Crazy trade down and stockpile scenario...

Timberpups · Post #1 » by **Timberpups** » Fri May 27, 2011 5:16 pm

Me - Wolves season ticket holder. Long time reader, very infrequent poster.

I was thinking about a trade down scenarios, and started thinking along the lines of the New England Patriots model (trade down and stockpile). This scenario seems very unlikely due to the multiple draft night deals that would need to take place, but I think it makes sense for all involved, and doesn't seem too terribly outlandish.
*Note - The reason I started this was to find a way to trade up from 20 to get Marshon Brooks (who I really want us to take), and it snowballed...

Premise - Cleveland takes Irving #1.
(also note that the deals below may need some parts added from our side or their side to even things out, so this is just a base)

Deal 1 - Trade the #2 and #20 to Utah for the #3 and #12. Allows them to have their pick of either Kanter or Williams at the cost of dropping down from 12 to 20.

Deal 2 - Trade the #3 to Cleveland for #4 and a future protected #1. If they take Irving #1, would allow them to take whoever is left between Kanter and Williams, as at #4 they'd likely be looking at Knight as BPA, and they just took Irving. Irving and either Kanter/Williams would be a great foundation to build on.

Deal 3 - Trade #4 to Sacramento for #7, and a future protected #1. Allows them to take Knight, move Evans to the off guard, and gives them a great young back court and base with headcase Cousins.

Then we draft...
7 - Biyombo
12 - Marshon Brooks
-Then either hang on to the future picks, or use them as trade bait for an Iguodala, or whatever veterans they want to pursue.

Again, admitting unlikely because of it's complexity, and I'm doing a lot of assuming on other teams behalf, but at the same time I don't think any of the deals are too off base.

It's a fun idea more than a serious option they should try to carry out, but I'm curious to hear thoughts. Have at it...

funkatron101 · Post #2 » by **funkatron101** » Fri May 27, 2011 5:37 pm

Sounds like a convoluted mess.

fattymcgee · Post #3 » by **fattymcgee** » Fri May 27, 2011 5:55 pm

That sounds sweet. Instead of drafting a stud and a mediocre player we'd be able to draft 2 mediocre players and a few future mediocre players to go along with our other 10 mediocre players.

Krapinsky · Post #4 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri May 27, 2011 6:08 pm

I like Marson Brooks a lot. But #12???

Mr Dew · Post #5 » by **Mr Dew** » Fri May 27, 2011 6:20 pm

This isn't the NFL. This works in the NFL because teams are scared off by the salaries at the top of the draft, they have large rosters and they need to fill needs at a number of different positions. In the NBA, none of that is true. In the NBA, the team that gets the best single player in trade almost always wins the deal. In this case, the #2 pick (Williams) is the best player in the deal, so we lose.

Post #6 » by **Worm Guts** » Fri May 27, 2011 6:22 pm

It's not terrible if we get Biyombo. It might be unrealistic, but not terrible.

Krapinsky · Post #7 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri May 27, 2011 6:24 pm

I think the premise is flawed here. Kanter isn't ranked as highly as you think. I don't see Cleveland doing the second trade. I also don't know that Utah does the first trade. They have Milsap locked up on a pretty good contract long term and a really good point guard they reportedly are very high on, Brandon Knight, should be available to them at #4.

Post #8 » by **Klomp** » Fri May 27, 2011 8:47 pm

Mr Dew wrote:This isn't the NFL. This works in the NFL because teams are scared off by the salaries at the top of the draft, they have large rosters and they need to fill needs at a number of different positions. In the NBA, none of that is true. In the NBA, the team that gets the best single player in trade almost always wins the deal. In this case, the #2 pick (Williams) is the best player in the deal, so we lose.

Exactly. We've already realized we have too many young average players. We need to add top talent, and hopefully get older. We need to combine our already stockpiled roster together to get a couple of studs, not the other way around.

Peezo · Post #9 » by **Peezo** » Fri May 27, 2011 9:29 pm

I understand what you're attempting to do, but I think we should do the opposite. Compile picks to get a big time player.

And I was at Marquette when Brooks was at Providence, I think he is being slightly overrated. He can score, but he is very one dimensional in this way. Comparing him in his last year at PU vs. Wes at CUSE I would take Wes 10 times out of 10. Brooks is better at getting to the hoop, but not in the same ballpark as a defender/rebounder (this is as college players).

Breakdown777 · Post #10 » by **Breakdown777** » Fri May 27, 2011 10:16 pm

Another thing to consider with this plethora of trade downs is.....We'd owe LAC our pick next year, and we all know karma is going to make a habit of an incredible storyline, and give the Clips the #1 pick that was given to them from the Wolves....while the Rockets (who had a terrible record) get the #4 pick...making McHale look like an a$$ doubletime.

If we really really REALLY want BB and Brooks, I think there is probably a better scenario that could net us them.

GopherIt! · Post #11 » by **GopherIt!** » Fri May 27, 2011 10:18 pm

this is crazy

Mr Loggins · Post #12 » by **Mr Loggins** » Sat May 28, 2011 1:58 pm

Timberpups wrote:Me - Wolves season ticket holder. Long time reader, very infrequent poster.

I was thinking about a trade down scenarios, and started thinking along the lines of the New England Patriots model (trade down and stockpile). This scenario seems very unlikely due to the multiple draft night deals that would need to take place, but I think it makes sense for all involved, and doesn't seem too terribly outlandish.
*Note - The reason I started this was to find a way to trade up from 20 to get Marshon Brooks (who I really want us to take), and it snowballed...

Premise - Cleveland takes Irving #1.
(also note that the deals below may need some parts added from our side or their side to even things out, so this is just a base)

Deal 1 - Trade the #2 and #20 to Utah for the #3 and #12. Allows them to have their pick of either Kanter or Williams at the cost of dropping down from 12 to 20.

Deal 2 - Trade the #3 to Cleveland for #4 and a future protected #1. If they take Irving #1, would allow them to take whoever is left between Kanter and Williams, as at #4 they'd likely be looking at Knight as BPA, and they just took Irving. Irving and either Kanter/Williams would be a great foundation to build on.

Deal 3 - Trade #4 to Sacramento for #7, and a future protected #1. Allows them to take Knight, move Evans to the off guard, and gives them a great young back court and base with headcase Cousins.

Then we draft...
7 - Biyombo
12 - Marshon Brooks
-Then either hang on to the future picks, or use them as trade bait for an Iguodala, or whatever veterans they want to pursue.

Again, admitting unlikely because of it's complexity, and I'm doing a lot of assuming on other teams behalf, but at the same time I don't think any of the deals are too off base.

It's a fun idea more than a serious option they should try to carry out, but I'm curious to hear thoughts. Have at it...

From a cleveland point of view, trade the #2 to us for the #4 and some late 1st rounder or 2nd rounder and let us grab the two impact players in the draft - Irving and WIlliams.

Why for Cle: as per above

why for MN: i don't think doing this will foil your plan of stockpiling mediocre talent. Utah loses out, but thats their problem.