If you are correct that Ant is the 4th best player on the team, then we don't have to worry about your theory that Ant being a bad defender and best player on the team being a problem. If they can get good value for Ant, I'm all for moving him. If we're talking a mid first round pick in a weak draft and a role player, then I think there is greater value in holding onto him.
That does seem to be a common belief. And maybe you are right. But I keep going back to what he said in his exit interview about him, Sccot, and Shae making it work. And to me making it work is him coming off the bench for reasons stated. If he does have an issue with coming off the bench then you trade him. But we really don't know that he will have a problem. I am ok with trading him, I just would prefer to get as much talent on the team as possible.
Both of them have already stunted the growth of probably all of our prospects and they made Ayton look like shit until they sat down. For whatever reason the offense makes sense until it gets into one of their hands and then it's iso bullshit all day long. I watched at least half of all but two games last season and every time the ball went to Ant or Jerami I cringed because I knew that it was 1 on 5 for the rest of that possession. I know they did pass sometimes it's just the feeling I got because of how often those guys acted like they were prime Kyrie or Melo.
Agree 100%. Maddening. And that probably had a lot to do with the low viewership. I lost interest if either of them were playing.
I think if Ant didn't have issues coming off the bench Cronin wouldn't have called him the best player on the team. He's trying to trade him for max value. Which I agree with. But you aren't going to get enough out of Ant to make it worth stunting the growth of Scoot, Sharpe, and Ayton as a unit. And I feel like that may have already started to happen. I want to get good value out of him, but the moment we try bringing him off the bench and he doesn't like it his value will take a huge hit. I don't think we'll ever get more for Ant that we will be able to get this summer. Take the best offer and move on.
It doesn't matter who is actually the best player right now. You could make the argument for several guys. Cronin has called him the best player. I've already said that I would trade Ant for a potential lotto pick. I wouldn't trade him for a mid first rounder in this draft. I think he's worth more than that. But I really think we'll get more value out of Ant sooner than we ever will by hanging on to him. Ant hurts everybody on the team when he's in, and his lack of interest on the defensive end hurts everyone on the team in general. We can't afford to be having Scoot and Sharpe's development hurt by watching Ant screw around. That's a huge mistake. *Edit* I won't be upset if Simons isn't traded until next draft. But I think we run a big risk of slowing the development of our other players. However, it'll probably also help us get a better draft pick on record alone... So....
I hear you. I'm just not buying into the theory that Ant is holding Scoot or Sharpe back. If Scoot or Sharpe are going to turn into all-star level players, Ant playing 30mpg isn't going to be anymore of a risk of holding them back than surrounding them with inexperienced subpar talent.
Ant playing 30 minutes per game is 30 minutes of bad basketball every game where Scoot and Sharpe aren't developing. And learning from a vet who gives no defensive effort. That's going to slow their development down as guards. Maybe they each only play with him 15 minutes per game. That's 1/3 of every game that they aren't developing. Or probably half of their playing time. Yeah. I absolutely think that's harmful.
Ant doesn't come close to averaging 30mpg of bad basketball, so unless something drastic is going to change, we can rule that scenario out. I'd argue, Sharpe and Scoot play more minutes of bad basketball than Ant. Also, Ant playing 30mpg still leaves 33mpg for Scoot and Sharpe, which frankly is more than they've shown they are ready for. Sharpe has yet to prove he can play through an entire NBA season playing 30mpg. I'm also not buying that watching Ant play defense is going to hurt the effort of Scoot/Sharpe on that end. If those guys are that impressionable, then we're in trouble moving forward. I don't get why we're putting weight on Ant's negatives rubbing off on Scoot/Sharpe, but no weight on Ant's positives rubbing off on them. I do like the idea of Scoot/Sharpe having the option to learn how to play around starter quality NBA players vs guys like Banton, Walker, Camara, and 2-3 rookies.
I disagree. He plays no defense so half of every minute he plays is bad by default. Then he plays me ball on offense. Again. I disagree. Disagree. They are both far better defenders, so therefore they play better basketball at least half the time. I really don't want Scoot or Sharpe learning how to do anything like Ant, honestly. He doesn't play team basketball. They can learn the individual skills from a trainer. They can practice them in practice. They can learn how to be an NBA player from old vets who can't play as much anymore. They can't use those skills in games when Grant or Ant are in because Grant and Ant play 1 on 5. They just watch them play me ball and then have to cover Simons ass on defense while Simons is taking a break so he has enough energy to go 1 on 5 again on offense. So yeah, they get 33 minutes. And 15 of those minutes will have them standing around watching Ant play offense or covering Ant's ass on defense. I'm sure he can help a playoff team. He's not going to help Portland, IMO.
It seems like your logic is a bit all over the place. But if you think Ant is playing bad basketball for 30mpg, then there really isn't a place to have a constructive conversation about him. If he's half as bad as you're implying, he's one of the worst contracts in the NBA, and we'd be lucky to get a 2nd and filler for him. No playoff team would want a guy who plays 30mpg of bad basketball, as you claim he provides. In regards to ball movement and getting their teammates baskets, one of those three is considerably worse, and it isn't Ant. And despite receiving an elite level of gravity from opposing defenses, his true shooting percentage is super to Scoot/Sharpe. If Scoot/Sharpe had Ant's shooting and playmaking ability, it would make trading Ant so much easier. I'd also very much look forward to the day where Scoot and Sharpe are good enough to handle their own defensive responsibilities, let alone cover for the shortcomings of their teammates?
No, again, as I've said, I think he's bad for a team full of rookies and young people who are deferring to him and learning from him. I think he can probably help a playoff team as a 6th man. I'm also afraid that his value actually shouldn't be much more than a second rounder... And hoping we'll get somebody to bite before that becomes too obvious and we've wasted years of potential development falling for the sunk cost fallacy. I have nothing personally against Ant, I'm just sick of watching him and hope our young guys don't start picking up the same habits.
You don't create a roster of players that are optimal for a roster full of rookies, you build a roster of players who can provide value to a contending team. As you just stated, Ant can help a playoff team. He doesn't have to be the savior for the 24-25 team, so even if he isn't a perfect fit for this upcoming season, that's ok. Again, the bad habits thing is such a stretch. It assumes Scoot/Sharpe are mentally weak to the point that they will be influenced by the weaknesses of their teammates. If that is the case, it's highly unlikely getting younger will provide them better teammates to immulate. It discounts their ability to pick up Ant's elite traits. Dame in his early years was mentally tough and put next to some strong defenders as a rookie. Did that make him a good defender in the league? No. Roy in his early his career was surrounded by bad guards. Did that bad guard play rub off on him? No. If Scoot/Sharpe have what it takes to be NBA stars, they will take the good from Ant, and unphased by the bad. Nothing to worry about. They shouldn't need to be coddled and haven't done anything to warrant another downgrade in talent of their support cast to clear even more runway for them. They've already been handed minutes they probably haven't even earned.
These stats are meaningless and pointless, just like plus/minus and all that other garbage. That site is garbage, not sure why you're trying to post that to make a point. Those stats are so faulty. Part of the formula for them making those ratings is Defensive Box Plus Minus, lmao..also Defensive Player Impact Plus Minus and other crap.
Are you claiming Ant is not a bad defender? I didn't make any judgement based on the list. I just saw it and shared it. But my opinion is that most of those guys on that list are indeed bad defenders.
If you think standing around half of their minutes watching Ant play 1 on 5 is good for their development we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Thank you. Ant has his strengths and weaknesses like most players, so I am not adamant that we have to keep him. But I feel that is weaknesses are embellished, and his holding anyone back is certainly one of those embellishments.
I know Simons sucks at defense, but I don't think many players are actually good defensively. The Mavericks were only better than the Blazers by 2.5 points in terms of defensive rating. The difference between the best and worst defensive team is 11 points (defensive rating), but the difference for offensive rating is 15. The sum of wins of the top 10 offensive teams is 120 games higher than for the top 10 defensive teams. Defense is fetishized but offense is more important in today's NBA.
Everybody wants to be underdog of every playoff series before being gentleman swept out of the finals. We should definitely follow the Mavs blueprint.
The point went over your head again. I'm not talking about a "Mavs blueprint", I'm talking about something that is true in general. But the Celtics had the #1 offense in the league if you want to play that game. If you look at the proximity of other teams to the Blazers in terms of defensive rating, you've got the Pacers underneath them, and the Mavs and Bucks only 1-1.5 points better. Now do the same for offense, no good teams are in the vicinity. You have to go up 5 points just to get to a mediocre team. The Blazers suck because their offense sucks.
