No, we shouldn't "dump" any assets. Trading Simons for the best first rounder we can get is the best we're going to get for him. His value will only decline from here (probably not quickly) unless he transforms as a defender. And that's not going to happen. Keeping him just sets us back further. Costs us opportunity to see and develop other guys. If we can get a lotto pick for Simons we should jump on it.
Having opinions is what a forum like this is all about. Presenting opinions as a list of established facts, however, tends to be a conversation killer.
Maybe a late pick now in a horrific draft is the best we can get for Simons or maybe its not, you have no way to be certain of that. Totally disagree he costs us an opportunity - we've had G Leaguers starting here the last two years and we have one of the least talented rosters in the entire NBA. There are plenty of minutes available for young players here.
Well, these are obviously my opinions or I would have probably included links to prove they were established facts. It's alright, I won't be offended if you disagree.
Fairly rudimentary thinking. I can bet you the Blazers front office isn't thinking in terms of "horrific draft." They are thinking in terms of specific players. Does trading Ant for the rights to Clingan or another player accomplish what they're trying to do here? That's what they're thinking. Not meaningless terms like "horrific draft."
I didn't say we should trade him for a late pick in this draft. The only pick in this draft I've said we should trade him for is #5. I'm not even advocating that he has to be traded for a pick in this draft at all. I just think that we should look to move him for a draft pick. The best draft pick possible, and we should look to make that move sooner rather than later.
This post is more reasonable and yes I agree. I replied to your comment saying "need to send out Simons for the best first rounder we can get." which I disagreed with.
I don't think the best first rounder we can get is a late first rounder in what is expected to be one of the worst drafts in recent memory. So that wouldn't fit the criteria. A future draft pick from any number of teams would be far more valuable to us, and probably far more attainable as well.
Tanking has helped some teams win a few more games. But how many tanking teams won a ring? A few playoff teams did the one year tank, due to injuries, got lucky, and won a ring. But only one team, the Cavs, did the multi-year tank and won a ring. It took the Cavs 4 years, with 3 #1 picks, to win a ring. Tanking for the #7 pick is not going to work. With the changes to the draft lottery process. GMs better improve on their scouting, trading and drafting skills, and spend less time trying to lose games.
