I keep wondering if CLE is downplaying Drummond's workout against Robinson as a smokescreen. Amick said someone told him he was "destroyed", then a FO guy said it "wasn't that bad." Do you think if it got out that Drummond did well against Robinson, that I think our hope should be that Drummond goes Top 5, preferably to CHA. WAS gets Beal, CLE takes Robinson or Barnes, and then Sac's on the board with either of those two or MKG. We get one of the three. If CLE takes Beal, WAS is screwed and might trade out.
None of these top projected prospects (TRob/Bea/MKG/Barnes, etc) have worked out for either SAC or POR. Wonder if that makes a difference.
Like MM, I have my own pizza delivery guy. Things occasionally trickle to him, and to me. I don't mention it much because the stuff he delivers is usually nothing earth-shattering, but occasionally he delivers before the media does. But it's not like the thought of Sacto and Portland talking about swapping picks is exactly shocking. It's just nice to get confirmation that there's mutual interest by both parties.
More and more I think there is a pretty big difference....Those 4 guys really don't have any glaring holes in thier games, and prety much a consensus by everyone that I have read\heard that they are a level above... I think if your POR, your so damm close to getting one of those platers a pick or 2 away, traditionally the cost hasn't been enorous either to make a deal to swap a few spots...and POR has the added luxury of having a 2nd lottery pick and cap space to absorb a contract if necessary....So a lot of tools to entice a team to make a deal...
I thought 1-2 of those guys worked out and/or at least met with the team during the combine last week, but I could be wrong. So much ish flying around right now I can't keep it all clear.
Honestly, it is a bit shocking to me. For much the same reason that NOH won't even pick up the phone for the #1 pick (dropoff b/w 1 and 2), there's a similar dropoff at 5. SAC is guaranteed one of Beal/Robinson/MKG/Barnes, and they're willing to give that up for possibly Drummond? I mean, if they like Drummond (or anyone else for that matter) that badly it's a good move on their part to extort something from the Blazers for their trouble. But I didn't think they'd pass of one of the Tier Twos.
I think every team should be talking on the phone about their picks, except NO. I mean, Drummond could end up being the best player in this draft. He has a lot of work to do, but the potential is there. So if Sacto can acquire an additional asset to go along with acquiring a potential franchise center, I think you have to at least listen and consider.
Trail Blazers News @blazers_olive 2012 NBA draft: Jared Sullinger may slide out of Top 10 http://bit.ly/O57ize #ripcity
I officially have a man-crush on Robinson. I still like Lillard, and maybe Drummond at 6, but I would be much more excited if we get Robinson at 5, or if we have to package in pick 11, to move up and take him at 2 or 4.
Just forwarding on the message here, but it's an interesting tidbit... On the realgm board's trade thread, they're discussing possible trades involving Crawford - citing his Player Option extension being the day after the draft... For a team that really wants Crawford in Free Agency (particularly a small market team or cap-strapped team) the opportunity to trade for him and have him accept his option (obviously it'd have to be a team he'd WANT to go to) would essentially be a way for us to get something for nothing here... Worth pointing out - remember he almost signed w/ Sacramento before us... Also discussed somewhere in the thread (couldn't find where in the discussion so take it w/ a grain of salt) apparently Minnesota is ready to trade 18 for Crawford straight up right now... Thought that might stir a little new discussion with less than a week to go. Certainly an interesting and intriguing observation if nothing else...
Sean Meagher: New on OregonLive: Trail Blazers rundown: Joel Freeland ready to jump, NBA draft rumors continue (links) http://bit.ly/LMPffO 2 minutes ago Read more: http://hoopshype.com/twitter/media.html#ixzz1yY8fCjTx
These points (especially the JC to Sacto part) were mentioned a couple of times in the thread, but didn't get much play, so thanks for bringing them back up. Because they're very valid, especially when you consider Sacto is drafting at #5, one spot before us.
I'm sure Sacto would like to get rid of Travis and Salmons. Obviously, we wouldn't take both back, but I could see something along these lines.
While I think Portland and Sacto could have some interest in getting a deal done, they could try to bring in a 3rd team to make pieces fit better, though. I don't really like anything on Sacto that they'd be willing to deal, and we don't have a lot to trade that I imagine they'd be interested in.
