RealGM

I'm bored with talking about Beasley's and Flynn's respective trade values, and I think this monster of an OP can lead to some good discussions on multiple fronts. Here is a link to the 2006 draft for easy reference:
http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2006.html
Get it open now, because if you finish reading this, you're gonna wanna take a look .

POINT 1A -
In 2006 I seem to remember that Bargnani was pegged around 4 or 5 overall (and going to TOR) headed into the lottery. When TOR won and Bargnani was their guy, TOR tried moving down with the next 4 teams in line to get value. All those teams called TOR's bluff and said, "you want Bargnani? take him at 1". This is what TOR decided to do because it was obvious they were going to (or had to) take their guy.

POINT 2A -
Lamarcus Aldridge was more of the Consensus number 1, and was taken at #2, with Tyrus Thomas going #4. I'm not sure why, but those teams decided to swap the #2(Aldridge) for #4(Thomas). Who else was included in this deal you may ask? Viktor Khryapa. That's it.

POINT 3A -
The most "NBA ready" players in that draft were probably Roy (had injury concerns and went 6) and Foye (went 7). Rounding out the top 7 was Adam Morrison, Sheldon Williams.
The other notable players in this draft were Rudy Gay (taken 8th) and Rondo (taken #21 and sold).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAST FORWARD
2011 NBA DRAFT
---------------------------------------------------------------------

POINT 1B-
MN is looking to move #2 down (and everyone knows it). Derrick Williams is basically the "HAVE TO" pick. The only difference? Williams is really not the guy for MN. Unless a team is completely sold on Derrick Williams, I don't see why this potential bluff-calling situation won't be any different than Tor with Bargs in 2006.

POINT 2B-
To further illustrate my point, and while trying to be a realist about all this,....VIKTOR KHYRAPA was the difference between the #2 and #4. I had the difference between Aldridge and Ty Thomas at much more than VIKTOR KHYRAPA. I'm not sure moving back from #2 to anywhere else in the top 8 is going to net us much. unless someone is sold on Williams, (which I'm doubting at this point) a guy like Varajao or Nick Young or McGee is our best bet.

POINT 3B-
And finally, the diamonds in that rough went at pick #8(Gay) and pick #21(Rondo).

This draft could have a few diamonds in the rough, and there isn't a ton of talent. Add to that MN is only really looking at 2 positions (SG and C), and it really hurts our odds to make something happen.

WHAT I'D DO-
I really think MN's best move is taking Williams at #2...and then hoping Kahn can work some magic toward getting us a realistic usable piece (Varajao/Young/Mcgee...maybe. I'm not betting on anything better)..and then a pick to use on a SG or C.

Here is a link to the 2006 draft for easy reference:
http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2006.html

Thanks for reading!

Good take, Breakdown. Especially since there were no "superduper stars" a la D Rose or Lebron James.

God, I hope we find a taker for that pick. I'm increasingly hopeful w/regards to Washington, who could use some instant offense. Don't think they'll give up McGee, though. The difference between 2 and 6 might be "not much" one more time..

i disagree. that post doesn't make much sense.

Interesting write-up. Should serve us well anyway.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/luke_winn/06/08/nba.draft.williams.jenkins/index.html

mchalupnik2 wrote:i disagree. that post doesn't make much sense.

Any reasons? Or just feel like criticizing?

[RCG] wrote:Interesting write-up. Should serve us well anyway.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/luke_winn/06/08/nba.draft.williams.jenkins/index.html

I thought the article sold Williams well, although the writer used PPP, which I haven't heard that much praise for. I don't think he'll have a problem scoring on any team he is on. I worry about his defense, and his youth. We already have Beasley, who is more seasoned. Why draft Williams and set us back a few years, when we can trade him for something we need and (hopefully) start winning sooner.

mchalupnik2 wrote:i disagree. that post doesn't make much sense.

I feel like many of my longer posts are difficult to understand. I'm not sure if I get too wordy, or if I'm too busy trying to cover all my bases so I can't sound "wrong" . I did spend a lot of time making this as "reader friendly" as possible.

There are more than a few ways to poke holes in my little theories, but if I wrote any more in the OP trying to address them all I'd have written a full-length article.

I just think it's reaching a bit. Shrug.

The top tier in 2006 was a lot bigger, which is probably why it didn't cost as much to move up. My top prospect of that draft was Rudy Gay and he went 8 (and I'm usually pretty close to the consensus.)

Not to sure, this is the only year that i haven't taken much notice of the draft class. I'm not buying that its weak and watered down as there are gems in every draft. Similarities? there are similarities in every draft imo...

[RCG] wrote:Interesting write-up. Should serve us well anyway.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/luke_winn/06/08/nba.draft.williams.jenkins/index.html

Interesting. Worth the read, definitely. I think both the players highlighted in the article will take hits from playing against NBA defenders, but this is a persuasive case that they will still have some game. I wonder very much how Williams dribble-drive will translate. Getting to the free throw line at that rate is impressive. Does it still work against wickedly mobile NBA 4s or super long NBA 3s?

You don't think Chicago wishes they'd kept LMA? Sounds like history is telling the Wolves not to trade DW.

deeney0 wrote:You don't think Chicago wishes they'd kept LMA? Sounds like history is telling the Wolves not to trade DW.

That's not really what I was trying to say. I'm just saying that the difference in value between Thomas and LMA turned out to be some Euro who was a 9th man at best. And yes, I do believe that if we look at history (and I know 2006 is just one example), we would be best to take Williams and wait for someone to call about him....start a bidding war, and take the best value. If we are looking for a pick a bit later (let's say 5-10 range)...We'll have to conduct the bidding war ourselves [on the clock] which decreases the likelihood of something getting done that way.