Boston seems like an odd spot, already having Thomas, smart, Bradley, and then the two young guys, Hunter and young.
Lots of young players but only Thomas is really producing. Smart has been a big disappointment, Bradley is doing okay but not as well as CJ and Hunter/Young have been non-existent. Any CJ trade I'm guessing would be around Draft picks and a young player on a rookie contract who isn't untouchable.
Both these opinion pieces are as a result of John Craptonzo's opinion piece that we ought to trade him. I don't see anything of substance here.
The one suggestion, Whiteside, an UFA, for CJ and a 2nd? Sorry, as a free agent, Whiteside doesn't have that value at all.
I don't know why we are hell bent on trading CJ. Give this experiment at least a season or two before claiming that it will fail.
I don't click on those links or mention that name...but yes, they refer to that/him. As stated, they are 'Boston should do this' articles versus actual rumors.
It doesn't seem like people are hell bent. Rather just discussing ideas of what might make the Blazers a better team in the long run. Possibilities.... Also, when other cities sportswriters start mentioning your player as an option for their team, it only seems reasonable to at least discuss.
You guys remember Eric Maynor? I remember that was an experiment that was deemed successful when paired with Dame bc Dame could play off the ball with a PG like that and we all called it a success. Now we have a MUCH BETTER player than Maynor with cj and nobody is sweating that anymore..
Maynor was a distributing point guard and he was a backup. We played him with Dame for, what, maybe 10 minutes a game? It gave us a chance to let Dame play off the ball for a little bit, and rest Wes during that period. I think the situation with CJ is a little different.
I agree with you it never hurts to explore possibilities. Especially on a message board. What else are we going to do. As for other writers discussing, I think as is usually the case with these things, local writer writes a story, national places give it a small bump, places like true hoop used to be, that cull stories from all over. Often they bastardize the original content. Then other local writers see those blurbs and write pieces like this one. I don't for a second believe it's just other local guys taking a notice of cj.
Trading CJ would need to start with making a significant improvement at another position, C, PF or SF. But, with the remaining roster, trading CJ would mean we are downgrading at two positions, SG & BUPG. Before a trade like this happens, Olshey would need to have a plan in place to improve at SG & BUPG. Otherwise this trade means we have gone from being one of the best backcourts to one of the worst. How does Oslhey find a starting caliber SG and a quality BUPG? Free agents. The chances of signing a starting caliber FA SG next summer that would compliment Dame are just about zero. Signing a FA BUPG that is better than Frazier might be doable. Draft pick. We might not have a pick if the team keeps winning. If we do have a pick, it will not land us a starting caliber SG that is ready to play, but a BUPG is a possiblility. Trade. Who knows, hard to project what trades might happen. I am sure Olshey is hoping to make a consolidation trade at some point. Which begs the question, does he have enough assets to make a consolidation trade now, if not, when will he have enough assets?
Agreed. But of course he would have that in place already. The most obvious answer at SG would be to plug in Allan Crabbe into what would be very similar to the Wesley Matthew role. Hopefully what came out of it would be more balance in the front court. We would be losing a very good player but might end up being a better team....al'a when Monta Ellis left Golden State.
I am not convinced you would like the results of starting Crabbe, but will admit there is a chance he turns into the next Kris Middleton. The risk free test would be to start Crabbe and make CJ the 6th man. I am not against trading CJ, just that there would need to be more to it than a CJ for Granger type trade. CJ may have more trade value right now than Dame due to their contracts. CJs trade value reminds me of when every GM in the league wanted the young Batum. If my old memory is correct (it may not be). Didn’t the Blazers have a good shot of winning the CP3 auction, but missed out because we would not include Batum in the trade? I do not believe any player should be untouchable. If a GM is crazy enough to overpay for CJ, trade him.
The way to win in this league is to develop competitive advantages at multiple positions. Dame + CJ together might not be totally synergistic yet, but they offer competitive advantages. They offer you 48 minutes of trouble for defenses on the perimeter. How many other teams can offer that advantage? I hate this idea of trading him just because his game replicates Dame's. Just because you and others have not seen a team out there with this kind of duo doesn't mean they won't work in the future. We don't HAVE to follow convention and traditional lineups. If GS did that, they wouldn't have a 6'7 guy playing C, and leading their team in assists.
People don't like situations without precedence. But guess what, no one won a championship playing like the Warriors did last year and they steamrolled everyone. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. But there's no evidence that the Dame/CJ pairing won't work....yet.
But it's exactly the same situation with Tim Frazier, don't you agree? He's exactly the same kind of player Maynor is/was
I'd say Frazier is way more turnover prone than Maynor was..Maynor was a decent backup point guard..just not a great one
Maynor was big enough to cover 2 guards on defense during the short stretch of run that he got in games with Dame in the backcourt with him. Frazier can't match up on D like Maynor could.
