Trading Down the #2 - Staying in Lottery

[BossHoggin]

Cleveland isn't going to give up another pick to get #2.

I hear you, AV + 4 isn't worth it from your end, even though I appreciate Varejao's help to my team. DD for #2 doesn't seem to be happening. I'd go McGee + 6 + 18 for 2 + whoever you feel the need to get rid of. I don't follow you guys that much so I'm just talking and it may be nonsense.

I really feel MIN needs to do what Portland and Chicago didn't do: trade a couple young guys for winners. Except I don't see anyone worth #2 for you to trade for, but maybe #6.

(I do not see Iggy/Granger/Martin etc worth #2)

[shangrila]

Trading young guys for winners would mean no McGee, though.

[BossHoggin]

Trading young guys for winners would mean no McGee, though.

Well what center do you want? Haywood?

[Krapinsky]

I'd add a Bogut deal to this....

#2 + Pekovic/Darko + Webster + #20

for

Bogut + #10 (Brooks/Burks)

[Baikonur]

Bogut is the perfect fit for this team.

[Krapinsky]

I'd take back Salmons in a Bogut deal as well.

[Dewey]

I'd add a Bogut deal to this....

#2 + Pekovic/Darko + Webster + #20

for

Bogut + #10 (Brooks/Burks)

Now your on it ... but pleeeease ... Brooks - nooooo Burks. (think of Jonny Flynn defending the wing). Brooks has historically put effort into defense. Burks has historically rode the offensive train.

[Hoopalotta]

Sounds like the McGee thing is pretty dead:

@daldridgetnt Just so you're clear: there is no way the Wizards include @JaValeMcGee34 in any deal to move up to two. @MrMichaelLee reporting same.

MrMichaelLee MIN might want JaVale McGee, but #wizards won't consider trading the 23-year-old center to move up in this draft: http://t.co/ye5xRjt

The Wizards have no interest in moving the incredibly athletic, 7-foot-1 center, according to two sources with knowledge of the team’s thinking.

While the Timberwolves have asked for him, dealing McGee isn’t considered an option for the Wizards in order to move into the top three in the June 23 NBA draft, the sources said. Trading McGee hasn’t even been discussed internally, according to the sources -- especially since many within the organization believe that the 23-year-old McGee would be deemed a top three-to-five pick if he were in the draft this year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wiz ... #pagebreak

Those are as good of sources as you're going to find on the Wizards, being current and past team beat writers.

[The J Rocka]

I'd take Salmons back but I would definitely want that 10. I have a feeling the Bucks would want to keep it along with the 2nd pick they get so they can rebuild with Jennings, DWilliams, and possibly Burks/Brooks.

[Dewey]

We need a SG in a serious way ... I hope that is a priority. The McGee talk has me nervous.

Williams has certainly proven to be effective, consistent and no injury issues, and that's the part that concerns me about Kanter - his knees.

I like the idea that if the Cavs take Williams and plan to grab the best PG available at #4, we'll have the cards in our hands for about 15 minutes to make the deal of the century ... KAHHHHHN !!!

What's wrong with Kanter's knees? His 20-some minutes on the treadmill test (the only player above 6'11" to do so) makes me think that his knees aren't that big of a concern.

That and the reports that the knee issues were just internet speculation and not real.

[guille_4]

does cleveland have any other picks in the first round?

if cleveland really wants our #2, then they have to give us #4, varejao, and possibly another lower pick.

i'm really hoping we can pick brooks or burks in the later part of 1st round.

#2, Pekovic and #20 for #4 and Varejao seems like a solid trade. Varejao is a solid center entering his prime with a good contract. The Twolves don´t need more than 1 rookie. They´re packed of young players!

[Krapinsky]

I'd add a Bogut deal to this....

#2 + Pekovic/Darko + Webster + #20

for

Bogut + #10 (Brooks/Burks)

Now your on it ... but pleeeease ... Brooks - nooooo Burks. (think of Jonny Flynn defending the wing). Brooks has historically put effort into defense. Burks has historically rode the offensive train.

How was Brooks' defense after his sophomore year?

I think it more depends on whether you want a guy that's going to take it to the basket (Burks) or a guy that's going to hit difficult jumpers (Brooks). Both would be useful. I tend to like Brooks more only because Burks sounds like an idiot. Kanter's been learning english for less than 2 years and he's more well spoken than Burks. That scares me from an IQ stand point.

[Worm Guts]

does cleveland have any other picks in the first round?

if cleveland really wants our #2, then they have to give us #4, varejao, and possibly another lower pick.

i'm really hoping we can pick brooks or burks in the later part of 1st round.

#2, Pekovic and #20 for #4 and Varejao seems like a solid trade. Varejao is a solid center entering his prime with a good contract. The Twolves don´t need more than 1 rookie. They´re packed of young players!

I have no idea why we'd throw in #20 here.

[Den Masters]

I'd add a Bogut deal to this....

#2 + Pekovic/Darko + Webster + #20

for

Bogut + #10 (Brooks/Burks)

Now your on it ... but pleeeease ... Brooks - nooooo Burks. (think of Jonny Flynn defending the wing). Brooks has historically put effort into defense. Burks has historically rode the offensive train.

How was Brooks' defense after his sophomore year?

I think it more depends on whether you want a guy that's going to take it to the basket (Burks) or a guy that's going to hit difficult jumpers (Brooks). Both would be useful. I tend to like Brooks more only because Burks sounds like an idiot. Kanter's been learning english for less than 2 years and he's more well spoken than Burks. That scares me from an IQ stand point.

brooks' defense is actually above average and he can guard both PG and SG positions because he did play PG in h.s. and early in his college career.

[eyeteeth]

I'd add a Bogut deal to this....

#2 + Pekovic/Darko + Webster + #20

for

Bogut + #10 (Brooks/Burks)

Now your on it ... but pleeeease ... Brooks - nooooo Burks. (think of Jonny Flynn defending the wing). Brooks has historically put effort into defense. Burks has historically rode the offensive train.

How was Brooks' defense after his sophomore year?

I think it more depends on whether you want a guy that's going to take it to the basket (Burks) or a guy that's going to hit difficult jumpers (Brooks). Both would be useful. I tend to like Brooks more only because Burks sounds like an idiot. Kanter's been learning english for less than 2 years and he's more well spoken than Burks. That scares me from an IQ stand point.

True!

[younggunsmn]

I think we're going to trade down, but most of us will probably be disappointed with what we get, and it probably won't be as complex as what's been discussed. Utah only had to give up late 1sts to move up for Deron Willimas, Portland didn't have to give up much to jump from 4 to 2 to grab Lamarcus Aldridge, and those guys were better prospects than Derrick Wililams.

Most of these rumors are just gm's trying to gauge value with each other.

Example:
Was calls for 2, asks what it would take to move up. Kahn mentions McGee, Was says that's too much for us. Kahn says, well you don't have much else that interests us, and we'd want 6 back in any deal.

Tor calls with a crappy offer trying to send us Bargnani or something. Kahn mentions Derozan + 5, but understands it's probably too much.

When teams start talking about future picks and taking your bad contracts, you know you've hit a wall when it comes to value, and I think that's what we'll end up with. Highly protected future 1sts and/or dumping a bad contract (Webster or Pek) to create cap room.

I think our best option is Cleveland, because they have the most flexibility, though not great assets.
They have a big TPE to absorb contracts and a few tradeable players in Sessions, Varejao, and Hickson to send to a 3rd team to get us another asset. Suppose they send Sessions to Det for Hamilton & 8 (or a future 1st), then 8+4 to us for 2. It really depends on how badly they want Williams, and how involved Dan Gilbert gets (really high on Willimas supposedly). They are doing all the right things. They are bringing in Kanter for a 2nd workout to try to discourage us from trading down to 5 or 6 (they think we are targeting Kanter). I think we are smokescreening really heavy about Kanter. In the end maybe we dump Webster on them and pick up a future lottery protected 1st from them or another team they deal with. That's okay, as long as we pick the right guy (Jonas or Biyombo please). They are talking about taking Kanter or Williams at one. They are doing everything they can to scare us into picking Kanter at 2.

Tor has that TPE, but I think they are less likely to just outright take on salary. If they made us eat calderon for Webster+Flynn to swap 2 for 5/Derozan, I would do it in a heartbeat. I just don't think there's any way they trade 5 and Derozan (their best 2 assets) for just 2.

Utah is the one wildcard. They could also trade down and take the Jimmer, throwing us for another loop.

If we end up with a future pick in the 10-20 range and some cap space, and pick the right guy in a trade down, I'll be happy. If they pick Williams, stick by it, and don't do anything else to balance the roster, i will be doing the double face palm. Look at how quickly Wes's trade value faded last year. You can't count on assets that don't play a big role to keep their value up.

[Krapinsky]

If Irving drops to #2? What can we hope for?

Favors?
3 + 12?

Derozan + 5? (we add #20)

Eric Gordon?

#4 + 2012 #1?

[B Calrissian]

If we can get Gordon for Irving we should trade #2/Wes for #1 to guarantee we can pick Irving.

[Den Masters]

If Irving drops to #2? What can we hope for?

Favors?
3 + 12?

Derozan + 5? (we add #20)

Eric Gordon?

#4 + 2012 #1?

i heard on our local sports radio that IF irving isn't picked #1, they are interested in trading.

i would definitely try to grab eric gordon from them.