The Blazers do have ammo. They will open up access to their future draft capital, plus have potentially a top 5 pick this year. Add in a very good Anfernee Simons, and that should net you 2 very good talents in return on the low side . And that's with not getting the #1 pick Wemby . Unless you're saying Simons isn't that valuable. If that's the case, why would the Blazers want to keep him at all anyways. I think Simons is a very good player but redundant here.
It seems like he's forcing us out of purgatory. He's saying get another bonafide star at a position of need, upgrade this roster so it's the best I've played on and we'll be cool. Obviously that implies that if the team can't that they should trade him. So we're either going into a youth rebuild or we're trading away every other draft pick for the foreseeable future so we have a legit chance at a title over the next few years. Both of the results of Dame really pushing the team the hardest he ever has are the team not being in purgatory.
Funny thing is, Dame can't make a trade. He can talk to his buddies, ask them to come to Portland and play with him. Even if they were free agents, we can't sign them. Dame makes soooo much. Can't trade for them because other teams know we HAVE to overpay and that is foolish. Portland is only gonna succeed using the OKC model, draft, draft a lot, and know what the hell it is you are drafting. It' s how we got Dame.
There are ways to keep Dame and still contend. 29 other teams in the NBA will not devalue known currency like draft picks because they can force Dame out to a different team, that makes no fucking sense. Half of the teams in the league are making win now moves. The fact that every GM knows that we are either going to make win now moves or trade Dame does not weaken our position.
Okay, Siakam/OG for Dame/Ant Scoot/Sharpe/OG/Siakam/Nurk.....better than what we had 3 out of the last 4 years, even with the youth.
No reason for them to trade for Dame if they're giving up Siakam. Those two belong together, whether here or there.
In sports projecting young players is huge to teams. I’m pretty sure the consensus is that Sharpe is going to be really special among GM’s. He’s still 19. That said Cronin would have to be an idiot to trade Sharpe. If I had to choose between Lillard and Sharpe, taking into account their age. I’d take Sharpe EASILY. The only way we’ll win a championship with Lillard imo is by getting a player better than him at this stage in his career. And that ain’t happening. Lillard’s decline, whether it be gradual or sudden, is just around the corner.
What’s going to be worse, a gradual decline where he strings us along with glimpses at times of what he once was, or a sudden one where we can’t salvage anything for him. Either way we’ll still be meddling in mediocrity like we have to past decade plus.
Using a player as an example who A. Has never won B. Is an entirely different type of player C. Has been surrounded by great players. Is a stretch To put it in perspective, we don’t have enough assets to trade for the asset that brought Durant to the Suns
People here bitch incessantly about Nurks deal but would be ok with Duncan Robinson's contract? One pick is not enough incentive to take that on, and we give up Dame? I dont think we are close to getting the kinda value we should be getting. This is about what Utah got for Gobert.
