MotownMadness wrote:Holy hell why are you guys arguing about literally nothing? If there's a good offer you explore it, if not you dont, My God!!!!!!
I think we are getting there.
Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, Snakebites, theBigLip
MotownMadness wrote:Holy hell why are you guys arguing about literally nothing? If there's a good offer you explore it, if not you dont, My God!!!!!!
MotownMadness wrote:Holy hell why are you guys arguing about literally nothing? If there's a good offer you explore it, if not you dont, My God!!!!!!
BJK1 wrote:Regardless of how devalued the “traditional” center position has become, there’s clearly a reason that literally every single draft analyst/pundit out there projects Okongwu as a lottery pick.
In this Draft they're all likely complimentary players though.Crymson wrote:BJK1 wrote:Regardless of how devalued the “traditional” center position has become, there’s clearly a reason that literally every single draft analyst/pundit out there projects Okongwu as a lottery pick.
Yes: he's a high-floor player in a draft that might be entirely devoid of star-caliber talent. In a draft of typical strength, he'd probably be drafted the mid-to-late teens. He's a complementary player. None of those analysts/pundits would disagree. The Pistons really aren't looking for complementary players at #7.
Manocad wrote:MotownMadness wrote:Holy hell why are you guys arguing about literally nothing? If there's a good offer you explore it, if not you dont, My God!!!!!!
The subject matter was pretty clear. It was suggested that the Pistons should move up to #2 to get Anthony Edwards, which clearly is going to cost them something other than just the #7 pick. I asked why because I don't think there's a single player in this draft that stands out as a "we need to move up to get this guy" player, and wondered why that opinion of Anthony Edwards was held or what plan he figured prominently in. The answer back was "He's the one guy in this draft that can create offense off the dribble."
The Pistons need help basically everywhere so giving up assets to get a particular player in this draft doesn't make sense to me. That's why I asked the question. Why people get irritated over stuff on a message board is beyond me.
Pharaoh wrote:In this Draft they're all likely complimentary players though.Crymson wrote:BJK1 wrote:Regardless of how devalued the “traditional” center position has become, there’s clearly a reason that literally every single draft analyst/pundit out there projects Okongwu as a lottery pick.
Yes: he's a high-floor player in a draft that might be entirely devoid of star-caliber talent. In a draft of typical strength, he'd probably be drafted the mid-to-late teens. He's a complementary player. None of those analysts/pundits would disagree. The Pistons really aren't looking for complementary players at #7.
Edwards, Ball & Wiseman are the only dudes who are currently viewed as more than that right now.
I've seen Okongwu mocked as high as 4th because despite the idea that bigs are dead you still need size!
Who knows if he'll be the BPA but if he is we aren't in a position to ignore him just because he's a big.
Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app
That's bold!JosephMamah wrote:Hayes
Haliburton
Okongwu
Vassel
Okoro
(If we trade back)
Lewis
Bey
Maxey
Hampton
Don't want anything to do with
Edwards
Ball
Wiseman
Toppin
ByeByeDre wrote:Manocad wrote:MotownMadness wrote:Holy hell why are you guys arguing about literally nothing? If there's a good offer you explore it, if not you dont, My God!!!!!!
The subject matter was pretty clear. It was suggested that the Pistons should move up to #2 to get Anthony Edwards, which clearly is going to cost them something other than just the #7 pick. I asked why because I don't think there's a single player in this draft that stands out as a "we need to move up to get this guy" player, and wondered why that opinion of Anthony Edwards was held or what plan he figured prominently in. The answer back was "He's the one guy in this draft that can create offense off the dribble."
The Pistons need help basically everywhere so giving up assets to get a particular player in this draft doesn't make sense to me. That's why I asked the question. Why people get irritated over stuff on a message board is beyond me.
Why some constantly antagonize is beyond me
Pharaoh wrote:In this Draft they're all likely complimentary players though.
Edwards, Ball & Wiseman are the only dudes who are currently viewed as more than that right now.
I've seen Okongwu mocked as high as 4th because despite the idea that bigs are dead you still need size!
Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app
Pharoah wrote:Who knows if he'll be the BPA but if he is we aren't in a position to ignore him just because he's a big.
BJK1 wrote:Agreed. In a what is largely considered a draft that’s light on elite talent, a team that is devoid of talent in general like the Pistons should take the best player available regardless of position.
Maybe he becomes a core player, maybe he becomes a complimentary player, or maybe he’s a piece that allows you to eventually trade for a difference maker. Be shrewd in accumulating talent and the rest will fall into place.
Maybe but if we're going team needs first then BPA regardless of position is the go.Crymson wrote:Pharaoh wrote:In this Draft they're all likely complimentary players though.
Edwards, Ball & Wiseman are the only dudes who are currently viewed as more than that right now.
I've seen Okongwu mocked as high as 4th because despite the idea that bigs are dead you still need size!
Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app
He's a complementary player in that he's very limited on offense and has no ability to create it. He'd likely be the #4 guy on offense, at best, on a successful team. The Pistons' first, second, and third needs are guys who can create offense. In terms of the future, they're desperately short on those.Pharoah wrote:Who knows if he'll be the BPA but if he is we aren't in a position to ignore him just because he's a big.BJK1 wrote:Agreed. In a what is largely considered a draft that’s light on elite talent, a team that is devoid of talent in general like the Pistons should take the best player available regardless of position.
Best player available isn't determined in a vacuum; it's particular to each individual team. In the context of the Pistons' particular needs, Okongwu will not be the best player available at #7 in any scenario.Maybe he becomes a core player, maybe he becomes a complimentary player, or maybe he’s a piece that allows you to eventually trade for a difference maker. Be shrewd in accumulating talent and the rest will fall into place.
That mindset is fine so long as a long, multi-year rebuild is the plan from the outset. But very rarely does any team commit to such; where recent examples are concerned, only the Sixers come to mind. For any team that isn't fully intent on waiting five years, specific needs take precedence.
DetroitSho wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a post prior to the previously discussed exchange where RMFC actually used the verbiage "whatever it takes"? Because if not, WTF was that whole convo?
Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app
That's the post that started that discussionrmfc wrote:BJK1 wrote:SI’s latest mock draft:
https://www.si.com/nba/2020/10/14/nba-mock-draft-projections-post-finals
If Minny goes with LaMelo with the #1 overall, the Pistons should do their best to go get that the #2 from GSW.
DetroitSho wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a post prior to the previously discussed exchange where RMFC actually used the verbiage "whatever it takes"? Because if not, WTF was that whole convo?
Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app
Over the course of the 11 months of this thread, and specifically since the draft lottery, there's been several posts about trading up to get Anthony Edwards. It's just a little beyond weird that you singled out this particular instance to nitpick.Manocad wrote:DetroitSho wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a post prior to the previously discussed exchange where RMFC actually used the verbiage "whatever it takes"? Because if not, WTF was that whole convo?
Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app
That was my mistake. I misconstrued “The Pistons should do their best to get that #2 pick from GS” as meaning doing whatever it takes to get the #2 pick. Apparently it means to not do what it would take to get the #2 pick if it means overpaying which, by most accounts, it would.
So if the Pistons do their best to get the pick by not doing what it takes to get the pick but somehow get the pick, they should apparently draft Anthony Edwards because he is the only player in this draft who can create offense off the dribble. Why that’s more Important than keeping assets, taking the BPA at 7, and finding a player who can create offense off the dribble in next year’s draft was not explained.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Pharaoh wrote:Maybe but if we're going team needs first then BPA regardless of position is the go.Crymson wrote:Pharaoh wrote:In this Draft they're all likely complimentary players though.
Edwards, Ball & Wiseman are the only dudes who are currently viewed as more than that right now.
I've seen Okongwu mocked as high as 4th because despite the idea that bigs are dead you still need size!
Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app
He's a complementary player in that he's very limited on offense and has no ability to create it. He'd likely be the #4 guy on offense, at best, on a successful team. The Pistons' first, second, and third needs are guys who can create offense. In terms of the future, they're desperately short on those.Pharoah wrote:Who knows if he'll be the BPA but if he is we aren't in a position to ignore him just because he's a big.BJK1 wrote:Agreed. In a what is largely considered a draft that’s light on elite talent, a team that is devoid of talent in general like the Pistons should take the best player available regardless of position.
Best player available isn't determined in a vacuum; it's particular to each individual team. In the context of the Pistons' particular needs, Okongwu will not be the best player available at #7 in any scenario.Maybe he becomes a core player, maybe he becomes a complimentary player, or maybe he’s a piece that allows you to eventually trade for a difference maker. Be shrewd in accumulating talent and the rest will fall into place.
That mindset is fine so long as a long, multi-year rebuild is the plan from the outset. But very rarely does any team commit to such; where recent examples are concerned, only the Sixers come to mind. For any team that isn't fully intent on waiting five years, specific needs take precedence.
I don't believe any team needs to commit to a 5 year plan - that's far too long!
A realistic goal for us is to be a up & coming team just as Blake comes off the books, so the 22-23 season.
2020 - #7 & buy a late first (Flynn)
Retain Wood at a reasonable price
Sign Giles at a reasonable price for 3 years
Wood - Patton
Blake - (Sekou) - Giles
Sekou - Svi - Snell
Luke - Vassell (7)
Brown - Rose - Flynn
2021 - hope for a top 5 pick and get a stud wing.
Retain Luke on a reasonable deal
Wood - Patton
Blake - (Sekou) - Giles
Sekou - Top 5 - Svi
Luke - Vassell
Brown - Flynn - Bone
2022 Draft - hoping for a stud PG
Wood, Patton, Giles
Sekou, Giles, (Top 5 2021)
Top 5 2021, Vassell, Svi
Luke, (Vassell), Brown
2022 PG, Flynn, Bone
That would mean that in 3 years Weaver and his FO have only retained Wood, Sekou, Luke, Svi, Brown & Bone from what they inherited.
And the end result (hopefully) would be a young, up and coming team that's versatile on both ends of the floor.
Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app
DetroitSho wrote:Over the course of the 11 months of this thread, and specifically since the draft lottery, there's been several posts about trading up to get Anthony Edwards. It's just a little beyond weird that you singled out this particular instance to nitpick.Manocad wrote:DetroitSho wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a post prior to the previously discussed exchange where RMFC actually used the verbiage "whatever it takes"? Because if not, WTF was that whole convo?
Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app
That was my mistake. I misconstrued “The Pistons should do their best to get that #2 pick from GS” as meaning doing whatever it takes to get the #2 pick. Apparently it means to not do what it would take to get the #2 pick if it means overpaying which, by most accounts, it would.
So if the Pistons do their best to get the pick by not doing what it takes to get the pick but somehow get the pick, they should apparently draft Anthony Edwards because he is the only player in this draft who can create offense off the dribble. Why that’s more Important than keeping assets, taking the BPA at 7, and finding a player who can create offense off the dribble in next year’s draft was not explained.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Context is already kind of implied when discussing the moves the team should make that they should be within reason. Well, unless a person actually DOES say "whatever it takes".
Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app
Pharaoh wrote:That's bold!JosephMamah wrote:Hayes
Haliburton
Okongwu
Vassel
Okoro
(If we trade back)
Lewis
Bey
Maxey
Hampton
Don't want anything to do with
Edwards
Ball
Wiseman
Toppin
Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app