NBA Trade Thread #11

[MrSparkle]

Would you guys be pissed if AK traded the top-4 pick for LaMelo? (along with a bunch other players, like Coby/Pat, and let's say he took a bad salary like Grant... and maybe even added another future pick).

I'd find it risky with our lack of assets, his injury history (and our injury luck), etc. But I do wonder if he'll jump the gun again on an "opportunity."

[Dan Z]

It's almost statistically impossible for them to move under the bottom 4 teams. Even if we say only won 5 more games of our 27 remaining, Charlotte or Utah would have to more than double their current win counts and go ~.500 for the remainder. It's a non-starter conversation.

Sneaking into 5th would be incredibly tough as well. It'd already be very difficult passing under Toronto unless they inexplicably become a winning team for their final 27. It also requires Brooklyn and Philly both bungle their own tanks at the same time. I think the most realistic and likely outcome will be our guys sliding under Philly if George stops being disinterested *and* deteriorating. 7th worst again, boys! We'll have a 34% chance to hit top 4. Just don't stay at 8th, guys.

If there's a player they like in the top 6 then I think they should try to trade up for him.

[Dan Z]

Would you guys be pissed if AK traded the top-4 pick for LaMelo? (along with a bunch other players, like Coby/Pat, and let's say he took a bad salary like Grant... and maybe even added another future pick).

I'd find it risky with our lack of assets, his injury history (and our injury luck), etc. But I do wonder if he'll jump the gun again on an "opportunity."

I would be. I don't think LaMelo is a winning basketball player, but he puts up good numbers.

it's possible that he just needs a change of scenery, but I wouldn't take that chance (in part because I have my doubts that a new location would change him).

I think he's on pace to play about 43 games this year (did they keep him out for any games to tank?). Last year he played 22, the year before that 36 and after that 75 (his one all star season).

EDIT: I looked up LaMelo's stats this year and he's shooting .338 from three on 11.9 attempts per game. That's not good.

[Infinity2152]

Nobody blow a gasket but let's talk about the closest possible upcoming trade. There are a few teams that have multiple picks in the first round. Let's say our luck ends up as usual and we max out in the 5-7 range. Assuming Flagg is already gone, who would be good taking two later picks in this draft and two future picks for that 5-7 pick? Say the best of the two picks is 12-14, the second in the 20's.

[Dez]

Nobody blow a gasket but let's talk about the closest possible upcoming trade. There are a few teams that have multiple picks in the first round. Let's say our luck ends up as usual and we max out in the 5-7 range. Assuming Flagg is already gone, who would be good taking two later picks in this draft and two future picks for that 5-7 pick? Say the best of the two picks is 12-14, the second in the 20's.

No, keep our pick.

[Dan Z]

Nobody blow a gasket but let's talk about the closest possible upcoming trade. There are a few teams that have multiple picks in the first round. Let's say our luck ends up as usual and we max out in the 5-7 range. Assuming Flagg is already gone, who would be good taking two later picks in this draft and two future picks for that 5-7 pick? Say the best of the two picks is 12-14, the second in the 20's.

I'm not sure not sure if a team would trade 4 first round picks for the 5-7 pick. That's a lot, but it all depends on the picks/team.

I haven't looked at the prospects enough but it seems like there's at least 6 prospects with good potential. If the Bulls end up 5-7 I'd wait to see if one of them are there when they pick. Flagg, Harper, Bailey Edegcomb, Tre Johnson and KJ.

[Infinity2152]

Nobody blow a gasket but let's talk about the closest possible upcoming trade. There are a few teams that have multiple picks in the first round. Let's say our luck ends up as usual and we max out in the 5-7 range. Assuming Flagg is already gone, who would be good taking two later picks in this draft and two future picks for that 5-7 pick? Say the best of the two picks is 12-14, the second in the 20's.

I'm not sure not sure if a team would trade 4 first round picks for the 5-7 pick. That's a lot, but it all depends on the picks/team.

I haven't looked at the prospects enough but it seems like there's at least 6 prospects with good potential. If the Bulls end up 5-7 I'd wait to see if one of them are there when they pick. Flagg, Harper, Bailey Edegcomb, Tre Johnson and KJ.

For the same reasons two out of two responses say keep the pick, that's why a team might do it, lol! I'm not familiar enough with these college guys to have a valid opinion, just wondering. I do think it's a real possibility. We've failed enough with picks 4-7 and done better with later picks enough to at least weigh the possibility. You know how draft charts are. Somebody who's in the top 10 on somebody's chart today will be 25th by draft night. Guys like Matas fall to 11. By the 12th pick, there's a good chance somebody in your top 6 is still on the board. If the top of the draft is strong, is the bottom weak? Are there strong players who might drop to the 20's?

Remember the Doug McDermott trade? Kid's going to be a star, college basketball's player of the year, let's trade up! We were on the wrong side of that kind of trade, lol. We paid that to move from 16 to 11. Want to hear something funny? Know who went 13 in that draft and we drafted McDermott. Zach Lavine.

[Dan Z]

Nobody blow a gasket but let's talk about the closest possible upcoming trade. There are a few teams that have multiple picks in the first round. Let's say our luck ends up as usual and we max out in the 5-7 range. Assuming Flagg is already gone, who would be good taking two later picks in this draft and two future picks for that 5-7 pick? Say the best of the two picks is 12-14, the second in the 20's.

I'm not sure not sure if a team would trade 4 first round picks for the 5-7 pick. That's a lot, but it all depends on the picks/team.

I haven't looked at the prospects enough but it seems like there's at least 6 prospects with good potential. If the Bulls end up 5-7 I'd wait to see if one of them are there when they pick. Flagg, Harper, Bailey Edegcomb, Tre Johnson and KJ.

For the same reasons two out of two responses say keep the pick, that's why a team might do it, lol! I'm not familiar enough with these college guys to have a valid opinion, just wondering. I do think it's a real possibility. We've failed enough with picks 4-7 and done better with later picks enough to at least weigh the possibility. You know how draft charts are. Somebody who's in the top 10 on somebody's chart today will be 25th by draft night. Guys like Matas fall to 11. By the 12th pick, there's a good chance somebody in your top 6 is still on the board. If the top of the draft is strong, is the bottom weak? Are there strong players who might drop to the 20's?

Remember the Doug McDermott trade? Kid's going to be a star, college basketball's player of the year, let's trade up! We were on the wrong side of that kind of trade, lol. We paid that to move from 16 to 11. Want to hear something funny? Know who went 13 in that draft and we drafted McDermott. Zach Lavine.

I still think 4 picks to move up is a lot. When is the last time a team gave up that much to do so?

Did AK really do well later in the draft? Yes, Matas has potential, but there are players taken later who have looked good too. Ware, McCain and Missi come to mind (Id rather have Matas then those three, but that's just my two cents).

Aside form Matas who else did he draft that's good? Not Terry or Phillips. Ayo is solid and he was lucky that he dropped in the draft.

[pipfan]

Would you guys be pissed if AK traded the top-4 pick for LaMelo? (along with a bunch other players, like Coby/Pat, and let's say he took a bad salary like Grant... and maybe even added another future pick).

I'd find it risky with our lack of assets, his injury history (and our injury luck), etc. But I do wonder if he'll jump the gun again on an "opportunity."

I would be. I don't think LaMelo is a winning basketball player, but he puts up good numbers.

it's possible that he just needs a change of scenery, but I wouldn't take that chance (in part because I have my doubts that a new location would change him).

I think he's on pace to play about 43 games this year (did they keep him out for any games to tank?). Last year he played 22, the year before that 36 and after that 75 (his one all star season).

EDIT: I looked up LaMelo's stats this year and he's shooting .338 from three on 11.9 attempts per game. That's not good.

I agree-I love Lonzo but LaMelo's not a winning player. Plus, Char is trying to win starting next year around their pick this year, Ball, Miller and Williams

[Infinity2152]

I'm not sure not sure if a team would trade 4 first round picks for the 5-7 pick. That's a lot, but it all depends on the picks/team.

I haven't looked at the prospects enough but it seems like there's at least 6 prospects with good potential. If the Bulls end up 5-7 I'd wait to see if one of them are there when they pick. Flagg, Harper, Bailey Edegcomb, Tre Johnson and KJ.

For the same reasons two out of two responses say keep the pick, that's why a team might do it, lol! I'm not familiar enough with these college guys to have a valid opinion, just wondering. I do think it's a real possibility. We've failed enough with picks 4-7 and done better with later picks enough to at least weigh the possibility. You know how draft charts are. Somebody who's in the top 10 on somebody's chart today will be 25th by draft night. Guys like Matas fall to 11. By the 12th pick, there's a good chance somebody in your top 6 is still on the board. If the top of the draft is strong, is the bottom weak? Are there strong players who might drop to the 20's?

Remember the Doug McDermott trade? Kid's going to be a star, college basketball's player of the year, let's trade up! We were on the wrong side of that kind of trade, lol. We paid that to move from 16 to 11. Want to hear something funny? Know who went 13 in that draft and we drafted McDermott. Zach Lavine.

I still think 4 picks to move up is a lot. When is the last time a team gave up that much to do so?

Did AK really do well later in the draft? Yes, Matas has potential, but there are players taken later who have looked good too. Ware, McCain and Missi come to mind (Id rather have Matas then those three, but that's just my two cents).

Aside form Matas who else did he draft that's good? Not Terry or Phillips. Ayo is solid and he was lucky that he dropped in the draft.

Well, nobody's trading 4 unprotected picks. Out of these four picks, one is guaranteed in the 20's and the other two are future, probably protected, and could be low. If you think a prospect is a D Wade level prospect, that's not too much to pay, imo.

This is not an argument to do it. Like I said, I don't know enough about the depth of this draft to even guess. With the hype of this draft, I could certainly see some team's top 3 prospect be available at 6 or 7. This is what if it's offered.

As far as AK's draft skill, you also have to wonder if he does better with one higher pick that's not top 4, or two lower picks, plus a pick or two in the future. The draft is largely a crapshoot after 3-4. He definitely could have drafted better than Terry and Phillips. It's not just draft positioning that's the issue.

[Dan Z]

For the same reasons two out of two responses say keep the pick, that's why a team might do it, lol! I'm not familiar enough with these college guys to have a valid opinion, just wondering. I do think it's a real possibility. We've failed enough with picks 4-7 and done better with later picks enough to at least weigh the possibility. You know how draft charts are. Somebody who's in the top 10 on somebody's chart today will be 25th by draft night. Guys like Matas fall to 11. By the 12th pick, there's a good chance somebody in your top 6 is still on the board. If the top of the draft is strong, is the bottom weak? Are there strong players who might drop to the 20's?

Remember the Doug McDermott trade? Kid's going to be a star, college basketball's player of the year, let's trade up! We were on the wrong side of that kind of trade, lol. We paid that to move from 16 to 11. Want to hear something funny? Know who went 13 in that draft and we drafted McDermott. Zach Lavine.

I still think 4 picks to move up is a lot. When is the last time a team gave up that much to do so?

Did AK really do well later in the draft? Yes, Matas has potential, but there are players taken later who have looked good too. Ware, McCain and Missi come to mind (Id rather have Matas then those three, but that's just my two cents).

Aside form Matas who else did he draft that's good? Not Terry or Phillips. Ayo is solid and he was lucky that he dropped in the draft.

Well, nobody's trading 4 unprotected picks. Out of these four picks, one is guaranteed in the 20's and the other two are future, probably protected, and could be low. If you think a prospect is a D Wade level prospect, that's not too much to pay, imo.

This is not an argument to do it. Like I said, I don't know enough about the depth of this draft to even guess. With the hype of this draft, I could certainly see some team's top 3 prospect be available at 6 or 7. This is what if it's offered.

As far as AK's draft skill, you also have to wonder if he does better with one higher pick that's not top 4, or two lower picks, plus a pick or two in the future. The draft is largely a crapshoot after 3-4. He definitely could have drafted better than Terry and Phillips. It's not just draft positioning that's the issue.

It also depends on what a team needs. Right now the Spurs have the #10 and 15th picks. Will they try to trade up? Maybe, but I'm not sure if they'd be willing to give up a lot to get a #5-7 prospect (right now Tankathon lists: KJ, Tre, and Knueppel). They already have Fox, Castle and Vassell at guard. Vassell and Keldon Johnson at SF.

OKC has pick #22 and a stockpile of future picks. Will they try to trade up? Maybe, but what do they need? Right now they already have a championship contending team.

The Jazz have picks 3 and 20 plus lots of future picks. My guess is they won't go after two top picks and just get the BPA at 3 and then the best they can do at 20.

Brooklyn has 7, 19, 24 and 27. I bet they'd like to move up with their late picks, but probably won't want to give up too much to do it.

Hawks have 13 and 23, but don't have many future picks.

[ChettheJet]

Nobody blow a gasket but let's talk about the closest possible upcoming trade. There are a few teams that have multiple picks in the first round. Let's say our luck ends up as usual and we max out in the 5-7 range. Assuming Flagg is already gone, who would be good taking two later picks in this draft and two future picks for that 5-7 pick? Say the best of the two picks is 12-14, the second in the 20's.

I'm not sure not sure if a team would trade 4 first round picks for the 5-7 pick. That's a lot, but it all depends on the picks/team.

I haven't looked at the prospects enough but it seems like there's at least 6 prospects with good potential. If the Bulls end up 5-7 I'd wait to see if one of them are there when they pick. Flagg, Harper, Bailey Edegcomb, Tre Johnson and KJ.

I think you're misreading the idea. I don't see the incredibly impossible 4 picks for one even being mentioned above because you've said it more than once. The trade would be one earlier pick for a pair one 12-14 and a 2nd somewhere in the 20's.

I previously mentioned 3 different teams with 2+ picks who might look to get a higher rated player rather than 2 projects. What I suggested earlier in trading down was some team with 2, 3 or 4 to move up and only seek to add 1 or 2 rookies to their roster. This works for the Bulls if they are able to shed 3-4 of their expiring guards contracts, Matas is a starter and they have room to bring the rookies off the bench.

[Dan Z]

Nobody blow a gasket but let's talk about the closest possible upcoming trade. There are a few teams that have multiple picks in the first round. Let's say our luck ends up as usual and we max out in the 5-7 range. Assuming Flagg is already gone, who would be good taking two later picks in this draft and two future picks for that 5-7 pick? Say the best of the two picks is 12-14, the second in the 20's.

I'm not sure not sure if a team would trade 4 first round picks for the 5-7 pick. That's a lot, but it all depends on the picks/team.

I haven't looked at the prospects enough but it seems like there's at least 6 prospects with good potential. If the Bulls end up 5-7 I'd wait to see if one of them are there when they pick. Flagg, Harper, Bailey Edegcomb, Tre Johnson and KJ.

I think you're misreading the idea. I don't see the incredibly impossible 4 picks for one even being mentioned above because you've said it more than once. The trade would be one earlier pick for a pair one 12-14 and a 2nd somewhere in the 20's.

I previously mentioned 3 different teams with 2+ picks who might look to get a higher rated player rather than 2 projects. What I suggested earlier in trading down was some team with 2, 3 or 4 to move up and only seek to add 1 or 2 rookies to their roster. This works for the Bulls if they are able to shed 3-4 of their expiring guards contracts, Matas is a starter and they have room to bring the rookies off the bench.

See my previous post (above your last reply) about the teams with multiple picks and why I think they may or may not trade up.

I mention 4 picks multiple times because I think its a lot, even if it includes one mid round and one late pick. For perspective Fox was just traded for three first round picks and 6 2nds.

[Infinity2152]

We just saw three first round picks get traded for a 2031 first, lmao!! Would ya'll stop saying things that have already happened won't happen. We saw Mikal Bridges get 5 picks and other assets. All picks aren't equal, this is a lottery pick in a supposedly super strong draft. And we're talking about if it's a high lottery pick, 7 or above. It's incredibly easy to think a team might like a player at 5 or 6 as much as the Knicks like Mikal Bridges. And Gm's get infatuated with their picks too. Teams overpay at times. What is the point of arguing whether a team will do it?

Thanks for bringing up Fox. Are there teams who think that drafting Ace Bailey on a rookie contract is worth as much as trading for Fox and sacrificing players as well as picks? Or ask yourself if every team is so tight with picks, how are some teams accumulating 10 picks in the next 4 years? All teams don't value picks even close to the same level. What is OKC going to do with 5 more rookies?

Let's look at some bad draft day trades.

Elton Brand was traded for the #3 pick. He's arguably better and worth more than Bridges.

Knicks traded Marcus Camby, Mark Jackson and the #7 pick( Nene) for McDyess. He was older and played 10 games that season.

#1 pick Webber was traded for #3 pick Penny Hardaway and 3 first round picks. To get a player drafted 2 spots higher.

Bulls trade #2 pick Lamarcus Aldridge for #4 pick Tyrus Thomas and Victor Khryapa.

#27 pick Rudy Gobert traded for second round pick Erick Green and cash.

Blazers trade #3 pick for 3 future firsts. That number 3 pick was Deron Williams.

Pacers trade #15 pick Kawhi Leonard, the 42nd pick (Davis Bertans) and another player for George Hill. Why? They already had Paul George and Danny Granger.

Minnesota trades pick #5 (Ray Allen) and a first for pick #4 (Marbury)

To get the great Robert "Tractor" Traylor (drafted at 6), Bucks gave the Mav #9 pick (Dirk Nowitski) and #19 pick (Pat Garrity)

Or the greatest decision: trade the #13 pick (Kobe Byrant) for an aging Divac.

You don't know what teams will do.

When you say four picks, say two first round picks guaranteed to be around 12 and 20, and two future picks with unknown protections or value (they could be from a winning team). 4 firsts is not just 4 firsts, like those 3 firsts the Suns got turned into 1 first.

And it's kind of ridiculous to say that return would not be enough for you to give up the pick, then say at the same time that no team would offer it or that you can see the value but no other team could. Either the move up has more value than the picks, or it doesn't. You can't argue both sides. This is not to anyone in particular, but they're opposite sides of the argument.

[cocktailswith_2short]

Brooklyn should consolidate those late 1sts and move up . If there was ever a draft to do it this one is it . There's five or six really good looking prospects . If we end up at 7 again I'm going to jump into a raging river .

[Infinity2152]

Brooklyn should consolidate those late 1sts and move up . If there was ever a draft to do it this one is it . There's five or six really good looking prospects . If we end up at 7 again I'm going to jump into a raging river .

This is kind of what I'm talking about. At some point, the prospects you value the most may be gone before your pick. Then you have to decide to grab your 5th or 6th best choice, or gamble and grab your 12th and 24th plus have future chances. It should never be "Well, this #6 pick is untradeable, regardless of what's offered." Despite what people think the question was, it's based on the presumption the offer is made. Whether it's likely or not is no consequence, nobody knows that. Even if there are 5-6 strong prospects, there will be some flops in the top 10. I see people bashing AK every day hard, but they seem to have a lot of faith he'll do better with one #6 picks than multiple shots. It's likely multiple guys nobody is even talking about now sneak into the top 10, so 1 or 2 of those 5-6 strong prospects could possibly be there at 12.

If laypeople can see at least 5-6 strong prospects, GM's with scouting departments, staff, and far more resources should probably be able to identify at least 8-10 strong prospects. The player that's 5th on AK's board could be available at 12, while his top 4 prospects go 1, 2 and 4,5 and we have pick 6.

He's probably itching more than ever to show people how smart he is. Didn't he already draft a guy at 4 nobody had projected top 5? Don't be so sure he's getting one of your guys, even if we keep the pick.

[MrSparkle]

Bulls have 74% odds of picking 8-10 right now.

[Infinity2152]

Bulls have 74% odds of picking 8-10 right now.

So 5-6 great prospects, we're projected 8-10. Do we consider trading down now at that point? We end up 8-10?

Like I said, just want genuine discussion. In most drafts, guys between 5-20 could go anywhere in that gap. So 2 picks in the 12-24 could be more valuable than say number 8. I asked before, this is supposed to be a strong draft, is it really top heavy? Or will there be a lot of strong prospects between say 12-25?

That's a little different than dropping from six. But how deep is this draft? Will there be two players who leap up the chart, or five?

Looking at a mock draft in NBA Draft room, they have us drafting Noa Essengue at 8. That' not who I remember seeing around 8 in the last few mock drafts I looked at. PF from France, never heard of him. Have him in front of Egor Demin, Derrick Queen and Knuppel, the shooter from Duke.

[MrSparkle]

Bulls have 74% odds of picking 8-10 right now.

So 5-6 great prospects, we're projected 8-10. Do we consider trading down now at that point? We end up 8-10?

Like I said, just want genuine discussion. In most drafts, guys between 5-20 could go anywhere in that gap. So 2 picks in the 12-24 could be more valuable than say number 8. I asked before, this is supposed to be a strong draft, is it really top heavy? Or will there be a lot of strong prospects between say 12-25?

I personally don’t think this team can afford to trade down. We need quality, not quantity of prospect(s). Also seeing Billy’s development style, I’m not sure he’ll add 2 rookies to his rotation. I’d say there’s a hard drop-off after 4 in this draft.

I like Malauch, Egor (dropped a lot on the board), but these seem like fringe stars at best who will be raw and need many years of development - likely roleplayers with a bust floor.

I can sincerely see AK trading the 2-10 pick (haphazardly) for a veteran. Only guy I think they’d unanimously draft and keep is Flag.

Or Kasparas… Although AK has hardly shown extra interest in Lithuanian prospects. If anything the Illini connection would be more the reason. Or maybe the need for a playmaking guard, since Coby’s been doing a horrible job, and Lonzo/Giddey play various positions. I’m pretty nervous watching his reel. Can’t tell if I’m getting Sato or Goran vibes. Fwiw 6’6 with 3P shot and vision does guarantee some type of NBA job. His wingspan is terrible (6’7), and he certainly is not a perennial NBA all-star type. Which does fit AK’s “very good” criteria.

I can see Coby and #8 dangled for #5 if that’s where Jakucionis lands (let’s say Charlotte, Brooklyn, Philly, NOLA).

[Muzbar]

Brooklyn should consolidate those late 1sts and move up . If there was ever a draft to do it this one is it . There's five or six really good looking prospects . If we end up at 7 again I'm going to jump into a raging river .

Better get your swimmers ready...