Anfernee Simons trade destinations

nobody questions Simons offensive prowess. But his defensive rating is .... oh whoops, my bad. This is the trade Simons thread.

*All-Star potential, electrifying scorer, slam dunk champion, improved two-way capabilities. Ant can play 1-3. Team friendly contract !!

backstory: The Blazers were mere moments away from being contenders until Lillard messed up the team. Now Portland is rebuilding, and Simons no longer fits the timeline. 6 FRP's, open to negotiation.

Anyone with interest dial 1-800-Go-Joe

 

Scoot probably will be a better facilitator, but Simons is no slouch either 5.5 assists as a SG is pretty good. And Simons will draw the defense to him wheras teams will let Scoot shoot.

Simons will probably never be anything but a bad defender, but so was Lillard. But if Simons blows up as a scorer his trade value will go way up. Plus, why trade him now while Scoot is bad on both ends?

 

I would say the longest possible timeline any team should ever realistically plan for....... is 7 years.
Ant would then be 31. So I question why this part keeps coming up.

 

7 years is only for a player who hasn't played a game during his rookie scale contract. Sharpe's timeline is 5 years; Scott's is 6

most timelines will match the duration of contracts until UFA. Simons and Ayton can walk in 2 years, along with Thybulle. I would say Timelord can walk two years from now, but that might be too optimistic

 

Yeah, he's 25 years old. I don't know what they're talking about. Imagine if we had traded 25 year old Damian Lillard because we had just drafted Sebastian Telfair.

I get the idea that we'll need to eventually pick one, but we shouldn't trade Simons for peanuts just to get rid of him.

 

Exactly. Which is why I said 7 should be the most we should realistically plan for.

 

I continue to state that if we can get a good return for Ant, I'm all for it. This is the trade Simons thread, not the "only speak negatively of Simons" thread. Providing context for his value in comparison to others in the league should be allowed.

The "timeline" stuff is silly though. If Simons is too old for the timeline, then so is Camara, Reath, Ayton, Murray, etc etc. We don't need every player on the roster to be under 23. In fact, I'd argue having a mix of youth, players in their prime, and vets is probably good for franchise building.

 

with Portland’s inability to attract free agents and keep our stars, seven years is not good planning. I say three years, maybe four - and we will still lose one or two of our groomed youngsters to free agency!

 

Which again is why I didn't say 7 years, I said the MOST should be seven years.
Which is why I think saying Ant is not in our timeline is ridiculous.

 

Bingo!

 

As a fan, cheering for a perineal loser just isn’t fun. Having half the team in street clothes for the final twenty games just isn’t fun to watch! Rebuilding to me means “out with the old and in with the new.” Doesn’t have to mean that we get rid of talented veterans for 18-19 year olds with “high upside,” because I want to see a winning product. You have to build a team with a mix of veterans and filter in youth. This way the youngsters are brought up in a winning environment rather than a losing one. For me, if Scoot doesn’t look any better this season from last, move on. Same with any of them. But please don’t sell me on a seven-year rebuild (or a three year rebuild for that matter) because I know too well that by the time the team of youngsters begin to look like a winner (maybe) the good players will either leave in free agency OR like is the case with ANT, everyone says it’s time to move him to let the kids get more minutes. This is kinda crazy. Oh! And ANT is only in his 6th season! Time for him to go!?!

 

Ant isn't outside the window as far as age goes. In fact he's perfect in that way. It's just from what I saw last season from him he definitely isn't setting an example for how to play winning ball. He's in fact taking opportunities away from our young guys by going iso in a system that is not supposed to be designed around that and putting them in bad situations with his piss poor defense. The same is true of Jerami on the offensive end and he is outside the window that we should be targeting.

I won't try to sell you on a youth rebuild but just because you aren't sold doesn't mean it's a bad way for small markets to build a contender. You're impatient and that's your prerogative to be that way, just don't expect us all to be.

We didn't lose the best dude to ever have been a star on this team to half ass and rush this rebuild and end up year in and year out in play-in purgatory.

 

Even Scoot as an average NBA starter would have proven less than Ant. I don't see Scoot starting until Ant is gone.

 

You know what I hate? Being a perennial also ran. It has been 20+ years since we were a legitimate contender. To me that’s a waste of time. I’d rather stomach a few years of being really bad and have a shot at drafting a superstar who will give us a real chance at a ring.

 

Absolutely. We're bad. Take the lumps now so we can delay the next time as long as possible.

 

I'm not sure the path to winning a ring in the next 5-7 years is any higher now than it was back when we were making the playoffs.

 

I disagree. Even now, with the roster we have, we are significantly more balanced than we were in The last 5-7 years.

Simons/Scoot
Sharpe/Banton
Avdija/Thybulle
Grant/Camara
Ayton/Clingan

That roster is longer and more athletic than anything Dame had after LMA/Batum/Wes left. And if we get a top 3 pick next summer, now we're really cooking and I see a very clear path to winning a ring. I think Simons and Grant are most likely not long for this team. Obviously we need someone to pop on the level of Dame and then a second player to pop, and that's a big if, but we were basically in a situation where we had Dame and we had no chance of getting a second star once LMA left. What team wins a championship with one superstar?

 

Balance in the sense that gap between top talent and bottom talent is as close as we've seen since our 2000 team, I agree. The problem is, we have a bunch of average/below average talent. This team is bad and the path to being a championship contender requires a lot of ANDs hitting. Even more than the Dame years.

I agree it's rare to win a title without only one superstar. Even more rare to win with zero superstars. And even more rare to win with zero all-stars. You can guess which category this group falls into it.

I love your optimism though!