Throughout the various draft/trade threads, there are several proposals/possibilities being bandied about. So which of these various possibilities are acceptable to you (not just considering draft night, but also possible deals that could occur after 7/1)? Draft a player at 7 Trade 7 for two lower picks (9/30, 13/15) Trade 7 for a forward (Collins, OG) Trade 7 for a forward and a lower pick (Randle/11, Collins/16, Wood/17) Trade 7 and other picks for two forwards Trade 7 and other asset to trade up into top 5 If there's another potentially controversial/divisive permutation in here that deserves mention, let me know and I'll add it to the poll.
Draft at 7 or trade up are the only two good choices. All other options will decrease the chance of getting a star in Portland, even if it would lead to more immediate wins next season. Adding a star is the only way to possibly contend one day. None of those trades for veterans will push the Blazers towards contention.
I think an argument can be made that in this specific draft which is top-heavy with a large drop-off and then deep and broad, having picks 13 and 15 and using both gives us a better shot at getting an all-star than just drafting at 7. If we can get a shot at Jabari Smither or Banchero somehow then yes I agree that would be better. I really don't see a lot of sure things below Banchero/Smith, shot's at an all-star will exist at 7 and even much lower. Since we failed to get a shot at the top two big dogs, I think trading down is probably the smartest move and then using one of those picks to get Grant and praying we can get a steal like Duren at 13.
Yet Mediocore and other's with insider access seem to think Portland is going to do exactly that. I think that the average person on a sports forum would royally screw up GMing decisions. I also think that the "wisdom of the crowd" has far, FAR more often been right than Olshey for example.
I went with draft someone at 7. I think that there will still be a very good player at 7, as well as 8, 9, and 10. No, there is not a Lebron, DWade, Carmello or Bosh in this draft, but there are some very intriguing players. Yes, we need a 4, but we can upgrade at the 3 and the 5 easily in this draft. I think Duren will be great in a couple years. I'm not high on Sochan as I feel offense will always be a problem for him. Nobody knows anything about Sharpe except true insiders. If he's all that he will be gone before 7 so nothing missed. But now that Daniels measurements are out and he can swing between the 2/3 and possibly grow into a stretch 4, probably my favorite. Throw in the great workout he reportedly had one can hope he is still at 7. If he's not, maybe Murray gets to 7. Problem solved at the 4. But in no world do I trade 7 to Detroit to get Grant, especially if he is a free agent next season. Just sign him then if he and Dame are buds. Don't give up a prime asset just to appease Dame when your best shot at getting an all star is via the draft. Portland is not contending in the next two seasons unless a couple GM's go crazy and make ridiculous trades in our favor, which is not happening. Just do your damn job and find the player like you did with Dame! My 2 pennies.
Trading up would be a fun time during the draft. I doubt that includes the top 2 ... projected by "lots of people" as Smith and Holmgren. Is Banchero worth it? Good player who checks plenty of boxes. Is Sharpe worth it? Maybe. At this moment for me, Murray is a hope he falls to 7. A modest cost to move up to 5? ... okay. As to getting two < 30 year old veteran forwards -- It's not just filling chairs with bodies this time around. It's about a unique set of circumstances with OG and Grant (maybe Collins instead of Grant). I hope Cronin is good, opportunistic, and willing to risk.
Good point. If trading 7 for two lower picks gave the Blazers two better assets yes that could make sense. Problem I have is little faith in Cronin to both get equal pick value in a trade, and I have no reason to believe he is good at drafting. Normally a higher pick is much better.
One other option that could make sense is trading the #7 for future picks. Supposedly the Blazers want to make moves to contend now. There are only so many veterans available in trade at the draft in the weeks ahead. The needed trade may not be available. But if the Blazers make a pick at #7 it will then have less value in a future trade. Normally teams want to control the pick of their own selection at the draft, not a player another team wanted. Also the Blazers don't know if they are resigning Simons, resigning Nurk, using the TPE, signing a free agent with the MLE. Or if all else fails even exploring Dame trades. So having future picks instead of #7 let's the Blazers keep open the door of trading those picks for a win now veteran to contend with Dame if that ultimately looks like a plausible scenario in the months ahead. But it also allows the team to leave the option of trading Dame available this year, and still pivot to keep those picks long term and rebuild. The main problem I see again, is can Cronin get equal value back in a trade of the #7 pick for future picks?
What the French toast This would be the DUMBEST idea possible And that includes trading for Jerami Grant!
I picked that also as my preferred option, but since it might not be possible, I picked a few others also. We should have a really fancy poll, where we can rank our choices!
Why would trading the #7 for future picks of EQUAL VALUE be bad? Those picks could be flipped for a player to win now if the team makes the other necessary moves; or kept if the team rebuilds. Seems to me to be a much better option than trading the picks for a veteran now and hoping the team makes the other necessary moves to contend.
We don't have other assets to make the other necessary moves. We need more talent. The pick is the best way to add talent, either by drafting a player or trading it for players/picks.
