Possibly packaging the two picks

[d-blockrep2]

Just read todays Dave D'Alessandro 's article and WTF!!! Thorn thinking of packaging the two picks for a high lottery pick. " About the draft: He'll pursue an opportunity to twin the two picks and move up from 10. No promises, though. Which makes sense, because he admitted that his team doesn't develop young guys very well"

If the team can not develope young guys WTF does that tell you about your coach!!!!!!!!

 

[kdub]

Not sure how your two statements conflict each other... if the team can't develop rookies well, might as well just draft one who has a higher potential.

 

[J.S]

I think to a degree it's true, and also Rod said that in order to show to other teams that he wants to do business, especially on draft day.

Wolves, Grizz, Clips, Bucks and Cats could be trade partners using RJ as a trade piece and combining the picks for a top 5 pick.

anyway that's my read on it.

 

[Universe]

If we cannot develop rookies, why wouldn't we trade the picks for players then?

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

Watch us trade for the pick before the lotto, and then have our pick win the lottery.

 

[Netted]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ Apr 21 2008, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Watch us trade for the pick before the lotto, and then have our pick win the lottery.</div>
Don't think Rod is that stupid. Let alone the GM holding the higher pick with better odds of winning the lottery.

 

[Answer_AI03]

Moving up in the draft is exactly what the nets need to do if possible. They need to draft a guy that can make an IMPACT within his first couple years, and become a big time player. This draft is going to be fairly deep. Some people think that Rose and Beasley are the only gems, but 1-10 should be VERY good.

 

[d-blockrep2]

My argument is if the coach can not develop young players then what the hell are you doing coaching a team. Not every draft pick is going to be great but look at coaches like Sam Mitchell, Eddie Jordan, shit even Flip Saunders, their young guys are making significant impact in the game. As a coach with the inabilty to develop guys you must be doing something wrong. Also trading the picks and adding veteran presence to the bench brings us back the problem we had in the 2005-2006 season, Jacque Vaughn, Scott Padgett, Zoran Planinic and Lamond Murray yea... its funny how quick do we forget that mess.

I'm all for drafting guys within the 10-20, we have stars we need solid role players, guys like Rush, CDR and Courtney Lee within the right system can the solid

 

[Answer_AI03]

You make those picks and your going to be stuck in the 8th spot/lottery for the next 5 years too.

 

[GMJ]

One name came to mind:

 

[Dark Defender]

I would love it if the Nets moved up, what the hell.

 

[Dumpy]

I thought it was a little weird, to be honest. How much can you move up by tossing in the #21 pick? Three slots? Maybe four, if they end up with #11 or #12? They're certainly not going to move from #10 to a top-five. Most of those kids at the top are babes--they want someone who can help NOW. Maybe they would try to move up from #3 to #2 if they get lucky? Maybe they're hoping to get Mayo?

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Apr 21 2008, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>One name came to mind:

</div>

Yuck, while people food.


Okay, so why the hell are we doing this again? Could we package the picks with other crap to get a good player (Miller)?


I'm lost.

 

[Real]

If you can package the lottery pick and the no. 21 for a shot at Beasley, Rose, Mayo, Gordon, Bayless, Gallinari, or Lopez, the question is why wouldn't you go for it?

 

[Joey FistPump]

If we're packaging the picks then I think we're going after either OJ Mayo or Eric Gordan...makes sense as they are potential allstar caliber SG which is a position that we could really use.

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 21 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you can package the lottery pick and the no. 21 for a shot at Beasley, Rose, Mayo, Gordon, Bayless, Gallinari, or Lopez, the question is why wouldn't you go for it?</div>

Because half of those players are overrated.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Apr 21 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 21 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you can package the lottery pick and the no. 21 for a shot at Beasley, Rose, Mayo, Gordon, Bayless, Gallinari, or Lopez, the question is why wouldn't you go for it?</div>

Because half of those players are overrated.
</div>

What about the other half?

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 21 2008, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Apr 21 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 21 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you can package the lottery pick and the no. 21 for a shot at Beasley, Rose, Mayo, Gordon, Bayless, Gallinari, or Lopez, the question is why wouldn't you go for it?</div>

Because half of those players are overrated.
</div>

What about the other half?
</div>

I highly doubt the teams in position to draft those players would trade away their pick.

 

[reganomics813]

We'll still have our 2nd rounder in all likeliness and it's pretty likely someone decent could be there waiting for us. If we can get a player with a brighter future in the lottery then i'm all for it. I agree though we don't have much to really move up with but Rod's been known to pull some tricks.

I think we have a problem developing young players when we try and mold them to our needs instead of maximizing their strengths. It's clear Marcus doesn't mesh with Frank, and Sean is flighty resulting in a bit of a rough go as they're being jerked around at different positions, as we try and mold them into the vision we have for them. At the same time Nenad and Josh made consistent improvements, even if they still have a ways to go, and Devin has been great since his arrival playing their natural positions.

Do we want two rookies who we are trying to figure out where they fit in or do we move up and grab a guy who has an established position and is better equipped to make those transitions to roster shifting we'll undoubtedly be doing? With so many question marks with our roster I feel we need to make a firm choice to start establishing some semblance of an identity.

I'm sure Rod's looking to try and score an Elton Brand but if the market isn't there I like the idea of going after a kid with more potential in the top 6 or 7 because I think there is a falloff afterward where at 10 we're taking a guy who could be solid role player or a complete bust and narrowly miss out on a kid who could help us greatly.

 

[farouq710]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (reganomics813 @ Apr 21 2008, 09:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We'll still have our 2nd rounder in all likeliness and it's pretty likely someone decent could be there waiting for us. If we can get a player with a brighter future in the lottery then i'm all for it. I agree though we don't have much to really move up with but Rod's been known to pull some tricks.

I think we have a problem developing young players when we try and mold them to our needs instead of maximizing their strengths. It's clear Marcus doesn't mesh with Frank, and Sean is flighty resulting in a bit of a rough go as they're being jerked around at different positions, as we try and mold them into the vision we have for them. At the same time Nenad and Josh made consistent improvements, even if they still have a ways to go, and Devin has been great since his arrival playing their natural positions.

Do we want two rookies who we are trying to figure out where they fit in or do we move up and grab a guy who has an established position and is better equipped to make those transitions to roster shifting we'll undoubtedly be doing? With so many question marks with our roster I feel we need to make a firm choice to start establishing some semblance of an identity.

I'm sure Rod's looking to try and score an Elton Brand but if the market isn't there I like the idea of going after a kid with more potential in the top 6 or 7 because I think there is a falloff afterward where at 10 we're taking a guy who could be solid role player or a complete bust and narrowly miss out on a kid who could help us greatly.</div>


I agree with your last paragraph, most mocks have us taking deandre jordan. He's basically one of this freakish big men with all the tools to succeed but the doubt is in his work ethic and passion. the 10-15 is full of the physically gifted big men that don't pan out like a hilton armstrong or patrick o'bryant and etc... packaging the picks would allow us to at least get a guy that's near certain to make an immediate impact. I'm hoping we get brooke lopez since he'd get us easier baskets down low if nothing else and we could always get a shooter through free agency (eddie house).

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (d-blockrep2 @ Apr 21 2008, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My argument is if the coach can not develop young players then what the hell are you doing coaching a team. Not every draft pick is going to be great but look at coaches like Sam Mitchell, Eddie Jordan, shit even Flip Saunders, their young guys are making significant impact in the game. As a coach with the inabilty to develop guys you must be doing something wrong. Also trading the picks and adding veteran presence to the bench brings us back the problem we had in the 2005-2006 season, Jacque Vaughn, Scott Padgett, Zoran Planinic and Lamond Murray yea... its funny how quick do we forget that mess.</div>

Frank has been presented with a mismatched roster for years and been forced to MacGyver his way to wins because of it. You can't make prime rib from spam, but Frank does his best to make something out that spam.

What young guys does Sam Mitchell have making a significant impact? What have Joey Graham and Bargnani done? Flip Saunders has the luxury of Joe Dumars making good draft picks for him. Darko aside, Joe D identifies players that fit what he wants and that can play.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm all for drafting guys within the 10-20, we have stars we need solid role players, guys like Rush, CDR and Courtney Lee within the right system can the solid</div>

What stars do you think the Nets have that they only need add role players?

 

[Charles]

Saying that Frank can't coach the young kids makes trading up even more likely to me.

It's a lot easier to coach a guy with all world talent like Rose (or Gordon, whoever they would get) then to try and get a guy like Buddinger or CDR to find a spot in the rotation and contribute to the team.

Utah gave up two firsts and a conditional first the next year to move from six to three back in 2005 when they drafted Deron Williams. So maybe the Nets give up both firsts to move up two, three spots, and even then they might have to give up a future first.

 

[J-HoAgZ]

This is the deepest draft I've seen in a long time. If we trade our picks it better be for a future superstar. I hope Kiki knows what he's doin

 

[Astral]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-HoAgZ @ Apr 22 2008, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is the deepest draft I've seen in a long time. If we trade our picks it better be for a future superstar. I hope Kiki knows what he's doin</div>
People have been saying that for the past 3 years.

Future superstar? Teams with top 3 pick usually sit with their fingers crossed hoping they get a future superstar. I'd be more than satisfied with a solid starter on a top10 pick. Too many of them are plain busts.

 

[Netted]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Apr 22 2008, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-HoAgZ @ Apr 22 2008, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is the deepest draft I've seen in a long time. If we trade our picks it better be for a future superstar. I hope Kiki knows what he's doin</div>
People have been saying that for the past 3 years.

Future superstar? Teams with top 3 pick usually sit with their fingers crossed hoping they get a future superstar. I'd be more than satisfied with a solid starter on a top10 pick. Too many of them are plain busts.
</div>
I agree. I don't see much difference between #5 and #10 in this draft.

The one thing I would like to see the Nets do this year is get a guy with great work ethic and who is serious about the game of basketball. We have 2 guys (Sean and Marcus Williams) that would be so much better if they weren't so slow between the ears. I guess what I'm saying is I want mature players.

That's what Dumars does. Maxiell, Stuckey, Afflalo all solid guys. You don't see any immature guys on Utah, Boston, San Antonio. That would be my #1 priority for any prospect I look at.

Mature, good defender with either some post moves or a jump shot. If you don't have that don't bother applying.

 

[infinet]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Apr 22 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Apr 22 2008, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-HoAgZ @ Apr 22 2008, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is the deepest draft I've seen in a long time. If we trade our picks it better be for a future superstar. I hope Kiki knows what he's doin</div>
People have been saying that for the past 3 years.

Future superstar? Teams with top 3 pick usually sit with their fingers crossed hoping they get a future superstar. I'd be more than satisfied with a solid starter on a top10 pick. Too many of them are plain busts.
</div>
I agree. I don't see much difference between #5 and #10 in this draft.

The one thing I would like to see the Nets do this year is get a guy with great work ethic and who is serious about the game of basketball. We have 2 guys (Sean and Marcus Williams) that would be so much better if they weren't so slow between the ears. I guess what I'm saying is I want mature players.

That's what Dumars does. Maxiell, Stuckey, Afflalo all solid guys. You don't see any immature guys on Utah, Boston, San Antonio. That would be my #1 priority for any prospect I look at.

Mature, good defender with either some post moves or a jump shot. If you don't have that don't bother applying.
</div>

Well Thorn HAD that logic in the 2001 draft, and we ended up passing on Arenas mainly because of that.

 

[Claud]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (infinet @ Apr 22 2008, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Apr 22 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Apr 22 2008, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-HoAgZ @ Apr 22 2008, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is the deepest draft I've seen in a long time. If we trade our picks it better be for a future superstar. I hope Kiki knows what he's doin</div>
People have been saying that for the past 3 years.

Future superstar? Teams with top 3 pick usually sit with their fingers crossed hoping they get a future superstar. I'd be more than satisfied with a solid starter on a top10 pick. Too many of them are plain busts.
</div>
I agree. I don't see much difference between #5 and #10 in this draft.

The one thing I would like to see the Nets do this year is get a guy with great work ethic and who is serious about the game of basketball. We have 2 guys (Sean and Marcus Williams) that would be so much better if they weren't so slow between the ears. I guess what I'm saying is I want mature players.

That's what Dumars does. Maxiell, Stuckey, Afflalo all solid guys. You don't see any immature guys on Utah, Boston, San Antonio. That would be my #1 priority for any prospect I look at.

Mature, good defender with either some post moves or a jump shot. If you don't have that don't bother applying.
</div>

Well Thorn HAD that logic in the 2001 draft, and we ended up passing on Arenas mainly because of that.
</div>

All drafts are gambles and you have to be lucky to win something.

 

[Netted]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (infinet @ Apr 22 2008, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Apr 22 2008, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree. I don't see much difference between #5 and #10 in this draft.

The one thing I would like to see the Nets do this year is get a guy with great work ethic and who is serious about the game of basketball. We have 2 guys (Sean and Marcus Williams) that would be so much better if they weren't so slow between the ears. I guess what I'm saying is I want mature players.

That's what Dumars does. Maxiell, Stuckey, Afflalo all solid guys. You don't see any immature guys on Utah, Boston, San Antonio. That would be my #1 priority for any prospect I look at.

Mature, good defender with either some post moves or a jump shot. If you don't have that don't bother applying.</div>

Well Thorn HAD that logic in the 2001 draft, and we ended up passing on Arenas mainly because of that.
</div>
Him and 30 other teams. I don't recall maturity being the issue that detered Thorn from taking Arenas.

If so, it's not going to work with everyone. Every draft you can throw out a risk that was passed over by a bunch of teams and panned out.

 

[Astral]

Seriously, your argument is Gilbert Arenas? One of the most successful 2nd round draft pick ever?
Dude, he wasn't even the first pick for the team that DID draft him. He's an anomaly. An outliner.

But back to your original point about 2001 draft, they didn't draft what Netted suggested. They took Eddie Griffin. Guess where he is now and why?
On the other hand, if you mean trading Griffin for RJ, look how that panned out?

 

[Netted]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Apr 22 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seriously, your argument is Gilbert Arenas? One of the most successful 2nd round draft pick ever?
Dude, he wasn't even the first pick for the team that DID draft him. He's an anomaly. An outliner.

But back to your original point about 2001 draft, they didn't draft what Netted suggested. They took Eddie Griffin. Guess where he is now and why?
On the other hand, if you mean trading Griffin for RJ, look how that panned out?

</div>
I believe the trade was in the works when they selected Griffin. And that is a prime example of what I'm talking about. If someone mentioned selecting Jefferson at #7 they would have been laughed at, but he would have been a way better selection at #7 than Griffin who was projected to go in that area.

Maybe it's better to reach a little on a solid guy that fits what you are trying to build than to select the best talent on the board regardless of other issues. We did that the past 2 years with both Williamses and while they may turn into solid pros it is obvious that those players take a lot more work and time. It's not even known how great the reward will be.