Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
closg00 wrote:I thought the Knicks head-scratching stupidity left with IT. Could the Knicks really be telegraphing that they will select Curry at 8? Perhaps they have a gentleman's agreement with teams picking #6 & 7 not to select Curry. Truly bizarre.
Ruzious wrote:As much as Doc, Nate, and others are Curry fans, I'm in the tank for Lawson - who has been ranked lower than Curry most - if not all - season. I think he fits into today's NBA game a lot better than Curry will. Watching a guy like Aaron Brooks - who's basically a poor-man's Lawson talent-wise - basically beat the Lakers by himself the other day - and he's been extremely effective throughout the playoffs - it shows you the value of a penetrating PG is - a PG who always gets in the lane. Curry just is not that type of guard and doesn't have that type of extreme quickness. The Lakers couldn't do a thing against Brooks' quickness - and that makes the pick n roll unstoppable, and then all you need from your wing men is the ability to hit open 3's.
And he can play off the ball, as well. The DX article confirms that with his excellent catch and shoot percentage.
nate33 wrote:closg00 wrote:I thought the Knicks head-scratching stupidity left with IT. Could the Knicks really be telegraphing that they will select Curry at 8? Perhaps they have a gentleman's agreement with teams picking #6 & 7 not to select Curry. Truly bizarre.
I'm not happy with this development. If we ended up with the #3 pick, I was kinda hoping that we'd trade down with Toronto, dump Stevenson (and maybe James), and draft Curry at #9.
nate33 wrote:How's this for an offseason plan, assuming we land the #3 pick:
Trade 1:
Washington trades: #3 + Stevenson
Toronto trades: #9.
Trade 2:
Washington trades: Crittenton + Etan
Atlanta trades: Claxton
We draft Lawson at #9. We'd end up saving $1.4M this year and $1.5M next year because of the pick swap. We'd save $1.5M and $2.2M by dumping Crittenton. We'd save $3.9M and $4.1M by dumping Stevenson. And we'd save $2.1M by the Etan for Claxton swap.
The total savings is $8.9M next year, $7.8M the year after. That's probably enough to get us out of the luxtax both seasons, which saves Abe close to $40M. Meanwhile, we upgrade our backup PG position and create a roster spot for a 2nd round pick. Finally, we are still left with James' and Claxton's expiring contracts. Both are much easier to trade than Etan's because there is no trade kicker.
Dat2U wrote:Well I'm not a fan of trading down just to dump $8 million in DeShawn's salary. But even if you were to make this move it wouldn't be guaranteed that the player you want at #9 will be there. I know Curry won't but honestly I have my doubts about Lawson being there too. While their are some teams which may go for the raw potential of Brandon Jennings or DeMar DeRozan in the mid-lottery I suspect an experienced college player with the athleticism & skillset of Lawson would rise as the draft gets nearer. You could potentially draft a player Toronto wants at #3 but then end up selecting a backup option at #9 b/c Curry & Lawson are gone.
$8 million over 2 years just isn't enough impetus IMO to trade down a risk drafting an inferior prospect. Sure that deal alone may save Abe $16 million plus but it won't make a damn bit a difference in improving the team's roster other than lessening the chance of landing a real difference maker in the draft. Maybe if we had a Beno Udrih type contract I'd say it would be worth it, but that's not the case.
nate33 wrote:Dat2U, we've discussed this over and over. How much better of a player do you expect us to be able to get at #3 that we can't get at #9? Like you, I figure that Curry, Lawson and Evans are the best picks for this ball club assuming we pick 3rd or lower (I'd throw Henderson in the mix too). I'm just saying that one of them will probably be available at #9. Rather than draft Curry/Lawson/Evans at #3, we should save Abe $16M while drafting Curry/Lawson/Evans at #9. (Not to mention removing Stevenson from the team to make sure Flip isn't tempted to play him over DMac and Young.)
Obviously, EG needs to do his research to make sure one of Curry/Lawson/Evans will be there at #9. The safe move would be to draft the most tradeable player at #3 (which is probably Thabeet) and then make the Toronto pick swap only if one of Curry/Lawson/Evans is still on the board at #9. If they're not available at #9, then the backup plan would be to shop Thabeet to one of the teams picking 4-8 who have Curry/Lawson/Evans. We might not be able to dump Stevenson in that scenario, but we'd get something out of the deal and we'd end up paying Curry/Lawson/Evans the salary of a #4-8 pick rather than the salary of a #3 pick.
Thabeet is the safe pick as trade bait because several of the teams picking right after us (Minnesota, OKC, New York, Toronto) are in dire need of a center.
Ruzious wrote:As much as Doc, Nate, and others are Curry fans, I'm in the tank for Lawson - who has been ranked lower than Curry most - if not all - season. I think he fits into today's NBA game a lot better than Curry will. Watching a guy like Aaron Brooks - who's basically a poor-man's Lawson talent-wise - basically beat the Lakers by himself the other day - and he's been extremely effective throughout the playoffs - it shows you the value of a penetrating PG is - a PG who always gets in the lane. Curry just is not that type of guard and doesn't have that type of extreme quickness. The Lakers couldn't do a thing against Brooks' quickness - and that makes the pick n roll unstoppable, and then all you need from your wing men is the ability to hit open 3's.
And he can play off the ball, as well. The DX article confirms that with his excellent catch and shoot percentage.
Dat2U wrote:I just don't want to be in a situation where were stuck with Thabeet or forced to choose an inferior prospect. It's too much risk involved. I remember years back when Reinsdorf drafted Marcus Fizer b/c he was widely considered the 4th best piayer in the draft and they had the full intention of dealing him. Chicago ended up being stuck with him though b/c they weren't able to find a trade partner or get anything of value for him. Fizer became a bust in a Bulls uniform as Reinsdorf's plan backfired.
I also don't see it as a sure bet that Thabeet becomes the clear cut choice at #3. These mocks are extremely unreliable. There's always a few players that rise at the last moment and others that drop significantly the day of the draft. I just don't think the risk is worth the reward (i.e. dumping a contract worth $4 mil per and $8 mil total). Either trade the player for a solid veteran or draft what you feel is the best available prospect. I'm honestly totally against trading down. It's a weak draft anyways, trading down only lowers your chances of getting a solid prospect IMO.
Ruzious wrote:As much as Doc, Nate, and others are Curry fans, I'm in the tank for Lawson - who has been ranked lower than Curry most - if not all - season. I think he fits into today's NBA game a lot better than Curry will. Watching a guy like Aaron Brooks - who's basically a poor-man's Lawson talent-wise - basically beat the Lakers by himself the other day - and he's been extremely effective throughout the playoffs - it shows you the value of a penetrating PG is - a PG who always gets in the lane. Curry just is not that type of guard and doesn't have that type of extreme quickness. The Lakers couldn't do a thing against Brooks' quickness - and that makes the pick n roll unstoppable, and then all you need from your wing men is the ability to hit open 3's.
And he can play off the ball, as well. The DX article confirms that with his excellent catch and shoot percentage.
doclinkin wrote:likwitdesi wrote:Is it just me or would Darren Collison be a great backup PG from day 1? Tons of college experience, very smart player who plays within himself, can pass, shoot the 3, and defend.
Plus, he tops my meta-draft. Yeah I expect he will have fewer problems than many making the adjustment to the next level. Pure point guard, few mistakes, defends well, athletic enough, hardworking, a safe pick.
closg00 wrote:Speaking of PG's DX with another one of their excellent analysis articles on the current top PG prospects.
I would love to somehow upgrade our back-up PG position this off-season.
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Sit ... Crop-3209/
nate33 wrote:Dat2U wrote:Well I'm not a fan of trading down just to dump $8 million in DeShawn's salary. But even if you were to make this move it wouldn't be guaranteed that the player you want at #9 will be there. I know Curry won't but honestly I have my doubts about Lawson being there too. While their are some teams which may go for the raw potential of Brandon Jennings or DeMar DeRozan in the mid-lottery I suspect an experienced college player with the athleticism & skillset of Lawson would rise as the draft gets nearer. You could potentially draft a player Toronto wants at #3 but then end up selecting a backup option at #9 b/c Curry & Lawson are gone.
$8 million over 2 years just isn't enough impetus IMO to trade down a risk drafting an inferior prospect. Sure that deal alone may save Abe $16 million plus but it won't make a damn bit a difference in improving the team's roster other than lessening the chance of landing a real difference maker in the draft. Maybe if we had a Beno Udrih type contract I'd say it would be worth it, but that's not the case.
Dat2U, we've discussed this over and over. How much better of a player do you expect us to be able to get at #3 that we can't get at #9? Like you, I figure that Curry, Lawson and Evans are the best picks for this ball club assuming we pick 3rd or lower (I'd throw Henderson in the mix too). I'm just saying that one of them will probably be available at #9. Rather than draft Curry/Lawson/Evans at #3, we should save Abe $16M while drafting Curry/Lawson/Evans at #9. (Not to mention removing Stevenson from the team to make sure Flip isn't tempted to play him over DMac and Young.)
Obviously, EG needs to do his research to make sure one of Curry/Lawson/Evans will be there at #9. The safe move would be to draft the most tradeable player at #3 (which is probably Thabeet) and then make the Toronto pick swap only if one of Curry/Lawson/Evans is still on the board at #9. If they're not available at #9, then the backup plan would be to shop Thabeet to one of the teams picking 4-8 who have Curry/Lawson/Evans. We might not be able to dump Stevenson in that scenario, but we'd get something out of the deal and we'd end up paying Curry/Lawson/Evans the salary of a #4-8 pick rather than the salary of a #3 pick.
Thabeet is the safe pick as trade bait because several of the teams picking right after us (Minnesota, OKC, New York, Toronto) are in dire need of a center.
nate33 wrote:Dat2U wrote:Well I'm not a fan of trading down just to dump $8 million in DeShawn's salary. But even if you were to make this move it wouldn't be guaranteed that the player you want at #9 will be there. I know Curry won't but honestly I have my doubts about Lawson being there too. While their are some teams which may go for the raw potential of Brandon Jennings or DeMar DeRozan in the mid-lottery I suspect an experienced college player with the athleticism & skillset of Lawson would rise as the draft gets nearer. You could potentially draft a player Toronto wants at #3 but then end up selecting a backup option at #9 b/c Curry & Lawson are gone.
$8 million over 2 years just isn't enough impetus IMO to trade down a risk drafting an inferior prospect. Sure that deal alone may save Abe $16 million plus but it won't make a damn bit a difference in improving the team's roster other than lessening the chance of landing a real difference maker in the draft. Maybe if we had a Beno Udrih type contract I'd say it would be worth it, but that's not the case.
Dat2U, we've discussed this over and over. How much better of a player do you expect us to be able to get at #3 that we can't get at #9? Like you, I figure that Curry, Lawson and Evans are the best picks for this ball club assuming we pick 3rd or lower (I'd throw Henderson in the mix too). I'm just saying that one of them will probably be available at #9. Rather than draft Curry/Lawson/Evans at #3, we should save Abe $16M while drafting Curry/Lawson/Evans at #9. (Not to mention removing Stevenson from the team to make sure Flip isn't tempted to play him over DMac and Young.)
Obviously, EG needs to do his research to make sure one of Curry/Lawson/Evans will be there at #9. The safe move would be to draft the most tradeable player at #3 (which is probably Thabeet) and then make the Toronto pick swap only if one of Curry/Lawson/Evans is still on the board at #9. If they're not available at #9, then the backup plan would be to shop Thabeet to one of the teams picking 4-8 who have Curry/Lawson/Evans. We might not be able to dump Stevenson in that scenario, but we'd get something out of the deal and we'd end up paying Curry/Lawson/Evans the salary of a #4-8 pick rather than the salary of a #3 pick.
Thabeet is the safe pick as trade bait because several of the teams picking right after us (Minnesota, OKC, New York, Toronto) are in dire need of a center.
doclinkin wrote:Ruzious wrote:As much as Doc, Nate, and others are Curry fans, I'm in the tank for Lawson - who has been ranked lower than Curry most - if not all - season. I think he fits into today's NBA game a lot better than Curry will. Watching a guy like Aaron Brooks - who's basically a poor-man's Lawson talent-wise - basically beat the Lakers by himself the other day - and he's been extremely effective throughout the playoffs - it shows you the value of a penetrating PG is - a PG who always gets in the lane. Curry just is not that type of guard and doesn't have that type of extreme quickness. The Lakers couldn't do a thing against Brooks' quickness - and that makes the pick n roll unstoppable, and then all you need from your wing men is the ability to hit open 3's.
And he can play off the ball, as well. The DX article confirms that with his excellent catch and shoot percentage.
I like Ty Lawson just fine. Fast, sturdy; measures short because his head is fixed directly to his torso with no interference from a neck. Can finish in and among the trees, tough enough to take contact. He definitely has the physical talent bonafides to meet or surpass Curry on raw athleticism.
As far as this team goes either one would be an immediate good fit and an upgrade, Lawson maybe even more so due to the sudden influx of athleticism. I give Curry the edge on intangibles, intelligence, in-game adjustment. I like his development and project it down the line as a team leader type without needing the ball to dominate. And on this team the ability to play off the ball is a key asset.
Let me be clear, I liked Curry as a trade down prospect. With the draft pool thinning I suspect Curry will go higher than his _immediate_ impact warrants. Still like the kid, but it's not like he's underrated now. Still in 5 years I think he'll be rated as one of the better picks for the $. I'm always willing to say it's a risky pick, not trying to convince anybody but myself. He just reads as something interesting. Smooth, undercontrol even in the middle of havoc. Big-leageu smarts and poise. This team needs that.
Dat's list has a few of the guys I like, in much the same order. Missing a couple adding some I distrust intensely: (I don't like Derozan much, despite unmatched athletix).
I'd had Aaron Jackson (Duquesne Dukes) as a round 2 sleeper or undrafted pick up (if we had a roster spot). DX also noticed his insane FG%. Stats took a bump up this year, but there's a reason for it. Kid took a gunshot wound through the wrist while saving a teammate from a random shooting (possibly pissed off opposing fan, IIRC). The near-death situation drove the other victims off the team, but Ajax dialed in and suddenly got focused. Interviews show a nice kid, hard worker, good attitude. If he doesn't land on his feet in the NBA he's one of those types who will go to Europe at least for a couple years, improve his game as needed, then collect interest from the NBA.
Detroit and the Spurs always pick up kids like this.
