#10 for #17 + #28?

[shrink]

Some MIL posters are fans of this trade.

How's that work for you?

[deeney0]

I think Wolves would have to take that if it were on the table. Quality > quantity for this team right now.

[collin_k41]

I think that's a pretty fair deal. Personally, I'd do it just because I feel the talent level starts to drop off after the lottery. We could potentially get Jennings/Clark, maybe Harden/Aldrich, Thabeet/Evans, etc. That sounds pretty good to me.

[casey]

I don't see why Milwaukee would do it.

[shrink]

I don't see why Milwaukee would do it.

I kind of agree with you. It actually costs them $0.3 mil more.

The posters argument, which has some merit, is that in a weak draft, you might have a better shot of finding a useful player with the two picks. The #10 certainly this year doesn't guarantee you a starter down the road.

I've argued myself for the shotgun approach with second rounders, when its tough to determine that a higher pick has a far greater chance to succeed. I suppose it comes down to whether people believe that the gap in the likelyhood of success between #10 and #17 is large or small.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for them to want to trade that pick to us for the #28 and UTA's deferred pick (Top 15-17 protected for the next 4 years), simply to dodge a little more salary they can use on Sessions or CV.

[shrink]

One of my favorite articles on pick valuation is from Aaron Barzilai.

http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

After reviewing years of drafts, he came up with a way to historically compare the projected production from a pick as a percentage of the production of the Number 1 pick. In Table 2, we find:

#10 = 59%

#17 = 40%
#28 = 22%

Now, you can't simply add the two together to say that 62% is better than 59%. Two guys can't be on the floor at the same time, and two guys take up two roster spots. However, even if we take a third of the value out of the second pick, it actually comes out fairly evenly (59% vs 40% +15%).

I think the decision would come down to which players were available in this specific draft at #10.

[john2jer]

Thabeet/Evans would be a nice pair to walk away with from the draft. After around 10, there's likely a huge drop off to role players and HUGE pojects.

The Utah/Boston for Milwaukee's pick would probably be more ideal for Milwaukee, and I'd like it for us.

How about a draft where we picked up DeRozan, Evans, and Mullens.

C - Jefferson/Mullens
PF - Love/Smith
SF - Miller/Gomes
SG - Foye/DeRozan
PG - Evans/Telfair

If DeRozan and Evans can improve their outside shooting, that's a sick pair of young guards to be rolling with, and Foye evantually becomes the 6th man.

[revprodeji]

milwaukee needs more pieces. ironically they have some good starting spots covered but lack depth. we have guys who would be great for depth but need a homerun hit or 2 to fill some starting spots.

gomes/bassy make below avg starters but they are strong if they are coming off the bench.

[jpatrick]

In a second I'd do that. I don't know if we want to have three rookies with guaranteed contracts on the roster. If we don't do something like this, I could see us selling the pick or trading it for a future pick.

[revprodeji]

I really want some 3/1 or 2/1 trades. This fills that desire. I just hope we are a major player on draft day. Do something to make us proud.

[the_bruce]

More pulls on the slot = more chances at jackpot

[revprodeji]

^^that assumes all the pulls are equal. That is not the case with basketball drafts. Even in a football draft that statement is true to a degree. It all comes down to who we are targeting. Personally, I would do the trade. I think roster spots are a concern, and I would rather target a player instead of see who drops to us.

If you look at DX moving from 17 to 10 puts these players into range.
-Derozan, Teague, AFA, Clark, Lawson, Flynn, Williams

Last year the change from 10-17 could have brought.
-B.Lopez, J. Bayless, J. Thompson, B.Rush, A.Randolph, R. Lopez, M.Speights

So last year it would have been a clear no-brainer. But what about 2007?
-Hawes, Law, Young, Wright, Thornton, Stuckey, Young.

Historically the difference with 10 to 17 is crazy high.

[Foye]

In a heartbeat

[Steve_Holiday]

Post by bruceallen61 on Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:21 am
More pulls on the slot = more chances at jackpot

Post by revprodeji on Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm
^^that assumes all the pulls are equal. That is not the case with basketball drafts.

Not sure history backs up either of your claims. See below:

Pick 10 Pick 17 Pick 28
2001 Joe Johnson Michael Bradley Tony Parker
2002 Caron Butler Juan Dixon Dan Dickau
2003 Jarvis Hayes Zarko Cabarkapa Leandrinho Barbosa
2004 Luke Jackson Josh Smith Beno Udrih
2005 Andrew Bynum Danny Granger Ian Mahinmi
2006 Mouhamed Sene Shawne Williams Maurice Ager
2007 Spencer Hawes Sean Williams Tiago Splitter
2008 Brook Lopez Roy Hibbert Donte Green

*I went by straight pick number because I feel like Rev's approach (ranges) allows for hindsight and cherry-picking.

In 2002, 2007, and 2008, Pick 10 is the clear winner.
In 2003, 2004, Pick 17 and Pick 28 are the the clear winners.

Personally, I'd take Tony Parker over Joe Johnson and Danny Granger over Andrew Bynum (2001 and 2005 respectively), but I suppose those years are debatable (in 2006, nobody won).

My take on the trade: I think a trade - in advance of the draft - just to consolidate the number of picks before they know who is available would be a foolish move by the Wolves. Their 1st round picks are valuable assets, and should be used in a calculated manner to acquire the player they believe will be the best fit. The list above proves that there is no assurance that #10 > #17 + #28 on its face. There are better ways to make roster space than this; if that is the main goal.

[big3_8_19_21]

This trade cannot be predicted ahead of time. It 100% depends on how the draft board shakes out on draft night.