Meh. Don't hate it. Don't love it. Doesn't really do much for us, does it? Seems like a typical NO trade deadline deal.
We will have to agree to disagree. The #5 guy in your starting lineup who is your #6 scorer, a rookie who isn't playing, and a protected 1st round pick 4 years from now....just doesn't seem like a lot.
Do we get his bird rights? If not, we just gave up a RFA whose future we controlled for a UFA who could walk for nothing in return
This feels like either a bet on Nas (and Collins, eventually) OR we're going to get a buyout wing. It seems more likely we'll bring a D-league guy in and Maurice Harkless, but who knows.
At a trade deadline where the best player available was Aaron fuckin' Gordon (and I like Gordon fine as a player), I think Olshey did pretty well (and I'm not a particularly big fan of Olshey as a GM). He traded away a one-dimensional player and a busted player for a good two-way player. Portland is better and Powell is actually worth a large-ish extension, unlike Trent. I don't know if Portland actually will offer one, but it's still a better situation. Portland is now at no risk of getting Crabbed again.
You mean they can't shoot themselves in the foot again? Crabbe (like Gary) was a choice. They have no choice with Powell.
We do have his bird rights but he could still walk for nothing. If we weren't wanting to pay Gary why would we pay Powell. Also unlike Gary, Powell will have the opportunity to take less money to start elsewhere.
Everyone says we could offer more, so we go Hood, Little and a pick. Easy to look at it the same way. So we trade our 9th guy in the rotation who looks awful, a 2nd year player, not even a rookie, who isn't playing much, and a pick that you're unsure when it conveys.
I'm not sure the Denver package was a lot for Gordon, but I also don't think the Blazers could necessarily offer something better. I'd imagine the upside, positional flexibility, and four years of Hampton cost control was more appealing than Gary or Little.
That's exactly what I mean--but more, I meant they don't face the "dilemma" of either overpaying a mediocrity or losing a player for nothing. Losing him for nothing was the right call, but that never feels good so it was a dilemma of sorts.
