Trading the 2009 #18 - Good move?

[shrink]

This kind of after-the-fact trade and pick discussion really isn't my favorite kind of thread, but my off-season started when at the trade deadline, so I thought I'd throw this out for discussion.

At last year's draft, Kahn traded the 2009 #18 pick for the future CHA pick, Top 12 protected, which now looks like it will come in around #16 in the 2010 draft.

I can't imagine Kahn taking another PG at #18 after drafting Rubio and Flynn, so here's a look at the 2009 draft.

2009 1.18 Timberwolves Ty Lawson
2009 1.19 Hawks Jeff Teague
2009 1.20 Jazz Eric Maynor
2009 1.21 Hornets Darren Collison
2009 1.22 Trailblazers Victor Claver
2009 1.23 Kings Omri Casspi
2009 1.24 Mavericks B.J. Mullens
2009 1.25 Thunder Rodrigue Beaubois
2009 1.26 Bulls Taj Gibson
2009 1.27 Grizzlies DeMarre Carroll
2009 1.28 Timberwolves Wayne Ellington

[Worm Guts]

If you look at it from the perspective that we already had Flynn and Rubio, I think the trade was the best move.
If you look at it from other potential moves we could have made at #6, I think there's room for debate whether it was the right move.

[TheProdigy]

Right before Stern came out to the podium to announce our #5 pick, I was daydreaming about Rubio throwing lobs to DeRozan. If that would have been reality, I would have gone with Lawson at #18 without a doubt.

Since we took Flynn istead of DeRozan(which appears to be the correct move thus far), trading the #18 pick for a future 1st was the correct move. Last years draft was incredibly deep at point guard. Similarly, this year's draft is loaded with power forwards. We should be able to pick up a stud PF with either Charlotte or Utah's draft pick.

[Esohny]

I can't really comment until I see what Kahn does with the Charlotte pick.

[Foye]

As of now, the only player after pick #18 I would've wanted on our team is Casspi. Can't really blame Kahn for trading the pick.

[cpfsf]

As of now, the only player after pick #18 I would've wanted on our team is Casspi. Can't really blame Kahn for trading the pick.

Here's was my draft day thinking (with proof)

I was thinking Casspi as high as 18. Thought he'd be perfect especially since we didn't have a sniper. and as I recall Casspi was in the Israeli army
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=911245&start=15

If Veseley is available at #17 or w/e than I will be a happy camper.

[Krapinsky]

Good move. I think there is about 4-5 SFs that will be available with the Bobs pick that might be as good, if not better than Casspi.

Hayward, Robinson, James, George, Anderson

[Casperkid23]

Good move, but only because the better move of moving #6 wasn't made. I wonder what the #6 pick could've fetched in terms of a pick in the 2010 draft?

Whatever, can't hope for something that didn't happen. Lawson seemed to not have as much value in last year's draft as I would have expected - and since I had him and Blair as BPA's, it really came down to the Timberwolves trading that pick. The Charlotte pick seemed like good value, and thus it was a good move. Hopefully I'll feel the value at the pick this year will be better than the value I thought Lawson was at the MIA pick last year - but I'll settle for the same value in a role the Timberwolves need.

[john2jer]

Great move. Picks 17-21 in 2009 were all PGs, after taking Rubio/Flynn we had no need for a PG. And if there was another option of packaging 18 to move up in the early lottery, Kahn would have done it. he didn't, so I don't think the option was there.

He traded the 18th pick in an ok draft, and got the 16th pick in a better draft when the possible targets will be better fits. Great trade so far, but it could be skewed depending on who's actually selected at 16.

Or maybe he'll red paper clip it into eventually being the #1 pick of the 2014 draft?

[slinky]

^^I was just going to say, i could see him trading either the CHA or UTA pick for a future 1st(and maybe a 2010 2nd). Depending on the moves he plans on making in FA, he might not see the value in having up to 2 first round rookies buried on the bench. So he could try to delay them a year.

[shrink]

Good move, but only because the better move of moving #6 wasn't made. I wonder what the #6 pick could've fetched in terms of a pick in the 2010 draft? .

That's really an interesting idea, and I always appreciate it when someone brings up a new concept.

Trading a lottery pick for a future pick is always problematic, because there is a great chance that a bottom-dweller would improve. If we traded #6 in 2009, here's a look at the bottom teams/picks:

1.Clippers
2 Grizzlies
3 Thunder
4 Kings
5 Wizards
6 Wolves

In 2009, it'd be tough to have selected the 2010 team that would have given us a 6 or better. Right now, the bottom teams are

1. Nets
gap
2. Wolves
gap
3. Warriors
4. Wizards
5. Pistons

I would argue that in 2009, nobody would have predicted the Wizards to be this bad, and the Nets weren't even in the bottom 5. I suppose at the time, MIN could have tried to pry the NYK pick from UTA, since it was valued so highly, but it's the #9 right now.

Pick protections are pretty liberal, but I wonder if you could put in protections like "BOTTOM 22" protected? Then again, since one key player can turn a franchise around, there'd be issues about having it conveyed in a reasonable amount of time ... ugh.

If future picks are out, I see two ideas for trading the #6.

First would be to trade it for another draft pick. I think trading up would have been difficult. SAC wouldn't part with #4, and we wouldn't pay the price MEM wanted for #2. #1 was going nowhere. Maybe (though I doubt it), we could have gotten OKC to trade the #3 for the #6 + #18?

Second would be to trade the pick for a young stud prospect. The problem here is that it generally takes more than a year before any front office is willing to admit they overpaid for their young pick. For example, I'm not impressed with Beasley (and I wouldn't want him here), but NIA probably still hopes he cashes in on his physical tools and becomes a star. Rose, Westbrook and Gallinari are probably impossible for the #6. Beasley or Mayo? Probably no as well. Eric Gordon maybe? The Clips seem to love him too.

I'm starting to think the only way to trade a mid-lottery pick is to swap it in the draft, or to use it in a package to try to get a star.

[Winter Wonder]

As mentioned, the only player of interest was Casspi and at the time, I thought 18 was a bit of a reach for him and was hoping he was available at the Ellington pick. Regardless, a good move in my opinion at the time and still now.

[GopherIt!]

Too early to say, I'm a big Ty Lawson fan and wish he was a Wolf but just missing out on Reke already hurts more. This draft does appear to be deeper so hopefully it works out.

[Narf]

If you look at it in terms of players, would you rather have Ty Lawson or Paul George or Casspi? I would personally go with George over Casspi, and Lawson is a PG. Or Larry Sanders maybe.

[dunkonu21]

I don't know if you can say picking Flynn over Derozan is the right move. I know Derozan hasn't been great, but Tor has said he has good d and I think Rubio plus DRoz is pretty much gonna put butts in the seat.

[moss_is_1]

I don't know if you can say picking Flynn over Derozan is the right move. I know Derozan hasn't been great, but Tor has said he has good d and I think Rubio plus DRoz is pretty much gonna put butts in the seat.

Yeah I mean there can be an argument either way..Flynn has been basically awful(although he has his moments, and he's in a system trying to correct his flaws), and Derozan has been a starter all year on a playoff team(haven't gotten a chance to watch Toronto much1 time I think lol)

[Narf]

OK, so the argument is pick Derozan #6. Would you rather have Derozan or a guy like Paul George or Pondexter at Charlotte's pick? I'd rather have George over Derozan too.