We got the #3 pick. Discuss the possibilities.

Just yuck

 

Lauri and their 9 for our 3 and 23

 

I saw that Utah fan piece suggesting a trade of Ant and 3 for Markkanen and filler. It’s an interesting thought. Play him at PF and slide Grant to 3 in a big lineup of Dame, Sharpe, Grant, Lauri, and Nurk. Go small with Dame, Thybulle, Sharpe, Grant and Lauri. Seems like there will be better deals out there though.

 

Hell no

 

Hell no

 

Congratulations, you found a way to make the Blazers defense worse than last year.

 

Never too early around here to jump on an innocent comment.

 

Nope.

 

Nope.

 

I like Markkanen, but he isn't a good enough player to command that kind of asset in return.

 

Dame just shared on his IG story someone hitting a game winning 3 against Wemby's team. What could it mean?

 

I really do find it interesting that he follows scoot on IG (but not miller). I found out after the lottery, so not sure if he followed him before or after. Do Dame and Scoot have any involvement of any capacity linking them together?

 

Yeah the #3 pick if traded for a vet needs to be a two way all NBA level of player.

I'd have loved if we could've got Markkanen back when his value was similar to Larry Nance. That ship has sailed though. If the Blazers had elite defenders at any of the SG/Forward/Center positions, perhaps you make an argument for bringing him here.

The Blazers have none of those, they desperately need defensive players if they are going to win now with Dame. If they aren't going to win now, then Lauri makes no sense for a rebuilding team. So regardless of the direction the Blazers go, Lauri doesn't make sense coming to Portland.

 

LeBron also said he'd think about retiring on Monday, I don't think that's happening either. Players get frustrated and want to see actions happen and see the team improve. Their thoughts change during the offseason and once they get time away from the losses which ended their season.

Lillard wanted the pick traded last year then was ultimately happy with Shae. I think he would be happy with Brandon Miller, who is born a year before Sharpe and more NBA ready, but only if the team does legitimate efforts to acquire an elite veteran and none are attainable. I don't think he would be happy with Scoot as the third PG, or Amen who is more of a project.

I think for Lillard getting a few useful vets such as for the MLE, backup vet minimum center taller than 6'9", etc that the team totally ignored last offseason will make a big difference as well.

 

Yes. But he won't be available until at least the trading deadline. MN wants to try a little longer to see if he and Gobert can co-exist. (I'm only saying I value KAT more than Ayton, not that I want KAT).

 

What makes you say that? That pairing was a disaster. I think they would love to move KAT or Gobert before playing together further diminishes both of their trade value. I'm not saying that KAT would be cheap or that he's the ideal guy for us to go after. I'm saying that you saying that KAT "won't be available" like he's untouchable is either nonsense or you have an inside source... I'm leaning towards nonsense.

 

I'm going to piggyback on this because it approached something similar I wanted to address.

Not only is this team probably more than one superstar-vet addition/one year from contending, I think the presumed positive impact of acquiring a player like that is a bit romanticized.

Kyrie. Westbrook. Durant. Harden. George. Simmons. All of these were supposed to be trades that changed the landscape for the teams that acquired them.

None of them have, have they? Several of them actually have made teams worse. Some of them multiple times. Some of them have left franchises in a shambles.

Add Gobert to that, too.

I was trying to think of notable exceptions to that in the last 10 years. Kawhi to the Raptors definitely accomplished what it was supposed to do, putting a team that had been right there over the top. Maybe you could say Jrue did that, too; it definitely was a blockbuster trade , but Jrue only'd made one all-star team in his 11 previous years and he's only made all-NBA as a defender -- plus, the trade the Bucks swung for him was made on very favorable immediate terms ... they still don't really feel the brunt of what they gave up for a couple of years.

Anthony Davis? Debatable. Yes, the Lakers won a title with him and LeBron, but, for the investment, I think most people (and most Laker fans) expected more than one trip to the finals and one season of winning more than 43 games in four years.

You could argue the Chris Paul-to-the-Suns trade worked because he definitely elevated Phoenix, but he also was a 15-year vet that wasn't acquired for a slew of assets (one protected 1R pick leaving the Suns + 2 role-player-level semi-starters). The Suns have regressed so considerably in two years since making the finals then that they just fired their coach. Actually, the two times he was involved in the "game-changing" trade in his prime, it basically flopped. He even ended up being moved after that to try to acquire a game-changer.

When you think about it, all that talk about knowing what you're getting when you trade for players like this is kind of a myth. The hit rate on these kinds of trades isn't a whole lot different than drafting in the top five.

 

Just a completely awesome sentence. So very, very true. Trades are every bit the crap shoot as drafting, but drafting in the top three typically has a very good outcome. Also, if you miss, the financial strain is much less as well as the assets offered up in the trade for the veteran. Well done.