RealGM

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1516459

Continue discussion here.

Bringing this from FA thread

realEAST wrote:

xpmar9x wrote:

G Buckets wrote:
Trading Lopez will open up for two max spaces.

Cousins, and Bradley would be my two targets.

If Cousins failed, maybe Jimmy could convince his bud Deandre.

Who knows what happens to Clippers this summer

I think Deandre has some big holes in his game, but he is an elite rim protector/rebounder and could be a piece of a contender. His contract is only a couple years and his age is a good fit.

Would folks consider Lopez, Rondo plus 16 (and/or Val or Portis) for Jordan?

Then, IMO, we'd have to get by with Niko at PF and find 2 good 3pt shooters at PG and SF - and we'd be interesting.

sco wrote:Bringing this from FA thread

realEAST wrote:

xpmar9x wrote:
If Cousins failed, maybe Jimmy could convince his bud Deandre.

Who knows what happens to Clippers this summer

I think Deandre has some big holes in his game, but he is an elite rim protector/rebounder and could be a piece of a contender. His contract is only a couple years and his age is a good fit.

Would folks consider Lopez, Rondo plus 16 (and/or Val or Portis) for Jordan?

Then, IMO, we'd have to get by with Niko at PF and find 2 good 3pt shooters at PG and SF - and we'd be interesting.

I would definitely do that trade, but I think the Clippers would have to be at a pretty desperate place to make it. They're not there yet, and won't be unless Paul jumps ship and Doc foolishly is determined to stay afloat.

Just to insure that the most important topic is noted again at the top of the new thread:

Please for the love of God trade Jimmy Butler and rebuild this team from the ground up.

DuckIII wrote:Just to insure that the most important topic is noted again at the top of the new thread:

Please for the love of God trade Jimmy Butler and rebuild this team from the ground up.

IF and ONLY IF we get 2 bonafied hi potential players/picks back.

sco wrote:

DuckIII wrote:Just to insure that the most important topic is noted again at the top of the new thread:

Please for the love of God trade Jimmy Butler and rebuild this team from the ground up.

IF and ONLY IF we get 2 bonafied hi potential players/picks back.

If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

DuckIII wrote:

sco wrote:

DuckIII wrote:Just to insure that the most important topic is noted again at the top of the new thread:

Please for the love of God trade Jimmy Butler and rebuild this team from the ground up.

IF and ONLY IF we get 2 bonafied hi potential players/picks back.

If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

You may be right, but I just think rushing to suck and hope you can draft your way out of it is fools gold. To me it's like having $100k in the bank and saying the best way to become a millionaire is to by 100k lottery tickets. Sure, there are numerous stories about millionaire lotto buyers, but it's easy to gloss over the many multiples of those people who pissed their money away.

My silly analogy aside, no way does the FO of one of the highest-attendance teams take one pick for a guy who keeps them competitive. They'd be risking way too much.

DuckIII wrote:

sco wrote:

DuckIII wrote:Just to insure that the most important topic is noted again at the top of the new thread:

Please for the love of God trade Jimmy Butler and rebuild this team from the ground up.

IF and ONLY IF we get 2 bonafied hi potential players/picks back.

If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

You really think he won't be worth one high potential asset back after this summer?

If not, then he's just not what we think he is. I mean plenty of high levels players have been traded with a year left for more.

League Circles wrote:

DuckIII wrote:

sco wrote:IF and ONLY IF we get 2 bonafied hi potential players/picks back.

If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

You really think he won't be worth one high potential asset back after this summer?

If not, then he's just not what we think he is. I mean plenty of high levels players have been traded with a year left for more.

Agree, isn't Paul George in a similar situation now?

sco wrote:

League Circles wrote:

DuckIII wrote:
If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

You really think he won't be worth one high potential asset back after this summer?

If not, then he's just not what we think he is. I mean plenty of high levels players have been traded with a year left for more.

Agree, isn't Paul George in a similar situation now?

His is even a bit worse (for Pacers, ofc) since he basically already did his FA a year early. But yeah, don't think we'd be able to get much next offseason for him.
Cousins type of deal, but without Vivek overestimating incoming guys factor. Unless he says he is going to resign to where he is traded, his value will be low. Even then, Bulls lose all the leverage in the deal. It's almost a season early S&T deal.

sco wrote:

League Circles wrote:

DuckIII wrote:
If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

You really think he won't be worth one high potential asset back after this summer?

If not, then he's just not what we think he is. I mean plenty of high levels players have been traded with a year left for more.

Agree, isn't Paul George in a similar situation now?

Yeah, he is. Tell me again who is offering high end lottery picks for him?

sco wrote:

League Circles wrote:

DuckIII wrote:
If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

You really think he won't be worth one high potential asset back after this summer?

If not, then he's just not what we think he is. I mean plenty of high levels players have been traded with a year left for more.

Agree, isn't Paul George in a similar situation now?

Love was traded for a #1 pick (and other lottery assets.. trash, but nevertheless assets) as an expiring UFA.

Some of the power-house teams interested in Jimmy may not be in position to offer a max. By the time Jimmy hits the market, Boston will probably be out of cap-space.

I suppose LAL is the team to watch out for (as far as Jimmy goes).

But sure, I agree that if you trade Jimmy, it's probably soon or never.

I'm okay with the PHILLY scenario:

Bayless, Okafor, Saric, Luwawu, #3, future 1st
Send out Jimmy, Grant and filler

Draft Fox, Jackson or Tatum. Retain Rondo depending on the draft pick.

You end up with a fun, young team.

If Philly signs a good player with the max (PG), and Simmons/Embiid stay healthy, this team actually becomes a top-3 seed in my book.

DuckIII wrote:

sco wrote:

League Circles wrote:You really think he won't be worth one high potential asset back after this summer?

If not, then he's just not what we think he is. I mean plenty of high levels players have been traded with a year left for more.

Agree, isn't Paul George in a similar situation now?

Yeah, he is. Tell me again who is offering high end lottery picks for him?

FWIW, here are the draft positions of the 15 all NBA players this year:
1st: 3
2nd: 1
3rd: 1
4th: 1
7th: 1
9th: 1
15th: 2
27th: 1
30th: 1
35th: 2
60th: 1

So tell me why a top 5 pick means much?

80 top 5 picks have entered the league and played at least 1 season since Lebron (the oldest of these players). Of the 80, just 6 are all NBA. Then there are 9/15 all nba guys that were taken 7th or later, and 7/15 were taken 15 or later. 4/10 additional all stars were taken 10th or later including round 2.

I can buy that a #1 pick is special. It somewhat often results in an all star player eventually. Picks 2 and 3 I guess also have some elevated value. But I just don't think there is much to support the notion that in the modern NBA, a #5 pick is really a lot better than say a #15 pick.

The higher the pick, the higher likelihood that you land a superior player. Its statistically inarguable and I'm not going to entertain nonsensical discussion to the contrary.

As for why I picked "top 5," I did it based on this specific draft. I think there are 5 very nice looking prospects, and then a little drop once you get to 6. And I think you will find that to be the consensus view.

League Circles wrote:

DuckIII wrote:

sco wrote:Agree, isn't Paul George in a similar situation now?

Yeah, he is. Tell me again who is offering high end lottery picks for him?

FWIW, here are the draft positions of the 15 all NBA players this year:
1st: 3
2nd: 1
3rd: 1
4th: 1
7th: 1
9th: 1
15th: 2
27th: 1
30th: 1
35th: 2
60th: 1

So tell me why a top 5 pick means much?

80 top 5 picks have entered the league and played at least 1 season since Lebron (the oldest of these players). Of the 80, just 6 are all NBA. Then there are 9/15 all nba guys that were taken 7th or later, and 7/15 were taken 15 or later. 4/10 additional all stars were taken 10th or later including round 2.

I can buy that a #1 pick is special. It somewhat often results in an all star player eventually. Picks 2 and 3 I guess also have some elevated value. But I just don't think there is much to support the notion that in the modern NBA, a #5 pick is really a lot better than say a #15 pick.

Because you're only looking at one year. Do that over the last decade and you'll find more and more players on such a list that were drafted higher than ones drafted lower. In any and every NBA, modern or old, the #5 pick is definitely better and more valuable and most of the time will lead to a better player, than the 15th pick.

I guess I still don't understand the logic of the 2018 plan.

Summer of 2016 Chicago had(after the trade)...
Butler(27) signed for 3 more years then a player option.
R.Lopez(28) signed for 3 more years.
McDermott(25) signed for 2 more years.
Mirotic(25) in the last year of his contract.
Gibson(31) in last year of his contract.
Snell(25) in last year of his contract.
Zipser, Falicio, Portis, Valentine on very small contracts.

Now toss in cap room of 37-40 million(which went to Wade and Rondo).

The FO decided to punt 2 years to get to 2018's summer to have a gutted roster with Butler, Lopez and a bunch of money?

They more then likely could have traded Gibson, Mirotic, Lopez and even McDermott for capspace if it's that important to them.

Now Chicago's looking at 2018's summer, Butler and Lopez are the only currently proven players that will still be on the roster.
Butler(29) last year of his contract.
Lopez(30) last year of his contract.
Grant, Portis, Valentine, Payne and 2 mid 1st round picks on small contracts.
And... 70-80 in cap space(and other teams will have max space also).

2018... not only do they need to justify punting 2 years of the franchise to open up cap space but they also need the great signings to justify going into the tax to sign Butler to the max(possibly super max) from year 30 to 34.

Once again... they should have blown it up last year and possibly got Sacramento's 1st round pick at 11-15 going along with their own high draft pick(for being bad)... and toss in whatever assets they may have got for trading Butler and Gibson last summer.

sco wrote:

DuckIII wrote:

sco wrote:IF and ONLY IF we get 2 bonafied hi potential players/picks back.

If it was the best offer, I'd take one such asset and run. No doubt about it. Because if we don't, after this year's trade deadline he won't command anywhere near that type of value. And I'm not rolling my dice on deadline deals. They basically never happen with high end talent.

You may be right, but I just think rushing to suck and hope you can draft your way out of it is fools gold. To me it's like having $100k in the bank and saying the best way to become a millionaire is to by 100k lottery tickets. Sure, there are numerous stories about millionaire lotto buyers, but it's easy to gloss over the many multiples of those people who pissed their money away.

My silly analogy aside, no way does the FO of one of the highest-attendance teams take one pick for a guy who keeps them competitive. They'd be risking way too much.

With that analogy it's more like if someone keeps taking money out. Your choices are to wait and keep letting them take it until you have no more or spend on lottery tickets where you at least have a chance of making money back. If you're going to be screwed either way you might as well pick the option that at least gives you a chance rather than wait for the inevitable.

DuckIII wrote:The higher the pick, the higher likelihood that you land a superior player. Its statistically inarguable and I'm not going to entertain nonsensical discussion to the contrary.

As for why I picked "top 5," I did it based on this specific draft. I think there are 5 very nice looking prospects, and then a little drop once you get to 6. And I think you will find that to be the consensus view.

I agree and even goin deeper having a top 5 pick is better than let's say 15 when trading. A high pick no matter how you chop it up is more valuable then the picks after it.

rowseyna wrote:

League Circles wrote:

DuckIII wrote:
Yeah, he is. Tell me again who is offering high end lottery picks for him?

FWIW, here are the draft positions of the 15 all NBA players this year:
1st: 3
2nd: 1
3rd: 1
4th: 1
7th: 1
9th: 1
15th: 2
27th: 1
30th: 1
35th: 2
60th: 1

So tell me why a top 5 pick means much?

80 top 5 picks have entered the league and played at least 1 season since Lebron (the oldest of these players). Of the 80, just 6 are all NBA. Then there are 9/15 all nba guys that were taken 7th or later, and 7/15 were taken 15 or later. 4/10 additional all stars were taken 10th or later including round 2.

I can buy that a #1 pick is special. It somewhat often results in an all star player eventually. Picks 2 and 3 I guess also have some elevated value. But I just don't think there is much to support the notion that in the modern NBA, a #5 pick is really a lot better than say a #15 pick.

Because you're only looking at one year. Do that over the last decade and you'll find more and more players on such a list that were drafted higher than ones drafted lower. In any and every NBA, modern or old, the #5 pick is definitely better and more valuable and most of the time will lead to a better player, than the 15th pick.

Part of my point is that this is decreasingly so due to 19 year olds being most of the draft class. I don't believe this is an anomaly but rather unless and until the rules are changed, the draft will continue to be more of a crap shoot than we remember from past decades.

Let's compare #5 and #15 picks:

At the #5 spot, in the past 15 years, there have been 3 players that anyone would ever have been excited to get:

Wade
Love
Cousins

At the #15 spot, there have been Kawhi and Giannis. I also personally think there have been better supporting players at #15 such as Lopez, Al Jefferson, Larry Sanders.

The separation just is not that much IMO. The #1 pick sure. Not the #5 IMO.

DuckIII wrote:The higher the pick, the higher likelihood that you land a superior player. Its statistically inarguable and I'm not going to entertain nonsensical discussion to the contrary.

Sure, but perhaps to not the extent your mind has been trained to believe over 3 decades.

As for why I picked "top 5," I did it based on this specific draft. I think there are 5 very nice looking prospects, and then a little drop once you get to 6. And I think you will find that to be the consensus view.

"Very nice looking" prospects isn't very precise. I presume 3 of them are PGs if not more. It's humorous to me that people can get excited about 3 players going up against the best and deepest that the league has to offer. For example Ball could (and IMO will) be a below average starting PG that "looks very nice". You know, a guy who drives losses.