The closer we get to the draft the more I feel like we should not trade back.
The closer we get to the draft the more I feel like we should not trade back.
I agree. We have placed ourselves in a position where we do not need a number of picks. At this point it should be all about quality not quanity. We have the numbers to fill our roster with solid squad. If anything, grabbing a really high player for trading a pick to them or two is a much more favorable position to place ourselves. If i was a team like the Lakers i would be more inclined to attempt to grab multiple picks due to the holes in the entire roster which we do not find ourselves.
I'm not opposed to this at all if we love a player there. What I'm suggesting though is that there are probably vets available who could help our team, but none of them may be worth the 4th pick. If you don't love someone, trade down, pick up an asset, and then determine whether or not that pick is the appropriate value for the player available.
I'd be happy picking Garland, with the intent that eventually - a year from now - we flip Jrue for more assets and have a Lonzo/Garland guard tandem. I don't think we hold on to Jrue through the end of his contract, so I'm happy to grab another guard in the draft if that guard is the best player available at 4. Even if you think we hold on to Jrue, are you sure we hold on to Lonzo?
If Garland is the BPA and you think he's a future All Star, you take him.
I don’t think we can go wrong with Garland and Culver. Garland can provide a massive scoring punch from the bench while he develops and I can see Culver being one of the best sixth men in the league early in his career. The question is- do we address our needs at C in FA/trade or do we take the risk on players in the draft? I’m not crazy about Hayes personally. I’d rather just take the risk on Bol later if we draft a big. I’m just very cautious about the bigs in this draft.
I think Garland would be a real winner in our offense. He moves well in transition and has really good court vision to read and react well. To me its a no brainer as we have 4 quarters of basketball to play and can mix and match putting pressure on teams from start to stop at the guard position.
It's ridiculous. He's really a risk worth taking, especially if we're at the point where we're debating taking Naz Reid of all people.
Bol Bol might never work out because of the injury risk and his physique.
Naz Reid will probably never work out because he's bad at basketball. And he doesn't work out. Which is why he was 14% body fat at the combine.
https://hoopshype.com/team/new-orleans-pelicans/Quote:
Now, there are two discussions here. One centers on whom precisely the Cavs will take, and from where in the draft they will get him. Do they have the goods to move up one spot, trade with New Orleans or whomever the Pelicans deal the pick to, and get Garland (a league source said the Cavs likely didn’t have what the Pelicans would want — player-wise — in a deal for the pick)? Does Garland fall to the Cavs at No. 5? Or do they draft one of those wings at that spot? And, finally, do they trade back in the draft a few spots, accumulate picks, and draft a wing and another position in the lottery? 3 hours ago – via The Athletic
Why would Cleveland be clamouring for another guard, especially an undersized PG like Garland? They just drafted Sexton, and he was very good for them. Shot well from three, scored pretty well at the rim, wasn't 100% complete garbage on defense. They SHOULD be looking at adding a few bigger bodies.
Also, I know it's kind of semi-off topic, but given all the rumours surrounding Minnesota right now I get the feeling that we may have dodged a bullet with not hiring Rosas. Obviously it's still early, the rumours could be complete nonsense, and he could prove to be fantastic, but some of the stuff we're hearing right now is extremely concerning.
Right. My assumption is that there are lots of vets available. The ones available to the Pels at 4, will be different from the one's available at 8 or 10. But the one's at 4 might night be worth the 4th pick, whereas the one's at 8 or 10 would be worth those picks. I didn't mean to suggest that the same player available to you at 8 would be the same player that was available to you at 4.
Boogie...NO WAY!!! Unless you are named Kobe, you are will never fully recover from a Ruptured Achilles.
Vucevic….would be nice, but Orlando holds the Bird Rights on him.
I continue to like Brook Lopez. Like he did for Giannis, he will open the floor ZW, he is a lifetime 50%- double-digit scorer, would give us something we sorely need....LENGTH, and would offer additional veteran leadership for a bunch of young pups. If we could get a commitment from him, I would trade down and draft Jaxson Hayes so he can develop under Lopez.
Uh.... Kobe didn't fully recover from his achilles injury, and he only had a tear, not a rupture. That injury destroyed him.
After tearing it, Kobe never played more than 66 games in a season again. His efficiency dropped off a cliff, shooting under 39% from the floor in both of his final two seasons, and shooting under 30% from three in his final three seasons. He had a negative net rating every year after the Achilles injury, including three straight years of an ORtg under 100, when he had never had a single season of such a poor ORtg before that point. He posted a negative BPM in 2 of his final 3 years, negative win shares in 2 of them, and a negative VORP in two of them too. His PER fell off a cliff in those final seasons, and his number of dunks dropped from 51 in his final year pre-injury, to less than 20 in the final three seasons combined.
The only player I can really think of that came back at a very high level from an Achilles rupture is Dominique.
People keep saying Hays for our center if we trade back. Think BITADZE would be better choice.
Not sure. Bitadze is the more developed player. Better passer, better rebounder. Shows more signs of being able to develop as a shooter.
Hayes is more athletic, moves better (especially on the perimeter), and projects as a more switchable defender. Has better hands, and is more raw, so he may be able to be molded more easily.
I can see an argument for either.
Hayes is the superior rim protector at this point though, and Bitadze lacks the athleticism to play above the rim in any similar way. If you're after better defense, Hayes is the much better prospect, especially in today's NBA where bigs need to be able to guard down at least a little bit. Bitadze can't guard the perimeter at all.
Source: The Atlanta Hawks have been aggressive exploring trades packaging the No. 8 and 10 picks to move up in the draft. Their offer to the Knicks for the No. 3 pick was apparently rebuffed. The Pelicans are considering the possibility of trading the No. 4 pick for 8+10.
— Jonathan Givony (@DraftExpress) June 18, 2019
So we have this rumor, the falling RJ rumor, and a good guess that an established player is the Pels 1st choice of use for the #4 pick.
If RJ does fall to 4, Pels either take him or use him to flip for an established player. I can't see the Pels flipping RJ for #8 & #10. If RJ doesn't fall to the Pels as expected and they can't work a deal for an established player, then this tweet will probably be the outcome.
If Ja falls I would prob take him then trade Ball to the suns, bulls, or pacers. If RJ falls I’d take the haul he should garner. If RJ falls 8 & 10 may not be enough.
Marc Stein: The Timberwolves have been aggressive in their attempts to move up in the draft from No. 11 and are among the teams that have discussed acquiring No. 4 from New Orleans, league sources say 24 mins ago – via Twitter TheSteinLine
New Orleans Pelicans Rumors | team | HoopsHype https://hoopshype.com/rumor/timberwo...-in-the-draft/ via @hoopshype
NOLA, I’m told, is assembling assets in all out effort to leapfrog Knicks into second slot in order to snare RJ Barrett. Obviously, Pels are offering Grizz No 4 pick as part payment. No pity parties planned. NY would land Morant or Garland. Memphis would pluck point that drops...
— Peter Vecsey (@PeterVecsey1) June 20, 2019
That makes no sense at all.
Memphis has been adamant that they want Ja and trading away Conley only secures that. There's no need to trade up to #2 if you want Barrett, just trade up to #3 instead.
Edit: also, how would he know that? He's a New York guy. How would he know what Memphis or NOLA are doing? Is it not more likely that he's attempting to drive up the market on Barrett, perhaps trying to allow the Knicks to move up?
Not sure I trust this one.
Lonzo
Barret
Ingram
Zion
Vucevic
Our best shooter would be our center hahaha
Unless the Pels really want Ja Morant. And to be quite honest, if I am moving up to #2, I'd take Morant over Barrett. If Knicks take Barrett as expected, then the Grizzlies would add Garland who played high school and college locally and is kind of like a hometown kid.
For the record, if the Pels chose Barrett I would not be upset. I just prefer Morant over him.
Knicks might view Barrett as highly as we do making it impossible to get him, so you have to leap frog them. Everyone loving Morant could be smoke by the top 4 picks so hopefully push Barrett down. Who knows, griffin could have Barrett rated much much higher than Morant
I don't buy the Pelicans trying to trade up. But Garland is the hot name that everybody wants.
If you're Memphis, don't you have to at least consider what you could pick up by trading down? If you think Morant is a B+, and Garland is B, why not pick up extra assets? Memphis is not going to be a free agent destination, so they need to figure out how to get assets to build that team. The two picks from Jazz help, but grabbing more might be smart. There's also a scenario where you move to 4 and still end up with Morant.
Draft goes Zion, RJ, Garland, Morant... I could see the Knicks trading with one of the teams that's been trying to move up for Culver or Garland. Either way, Memphis is guaranteed a PG of the future at 4.
I'm going to bed. I can't read about the Pels trading up.... For Barrett.
Sure, it makes more sense to deal with the Knicks if the target is truly Barrett AND if the Knicks are willing to do the deal. Again, for me, I strongly prefer for them to target Morant, not Barrett. But I am not anti-Barrett so if the team added him I am not going to have a cow about it. Of course, I'll be disappointed that we passed on Morant but I think Barrett has potential and if the team really wants him and does not believe that the Knicks are going to be willing to trade then going up to #2 might be their only choice.
My issue isn't that I'm ''anti-Barrett'' though. My issue is that if you want Barrett, you probably don't need #2 to get him, and the cost of moving up to #2 when the team that currently has it is reportedly in love with their guy at that position will be unnecessarily expensive.
Saric, 11 (draft Langford), and 2020 1st, for #4 and Solo.
The more I read about Langford... the more that's the kid I want if we trade down. Jrue/Lonzo/Langford/Frank is a pretty damn good guard rotation. Dario would be a nice floor spacer next to Zion - sort of younger Niko.
Serious question, is saric even any good?
I guess, but there is absolutely no reason to think Memphis are even interested in trading down. They've been locked on Morant for weeks, and literally just traded their franchise PG to make room for him. There's no way they move on from him for Garland unless you're throwing them a haul, and in the case that both Memphis AND NY want to rob you to move up, then don't even bother. Just stay at #4 and draft Culver if you love RJ that much. He's like RJ but with an active basketball IQ.
I understand. But again, if Griffin is adamant about adding Barrett, and the Knicks do not want to deal him, then the Pels might feel they have no other choice but to go up to #2. I really hope if we make a trade for Barrett that we do trade with the Knicks. Otherwise, it would be upsetting to move up to the #2 pick to pass on Morant.
I also should add that I do not think the Knicks are 100% locked into taking Barrett. I think they would be willing to consider moving down to #4 and taking Garland but it would not surprise me if they are looking for significant assets to do so.
Doubtful
— Mason Ginsberg (@MasonGinsberg) June 20, 2019
Also, MM responded after that saying he also believes the #2 rumours are empty.
So while obviously it's no guarantee, I feel like I'm in decent company in being sceptical here. Not that MM is decent company but whatever.
I don’t get trying to trade up for Barrett. I think it’s really likely in 3 years he looks a whole lot, in terms of role and overall impact, like current day Brandon Ingram, who we already have. The offensive strengths (driving, playmaking, iso scoring, drawing fouls) and weaknesses (bad shot profiles, poor outside shooting, ball-dominant playing styles) are really similar. Their physical makeup is really different, but the spots they operate from and statistical profile I think is similar. I’m more intrigued by Ingram, as he has incredibly unusual length and has shown significantly more activity off-ball than Barrett.
I also dislike taking Culver for the same reasons, except I think he’s smaller and less athletic than either without special qualities to compensate.