tracey_nice wrote:have you seen the Raptors draft history? I say do it, they'll probably just draft some useless scrub anyway.
Yes but our draft history only includes one year from Bryan Colangelo, so this sentiment is unfounded.
Schadenfreude wrote:And tsherkin, I disagree that the 17th pick is the difference between a landslide victory for either party. Mid-round picks are, at the best of times, a feast-or-famine proposition, and this draft is one of the ugliest in years. There might be two or three difference-makers available beyond the lottery, if that. Cost-controlled role players are always useful, but hardly worth killing a deal over.
Hold on...
Infusion of young talent with potential
vs.
Old, broken down guy who was never a particularly noteworthy offensive weapon and who MIGHT be able to play 30+ mpg for a significant number of games while defending and rebounding.
Let's see... *weighs with hands*
JO isn't really worth it. It's been 5 years since he played 70 games (though in fairness, he managed 69 two years ago... but he's also played under 50 games twice) and he's terribly inefficient for a big man. He's hit league average or near to it in TS% exactly three times since he's been in Indiana (52%+, it's 53% or so nowadays). His rebounding rate has gone down noticeably, his turnovers are back up to Portland-era numbers, he's had an offensive rating under 100 points per possession in consecutive years now (which is godawful).
There's value in his contract but we can do better than pay %$20M+ for consecutive seasons before trying to move his contract.
This is a move that wouldn't pay dividends until and unless we moved him as he expired and then only if the deal we got for him was particularly good... and since an expiring isn't enough to acquire a good player, we'd have to move him in conjunction with something else ANYWAY... which puts too many variables on the potential for this move to be successful.
I'd rather take a stab at a contributing player with a mid-round pick.
] trade deadline.) 
