Who's willing to trade up?

[logical_art]

Judging a player based on the recent history of guys at his slot is pretty weak IMO.

How else to judge? Clearly over the past 20 years people have had trouble identifying the next best player. The #1s have a decent hit rate, but year after year the scouts/experts/teams struggle to get the 2nd pick right. Even though they usually think at the time that it is clear who the next best player is. (It was Rose & Beasley, Fultz & Ball, Wiggins & Jabari, etc.)

Sure this year could be the exception, but that's not how I would bet. Too many people have been wrong too often.

Judging the quality of a draft slot is best done by looking at a large sample of players taken at that position. Not cherry picked but all of them.

Overall, Ice Man is right. If you look at the history of #2 picks, you are better off with say a #5 and a future lottery pick than the #2. In general, trade ups favor the team that gave up the pick and not the one that bought it. The draft is a numbers game. The more times you play the better odds you have of winning. The Bulls shouldn't be in the game of giving up picks and that's what it would take to move up.

You don't trade up to get the second pick just because you want the second pick. You trade up to get the second pick because you think the guy available there is going to be a superstar. As we all know, it's a superstar league.

[logical_art]

This thread is a useful place to repost this:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[Ice Man]

You trade up to get the second pick because you think the guy available there is going to be a superstar. As we all know, it's a superstar league.

The 2007 question was Oden or Durant. There is no 2019 question. Ja is just another #2 pick. He might indeed become a superstar, but so might other guys.

The #1 seed in the West is led by a #7 and #2, the second best by a second rounder, the #1 in the East by a #13 pick, and the second best by a #1, a #24, and a #27. Yes it's a superstar league but they come from all over. If we can package our first pick and a current player whom we know won't be a superstar for the #2, OK I guess. But otherwise I'd rather have two bites at the apple.

[AKfanatic]

You trade up to get the second pick because you think the guy available there is going to be a superstar. As we all know, it's a superstar league.

The 2007 question was Oden or Durant. There is no 2019 question. Ja is just another #2 pick. He might indeed become a superstar, but so might other guys.

The #1 seed in the West is led by a #7 and #2, the second best by a second rounder, the #1 in the East by a #13 pick, and the second best by a #1, a #24, and a #27. Yes it's a superstar league but they come from all over. If we can package our first pick and a current player whom we know won't be a superstar for the #2, OK I guess. But otherwise I'd rather have two bites at the apple.

In the end it all comes down to a team’s opinion of the player available at whichever spot.

If the team views Ja as a future star, which I think he has the potential to be (but I’ve been wrong before), then they should do what they can to find a deal to land him. If they don’t see him as having much more potential than a guy they’ll land at their spot, then don’t.

Gun to my head, I’d likely trade the 4 or 5 and a top 3-5 protected pick next season for Ja right now. But I can see why others wouldn’t do such a deal.

[Ice Man]

I supported trading up for Doug, when GarPax did it, on the grounds that they showed conviction. I repent my sin. They can show all the conviction they like, but they have no flipping idea how these players will turn out. Zion excepted. If he's not a perennial NBA All Star, at the least, then I don't know nuttin'.

[logical_art]

The Doug trade seemed to be reactionary. They had had a team with no shooters and shooting was just becoming all the rage so they went out and got the best one. Unfortunately he wasn't a very good player.

[Ice Man]

The Doug trade seemed to be reactionary. They had had a team with no shooters and shooting was just becoming all the rage so they went out and got the best one. Unfortunately he wasn't a very good player.

That is true. But would the move to get Ja not be similar, in that the Bulls would be moving up to fill a perceived need?

[TheJordanRule]

The Doug trade seemed to be reactionary. They had had a team with no shooters and shooting was just becoming all the rage so they went out and got the best one. Unfortunately he wasn't a very good player.

That is true. But would the move to get Ja not be similar, in that the Bulls would be moving up to fill a perceived need?

Absolutely not. If this version of Ja were in last year's draft, he'd be tied with Luka as the Top PG prospect, and ahead of Trey Young, who was seen as a player with very significant athletic challenges even though he was / is a great shooter and facilitator.

[GimmeDat]

Ruling out Zion to start the discussion, because that's not happening, the only guy I would consider trading up for is Morant. I couldn't do it at the expense of next years pick unprotected though. So I find a trade up situation unlikely.

[logical_art]

The Doug trade seemed to be reactionary. They had had a team with no shooters and shooting was just becoming all the rage so they went out and got the best one. Unfortunately he wasn't a very good player.

That is true. But would the move to get Ja not be similar, in that the Bulls would be moving up to fill a perceived need?

If that's why they're doing it, then yes. But Ja looks like a potential superstar whereas Doug's upside was some Wally Sczerbiak - Kyle Korver mashup (sp).

[coldfish]

The Doug trade seemed to be reactionary. They had had a team with no shooters and shooting was just becoming all the rage so they went out and got the best one. Unfortunately he wasn't a very good player.

That is true. But would the move to get Ja not be similar, in that the Bulls would be moving up to fill a perceived need?

If that's why they're doing it, then yes. But Ja looks like a potential superstar whereas Doug's upside was some Wally Sczerbiak - Kyle Korver mashup (sp).

I think the primary difference on this is the evaluation of Ja. To me, he really doesn't stick out as being an exceptionally good #2 pick. He is largely there because so many other players disappointed. He could be a superstar but he could be a bust too.

Personally, I would rather have two shots (ie. not trade next year's pick) then put it all in the Ja bucket. Too much of a risk to me.

This isn't going to be well receive but:
Player A: 20.2p 6.0a 3.7r 30.3PER 57.3%ts
Player B: 24.5p 10.0a 5.7r 31.6PER 61.2%ts

Player A is Cam Payne in his soph year at Murray St. who was a complete bust in the NBA and one of the worst players I have ever seen. Player B is Ja this year. Ja is obviously better both statistically and by the eye test. That said, I think that people are fooling themselves if they have talked themselves into believing Ja is a can't miss superstar based on what he did at Murray State.

[sco]

That is true. But would the move to get Ja not be similar, in that the Bulls would be moving up to fill a perceived need?

If that's why they're doing it, then yes. But Ja looks like a potential superstar whereas Doug's upside was some Wally Sczerbiak - Kyle Korver mashup (sp).

I think the primary difference on this is the evaluation of Ja. To me, he really doesn't stick out as being an exceptionally good #2 pick. He is largely there because so many other players disappointed. He could be a superstar but he could be a bust too.

Personally, I would rather have two shots (ie. not trade next year's pick) then put it all in the Ja bucket. Too much of a risk to me.

This isn't going to be well receive but:
Player A: 20.2p 6.0a 3.7r 30.3PER 57.3%ts
Player B: 24.5p 10.0a 5.7r 31.6PER 61.2%ts

Player A is Cam Payne in his soph year at Murray St. who was a complete bust in the NBA and one of the worst players I have ever seen. Player B is Ja this year. Ja is obviously better both statistically and by the eye test. That said, I think that people are fooling themselves if they have talked themselves into believing Ja is a can't miss superstar based on what he did at Murray State.

I am in agreement that Ja is not a sure thing! He's just the proverbial best looking person of the opposite sex in the bar at 3 am (which is my analogy for this draft). Being the 2nd best of that lot is a strong relative statement, but likely a weak absolute one in terms of obvious NBA stars. IMO people are underrating the importance of PG 3pt shooting in this league...It's like being a non-rim protecting C.

[Red Larrivee]

I'm more concerned about fit than if Morant will be good or not, given the Bulls flourished with multiple initiators in February. Morant's passing looks good, though not all-time good. He's a good athlete, dynamic in tempo, and got to the line 9 times a game. I'm skeptical of what he does without the ball though.

I wouldn't give up a future first, but given how desperate the Bulls may be to get a point guard, I could see Paxson deciding to do it anyway if they're in that 3-4 range.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Axolotl]

No one is trading down from #1, and trading up to anything lower than #2 doesn't seem worth it.

I'd be really hesitant on sending out future 1st round picks for Morant, who is the only viable target to trade up for. As I wouldn't want to send out any of Markkanen, LaVine, Porter or Carter for Morant either, it's hard to see a working trade option.

It might happen if the Bulls are at #3, and whoever is at #2 likes Barrett. They might then "blackmail" the Bulls to trade up with the 3rd pick and... something, getting the player they want and some extra. Or, maybe, if the Bulls are at #4, and someone likes Culver enough, or doesn't really want to draft a PG.

[Mech Engineer]

No one is trading down from #1, and trading up to anything lower than #2 doesn't seem worth it.

I'd be really hesitant on sending out future 1st round picks for Morant, who is the only viable target to trade up for. As I wouldn't want to send out any of Markkanen, LaVine, Porter or Carter for Morant either, it's hard to see a working trade option.

It might happen if the Bulls are at #3, and whoever is at #2 likes Barrett. They might then "blackmail" the Bulls to trade up with the 3rd pick and... something, getting the player they want and some extra. Or, maybe, if the Bulls are at #4, and someone likes Culver enough, or doesn't really want to draft a PG.

Yeah...realistically teams will ask for the Bulls pick this year plus one of Carter, Lauri or next year's pick. All of the second part are unknowns right now(although Lauri has more data). Giving up any of the three(Carter, Lauri, next year's pick) is dangerous because all of them can be great pieces/better than Morant by themselves. That something extra should not be anything unknown because drafts/young players are crap-shoots.

Dallas took the risk for Luka last year. Dallas went after Luka not based on any positional need/fit but just based on his potential/talent. If that's the case, maybe it's worth it. But, even if there is 25% reasoning that fit/need is also there with Morant, it's a red flag.

There should be 0% consideration for his fit/need on the team when selecting that high and also moving up. That's how you end up building average teams because the fit will work to a certain extent and the team reaches a plateau. That is what Kirk Hinrich was doing to the Bulls.

[logical_art]

That is true. But would the move to get Ja not be similar, in that the Bulls would be moving up to fill a perceived need?

If that's why they're doing it, then yes. But Ja looks like a potential superstar whereas Doug's upside was some Wally Sczerbiak - Kyle Korver mashup (sp).

I think the primary difference on this is the evaluation of Ja. To me, he really doesn't stick out as being an exceptionally good #2 pick. He is largely there because so many other players disappointed. He could be a superstar but he could be a bust too.

Personally, I would rather have two shots (ie. not trade next year's pick) then put it all in the Ja bucket. Too much of a risk to me.

This isn't going to be well receive but:
Player A: 20.2p 6.0a 3.7r 30.3PER 57.3%ts
Player B: 24.5p 10.0a 5.7r 31.6PER 61.2%ts

Player A is Cam Payne in his soph year at Murray St. who was a complete bust in the NBA and one of the worst players I have ever seen. Player B is Ja this year. Ja is obviously better both statistically and by the eye test. That said, I think that people are fooling themselves if they have talked themselves into believing Ja is a can't miss superstar based on what he did at Murray State.

This is perfectly fair. I haven't watched enough of him yet to have a strong opinion. All I'm saying is that if your evaluation of a player indicates hes going to be great, you should trade up even if a) 2nd picks havent done well or b) you're a diversify your risks/chances with more draft picks kind of guy.

The evaluation of the player dictates the move, IMO.

[TheJordanRule]

If that's why they're doing it, then yes. But Ja looks like a potential superstar whereas Doug's upside was some Wally Sczerbiak - Kyle Korver mashup (sp).

I think the primary difference on this is the evaluation of Ja. To me, he really doesn't stick out as being an exceptionally good #2 pick. He is largely there because so many other players disappointed. He could be a superstar but he could be a bust too.

Personally, I would rather have two shots (ie. not trade next year's pick) then put it all in the Ja bucket. Too much of a risk to me.

This isn't going to be well receive but:
Player A: 20.2p 6.0a 3.7r 30.3PER 57.3%ts
Player B: 24.5p 10.0a 5.7r 31.6PER 61.2%ts

Player A is Cam Payne in his soph year at Murray St. who was a complete bust in the NBA and one of the worst players I have ever seen. Player B is Ja this year. Ja is obviously better both statistically and by the eye test. That said, I think that people are fooling themselves if they have talked themselves into believing Ja is a can't miss superstar based on what he did at Murray State.

This is perfectly fair. I haven't watched enough of him yet to have a strong opinion. All I'm saying is that if your evaluation of a player indicates hes going to be great, you should trade up even if a) 2nd picks havent done well or b) you're a diversify your risks/chances with more draft picks kind of guy.

The evaluation of the player dictates the move, IMO.

The Cameron Payne comparison is ridiculous and clearly the opposite of fair. Cam was drafted in the mid 1st round. Ja's a consensus Top 3, arguably Top 2 pick. Cam had borderline athletic ability. Ja has elite. Cam had below average distribution skills. Ja has elite. And on and on. Ja may or may not be a superstar, but his floor is average NBA starting PG. The foolishness of comparing Ja to Cam cannot be overstated.

[coldfish]

I think the primary difference on this is the evaluation of Ja. To me, he really doesn't stick out as being an exceptionally good #2 pick. He is largely there because so many other players disappointed. He could be a superstar but he could be a bust too.

Personally, I would rather have two shots (ie. not trade next year's pick) then put it all in the Ja bucket. Too much of a risk to me.

This isn't going to be well receive but:
Player A: 20.2p 6.0a 3.7r 30.3PER 57.3%ts
Player B: 24.5p 10.0a 5.7r 31.6PER 61.2%ts

Player A is Cam Payne in his soph year at Murray St. who was a complete bust in the NBA and one of the worst players I have ever seen. Player B is Ja this year. Ja is obviously better both statistically and by the eye test. That said, I think that people are fooling themselves if they have talked themselves into believing Ja is a can't miss superstar based on what he did at Murray State.

This is perfectly fair. I haven't watched enough of him yet to have a strong opinion. All I'm saying is that if your evaluation of a player indicates hes going to be great, you should trade up even if a) 2nd picks havent done well or b) you're a diversify your risks/chances with more draft picks kind of guy.

The evaluation of the player dictates the move, IMO.

The Cameron Payne comparison is ridiculous and clearly the opposite of fair. Cam was drafted in the mid 1st round. Ja's a consensus Top 3, arguably Top 2 pick. Cam had borderline athletic ability. Ja has elite. Cam had below average distribution skills. Ja has elite. And on and on. Ja may or may not be a superstar, but his floor is average NBA starting PG. The foolishness of comparing Ja to Cam cannot be overstated.

The issue is that Cam looked like he could actually be an NBA player when he played there due to the competition. Obviously, he wasn't even close to that. How much better does Ja look due to the same factors?

There is absolutely no way that Ja's floor is being the 15th best point guard on the planet.

[Ccwatercraft]

I find it quite difficult to say what the franchise should be willing to do or not do simply because its all hypothetical at this point, I have no idea if we'll draw #2, 4, or 7 and who is in front of us at that point either. Much easier to digest and speculate once the ping pong balls fall and then you would know who might be available, and who our trade partners might be.

Until then, sure of course i'd be willing to move up, but I have no idea how far or what the cost would be so its pretty to say "yup"

[Bandit King]

I think trading down is more likely if we don’t get Zion or Ja and we get the second best point guard in this draft.