You said the following in a different thread: "After watching the game last night, I actually think nic is the player we could get good value in return. He will get us the best player in return. Has all the "potential" and "what ifs" needed to totally get the star back." Looks like you're equating "value" and "best player" in the same sentence, Mags.
We would get the best value for our need. Aldridge is more valuable to this team than batum. It's pretty simple actually.
The best "trading chip" would depend on who the Blazers were trying to acquire and what the trading partner needs/wants. Outside of Lillard, nobody on the Blazers' roster is untouchable if the right player came along. I don't understand why so many of you advocate taking the best player available in the draft and then take the trade for needed position tack when you're looking at off-season moves. Olshey showed in the CP3 deal that he's the kind of guy who will trade whatever good pieces are necessary to get a great one. Once you have the great piece, then you can fill in around them. I think he's looking to make the same kind of move with the Blazers' roster. There may not be a great player available this year, so he may look to acquire other good players so that eventually, when there's that disgruntled star demanding his way out of some other city, he's able to jump in and trade whomever is necessary to make the deal happen. I don't mind trading Batum or Aldridge, but it had better be because there's a significantly better player coming back to the Blazers. Lateral swaps to fill in a position would be dumb, IMHO. I'd rather stick with our basic starting roster as is, fill in a couple of solid bench players, and wait to see if Leonard can develop into the center of the future.
This is the thing. Batum is a 10 mil player. We have around 11 mil in cap space. We could actually use batum, maybe a couple other players and the cap space to obtain a high profile player of a team that wants to she'd cap space and still have a potential "high profile" player in return.
That's what I'm hoping for. We could get that volume scoring wing for batum. One that can create his own shot, and has that killer instinct. I don't see much killer instinct in pfs or centers available. I think we need a harden type player more than ever.
I guess in that rare situation it would be OK. But do we want those players if we have to give up value? In a lopsided trade sure, when it is all about cap space and Paul Allen's money. But what hypothetical players are you thinking about?
Those players are few and far between. SG's drop off after the top 3 and one of those guys is really old (Kobe). You aren't getting Harden even if giving up Batum and cap space or filler/picks.
I was thinking more in line with Aldridge and batum for harden and asik. I think Aldridge would be fine going to Houston; which he's always played much better in Texas. Batum, Linn (more of a lob guy distributor) and batum is a decent combo; IMO. They have other good pieces to build around that core. Harden, Lillard and Matthews is a sexy core; with asik and Leonard being the front court of their future. Plus hickson could be retained to be a starter; then reserve up when Leonard can take over. Having harden and Lillard as the starting backcourt is really deadly. It would be a fucking nightmare for teams to defend
I understand that the next 3 months before the draft is going to be tough to bare. Trade scenarios with extremely low probability are going to appear daily just to breakup the monotony and to give some of you something to discuss. And there is nothing wrong with that. I will just try my best to ignore them.....for my own sanity.
I was thinking of a younger player. I like that guard from golden state. Don't know why I can't remember his name. He's still on his rookie deal; so we'd have to take on another contract.
There are a couple of problems with just "trading" batum to trade him. First is he is the second best ball handler on the starting unit, moving him means we would need get someone who can do the same thing. Second he has been injured for months. He was more aggressive scoring before the wrist injury (although he took a lot of threes) and the SG/SF positions are not very deep with versitile players like they used to be. Bottom line is everyone should be up for trade but we shouldn't make a move to make a move. Moving any of our starters outside of hickson creates another hole we would then have to fill. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
So, if I got this right... You want to trade our second best "young" player Batum, for something else, to build around Lillard and Keep LMA (who is our oldest player, can also net more in return to help build around Damian?) If you dedicate yourself to Lillard, you ship Aldridge off, and go for another youth movement. Now after you trade Aldridge, and Batum still isn't producing how we would like, then maybe you trade him as well... But no way should we trade him before Aldridge. And Harden/Asik for LMA/Batum is never happening. Never.
Thompson probably has more value than Batum does. They would have to really want to get rid of either Bogut, Jefferson, or Biedrins in order to make a deal like that, and since all three of those will be expiring contracts next year, I doubt that they would want to do so. Sure a younger player would be great, but can you actually name me a younger player that is starter-caliber that another team would want to trade Batum for? If we're looking at trading Batum--with his contract--it's going to have to be a potential-for-production kind of deal, where the other team sees Batum as a young guy who can still develop, and we're getting an older, possibly overpaid, player in return, who is better suited to help us win now. That's really the only reason you trade Batum, IMO--for a win-now deal.
