azuresou1 wrote:Assuming the following:
- Hawks make a DEEP playoff run (ECF or better)
- Nets fail to make the playoffs, landing us a lottery pick
How would you guys feel about trading our pick, even a Top 5 pick, for future picks down the road? Looking at our roster now I think we're well-equipped across the board, and anything less than an exceptional rookie would find it hard to crack our rotation. Drafting someone and then not giving them sufficient playing time to develop would seem like a waste, and if we could parlay our pick into a bevy of picks a year out that might be the better option.
For example, say we get the #2 pick. Mudiay isn't going to get time when we already have Teague and Dennis; makes more sense for us to trade him to the Lakers for their 2016 and 2018 picks, when they'll likely still be bad in 2016 running a rotation of Mudiay and Jordan Hill. We'd then get an additional pick as well.
Top 3 - probably not. 1st, you never get equal value for high level talent, you just can't. That's why superstars are only traded when they demand out. If we're the team getting an established superstar - ala a Durant - then it'd be more interesting to think on, but if all we're getting is picks in the future, then it's an easy pass for me. 2nd, as I put just above this post, I don't see Mudiay as the consensus clear cut #2 guy (he's #2, just not consensus) in this draft right now anyway so passing on him for a better fit wouldn't be as big a deal as some would think. Also, it isn't like we're DET where they had a definite system that they expected to cram Darko into, Coach Bud likes to give multiple looks with his various lineups and he looks for ways to showcase the strengths of his talent. His system is the frame that holds the car together, not necessarily the car that would need a specific part for replacement. (BTW, it doesn't change the conversation, but LAL has traded a couple of their picks into the future with the Nash and Dwight deals... I think the 1st one they can deal might be in '19 and that's before protections for the already traded picks kick in.)
Now, if the pick ends up 8-16, then I could see a trade as a much more interesting prospect. If the position we're at has Hezonja or even Looney on the board, then dealing the player for future asset would make more sense to me. As I allude to in the post above, I think we could still grab someone for a "Kawhi"-type role especially in the 10-12 area, but hey, he would still just be a prospect who could be that so it's not like we couldn't guarantee ourselves the extra 2%.