Many are talking about Aldridge being the most valuable trading asset. Personally I disagree. I think Wes Matthews is the most tradeable player for return. His contract is actually going less each year and it's not a Max Type Contract; that teams would need to give up an important piece for. Also, Batum can slide to starting SG; so losing Matthews isn't as bad as you think. So with that said; what could a Matthews give you? Here is my go; maybe it could happen. http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=9wl3rjs Getting Ariza and Crawford would help our bench big time. Ariza is a capable defensive minded SF and Crawford would be a nice scorer to come off the bench. The only downside is we lose about 2 million this summer in cap space.
I was just starting a thread buddy. I know you're creative so lets see yours. I just think using Matthews will actually give us player(s) that could bring us back more value in return.
I was just responding to the thread you started. I have no desire to trade someone like Matthews for lesser pieces just because. He's young enough, locked into a decent contract, is a good 3 point shooter, asolid defender, and by all accounts, a GREAT teammate. trading that for a chucker like Crawford and someone like ariza...no thank you.
mathews is an average player signed for the MLE, but he has some intangibles as well trading him in a lateral move would be foolish and unnecessary
When I saw "most valuable asset"; I don't mean the most valuable player. I am saying that his contract + production + contract size = a better net return of player(s). LMA is our most valuable player; but his contract size and what we need in return for the same production would never come. Basically LMA isn't going to net us +. We take steps back.
Value in trading assets go something like this: Lillard (production+hype+age+cheap contract) >> Aldridge >> Batum >> Leonard (size+age) > Matthews (shooting+defense) > Hickson (funky contract) > Human excrement > Dog excrement > Everyone else on our bench > Syphilis You could quibble a little about those last two.
(Yes, Lillard is even a trade asset. Highly unlikely, but there are a handful of guys in this league you'd have to be willing to part with him for.)
You would have to package a player like that with an overpaid stiff that you were dying to get rid of.
LaMarcus would easily return the most value in a trade, his contract is easy to move, he's an all-star in his prime and he's a good teammate. There's nobody else on the team who could bring back as much potential talent in a trade ... it's not even close.
most valuable trading asset is between LMA and Lillard. Then Batum and Wes are pretty close with I think the edge going to Batum. As far as Wes, I think he is a very good match next to Lillard and that needs to be taken into account if he is moved. Wes does not need the ball to be productive, he can guard either PG or SG and leave the easier assignment for Lillard. Wes is very good at spreading the floor with his 3ball, and this opens up lanes for Lillard to take advantage of. Sure, there are better SG's in the league, but all in all I think Wes is a very good fit. 1,2,3,4 are all good and I don't think that they should be broken up to get tangental pieces. Blazers are kind of fucked this year. They should either ride it out and try and improve in the offseason, or trade away Hickson so they have more losses and a better pick in the offseason. But either way, leave 1-4 alone.
Keeping in mind we have to increase BOTH the quality & quantity of talent it makes no sense to trade one of our talented players (we have 6) unless we are able to parlay that into 2 NBA talented players. And that's hard to do. I mean, it can be done, but looking at our roster I don't see it happening.
