BullyKing wrote:Scoot McGroot wrote:BullyKing wrote:
If you are really unable to find any separation between ANY of six different prospects at the top of the draft then you're not scouting closely enough or you don't care enough to voice any actual opinion. There is no conceivable way that all six of these guys grade out completely equally as players and as fits.
I mean, you can always arbitrarily rank guys, but if they grade out pretty darned close, like the difference between the ten spots is just so minute, then they’re essentially the same tier. Pluses and minuses on them all, but when it comes down to it, it’s pretty close to flat. And it would only make sense to trade back, get value, and still get one of the guys you like really, really well, and have two players on 4 year contracts for equal to the cost of the one.
Sure, theoretically all players could be so close to each other that it doesn't make a difference. But I don't think that is actually true in reality. But I also don't believe this report as a more credible reporter said that the Pelicans were considering the Hawks offer of 8 + 10 for 4, which indicates the Hawks made that offer. I can't imagine 8 + 10 might not be enough for 4 (given that the Pels haven't accepted) but 10 + 17 is enough for 5.
I’m not at all trying to say that that reporter is accurate in any way. Just saying that trade downs make sense sometime. You give up something, you get something. I’m not sure why that comes off as crazy. Sometimes trading up is worth it. Sometimes trading down is worth it. Sometimes staying the same spot is worth it. 10/17 for 5 isn’t insane if it’s part of a bigger deal. Absorbing $15m in salaries as I suggested earlier would help bring it closer.
Or are we arguing just to argue? I’m including me here.
