RealGM

So, after reading the following thread Link I started thinking about how we can get into the top 5 of the upcoming draft. I prefer top 2 if we gave up both Marvin Williams and Acie Law.

What type of value do you believe the two can land us? I'm thinking draft picks for the upcoming draft or future drafts.

Would you move both for Derrick Rose?

HMFFL- I think you are grossly overestimating what those 2 are worth. I don't think the Hawks could get a top 10 pick for Marvin. I don't think the Hawks could get a top 20 pick for Acie. I mean you just aren't anywhere close to the top 5 let alone the top 2.

With Marvin remember that he has just 1 year left before he hits FA (with a max caphold at that time) where a first rounder you get locked in for 4 years cheap.

killbuckner wrote:HMFFL- I think you are grossly overestimating what those 2 are worth. I don't think the Hawks could get a top 10 pick for Marvin. I don't think the Hawks could get a top 20 pick for Acie. I mean you just aren't anywhere close to the top 5 let alone the top 2.

With Marvin remember that marvin just has 1 year left before he hits FA (with a max caphold at that time) where a first rounder you get locked in for 4 years cheap.

Fair enough.

Was really just curious. While I don't think highly of Marvin, I do feel he can get us a top 10 pick, so I disagree with you there. Acie Law probably starts around the 15th pick and after.

I still bought this up thinking of it as a combination of Marvin and Acie. Not just Marvin by himself or Acie Law.

HMFFL wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Fair enough.

Was really just curious. While I don't think highly of Marvin, I do feel he can get us a top 10 pick, so I disagree with you there. Acie Law probably starts around the 15th pick and after.

I still bought this up thinking of it as a combination of Marvin and Acie. Not just Marvin by himself or Acie Law.

Climbing into the top 2 this year is going to cost ALOT(probably more than we can offer) because Beasley/Rose are viewed as future superstars....but I would not be suprised if Rose did not turn out to be one of the top 2 players in this draft.

HMFFL- I think a GM would rather easily prefer 4 years of Kevin Love to 1 year of Marvin then FA. After 3 years you need to base trade value on what he is, not on what you hoped he would be when he got drafted. And Marvin is still just a below average SF with no 3 point range.

And Acie's value was based on him being an NBA ready player- he badly hurt his value with how poorly he played this season.

John Harbin was the quarterbacks and def. backs coach for my old HS years ago. Before that, he was an all-American QB from some small college. After college, Harbin was drafted by the LA Dodgers. He became the starting right fielder. About 70 games into his rookie season, he blew out his knee (old football injury) and the Dodgers brought up a kid by the name of Billy Buckner.

Just think, if John Harbin hadn't played football and injured his knee, he would never have ruined his knee in the majors.

If he hadn't ruined his knee in the majors, Billy Buckner would have languished another year in the minors, perhaps never to make it to the big club.

If Billy Buckner had never made it to the majors, another 1st baseman would be playing for the BoSox in the '86 WS and the ground ball from Mookie Wilson would have rolled to a player with (probably) 2 good ankles.

The Sox woulda won the series.

And killjoy wouldn't be ...

... nah, he'd still be here telling us, "I think you are grossly overestimating what those 2 are worth."

Parson- are you trying to say you do think the Hawks coudl get a top 5 pick for Acie and Marvin?

I sincerely apologize that the truth is so depressing for you

Not with one year on Marvins contract. Not gonna happen.

If marvin had put up this years numbers and had around 2-3 years left on the contract I think those two could get you there.

I still think he can get you down to 9 lottery wise. Depending on the year...like this one.

But personally I don't think you would get anyone at 9 better than him now.

Rip2137 wrote:I still think he can get you down to 9 lottery wise.

You really think this?

8 Charlotte
9 Chicago
10 New Jersey
11 Indiana
12 Sacramento

All these teams have a better SF than Marvin right now.

killbuckner wrote:I sincerely apologize that the truth is so depressing for you

I've been having fun with you because you are so depressing a poster. You are the picture boy for the word "hater."

But, seriously, any poster on a message board who dares to think HIS OPINIONS are "the truth" has more problems than I can counsel.

And you actually don't watch the games?

I think if you combine Marvin with taking a relatively bad contract back and you can get to the 6-15 range of picks. It depends a lot on the situation.

killbuckner wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



You really think this?

8 Charlotte
9 Chicago
10 New Jersey
11 Indiana
12 Sacramento

All these teams have a better SF than Marvin right now.

You realize we are a week away from the draft lottery right now, right?

Depending on their draft position, if it was outside the top 6 honestly, Portland would trade their pick for Marvin.

My thing is, I don't think there is a large amount of guys that are going to outproduce Marvin next year.

Rip- the odds of those teams that low in the lottery changing more than 1 spot are pretty small.

The question isn't whether at top 10 pick would outproduce marvin next year. (why do people on this board have trouble with this concept!?) The question is whether 1 year of Marvin (and then RFA) is worth 4 years of a first rounder locked into a low salary (and then RFA). I really doubt that a GM would rather have 1 year of Marvin compared to 4 years of Anthony Randolph as an example.

And I don't think that Marvin is enough of an upgrade over Webster and Outlaw for the Blazers to give up a top 10 pick for Marvin (not that they have one). Marvin is a below average starter at a noncritical position.

We aren't getting into the top 2 with Marvin and Acie.

I doubt if Smith could land us Beasley or Rose (in a SNT deal in July obviously) although it might be possible. Horford... maybe but it depends on who has the picks.

I haven't seen Beasley play at all and i only saw a little of Rose so i don't even know if it would be worth it to trade for them, assuming it was possible.

kb, the point is there are some teams in the lottery that need a good wing player. they would have the rights to marvin and would be more than willing to be the team that gets to resign him.

I don't think anyone would do it for the money picks (1-7) because like you said, that is high lottery. But when you get around 8 or so, its not like its sure fire knock down talent around there. The right team would be willing to move that pick for the rights to a 21 year old averaging 15 and 6.

Rip- he averages 15 and 6 because of how many minutes he plays. but he really isn't a significant upgrade at this point over someone like Kleiza or even Childress. I think that if the Hawks really could get a top 12 pick for him that they would easily take that (now that BK is no longer in charge and he doesn't have to cover his ass) and just keep childress as their SF.

killbuckner wrote:The question isn't whether at top 10 pick would outproduce marvin next year. (why do people on this board have trouble with this concept!?)

Duh, I don't know... maybe because it is entirely reasonable to consider that a team might want a player who would outproduce a particular draft pick.

Maybe they'd prefer having that superior player for one year, with a chance to resign him, rather than giving a guaranteed contract to a lesser player.

And pal, I don't believe I'd "have trouble" with any "concept" you care to dish out. Seems to me, you've fallen to the level of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be of a lesser intelligence. It also seems to me that you're cherry-picking your logic, using whatever - at the time - insults the Hawks the most.

By the way, from what I think I'm hearing from you, can I take it that you're granting that Marvin just might be superior to the draft prospects available, after the 1st 2?

No parson. I am saying that even if you think that long term Marvin is a better player than Kevin Love, because of their contract sitations its very possible that Kevin Love still has more trade value. And yes- you really are missing the concept. The value of first round picks is that you lock them into a cheap salary for 4 years and you get 4 years to develop them. Marvin already has a high salary and a max caphold next offseason (which also would likely kill any deal to the blazers BTW).

Asking who the better player is is not at all the same as asking who is worht more in trade.

But anyway- not to dodge your question. Sure its possible that Marvin will develop to be better than anyone outside the top 2. I sure as hell wouldn't bet that way but its possible.

killbuckner wrote: And yes- you really are missing the concept.

I'm not missing the concept -- I'm disagreeing with it. Can't you see the difference? I'm saying that I don't believe that it is necessarily true in all cases. You're acting as if your "concept" is an all-encompassing, universal and timeless law, when I'm saying it is only one consideration among many.

I'm saying it might be more important to a team to have the better player, even if for only one season.

Did you notice the part I wrote about giving a lesser player a guaranteed contract? In the past, many teams have mentioned that as a concern. They have said that they didn't see any players they wanted to be saddled with for 4 years. Sometimes the free agency market produces a better player than many 1st rounders -- and at an oftentimes better price.

You're presenting the argument that it is always a good thing to have a draft pick for a guaranteed number of years. I'm of the mind to believe that sometimes it's a bad thing.

They have said that they didn't see any players they wanted to be saddled with for 4 years.

The contracts of first round picks are only guarranteed for 2 years. Years 3 and 4 are team options that can be declined (see Gerald Green).