TRADE DOWN!

[Rastapopoulos]

I have come to the conclusion that our #6 pick is a trap. It's in the portion of the draft where all the sure-fire star players have gone, and before all the sure-fire contributors are projected. It's in the dreaded "except for..." zone. "Except for the fact that he can't play, Drummond looks amazing". "Except for the fact that he can't create his own shot, Barnes could be a star!" That is, "risks" and "projects". Players that are pure potential.
Sure, they could pan out. But they very rarely do. If you check through old drafts, you'll see that there's always a sort of dead spot in the first round where you get a bunch of busts.
SO: I say, do what New Jersey did in 2001: trade our pick to Houston for multiple lower picks. Houston takes the "high risk, high reward" Eddie Griffin (RIP) and NJ gets a couple of starters for their two NBA finals runs. In other words: trade #6 for #s14 and 15.

Here's the main thing that's pushed me to this: the first 4 picks are pretty much settled.
1. Anthony Davis - sure fire All-Star
2. T-Rob - borderline all-star/Horace Grant type
3. MKG - great glue guy, Iguodala game, Derek Fisher intangibles
4. Beal - possible all-star shooting guard

That leaves Drummond and Barnes as the logical next picks, and both of them are unappealing. So you either have to be ballsy and pick a surprise player (worked out well for Sam Presti with Westbrook - for this draft I would say UNC's Henson would be the best choice) or you take the projected player for somebody else and trade it for the lower-projected pick that you really want (like Nellie picking Tractor Traylor (RIP) and swapping him for Nowitzki).

I think Sacramento has already realized this, which is why they're suddenly eager to dump their pick.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Better yet, get an actual player for the pick. Iggy and Deng are out there, but they might be a bit old for our window, and they would soak up all our capspace.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I absolutely agree with everything in this thread.

 

[barfo]

I absolutely agree with everything in this thread.

That's nothing. I absolutely agree with everything in every thread.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The problem with your theory is that Barnes is expected to go #4 to Cleveland, meaning that at least one of those "sure-fire" players drops at least to 5; factoring in that Drummond is a big boy, I wouldn't be surprised if someone jumps to 5 to get him, which would drop one of your top 4 to #6. Not only that, but many believe Lillard has jumped into that same tier, and would be a worth-while pick at #6.

So, while there might be some merit to your logic if everything goes the way you listed, there are too many variables in play to justify taking that position more than 10 minutes before it's our turn to pick.

 

[Blazinaway]

or trade 6 and 11 for Lowry 14 and 16 from Hou

 

[Blazinaway]

or trade 6 and 11 for Lowry 14 and 16 from Hou

or perhaps Lowry and 14 for #6?

 

[Reep]

I still believe that the best players are through the draft, and not cast offs from other teams. Trade Up!!!

 

[Blazinaway]

I still believe that the best players are through the draft, and not cast offs from other teams. Trade Up!!!

this is a very interesting draft, after the #1 pick opinions differ greatly on who will be the best player out of the next 5 or 6 and most agree that those 5 or 6 are close. so does it reall makes sense to trade up when it's somewhat of a crapshoot? Or take a proven commodity like Lowry, and add a pick in the next tier down. Not necessarily advocating that but it has it's reasoning, it really depends upon how the GM and scouts rate these guys.

 

[Blaze01]

If Beal, MKG, Barnes or Robinson are going to drop to #6...then you don't trade the pick....

I highly doubt HOU is going to trade Lowry BEFORE they have Dragic locked up....

I did read a rumor that UTA badly wants to get into the top 10 and had offered N.O. Burks & Millsap for the #10? I find that hard to believe, but I would consider that....

But, I think POR best bet is to trade up from #6 and get the guy that they want...I think SAC and CLE might be willing to bounce back a few spots and add a piece (player or pick) or in SAC case offload a contract (Salmons)....and since it appears that niether of those 4 (Robinson, Beal, MKG, Barnes) will be there at #6...If you want one of those guys, then you should go get them....

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Meh, no thanks.

BPA and run.

 

[Reep]

I would only trade up for #2 to take Robinson. I think the others are somewhat equal. I think the #6 pick will get a very good player, so I wouldn't mind keeping it. 11, not so sure.

Trading down almost never works. Martell is the best example of that. The only good side is that fewer people remember that you passed on CP3. So, if you know you are incompetent, then trade down so it doesn't look so bad.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't like the trade down move, though the OP logic is good.

I think the first thing to do is call up NOH and swap Okafor and 10 for Wes and contracts (Nolan, Babbitt, Thomas, Williams, etc.) It immediately gives us a great defensive fit at Center (while expensive and slightly fragile) and another lotto pick, without cutting into cap space too much.

6, 10, 11 can be spun multiple ways. If you can use 6+11+one of our young guys that didn't go to NOH (E-Will?) for #2 and our 2013 pick back to move up to get MKG, and #10 to get either 14+16 (unlikely) or 20+21, you can come out of the draft with something like

FA PG??/Wroten (at 16 or 21)
Batum/Ross? (at 14) or Fournier (at 20)
MKG/Claver
LMA/
Okafor

and the cap space to get a max FA (and 3 1st-round picks in the next 5 years in a S&T. Right now, with our protected 2013, we can't trade ANY picks)

Maybe HOU gives up 14 and 16 for 10+Freeland's rights.

 

[Pinwheel1]

2 months ago Drummond and Barnes were considered by many as the ones we needed to trade UP to get if we wanted them. Now that others have passed them we have down graded their potential. I have to wonder why that is. They both measured out well and they haven't played a game to change anyone's view. So who is changing our minds?

 

[Mediocre Man]

I think there is a drop from #5 to #6 in safe bet draft pick. Not to say Drummond or Lillard or whoever won't be a stud, but there are a lot more question marks around them than guys like Robinson, Beal, MKG and Barnes

 

[BrianFromWA]

Interviews.

And I'd disagree that Barnes has slipped. I think he's as high right now as he's been since Jan 2011.

 

[ebott]

or trade 6 and 11 for Lowry 14 and 16 from Hou

I'd be cool with that.

But that seems like a lot of moving pieces. Houston has to be pretty sure they can sign Dragic if they're going to deal Lowry, Houston has to like the guy at 6, Houston has to like the guy at 11 and be pretty sure he won't slip to 14, Portland has to like the guys at 14 and 16. And all the while both teams will be working the phones with other teams looking for a better deal. That seems like too many balls up in the air for two teams to juggle.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Interviews.

And I'd disagree that Barnes has slipped. I think he's as high right now as he's been since Jan 2011.

I agree with you on Barnes. But the thread was based on the top 4 and I don't think Rastapop is alone in his thinking.
But really it comes down to Drummond. He is the reason many of us would want to trade down. He is the big question mark. Half the mock drafts I looked at this morning had us taking him.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The problem with your theory is that Barnes is expected to go #4 to Cleveland,

Not any more, apparently:

Executives are falling in love with Bradley Beal. Teams are trying to trade into the top four to select Beal, according to multiple sources.

"There's no way Beal slips out of the top four," said one league source. The Cleveland Cavaliers will draft him if he's available at four.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

or trade 6 and 11 for Lowry 14 and 16 from Hou

If they would do that, I'd be all in favor.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Trading down almost never works. Martell is the best example of that.

But that was a case of trading down because the GM insisted that we HAD a PG. Nobody thought Chris Paul was a project - he was generally considered the fave for ROY. So yeah, that was colossally dumb, but the dumbness was in overrating Telfair.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I would only trade up for #2 to take Robinson. I think the others are somewhat equal. I think the #6 pick will get a very good player,

I would say solid. And that player is John Henson.

 

[Ed O]

I'll be varying levels of happy with any of the top 6 players (Davis/Robinson/MKG/Beal/Barnes/Drummond). There are definitely risks with most of them, but I like them as prospects and it seems like there's a dropoff after 6.

Ed O.

 

[Eastoff]

or trade 6 and 11 for Lowry 14 and 16 from Hou...or perhaps Lowry and 14 for #6

Yes, that would be great for us, but would Houston ever do that? It would be great to keep a decent pick and also have an established point guard.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Here's what Wages of Wins thinks of Harrison Barnes:

Win Score (Adjusted for Strength of Schedule and Position): 4.9 (Turrrible)

Barnes is everything a GM wants – he has great size, he is one of the most athletic guys in the draft, and he can score from anywhere (or at least that’s what they say) – except for one thing: he isn’t good. Let’s take a look at how Barnes stacks up against the competition:

Harrison Barnes compared to Draft Express Top 100 Small Forwards. All stats are adjusted to per 40 minutes.

Player 	DE Top 100 SF 	Harrison Barnes
Effective Field Goal % 	0.517 	0.487
True Shooting % 	0.559 	0.539
3 Point Shooting % 	0.359 	0.358
Free Throw % 	0.698 	0.723
Offensive Rebounds 	2.27 	2.66
Defensive Rebounds 	6.04 	4.46
Total Rebounds 	8.32 	7.13
Assists 	2.57 	1.55
Steals 	1.56 	1.48
Blocks 	1.18 	0.47
Turnovers 	2.67 	2.66
Personal Fouls 	3.02 	2.45
Points! 	18.68 	23.33
Win Score 	6.11 	4.55

Barnes is the epitome of the basketball player that fools the masses with everyone’s favorite stat. Yeah, he scores a lot of points. But it’s only because he shoots so much. His shooting percentages are poor. So in reality, he’s not a good scorer. He’s good at taking a lot of shots. But anyone can do that. And when you look deeper into his numbers, you see he’s not particularly good at anything. Obviously, that’s not what you dismantled your team for.

Who Should You Take Instead? Throw a dart at your draft board and it’s probably better.

 

[Ed O]

Here's what Wages of Wins thinks of Harrison Barnes:

Hollinger had this to say about Beal and Barnes:

"Most players in their range turn out to be solid, but this part of the pool doesn't produce many stars. I'd be more comfortable taking these two in the later part of the lottery."

The stat-heads don't like Barnes much, that's for sure. Hopefully he goes in the top 4

Ed O.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Here's my prediction: we could trade down and get Jared Sullinger and Will Barton and they'll be better than the players taken at the spots we trade down from.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Would you trade the #6 for Luol Deng?

I would if
(a) Robinson and MKG were already gone
(b) We could get a lower first round draft pick (by buying it, say)
(c) Chicago would take some salary back (perhaps Shawne Williams)

I understand this would be unpopular because Deng is seen as old (he was born in April 1985, so he's actually only 3 months older than LaMarcus) and average (he was second team all-defense this season, and arguably the second-best player on the team with the best record) and just like Harrison Barnes (Deng is much better at, well, everything than Barnes). But mainly because everyone has convinced him or herself that draftee x (Lillard/Drummond/Barnes/Waiters/whomever) will be FUCKING AMAZING. One of them might actually be pretty good, but the odds of any of them being as good as Deng are probably lower than 10%. And the odds of them being much better than players available lower in the first round (like Will Barton) are also pretty low, this being a deep but shallow draft.

 

[bigbailes]

i would not be opposed to trading #6 for Deng but are you ok with him and #11 as the only meaningful additions to the team this offseason? Without looking the numbers I'd assume Deng eats up most of our cap room. So it's not just the pick we are giving up but any hope of signing FA's as well.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

are you ok with him and #11 as the only meaningful additions to the team this offseason? Without looking the numbers I'd assume Deng eats up most of our cap room. So it's not just the pick we are giving up but any hope of signing FA's as well.

No, I wouldn't, which is why I want to give SOME salary back to Chicago.
We would have enough to sign Freeland and Claver, and if the Knicks don't sign Prigioni, I bet we could afford him.