Getting another lottery pick thead

Nowak008 · Post #1 » by **Nowak008** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:32 am

*Whoops accidentally edited and destroyed my post instead of making a new post ugh.*

Here are my trade proposals:

Redd/ CV for Starberry Knicks first
Redd for Randoph + Balkmen + Knicks first

Redd for Foster + Daniels + Indy first

Redd for Mobly + TT + Clippers first

Mo/Gadz for Lafrenz+ fry + Portland first

Mo for Muhamed + Dudley + Charlotte first

If you have any suggestions on getting another lottery pick post them here.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #2 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:34 am

All my attempts at getting another Pick would start with us trading CV. I want to move Mo also, but only if we can get up high enough to get Derrick Rose and perhaps work out a way to grab Dorsey to go along with him.

Kerb Hohl · Post #3 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:39 am

Nowak008 wrote:Redd+CV for Mayberry + Knicks 1st- Dream trade

We're getting Lee Mayberry back!??!?! It truly is the Kohl glory days!

I have been dreaming about getting Blue Edwards back but I'll take Mayberry.

Kerb Hohl · Post #4 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:48 am

On a serious note I think it will be much harder than everyone thinks for us to peddle Redd or Mo for a first round pick in return. Granted, this isn't the deepest draft in the world but I doubt the Knicks new GM is going to be dumb enough to add another max contract scorer. Maybe if they can dump Randolph, you're right but I don't think we will do that.

Boston was a special case last year because they went into win-now championship mode and were okay with taking on Allen. I don't see many of these teams willing to take on a max player that is locked down for a few years. I think myself and numerous GMs were absolutely boggled by the Richardson trade that brought the Warriors Brandon Wright. Maybe we can get another GM to be stupid like Jordan but I just don't see it. Maybe taking Randolph back would get it done but I doubt Kohl allows it even if he does give more power to the next GM.

smokinherb · Post #5 » by **smokinherb** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:49 am

Yes, let's get another pick! It starts with redd,CV,or mo, and whatever we wind up doing we need to get a player to fill the void of who we trade. what do you all think of

Mike Redd+our 1st pick in 2009(unprotected)

For

1st overall pick

I know it seems crazy, but that would get us Beasley for sure, and we would have a shot at O.J Mayo as well. I know that would make us really young, and we might give up another lottery pick next year if thing didn't work out, but look at the starting lineup

Mo Williams
O.J Mayo
Beasley/Yi
Yi/Beasley
Bogut

Post #6 » by **blkout** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:51 am

Redd for Daniels + Foster Pacers 1st-

That's the only one I'd do... I like Foster and Daniels is handy, I don't really know why you'd want 2 picks though, this seems like one of the riskiest drafts in ages... so many of the top guys seem to be either completely hit or miss, moreso than usual.

Kerb Hohl · Post #7 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:51 am

smokinherb wrote:Yes, let's get another pick! It starts with redd,CV,or mo, and whatever we wind up doing we need to get a player to fill the void of who we trade. what do you all think of

Mike Redd+our 1st pick in 2009(unprotected)

For

1st overall pick

I know it seems crazy, but that would get us Beasley for sure, and we would have a shot at O.J Mayo as well. I know that would make us really young, and we might give up another lottery pick next year if thing didn't work out, but look at the starting lineup

Mo Williams
O.J Mayo
Beasley/Yi
Yi/Beasley
Bogut

Dude, you need to change your handle or stop making such outlandish posts because the intelligence behind them implies your name. If you had the #1 pick would you trade it for sub-.500 Michael Redd and a grab bag of next year's draft picks? No, you wouldn't.

Post #8 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:52 am

smokinherb wrote:Yes, let's get another pick! It starts with redd,CV,or mo, and whatever we wind up doing we need to get a player to fill the void of who we trade. what do you all think of

Mike Redd+our 1st pick in 2009(unprotected)

For

1st overall pick

I know it seems crazy, but that would get us Beasley for sure, and we would have a shot at O.J Mayo as well. I know that would make us really young, and we might give up another lottery pick next year if thing didn't work out, but look at the starting lineup

Mo Williams
O.J Mayo
Beasley/Yi
Yi/Beasley
Bogut

Doubt it.

Nowak008 · Post #9 » by **Nowak008** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:56 am

carmelbrownqueen wrote:All my attempts at getting another Pick would start with us trading CV.

I don't think CV could get us anything close to a lottery pick. We would be lucky if he got us a late first at this point imo.

On a serious note I think it will be much harder than everyone thinks for us to peddle Redd or Mo for a first round pick in return.

I think the Clippers deal is really fair for both teams. The clippers will be in win now mode with Brand/Kaman/Maggete. Thorton is not that young either at 24.

smokinherb wrote:
I know it seems crazy, but that would get us Beasley for sure

Thats why your name is smoking Herb.

midranger · Post #10 » by **midranger** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:14 am

Clipps will be looking to trade their pick this summer.

I don't think that we really need a lotto pick at all. I'd settle for one in the 30's to ensure ourselves Joey Dorsey. He will be a productive pro IMO. And he's proven, as someone else said, he won't be a waste of a pick.

Also, many times, those picks can just be bought for next to nothing.

Wise1 · Post #11 » by **Wise1** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:16 am

I think the Bucks could use Rose more than Beasley. I'd take the point guard.

Mags FTW · Post #12 » by **Mags FTW** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:16 am

If Miami falls out of the top 2, I think we might be able to package something.

Someone started a thread on the Toronto board which stated that Riley has considered trading their top pick for 2-3 good young players that could help them win right away.
http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=773501

Even if you disagree, the thread is worth looking at for comedic purposes. Some of the crap they think they can give up to get the #1 or #2 pick is hilarious.

midranger · Post #13 » by **midranger** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:17 am

Target #2 for me is Lester Hudson.

Nowak008 · Post #14 » by **Nowak008** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:18 am

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:
Redd for Daniels + Foster Pacers 1st-

That's the only one I'd do... I like Foster and Daniels is handy, I don't really know why you'd want 2 picks though, this seems like one of the riskiest drafts in ages... so many of the top guys seem to be either completely hit or miss, moreso than usual.

I think that is a good trade for both teams. We get 2 solid role players for a year and a high pick is good value for Redd. The Pacers need to get their fans back after all of the off the court issues they have had. No better player to bring in then Church Redd. Redd would also fit very well in their uptempo system.

As far as this draft I only think the top end of the draft is risky. Mid lottery there is a lot of solid players that would be great for us.

Post #15 » by **blkout** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:22 am

As far as this draft I only think the top end of the draft is risky. Mid lottery there is a lot of solid players that would be great for us.

That's true, I actually would rather 2 or 3 mid-late lottery-mid 1st picks (sort of like Philadelphia in 07) than a 3-5 pick.

jeremyd236 · Post #16 » by **jeremyd236** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:25 am

Why do you guys want lottery picks so bad? Half the lottery picks in any given draft aren't even in the league in 5 years. I would never trade Michael Redd plus another player or our current pick just to get up in the board.

Look at the current dynasties in the league right now. How many lottery picks do the Spurs or Pistons have?

I mean we've already got Yi, CV, Bogut, and Mo as young guys to build around. Young guys need proven players and veteran leaders to make them better. Continually getting younger and getting unproven NBA players doesn't make anyone better. Look at the Atlanta Hawks, etc. Why not trade our pick or Michael Redd for somebody we know is a solid player already?

We're already a young team (3rd youngest starting lineup in the NBA), why would you possibly want to get younger? The vast majority of this board is pissed off about losing, yet we want more draft picks. Well news flash, if we trade Redd for a lottery pick....we won't be winning any time soon. You're just going to get more pissed off but then happy again to see us get another lottery pick. The only way to get out of this trend is to get a proven player in here.

Nowak008 · Post #17 » by **Nowak008** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:20 am

jeremyd236 wrote: Young guys need proven players and veteran leaders to make them better.

What does this have to do with Redd?

Kerb Hohl · Post #18 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:29 am

I think we should turn to this "leader" to carry the team:

NeedsMoreCheese · Post #19 » by **NeedsMoreCheese** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:40 am

CharlosVllnueva wrote:I think we should turn to this "leader" to carry the team:

(picture)

Batman! I mean, Leader! I love the Leader!

emunney · Post #20 » by **emunney** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:18 am

You can point out tons of examples of teams improving through the lottery, teams failing through the lottery, teams improving by trading draft picks and teams failing through trading their draft picks. You're never going to get anywhere ruling out entire paths of action just because it hasn't worked out in one particular case because the fact is, it has worked out in others.

The Hornets traded away Baron Davis for cap space. Speedy Claxton and Dale Davis. No picks. Does this mean we should pull the trigger on a similar deal for Redd? Of course not. It means nothing to our situation.

The Hawks have screwed up their draft picks, Josh Smith notwithstanding, for years. Does this mean all lottery picks are doomed to feed into a perpetual cycle of picking in the lottery? Of course not. The failures of the Hawks are their own.