there is a rumor floating around that Lillard will request a trade within the next few days.... let's see...
 |
| . |
|
Lillard trade request rumor...
there is a rumor floating around that Lillard will request a trade within the next few days.... let's see...
"we might make dollars, but we don't necessarily make sense"
"always be sincere....whether you mean it or not"
Dame to philly for simmons? Would portland take that over anything we have to offer?
I don?t think this team is ready to make the most of this type of trade. So I say the Pels should pass.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You never pass on a superstar, and especially not one that is quite literally the perfect fit next to Zion.Originally Posted by Erose
Make it happen...
Ok but what players do we give up? The Blazers are rumored to being sold. I guess i?d be ok with sending Bledsoe and Adams there but not our young players. Kind of messed up to send promising young players to a team in such disarray right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what in the world...
It would likely take #10 + Kira + NAW/Hayes + Bledsoe + more 1sts
and thats without knowing if he's even willing to buy in here
Contributor
That’s putting the car before the horse here. Which can be viable. Build a team then get the one completing piece. But we can assemble the hogs then get all the fixings in the next stages. We won’t trade all our assets
It would for sure take this and maybe even BI. I would hope Griff could do it w/o giving up BI tho but yeah we would have to depart w/ either Jaxson or Naw or both. A team w/ Zion, BI and Dame would be amazing tho.
It would likely take #10 + Kira + NAW/Hayes + Bledsoe + more 1sts
and thats without knowing if he's even willing to buy in here
If the Blazers ask for BI, NAW, Kira, 10, Pels 2023, Lakers 2024. So basically all of our best assets
I would imagine they would ask for that and maybe more (Hayes, pick swaps, etc.)
For reference:
Philly -- Simmons, Maxey, 28, 2023 first, 2026 first
Knicks -- Barrett, Toppin, Quickley, 19, 21, 2023 1st, Dallas 2023 1st, etc.
Celtics -- Brown, Rob Williams, Grant Williams, Nesmith, 2022 1st (after this years draft), 2025 1st, 2027 1st
Warriors -- Wiggins, Wiseman, 7, 14, 2022 1st, 2026 1st
Rockets -- 2, 23, 24, etc.
Raptors -- OG/Siakam, 4, 2023 1st, 2025 1st, 2027 1st
I don't think the Pels would have to give more than that unless the Raptors are involved in the bidding
I would not depart with our young guys. You won't have a good bench left if NAW/Hayes are traded. They are too promising to move. We should keep our 10th pick or package it with Bledsoe/Adams even Kira for a glue guy/s that can either play D or shoot from outside. We need a third wheel aka Jrue for the Bucks. We have our two stars already and don't need another superstar.
Last edited by sterlr; 07-16-2021 at 12:41 PM.
That last sentence literally makes no sense
It's debatably wrong in at least 3 different ways, which is fairly impressive for something so short.That last sentence literally makes no sense
Basketball.
I get what he is saying though. He is saying we don?t need to sacrifice our depth for one player that is just going to take away shots from Zion and Ingram.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lets start here....if you were portland GM, what would it take for you to engage in a conversation with the pelicans?....
Sacrifice the depth that just got us a 31-41 record?
At this moment if I were Portland, I'd be asking for the package I mentioned above of BI, NAW, Kira, 10, Pels 2023, Lakers 2024, and probably Pels 2025. I don't think they sniff that much value for Lillard however. Realistically I think something like BI, Kira, 10, and their choice of one more 1st will be competitive with the offers they get from other teams (but again I think everything centers around the Raptors)
You gotta think BI and #10 are the basis of the discussions and then from there they would discuss which young players and future unprotected 1sts would be included.
Contributor
That’s even worse. I want someone good enough to demand shots from the other two elite players. Because one of them will be off one game. Then there’s two other dudes go pick up the slack. I want the problem is not enough shots to go around. That’s not a problem. Thats a privilege.
The game is in big 3s... So, shipping out Ingram with a plethora of picks just seems like a shortsighted move considering the age and holes still on the team. You just get a nicer version of last year team with less depth lol.
Contributor
It’s not the same. Lillard > Ingram and it’s not even close. And we wouldn’t be giving up everything. We’d have enough assets remaining to make smaller moves to bring in depth and fill the roster out. I mean, how many teams are going more than 8 men deep?
Plus we would still be in position to sign and trade Lonzo. Or just keep him.
Lonzo makes a lot more sense on a team run by Lillard
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote