RealGM

Is it possible? Would Cleveland consider taking Williams #2, then Knight or Walker #4 if we provided sufficient incentive?

How much would you be willing to give?

If we offered Anthony Randolph + #2 + #20 would you do it?

I wouldn't offer all that to trade up to #1 considering I don't think Kyrie is a can't miss All-Star.

Foye wrote:I wouldn't offer all that to trade up to #1 considering I don't think Kyrie is a can't miss All-Star.

this.

our pg is Rubio!

I don't think this is much to give up for number 1. I'd probably do it, but I don't think Kahn would.

Worm Guts wrote:I don't think this is much to give up for number 1. I'd probably do it, but I don't think Kahn would.

I'd do it, especially if there's a possibility of dealing Rubio for something decent. I think that Irving is a great prospect. I doubt that Cleveland does this though.

Could you just imagine the media backlash? Trades up to get ANOTHER PG? What, no confidence in the golden boy Rubio?

Kyrie's overrated. Don't do it.

funkatron101 wrote:Could you just imagine the media backlash? Trades up to get ANOTHER PG? What, no confidence in the golden boy Rubio?

Shrug. If they take Williams, the media will fry them for adding a 5th PF/SF to the roster. If they take someone other than Williams, some of the media will fry them for passing on "BPA." If a miracle happened and Irving was available at 2, and they picked him, there would be the "ANOTHER PG LOLOL!" response, while passing on him would be the "they passed on a sure thing for the bust spanish kid with poor stats" response.

My point is that there is no way to "win" here with the media, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Wouldn't do it. However I think pick swapping around could be beneficial.

e.g.
Utah #3 + reduced\remioved pick protection on 2012 pick for MN #2
Utah #2 + 12 for CLE #1

if the wolves were looking to ensure they could get irving, they would almost certainly have to have a second trade lined up...just like if they stayed put and grabbed d williams...
...plus this is assuming that the wolves think irving > rubio.

a trade up to 1 just confuses an already confusing matter further.

Steve_Holiday wrote:if the wolves were looking to ensure they could get irving, they would almost certainly have to have a second trade lined up...just like if they stayed put and grabbed d williams...
...plus this is assuming that the wolves think irving > rubio.

a trade up to 1 just confuses an already confusing matter further.

Well if Rubio's not coming, we'd still have a year to hold his rights and deal him -- potentially for a 2012 draft pick around this time next year.

Worm Guts wrote:I don't think this is much to give up for number 1. I'd probably do it, but I don't think Kahn would.

This is pretty much how I feel too.

The NBA is all about quality and not quantity. Unless there is a special circumstance such as a bad contract you always make the deal if the best player is coming back to you. If the Wolves have the chance to get #1 by just giving up quantity (#2, 20, AR) then yes you make the deal but I doubt Cleveland would do it. By this same reasoning the Wolves should select DW if they stay at 2. In today's NBA you don't sniff the finals without having a star like LBJ, Rose, Dirk, Kobe or Durant on your team. Irving or Williams may never reach that status but by consensus of NBA GM's are the 2 that have the chance to become stars from this draft.

I'd do it as I like Irving a lot. But as said I don't think Kahn would. I do think value is fair though.

Would Toronto trade Ricky for #5? You could end up with Irving/Biyombo. Or Sacramento Kings pick.

mg wrote:The NBA is all about quality and not quantity. Unless there is a special circumstance such as a bad contract you always make the deal if the best player is coming back to you. If the Wolves have the chance to get #1 by just giving up quantity (#2, 20, AR) then yes you make the deal but I doubt Cleveland would do it. By this same reasoning the Wolves should select DW if they stay at 2. In today's NBA you don't sniff the finals without having a star like LBJ, Rose, Dirk, Kobe or Durant on your team. Irving or Williams may never reach that status but by consensus of NBA GM's are the 2 that have the chance to become stars from this draft.

The thought there could be that Beasley, Rubio, and Wes all have the ability to catch lightning in a bottle and become a superstar...so taking/trading around for the best fits (and some vets) might not be such a bad idea.

I personally don't see Beas, Rubes, or Wes as having that potential, but the FO might.
Beasley - probably destined to a great scorer on a bad team career.
Rubio - Could be an excellent PG, but superstar PG (ala Nash) still needs shooters and an athletic big.
Wes - I like Wes alot, but his ceiling is probably Shawn Marion-ish...not routine All-Star.

randolph is too good to be a throw in

Guidus88 wrote:

Foye wrote:I wouldn't offer all that to trade up to #1 considering I don't think Kyrie is a can't miss All-Star.

this.

our pg is Rubio!

How many games has our pg played for us?
I actually dont think Cleveland would trade the #1 pick for that

Breakdown777 wrote:

mg wrote:The NBA is all about quality and not quantity. Unless there is a special circumstance such as a bad contract you always make the deal if the best player is coming back to you. If the Wolves have the chance to get #1 by just giving up quantity (#2, 20, AR) then yes you make the deal but I doubt Cleveland would do it. By this same reasoning the Wolves should select DW if they stay at 2. In today's NBA you don't sniff the finals without having a star like LBJ, Rose, Dirk, Kobe or Durant on your team. Irving or Williams may never reach that status but by consensus of NBA GM's are the 2 that have the chance to become stars from this draft.

The thought there could be that Beasley, Rubio, and Wes all have the ability to catch lightning in a bottle and become a superstar...so taking/trading around for the best fits (and some vets) might not be such a bad idea.

I personally don't see Beas, Rubes, or Wes as having that potential, but the FO might.
Beasley - probably destined to a great scorer on a bad team career.
Rubio - Could be an excellent PG, but superstar PG (ala Nash) still needs shooters and an athletic big.
Wes - I like Wes alot, but his ceiling is probably Shawn Marion-ish...not routine All-Star.

I've been trying to find out how Rubio is doing oerseas. I saw his stats are something like 6ppg and 4apg while shooting low 40%. Does he suck, or am I missing something?

the_bruce wrote:Wouldn't do it. However I think pick swapping around could be beneficial.

e.g.
Utah #3 + reduced\remioved pick protection on 2012 pick for MN #2
Utah #2 + 12 for CLE #1

A swap like that can only happen if two prospects are rated exactly the same, and what are the odds of that? This isn't the NFL where you can get starters everywhere in the 1st and high picks are less valuable because of the salary structure. 1 player makes a team in the NBA. At #12, you'd be lucky to get a starter. At 1 vs. 2, history has shown there's a huge difference. 7 of the last 10 #1s have been better than the #2, and usually by a significant margin. 8 of the last 10 #2s likely won't even make an all-star game: Chandler, Jay Williams, Darko, Okafor, Marvin Williams, Beasley, Thabeet, Turner.