Trade up?

[W_HAMILTON]

I said that, but now that I think about it, I'm not sure I really believe it. I still look at it that way, and don't believe you have to draft a raw, athletic high schooler to "swing for the fences." As you said, to me, that means high risk, high reward. I don't see how Morrison doesn't exactly fit that bill.

Now that I think about it, I think a pick like that was even more "swinging for the fences" than most. How else can you explain drafting a guy that might not provide anything other than scoring, and he hasn't even provided that? How is that a safe pick, drafting a guy who, if he doesn't pan out, provides very little to a team to warrant playing him for extended periods of time? How is that not "swinging for the fences?" How is that playing it safe, going with a player who if he doesn't pan out, might not even make an NBA roster?

Again, we don't have to draft a raw high schooler to be "swinging for the fences." The same type of risk, the same type of reward, all that was just as apparent in some of our picks. And considering how some have panned out, I don't see how we could have been taking the "safe" route, since a couple of them aren't even contributing anything. You either have to believe this organization is incompetent and literally was striking out while going for the bunt, or believe they were swinging for the fences and failed.

If you are playing it safe, you don't draft some of the players we did.

[W_HAMILTON]

As for the other stuff, again, I don't agree that Richardson can't play SG while Wallace plays SF. Who cares whether you get the creating and driving ability from your SG or your SF? They complement each other well enough that you don't give up one to bring in an unproven player that has a CHANCE of complementing the other even better. We've screwed up enough with this roster, we don't have the luxury of trading away what few GOOD players we have and instead banking on someone unproven. Maybe if some of our draft picks panned out, we could afford to lose one of our better players, but most of them haven't, and we can't afford to handicap the team further by trading away one of our best players.

We're a "trade Wallace for OJ Mayo and then have Mayo not pan out" away from just about having to scrap this entire attempt at building a team and starting fresh.

We can't afford to take many more risks on unproven players, especially if to do so, we have to give up one of the few players we have that actually has worked out.

[BigSlam]

I don't agree that Richardson can't play SG while Wallace plays SF. Who cares whether you get the creating and driving ability from your SG or your SF?

I don't. But what I am saying and have been saying all along is that we need at least one of them who can, one of either the SG or SF who has PG type skills but SG/SF type size - and while they have the size, PG skills is not a strength of Swish or Crash. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. Because Swish can play the 3 very well and Crash has a fair contract he would be the easiest to move so he is who I put forward. You know, break a few eggs to make an omlette and all that.

We're a "trade Wallace for OJ Mayo and then have Mayo not pan out" away from just about having to scrap this entire attempt at building a team and starting fresh.

I know, and I agree. Not only do I agree, but it's a scary thought. But what if? What if the draft pick (Mayo in this case) does pan out? What if he is the missing ingredient to take us to the next level?

I'm getting sick and tired of watching guys like Paul and Roy explode and us wondering "what if".