The closer we get to the draft the more I feel like we should not trade back.
 |
| . |
|
Contributor
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.Originally Posted by RaisingTheBar
Asking out of genuine curiosity: you like Reddish, Hachimura, and Langford?
Basketball.
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.
Last edited by JJackisangry; 06-18-2019 at 03:40 PM.
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.
Id be down with this. Except id rather not go with bol bol... Just screams injury prone. Id go with Naz Reid in the second round to see what his potential is like. Plus we have Okafor, Resign Diallo and Wood. Then maybe go for a stretch big in FA.
Naz Reid doesn't have the same injury risk that Bol does, but at the same time, he has nothing like the potential either. Reid is a dud.
Bol is just a great player. May never have the NBA ready body, but he is a hell of a talent. A man that size has no right to have that skill
Boogie will be available this FA ...should be affordable. Oh yea and Nikola Vucevic.
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.
Haha got’eem
I agree with your logic. However, if a team is offering a veteran for #4, I would not assume they would be just as happy with #8 or #10.
Boogie ring chasing and going to the Lakers. As far as Vucevic, he's gonna want a payday and after we sign Zion plus the 4th pick(if we keep it) we won't have enough money to meet his demands.
And also, he's not worth his demands, so even if we had max money available we shouldn't give it to him.
https://hoopshype.com/team/new-orleans-pelicans/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.
Bigger body, next to ZION the paint is closed completely
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote