I think all of the above, actually. And more. 1. He wants paid. He wants paid A LOT. 2. He wants the ball. He wants the ball A LOT. 3. He lose a trade piece that could be turned into something better. Do I know who? Of course I don't. That's beyond my paygrade. I've just seen two of these kinds of moves (RoCo, Nance) backfire in the last two years. If you get the right GM, he might be able to wheel and deal something and find a guy hanging there to be picked that we aren't even considering yet. It's been a few days and I'm not going back to look, but I seem to recall posting that I'm not absolutely against trading for Grant. I'm against trading for Grant if the primary reason for doing it is because Dame likes him and I'm against trading for Grant if we lose the cap space and the resources we need to complete the rebuild, because Grant, IMO, isn't moving the needle that much and he might even be subtraction by addition. You trade for Grant because it still allows you avenues to improve the team. You don't trade for Grant because he's Dame's friend. You don't trade for Grant because you have a bunch of assets and no other obvious targets.
Dame has been a good soldier and done his part. The organization has thus far let him down. We now have to do everything in our power to make him happy (which means winning), because if he leaves we are automatically worse. The best way for us to win the most is to keep Dame and build the best team possible around him as quickly as possible. That just so happens to be the best way to keep him happy, IMO.
Nah, there are several false assumptions being made in that. 1. That the organization let him down. The organization has had his cousin on the roster for the last couple of seasons. The organization might have kept guys Dame liked on the roster over trying to make a better roster. So, it could be that the organization let Dame down by giving him people he wanted to pay ball with instead of people who gave him a better chance to win more games and more playoff series. 2. We're not necessarily automatically worse if Dame leaves. We're probably immediately worse, but depending on what you get in return, your team in 3-4 years might be better than any Dame team. One can also argue that we haven't done that much winning since we made it to the WC finals. We've been treading water and sinking. I'm not saying that's an absolute, but it certainly bears consideration.
Nah. We're not keeping anybody because Dane wants us to. His cousin is a nobody. A nobody who would be shown walking papers if it would gain us even 1 more playoff win. No question, the organization has let Dame down. There is no evidence that trading a top 20 player makes a team better within 5 years than by just keeping that player. These are not worth consideration, IMO.
My first thought is that he is kind of like Watford, so I decided to check the stats. Watford is an inch taller, 25 pounds heavier and 4" greater wingspan. Clarke this year much better efg% at .650 to Watford's .549, although last year Clarke at about .550. Watford much better FT% which also indicates he might learn to shoot the three efficiently. Per 36 Watford 8.2 rebounds to Clarke's 6.0, steals similar, Clarke double the blocks and Watford about one assist per game more. Clarke played only 19 minutes a game until playoffs when they apparently decided not to play Adams, then he played a lot. Clarke's advanced stats much better than Watford's. Watford has only played one year. Seems Clarke may just be a role player, a backup PF if we hopefully find another. PF is our biggest need and I would prefer we aim higher. Siakam, Collins, Wood.
I like Clarke a lot and would be excited to get him for the MLE. But having said that we need a backup center more. He is better than Winslow, but is he that much better? I don't think we should have both, and Winslow is cheaper and already on the team. I would prefer if one of them could shoot a 3, but I guess if they could they would not be available.
Isn't Tari Eason basically Brandon Clarke? We may be getting him in the draft (especially if we pick after Sochan is gone).
I wish www.NBAdraft.net was somewhat accurate with their mock drafts. They have Ivey #1 and Davis # 5 (Sochan #13) If that were to happen we would be in good shape.
From everything I've read there hasn't been a draft like this in a long time with so many front offices with so many different draft boards. I think this would be a very smart year for top prospects to participate in the combine, if they have confidence in themselves because none of them has a guarantee to go in the top 4. Chet, Paolo, Jabari, Ivey and Sharpe could go in any order as of today. After that there's no guarantee of who goes next when looking at Murray, Duren, Griffin, Davis and Mathurin. That's as of today, a great or terrible combine or workout could drop one of the top guys or send one of the mid lotto guys shooting up in value. Then you have two international men of mystery that could jump way up draft boards in Dieng and Jovic. The value on Agbagi, Daniels and Sochan varies wildly as well. Even guys who don't have the versatility of every other name I've mentioned like TyTy and Mark Williams could get taken really high because they're seen as safe bets to be solid at one specific position and if that's a team's area of need those guys might get taken shockingly early. I think it's highly unlikely that TyTy would go before Ivey or Williams would go before Duren but after those two are off the board who is a better facilitator than TyTy and who is a better paint presence than Williams? Conventional wisdom says that if you had to have one of those things but Ivey or Duren were gone and you had a top 8 pick that you would trade back but GMs get panicky and reach for position of need all of the time. It could be a really wild draft. If I was an agent I'd have every one of these guys getting measured and running drills at the combine and I would give serious consideration to having them play in the scrimmages. If your guy can go number one but drops to number five, that's over $15M left on the table during their rookie contract.
I think Wood may be attainable from Houston if they end up drafting Banchero, Smith Jr or Holmgren. Certainly a player to keep an eye on as I think he fills a huge need for Portland (mobile big that can shoot the 3). He’s a career 38% shooter from 3 and could potentially make Nurkic expendable (or S&T).
