not really buying that argument if it's about holding on to role-playing talent for spec....which is exactly what Portland has in their veterans...they are supporting cast contenders develop a core then build around the core once it's known what kind of players are complimentary. That's what Golden State did; what Denver did; what Boston did. They didn't worry about about moving lower-level talent before they knew what kind of talent would fit with the core... and right now, the Blazers don't have any certain core players. Sharpe-Scoot-Clingan may be. It's unlikely all three will be; more likely it's only one, two if the Blazers are lucky; none if they are unlucky. None of the Blazers veterans are anywhere close to being core pieces. The talent in that group is limited and flawed...in every case. Arguments for keeping them in some 'chucking-darts-at-a-board' hope they might fit with a future core are facile IMO that's not to say the vets should be dumped for next to nothing. But the Blazers are certainly in the zipcode of addition-by-subtraction because Grant-Simons-Ayton don't have the talent to positively alter trajectory if they stay, and their absence won't jeopardize the future; could very possibly enhance it
To me the writing on the wall looks like they want to get rid of Grant and Simons as soon as they get the right deal put together. I think they'll keep Ayton until next Summer unless Clingan is just picking things up extremely quickly and then I could see them dealing Ayton at the deadline. Obviously if teams are trying to low ball us we don't have any real urgency to get rid of any of these guys but I think most teams know that... so for me it seems likely that Grant and Simons will both be gone by training camp. I guess like always we'll wait and see.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. Moving off Grant/Ant to make room for Scoot/Sharpe doesn't make sense to me. If we can trade Grant/Ant for assets that are of equal or greater value in the long run, then I'm totally open to those moves.
That phrase "equal or greater value in the long run" seems very subjective. What level of draft capital would be equal to either player's expected impact on the team's future contender status? Personally, I can't really quantify it. If Ant retired tomorrow and his contract were wiped off the books, would this franchise be better or worse off long-term? In what way?
Reality is that a first round pick is of equal or greater value considering their contacts and what they bring to the table. Neither of these guys are going to help us win a playoff series. A first rounder could. Those guys could help other teams win playoff series though... So maybe you can get another pick. Maybe.
I am sure there is some stat that backs you up, but Ayton has the talent to positively alter a team's trajectory if he has some help. He was the 3rd leading scorer on a team that made the finals.
Given how that franchise has performed in the 2 years since they made the finals, I wouldn't put much stock in the personnel decisions they've made.
Is there a non subjective way to measure it? If so, I'm all for it! To answer your second question, I would say an amensty of Ant would be a net negative to the franchise, and I don't think it's that close. Hard to imagine Portland signing a player of his age and talent level at his current contract via free agency and/or via a TPE. What say you?
It's possible Ant or Grant won't help us win a first round series. Also possible Scoot and Sharpe won't help us win a series. So do we trade them now also?
No, but but we've already given Grant and Ant years of being lead options. Now they can get us value from contending teams. We should give Scoot and Sharpe that same opportunity. If they aren't good we'll get more high draft picks to try again. Keeping Grant and Ant prevents us from getting those opportunities.
Bridges were burned. (and traded) Who knows, but the new owner made quite a few questionable moves early on. My guess was losing to Jokic in the 2nd round was blamed on Ayton. After the Suns destroyed a good Clipper team in 5.
since Portland never signs a free agent of any stature that's a terrible gauge draft picks and trades...those are the routes available to Portland. Blazers have traded for two players comparable to Simons in past 2 years; maybe 3 with Avdija (and of course Brogdon was statistically the best Blazer last season). Sharpe, Scoot, & Clingan could surpass Simons in the next 2-3 years. Adding players of Ant's level, especially with his flaws, isn't as difficult as you imply that's not to say I think Portland would be better, short term, if Ant just vanished. Might be better long term, might not, but I'd hope he could fetch at least a lottery protected 1st. He was a 24th pick after all
yes...questionable moves that are looking worse as time goes on the team that made it to the finals had Mikal Bridges, Chris Paul, Cam Johnson, Jae Crowder, Torrey Craig, and Cameron Payne. It had really good synergy and balance and all 6 of those players were gone within a year or two they sold the farm and made a big bet on Durant and that looks like a really bad bet
The part your reply doesn't really address was the "in what way" would they be worse off. Given that the franchise appears to be committed to a Scoot/Sharpe backcourt for the rebuild, the only way Ant factors in as part of that eventual contention-pursuing roster is in a reserve-scorer role. Now, if you believe that he will ultimately still be here, and be willing to accept/fulfill that role when the Scoot/Sharpe team begins to push for playoffs, then sure, an amnesty of Ant would deprive that eventual roster of a seemingly valuable asset. If, however, you don't see him fitting into that role (whether due to salary, insufficiency, unwillingness, etc), then I posit that Ant himself doesn't have value to this team "in the long-run", only whatever assets we can receive in exchange for him.
