AD trade scenarios...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

What other assets?

I like McCollum a lot, he's a legit baller. There's no doubt about that. He'd play well with Jrue, and he'd provide some much needed spacing. But what else do they have? He's not good enough for a 1-to-1 swap.

They have the #25 pick in this year's draft. That's it, not even a 2nd rounder.

They have their pick next year, but it would be just as bad, with the addition of AD. They don't own anyone else's picks. They don't have a glut of good cheap talent. What's the ''other assets'' in this deal?

---

Collins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

This board in 2007: "Rondo is a bum. He can't shoot 3s. He will never amount to anything and he will never win championships. He would be an awful 4th asset in a trade."

There is so much more to basketball than shooting, fellas.

But.....and this is a secret.....Ball shoots the three better than young Rondo.

---

Basketball has changed A LOT in 12 years.

Portland is the darkhorse team. Here is there plan according to a Western Conf exec:

So, they trade for AD, using CJ (& others) and sign Lillard to an extension this summer. They try to convince AD to stay like OKC w/ PG, Tor w/ Kawhi. If they do, awesome. If not, they put

— Elite Bored (@BallThen) June 10, 2019

Lillard on the block and go full rebuild.

Right now, they can offer CJ and Collins, and apparently they are offering some expiring contracts for worse contracts and getting picks to add to the package (think E. Turner for Batum, #12, 36, and future 2nds).

— Elite Bored (@BallThen) June 10, 2019

I guess, best case scenario for Pels is you get something like CJ, Collins, Harkless, #12, 26, and a future 1st for AD and Solo.

I dont hate it.

— Elite Bored (@BallThen) June 10, 2019

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

You're right, Rondo couldn't shoot early in his career. Couldn't shoot at all! But do you know who could?

Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen! Who both started on that team with Rondo, where he won all those games and that ring. You know, the Paul Pierce who shot 39.2% and the Ray Allen who shot 39.8% from deep in 2008, when they won that ring?

Now it's 2019, not 2008, and three point shooting is even more important now than it was then. And since we don't have anyone who is a sharpshooter in our current lineup aside from, I guess E'twaun, and we're about to have Zion, who can't shoot, join the team, it's important to add some shooters.

Look at the top teams in the league. Golden State: multiple elite shooters. Raptors: Kawhi, Gasol, Green, Powell, and Vanvleet all shot at least 37% from three. Portland: Lillard, McCollum, Seth Curry, Myers Leonard all shot at least 36% from three. Milwaukee: Brogdon, Snell, Middleton, Lopez, all shooting at least 36% from three, logging heavy minutes.

It's almost as if good teams in 2019 have good shooters on them. Absolutely crazy.

---

Lol.

So if it involves drafting Garland, you don't like him so the logic is 'the team isn't winning now and it should take a season or two to find all of its pieces'.

If it involves Ball the logic 180s to points surrounding our current team.....like we suddenly don't have a few offseasons to focus on getting shooters.

If it was Lillard over McC I'd do it pretty much straight up. I loved McC coming out of college and still like his game but I can't do him straight up for AD with basically nothing else from Portland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

Lol.

So if it involves drafting Garland, you don't like him so the logic is 'the team isn't winning now and it should take a season or two to find all of its pieces'.

If it involves Ball the logic 180s to points surrounding our current team.....like we suddenly don't have a few offseasons to focus on getting shooters.

---

:rolleyes:

If you draft Garland, I don't like him that much because he's a one dimensional guard with questionable skills. We shouldn't spend that pick, if we have it, on Garland because it's very likely a better, more well-rounded guard will be available next year.

If you trade for Ball, I don't like him that much because he's a one dimensional guard with absolutely zero offense of his own. We shouldn't spend our best asset (AD) on him, because it's likely we can get a better, more well-rounded set of players with that trade than Ball.


We have offseasons to focus on shooters. Sure, even if we take Ball, Ingram, and Kuzma. My question is, where do the shooters fit with them? Do you have them all starting, in which case there's no shooting in that starting 5. Or do you have, say, Ball and Ingram coming off the bench, in which case, congrats you just traded your most valuable asset in franchise history for some mediocre bench players.

Come on, man. You're reading everything on exactly 1 level, in the least generous possible way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Basketball has changed A LOT in 12 years.

---

And, like I said, adding Rondo to that team wasn't the end of the world because they already had multiple sharpshooters in that lineup. We don't have any such thing: we'd be adding poor shooting to poor shooting.

I'm not hot on Collins, really. I know he's only young but still.

#12 is a decent piece, there will be some decent players available around there.

#26 is a more-or-less meaningless to me. There are players I wouldn't mind drafting at that spot, but the odds that Griff and co. would choose those particularly names is miniscule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I'm not hot on Collins, really. I know he's only young but still.

#12 is a decent piece, there will be some decent players available around there.

#26 is a more-or-less meaningless to me. There are players I wouldn't mind drafting at that spot, but the odds that Griff and co. would choose those particularly names is miniscule.

---

Honestly, I think it's your verbiage that gets people going. I know you hate the word by now, but it is the hyperboles, and absolutes, or any time people write like this like they have the scouts licked......it makes me have to poke at it.

But anyways, Collins is less inspiring than Ball. McCollum would be great. Amazing really. He doesn't play great with Jrue offensively. We'd be back to juat good PG Jrue as opposed to borderline all-star SG Jrue.

I doubt this is the best offer but it does make me wonder if the other deals involve less of the assets than we assumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

Honestly, I think it's your verbiage that gets people going.

But anyways, Collins is less inspiring than Ball. McCollum would be great. Amazing really. He doesn't play great with Jrue offensively. We'd be back to juat good PG Jrue as opposed to borderline all-star SG Jrue.

I doubt this is the best offer but it does make me wonder if the other deals involve less of the assets than we assumed.

---

I didn't mean to imply that Griff is less capable than me or anything, just that at around that point in the draft, there's a lot of debate rather than clear-cut best players, so any name you pick probably wouldn't end up being the choice the team makes.

I don't necessarily think that Jrue needs to be at the SG position to do his thing. He just needs to be given the opportunity to play off ball a decent amount of the time, and play off other ball-handlers. McCollum and Zion would provide that.

The Portland deal is not better than Boston offering Tatum, Smart, Williams, 2019 #14, #20, and Memphis 2020 1st.

MM was saying the Blazers would do a deal with a third team first in order to acquire draft picks. For example, swallowing Batum for expirings in order to pull a first rounder back (to get AD).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primetime

MM was saying the Blazers would do a deal with a third team first in order to acquire draft picks. For example, swallowing Batum for expirings in order to pull a first rounder back (to get AD).

---

Yeah, I think that's where the proposed #12 pick comes from, those other deals. Cause they don't picks of their own, really.

Would Portland be willing to take back salary like that though? They're already over the cap by a ton, I think. Their repeater tax would be murderous for a team that's not winning anything.

For next season, looks like they’re near tax line so that’ll be the case if they do or don’t trade. The following season however, they only have 76mil on the books. So this seems possible.

I think the bigger question is whether Pels would legit entertain pulling a McCollum level player and less draft picks. For Portland, that’s an auto title contender so it’s worth it to them. If they miss, they lost McCollum; not the end of the world.

Remember the source. He has never broken any news but has whiffed on pretty much everything he's predicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkhorse985

The Portland deal is not better than Boston offering Tatum, Smart, Williams, 2019 #14, #20, and Memphis 2020 1st.

---

Almost nothing is better than that. I can't recall anything, at least.

But that's why it's safe to assume that Boston isn't currently offering that or the deal would have been leaked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

Remember the source. He has never broken any news but has whiffed on pretty much everything he's predicted.

---

Very true, but at least it's something new to talk about.

Kinda depressing new.

Tatum vs McCollum straight up....who are you taking?

I go Tatum in an easy one.

So then Brown or the Memphis 2020 vs anything else Portland can offer?

I go Brown or the Memphis pick.

So even the Celtics just offering Tatum and Brown is better, IMO, than anything Portland can offer.

But if there is ANY truth to this, I suppose it is that any new team getting involved improves our position.

For what we need, McCollum may be better. Tatum struggled hard last year, and we are going to need scoring, preferably from the perimeter, preferably from someone who can create own shot. That would be McCollum. Throw in contracts though and yea, Tatum is preferable.

Age factors in a lot for me. McCollum pretty much is what he is. Tatum is 6 1/2 years younger.

This is probably biased from Pelicans fan PTSD, but oh to have a starting caliber SF, again, too.....whereas McCollum is 6'3". So the "wings being harder to find than SGs" factor is huge to me. It's like, if we got Tatum, I would resign Elfrid and be happy. If we get McCollum, we would still be desperate for a wing.

"While the Nets are in talks with New Orleans, there's reluctance around the organization because they don't want to move young, foundational pieces for a potential one-year rental, namely players like LeVert and/or Jarrett Allen." https://t.co/sGr2kyiS7c

— pickuphoop (@pickuphoop) June 10, 2019

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msusousaphone

Age factors in a lot for me. McCollum pretty much is what he is. Tatum is 6 1/2 years younger.

This is probably biased from Pelicans fan PTSD, but oh to have a starting caliber SF, again, too.....whereas McCollum is 6'3". So the "wings being harder to find than SGs" factor is huge to me. It's like, if we got Tatum, I would resign Elfrid and be happy. If we get McCollum, we would still be desperate for a wing.

---

Agree on this.

Plus, while we are going to need scoring from the perimeter, Tatum was 16ppg and 37% from three, which is still pretty good especially for a guy who's so much younger. And like you said, he's a small forward. We haven't had a solid small forward for like... forever

McColl will be 28 in a few months. That timeline seems a bit short-sighted to me?

There’s also the issue of potentially having to pay that next contract. I’m not in on it. A max or near max starting at age 30 for an undersized borderline all-star SG? No way that ends well.

As some reports have teams dropping out of the AD sweepstakes, I expect more reports like the one about the Blazers of “dark horse” teams going after AD. I take all of this with a grain of salt.

IMO, it’s Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics. Just like it’s always been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP

As some reports have teams dropping out of the AD sweepstakes, I expect more reports like the one about the Blazers of “dark horse” teams going after AD. I take all of this with a grain of salt.

IMO, it’s Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics. Just like it’s always been.

---

I think you are right.