Trade Down Ideas

collin_k41 · Post #21 » by **collin_k41** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:13 am

Thanks a bunch shrink that post was awesome. So far I agree with you in the fact that there isn't a deal good enough to warrant trading a potential superstar in OJ Mayo.

MN Die Hard · Post #22 » by **MN Die Hard** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:58 am

I want to keep Mayo but if we trade down my first call would be to the Clippers in a deal that gets us #7 and our future pick back. A rebuilding team cannot afford to owe future picks.

andyhop · Post #23 » by **andyhop** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:54 am

MN Die Hard wrote:I want to keep Mayo but if we trade down my first call would be to the Clippers in a deal that gets us #7 and our future pick back. A rebuilding team cannot afford to owe future picks.

I sort of agree with you but if we get all 3 first round picks possible next year and use one of our second rounders to leave in Europe for a couple of years or trade both for a 1st this year then that is a lot of young guys on the team, losing a late lotto pick in 2010 or 2011 whilst undesirable isn't likely to be a massive blow to the franchise.If you have a guy to develop in Europe than as long as he pans out there then that can be your 1st rounder in the year we have to give our pick to the Clips.

It really depends on how you see Mayo, if you believe he is going to be anything close to expectations then I don't see a deal worth doing.If you believe he isn't going to come near to matching the hype then lots of deals make sense.

#3 + Jaric for #7 + (some Maggette assets) + MIN future 1st.

Given both the Raps and Clips seem to agree on a Maggette for Ford swap, turn that into a 3 way deal with us.

Raptors give Ford
Raptors get Maggette

Clipppers give Maggette ,#7,Wolves future 1st.
Clippers get #3,Jaric

Wolves give #3,Jaric
Wolves get Ford,#7,Min future 1st.

Raptors would do it,Clippers might not ( Maggette and #7 plus taking on Jaric is too much I think for Mayo maybe add something to increase their return Bos 09 1st :dontknow:

),Wolves might as long as the right player was there at #7 (hopefully Lopez though I doubt it).

Line up

Ford
Foye
Brewer
Al
Lopez

Vindicater · Post #24 » by **Vindicater** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:22 am

I say keep it because Mayo will be a good addition next to Foye

Plus

THeres always the chance RIley is as dumb as he makes out to be and he drafts Mayo leaving Beasely all to us, that would be SWEET

Keep the pick

Tekkenlaw · Post #25 » by **Tekkenlaw** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:01 am

I don't want to move down at all, but if we did, I like that 3 way deal I've seen proposed that nets us the 7 and 8.

gjn19 · Post #26 » by **gjn19** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:08 am

first top 3 draft pick we have since 1992, and people want to trade it away? are you serious? also, i a draft that has such clear-cut top 3 prospects as any before (considering all the mocks out there).

if anything, we should trade up! i will NOT be happy with anything less than rose/beasley/mayo.

keep this pick.

Dewey · Post #27 » by **Dewey** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:52 pm

Yes, we need to keep #3 and see what happens.

The only deal I can see is acquiring Bogut from Milwaukee and then sliding down to their spot and taking the BPA.

Bogut, Jefferson, Gomes, Brewer, and Foye is a decent lineup.

Vindicater · Post #28 » by **Vindicater** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:17 am

Id take Bogut over anyone at 3 (cause beasely and rose wont be there)

NYDeeg4 · Post #29 » by **NYDeeg4** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:22 am

KNICKS TRADE
Crawford
Chandler
#6 pick
for
T-Wolves Trade
Jaric
Madsen
#3 pick

Knicks do it so they have a chance to draft a potential all star player such as rose (who is bulls pick beasley, heat gets mayo, rose goes third) or Mayo. If not at least we get the pg/sg of the future in Bayless. We have almost the identical player in Balkman with Chandler, and we lose crawford

T-Wolves do it, because they improve their sg position with crawford over jaric, lose Madsen's contract for a decent player in Chandler, and get the 6th pick in which players such as lopez or love should be still available.

Post #30 » by **revprodeji** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:44 am

MN does not talk to NY without Lee being involved. Chandler does nothing for us and Crawford is a horrible defender and contract.

NYDeeg4 · Post #31 » by **NYDeeg4** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:46 am

Fine replace Chandler with Lee than

Post #32 » by **revprodeji** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:59 am

I am still not sure if MN does it.

I guess it comes down to the Mayo debate. If MN is convinced Mayo is a stud then we would not trade down. If we either do not think Mayo will want to come to MN or if we think Love/Lopez/Gallinari are in the same boat as Mayo then this deal is something that could be interesting.

Honestly, I have not seen enough of Crawford. WHat I remember is he is a very creative combo guard, but a bad defender and has a bad shooting selection.

Otherwise, good deal. I could be onboard with a

Lee/Crawford/6th for Jaric/Madsen/3rd...but only with the facts I list above.

andyhop · Post #33 » by **andyhop** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:33 am

revprodeji wrote:I am still not sure if MN does it.

I guess it comes down to the Mayo debate. If MN is convinced Mayo is a stud then we would not trade down. If we either do not think Mayo will want to come to MN or if we think Love/Lopez/Gallinari are in the same boat as Mayo then this deal is something that could be interesting.

Honestly, I have not seen enough of Crawford. WHat I remember is he is a very creative combo guard, but a bad defender and has a bad shooting selection.

Otherwise, good deal. I could be onboard with a

Lee/Crawford/6th for Jaric/Madsen/3rd...but only with the facts I list above.

If Mayo doesn't want to come to Minny you still draft him if you believe he is the best pick it isn't like he has much choice in the matter of where he plays as I really don't see him going to play in Europe and the Wolves would keep his rights for the next 3 years anyway.

From Larry Coon's CBA FAQ's

If the player was still eligible to play in college before he was drafted, the team retains the player's draft rights until the draft the player would have entered had he not left college early. For example, if a team drafts a college sophomore in 2005, they retain his draft rights until the date of the 2007 draft. Note that the current NCAA rules state that players lose their NCAA eligibility if they are drafted, so the player could not return or go on to play college ball.

ChazzleDazzle · Post #34 » by **ChazzleDazzle** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:14 pm

NYDeeg4 wrote:Knicks do it so they have a chance to draft a potential all star player such as rose (who is bulls pick beasley, heat gets mayo, rose goes third)

That scenario has a 0% chance of happening. If the Bulls take Beasley, the Heat will trip all over themselves getting to the podium to take Rose.

And if somehow pigs learn how to fly and they don't, the Wolves will.

karch34 · Post #35 » by **karch34** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:18 am

revprodeji wrote:I am still not sure if MN does it.

I guess it comes down to the Mayo debate. If MN is convinced Mayo is a stud then we would not trade down. If we either do not think Mayo will want to come to MN or if we think Love/Lopez/Gallinari are in the same boat as Mayo then this deal is something that could be interesting.

Honestly, I have not seen enough of Crawford. WHat I remember is he is a very creative combo guard, but a bad defender and has a bad shooting selection.

Otherwise, good deal. I could be onboard with a

Lee/Crawford/6th for Jaric/Madsen/3rd...but only with the facts I list above.

I like Lee as a backup PF and while I like Balkman, I don't see anything besides experience he would bring over Brewer so he wouldn't need to be included. I agree that if we feel it's almost as good at #6 then maybe we consider it. I have the same thoughts about Crawford, he can score a lot, but I don't think he's a high percentage shooter and big scorer on a bad team worries me.