RealGM

BullyKing wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

BullyKing wrote:
If you are really unable to find any separation between ANY of six different prospects at the top of the draft then you're not scouting closely enough or you don't care enough to voice any actual opinion. There is no conceivable way that all six of these guys grade out completely equally as players and as fits.

I mean, you can always arbitrarily rank guys, but if they grade out pretty darned close, like the difference between the ten spots is just so minute, then they’re essentially the same tier. Pluses and minuses on them all, but when it comes down to it, it’s pretty close to flat. And it would only make sense to trade back, get value, and still get one of the guys you like really, really well, and have two players on 4 year contracts for equal to the cost of the one.

Sure, theoretically all players could be so close to each other that it doesn't make a difference. But I don't think that is actually true in reality. But I also don't believe this report as a more credible reporter said that the Pelicans were considering the Hawks offer of 8 + 10 for 4, which indicates the Hawks made that offer. I can't imagine 8 + 10 might not be enough for 4 (given that the Pels haven't accepted) but 10 + 17 is enough for 5.

I’m not at all trying to say that that reporter is accurate in any way. Just saying that trade downs make sense sometime. You give up something, you get something. I’m not sure why that comes off as crazy. Sometimes trading up is worth it. Sometimes trading down is worth it. Sometimes staying the same spot is worth it. 10/17 for 5 isn’t insane if it’s part of a bigger deal. Absorbing $15m in salaries as I suggested earlier would help bring it closer.

Or are we arguing just to argue? I’m including me here.

I don't have to eat Harrison Barnes crow. He opted out. Yes! I win. Or least not lose, because I went hard at that and was pretty much alone.

As for the Hawks rumors, people have to remember that this is the silly season. They're simultaneously rumored to be trading up for picks Nos. 5, 4, & 3. They clearly want to send the impression that they have a bunch of options and that the train is leaving the station.

jbk1234 wrote:As for the Hawks rumors, people have to remember that this is the silly season. They're simultaneously rumored to be trading up for picks Nos. 5, 4, & 3. They clearly want to send the impression that they have a bunch of options and that the train is leaving the station.

True.

And/or teams in the 3,4,5 spot may want to use the fact that ATL has picks and could want to move up to drive up the price for other teams coveting those picks.

Givony (ESPN) says Atlanta offered 8 and 10 for 3, Knicks said no:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27001537/source-knicks-reject-hawks-offer-no-3-pick

Scoot McGroot wrote:

BullyKing wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:
I mean, you can always arbitrarily rank guys, but if they grade out pretty darned close, like the difference between the ten spots is just so minute, then they’re essentially the same tier. Pluses and minuses on them all, but when it comes down to it, it’s pretty close to flat. And it would only make sense to trade back, get value, and still get one of the guys you like really, really well, and have two players on 4 year contracts for equal to the cost of the one.

Sure, theoretically all players could be so close to each other that it doesn't make a difference. But I don't think that is actually true in reality. But I also don't believe this report as a more credible reporter said that the Pelicans were considering the Hawks offer of 8 + 10 for 4, which indicates the Hawks made that offer. I can't imagine 8 + 10 might not be enough for 4 (given that the Pels haven't accepted) but 10 + 17 is enough for 5.

I’m not at all trying to say that that reporter is accurate in any way. Just saying that trade downs make sense sometime. You give up something, you get something. I’m not sure why that comes off as crazy. Sometimes trading up is worth it. Sometimes trading down is worth it. Sometimes staying the same spot is worth it. 10/17 for 5 isn’t insane if it’s part of a bigger deal. Absorbing $15m in salaries as I suggested earlier would help bring it closer.

Or are we arguing just to argue? I’m including me here.

Ha. I think so. My position is basically that I don’t care how flat a grouping is ranged, I’d never trade down for that low value based on past precedent.

BullyKing wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

BullyKing wrote:

Sure, theoretically all players could be so close to each other that it doesn't make a difference. But I don't think that is actually true in reality. But I also don't believe this report as a more credible reporter said that the Pelicans were considering the Hawks offer of 8 + 10 for 4, which indicates the Hawks made that offer. I can't imagine 8 + 10 might not be enough for 4 (given that the Pels haven't accepted) but 10 + 17 is enough for 5.

I’m not at all trying to say that that reporter is accurate in any way. Just saying that trade downs make sense sometime. You give up something, you get something. I’m not sure why that comes off as crazy. Sometimes trading up is worth it. Sometimes trading down is worth it. Sometimes staying the same spot is worth it. 10/17 for 5 isn’t insane if it’s part of a bigger deal. Absorbing $15m in salaries as I suggested earlier would help bring it closer.

Or are we arguing just to argue? I’m including me here.

Ha. I think so. My position is basically that I don’t care how flat a grouping is ranged, I’d never trade down for that low value based on past precedent.

And I'm the guy that says past precedent won't force me to do what I think isn't best for my team.

Absolutely, there's more value to picking 5th versus 10th if you view the same guys being available and all being pretty equal from 5-10. You choose who you want versus who you're left with. But, If I see it pretty equal from 5-10, and I think there's guy at 17 can also help me, and I can also dump a couple contracts in it, so that I can use another trade piece to it's fullest advantage? I'm going to consider that. Maybe it's 8 and 17 and dumping some salary, but I'm not going to get stuck focused on having to have one guy, when I'm seeing him as equal as 5 or 10 other people, If I can make it worth my while.

I'm about specific players and not draft slots. We can talk in theory all we want. In that case, I'm going to be a move up guy because this is a top end talent league. But this close to the draft we are talking about specific players. If I really like a guy I'm giving up a minor asset like 10 or 17 to assure I get him. Unless I'm just absolutely convinced that I'm the only team that likes the guy then maybe I risk it.

But get the guy you want. If you are right you won't ever regret the price. I regret nothing about having giving up the pick the Hawks now hold for Luka.

https://247sports.com/nba/mavericks/Article/EXCLUSIVE-Clever-puzzle-pieces-DO-give-Lakers-room-for-LeBron-Davis-AND-max-free-agent--132970888/

Not a rumor. Just a piece on the Lakers possibly being able to have max cap space July 6th. For those unfamiliar with David Lord(most of you I'm guessing) he's like the Dallas Smitty in terms of being a real cap nerd. If he says its doable, my guess would be its doable.

Anyway just sharing in case anyone cares. A bit of a read, but not too bad.

Texas Chuck wrote:https://247sports.com/nba/mavericks/Article/EXCLUSIVE-Clever-puzzle-pieces-DO-give-Lakers-room-for-LeBron-Davis-AND-max-free-agent--132970888/

Not a rumor. Just a piece on the Lakers possibly being able to have max cap space July 6th. For those unfamiliar with David Lord(most of you I'm guessing) he's like the Dallas Smitty in terms of being a real cap nerd. If he says its doable, my guess would be its doable.

Anyway just sharing in case anyone cares. A bit of a read, but not too bad.

Good read.

I think Frank might be available.

Cold water on Beal trade talks

Well, things in Boston just got very interesting...

Mamba4Goat wrote:

Read on Twitter

Well, things in Boston just got very interesting...

A four year deal! Who do we think is shelling that out? That’s a lot. Also probably means we should take the JV and Barnes reporting with a grain of salt. I love the NBA.

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:

Mamba4Goat wrote:

Read on Twitter

Well, things in Boston just got very interesting...

A four year deal! Who do we think is shelling that out? That’s a lot. Also probably means we should take the JV and Barnes reporting with a grain of salt. I love the NBA.

Yeah, if he's leaving Boston that's a hefty amount of money being taken off the market by a big. Could change things for Vuc/Val.

jbk1234 wrote:Cold water on Beal trade talks

Read on Twitter

I went back recently and read Beals comments and I think more than a lot of other guys he really doesn’t want to leave. Losing a lot next year could change that, but I don’t think the Wiz will move him this offseason

Come get this money Al

Horford to LAL. Roll out that Quadruple Tower lineup of LBJ/Kuzma/Horford/Davis. Who needs guards anyway?