06/19 ESPN & DX.com Speculation

randy84 · Post #561 » by **randy84** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:04 pm

So bern do you believe that Randolph will not be able to improve or do you think this is the highest potential that he will ever reach?

wichmae · Post #562 » by **wichmae** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:09 pm

Link is fixed.

cam2win · Post #563 » by **cam2win** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:10 pm

I've read every post in this topic and most of the other posts regarding Randolph and the only thing that I've seen that qualifies Randolph as a 3 is the fact he's to soft to play the 4. Unless the ability to dribble a basketball disqualifies you from playing PF on our team?

I've really tried to see what Wise and others have. I saw him play at LSU, I've watched highlight videos of him, read everything posted on here about him. All I read makes me think Marcus Haislip with a slightly better handle.

All this talk of having talent to make the playoffs now is just fluff if they make this pick, and I will have lost a good amount of trust in what they have been saying. It will be 2012 by the time any of us know if he's any kind of player at all.

Bernman · Post #564 » by **Bernman** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:11 pm

randy84 wrote:So bern do you believe that Randolph will not be able to improve or do you think this is the highest potential that he will every reach?

Why draft a guy who has to make a bigger leap than anyone just to be an asset as an NBA player? It's not like he's the only young player in this draft. Rose, Beasley, Gordon, Mayo, Bayless, Love, Westbrook, Lopez, Koufos, Greene, Speights, Gallinari, Batum, Augustin, and Hickson are all young, but they've proven much more than he has already. Intensity, awareness, overall basketball I.Q. are hard to improve after an early age. Lateral and first step quickness are basically impossible. Some player's shooting has improved dramatically, but they are the exception and not the rule. He needs to improve on so much just to be a decent NBA player.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #565 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:20 pm

Maybe we are in the mix for the Portland trade. I'm not sure who we would send them, but I know that Hammond spoke highly of picks in the teens and getting players that could help you immediately at that point in the draft.

randy84 · Post #566 » by **randy84** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:21 pm

His biggest asset, beside shot blocking, is his lateral quickness and first step. That's how he is able to get out on the break so quick. The scouts even say that.

Actually, how big a leap does he have to make. He averaged 15 and 8 as a freshmen on a horrible team where he was the only guy other teams had to worry about.

Plus I doubt he has a bad basketball I.Q. Not sure where you got that from. He was a top five college basketball recruit behind Mayo, Beasley, Rose, and Gordon. So he must know something about playing basketball.

raferfenix · Post #567 » by **raferfenix** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:28 pm

I'm more than willing to give Hammond the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like Randolph would be a long term pick. As long as we are pretty certain he is a SF I bet it'd be worth the risk---committing to two paper thin PF's is a problem for me though.

RAtheMONsession · Post #568 » by **RAtheMONsession** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:29 pm

Balls2TheWalls wrote:Maybe we are in the mix for the Portland trade. I'm not sure who we would send them, but I know that Hammond spoke highly of picks in the teens and getting players that could help you immediately at that point in the draft.

Redd for #13, Outlaw, and Jack

Do we do it??

Then we can draft either.... Gordon at 8 or Rush at 13 and have our future SG. Have fun with the other pick

Balls2TheWalls · Post #569 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:30 pm

I'm not sure I like Redd for 13, Outlaw, and Jack. I think that we are getting back a bunch of backups and #13. The Sonics get #5 overall plus some for Allen, and we get benchies and #13? I don't like it D:

wichmae · Post #570 » by **wichmae** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:31 pm

one would think that if we were trying to attain another pick of some sort we would work out prospects around that draft range right.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #571 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:34 pm

Unless they were only interested in the guys they saw during that big workout they attended (Rush, Walker, etc.)

Balls2TheWalls · Post #572 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:35 pm

wichmae wrote:one would think that if we were trying to attain another pick of some sort we would work out prospects around that draft range right.

If that were true, we would be stacking picks in the 2nd round, since that is almost all we have worked out. However, with what has been going on lately, the pick at #13 sounds about right. Randolph has been falling, Alexander could fall to #13 (probably not though), and we worked out Greene, who might fit at #13. This makes me think that we are dealing #8 for a player and moving to #13 to get the best of Randolph, Alexander, or Greene that is still available.

Post #573 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:38 pm

wichmae wrote:one would think that if we were trying to attain another pick of some sort we would work out prospects around that draft range right.

Alexander and Green are both guys that could find themselves around pick #13. Maybe Randolph as well.

Post #574 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:39 pm

Looks like Balls covered it.

The guys we've worked out at #8 would have to be considered reaches, save maybe Randolph.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #575 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:40 pm

DrugBust wrote:
wichmae wrote:one would think that if we were trying to attain another pick of some sort we would work out prospects around that draft range right.

Alexander and Green are both guys that could find themselves around pick #13. Maybe Randolph as well.

DUNN DUNNN DUNNNNNNNN. I think that wichmae might have finally sent us the clue that made us figure it out. That or we are way off.

Licensed to Il · Post #576 » by **Licensed to Il** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:58 pm

I think the infamous Wichamae deal is:

Outalw, Jack, and 13 for Redd... I didn't run it through trade checker, but some form of that is workable.

Redd gives Portland a veteran shooter, and dare I say, a stellar quartet (of Oden, Aldridge, Redd, Roy). I think they are trying to alleviate the logjam of talented players (and push for minutes) by packaging some of their second tier guys.

But Outlaw is starting quality. Long, athletic, defensive minded, emerging offensive game... fits us well. Jarrett Jack is not a long term answer at PG, but he is big and strong for the position and I think he as most of the qualities Skiles values in a point guard. Remember, we aren't going to turn in to a contender overnight. I fully expect a move like this, where we add to the talent of our roster and bring in a few young and hungary guys willing to earn time out on the court.

I would be happy with this deal. How about we throw in the #8 and Portland gives us Rudy Fernandez?

wichmae · Post #577 » by **wichmae** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:02 pm

Its not even remotely close to being acceptable under the CBA.

Post #578 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:03 pm

LaFrentz, Webster and #13 for Redd is my ideal deal. Take one of Randolph, Alexander or Green at #13.

Only question would be what to do at #8?

CV, #8, a future #1 for #3? Take Mayo.

TheMachine · Post #579 » by **TheMachine** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:04 pm

Balls, I was thinking the same thing when I read the article.

The Portland blurb about them looking for a shooter makes sense. We have two of them who don't fit the new direction of the team focusing on toughness, defense, unselfhisness:

Redd for #13/Jack/Lafrentz/2nd rounder

(Mo will not be traded until after his BYC status expires, and I also feel for other reasons, Redd will be the first to go).

I truly believe that Redd and probably both Mo and CV will be traded before the season starts.

Hammond is like a new CEO trying to instill a new culture. One that has worked in Detroit centering around toughness, defense, unselfishness, and value. None of these 3 fit the bill. When a company embarks on establishing a radically different culture than that of the previous one, it must start from the top on down.
The first step was hiring a tough defense minded coach (President/Senior VP) like Skiles. The next is to replace your highest paid employees/mgrs.that don't fit the new culture (Redd/Mo) with those that fit the new culture (tough/aggressive/defensive/unselfish).

If a trade with Minny for #3 fails (which I truly believe includes Redd), this trade with Portland would accomplish a goal of replacing one of the top two (I believe Redd will be traded first).

This could be the important part of the Lawrence article, that we are being pointed to.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #580 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:06 pm

DrugBust wrote:LaFrentz, Webster and #13 for Redd is my ideal deal. Take one of Randolph, Alexander or Green at #13.

Only question would be what to do at #8?

CV, #8, a future #1 for #3? Take Mayo.

I don't like the future 1st, but if Hammond is sold on Mayo... go for it. I like the Redd deal.