Trading the #1 for the #2 plus ...

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:56 pm

I've heard so many good arguments from MIN fans who want Derrick Rose, and good ones from those who want Beasley, that right now, I don't care. We have building to do and plenty of needs, and as far as I'm concerned, we'll just build differently depending on whichever we get. Both could be stars, and both would help us.

That said, other franchises don't have our flexibility. MEM is already loaded with PG's, and likewise, SEA got forwards Green and Durant, and still have Wilcox.

I want to cash in on our flexibility.

Say we got the #1, and another team got the #2. Would you trade down, and what would you want in compensation, from another team? For instance:

WE TRADE ROSE FOR BEASLEY:

SEA: #1 for #2 plus 2008 Suns pick (25) + Sene
LAC: #1 + Craig Smith S&T for #2 plus return our protected future pick.
NYK: #1 + Jaric for #2 plus Malik Rose (exp)

WE TRADE BEASLEY FOR ROSE:

MIA: #1 for #2 plus "remove top 10 protection on 2009 pick they already owe us"
MEM: #1 for #2 plus 2008 Lakers pick (26) + Crit

Some of these seem too greedy, and probably are, so let me know what you think would be realistic. My thinking is that a #1 versus a #2 is a franchise making/breaking move for some of the other teams.

Thoughts?

deeney0 · Post #2 » by **deeney0** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:06 pm

Flip it on its head. Say we got #2, how much would you be willing to give up to get #1? Would you give up the Miami pick? Foye? Brewer? It'd probably be no for me to all three, I'd take my chances, and I see Memphis being the same way - but maybe not.

collin_k41 · Post #3 » by **collin_k41** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:20 pm

Ya if we got the #2 pick i'd take my chances and take whoever is left.

Shrink i really like the Beasley for Rose trades. In the Seattle trade i like that we get Sene but do we really need more picks? Especially late firsts. I'd take out the pick and either add jaric on our side to get rid of a bad contract or maybe try to get petro instead of sene. Petro is better than sene right?

Krapinsky · Post #4 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:33 pm

the deal trading down with the Clippers in interesting, but I don't see why Smith belongs in that trade.

The other trades provide little value.

We already have three first rounders next year, potentially. We would have little use for another.

I think Miami is a playoff team next year, so i also see little value in removing the protection there.

The Knicks deal is not plausible from their prospective, the last thing Walsh is going to do is add another contract.

I like what Collin is spittin here, however I think Seattle might prefer Rose over Beasley.

MN Die Hard · Post #5 » by **MN Die Hard** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:16 pm

deeney0 wrote:Flip it on its head. Say we got #2, how much would you be willing to give up to get #1? Would you give up the Miami pick? Foye? Brewer? It'd probably be no for me to all three, I'd take my chances, and I see Memphis being the same way - but maybe not.

This is it. Shrink nailed it by saying there are two "can't miss" prospects (at least that's how everyone sees it now). I'm not sure any other team would give up much of anything to move from 1 to 2. Memphis, for example - if Rose is on the Board at #2, they grab him immediatly, trade one or more of their other PGs, and dont give it a second thought.

shrink · Post #6 » by **shrink** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:27 pm

That's the borderline here for whether the other team would make a trade:

Option 1 is to Trade the #2 and something else, and get a potential superstar that fits your team. You are forced to add something of value (a player? a pick? salary?) for that privildge.

Option 2 is to just take whoever you get. You are still forced to make a trade, but this time you're moving starters around.

As for the Memphis example, if they didn't trade up for Beasley and had to take Rose, I agree that they would have to trade Conley. However, they are already emotionally invested in Conley, and because of his lack of production this first year, they'd need to trade him for far less than he is worth to them. Moreover, they've spent a year teaching Conley how they want him to play, and a year that he got used to playing with the other Grizzlies, learning their preferences, etc. Beasley steps in to replace Gasol at PF, taking no one good's place, and the deal I offered (for all of these trades) only requested components that aren't a big part of the team.

I guess I'm saying that if you're MEM, which do you want next year:

Rose/Lowry
Gay/Navarro
Miller
Warrick/(whatever Conley can get you)
Darko

or

Conley/Lowry
Gay/Navarro
Miller
Beasley/Warrick
Darko

deeney0 · Post #7 » by **deeney0** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:45 pm

Memphis is in the same boat we are, they've got one piece for the future (Gay) and lots of complimentary pieces that may or may not be in their future plans. Our complimentary pieces may be a little more balanced than theirs, but that shouldn't affect their draft mentality. Both teams need to take the best player available - Memphis shouldn't want the second best player available because he fits better with their roster as it stands today. They, like us, need to be looking towards 09-10 at the very least.

TheProdigy · Post #8 » by **TheProdigy** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:22 pm

I'd be happy to simply hold onto either of the top two picks. The real question is what would we be willing to give up to move from 3-4-5 into a 1-2 slot. Would our 1st plus one of our 2nds be enough to move into the top two? Or would it take our 1st with a future protected first?

shrink · Post #9 » by **shrink** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:06 pm

I don't think any of the teams would trade away a Top 2 pick for either offer -- the gap between 2 and 3 is just too great.

Blame Rasho · Post #10 » by **Blame Rasho** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:50 pm

I think it would be a great idea getting the 2 pick with some additional assets( picks and expiring) for just moving down and getting the guy that you wanted all along.

Post #11 » by **Klomp** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:33 am

deeney0 wrote:Memphis is in the same boat we are, they've got one piece for the future (Gay) and lots of complimentary pieces that may or may not be in their future plans. Our complimentary pieces may be a little more balanced than theirs, but that shouldn't affect their draft mentality. Both teams need to take the best player available - Memphis shouldn't want the second best player available because he fits better with their roster as it stands today. They, like us, need to be looking towards 09-10 at the very least.

One minor yet major difference: Neither Rose nor Beasley plays the same position as Gay, but Beasley plays the same position as Jefferson.

TrentTuckerForever · Post #12 » by **TrentTuckerForever** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:06 pm

deeney0 wrote:Memphis is in the same boat we are, they've got one piece for the future (Gay) and lots of complimentary pieces that may or may not be in their future plans. Our complimentary pieces may be a little more balanced than theirs, but that shouldn't affect their draft mentality. Both teams need to take the best player available - Memphis shouldn't want the second best player available because he fits better with their roster as it stands today. They, like us, need to be looking towards 09-10 at the very least.

Terrific post. I would be shocked if either of the top two picks get moved, even for reasonable scenarios like Shrink posts at the beginning here. The first priority for MIA, MEM and MIN is improving the talent base.

The real question is what it's going to take to trade into the top-2... but that's another post for another time, once the lotto is set.