Trade up?

[_tijo_]

Rumor on SI.com says that Walsh in NY wants to trade back for DJ Augustine... seems like our range.

nbadraft.net has the top 5 at Rose/Beasley/Lopez/Bayless/Randolph. How about #9 + two second round picks + Othello for the #6 (OJ Mayo). Knicks can get DJ at 9. Only make the trade if OJ is there.

We then call Miami and say we'll trade you OJ Mayo (whom they apparently like) + a lotto-protected 09 first rounder for Beasley. Not sure if this enough, we may have to throw in a Carroll or Ammo.

We start the year with Felton, JRich, Crash, Beasley, and Okafor. We have a great bench then, with Carroll/Ammo, May (if healthy), Dudley, and Nazr. We can even sign a vet pg for the min like Lindsey Hunter, who played under Brown before.

Just throwing it out there to have some discussion.

[W_HAMILTON]

Unlikely to happen.

And I doubt Mayo falls to #6. And most of the other guys that would be available at #6, I'd rather just wait at #9 and see which ones fall (preferably Augustin or Randolph).

I'm starting to warm to the idea of Augustin after reading about the type of player he is, plus the fact that it seems like a bunch of teams want him (luckily most of them wanting him to seem to be just behind us, though).

[BigSlam]

Why not trade Crash for the #6 and Rose (the Malik one, not the Derek one!!) who has an expiring contract?

Then combine the #6 and #9 to try and move up even higher (like into the top 3) or take which ever SG is there at #6 (Mayo, Bayless or Gordon?) and our PF at #9?

The Knicks want a SF and some D and Crash might blend well with Crawford as well as make up for Curry/Z-Bo's lack of D.

Just putting it out there!!

[W_HAMILTON]

Wallace + #9 > Mayo, or Lopez, or whoever we would be taking at #3

A proven, great all-around player like Wallace, not to mention he can basically put up 20ppg, is better than unproven talent we could get at #3 or #6.

[BigSlam]

Wallace + #9 > Mayo, or Lopez, or whoever we would be taking at #3

A proven, great all-around player like Wallace, not to mention he can basically put up 20ppg, is better than unproven talent we could get at #3 or #6.

OR.....

the flip side is that:

Mayo > Crash

IF he lives up to the hype, becomes a 25/6/6 type player, slides into the starting 5 as our SG moving Swish to the 3 and makes everyone, including Felts and EO50, better.

[W_HAMILTON]

So, we're banking on him reaching his potential, which from you post would be about 5 more ppg and a couple more assists than we already get from Wallace.

Given our history with great college players panning out in the pro's, I'd rather stick with someone that's proven.

[BigSlam]

His potential isn't just in the stats though W-Hamilton. It's the fact that he plays really, really good on ball D (something we seriously lack) as well as his skill set (the handles, the ability to create for himself and for others) that we could use.

IF, and it's a huge "if", he can live up to his potential, I think that a pairing of Mayo and Swish is a lot more attractive than a pairing of Swish and Crash.

Usually I do agree that the proven player far out weighs the player coming into the league. A bird in the hand and all that.

But why not swing for the fences and try and balance the roster?

[W_HAMILTON]

I doubt you want to get into that sort of discussion when it comes to Wallace, since the reason he gets his "stats" is because he can contribute in a number of ways, offensively and defensively.

And you don't "swing for the fences" because just about everytime we've done that -- we've failed.

There's no reason to get rid of the few proven players we have on our roster, just to get an unproven player, of which we already have a ton of. That's only handicapping us further, and setting us up for continued failure.

[BigSlam]

I have no problem getting into that discussion when it comes to Wallace.

He is a wonderful player with an amazing skill set - who has serious injury concerns and limitations that hamper what we could do as a whole unit.

The reason he gets his "stats" is because he is maybe the 2nd best player on our team and has the green light to get his. Put someone like Rodney Carney on our team and give him 15 shots a game and see what "stats" he gets.

We've never "swung for the fences". We have took the safe pick in 2004, the obvious pick in 2005, the most "NBA ready but low ceiling" pick in 2006 and traded the pick in 2007. Not ONCE have we swung for the fences.

It's not about getting rid of proven players. It's about improving the roster.

But hey, if you rather things the way they are, soak it up!! To me, that sets us up for continued failure. Making changes to find the right pieces in order to evolve seems like the best way to stop failing.

[W_HAMILTON]

Oh, I know! I remember how you all told me that we needed to cut Wallace loose, and not try to re-sign him, and dump him for whatever we could get, but I didn't listen! And I remember how you all said when we traded for Richardson, that we needed to get rid of Wallace ASAP because that was a duo destined to fail. Oh, why didn't I listen?!

Oh, that's because no one was saying it.

So, don't start now. Wallace is the same player he's always been, except better. And there was no movement to get rid of him before, and there should be no reason to get rid of him now. He had a down season, as did quite a few of our players, and odds are he will bounce back when we fix the problems that caused almost everybody to have a "down" season.

And I don't want things to stay the same, I want them to get better. And they aren't going to get better by trading away the few good players we have, and building around unproven and/or disappointing players. That's a sure-fire way to continue to suck.

And going for the over-hyped college star and hoping they live up to the hype is "swinging for the fences," in my opinion. Well, maybe I should clarify; going for the over-hyped college star and hoping they live up to the hype, then watching them fail, is "swinging for the fences" and failing, which was my point. We hoped that Morrison would be the next Bird.....and it's debateable whether he will even be in the NBA in 5 years. We hoped Felton would be just as good as D.Williams and Chris Paul.....and he's getting displaced as our starting PG by Jeff McInnis. We hoped Sean May would make it at the NBA level and thought we'd be better off drafting him than trading our two lottery picks for one player......and he's played in like 15 games in the past 3 years.

PS - as for what Rodney Carney will get us, probably a helluva lot worse, considering even after Wallace's "down" year, he shot better than Carney ACROSS-THE-BOARD (FG%, 3pt%, and FT%). Actually, looking at the "stats," you put Carney on this team and give him the same opportunities, and he's probably worse at everything. Maybe he'd get fewer turnovers?

[BigSlam]

I'm not basing moving him on a bad season (I didn't think he was that "bad" last season in the 1st place - other than the 4th concussion thing). I'm basing it on the dynamic of our roster and how it has changed. We need to change with it.

We didn't have Richardson before - now we do. He is better than Wallace, plays the same position so the better player should play the 3. That makes Wallace expendable.

If Wallace had handles/a higher BBIQ/better passing/the ability to create his own shot then I would play him at the 2 and this would be a moot point. In fact, if that was the case, I would be as happy as could be. But it's not, so we need to improve it.

We have other, more pressing needs for sure, but if we could address other needs while in the process of trying to find that athletic PF we all crave, then it would be remiss of us not to do so.

If we were "swinging for the fences", BB would have traded the 5 and 13 for the 3 and a chance at Paul or Williams. If we were "swinging for the fences" we would have selected Thomas or Gay over Ammo. If we were "swinging for the fences" we would have drafted Granger over May. The only time we have even marginally "swung for the fences" was when we moved from the 4 to the 2 to land Okafor - which was more a no brainer than a swing considering we gave up nothing to do it.

Like I said, don't take this as a blight on Crash and how I feel about him. If we had a SG like Joe Johnson, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Brandon Roy etc then Crash would be great and his flaws would be hidden - but we don't and the fact is that Swish is a better SF than Crash is and that I just think that the team is bigger than the player.

P.S. I just used Carney because he jumped into my head. You could easily replace that name with Salmons, Parker, Wilkins etc.

[W_HAMILTON]

They don't play the same position. Wallace plays SF, Richardson plays SG. They are perfectly compatible playing those two positions. No one said we should have traded Wallace the second we acquired Richardson, and it's ridiculous to be saying it now. An outside shooter does not make more of an inside player / penetrator obsolete. That's exactly why none of these concerns popped up after the trade, because everyone knew their skillsets would complement one another. But after a poor season where almost everyone on the team had a "down" year, we want to start trading our good players. That makes sense, if you want to make us suck even more.

As for Wallace's skill, uh, hello? Outside of our PGs, who is better at creating for others besides Wallace? Outside of maybe Richardson, who is better at creating scoring opportunities for himself? Wallace isn't perfect, but he's a helluva lot better at those things than almost everyone else on the team. That's why it's comical you say we need those things out of a player, then advocate trading away one of the few players that has those sorts of abilities.

As for "swinging for the fences," I view it completely differently. They selected the players they did because they thought they would most benefit the team. They thought we would get the most out of them. And they couldn't have been more wrong. They thought all these college players would live up to the hype they got in college, and they didn't. They have fallen woefully short. They aren't close to having the same effect on the NBA as they had in college. Thinking they were going to live up to all of that hype and succeed at the pro level is swinging for the fences and failing, in my opinion.

As for those other names you threw out, Wallace would still beat out all those guys across the board, except in shooting percentages. So, yes, you are basically using a down year from Wallace as a reason to trade him away. Wallace has shot above 50% from the field two of the past three seasons, something Salmons has never done. Something Parker has never done. Something Wilkins has never done.

So, what has a better chance of happening, Wallace reverting back to his former self and turning back into a very efficient scorer, or those guys doing something they've never been able to do in their careers? Hmmm....

So, you're basically trading someone that is better ACROSS-THE-BOARD at EVERYTHING, except possibly 3pt% or FT%.

So, come up with some better comparisons if you are going to try and make that point. Every person you said would put up worse numbers if they were given Wallace's minutes, and the few players that actually did have a better FG% than Wallace this year, don't even come close to Wallace's FG% the past two seasons.

[W_HAMILTON]

PS - to further my point about swinging for the fences...who had the worst downside, Gay or Morrison? Roy or Morrison? Anybody or Morrison? If those guys didn't turn out to be good, they could still be contributors at the NBA level, because of their skillsets. What was Morrison going to do, if he couldn't score at the NBA level? What good would he be? That's not a "safe" pick, someone that might not even be able to contribute anything at the NBA level.

So, if that's not swinging for the fences, what is it?

You don't have to draft a slew of raw high schoolers to "swing for the fences;" as we've seen, even "great" overhyped college stars can be just as big of a gamble.

[BigSlam]

1st thing:

You need to get out of your head that this has something to do with Wallace supposedly having a bad season. I've said, and keep saying, that I don't think he had a bad season - except for the concussion and missing games (again). Sure, his FG% went down, but he's taking much different shots now. He actaully has a bit of a J. He's still shooting 45% from the floor - which isn't horrible, and his FT% has improved greatly. All of his other numbers (pts, boards, assissts, blocks and steals) are pretty much the same as last year. Why do you keep going on and on and on about him having a bad season? I really don't think that he did?

While they do play the SG and SF position today, it's far from ideal. Because of his skill set, Swish is better suited to the SF position. Once there, he is more effective than Crash - so it makes sense that he should be given the spot - but only if we could turn Crash into a more suited SG, because he can't play it effectively.

And this illustrates my point to perfection:

As for Wallace's skill, uh, hello? Outside of our PGs, who is better at creating for others besides Wallace? Outside of maybe Richardson, who is better at creating scoring opportunities for himself? Wallace isn't perfect, but he's a helluva lot better at those things than almost everyone else on the team. That's why it's comical you say we need those things out of a player, then advocate trading away one of the few players that has those sorts of abilities.

We DON'T have anyone to create shots for others - which is why I want a guy like Johnson/Roy/Mayo etc and why playing Swish or Crash at the SG spot isn't the greatest for us. We also need someone to help Felts so that he doesn't have to try and dominate the ball or over dribble it. At the moment, with the guys we have and the little ball skills they have, we are forced to watch Felts try and do it all - which he sure as heck can't do.

As for "swinging for the fences," I view it completely differently. They selected the players they did because they thought they would most benefit the team.

which were college winners who were meant to step into the NBA and be able to contribute to our team from day #1. Might not mean they have a high ceiling (Ammo) but what they did have was solid fundementals and an understanding of how to play the game and how to win. The two things a fresh new team needed and would benefit from. Drafting someone like Gerald Green would have been swining for the fences. High risk, high reward.

[BigSlam]

PS - to further my point about swinging for the fences...who had the worst downside, Gay or Morrison? Roy or Morrison? Anybody or Morrison? If those guys didn't turn out to be good, they could still be contributors at the NBA level, because of their skillsets. What was Morrison going to do, if he couldn't score at the NBA level? What good would he be? That's not a "safe" pick, someone that might not even be able to contribute anything at the NBA level.

So, if that's not swinging for the fences, what is it?

You don't have to draft a slew of raw high schoolers to "swing for the fences;" as we've seen, even "great" overhyped college stars can be just as big of a gamble.

Gay had a much greater downside than Ammo and maybe Roy have a greater downside of Ammo because of the quesion marks over Roys knees (although Ammo's diabetes almost cancels that out doesn't it?).

I view a swing for the fence as a high risk, high reward type prospect. Someone like DeAndre Jordan this year. A kid who has all the right stuff, but might never realise it - again, like Gerald Green.

[fatlever]

as jrich gets older and refines his game into more of a 3pt shooter and (hopefully) a bit more low post game, he is going to be more effective as a small foward than a shooting guard. he has the size to guard most small forwards and rebounds well for his size, but he gives up some quickness guarding many shooting guards. i dont think it is a stretch in the least to say, jrich is better suited for small forward going forward. he played mostly sf in gs last year and played a lot of sf this year when we went small.

our best lineup is with jrich at 3, crash at 4 and okafor at 5. unfortunately we really need to limit the amount of time crash spends at 4. it would not be the end of the world if we used crash's value to upgrade at pf or sg (added a sg who can create for others ala mayo). i love crash, but he is also probably our best chip in terms of trading. its not a matter of wanting to trade crash, its just considering what may be best for us long term and getting something of value while crash still has tremendous value around the league. crash would make a perfect 3rd option for a team looking to compete for a title, in that prince, odom type role. luckily we are deep at sf with jrich, dudley and ammo. we could cover a loss at sf better than any other position. its something to consider.

that being said, i'm not ready to give up both crash and 9 for mayo. i think that might be a bit much.

and i agree with slam, we have never swung for the fences. we have played safe since day one. at some point, maybe not now, we might have to take some risks if we want to get to the top.

[W_HAMILTON]

You need to get out of your head that this has something to do with Wallace supposedly having a bad season.

Then why not bring this up last season, when we made the trade? Wallace is still the same player, and we knew what Richardson was going to give us. Why not bring it up then, instead of getting excited about pairing the two up?

I really don't think that he did?

I'm pretty sure you were just as excited as everyone else about adding Richardson last year, and you weren't in a rush to let Wallace go, so why the change of heart now, if not because of what transpired this season? They are the same type of players today they were back then, so why the excitement then and not now?

Swish is better suited to the SF position.

I don't buy that one bit. The whole reason we wanted Richardson was because we needed legitimate scoring and shooting ability from the SG position, to complement the types of players we already had. And we got that from him.

We DON'T have anyone to create shots for others - which is why I want a guy like Johnson/Roy/Mayo etc and why playing Swish or Crash at the SG spot isn't the greatest for us.

Wallace does that better than most, and it wasn't until he started getting more active and creating more for others that we started to turn around after that awful start. January was one of our most successful months, and that month Wallace put up 24/8/5 on 46% shooting, while Richardson put up 23/6/4 on 44% shooting.

The two can co-exist, and the team can be successful with both of them. Unless you were an advocate of trading him after we got Richardson, you shouldn't be an advocate now.

We also need someone to help Felts so that he doesn't have to try and dominate the ball or over dribble it. At the moment, with the guys we have and the little ball skills they have, we are forced to watch Felts try and do it all - which he sure as heck can't do.

Again, this goes back to the same type of arguments I had during the regular season; so we trade away a good player because an inferior PG and/or coach can't work them into the offense? Hell no. You find a coach that can, and a PG that can.

which were college winners who were meant to step into the NBA and be able to contribute to our team from day #1. Might not mean they have a high ceiling (Ammo) but what they did have was solid fundementals and an understanding of how to play the game and how to win. The two things a fresh new team needed and would benefit from. Drafting someone like Gerald Green would have been swining for the fences. High risk, high reward.

I completely disagree. Like I said, you don't have to draft Gerald Green to "swing for the fences." How is Morrison not high risk, high reward? People said he could be the next Larry Bird, and if he wasn't able to score on the next level, he quite possibly might not be able to contribute at all. That's the definition of high risk, high reward. The opposite of "swinging for the fences" is playing it safe, but how the hell did we play it safe with some of our lottery picks? They literally are contributing NOTHING. That's not playing it safe. We "swung for the fences," hoping that those overhyped college stars would be able to translate their college success over the pro's.

It might not be "swinging for the fences" in the traditional sense, ie, drafting an athletic high schooler, but the situation still applies. We took a lot of risk that these players would pan out.....and they haven't.

[W_HAMILTON]

-= original quote snipped =-
Gay had a much greater downside than Ammo and maybe Roy have a greater downside of Ammo because of the quesion marks over Roys knees (although Ammo's diabetes almost cancels that out doesn't it?).

BS. How could anyone look at the type of player Gay is, and the type of player Morrison is, and think in a worst-case scenario, that Gay would be the one not able to stick around in the NBA. Even in the worst-case scenario, Gay probably sticks around due to his physical makeup and defense alone. If Morrison can't score, why do you keep him on your team?

[W_HAMILTON]

and i agree with slam, we have never swung for the fences. we have played safe since day one.

If you use that definition, sure.

And it makes our situation even more pathetic, the fact that we "played it safe," and still have such awful drafting history.

I guess it would be the equivalent of striking out while trying to bunt.

[BigSlam]

Then why not bring this up last season, when we made the trade? Wallace is still the same player, and we knew what Richardson was going to give us. Why not bring it up then, instead of getting excited about pairing the two up?

When we made the trade I was super excited about bringing Swish in. I wasn't totally sure what Swish was going to bring us other than he was a good scorer and rebounder for his size. But Swish was still an unknown quantity and now that we have a season of having him under the belt, I see where I think he would fit best and how we would benefit the most by using him.

I think having Swish and also Dudley and seeing what he showed this season makes Crash expendable if it means that we can get someone who suits what we need more.

I don't buy that one bit. The whole reason we wanted Richardson was because we needed legitimate scoring and shooting ability from the SG position, to complement the types of players we already had. And we got that from him.

This is true. We needed a "go to scorer" who could be relied on to put up points and get us out of the poop when we found ourseleves there. Swish has done that wonderfully. Now that we know he can do that, let him do that at the SF position and bring in a SG who can play the role the way it needs to be played. It's not like I am saying "lets trade Crash for what ever we can get, move Swish to the 3 and play Hammer at the 2". That wouldn't work and is not what I want to do. I want an upgrade at the SG spot, which I think could be done if we moved Swish to the 3 (where he is more effective) and traded Crash.

Just because we brought in Swish as a SG doesn't mean he HAS to play that position for the rest of his time with the Bobcats does it - especially if we can get a better SG and move Swish to the SF.

Wallace does that better than most, and it wasn't until he started getting more active and creating more for others that we started to turn around after that awful start. January was one of our most successful months, and that month Wallace put up 24/8/5 on 46% shooting, while Richardson put up 23/6/4 on 44% shooting

Hey man, I do agree. It started showing especially with Fabio and that weak side cut they used to run. Crash fired in some nice passes to him and at times, Crash does set others up better than most on our team - but look who he competing against to be "better than most" than. You said yourself, outside of our PG's, we don't really have anyone who can create for others. Other times he has tunel vision and doesn't pass the ball well. He sure doesn't pass well on the break at ALL, regardless of who has leaked out.

The two can co-exist, and the team can be successful with both of them. Unless you were an advocate of trading him after we got Richardson, you shouldn't be an advocate now

Again, I agree - they can co-exist (like they did last season), but WE as a team would be BETTER with a true SG playing next to Swish at the SF. I didn't want to trade Crash when we landed Swish because we didn't know what we had, how they would work etc. Again, now we have had a season to watch them, it's obvious to me the change would benefit us the most.

Again, this goes back to the same type of arguments I had during the regular season; so we trade away a good player because an inferior PG and/or coach can't work them into the offense? Hell no. You find a coach that can, and a PG that can.

It's not just about that (although it is a factor). Regardless of who was our PG, we need a SG who can move the ball, has handles and can set up others as well as himself. It's better balance - which helps everyone on the roster.

Might I say, if Swish had better handles this wouldn't be as big of a deal, but as it stands he doesn't and moving him to the SF and Crash for a true SG makes more sense.

I completely disagree

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the swining and fences part. I think it's just that we have different definitions? You use Ammo as a swing for the fences pick - I think you are crazy!! (no offense!!). He was a proven college player, solid CV, good character, blah, blah, blah. He was a safe pick. There is an obvious risk with anyone you draft but someone with the background of Ammo is considered a MUCH safer bet than an unproven Gerald Green. The fact that Ammo hasn't worked out (yet) is regardless, he was 100% viewed going into the draft as THE most NBA ready guy in the class and the safest pick.

BS. How could anyone look at the type of player Gay is, and the type of player Morrison is, and think in a worst-case scenario, that Gay would be the one not able to stick around in the NBA. Even in the worst-case scenario, Gay probably sticks around due to his physical makeup and defense alone. If Morrison can't score, why do you keep him on your team?

No, not BS at all.

Weaknesses: Though he's just 19 years of age, his sophomore year was supposed to be his to take over college basketball. When that didn't happen, people began to question his desire and intensity and whether he has it in him to become great ... He floats in and out of games, and tended to defer to teammates in clutch situations ... Is it a lack of fire, or just a lack of maturity and confidence? Time will tell ... Unselfish to a fault, like Vince Carter, he almost takes being the perfect teammate too far. He's a star and should act like one ... He still struggles to create offense for himself off the dribble, getting the majority of his baskets off of rebounds, or passes from tammates ...

http://www.nbadraft.net/admincp/profiles/rudygay.html

Gay