Givony: Minnesota, Chicago, Boston are looking to trade to #4 for Garland

Yes, meaning in the sense of not flipping the roster for certain players. I'm saying we should see what this nucleus can produce. So yes, Getting Markkanen would be "Big" but nothing spectacular.... Unless Barrett falls to us, then all that cheese goes out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinDavis1022

You're not gonna get Markannen with that. They would want more.

---

Probably not, but you never know what teams might be desperate for. Teams are drooling over Garland. So maybe not Chicago but I feel Griffin has something similar planned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornetzplaya

Probably not, but you never know what teams might be desperate for. Teams are drooling over Garland. So maybe not Chicago but I feel Griffin has something similar planned

---

All i hope is that any move is for Lauri. If not dont do anything crazy! There is no need to do something crazy. We won this offseason. lets not blow it before we get started

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HartOfaPelican

All i hope is that any move is for Lauri. If not dont do anything crazy! There is no need to do something crazy. We won this offseason. lets not blow it before we get started

---

Yeah I agree on that! Hence is why I dont want anymore "BIG" trades, because we dont need to completely overhaul the roster. Truthfully I just dont want another season where we have a Center and Small Foward deficiency :crytear: Laurie will really help that cause. And if we can go some shooters in FA we'll be pretty good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HartOfaPelican

All i hope is that any move is for Lauri. If not dont do anything crazy! There is no need to do something crazy. We won this offseason. lets not blow it before we get started

---

I 100% agree. If the trade with Chicago doesnt involve Markannen then no point in moving forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeliKhan

https://twitter.com/PaulCrane7/statu...683696128?s=20

Hope there's nothing to this.. Jrue could fetch a lot more

---

Right. If you're gonna trade Jrue... then fine, but you keep that 6th that you get from PHX. Last year the Mavs moved up 2 spots and only gave up a 1 in this year's draft to ATL. We can swap the 4 for the 2, and give them a next year's 1 and even a 2 form this year.

But you keep that 6 and take Hunter or Culver.

What happens if Morant somehow falls to us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smow-

What happens if Morant somehow falls to us?

---

Since (allegedly) Alvin loves Lonzo... we have our PG. Zo can't play the 2 nor can Ja. You trade back with a team that's willing to give you more ammo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DroopyDawg

Since (allegedly) Alvin loves Lonzo... we have our PG. Zo can't play the 2 nor can Ja. You trade back with a team that's willing to give you more ammo.

---

No you take Ja and figure it out later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DroopyDawg

Since (allegedly) Alvin loves Lonzo... we have our PG. Zo can't play the 2 nor can Ja. You trade back with a team that's willing to give you more ammo.

---

You'd assume Griffin would have suitors in the event this happens...but if not, oh boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AusPel

No you take Ja and figure it out later

---

Agree

Do you think this would be enough for us to get Beal?Completing three team deal Lakers 1rst next year, Ingram, Moore either the 4th this year or a future protected first from us. A cheap player from Was to LA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DroopyDawg

Since (allegedly) Alvin loves Lonzo... we have our PG. Zo can't play the 2 nor can Ja. You trade back with a team that's willing to give you more ammo.

---

yes gentry loves lonzo but you pick ja.....ja also can assist at a high rate and with ja the defender cant lag off on defense with him....you trade lonzo and try to resign payton as backup.....or keep lonzo and make it work...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hornetzplaya

Yes, meaning in the sense of not flipping the roster for certain players. I'm saying we should see what this nucleus can produce. So yes, Getting Markkanen would be "Big" but nothing spectacular.... Unless Barrett falls to us, then all that cheese goes out the window.

---

You know, I'm really growing sceptical of Barrett. I liked him more earlier in the year, and even debated with a few guys about whether he should go second, but the more I think about his game in an NBA context, the less I like it.

I rewatched like 4 Duke games recently, in preparation for draft night with Zion. I watched the UNC, UCF, Texas Tech, and Louisville games. And man, RJ just looks like he doesn't know what's happening like 40% of the time. It's worrying. His awareness is low.

Of players I've seriously studied, he has one of the lowest steal percentages, and he led the NCAA in charges. That's not a great sign for his awareness, and his defensive positioning just drifts so far sometimes. I don't think he's a lost cause or anything, but I'm legit thinking of putting Culver ahead of him as a prospect. Not as athletic, shoulders not as wide, but just a much smarter player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

yes gentry loves lonzo but you pick ja.....ja also can assist at a high rate and with ja the defender cant lag off on defense with him....you trade lonzo and try to resign payton as backup.....or keep lonzo and make it work...

---

This is like taxes. i hate how much i have to play every you... but thank god i have this problem! its a good one to have!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

You know, I'm really growing sceptical of Barrett. I liked him more earlier in the year, and even debated with a few guys about whether he should go second, but the more I think about his game in an NBA context, the less I like it.

I rewatched like 4 Duke games recently, in preparation for draft night with Zion. I watched the UNC, UCF, Texas Tech, and Louisville games. And man, RJ just looks like he doesn't know what's happening like 40% of the time. It's worrying. His awareness is low.

Of players I've seriously studied, he has one of the lowest steal percentages, and he led the NCAA in charges. That's not a great sign for his awareness, and his defensive positioning just drifts so far sometimes. I don't think he's a lost cause or anything, but I'm legit thinking of putting Culver ahead of him as a prospect. Not as athletic, shoulders not as wide, but just a much smarter player.

---

Ive been saying this about Rj for a while Hes a bust!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

We don't want Weedplate Wiggins, MINN. So, sit down.

---

Lmaoooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HartOfaPelican

Ive been saying this about Rj for a while Hes a bust!!!!

---

If he's a bust without even playing a game, what does that say without Brandon Ingram who hasn't sniffed an All-Star game or All-League player?

None of the attainable vets are worth the 4th pick. I'd love to see the Pelicans pick up whatever future assets or players they can to move back with Suns/Bulls/Hawks/Wolves/Celtics... Then before using the later pics, test whether or not there is a vet that's available for the later pick that is a better value than flipping the 4th pick.

The goal at this point for the Pelicans should be extracting max value on every deal/move they make. For instance, trading 4 for Clint Capela seems like a severe overpay. Trading back with Atlanta for 8 + 10, then flipping 10 for Capela seems like a much better buy. Not saying he's the player, or that's the ideal move... but that's the kind of thing I'd be looking to do if I'm the Pelicans. It might be trading back with Suns for 6 and TJ Warren, and then flipping 6 to Celtics for 20 , Williams, and Memphis pick.

I want to Bill Belichick the hell out of this draft!

The further you drop, the less valuable the pick becomes though. I almost think we should just keep the pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

The further you drop, the less valuable the pick becomes though. I almost think we should just keep the pick.

---

We absolutely should keep the pick. The only way we shouldn't IMO is if we can trade #4 for a proven NBA player without having to give up Laker picks or other significant assets.

I’d take #7, Kris Dunn, & Chandler Hutchison from Chicago for 4, 39, & Etwaun Moore. I might take 7 & Dunn or Hutchinson. I like Dunn, but rather Hutchinson’s contract and position. Then I’d take Hayes at 7 unless Hunter fell there. I just don’t like Culver’s fit on this team & Hayes wouldn’t be a reach at 7. We need a center more than a ball dominate shooting guard.

I’d take Dario Saric & 11 for pick 4, 39, & Etwaun Moore. Take either Reddish, Little, or Doumbouya at 11.

Boston doesn’t have anything I want to move back that far. I wouldn’t do 14, 20, & 22 for a top 5 pick unless I knew I was getting Hachimura or Clarke, Bol Bol or Kabengele, and Porter or Langford, but no way to know that. I doubt they would do Jaylen Brown & 20. I would trade back with Atlanta and then trade them 8 for 14 & 20 or 22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

If he's a bust without even playing a game, what does that say without Brandon Ingram who hasn't sniffed an All-Star game or All-League player?

---

Have you watched either of them play ,pre than 5 minutes?

I watched almost every single Lakers and Duke game.

Ingram - was playing amazing before he went out with the blood clot.

RJ - his shooting % and his FT % are both terrible!!!!

Trust me. RJ is not it.

We are in such good position now so trading up is far too much of a gamble. As said before, trading for a proven player is a much more long term prudent approach to this draft.

If we could trade back with Atlanta for the 8 & 10, that would be worth considering. Solid picks available there + assets to flip if we choose (e.g., Capela deal or trade back again targeting someone like Cameron Johnson from UNC). Not enamored of dealing for any of the vets under consideration or of trading up for RJ Barrett. For some reason I get an Austin Rivers vibe from him...