is stuck here for his contract but there is a chance a GM gets dumb. Happens all the time.

Kuzma+Pat was a trade that was floated a bit this summer. Portland shaves one year off Grant and Milwaukee gets a better player. It didn't happen but doesn't mean a move like that cannot happen, it wasn't that far off. Maybe Portland even uses a couple second rounders to grease the wheels.

But if you waive grant you get rid of any small chance at taking advantage of a dumb/desperate GM. We won't get anything good but we could shave a year off his deal.

I personally think Grant will have a bounce back year playing with Jrue. Grant actually started out last year pretty good and then went way downhill when it was clear the roster stunk, I don't think his decline was age related but entirely effort related. I think having a vet like Jrue will help keep him engaged, honestly I think having a peer who can keep Grant accountable was a part of that Jrue trade. But I realize that comes off as simply hopeful thinking so not everyone will agree.

None the less, the benefits of waiving Grant at this point in time look to be completely negligible. It would be more useful to tell him to sit home than it would be to waive him and commit to paying the full salary. You might be right to be a total pessimist and say no way but locking yourself into that for no benefit and giving yourself no chance at an out makes no sense.

[PDXKnight]

The only thing waiving Grant does is give us an extra roster spot.

But it comes at the sacrifice of any - even very unlikely - chance of being able to use Grants contract in a trade. If you waive grant you 100% have to eat his entire salary, not waiving him keeps a small chance of being able to do something with it.

It could be that Grant is stuck here for his contract but there is a chance a GM gets dumb. Happens all the time.

Kuzma+Pat was a trade that was floated a bit this summer. Portland shaves one year off Grant and Milwaukee gets a better player. It didn't happen but doesn't mean a move like that cannot happen, it wasn't that far off. Maybe Portland even uses a couple second rounders to grease the wheels.

But if you waive grant you get rid of any small chance at taking advantage of a dumb/desperate GM. We won't get anything good but we could shave a year off his deal.

I personally think Grant will have a bounce back year playing with Jrue. Grant actually started out last year pretty good and then went way downhill when it was clear the roster stunk, I don't think his decline was age related but entirely effort related. I think having a vet like Jrue will help keep him engaged, honestly I think having a peer who can keep Grant accountable was a part of that Jrue trade. But I realize that comes off as simply hopeful thinking so not everyone will agree.

None the less, the benefits of waiving Grant at this point in time look to be completely negligible. It would be more useful to tell him to sit home than it would be to waive him and commit to paying the full salary. You might be right to be a total pessimist and say no way but locking yourself into that for no benefit and giving yourself no chance at an out makes no sense.

I agree. You never know when a team will take a bad contract. I wouldnt buy him out until the final year if at all. Frankly While jrue is clearly better im not even sure why we added another contract just as pricey for a role player. Still not digging it

[DusterBuster]

None the less, the benefits of waiving Grant at this point in time look to be completely negligible. It would be more useful to tell him to sit home than it would be to waive him and commit to paying the full salary. You might be right to be a total pessimist and say no way but locking yourself into that for no benefit and giving yourself no chance at an out makes no sense.

I'm fully OK with this too FWIW.

And yes, I'm 10000% pessimistic of any even remote chance of a Grant trade. I just don't see it and don't believe the wait and see game at the expense of opening up playing time for other players who need to develop is worth the low percentage gamble on a dumb GM.

I think you're just gonna see another 3 years of Grant playing 50 games a year and not playing past March. If you want to argue the point of me saying he's taking away minutes from other players is moot because they'll probably sit him for half the season with mystery illnesses while they tank end of seasons... I'll buy that argument. But this wishful thinking that some team is going to take Grant at any point in his contract without the Blazers taking back longer salary or giving up assets is nonsense when you look at how the league has been operating under this new CBA.

But if you want to hope the Blazers can catch Joe Dumars on one of his benders... sure, go for it, but be prepared to be disappointed.

[DusterBuster]

I agree. You never know when a team will take a bad contract. I wouldnt buy him out until the final year if at all. Frankly While jrue is clearly better im not even sure why we added another contract just as pricey for a role player. Still not digging it

I'm still pretty on the fence with the Jrue thing too. I don't hate it on paper, but on the books it looks stupid... but the Blazers also need to be above the salary floor for the next few years and with so many players on rookie contracts, taking back big deals is the only way to do it, WHICH, if you're gonna sell me on a GM taking Grant, that is a much more logical take than "some GM will be stupid".

I've used that logic for 20 years of bad Blazer contracts and never once had it actually pan out.

[DaVoiceMaster]

Giannis for RW3, Thybulle, Scoot, Sharpe, and Milwaukees picks and swaps in return.

Sign Lillard for the vet minimum; perhaps he makes it back before the end of the season.

Holiday / Lillard / Love
Camara / Rupert / Cissoko
Avdija / Murray /
Antetokoump / Grant
Clingan / Hansen / Reath

That is 11 player's under contract and 2 two-way players, which still leaves 4 vacant roster spots. The Blazers will need to sign a few free agents and/or trade for a few players.

[DC_Melo]

How is it any different than if Grant is still on the roster? ...

His 33mil is on the books one way or another since he's untradable, meaning those supposed flexibility limitations would still be there regardless...

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Someone give me solid CBA reasonings for why it's any different with keeping him or buying him out.

Because unlike dead cap which remains on the books no matter what, and ties up money to resign our guys, Jerami’s contract becomes less negative in value with time, and can theoretically still get moved. Perhaps next season we can move him for another bad contract that’s a year shorter. Or package him in a future deal with another asset for something we might actually want in return. Can that happen today? Zero to none chance. But next summer or the following? The chances go up. But dead cap can’t be moved at any point for the next 3 years, period.

So this is where me and the rest of you all break on this subject.

There seems to be this here unfounded faith on the chances of Grants value going up because he has less years. I don’t buy that theory for any second because teams generally care less about years and more about $$$ per year. That’s not getting better next year or his final season.

I believe he’s going to be stuck on this roster until his final season (and maybe that as well) because 33+ mil per year is too prohibitive to pay a player who’s not an impact starter in this CBA, and Grant has proved he’s absolutely not a impact starting quality player, even if he can put up good stats.

It’s not faith his value will improve or his stats will improve. It’s simply the time and money owed will decrease each season and trade deadline, so his negative value will reduce.

Another way to look at it… it’s pretty unheard of to move a guy on a bad contract with 3 years remaining. It’s much more common to trade a bad contract with only 1 or 2 years remaining. Whether that’s part of a bigger deal to make salaries match, a deal where we couple him with another asset(s) for something expiring, a three team trade that needs a big salary to make numbers work, etc… the point is, players on bad contracts with only 1-2 years left can and do get moved in scenarios such as these.

It’s possible it never pans out into anything, not saying that risk isn’t there. But with dead cap space, it’s not a risk you get nothing in return, it’s a certainty.

[Butter]

I'm going to try this one final time. This is NOT a Jerami Grant thread.

Please take a moment and reread the original post:

I was window shopping across the league trying to see which players on other teams would be the best upgrades for the Blazers. In the interest of a realistic discussion, I propose we try to keep this wish list... REALISTIC. No Wemby or Luka.

Assuming that Deni, Camara, Clingon and Yang are off limits, for now...

Who would be the best players to upgrade this roster?

I saw some posts about Josh Giddey

I started looking at Austin Reeves

Who are your realistic "dream" upgrades?

Attempting to reframe the question - if you were the Blazers GM - which players around the league would you be targeting for a trade from the current players on the Blazers roster (aside from Jerami Grant).

I apologize if the original question was not worded well. Based on the total amount of enthusiasm for the Jerami Grant discussion, I propose the Mods move all Jerami Grant discussions to a stand alone thread.

[DusterBuster]

It’s not faith his value will improve or his stats will improve. It’s simply the time and money owed will decrease each season and trade deadline, so his negative value will reduce.

I've laid out multiple times why this isn't as clear cut as people want to make it seem. It's been proven year after year after year this isn't really the case and yet we still seem to all just parrot this line like amnesia patients. I certainly am guilty of this for decades at a time, but if I'm being honest for how teams generally operate, largely they care about how much a player makes every given year in comparison to their production. It's not feasible to have a 36.4mil player on your books who can't crack 15ppg, even for a single season. Then when that is the case, the Blazers will likely be in a situation they were with Ayton again, they're likely only going to be willing to take back money if it's a game-changing player "big splash move" type of deal. Outside of that, they aren't going to move Grant's expiring for spare parts with long-contracts when they'll likely have multiple guys on rookie deals now hitting their bigger 2nd contracts... so inevitably you end at Ayton-esque buyout scenario and the cycle of Blazer fans overvaluing expiring contracts will once again be complete.

My only hopium I'm huffing to avoid this endless cycle is the new owners. The new owners should be in total control of the team by the 27/28 summer... and assuming they don't fire Cronin on day 1 - the new owners may just give him a blank check. Then maybe the team can get a little crazy with expiring contracts. Outside of that though, this cycle will just complete itself to the natural end it always has since the RLEC days. You can call it defeatist or pessimistic, I consider it realistic when using historical hindsight.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a new outcome. I say break the cycle.

And in keeping with that mantra, I'll end my diatribe about him here since we're breaking out the large red font now.

I stand by my previous comment that Krispert is probably the only "realistic" option. Even if you don't like that option, it's a very Cronin-esque move. The two FO's have history and he fills a need the Blazers have. He might not be everyones perfect pick, but he'd be the best shooter on the team (not saying much) and the final year of his contract is a TO, so he expires alongside Jrue and thou who shalt be named. Blazers have plenty of easy 1 for 1 contracts to send out too to match salary.

Couldn't Portland even just fit him into their cap space... just kick some 2nd rounders to WAS for him and not send out any players?

[Norm2953]

Team will have to add another player but it might be a guy on a 1 year deal for financially, they are exactly
where they need to be, while the team is being sold.

Best thing we could wish for is an owner who gives a **** bout owning the team and will hire good people
to manage the team for them.

[DC_Melo]

It’s not faith his value will improve or his stats will improve. It’s simply the time and money owed will decrease each season and trade deadline, so his negative value will reduce.

I've laid out multiple times why this isn't as clear cut as people want to make it seem. It's been proven year after year after year this isn't really the case and yet we still seem to all just parrot this line like amnesia patients. I certainly am guilty of this for decades at a time, but if I'm being honest for how teams generally operate, largely they care about how much a player makes every given year in comparison to their production. It's not feasible to have a 36.4mil player on your books who can't crack 15ppg, even for a single season. Then when that is the case, the Blazers will likely be in a situation they were with Ayton again, they're likely only going to be willing to take back money if it's a game-changing player "big splash move" type of deal. Outside of that, they aren't going to move Grant's expiring for spare parts with long-contracts when they'll likely have multiple guys on rookie deals now hitting their bigger 2nd contracts... so inevitably you end at Ayton-esque buyout scenario and the cycle of Blazer fans overvaluing expiring contracts will once again be complete.

My only hopium I'm huffing to avoid this endless cycle is the new owners. The new owners should be in total control of the team by the 27/28 summer... and assuming they don't fire Cronin on day 1 - the new owners may just give him a blank check. Then maybe the team can get a little crazy with expiring contracts. Outside of that though, this cycle will just complete itself to the natural end it always has since the RLEC days. You can call it defeatist or pessimistic, I consider it realistic. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a new outcome. I say break the cycle.

And in keeping with that mantra, I'll end my diatribe about him here since we're breaking out the large red font now.

I stand by my previous comment that Krispert is probably the only "realistic" option. Even if you don't like that option, it's a very Cronin-esque move. The two FO's have history and he fills a need the Blazers have. He might not be everyones perfect pick, but he'd be the best shooter on the team (not saying much) and the final year of his contract is a TO, so he expires alongside Jrue and thou who shalt be named. Blazers have plenty of easy 1 for 1 contracts to send out too to match salary.

Couldn't Portland even just fit him into their cap space... just kick some 2nd rounders to WAS for him and not send out any players?

I’m sure the red font was just to show a little team spirit…

I know nothing about Krisperts game. I looked him up on basketball reference and if plucking forwards from the Wizards as they’re about to hit their prime is our game, then yea… we should go after that name.

He seems like a good shooter from outside, hitting 42% his best season… but his BPM last year of -3.7 and DPM of -2.2 are a bit concerning…

Here’s my question… between the minutes Camara and Deni and possibly the other forward who shall not be named take up at the position, would Krispert see much opportunity? Or can he slide down to the 2?

Edit: Just saw that he’s got a 4/54 extension kicking in this season. Is he actually a realistic target? Not too many teams want to trade guys they just extended

[DusterBuster]

It’s not faith his value will improve or his stats will improve. It’s simply the time and money owed will decrease each season and trade deadline, so his negative value will reduce.

I've laid out multiple times why this isn't as clear cut as people want to make it seem. It's been proven year after year after year this isn't really the case and yet we still seem to all just parrot this line like amnesia patients. I certainly am guilty of this for decades at a time, but if I'm being honest for how teams generally operate, largely they care about how much a player makes every given year in comparison to their production. It's not feasible to have a 36.4mil player on your books who can't crack 15ppg, even for a single season. Then when that is the case, the Blazers will likely be in a situation they were with Ayton again, they're likely only going to be willing to take back money if it's a game-changing player "big splash move" type of deal. Outside of that, they aren't going to move Grant's expiring for spare parts with long-contracts when they'll likely have multiple guys on rookie deals now hitting their bigger 2nd contracts... so inevitably you end at Ayton-esque buyout scenario and the cycle of Blazer fans overvaluing expiring contracts will once again be complete.

My only hopium I'm huffing to avoid this endless cycle is the new owners. The new owners should be in total control of the team by the 27/28 summer... and assuming they don't fire Cronin on day 1 - the new owners may just give him a blank check. Then maybe the team can get a little crazy with expiring contracts. Outside of that though, this cycle will just complete itself to the natural end it always has since the RLEC days. You can call it defeatist or pessimistic, I consider it realistic. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a new outcome. I say break the cycle.

And in keeping with that mantra, I'll end my diatribe about him here since we're breaking out the large red font now.

I stand by my previous comment that Krispert is probably the only "realistic" option. Even if you don't like that option, it's a very Cronin-esque move. The two FO's have history and he fills a need the Blazers have. He might not be everyones perfect pick, but he'd be the best shooter on the team (not saying much) and the final year of his contract is a TO, so he expires alongside Jrue and thou who shalt be named. Blazers have plenty of easy 1 for 1 contracts to send out too to match salary.

Couldn't Portland even just fit him into their cap space... just kick some 2nd rounders to WAS for him and not send out any players?

I’m sure the red font was just to show a little team spirit…

I know nothing about Krisperts game. I looked him up on basketball reference and if plucking forwards from the Wizards as they’re about to hit their prime is our game, then yea… we should go after that name.

He seems like a good shooter from outside, hitting 42% his best season… but his BPM last year of -3.7 and DPM of -2.2 are a bit concerning…

Here’s my question… between the minutes Camara and Deni and possibly the other forward who shall not be named take up at the position, would Krispert see much opportunity? Or can he slide down to the 2?

Edit: Just saw that he’s got a 4/54 extension kicking in this season. Is he actually a realistic target? Not too many teams want to trade guys they just extended

I think they signed it to him last year. A lot of rumors out there that he’s being actively shopped by the Wizards this summer.

https://www.nba.com/wizards/news/wizards-sign-kispert-to-a-contract-extension

14mil per season is totally fine for a 7th guy who can shoot it. I’m sure he defense is bad. I’m also thinking that Tise slides to backup 2, Krispert backup 3.

My “wish” for a rotation would be this then:

Jrue/Scoot
Sharpe/Thybulle
Camara/Krispert
Deni/Grant
Clingan/Yang

[PDXKnight]

I agree. You never know when a team will take a bad contract. I wouldnt buy him out until the final year if at all. Frankly While jrue is clearly better im not even sure why we added another contract just as pricey for a role player. Still not digging it

I'm still pretty on the fence with the Jrue thing too. I don't hate it on paper, but on the books it looks stupid... but the Blazers also need to be above the salary floor for the next few years and with so many players on rookie contracts, taking back big deals is the only way to do it, WHICH, if you're gonna sell me on a GM taking Grant, that is a much more logical take than "some GM will be stupid".

I've used that logic for 20 years of bad Blazer contracts and never once had it actually pan out.

He's under contract for 100 mil so the timing feels off one way or another. Feels tough to just waive a guy under contract for that much when he could be a reserve at least. And he isnt movable this year may be moveable next year and definitely will be in year 3 if we so choose. But for now might as well use him but preferably as a reserve. He brings defense at least if he can not hog the ball like he did 2 years ago and shoot better maybe he will be overpaid but a productive role player at least

[zzaj]

After watching the Mem/Utah SL game this evening, Cam Spencer would be a valuable addition—or a player like him—a low usg, pure shooter 3rd PG that can catch fire from 3.

[Butter]

I think the one of the biggest X-factor for this season is Matice Thybuille. He is known for his defense, but he shot 43.8 3pt% last year. Can he keep that up in his contract year?

I joked earlier in the thread, but I wouldn't mind seeing one more SG/SF like Huerter that can help with spacing.

The Blazers have decent depth, but I'm suggesting that Cronins focus should be to try to upgrade one of the starting spots.

Assuming that C (Clingan, Yang), PF (Deni) and SF (Camara) are locked in. That means upgrades are probably coming from SG and PG.

However, Sharp could really step up this year and become the primary scorer they have been hoping for. Maybe something finally clicks for Scoot, and he becomes the starting level starter / star he was supposed to be?