Wilson Chandler and #8 for #5???

eroomlladnar · Post #1 » by **eroomlladnar** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:15 pm

I'd take that in a heartbeat.

You get Evans at 6, then Jennings or Flynn at #8, not to mention a natural wing who averaged 14 and 6 last year.

If the Knicks offer that, I'd have to say we'd take that.

shrink · Post #2 » by **shrink** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:19 pm

Nope - at least not yet. We don't know who's dropping to #5, and I'm not sure wilson Chandler would be such a great acquisition for our team anyway.

karch34 · Post #3 » by **karch34** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:25 pm

No need to do it yet because we don't know who's there, but if we're thinking Flynn is our PG we'd targert at 5/6 makes sense to pick him up at #8 and get an asset like Chandler. Flynn, Evans/Harden, and Chandler gives us a nice 1-3 to build on.

eroomlladnar · Post #4 » by **eroomlladnar** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:28 pm

I would love if we took Jennings at 8 with Evans at 6.

Depending on what happens with the first 4 picks of course, but Chandler is a natural wing which we are lacking.

casey · Post #5 » by **casey** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:32 pm

If Rubio, Harden, and Thabeet are all gone, then maybe. Otherwise no way.

Esohny · Post #6 » by **Esohny** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:33 pm

Yuck.

Krapinsky · Post #7 » by **Krapinsky** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:35 pm

Not a big fan. His shooting % are not great, and his numbers are inflated a little due D'Antoni's offense. Assuming the guy we want at 6 is there at 8 though, might as well. He's not much of an improvement over Gomes or Brewer, if any, so it's kind of a whatever type of deal.

Post #8 » by **revprodeji** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:50 pm

Numbers are inflated. I doubt we trade down. if we make a move it will be to trade up or a package for an existing player.

thrilla3 · Post #9 » by **thrilla3** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:41 pm

No. Chandler not much better than Gomes IMO

eroomlladnar · Post #10 » by **eroomlladnar** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:20 pm

Ugh, I think we could have gotten Flynn at 8, + an additional wing, which we needed.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #11 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:25 pm

possibly. Personally I don't think there's any possible way NY would take Hill over Flynn.

eroomlladnar · Post #12 » by **eroomlladnar** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:44 pm

New York would have taken Curry. I don't think Golden State would have taken Flynn

D1SGRUNTL3D · Post #13 » by **D1SGRUNTL3D** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:48 pm

NY would've taken Rubio at 5

Dewey · Post #14 » by **Dewey** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:52 pm

We odviously did not like any SG's at 8 or lower. Evans might have been the only SG(PG/SG) we liked.