Would you trade #21 for Lopez/Randolph at #7?

Telfaire · Post #1 » by **Telfaire** » Thu May 29, 2008 12:59 pm

Hi there, I'm working on a mock draft and was wondering if you can be trading partners with the Clippers, assuming they would want to draft Augostin. Would you trade the 21th pick to move up for #7, or just rely on the Bucks and Charlotte leaving you either Lopez or Randolph?

Serpo · Post #2 » by **Serpo** » Thu May 29, 2008 1:46 pm

Too early to tell . Depends a lot on the workout who's going to be "the man" for the Nets . But if they completely fall in love it's possible if he's not available at 10 .

I personally haven't seen enough of the guys .

Preludepunk27 · Post #3 » by **Preludepunk27** » Thu May 29, 2008 3:06 pm

Eh...#10 and #21 to move up 3 spots? I really have no interest in that. I don't think Lopez will fall to 7 personally unless he gets some bad workouts in the next few weeks. If the Clippers wanted #10 and #21 for #7, I'd tell them thanks but no thanks and just take Deandre Jordon (even though I think the kid will be a bust personally). If they wanted #10 #40 and Cash for #7 and a future 2nd rounder, sign Thorn's signature myself.

If we were talking about up to 4 or 5, I say it has to be 10 and 21. But to move up 3 spots doesn't interest me. I do think that Lopez could make an immediate contribution to the team (Randolph would come on late I feel like Thadeus did in Philly), I'd love to have them both but we have more needs and can our big and our shooter in this draft so I'm not gonna jeopardize that to move up 3 spots.

Serpo · Post #4 » by **Serpo** » Thu May 29, 2008 3:28 pm

#10 + Mwill for #7 would be my suggestion . Fills the Clippers need of a PG + good pick and we get the chance to pick our prefered player.

Marcus has no future in NJ with Devin here but everytime he got extended playing time he was solid . But clearly not as good as Devin .

Preludepunk27 · Post #5 » by **Preludepunk27** » Thu May 29, 2008 4:29 pm

Serpo wrote:#10 + Mwill for #7 would be my suggestion . Fills the Clippers need of a PG + good pick and we get the chance to pick our prefered player.

Marcus has no future in NJ with Devin here but everytime he got extended playing time he was solid . But clearly not as good as Devin .

Ok I'm down with this deal. I'm not giving up #21 in a package with #10 unless we're getting a vet who could immediately help us. If this is all the Clippers wanted, I'd love life.

S.I.C. GM · Post #6 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Thu May 29, 2008 5:06 pm

Telfaire wrote:Hi there, I'm working on a mock draft and was wondering if you can be trading partners with the Clippers, assuming they would want to draft Augostin. Would you trade the 21th pick to move up for #7, or just rely on the Bucks and Charlotte leaving you either Lopez or Randolph?

I dont understand.

21 pick for the 7th pick?

Preludepunk27 · Post #7 » by **Preludepunk27** » Thu May 29, 2008 6:43 pm

S.I.C. GM wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I dont understand.

21 pick for the 7th pick?

I'm pretty sure he was asking would you trade the #21 pick along with #10 to move up to #7.

On my comments earlier, if they were willing to settle on #10 and dallas's 2010 pick, I probably would do that if I was Thorn ONLY if Randolph was there at #7. Too me, I highly doubt we'll actually be using Dallas's 2010 pick. I think we'll probably be trying to hold on to it to throw it in a S&T package for one of the hot shot free agents that year, but, if the organization was 100% sold on Randolph and the Clippers were down, I'd be cool with that deal.

aussienet · Post #8 » by **aussienet** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:37 pm

Throw in that injury prone no talent hack Brand and you got your self a deal.........jkcljkvvbsndweo.......sorry i was channeling "gm mugger" Thorn for a second

This deal doesn't really interest me. Ideally we would wan't to move up to top five as a minimum.

fasca · Post #9 » by **fasca** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:02 am

why would we trade 10 and 21 for 7... lopez is going to be a bust, and randolph is talented but if we can geat a guy like arthur or love there its not a big difference from randolph and if you add the 21 we are giving up too much. I also think it will be a mistake for us to pass on DeAndre Jordan if Randolph isnt there, If you watch highlights and read about Jordan he really is exactly like howard when he entered the league. But the issue with him is you need a great big guy to work with him as a special assistant like kareem or ewing, and we are horrible at developing rookies and he nees a lot of tutealage.

Serpo · Post #10 » by **Serpo** » Fri May 30, 2008 1:09 am

He's FAR FAR FAR away from where Howard was when he entered the NBA . He won't be doing much in the next two years . ( I mean Jordan )

Edit: I edited my post since he wrote college instead of college ...

Preludepunk27 · Post #11 » by **Preludepunk27** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:15 am

Serpo wrote:He's FAR FAR FAR away from where Howard was when he entered college . He won't be doing much in the next two years . ( I mean Jordan )

Agreed. I don't care what has been written about him, I've seen 6-7 A&M games this year and am not really impressed with him for the Nets.

p.s. Lester Hudson has been playing very well in the pre-draft camp. I saw him play twice in person this year and this kid can flat out contribute from the get go whichever team takes him round 2.

Serpo · Post #12 » by **Serpo** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:17 am

I like Hudson as well BUT i doubt he'll be there at #40

Preludepunk27 · Post #13 » by **Preludepunk27** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:20 am

Serpo wrote:I like Hudson as well BUT i doubt he'll be there at #40

Haha I agree with that. He'll be a top 5 pick round 2.

Post #14 » by **Rich Rane** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:02 am

Preludepunk27 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Agreed. I don't care what has been written about him, I've seen 6-7 A&M games this year and am not really impressed with him for the Nets.

I still don't think that's sufficient reason. Other players have had the same amount of stretches and amount of bad games this season also.

SportsFan215 · Post #15 » by **SportsFan215** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:55 pm

Would you guys trade #10/Swift/KVH for #7/Blount/Banks as part of a multi-team deal?

Post #16 » by **Rich Rane** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:01 pm

SportsFan215 wrote:Would you guys trade #10/Swift/KVH for #7/Blount/Banks as part of a multi-team deal?

I don't think I would. I'd rather just let the risk of lettingt he person Thorn and Kiki drop to them at 10 rather than take on bad contracts to move up 3 spots.

SportsFan215 · Post #17 » by **SportsFan215** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:23 pm

^ What if KVH's "better than expiring contract" was replaced with Hassell's?

#10/Swift/Hassell for #7/Blount/Banks

SportsFan215 · Post #18 » by **SportsFan215** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:24 pm

^ What if KVH's "better than expiring contract" was replaced with Hassell's?

#10/Swift/Hassell for #7/Blount/Banks

Serpo · Post #19 » by **Serpo** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:34 pm

for 3 Slots swallowing Banks and Blount is ALOT . Blount alone ? Hmm well i could get over it but Banks also ? Hmm nahh.

SportsFan215 · Post #20 » by **SportsFan215** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:45 pm

Basically it would be:

#7 > #10

Gallinari won't be available at #10 most likely, so the Nets can jump on the chance to move up at get him.

Blount < Swift

This is just in terms of contracts. Neither player here produces much, but they both have a little upside.

Hassell = Banks

Banks has one more year on his contract, but Banks is actually useful and can score.