Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVII

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

It seems odd, but it's possible Tatum basically hit his peak as a 19 year old rookie - very solid player who's never going to be a star.

i doubt that. Bradley Beal wasn't as good at 19 or 20, and he had appeared to have peaked as well.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/tatumja01.html

posting.php?mode=quote&f=35&p=73958197

Tatum's just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Ruzious]

It seems odd, but it's possible Tatum basically hit his peak as a 19 year old rookie - very solid player who's never going to be a star.

i doubt that. Bradley Beal wasn't as good at 19 or 20, and he had appeared to have peaked as well.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/tatumja01.html

posting.php?mode=quote&f=35&p=73958197

Tatum's just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why is Boston now the wrong place for him?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

He's playing farther from the basket and getting the ball later in the shot clock.

[Ruzious]

I have the perfect plan; just wait and see, ya know. Maybe we get lucky with a good GM, or with the draft lottery, or with the draft, or with a trade, or 2 or more of the above (or left - depending on how this sentence goes).

And if that doesn't look like it's gonna work, blow it the bleep up.

[Dark Faze]

Those Boston picks, particularly with their win now focus--look awful juicy for a potential trade down scenario.

Unfortunately it's unlikely we'd be in play regardless. If they lose Kyrie--they probably don't pursue AD and keep the picks to restock on talent. If they keep Kyrie, they probably empty their wallets to obtain AD.

Unfortunately, outside of Boston there are only two other pick for pick trade up scenarios: Brooklyn will own 16,27, and 31, and San Antonio with 18 and 29.

[nate33]

Those Boston picks, particularly with their win now focus--look awful juicy for a potential trade down scenario.

Unfortunately it's unlikely we'd be in play regardless. If they lose Kyrie--they probably don't pursue AD and keep the picks to restock on talent. If they keep Kyrie, they probably empty their wallets to obtain AD.

Unfortunately, outside of Boston there are only two other pick for pick trade up scenarios: Brooklyn will own 16,27, and 31, and San Antonio with 18 and 29.

We can always trade for a later pick this year plus another pick next year.

I figure next year is going to be a tank year anyhow. It should look pretty much like things looked this year following the Porter trade: no John Wall, a bunch of young athletes who can put up points but haven't figured out defense, and a bench devoid of any decent veterans. We should win less than half our games but hopefully start coming together and playing sound defense by the end of the year.

I'd be fine with trading down from #3-4 to something in the #8-10 range plus a 2020 1st. Let's plan for one more tank year while developing Bryant, Brown, Parker and our pick.

The following year, we would have two 2020 draft picks plus Wall coming back; and Brown, Bryant and our 2019 1st should have 1-2 seasons under their belts and be ready for prime time.

[queridiculo]

Curious, would anybody be willing to trade next years pick without any protection if it mean coming away from this draft with Clarke and Hunter?

There's no way that Boston is going to pick four players in this years draft right?

Surrendering future assets is something straight of Grunfeld's playbook and should be avoided at all costs, but there's just something about those two that makes me feel like they're a perfect fit for our situation.

Complementary players with some upside and clearly defined strengths that can take the floor and produce right from the get.

By the time the 2020 season concludes we might be able to get that pick back anyway if Beal signals that he's looking to test the market.

I think at that point Washington would probably be better served trading him.

[Dat2U]

Curious, would anybody be willing to trade next years pick without any protection if it mean coming away from this draft with Clarke and Hunter?

There's no way that Boston is going to pick four players in this years draft right?

Surrendering future assets is something straight of Grunfeld's playbook and should be avoided at all costs, but there's just something about those two that makes me feel like they're a perfect fit for our situation.

Complementary players with some upside and clearly defined strengths that can take the floor and produce right from the get.

By the time the 2020 season concludes we might be able to get that pick back anyway if Beal signals that he's looking to test the market.

I think at that point Washington would probably be better served trading him.

If we get Zion, sure. If we end up at 6-8, no.

[Mizerooskie]

Curious, would anybody be willing to trade next years pick without any protection if it mean coming away from this draft with Clarke and Hunter?

There's no way that Boston is going to pick four players in this years draft right?

Surrendering future assets is something straight of Grunfeld's playbook and should be avoided at all costs, but there's just something about those two that makes me feel like they're a perfect fit for our situation.

Complementary players with some upside and clearly defined strengths that can take the floor and produce right from the get.

By the time the 2020 season concludes we might be able to get that pick back anyway if Beal signals that he's looking to test the market.

I think at that point Washington would probably be better served trading him.

No. I'd want to see the draft class in action before moving the pick. This time last year, nobody saw Morant having superstar potential, and Garland was probably a tier 4 prospect. A lot can change in a year.

[Illmatic12]

Curious, would anybody be willing to trade next years pick without any protection if it mean coming away from this draft with Clarke and Hunter?

There's no way that Boston is going to pick four players in this years draft right?

Surrendering future assets is something straight of Grunfeld's playbook and should be avoided at all costs, but there's just something about those two that makes me feel like they're a perfect fit for our situation.

Complementary players with some upside and clearly defined strengths that can take the floor and produce right from the get.

By the time the 2020 season concludes we might be able to get that pick back anyway if Beal signals that he's looking to test the market.

I think at that point Washington would probably be better served trading him.

No chance. A 10th-15th pick next year could be equivalent to picking 5th-10th in this draft. There are better crop of 1-and-done prospects and more internationals declaring next year

[Ruzious]

Curious, would anybody be willing to trade next years pick without any protection if it mean coming away from this draft with Clarke and Hunter?

There's no way that Boston is going to pick four players in this years draft right?

Surrendering future assets is something straight of Grunfeld's playbook and should be avoided at all costs, but there's just something about those two that makes me feel like they're a perfect fit for our situation.

Complementary players with some upside and clearly defined strengths that can take the floor and produce right from the get.

By the time the 2020 season concludes we might be able to get that pick back anyway if Beal signals that he's looking to test the market.

I think at that point Washington would probably be better served trading him.

No. I'd want to see the draft class in action before moving the pick. This time last year, nobody saw Morant having superstar potential, and Garland was probably a tier 4 prospect. A lot can change in a year.

I would trade next year's 1st unprotected for Garland.

[prime1time]

Curious, would anybody be willing to trade next years pick without any protection if it mean coming away from this draft with Clarke and Hunter?

There's no way that Boston is going to pick four players in this years draft right?

Surrendering future assets is something straight of Grunfeld's playbook and should be avoided at all costs, but there's just something about those two that makes me feel like they're a perfect fit for our situation.

Complementary players with some upside and clearly defined strengths that can take the floor and produce right from the get.

By the time the 2020 season concludes we might be able to get that pick back anyway if Beal signals that he's looking to test the market.

I think at that point Washington would probably be better served trading him.

No. I'd rather take one rookie and focus on developing our other young players. When you start talking about 2 1st round picks this year and Thomas Bryant and Troy Brown, I feel like it's too much blind leading the blind. I'm also not a big fan of Clarke. If he could shoot 3's maybe, but he can't. Teams can find players that produce like Clarke throughout both the first round and the second round. Look at Mitchell Robinson for NYC.

Now Darius Garland in the first round? Maybe, but unprotected no. If a big time player falls in the draft, I'd consider trading a lottery protected pick after them. But I stand by my point about having too many rookies/young guys on the team. Barring an unbelievable opportunity I draft one guy and move on.

[rl25g]

Would anyone consider trading down from 2 or 3 to Atlanta for 7&9 if it shakes that way?

Could see them falling in love with Barrett

[Dat2U]

Would anyone consider trading down from 2 or 3 to Atlanta for 7&9 if it shakes that way?

Could see them falling in love with Barrett

No to the 2nd pick, yes to the 3rd pick.

[nate33]

Would anyone consider trading down from 2 or 3 to Atlanta for 7&9 if it shakes that way?

Could see them falling in love with Barrett

No to the 2nd pick, yes to the 3rd pick.

Yes. And it would be glorious if Garland was still available at 6/7. I'd be thrilled if we came away with Garland and a defensive forward (Clarke, Hunter, Doumbouya). To me, that's the best scenario outside of getting Zion.

I'd also trade the #2 (Morant) if I knew I'd land Garland and Clarke. I don't think the difference between Morant and Garland is greater than the value of an extra lotto pick. (I'm sure Dat2U disagrees, but that's okay.)

[rl25g]

Would anyone consider trading down from 2 or 3 to Atlanta for 7&9 if it shakes that way?

Could see them falling in love with Barrett

No to the 2nd pick, yes to the 3rd pick.

Yes. And it would be glorious if Garland was still available at 6/7. I'd be thrilled if we came away with Garland and a defensive forward (Clarke, Hunter, Doumbouya). To me, that's the best scenario outside of getting Zion.

I'd also trade the #2 (Morant) if I knew I'd land Garland and Clarke. I don't think the difference between Morant and Garland is greater than the value of an extra lotto pick. (I'm sure Dat2U disagrees, but that's okay.)

Garland and Hunter/Doumbouya is a dream scenario. I'd trade the 2 pick as well.

[thricethefun]

Would anyone consider trading down from 2 or 3 to Atlanta for 7&9 if it shakes that way?

Could see them falling in love with Barrett

If you get a top 3 pick you gotta take Barrett. Don't overthink it. Guy is gonna be an all star. Averaged 23 and 8 as an 18 year old in the toughest conference in the country. Quality > Quantity in the nba.

[nate33]

Would anyone consider trading down from 2 or 3 to Atlanta for 7&9 if it shakes that way?

Could see them falling in love with Barrett

If you get a top 3 pick you gotta take Barrett. Don't overthink it. Guy is gonna be an all star. Averaged 23 and 8 as an 18 year old in the toughest conference in the country. Quality > Quantity in the nba.

Meh. He averaged 23 points with a TS% of .532 even though Zion was drawing so much defensive attention. He shoots 30% from 3 and 66% from the FT line. He turns the ball over a ton.

He has talent to be sure, and he definitely has a scorer's mindset and confidence, but it's far from certain whether he'll be an effective and efficient scorer at the NBA level. He looks more like a Zach Lavine or Donovan Mitchell type of player offensively. I'm not sure if that helps all that much.

I'd rather have Garland, a PG in the archetype of Curry/Young/Lillard, plus another good defensive forward.

[prime1time]

Would anyone consider trading down from 2 or 3 to Atlanta for 7&9 if it shakes that way?

Could see them falling in love with Barrett

If you get a top 3 pick you gotta take Barrett. Don't overthink it. Guy is gonna be an all star. Averaged 23 and 8 as an 18 year old in the toughest conference in the country. Quality > Quantity in the nba.

Meh. He averaged 23 points with a TS% of .532 even though Zion was drawing so much defensive attention. He shoots 30% from 3 and 66% from the FT line. He turns the ball over a ton.

He has talent to be sure, and he definitely has a scorer's mindset and confidence, but it's far from certain whether he'll be an effective and efficient scorer at the NBA level. He looks more like a Zach Lavine or Donovan Mitchell type of player offensively. I'm not sure if that helps all that much.

I'd rather have Garland, a PG in the archetype of Curry/Young/Lillard, plus another good defensive forward.

I wouldn't dismiss Barrett. Dude is 18 years old. He will get a lot better. Garland looks to fit the mold, but with such a limited sample size it's tough to really know. A defensive forward is nice but that role is really being phased out. Assuming you are talking about Brandon Clarke, his lack of 3-point shooting is really concerning. If we leave this draft with only Barrett I'd be happy. If we leave this draft with Garland and Clarke, I would be interested to see the player Garland is (because I really don't know) and if Clarke can improve his game. Personally I'd prefer drafting Garland and a wing if we make that trade like Reddish. I simply don't believe in Clarke's ability to shoot the ball.

[nate33]

If you get a top 3 pick you gotta take Barrett. Don't overthink it. Guy is gonna be an all star. Averaged 23 and 8 as an 18 year old in the toughest conference in the country. Quality > Quantity in the nba.

Meh. He averaged 23 points with a TS% of .532 even though Zion was drawing so much defensive attention. He shoots 30% from 3 and 66% from the FT line. He turns the ball over a ton.

He has talent to be sure, and he definitely has a scorer's mindset and confidence, but it's far from certain whether he'll be an effective and efficient scorer at the NBA level. He looks more like a Zach Lavine or Donovan Mitchell type of player offensively. I'm not sure if that helps all that much.

I'd rather have Garland, a PG in the archetype of Curry/Young/Lillard, plus another good defensive forward.

I wouldn't dismiss Barrett. Dude is 18 years old. He will get a lot better. Garland looks to fit the mold, but with such a limited sample size it's tough to really know. A defensive forward is nice but that role is really being phased out. Assuming you are talking about Brandon Clarke, his lack of 3-point shooting is really concerning. If we leave this draft with only Barrett I'd be happy. If we leave this draft with Garland and Clarke, I would be interested to see the player Garland is (because I really don't know) and if Clarke can improve his game. Personally I'd prefer drafting Garland and a wing if we make that trade like Reddish. I simply don't believe in Clarke's ability to shoot the ball.

I haven't written off Clarke's ability to hit the 3. He just learned a new shooting form, and it looks fine. He shot 73% from the FT line over his last 30 games and he has elite shooting touch around the rim on floaters and short turnaround jumpers. My bet is that he'll figure out the 3-point shot eventually.