If we get the #1 pick

freddy · Post #1 » by **freddy** » Mon May 20, 2013 2:28 pm

If we get the #1 pick would you consider this trade?

Biedrins, Klay Thompson, Harrison Barnes for Singler, English, #1 Pick

Does Golden State consider this trade? I know on their board they mentioned trading one or both of those 2 for more of a "play-maker" at the SG or SF position. McLemore would fit that description at #1. We could fill the 2 wing spots with young players who can shoot. Golden State also saves some money by trading Biedrins for cap-space.

Do we consider this trade?

I go back and forth on this trade. Since no one in this draft class is regarded as a can't miss all-star I think this could be worth doing.

rmfc · Post #2 » by **rmfc** » Mon May 20, 2013 2:34 pm

McLemore is not a "play maker".

GS would not make that trade.

ComboGuardCity · Post #3 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Mon May 20, 2013 2:42 pm

Yeah but Golden State laughs.

Mr. Krabs · Post #4 » by **Mr. Krabs** » Mon May 20, 2013 3:24 pm

McLemore is just a more athletic Klay Thompson, he's not a playmaker of any kind.

ComboGuardCity · Post #5 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Mon May 20, 2013 3:27 pm

If we get #1, we should try and swing a deal with New Orleans who would likely pick #6.

#1 pick for Gordon, #6, 2014 unprotected.

Goldtop · Post #6 » by **Goldtop** » Mon May 20, 2013 3:37 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:If we get #1, we should try and swing a deal with New Orleans who would likely pick #6.

#1 pick for Gordon, #6, 2014 unprotected.

We will be able to get a SG at 7, imo, who's going to be just as good as Gordon, minus the huge contract and injury problems.

I think Mclemore, Oladipo, and Shabazz will all be just as good

If we get #1, definitely no reason to make that trade, for Gordon at least.

I'd trade #1 for #6 and a PG like Vasquez perhaps, and then use #6 to draft our SG.

ComboGuardCity · Post #7 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Mon May 20, 2013 3:39 pm

Goldtop wrote:
ComboGuardCity wrote:If we get #1, we should try and swing a deal with New Orleans who would likely pick #6.

#1 pick for Gordon, #6, 2014 unprotected.

We will be able to get a SG at 7, imo, who's going to be just as good as Gordon, minus the huge contract and injury problems.

I think Mclemore, Oladipo, and Shabazz will all be just as good

If we get #1, definitely no reason to make that trade, for Gordon at least.

I'd trade #1 for #6 and a PG like Vasquez perhaps, and then use #6 to draft our SG.

Gordon isn't the selling point of that trade. We absorb his contract + get a likely lotto pick in a stacked draft.

Brapman · Post #8 » by **Brapman** » Mon May 20, 2013 3:39 pm

We consider and make that trade in 2 seconds flat.

Barnes is a better player than anybody in this draft. Klay Thompson is one of the better young 3 pt shooters in the game. Singler and English would be totally replaced + + + by those two guys.

Golden State would never ever make that trade.

rmfc · Post #9 » by **rmfc** » Mon May 20, 2013 4:07 pm

Mr. Krabs wrote:McLemore is just a more athletic Klay Thompson,

Exactly.

Goldtop · Post #10 » by **Goldtop** » Mon May 20, 2013 4:26 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:
Goldtop wrote:
ComboGuardCity wrote:If we get #1, we should try and swing a deal with New Orleans who would likely pick #6.

#1 pick for Gordon, #6, 2014 unprotected.

We will be able to get a SG at 7, imo, who's going to be just as good as Gordon, minus the huge contract and injury problems.

I think Mclemore, Oladipo, and Shabazz will all be just as good

If we get #1, definitely no reason to make that trade, for Gordon at least.

I'd trade #1 for #6 and a PG like Vasquez perhaps, and then use #6 to draft our SG.

Gordon isn't the selling point of that trade. We absorb his contract + get a likely lotto pick in a stacked draft.

yeah, thats true, that 2014 pick is very valuable. But that altogether seems like NO is giving up too much just for the #1 in bad draft.

DocRI · Post #11 » by **DocRI** » Mon May 20, 2013 5:31 pm

RE: The OP — I agree with what others have already written; no way GS offers that much for the #1 pick.

RE: CGC's trade idea with NO — Again, we do that in a heartbeat, but I can't believe New Orleans offers that much just to move up five spots.

However (and I expect to see a LOT more posts like this between now and draft night), if ever there was a year to trade back, it's this year, and that's not a knock on this draft class (which I actually don't think is as weak as is being made out). It's just that with no clear-cut #1, the draft looks to me a lot like an NFL Draft rather than an NBA one, where teams focus on their needs within a tier of players and pick the guy who fits them best from that group. For instance, say we get #1 overall; since we have no need for Noel and would take McLemore there anyhow, why not trade back a few spots with a team who desperately wants Noel, pick up any asset(s) we can, and still get the guy we would've taken #1? Another likely scenario — we draw #7, Shabazz is sliding down the board, and a team who wants a big man like Zeller or Len offers us their pick plus assets to move down a few slots (say, OKC offers #12 & PJ3)? Once again, we get a free asset and still draft the player atop our own board. You see trades like these at the NFL Draft all the time, and I would NOT be surprised to see a couple of that ilk this year.

gusman · Post #12 » by **gusman** » Mon May 20, 2013 5:34 pm

This thread is over rating the value of the #1 pick.

Brapman · Post #13 » by **Brapman** » Mon May 20, 2013 5:57 pm

gusman wrote:This thread is over rating the value of the #1 pick.

The #1 pick this year? I honestly believe no team wants it. This is a horrible year to draft 1-3. I believe teams would rather spend less money on a lottery pick that comes after the big $ high picks. There is no A.D., or Drummond, or Irving this year.

ImHeisenberg · Post #14 » by **ImHeisenberg** » Mon May 20, 2013 6:06 pm

Brapman wrote:
gusman wrote:This thread is over rating the value of the #1 pick.

The #1 pick this year? I honestly believe no team wants it. This is a horrible year to draft 1-3. I believe teams would rather spend less money on a lottery pick that comes after the big $ high picks. There is no A.D., or Drummond, or Irving this year.

These two poster get it.

You might be able to trade back, but you probably aren't going to get a whole lot in terms of assets along with that move.

Brapman · Post #15 » by **Brapman** » Mon May 20, 2013 6:27 pm

ImHeisenberg wrote:
Brapman wrote:
gusman wrote:This thread is over rating the value of the #1 pick.

The #1 pick this year? I honestly believe no team wants it. This is a horrible year to draft 1-3. I believe teams would rather spend less money on a lottery pick that comes after the big $ high picks. There is no A.D., or Drummond, or Irving this year.

These two poster get it.

You might be able to trade back, but you probably aren't going to get a whole lot in terms of assets along with that move.

I actually think that it would be easier to trade from the #7 or #8 slot. This draft has some very nice depth of big men - guys who could contribute as a 3rd big man or good starting big man down the line. Zeller, Adams, Dieng, Withey, Gobert, Len, Olnyk, Bennett - guys that teams drafting after us might want badly enough to give us an asset that makes it worth it for us to trade down, instead of snapping up the guy we really want.

IMO, the Pistons have a nice group of guards that we'll be able to choose from at 7 or 8, but also later in the lottery. Unless there's a guy that we think has separated from the pack, maybe Joe will find a deal. But, IMO, it would have to be for an asset (a player, a 2014 draft pick) that is better (or worth more) than the young guys we already have.

need4detroit · Post #16 » by **need4detroit** » Mon May 20, 2013 6:42 pm

Ben MacLemore

Post #17 » by **ajaX82** » Mon May 20, 2013 6:52 pm

need4detroit wrote:Ben MacLemore

Yup. This draft sucks and trading back is probably not likely. Pick him and be glad that we filled a need with a really good player.

The Penguin · Post #18 » by **The Penguin** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:01 pm

How realistic is trading up? Could #7, Singler, #38 for #1/#2 and Tyrus Thomas or Al Harrington work?

For me and the Pistons roster this draft is McLemore then a gap before everyone else. I'd trade anything outside of Drummond/Monroe/Knight and take back whatever contract to move up and get him.

Goldtop · Post #19 » by **Goldtop** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:16 pm

I dont think we will get #1, as that seems reserved for teams who Stern owes a favor to, but maybe we could get 2nd or 3rd.

If we got 3rd though, would it really make much difference?

Because Mclemore and Porter could both be gone, and we'd be choosing between Oladipo and Shabazz anyways at SG, both of which could be there at 7.

Sure its better to have that guaranteed option at 3, but in this draft it really isnt much difference between 3 and 7 anyways in terms of talent. The caliber of talent at 3 is the same at 7, imo.

Heck if we had #1 I'd still be just as uncertain on who to pick.

DocRI · Post #20 » by **DocRI** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:30 pm

Goldtop wrote:Because Mclemore and Porter could both be gone, and we'd be choosing between Oladipo and Shabazz anyways at SG, both of which could be there at 7.

I think Noel is all but a lock to go in the top two (even despite the injury), which would mean we'd have our choice of McLemore or Porter at #3. Heck, there's even a chance Burke crashes the top of the board, too. Again, I really think this is a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" type of draft; depending on how the balls bounce tomorrow evening, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the top four teams or so all get the guy they most want.

Piston Prince wrote:How realistic is trading up? Could #7, Singler, #38 for #1/#2 and Tyrus Thomas or Al Harrington work?

For me and the Pistons roster this draft is MacLemore then a gap before everyone else. I'd trade anything outside of Drummond/Monroe/Knight and take back whatever contract to move up and get him.

If we could use minor assets and our raw cap space to facilitate getting McLemore, I think we simply have to do it. But I think the key there is either CHA or ORL (in these examples) not being able to get "their guy." For instance, if ORL lands #2 and Noel goes #1, and they don't want Mac or Porter and have their heart set on a big man, then sure, they'll consider that type of deal 'cuz they shed Harrington and still land Zeller or Len. But if Noel's their top rated prospect and he's still on the board, they won't even take phone calls.