This might be the most depressing thought I've had on the Blazers recently: is there any franchise with which I would not trade rosters and draft picks? Charlotte's roster is terrible. Probably them. New Orleans, too. Washington? Perhaps. Detroit? Probably not, but maybe. Clearly Portland is better now (well... maybe not clearly and/or right now, given the team's play the last week or two) but looking at the prospects we have in the pipeline (or lack thereof)... it's depressing. Ed O.
A lot talk about perennial 5-8 playoff seed teams, and how it is the worst place to be. So in that regard, I'd add a few more. Houston. Nobody on that team I take over LA, and nobody I see being able to get to his level. Too good to suck, but not anyone you consider a title contender. Or even close. And nobody you really want to build around going forward. Phoenix is sitting on long term deals, with little talent attached to those deals. Milwaukee. Too good to suck, a management team that doesn't want to. An oft injured big man. A PG talking about exploring big markets 2 years away. Again, nobody I would want to build around like I would with LA.
Teams I would for sure not trade rosters/draft picks with: Charlotte Cleveland Washington Toronto Detroit New Orleans Milwaukee New Jersey (D.Will is gone) Utah Phoenix Sacramento Houston Orlando (Howard is gone) Boston (too old)
A lot of those teams have way better younger rosters than we do. NO, Phoenix, are about it. Those lottery picks for everyone in one of the best drafts in recent memories will vault them ahead of us
NO and PHX are it? What young buildable talent does Milwaukee have better than us? Houston? Parsons, patterson and Morris? Two guys who play the same position, neither who look like they'll be as good as LA. I don't really see how that roster is better than ours. Or, rather, I would much prefer ours with LA and Batum over that. Same with Milwaukee. Same with N.O.
I wouldn't trade our roster with BOS or LAL. In addition to most above. If we're smart we can be in a really good position over the next few LMA-prime years. Therefore, I'm not holding my breath. Rosters/Situations (draft) I would trade for is probably easier: MIA, CHI, MIN, LAC, OKC. Mayyyybe SAC or GSW if I had to. But I'd retool those rosters in a heartbeat. I like being a Fake GM, so I'm intrigued by NOH and rebuilding from crap with cap space, draft picks, etc.
The Oden draft was billed as one of the strongest drafts in history . . . and we had the first pick. Blazers would have been better off making the playoffs that year and getting a mid twenteis draft pick
I don't remember it being billed as a great draft other than top heavy Oden and Durant, but I like the thought process Hahaha
Not to pick on you, man. I am going to counter each of your "for sure not trade" teams with reasons why those teams are at least arguably as well off... Their roster is lousy. I'm not a huge Kemba Walker fan and I don't think Biyombo's gonna be a difference maker for a couple of years, at least. They will have a top three pick, though, and be able to add a potential stud for next year. Still... probably the least-favorable spot to be in in the NBA IMO. They've got a guy that might be a franchise player in Irving and they've got another good 20 year-old in Thompson. I'm surprised they've won as many games as they have, and they will be tucked in the lottery for a couple more years, but if Irving's as good as he's been so far, I'd switch rosters with Cleveland pretty happily. John Wall isn't perfect, but he's a good player and he's still only 21. McGee is still only 24. Throw in a high lottery pick and I think they're the equal of Aldridge + Batum. Bargnani/DeRozan/Bayless/Davis is a better core than the Blazers have, IMO. Monroe is a true center and going to be a beast. He's also 21 years old. Knight is barely 20 and looks like a good player. I don't think they're a better pair than Aldridge and Batum, but they're younger with much more upside. Another team that I would not want to be. It's tough to make an argument for them, especially since MN finally is becoming decent so their first rounder isn't that valuable. I'll take Jennings and Bogut (who play the two positions of scarcity) over Aldridge and Batum, personally. The rest of the roster isn't much to look at, though, especially if they don't keep Ilyasova. Lopez is really good. DWilliams should get them value in a sign-and-trade, at least. Clearly WAY too many "Williamses", though. Seriously? I think Utah's roster looks really promising. Even with Harris pulling a disappearing act, they have quality big men coming out of their ears (Jefferson, Millsap, Favors, Kantner) and they have lots of room to get better. Hayward might be a player, too. I'd take Utah's roster over ours for sure. Yep... that's a brutal roster. Built to win today... kind of Even if Markief Morris emerges as a force, I still like the Aldridge/Batum duo better. Evans might not be as good as so many thought he'd be, but he and Cousins (for all his warts) are a better future core than the Blazers'. This is close, but I could see how some would prefer Lowery/Martin to Batum/Aldridge. I think I like the Blazers' roster more, mainly because I don't think that Hill and the other Rockets' younger guys are any better than the Blazers'. They'll get something for Howard. Something good. In the mean time, they are a better team than Portland with Howard. I'd swap with Orlando for sure. Let the three old guys leave and you have Rondo. And ... no one. Haha. Maybe you're right, although if they can squeeze another couple of years out of the big three, they might be better of than Portland over the next five years or so overall. Ed O.
Jennings and Bogut are a good pair. He's a year older than Aldridge, and has been injured, but he's a guy they can build around. Ed O.
I'm looking to swap out the posters here with the posters from another team's fanbase. Er. What? Ed O.
I don't know why things seem so bleak to some of you... we've got Aldridge.... we've got Batum.... we've got cap space. Just tank the season and try to get into the lottery and then make a play for Eric Gordon or Deron Williams in the offseason.
This mentality baffles the hell out of me. Draft picks are certainly a gamble, but guess what else is a gamble? Trades and free agency. This just in: There are zero guarantees along any path this team might go along to freeing themselves from the hole they appear to be digging themselves. If it comes down to A) free agency where this team has never been a player and you usually overpay for talent, B) trades where the team doesn't have many assets to use or C) cheap young players that could end up pretty damn good I'll go with the latter rather than the two former.
I think draft picks have their value (and MM brings up good point about maybe the only way small mkt teams has chance at superstar). But the anlaysis should be more, is it worth having a lottery team to get a good draft pick vs. free agency or trades. I like draft picks (love buying draft picks), but hate to wallow is misery with the only hope being that it increases our odds in the draft lottery . . . I know, I know, we are already wallowing in misery.
I might agree with you just because I also think that Varejao is very good. A young Camby in terms of defense (different style, but equally effective defender) and better on offense. I disagree. I predict that John Wall will turn out to be a Devin Harris (not that extreme, but...) - looked destined for stardom but never quite made it. He's no Derek Rose OR Russell Westbrook. And I still maintain that JaVale McGee is a useless headcase. We sure made them look good last night, though. Yes, they get a lottery pick. BECAUSE THEY SUCK. That is flat out insane. The only one of those who I THOUGHT was good was DeRozan, but I read yesterday that he's the only player who plays as many or more minutes than Felton who's worse offensively. And he's not known for his defense. And really? Bayless? Still? Monroe is slow and methodical. Is that what a beast is like? Knight looks like a Rodney Stuckey in the making: STUCKey between two positions, not good enough for either. Things are not good in Piston-land. Again, cr-ay-zee. Bogut CANNOT stay healthy, and is very inefficient on offense when he is. Jennings is also very inefficient (Van Exel 2.0) and has JUST ANNOUNCED HE'S GOING TO LEAVE. It hasn't been good to be a Buck since Lew Alcindor. "Lopez is really good"??? No. He. Isn't. He can't rebound worth a damn. He may be better than Monroe (MAY) but he's no less lumbering. Why "should" DWill get them value? Because he did so for the Jazz? How many times can that happen? Utah is doing better than I thought, but it's doing it without playing the youth much at all. We don't really know if Kanter, Burks or even Favors are real talents yet. Favors might turn out to be another Amir Johnson - perpetual tease. Utah is winning by playing Raja Bell and Earl Watson in favor of their youth. And their roster is really unbalanced. Also bear in mind that they've slumped as badly as we have (they're half a game behind us). Totally disagree. They're like a poor man's version of Kenny Anderson/Derrick Coleman. A VERY poor man's version. You forgot the Jimmster. A lot of people have. Slumping badly. What happened to Kyle Lowry? He looked all-world at the beginning of the season. And if Martin is so good, why is he only getting 24 minutes per game the last ten games? Oh - I see, he's averaging 13 points on 41% shooting. He's almost Jamal Crawford bad. Of course, if they hadn't cut Jeremy Lin... Check out the lengths of those contracts. When you say "swap" remember that means you agree to pay Gilbert's amnesty, too. If it was Howard WITHOUT everybody else, it would be a better deal. A LOT better. Seriously, their second best player is probably Ryan Anderson. Think about that.
