2023 NBA Draft (tonight's discussion on pg 58)

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Don't trade down for two lesser assets and dont commit 50 million to a front-court that would average only 12 rebounds.


Package the #3 for the best goddamn player we can or keep the pick and be ready to pounce with our Sharpe/(Scoot or Miller) and future picks when a truly great player becomes available.

Don't go out and start chipping away at the value of a high pick for role players. It astounds me how popular that move seems to be.

[JRoy]

blazers have a chance to kill two birds with one stone here(solve what to do with their pick at 3 plus the dame situation).

Dame + #3 + 2 frps + 2 swaps for #1 in this years draft

Who says no?

SAS does not consider it.

[Case2012]

A lot of folks on the trade board are liking:

#3 and Nurkic
for
#7 and Turner

...it obviously depends on who gets picked at #2, but thoughts?

EDIT: My initial thought is "hell yes". If somebody like Hendricks is available at #7

Lillard
Sharpe/Simons
Hendricks
Grant
Turner

...is pretty dang good. Of course, the #7 and Simons could always be packaged as well for an upgrade somewhere.

Follow up with Simons for 11. Then we'd have 7 and 11 for another piece. Matching contracts becomes difficult though. Can 7 and 11 get you Jimmy Butler? Would Miami be willing to give him up after this playoffs?

Dame
Thybulle (Sharpe)
Butler
Grant
Turner

[BlazersBroncos]

Miami would be nuts to move Butler after this PO showing. Thats also 100% not how Pat operates, especially at this age.

[zzaj]

Miami would be nuts to move Butler after this PO showing. Thats also 100% not how Pat operates, especially at this age.

Tend to agree with this. Unless Miami was 100% committed to rebuilding I don't see them trading Butler. Actually, the situation for Miami re: Butler is kinda similar to the situation with the Blazers re: Lillard.

[zzaj]

Don't trade down for two lesser assets and dont commit 50 million to a front-court that would average only 12 rebounds.


Package the #3 for the best goddamn player we can or keep the pick and be ready to pounce with our Sharpe/(Scoot or Miller) and future picks when a truly great player becomes available.

Don't go out and start chipping away at the value of a high pick for role players. It astounds me how popular that move seems to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "...trade down for lesser assets", but if it's the #3/7 swap, I'll point out that Turner is not a lesser asset than Nurkic. Also, depending on who the Blazers drafted at #7 moving Grant to SF (which is probably where he's best anyway) makes the "12 rebounds" a non-point.

But I can tell by the tone of your post that you are in the "only trade for an established player" camp, which I can respect.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Don't trade down for two lesser assets and dont commit 50 million to a front-court that would average only 12 rebounds.


Package the #3 for the best goddamn player we can or keep the pick and be ready to pounce with our Sharpe/(Scoot or Miller) and future picks when a truly great player becomes available.

Don't go out and start chipping away at the value of a high pick for role players. It astounds me how popular that move seems to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "...trade down for lesser assets", but if it's the #3/7 swap, I'll point out that Turner is not a lesser asset than Nurkic. Also, depending on who the Blazers drafted at #7 moving Grant to SF (which is probably where he's best anyway) makes the "12 rebounds" a non-point.

But I can tell by the tone of your post that you are in the "only trade for an established player" camp, which I can respect.

I'm in the "1 high value asset is better than 2 lower value assets" camp.

Personally I want to keep #3 and wait for an Embiid or Luka player to come available rather than break the #3 pick into lesser valued assets like Turner+#7. And if an Embiid or Luka player doesn't come available then you still have two solid players on rookie contracts giving financial flexibility and the ability to rebuild at any moment.

Maintaining as many high value blue chip assets as possible gives you the most options IMHO.

Turner is better than Nurkic but not a "make the playoffs and win a series" level better. The upgrade doesn't move the needle very much.

[DusterBuster]

Don't trade down for two lesser assets and dont commit 50 million to a front-court that would average only 12 rebounds.


Package the #3 for the best goddamn player we can or keep the pick and be ready to pounce with our Sharpe/(Scoot or Miller) and future picks when a truly great player becomes available.

Don't go out and start chipping away at the value of a high pick for role players. It astounds me how popular that move seems to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "...trade down for lesser assets", but if it's the #3/7 swap, I'll point out that Turner is not a lesser asset than Nurkic. Also, depending on who the Blazers drafted at #7 moving Grant to SF (which is probably where he's best anyway) makes the "12 rebounds" a non-point.

But I can tell by the tone of your post that you are in the "only trade for an established player" camp, which I can respect.

Turners' injury history worries me. He's really only good for like 50-60 games a year and he's a bit up and down of a player. I like him a lot, but I don't know if I like him enough to drop from 3 to 7 tbh.

Again, if the goal is to maximize Dame's timeline, to me that means a genuine All Star level player or bust. Turner is a nice player, but he's another in an endless list of All Star "Caliber" players that the Blazers have teamed Dame up with. Then I'm sure there'll be a good player a 7, but the top 3 of this draft are projected to be locks to be All Stars in this class.

So if they can't get an All-NBA / true All Star level player for the pick, my gut says they just need to make the pick - taking either Scoot or Miller - and trade Dame.

[zzaj]

Don't trade down for two lesser assets and dont commit 50 million to a front-court that would average only 12 rebounds.


Package the #3 for the best goddamn player we can or keep the pick and be ready to pounce with our Sharpe/(Scoot or Miller) and future picks when a truly great player becomes available.

Don't go out and start chipping away at the value of a high pick for role players. It astounds me how popular that move seems to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "...trade down for lesser assets", but if it's the #3/7 swap, I'll point out that Turner is not a lesser asset than Nurkic. Also, depending on who the Blazers drafted at #7 moving Grant to SF (which is probably where he's best anyway) makes the "12 rebounds" a non-point.

But I can tell by the tone of your post that you are in the "only trade for an established player" camp, which I can respect.

I'm in the "1 high value asset is better than 2 lower value assets" camp.

Personally I want to keep #3 and wait for an Embiid or Luka player to come available rather than break the #3 pick into lesser valued assets like Turner+#7. And if an Embiid or Luka player doesn't come available then you still have two solid players on rookie contracts giving financial flexibility and the ability to rebuild at any moment.

Maintaining as many high value blue chip assets as possible gives you the most options IMHO.

Turner is better than Nurkic but not a "make the playoffs and win a series" level better. The upgrade doesn't move the needle very much.

I can respect that way of going about it...and the Blazers just might do that. There is certainly a lot of 'perceived value' in a #3 pick, that should be capitalized upon. Whether or not that value ACTUALLY translates to value on a basketball court is anybody's guess.

I will point out that waiting for a player who asks for a trade, who is willing to come to a place like Portland, might be a long wait. And as you point out, if the Blazers just hold on to #3 and Sharpe (I assume that's the other "solid player on rookie contract") then that might not be enough to keep Lillard a Blazer.

The Blazers have some options, which is a position of strength.

[zzaj]

Don't trade down for two lesser assets and dont commit 50 million to a front-court that would average only 12 rebounds.


Package the #3 for the best goddamn player we can or keep the pick and be ready to pounce with our Sharpe/(Scoot or Miller) and future picks when a truly great player becomes available.

Don't go out and start chipping away at the value of a high pick for role players. It astounds me how popular that move seems to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "...trade down for lesser assets", but if it's the #3/7 swap, I'll point out that Turner is not a lesser asset than Nurkic. Also, depending on who the Blazers drafted at #7 moving Grant to SF (which is probably where he's best anyway) makes the "12 rebounds" a non-point.

But I can tell by the tone of your post that you are in the "only trade for an established player" camp, which I can respect.

Turners' injury history worries me. He's really only good for like 50-60 games a year and he's a bit up and down of a player. I like him a lot, but I don't know if I like him enough to drop from 3 to 7 tbh.

Again, if the goal is to maximize Dame's timeline, to me that means a genuine All Star level player or bust. Turner is a nice player, but he's another in an endless list of All Star "Caliber" players that the Blazers have teamed Dame up with. Then I'm sure there'll be a good player a 7, but the top 3 of this draft are projected to be locks to be All Stars in this class.

So if they can't get an All-NBA / true All Star level player for the pick, my gut says they just need to make the pick - taking either Scoot or Miller - and trade Dame.

Then that question becomes, can a Blazer team with Lillard and another Allstar player but a gutted team contend? We've seen recently how that doesn't typically go well.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but simply that it's worth a consideration.

[DusterBuster]

Don't trade down for two lesser assets and dont commit 50 million to a front-court that would average only 12 rebounds.


Package the #3 for the best goddamn player we can or keep the pick and be ready to pounce with our Sharpe/(Scoot or Miller) and future picks when a truly great player becomes available.

Don't go out and start chipping away at the value of a high pick for role players. It astounds me how popular that move seems to be.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "...trade down for lesser assets", but if it's the #3/7 swap, I'll point out that Turner is not a lesser asset than Nurkic. Also, depending on who the Blazers drafted at #7 moving Grant to SF (which is probably where he's best anyway) makes the "12 rebounds" a non-point.

But I can tell by the tone of your post that you are in the "only trade for an established player" camp, which I can respect.

I'm in the "1 high value asset is better than 2 lower value assets" camp.

Personally I want to keep #3 and wait for an Embiid or Luka player to come available rather than break the #3 pick into lesser valued assets like Turner+#7. And if an Embiid or Luka player doesn't come available then you still have two solid players on rookie contracts giving financial flexibility and the ability to rebuild at any moment.

Maintaining as many high value blue chip assets as possible gives you the most options IMHO.

Turner is better than Nurkic but not a "make the playoffs and win a series" level better. The upgrade doesn't move the needle very much.

Yep, same exact thoughts. Luka and Embiid are obvious yes', but I just don't see them breaking loose for the Blazers. Certainly not before the draft, maybe after? Which puts Portland in a position of drafting and then shopping the drafted player. That's a tough position to be in as a franchise as it's going to put the initial relationship between the player and franchise on really bad footing... then what if that deal never happens and you keep him but he knows he was shopped hard the whole summer?

I think the only non-All Star level player I think I'm ok moving 3 for right now is Bridges. His age, contract, ironman health, and skillset / projection is on par with what I would hope the Blazers get out of #3. And he's young enough to be a great 2/3 combo with Sharpe in the post-Dame era.

Outside of that and outside Brown, Luka, Embiid, Giannis, Butler, KAT or someone else of that level demanding out this summer... I donno, I just kinda keep coming back to the fact that trading Dame is probably the smartest long-term play here. Get what you can get, restock and rebuild. With either Scoot and Sharpe or Ant, Sharpe and Miller, the Blazers already have a much better groundwork set for a rebuild than 90% of teams that have to blow it up by trading their star.

[The Sebastian Express]

In fairness, if Luka becomes available he's going to OKC. Age fits with Shai, they have Josh G, Jalen Williams, Chet and a boatload of picks. No one is topping that offer. I think he'd be okay with playing in OKc because of his age.

Embiid, yes, I think he would likely want to come here rather than OKC.

But!

I love speculating, so I wanted to speculate on who we all might think Portland will bring in for workouts.

My guesses are: Scoot, Miller, the Thompson twins, Cam Whitmore, Jarace Walker, Hendricks, and possibly Anthony Black.

[DusterBuster]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "...trade down for lesser assets", but if it's the #3/7 swap, I'll point out that Turner is not a lesser asset than Nurkic. Also, depending on who the Blazers drafted at #7 moving Grant to SF (which is probably where he's best anyway) makes the "12 rebounds" a non-point.

But I can tell by the tone of your post that you are in the "only trade for an established player" camp, which I can respect.

Turners' injury history worries me. He's really only good for like 50-60 games a year and he's a bit up and down of a player. I like him a lot, but I don't know if I like him enough to drop from 3 to 7 tbh.

Again, if the goal is to maximize Dame's timeline, to me that means a genuine All Star level player or bust. Turner is a nice player, but he's another in an endless list of All Star "Caliber" players that the Blazers have teamed Dame up with. Then I'm sure there'll be a good player a 7, but the top 3 of this draft are projected to be locks to be All Stars in this class.

So if they can't get an All-NBA / true All Star level player for the pick, my gut says they just need to make the pick - taking either Scoot or Miller - and trade Dame.

Then that question becomes, can a Blazer team with Lillard and another Allstar player but a gutted team contend? We've seen recently how that doesn't typically go well.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but simply that it's worth a consideration.

I don't believe they'd be that gutted. You'd have Lillard, another AS player, Sharpe and Grant resigned and Thybulle as a defender / low-shot taker role... I just don't think they'd be that gutted... but all depends on the deal.

[The Sebastian Express]

Turners' injury history worries me. He's really only good for like 50-60 games a year and he's a bit up and down of a player. I like him a lot, but I don't know if I like him enough to drop from 3 to 7 tbh.

Again, if the goal is to maximize Dame's timeline, to me that means a genuine All Star level player or bust. Turner is a nice player, but he's another in an endless list of All Star "Caliber" players that the Blazers have teamed Dame up with. Then I'm sure there'll be a good player a 7, but the top 3 of this draft are projected to be locks to be All Stars in this class.

So if they can't get an All-NBA / true All Star level player for the pick, my gut says they just need to make the pick - taking either Scoot or Miller - and trade Dame.

Then that question becomes, can a Blazer team with Lillard and another Allstar player but a gutted team contend? We've seen recently how that doesn't typically go well.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but simply that it's worth a consideration.

I don't believe they'd be that gutted. You'd have Lillard, another AS player, Sharpe and Grant resigned and Thybulle as a defender / low-shot taker role... I just don't think they'd be that gutted... but all depends on the deal.

Where's Wiz to tell us if we'll have our MLE this year?

[zzaj]

Turners' injury history worries me. He's really only good for like 50-60 games a year and he's a bit up and down of a player. I like him a lot, but I don't know if I like him enough to drop from 3 to 7 tbh.

Again, if the goal is to maximize Dame's timeline, to me that means a genuine All Star level player or bust. Turner is a nice player, but he's another in an endless list of All Star "Caliber" players that the Blazers have teamed Dame up with. Then I'm sure there'll be a good player a 7, but the top 3 of this draft are projected to be locks to be All Stars in this class.

So if they can't get an All-NBA / true All Star level player for the pick, my gut says they just need to make the pick - taking either Scoot or Miller - and trade Dame.

Then that question becomes, can a Blazer team with Lillard and another Allstar player but a gutted team contend? We've seen recently how that doesn't typically go well.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but simply that it's worth a consideration.

I don't believe they'd be that gutted. You'd have Lillard, another AS player, Sharpe and Grant resigned and Thybulle as a defender / low-shot taker role... I just don't think they'd be that gutted... but all depends on the deal.

Well, IMHO the Blazers aren't going to get another AS without giving up Sharpe. I don't think Simons and #3 gets it done. So then you have Lillard/AS/Grant...and role players. Potentially the Blazers could trade Simons for something, which could help...

[King Ken]

Then that question becomes, can a Blazer team with Lillard and another Allstar player but a gutted team contend? We've seen recently how that doesn't typically go well.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but simply that it's worth a consideration.

I don't believe they'd be that gutted. You'd have Lillard, another AS player, Sharpe and Grant resigned and Thybulle as a defender / low-shot taker role... I just don't think they'd be that gutted... but all depends on the deal.

Well, IMHO the Blazers aren't going to get another AS without giving up Sharpe. I don't think Simons and #3 gets it done. So then you have Lillard/AS/Grant...and role players. Potentially the Blazers could trade Simons for something, which could help...

Blazers aren't trading Sharpe

[King Ken]

Jaylen Brown makes sense if Boston doesn't want to give him that deal.

[DusterBuster]

I don't believe they'd be that gutted. You'd have Lillard, another AS player, Sharpe and Grant resigned and Thybulle as a defender / low-shot taker role... I just don't think they'd be that gutted... but all depends on the deal.

Well, IMHO the Blazers aren't going to get another AS without giving up Sharpe. I don't think Simons and #3 gets it done. So then you have Lillard/AS/Grant...and role players. Potentially the Blazers could trade Simons for something, which could help...

Blazers aren't trading Sharpe

I largely agree, but at the end of the day it depends on the deal. If you're getting Embiid, I'll fly back to Portland to drive Sharpe on the first flight out to Philly with the pick. At that point, gut the team, who cares. Get Embiid and Lillard together in Portland, then figure out the rest later like the Lakers did to get AD with LeBron.

I feel like, on RealGM in particular, people really overthink things too much.

If you're pairing two MVP's together, you do it and then use the summer to fill out the roster. You can bring Grant back and sign a SG with the MLE and you're off to the races. Fill out the bench with vet min guys and 2nd round picks to start the season, then you work the buyout wire post-deadline to get more depth.

[BlazersBroncos]

Jaylen Brown makes sense if Boston doesn't want to give him that deal.

He does, but I think he cost Sharpe + 3. Not to mention salary filler. Thats too high a price for me.

Would be floored if we could get him for 3 alone.

[DusterBuster]

Jaylen Brown makes sense if Boston doesn't want to give him that deal.

Jalen Brown too, if you're getting him, Ant, +3 and Sharpe, done deal.