I thought that the Mavericks gave up Porzingis for too little but Porzingis can only be seen as having close to the same value as CJ when considering their production while on the floor. When you subtract Porzingis' injury history from his value I don't think that CJ and KP can possibly be looked at as similar. Again though, I thought the Mavericks did get too little back for him in that trade but all of the risk was being assumed by the Wizards because of KP's extensive injury history that has cost his teams over 40% of the games that he should have been available for in his career and those injuries have mostly been recurring knee problems which we know very well are likely to cause more significant time missed going forward. So while we took the risk in our trade that we might have the most valuable asset that we received diminish greatly in value (if that lotto pick becomes a 2025 Bucks first or possibly never conveying at all), the Mavericks unloaded a player who is very likely going to miss significant time throughout the remainder of his contract. I mean even on the court you only have to look at how they've both produced since being traded to see that CJ is the more valuable of the two.
but what you're doing there is quibbling about some details...no? If CJ has more value, and I'm not saying he doesn't, the gap isn't as big as you're saying, IMO. Yes, Porzingis has an injury history and that's a factor. But Porzingis, when healthy, is a 2-way player and his defense has value you said: "Just go ahead and give me your example of another player "like CJ" and what he WAS traded for what makes you think the Pelicans trade was so great?"...your ask I did that. And if there is a gap in value between CJ and Porzingis, there is definitely a gap in value for the returns Portland and Dallas received. Portland got a first and 2 seconds; Dallas gave up a 2nd. Portland got a 21M and 3.3M TPE; Dallas got none. Portland got over 100M in salary savings; Dallas will pay 10M more than they sent out. And again, Hart and Dinwiddie are comparable players so that's a push...except for that I think Hart is a great complement to Dame/Ant as far as what CJ has done as a Pel...I'm saying it's almost certainly unsustainable, just like his hot 12 game start last season. His career PER is 17.6; his Pels mark is 24.8. His career TS% is .553; his Pels mark is .615. His career assist rate is 18.4%; his Pels mark is 36.6%. His career winshare/48 in 0.104; his Pels mark is 0.182. His career BPM is 1.3; his Pels mark is 7.2. He may not regress all the way back to his norms, but the 600 games he played before New Orleans sure indicate he will regress CJ is a streaky player. He'll mix in as many bad games as good ones. That's what he's done for years. He hasn't had a rough stretch yet in New Orleans but over 600 NBA games says it's coming I've said before I don't think the CJ trade was a great one; it's just not a bad one. But both CJ and Cronin said the Blazers tried their best to send CJ to a good situation for him. Which points out another potential benefit of the trade: when CJ, the president of the player's union, says the Blazers were looking out for him in a trade, there may be some good will payoff down the road by the way, a debate about the Clippers trade takes another track for sure
I was a CJ fan but realized it was time for a change in the back court. I think his's performance may be more sustainable as a Pel as he will be open a lot more with the bigs he has now. I thought we did ok with the trade and Hart is going to prove to be a great role player next year at a much better price.
If we're able to get the pick and draft a rotation player, I think the trade ends up being good. If we don't get the pick and we end up getting the crappy Milwaukee pick, the trade won't be as good.
The myriad trades that weren't made have no bearing on the actual trades that we did make. The fact is that no one as good as CJ was on the market. LaVert sure got a helluva lot more than we did for Norm and RoCo. Everyone acting like Larry had no value is kind of hilarious too. It's cool. You guys just keep telling yourself that's the most we could have gotten for those guys, it's a pretty ridiculous assertion to me but that's fine. @wizenheimer obviously made a compelling comparison to CJ with KP but I think three things about it. One is that KP's injury history is not a minor quibble, it makes him far far less reliable than CJ and the best ability is availability. Two is that KP being a two way player... or rather I should say a shot blocker on defense and a multifaceted scorer on offense, just makes him as good as CJ when both are on the floor in my book because CJ is by far the better offensive player, he's a better facilitator, he creates his own opportunities and scores more just as efficiently. The last thing is, again I don't think the Mavs made a very good trade themselves. Like I said, it's cool though, if you guys want to give Cronin a free pass when it's obvious that he took less value back because he valued shedding salary more than he valued getting a fair exchange in his first two deals as a GM, that's your prerogative but don't be surprised when teams expect to take advantage of him every time he makes a deal going forward. He set a terrible precedent.
Caris Levert is 6'6", young, and has a great contract. There is talk of him making Cleveland a title contender. Yeah, he's worth more, so he got more in return. Josh Hart is actually scoring only 1 less point per game than CJ did as a blazer this year, and is doing so with 7 % higher efficiency. And plays better defense. On a lower salary.
If the Pels pick falls outside the lotto, I won't be disappointed as I think the Bucks pick stands a really good chance of being more valuable. By 2025 Jrue will be 34 & Middleton 33. How 30 year old Giannis's troublesome knees will be is to be determined, but with the Bucks big three fading to age and no young players of note looking to take their place, he may be forcing his way to greener pastures then or prior. Then it's back to being Milwaukee... STOMP
Love the improved efficiency, size, and defense. For less money is a bonus. It was never about CJ not being a good (offensive) player. It was about the fit and style.
third time i've quoted this article today. https://theathletic.com/3198951/202...n-simmons-back-and-more-nba-news-inside-pass/
Ah, how interesting (and complicated). So three different teams can possibly get the pick, depending on where it lands in the draft: Pelicans (1-4) Blazers (5-14) Hornets (15-32) Did I get that right?
yes, you nailed it there was a definite risk the Blazers would not get that pick, but after the risk-adverse decade of Olshey, I say that risk was acceptable, and the payoff if the gamble succeeds could be substantial. Blazer stepped into the risk/reward game at a higher level I think the fall-back compensation if that pick doesn't convey could have been better: * To start with, Cronin allowed the Pels to put 1-4 protections on the 2025 Milwaukee pick. And if that pick doesn't convey, Blazers get nothing...that's bad * The Pels have the Lakers pick this year if it's a top-10 pick. Right now it's 12th, and it probably won't convey to New Orleans. That wouldn't have been a very good asset to receive as the odds it will convey are small * but, the Pels had both their own and the Lakers 2024 picks. The Lakers pick is unprotected. I believe Cronin could have pried one of those picks lose from the Pels, but if the Clippers trade is the template, he may have simply accepted a quick deal instead of holding out for a better one. I'm half-convinced Portland could have held out for either one of those picks, with limited protections, then, if that pick didn't convey, land on the Milwaukee pick
