#1/#2-I'm sure this has been proposed

[Blame Rasho]

Dallas isn’t trading the pick… it kinda useless to give much thought to it.

[Jojothewhale]

I don't remember a team ever trading this much to move up one spot, not even from 1 to 2. Not even the Webber for Penny package was this extortionate.

Ok, we've gotten a bit crazy. That was 1 for Hardaway (3) and THREE Warriors' future 1sts. This is 2, 14, one good future 1st from a treadmill team, and one guy in a developmental stall who's no longer cheap. Vlade Divac could pick the right side of that one.

[One_and_Done]

I disagree. This is not much to pay for the premium of Flagg

I don't remember a team ever trading this much to move up one spot, not even from 1 to 2. Not even the Webber for Penny package was this extortionate.

I'd have 3 unprotected 1sts from a team that didn't' look to be that good as more than #14 and a future Atlanta 1st (IMO the players don't really matter in this deal).

I'd also have Flagg above even Webber as a prospect (I have him as one of 5 prospects since 2000 that I felt had a better than 50/50 chance of being a top-10 player for a bunch of years in their prime, similar to AD or Luka with LeBron and Wemby a tier above). Harper and Penny are about even.

This is factually wrong. The Warriors won 55 games in 1992, and only dropped to 34 wins in 93 thanks to a string of injuries to their best guys. It was a fluke that they got the #3 pick, and given how good Webber was supposed to be it would have been illogical to assume the future 1sts they traded would be any good. What the Spurs would be giving here look like better picks (and the perceived drop off after Webber was much bigger).

[giberish]

I don't remember a team ever trading this much to move up one spot, not even from 1 to 2. Not even the Webber for Penny package was this extortionate.

I'd have 3 unprotected 1sts from a team that didn't' look to be that good as more than #14 and a future Atlanta 1st (IMO the players don't really matter in this deal).

I'd also have Flagg above even Webber as a prospect (I have him as one of 5 prospects since 2000 that I felt had a better than 50/50 chance of being a top-10 player for a bunch of years in their prime, similar to AD or Luka with LeBron and Wemby a tier above). Harper and Penny are about even.

This is factually wrong. The Warriors won 55 games in 1992, and only dropped to 34 wins in 93 thanks to a string of injuries to their best guys. It was a fluke that they got the #3 pick, and given how good Webber was supposed to be it would have been illogical to assume the future 1sts they traded would be any good. What the Spurs would be giving here look like better picks (and the perceived drop off after Webber was much bigger).

IMO the upside of the unprotected picks was higher. The Warriors were probably going to be good but far from certain. I also have the dropoff from Webber to Penny as less than that from Flagg to Penny.

It is perhaps the most relevant comparison as other trade down situations occurred when the team with the higher pick figured the guy they viewed as the best player would still be available later (Tatum/Fultz being a classic example for this). For those scenarios the trade up cost is lower as anything the team trading down gets is a bonus.

For Webbery/Penny Orlando was still worried about the fit with Shaq, and I don't see any similar fit issues with Flagg on Dallas (in terms of long-term fit they don't have anyone who matters next to Flagg).

[One_and_Done]

I'd have 3 unprotected 1sts from a team that didn't' look to be that good as more than #14 and a future Atlanta 1st (IMO the players don't really matter in this deal).

I'd also have Flagg above even Webber as a prospect (I have him as one of 5 prospects since 2000 that I felt had a better than 50/50 chance of being a top-10 player for a bunch of years in their prime, similar to AD or Luka with LeBron and Wemby a tier above). Harper and Penny are about even.

This is factually wrong. The Warriors won 55 games in 1992, and only dropped to 34 wins in 93 thanks to a string of injuries to their best guys. It was a fluke that they got the #3 pick, and given how good Webber was supposed to be it would have been illogical to assume the future 1sts they traded would be any good. What the Spurs would be giving here look like better picks (and the perceived drop off after Webber was much bigger).

IMO the upside of the unprotected picks was higher. The Warriors were probably going to be good but far from certain. I also have the dropoff from Webber to Penny as less than that from Flagg to Penny.

It is perhaps the most relevant comparison as other trade down situations occurred when the team with the higher pick figured the guy they viewed as the best player would still be available later (Tatum/Fultz being a classic example for this). For those scenarios the trade up cost is lower as anything the team trading down gets is a bonus.

For Webbery/Penny Orlando was still worried about the fit with Shaq, and I don't see any similar fit issues with Flagg on Dallas (in terms of long-term fit they don't have anyone who matters next to Flagg).

That is purest revisionism.

The Warriors looked like a 55 win team when healthy, and they were going to be adding what was perceived to be a young generational talent. Any rational assessment of the 3 picks the Warriors were trading would indicate they weren’t going to be good. It was completely unforeseeable that Webber would force a trade after his rookie year, and that the Warriors would suffer a variety of issues that would lead them to spiral into the worst period in franchise history. The Warriors won 50 games in Webber’s first year, despite the loss of Hardaway, and Sarunas and Mullin being injured again (Sarunas actually missed the entire season and never returned to form). To many fans, it looked like the Magic had just gifted the Warriors a dynasty. The last pick was due in 2000, when Webber would have been only 26 years old still.

The idea Penny was rated as being closer to Webber than Harper is to Flagg is also false. The most obvious evidence for this is that Penny went #3… behind Shawn Bradley… who was not hyped as a great prospect. Obviously the Magic did the deal because they worked out Penny, and realised they liked him better than Webber, and they were spot on with that evaluation. However, that was not the general view at the time. Harper is a far more touted player than Penny was at the time, and even if they had been equally hyped (they weren’t) then the perceived gap between Penny and the #3 pick would still have been greater than the gap between Harper and Flagg. Webber was much more hyped than Flagg. His college team, dubbed the Fab Five, were a national phenomenon, and Webber was perceived as a sure fire mega-star. He probably had more hype than Shaq did the year before, which sounds crazy now obviously.

To reiterate, the “fit” with Webber was not the reason the Magic traded the #1 pick. The story behind why they did is very well documented. They worked out Penny, and were blown away by how good he was. Then they realised they were going to take him, and should look at trading down to do so.

[Texas Chuck]

Can't take anyone seriously who is now claiming Webber a more acclaimed prospect than Shaq just to justify his position.

But this has way past run its course.