Speaker 1: What is up, fellas Icchos, I am damn Valley coming
at you with the one, the only, the third, five fantabulous,
mister Grant Hughes. We're on to Hardwood Knoxes, Portland Trail Blazers,
NBA trade deadline, look ahead, prim or extravaganza. What have
you before we get started?
Speaker 2: Grant? How the heck are you doing?
Speaker 3: I'm just kind of dumbfounded because I didn't think just
giving back those three swaps was gonna be enough for
the Blazers to get you honest, But here we are
big news to break.
Speaker 1: No, we might get into that rumor that people seem
to try will like, are willing and do existence.
Speaker 3: I have to say I missed the specific one you're
talking about, but it does feel like the Blazers might
have some involvement in a hypothetically honest trade. Should want arise,
not because the one I just made up did not
sorry to be starry to disappoint who who would be
disappointed by that?
Speaker 1: Not being real that the Blazer Blazers fans maybe even
that they didn't have you honest, you know what we've
reached and this isn't This isn't the Blazers fan base.
But we have reached a point where people are just, well,
do we really want your honest? He's older and more
expensive and injured all the time. And it's on the
one hand, you understand the concerns. On the other hand,
it's I mean, he's still one of the five best
players alive. So yes, you do in the grand scheme?
Why not don't go full Phoenix Suns and don't negotiate
in the Kevin Durant trade.
Speaker 2: But you want you honest?
Speaker 3: Just okay, good stance to take. You want you honest,
that's gonna do it.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, let's take us out of here.
Speaker 1: Let's get into the Portland's trade deadline vitals. They are
not super flexible because they only have about one point
five million dollars beneath the tax. I actually thought that
was higher. I'm maybe to double check that, make sure
that's not a typo here. I could have sworn they
had more room. Anyway, they're about one point. They have
minimal room beneath the tax. They do have more flexibility
next season looking at that, so they might be willing
to take on I think they're thirty six point seven
million below the tacks for next year, so they might
be willing to take on some extra money this year
or money that goes out. Only ten players are included
in that calculation. It does include the bumps that Shade
and Sharp and Tomani Kamara are getting, though they owe
a lottery protected first to Chicago that's protected until referently
the end of time, but actually twenty twenty eight, at
which point it becomes a second round pick. They don't
have any extra first but grant and this might be relevant.
They have swaps with the Milwaukee Bucks in twenty twenty eight,
twenty twenty nine, and two thousand and thirty twenty twenty eight.
The swap is for the best, the better of Milwaukee
or Boston's pick. I feel quite confident in saying that
the better pick will be Milwaukee's pick.
Speaker 3: I would agree with that. I would also agree that
you're correct they are a million and a half below
the Tacks. That's that's That's what I've got on my
sheet as well.
Speaker 1: So let's start here, because the Blazers are kind of
good where especially since they have you seen the award
their defensive box or wherever that Thiagua splitter gives out
their defense has improved a great deal since they started
giving that out.
Speaker 2: How aggressive you're the Blazers.
Speaker 1: You're looking at this trade deadline before we're getting into
the needs and targets. Are you looking to be aggressive?
Is this to stay the course scenario? Given the Scoot situation?
What are you thinking about?
Speaker 3: I don't think I am willing to be aggressive in
terms of like giving up, say those swaps or younger
assets for when now help. I don't think they're at
that level. I like them. I like them before the
season started. I was pretty disappointed until they've kind of
heated up here and now they're basically a five hundred
team built on a defensive identity and Denny Avvia being incredible.
It still feels like the moves to make are can
we get off of? Like? Can we get anything? Is
there a market of neutral value for Grant or for
Drew Holliday? Like it doesn't feel like you're going out
putting picks on the table, putting looking at trading Scoot
or anything like anything like that for for immediate help.
I just don't. I just don't think they're there, like
or anywhere close to that level yet. I think I
want some of these bad contracts off my books.
Speaker 1: First, I guess knowing that cap space just doesn't mean
much anymore. I don't know why I would want to
get those if you're just worried about because next season
you'll be fine. But if you're looking at the out
years and Okay, we're gonna try and renegotiate and extend
any avia because his contract that he's made thirteen million
bucks next year is just insane.
Speaker 3: Best contract in the league probably right now. Right that's
not a rookie scale deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think, yes, gotta be close to it. I mean,
he's is he gonna make an All NBA team? Joka
just about to be disqualified with all.
Speaker 3: The DQ's, I bet you.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's not a crazy thing to think at all.
Speaker 2: He's been great this year. Just to be cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's injured now himself, so let's opay, let's hope
he qualifies for All NBA. So I would generally agree
with you, but I actually am more open to the
idea of if the right player came along and they're
on the right time or they're the right perfect fit.
And I'm not talking about it's not going to be
a start they're not going to we mentioned the swaps
with Milwaukee, They're not going to be the honest team.
Even though in theory that might be somewhat appealing. I
don't feel the need to get off. I mean, first
of all, Drew Holliday has been way too important to them.
He's been good this year when he's play's been way
too important to them when you look at what they
need out of their guards, I'm just not itching to
move those guys unless it's part of a swing that
fits helps me now and later. Like, I'm just not
at the point where I'm looking at, Oh, I need
these deals off the books to plan for what's upcoming
with another player that's already on the roster.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think, I mean, I agree with that. I
think what I was talking about is vers like thinking
in those terms, and maybe I should have included like
getting something for Robert Williams or Metis Stipele guys that
expire like that kind of thing, versus let's put some
push some chips in, Like, yeah, I agree, there's not
like some crazy urgency to move off of those those
bigger veteran deals. But if I'm choosing between that kind
of thinking and let's go get in the market for
I don't mean it's all the same names, like there's
just none of them make any sense in Portland really,
but you know what I mean. As opposed to that
kind of thinking, I would be more more looking at
can I get neutral value, like two smaller deals for
Jeremy Grant or something like that, because like at this
time of year ago, man, were they underwater on that contract,
And now that he's played better, might be the time
to turn it into something else before he reverts. You
know that kind of thinking. I guess just more measured,
like less exciting trade deadline stuff as opposed to going
out and getting after a big name.
Speaker 1: Speaking of big names, the McHale Bridges rumor, there was
the initial reporting from Jake Fisher of the Steinline that
the Blazers have had a long standing interest in mckail bridge.
Speaker 2: Is Grant long standing?
Speaker 1: I'd like to know what is considered long standing in
the NBA because competitive life cycles are so short. Is
this Does this date back to the days of Robert Covington?
Speaker 2: Are we talking?
Speaker 3: Was was our vitas simonis on the team? When they
I would okay, let's define it. I'll bet you long
long standing has to at least refer to before Bridges
was a Nick that that feels like that qualifies as
long standing. If you've kind of been after him since
he was on a different team, that's that's let's go
with that as the definition.
Speaker 1: So, but that report was coupled with Zach Lowe said
on his podcast that he had heard a wild rumor
that there was some sort of sort some sort of
three team trade construction to where Drew Holliday was going
to the Knicks, Giannis was going to the Knicks, the
Blazers would presumably be getting off Jeremy Grant as well,
and they were getting both Kat and McHale Bridges. That
sounds insane, because one, it is insane. Two, but it's
also a little bit more possible right now than it
would be in the off season, just because McHale Bridge's
salary is gonna skyrocket is right now, him and karl
anthy Town's making whatever it is, like seventy five million
dollars combined. It's a lot different than if they're making
like ninety to one hundred million dollars combined. Yeah, and
now the assets that have been mentioned, and this is
not doesn't seem like it's coming out of Portland, just
based off the way, like Giannis to the Knicks, these
these teams having long standing interest in new Kale bridges.
I think we can We might be able to source
the genesis of.
Speaker 3: This way better than anybody else. It's like, if you
just really.
Speaker 1: Hold on Pacomb, Dottier could pop at any moment and
you're just gonna throw him into a deal for salary matching,
you got breaks.
Speaker 2: I don't that.
Speaker 1: Mega team construction doesn't like it makes sense for the Knicks.
And then I think nobody else at the Bucks. If
the Bucks were to get their three swaps back from Portland,
is that enough for them? If they're getting ants larry
assets to where it's oh a swap and Deuce McBride
just as an example, is that even enough to move
like or even if it's Portland said we will give
you these three swaps in salary for Yannis, do you
think about doing that as Milwaukee?
Speaker 3: You can't trade Giannis and just get back to zero,
you know, like that that's like just not enough?
Speaker 2: You well, can I counterpoint? Okay, what happened?
Speaker 1: What is the singular best asset then that you could
get this summer that would eclipse getting control back over
your next three first round picture.
Speaker 3: Well, I have no idea. I have no idea. But
if I'm the Bucks and the best I can do
is getting three swaps back for Yiannis and no prospects
to speak of, no like good contracts that I really
want I got, I'm just gonna wait and hope that
the unknown is like I'll take the field, please, like
I'll just I'll take I think not taking that offer.
Speaker 1: When you know that San Antonio and Houston specifically, and
even the Hawks with those picks aren't going to be
involved right now yet, but who's waiting to the offseason.
This is suffice it to say, I don't The fit
of McHale Bridges in Portland could make some sense. But
if I'm Portland, I'm not even giving up one of
those Buck swaps for McHale Bridges.
Speaker 2: That's not I'm not doing it.
Speaker 1: That's not he's not He's not good enough, and you're
not even if you thought he was good enough, you're
not good enough to make that type of read on
a player who's so mercurial. And so I will ask this, now,
what is Portland's biggest need. Let's say they're trying to improve.
What are you looking at?
Speaker 3: Well, Holiday being back complicates it a little bit, but
I think it's still guard play. I like them defensively.
You know, we love Timani Kamara Avdya is a good defender.
He's not great because his workload on offense is so high. Now,
it's just not fair to expect that they have a
bunch of size up front, regardless of who they're gonna
throw out there at center. I think it's I think
it's guard play. I think it's probably a point guard.
It's probably a playmaker. But Scoot Henderson hasn't played a
second this year, and in theory like that's just gonna
be his job. So what are you really willing to
give up to address a need that might be addressed
by the guy you drafted, you know, with a top
three pick not that long ago.
Speaker 2: And also Dame next year. I'm not saying you plan
around that entirely, but.
Speaker 3: I forgot about Dame coming back. Yeah, right, So do
you agree? I had a hard time in answering that,
But I that's where my gut has gone all year,
especially when Holiday was out. But is do you have
a different answer.
Speaker 2: I think that they could.
Speaker 1: Maybe I shouldn't say skew toward indiscriminate shooting, but I
think they could because I think the idea of Michale
Bridges would be you have this wing who will space
the floor and then doesn't torpedo your defense. But I
don't know if is mcal Bridge is gonna shoot it enough.
I would rather see them, even if it comes at
a defensive cost. Just go out and get someone who's
gonna come and hear fire away and make them is
my point, Like they will.
Speaker 3: Perfect Trey Murphy or something like perfect World.
Speaker 1: Just someone that's that's a great name to call out
because you would have to give up stuff to get him,
and I'm okay with that.
Speaker 2: The contract fits into your salary structure.
Speaker 1: He's young ish and he doesn't I think he's only
added in value.
Speaker 2: What would he worsen on?
Speaker 1: And by the way, they could get unlike some of
these other teams that are linked at Maybe you would
prefer to get off bad like a Jeremy Grant as
part of that deal, but you could also get to
Trey Murphy's money like you have Robert Williams. You have
mattistiable those expiring, you could get there without sending New
Orleans any bad money, which has just got to be
more appealing to the Pelicans if in fact they're looking
at moving Trey Murphy.
Speaker 3: And maybe that's where those swaps come in too. If
you could just kind of forward those on, it would
be pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: The thing I would push back against is that among
the teams who probably can't guarantee that their own first
round pick won't be more valuable than a public the
Pelicans are up there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that's true. But I meant to say this
earlier when we first brought them up, But like it's
hard to come up with, like the post Jannis future
in Milwaukee has got to be as bleak as any
right around the league in terms of, like, if you
want to be bought in on how bad a team's
going to be in a certain window, that like twenty
eight to thirty for the Bucks could be. I mean,
that's way up there in terms of like the assets
you would want to have, the teams you'd want to short.
Speaker 1: I yes, I think the I'm trying to think of
the only other team I might consider is the Kings.
But the fact that they control most of their first
round picks, makes it easy well, in theory, makes it
easier for them to climb out of that hell hole.
But if we know anything about the Kings, right, they
will probably dig themselves even deeper.
Speaker 3: Right, That's a different thing. That's like I just want
the picks of a poorly run franchise like that. That's
different than like you're trying to time it so that
this team. That's I mean, the Bucks aren't good, but
like you might have like Warriors picks like further out,
you know, post Steph might be really.
Speaker 2: Valuable or like for to top the Pelicans.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe, I mean, that's gonna work out well for Atlanta.
Uh yeah, I think the Pelicans are gonna be too
afraid to trade a pick going forward. It's just it's
gonna be like five years before they trade a first
rounder again.
Speaker 1: Man, I if you what is so, what is the
t would you be willing in a vacuum? Then let's
use Traree Murphy as an example. We could work our
way from there. Would you be willing to include at
least a like one of the Bucks swaps in a
deal for him?
Speaker 3: I think you, Yes, I think you. I think I would,
and I'd probably want it to be as the more
as far out as I could do it, so the
twenty thirty I'd feel better about moving that because maybe
by then the bucks are like back to you know,
the middle of the pack or something. It's is like
a sweet spot. They're definitely gonna be bad.
Speaker 1: Would you do something like give the Bucks back the
twenty twenty eight swap and they give you a swap
on twenty thirty one and Ryan Rollins.
Speaker 3: I do like Ryan Rollins Um would.
Speaker 1: Actually be pretty good there, but that you get into
the okay dame and scoot of it all.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I maybe maybe that's not a big enough
swing given.
Speaker 1: One of the bucks that will give you a sweat.
We're so desperate for twenty eight back. Maybe they think
they're getting control of their twenty six or their twenty
seven back because they're twenty even if they're gonna have
a high pick this year, like regardless because of the
less favorable language. So maybe they'd be willing to give
you two swaps back for the twenty like oh, we'll
give you twenty thirty one and to ah, that's too compient,
But that'd be interesting.
Speaker 2: That might get me thinking.
Speaker 3: I would think about it. Let's do you want to
run down shooters just just to like potential targets. I mean,
of the guys that are available, you know, it's funny
to do it for every team. I would assume he
was shooting forty five percent from three. I don't know
how real that is, but he is definitely someone that's
available that Portland could add, and he does like He's
not a playmaker per se, but he does kind of
check the guard box that I brought up earlier. Let's
see what about I don't know if they would trade him,
but if they are looking to cut money from the
second apron, Sam Merrill would be super interesting. I like
that contract for him too. I like that Max Christie's
not going anywhere. Bucks aren't trading aj Green. I mean,
is this a Malik Monk team? He might make too much,
but he's shooting a great this year and has kind
of definitely filled the playmaking role in the past ride.
We can send Deuce McBride and the Cat and the
Giant Catbridge is trade?
Speaker 2: Are they gonna how many of the Bucks swaps are
the next guy? Would you take a flyer?
Speaker 1: Because the shooting is I guess consistently not there? But
do you take a fly he just has size? And
I think I'm just maybe I'm harping too much on
the scoot and dame eventuality of it all.
Speaker 2: What about like a flyer on Greedy Dick?
Speaker 3: Hmmm? Kind of as a second draft guy at this point?
Maybe I mean he's he's done a little bit. Yeah,
I would, I'd be into that if you and if
you wanted to. There's all now that that's like the archetype.
Can you do? You want to guess the player I
thought of? Next? We get Kevin Herder? Is that doable?
Speaker 1: They used to be shooter Kevin? What was the game
the bulls want? He hit that clutch? That clutch three?
I can't remember.
Speaker 3: What about Sam? Sam Houser would have been a perfect
target if things had gone how they were supposed to
go for Boston this year and they weren't. The second
steaming the conference?
Speaker 2: Ooh, what about Michael Porter Junior?
Speaker 3: Okay, so that's gotta that's let's dig into that one.
That's gonna have to be Jeremy Grant going out probably
unless you want to use well, I guess it doesn't
have to be but that would be the the cleanest
way to do it, wouldn't it, Because otherwise, let's say
you do it because Brooklyn wants expirings. You can do
RW three and thighble gets you to twenty five ish,
You're still pretty short there. Ten.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, because you for blazers who basically want to
go dollar for dollar to stay out of the tax.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you're all the way out on scoot,
there's your other ten as Portland and then like the
picks are probably pretty minimal, But then.
Speaker 2: Then what is the future of your guard position? Though?
Speaker 3: Well right, yeah, we have completely veered away from the
guard stuff. Well Dame and Drew Holliday or your point
guards next year.
Speaker 2: Honestly, that's fair. That's fair, Okay with that?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think I'm gonna need he hasn't played
this season. He's gonna get paid to him, But I
like Brooklyn has to send out more. I think in
that maybe maybe not, I don't.
Speaker 3: Know, That's what I hadn't thought about that at all.
And also like you're you're making me come around to
the shooting is the bigger issue than just guard play.
You can get Adia is like, I mean, he works
as a first as a as a primary creator, like he,
I mean, the offense over all in Portland is not great.
But like, if you're telling me that I can have
Ovidia with the ball most of the time and my
secondary creators or Holiday or or Dame next year, I mean,
I'll take MPJ over in the Jeremy Grant spot and
their offense is gonna be better.
Speaker 1: So hypothetically, if you're gonna go that direction, and I
know I've said this kind of trying to be funny before, Uh,
wouldn't LaMelo we just said Charlotte shouldn't trade him, Like
don't you shouldn't you start? Well, if we put Scoot
on the table, picks other set, like the salary would
be pretty clean to get there, wouldn't you mean, Like,
wouldn't you rather explore getting that position set or yours
you're really committed to? If Avidya is the primary guy,
I'm fine with kind of looking at a bunch of
tertiary creators.
Speaker 3: I wonder what Blazers fans, if you pull them, what
they would say about Like if the question is are
you do you? Are you satisfied going forward with Denny
Avdya as your primary on ball offensive Engine, Like, I
think most of them would probably say yes, but like,
but you're you know, it's hard.
Speaker 1: I just I guess if you're saying yes because you
think Dame is going to come back from the Achilles
and do be seventy percent of Damian Lillard than it.
Speaker 2: But otherwise I think not.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say regardless of around him, but
it does feel like you're putting a cap on your
offense if Denny Avvia has to be the guy, like
because you don't have an alternative, then.
Speaker 3: Right, if you have capable secondary creators and a lot
of shooting, you could probably get away with it. But
I mean the counter to that is, like the Hornets
offense is fucking awesome, and it's like they like Canipple
is pretty accomplished as a secondary creator already, Brandon Miller
can get his own stuff, so it's not like LaMelo's
taking things away so from those guys. So if if
you put LaMelo in Portland, like, I don't feel like
Avdia is gonna suffer, you know, because he's gonna get
easier shots. He's still gonna get to the line all
the time. Yeah, I think, well, if he's not on
the table. But but LaMelo would be like, I mean,
it would change your whole franchise.
Speaker 1: Would you consider if it's something like other moving parts involved.
But I don't think you'd be giving up any picks
if it's Jeremy Grant and then Matisse Thibel for Manuel quickly.
Speaker 2: Hmm, Zach. Honestly, Jeremy Grant might be enough alone, but just.
Speaker 3: Quickly you think the stock has fallen that low where
I can't I mean, Grants.
Speaker 2: The Raptors really need him, is the problem them?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: And I think he's a little seem to be shopping
him and Yakka Pearl borderline indiscriminately.
Speaker 3: Well, got a shot Pearl, I would my first my
gut on quickly is that he's not an upgrade or
like stylistic change at the level of LaMelo. So I'm
more inclined to say I'd rather just kind of leave it.
Speaker 2: Well, I was saying, and I did.
Speaker 3: I did start this by saying I'd like to move
off of Grant's contract, and so I don't know what
to say.
Speaker 1: I was looking at it through what you were saying
about Denny Abdy, is the guy surround him with a
bunch of the secondary guys.
Speaker 2: So how much.
Speaker 3: Better is Quickly in that secondary role than like Dame
plus Drew next year? Is he like meaningfully better?
Speaker 2: Well, I think the appeal is, well, now you just
have all three of.
Speaker 3: Them, sure, I guess you. But yeah, but you can't
play them all?
Speaker 2: Why not?
Speaker 1: Danny Abdy is huge, you can play at least two
of them, and Drew.
Speaker 3: Sure, I guess Holiday Holiday is gonna guard threes and
fours exclusively. Now your backward defense is maybe maybe that
gets it done. I don't know. Let's see what else
we got about.
Speaker 2: Do they need a Oh no, he's a little small,
Like what does the shooter need to have? Said?
Speaker 1: Like, unless if they're not going to be a ball handler,
I probably want the shooting to come from the wing spots, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean so then you're talking about again. I
keep coming back to Royce O'Neill, like that's I don't
think Phoenix is trading him that deals suddenly.
Speaker 2: Really, but he'd be interesting though. For sure, Kisbert.
Speaker 3: Get him to a third team this year, that'd be
that'd be VT crachie.
Speaker 1: I mean, right, he gives you some ball handling. He's
all over the place. But that would be like a
cheap whatever. What about shima Kaya Luke has had a
pretty good year in Utah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I and I mean that. I'm sure they would
trade him. There's there's no like long term plan there.
Speaker 1: Also, I haven't I don't know how many look aheads
deep we are today, but I haven't mentioned him once.
Speaker 2: Justin Champagne from the Wizards.
Speaker 3: Man. Uh, obviously we support the Champagnees around here. Yeah,
that would be good. I'm trying to think like it's
you run out of names pretty fast. If if if
the qualifiers are reasonably gettable, wing who can shoot like that,
there's there's not a lot.
Speaker 1: That they do seem a little bit more interested in
playing bigger. There was like the point for the first
I don't know it was the third of the season
or whatever. I felt like they were playing really small.
They look at they would it cost to get Kyle
Philipowski from Utah?
Speaker 3: Oh, man, that's interesting, just a pure offense only player.
It wouldn't cost much. I was thinking, if the Lakers
aren't gonna do this, they because they shouldn't do anything major.
How'd you know he only costs one? First? We know that, Uh,
what what about Like you build something with Jeremy Grant
going to the Lakers and the main piece coming back
is Hatchamura who has his laws but can shoot it,
and then you've got to throw in another what's Tachimura
make like eighteen? Maybe it's just Vincent and Hachimura, and
then you try to keep Hachimura around for much less
than you would have paid Grant. Otherwise, maybe the Lakers
are interested in the name value and recent production of Grant.
Speaker 1: Do you think you'd have a better chance of get
I know you want to if your goal is to
get off Grant's contract, But would you be willing to
keep Grant? And like, couldn't you just use Robert Williams
the third and matist Thaibel's expirings.
Speaker 3: I mean Robert Williams would help the Lake, help the
Lakers a lot. Yeah, maybe Ruy. There's actually a couple
of pathways to getting Rui. And he's I mean some size,
like he could definitely slot into just play some four.
I think it's been long enough now to where it's
like the shot three bunch shot just is real, Like
that's you know, for a long time he was just like, oh,
this guy just takes and makes bad twos, which he
still does. But I think the three point thing is legit,
and maybe you keep him, maybe you resign him.
Speaker 2: Would you take on Clay Thompson's money?
Speaker 3: What am I doing there? Am I giving up just expirings?
Speaker 1: Basically, it would have to be that, or you're Jeremy
Grant's going somewhere else and maybe you're getting Clay and
I don't know, Nauji Marshall or yeah, that'd probably be.
Speaker 3: The I think I probably I just one, you're breaking
up the salary. I don't mind that. Yeah, I don't
watched a couple of MAVs GA games pretty recently, and
Clay just I'm not sure anymore. Man, it's pretty sad.
Speaker 2: I just it's probably a hard no for me.
Speaker 3: Marshall's Marshall I'm interested in, but everyone should be interested
in him.
Speaker 1: He also doesn't really feel the shooting void. I do
wonder I'm not giving up a ton andy. He's too
important to this team, but maybe that's kind of part
of their problem. But like, what would it cost to
get Dean Wade out of Cleveland?
Speaker 3: Not much? Right?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: I mean, if you if you were if you could
find a third team in Cleveland doesn't really have to
take on any salary. They save a trillion dollars in
luxury tax payments just by moving him.
Speaker 2: Mm hmmmm hmm.
Speaker 3: Yeah, would be interesting.
Speaker 2: Are you ready for a big name?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 2: What about is this a good Jaron Jackson Junior team?
Speaker 3: I mean every team is first of all? What does
that look like? So you're probably best You're as the
Grants money for sure, getting off Grant's money, but you're
I'm just thinking on the court for them. So you're
playing him with Klinging. That's that's your plan. It's kind
of like a Jackson Edy kind of setup, which.
Speaker 2: Or you could play him at the five too, Like.
Speaker 3: Sure, yeah, I'm just like Clinging is still a priority.
There is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Hey, you play five out with Clingon and Jaron Jackson Junior. Right,
that's how that would work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So what's that gonna cast?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 3: Because Grant's salary is in it? Are you giving up.
Speaker 2: To get the buck? No, honest question. How many buck swaps?
Speaker 1: If it's Grant plus other money and they could get
there because of what Jaron Jackson Junior is making pretty easy,
Like it could be Grant and r W three or
Grant and Tyble and done. If that's the maybe you're
throwing in Chris Murray as a fly or whatever. But
if that's the you're not giving up like Scoot's not
involved in this or any although if they're trading jaw,
well that might put a premium on Scoot.
Speaker 2: But let's say it's not. How many of those buck
swaps would you be willing to include for Jaron Jackson Jr.
Speaker 3: I think it's at least two? Oh how many of
my am I as Portland, am I willing to include?
For Jared Jackson? I thought I was because if it's Memphis,
they're asking for all three. I think I think it's
just like that's as a starting point, we want them all.
I think if you could, if you could get out
of that with giving up two of them, I think
that's pretty good because I think getting jack on this
roster with Ovdia and with like I mean, some.
Speaker 2: Of the money cling in, it's it.
Speaker 3: Gets pretty interesting. It's pretty interesting there that that's now
a team where it's like you should be one of
the six best in the West, like you should be
in We're not a playing team at all. Anymore?
Speaker 1: And there I think what's complicated. I think you might
have to give up all three just because your pick
is encumbered two Chicago. Now you couldn't trade like and
you can't unless you're making this move on draft night.
You can't promise your own first round pick until twenty
and thirty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean well right, yeah. The other side of
it is like, if those picks aren't in it, what
kind of picks can Portland put in there? And that
twenty eight makes it?
Speaker 2: So would you do just again?
Speaker 1: This is baseline Jeremy Grant and Scoot and two swaps
for Jaron the two buck swaps for Jaron.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 1: I think you honestly, I think you not that I
shouldn't say I think you have to. But that almost
doesn't like is that it swaps, they're not you're getting
You're the Memphis is taking a huge game. I agree,
they're value. We're not having this conversation we went through
the teams before about whose future you want to short
the most. We're not having this conversation. If you said
swaps with the Kings may are maybe the Kings, but
you're not having this conversation. There's maybe two or three
other teams where swaps would get another team to pick
up the phone and be like oh.
Speaker 3: Right right, because you're saying, I mean, really, if you're
the equation, if you're the Grizzlies in this hypothetical, you're like,
that could be two picks in the top five, Like
pretty easy, right, Like I mean the odds are like
that's that's what our expectations should be out of that.
So yeah, I don't know. What I love is that
I have not once heard Jared Jackson to Portland as
a rumor, and I feel like we've heard every rumor
or every made up trade for the last three months.
So kudos to you for getting that name out there.
Speaker 2: Aggregate it everybody to it.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I we kind of like got
away from just the go get shooting, but it was honestly,
aside from going a Trey Murphy or Michael Porter Junior
looking at a lower end cost guy, it doesn't seem
like there's a lot like camp Spencer. I've thrown his
name out a ton, but like I said, if you
have Scoot, if the plan is to have him player,
you have dame next year.
Speaker 2: I just questioned what his role would be like after
this season.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, Portland is well. Portland lends itself to tangents
and like going off in on you know, unexpected directions
because like it's kind of in the middle of the pack. Uh,
there's some real strengths on defense, there's some deficiencies on offense,
and just like between the mixture of players and contracts
and like interesting draft assets, you can kind of go
wherever you want with this team, which is like maybe
the maybe the way to kind of.
Speaker 1: Does that include Karl Anthony Towns and Michael Bridges for
all those basketball that's.
Speaker 3: The way that you won't go. That's the one you
could grat you found the one way that they could
and can't and should not go. What do you just
what do you think is most likely here? Because I
do think it's clear that like you could do everything
from salary dump to chase a player like Jaron Jackson
to find a smaller you know, upgrade to your perimeter offense.
Like what do you think if you had to guess
Portland's most likely path is, I think it's just dumping
expirings basically.
Speaker 1: I think I think if we were to pick the
most likely player to be traded I know they're playing
a little bigger, but it might just be our W
three because they're not going to bring him back after
this year.
Speaker 2: And I don't think batist Thaible is standalone.
Speaker 3: Value right RW three is the the right mix of available, inexpensive,
expiring and like useful to a lot of teams, I
mean just the Lakers like should be in on him.
Speaker 1: Will you be a little bummed if, now, if they
use Robert Williams the third or just expiring money to
get actively better and it's not just oh we cut
our tax bill and we got some seconds or any second.
But I'd be a little bit bummed if they don't try.
I mean they're I mean, they're all right, They're pretty
far behind the top six, so never mind. I don't
doing anything too egregious. But the list of names like
Trey Murphy and Jaron Jackson Junior and of course LaMelo,
like those are the names that would get me thinking
this isn't just about this season, even if it were
giving up a small ransom for them.
Speaker 3: And I think I think that's the way to think
of it too, because they're not I don't I don't
think there's a even if you do go get Jaron
Jackson at this deadline, Like, are you a top four
team in the West? Probably not, Like I think that
would be a piece that you're putting in there with
the intention to continue building around it, and you're then
you're a top four team in a couple of years
or three or something like that. Is because avdya Ovdia's
contract and his level of play like really does allow
you to take some swings elsewhere, and you can you
can have some overmarket contracts just because his is so
so far below what he should be paying him.
Speaker 2: Do you have anything else on it?
Speaker 1: They're kind of gonna be interesting at the trade of deadline,
I think, but we have to remember that as competitive
as they are now, this is still a bigger picture
team I think overall for sure.
Speaker 3: Yep, I agree, No, I think that's gonna do it
for Portland. Thanks again for watching for listening, rate and
review and subscribe to with some comments on the Blazer's
a lot of different ways to go. Let I would
like I would like Portland fan polls on how comfortable
you are with Danny Avvia as your lead option going
forward and what do you what you think they'll do
and how that differs from what they should do. A
lot of ways to go here, join our discord being
weigh in there as well links in the YouTube and
podcast description. Until next time, shouts Frank Miltine. Apologies, Jared
Allen