Burke "I"m hearing between #2 and #6"

[GeauxPelicans]

There's no board fascination. It's really just me and a few other guys that would take a flyer on him. I'm a bit of a risk taker like that. I believe in a change of scenery being huge influences for people. Jennings, Tyreke, DeMarcus Cousins (especially Cousins). The new setting, a newly invigorated franchise could be just the spark. Plus, if they act up, we'll just sic Drew Brees on 'em.

These guys are much better "flyers" than Jennings eventhough I'm not really interested in either of them. Maybe Tyreke if he would take a 4 year 28 million with 4th year PO, but the Kings would match that so....

[da ThRONe]

I guess it all depends. If we draft Burke no way we keep 3 pg's (not even including Roberts). We need to find one position for Rivers and have him stick with it. Maybe we draft Burke and move Vasquez to SF or trade him. Maybe we draft Burke and move Rivers to SG or back up PG (2 young PGS? doubt it).

I think from what Monty has said in the past about having a big athletic PG, Burke doesn't fit that bill. Maybe he has changed his perspective since then.

I just feel that adding Burke will force some positional adjustments that we may not be ready to make at this point in time. If they feel Burke is the real deal though, then they won't hesitate because I have a feeling he will be there at #6.

I think it's unrealistic to think that the ideal player is going to fall into a team laps as needed. The better teams understand they need to take the talent that's available. Again if they aren't high on Burke that's one thing but if they like him and pass on him for any other reason that's not smart.

You create your game plan around your core. You bring in role players around your game plan. Drafting this high you are looking for a core player.

[luckyman]

If no team trades to jump past 6, no doubt Burke will be a Pelican. Especially if Porter goes #1 like some reports indicate.

[Ogden Park]

In this thread I learned:

1. Paying Brandon Jennings $40-$50 million (what he will get) equals "taking a flyer." That's a completely new use of that term.

2. We are "definitely taking" Burke if he is available at #6, despite the dozens of possibilities and variables of our team and draft position, not the least of which is that Burke is not the type of player DellMonty have shown to want.


Fascinating stuff.

[WhoDatPelican]

In this thread I learned:

1. Paying Brandon Jennings $40-$50 million (what he will get) equals "taking a flyer." That's a completely new use of that term.

2. We are "definitely taking" Burke if he is available at #6, despite the dozens of possibilities and variables of our team and draft position, not the least of which is that Burke is not the type of player DellMonty have shown to want.

Fascinating stuff.

I learned that Ogden Park is fairly snarky. Cheers!

[DefensiveMind]

I think it's unrealistic to think that the ideal player is going to fall into a team laps as needed. The better teams understand they need to take the talent that's available. Again if they aren't high on Burke that's one thing but if they like him and pass on him for any other reason that's not smart.

You create your game plan around your core. You bring in role players around your game plan. Drafting this high you are looking for a core player.

You are almost there. San Antonio and the New England Patriots don't always take the talent. They take the talent that fits what they want to do. They don't fit the system to their players they fit their players (and the skillsets they possess) to maximize the advantage of stuff they want to run. Now granted SA and NE are usually picking late in the first round.. we have the luxury of picking a talent that corresponds to the draft position and a player who fits what Dell and Monty want.

[Eman5805]

In this thread I learned:

1. Paying Brandon Jennings $40-$50 million (what he will get) equals "taking a flyer." That's a completely new use of that term.

2. We are "definitely taking" Burke if he is available at #6, despite the dozens of possibilities and variables of our team and draft position, not the least of which is that Burke is not the type of player DellMonty have shown to want.


Fascinating stuff.

Shown to want, one couple second blurb taken to be absolute, unmitigated LAW that they can't possibly ever deviate from based on who is available or factors that go beyond just the physical. Even though we've shown interest in Bledsoe and Jennings, two players who aren't the tallest PGs you could find.

[Mr. West]

In this thread I learned:

1. Paying Brandon Jennings $40-$50 million (what he will get) equals "taking a flyer." That's a completely new use of that term.

2. We are "definitely taking" Burke if he is available at #6, despite the dozens of possibilities and variables of our team and draft position, not the least of which is that Burke is not the type of player DellMonty have shown to want.


Fascinating stuff.

[luckyman]

In this thread I learned:

1. Paying Brandon Jennings $40-$50 million (what he will get) equals "taking a flyer." That's a completely new use of that term.

2. We are "definitely taking" Burke if he is available at #6, despite the dozens of possibilities and variables of our team and draft position, not the least of which is that Burke is not the type of player DellMonty have shown to want.


Fascinating stuff.

3. People make remarks concerning the thoughts of Dell and Monty based on anecdotal evidence and basically pure heresay.

[Ogden Park]

Shown to want, one couple second blurb taken to be absolute, unmitigated LAW that they can't possibly ever deviate from based on who is available or factors that go beyond just the physical. Even though we've shown interest in Bledsoe and Jennings, two players who aren't the tallest PGs you could find.

Bledsoe and Burke are so different as players. Not even going to entertain that comparison.

And the Jennings "interest" has never been significant. We've heard Dell liked his potential, and coming from the Spurs org he saw a bit of Tony Parker in him. 2 years later I'm guessing he's seen otherwise, like the rest of the world.

Regardless, "taking a flyer" usually is used for a low risk, low salary, kick the tires type of deal. Not a long-term cap killing vortex for a chucker-supreme like BJ. That's not taking a flyer, that's going all in and doubling down on mediocrity.

[WhoDatPelican]

Bledsoe and Burke are so different as players. Not even going to entertain that comparison.

And the Jennings "interest" has never been significant. We've heard Dell liked his potential, and coming from the Spurs org he saw a bit of Tony Parker in him. 2 years later I'm guessing he's seen otherwise, like the rest of the world.

Regardless, "taking a flyer" usually is used for a low risk, low salary, kick the tires type of deal. Not a long-term cap killing vortex for a chucker-supreme like BJ. That's not taking a flyer, that's going all in and doubling down on mediocrity.

What does it mean to "take a flier"? What is the definition of "taking a flier"?

"Taking a flier" means investing in any asset in which you know that there is a high probability that you may lose most or all of your investment.

"Taking a flier" means that you are using money to invest that you are ok with losing. By "taking a flier" in something, you are investing in a high-risk, potentially high-reward asset.

[Ogden Park]

3. People make remarks concerning the thoughts of Dell and Monty based on anecdotal evidence and basically pure heresay.

OH THE IRONY IS STABBING ME IN THE EYE. NO MOAR PLZ.

Every BJ/Pels rumor is based upon this exact premise. Meanwhile, DellMonty have made it crystal clear we are a defensive team. Not assumption, not anecdotal. Fact.

Burke is not a good defender, and projects not to be one. Bledsoe is a fantastic one.

[Ogden Park]

What does it mean to "take a flier"? What is the definition of "taking a flier"?

In the sports world it has always referred to low risk scenarios. Never heard the term used on a massive cap-killing gamble like signing an overrated player to huge contract.

It just sounds comical, like "ehh whatever lets just take a a little shot on this Jennings fella. If it doesn't work out oh well."

Except that if it doesn't work out we are screwed completely cap-wise.

[PelsFan2313]

And as fans we can't account for the majority of the stuff that happens in the organization, we have no idea.

I think we should have ended here.

[WhoDatPelican]

I don't even know why you took the time to respond to that. I started to, but then realized it was pointless. In the NBA world, especially where salary caps are involved you don't eight figure fliers on anything...

Just posting its actual definition which i found interesting...
And if you've read any of my post over the past, i dunno year, i wouldn't spend a dime on Jennings.

[DefensiveMind]

Just posting its actual definition which i found interesting...
And if you've read any of my post over the past, i dunno year, i wouldn't spend a dime on Jennings.

its all good. I actually deleted my post. Seemed unecessarily Delta Bravo-ish..if you catch my drift.

[GeauxPelicans]

In this thread I learned:

1. Paying Brandon Jennings $40-$50 million (what he will get) equals "taking a flyer." That's a completely new use of that term.

2. We are "definitely taking" Burke if he is available at #6, despite the dozens of possibilities and variables of our team and draft position, not the least of which is that Burke is not the type of player DellMonty have shown to want.


Fascinating stuff.

As much as they love defense, there plan hasn't worked out to well yet. They need a dynamic offensive threat at PG, who can get others shots. Use the other roster spots to shore up our defense, for instance sign Iggy to play the 3. He can also get other players shots.

[WhoDatPelican]

As much as they love defense, there plan hasn't worked out to well yet. They need a dynamic offensive threat at PG, who can get others shots. Use the other roster spots to shore up our defense, for instance sign Iggy to play the 3. He can also get other players shots.

Don't tease with that Iggy talk....I think he is perfect for Monty but as many have told me in the past (and rightly so) he'll be too expensive and too old by the time we are ready to really contend....but man..i'd love to see him with Monty.

[MonsterMash]

OH THE IRONY IS STABBING ME IN THE EYE. NO MOAR PLZ.

Every BJ/Pels rumor is based upon this exact premise. Meanwhile, DellMonty have made it crystal clear we are a defensive team. Not assumption, not anecdotal. Fact.

Which is why noted defensive stopper Ryan Anderson guards the paint with tenacity.

[MonsterMash]

As much as they love defense, there plan hasn't worked out to well yet. They need a dynamic offensive threat at PG, who can get others shots. Use the other roster spots to shore up our defense, for instance sign Iggy to play the 3. He can also get other players shots.

Nobody goes "all" defense. Demps and Williams came from San Antonio. Tony Parker isn't anyone's idea of a great defender. But they've got enough inside and on the wings to stop people while Parker drives the offense.

Not breaking news, but: we need a guard or wing capable of driving the offense to a high level.

[MonsterMash]

Size matters... I will keep saying this.. If we pass on Trey Burke and he becomes Chris Paul, John Stockton, Mark Price, Steve Nash or even Isaiah Thomas. Cool. Those guys won a total of TWO championships in about 60 seasons of brilliant, HALL OF FAME level, sublime play. 6'1 PGs, on a good day, who don't have the ability to overwhelm you athletically haven't swung titles since Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman. If we had a roster that was simply a PG away...then maybe... just maybe..I'd say go with it. But we don't. We need size and/or superb athletes, especially at the point of attack.

That has little to do with the players themselves, more to do with who the teams winning championships have (ie Duncan, Jordan, Shaq, James, Olajuwon etc etc etc). #1 overall, supreme level talent. We're likely not getting a guy like that at 6. If I got a Paul or Stockton at 6, I'd feel like I crushed the draft. Those guys didn't lose because they were too small ... Stockton never won a championship for the same reason hundreds of other players didn't in the 90s: Jordan.

Tony Parker has 3 rings and he's an inch taller than the cutoff. I don't think being 6'1 would have ruined his career.

[Tomdda]

Also who's hating ? Having a different opinion makes someone a hater ..

Unfortunately, it's one of the unwritten rules of the internet.

[Eman5805]

It's bizarre the reasons people are concocting on this hype killing thing. You don't like Burke as much as others might.. That's fine enough reason for you to not want him. Hell, most of my reasons for drafting have nothing to do with fit, whether he's a Monty player, or any of that. I just want the dude on this team.

[luckyman]

OH THE IRONY IS STABBING ME IN THE EYE. NO MOAR PLZ.

Every BJ/Pels rumor is based upon this exact premise. Meanwhile, DellMonty have made it crystal clear we are a defensive team. Not assumption, not anecdotal. Fact.

Burke is not a good defender, and projects not to be one. Bledsoe is a fantastic one.

Yeah like Ryno was sought after by those two because he's a top notch defender. They've also mentioned wanting players that can create on offense and hence their main reason for the Rivers pick.

Folks just hearing what they want to hear.

**eh...I see Montermash beat me to it.

[FlyGirl]

A going home pre-draft video on Burke.

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/dr...ls=nbahpsplit4