If CJ were to be traded, who are we most likely to get?

How does Nurk Clog the paint at least since he returned from that nasty leg injury ?? - if anything that was my biggest thing about Nurk under the old idiot coach that Nurk did not do anything much in the paint like he did before his injury. Now with the new coaching staff I could see Nurk being used in the paint more besides using that outside shot he developed but with his great passing skills and the shot outside shot he is also getting better at i am not sold on the BAD NEWS take.

 

Hey, I'm not a fan either. I would rather read their trade suggestions for CJ than the asinine ones they are coming up with for Dame though..

 

Yeah, I would take him for sure and not trade the pick. But I would be hesitant to say he could transform our defense in year one. But yeah he is exactly the type of player we need at the 4.

 

Id do that trade...Both players coming back fill a need and Morris is the kind of 4 we need.

 

are you kidding me? i strongly advocate for a dislike button on this forum. These guys (kennard especially) were borderline unplayable in their playoff series. And given their contract extensions last year, they're negative value deals.

 

Moving Nurk could certainly make sense. I think it's also fair to assume that we aren't the ONLY team who had a shitty coach, too...

You could go the "depth" route, and build the roster in such a way that you're limiting the minutes where Simmons and Nurk are on the court together, and largely make Simmons a playmaker/distributor in that scenario. Probably would lessen Nurk's minutes to a degree and hopefully make him healthier and more effective when on the court. Add another backup 4 and -- when Nurk's not on the court, make Simmons the defacto 5. I think something like that could work, and Chauncey being a PG, could possibly make a new arrangement work better than in Philly.

The other -- and more obvious -- way to make it work would be more the fit approach. Like others have suggested, move Nurk for a 4 or 5 that fits better next to Simmons. Less "creative", but probably the "easier" and "safer" of the two approaches...

 

They wouldnt be my first choice for sure. Morris could play with Nurk & RoCo and he brings some nasty. Plus he can flat out shoot the three.
Kennard Im not a big fan of but Id have to trust Chauncey as Im sure he'd be involved with who come back. He also can shoot and we would need another 2 coming off the bench if we trade CJ.

 

Yeah, I turn that trade down based purely on a "we absolutely HAVE to get more for CJ than that" approach. Kennard and Morris don't keep Dame here.

 

Moving Nurk makes no sense unless it's to acquire a Top 15 to 20 type player so i have no idea why people are so fast to want to try and deal him away. I mean he came out and said if Stotts is there he is gone and if Dame is not there ditto so that shows me he is a smart man even if he might be a little different type of personality.

 

My thought is: your 5 best players should be able to share the court in crunch time of a close playoff game. With Nurk and Simmons I don't ever see how that is possible. I'm sure it can work in the regular season.

 

So, I agree it would be great to get more, but dont you think Portland overvalue's him, I mean if he was that decent and so valuable why are we getting rid of Dames best bud?

 

Do "we" overvalue him? Maybe. Can we get more? Absolutely, that's a trash offer -- especially in the face of Dame's demands. Lastly, I've said this before, but think the "best bud" narrative with him and CJ needs to be ditched. It was a thing, maybe, for a few years but that was years ago. I think Nurk and Dame are the tight ones now.

Another way to look at it is this: if this is truly the best we can get for our best and most moveable asset, we might as well help Dame pack and reboot. We're way too far down shit creek to worry about paddles if that's the case.

 

In theory, I totally agree, ride your best guys. In practice, I think a couple things:

1. It's really only an offensive issue. Simmons and Nurk can easily coexist on the defensive side of things.
2. Simmons is one of the most versatile players to ever play the game, so I think he allows you to scheme various ways around him if you had to based on injuries, foul trouble, etc. Basically you'd want a really solid scoring 6th man, I think, and you can roll with either Simmons or Nurk offensively, whichever the setup calls for most.
3. The ball should absolutely be in Dame's hands in the end of games, anyway AND, Simmons and Nurk's passing and screening abilities could both become assets down the stretch. How big of an issue will Simmons' inability to score really be if he'd be, at best, our 3rd option on the floor to begin with?

It's imperfect, but what isn't about this situation? At this point its all about trying new things and seeing if something doesn't change. Simmons is our best (realistic) bet, I think.

 

Our best moveable asset may not be worth what teams will have to pay for him for 3 years. Yeah that offer isn't great but unless we are willing to take back ugly and/or another player, Im not sure we can get the type of player we want. CJ alone wont get us a move the needle player.

 

we're about a week away from the fireworks. nurk is starting his trolling early this year.

 

Then -- as many have suggested -- load up the draft picks until we DO get a needle mover.

This is akin to worrying about the wallpaper getting wet as the Titanic sinks. If CJ+++ really can't get a needle mover, it doesn't really matter, we've already lost Dame, and should therefor be looking at an entirely different set of packages anyway.