Would you trade KCP straight up for Mitch McGary?

[tmorgan]

So, I had this idea on the T&T board, and it met with a favorable reaction from some respected OKC posters. I won't give my reasons so as not to tarnish the discussion and voting, but I would do this. What do you think?

[Laimbeer]

I'm torn. Unlike a lot of folks here, I'm not a huge KCP fan and I feel McGary is really underrated. From a value standpoint it's a solid yes. But McGary doesn't fit well next to Dre or the SVG mold. But bottom line I do it because I just see too large a gap in where they're going as players.

[Phenomenonsense]

It's probably good value, but I'm really torn. I probably wouldn't do the trade myself despite it being good value because I don't see a reason to do a trade where I'm not in love, but I wouldn't be mad if we did.

[ImHeisenberg]

I honestly haven't watched much of McGary in the pros. KCP isn't a player that would be too difficult to replace though, so it comes down to how each team felt about KCP and McGary's future and upside. I said no, simply because it wouldn't make much sense for the Pistons current roster.

[Kilo]

Nope. We need to role with what we got here for the time being. KCP is considered a team captain along with Reggie and Dre (according to Reggie and Dre) so they see him as an important teammate. This team needs to establish an identity and leadership and have some continuity.

[zeebneeb]

*Edit.

I get it now, he played for michigan. Nevermind.

[DBC10]

Right now? No. McGary doesn't fit with what we have considering our logjam at the bigmen/PF area. He'd get limited minutes here.

We'd basically trade a starter (although not the greatest but our most shallow position) for a backup big that doesn't fit SVG's system.

[aad]

Hell no

[hoophabit]

No, not so much that there's a big difference in their values, but because the trade doesn't make sense to me in terms of team makeup.

[bballnmike]

It's probably pretty close in value, but I'd say no because I think KCP and his role fits better for our team

[Lionlifer]

Only if we also trade for Burke, THJ, GR3, and anyone else currently that has at some point in their life worn a block M. Maybe sign the younger Horford? Isn't he a free agent?

[Laimbeer]

Only if we also trade for Burke, THJ, GR3, and anyone else currently that has at some point in their life worn a block M. Maybe sign the younger Horford? Isn't he a free agent?

You must see block M's in your sleep.

[tmorgan]

I expected this result, but I'll give you the reasons I think it's a good idea:

1) We have replacements at the 2 -- start Stanley Johnson, keep Meeks as the backup, run some 2 point sets with Jennings or Blake (although I admit this makes us more reliant on Morris at the 3, which scares me quite a bit).
2) Mitch has one more year of rookie deal and is cheaper (drafted 21st in 2014, not 8th in 2013)
3) Mitch showed a lot last year (he looked very good when he was healthy, but health is a concern, and it isn't for KCP)
4) I think we're significantly weaker at the 4 than we are at the 2, and McGary is a 4
5) Mitch actually does score from outside the paint. He definitely has more range than Monroe. I do see the fit issue, though.
6) Local ties from UM -- he's the only recent UM hoops alum that looks like he's worth a damn in the pros

It's risky, and the chemistry/continuity issue some people brought up is a legit concern. It's something that could be revisited later once we see what we have in Stanimal and Mook, because OKC is likely going to be interested in an upgrade at the 2 all season. McGary's pretty much the only tradable asset with real value they have.

[Lionlifer]

Only if we also trade for Burke, THJ, GR3, and anyone else currently that has at some point in their life worn a block M. Maybe sign the younger Horford? Isn't he a free agent?

You must see block M's in your sleep.

Haha Naw I just figured this was another "he's from UofM so lets trade for him" thread, so I went into full smart a$$ mode

But credit where it's due, tmorgan did a good job defending the idea. He's moved me from a strong hell no to a soft maybe.

[Han Solo]

no

[detroitKG]

Lmao aaaahhh hell no

[whitehops]

i still think KCP can become a good player, and just a 3-and-D role player. so no, i wouldn't trade him yet.

[coordinator0]

I wouldn't. McGary is an interesting player but I don't see him as anything more than something like the first big off the bench for most teams, and then maybe not even that for those who want to get four shooters on the floor (like Van Gundy). He might have the ability to score outside the paint but McGary sure didn't show it last season with Oklahoma City and that's a pretty big negative if you want him to play power forward for Detroit.

To me Johnson and Caldwell-Pope is a fairly ideal pairing on the wing if Stanley ends up as who a lot of us think he will be. Kentavious isn't a lock-down perimeter defender but he has the foundation, tools, and mindset/motor to be one. Not to mention he's only 22 himself (actually younger than McGary) and his game still has a lot of growing left to do overall. I'm not ready to pull the plug on Caldwell-Pope yet, especially for a guy that doesn't fit well with Van Gundy's system.

[He Filled it Up]

Absolutely not

[tmorgan]

Fair points... although it's definitely true that McGary has touch around the foul line and foul line extended that Monroe either didn't have or wasn't willing to use. He's also a pretty good passer from what I remember -- not Monroe, but pretty good -- and I think he'd work reasonably well as a high post screener/passer.

I'm aware of disrupting chemistry, and it's an issue, and I do like KCP. It's time for him to show a little more, though, and it won't surprise me at all if McGary is one of the better/most efficient bench bigs in the league this year. I think, health permitting, he's a future starter somewhere. KCP *is* a starter, but he's not a good one yet, and it's more a matter of circumstance than anything.