Clippers/Wolves Revisited

cutthecrap · Post #1 » by **cutthecrap** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:29 pm

From DraftExpress (I had not seen this rumor on realgm)...

One rumor making the rounds says that the LA Clippers may offer to package their own pick (#7) along with their 2009 first round pick (protected) and the future pick they are owed by Minnesota(top 10 protected), in order to move up and select Mayo.

This doesn't get the Wolves a starter and a pick immediately although this could be a good move for the future...

Would/should the Wolves do this?

Post #2 » by **Klomp** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:43 pm

This is definitely an intriguing offer. I would strongly consider it. 7 would be a decent range to select Lopez or even Gallinari. Plus to basically get two more picks is huge.

Tekkenlaw · Post #3 » by **Tekkenlaw** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:45 pm

That 2009 clippers pick could be valuable depending on the protection on if the Clippers are moving brand to start rebuilding. I don't really care about getting our pick back, it likely won't even be in the lottery.

Winter Wonder · Post #4 » by **Winter Wonder** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:49 pm

I had seen this earlier today.

It is interesting and it would depend on the protections, but it is a likely no from the MN board currently. The value is close, but some offers lately seem to almost be blowing us away with a starting center and mid-ish lotto pick.

This deal is nice (possibly more realistic), but if the others are true or possible, have to go that other direction.

mayorhoiberg · Post #5 » by **mayorhoiberg** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:02 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but consensus and common sense both agree on this one.

Unless the Wolves are getting a legitimate starter back in return, the 3 pick stays in our hands.

One or even 2 future lottery picks do not equal one current starting player.

shrink · Post #6 » by **shrink** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:34 pm

cutthecrap wrote: Would/should the Wolves do this?

They may, but they most definitely should not do this deal. Has anyone ever heard me be this definitely opposed to nay trade before?

This offer, in one form or another, has been on the Trade Board for the last few months. Initially, a similar deal got general consensus from both LAC and MIN fans, as well as posters from other boards:

#3 + Jaric (3 yr deal) for # 6 + future MIN 1st + Tim Thomas (2 yr deal)

Since that time, Mayo's value has increased. His workouts have been great, the review of the tapes wonderful, and his interviews have been terrific as well. Meanwhile, the LAC side of the deal diminished. They got leapt in the lottery, and their #6 pick dropped to #7. This iteration doesn't even cut a year off Jaric's deal.

From the MIN side, its not too close. They lose out on Mayo, who has the potential to be a superstar in a superstar-driven NBA. Nobody after Beasley, Rose or Mayo have nearly as good a chance. Mayo fits well next to Foye, and with dual combo-guards, they'd be a tough pair to defend. McHale avoids the risk of trading away a guy who becomes a star next season. I believe Mayo has just as much chance as Rose as being Rookie of the Year, because he has an NBA-package of skills right now. The pick is Top 10 protected until 2012 .. I have to think we'd be out of the bottom ten before then.

However, the main reason that MIN should not do this deal is because LAC gets a HUGE deal here. there is no player in the last 3 drafts (with the exception of maybe Oden), that would be a more profitable player for the Clippers. They've been waiting for OJ Mayo since he was in ninth grade!

Sure, he's a terrific fit, and they cleared out the PG spot right away by dumping Livingston (another lottery pick).

Sure, he's demonstrated more loyalty to a town than any draft pick I can think of, with his antics to pick his college team in California. Mayo wants to be a star, so the Clippers know he will be loyal to LA. Moreover, as Kobe ages, Mayo has the skills, the personality, and more importantly, the hype to take Kobe's place as the king of LA, and allow the ugly sister clippers to become the fashionable team.

Imagine the ticket sales! Imagine the merchandising! Imagine the jolt a team like the CLIPPERS would get if they became the stars of LA! what owner can say "no" to that?

MIN can, and should, request much more than the #7 and a future pick in the teens. The downside is minimal -- LAC says "no," and the wolves are "stuck" with a potential ROY. For everything the Clippers are going to get out of Mayo, they need to do better than this offer.

shrink · Post #7 » by **shrink** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:38 pm

One final point -- I think this is all moot.

I imagine that with all the Clippers can get out of Mayo, MIA will offer to trade them the #2, and LAC will be unable to dare MIA to pick Beasley. Riley would love to get his hands on Brand, and he and Mayo are both eminently more valuable on each other's team.

I feel that with the third pick, the LAC trade will be done, and we'll get Beasley. However, while I think Beasley >= Mayo, LAC's trade package for Mayo > Beasley.

mayorhoiberg · Post #8 » by **mayorhoiberg** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:44 pm

LAC's trade package for Mayo > Beasley >= Mayo

Simplified.

Far left is best offer, far right is the worst of the three.

Oh, shrink, and absolutely agreed on all fronts. Spot on.

Krapinsky · Post #9 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:46 pm

I'm not with Shrink on this one. I would definitely do this trade.

If the trade went through we would have potentially the #7 pick this year and FOUR #1's next year. Ours, Miami's, and the Clips could all fall in the lottery. That's three separate chances at the #1 overall pick. With all those picks we could easily trade up into the top three. Next years draft may not be as deep as this years, but the overall prize might be better. RICKY RUBIO.

From our front office perspective it doesn't seem like Mayo is the slam dunk 3rd best player in the draft. It seems he's still in consideration with a couple others. If this is true, then they would have to accept this deal.

Post #10 » by **TheFranchise21** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:23 pm

Correct me if I am wrong but in order for the trade to work, we (or some other team that trades with LAC) would have to select the player LAC wants in our slot, and then LAC would have to select the player we want with their pick, because you can't trade 1st rounders in consecutive years.

Winter Wonder · Post #11 » by **Winter Wonder** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:32 pm

Trouble with MIA next year, if it falls into early lottery it is still protected so if they got the #1 next year, it would remain with MIA. The Clippers pick also hinted at protections, I would guess semi similar to MIA, so again no #1 or possibly lotto. That would leave ours and Boston's. Boston should be far away from lotto (barring injuries), so that narrows it down to just MIN for the #1.

Not that 4 firsts can't be good or that we couldn't get them all, just that all of them won't be lottory picks.

big3_8_19_21 · Post #12 » by **big3_8_19_21** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:33 pm

Tekkenlaw wrote:That 2009 clippers pick could be valuable depending on the protection on if the Clippers are moving brand to start rebuilding. I don't really care about getting our pick back, it likely won't even be in the lottery.

Does that mean you think we are a bottom 10 team next year or a playoff team?

4ho5ive · Post #13 » by **4ho5ive** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:40 pm

TheFranchise21 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but in order for the trade to work, we (or some other team that trades with LAC) would have to select the player LAC wants in our slot, and then LAC would have to select the player we want with their pick, because you can't trade 1st rounders in consecutive years.

I asked the same thing in another thread and I believe Shrink was happy to clear it up. I think as long as we recieve a guaranteed 1st round pick in this years draft (and in this case we get the Clips #7) than we can still technically trade our 1st round pick seeing as we would have the #7 in the same draft.

big3_8_19_21 · Post #14 » by **big3_8_19_21** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:47 pm

Also, why are we assuming Miami will be in the lotto? If they are healthy, they could be one of the top teams in the East...they have Wade and Marion and are about to add another great player, whether it's Brand, Beasley or Mayo. It's definitely possible that they are, but I don't think we can just ASSUME that they will be. There are a lot of wild cards in the East like Philly and Atlanta. It seems like Atlanta just has too much individual talent to be putting up the kind of records that they do. Maybe next year the youth matures and develops enough to finally achieve .500+

casey · Post #15 » by **casey** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Looks like a good deal to me. The only concern would be whether Love would fall to 7.

TheFranchise21 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but in order for the trade to work, we (or some other team that trades with LAC) would have to select the player LAC wants in our slot, and then LAC would have to select the player we want with their pick, because you can't trade 1st rounders in consecutive years.

No, because we would have the Clippers' 1st rounder this year. And we would have ours back next year anyways.

karch34 · Post #16 » by **karch34** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:00 pm

Adding the 2009 pick from LAC is interesting. I guess part of my concern that leads me to say no is that we need quality more than quantity at this point. We've got a young team and can add 3 youngsters this draft and possibly 3 more next year. I don't know if we need anymore youth in the next few years.

shrink · Post #17 » by **shrink** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:02 am

To amplify on my earlier long post, I see it like this:

We have Mayo, and he's worth $1. LAC is offering us $1.10 for Mayo, and saying, "take this, its worth more!"

However, for LAC, Mayo is worth $5, for all his off-court marketing potential in LA (that I listed in the first post).

Yes, people can try to argue that $1.10 is more than $1.00. It doesn't mean it's a fair trade. LAC should overpay in talent to make up for the benefits they get elsewhere. $3 each seems fair to me, not $1.10.

Does that make any more sense?

shrink · Post #18 » by **shrink** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:05 am

Regarding the MIA pick, I hope we don't get paid off this year (MIA is in bottom ten)

The season after that, the pick is only top 6 protected. Marion might be gone, Blount is still there, and its more time for Wade to pick up another injury.

Post #19 » by **revprodeji** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:14 pm

mayorhoiberg wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but consensus and common sense both agree on this one.

Unless the Wolves are getting a legitimate starter back in return, the 3 pick stays in our hands.

One or even 2 future lottery picks do not equal one current starting player.

This is true. This has been said in private and in interviews. We are only trading down if we get a young starter in return with a pick that can get a piece we want. (If we trade for a big---we draft Gallinari---if we trade for a wing, we draft Love, etc)

Lets just hope we do not consider Ammo or Villy as starters.