What is the biggest limitation from keeping Dame, Ant, and Shaedon together? We are all running under the assumption that at least one of these scenarios is true: - Ant gets in the way of Shaedon's development. - Shaedon is 2 and not a 3. - Ant's combination of contract, age, and talent makes him the obvious candidate to move to fill gaps at other positons. - Ant cannot come off the bench given his contract and investment in time/money from the org. - Ant and Dame is Dame/CJ 2.0 and cannot coexist. But is there any scenario were Dame/Ant/Shaedon can all start at 1/2/3 or if we move Ant/ Shaedon to a 6th man role? Can we find synergy here to not move one of these guys in a big trade?
Dame and Ant is a bad backcourt. Either Dame goes, or Ant goes. There's a lot of other stuff that would have to happen with either decision though.
You answered your own question. The answer is yes for the 5 reasons you gave. A Simons trade for a star forward instantly improves us at two positions. Simons is fine if we traded Dame but Shaedon is better at the 2.
You are missing the biggest issue of all... Dame & Ant are worse than traffic cones on defense. Because of that, I don't think you can move forward with both of them and have any hope of being a contender.
Ya i added that. Lol its so built in to my thinking that I didnt feel the need to explicitly point out.
Dame and Ant aren't good enough defensively to be on the court at the same time. Playing Ant the 5-10 minutes Dame is off the court isn't maximizing our available talent. And we don't have any talent to spare.
Part of me says "either Ant or Dame needs to be traded". Another part of me says "If Curry, Thompson and Poole can coexist, why can't Dame, Sharpe and Ant do the same?" I don't see this franchise moving Ant to an off-the-bench microwave role, but if they got enough quality forwards to make that reasonable, that would certainly be the best way forward.
This was my impetus to creating this thread. As well as my fear for overpaying to fulfill a positional need. Are we getting pressured by this Dame timelime to make a less favorable trare this summer? The answer at the moment is obviously yes. But is that appropriate for a roster so bereft of talent?
There are plenty of other superfluous threads on the front page that you can close. What an unnecessary and rude comment from a mod. If you feel this kinda convo is not necessary, you should really reprioritize your thinking.
do i think they can co exist? yes but ant cant play with dame at the same time for very long as many people pointed out neither can guard a cone. although i think dame is still getting better at it (least feels that way to me) they cant be together for too long as its too much of a liability. I honestly think we need to have ant off the bench as our microwave as others have also said but its also not something i see the blazers doing. And i dont see ant being happy with that decision either, So..... hes gots to go.....
Not that I necessarily have the right to speak on his behalf, but I've noticed that he likes to suggest in his posts that his response is the definitive one, and generally does so tongue-in-cheek. I don't think he was actually suggesting that the thread shouldn't exist or that conversation shouldn't occur.
not swayed. This type of response is all over the place. Its not a positive contribution to a discussion and he cant be put on ignore. I 100% agree with illmatic on this. So tired of reading how he has the only right answer and everyone who thinks differently is wrong. Its gotten beyond annoying. Someone please talk to him?
Nobody has to be traded. The results might not be pretty, but there is no one player that is holding the team back by being on the roster. I don't think it's wise to pegion hole yourself into thinking a specific player must stay or must go. I think it's more important to maximize value when you trade someone. For example, if Sharpe could net Portland a vastly superior player than Ant, then trading Sharpe is totally acceptable. If the Blazers could get incredible value for Dame, that is acceptable as well. I didn't vote because there is a world where Dame/Ant/Sharpe could all be on a winning roster; it might involve A LOT of luck, but there is a path!
Can they coexist successfully? Sure, with the right coaching and rotation plan. Start all 3 and then rotate as necessary throughout the game. Is that plan likely to work for a contender? Only if Sharpe and Ant improve their defense significantly and if a much more mobile, defensively-oriented, center can be found. It's not a plan that I am rooting for. I'd be much happier with using Ant to get a true SF or dominant PF (shifting Grant to SF), starting Dame and Sharpe in the backcourt, and using Thybulle as a backup at SG. We'd need a solid backup PG in that plan.
I wanted block Stren because his comments were offensive and repetitive but you can’t block a mod. Mods should be held to a higher standard. How do we get him booted?
Simons would be great as a 6th man if Portland had a legitimate 2nd option in the starting line-up...which they don't but, at 25M/year he's a ridiculously expensive option as a 6th man unless Steve Ballmer is the owner. Not with Jody & The Vulcans Ant's ability to heat way up from three has value. And he's not really one-dimensional but he's close enough to the zip-code of one-dimensional that if he's not shooting well from three, he doesn't bring much else to the floor. So yeah, I voted he should be traded. And it's not really a conditional vote either. IMO he should be traded whether or not Portland keeps Dame
