[Woj] Pelicans could trade the #4 pick

[clyde21]

Trade 4 to Atlanta for 8 and 11.

10*

the problem with that is Pels would then have potentially 3 players that would require max extensions at the same exact time, it's a rub

[karkinos]

let's be real, pels are not that good at drafting.

[clyde21]

let's be real, pels are not that good at drafting.

u know it's not Demps anymore running the show right?

[Pantsman]

let's be real, pels are not that good at drafting.

They don’t have demps anymore..

[Mulhollanddrive]

Please someone take Coby White at 4 to save the Suns.

[karkinos]

let's be real, pels are not that good at drafting.

u know it's not Demps anymore running the show right?

statistically speaking what are the chances of someone correctly picking 2 additional first rounders requiring max contracts from the same draft?
you could be jerry west for all i care. statement still stands.

[PrinceH]

I'm excited for this Pelicans team, just need a vet centre, if I'm the GM i'm packaging this in a deal for Marc Gasol and resign Jahlil Okafor he played well as a backup

[karkinos]

I'm excited for this Pelicans team, just need a vet centre, if I'm the GM i'm packaging this in a deal for Marc Gasol and resign Jahlil Okafor he played well as a backup

...
if it were 2015 this might be a good idea.

[spikeslovechild]

Griffin never seemed to be a guy who values picks. This trade could get real ugly fast if he starts trading for veterans.

[NekiEcko]

I don't think that trade up for the Hawks would be beneficial at all, besides I don't see anybody in this draft is enough to trade up to 4 and we would want something else.

supposedly Hawks really want Reddish, so they might have to

Right now, I don't think that Reddish is going to be that high beside if Reddish, Culter and Hunter is gone then we go after Sekou or get more assets.

[DetroitPistons]

I'm excited for this Pelicans team, just need a vet centre, if I'm the GM i'm packaging this in a deal for Marc Gasol and resign Jahlil Okafor he played well as a backup

First of all, why would the champions trade away their starting center? Second of all, and more importantly, why would the rebuilding Pels trade a high lottery pick for a 34 declining center

[HotelVitale]

Trade 4 to Atlanta for 8 and 11.

10* the problem with that is Pels would then have potentially 3 players that would require max extensions at the same exact time, it's a rub

By my rough count, maybe 3 out of 22 players drafted 8 and 10 in the last 12 years have come close to earning max extensions. That's about 1 in 7, so the chances they'd need to give two of those out is 1 in 14...so probably not enough of a thing to not shift your franchise future for. (Those picks are much more likely to be busts or gone by the end of their rook deals than they are to be extended, let alone max extended.)

[clyde21]

Trade 4 to Atlanta for 8 and 11.

10* the problem with that is Pels would then have potentially 3 players that would require max extensions at the same exact time, it's a rub

By my rough count, maybe 3 out of 22 players drafted 8 and 10 in the last 12 years have come close to earning max extensions. That's about 1 in 7, so the chances they'd need to give two of those out is 1 in 14...so probably not enough of a thing to not shift your franchise future for. (More than twice that number were total busts, fwiw).

yes, but you dont really think that way...if you don't think those two extra players you're getting are gonna be good, why even make the trade in the first place? in that case just stay put at #4.

[HotelVitale]

10* the problem with that is Pels would then have potentially 3 players that would require max extensions at the same exact time, it's a rub

By my rough count, maybe 3 out of 22 players drafted 8 and 10 in the last 12 years have come close to earning max extensions. That's about 1 in 7, so the chances they'd need to give two of those out is 1 in 14...so probably not enough of a thing to not shift your franchise future for. (More than twice that number were total busts, fwiw).

yes, but you dont really think that way...if you don't think those two extra players you're getting are gonna be good, why even make the trade in the first place? in that case just stay put at #4.

GMs aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks and probabilities around draft picks. They're pros so they do their homework and then cross their fingers things turn out well, and don't delude themselves into thinking every pick they're making is a steal. You make a trade like that because the chances of getting something useful if not great are better with two top-ten picks than with one top-5 pick. Especially one in a draft that they don't love anyone outside the top-3 in.

[clyde21]

By my rough count, maybe 3 out of 22 players drafted 8 and 10 in the last 12 years have come close to earning max extensions. That's about 1 in 7, so the chances they'd need to give two of those out is 1 in 14...so probably not enough of a thing to not shift your franchise future for. (More than twice that number were total busts, fwiw).

yes, but you dont really think that way...if you don't think those two extra players you're getting are gonna be good, why even make the trade in the first place? in that case just stay put at #4.

GMs aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks and probabilities around draft picks. They're pros so they do their homework and then cross their fingers things turn out well, and don't delude themselves into thinking every pick they're making is a steal. You make a trade like that because the chances of getting something useful if not great are better with two top-ten picks than with one top-5 pick. Especially one in a draft that they don't love anyone outside the top-3 in.

i know they know the risks, but they also trust their abilities to get the right guys...ain't nobody trading #4 for 8/10 because 'it's okay, they'll probably bust anyways'. that's not the mindset you have, and if it is, you might as well just keep #4 because your chances of getting the guy you want are higher in that case anyways.

[Dan Z]

if they can get Beal, do it

I don't think the Wizards will trade Beal, but Ingram, Lonzo, Solomon Hill and the #4 works in the trade machine. I might offer that if I'm the Pelicans, but I'll admit...I'm not as big on Ingram and Ball as some people.

A Jrue Holiday/Bradley Beal backcourt would be quite good. I think this would also leave the Pelicans with some money to fill out the rest of the roster.

[HotelVitale]

GMs aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks and probabilities around draft picks. They're pros so they do their homework and then cross their fingers things turn out well, and don't delude themselves into thinking every pick they're making is a steal. You make a trade like that because the chances of getting something useful if not great are better with two top-ten picks than with one top-5 pick. Especially one in a draft that they don't love anyone outside the top-3 in.

i know they know the risks, but they also trust their abilities to get the right guys...ain't nobody trading #4 for 8/10 because 'it's okay, they'll probably bust anyways'. that's not the mindset you have, and if it is, you might as well just keep #4 because your chances of getting the guy you want are higher in that case anyways.

Slow down there, huge difference between assuming every pick will bust and not blocking a major franchise decision because you're expecting a very unlikely thing to happen. Front offices trust in their scouting staffs and are hopeful about their picks, sure, but that doesn't mean they turn off all of their critical self awareness. There's no contradiction at all in being excited about the guy you're choosing while also realizing that it's really f'in hard to be a difference maker in the NBA, and that whoever you take at #10 isn't likely to become that. You get excited about the potential and you try to give yourself the best chance at getting the best prospects, but you don't pencil them all in as stars. You're going to be pretty awful at team building if you do that.

[LKN]

let's be real, pels are not that good at drafting.

u know it's not Demps anymore running the show right?

statistically speaking what are the chances of someone correctly picking 2 additional first rounders requiring max contracts from the same draft?
you could be jerry west for all i care. statement still stands.

Also that seems like a good problem to have if it happens no?

[LKN]

10* the problem with that is Pels would then have potentially 3 players that would require max extensions at the same exact time, it's a rub

By my rough count, maybe 3 out of 22 players drafted 8 and 10 in the last 12 years have come close to earning max extensions. That's about 1 in 7, so the chances they'd need to give two of those out is 1 in 14...so probably not enough of a thing to not shift your franchise future for. (More than twice that number were total busts, fwiw).

yes, but you dont really think that way...if you don't think those two extra players you're getting are gonna be good, why even make the trade in the first place? in that case just stay put at #4.

Because this draft is a crap shoot anyways.... why not get more chances to hit?

I mean I know you are real high on Bol right? I'm guessing they could get him later on and then still be able to take a shot on someone else.

[Noctilux]

Beal worth much more than 4 imo

I wouldn't trade Beal for #2, never mind #4.