Draft Pick 2010: Hypothetical #1

[erudite23]

Its getting to the point where we can start making specific inferences, speculations and observations about the direction the Jazz take with the NY pick in 2010.

So far, everything is playing out like an absolute charm for us. With NY having a good enough year this season to raise hopes, get a good flow going and erase any likelihood of a top 3 pick that would actually net them an impact player, while also divesting themselves of their best, most productive players as well as settting themselves up to lose David Lee and Nate Robinson (probably their two best guys atm).

If things continue on this trajectory, it would be very easy to see them fall into a horrible season next year, once Lee and Nate Rob leave. We could be looking at a top 5, maybe even top 3 pick next year.


So here's the question:

If the Jazz find themselves on the clock, staring at Ricky Rubio as the best player on their board, and without any big guy or even swingman that is of comparable quality (and assuming they can't pull a trade for equal value), do they take him?

We already are set for the foreseeable future at PG, obviously. But could a back court of Deron and Ricky succeed? Both are big, and Rubio will likely be able to guard most SGs in the league. Deron has the shot, while Ricky has the craftiness and ability to get to the hole. Would it work?

I know this, with the supreme emphasis that the Jazz coaching staff places on deflections, I can easily see them falling in love with him. The dude might be the best in the world at getting his hands on the ball defensively. He just has that 6th sense that enables him to do it even when you don't think its possible.

Its an unconventional approach, granted. But with the ever increasing importance of having a big time PG in the league, how can you argue with having two at the same time, especially when they could play together and potentially complement one another so well.

Of course, it would be better if we could get the next Bill Walton or Hakeem. But if he's undeniably the best player available, what do we do?

[LjJazzman]

Come on.....

[carrottop12]

Jazz would trade it if they got a #1 pick and Rubio or John Wall were the obvious choices. And that'd be fine with me. Either trade down in the draft for another lottery pick and a player or for a star.

[DelaneyRudd]

I know it's fun to speculate but there are too many variables left. We are setting our selves up for disappointment when it ends up being the 6th or 7th pick, which in reality Keon Clark and Ben Handlogden for the 7th pick is still unbelievably good luck.

[seejaydeja]

If we DID get the chance to get Rubio, I'm sure FO would trade the pick or draft him and trade him on draft night.

[DelaneyRudd]

The thing with trading a pick that is top 3 is you would have to get back a superstar, and superstars have large salarys, meaning you would have to send bloated Ratliff/Lafrentz types back, and the Jazz have no crummy contracts at that time, and aren't looking at getting one.

[babyjax13]

Rubio and Wall are both athletic and big enough to play shooting guard at this level. I say take the best player available, no matter who it is and figure out a way to work them into the rotation long-term.

[loserX]

^Agreed. We have no idea where the pick is going to be, and at this point we don't even have a whole lot of idea what our roster is going to look like by that point. Best player available, or use it in trade if we can.

[El Turco]

i d trade down couple spots and try to get derrick favors, i have a feeling he is going to be josh smith with better scoring.

[The Sheik]

i d trade down couple spots and try to get derrick favors, i have a feeling he is going to be josh smith with better scoring.

What about Evan Turner?

[El Turco]

turner is probably going to declare this season but if he is available in 2010, i wouldnt mind him, he would look good next to koufos

not with the top-5 pick though.

[DelaneyRudd]

Who knows if a player will rise or fall in that time. Favors may end up being a consensus top pick and Rubio could be in the 20s under certain circumstances.

[carrottop12]

Since were talking the draft right now, I'll tell who I'd love to have the Jazz pick up this draft it it doesn't end up going to Minnesota.



Patrick Mills.

A lot of you probably saw him in the Olympics, he's a stud from Australia currently playing at St. Mary's. He's the ideal back up PG for Deron, a great scorer, solid passer and a nice ball thief. He should be available in the late teens early 20's which is where I assume the Jazz will be picking, and he'd be a great addition to the bench. He'd learn a lot from Deron also.

[babyjax13]

Mills would be a great backup to Deron. He is quick, and a good distributor. Sort of like a Brevin Knight with potential.

[erudite23]

All I know is that in the NBA, the team that trades down rarely ever wins. The two most recent examples are 1)the Trail Blazers getting cute and trading from #3 down to #6 because they supposedly were set at PG, ending up with a middling prospect on the wing out of the pick, along with two future selections that ended up being Joel Freeland and (iirc) Petteri Koponen, while missing out on possibly the two best PGs of this generation. Now, here they are 4 years later and the only real weakness on their roster is PG. And 2) the Clippers trading from 2 to 4 with the Bobcats in 04. Essentially giving Charlotte the chance to take the leftover big guy after Orlando picked and in turn being able to get Shaun Livingston, who was--whether you credit injuries or whatever--a collosal bust in the NBA. While Okafor might not be DWill or CP, he is an excellent defender and shotblocker who is a good team player and character guy, worthy of 10m+ a year, while Livingston couldn't even crack the starting lineup before his gruesome knee injury.

The team trading down almost never wins. You can't really get value by manuevering in the draft. Its not like the NFL where you can get multiple picks and recoup the value that way. In the NBA, 5 guys get 85% of your team's playing time. That puts the emphasis on quality and magnitude of a small group of players, rather than on having a large group of "good" ones.


There are obviously a lot of moving parts, but with the way this draft is initially shaping up, it looks like there is an excellent chance--if we end up with a top 3-5 pick--of us ending up on the clock with an elite PG prospect being far and away the best player available. If that happens, you just have to take him, imo, and then let the chips fall where they may.

[jazzfan1971]

cart horse

[DelaneyRudd]

cart horse

I'm a little lost with this reference.

[DelaneyRudd]

All I know is that in the NBA, the team that trades down rarely ever wins. The two most recent examples are 1)the Trail Blazers getting cute and trading from #3 down to #6 because they supposedly were set at PG, ending up with a middling prospect on the wing out of the pick, along with two future selections that ended up being Joel Freeland and (iirc) Petteri Koponen, while missing out on possibly the two best PGs of this generation. Now, here they are 4 years later and the only real weakness on their roster is PG. And 2) the Clippers trading from 2 to 4 with the Bobcats in 04. Essentially giving Charlotte the chance to take the leftover big guy after Orlando picked and in turn being able to get Shaun Livingston, who was--whether you credit injuries or whatever--a collosal bust in the NBA. While Okafor might not be DWill or CP, he is an excellent defender and shotblocker who is a good team player and character guy, worthy of 10m+ a year, while Livingston couldn't even crack the starting lineup before his gruesome knee injury.

The team trading down almost never wins. You can't really get value by manuevering in the draft. Its not like the NFL where you can get multiple picks and recoup the value that way. In the NBA, 5 guys get 85% of your team's playing time. That puts the emphasis on quality and magnitude of a small group of players, rather than on having a large group of "good" ones.


There are obviously a lot of moving parts, but with the way this draft is initially shaping up, it looks like there is an excellent chance--if we end up with a top 3-5 pick--of us ending up on the clock with an elite PG prospect being far and away the best player available. If that happens, you just have to take him, imo, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Ah yes, young Sebastian. Anyways Dallas traded down for Dirk. So Milwaukee could take Robert Traylor. Nets traded Eddie Griffin for RJ and jack crap else.

[carrottop12]

All I know is that in the NBA, the team that trades down rarely ever wins. The two most recent examples are 1)the Trail Blazers getting cute and trading from #3 down to #6 because they supposedly were set at PG, ending up with a middling prospect on the wing out of the pick, along with two future selections that ended up being Joel Freeland and (iirc) Petteri Koponen, while missing out on possibly the two best PGs of this generation. Now, here they are 4 years later and the only real weakness on their roster is PG. And 2) the Clippers trading from 2 to 4 with the Bobcats in 04. Essentially giving Charlotte the chance to take the leftover big guy after Orlando picked and in turn being able to get Shaun Livingston, who was--whether you credit injuries or whatever--a collosal bust in the NBA. While Okafor might not be DWill or CP, he is an excellent defender and shotblocker who is a good team player and character guy, worthy of 10m+ a year, while Livingston couldn't even crack the starting lineup before his gruesome knee injury.

The team trading down almost never wins. You can't really get value by manuevering in the draft. Its not like the NFL where you can get multiple picks and recoup the value that way. In the NBA, 5 guys get 85% of your team's playing time. That puts the emphasis on quality and magnitude of a small group of players, rather than on having a large group of "good" ones.


There are obviously a lot of moving parts, but with the way this draft is initially shaping up, it looks like there is an excellent chance--if we end up with a top 3-5 pick--of us ending up on the clock with an elite PG prospect being far and away the best player available. If that happens, you just have to take him, imo, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Well. first of all let me say that was a very good post, and obviously you bring up a lot of good points.

But I still want to have some fun and play devil's advocate a little bit.

First of all, lets get things straight in that the Jazz gave the Blazers the #6 pick and the # 27 pick which ended up being Linas Klieza who they immediately traded for Jarret Jack. Just for logistical purposes.

Second, everybody knows, as was the Jazz plan that when taking an SF that year Danny Granger was the obvious pick (somehow he fell to #17 which is beyond me) but anyways, had Portland made the right call they could have ended up with a pretty good deal in getting Jack and Granger, both pretty good players. But that is neither here nor there.

My real point is, the two teams you brought up were the Blazers and the Clippers. It just so happens that both of these teams were essentially run by the two worst GM's in the NBA at the time in that idiot Elgin Baylor and the man who brought us the JailBlazers John Nash. Both incompitent losers who shouldn't have been making decisions with franchises at stake.

As long as the Jazz have KOC running the show, I feel confident that if we were to trade down it would be for better purpose.

Also there is the whole Sebastian Telfair incident that Portland thought they had something that they obviously didn't and that's why they didn't keep the pick but whatever, again, neither here nor there.

All I am saying is, you can't let the incompitence of Nash and Baylor throw dirt on the idea of making a trade with the pick.

But like it has been said, we are putting the cart before the horse, the chances of this pick being high enough to have to worry about Rubio or Wall is extremely slim, and honestly I'd be happy with whoever we pick up.

[DelaneyRudd]

cart horse

I'm a little lost with this reference.

HEY OK! Last post spelled it out. Awesome.