Poll/Discussion: Would you trade Middleton for the Nets Pick?

[VooDoo7]

I mean even if the Nets stay #1 seed, that's just a 25% chance of getting the first pick. I'd probably do it, but it's not as clear cut as a Middleton for Fultz swap.

Fair enough. I'd still do it for DSJ or Jackson if I'm being honest. I think both of them have superstar upside that I just wouldn't be able to pass up.

I see the superstar upside in DSJ, but I'm worried about his attitude (even though NC State is horribly coached, probably even worse than us). I'd probably do it for Jackson too, though I don't see the true superstar unless he gets his shot going.

Wait, what's wrong with Dennis Smith's attitude? From everything I've seen, he has a good attitude and is a good teammate.

[ampd]

I think Khris is pretty severely underrated, even by Bucks fans on this board, because he doesn't have that high lotto pedigree. I also don't think this is a no brainer because we already have a superstar, and Khris at 100% is capable of being a high quality 2nd/3rd guy. We don't need to gut the entire roster to find a 3rd banana and 2 roleplaying starters.

To me whether we make a deal like this depends on what direction we're planning on taking over the next 3-4 years. If we're planning on salary dumping Delly/Telly/Henson, trading Monroe, and trying to structure a rebuild around putting more young guys next to Giannis, then I think trading Middleton for a pick like this is the right move.

There are issues with this type of plan, foremost that Giannis is already ready to compete now, and starting a full on hinkie style tank effort right now risks alienating a player with a 3-5 year plan in which we're unlikely to be competitive who's already better than anyone we're likely to tank for. If we tank and we lose Giannis in 4 years that's a huge problem.

If the plan is to retool around Giannis and be competitive then trading Khris for this pick is a definite no.

With good management and the right pieces, you can form a 50+ win 2nd round/ECF team around Khris and Giannis. The problem is we've consistently targeted guys who are zero impact and don't move the needle on either side of the ball like Delly, Telly, Plumlee, and Henson.

However if we don't clean house in the FO and coaching staff I can't see either one of these options producing a contender.

[GB_Packers]

Naw, we need to compete ASAP with Giannis not aim 3-4 years down the road.

Yup. Just coming out of a rebuild in 2-3 years from now and finally being competitive again, I could see Giannis finally being fed up with it and wanting out. He's a team player and seems like a loyal guy but that can change fast if he faces another few years of losing. Hell, Durant left the Thunder and they were a consistent playoff team each year. I'd die a little inside if we had to go through that seeing Giannis tear it up in another jersey. He's a consistent jump shot away from being virtually unstoppable and thus superstardom.

[smauss]

Without the Parker injury, it would be a much more difficult question to answer but with the injury I would do the trade. I believe that injury has set us back to develop a core and another piece is needed. I don't mean to write-off Parker but I have a hard time believing that he'll be the same player when he does return. If I'm wrong, then we'll still have a very solid core with more talent.

[ampd]

Without the Parker injury, it would be a much more difficult question to answer but with the injury I would do the trade. I believe that injury has set us back to develop a core and another piece is needed. I don't mean to write-off Parker but I have a hard time believing that he'll be the same player when he does return. If I'm wrong, then we'll still have a very solid core with more talent.

The problem with this argument to me is that Khris is better than Jabari. You can make the argument that Jabari was at some point in the coming years going to become better than Khris, and that he had more upside being younger and being able to headbutt the rim, but if Middleton is 100% he's easily our 2nd best player over this season's Jabari.

You have a superstar in Giannis, and a very good 2nd/3rd banana in Khris that can fit in almost any system.

If you can't start with those pieces and find a 3rd guy, 2 roleplaying starters and a bench that wins 50+ games together, then you shouldn't be an NBA GM. If we need to tank because our FO is too incompetent to find those pieces outside of the draft, then the solution is fixing the FO.

[ampd]

Put this another way:

Would anyone here trade Giannis and Middleton for DeRozan and Lowry? Gobert and Hayward? Bradley and Crowder? Wall and Beal?

Why is it then, that those teams are all currently 10+ games over .500 and going to win the order of 50 games and we're not?

If we wouldn't trade our top 2 guys for theirs and none of those teams have a legit 3rd star, why are they so much better than we are? Should those teams be tanking too then?

The answer isn't because we haven't tanked enough, it's because we're a horribly mismanaged and coached franchise. Still.

[MrPerfect1]

I think you have to Vote NO. SG is the hardest to fill position at the league and shooting is at a premium. Shooters also age better than most other positions. You definitely do not trade an All-Star caliber Shooting Guard for a pick that could easily be only #4 overall.

I'd be willing to reconsider my position once we find out how high the pick will actually be and have worked out some of the players to get a better sense of their potential.

that's not going to happen. The point here is for them to have Middleton for the playoffs this year. And if they find out the pick is for sure #1 they're not giving it up, what makes it available is the uncertainty of it.

Trading Middleton for a pick probably #3 overall before even knowing who is actually officially declaring and a variety of other things would be a huge mistake.

Heck, even looking back at previous drafts you would have to go back to 2009 to find a player taken #2 or #3 that would be worth trading Middleton for (Harden). Embiid remains a huge ???????? due to injury risk so he is not factored in. Yes some player later in those drafts would be worth it (Porzingis, GIannis, Curry, etc). However, it does show how unlikely it could be to even get someone equal, much less better.

[PANDEMONEUM]

You have a superstar in Giannis, and a very good 2nd/3rd banana in Khris that can fit in almost any system.

If you can't start with those pieces and find a 3rd guy,

2 roleplaying starters

and a bench that wins 50+ games together

agree with this infinite%

we have 2 pieces of a big 3
next step is to find that 3rd piece.
everyone and everything we have is available to find it.

in that process,
fix the $,
remove pieces that dont project upwards,
acquire picks and youngs, (maybe as trade pieces down the road)

find better management and coach

[smauss]

ampd, I certainly can't fault your logic and I initially had the same thought but let me make 2 points that convinced me otherwise. 1.) as I stated in my post, if I'm wrong about Parker (which I hope I am) then we still would have increased the talent level of our young players and arguably the roster (I don't consider Midds as young, he's entering his prime IMHO). 2.) I think Midds is a wonderful player on both sides of the ball but I also think that those who play his position(s) are the easier player to find. IMHO, we need either a top tier 1 or 5, and this draft has 1's. Like I said, those 2 things made the difference for me.

[DingleJerry]

I think you have to Vote NO. SG is the hardest to fill position at the league and shooting is at a premium. Shooters also age better than most other positions. You definitely do not trade an All-Star caliber Shooting Guard for a pick that could easily be only #4 overall.

I'd be willing to reconsider my position once we find out how high the pick will actually be and have worked out some of the players to get a better sense of their potential.

that's not going to happen. The point here is for them to have Middleton for the playoffs this year. And if they find out the pick is for sure #1 they're not giving it up, what makes it available is the uncertainty of it.

Trading Middleton for a pick probably #3 overall before even knowing who is actually officially declaring and a variety of other things would be a huge mistake.

Heck, even looking back at previous drafts you would have to go back to 2009 to find a player taken #2 or #3 that would be worth trading Middleton for (Harden). Embiid remains a huge ???????? due to injury risk so he is not factored in. Yes some player later in those drafts would be worth it (Porzingis, GIannis, Curry, etc). However, it does show how unlikely it could be to even get someone equal, much less better.

You just summarized the debate my friend. They don't give it up if it's 1, we don't do it if it's 4. Good topic to kill time but I think Boston says no at the deadline because of the shot at 1 and how unlikely it would be to fall to 4.

[ampd]

ampd, I certainly can't fault your logic and I initially had the same thought but let me make 2 points that convinced me otherwise. 1.) as I stated in my post, if I'm wrong about Parker (which I hope I am) then we still would have increased the talent level of our young players and arguably the roster (I don't consider Midds as young, he's entering his prime IMHO). 2.) I think Midds is a wonderful player on both sides of the ball but I also think that those who play his position(s) are the easier player to find. IMHO, we need either a top tier 1 or 5, and this draft has 1's. Like I said, those 2 things made the difference for me.

Well, if we take a step back in trading Middleton, it's realistically going to take at least 2-3 years before the 19 year old we draft is able to be the 2nd best player on a contender. At that point, assuming everything went right, we're back where we are now, needing to somehow acquire 2-3 quality starters to go along with Giannis and whoever we drafted.

And that's assuming whoever we drafted is actually better than Middleton is right now, which is not in any way guaranteed.

Our problem is our FO and coaching staff are terrible, and have failed to put together a coherent competitive roster. Hammond has failed at it for almost 9 **** years now. Unless we are tanking for a new FO and coaching staff it's just rearranging deck chairs to me.

[MrPerfect1]

ampd, I certainly can't fault your logic and I initially had the same thought but let me make 2 points that convinced me otherwise. 1.) as I stated in my post, if I'm wrong about Parker (which I hope I am) then we still would have increased the talent level of our young players and arguably the roster (I don't consider Midds as young, he's entering his prime IMHO). 2.) I think Midds is a wonderful player on both sides of the ball but I also think that those who play his position(s) are the easier player to find. IMHO, we need either a top tier 1 or 5, and this draft has 1's. Like I said, those 2 things made the difference for me.

Well, if we take a step back in trading Middleton, it's realistically going to take at least 2-3 years before the 19 year old we draft is able to be the 2nd best player on a contender. At that point, assuming everything went right, we're back where we are now, needing to somehow acquire 2-3 quality starters to go along with Giannis and whoever we drafted.

And that's assuming whoever we drafted is actually better than Middleton is right now, which is not in any way guaranteed.

Our problem is our FO and coaching staff are terrible, and have failed to put together a coherent competitive roster. Hammond has failed at it for almost 9 **** years now.

The player needing 2-3 years to develop could be a positive if people believe we could then tank to add another high pick. However, the odds of trading MIddleton and ending up with 2 tpo picks that both hit are quite low odds. I also think our FO would not actively be on board with the tanking and would end up winning 30+ anyways due to offseason moves.

[LedZepp007]

I think both teams (should) want to do this trade


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DingleJerry]

Giannis is too good to "tank" in the traditional sense. Just having him you're going to win 25+ games. As long as he's healthy it's almost impossible not to win over 30 with him.

[ampd]

ampd, I certainly can't fault your logic and I initially had the same thought but let me make 2 points that convinced me otherwise. 1.) as I stated in my post, if I'm wrong about Parker (which I hope I am) then we still would have increased the talent level of our young players and arguably the roster (I don't consider Midds as young, he's entering his prime IMHO). 2.) I think Midds is a wonderful player on both sides of the ball but I also think that those who play his position(s) are the easier player to find. IMHO, we need either a top tier 1 or 5, and this draft has 1's. Like I said, those 2 things made the difference for me.

Well, if we take a step back in trading Middleton, it's realistically going to take at least 2-3 years before the 19 year old we draft is able to be the 2nd best player on a contender. At that point, assuming everything went right, we're back where we are now, needing to somehow acquire 2-3 quality starters to go along with Giannis and whoever we drafted.

And that's assuming whoever we drafted is actually better than Middleton is right now, which is not in any way guaranteed.

Our problem is our FO and coaching staff are terrible, and have failed to put together a coherent competitive roster. Hammond has failed at it for almost 9 **** years now.

The player needing 2-3 years to develop could be a positive if people believe we could then tank to add another high pick. However, the odds of trading MIddleton and ending up with 2 tpo picks that both hit are quite low odds. I also think our FO would not actively be on board with the tanking and would end up winning 30+ anyways due to offseason moves.

I don't think Giannis is done getting better, and it's going to be awfully hard to truly tank with him on the roster over the next few years. He impacts the game in so many more ways than even someone like Anthony Davis. There is also the chance he bolts at the first opportunity or even demands a trade. Given his personality and how affected he seems to be by losing, I highly doubt he is going to accept being a bottom 5 team for the next 3 years and put his trust in this FO and coaching staff to THEN suddenly be able to put things together into a contender.

We have a 22 year old all star starter superstar who is still getting better, plus a top 50 player in Middleton. If our FO can't build a contender around those guys, that's a level of incompetence tanking can't overcome.

[Diggr14]

Yes, I would in a heartbeat. I would be more interested in the 2018 Nets pick which is unprotected rather than a swap.

He's valuable, but a top 4 pick in this draft is a potential franchise level player. I'd take the chance with that and couple it with Giannis and Jabari. Plus, you free up a boatload of cap space.

[ampd]

I mean I understand the infatuation with perpetual youth, but I heard for years on here that we needed to tank for a superstar, and that that guy needed at least one other star to be a contender.

We literally have that superstar already, and Khris is a really good 2nd best player. If our FO can't find a 3rd guy to go with them, and surround them with other quality players and a coach that doesn't make the team worse, just move the team to Seattle.

[smauss]

amp, its going to take close to 2 years before we know what we have in Parker...... BTW, I hope you know that I certainly agree with you about our FO, especially our head coach Sweeney. Oooops, I mean Kidd

[Diggr14]

I mean I understand the infatuation with perpetual youth, but I heard for years on here that we needed to tank for a superstar, and that that guy needed at least one other star to be a contender.

We literally have that superstar already, and Khris is a really good 2nd best player. If our FO can't find a 3rd guy to go with them, and surround them with other quality players and a coach that doesn't make the team worse, just move the team to Seattle.

Khris is a good 3rd guy, he's not a 2nd guy IMO. Overrated due to nerd metrics which are influenced by stat padding scorekeepers. I just dont think he's a guy that moves the needle appreciably like championship level 2's do (think Klay, Kyrie)...

[humanrefutation]

If you only included 10 drafts, it's definitely pulled straight out of your ass. That's not enough to get any kind of realistic estimate. The margin of error in a sample that small is ridiculously high.

That's a total crock of ****.

10 drafts is absolutely a reasonable sample size when you're evaluating risk. I was even fairly generous in my approach - I evaluated the Top 5 which brought in some studs like Cousins, Porzingis, Westbrook, Love, Horford, and Conley that wouldn't have even been included in your Top 3 sample size, didn't include last season because of recency bias, and was very generous on some guys with injury or other issues.

You want to go back further than that? Fine, but then you aren't accounting for the changes to the league and style of play. But go ahead, big boy. I'm fairly certain you won't find a tremendous difference even if you went back 25 drafts.

I already did when this stupid argument came up last time. I listed every single good player going back over 30 years, and the success rate is close to 50%. Furthermore, the arguments about younger picks making it harder in the last 10 years proved patently false because many superstars were under 20 from '95 - '05.

There are 10-year periods of great drafts and bad ones. It goes in cycles. Stop over-complicating it. 10 years is only 30 years. If everyone here flipped a coin 30 times, many of them would deviate significantly from the expected value of 15 heads, and some would get close to 70% of one or the other. That doesn't mean they're using a weighted coin. That means you need a lot more than 30 flips of the coin in order for the law of large numbers to kick in.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. You can make an assumption that if I went back to a larger number years within a sample size that you were comfortable with, I'd finally find a sample size that reached your 50/50 likelihood of success. But you'd be wrong on that (and I think you know that to be true).

You could argue that "drafts go in cycles," but how large are those cycles, exactly? And what kind of predictive value is there in making a claim like that when there is no rhyme or reason to predicting at what point the cycle will direct in your favor? When it's more likely you'll end up with a draft where 1 of the 5 guys is great than it is that 3 or 4 of the guys will be great?

I even went did a 30 year look back, and there's absolutely no way it's 50/50 that you'll get a player better than Middleton at his peak in the top 5. I generously counted around 50 players that were better than Mids, and that's 33% of all Top 5 picks. Even if I went even more generous, there's absolutely no way it's 50%. Then again, you might have a more favorable impression of Nikoloz Tskitishvili than I do.

Anyone who wants to disagree can look here, for themselves: http://www.nba.com/history/draft/all-time-lottery-draft-picks/