No 2012 1st a Good Thing?

Post #1 » by **Klomp** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:14 pm

Sounds crazy, I know. But we already have a solid core to build upon. We don't need to get younger, and it looks like the draft will be strongest at SF and PF (Top 7 in DX mock all SFs or PFs). The only player I'm somewhat sad about missing out on is Austin Rivers.

phonzadellika · Post #2 » by **phonzadellika** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:18 pm

I don't know if it's a GOOD thing...but things could also be worse. I see where you're coming from.

I mainly miss it because of the possibility of packaging it with other firsts and maybe one of the players that have potential but won't be part of the core for maybe a better player later on...but not really sure who we could pick up that we couldn't already get I guess.

funkatron101 · Post #3 » by **funkatron101** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:18 pm

"Here, take this $100 bill! You don't have to pay me back, it's a gift!"

"Nah."

TyKixx · Post #4 » by **TyKixx** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:18 pm

Its a nice positive spin, but having the pick would still provide another asset and even more flexibility to add and subtract if/as needed.

breatnach · Post #5 » by **breatnach** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:20 pm

Phew! Thank god we gave that pick up for Marco Jaric! We really dodged a bullet there!

Not adding talent is never good. Our roster situtation may be the silver lining, but you REALLY have to want to see it.

AQuintus · Post #6 » by **AQuintus** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:23 pm

I like not having a 2012 1st because it means that there are absolutely no excuses for losing. In past years, the team could get away with dropping a bunch of games at eh end of the year because they were tanking for a better pick. Not so this year.

mark blunt · Post #7 » by **mark blunt** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:24 pm

If the owners are serious about mandating a 2 yrs out of high school minimum, then next years draft would be pretty terrible actually, with Barnes, Sullinger, and Jones headlining.

4ho5ive · Post #8 » by **4ho5ive** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:25 pm

funkatron101 wrote:"Here, take this $100 bill! You don't have to pay me back, it's a gift!"

"Nah."

Basically. Not having an extra asset/trade chip isn't a good thing.

[RCG] · Post #9 » by **[RCG]** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:36 pm

mark blunt wrote:If the owners are serious about mandating a 2 yrs out of high school minimum, then next years draft would be pretty terrible actually, with Barnes, Sullinger, and Jones headlining.

Please...

Post #10 » by **Klomp** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:10 am

mark blunt wrote:If the owners are serious about mandating a 2 yrs out of high school minimum, then next years draft would be pretty terrible actually, with Barnes, Sullinger, and Jones headlining.

In that case, here are the top guys who would be eligible

2. Barnes
3. Sullinger
4. Jones
8. Young
11. Henson

Breakdown777 · Post #11 » by **Breakdown777** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:22 am

AQuintus wrote:I like not having a 2012 1st because it means that there are absolutely no excuses for losing. In past years, the team could get away with dropping a bunch of games at eh end of the year because they were tanking for a better pick. Not so this year.

I like this idea. No more excuses. Get out there and WIN!

NewWolvesOrder · Post #12 » by **NewWolvesOrder** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:23 am

No more tanking is a good thing. Last 2 springs were brutal.

Esohny · Post #13 » by **Esohny** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:27 am

cpfsf · Post #14 » by **cpfsf** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:43 am

Obviously I'd love to trade the 2011 pick, but there is some truth to this thread. It creates an incentive to win. If we for example traded Derrick Williams for the rights to our 2012 pick back, than we would continue tanking.

KG_And1 · Post #15 » by **KG_And1** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:47 am

Ummm....no.

Esohny · Post #16 » by **Esohny** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:48 am

cpfsf wrote:Obviously I'd love to trade the 2011 pick, but there is some truth to this thread. It creates an incentive to win. If we for example traded Derrick Williams for the rights to our 2012 pick back, than we would continue tanking.

You know it's a great situation when a team needs to manufacture ridiculous reasons to try to win games.

casey · Post #17 » by **casey** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:50 am

LordBaldric · Post #18 » by **LordBaldric** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:25 am

If we are really lucky, Taylor will sign off on another under the table deal and we will lose even more of those troublesome picks in the future. Booyah!

cpfsf · Post #19 » by **cpfsf** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:25 am

Esohny wrote:
cpfsf wrote:Obviously I'd love to trade the 2011 pick, but there is some truth to this thread. It creates an incentive to win. If we for example traded Derrick Williams for the rights to our 2012 pick back, than we would continue tanking.

You know it's a great situation when a team needs to manufacture ridiculous reasons to try to win games.

I think Klomp could have been worded it a bit better. It's not like Cleveland should give away their 2012 pick for cash obviously. The only redeeming value in this fiasco is that Minnesota is all in. It's time to take off the training wheels and put your balls on your chin.

Breakdown777 · Post #20 » by **Breakdown777** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:01 am

cpfsf wrote:
Esohny wrote:
cpfsf wrote:Obviously I'd love to trade the 2011 pick, but there is some truth to this thread. It creates an incentive to win. If we for example traded Derrick Williams for the rights to our 2012 pick back, than we would continue tanking.

You know it's a great situation when a team needs to manufacture ridiculous reasons to try to win games.

I think Klomp could have been worded it a bit better. It's not like Cleveland should give away their 2012 pick for cash obviously. The only redeeming value in this fiasco is that Minnesota is all in. It's time to take off the training wheels and put your balls on your chin.

Like this?