Scottie Barnes to MEM

[penbeast0]

Toronto is not going to admit that before they even see what they have this year.

This also less than what Bane got in return. Value seems off but I’m bias.

What Orlando was willing to pay for Bane may not be market value. They had a specific need and were willing to overpay to fill it in the hopes of contending while their young players are healthy and happy to be there. That deal wouldn't happen with many, probably any, other teams.

[oldncreaky]

Barnes may not be a 1st option type, but 19/8/6 with a 2.6 BPM in a role that he probably should not be playing is really, really good. He's a great complimentary player who does a little of everything and he still has that "what if we can develop his shot" hope to him, as his form really isnt broken and he has a great touch around the rim.

This is short by a lot in a situation where the Raps would only ever accept an overpayment.

Pistons fan here, so no skin in the game, but IMHO Toronto seems to have been w/o direction the last few years. Haven’t seen if the BI signing will work, so probably worth giving it a try. Reasonable amount of talent on the team, not so sure about the fit.

I have this love hate relationship with Barnes. To me, he is clearly not a franchise cornerstone you build around, but, he can be a part of a title team, being the #3 option, and all around best player, if that makes sense.

The problem here, is if Toronto does indeed trade him away, the start from scratch begins anew, and we as Piston fans know, how long that can take. I dont think moving him, unless your gonna get a lottery pick, to try again, is the answer. This trade does not address that.

High end picks.

Not similar in style (or temperment) but I could see Barnes as playing the Draymond Green role on a contender - second best player but third option on offense, does a little bit of everything to compliment your superstar and your #2 offensive guy.

Mostly agree with these takes. I've got Scottie as a good and improving #2 guy, or a great #3 if he can just make a third of his 3pt shots

I got flamed for posting my opinion on the Raptors board, but I may get a bit more traction here on TnT: IMO the closest archetype for Scottie Barnes is Aaron Gordon.

Similar size, similar defensive game, relatively similar value on O (but with different strengths/flaws), very comparable stats through their respective first 4 seasons. One thing that Scottie clearly is better at than Gordon is passing, but it's not clear that Scottie will ever be as good a shooter as Gordon has worked his way to become.

[PistolPeteJR]

Short on value IMO, 1 or 2 1sts.
This values Barnes less than Bane which I won't agree with.

I agree that TOR needs more value, but I take Bane over Barnes every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Better player, better contract.

He's 24 vs Bane at 27; Bane is the better scorer for sure, Barnes is the better defender and is a swiss-army knife.

[PistolPeteJR]

I am not just talking Portland (Albeit I think Camara, Scoot and FRP is a better deal).

But numerous teams could beat the offer listed here by MEM, and my offer from PDX.

So you think Kamara > Aldama and Scoot > Pippen to the extent GG and FRP doesn’t cover the value gap, assuming it even exists? What a wonderful world you live in man.

I mean, I also said PDX would be sending FRP(s).

But yes, I think most teams would take Camara over Aldama and most teams would take Scoot over SPJ.

You mean, "all teams would take Camara over Aldama".

[zeebneeb]

Barnes may not be a 1st option type, but 19/8/6 with a 2.6 BPM in a role that he probably should not be playing is really, really good. He's a great complimentary player who does a little of everything and he still has that "what if we can develop his shot" hope to him, as his form really isnt broken and he has a great touch around the rim.

This is short by a lot in a situation where the Raps would only ever accept an overpayment.

I have this love hate relationship with Barnes. To me, he is clearly not a franchise cornerstone you build around, but, he can be a part of a title team, being the #3 option, and all around best player, if that makes sense.

The problem here, is if Toronto does indeed trade him away, the start from scratch begins anew, and we as Piston fans know, how long that can take. I dont think moving him, unless your gonna get a lottery pick, to try again, is the answer. This trade does not address that.

High end picks.

Not similar in style (or temperment) but I could see Barnes as playing the Draymond Green role on a contender - second best player but third option on offense, does a little bit of everything to compliment your superstar and your #2 offensive guy.

Mostly agree with these takes. I've got Scottie as a good and improving #2 guy, or a great #3 if he can just make a third of his 3pt shots

I got flamed for posting my opinion on the Raptors board, but I may get a bit more traction here on TnT: IMO the closest archetype for Scottie Barnes is Aaron Gordon.

Similar size, similar defensive game, relatively similar value on O (but with different strengths/flaws), very comparable stats through their respective first 4 seasons. One thing that Scottie clearly is better at than Gordon is passing, but it's not clear that Scottie will ever be as good a shooter as Gordon has worked his way to become.

This is as good a comp as you can get with Barnes. He is an odd duck for sure.

[One_and_Done]

Barnes may not be a 1st option type, but 19/8/6 with a 2.6 BPM in a role that he probably should not be playing is really, really good. He's a great complimentary player who does a little of everything and he still has that "what if we can develop his shot" hope to him, as his form really isnt broken and he has a great touch around the rim.

This is short by a lot in a situation where the Raps would only ever accept an overpayment.

Not similar in style (or temperment) but I could see Barnes as playing the Draymond Green role on a contender - second best player but third option on offense, does a little bit of everything to compliment your superstar and your #2 offensive guy.

Mostly agree with these takes. I've got Scottie as a good and improving #2 guy, or a great #3 if he can just make a third of his 3pt shots

I got flamed for posting my opinion on the Raptors board, but I may get a bit more traction here on TnT: IMO the closest archetype for Scottie Barnes is Aaron Gordon.

Similar size, similar defensive game, relatively similar value on O (but with different strengths/flaws), very comparable stats through their respective first 4 seasons. One thing that Scottie clearly is better at than Gordon is passing, but it's not clear that Scottie will ever be as good a shooter as Gordon has worked his way to become.

This is as good a comp as you can get with Barnes. He is an odd duck for sure.

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

[Ell Curry]

If the Raptors are trading Scottie - and if CMB is good but the team is bad it's not a crazy idea - it likely has to come with a plausible chance of an offensive star, whether that's a very promising 1st (or 2) belonging to a bad team, or an offensively talented young guy who might pop in his mid-20s but hasn't broken out yet, but the Raptors think will, even if at first glance it seems like not enough value, like a Mathurin, Shaedon Sharpe, Jaden Ivey, Reed Sheppard or Podziemski.

Poeltl-CMB-Ingram-(ScottieTrade)-Quickley

Plug in any of those above 5 guys and if they become a a fringe all-star, the team suddenly looks more balanced, at least in terms of shooting.

Aldama seems like a really good fit as a backup big who can shoot a bit (and have Barnes, Aldama or CMB as the backup center), but that's the sort of thing you worry about after getting a star.

As it is, I could see the Raptors ending up with a late lotto pick and offering Barnes and that pick to move up in the draft and take bad money back, like say if Charlotte picks #3, maybe they take Barnes and #10 for that pick and the ugly final year of Miles Bridges' and Grant Willams's contract, to get some size and throw out #10-Barnes-Miller-Knueppel-Lamelo, and the Raptors take the best non-Dybantsa/Peterson offensive player in the draft.

[Scoot McGroot]

Mostly agree with these takes. I've got Scottie as a good and improving #2 guy, or a great #3 if he can just make a third of his 3pt shots

I got flamed for posting my opinion on the Raptors board, but I may get a bit more traction here on TnT: IMO the closest archetype for Scottie Barnes is Aaron Gordon.

Similar size, similar defensive game, relatively similar value on O (but with different strengths/flaws), very comparable stats through their respective first 4 seasons. One thing that Scottie clearly is better at than Gordon is passing, but it's not clear that Scottie will ever be as good a shooter as Gordon has worked his way to become.

This is as good a comp as you can get with Barnes. He is an odd duck for sure.

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

Indy, Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit would? Heck, OKC would've started him with Chet at C rather than starting Hart/Cason.

Barnes is really good. His defense and passing, along with positional flexibility would all get him a starting spot. He may not be a great shooter, but he can slash and get to the rim to score enough to be a threat.

[gswhoops]

Mostly agree with these takes. I've got Scottie as a good and improving #2 guy, or a great #3 if he can just make a third of his 3pt shots

I got flamed for posting my opinion on the Raptors board, but I may get a bit more traction here on TnT: IMO the closest archetype for Scottie Barnes is Aaron Gordon.

Similar size, similar defensive game, relatively similar value on O (but with different strengths/flaws), very comparable stats through their respective first 4 seasons. One thing that Scottie clearly is better at than Gordon is passing, but it's not clear that Scottie will ever be as good a shooter as Gordon has worked his way to become.

This is as good a comp as you can get with Barnes. He is an odd duck for sure.

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

Most of them? Looking at last year's playoff teams, he would have started on the Cavs, Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Pistons, Heat, Rockets, Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Grizzlies for sure, probably the Wolves and Nuggets too. Only teams I can see a coherent argument he wouldn't start are the Celtics, Magic, and Thunder.

[One_and_Done]

This is as good a comp as you can get with Barnes. He is an odd duck for sure.

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

Indy, Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit would? Heck, OKC would've started him with Chet at C rather than starting Hart/Cason.

Barnes is really good. His defense and passing, along with positional flexibility would all get him a starting spot. He may not be a great shooter, but he can slash and get to the rim to score enough to be a threat.

Yeh, I don't agree with most of those; only Indy, OKC, Cleveland, and Boston were contenders last year, and with his lack of shooting and need to hold the ball Barnes would have started for none of those teams. It would have substantially hurt their offence. The whole reason Siakam was traded was because he was a bad fit next to Barnes, and you're not taking you automatic 3&D small forward out of the line-up for Barnes.

Boston isn't benching Tatum or Brown for Barnes, nor is OKC benching Jalen or Chet. The last thing Cleveland needed next to their 2 bigs is a non-shooter.

[One_and_Done]

This is as good a comp as you can get with Barnes. He is an odd duck for sure.

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

Most of them? Looking at last year's playoff teams, he would have started on the Cavs, Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Pistons, Heat, Rockets, Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Grizzlies for sure, probably the Wolves and Nuggets too. Only teams I can see a coherent argument he wouldn't start are the Celtics, Magic, and Thunder.

Couldn't disagree more. To start with, your team was never going to start non-shooting Barnes next to Draymond and Jimmy, who are both bad 3pt shooters in the RS, especially given the Warriors start a non-shooting 5 with Draymond.

[gswhoops]

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

Most of them? Looking at last year's playoff teams, he would have started on the Cavs, Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Pistons, Heat, Rockets, Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Grizzlies for sure, probably the Wolves and Nuggets too. Only teams I can see a coherent argument he wouldn't start are the Celtics, Magic, and Thunder.

Couldn't disagree more. To start with, your team was never going to start non-shooting Barnes next to Draymond and Jimmy, who are both bad 3pt shooters in the RS, especially given the Warriors start a non-shooting 5 with Draymond.

We started TJD for most of the Minnesota series, who (1) is not a shooter and (2) is much less talented than Barnes.

[One_and_Done]

Most of them? Looking at last year's playoff teams, he would have started on the Cavs, Knicks, Pacers, Bucks, Pistons, Heat, Rockets, Lakers, Clippers, Warriors, Grizzlies for sure, probably the Wolves and Nuggets too. Only teams I can see a coherent argument he wouldn't start are the Celtics, Magic, and Thunder.

Couldn't disagree more. To start with, your team was never going to start non-shooting Barnes next to Draymond and Jimmy, who are both bad 3pt shooters in the RS, especially given the Warriors start a non-shooting 5 with Draymond.

We started TJD for most of the Minnesota series, who (1) is not a shooter and (2) is much less talented than Barnes.

Yeh, as your 5! Barnes isn't a 5, so you'd have had 3-4 non-shooters in the starting 5, which is insane. Butler also has the baffling habit of hitting 3s in the PS, so guys start guarding him out there, which enabled you to try TJD atvthe 5. In the RS you can't start 3 non-shooters. Even 2 is a stretch and based on situational factors.

[giberish]

Couldn't disagree more. To start with, your team was never going to start non-shooting Barnes next to Draymond and Jimmy, who are both bad 3pt shooters in the RS, especially given the Warriors start a non-shooting 5 with Draymond.

We started TJD for most of the Minnesota series, who (1) is not a shooter and (2) is much less talented than Barnes.

Yeh, as your 5! Barnes isn't a 5, so you'd have had 3-4 non-shooters in the starting 5, which is insane. Butler also has the baffling habit of hitting 3s in the PS, so guys start guarding him out there, which enabled you to try TJD atvthe 5. In the RS you can't start 3 non-shooters. Even 2 is a stretch and based on situational factors.

At least for the playoffs, with Barnes as an option I'd expect GS to at least try starting Butler/Barnes/Draymond at times. Still not a great fit but just to get talent on the court.

Regular season Barnes would be a high minutes reserve to limit the time Draymond plays center.

[One_and_Done]

We started TJD for most of the Minnesota series, who (1) is not a shooter and (2) is much less talented than Barnes.

Yeh, as your 5! Barnes isn't a 5, so you'd have had 3-4 non-shooters in the starting 5, which is insane. Butler also has the baffling habit of hitting 3s in the PS, so guys start guarding him out there, which enabled you to try TJD atvthe 5. In the RS you can't start 3 non-shooters. Even 2 is a stretch and based on situational factors.

At least for the playoffs, with Barnes as an option I'd expect GS to at least try starting Butler/Barnes/Draymond at times. Still not a great fit but just to get talent on the court.

Regular season Barnes would be a high minutes reserve to limit the time Draymond plays center.

Which is a roundabout way of saying he'd be a bench player for them.

[wegotthabeet]

This is as good a comp as you can get with Barnes. He is an odd duck for sure.

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

Indy, Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit would? Heck, OKC would've started him with Chet at C rather than starting Hart/Cason.

Barnes is really good. His defense and passing, along with positional flexibility would all get him a starting spot. He may not be a great shooter, but he can slash and get to the rim to score enough to be a threat.

He would literally start on every NBA team. No team has two better forwards and if so name them.

That poster just hates on Scottie to an irrational extent for whatever reason. It’s not a good take and hard to take them seriously.

[Scoot McGroot]

Aside from maybe the Knicks, name a contender from last year who would even start Barnes.

Indy, Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit would? Heck, OKC would've started him with Chet at C rather than starting Hart/Cason.

Barnes is really good. His defense and passing, along with positional flexibility would all get him a starting spot. He may not be a great shooter, but he can slash and get to the rim to score enough to be a threat.

Yeh, I don't agree with most of those; only Indy, OKC, Cleveland, and Boston were contenders last year, and with his lack of shooting and need to hold the ball Barnes would have started for none of those teams. It would have substantially hurt their offence. The whole reason Siakam was traded was because he was a bad fit next to Barnes, and you're not taking you automatic 3&D small forward out of the line-up for Barnes.

If Indy had Barnes, Nesmith would have never started. He would've been the 6th man all year, though it all depends on who Indy would've had to deal for Barnes.

Boston isn't benching Tatum or Brown for Barnes

They wouldn't have to. They'd return White to the bench as the super duper sub.

nor is OKC benching Jalen or Chet.

They wouldn't have to. They'd have been benching Cason Wallace or Isaiah Hartenstein, as I said in the post.

The last thing Cleveland needed next to their 2 bigs is a non-shooter.

They absolutely would've started Barnes over Hunter/Strus. 1,000%. The lack of shooting wouldn't have been as much of a problem as they'd have just subbed out one of the guys a little early and run with 2 of Barnes/Mobley/Allen at all times, and often with 3.

Teams aren't running hard and fast hockey line substitutions. They're on the fly, and often times adjusting based on matchups and who's playing hot on any given night. In the playoffs especially. Cleveland would've been in an awesome spot being able to sub out Allen and run lineups with Mobley/Barnes against Turner/Siakam, whereas Allen was a bad matchup in this series.


Don't overthink it. Teams play their talent whenever they can. Barnes would play.

[One_and_Done]

Indy, Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit would? Heck, OKC would've started him with Chet at C rather than starting Hart/Cason.

Barnes is really good. His defense and passing, along with positional flexibility would all get him a starting spot. He may not be a great shooter, but he can slash and get to the rim to score enough to be a threat.

Yeh, I don't agree with most of those; only Indy, OKC, Cleveland, and Boston were contenders last year, and with his lack of shooting and need to hold the ball Barnes would have started for none of those teams. It would have substantially hurt their offence. The whole reason Siakam was traded was because he was a bad fit next to Barnes, and you're not taking you automatic 3&D small forward out of the line-up for Barnes.

If Indy had Barnes, Nesmith would have never started. He would've been the 6th man all year, though it all depends on who Indy would've had to deal for Barnes.

Boston isn't benching Tatum or Brown for Barnes

They wouldn't have to. They'd return White to the bench as the super duper sub.

nor is OKC benching Jalen or Chet.

They wouldn't have to. They'd have been benching Cason Wallace or Isaiah Hartenstein, as I said in the post.

The last thing Cleveland needed next to their 2 bigs is a non-shooter.

They absolutely would've started Barnes over Hunter/Strus. 1,000%. The lack of shooting wouldn't have been as much of a problem as they'd have just subbed out one of the guys a little early and run with 2 of Barnes/Mobley/Allen at all times, and often with 3.

Teams aren't running hard and fast hockey line substitutions. They're on the fly, and often times adjusting based on matchups and who's playing hot on any given night. In the playoffs especially. Cleveland would've been in an awesome spot being able to sub out Allen and run lineups with Mobley/Barnes against Turner/Siakam, whereas Allen was a bad matchup in this series.


Don't overthink it. Teams play their talent whenever they can. Barnes would play.

Yeh, I don’t agree with any of this.

Your argument RE: Barnes starting over Nesmith is weird, as it seems to concede that Barnes starting over Nesmith would be a terrible idea, which would completely muck up the Pacers Scheme. Instead it proceeds from the position of “well, if Barnes had been there before Nesmith broke out, then Nesmith never would have started… ok, but that would have been a terrible outcome in hindsight. I could say the same thing about Draymond Green. If David Lee was healthy in 2015, he wouldn’t have started… but in hindsight it’s clear Green should have started all along.

As for Derrick White. 1) Derrick White is better than Barnes, and 2) White fits better than Barnes. I can’t imagine the Celtics benching White so they could start a non-shooting forward when they already had Brown and Tatum at the forward spots. White was there to run their offense, and can actually hit 3s. He’s also frankly a better defender than Barnes.

OKC was great with Hartenstein. They’re not benching him just to start another version of Giddey at the forward spot. That’s why they moved on from that player archetype. Wallace also makes more sense, because he shoots 3s well.

As for Cleveland, when you say “they’d sub one out really early”, you’re basically admitting that they shouldn’t be starting them together. The Cavs need an actual 3, one who can shoot, not a ball holder who can’t.

[oldncreaky]

Indy, Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit would? Heck, OKC would've started him with Chet at C rather than starting Hart/Cason.

Barnes is really good. His defense and passing, along with positional flexibility would all get him a starting spot. He may not be a great shooter, but he can slash and get to the rim to score enough to be a threat.

He would literally start on every NBA team. No team has two better forwards and if so name them.

That poster just hates on Scottie to an irrational extent for whatever reason. It’s not a good take and hard to take them seriously.

This

Barnes is not a #1 offensive option IMO, but guys as talented as him just don't come off the bench in the playoffs, they play 40 minutes a game.

Barnes would start and play max minutes for any playoff team -- except possibly Orlando, which would have the problem of 3 similar-size guys with questionable shooting -- but even then, I'd expect a coach to try really, really hard to find a substitution pattern first that allowed all 3 to start. So too would Aaron Gordon start for any playoff team I can recall, champion, contender or otherwise. So too would Siakam, a player of similar level but significantly different strengths/weaknesses.

(Aside: yeah, I dropped the dude who always trolls by ragging on Raptors -- not worth the energy)

[giberish]

Indy, Boston, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit would? Heck, OKC would've started him with Chet at C rather than starting Hart/Cason.

Barnes is really good. His defense and passing, along with positional flexibility would all get him a starting spot. He may not be a great shooter, but he can slash and get to the rim to score enough to be a threat.

He would literally start on every NBA team. No team has two better forwards and if so name them.

That poster just hates on Scottie to an irrational extent for whatever reason. It’s not a good take and hard to take them seriously.

This

Barnes is not a #1 offensive option IMO, but guys as talented as him just don't come off the bench in the playoffs, they play 40 minutes a game.

Barnes would start and play max minutes for any playoff team -- except possibly Orlando, which would have the problem of 3 similar-size guys with questionable shooting -- but even then, I'd expect a coach to try really, really hard to find a substitution pattern first that allowed all 3 to start. So too would Aaron Gordon start for any playoff team I can recall, champion, contender or otherwise. So too would Siakam, a player of similar level but significantly different strengths/weaknesses.

(Aside: yeah, I dropped the dude who always trolls by ragging on Raptors -- not worth the energy)

Barnes is very awkward at SF and a bunch of teams have better PF's. I would say that he's very unlikely to come off the bench at this point because if he's on a team where it doesn't make sense to start him for fit reasons then a trade is going to be made. Either Barnes himself will be traded or else the PF in his way will be traded if Barnes is a better timeline fit (such as the Siakam deal).