Salary has absolutely nothing to do with it. I’m talking assets. If we can get a couple first round picks for Brogdon, we can’t pass that up. I’m talking less valuable in terms of trade value.
You're thinking like Sam Presti with respect to stockpiling first round picks. You can count that as a compliment if you want, but I consider it to be crazy to accumulate more picks than you can use, especially when you've used the only players on the roster with big contracts in order to get the picks. Excess picks have value when you can tie them to an outgoing player with a big contract so you can acquire an upgraded player. Using them to acquire draft picks that will likely be late first round ones is just blah.
We don’t have anywhere near as many picks as OKC. We need more assets in case a player becomes available that we want to chase. And I love what OKC is doing. They are exactly the model we should be following.
So you must have liked when they paired up a 34 year old PG with their PG of the future, and it didn't hamper his growth at all?
OKC was also really smart. They didn’t just “bottom out”. They traded Westbrook for CP3 who was worth literally nothing. People were talking about the possibility of him sitting out the entire year. OKC didn’t cut him. Instead, he helped SGA and the young guys make the playoffs, and then OKC capitalized on CP3’s value and traded him to a situation he wanted to go to. From a value standpoint, they turned CP3 from a nothing into a something.
That was for one year, in a year where CP3’s trade value was zero. Not hyperbole or revisionist history, literally zero. His salary was just too big to cut, and no contender was willing to take on that contact with the injury concerns. CP3 had to prove that he was healthy to get a shot somewhere else, and that playoff run made the Suns confident that he could do the same thing with their young roster. If CP3 was healthy and every team was confident in it, he would’ve been gone as soon as he got to OKC. If he was healthy, he might’ve never been dealt for Westbrook.
Perhaps. But you also have to consider that his year with the Thunder benefited SGA and every Thunder player who's still on that team. They're almost certainly better now than they'd have been playing a roster full of guys age 22 and under that year. That's what's important. Not the reason Paul was there, but that he was and what the younger players got out of him being there.
I've already considered it. I agreed with you that the one year with CP3 on the Thunder did wonders. That doesn't change anything. The Thunder DID capitalize on CP3's value once it was rebuilt eventually. They didn't say "omg, we made the playoffs. Let's keep Chris, SGA can grow while we try to compete. CP3 is a proven veteran, what better vet is there for SGA to learn from?" Clearly, that would've been the stupid thing to do, because they clearly didn't have the talent to make a respectable run at the time. They are just getting there now. If you're going to argue OKC would've been better off sticking with CP3 after that initial year and trying to compete every year rather than capitalizing on his value and ensuring a couple seasons of high draft picks (meaning they wouldn't be in position to draft Holmgren, Williams, a lot of the players that are contributing to their run right now), then I don't really have anything to say to you lol. We'd be arguing in circles at that point, and that's not something I'm interest doing.
For one year… and OKC didn’t have two players equivalent to Sharpe or Simons. SGA is also 6’6 and listed as a shooting guard. Who in their backcourt is the equivalent of Sharpe and Simons for Paul to steal minutes from? If anything, SGA compares more favorably to Sharpe than he does Scoot.
Anyone advocating trading Brodgon for whatever should be forced to watch 24 consecutive hours of Scoot's first half play and then be forced to write an essay about how anyone on the Blazers would be better if he was seeing more floor time right now. Then they should have to watch a full day of this year's Pistons and a full day or Process Sixers on loop.
I would rather watch Scoot. Nothing has changed for me. I want Brogdon gone for the same reason why I wanted Dame gone. I want to build a championship contender. That means that this season is going to hurt. Having the team scrape into the playin would be catastrophic. Horrible decision.
No one has suggested trading Brogdon for "whatever"...if the goal was to trade Brogdon just for the sake of being bad, it would've happened long ago. Grant wouldn't have been re-signed.
seems like everyone is going in circles here.... but as someone said earlier if he gets traded great, probably means a good/decent return because they arent going to ship him out for nothing especially since he was apart of that dame trade. If he stays great, a good solid vet presence on the team is never a bad thing. But Nate isn't wrong one bit, while brutal as its been for scoot (albiet the team being 5-1 when hes been playing) he should be getting as much run as possible same with shaedon (without killing him), and with the Log Jam at the guard position it makes it a lot harder to get, and with mays playing pretty damn decently over those weeks with brogdon out he feels like the most expendable guard we have that can net us a decent return. I like brogdon but I dont think trading him away makes or breaks the team in any way like most seem to think here. As nate has said before there are tons of Vets out there for cheaper contracts, if we think brogdon is that guy and that nooooooo other vet and or trade could bring what he brings in terms of experience then sure keep him, but if there is a good trade available for him then I think we should take it.
I was fine with bringing back someone like Lowry, but there’s probably other guys out there who would also work. Someone who is comfortable playing 10-15 minutes a night.
I think it was Nate or someone piggybacking on him who said just signing a vet who was a free agent after a buyout would be good enough. That's just blindness, though. Those guys are either usually one of two forms. Either they're high-priced guys later in their careers looking for rings who are going to sign with a contender or they are washed. Saying Kyle Lowry would be fine as a replacement for Brogdon is way off the mark. Part of the reason you keep Brogdon is because he can keep you in games. Lowry's something like 7 years older, he can only play one position, and his game is nowhere near Brogdon's now. That there are people out there that think just any vet can offer what players like Brogdon or Grant to mentoring this young core just seems so out there to me. I don't know how anyone who's been around any competitive team in any serious sport would think that way.
if we scrape into the play in this year with our youth still having so much growth to go thru, wouldnt that then be the same as okc almost? Then trade brogdon and picks for a legit missing pc to push us into top four contender status instead of a play in team? i just dont see how you can be so matter of fact about something so unpredictable. Unpredictable being who we would trade brogdon and picks for to elevate us from play in to contender when added to another year of growth from our youth. if we aRe a playin in team now with all of our youth that still has growth, then we should absolutely be looking to be going all in in another year or two. No late first round pick is gonna change that. there is no way we get two lotto picks for brogdon. So…
I mean we have a bunch of youngsters now, 3 rooks, a couple second year players a 25 year old 5, Simons, and a few vets.
I don’t view OKC last year the same situation as us this year. OKC had several years to accumulate talent at the top of the lottery. In addition to acquiring SGA, they drafted Giddy, Chet, Jalen, and Carson. Dieng is also someone who was a lotto pick. Right now, we have Shae and Scoot as our top-shelf-talent guys. Even if Camara and Walker max out their abilities and become the best role players they can, I view those guys on the tier of a Dort. I have hope in Ant, but some of you will have me believe he’s a CJ clone. You pointed to possibly trading Brogdon and picks for a missing piece to compete in like two years. I can assure you, 33yo Brogdon and picks will NOT get you that “missing piece” you want. At any point, OKC can offer Dort, Giddy, and 5+ 1sts for any star that becomes available. You better hope Embiid doesn’t become available, Wallace + SGA + Williams + Holmgren + Embiid is as scary a starting lineup I can think of in a couple years.
You’re convoluting the term “vet” to mean way more than it is. When guys like Barkley and McGrady were talking about lack of vet leadership, they meant it in the literal sense—guys who taught young men to be men, handle finances, stay out of trouble, life lessons, etc. They pointed to the fact that the oldest guy on a team being 28 is a problem. Lowry is a great mentor for the guards. NBA champion, great defender, the greatest player of a franchise—all the things you would want in a guy to mentor Scoot. Of course Brogdon is the better player, he’s smack dab in his prime. You sound like you want guys who can actually win games. You want to compete. That’s fine, but don’t say you want vet leadership on the team and point to players that win games. Guys who enjoy playing a role in developing players and will hang with some young guys on the road are just as important to creating a winning culture as guys who are productive on the court. Batum is another great example of a vet I’d love.
