RealGM

Just wondering. Would you guys do a straight swap of the #4 pick for russell?

cycl0nus wrote:Just wondering. Would you guys do a straight swap of the #4 pick for russell?

YES

Probably not.

No Thanks. I want to grab someone who can provide D. Russell would force us to possibly max 2 players off their rookie deals in the next year or 2.

Nope.

No

cycl0nus wrote:Just wondering. Would you guys do a straight swap of the #4 pick for russell?

I don't think the FO would, but they might. They'd probably have to have a good Bledsoe trade in place first.

Personally I mentioned before that I would think about it if Fultz and Jackson were gone, but at this point I would be pretty happy with Isaac or Ball as well. But I assume you'd take Ball in this scenario. After watching so much on Isaac and getting pretty hyped about him too, I would prefer him over Russell. I'd take Russell over Tatum or anyone else though.

I imagine our FO at this point is hyped about guys they have worked out though and they seem to be fine keeping Bledsoe so I doubt they'd do it.

Yeah, probably not. If another asset or two were included we could look at it. Maybe DLo, Nance, and the #28.

Nope

No for the obvious reasons. They'd be a hot mess defensively.

No way. Not interested at all.

I rather have Tatum/Fox/Issac/Jackson/Ball/Monk then him.

LukasBMW wrote:No way. Not interested at all.

I rather have Tatum/Fox/Issac/Jackson/Ball/Monk then him.

Even though he and Booker had pretty much the same shooting #s but Russell was better at pretty much everything else? Twice as many steals, almost twice as many assists, more rebounds, etc.

Anyone that's high on Booker should be high on Russell. But maybe you are not high on Booker.

I do understand those who say for defensive reasons they wouldn't want him though.

I wouldn't trade the #32 pick for Russell unless you gave us Larry Nance Jr. too. You can have Knight.

bwgood77 wrote:

LukasBMW wrote:No way. Not interested at all.

I rather have Tatum/Fox/Issac/Jackson/Ball/Monk then him.

Even though he and Booker had pretty much the same shooting #s but Russell was better at pretty much everything else? Twice as many steals, almost twice as many assists, more rebounds, etc.

Anyone that's high on Booker should be high on Russell. But maybe you are not high on Booker.

I do understand those who say for defensive reasons they wouldn't want him though.

Russell is a snitch. Can't trust a snitch.

I've really warmed up to DLo and I think he's a stud. Booker and him seem to have a history and that's a pair I wouldn't mind watching develop together.

Talent wise, I think DLo would be a top 2 pick in this draft. If we couldn't get Fultz, then DLo would be a great consolation

Gorilla Warfare wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

LukasBMW wrote:No way. Not interested at all.

I rather have Tatum/Fox/Issac/Jackson/Ball/Monk then him.

Even though he and Booker had pretty much the same shooting #s but Russell was better at pretty much everything else? Twice as many steals, almost twice as many assists, more rebounds, etc.

Anyone that's high on Booker should be high on Russell. But maybe you are not high on Booker.

I do understand those who say for defensive reasons they wouldn't want him though.

Russell is a snitch. Can't trust a snitch.

I thought someone else released that video? He just recorded it as a joke. If so he's not a snitch, just a **** weirdo.

lilfishi22 wrote:I've really warmed up to DLo and I think he's a stud. Booker and him seem to have a history and that's a pair I wouldn't mind watching develop together.

Talent wise, I think DLo would be a top 2 pick in this draft. If we couldn't get Fultz, then DLo would be a great consolation

They seem to be selling low. If we could somehow pry 5 and 10 from Sac by pretending we were taking Fox or Jackson (whoever falls) and I imagine we'd have to throw in either a future first or 32 and a player or something it would be nice to take Isaac at 5 (or whatever SF is there) and trade 10 for D Lo.

Or, if Bledsoe can net us 8, 9 or 10, we could just basically flip him for D Lo.

bwgood77 wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:I've really warmed up to DLo and I think he's a stud. Booker and him seem to have a history and that's a pair I wouldn't mind watching develop together.

Talent wise, I think DLo would be a top 2 pick in this draft. If we couldn't get Fultz, then DLo would be a great consolation

They seem to be selling low. If we could somehow pry 5 and 10 from Sac by pretending we were taking Fox or Jackson (whoever falls) and I imagine we'd have to throw in either a future first or 32 and a player or something it would be nice to take Isaac at 5 (or whatever SF is there) and trade 10 for D Lo.

Or, if Bledsoe can net us 8, 9 or 10, we could just basically flip him for D Lo.

Yeah I just read they are just looking at top 12. I wouldn't move #4 for him. That's selling #4 too low. I like your approach of grabbing the pair of Sac picks and moving one for DLo

lilfishi22 wrote:

bwgood77 wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:I've really warmed up to DLo and I think he's a stud. Booker and him seem to have a history and that's a pair I wouldn't mind watching develop together.

Talent wise, I think DLo would be a top 2 pick in this draft. If we couldn't get Fultz, then DLo would be a great consolation

They seem to be selling low. If we could somehow pry 5 and 10 from Sac by pretending we were taking Fox or Jackson (whoever falls) and I imagine we'd have to throw in either a future first or 32 and a player or something it would be nice to take Isaac at 5 (or whatever SF is there) and trade 10 for D Lo.

Or, if Bledsoe can net us 8, 9 or 10, we could just basically flip him for D Lo.

Yeah I just read they are just looking at top 12. I wouldn't move #4 for him. That's selling #4 too low. I like your approach of grabbing the pair of Sac picks and moving one for DLo

What about trading Bledsoe for 8-10 or perhaps 12 or 13 and getting D Lo with that?